20^th Dynasty Chronology

        The 20^th dynasty of Egypt ended ignominiously. It's terminal king Ramses XI was exiled to the southern oases by the Assyrians in 671 B.C. following Esarhaddon's conquest of the country, and he likely died in exile in 661 B.C., his 27^th year. Assuming for the time being that Egyptologists are correct regarding the reign lengths of his predecessors, we can date the beginning of the dynasty to the middle of the 8^th century. The following table, based on the relative chronology provided in Alan Gardiner's Egypt of the Pharaohs, should provide a basis for further discussion. Some fine tuning will be inevitable.
 
 

        We accept these relative dates with extreme caution. Those familiar with scholarly discussion related to this dynasty understand that phantom kings were early introduced into this succession of kings and that the present consensus opinion is fraught with controversy. The extant summary of Manetho provides no listing of these 20^th dynasty kings, stating only that the dynasty consisted of 12 Diospolites who reigned a total of either 135 years (Africanus) or 178 years (Eusebius). All of these figures contrast with the current schema which includes only 10 kings with a combined reign length of less than one hundred years. One possible explanation for the discrepancy between Manetho and the accepted list of kings might be found in the claim, proposed in our previous book, that the Egyptians banished from Egypt in 671 B.C. continued to live in exile in the oases until released by Menkheperre Piankhi in his first regnal year (637 B.C.), following his expulsion of the Assyrians from Egypt. There is no reason to assume that the 20 dynasty ended with the death of Ramses XI. Several of his sons may well have ruled in exile for those additional 24 years, and it is even possible, if not probable, that Piankhi allowed the dynastic succession to continue briefly into his reign, albeit marginalized. We should not be surprised if evidence is one day forthcoming proving the existence of at least two other kings ruling in succession to Ramses XI.
 

21^st Dynasty Chronology

        The 21^st Egyptian dynasty ended with the death of the king Psusennes whose tomb at Tanis was excavated by Montet in 1939. We have previously argued that this king, who must be identified with Manetho's Psusennes II, ruled from 656-642 B.C. (following Africanus) or alternatively, from 656-621 B.C. (following Eusebius). Assuming the accuracy of Manetho, who lists all seven kings assigned to this dynasty together with their reign lengths, we can work backward to provide a tentative revised chronology for the entire dynasty.
 
 

        Only two aspects of this genealogy warrant discussion at this time. In the first place we draw attention to our identification of the first two kings of this dynasty, Smendes and Psusennes I. In the second place we note that whereas in our earlier book we avoided comment on the identity of Osochor, here we suggest the possibility that he is the king Sekhemkheperre Osorkon, a king typically identified by Egyptologists as Osorkon I of the 22^nd dynasty. It is necessary to defend all of these identifications here, if only to assist our discussion later in this chapter. We begin with Osochor.
 

        Sekhemkheperre Osorkon:   If the king bearing this name is to be identified as Manetho's 21^st dynasty king Osochor then his reign must have begun slightly earlier than the year 671 B.C. credited to him in our table 2 listing. The reader may recall from Nebuchadnezzar & the Egyptian Exile the discussion concerning an inscribed alabaster vase found in the palace of Esarhaddon at Assur. The vase dates sometime between the years 677-672 B.C. and is inscribed by the "prophet of Arsaphes mistress of the two lands, governor of the fortress of Pisekhemkheperre, the royal son of Ramses, general, commander in chief, Takelot, son of Tensai" ⁽¹⁾ Egyptologists are adamant that this fortress, expressly stated to belong to the "estate of Sekhemkheperre" [Pi'-Sekhemkheperre], was built two centuries before the time of Esarhaddon, in the days of Osorkon I, approximately 925-890 B.C. in the traditional history. It is claimed that the name associating the fortress with the king persisted through the following centuries. We think otherwise. The inscription, read normally, implies that Takeloth III is the governor of a fortress belonging to a living king. Sekhemkheperre is not ancient history at the time of writing, he is alive and well! That theory is further supported in the revised history by at least two other inscriptions, which name two other troop commanders in this same garrison. Both, according to the revised history, belong to the fourth decade of the 7^th century.

