For much of the 20th century it was considered that Piankh, a king's son of Cush and commander of southern army under Herihor, was a son of that same Herihor. The opinion was based on a 19th century misreading of an inscription in the temple of Khonsu, an error only recently recognized and rectified. In truth, there is no reason to suspect a family connection, other than the fact that Piankh is considered to have succeeded Herihor in office, if only for a brief period.of time. But even that opinion has no basis in fact. The notion that Herihor died in either the 6th or 7th year of the whm mswt, and was succeeded by Piankh, is predicated entirely on the fact that at least by year seven of the Renaissance Piankh bore the title High Priest of Amun. On the assumption that there could not exist two contemporary high priests it is argued that Herihor must have died by that date. But the argument is flawed.

        In the first place we know that in the 6th year of the Renaissance Herihor arrived in Thebes and soon thereafter, on the walls of the Khonsu temple, in inscriptions and reliefs, depicted himself as king. It is entirely possible that by this date he also relinquished the high priesthood to Piankh. Even if that is not the case there is no problem. We know that during the time of the great disruption (701-673 B.C.), in a conflict known as the "war of the high priests", there existed multiple claimants for that title.  Egyptologists are also unanimous that during the 21st dynasty there always existed at least two high priests of Amun, one in the north and one in the Theban area. That circumstance must have prevailed at least into the period under consideration. And we should add yet another high priest into the equation. We have previously argued that the Napatan area temple cultus continued through the period in question. We cannot imagine how that temple would function without its own high priesthood. It follows therefore that at the time of the Assyrian domination of Egypt there would have existed at least three high priests of Amun. It will be our contention in the pages which follow that Piankh's tenure in office as high priest of Amun paralleled that of Herihor throughout the period of the whm mswt, and that his dates are roughly identical to those of his superior, i.e. 671-661 B.C. Further refinement of those dates should prove unnecessary. There is not a single inscription which mentions Piankh that cannot safely be assigned to the lifetime of Herihor.

        There is at least one further argument for excluding Herihor from the genealogy of Piankhi - the sequence of names of the priest/kings who succeeded him. Those names, with one notable exception, are Nubian (22), not purely Egyptian as is the name Herihor.  In fact, the sequence of names Piankh, Pinudjem, Menkheperre, Pinudjem is yet another strong argument supporting our contention that the third name in this sequence, Menkheperre, is an adopted name. It is purely Egyptian and is completely out of place where it stands.  On the assumption of patrimony in the naming process we would have expected the name Piankh(i) in that position. The fact that this a priori expectation agrees completely with the thesis under consideration is a compelling argument for its accuracy.

        If Piankh and his son Pinudjem are in fact the grandfather and father respectively of Piankhi it is clearly imperative that we examine the inscriptions related to each of them. We begin with Piankh.
 

Piankh

        Piankh is known to have authored but a single extant monument. Additionally he is credited with authorship of several papyri and his name appears on several bandage epigraphs and dockets from the Deir el Bahari tombs. Nowhere is he referred to as a king, though like Herihor he may well have entertained aspirations to kingship in some limited sense. His only extant monument pictures him enthroned as a king, though self styled as a prince. Flinders Petrie suggests for him some quasi royal status:

This prince, though he inherited the high priesthood, does not seem to have ruled independently. It is supposed that Herhor left Thebes to consolidate his power in the north, and appointed his eldest son as high priest to rule in the south. Only a single monument of him is known, a stele, on which he is called the royal fanbearer, scribe, general, prince of Kush, chief of the southern lands, high priest of Amen, chief of the granaries and chief of the archers. The title prince of Kush shows that he was not independent at that time, and there is no proof that he survived his father. HE III 203

        On the one hand, keeping in mind our discussion of the genealogy of Shabaka appended to the first book of this series, there is a possibility that Piankh might be a son of Shabataka, the king of Melukkha in the Tang-i-Var inscription, thus a brother of Rudamon and a son-in-law of Osorkon III.  The stele alluded to by Petrie, that on which the titles "high priest of Amun" and "king's son of Kush" are recorded (23), is dated in the 7th year of the whm mswt, 665 B.C. in the revised history, at most a year before Rudamon made his ill fated attempt to wrest control of Egypt from the Assyrians. There must exist some family connection between Piankh and Rudamon. (24)

        A second possibility, still maintaining the connection with Osorkon III, is that Piankh derives from a separate branch of the Melukkhan family, and that his connections with Egypt, like those of Shabataka, derive from a marital alliance with the 23rd dynasty. We suggest as a possibility that he might be married to Shepenwepet, the daughter of Osorkon III and god's wife of Amun in Thebes.

