User talk:Boeuf Bourguignon

Tefnakht
Tefnakht is cosidered "Chief of the Ma" by scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen, Jean Yoyotte and Pier Roberto Del Francia, just to mention some of the scholars cited in his article. The fact that he may have overthrown his predecessor, the Chief of the Ma Osorkon C, and that he was not related to him changes nothing. He was clearly recognized as Chief of the Ma by his contemporary and beyond as suggested by archaeological findings. Based on your reasoning, the many pharaohs who had or may have usurped the throne of Egypt, such as Userkare, Amenemhat I, Amenmesse, Sethnakht, Nepherites I, Nectanebo I, Nectanebo II cannot be considered pharaohs, which is not the case. Khruner (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Tefnakht was never recognized by these historians as descendants of the Ma or Libou lineages (except Kitchen and Yoyotte which are contradicted by a study not long ago of Pier Roberto Del Francia which does not consider Tefnakht a descendant of the Ma and Lebou tribes and even questions Yoyotte's studies), Tefnakht was only recognized as having appropriated the two title of chief of the ma and lebou after having defeated the last real leader of the ma, and last libyan pharaon, Osorkon C. It is written on the article itself, Tefnakht did not descend from a Meshwesh or Lebou family, but has proclaimed himself leader of meshwesh and lebou in his city (Sais), no contemporary affirms that his authority was recognized by Egyptians or Libyans peoples, just that he proclaimed himself chief of meswesh, which does not make him a chief of these tribes but a usurper. Do you have a source claiming that Tefnakht authority has been recognized by Libyans ? No. Tefnakht is even considered as an usurper in the texts of Manethon (Aegyptiaca) and therefore should not be considered as an meshwesh chief, but a usurper. He appropriated the two titles after defeating the last real Libyan pharaoh, Osorkon C. Tefnakht held almost the same titles of Osorkon – plus other titles, most noticeably Great Chief of the Libu and Great Chief of the West – suggesting that he was his immediate successor. However, the two were apparently unrelated as Osorkon can't be identified with both Tefnakht's father and grandfather, whom were named Gemnefsutkapu and Basa respectively; this situation suggested that Osorkon was overthrown by Tefnakht.
 * In the Libyan chiefdoms, titles of nobility are transmitted by heredity. This type of organization is found in all Berber societies, where there is no territorial homogeneity (like ancient Egypt). Non-tribal power in Libyan society does not exist. Tefnakht was not a son of the Libyan pharaoh Osorkon C (the last mâ leader, and libyan pharaon), the study of Kenneth Kitchen was contradicted not long ago (by Pier Roberto Del Francia himself, whom you use as a historian to assert your claims, while he affirmed the very opposite of what you say), because Tefnakh'ts father and grandfather are not from a meshwesh or lebou lineages (named respectively Gemnefsutkapu and Basa). How could tefnakht be a chief of the meswesh when he was not descending from this tribe ? it's simple, he usurped the title, and therefore should not be recognized as an "official" leader of this tribe, but a usurper. That's why the category "chief of the ma" must disappear from the article of Tefnakht, and that's why i deleted it. Tefnakht, in addition to not descending from a Libyan tribe, was, of over-believes, a usurper (like Manethon, one of the most prominent Egyptian historian and priest, author of Ægyptiaca). Tefnakht has never been recognized by his contemporaries as chiefs of the ma, it is even the opposite, Manethon considers him a usurper, as well as a bunch of other Egyptian historians ! Boeuf Bourguignon (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's say that is up to you to find reliable sources clearly stating that Tefnakht should not be considered a Chief of the Ma anymore. Note that Kitchen stated that Osorkon C should have been a precursor of Tefnakht, very likely his immediate predecessor, without speculating any family relationships between the two. The one who you believed to have contradicted him was Del Francia, which actually pointed out that the two are unrelated, yet aknoledging, as many other Egyptologists, that both were Chiefs of the Ma, as proven by archaeological finds. If he actually was of Ma descent or merely usurped the title is meaningless: he held the title of Chief of the Ma, and that's it. People like Apepi or Darius I weren't