Kim Sargerson
Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1
Sun Mar 5, 2017 16:14
81.151.216.140

Hi Tory

""If" you start the missing entry of the first month of the cycle with psdntwy on I-3kt 1 in the first year of the cycle..."
The cycle covers 25 years. The lunation in II Akhet is on a different day in each of these years. So the "if" is not really applicable, unless you are in year 1 of the cycle. All the other years are covered too. And they include 30 day sequences, but not 29 day sequences. So the stylised 29.5 day average month is actually extended to a "real" 29.53 average month.

"I don't see how "lunations" do not require observation in order to determine them."
Because the Egyptians designated service periods in advance. In the unlikely event of 4 30-day lunations in a row (once every 500 years? just my little joke) I think the day-priests would go on strike.

"Kashta did not remove Osorkon but Amonardis I was put ahead of any other of Osorkon's female descendants... If ... she were alone, I doubt very much Kashta would still have put his daughter Amonardis I in second place."
This is argument ex silentio. The chapel of Osiris lord of eternity shows (in the original carving) Osorkon, his coregent Takelot, and Shepenwepet. No sign of Amunirdis. There is no reason at all to think that Kashta imposed Amunirdis on Osorkon, rather than on a later king or even when there was no native Theban Sheshonqid king.

"If Amonardis II never became GW, then we could suggest deposition."
You could suggest it, but there is no evidence for it. Either she died (not uncommon, happens to everyone) or, in one theory, she returned to Kush and married. The suggestion here is that she resigned voluntarily (or, in your viewpoint, was forced to resign) rather than she was deposed by diktat.

"Year 17 of Psamtik I is only a few years after Year 8 of Tanutamon who possibly reigned a little more than 8 years in Egypt (but only 4 in Kush). By year 17 of Psamtik I, not only is Tanutamon out of the picture but gone also was Shepenwepet II's supporter and Amonardis II's chances of ascending the ladder before Nitocris."
But then Shepenwepet II continues in post for another 8 years after this. By this time the half-Kushite (?) Montuemhat is also dead, and his family has been supplanted by that of Nespamedu. So Shepenwepet was without natural support, but continued in post.

"If I recall correctly, Dodson believes Amonardis II left Thebes and returned to Kush. If so, why?"
Dodson thinks, and Ritner appears to agree, that the Adoratrix mentioned in the ancestry of [NL, restored as Aspalta] is Amunirdis II. The identities supplied by Ritner are not necessarily correct, and maybe Psametjik II is responsible for the erasures. The female line genealogy is instructive, as the titles remain intact. From earliest to latest is:
1. King's Sister, Mistress of Kush
2. King's Sister
3. King's Sister
4. King's Sister
5. King's Sister
6. King's sister, Adoratrix in Thebes
7. King's sister, King's mother, Mistress of Kush, daughter of Re
8. [the new king, assumed to be Aspelta]
None of these 7 ladies is called a king's wife (although no. 7 must have been one as is spelled out just before) and none is called king's daughter, although no. 6 must have been one to qualify for the post of Adoratrix, as far as we know.
So, the "why" of Amunirdis' return to Kush is pretty mundane, in the conventional interpretation. She was one of the matrilineal heiresses, perhaps the senior one, and had been in Thebes for up to 30 years. The biological clock was ticking, and there was no prospect of a Kushite resurgence in UE any time soon. By my own chronology she must have been appointed Hand aged about 5 to 7 years in 12 Taharqa, and so had been in post as Wife-in-waiting for 31 years and was in her late thirties in 17 Psametjik I. Personally I doubt that (if the identification is correct) she waited so long before quitting her day job. These days we all assume that the God's Wives of this period and their heiresses were celibate, but this was not always the case, and maybe she budded out of wedlock, or in some temporary union with Tanutamun just passing through (though the dream stele does not mention any contact with his Theban relatives).