        A donation stela recording a private donation to a temple of the god Arsaphes, bearing a year date 16, refers to a certain Nimlot, high priest of Arsaphes in Heracleopolis and "great chief of Pi-Sekhemkheperre, general and army-leader,". This Nimlot is identified by the Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen as his Nimlot C, and he is said to be a son of king Osorkon II.[TIP 275] As such he is positioned in the 9^th century by the traditional history. But the inscriptions which name Osorkon as Nimlot's father do not include the king's prenomen. He could therefore be any of the four kings bearing the nomen Osorkon. In the first book of our series we identified this Nimlot as the king who ruled in Himuni under Ashurbanipal during the Assyrian occupation of Egypt in 667 B.C., as mentioned in the Assyrian annals. Since the location of Himuni is otherwise unknown, we may safely identify the name with Heracleopolis. ⁽²⁾ [It is otherwise curious that there would be two different Nimlots, one ruling in Himuni (Assyrian annals) and one ruling in Heracleopolis (donation stela) in the same general time frame (this according to the revised history).] We have further suggested that this Nimlot was a son of Osorkon III (as was the Takeloth of the vase inscription), not of Osorkon II as Kitchen suggests, though chronologically the latter cannot be ruled out. In either case he is the likely successor of prince Takeloth as army leader in the [fortress of] Pi-Sekhemkheperre, following Takeloth's elevation to kingship around the year 671 B.C.. The year date 16 is problematic. We wonder if the inscription should be read as "year 6", not "year 16" (of Osorkon III) or if the "year 16" belongs instead to "the second" Hedjkeheperre Sheshonk, to whom we tentatively assign the dates 681-660 B.C. (see below). In either case the change would date the inscription, and thus the military command of Nimlot, around the year 666 B.C., precisely when the Assyrian annals record his "rule" in Himuni.

        Kitchen also discusses a second army leader stationed in the fortress belonging to Sekhemkheperre, this time supposedly during the tenure of Pedubast I (705-679 B.C. in the revised history). He notes that a "crudely carved donation-stela of Year 6 of Pedubast [Year 13, Shoshenk III] was dedicated at Memphis by Ewelhon A, [Great Chief(?) of Pi-]Sekhemkheperre, Commander of Tuhir-troops, Army-leader, and Prophet of Amun Lord of Per-Khenu." [TIP 300] The cross reference to the year 13 of Sheshonk III (712-673 B.C. in the revised history) is supplied by Kitchen on the assumption that the Pedubast here is Pedubast I This would date the inscription, and thus the kingship of Sekhemkheperre as early as the year 700 B.C.. This date would appear to preclude our identification of Sekhemkheperre Osorkon with the Osochor of dynasty 21. But there is no reason to assume that the Pedubast in this inscription is the Pedubast I of the traditional and revised histories. We have previously noted the existence of a king Putubishti, king of Sa-'a-nu in the annals of Ashurbanipal in 667 B.C. The correspondence of name was, at the time, left without comment. But it is clear that this Putubishti cannot be equated with his 23^rd dynasty namesake who died twelve years earlier. Assuming that he was elevated to kingship by Esarhaddon in 671 B.C., the sixth year inscription should be dated to the year 666 B.C.. We note that this Ewelhon (A) was not a general, but rather a "commander of Tuhir troops". He may well have held office at the same time as Nimlot (C), who would have been his superior. Their donation stelae may both date to the identical year 666 B.C.

        It is at least intriguing that the vase inscription of Takeloth III, and the two donation stelae of Nimlot (C) and Ewelhon (A), all three dignitaries who claim to serve the "estate" of a certain Sekhemkheperre Osorkon, are all linked to names of "kings"[Tarqu, Nimlot, & Pedubast] who ruled during the first six years of the Assyrian domination of Egypt (671-665 B.C.), precisely where we have placed the rule of king Osochor of the 21^st dynasty. If we have correctly surmised that these army commanders all served (or were allied with) a living king named Sekhemkheperre Osorkon, there should be no question that he is the 21^st dynasty king named by Manetho. But if so, then why do we search in vain for a king named Osorkon in the annals of Ashurbanipal for the year 667 B.C.? Or are we looking for the wrong name?

        King Sekhemkheperre Osorkon of the 21^st dynasty must have been a powerful king to have his name affixed to a garrison commanded at one time by no less a personage than the infamous Tarqu (Takeloth), the leader of the Egyptian rebellion against the Assyrians. If he was alive and well during the first six years of the Assyrian occupation his name should be prominently mentioned in the Assyrian annals. There is only one possible candidate - "Niku king of Memphis and Sa-a-a (Sais?)". ⁽³⁾ In fact, had we been consistent in our discussions in Piankhi the Chameleon concerning the immediate ancestry of king Psusennes II, we might have reasoned a priori that Necho and Osorcho were one and the same person. A word of explanation is deemed appropriate.

