Esarhaddon's Campaigns

        Immediately following the day when the sun veered off course and a moon appeared in the sky where none was expected, Sennacherib returned to Assyria where his reign lasted to 681 B.C.  He was brutally murdered by one of his sons.  His successor was another son named Esarhaddon.

        Meanwhile in Egypt Takeloth II  endured the civil war which followed the great disruption.  Sheshonk III, Pedubast I, Takeloth II and others contested for control of Egypt, while the high priests Prince Osorkon (Osorkon B) and Harsiese (Harsiese B) both claimed religious authority in Thebes.   Iuput I somehow entered the mix. The details are unimportant.  Egypt was weakened by the civil strife, and perhaps still suffered the effects of the physical damage caused by the cosmic upheaval.   Assyria decided the time was right to enlarge its kingdom.

        In his seventh year Esarhaddon invaded Egypt.   He miscalculated Egypt’s strength.  A later Babylonian Chronicle records the outcome in a note remarkable for its brevity: “Seventh year: In the month of Addarum the 5th day, the army of Assyria was defeated in a bloody battle in Egypt.” (ANET 302)  The seventh year of Esarhaddon was 674 B.C.
 

                                                                          Table 4

                                     740                                          712
                                       /------Osorkon II--------------/

        For convenience we reproduce the Jansen-Winkeln outline of dynasty 22/23 chronology, which concludes in the year 673 B.C., extending it slightly using Aston's data (cf. Table 3).[18]   The result is shown above as Table 4.   It is of interest to note the centrality of the years 674 and 673 B.C..  The year 673 B.C. was the last attested year of Sheshonk III.   He was perhaps injured in the “bloody battle” with Esarhaddon and died soon after.  .  It was the same year that prince Osorkon, high priest of Amon,  became king.  It is possible that his new status resulted from the Egyptian victory.   “Commander of the army” was one of his titles and he probably participated in the battle.   It is also likely that the Assyrian threat was responsible for his elevating his son Takeloth III to share the throne in 672 B.C.  Twenty-nine years as high priest had taken its toll.   He was not a young man, and he was correct in assessing his need for help.  Esarhaddon had retreated only to entrench.   Three years later he was back.

        In his tenth year, Esarhaddon left Assyria and advanced toward Egypt.  He writes:

“I departed from my city Ashur. I crossed the Tigris and the Euphrates at (the time of their flood); I advanced over the difficult territory (of my route) (as quick-footed) as a wild-ox.  In the course of my campaign I threw up earthwork (for a seige) against Ba’lu, king of Tyre who had put his trust upon his friend Tirhakah (Tarqu), king of Nubia (Kusu), and (therefore) had thrown off the yoke of Ashur, my lord ...” (ANET 292)

        Esarhaddon was justly proud of his conquest of Egypt.  He publicized his victory prominently.  The double conquest of Tyre and Egypt was commemorated on a large stela erected near Senjirli in Syria.   There he stands,  larger than life,  holding captive as on a leash kneeling royal figures, one clearly representing Ba’alu of Tyre, the other mistakenly identified from antiquity as Tarqu of Egypt.  It was instead Tarqu's son.   The text tells the story of the conquest:

From the town of Ishhupri as far as Memphis, his royal residence, a distance of 15 days (march), I fought daily, without interruption, very bloody battles against Tirhakah (Tarqu), king of Egypt and Ethiopia, the one accursed by all the great gods.  Five times I hit him with the point of (my) arrows (inflicting) wounds (from which he should) not recover, and (then) I led siege to Memphis, his royal residence, and conquered it in half a day by means of mines, breaches and assault ladders; I destroyed (it), tore down (its walls) and burnt it down.  His “queen,” the women of his palace, Ushanahuru, his “heir apparent,” his other children, his possessions, horses, large and small cattle beyond counting, I carried away as booty to Assyria.  All Ethiopians I deported from Egypt - leaving not even one to do homage (to me).  Everywhere in Egypt, I appointed new (local) kings, governors, officers (saknu), harbor overseers, officials and administrative personnel.  I installed regular sacrificial dues for Ashur and the (other) great gods, my lords, for all times.  I imposed upon them tribute due to me (as their) overlord, (to be paid) annually without ceasing.  I had (also) made (this) stela (bearing) my name-inscription and had written thereupon the praise of the valor of my lord Ashur, my own mighty deeds ... (ANET 293)

