Last native pharaos: dynasty 32 - 35?

Ook: Nubië - latere periode

Moderator: yuti

Last native pharaos: dynasty 32 - 35?

Berichtdoor ancheperoere » Di Jan 10, 2012 7:27 pm

Let op beste mensen, deze tekst is niet van mij, maar van internet geplukt in 2007 of zo. Ik heb de tekst bewaard en wil toch graag delen. Ik kan niet meer vinden waar het origineel staat ...

Wel boeiend materiaal!


Ankmachis was the second Pharaoh of the rebel 35th dynasty, which controlled much of Lower Egypt during the reigns of Ptolemies IV and V. His rule lasted from approximately 199 to 186 BC.
He is believed to be the son of Harmachis (207-199 BC), who had declared independence around 205 BC. He succeeded to the throne around 199 BC, and managed to win back much of the country. The war between North and South continued until 185 BC with his arrest by Ptolemaic General Conanus. The Rosetta Stone was carved in a gesture of thanks to the priests for defeating Harmachis.
Little is known about his reign as most of records thereof were destroyed.
The vast majority of popular books on ancient Egypt say, if they deign to
mention it at all, that the last "native" pharaoh was Nectinebo II of the XXX
dynasty, who was deposed by the Persians in 343 BC.
These vast majority of books are wrong.
The reason for this is quite simple. Most Egyptophiles tend to think that
Egyptian history came to an end with the Persian invasion of 343 BC. Alexandria
BY Egypt wasn't Alexandria IN Egypt, the Ptolomies were ethnically Greeks
anyway and with a few exceptions like Alexander the Great and Cleopatra VII,
nothing afterwards really counts.
Christine Hobson, in her book The World of the Paraohs, is typical of
this attitude: "The succeeding generations of Ptolomies, and their sister-wives
called Cleopatra were benevolent though patronizing towards the native
Egyptians..." implying that Egyptian civilization died a slow but peaceful
death.
Slow it may have been, but the indigenous Egyptians did not go peacefully
into cultural oblivion. They went kicking and screaming all the way to the very
end.
A series of native Pharaohs raised the flag of rebellion against Persian and
Greek domination, and at one point succeeded in achieving independence for most
of the country for about twenty years. Others lasted anywhere from a few weeks
to a couple of years and liberated anywhere from a few villages to the entire
country.
Some of these leaders should be recognized as genuine pharaohs, and at least
one or more new "dynasties" should be set up for them.
Who were these people and why haven't you heard of them before? It's and
interesting story...
In the year 344 BC, the Persian army under the command of Shah Artaxerxes III
Ochus, smashed into Egypt and after a year of heavy fighting emerged
victorious. Pharaoh Nectenebo II grabbed all the treasure his slaves could
carry and fled south, setting a rump stated in Edfu where he died in 341.
The Persian Shah began his reign as Paraoh by stabbing to death the sarapis
bull, and as one might expect, wasn't very popular among the natives. Ochus
wasn't all that popular with the people back home either, and was murdered by
his trusty aide Bagoas in 338. Shah-Pharaoh *beep* tried to get revenge for his
father's death but forgot which cup had the poison in it. His successor was
Darius III, a third cousin who was the last male in the family left alive.
The assassination of the hated foreign king inspired the Egyptians to revolt,
and in 337, a mysterious prince named Khababash makes his appearance, and by
January of 336 had reconquered Upper and Middle Egypt, and by the end of spring
liberated the entire country. He was crowned Pharaoh in Memphis in the summer
of that year.
For a little under two years Egypt was free and independent, but it was not to
last. For in late 335 the Persians under Darius were back and Khabbabash got
the cabosh. The third Persian occupation of Egypt would last two and a half
years. Alexander the Great was already King of Macedon.
Khabbabash reigned over all of Egypt longer than many other recognized
pharaohs did. His reign and decrees were recognized by Ptolemy I Soter in his
famous "satrap" stele of 308, yet as far as we know, Manetho didn't. The reason
for that has to do with Egyptian politics of the time, who's details we'll
never know.
Khabbabash is listed as a pharaoh of sorts by Alberto Carpececi and Nicolas
Grimal in their recent books. I would place him in an ephemeral XXXII dynasty
of his own lasting from 337 to 335, the Persians being the XXXIst.
But Khabbabash isn't the last "native" pharaoh either.
Alexander, his brother and son were the XXXIII dynasty and the Ptolomies the
XXXIVth.
The XXXV dynasty, which lasted from 207 to 186 BC is the most unloved,
disrespected and ignored by egyptophiles of them all.
When mentioned at all in popular literature, which is rare, Pharaohs Harmachis
(207-199) and Ankmachis (199-186) are referred to in distasteful terms such as
"usurper" or by putting the word pharaoh in quotes.
But who were these guys? Where did they come from? How much of Egypt did they
rule? How come they've been banished from most histories? What follows is the
story of Egypt's forgotten civil war.
It is generally agreed that the first of the bad Ptolomies was the fourth,
Philopater (r.224-207). Philopater was a man of his time, the Hellenistic age,
which was much like the early renaissance over two thousand years later. Both
were ruled by men who were homicidal thugs with impeccable taste in art.
This description fit Philopater to a "t". He'd bumped off much of his family,
and was at war at all times with Meroë to the south and the Selucid empire to
the east, and was very much into over consumption. The historian Polybius says
that his reign was a "perpetual festival."
"Perpetual festivals" are expensive things, and the ruling class never paid
taxes if it could help it. This was the job of the indigenous Egyptian
peasants, the Fellahin.
The Greeks had little or no respect for the Fellahin, whom they
considered to be filthy barbarians. The Fellahin themselves, after centuries of
foreign rule, had little self-esteem. There was a revolutionary literature
circulating, tales of Khabbabash and the heroes Inaros and Amyrtaes I, who
fought the Persians centuries before and Amytrtaes II, who freed Egypt and
founded the short-lived XXVIII dynasty, and the indigenous pharaohs who
succeeded him. But those days were over. There was no real hope.
Then history intervened.
In 221, Antiochus III, the Selucid King of Asia, decided that Coloe-Syria,
(present-day Israel) was rightfully his and announced his intention to
"repossess" it. After a year of peace talks had failed, Antiochis attacked.