Egyptians, yet they were pharaohs of Egypt, sons of Ra etc etc. Khruner (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If Tefnakht was a usurper, he should be considered as such, and should not be considered as a chief of the ma and lebu, but a usurper of the title chief of the ma and lebu. The category "chief of the ma" on his Wikipedia article must be suppressed, since he did not come from this tribe, and therefore did not belong to it ! Tefnakht proclaimed himself chief of the ma in his city (Sais, so first, not in all egypt, just one city), but, this title is transmitted by heredity (from father to son), and Osorkon C, his predecessor and last pharaon of the 23rd dynasty, was not his father, and had no family or blood link with this Tefnakht (refering to the wikipedia article), and supposing that this title is not transmitted by heredity, Osorkon C did not named Tefnakht is successor (Osorkon C was the last pharaon of the 23rd dynasty) : Conclusion, Tefnakht was not chief of the ma or lebu tribe, but a usurper who claimed these two titles ! It is written in the same study of Pier Roberto Del Francia, or in his wikipedia article. Boeuf Bourguignon (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No, it's not up to you to decide that he "should not be considered as a chief of the ma and lebu", it's a prerogative of scholars, and scholars clearly think otherwise unless you find someone reliable who clearly states that, as I already told you, and also such in that case, there are still many scholars on the other side. As you can see anywhere, usurper pharaohs are still into the pharaohs category, and Persian/Libyan/Levantine/Nubian pharaohs are still considered pharaohs of Egypt by everyone. It was obviously a matter of prestige of the title "great Chief of the Ma", deprived of any ethnic sense.
 * "Tefnakht proclaimed himself chief of the ma in his city (Sais, so first, not in all egypt, just one city)". So what? Of course he did, just like any other Chief of the Ma: Akanosh of Sebennytos, Pimay of Busiris, Nesbanebdjedet of Mendes, Pediese of Athribis and so on.
 * "Osorkon C, his predecessor and last pharaon of the 23rd dynasty" No, Osorkon C never was a pharaoh of the 23rd Dynasty, and never was a pharaoh at all, but whatever.
 * "Tefnakht was not chief of the ma or lebu tribe(...) It is written in the same study of Pier Roberto Del Francia" Curiously, the paper is titled "Di una statuetta dedicata ad Amon-Ra dal grande capo dei Ma Tefnakht nel Museo Egizio di Firenze", so no.
 * And for what concerns some points above, let's debunk the claim that Manetho states that Tefnakht was an usurper: as you can see, Tefnakht is never mentioned by Manetho, so don't attribute Yoyotte's hypotheses to Manetho. Furthermore, beside other objects bearing that title in association with his name, Tefnakht is indisputably called Chief of the Ma more than once by his contemporary, Piye, on his famous stela, thus he was clearly recognized as such as far as Napata. Khruner (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Libyan, Greek and Persian pharaohs were not considered usurpers, so what? I do not see at all what is the relationship with Tefnakht, which is a special case, considered as an usurper by his contemporaries (Manethon), whose existence is contested, and whose origins are disputed. See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefnakht#Kingship
 * Osorkon C was not a pharaoh, I was wrong. But, this governor of Sais, and chief of the meshwesh who, (according to Yoyotte, who is disputed by Del Francia), would be the predecessor of Tefnakht, never named Tefnakht chief of the ma and libou, and is not his Father. Tefnakht did not descend from Osorkon C, and did not inherit his titles by heredity, but by beating him and appropriating his titles, and there is no proof that his authority was recognized by the meshwesh peoples because he is considered as an usurper by Manethon. So yes, you are going to talk to me about Yoyotte and company, but studies have been done, notably by Pier Roberto Del Francia, who do not consider him as a descendant of Osorkon C meshwesh leader.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osorkon_C ;
 * "Osorkon was likely succeeded by the future pharaoh and founder of the 24th Dynasty, Tefnakht. In fact, in his early career Tefnakht held almost the same titles of Osorkon – plus other titles, most noticeably Great Chief of the Libu and Great Chief of the West – suggesting that he was his immediate successor.[5][6] However,...
 * "...However" = questioning Yoyotte theory.
