Archaeological Dark Age

        In the aftermath of his early 20th century excavations at the Nuri cemetery, several miles upstream from Napata, Reisner developed an elaborate theory concerning the origins of the 25th dynasty Nubian kingdom, how it began as a province of Egypt under the 22nd dynasty and how its Libyan officials in time became independent of and ultimately conquered the motherland in the time of Piankhi. We let the Egyptologist D.M. Dixon tell the story:

Reisner believed that during the rule of the Twenty-second (Libyan) Dynasty in Egypt (945-730 B.C.) Nubia remained a province of that land ruled by one of the king's sons. On the break-up of Egypt into a number of semi-independent principalities soon after the death of Shoshenk I, Nubia too, according to Reisner, became independent under its Egyptianized Libyan governor, who thus became the ancestor of the Kushite royal family. This man Reisner identified with the 'Commander of the Army Pashedenbastet, son of King Shoshenk, whose name occurred on a fragment of an alabaster vessel found in the pyramid of Queen Akheqa at Nuri, and he thought this Pashedenbastet was the father of Kashta, the first of the Kushite rulers about whose activity anything is known. In that case, Kashta's occupation of Upper Egypt and his action in forcing the Divine Adoratress Shepenwepet, the daughter of Osorkon III to adopt his own daughter Amenirdis, would have to be seen as part of a struggle between rival Libyans for supremacy in Egypt - an unconvincing theory. (15)

        Following the el-Kurru excavations Reisner modified his earlier opinion concerning 25th dynasty origins, deleting Pashedenbast from the equation, but maintaining the dynasty's assumed Libyan connection. For the record we note the characteristics of the theory in its final form, again following D.M. Dixon:

Reisner concluded that 'while the northern Libyans were entering the Delta, or soon thereafter, the southern Libyans, the Temehuw, pushed into the Nile Valley in Ethiopia [i.e. Kush] coming no doubt over the old read of the oases . During the reign of Sheshanq I, or possibly a little later, a Libyan chief, the man buried in Ku. Tum 1, established himself on an estate at el-Kurruw near Napata .... In all probability this first chief of the el-Kurruw family seized at once on the powers of the old Egyptian Viceroy and became like all the other Libyan chiefs in the Nile Valley nominally tributary to the Libyan King of Egypt. (16)

        Outside of this graveyard at el-Kurru, whether in Napata, or elsewhere in the area of the Dongola Reach between the 3rd and 4th cataracts, there is no evidence of occupation by these ancestors of king Piankhi. Even more surprising is the absence of any evidence of contact with Egypt, much less of occupation by Egyptians, extending backward an additional three centuries from the time of the Tumulus 1 king. Prior to the assumed 850 B.C. date for this ancestor, there is no archaeological evidence of any interaction between Nubia and Egypt backward as far as the mid-20th dynasty, roughly 1130 B.C. in the traditional history!  Throughout this extended period of time there exists, in the immediate vicinity of Napata, an "archaeological vacuum" or "dark age" extending from c.a. 1130-850 B.C., roughly the time from Ramses III to the beginning of the reign of Osorkon II.

        And this so-called Nubian "dark age" is not restricted to the Dongola Reach. It applies to the entire length of the Nile above the 1st cataract!  To use the words of Dixon (for the last time): "During the Twentieth Dynasty, the area between the First and Fourth Cataracts was abandoned by the Egyptians and thereafter for nearly three centuries an almost complete blanket of silence descends on events in that land." (17) Even assuming that Egypt did continue its involvement in Nubian politics through the end of the 20th dynasty, as attested by Egyptian documents from the reigns of Ramses IX through Ramses XI, Egyptologists remain hard pressed to explain why Nubia, from Assuan to Meroe, was abandoned by Egypt for close to two hundred years (1070-850 B.C.).

