RECONSIDERING THE END OF THE TWENTIETHDYNASTY, part IVThe Harshire-family as a test for the shorter chronology Ad Thijs N.B. Since I did not possess an official PDF-file, the following text is merely areconstruction of the published article, on the basis of my srcinal text inMS Word. There may be some minor alterations in typeface and spacing, but since allwords are on their srcinal pages, this text can be used for referencepurposes. GM 175 (2000), 99-103 99 RECONSIDERING THE END OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY, part IV 1 The Harshire-family as a test for the shorter chronology Ad Thijs If there is one family that could be used to test the validity of the short chronology itwould be the family of the scribes of the Necropolis. Already the first readers of draft-versions of part I and II expressed their doubts whether it would be possible toaccommodate this well-documented family within the framework of a substantiallyshorter 20th Dynasty. Virtually ‘removing’ 17 or 18 years -almost a generation- fromthe life and times of Dhutmose and his son Butehamon would, if this operation werethe result of a mere mistake, almost certainly result in chaos, but in fact it turns out ashorter chronology suits the members of this family surprisingly well. The first member of this family we will look into is Harshire. He is last attested in year17 Neferkere 2 . His son Khaemhedjet was still in office in year 3 Khepermare 3 and isalso mentioned in the pivotal year 1 from “ txt. a ” on the verso of Chabas-Lieblein 4 . This “year 1” is now ascribed to the era known as “ wHm mswt ” instead of to year 1 of Menmare “proper” 5 . The next family member is Khaemhedjet’s son, the well-knownscribe Dhutmose. He appears as a mere workman of the left side in year 16 and 17Neferkere 6 . In a graffito of a year 18 he presents himself as a “ sS nisw n Xnw ” in thecompany of his three immediate ancestors 7 . Given the new chronology this graffitocould either belong to Neferkere or – a mere four or five years later- to Menmare. AsDhutmose is not attested as scribe during the reign of Khepermare, ascription toMenmare is perhaps to be preferred 8 . His first appearance as scribe (again withinthe shorter chronology) is in P.Turin 1888, probably dating from year 17/18Menmare, although ascription to year 18 Neferkere cannot be ruled out completely 9 . 1 Part I: GM 167 (1998), 95-108; Part II: GM 170 (1999), 83-99. As I write this, part III of thisseries is planned for either GM 173 or 174. 2 Bierbrier, The Late New Kingdom in Egypt, 40 (henceforth: LNK) ; Cerný, Community 353-354; E.g. Botti & Peet, Il Giornale della Necropoli, Turin 1928, ro.A6, 4 (table 13.4); KRIVI , 570. 3 LNK, 41; Community 356; Chabas-Lieblein, ro.2.21, ro.4.13; Botti & Peet, Giornale, 50,52. 4 Chabas-Lieblein, vso a.10. The name is damaged: Botti & Peet, Giornale, 55, table 63. 5 Thijs, GM 170, 94f 6 P.Turin 2004+2007+2057/58+2106/396, ro.3.1; KRI VI , 651 (year 16); Giornale, 20 (plate11. 2) (year 17); Community , 360. 7 Graffito 1109: Cerný, graffiti , 4; Community , 339. 8 For his only attestation under Khepermare: P.Turin 1932+1939, vso. 3.6: KRI VI , 687. 9 Gardiner, RAD , 64-68; e.g. ro.1.17; 2.1. See part III of this series. Also here the absenceof evidence for Dhutmose as scribe under Khepermare favours ascription to Menmare. GM 175 (2000), 99-103 100According to Cerný this document was probably even written by Dhutmose 10 . At thattime his father was also still active 11 . Dhutmose is well attested throughout the wHmmswt . During its year 10 he took part in Piankh’s first Nubian campaign 12 , followed bya second campaign and a “northern trip” 13 . During year 12 wHm mswt 14 –and possiblyeven during its year 14 15 - he is active collecting grain in towns to the south of Thebes. Dhutmose’s son, Butehamon, is first attested in year 2 wHm mswt 16 . Hiscareer continues well beyond the end of the Renaissance 17 .If we compare the above with the traditional reconstruction of the Harshire-family 18 the following facts emerge:-The career of Khaemhedjet either remains the same or is lengthened by one yearthrough the insertion of Menmare’s year 18 in-between the death of Khepermare andthe “year 1” on the verso of Chabas-Lieblein 19 .-The order of documents pertaining to Dhutmose is changed considerably, reducinghis attested career as a scribe from some 20 years (y8 Menmare – y10 wHm mswt ) toabout 15 years (y17 Menmare – y14 wHm mswt ).-The "removal" of the first years of Menmare reduces the timespan between the lastappearance of Harshire (year 17 Neferkere) and the first appearance of his great-grandson Butehamon (year 2 wHm mswt , already as a scribe) to a mere seven oreight years 20 . To start with the last point: the occurrence of four generations in office in such a shortperiod is remarkable, but by no means impossible. Let us assume that during his firstoccurrence as a scribe (undoubtedly as an assistant to his father) in year 2 of theRenaissance (P. Turin 2094), Butehamon was 17 or 18 years of age. This wouldmake him about 10 years old in year 17 Neferkere, although I believe he may 10 Community, 360. 