 * [...] the two were apparently unrelated as Osorkon can't be identified with both Tefnakht's father and grandfather, whom were named Gemnefsutkapu and Basa respectively; this situation suggested that Osorkon was overthrown by Tefnakht.
 * Yoyotte studies have been clearly contested by Del Francia.
 * A recent discovery by Tefnakht I to Amun-Re reveals important details about his personal origins. [5] The statue's text states that Tefnakht was the son of a certain Gemnefsutkapu and the grandson of Basa, a priest of Amun near Sais. [6] Consequently, Tefnakht was not actually descended from the chiefs of the Ma and Libu tribes as traditionally believed but rather came from a family of priests. "
 * He came from a priest family, not from a Libyan meshwesh or lebu family.
 * Then Tefnakht is considered as an usurper by Manethon, which does not make him, according to this historian, an authentic ma or lebu chief, but a usurper. The Libyan, Greek, and other Pharaohs were not considered usurpers because they were not and were legitimate, not this Tefnakht.
 * See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osorkon_C; "Osorkon was likely succeeded by the future pharaoh and founder of the 24th Dynasty, Tefnakht, In fact, in his early career Tefnakht held almost the same titles of Osorkon - more other titles, most noticeably Great Chief of the Libu and Great Chief of the West - suggesting that it was his immediate success. [5] [6] However, the two were apparently unrelated as Osorkon could not be identified with both Tefnakht's father and grandfather, who were named Gemnefsutkapu and Basa respectively; suggested that Osorkon was overthrown by Tefnakht '' '. [6]
 * You want the definition of the term usurper?
 * A usurpater, is a person, who, by cunning or violence, seizes property, power, dignity, title, who does not belong to him.
 * Tefnakht could not claim the title of chief because he was not descending from these two tribes ("A recently discovered statue, dedicated by Tefnakht I to Amun-Re, reveals important details about his personal origins.[5] The statue's text states that Tefnakht was the son of a certain Gemnefsutkapu and the grandson of Basa, a priest of Amun near Sais. Consequently, Tefnakht was not actually descended from either lines of Chiefs of the Ma and of the Libu as traditionally believed"). So he could not claimed these two titles, except by usurpating them, and is considered a usurper by Manethon. The sources of this sebennytic writer held him as a usurper and counted as legitimate the last Libyans of the Twenty-third Tynite Dynasty (source : Pierre Montet, Kêmi: revue de philologie et d'archéologie égyptiennes et coptes, Volumes 20 à 21, p. 35.), Tefnakht was absent from the the book Ægyptiaca of this historian, because he was not a real pharaon, but a usurper, that's what this historian state, along with M.-A. Bonhême in Les noms royaux dans l'Égypte de la troisième période intermédiaire, Université du Michigan, IFAO, 1987, 297 p. (so it's not only my personnal theory, and many historien valides it)
 * And chief of the ma is not a simple prestige title, it's the title of the man that rule the Meshwesh, who are an ancient Libyan tribe of Berber origin from beyond Cyrenaica. Boeuf Bourguignon (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "considered as an usurper by his contemporaries (Manethon)" Manetho was not a contemporary of Tefnakht, he lived some centuries later. And despite you claimed that almost a dozen times and I already debunked that, let me again point out that Manetho never mentions Tefnakht, so please stop putting in Manetho's mouth something he never said. Ironically, one of the few contemporaries of Tefnakht who said something about him was Piye, calling him a Chief of the Ma in his victory stela.
 * "(Tefnakht) whose existence is contested". Consider reading an article before clashing for it. Nobody questions Tefnakht's existence; one scholar (Perdu), against the mainstream opinion, doubts that our Tefnakht claimed the pharaonic status. That's all.
 * Don't waste your time copypasting parts of the article "Osorkon C": I know it well, in fact, it was written by me. I've just read again the sources therein since I still have it (Yoyotte 1960, Kitchen, Del Francia): all three called Tefnakht a chief of the Ma (Yoyotte 1960: p. 20; Kitchen: multiple times across his book; Del Francia: even in the title of his paper, as I already pointed out).
