When Piankhi invaded the delta in 616 B.C. he fought both with and against a coalition of kings and princes who ruled over various regions of the north of Egypt.  These included kings Peftjuawybast, Nimlot, Osorkon (IV) and Iupet, and many other notables, including a prince Pemou of Busiris and a Sheshonk, commander of the army of Busiris, whose names remind us of king Pemou and Sheshonk V, terminal kings of the 22nd dynasty, who must be related somehow to that royal family. (5)   If we are correct in stating that Piankhi's Egyptian name was Menkheperre, and that within two years of suppressing the Tefnakht rebellion he began his Syrian campaigns as described in the Annals, then some of these kings must have assisted him in some fashion, perhaps commanding divisions of the Egyptian army.   If so, then we expect to find some record of their military involvement among the extant monuments of the period.  But we suspect that their accomplishments, like those of Piankhi, may have been wrongly credited to other kings, and for similar reasons, namely, failure on the part of Egyptologists to distinguish between namesakes on the monuments. In particular we are curious about the involvement of king Osorkon IV, who, along with Pemou and Sheshonk, must be related to Sheshonk V, recently deceased.

        But if we are correct that other kings assisted Piankhi in his campaigns we must certainly look beyond the Annals for proof.   The Annals, as we have seen, are focused narrowly on the tribute collected in Piankhi's campaigns, not on the campaigns themselves.  The only Egyptian king specifically mentioned in that lengthy document is Menkheperre himself.   It is thanks rather to Amenemheb the army officer, in his tomb inscriptions, that we were provided with insights into the day by day operations of the army.   If other kings assisted Piankhi in his Syrian campaigns we might legitimately expect Amenemheb to record their names.   With that hope in mind we return to Amenemheb's tomb in search of answers.   The search ends immediately.   The last lines of text we read from this tomb inscription recorded the death of Menkheperre Thutmose in that king's 54th year.   Another nearby scene in the tomb provides the sequel to that story.

        In this scene we see a deceased(?) Menkheperre, standing and facing another king named Aakheperure Amenhotep, behind whom "appear Amenemheb and his wife bearing flowers and food".   An inscription accompanies the scene.   For the last time we quote from Amenemheb's journal:

When the morning brightened, the sun arose, and the heavens shone, King Opheprure, Son of Re, Amenhotep (II), given life, was established upon the throne of his father, he assumed the royal titulary.  He [--} all, he mingled with [--] in --, the Red Land; he cut off the heads of their chiefs.  Diademed as Horus, son of Isis, [he] took ----- ------ [--]the Kenemetyew (Knm.tyw), every land, bowed down because of his fame; with their tribute upon their backs, [that he might grant] to them the breath of life."  BAR II 808.

        But reasonable or not, Amenemheb's inscription must be construed otherwise.   As we will see shortly, Egyptologists, with few exceptions, believe that the kingship of Aakheperure Amenhotep began during the lifetime of Menkheperre.   There was a brief period of time during which the two kings ruled together, a coregency which will be described in more detail below. We agree entirely.  This portion of the text must be understood as descriptive of the coronation of Aakheperure sometime before the death of Menkheperre.   How much before remains to be seen.

        But if the coronation took place before the death of Menkheperre Thutmose, thus establishing a coregency, then it should follow that the entire paragraph describes actions which took place during that coregency.   There is no other reasonable interpretation of the text.  Amenemheb is reminiscing.   Having described the death of Menkheperre he continues on to highlight the accomplishments of the king who ruled along side him, beginning with an incident in which the neophyte king "cut off the heads" of some enemy chieftains, and how, resulting from his assorted military actions "every land bowed down because of his fame."   All of these activities must be dated before the death of Menkheperre.  In due course we will examine them as they are described in other monuments.

        Amenemheb's inscription continues without break, describing how the coregent king, soon after taking office, had taken note of his (Amenemheb's) physical prowess, and in consequence had appointed him "deputy of the army" in charge of "the elite troops of the king."