        In either scenario Piankh constitutes the vital link between the Napatan area kingdom and Menkheperre Piankhi. We should not be surprised if his physical remains were interred in one of the el Kurru tombs.

        Since Piankh bears the combined titles "king's son of Cush" and "high priest of Amun" we might reasonably conclude that he was a high priest of Amun in the Napatan temple, serving initially as commander of the Napatan army and then, following a marital alliance with the 23rd dynasty (and following Ashurbanipal's conquest of Egypt and Cush) commander of the Egyptian army in the Napatan area. As we will see in a moment, the army he commanded under Herihor was stationed primarily in the area south of the 1st cataract.

        Regardless of Piankh's connections with Cush, son of Herihor he was certainly not.

        Before we shift our attention to Pinudjem, son of Piankh and father of Piankhi, we should examine briefly several of the papyri which allude to Piankh's military actions in Nubia, part of the collection of documents known generally as the "Late Ramesside Letters", edited by Cerny in 1939 (25) and later collated, translated and provided with commentary by Edward Wente (1967).(26)   This collection consists of approximately 50 papyri and fragments, remnants of correspondence (letters) exchanged between Theban officials and various military field officers, all contemporary with Ramses XI, most from the final years of the whm mswt. Collectively they provide an intriguing picture of social conditions in the south of Egypt in the final years of the 20th dynasty.

        Gardiner describes the collection at the conclusion of his translation of the Wenamun papyrus.:

We now stand on the threshold of an entirely different Egypt, but before we pass to the consideration of Dyn. XXI mention must be made of an important series of letters discovered early i the nineteenth century and now scattered among many museums and private collections. The excellent edition by J. Cerny shows that they are all concerned with the life and doings of a scribe of the royal tome at Thebes named Dhutmose and with his son Butehamun, together with their relatives and friends. Much of the contents turns upon domestic affairs, but there are many allusions to current historic events. Hrihor's son and heir pay'onkh is now the high-priest of Amen-Re and it is certain that he never claimed the kingship. The correspondence seldom mentions him by name, but no doubt it is he who is often alluded to as the 'Commander of the Army'. The close relationship bertween this exalted personage and Dhutmose was due to the latter acting as a sort of agent for him at Thebes, while Pay'onkh was engaged on a campaign in the south, apparently against the former King's 'Son of Cush Pinhasi. The kinsfolk of Dhutmose express great anxiety for the safety of Dhuytmose in his journeyings to bring weapons and other supplies to his chief. Almost a dozen letters emanate from Pay'[onkh] himself, written by his secretaries in a trenchant style. In three almost identical letters to his mother Nodjme, to Dhutmose, and to another official the general instructs them to stop the mouths of two madjoi-policemen who have spoken indiscreetly by killing them and having them thrown into the river by night. I would be interesting to known the exact reason for so sinister an order, but at least it testifies to the unhappy state of affairs prevailing at this troubled moment in Egyptian history. Added to the letter addressed to Dhutmose are words that can hardly be construed otherwise than as a reference to the absentee Ramesses XI:  'As for Pharaoh, how shall he reach this land? Whose master is Pharaoh still? (HP 313-314)

        In none of the late Ramesside letters is there any mention by name of the ruling party in Thebes.  Scholars assume that Herihor has died and that Ramses XI is the sole Egyptian pharaoh.  It is assumed that Ramses is absent from Thebes, perhaps travelling in the north of Egypt, and that Piankh is temporarily in control of the city.  But the only papyrus that specifically mentions the pharaoh, in the passage quoted by Gardiner above, clearly implies that he is out of the country, a fact consistent with our claim that he is living in exile. This papyrus fragment (Berlin 10487 no.21 in Cerny's numeration), written by "the general of Pharaoh (i.e. Piankh)" to the scribe of the Necropolis Tjaroy, is equally emphatic concerning the exiled pharaoh's loss of political influence.(27)   Piankh's  few remarks take on added meaning in the revised context in which we place his letter. "As for Pharaoh, how shall he reach this land? Whose master is Pharaoh now?"