 * "Tefnakht could not claim the title of chief because he was not descending from these two tribes." You should tell that to him but this is not possible. And most likely even if it was possible you couldn't have made him change his mind anyway. He did not give a damn about not being a Ma. He claimed the title, obtained it, people wrote his name next to it and he is still nowadays recognized as that. And not being satisfied, he did exactly the same with the title of chief of the Libu, and with the title of pharaoh. What a boss.
 * "A recently discovered statue, dedicated by Tefnakht I to Amun-Re..." really, are you still sticking for your point of view to Del Francia, who undoubtedly affirms that Tefnakht was a chief of the Ma even in the title of his paper?
 * "And chief of the ma is not a simple prestige title, it's the title of the man that rule the Meshwesh, who are an ancient Libyan tribe of Berber origin from beyond Cyrenaica." That was surely true in the early Third Intermediate Period, but I doubt that the aforementioned Chief of the Ma Nesbanebdjedet could claim any authority oustide the province of his city Mendes, figures beyond Cyrenaica. Yet, he arguably exercised his authority on every people of the province; Egyptians, Ma, Libu, Nubians, or any other ethnic group. Tefnakht most likely did exactly the same, despite not being of Ma ancestry.
 * "source : Pierre Montet, Kêmi: revue de philologie et d'archéologie égyptiennes et coptes, Volumes 20 à 21, p. 35." Since I have this paper, you should know that it wasn't actually by Pierre Montet, but again by Yoyotte (1971), and titled "Notes et documents pour servir a la histoire de Tanis". Here is the unbiased translation of your source: Manetho, at least in the abbreviated form in which his history has come down to us, does not record this reign of Tefnakht (may be because the sources of this Sebennytic writer held this one for a usurper and counted the last Libyans of the XXIII Tanite dynasty as legitimate). On the other hand, he points out as the only king of his XXIVth dynasty "Bocchoris of Sais" which was the son of Tefnakht according to a note by Diodorus Siculus. Bonhême's paper says basically the same, and that is translated literally in Tefnakht's article: Tefnakht is absent from the Manethonian tradition, perhaps because of the abbreviated form in which the Aegyptiaca came to us, perhaps because Tefnakht was considered a usurper. Both claims that Manetho does not mention Tefnakht, and two reasons are suggested. 1) Surviving versions of the Aegyptiaca are simply epitomes, that is, many parts including Tefnakht may have been trimmed out; 2) Manetho's original sources may have omitted Tefnakht beause he was considered an usurper, thus Manetho may had never heard of him; yet, he reported Tefnakht's son Bocchoris as legitimate pharaoh. Anyway, what you were claiming as "not only my personnal theory, and many historien valides it", if it means that Tefnakht was an usurper, so yes, the claim is true, but if you mean that Tefnakht was not a chief of the Ma because he was an usurper, well no, that's your personal elucubration, and at the present time no respectable historian valides it, so it fall into WP:original research and for this reason is unallowed on Wikipedia.
 * With your claim that "Pharaohs were not considered usurpers because they were not and were legitimate, not this Tefnakht." I can suggest you to take a look to any generalist book of Egyptian history: many officials usurped the throne claiming the pharaonic titles, ruled as pharaohs, died and were buried as pharaohs, and are remembered as pharaohs, even if clearly usurpers. Tefnakht most likely came from a family of priests, rose in influence, he usurped the title of Great Chief of the Ma from Osorkon C, he ruled and was recognized (even by Piye) as Great Chief of the Ma despite not being of Ma ancestry, he clashed and lost against Piye, he proclaimed himself pharaoh despite not being part of a royal family, he ruled and was recognized as pharaoh and at his death, his son Bocchoris was recognized as pharaoh (even by Manetho this time). Was Tefnakht an usurper? Most likely yes, at least twice. Was Tefnakht a Chief of the Ma and a Pharaoh? Yes, he was both because he held both titles, regardless of how he obtained them, he was recognized as such both by his contemporaries and by modern mainstream scholars. Moral of the story: if you want, you can add the usurpers category because Tefnakht was indeed so, but you can't remove the Chiefs of the Ma category, because Tefnakht was indeed so. Khruner (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)