His majesty noticed me rowing won[derfully] with him in [his] vessel; 'Khammat' was its name.  I was rowing [with] both hands at his beautiful feast of Luxor, likewise to the splendors ---- .   I was brought to the midst of the palace, one caused that I should stand before [the king, O[khepru[re] (Amenhotep II), ---- ---- [--}.  I bowed down immediately before his majesty; he said to me, I know thy character; I was abiding in the nest, while thou wert in the following of my father.  I commission thee with office that thou shalt be deputy of the army as I have said, watch thou the elite troops of the king.'   The deputy, Mahu, executed (all)_ that his lord said."  BAR II 809

        When these scenes and inscriptions in Amenemheb's tomb were first viewed by Egyptologists late in the 19th century, it was naturally assumed that they represented the 18th dynasty king Aakheperure Amenhotep II.   The sequence of 18th dynasty kings on the king lists, particularly that contained on the walls of Seti I's Abydos temple, had already established that a king by this name was the son and successor of Menkheperre Thutmose III.   Since Amenemheb served two kings bearing these same names there could be no doubt that he belonged to the 18th dynasty, a fact confirmed by the correspondence between his military activity and the Annals.  But if we are correct, and Menkheperre is Piankhi, then the Aakheperure Amenhotep depicted in Amenemheb's tomb must be a 7th century contemporary of Piankhi.   We have no choice but to argue that fact.

        For the sake of the critic who wonders at the likelihood that two 7th century kings, Piankhi,  and some unidentified (at least for the moment) contemporary of Piankhi, would adopt the names of a father and son from the 18th dynasty we repeat our earlier promise to explain, in the following chapter, the circumstances under which this selective borrowing took place.   Only then will doubts on this issue be laid to rest.

        We begin by repeating our caution stated earlier, that there is no need to assume that the Aakheperure Amenhotep depicted in Amenemheb's tomb is either the son or the successor of Piankhi.   The father and son/successor  relationship between the 18th dynasty kings derives from one set of monuments, the activities of the contemporary 7th century namesake kings derive from an entirely distinct set of monuments.    The relationship between the later kings must be decided on other grounds.  Even though Amenhotep refers to Menkheperre as his "father" in Amenemheb's tomb,  uncertainty remains as to their actual relationship.   Several times already  we have mentioned that the hieroglyphic term here translated "father" need mean nothing more than "predecessor" (or in this case "associate" king) used obliquely to indicate kinship in office.   It need not describe a familial relationship, though we do believe the two kings were related.

        Before we attempt to refine our identification of Amenhotep we need to describe his life, hinted at in Amenemheb's memoirs, but described more fully in other inscriptions.  If we are correct almost all of the monuments which bear this name belong to the 7th century king (the most notable exceptions coming from the tomb KV35 and the mummy contained therein).   But of course we will find them used in the textbooks to describe the life of the 18th dynasty successor of Thutmose III.   It is important to note carefully what they say?
 

The Coregency

        According to the monuments Aakheperure Amenhotep ruled Egypt for at minimum 26 years. Since Thutmose III is assigned the years 1490-1436 B.C. (or thereabouts) in the traditional history, his son's reign is placed in the years 1436-1413 B.C., allowing for the overlap in the two reigns.   The two or three year assumed co-regency, alluded to earlier, is an accommodation by Egyptologists to explain the fact that on numerous monuments the two kings are named as associates in various building enterprises. (6)

        We wonder at this insistence that the co-regency of Thutmose and Amenhotep was brief.   We saw in the inscription of Amenemheb clear indication that Amenhotep began his reign at least as early as the 34th year of Menkheperre.    This would imply that almost the entirety of  his reign overlapped that of his "father".   When we examine the figures of the two kings in the inscriptions which portray them as associates (see note 5 above), the two kings appear as if the same age and of the same stature.   The same holds true for the two kings pictured in Amenemheb's tomb.   Yet on the assumption that Amenhotep began his kingship as a young man in the last two years of the reign of his elderly father, these pictures do not correspond to reality.   And how, we ask, do Egyptologists explain how this "son", identified in the Sphinx stele as only nineteen years of age when he ascended the throne, yet born to a father who must have been around sixty at the time, manage to succeed to the kingship.   Surely Menkheperre had older living sons who had prior claims to succeed him.