I entered Memphis (Me-im-pi), his royal residence, amidst (general) jubilation and rejoicing ... [u]pon the sadalum which was plated with gold, I sa[t down] in happiness ... weapons, [...] KURnanati of gold, silver, plate[s of] ... Afterwards ... [I en]tered and his personal property (lit.: palace), the gods and goddesses of Tirhakah (Tarqu), king of Nubia (Kusu), together with their possessions ... I declared as booty.    [His] “queen,” the female servants of his  court, Ushanahuru, the heir to his throne, [...]miri, his court official(s), ... his possessions, (a lengthy list of possessions follows).  The treasuries (full) with gold, silver, ant[imony...], byssus-linen, ... the bathat of which is like ..., copper, tine, abaru-metal, ivory, [...]s of the Suti-people ... his sons-in-law, his family (qinnu), ... princes ... physicians, divination-experts, ... goldsmiths, cabinetmakers, ... the son of Binzuqi ... which Tirhakah (Tarqu) [has made] to their strongholds, ... (balance destroyed). (ANET 293)

Ushanahuru

        On the assumption that Tarqu was Taharka of the 25th dynasty,  scholars searched in vain for inscriptional records of his son and heir Ushanahuru, taken captive by Esarhaddon.  None were found.  Not a single document of this prince is known. Neither has his tomb been found.  The Egyptian name represented by the Assyrian vocalization presents a problem.   It can only be guessed at.   "His name in Egyptian may have been Esanhuret." [19]

        Documentation cannot be found for Ushanahuru among 25th dynasty monuments because he was not a 25th dynasty prince.    If our revised history is correct he belongs to the 22nd dynasty.    According to K.A. Kitchen, among the attested royalty of the 22nd dynasty "the one doubtful name of any moment is the possible Was-neter-re Shoshenq VI.  His very existence remains open to question." (TIP 109)   He "is so far attested solely by a bronze pendant bearing the cartouches:  Was-neter-re Setep-(en)-re, Shosh(enq Mery)-Amun, god, (Ruler) of Thebes." (TIP 67)   Kitchen refers to him as a king but only because of his cartouche names, which indicate only his royal status.   The Egyptologist Flinders Petrie produces a photo of the pendant, waffles on whether its owner is a king or a prince, and adds an intriquing reference to armour.

A double cartouche pendant of bronze bears these names (reference to Uas.Neter.Ra  Sotep.en.Ra Shesh(enq) Amen.uas.neter.an (?) of Busiris listed above the photo); and probably of the same king is the piece of bronze scale armour, with scales inscribed Ra.Neter Amen.Mery Sheshenq.  As this name cannot be that of any Sheshenq from I to IV, it is probable that the ruler who made these objects was this prince of Busiris.  We cannot distinguish which Busiris this is.  Possibly to the same prince may belong the base of a statuette from Bubastis. (HE III 271-272)

Tarqu = Takeloth III

        There is no need to repeat the linguistic argument regarding the name.   If  Takeloth was actually Terek as we have previously argued, there is no surprise that the Assyrians referred to him as Tarqu, supplying the Assyrian nominative ending.  The "k" and "q" sounds are virtually identical and the "sloping hill" hieroglyph transcribed by a "k" in Takeloth's name is as often  transcribed with a "q".   The name is certainly right, but so is the time.

        The reader will immediately see the significance of  the dates of Takeloth III as they appear in Table 3 earlier and again in Table 4 above.  These dates, we repeat, follow directly from the studies of Aston and Jansen-Winkeln after consistently reducing absolute dates by 121 years.  We have not stretched a chronology to suit our purposes.  It is the hand we were dealt.  The interpretation follows from the chronology.   And we are therefore pleased, but not surprised, to see Takeloth III on the throne of Egypt during the years 672-665 B.C..   If it were otherwise we would have to abandon our research.  For in 671 B.C., according to the Sinjirli and Dog River inscriptions Esarhaddon of Assyria invaded Egypt and fought with Tarqu, king of Egypt and Cush; and in 667 B.C. as we will soon see Ashurbanipal fought this same Tarqu and drove him from Egypt, and around 665 B.C. Tarqu died.   If coincidence can substantiate chronology, as was arguably the case in the errant placement of the Saite dynasty, then we should be convinced that Tarqu and Takeloth III are one and the same king.