        In our earlier book we identified Psinaches, the predecessor of king Psusennes II in Manetho's list of 21^st dynasty kings, with a high priest and king Nesubanebdjed, whose rule must have spanned the years 665-656 B.C. We conjectured therefore that this Nesubanebdjed should likely be identified with the king Nabushezibani, son of Necho in the Assyrian annals. At the time it was suggested that Psinaches/Nesubanebdjed must have been an intrusive element in the line of 21^st dynasty kings. No attempt was made to equate Necho, the father of Nabushezibani with Osorcho the predecessor of Psinaches, though we did suggest that Necho was possibly an epithet of some Egyptian king. But the suggestion that Necho and Osorcho are variant names of the same king is a more plausible explanation of the sequence of events described in the Assyrian annals, and follows naturally from our earlier argument. ⁽⁴⁾  If Psinaches is Nabushezibani/Nesubanebdjed, then Osorcho must be Necho, assuming a father-son connection in Manetho's line of kings.. While these identifications are not essential to the argument of our series, they are more than mere conjecture. And our confidence is not based exclusively on the chronological synchronism we have just argued between Sekhemkheperre Osorkon and Osorcho. Several other considerations support the Necho = Sekhemkheperre identification of which we speak. For the record we mention them briefly
 

        Nesubanebdjed, son of Osorkon: We should more confidently support the stated identifications if we could prove the existence of a priest/king Nesubanebdjed (Psinaches), son of king Sekhemkheperre (Osochor). And our confidence would increase even more could we prove that these dignitaries lived and exercised their offices during the early years of the Assyrian domination, i.e. in the time frame referred to in many Egyptian documents as the whm mswt. We are not disappointed. From the time of the early 22^nd dynasty onward various important dignitaries added their names to the Nile high water marks on the stone walls of the Karnak quay in Thebes, often accompanied by some genealogical reference.. Almost inevitably the inscriptions were dated to a specific year of a ruling king. Three such inscriptions were made by a high priest Nesubanebdjed son of a king Osorkon. In the traditional history this high priest is referred to as Smendes III. These Quay inscriptions constitute the only unambiguous reference to this high priest in all of the literature of Egypt. They deserve a closer look.

        It is important to note that Egyptologists are generally agreed that the Nesubanebdjed of the Quay inscriptions was the son of Sekhemkheperre Osorkon, having ruled out, on other grounds, the other three Osorkons. It matters little that they identify Sekhemkheperre as Osorkon I, the second king of the dynasty. What is important for us is the confirmed existence of a Nesubanebdjed son of Osorkon, which at least brings into the realm of possibility the identification we are seeking to prove. There remains only the task of demonstrating that the high priest Nesubanebdjed here mentioned did live during the Assyrian period.

        The relevant inscriptions are those numbered #17 - 19 in the numeration provided by Legrain at the end of the 19^th century. ⁽⁵⁾ The last of these is undated, but nos. 17 and 18 are dated to years 8 and 13 (or 14) respectively.. Curiously, the name of the ruling king is omitted, as it is also in inscriptions #16, 20 and 21 which are attributed to a high priest Iwelot, also son of a king Osorkon, who, on various grounds, is also identified as Sekhemkheperre Osorkon. The fact that one of them bears a year 5 date suggests to Egyptologists that Iwelot preceded Nesubanebdjed in the high priestly office. It is unfortunate that those same scholars have failed to understand the significance of the deliberate omission of any king's name in the six inscriptions, though the omission is duly noted. According to Kitchen, "From the entire series of forty-five Nile level epigraphs spanning almost three centuries, it is remarkable and surely significant that these and these alone fail to name the king to whose years they are dated" (TIP 270) He goes on to suggest that the dates must belong to Takeloth I (the successor of Osorkon I) whose reign was supposedly so insignificant that he did not deserve mention. We know otherwise.

        There were three ways in which Egyptian documents, particularly those composed in Upper Egypt, referred to events which took place in the early years of the Assyrian domination. Some referred to the reigning king Ramses XI by name even though he lived in exile, others referenced the years expressly to the whm mswt, and still other, as is the case with the six quay inscriptions cited, simply omitted any king name. Accordingly we believe that these inscriptions must be dated in the years of the Assyrian occupation of Egypt. Collectively they imply that Iwelot, son of Sekhemkheperre was high priest in year 5 (667 B.C.) and Nesubanebdjed in years 8 and 13 (664 and 659 B.C.), consistent with our argument that Nesubanebdjed "ruled" from 665-656 B.C.. Iwelot was likely killed in the Assyrian purge of 665 B.C. after which Nesubanebdjed/Nabushezibanni was installed in office. ⁽⁶⁾

        We leave the matter there and go on to defend our identification of the first two kings of the dynasty.
 