        To these objections there is no explanation forthcoming from scholars, the majority continuing to maintain that the coregency lasted at most two or three years.   But there is a significant minority opinion which agrees with the extended coregency argued above.  As recently as 1965 the Egyptologist Donald Redford, arguing strenuously for an historical coregency amounting to "not more than a couple of years" nevertheless acknowledged that "an aberrant hypothesis" was to be found in some quarters "which asserts that Amenophis II ruled as coregent with his father for a fantastic twenty-five years or more." (7)   There is no point in outlining the main points of the argument and providing our own input.   If the scholars concerned disagree on the interpretation of the evidence, our opinion will add little to the discussion   It is sufficient for our purposes to point out that the monuments can be construed both ways, arguing either for an extended or for an abbreviated coregency.  The truth must ultimately be determined on grounds not considered by scholars.  We have argued from one such source, Amenemheb's tomb, that the coregency began prior to Menkheperre's 34th year, necessitating a dual kingship of at least twenty years.    When we have fine tuned our argument we will find that the adherents of the "aberrant hypothesis" were almost precisely correct.
 

The Campaigns

        In the traditional history Amenhotep II is credited with at least three campaigns.  Stelae found in the temples at Elephantine and Amada refer to a Syrian campaign which reached as far as Takhsi in the trans-Euphrates regions.   The duplicate monuments at these two locations are dated in the third year, third month of the third season, day 15 of the king, and provide a graphic account of what they refer to as the king's first campaign.

Then his majesty caused that this stela be made and set up in this temple at the place of the Station of the Lord, engraved with the Great Name of the Lord of the Two Lands, the Son of Re: Amen-hotep-the-God-Ruler-of-Heliopolis, in the house of his fathers, the gods, after his majesty had returned from Upper Retenu, when he had overthrown all his foes, extending the frontiers of Egypt on the first victorious campaign.
His majesty returned in joy of heart to his father Amon, when he had slain with his own mace the seven princes who had been in the district of Takhshi, who had been put upside down at the prow of his majesty's falcon-boat, of which the name is "Aa-hkepru-Re, the Establisher of the Two Lands."  Then six men of these enemies were hanged on the face of the wall of Thebes, and the hands as well."   Then the other foe was taken upstream to the land of Nubia and hanged to the wall of Napata, to show his majesty's victories forever and ever in all lands and all countries ... ANET247-48

        It is instructive to note that Amenhotep's campaigns appear to cease at the conclusion of his 9thyear.   Though other documents attest his continued reign in Egypt, the last dated in his 26thyear, there is no further record of any military activity in Syria.  This is precisely what we expect.  It should be clear to the reader by now that we consider all of these campaigns to be identical to those fought by Menkheperre.  Amenhotep is merely leading a division of the Egyptian army and taking credit for victories won by troops under his command.  Elsewhere, in his Annals, Menkheperre claimed these same victories as his own.   On the assumption that Amenhotep's reign began in Menkheperre's 31st year (see below), and overlapped the balance of that king's life, there exists a precise parallel between the three campaigns of Amenhotep and the 8th, 13th and 15th campaigns of Menkheperre.  Since the campaigns of Menkheperre ceased soon after his 15th, we would be surprised if those of Amenhotep did not follow suit and terminate after his 9th.   A probable timetable for Amenhotep's campaigns, based on these considerations,  will be provided momentarily.   Pivotal to this chronology is the fact that Amenhotep fought successfully in Tahksi sometime prior to the erection of the Amada and Elephantine stelae in his third year.  In the Annals of Menkheperre, the conquest of Takhsi took place during that king's 8th campaign.  This was the only time in the reign of Menkheperre that the Egyptian army ventured that far north.  The 3rd year of Amenhotep must either coincide with or postdate that campaign.

