1.  D.A. Aston, "Takeloth II - A King of the 'Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty'?," JEA 75 (1989) 139-153.

2.  The 23rd dynasty has traditionally been viewed as a single line of kings beginning with Pedubast I, this following Manetho.  Only recently has the argument been made that Takeloth II was a Theban pharaoh and that the 23rd dynasty begins with his reign.  Klaus Bauer distinguishes five independent branches to this 23rd dynasty, with centers at Thebes, Tanis, Leotopolis, Hermopolis, and Heracleopolis ("The Libyan and Nubian Kings of Egypt: Notes," JNES 32 (1973) 4-25).

3.   Osorkon II ruled independently for only 25 years.   Aston was convinced Osorkon's sole reign ended  c.a. 835 B.C.  but having lowered the dates for Osorkon's death by some 14 years, was reluctant to leave this lengthy gap in the Egyptian chronology at the upper end.  His solution was to leave the date for the beginning of Osorkon's reign unchanged, thus lengthening his reign by these 14 years.  There is absolutely no evidence for this extended reign of Osorkon II.   It was an unnecessary and unfortunate change on Astonk's part, which is corrected in Table 1.  The alteration affects only the date of the beginning of Osorkon's reign and therefore has no bearing on the current revision which is primarily concerned with the dates of Osorkon's successors.

4.  A gap of 26 years must be provided from the 28th year of Sheshonk III to the 2nd year of Pemay to accomodate the data on Serapeum stelae Louvre Nos.18 & 34; translation in BAR IV 771-74; 778-81.    Cf. Malinine, Posener, Vercoutter, Catalogue des Steles du Serapeum de Memphis I (1968) Nos. 21-5; pls. 8-9.

5.  Karl Jansen-Winkeln, "Historische Probleme Der 3. Zwischenzeit," JEA 81 (1995) 129-149.

6.  Kitchen, TIP 284 (p.324), Cf. G.A. Reisner, L.S. Fischer, D.G. Lyon, Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908-10, I, 132,243, 247, 334, fig. 205; II plate 54b, 56g; for inscription cf. H Gauthier, Livre des Rois, III, 340 n.3.

7.  Reisner, Fischer, Lyon, Harvard Excavations,  p. 247

8.  Immanuel Velikovsky, Ramses II & His Times (1979) p. 246-7.

9.  Donald Harden, The Phoenicians (1962)  reprint ed. 1971, p. 221 n. 62.

10.  Jean Leclant, Les relations entre l'Egypte et la Phenicie du voyage d'Ounamon a l'expedition d'Alexandre, in Wm. A Ward, ed., The Role of the Phoenicians in the Interaction of Mediterranean Civilizations (1968) p. 13.  Cf. also p. 25, n. 34.

11. Pierre Cintes,  Manuel d'Archeologie Punique vol. 1 (1970) p. 435-37.

12.  Peter James, in collaboration with I.J.Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot and John Fankish, Centuries of Darkness (1991) p. 251-2.   Cited henceforth as CD.

13.  John Bright, A History of Israel 2nd (1972) "Excursus I: The Problem of Sennacherib's Campaign in Palestine",
p. 296-308.

14.  We expect no quarrel from Egyptologists on this point.  The equation Tirhakah = Taharkha already assumes the phenomenon.  The Hebrew text has the consonants trhkh while the name of the 25th dynasty king Taharkha is written thrk. There is an assumed inversion in the order of the second and third consonants which is rarely discussed.   Kitchen refers to the anomaly as "metathesis", and appears to ascribe this metathesis to the Massoretes, the 16th century editors of the Hebrew consonantal text.  (TIP 421 n.136)  There is no point arguing, since the problem is moot.   Tirhakah is not Taharkha.  There remains the possibility, however, that the shortened form of the Ethiopian name was Teker and that metathesis has occurred on the part of the Jewish and Assyrian historians.  Metathesis is common in Semitic languages (cf. S. Moscati, An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages (1969) 63 (sect. 7))

15.  Cf. the discussion by M.F. Laming Macadam, The Temples of Kawa I (1949) p. 53, who argues that in Meroitic a locative postposition -te occurs on the name of the Nubian capital Napate which is absent in the Egyptian vocalization:  " ... the Greek form ta Napata restores the final syllable, which must have been absent form the Egyptian form of the word."   It may be that the final "t" in tkrt was not sounded in Egypt as early as the 22nd dynasty.