        Smendes and Psusennes I : The bulk of our comment is reserved for Smendes. Sufficient to say regarding Psusennes I that the suggested identification should come as no surprise to the reader. If Psusennes II has been mistaken in the traditional history for Psusennes I, we would guess, a priori, that Psusennes I has been wrongly identified as Psusennes II. To our knowledge there is not a single inscription that precludes our placing the king Ttetkheperre Psebkhanu before Aakheperre in the dynastic succession.

        Our identification of Smendes, the founder of the dynasty, as the king Neterkheperre Siamon requires more explanation, particularly since it contradicts certain statements we made in the final chapter of our last book. In that book we argued that two kings, Amenemopet and Siamon, typically identified with names included in Manetho's listing of 21^st dynasty kings, do not belong to the 21^st dynasty. We continue in that belief. But we mistakenly identified the king Siamon, the contemporary of Pinudjem II and Pinudjem III in the revised history, with the king known as Neterkheperre Siamon in the monuments. This king was the (re-)builder of the temple which stood in the center of the complex of buildings and tombs excavated by Montet at Tanis. In the traditional history he is identified as Psinaches of Manetho's list, while Smendes, the first king of the dynasty, is identified with Nesubanebdjed, father of Aakheperre Psebkhanu (Psusennes I in the traditional history; Psusennes II in the revised history). Since we have altered the identification of Psinaches (now = Nesubanebdjed) it follows that we must alter the identification of Smendes.

        There are essentially three reasons for believing that Smendes and Neterkheperre Siamon are one and the same person. The first and most obvious is that they bear essentially the same name. The consonantal equivalence of Siamon and Smendes is apparent to even the most casual observer. Manetho's Greek version of the name merely supplies the nominative ending and a glide element "d".

        Additionally we believe, with the traditional history, that the temple built by Neterkheperre precedes in time the burial of Aakeheperre (our Psusennes II), leaving no other choice but to identify Neterkheperre with Smendes.

        A third reason will be forthcoming when we analyze the Berlin genealogy in the pages to follow. Sufficient to note here that we will have cause to identify Smendes and a high priest of Ptah named Pipi as contemporaries. And a high priest by this name is known to be a contemporary of Neterkheperre Siamon.

        Before we abandon this discussion of the equivalence of Smendes and Siamon we should state explicitly what is implicit in the previous discussion, namely, that two kings by the name of Siamon must now be distinguished in the monuments. The Siamon mentioned frequently on the funerary dockets and bandages of the Deir el Bahri mummies cannot be the same as the Neterkheperre Siamon who resided in Tanis and who founded the 21^st dynasty. ⁽⁷⁾ They are separated temporally by over 100 years in our revised history. It is the second of these namesakes (the el Bahri Siamon) who immediately preceded the arrival of Nebuchadnezzar in Egypt and whose crude crypt was found in the Siwa oases (as discussed by Immanuel Velikovsky in his Peoples of the Sea).

        On the assumption that the reign lengths assigned to the 21^st dynasty kings (following Manetho) are relatively correct, a fact soon to be confirmed by comparison with the Berlin Generalogy, it is not without interest that the 21^st dynasty began in the middle of the 8^th century, as did the 20^th. Even at this juncture in our discussion we can be forgiven for thinking that something significant must have happened around 760 B.C. to give rise to these competing dynasties, a suggestion underscored, as we shall soon see, by the fact that the 22^nd dynasty also began around this same time
 

22^nd Dynasty Chronology

        According to Manetho, as preserved by Africanus, the 22^nd dynasty consisted of "nine kings of Bubastis". The Roman scholar identifies the first and second kings as Sesonchis (21 years) and Osorthon (15 years) respectively, followed by three unnamed others who ruled a combined 25 years, then a Takelothis (13 years) and finally three additional anonymous kings who ruled a combined 42 years. His total of 120 years for the dynasty is only slightly higher than the combined individual figures he provides. Eusebius lists only three kings - Sesonchosis, Osorthon and Takelothis - and provides no reign lengths.

        Scholars, based primarily on evidence from the monuments, but following for the early kings of the dynasty the genealogy provided by a priest Harpason (or Pasenhor), have conjectured the relative chronology listed in Table 3. We have added to five of these kings the absolute dates assigned to them in Nebuchadnezzar & the Egyptian Exile. The suggested reign lengths for the first three kings of the dynasty are reproduced from Alan Gardiner's Egypt of the Pharaohs, whose listing of kings is followed throughout.
 