        There are few monuments clearly naming Takeloth III.   A single relief dedicated to a high priest identified as "the King's Son Takeloth whose mother was Tentsai" is credited to him.  "The Nile-level text No. 4, dated in Year 6 of a king (no prenomen) 'Takeloth Meryamun, Si-Ese, whose mother is Tentsai" is also his.  It  is less certain that he is "the Crown Prince and Eldest Son, Takeloth, son of the Lord of the Two Lands ... Osorkon (III)." (TIP 73)   We know little else about this king from Egyptian monuments.  Aston and Taylor have recently argued that Takeloth III died prematurely![20]

       There does exist a single reference to Takeloth III outside of Egypt and it is instructive.

At Assur an alabaster vase was found with an inscription of a Libyan prince called Takeloth, whose titles suggest that he was the son either of Shoshenq III (825-773 BC) or of Osorkon III (787-759 BC).  But the vase also bore a secondary inscription of the Assyrian King Esarhaddon (681-669 BC), stating that it was looted from the palace of the King of Sidon, a city which he sacked in 677 BC.  (CD 252)

        It is now clear why Esarhaddon took a special interest in this vase.   It belonged to Tarqu, the meddlesome Egyptian king who defeated him in battle in 674 B.C. and over whom he was finally victorious in 671 B.C.    On the assumption that Takeloth III was an 8th century king (770-763 B.C.) it is difficult to understand either how the vase was preserved intact for almost a century or why Esarhaddon would derive any satisfaction from inscribing a trophy which bears the name of an obscure Egyptian prince.

Ashurbanipal's Campaigns

        Esarhaddon conquered Egypt in 671 B.C.  and left it under the administration of  "(local) kings, governors, officers (saknu), harbor overseers, officials and administrative personnel."   He himself never returned.  In 668 B.C. he died en route to Egypt and the crown passed peacefully to his son Ashurbanipal (668-627 B.C.).   Takeloth III seized the opportunity to reassert his influence in Egypt.

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)

I made these kings accompany my army over the land - as well as (over) the sea-route with their armed forces and their ships (respectively).  Quickly I advanced as far as Kar-Baniti to bring speedy relief to the kings and regents in Egypt, servants who belong to me.  Tirhakah, king of Egypt (Musur) and Nubia, heard in Memphis of the coming of my expedition and he called up his warriors for a decisive battle against me.....I defeated the battle (-experienced) soldiers of his army in a great open battle.  Tirhakah heard in Memphis of the defeat of his army (and) the (terror-inspiring) splendor  of Ashur and Ishtar blinded (lit. overwhelmed) him (thus) that he became like a madman.  The glamor of my kingship with which the gods of heaven and nether world have endowed me, dazzled him and he left Memphis and fled, to save his life, into the town Ni (Thebes).  This town (too) I seized and led my army into it to repose (there). (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 fther 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)

        Ashurbanipal names 20 kings as administrators of Egypt.  It is curious to note how many of them are familiar names from the 22nd/23rd dynasty and are probably the same kings we see in table 4.   We immediately recognize Harsiese (Harsiaeshu) and Pedubast (Putubishti) and Sheshonk IV (Su-si-in-qu).  Limintu is Nimlot as previously mentioned.  Kitchen identifies a Nimlot C as a high priest under Osorkon II but we could argue that he functioned under Osorkon III.   Buaima (or equally Puaima) and Bukkananni'pi are recognizable as Pimay and Bakennefi A, sons of Sheshonk III  (TIP 305)

        Tabnahti is Tefnakht.  Another king by this name will battle with Piankhi late in the 7th century (past tense and in the 8th century in the traditional history).   Kitchen finds the name on a donation stela from Buto, the text of which is unfinished.  It is dated in the 38th year of an unknown king.   He argues that "the Buto stela of Tefnakht can definitely be dated to year 38 of either Shoshenq (III) or (V). (TIP 85)   He chooses Shoshenq V for reasons based on the traditional chronology.   From the occurence of the name in the Assyrian annals it is best connected with Shoshenq III.

        According to Kitchen most of the delta rulers named by Ashurbanipal, Tefnakht included, are "no more than local mayors, chiefs of second rank."  (TIP 357)  He has to argue this.  In the traditional history, which places the 25th dynasty in the time of Sargon, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon and the first few years of Ashurbanipal, the king names in Ashurbanipal's list are out of place.  Those names, with few possible exceptions, belong to the 22nd dynasty.

