Six years after the Qablinu incident of 616 B.C. the Babylonian Chronicle again mentions activity on the part of the Egyptian army. In 610 B.C., and again the following year, Egypt's presence near the western bend of the Euphrates is documented (see table 4).

        The first instance of renewed interaction between the armies of Egypt and Babylon is dated in the month of Marheshvan, Oct/Nov. 610 B.C., mid-way through Nabopolassar's sixteenth year. Nineveh had fallen to the combined armies of Media and Babylon in the month of Abu (July/Aug) of 612 B.C.., an event which resulted in the death of Sinsharishkun and the ascendancy of Ashuruballit. Now, over two years later, the Medians and the Babylonians again "united their armies and to the city of Harran [after] Ashur-[uball]it who sat upon the throne in Assyria they marched." (lines 59-61a). An Egyptian army, or a contingent thereof in league with Ashuruballit, awaited their arrival. It was soon apparent to the defenders of Harran that theirs was a lost cause. The combined armies of Egypt and Assyria were vastly outnumbered. They quickly abandoned the city and fled westward, seeking sanctuary across the Euphrates. Apparently the city fell without a fight. In the words of Wiseman, who summarizes the relevant sections of the Chronicle:

The approach of the combined armies was sufficiently impressive to cause Ashuruballit and the Egyptian troops who had come to his aid to withdraw west of the Euphrates, so allowing Nabopolassar and his supporters to move in and plunder the undefended city. ... A Babylonian garrison was established in Harran to take the first shock of any counter-attack by the Egyptian-Assyrian forces, and the Babylonians and the Umman-manda then withdrew to their respective countries.[1]

        The Median/Babylonian garrison withstood the counter-siege of Harran long enough for Nabopolassar to march to its relief. Though critical parts of the Chronicle text are "broken and uncertain", sufficient is preserved to determine that the attack was repulsed. For several years following 609 B.C. there is no further mention of the Egyptian army by the Chronicler. Ashuruballit is never heard from again and may have died in the attempt to recapture his city. The famed and much feared Assyrian empire had come to an end, its lands divided as spoil between the two conquerors. When the Chronicle continues the historical record on another tablet (BM 22047), with discussion related to the eighteenth year of Nabopolassar, the king of Akkad has turned his attention to Urartu at the headwaters of the Tigris River.

        Subsequent to 609 B.C. the map of the Ancient Near East to the east of the Euphrates changes dramatically. Media and Babylon now share the lands formerly held by Assyria. It is not known precisely how these lands were divided between the two allies, but the map below suggests a possible, if not probable, territorial distribution. We will return momentarily to discuss this altered geography.
 
 

Identity of the Egyptian Pharaoh

        When we documented the last days of the Neo-Assyrian empire in the early pages of Nebuchadrezzar & the Egyptian Exile we briefly enquired as to the identity of the Egyptian pharaoh whose army assisted Ashuruballit in defense of his empire and whose military strength was sufficient to dissuade two great empires from immediately following up on the victory at Nineveh. We are not told his name in the Babylonian annals. For this information we were dependent on Jewish historians.

        Modern historians have supplied the name of the Egyptian ally of Ashuruballit, and have added detail to the story of the counter-siege of Harran, thanks to Jewish archivists who document in the Hebrew Bible a particularly relevant incident. The counterattack by Ashuruballit and the "great Egyptian army" which had arrived to assist took place, according to the evidence of the Chronicle, in the two month period between Tammuz (June/July) and Elul (Aug/Sept) of 609 B.C. (the 17^th year of Nabopolassar). In that same year, according to Jewish historians, Josiah king of Judah had an unfortunate and fatal encounter with an Egyptian army moving northward from Egypt along the Mediterranean coast.