 

        We note that the king identified by Gardiner as Sheshonq IV we have consistently referred to as Sheshonk V, following a majority of Egyptologists. This numbering also agrees with the fact that in discussions subsequent to the publishing of book one we inserted another king Sheshonk, with prenomen Hedjkheperre, following Sheshonk III. We hesitate to identify this king as Sheshonk IV, a number reserved by many Egyptologists for yet another king Sheshonk who supposedly ruled around this same time, but we can at least position this king where he belongs in the list. Whereas we formerly assigned to Hedjkheperre only 13 years to fill the gap between Sheshonq III and Pemay, we now extend his rule to 21 years in the belief that all of the inscriptions which Egyptologists have assigned to Hedjkheperre Sheshonk I actually belong to this king. We assume that his reign overlapped that of Sheshonk III. As emended the dynastic succession should read as in the table below. The dates for the first three kings of the dynasty have also been altered from those listed in Table 3. Explanation will be provided later.
 
 

The Pasenhor Genealogy

        We have already mentioned several times the so-called Pasenhor genealogy, contained on a Serapeum stela erected in the 37th year of king Sheshonk V, 618 B.C. in the revised chronology.  This important document has served as the backbone of the chronology of the 22nd dynasty since its discovery by Mariette late in the 19th century. On this stela the dedicant, a young man named Pasenhor (earlier read as Horpasen), traces his ancestry back 16 generations, this according to all scholars save the influential British Egyptologist Flinders Petrie. We will not repeat our rationale, given as part of an answer to a question related to book one of this series, for accepting Petrie's interpretation of the genealogy. Sufficient here to state his conclusions as summarized in his History of Egypt III (1905) (repeating claims he had made in an earlier article in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 26 (p. 284)). The results of Petrie's analysis are summed up in the chart shown below, though the spellings of the names follows Kenneth Kitchen in his Third Intermediate Period (TIP). We have added approximate dates for the birth of each of the individuals in all generations of this genealogy, allowing 20 years for each and working backward from the time of Pasenhor, who we assume was born around the year 640 B.C. These dates should be considered only as approximations, though we note that the birth of Osorkon I around 760 B.C. agrees reasonably with the regnal dates assigned this king in our revised history (740-712 B.C.), assuming that he took office at age 20.
 
 

                        Buyu-wawa
                                 |
b. 820 B.C.      Mawasen                 Sheshonk I = Karamat
                                 |                                         |
b. 800 B.C.     Neb-neshi                             Osorkon I = Tashedkhons
                                |                                                     |
b. 780 B.C.     Pa-ihut(y)                                         Takeloth I = Kapes
                                |                                                                |
b. 760 B.C.     Shoshenq = Mehtenweskhet                     Osorkon II = Mut-udj-ankhes (Djed-Mut-es-ankh)
                                      |                                                                    |
b. 740 B.C.            N I M L O T                  =                         T E N T S E P E H
                                                                      |
b. 720 B.C.             Ptah-udj-ankhef (Djedptahefankh) = Tentsepeh
                                                                                     |
b. 700 B.C.                                                         Hem-Ptah = Tjankemit
                                                                                             |
b. 680 B.C.                                                                     Pasenhor = Petpet-didies
                                                                                                        |
b. 660 B.C.                                                                             Hem-Ptah = Iret-irou
                                                                                                                 |
b. 640 B.C.                                                                     Memphite priest, Pasenhor, year 37
                                                                                                of Shoshenq V (618 B.C.)
 

        Two things need to be noted here concerning the Pasenhor genealogy as interpreted in Figure 1 shown above. In the first place we note that Petrie's interpretation reduces the number of generations preceding the dedicant Pasenhor from 16 to 10, because it assumes that the genealogy provides the ancestry for both Nimlot and Tentsepeh, beginning in the the fifth generation preceding Pasenhor. Nimlot's predecessors are specifically identified as of Libyan descent. Tentsepeh's predecessors are referred to as kings, with names enclosed in a cartouche. The names are considered to be Libyan in origin, and are universally acknowledged to represent the first four kings of the 22^nd Egyptian dynasty.

