From: "Joe Baker" To: Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 5:38 PM Subject: EEF Re: coregencies (Sabataka & Sabaka) Hi Fabian - in answer to the second part of your post. I do not see the 706 BC Tang-i Var reference to "Sapataku' king of the land of Meluhha" as support for a co-regency between Sabataka and Sabaka, but rather as one of the pieces of evidence for placing the reign of Sabataka BEFORE Sabaka. This is not the conventional order, but as you know I have supported this idea for some time. When Brunet first suggested that there was some Egyptian evidence that could support a reversal of the conventional order, I was sceptical. But when I read the Tang-i Var inscription I saw that, when coupled with other Assyrian evidence, it was only explainable if Sabataka ruled before Sabaka. 1. Since the "discovery" of Sabaka and Sabataka their conventional order has been based on the reports of Herodotos, Diodoros and Manetho. As each new piece of evidence was discovered it was interpreted in such a way as to conform to this order. But in Herodotos (and Diodoros) the deeds of Sabakos are an amalgamation of all the Kusite rulers of Lower Egypt. On the other hand Manetho gives Sabakos - 8 years, Sebekhos - 14 years and Tarkos - 18 years (at least according to Africanus). Manetho (and Diodoros) tells us that Sabakos killed Bokhkhoris. So it is assumed that Sabakos = Sabaka. But the Greek name Sebekhos is an equally good rendition of Sabaka. One of the names of these kings has lost it's -ta-. In the convention order it is assume to have fallen out of the second name, but it could just as easily have fallen out of the first name. 2. As for the Assyrian evidence, it is as follows. At the beginning of the 707 Assyrian year, Sargon returned to Assyria after having spent several years in Babylon. At that time a new edition of his annals were published detailing his exploits, from the beginning of his reign, down to the events of 708 Assyrian year. Although Egypt and kings of Egypt occur in these annals, nowhere is there a hint of the Kusites, even though the annals go out of their way to name distant lands and kings who came before Sargon or sent him gifts or tribute. A few months after the publication of the annals (but still within 707) new information from that year was incorporated into the Dur-Sarruken Display Inscription. This new information concerned the land of Meluhha (i.e. the Kusites). The inscription recorded that, for the first time, a Kusite king made contact with the Assyrians and as a result the unnamed Kusite king extradited Yamani back to Assyria (Yamani was a former king of Ashdod who had rebelled and appealed for aid to his neighbours, including Piru'u king of Egypt. When in 711, Sargon lead his own bodyguard force against Ashdod, Yamani got little or no assistance and had to flee to Egypt). In 706 the Tang-i Var inscription named this Kusite king as Sapataku'. Well and good, but this "first contact" with the Kusites (under Sabataka) creates a huge problem for the conventional order. In a burnt building in Ninua, that once housed royal treaties, Layard found many clay seals, with bulla impressions, used to seal perishable scrolls of papyrus or skins. One of these clay seals was impressed by two different bullae, an Assyrian one and an Egyptian one that named Sabaka. Since Sabataka made "first contact" with the Assyrians while Sargon was ruling from Dur-Sarruken, how can a treaty document with Sabaka show up at Ninua? Hard to explain in Sargon's reign, but not so when Sennacherib was ruling from Ninua. (After their clash in 701, there is no evidence of conflict between Sennacherib and the Kusites and this suggests some sort of treaty was negotiated). Thus the Assyrian evidence favours the order Sabataka BEFORE Sabaka. With this in mind we turn to the Egyptian evidence, 3. The main support for the traditional order comes from the Serapeum. In the jumbled remains of the Lesser Vaults Mariette found a large number of stelae, several dated to year 6 of Bakenrenef and one to year 2 of Sabaka. In his later work (after the loss of his field notes) Mariette attempted to relocate these stelae to their appropriate vault. His book contained a diagram showing the proposed location of the Apis bulls (most had not survived). The diagram located the Apis bulls of year 6 of Bakenrenef and year 2 of Sabaka in vault S, while in vault R (the previous vault) was placed the Apis bull of year 37 of Sasanq 5. Later, Egyptologist concluded that only one bull was buried in chamber S because (under the influence of Manetho's account of Sabaka's burning of Bakenrenef) they wanted to equate year 6 Bakenrenef with year 2 of Sabaka. Again, well and good. But this scheme falls down because the diagram is contradicted by Mariette's original report. Here vault R is said to have contained in-situ wall inscriptions from year 37 of Sasanq 5 and year 6 of Bakenrenef, while vault S contained the year 2 stele of Sabaka and a fragmentary inscription naming Sabataka. This breaks the identification, year 6 Bakenrenef bull = year 2 Sabaka bull. Mariette's earlier position shows that the Sabaka bull came after the Bakenrenef bull. Hence some years would have past between year 6 of Bakenrenef and year 2 of Sabaka, years that could be filled with the reign of Sabataka. 