        We should interject at this point one caution.   We assume in the discussions which follow, and particularly in the chronology provided for Amenhotep's campaigns, that all three campaigns belong to the 7th century king.  But that is by no means certain, and this uncertainty attaches to much of what follows, including our tentative identification of Piankhi's associate. Egyptologists continue to question why two distinct campaigns of Amenhotep are referred to as his "first".   Many explanations have been proposed, none gaining wide acceptance.   It is entirely possible that the explanation can be found in our theory of namesake kings.   Further research on this matter may one day confirm that the Amada and Elephantine stela were the creation of Piankhi's associate while the Memphis and Karnak stela belong to the 18th dynasty king.   But for the time being we assume otherwise. (9)
 

Amenhotep the Sportsman

        One final remark is necessary before we venture to identify the 7th century Amenhotep.  One of the most characteristic features of this king, at least in his own estimation, was his phenomenal strength and superb athleticism.  He boast on the Amada stela how "raging like a panther when he treads the field of battle; there is none who can fight in his vicinity."  Single handedly he slew "with his own mace the seven princes who had been in the district of Takhshi."  But the prowess about which he boasts is not confined to the battlefield.   On a stele discovered near the Sphinx at Gizeh he proudly lauds his strength and skill with a bow and his superior ability as an oarsman.   And of peripheral interest, he expresses his paramount love of horses - shades of Piankhi!

Now, further, his majesty appeared as king as a goodly youth.  When he had matured and completed eighteen years on his thighs in valor, he was one who knew every task of Montu: there was no one like him on the field of battle. He was one who knew horses: there was not his like in this numerous army.  There was not one therein who could draw his bow.  He could not be approached in running.
Strong of arms, one who did not weary when he took the oar, he rowed at the stern of his falcon-boat as the stroke for two hundred men.  When there was a pause after they had attained half an iter's course, they were weak, their bodies were limp, they could not draw a breath, whereas his majesty was (still) strong under his oar of twenty cubits in its length.  He left off and moored his falcon-boat (only after) he had attained three iters in rowing, without letting down in pulling.  Faces were bright at the sight of him, when he did this.
He drew three hundred stiff bows in comparing the work of the craftsmen of them, in order to distinguish the ignorant from the wise.  When he had just come from doing this which I have called to your attention, he entered into his northern garden and found that there had been set up for him four targets of Asiatic copper of one palm in their thickness, with twenty cubits between one post and its fellow.  Then his majesty appeared in a chariot like montu in his power.  He grasped his bow and gripped four arrows at the same time.  Se he rode northward, shooting at them like Montu in his regalia.  His arrows had come out on the back thereof while he was attacking another post. It was really a deed which had never been done nor heard of by report: shooting at a target of copper an arrow which came out of it and dropped to the ground ...   Now when he was (still) a lad, he loved his horses ... ANET 244

        When Weeks and Harris examined the body of Amenhotep II they determined it to be that of a man slightly over 5 feet in height, around  45 years old at death and suffering from arthritis (see below, note 11), although "this inflammation and degeneration of the vertebral column had not advanced to a particularly severe stage." (10)  The body also showed evidence of having suffered from some "systemic disease." (11)    "On his neck, shoulders, thorax and abdomen were small nodules" probably resulting from the king's extended ill health.    While we cannot rule out the possibility that the debilitating disease and arthritis revealed by this autopsy developed later in life, this body bears little resemblance to the powerful and athletic king who authored the Sphinx stela.  We leave the matter there.
 

Identity of Amenhotep

        It is entirely possible that the 7th century Aakheperre Amenhotep was a son of Piankhi, a fact suggested by the most straightforward reading of Amenemheb's inscription.   If we suggest otherwise in the discussion which follows, it is due entirely to the provenance of the Memphis stela on which Amenhotep discusses his 7th and 9th year campaigns, and to the known family connections of the Delta kings whom we assume assisted Piankhi in his invasion of Syria.   A few comments on these two criteria are therefore in order.