        This extended silence continues to perplex scholars, who are unanimous in their belief that the Napatan area contained a thriving temple cultus during the New Kingdom and again in the days of Piankhi. What happened in the interval is a mystery. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming from Egyptologists.   Bruce Trigger, arguably one of the foremost authorities on Nubian culture and history, raises the possibility that some continuity was maintained during that lengthy period, but admits that evidence is entirely lacking:

Unfortunately, it is not known what happened in Upper Nubia between 1070 and 850 B.C. The Egyptian towns north of the Third Cataract seem to have been abandoned by the end of the New Kingdom and some Egyptologists have doubted that there were any Egyptians living in Upper Nubia after that time [i.e Dixon]. Others have suggested that nominal Egyptian sovereignty was upheld by the priests at Gebel Barkal, who remained in contact with the priesthood of Amon at Thebes, or by Egyptian priests, officials, and traders who had remained in Upper Nubia and intermarried with the local population to form a 'government in exile' in opposition to the Libyan rulers in Egypt. (18)

        In view of the importance of the critical transition period between the 20th and 25th (= 21st Theban) dynasties, it is imperative that we examine the final years of the reign of Ramses XI, the terminal 20th dynasty king according to the traditional history. (19)
 

Ramses XI (and Herihor)

        In the revised history the 28 year rule of Ramses XI belongs in the time frame 689-661 B.C., extending the 20th dynasty at least four years beyond the dates suggested earlier in this chapter. These refined dates are suggested by several strands of evidence, not the least of which is our identification of Menkheperre Piankhi with the 21st dynasty priest king Menkheperre. If we assign the dates 637-583 B.C. to this priest/king, and if we follow Kitchen (and others) in dating the beginning of the high priesthood of Pinudjem I about 25 years prior to the coronation of Menkheperre, then we must date Pinudjem's term in office to about 661-637 B.C.   Since the time of Herihor and Piankh (not to be confused with Piankhi), who are unquestionably linked to the terminal years of Ramses XI, immediately preceded the time of Pinudjem I, we have no choice but to date the end of Ramses' reign to around 661 B.C. And since Ramses ruled for 28 years, we are all but compelled to accept the dates 689-662 B.C. for his reign. The fact that these dates are supported by multiple other strands of evidence is therefore all the more significant.

        One of the primary arguments in defense of the dates 689-661 B.C. for Ramses XI relates to the final decade of his reign, during which something quite revolutionary happened in Egypt.  In the 19th year of Ramses' reign, for reasons not fully appreciated by Egyptologists, an alternative dating schema was instituted in the south of Egypt by those who had previously dated events solely in reference to the years of Ramses XI.  Beginning in Ramses' 19th year, 671 B.C. according to our revised chronology, years on Egyptian monuments and in multiple papyri were numbered alternatively in relation to an era bearing the bizarre title "repeating of births", in Egyptian, whm mswt.  Precisely what constituted this new era has been the subject of considerable speculation by scholars, though nothing is to be gained by surveying opinion on the subject. Suffice to say that the new era, which lasted approximately 10 years, is connected in the monuments with the advent of a new regime in Egypt, headed by an enigmatic figure named Herihor, whose rule not only coincided with the final years of Ramses XI, but apparently superceded in authority and prestige the reign of that terminal 20th dynasty king.  We let Kenneth Kitchen tell the story of this time of trouble, which he calls the "Renaissance Era".   But we note that Kitchen begins the story by alluding to a prolonged period of social upheaval which immediately preceded the arrival of Herihor, a lengthy period of civil war wherein occurred a "war of the high priests" in which a man named Panehsy (or Panhesy), a "king's son of Cush" played a vital role.

In this epoch, the weakness of the central government allowed the natural geographic regions of south and north to change from areas of mere administrative convenience into distinct political entities. The self-sufficient pride of the Theban hierarchy and weakness of the kings, who lived almost entirely in the northern capitals, helped to accentuate the practical cleavage between south and north which was now to be formalized politically. TIP 209a

        Kitchen goes on to describe the arrival of Herihor and ensuing revolution called the whm-mswt:

Panehsy's virtual sole rule of Upper and Middle Egypt as well as Nubia was irregular. By Year 19, he had fallen into disgrace, at least in Thebes.  Instead, from that year on, a new regime ruled, termed 'the Renaissance' (whm-mswt, lit. 'the repeating of birth'), and in datelines one meets 'Year 1 ..., corresponding to Year 19'. The anomalous union of Upper Egypt and Nubia was now regularized to adapt the administration to the new status quo. A new man, one Herihor, now appeared as High Priest of Amun, as Generalissimo and Army-leader(h'wty) - more specifically 'Captain at the Head of the Army of All Egypt' - and also as Viceroy of Nubia to replace Panehsy who was now himself a rebel in Nubia. Thus, for the first time ever, this man united in himself wide military powers, the Theban high-priesthood, and the rule of Nubia. To these he for a time added the office of (southern) Vizier. This was the situation in Year 6 of the 'Renaissance Era'. Northwards, Herihor's rule probably extended to El Hibeh to the north of Hardai (raided by Panehsy) and some 20 miles south of Heracleopolis and the approaches to the Fayum. In Thebes itself, Herihor's accession to power was seemingly endorsed by oracles of the Theban deities, who promised him 20 years of power as their protagonist. TIP 209b

        By now the reader will have determined precisely what is happening. The 19th year of Ramses XI and thus the 1st year of the Renaissance Era occurs in 671 B.C. in the revised chronology.   That same year Assyria ended the period of the "great disruption" by attacking and conquering Egypt.   Esarhaddon, the Assyrian king, immediately apportioned rule over the various administrative districts of Egypt to at least twenty kings and princes. We documented this traumatic period in Egyptian history in the first book of our series.

        It is our contention that Herihor was the army commander assigned by Esarhaddon the responsibility of oversight over these district administrators and nomarchs.  His name is not mentioned in the Assyrian annals because the attention of that document is focused on the civil administration, not on the occupying army.  But from the Assyrian annals elsewhere we know that an army of occupation did remain in Egypt to supervise the newly conquered territory.  It was not a large military force, and was consequently unable to suppress a rebellion in 667 B.C. initiated by Takeloth III (Tarqu) following the death of Esarhaddon.   But it did successfully discover and quash a second coup attempt in 666 B.C., and was actively involved in the punishments and administrative changes which followed.  We assume that Herihor was the central figure in these activities.

        It is important that we review several details glossed over in our earlier discussion of the early years of the Assyrian occupation.   In that initial treatment of the subject we were concerned only with confirming the fact that the Assyrian invasion took place in a 22nd/23rd dynasty context, this in order to defend our hypothesis of a 121 year reduction of dates for those dynasties.  By design, and for obvious reasons, we omitted any reference to the presence of the 20th dynasty, and especially to the involvement of Herihor and Piankh, pending the laying of an appropriate groundwork for their inclusion.  We now return to the period of Assyrian domination for a second look, beginning with a reminder of the chronology of the Assyrian campaigns as outlined in our earlier book. .

        According to the Assyrian annals Esarhaddon conquered Egypt in 671 B.C. and left the country under the administration of an elaborate system of public officials, "(local) kings, governors, officers (saknu), harbor overseers, officials and administrative personnel."   He himself never returned.   In 668 B.C. he died en route to revisiting Egypt and the crown passed peacefully to his son Ashurbanipal (668-627 B.C.).  Takeloth III, a renegade king of the 23rd dynasty, who along with his father Osorkon III had led Egypt in its earlier opposition to Assyria and who had apparently been banished from Egypt during the 671 B.C. invasion, immediately seized the opportunity to reassert his influence in Egypt.  Ashurbanipal responded, leading the first of two expeditions to Egypt.  This 1st campaign took place in 667 B.C.