16.  Breasted is not convinced that the phenomenon referred to is an ecliple.  Elsewhere he states that "in the year 15 there occurrred a remarkable prodigy of uncertain nature, but in some way connected with the moon." (BAR IV 757)  In a footnote to his translation he equivocates:  "This is the famous passage supposed by Brugsch to record an eclipse of the moon.  This seems to me possible only on the basis of the rendering I have adopted, according to which the meaning may be: "just before new moon;" or possibly: "just before an eclipse of the moon." (BAR IV 764 n. d)

17.  C.W. Goodwin, "On an inscription of Takelut II," ZAS 6 (1868) p. 25-29.

18.  Cf. note 5.  We have assumed that the terminate dates for several of the kings listed may in fact extend beyond the dates suggested by Jansen-Winkeln, which in most cases are the last years attested in the monuments.  We make the assumption later that some of these, including Sheshonk IV and Harsiese B, the HPA,  became vassal kings under Esarhaddon and that their reigns extended well beyond the traditional dates.   The silence of the monuments is attributable to their status as vassals.

19.  M.F. Laming Macadam, The Temples of Kawa vol. 1 (1949) p. 124.

20.  Jean Leclant, op.cit (note 9 above)  p.13 (cf. p.25 n. 35)

21.  D.A. Aston and J.H. Taylor, "The Family of Takeloth III and the 'Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty'," in A. Leahy ed. Libya and Egypt c. 1300 - 750 B.C. (1989) 145-6.

22.  The identification is not critical.   If correct, scholars will recognize that we are here identifying Kitchen's Mutemhet A and B (TIP 48-49)  They will also note that the identification implies a 21st dynasty connection lurking in the background.  There are also implications for the institution of god's wife of Amon at Thebes.    The matter will be taken up in the third book of this revision.

23.  The annals frequently separate Egypt into Lower Egypt (Musur) and Upper Egypt, which appears to include the northern extremities of Ethiopia (Kusu).    Cush is therefore more a reference to Egypt than it is to Nubia.   Nubia proper is called Meluhha by the Assyrians.   These distinctions are not, however, consistently followed.   As Oppenheim notes in reference to one problematic text:  "This text uses the geographical terms Musru, Magan, Meluhha etc. rather loosely" (ANET 292 n.1)

24.  Cf. the footnote reference to P. Naster, L'Asie Mineure et l'Assyrie aux VIII'e et VIIe siecles av. J.-C. d'apres les annales des rois assyriene, (1938).

25.  We must assume the troops were sent by ship, even though a Lydian navy is no part of the text.   To assume they travelled 1500 miles by land through the Phoenician coast occupied by the Assyrian army makes even less sense that the already strained interpretation.

26.  Edward Hincks, "The Assyrian sacking of Thebes," ZAS 4 (1866) p. 1-3.

27.  Kitchen cites as references Daressy, RT 19 (1897) 20-21 and Gauthier, Les Livres des Rois III p. 392 5. I..

28.  Gauthier, op. cit. (G3,392.5.I), cf. note 26.  Gauthier does not in fact translate the text, by notes the errors (sic.) and thus implies the change.

29.  T.A. Caldwell, John N. Oswalt, John F.X. Sheehan, eds. An Akkadian Grammar: A Translation of Riemschneider's Lehrbuch des Akkadischen, (1974) p.10.

30.  These same family connections are reviewed by M.L. Bierbrier, The Late New Kingdom in Egypt (1975) whose remarks directed toward the activities of the family of DjedThutefankh B (Nakhtefmut A), which included Ankhpakharud, are pertinent:  "The family of the Fourth Prophet of Amun DjedThutefankh B demonstrated far more acumen and ability than the families previously discussed.  From a relatively obscure background the family managed by the technique of frequent marriages to royal princesses to win high office and then to hold it." (p. 85).

31.  The same conclusion would result if we were to assume that Rawlinson, who transcribed the text from the actual cylinder, misread the Asssyrian cuneiform sign.  The ideograms  for DUMU (son) and AD (father) are very similar.  The cylinder should be checked.

32.  A.H. Layard, Discoveries in the ruins of Nineveh and Babylon (1853), esp. ch. VI. p. 135-161.