        The Delta Kings:  In the first book of our Series a revised chronology of the 7th century was arrived at by the simple expedient of lowering the dates of the 8th century kings in the traditional history by 121 years.   As a result, 22nd dynasty kings by the names of Pamay and Sheshonk V were assigned dates of 660-654 B.C. and 654-617 B.C. respectively.   The reign lengths of these kings are well established in the traditional history based on data preserved on several Serapeum stelae erected by the priests of Ptah of the Osiris/Apis cult in Memphis.   We also included  in our revised history,  without comment,  the names and dates of the successors of Sheshonk V as provided by the Egyptologist D.A. Aston -  kings by the name of Pedubast and Osorkon IV.  While we agreed with much of Aston's chronology we reserved judgment on his listing of these terminal kings of the dynasty.   In fact, we believe that Osorkon IV succeeded Sheshonk V, not Pedubast, and in this view we are in agreement with the majority of Egyptologists.   If so, then Osorkon's dates should be 617-602 B.C., assuming he directly succeeded Sheshonk, or earlier if the reigns of the two kings overlapped.    In the revised history he must be the Osorkon who was ruling in Bubastis when in 616 B.C. Piankhi invaded the delta.

        This identification with Osorkon IV is by no means unique to this revision.   An identical equation is supported by many, if not most Egyptologists, including K.A. Kitchen in his Third Intermediate Period, though we should point out that there is no consensus on the family connections of Osorkon IV.  Kitchen believes that Osorkon may be related to the 23rd dynasty family of Rudamen, the father-in-law of Peftjuawybast.  Others, including Aston,  consider Osorkon to be a 22nd dynasty king in the line of Sheshonk V.   Regardless, if our dates are correct, and Sheshonk V died in 617 B.C., it follows that his death coincided with the beginning stages of the Tefnakht rebellion.  Perhaps he was a casualty of that conflict.  He is noticeably absent from the inscription on the great Piankhi stela.  At best he is represented by the prince Pemou and the commander of the army Sheshonk, both resident in Busiris, perhaps his sons, but certainly namesakes of himself and his father Pemou.

        It is of considerable interest to us that Sheshonk V bore the prenomen Aakheperre, and at times employed the variant spelling Aakheperure.   So closely do the two names resemble each other in the monuments that the Egyptologist Flinders Petrie once cautioned his readers to be wary, claiming that "many objects of Amenhotep II have been misattributed to this reign (i.e. Sheshonk's reign), as the cartouches are almost the same". (12)  Were it not for the disparity in the assumed dates of these two kings we would immediately suggest that Amenhotep was the personal name of Sheshonk V and that the two kings are actually one and the same person. After all Sheshonk, like Piankhi, is more a title than a name, one borne by at least five 22nddynasty kings and an equal number of princes.   But we believe that the reign of Amenhotep began in 607 B.C., shortly before the 8th campaign of Menkheperre (see below).  The reign of Sheshonk V began 654 B.C.   They cannot be the same king.   But they might well be related.
 

        Memphis Tomb of Prince Sheshonk:  The second relevant datum relates to the Memphis stela on which Amenhotep discusses his campaigns of years 7 and 9.    This stela was found in a tomb near Memphis identified by the excavators as belonging to a 22nd dynasty prince Sheshonk, high priest of Ptah in Memphis and son of a king Osorkon.  The claim is made by A. M. Badawi, who published the inscription in 1943, that this Sheshonk was a son of Osorkon II and that the stele was "reused" by the priests who buried Sheshonk as a covering for the prince's grave-chamber within the tomb. (13)  This is highly unlikely and we can be forgiven for being skeptical.    In the context of the traditional history we must assume that the stele was preserved intact in another location for approximately five hundred years before being laboriously transported to the grave site of the 22nd dynasty prince for the sole purpose of covering a pit within his tomb.   No family connection is known to exist between the crown prince Sheshonk and the 18th dynasty king Amenhotep.   The excavators make no attempt to explain why a 15th century monument might be chosen by the tomb builders to cover the remains of a 9th century prince.  According to them it was a randomly selection.  The stele was simply an appropriately sized piece of masonry, reused for its utilitarian value.   We disagree.  Surely there must be an historical connection between the crown prince Sheshonk and the king Aakheperure.  A possible explanation is provided by the revised chronology.