In my first campaign I marched against Egypt (Magan) and Ethiopia (Meluhha). Tirhakah (Tarqu), king of Egypt (Musur) and
Nubia (Kusu), whom Esarhaddokn, king of Assyria, my own father, had defeated and in whose country he (Esarhaddon) had ruled, this (same) Tirhakah forgot the might of Ashur, Ishtar and the (other) great gods, my lords, and put his trust upon his own power. He turned against the kings (and) regents whom my own father had appointed in Egypt. He entered and took residence in Memphis (Me-im-pi), the city which my own father had conquered and incorporated into Assyrian territory. An express messenger came to Nineveh to report to me. I became very angry on account of these happenings, my soul was aflame. (ANET 294)

Necho (Ni-ku-u), king of Memphis and Sais (Sa-a-a), Sharruludari, king of Si'nu, Pishanhuru, king of Nathu, Pakruru, king of (Pi)Shaptu, Bukkununni'pi, king of Athribis (Ha-at-hi-ri-bi), Nahke, king of Hininshi, Putubishti, king of Tanis (Sa-'a-nu), Unamunu, king of Nathu, Harsiaeshu, king of Sabnuti, Buaima, king of Pitinti, Shishak (Su-si-in-qu), king of Busiris (Bu-si-ru), Tabnahti, king of Punubu, Bukkananni'pi king of Ahni, Iptihardeshu, king of Pihattihurunpi (ki), Nahtihuruansini, king of Pishabdi'a, Bukurninip, king of Pahnuti, Siha, king of Siut (Si-ia-a-u-tu), Lamentu, king of Himuni (Hermopolis), Ishpinatu, king of Taini, Mantimanhe, king of Thebes; these kings, governors and regents whom my own father had appointed in Egypt and who had left their offices in the face of the uprising of Tirhakah and had scattered into the open country, I reinstalled in their offices and in their (former) seats of office. (Thus) I seized anew (control over) Egypt (Musur) and Nubia which (already) my own father had conquered; I made the garrisons stronger than before and the(ir) regulations (more) severe.  With many prisoners and heavy booty I returned safely to Nineveh. (ANET 294)

        The 1st campaign by Ashurbanipal was followed in short order by a second coup attempt, important in this revision because it resulted in an organizational restructuring.  In 666 B.C., months after Ashurbanipal's return to Niniveh, several of the administrator/kings conspired to retake their country, and in consequence sent messages seeking the assistance of Tarqu".   The plot was discovered by the resident Assyrian army and the plot was foiled.

But) my officers heard about these matters, seized their mounted messengers with their messages and thus learned about their
rebellious doings. They arrested these kings and put their hands and feet in iron cuffs and fetters. The (consequences of the broken) oaths (sworn) by Ashur, the king of the gods, befell them. I called to account those who had sinned against the oath (sworn by) the great gods (and those) whom I had treated (before) with clemency. And they (the officers) put to the sword the inhabitants, young and old, of the towns of Sais, Pindidi, Tanis and of all the other towns which had associated with them to plot, they did not spare anybody among (them).  They hung their corpses from stakes, flayed their skins and covered (with them) the wall of the towns(s). Those kings who had repeatedly schemed they brought alive to me to Nineveh. From all of them, I had only mercy upon Necho (Niku) and granted him life. I made (a treaty) with him (protected by) oaths which greatly surpassed (those of the former treaty). I clad him in a garment with multicolored trimmings, placed a golden chain on him (as the ) insigne of his kingship, put golden rings on his hands; I wrote my name (phonetically) upon an iron dagger (to be worn in ) the girdle, the mounting of which was golden, and gave it to him. I presented him (furthermore) with chariots, horses and mules as means of transportation (befitting) his position as ruler. I sent with him (and) for his assistance, officers of mine as governors. I returned to him Sais as residence (the place) where my own father had appointed him king. Nabushezibanni, his son, I appointed for Athribis (thus) treating him with more friendliness and favor than my own father did. The terror of the (sacred) weapon of Ashur, my lord, overcame Tirhakah (Tarqu) where he had taken refuge and he was never heard of again. (ANET 295)

        What we did not stress in our earlier discussion, an omission which must now be corrected, is the fact that the administrative structure of Egypt changed dramatically following the 666 B.C. attempted coup. The Assyrian annals specifically state that Ashurbanipal proceeded to arrest the kings who were involved in the attempt to overthrow Assyrian rule, and we are further informed that "the inhabitants, young and old, of the towns of Sais, Pindidi, Tanis, and of all the other towns which had associated with them to plot" were put to death. The Assyrians "hung their corpses from stakes, flayed their skins and covered (with them) the wall(s) of the town(s)". We are told explicitly that of all the kings who had schemed against Ashurbanipal only Niku was spared.  The list of administrators contained in the annals of the 667 B.C. campaign was by the following year obsolete.  We are not told who ruled  Tanis in place of Pedubast, though we suspect that the ruined city was soon thereafter occupied by Nabushezibanni.