        Ignoring these apparent 22nd dynasty synchronisms, and acting instead on the assumption that Tarku was the 25th dynasty pharaoh Taharka in the last years of his life,  scholars proceded to search Ashurbanipal's annals for some indication of an impending dynastic change.  For in the traditional history, within a few years of Ashurbanipal's 667 B.C. invasion, the Saite dynasty must be installed in office and the Assyrian army driven from the Delta.   What evidence exists that the apparent 22nd dynasty connections in the Assyrian annals are an illusion and that we are instead in the age of Taharka and Psamtik I?

Search for Saite Dynasty Antecedents

        Notice was taken of  Mantimanhe, king of Thebes in Ashurbanipal's list.  This king was immediately identified by most scholars with  Mentuemhet, a 4th prophet of Thebes whose life overlapped the reigns of Taharka and Psamtik I.   But Mantimahne was a king and Mentuemhet consistently identifies himself as 4th prophet of Amon.  He never claims royal status.   As we will soon see, his life was consumed in repairing the devastation caused by Nebuchadrezzar yet a century away.   Instead we suggest tentatively that the reference is to Mutemhet, identified in one text as the wife of king Osorkon (Osorkon I according to Egyptologists; Osorkon III according to this revision).  Petrie says of her: "She was the great heiress of the kingdom, as appears by her double cartouche, Amen.mery, Mut.em.hat, Mut.mery Karomama on her beautiful bronze statue inlaid with gold ..."  (HE III 246).   There is no time to defend the claim, save to say that if she was the wife of Osorkon III, who apparently died in the 667 B.C. invasion, she would be the likely choice to succeed her husband.  It is known that she claimed royal status.  And she lived in Thebes.[22]

        Apart from Mantimanhe the search for Saite dynasty antecedents centered on Niku (Ni-ku-u), king of Memphis and Sais (Sa-a-a) in the Assyrian list of Egyptian kings.   Scholars claim that he was the father of Psamtik I.  To properly critique the argument we need to continue the story.

        Ashurbanipal  returned to Niniveh with considerable plunder after his 667 B.C. battle.   Almost immediately several kings planned a renewed rebellion, in connection with which they sent messages seeking the assistance of  Tarqu, now in exile and called merely the "king of Nubia".   The plot was discovered.

(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)

        When we examine the reign of Psamtik I later in this revision we will find no reference to the Assyrians.  There will be a complete disparity between circumstances in Psamtik's early life and those which prevail in the time of Ashurbanipal.   Herodotus knows nothing of any connection between Psamtik and Niku or between Psamtik and the Assyrians.   The Assyrians say nothing about Psamtik.

         Though not all scholars assume that Nabushezibanni is Psamtik I, the claim is typically made that his Assyrian name was given him by his Assyrian overlords.   It is supposed that Esarhaddon gave Assyrian names to several of his Egyptian governor/kings.  But Cylinder E says concerning Esarhaddon only that "the former names of the cities he changed, giving them new denominations." (ANET 296)   There is nothing said in the annals about changing the names of individuals.  If several of the king names are Assyrian it should follow that those kings are Assyrian, not Egyptian.   If Niku's son has an Assyrian name it must have been given him by Niku.  Was Niku therefore an Assyrian?  The Assyrian annals record elsewhere (BM text K) that Niku, Sharuludarri, and Pakruru were the instigators of the 666 B.C. attempted coup.   Sharuludarri is an Assyrian name.   Perhaps Pakruru is as well.  These three kings were given important kingships in the Egyptian delta.   Following the unsuccessful coup attempt the three were afforded special treatment.   The culpable  22nd dynasty kings were brutally murdered.  Niku, Sharuludarri and Pakruru were taken to Nineveh, where two of the three were later executed.  Only Niku was spared.  But why were the Egyptian inhabitants of the rebellious cities ruled by these three rebels treated mercilessly while the rebel kings were at least temporarily spared.   That is certainly not typical Assyrian practice.  Foreign kings are the first to be impaled and hung up outside their city walls as examples.

        It is likely that Niku was an Assyrian.  Nabushezibanni was his Assyrian son.  His favored treatment was probably due to his nationality.  Perhaps he was related to Ashurbanipal.