        We begin by questioning the identification of the crown prince Sheshonk.  In the concluding book of this series we will examine the sequence of high priests of Ptah in Memphis, long known from lists contained on a Serapeum stela and monument stored in the Berlin Museum (the so-called Berlin genealogy).    We believe that this sequence of priests has been misplaced historically, a result of the same confusion which has displaced dynasties 22-26 by 121 years.  At that time we will demonstrate that the high priest Sheshonk lived in the 7th century, possibly in the final decades of that century.  If so, then it should follow that he is the son of Osorkon III or IV, rather than Osorkon II..  And more importantly, this would make him a contemporary of our second Aakehperure Amenhotep.  Perhaps they were part of the same extended family.  There is even a remote possibility that this high priest became king Amenhotep, which would certainly account for the presence of a stele of Amenhotep in his tomb. (14)

        We have already noted that Osorkon IV was ruling in Bubastis in 616 B.C. when Piankhi invaded the delta.   It is unknown how long his reign continued after the suppression of the rebellion, but a reign length of approximately ten years (617-607 B.C.) would agree favorably with Manetho and with the monuments.   If so Osorkon died around the year 607 B.C.   Though no successor of this king is named by the traditional history, it seems reasonable to conclude that he was replaced in office, whether by the high priest Sheshonk, or by another son or near relative.  Either possibility would account for the presence of a stela of the king in the tomb of the high priest.   And if Osorkon IV was the son of Sheshonk V,  we are not surprised that his son adopted as a prenomen a variant form of the name Aakheperre used by  his grandfather.

        If we are tentative in our identification of Aakheperure Amenhotep the reader should understand the fragile nature of the evidence.  The traditional history simply terminates the 22nddynasty at the end of Osorkon's reign, and that without explanation.   The monuments for the late 22nd dynasty are ambiguous at best.   We should not be held to a higher standard than the traditional history.   We have at least provided a hypothetical solution to our problem. We will no doubt return to this subject again to refine our argument.

        The ambiguity regarding the identity of the second Aakheperure does not extend to the chronology of his initial years.    With some confidence we are able to date the activities of his first nine years in office.
 

Chronology of the Campaigns of Amenhotep

        Two separate documents, a stele from Semneh and the document B.M. 10056,  inform us that the reign of Aakheperure Amenhotep began on the 1st day of the 4th month of the Egyptian civil calendar.   Since we have previously concluded that the first day of the civil year (Akhat 1) took place in June/July of the Julian year, it follows that the coronation of Amenhotep took place early in the fall, sometime in September/October.    And according to our calculations the coronation of the king must have taken place in the year 607 B.C.    We therefore have a very specific date for the beginning of his reign - September/October 607 B.C.   The rationale for the selection of the year 607 B.C. is threefold:

 1) We observe that the 8th campaign of Menkheperre, and the campaign described in Amenhotep's 3rd year stele, closely resemble each other.   On the assumption that the reigns of the two kings overlap significantly and that they must have campaigned together, these two campaigns provide the most reasonable synchronism.

2) Since the 8th campaign took place in the summer and fall of 605 B.C. the identical  campaign described  by Amenhotep must have ended in the fall of 605 B.C.  The end of that campaign must precede by at least several months the erection of the Amada/Elephantine stelae.   Since the Amada and Elephantine inscriptions bear the date "15th  day of the 11th  month of the 3rdyear" they must have been inscribed in February/March of 604 B.C.

3) Amenhotep's 3rd year must therefore span the time frame Sept/Oct 605 B.C. to Sept/Oct. 604 B.C. and his first year must begin in Sept/Oct 607 B.C.

        There remains one other pharaoh to be examined before we take a retrospective look at the beginning of Piankhi's life and flesh out the history of the 7th century.   In the first book of this series we noted that a king named Shabaka (the first of three 25th dynasty kings named by Manetho) acted on behalf of Piankhi in diplomatic dealings with Assyria prior to fall of Nineveh in 612 B.C.   We suggested at the time that he probably commanded a division of Piankhi's army.  If so then he must have attained royal status at least by Piankhi's 25th regnal year, though his reign could well have begun decades earlier.    According to the traditional history he was a brother of Piankhi.   Herodotus tells us that he was responsible for killing Bocchoris, the son and successor of Tefnakht, thus placing his reign securely in the time frame covered by the Annals of Menkheperre.   Surely this important king left record of his association with Piankhi and his involvement in Piankhi's wars.  But as with other important kings of the period, Piankhi included, he may have used another name.   In the next section we search for his name among the monuments.