        The chronology of the career of Herihor, as outlined thus far, certainly fits the circumstances of the fourth decade of the 7th century. But what about Ramses XI?   How is he to be fitted into the already crowded framework of that decade? The answer has already been hinted at.  By way of explanation we look back to the beginning of Ramses' reign.  The initial two thirds of his kingship fits neatly into the framework of the revised chronology.  We have previously argued that the reign of Takeloth II ended around 689 B.C.   For at least 16 years following, during much of the period of the "great disruption", there appeared to be no claimant to the throne in Thebes. Without fear of contradiction we can assume that Ramses XI ruled the south during those turbulent years (689-673 B.C.). But what about our earlier claim that prince Osorkon exercised kingship in the Theban area around 673 B.C. and that a year later he elevated his son and ultimate successor Takeloth III to assist him?   If that scenario is correct then we must assume that in 673 B.C. Ramses XI was driven from Thebes, no doubt during the civil upheaval that attended the "war of the high priests" and the incursions of the rebel Pinehsi.  Where he went is the question. We argue that ultimately he ended up in the western desert oasis at Karheh or Bahariya, exiled by Esarhaddon following that king's 671 B.C. conquest of Egypt, though for a time preceding, during Osorkon's ascendancy in Thebes, he may have been confined to the area of Diospolis, the traditional home of the twentieth dynasty kings. And therein lies not only the answer to the question of his whereabouts during the critical years of the whm mswt but also the explanation for that era.   It is the fact that Ramses was no longer on his throne in the years 671-662 B.C., visible to the inhabitants of southern Egypt, that prompted officials to use datelines referenced to the years of his absence. The whm mswt is nothing more nor less than the time of Ramses' exile from Egypt during the first ten years of the Assyrian domination of Egypt.!

        If Ramses' name is not present in the list of kings preserved in Ashurbanipal's annals, that is the explanation.  He may have been the Theban king, but he lived and ruled in exile.  And in exile he reigned over upwards of a million Egyptians, deported at the same time by the Assyrians.  In the next chapter, in our examination of the early years of Menkheperre Piankhi, we will find reference to this displaced community.  We should not be surprised at this situation. The Assyrians are renowned for deporting entire populations of captive cities in the aftermath of conquest.   Egypt was no exception.

        But is the name of Ramses absent from Ashurbanipal's list of administrator kings? And are there other indications in that list that we are in the time frame of the whm mswt, the time of Ramses, Herihor and Piankh?  These questions suggest the need for a reexamination of the Assyrian list of administrative names, three of which are relevant to our discussion - Mantimanhe, king of Thebes, Nabushezibanni, king of Athribis (and Tanis?), and Unamunu, king of Nathu.   It is anticipated that we will find in these names further confirmation that the days of Herihor and Piankh overlapped the first decade of the Assyrian domination of Egypt.
 

Mantimanhe, king of Thebes.

        In the initial book in our series we spent considerable time demonstrating that Mantimanhe, the administrator of the Theban district in the aftermath of Esarhaddon's victory over Egypt, is not to be equated to the 4th Prophet of Amun Mentuemhet, as claimed by the traditional history.  We will not repeat the argument here.  We suggested instead that the name could refer to Mutemhet Maatkare, the wife of (and by 667 B.C. the widow of) Osorkon III, a woman whose cartouche names on several documents suggested the possibility that she exercised kingship at some time in her life.  That possibility, raised in lieu of viable alternatives in our earlier discussion, is problematic for a variety of reasons, and should now be set aside. (20)  A priori we should have expected the name of Ramses XI in the Assyrian list (even if he were living in exile) or perhaps Piankh who, according to several papyri, was nominally in control of the pivotal Theban cultus during the latter part of the whm mswt.  Is it possible to see in the name Mantimanhe a reference to either dignitary?  The answer is an emphatic yes.