Assumed Loss of Egypt

       If the Assyrian nationality of Niku is disputed, nothing is lost.   He cannot be the father of Psamtik because there is no place for Psamtik and the Saite dynasty in the Assyrian annals.  Those annals clearly indicate that Assyria did not lose Egypt to Psamtik or to anyone else within several decades of the 666 B.C. attempted coup, much less within a few years.  The drafts of the annals which we have been reading were not written till at least twenty years, and closer to thirty years  later.  They contain no mention that Egypt has been lost in the interim.  And in view of the prominent position of Egypt in the annals elsewhere it is inconceivable that the loss of that country would not have been described in great detail.    The absence of evidence to the contrary leaves the distinct impression that throughout those thirty years political life in Egypt remained much as Esarhaddon left it.

        Flinders Petrie, examining the political landscape in the time of Ashurbanipal, comments:

The country was divided among twenty petty rulers, who had been established by Esarhaddon; these so closely parallel the chiefs subject to Piankhy I, that it seems the country had continued to be divided in the same way throughout the couple of generations of the Ethiopian rule. (HE III 298)

        This lengthy domination of Egypt by Assyria will find further confirmation as we continue.

        We need to pause briefly to answer an objection which the critic must by now be voicing.   We have stated rather emphatically that the Assyrian annals do not record the loss of Egypt to Psamtik I.   If so, then how is it that the history books say otherwise?    Gardiner, whom we have quoted frequently, is a case in point.   In his section concerned with Saite dynasty origins he refers to Assyrian annals wherein "the circumstance which enabled Psammetichus to free himself from the Assyrian domination is recounted in an altogether trustworthy manner." (EP 353)   What is the nature of this trustworthy reference?

Tushamilki King of Musru

       The first campaign of Ashurbanipal took place in 667 B.C.  The attempted coup and its suppression occurred in all probabiliy the next year, 666 B.C.  The reinstallation of Niku on the throne of Sais can be dated to 665 B.C.  Later that same year or early the next  there was another attempt to usurp Assyrian control of the country, this time by a successor of Tarqu named Urdamanie.  This prompted a second campaign by Ashurbanipal.  The substance of this second campaign will be examined later in this chapter.

        The same Rassam cylinder annals which described these first two campaigns also describes a third, possibly dated two or three years later than the second, certainly no earlier than 662 B.C.    This expedition was directed against Tyre and Arvad and other territories northward along the eastern Mediterranean coast.  At the same time that Ashurbanipal was reasserting control of these Phoenician territories, Gyges the king of Lydia in western Anatolia was being overwhelmed by Cimmerian hordes from the north.  Gyges sought help from Ashurbanipal and with Assyrian assistance repulsed the invaders.

Guggu (Gyges), king of Lydia, a district of the other side of the sea, a distant place, whose name, the kings, my fathers, had not heard.  Assur, the god, my creator, caused to see my name in a dream.  "Lay hold of the feet of Assurbanipal, king of Assyria and conquer thy foes by calling upon his name."  On the day that he beheld this vision, he dispatched his messenger to bring greetings to me.  (An account of) this vision, which he beheld, he sent to me by the hand of his messenger, and made it known to me.  From the day that he laid hold of my royal feet, he overcame, by the help of Assur and Ishtar, the gods, my lords, the Cimmerians, who had been harassing the people of his land, who had not feared my father, nor had laid hold even of my royal feet.  From among the chieftains of the Cimmerians, whom he had conquered, he shackled two chieftons with shackles, fetters of iron, manacles of iron, and sent them to me, together with his rich gifts. (LAR II:784)

His (Gyges') messenger, whom he kept sending to me to bring me greetings, he (suddenly) discontinued, because he did not heed the word of Assur, the god who created me, but trusted in his own strength, and hardened his heart.  He sent his forces to the aid of Tushamilki, king of Musur, who had thrown off the yoke of my sovereignty.  I heard of it and prayed to Assur and Ishtar, saying: "May his body be cast before his enemy, may (his foes) carry off his limbs."  The Cimmerians, whom he had trodden underfoot, by calling upon my name, invaded and overpowered the whole of his land.  His (Gyges') son seated himself upon his throne, after him (i.e., his death).  He sent me, by the hand of his messenger, (an account) of the evil which the gods, my helpers, visited ujpon him (in answer) to my prayers, and he laid hold of my royal feet, saying: " Thou art the king whom the god has favored (lit. looked upon).  Thou didst curse my father and evil was visited upon him.  I am (thy) slave, who fears thee, be gracious unto me and I will bear (lit. draw) thy yoke."  (LAR II:785)

        Egyptologists without exception interpret Musur in this Lydian narrative as a reference to Egypt.   This is, after all, the name by which Egypt is typically known elsewhere in these same annals.[23]  But Musur (Musru or Musri) is not the only country by that name in the eastern Semitic world.