        The second relative papyrus is in all likelihood related to the three mentioned by Gardiner (Cherny nos. 21, 34, 35) which order the killing of the majoi policemen. British Museum papyrus 10375, written by the scribe of the Necropolis Butehamon to general Piankh, alludes to a previous order issued by Piankh to excavate one of the tombs in the king's valley (the necropolis), leaving its seal intact until Piankh's return.

Now see you have written saying, "Uncover a tomb among the foremost tombs and preserve its seal until (I) return," so said he, our lord. We are executing commissions. We shall cause you to find it (still) affixed. Made ready is that which we know. You are to dispatch the scribe of the Necropolis Tjaroy to cause him to come so that he may look for an inspector for us. Indeed we get going and go astray, not knowing a place for our feet.(papyrus 28).

        We will return later to examine the tomb robberies. They are an importance part of our argument.  Much of what we know about the 21st Theban (= 25th) dynasty priest kings, Piankh, Pinudjem I, Menkheperre and Pinudjem II derives from epigraphs they left on the mummified remains of the kings and queens preserved in the Deir el-Bahri tomb DB320, a collection of bodies almost certainly recovered from the tombs they robbed.  And as the reader might already have guessed, the remains of these ancient pharaohs, robbed of their treasures, provided the inspiration for the borrowing of names which has contributed so significantly to the chronological confusion we are attempting to unravel.
 

Pinudjem

        According to Egyptologists Pinudjem was the son of Piankh and the father of Menkheperre, a fact supported by numerous bandage epigraphs on the mummies from DB320.(28)  It is also believed that he began his career as high priest of Amon at the death of his father and that 15 years later, in unknown circumstances, he attained the status of king. His kingship was purportedly centered around the north central Egyptian town of El-Hibeh.  We have no quarrel with any of these findings.

        Since we believe that Piankh died around 661 B.C. (maintaining the relative dates adopted by Kitchen and others) it follows that Pinudjem's sojourn as high priest spanned the years 661-646 B.C. and that his kingship belongs roughly in the time frame 646-637 B.C.  We disagree with Kitchen and others who assume that Pinudjem ruled an additional 13 years.  There is no evidence that this was the case.  Instead we believe that Menkheperre functioned as high priest in the final years of the brief kingship of his father and became king when Pinudjem died, beginning a lengthy reign which endured until 583 B.C.(29)

        The traditional history knows almost nothing of the political activities of Pinudjem during these 24 years. His mummy was found in DB320, resting in a borrowed coffin.  His own coffin, originally been made for Aakheperkare Thutmose I, the grandfather or father of Thutmose III (depending on which interpretive tradition we follow), was occupied by an unidentified body, assumed by scholars to be that of Thutmose I (the coffin's original owner), restored to its rightful place. The strong physical resemblance between this body and that of Thutmose II, found elsewhere in the tomb, supported the identification.

        The inscription on Thutmose's coffin had been altered to read "king Pinudjem", omitting any throne name.  Only the incomplete erasure of the name of Thutmose I allowed the excavators to determine that the coffin had originally been owned by him..

        We ask the obvious question.  Why did Pinudjem disposess Thutmose I and steal his coffin? The answer follows naturally from remarks made moments ago.  We believe that Pinudjem, during the years of his high priesthood and following his father's example, robbed Thutmose's tomb and disinterred the 18th dynasty king. We also believe that a few years later, on becoming king, he stole Thutmose's name.  In the previous chapter we detailed the results of the anatomical investigations of the mummy of Thutmose I.  According to those findings the body belonged to an 18 year old youth who could in no way be identified with the king Aakheperkare Thutmose on the monuments, a king who ruled Egypt for around ten years and who successfully invaded and conquered both Syria and Nubia.  From that observation we determined that there must be two kings bearing the identical name Aakheperkare Thutmose - the 18th dynasty king who died prematurely, and the conqueror of Syria, whose identity was hinted at but not disclosed in our earlier discussion. We now identify him as Pinudjem I.