While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Neco faced him and killed him at Megiddo. (2 Kings 23:29)[2]

But Neco sent messengers to him, saying, "What quarrel is there between you and me, O king of Judah? It is not you I am attacking at this time, but the house with which I am at war. God has told me to hurry; so stop opposing God, who is with me ... (2 Chron. 35:21)

        With some certainty we can date the Megiddo incident and Josiah's death to July, 609 B.C.. Three months later, following the failed attempt to retake Harran, Neco returned to his northern base of operations at Riblah, near Kadesh in central Syria. From there he sent a delegation to Judah where he deposed Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah, who had assumed the kingship at his father's death. Jehoahaz was transported to Riblah, and shortly thereafter was taken to Egypt by Neco. In his stead "the king of Egypt made Eliakim, a brother of Jehoahaz, king over Judah and changed Eliakim's name to Jehoiakim. (2 Chron. 36:4).

        It is clear from the Josiah episode as described by Jewish historians that the pharaoh who assisted Ashuruballit in Harran was named Neco - not Piankhi, and not Menkheperre, as we claim. In the traditional history this Neco is identified as Wahemibre Necao, the second king of the Saïte dynasty, who ruled Egypt for sixteen years from 610-595 B.C. The time is right. The name is right. The identification is considered axiomatic by scholars and serves as one of the primary confirmations of the reliability of the current Egyptian chronology. But that identification was challenged in the first book of this series, which demonstrated that Wahemibre Necao, the successor of Psamtik I, was not the pharaoh Neco named by the Jewish historians. It was argued instead that Wahemibre was the leader of the Egyptian rebellion against Darius II in 487- 484 B.C., at a time when that Persian monarch was preparing to escalate his war against Greece following the aborted battle of Marathon. The reader can follow the argument in chapter eight of the earlier book. We simply point out here, for the sake of the reader unfamiliar with the previous argument, that there exists absolutely no corroborative evidence supporting the identification Neco = Wahemibre Necao. The identification rests entirely on the correspondence in date of the biblical Neco and the Saite dynasty Necao. And that correspondence in date was challenged by the entire book length argument of Nebuchadnezzar and the Egyptian Exile.

        In the revised chronology it is Piankhi, not Wahemibre Necao, who ruled Egypt in 609 B.C.. It follows that Neco and Piankhi must be one and the same person. But then how do we explain the difference in name? Several explanations are possible. On the one hand we suggest that Neco is simply another of Piankhi's names. On the other we argue that the Jewish scribes in the passages in question are not providing us with a king's name, but with a nickname, a pejorative epithet created for the occasion. A few remarks on each of these proposals is must suffice.
 

Neco = Menkheperre Necao

        The name Menkheperre is unusual. In spite of the fact that the name was borne by the author of the Karnak Annals, identified by historians as the 18^th dynasty king Thutmose III, reputedly the most successful military figure in all of Egyptian history, it was not adopted by any of his immediate successors.[3]   In addition to Piankhi, only three post 18^th dynasty kings, all interesting in their own right, borrowed the name. One is the obscure Menkheperre, successor of Pinudjem I in the Theban branch of the 21^st dynasty, whose other cartouche name is unknown. A second is Shabataka, son and successor of Piankhi, twice removed. The third is an enigmatic figure named Menkheperre Necao, assigned by scholars to the time of the Assyrian occupation of Egypt. The latter is known from a single monument, a glazed statue of Horus, which contains nothing more than the king's cartouche names.[4]

        This Menkheperre Necao is typically identified as the father of Psamtik I, the founder of the 26^th dynasty, a conclusion based entirely on a genealogical entry provided by Manetho, who states that the father of Psamtik was named Nechao. But the family connection is not confirmed from the monuments. A king Necao, father of Psamtik, is otherwise unattested in Egypt. Some support for the identification is said to be provided from the statue itself, which bears certain characteristic features of 25^th dynasty sculpture, thus dating it to the time of Psamtik's immediate ancestors. But we argue that this same evidence identifies Menkheperre Necao as a 25^th dynasty, not a 26^th dynasty king. And since we have already established that Piankhi used the prenomen Menkheperre, and was ambivalent about his nomen, it follows that he may be the king who commissioned the Horus statue.