        In the monuments Ramses bears the title Minmaatre Setepenptah Ramesses Khaemwase.  The prenomen Minmaatre was used singularly by this king on smaller surfaces where the fuller titulary would be cumbersome or awkward.  We have already encountered several possible instances of this name when we examined earlier the scarabs from the graves at Carthage.  At the time we mentioned the opinion of several scholars that materials bearing the name of Seti I (Menmaatre) of the 19th dynasty were among the artifacts found in the necropolis of Carthage, founded at earliest in the 8th century, five hundred years removed. from the time of Seti.  The only explanation available to the excavators was that the scarabs were amulets, recrafted in the 8th (or 7th) century for sale to superstitious sailors, an opinion we strenuously rebuffed.  We promised to explain those anomalous artifacts as occasion arose.  In passing we offer here the first of such explanations.  Many of the Seti I scarabs must belong to Ramses XI, a namesake king.  They were made by Ramses early in the 7th century, during the heyday of Phoenician expansion, precisely when we expect that the Cartaginian necropolis saw the light of day.  There is no anomaly, only a faulty history by way of explanation.

        But the name Minmaatre is also of relevance in relation to Ashurbanipal's list of administrators. The name of the Theban king in this list is Mantemanhe. With only a single inversion of two consonants Mntm becomes Mnmt, a reasonable equivalent to the Egyptian Menmaat. Such metathesis of consonants has precedence elsewhere in Ashurbanipal's list.  In our earlier book we remarked on the fact that the king named Limintu in this list is universally acknowledge to be a king Nimlot.  If Limintu can refer to Nimlot, then Mantem could certainly refer to Minmaat.  But what of the "anhe" ending, where we expect the name of "Re", the Egyptian sun god par excellence.  Assyriologists have chosen to simply transliterate the three cuneiform signs an-he-e which follow "Mantem" in the inscription.   But the "an" sign is the common determinative sign (dinger sign) for king (AN), and the "he" sign following is also the ideograph for "king" ŠAR . In combination AN ŠAR is a common designation of the Assyrian god Aššur, possibly used here by metonymy for the Egyptian god Re. The final cuneiform sign is problematic, but may simply be a phonetic complement "e" to distinguish R(e) from Assur. Such substitution of equivalent god names in dialogues involving two cultures is commonplace in Near Eastern literature, though we wonder at the substitution in a compounded personal name. For this reason alone we place a question mark behind the identification, and consider a second possible rendering of Mantemanhe.

        On the assumption that our chronology is correct, the only other possible identification of Mantemanhe is with Piankh. Though Egyptologists are adamant that Piankh was merely an influential army commander and high priest of Amun under Herihor, the fact that he was succeeded by kings Pinudjem I and Menkheperre suggests otherwise.  We will comment more on this matter shortly.  For the present we merely enquire whether the name can possibly belong to him.  At first glance there appears to be little resemblance to the known names of Piankh.  But this opinion is based on the transcription of the original cuneiform signs reproduced in the journals.  At the turn of the 20th century at least one influential Egyptologist, Flinders Petrie, a scholar with unique access to the original clay tablets on which the annals were recorded, determined that the sign "me" in the name should read as a "pi".  In consequence he argued, in the face of considerable opposition, that the name in this list belongs to a king named Piankh(i), whom he tentatively identified as Piankhi II, the king we identify as Menkheperre Piankhi.   In his influential History of Egypt Petrie argued:

The name of the ruler of Nia, Thebes, in the annals of the first expedition of Ashurbanipal, 668 B.C., is Manti-me-ankhe or
Manti-pi-ankhi. It has been supposed to be Mentuemhat, but the ending ankhi cannot be intended for hat; the uncertain middle sign is therefore probably pi, and the reading is "mer nuti Piankhi." If this is Piankhy II, and the bandage is accepted as reading 40 years or more, it would imply his ruling at 708 B.C. or earlier. This would not be at all impossible for his Ethiopian rule. HE III 291

        We leave the matter there pending further evidence.