        It is clear from these remarks that we are introducing a fourth 18th dynasty namesake king into the 7th century. We recall from our analysis of the Annals of Menkheperre how Piankhi, on reaching the Euphrates during his 8th campaign, boasted of setting up a tablet east of the great river "beside the tablet of his father, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Aakheperkare" (30) At the time we argued that Piankhi may have been referring to an 18th dynasty "ancestor" by that name, one toward whom he felt some special affinity since he had recently adopted the titulary of that king's (grand-)son Thutmose III. Though this interpretation remains viable, we now suggest otherwise.  We believe that in 645 B.C., immediately on becoming king, Pinudjem adopted as his own the titulary of the 18th dynasty king Thutmose I, and set out to free Egypt from its 26 year old domination by Assyria. The monuments which describe the whirlwind conquest of Syria as far as Niy on the Euphrates as well as several expeditions southward into Nubia must refer to him. This rapid territorial expansion is at least consistent with the thesis expressed in the first book in our series, namely, that Assyria continued to exercise nominal control over Egypt until late in the reign of Ashurbanipal, when age and internal strife weakened the Assyrian king's hold on his most distant provinces. (31) A detailed study of the history of Assyria, Syria and Palestine during the years 645-637 B.C. should prove fruitful in demonstrating the accuracy of our claim.  But such an endeavor would deflect our attention from the task at hand. We leave the matter for another time or for another researcher.

        The identification of Aakheperkare Thutmose with Pinudjem is not entirely dependent on the fact that Pinudjem borrowed the coffin of the earlier king, in effect identifying himself as that king's replacement.  Nor is the 7th century date assigned this second Aakheperkare supported only by the fact that his Syrian and Nubian wars fit perfectly in the late Assyrian time frame assigned to him in the revised chronology.  The results of at least two other archaeological excavations combine to support these conclusions.  We refer to the tombs of Ramses XI and Psusennes I.   It is imperative that we examine both tombs.
 

The Tanite Tomb of Psusennes (I?)

        In the early years of World War II Pierre Montet, excavating in the ruins of Tanis in the Egyptian Delta, stumbled on the long sought tombs of several of the most prominent 22nd dynasty kings, Osorkon II, Takeloth II, and Sheshonk III. In the same temple enclosure he also found a large compartmentalized tomb containing multiple members of the 21st dynasty family of Aakheperre Psebkhannu, identified in the traditional history as Psusennes I, son of Nesubanebdjed (Smendes?), the founder of the dynasty.   Hopes were raised in scholarly circles that new light was about to be shed on the history of the two dynasties, particularly on the problematic Tanite branch of the 21st dynasty.  But almost immediately a host of problems surfaced, not the least of which were several indications that the family vault which enclosed the remains of Psusennes and his extended family
actually postdated the time of Osorkon II.

        On the one hand it was clear that Psusennes' tomb was constructed later than the tomb of Osorkon II (occupied also by the remains of Takeloth II).  Those who constructed the 21st dynasty tomb were apparently unaware of the existence of or the physical extent of the tomb belonging to the 22nd dynasty king, and in consequence were required to dismantle a section of one wall of Ororkon's tomb in order to complete their own construction.  It is probable, based on other considerations, that they used the opportunity to rob the earlier tomb. (32)

        Further evidence that the tomb postdated the time of Osorkon was forthcoming from the enclosure site itself. For convenience we reproduce the argument of Immanuel Velikovsky from the second book of his Ages in Chaos series:

Psusennes, son of the Nesubanebded who figured in the travels of Wenamon as the military prince with a residence in Tanis, inherited from his father the residence and the title, and added to it those of high priest and first prophet of Amon, the titles of his father-in-law Herihor, and on a number of occasions used the title "king". In this norther capital, in the compound of the great temple area, Psusennes built an enclave of his own surrounded by a massive wall of bricks. The temple area was explored by Pierre Montet, the identity of the builder of the enclave was immediately obvious to him: in the northeast corner of it there was a foundation bearing the name of Psusennes; that name was also on many bricks of the walls of the enclosure. In a corner between the temple and the brick wall Montet discovered the tomb of the same priest-prince. But instead of being strengthened in his first expressed view that the enclave was erected by Psusennes, Montet found himself obliged tor evoke it:
"This view expressed in our recent publications is not correct. Now we know that the great temple in its final form dates from a much later date because under the northeastern and southwestern corners we have found deposits of Osorkon II and in the south-eastern corner a deposit of Nectanebo I [Nekht-nebef].
Of course, a pharaoh of the eleventh century before the present era could not have built on foundations from under which comes a deposit made by a king of the ninth or eighth century. (33)

        We accept the argument of the traditional history that Aakheperre Psebkhannu (Psusennes), the occupant of the Tanite tomb, was the son and successor of a king Nesubanebdjed.   But Nesubanebdjed was not Smendes, the founder of the 21st dynasty.  He was more than likely Nabushezibanni, who ruled the delta briefly following the suppression of the second insurrection of Takeloth III (Tarqu), and he likely died, or was replaced in office, around the same time as Herihor, 661 B.C.   It follows that Aakheperre Psebkhannu cannot be Psusennes I, who ruled in the first half of the 8th century. He must be Psusennes II, the second of the namesake kings of the 21st Tanite dynasty, and according to Manetho the last king of the dynasty. (34)  And assuming that Manetho is correct and that Psusennes ruled 41 years, his dates must be approximately 661-620 B.C. (35)

        There are many strands of evidence supporting our contention that Aakheperre Psebkhannu belongs to the time of the Assyrian occupation of Egypt.  The fact that his tomb contained the remains of a 22nd dynasty king Heqakheperre Sheshonk, otherwise unknown and therefore most reasonably dated to the chaotic years of the great disruption or to the time of the Assyrian domination, is at least consistent with our hypothesis. (36)  The burial of this king included "a pectoral which had originally been inscribed for 'the Great Chief of the Ma, Chief of Chiefs, Shoshenq, son of the Great Chief of the Ma, Nimlot, justified, and a pair of bracelets of Shoshenq I as king." (37)  We have previously identified this Sheshonk as the second Hedjkheperre, who lived and ruled near the end of the reign of Sheshonk III, thus near the beginning of the Assyrian domination. Under no circumstances can he be placed early in the 22nd dynasty.

        Psusennes' throne name Aakheperre, and the impoverished state of the tomb in which he was buried, also argue for the 7th century context in which we place him. We have already noted that Aakheperre Sheshonk V ruled in Bubastis in the same general time frame (656-618 B.C.) while Aakheperre Osorkon IV ruled in Memphis at the end of that period. Both these kings were mere regional kings or nomarchs. Psusennes meagre funerary trappings suit this 7th century environment perfectly.  Nothing in his burial suggests that he was the all powerful ruler of the north of Egypt that he is made out to be in the traditional history.   Perhaps the shared throne name suggests the fact that there existed some family ties between the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd dynasty kings named Aakheperre.

        One other find from Psusennes tomb is even more telling vis-a-vis the dating of this king. Two objects in his tomb, a cylinder found on the mummy of Heqakheperre Sheshonk (38), and a neck bracelet (collar) from the mummy of Psusennes himself (39), contained cuneiform inscriptions. The inscriptions took the excavators completely by surprise. Assyriologists were called in to assist in translation. As Montet explained to E. Dhorme, to whom the bracelet inscription was assigned, "the discovery of cuneiform signs in a royal tomb in Egypt is such a rarity" that he had no specialist on hand to read the inscription immediately.  According to Dhorme the inscription identified the necklace as the property of a lady Napalte, made for her by the great vizier Ibashi-Ilou.   It was an Assyrian artifact.

        The cylinder was apparently from the Akkadian period, apparently a gift to Sheshonk from an Assyrian king.

        The dates when these two objects were made is largely immaterial. They may well be heirlooms. (40) What intrigues us is not what they say, nor when they were made,  but whence they came into Psusennes tomb. The fact that Psusennes was wearing the collar suggests that he received the gift personally.  The same can be said for the cylinder found among other personal artifacts alongside the body of Sheshonk. Only the revised history provides a satisfactory explanation. Both kings lived and ruled as subject kings in the administration of Ashurbanipal's Egypt. They were no doubt (funerary?) gifts from Assyrian officials. We can understand why Assyrian objects would appear in 7th century Egypt as at no other time in Egyptian history.