11 Inferred from Chabas-Lieblein, vso a.10: year 1 ( wHm mswt !) being later than year 17 and18 Menmare. 12 Wente, Late Ramesside Letters (SAOC 33), Chicago, 1967, 9f and passim. 13 Thijs, GM 165 (1998), 99-103 and forthcoming. 14 Turin Taxation Papyrus: Gardiner, RAD, 36-44; JEA 27 (1941), 22-37; Ascription of thispapyrus to the years 12 and 14 wHm mswt is supported by internal evidence: see part III of this series. 15 Gardiner, JEA 27 (1941), 35. 16 P. Turin 2094, vso. 1.5 et passim; KRI VI , 867; LNK 42; 17 He is last attested in a year 13 of a ruler from the 21st Dynasty: Kitchen, TIPE, 419,no.24 and 25. 18 Bierbrier, LNK, 39-44; community 339-383. 19 See part III of this series. 20 18, 19 (Neferkere); 1, 2, 3 (Khepermare); 17(?), 18, 1, 2 (Menmare & wHm mswt ). GM 175 (2000), 99-103 101have been somewhat younger 21 . Using 20 years for a generation 22 , we would end upwith the following figures for year 17 Neferkere: year 17 Neferkere HARSHIRE ca. 70 yearsKHAEMHEDJET ca. 50 yearsDHUTMOSE ca. 30 yearsBUTEHAMON ca. 10 years Table I A slightly younger age for Butehamon of course reduces the ages for the previousgenerations. Working within the long chronology Bierbrier wrote " Harshire is lastattested in office in year 17 of Ramesses IX. On minimum dates the scribe Harshirewould have been aged 68 at least " 23 . Shortening the timetable therefore barelyinfluences the estimated age of Harshire: Estimated age in year 17 Neferkereshort chronology Bierbrier HARSHIRE ca. 70 years ca. 68 years (minimum)KHAEMHEDJET ca. 50 years ca. 50 years 24 DHUTMOSE ca. 30 years ca. 15-28 years (minimum) 25 BUTEHAMON ca. 10 years ca. 8 years or younger 26 Table II 21 Bierbrier uses 15 years for the first appearance of a member of the gang and 30 years forthe more important posts: Bierbrier, LNK, 20. I take it that for a scribe, acting as anapprentice under the guidance of his father the age would be nearer to 15 (or evenyounger?) than to 30. 22 LNK, 20. 23 LNK, 40. Bierbrier based his estimate on the evidence for the period from Ramses IV toRamses IX. His observations therefore remain valid in both models. 24 Starting from ca. year 26 Ramses III: LNK, 41. 25 LNK, 41. 26 Bierbrier uses “year 9 Neferkere – year 3 Khepermare” as an interval for Butehamon’sbirth, basing himself on the estimated age of his father: LNK, 42. GM 175 (2000), 99-103 102Cerný has drawn attention to a text that suggests that, at least according toButehamon, Dhutmose did not reach an old age: in graffito 1573 Butehamon prays: “Let <me> reach the venerable state. Do not as thou hast done to <my> father, theking’s scribe <in> the Place of Truth Dhutmose” 27 . Bierbrier estimates Dhutmose’sage during his partaking in Piankh’s Nubian campaign of year 10 wHm mswt at ca.65-67 28 . Even given the impression one gets from the letters that he was ill-fitted forsuch an adventure, this seems rather old, but in all fairness it should be pointed outthat within the long chronology Bierbrier’s estimate should be reduced to ca. 59-61 29 .Now that we know (on internal evidence, hitherto unrecognised, but valid for both reconstructions) that the Turin Taxation Papyrus stems from year 12 and 14 wHmmswt 30 , he must have been at least two (or possibly even four 31 ) years older at death,making him ca. 61-65. In the short chronology we would arrive at an age of ca. 46/47years during year 10 wHm mswt , 32 giving ca. 48-51 years for his last knownappearance in the Turin Taxation Papyrus.Although Butehamon’s plea may be somewhat subjective (anyone who loves hisfather will say he died too young), it still seems preferable to assume that Dhutmosedied at a relatively early age, a scenario better befitting the short chronology. Even if one is not willing to accept the “plea for an early death for Dhutmose”, one will haveto admit that it is perfectly possible to fit in the well-attested Harshire-family with theshort chronology.Ad ThijsVan Diemerbroeckstraat 1036512 BA Nijmegen The Netherlands 27 Community , 373-374. 28 LNK, 41. 29 I have subtracted 6 years, because Bierbrier seems to have calculated 9 years forKhepermare: comp. LNK, 43. For this reignlength (now obsolete): Parker, RDÉ 11 (1957),163f; Bierbrier, JEA 58 (1972), 195-199; JEA 61 (1975), 251; Bell, Serapis 6 (1980), 7-27;Helck, GM 70 (1984), 31f. 30 See part III of this series. 31 The handwriting of year 14 was, according to Gardiner, “perhaps likewise written by thescribe Dhutmose himself” : JEA 27 (1941), 35. 32 ca. 30 years in year 17 Neferkere, +2 (Neferkere), +3 (Khepermare), +1 or 2 (Menmare)+10 (Renaissance) (treating incomplete or partly overlapping years as whole years).