"The omissions are certainly NOT original. The nomen-cartouches of the Kushite kings Taharqa and, in my view, Rudamon II, were erased later on according to Caminos. They were there in stela's original state."
Good, that closes off some avenues of possibility. So Psametjik was happy to mention his overlord's defunct predecessors, but not the current overlord.

"Tanutamon had no daughters that we know of."
Oh wow. So a polygamous fifty-something king has no daughters, but a monogamous king's sister can have two dozen children, both based on the same complete lack of evidence for either? In Tanutamun's case, as you point out, children are hypothesised -
Atlanersa, now commonly thought to be the son of Tanutamun rather than of Taharqa, is certainly married to two of his sisters.

"I say why on earth would you say this if you're not compelled to and when everybody alive already knows it?"
This makes no sense in realpolitik. Tanutamun would compel it, and would have his own officials at the ceremony, of which there is equally no evidence,

"Rudamon II at least got to keep "the good god" before his name in line 3."
No, this is certianly Taharqa, who has the same Horus name on the Kawa stelae.

"Psamtik I is not using this epithet simply because of his good nature. Clearly a member of the Kushite ruling family was the senior authority in the land at this time."
But not this one, who is undoubtedly Taharqa, deceased. So Psametjik could just as easily smoothing the feathers of the Theban hierarchy, and was certainly not about to rewrite history such that he had been king all along, and D25 were mere rebels.

"Abar was not a king's daughter. Her only claim to royalty prior to Taharqa's accession is that her mother was Alara's younger sister. Her father is completely unknown and was not a king."
See above, where "king's daughter", "king's wife" is significantly lacking for many of the ladies who are termed "king's sister". Taharqa also terms himself "king's brother", but not "king's son".

"On the Dream Stele [Qalhata] is called the wife of Tanutamun not his mother."
Actually neither title is in evidence. Like Abar, she is called "king's sister". Like some of the ladies in the [Aspelta] coronation inscription, she is styled "mistress of Nubia" (here Taseti, not Kush). The wife of Tanutamun is Piye-irty, who is titled "king's sister, king's wife, mistress of Egypt".

"I will quote Dan'el Kahn on this one: "The separation of the nouns sn.t and Hmt by the first person suffix pronoun seems, however, to speak against this interpretation" (MittSAG 16, p. 148)."
OK, here I will agree. Kahn is correct to doubt, and hmt here simply means "woman", not "wife". Alara's younger sister was probably not married at all on her dedication to Amun.

"She was ... not necessarily his full-sister as the racist Morkot points out"
Less in agreement here. To specify someone as both "sister" and "born from the same womb" seems to me to cover both parents.
Perhaps you will sometime elaborate on why you think Morkot is being racist, rather than simply appealing to an African-American audience, with the title "Black Pharaohs"? There was also a publication (not by Morkot!) on "the black popes". Getting away from the 19th century assumptions about white supremacy (still endemic in Egyptology) is more difficult even than convincing some Christians that their blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan stereotype hero "Jesus" was actually Jewish. Sometimes hitting them with a blunt heavy object is the only way.

"See my remarks on T. G. H. James of the British Museum to Jaime here from post # 17295."
Thanks, I missed that one. Agreed.

"Herod's accession was pretty much an internal coup backed by Rome and he left many potential heirs from the previous dynasty alive"
Potential heirs are only those in the male line. Josephus' ancestor was not in this category. Even though told to leave them alone, the Hasmonean male heirs rapidly disappeared under suspicious circumstances, long before Herod started in on his own family. But Herod was not his own boss, and had to be circumspect. The Romans liked to keep alternative heirs as hostages in Rome (evidence for Britain, Numidia, Germany, Parthia...).

"I could list other examples."
Do, please, when you have a moment.