4. The other major support for the traditional order comes from the two Kawa stelae (Kawa IV and Kawa V) of year 6 of Taharqa. These stele concern different topics but both relate how Taharqa came north from Kus and later became king. These accounts in the two stelae, WHEN TAKEN TOGETHER, are conventionally interpreted as showing that Taharqa directly succeeded Sabataka (thereby confirming the conventional Sabaka-Sabataka order). But one can argue for a reversal of the order by taking the view that the stelae refer to different journeys, with Kawa IV referring to the time of Sabataka and Kawa V referring to the time of Sabaka. Kawa IV would record the first journey when Taharqa was a king's brother and a handsome youth. Sabataka had sent other handsome youths to fetch him. As a result Taharqa and these youths, together with an army, went north to meet with Sabataka at Thebes. Later on Taharqa became king. Kawa V would record the second journey when an unnamed king (whom I take to be Sabaka) mustered an army in Kus, which included a 20 year old Taharqa (who at that time was not a king's brother). This king then took his army to the Delta where he later died and was succeeded by Taharqa. There is no other Egyptian evidence that supports the traditional Sabaka-Sabataka order. But there is additional Egyptian evidence for a Sabataka-Sabaka order. 5. Several inscriptions of the God's Wife Amenirdis call her a daughter of Kasta (dead) and a sister of Sabaka (living). Her career began when she was "adopted" by the God's Wife Sepenwepet 1 and given lesser titles. In year 12 of Sabaka she still held the lesser titles (Wadi Hammamat graffito of year 12). Shortly thereafter she succeeded Sepenwepet as God's Wife for there are inscriptions (such as the one on statue CGC565 - at least on the original base and copied first column) that shows her as God's Wife while Sabaka was still alive. So far so good, but then, if we keep to the conventional order, an anomaly appears. For in Sabataka's reign, that king built additions to the Osiris Heqadjet temple showing Sepenwepet 1, as alive and still God's Wife and with Amenirdis 1 having her lesser titles. Reversing the order would remove this anomaly for then Sepenwepet 1 and Amenirdis 1 would have continued in their respective offices during the reigns of Kasta, Piye, Sabataka and Sabaka, in whose reign Sepenwepet died and was succeeded as God's Wife by Amenirdis (soon after year 12 of Sabaka). 6. The discovery of the Tang-i Var inscription means Sabataka was ruling by 706 (or earlier). In the conventional order this would mean he ruled for 17 years (or longer). Yet year 3 is his highest year date. It requires a lot of "bad luck" not to have discovered any of his later 14+ year dates. If the order were reversed and he only ruled 8 years (as per the first king in Africanus' version of Manetho), say 712-704, then the number of missing year dates would be more acceptable. 7. On statue CGC 42204 Haremakhet, son of Sabaka and High Priest of Amun tells of additional titles he had under Sabaka (dead), Taharqa (dead) and Tanutamani (living). In the conventional order it is strange that he left out the (now) long reign of Sabataka. But it is easy to explain under a reverse order where Haremakhet would have been made High Priest by his father Sabaka, sometime after the reign of Sabataka. 8. Under the now revised conventional order Sabataka would rule Egypt longer than Sabaka, yet his tomb is less impressively decorated, features plainer material and less intricately carved hieroglyphs than Sabaka's tomb. Easy to explain if Sabataka ruled first and only occupied Egypt from sometime into his 8 year reign. 9. Papyrus Louvre E3228c records the outcome of a legal decision of a claim for debt involving a slave who had been a prized prisoner of war. Sometime prior to year 7 of Sabaka the seller had acquired the warrior slave. In year 7 of Sabaka he negotiated an agreement with the buyer. Later a repayment dispute arose that was finally settled in year 7 of Taharqa. In the conventional order these events (now) stretch over more than 31 years, with all participants still alive. In a reverse order this period is reduced to some 15 years. 10. The reversal of the reigns can yield the following reign lengths 712-704 Sabataka with 716-710 Bakenrenef 704-690 Sabaka This would place Sabataka's conquest of Lower Egypt in 710 during his third year, the year after Yamani fled to Bakenrenef. Assyrian diplomats may have approached the Kusites in 708 with a successful outcome reached in 707 when Yamani was returned to the Assyrians. BTW, I spotted a mistake in my last post with respect to the total eclipse of 1352 BC. The date I gave was in the Julian date - the Gregorian date is 3 August which would have been 20/ 1 Akht/ 38 in the Egyptian calendar. Regards Joe Baker ===========\ Perth | Western Australia ===/