        The other two names, Nabushezibanni, king of Athribis (and Tanis?), and Unamunu, king of Nathu (prior to 665 B.C.) must be studied together, and in relation to the activities of the previously mentioned Wenamun, whose colorful adventures on the eastern Mediterranean coast and on Cyrpus are recounted in a hieratic papyrus thankfully preserved by the dry Egyptian climate through two and a half millenia.
 

The Travels of Wenamun

        The importance of the Wenamun papyrus is reflected in the fact that Gardiner, in his epic Egypt of the Pharaohs, expends fully five pages retelling the tale contained therein. We let him introduce the story:

This fascinating document was bought in Cairo by Golenischeff in 1891 together with two other literary papyri of which one at all events was written by the same hand. It tells the story of the misfortunes of Wenamun, a Theban sent on a mission to Syria at the very close of Dyn XX.  The narrative is dated in a year 5 which, in the light of what is now known, must belong to the Renaissance explained above. Hrihor is the high-priest at Karnak, while Tanis is ruled by that Nesbanebded who subsequently became the first king of Manetho's Dyn XXI. These two great men are on good terms with one another, neither of them as yet claiming the kingship. The real Pharaoh, namely Ramesses XI, is mentioned only once in a cryptic utterance. In such circumstances Egypt was evidently too weak to command respect abroad, and the conversations of Wenamun with the princes whom he met afford a revelation of the contemporary world unequaled in the entire literature of the Nearer East. It is for that reason that, departing from our usual habit, we give in the following pages a virtually complete translation. EP 306

        Wenamun begins his discourse by describing his arrival in Tanis, en route to Phoenicia.

On the day of my arrival at Tanis, the place where Nesbanebded and Tentamun are, I gave them the dispatches of Amen-Re,
King of the Gods.  And they caused them to be read before them and they said: We will surely do as Amen-Re, King of the Gods, our lord has said"

        Thus, at the very beginning of the narrative as good stories are want to do, we are introduced to the central figures, Wenamun and Nesbanebded - the former a dignitary acting on behalf of Herihor, who remains in Thebes - the latter an important official residing in Tanis. We learn quickly, as the narrative continues, that Wenamun has been sent to Phoenicia to procure lumber with which to build a "bark" for the god Amun-Re in Thebes.  Herihor does not figure prominently in the story. He is mentioned only in passing in an oblique remark by Wenamun who, almost immediately on arriving in Phoenicia, is robbed of the money which was intended for purchase of the lumber and asks for redress from the local Phoenician authority, the prince of the town of Dor:

I have been robbed in your harbour. But you are the prince of this land and you are its controller. Search for my money, for indeed the money belongs to Amen-Re, King of the Gods, the lord of the lands, it belongs to Nesbanebded, it belongs to Hrihor my lord and to the other great ones of Egypt. EP 307

Assuredly I have not done to you what was done to the envoys of Kha'emwise when they passed seventeen years in this land and died on the spot. And he said to his butler: 'Take him and let him see their tomb where they lie.' But I said to him: 'Do not make me see it.  As regards Kha'emwise, those envoys whom he sent to you were men, and he himself was a man. But you have not here one of his envoys ... EP 311

        In the first place we assume that the dateline of the Wenamun papyrus refers to the 5th year of Nesubanebdjed as king, or less likely to the 5th year of Herihor's kingship.  Since we date the beginning of both reigns to the year 665 B.C. (or less likely, 666 B.C.) Wenamun's journey must have ended at latest in 661 B.C..  In context the date cannot refer to the 5th year of the whm mswt, as Gardiner (and all others) claim.   The presence of the name of Nesubanebdjed in the immediate context all but rules out that possibility. The natural reading of the text implies that the dateline belongs to him.