"So what you're saying is I cannot use Manetho if I reject him in numerous places elsewhere because evidence says we should in those instances?"
This is why KLs are a topic on their own. Each KL is, if you like, akin to a scientific hypothesis - falsifiable, but unverifiable. The author(s) of a KL are putting forward a view of the past.
The problem is every single line of a lengthy KL is subject to its own falsifiability (name, reign length, position with respect to others, etc.) Different people have different tipping points, as to when a particular KL becomes generally "unreliable" as opposed to "reliable in outline but some errors of detail". For the TIP confusion reigns. There are so many proposed emendations of "Manetho", so many variations on the family trees of the kings, and we lack the kind of substantiating evidence that exists for other dynasties. It has taken professional scholars a century to get round to publishing additional material from the Karnak cachettes, or from the Serapeum.

"As of today, there is no evidence he is wrong about the town where the 22nd dynasty began."
See below.

I wrote "Show me the attestations of king Nesbanebdjed at Tanis?"
You wrote "Wenamun Report."
This is why I specifically said "king" Nesbanebdjed. The Wenamun Report says someone is in charge at Tanis with this name but is not a king. I seem to recall you were once quite happy to separate the two individuals Smendes the governor of Tanis and Smendes the first Manethonic king of D21.
So, if this non-royal man at Tanis is confirmation of "Manetho", even if he left Tanis on day 1 of his kingship and never returned, what the Bubastis hypothesis requires is some evidence that Sheshonq, founder of D22, lived at Bubastis as a private individual before he became a king. There is none. Even your Sheshonq II construct is not obviously anywhere near Bubastis before he became a king, nor are his ancestors. In fact your construct has him as 1PA at Thebes in the years immediately preceding kingship, and so he ought to be categorised as "Theban".

"Beyond this, this king is so poorly represented anywhere by explicitly named inscriptions it is a joke to assign him as much as 26 years."
It may be a joke to assign him an existence at all. The scanty attestations of a Hedjkheperre Nesbanebdjed could easily belong to another D22 lesser ruler. The strongest evidence is genealogical - the adoratrix of Hathor Henttawy, daughter of Tentamun, was a king's daughter (and Nesbanebdjed of Tanis was married to a Tentamun); and a probable descendant, Menkheperre, named one of his sons Nesbanebdjed.

"I think you know I would tap out, especially in a debate with you, before being choked to sleep in the ring."
Funniest thing you have written in a while. More like choked in your sleep having gone comatose from the monotony.

"If I move the births of Nesbanebdjed III and Iuwelot to 945 and 944, respectively..."
This is where it does get monotonous. If Iuwelot is hwn (youth) before 936 (your death date for ur-Osorkon) he must be older than this.

"I think its more reasonable and a more natural assumption that Osorkon B succeeded his maternal grandfather directly."
All the 1PAs since the start of your dynasty 22 are appointed on the basis of who their father was. Not their maternal grandfather.

"Osorkon B's installation was regular not irregular. There is no hint that he deposed anyone to become HPA. There is only evidence of opposition to him as HPA subsequently."
Agreed. We do not know how long he had been in post before year 11. Figuratively it should be at least a year so he could say he brought the offerings every season. It could be up to 9 years longer if appointed in year 1.

"I provisionally put "year 5" in Takeloth I/II, but again, this can be an earlier king's year 5 since it is after all anonymous."
I don't think that widens the choice very much, without altering the order, which you seem reluctant to do. It probably also creates gaps in the timeline, but you have that anyway under your Sheshonq II. Shifting them further back creates problems of both chronology and "style" in that NLTs naming the 1PA do not AFAIK occur before "Dynasty 22".

Regards

Kim

  • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1Tory, Sun Mar 5 05:22
    Hi Kim, So FB stands for full of bullshit. Got it. Thanks. "pCarlsberg only allows you to predict a lunation 25 years in advance, not weeks in advance, and it is only good for 500 years." Simply not... more
    • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1 — Kim Sargerson, Sun Mar 5 16:14
      • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1Tory, Sun Mar 5 21:20
        Hi Kim The cycle covers 25 years. The lunation in II Akhet is on a different day in each of these years. So the "if" is not really applicable, unless you are in year 1 of the cycle. All the other... more
Click here to receive daily updates