        With the dates of the dynasties lowered by 121 years, this 25^th dynasty Menkheperre Necao must have ruled Egypt in the late 7^th century, precisely where we have located Piankhi. It is the time of the Josiah debacle. The time is right. The name is right. If traditionalist historians can base their conclusions entirely on a chronological synchronism, there should be no argument if the revised history claims the same privilege. We argue therefore that Neco = Menkheperre Necao = Menkheperre Piankhi.[5]

        An alternative explanation is provided by Jewish oral tradition which claims that the king who took the life of Josiah, and deposed his successor Jehoahaz, was not in fact named Neco. It is argued that the authors of the biblical text, when documenting the events of 609 B.C., substituted for the name of the Egyptian pharaoh a derogatory epithet (Neco) based on a Hebrew word meaning "stricken/smitten". According to Allan Ginzberg, the eminent Jewish Talmudist, the consonants nkh, one of the two spellings of Neco's name employed by the Jewish scribes, was intended to be translated "the lame one", a sarcastic reference to some physical defect of the hated Egyptian pharaoh. The tradition is well documented.

The interpretation of Neco, the name of the Egyptian king, as though it were nkh "lame" is often found in Jewish and Christian writings; comp. Megillah 3a; Mo'ed Katan 28b; Targum Zech. 12.11, and 2 Chron 35:20; Peshitta on 2 Kings 23:29; Aphraates, 471. Legends of the Jews VI n. 123

        It is impossible to determine at this late date precisely what was intended by authors writing two thousand years ago.[7]   But we do not have to choose between the two possibilities. Both may be correct. We know that many, if not all, Egyptian pharaohs had multiple popular names distinct from their titulary names. And we know that Piankhi included multiple variations of his titulary names. It should surprise no-one that he was known to his contemporaries by some Egyptian (or Nubian) title (or name), perhaps Necao, perhaps some homonym, which sounded to a foreign ear like the Hebrew word for "lame". Further speculation is baseless. In the final analysis it is the comparison of the Chronicle and the Annals of Menkheperre for the years 610-609 B.C. which ultimately convinces us that pharaoh Neco is Piankhi.

        As we turn our attention to the Annals we looks for parallels to the two incidents recorded in the Chronicle, the loss of Harran by the combined armies of Assyria and Egypt in 610 B.C. and the failed counter-assault on Harran in 609 B.C. The first of these, the flight from Harran at the approach of the Median/Babylonian armies took place in the 8^th month of Nabopolassar's16^th year, the 29^th of Piankhi. The counterattack on Harran took place late in the fourth month of Nabopolassar's 17^th year, the 30^th of Piankhi. These dates correspond to the 5^th and 6^th campaigns of Menkheperre,. We expect to find, therefore, that on these campaigns the army of Menkheperre was in the vicinity of the Upper Euphrates. There should be some indication, particularly in relation to the 6^th campaign (where we know that a portion of his army actually engaged in battle), that the Egyptians actually fought with an enemy near Carchemish. Piankhi may be reluctant to document the two encounters with the Medians and the Babylonians - after all, he lost both contests - but his presence in the region should be transparent.
 

        In the discussion which follows we must be mindful of the timetable demanded by the combined testimony of the Chronicle and the Hebrew Bible (see table 5 below).

Nabopolassar 16th  Menkheperre 29th . .	Mar/April 610 Apr/May 610 May/June 610 June/July 610 July/Aug 610 Aug/Sept 610 Sept/Oct 610 Oct/Nov 610 Nov/Dec 610 Dec 610/Jan 609 Jan/Feb 609 Feb/Mar 609	. . . . . . . Median and Babylonian armies advance on Harran Egypt & Assyria flee west of Euphrates.  Babylonians and Medians occupy Harran.  . . Babylonian & Median armies leave Harran. Garrison remains.
Nabopolassar 17th Menkheperre 30th	Mar/April 609 Apr/May 609 May/June 609 June/July 609 July/Aug 609 Aug/Sept 609 Sept/Oct 609 Oct/Nov 609 Nov/Dec 609 Dec 609/Jan 608 Jan/Feb 608 Feb/Mar 608	. . . Neco en route to Damascus. Josiah killed. Counter-siege of Harran begins. Siege of Harran continues. Final assault on Harran repulsed. Babylonian army arrives to relieve garrison. Neco at Riblah, in vicinity of Kadesh. Jehoahaz deposed & brought to Riblah. Menkheperre (Neco) returns to Egypt taking Jehoahaz as captive.  . . . .