        If Wenamun's journey ended in 661 B.C. at the latest, then it began a year earlier at the latest. The envoys of Ramses XI must have been sent to Phoenicia at least seventeen years prior, perhaps in 679 B.C. and probably earlier. Apparently they were prevented from returning to Egypt by some intervening crisis which deprived Ramses of his political authority. The event might have been the "war of the high priests", but more than likely it was the conquest of Egypt by Esarhaddon and the exile of Ramses himself, an event which deprived the envoys of political status and stranded them in Phoenicia where they ultimately died.

        The date 665 B.C. for the beginning of the "reigns" of Nesubanebdjed and Herihor is not chosen arbitrarily. We recall that in 666 B.C. the army of Herihor put down the second Egyptian insurrection and changed the political leadership in Egypt. Herihor moved his base of operations to the south, where he took on the added title of viceroy, and where by degrees he assumed the status of a king.   In the temple of Khonsu we can trace the development of his political aspirations. His self styled kingship, attested by inscriptions on the walls of this temple, must have begun at the earliest the next year. The year 665 was also pivotal for Nesubanebdjed. We have previously noted how, in the aftermath of the failed coup of 666 B.C. the Assyrians deposed multiple kings who had sided with Takeloth III and soon after reinstated Niku and installed "his son" Nabushezibanni in Athribis. It is our opinion that Nabushezibanni and Nesubanebdjed are one and the same person. (21) We cannot prove that fact, nor is the identification necessary, but it seems a reasonable guess. Pedubast, the nomarch of Tanis in 667 B.C. was executed by the army of Ashurbanipal in 666 B.C.   There is no record that any replacement was provided for that city and small wonder, since the city must have suffered considerable damage and the loss of a majority of its inhabitants at the hands of the Assyrian army under Herihor.  Either Nesubanebdjed, distinct from Nabushezibanni, was installed in place of Pedubast in 665 B.C., or Nabushezibanni, the son of Niku had by 662 B.C. rebuilt Tanis and moved his political headquarters there.

        We challenge the reader to examine the story of Wenamun in its details. Everything that is known of the Assyrian age in which we have placed this story comports well with the political and social history of the times revealed therein.  Further research on the names in the story should prove fruitful.

        Before we leave the Wenamun story we must make note of one additional confirmation that our chronology is correct.  It has not escaped the notice of Egyptologists since the days when the Assyrian annals were first translated that the name Wenamun occurs in the Ashurbanipal's list of 20 district administrators.  We refer, of course, to Unamunu, king of Nathu. There can be little doubt that this is the Wenamun of the el Hibeh papyrus.  Of course that possibility could not be entertained by advocates of the traditional history, in which Herihor and Ashurbanipal are separated by four hundred years. But in the revised history the Theban army commander and the Assyrian king are contemporaries. So also are Unamunu and Wenamun. Both Unamunu and Wenamun are subservient to Herihor. The fact that Unamunu rules Nathu in the Assyrian document and has been transferred to Thebes in the papyrus story is not surprising.  A dramatic political shakeup has occurred in the interim. Herihor moved to Thebes in 666 B.C.   Many city rulers were dispossessed that same year.  A successor of Takeloth III named Rudamon invaded Egypt in 664 B.C. and was rebuffed by Ashurbanipal in his second campaign.  The annals containing the list of administrators belongs to the year 667 B.C.   The Wenamun story takes place in 662-661 B.C.   The intervening five years were eventful.   Unamunu apparently moved to Thebes, where he became an assistant to Herihor.

        We will say little else at this time concerning Herihor.  Perhaps later, in an appendix, we will examine his life in more detail.  Clearly, from what has been said thus far, we disagree with Kitchen's opinion that Herihor's tenure in office spanned only the years 671-665 B.C. We listed those dates earlier for expediency, in order to demonstrate the remarkable correspondence between the revised and the traditional histories in their relative dates for the participant kings.  But Herihor must have been alive and well in 662 B.C. when he sent Wenamun to Syria.   His death must have taken place soon after that journey ended.  Since our interest lies more in Piankh than in Herihor, we leave the matter there.