        One last funerary artifact brings us back to the reason we digressed and examined Psusennes tomb.  We made the claim that Psusennes tomb would confirm Pinudjem as a 7th century king,  ruling during the time of the Assyrian domination.  A single object achieves that objective.  In Psusennes crypt lay a chalice, inscribed by and in all likelihood a gift from Pinudjem, son of Piankh.   The two kings were contemporaries.  Thus everything which identifies Psusennes as a 7th century king, ruling during the Assyrian domination, also confirms Pinudjem in that same setting.  In arguing that the reigns of Pinudjem and Psusennes overlapped we are in agreement with the tradtional history.  But we identify the Tanite Psusennes as Psusennes II, not Psusennes I.  And we date the beginning of the reign of both kings in 661 B.C., upwards of four hundred years later than their dates in the traditional history.

        One last tomb remains to be examined before we leave Pinudjem behind.
 

The Tomb of Ramses XI

        Pinudjem was a thief.  In all likelihood he opened the tomb of Thutmose I and stole that kings crown jewels. He also pilfered his coffin and borrowed his name. But his thievery did not end there.  Evidence suggests that he also confiscated the tomb of Ramses XI and used it for his own burial.  A word of explanation is in order.

        The location of the tomb of Ramses XI has been known at least since the time of the Copts, who used it to house their animals and as temporary living quarters. As such it was of little interest to archaeologists, having been swept clean of all artifacts save the partially completed murals on its walls, which provided only one item of historical interest - an inscription of Pinudjem I superimposed on a Ramesside text. The tomb was clearly unfinished.  Apparently something prevented its use by Ramses.  The revised history provides the explanation.  Ramses had been driven from Egypt in his 19th year. He must have died in exile.  His body has never been recovered.  Pinudjem, or those who buried him, opportunistically appropriated the abandoned tomb.  We surmise that Pinudjem was initially buried at this site.

        Only recently did interest in Ramses' tomb resurface.  One feature in particular attracted the attention of the archaeologist John Romer, who in 1979 began excavations of the tomb on behalf of the Brooklyn Museum.  In the center of the vaulted burial chamber, recessed almost 100 meters into the tomb, lay a large vertical shaft or pit, roughly 3 by 5 meters square. Romer surmised that the pit might conceal a "hidden door" entering into another corridor or chamber. He carefully remove the debris.  The contents were surprising.

What Romer did find were three of an original four foundation deposits placed at the corners to the mouth of the shaft, and a good many objects which had been tipped into the shaft at the end of the New Kingdom and later - the topmost layers including the remains of a burnt 22nd dynasty burial with fragments of its cartonnage covering and a wooden coffin, and sundry Coptic pieces. Within the undisturbed layers at the bottom of the shaft, Romer was surprised to find 'broken pieces of burial equipment of several New Kingdom pharaohs': 'two fragments of an extremely large blue faience vessel that bore the Horus name shared by Tuthmosis I and Ramses II'; fragments of gilded gesso, some perhaps hacked from the coffin of Thutmoses III; the chopped up remains of royal funerary statuettes originating in KV 34 [the king's valley tom of the 18th dynasty Menkheperre], two with yellow hieroglyps incorporating the throne name of Thuthmosis III; fragments of a female pharaonic coffin, presumably belonging to Hatshepsut; and three calcite 'lost contour shabtis of Ramesses IV. (41)

        Romer's explanation of the artifacts is strained.  All he can suggest is that "Evidently, during Pindjem I's reign, the tomb had been used as an ad hoc workshop for processing material from the burials in KV20 (Hatshetsup), KV34 (Thutmosis III) and conceivably KV38 (Thutmosis I)" (42)   We let the reader judge the reasonableness of this rationale.

        There is more to be said concerning Pinudjem, but additional remarks must await our discussion of the beginnings of the reign of his son Menkheperre Piankhi, a subject reserved for the final chapter of our book.