Philopater was in a fix. His crack troops were losing and pretty soon the
Selucid army would be banging on the gates of Egypt proper. So he took the
desperate chance of arming the Fellahin.
In 217, the Selucids were indeed at the gates. The place was Raphia a few
miles to the west of Gaza, and with a 55 thousand strong Greek-Fallahin mixed
army and superb generalship, the Egyptians won the day. The Selucids were
routed.
The triumph a Raphia was to be an extrodinarily expensive victory. The
Fallahin ceased to be passive and grumbled more audibly. Nationalism became
more widespread.
Philopater went back to his perpetual festival and spent the rest of his reign
whooping it up. Tax rates soared.
By 207, the Fallahin had had enough. In Edfu a fellow with the same name as
the newly tonsured high priest at Memphis raised the flag of revolt. From Edfu,
the revolution went north, and soon All upper Egypt was in Fallahin hands.
Except a brief interval in 199, it was to remain so for twenty years.
Very little is known about this kingdom. There are about 12 known documents
and graffiti which survive from the Fallahin side, and a few stele on the
Ptolomaic side(One of these latter you may have heard of, it's called the
Rosetta Stone). From these and a few ancient historians, the history of the
XXXV dynasty goes something like this:
Harmachis (also known as Hugronaphor) raised the flag of revolt at the
end of 207. In October of 205, Thebes is captured and he's immediately crowned
pharaoh. Abydos, Coptos and several other cities join the new state, and Egypt
is divided into two hostile states. Harmachis dies in 199 BC and there is a
dispute over the succession. Ptolomaic troops use this termoil to press an
attack and temporarily takes back upper Egypt and occupies Thebes. But they
can't hold it. A close relative of Harmachis called Ankmachis takes control of
Fallahin forces and is declared pharaoh by July or August and by the end of
the year the status quo is revived.
But not for long. The Fallahin pressed northwards gaining popular support and
by 197 they controlled the east bank of the Nile as far north as the
southernmost delta.
What was Philopater doing about all this? He debauched himself to death in
205. His Sister-wife Arsinoe was murdered immediatly afterwards. The deaths
were kept secret for about a year
until too many people began asking too many questions. Five year old Ptolemy V
Epiphanies became pharaoh in 204 with the late queen mother's killers as
regents. They were lynched that year and a more legal regency set up.
The OTHER Harmakis, High Priest of Memphis, and himself a Fellahin, knew that
a baby king leading a crumbling, discredited monarchy was perfect landscape for
a major power grab and that's what he did. The Memphis priesthood began
demanding concessions, and they got them, lots and lots of them. They now were
practically shadow kings, and as such had a stake in the northern dynasty.
The coincidence of the Southern Pharaoh and the Memphite High priest having
the same name has caused some, notably Daniel MacBride, head of the Canadian
Institute in Egypt, to suggest that they were one and the same person. While
this is a fascinating, especially noting that Dorothy Thompson says in her book
Memphis Under the Ptolomies that High Priest Harmachis presided over
Epiphanies' coronation. While the idea that the southern Pharaoh didn't die in
199 but was captured during the attack of that year and was later forced to
preside over his enemy's 197 coronation is beautifally twisted, it would have
been mentioned in all the accounts of the event and it wasn't in any. Pity.
In 197 Lycopolis, in the delta was in Southern hands. Having given massive
consessions to the Memphite priesthood and with their full support, the
Northern army was able to get the manpower neccessary to defeat the South and
save the kingdom. The 13-year-old Epiphanies was coronated at Memphis shortly
afterwards
Lower and much of Middle Egypt was in Ptolemaic hands, but Upper Egypt
remained stubbernly independant for another nine years.
In or around 188, Epiphanies appointed General Conanus generalissimo of Upper
Egypt with extrodinary powers and the mission to get rid of Ankmachis and his
state once and for all .
This was done in August of 185, and the story of the conquest of Thebes and
the arrest of the now ex-pharaoh is told on a stele that survives, but whose
text I haven't found yet.
The Fallahin would rebel again and again, most notably in 135 and 88, when the
Ptolomies came within a whisker of being overthrown.
They'd rebel against the Romans too, but that's another story.
The main objections to giving dynastic status to Khabbabash, Harmachis and
Ankmachis is that Manetho didn't mention the first, they didn't last long
enough and latter two were too late and never actually controlled all of Egypt.
All of these objections can be easily answered.
As we all know, Manetho listed thirty dynasties in his history.
Thirty is a round number with probably some mystical significance.
In making up his system, he divided some dynasties, such as the IVth and Vth,
which are really one and added a few, like the XIVth and XXIVth, which were
merely local potentates with good press agents, or the VIIth (seventy pharaohs
for seventy days), which was largely an allegorical fiction.
The XXIVth, for example, controlled only a part of the Nile delta for twelve
years and existed completely within the timespan of the XXVth, which predated
it by a good twenty years. The XXXVth and the Ptolomies had precisly the same
situation, except that the XXXVth dynasty lasted two decades longer.
The time objection is more substantial. Putting aside the VIIth, the shortest
dynasty was the XXVIII which lasted only three and a half years, about a year
longer than Kabbabash. Here the number thirty is important, because he was
first in a series of four unrelated pharaohs (plus two children who reigned a
total of a half a year) who succeded each other, Latin American style, between
404 and 380. In order to have an even thirty, instead of 29 or 32, Manetho
created the artificial XXIX dynasty. Clearly, he didn't like the idea of
minidynasties and was forced by athetics to place Amytrtaes II in a dynasty of
his own.
The Persian XXXI dyansty is a modern invention. Manetho put the second
occupation of Egypt as part of the XXVIIth, completely ignoring the well
documented fact (he had Darius' autobiography available, to him after all) that
Cambysus and Darius were unrealated to each other. However, this "all
foreigners look the same" idea could be used to make a "dynastic skeleton" of
the last centuries of the preroman era which would fit the facts and do justice
to all those heroic revolutionaries who failed to dislodge "foreign" rule:

XXXI: Persians 343-323
XXXII: Macedonians (Alexander's family, the
Ptolomies, and the Selucid Antiochus IV Epiphanies, who was
Pharaoh for a few months in 169-168) 323-30
XXXIII: Indegenes (Khabaabash, Harmachis, Ankmachis,
Dionysius Peroserepis, who liberated much of upper Egypt in 165, Harsiesis, who
did the same for a couple of years around 132, and other occasional rebels.)
337-80

Had they lived a couple of centuries earlier Harmakis and Ankmachis would have
undoubtably have been recognized as legit.
It's about time they were, for they were the last genuine indiginous rulers
Egypt would have until Gamel Abdul Nasser, over two thousand years later. They
were truly the last of their kind.
ancheperoere
 
Berichten: 250
Geregistreerd: Do Jan 11, 2007 3:18 pm

Re: Last native pharaos: dynasty 32 - 35?

Berichtdoor Anneke » Zo Mrt 25, 2012 9:15 pm

Chris Bennett heeft informatie over deze Egyptische "tegen-koningen"
http://www.tyndalehouse.com/egypt/ptole ... ealogy.htm

Horwennefer kwam aan de macht in Thebe in ongeveer October/November in 205 BC In de tijd van Ptolemy IV.
In ongeveer 199 BC verandert hij zijn nomen van Horwennefer tot Ankhwennefer.
In ca 190 BC wordt hij verslagen door het leger van Ptolemy V en wordt verjaagd uit Thebe.
Hij wordt uiteindelijk helemaal verslagen en gevangen genomen in 186 BC en in september van dat jaar wordt hij op orders van Ptolemy V geexecuteerd.

Dat is uiteiendelijk toch een periode van 9 jaar dat hij als tegenkoning fungeert.
Er zijn wel inscripties:
Stele dem. Cairo 38.258, found at Karnak, dated 29 Thoth Year 1 of Horwennefer. Horwennefer is called "beloved of Amunrasonther"
There are papyri mentioning Ankhwennefer. Horwennefer is dated to year 6 and in year 7 the king goes by the name Ankhewennefer.
It had previously been assumed that there were 2 kings, but a reading of one of the demotic papyri suggests that Ankhwennefer's year 7 directly follows Horwennefer's year 6. This suggests they were one and the same person.

Harsiesi is possibly a very short lived king. He may have taken the throne in Thebes in mid to late 131 BC during the reign of Ptolemy VIII. Harsiesi was expelled from Thebes by late 131 BC and defeated and killed by mid 130 BC. He mbeenay have a very short lived king, and if so he was the last known Egyptian Pharaoh.
Gebruikers-avatar
Anneke
 
Berichten: 825
Geregistreerd: Za Mrt 25, 2006 3:25 pm
Woonplaats: St. Louis, V.S.


Terug naar Algemene onderwerpen

Wie is er online?

Gebruikers in dit forum: Geen geregistreerde gebruikers en 1 gast

cron