        Twice elsewhere Musur appears as an Assyrian place name in the annals of Tiglath Pilezar (744-727 B.C.).  Both instances refer to the  installation of Idi-bi'li as a Warden of Marches on the border of Musur.  It is clear from the context that this country was located somewhere near Que in south-eastern Asia Minor, precisely where we anticipate it should be located based on an unbiased reading of the Gyges incident.

I installed Idi-bi'li as a Warden of Marches on the border of Musur. In all the countries which ... [I received ] the tribute of Kushtashpi of commagene (Kummuhu), Urik of Qu'e, Sibitti'be'l of Byblos, ... Enil of Hamath, Panammu of Samk'al, Tarhulara of Gumgum, Sulumal of Militene, ... (ANET 282) [24]

        Opponheim appends a footnote to his translation of the relevant text:

Here, the name Musru refers probably to a country in southern Asia Minor (cf. Winckler, Arabisches Musri in MVAG, xi [1906], 102-116, and E.F. Weidner [apud H. Bauer] in AfO, viii [1932-3], 4, n.3, as well as recently in AfO, xiv (1941), 45, for three, or even more, countries bearing this name).  The basic meaning of Musru is always "march" (from Masdru "to mark, draw a line"), i.e. "border country."  (ANET 279 n.9)

        The matter is further complicated by the inclusion of the name of the king of Musru.   Tushamilki is not an Egyptian name - it is east Semitic, almost certainly Phoenician.[26]    Already on his third campaign Ashurbanipal had encountered Abimilki and Ahimilki, sons of Iakinlu, king of Arvad.   Ba'al-maluku was yet another brother.  On his first campaign Ashurbanipal had dealings with Ahumilki, king of Ashdod and Milkiashapa, king of Byblos.  Earlier still his father Esarhaddon had encoutered another Ahimilki, king of Ashdod and an Abdimilkutte, king of Sidon.  There can be no mistaking these personal names, all compounded with nominal forms of mlk , the semitic word for "king" (cf. Heb. melek).

        From the outset a suggestion was made to read the Assyrian personal name as Pishamilki, rather than Tushamilki, this for a rather obvious reason.  Pishamilki at least bears some visual resemblance to the Greek form of Psamtik's name - Psammetichus.     The reading, however, could not be defended, and has subsequently been abandoned, though periodically we see the name resurrected or appearing in brackets beside Tushamilki, as if its inclusion solves the problem.  No explanation is forthcoming how Psamtik acquired a Phoenician name.

        A final related problem remains unexplained.   The third campaign of Ashurbanipal began during or subsequent to the year 662 B.C.  The invasion of the Cimmerians and the sending of troops to assist Tushamilki in preventing an Assryian conquest of his country cannot possibly be dated before 661 B.C.   But according to the traditional history Psamtik drove the Assyrians from Egypt in 664 B.C.   The sending of Lydian troops to help Tushamilki "who had thrown off the yoke of my (Ashurbanipal's) sovereignty" assumes only a brief time between the assumption of independance by Musru and the Assyrian response.    Assyrian kings did not wait years to retake rebellious countries; they responded within months.     The year 661 B.C., the earliest possible date for the Tushamilki/Ashurbanipal conflict, was the 4th year of Psamtik I in the traditional history.  When we examine that same 4th year later in this revision, as described in a demotic papyrus, we will see that this assumed military conflict between Ashurbanipal and Egyptian and Lydian forces is an illusion.

        When Gardiner claims that "the circumstance which enabled Psammetichus to free himself from the Assyrian domination is recounted in an altogether trustworthy manner" he is straining credibility.  Tushamilki king of Musru can under no circumstance be identified as Psamik king of Egypt.   Were it not for unfounded claims such as Gardiner's we might have avoided even mentioning  the Lydian incident.

        Having dispensed with Ashurbanipal's third campaign, we return momentarily to examine his second.