The reader familiar with the first book in this series, Nebuchadnezzar & the Egyptian Exile, will be aware of the fact that the chronology of Egyptian dynasties 22-26 is seriously in error, and an alternative chronology was proposed in which traditional dates for these dynasties were lowered by a systematic 121 years. As a result of this lowering of dates the terminal years of the 22^nd and 23^rd dynasties, the time of Bocchoris and of the 25^th dynasty pharaohs, including Piankhi and his successors Shabaka, Shabataka and Taharka, were moved from the decades immediately preceding the Assyrian conquest of Egypt to the decades immediately following. In particular the 21^st year of Piankhi was revised downward to 617 B.C.. The date was arrived at by subtracting 121 years from Aston's median date 738 B.C. This revised date for Piankhi was proposed and left to be defended. The defense will be taken up here and will occupy the balance of this book.

        If Pianki's 21^st year, or some portion of it, can be dated to the year 617 B.C. then his reign began in the year 638 B.C. and his Egyptian sojourn spanned the years 638-598 B.C., this on the assumption that he reigned for 40 years. It is important that the reader understand that these dates are not chosen arbitrarily. They are a necessary consequence of the entire argument of the book length revision in Nebuchadnezzar & the Egyptian Exile. It is also important to note that, since there exists no proof that Piankhi's Egyptian reign was limited to 40 years, we must hold in reserve any comment on when his kingship ended. He may well have reigned beyond the year 598 B.C. How much longer remains to be seen.

        The dates 638-598 B.C. cannot help but engage the interest of all students of Ancient Near Eastern history. Early in this time frame the Assyrian Empire began its decline and within two decades of the death of Ashurbanipal in 628 B.C. the Empire was lost. According to the argument in Nebuchadnezzar, Assyria, which conquered Egypt in 671 B.C., continued to control the country through much of Ashurbanipal's reign. This tenuous suzerainty turned into an alliance of equals following his death. If we are correct in our revised dates for Piankhi, then the Nubian king must have played a part in this reversal of fortunes.

        In 625 B.C., early in the reign of Sinsharishkun, the successor of Ashurbanipal, thus over a decade into the reign of Piankhi, the province of Babylon rebelled and claimed independence from Assyria. The rebel king Nabopolassar continued to harass his former suzerain until, in 612 B.C., Nineveh was destroyed with the assistance of Cyaxares of Media. Three years later Assyria vanished from history as its last king Ashuruballit lost control of Harran on the western fringe of the empire.

        Piankhi' reign must have overlapped these eventful years. In fact, he must have been a major participant in the power struggle. And if so, we expect that he publicized the fact.

        There is no shortage of reliable information on the years in question. There exist cuneiform tablets which preserve in summary form the annals of the neo-Chaldaean (Babylonian) kings Nabopolassar and his son Nebuchadrezzar II. These same documents describe the terminal years of the Assyrian empire. The Hebrew scriptures also retain historical memories of the activities of Nebuchadrezzar (whom they sometimes call Nebuchadnezzar) vis-a-vis Assyria, Judaea, and Egypt. Both these sources mention various actions of the Egyptian army. They fail, with one exception, to name the ruling Egyptian king. But if we are correct, the name of the king is not in question. Piankhi ruled Egypt throughout these tumultuous years. The Egyptian army mentioned in the Babylonian and Jewish records must belong to him.

        This hypothesis remains to be proved. The only question is how the proof should proceed. How do we establish that Piankhi lived and ruled in the late 7^th century rather than the mid 8^th century B.C.as historians claim?

        Ideally we should like to examine the source documents of Piankhi during these eventful years, and then compare the history of the times therein revealed with the contemporary history documented in the Babylonian Chronicle and in the Hebrew Bible. That should enable us to establish beyond question that we have correctly positioned this 25^th dynasty patriarch. But we are confronted at the outset with a major problem, already alluded to. It is claimed by historians that Piankhi left no documentation, other than his great stela, whereby we can reconstruct his activities during his Egyptian sojourn. And his great stela dealt exclusively with local matters.  It is regrettable that no monument exists recording the extensive intercourse between Piankhi and Assyria, Babylon, and Judea during these years. Regrettable, that is, if true. But is it a fact that Piankhi failed to boast of his political and military involvement beyond the borders of Egypt?

        If our earlier investigation of Egyptian history teaches us anything, it is the fact that Egyptologists occasionally make fundamental mistakes, including the attribution of documents to the wrong person. Is it possible that Piankhi's Egyptian monuments, and therefore his accomplishments, have been mistakenly credited to some other king?  If so then the problem of the silence of the monuments during his reign of forty plus years would be solved.  And by crediting these monuments to their rightful owner we would have access to documentary proof that our revision of Egyptian history is correct.

        But now we face an historical dilemna.  If inscriptions exist purportedly belonging to Piankhi but not bearing his Nubian name, then how do we establish that they are his?  There is only one appropriate methodology. We must first find monuments describing activities of an Egyptian army which parallel the actions of the Egyptian military registered in the Babylonian and Jewish sources, thus dating them to the late 7^th century.  And then we must demonstrate that Piankhi is the probable author. There is no other way.  Rather than comparing Piankhi's Egyptian monuments with the known history of the late 7^th century, we must use the latter history to help us find his monuments.

        As it turns out there is no difficulty in finding the Piankhi inscriptions. They are present everywhere in Thebes. Far from the ominous silence we are told to expect, Piankhi was the most prolific of authors. He publicized his exploits prominently throughout central and southern Egypt, and, predictably, all along the course of the Nile southward to Napata. Tales of his accomplishments regale the walls of the tombs of his many functionaries. Unfortunately for our purposes, they refer to him by another of his names.

        Though there is some wiggle room in the process by which Piankhi's dates were deduced above - Aston provided only a range of years within which Piankhi's invasion took place - there is no need to emend the suggested dates.   They are remarkably accurate and are assumed to be correct in the initial stages of our argument.   As we will soon see, Piankhi's 21st year began in March/April of 618 B.C. and extended into the spring of 617 B.C..   It was sometime in July/August of 618 B.C. when he erected the great stela.  His conquest of the delta was completed earlier that same year.   The Tefnakht rebellion began in 619 B.C..  We may not be able to detail precisely the course of Piankhi's life during his first twenty years in office, but for the decades which follow the suppression of the Tefnakht rebellion we are blessed with abundant documentation.