        Secondly we note that the central part of this genealogy, that which pertains to Nimlot and Tentsepeh, the central figures in Pasenhor's listing, has been verified from the monuments. These same monuments collectively demonstrate that Nimlot and Tentsepeh were also the parents of our king Hedjkheperre Sheshonk, whose reign we have placed in the years 681-660 B.C.. What is known about Nimlot A, whose tenure in office began during the reign of Osorkon II, and of the king Hedjkheperre Sheshonk, who functioned as a high priest before his kingship began around 680 B.C., is consistent with the dates of birth 740 B.C. and 720 B.C. suggested for these dignitaries in Figures 1 and 2, further confirming the accuracy of our revised chronology.
 

b. 760 B.C.             Shoshenq A = Mehtenweskhet A             Osorkon II = Mut-udj-ankhes (Djed-Mut-es-ank
                                                    |                                                             |
b. 740 B.C.                             Nimlot A              =                           Tentsepeh A
                                                                            |
                                                --------------------------------------
                                                |                                                         |
b. 720 B.C.             Hedjkheperre Sheshonk             Ptah-udj-ankhef (Djedptahefankh) = Tentsepeh
 

        There remains for us to determine the identity and probable dates for the first three kings of the 22^nd dynasty, after which we are prepared to assign dates to the 19^th dynasty kings.
 

Sheshonk I - Osorkon I - Takeloth I

        We have commented previously on the fact that the first three kings of this dynasty are very poorly attested on the monuments. It should come as no surprise therefore that we have altered the traditional identification of these kings, and have assigned them reign lengths radically lower than those ascribed to them in the traditional history. There remains for us to defend our reinterpretation of the early years of this dynasty.

        Takeloth I : It is very clear from the monumental evidence that the king entitled Takeloth I should be assigned very few if any independent years in office. According to Kenneth Kitchen, "so far, only one clear, unequivocal mention of Takeloth I (as distinct from II, Hedjkheperre, and III, Usimare) has been isolated; that in the famed genealogy on the Pasenhor stela. No other unambiguous evidence of his existence has so far been found". (TIP 95) We should add to Kitchen's remarks that no king Takeloth, married to a queen Kapes (as in the Pasenhor stela), is known from the monuments. The very existence of this king would be in question were it not for the Pasenhor genealogy. Accordingly we have assumed that he ruled jointly with his father Osorkon I, and probably for only a brief period of time.

        Osorkon I : We see no reason not to accept the 15 years assigned to Osorkon I by Manetho. We have previously explained that the 36 years credited to him by the traditional history resulted from a misinterpretation of the monuments. As noted by Kitchen "Sekhemkheperre Osorkon I, Year 36 was for long thought to be the highest-attested, but this is now known to be a misreading for '[Year x, y month of Pere]t, Day 26', leaving at first sight only the Manethonic datum of 15 years." (TIP 89) Kitchen's reasons for maintaining the 36 years for this king in spite of this misreading are not convincing, particularly since we disagree with his belief that Osorkon I is the king with prenomen Sekhemkheperre (see above). But if Sekhemkheperre is not Osorkon I, as we have previously argued, then who is he?

        There is only one other king Osorkon of any consequence in the monuments, and he bears the prenomen Aakheperre. In the traditional history the inscriptions bearing this name have all been assigned to the king Osorkon who ruled in the delta during the time of the Tefnackt rebellion. He is typically numbered as Osorkon IV. Until now we have had no cause to disagree with that identification. Thus in all previous instances where this king has been mentioned the prenomen Aakheperre was assumed to be correct, though the identification was in fact immaterial. We now argue otherwise, assigning the few extant monuments bearing this prenomen to Osorkon I and leaving unidentified the Osorkon mentioned on Piankhi's great stela. We leave as an exercise for the interested reader to demonstrate that all of the relevant inscriptions of Aakheperre fit the 8^th century context in which we have placed him.

        Sheshonk I : The traditional history identifies this king as the first of two Sheshonk's bearing the prenomen Hedjkheppere. He is further identified as the author of the famous Bubastite wall inscription, which supposedly depicts his conquest of Jerusalem in the days of Rehoboam, king of Judah, an action described in the Hebrew Bible in 1 Kings 14:25, 26. Since this Hedjkheperre is also mentioned in an inscription dated to his 21^st year, the same number as the reign length of Manetho's Sheshonk I, the traditional history confidently assigns 21 years to this king. But we claim that all of the inscriptions bearing the name Hedjkheperre Sheshonk belong to the king who ruled immediately prior to and during the Assyrian occupation of Egypt. We have positioned the 21 years of this king in the time frame 681-660 B.C. And we believe that this was the only king Sheshonk bearing this prenomen. But if so, which king deserves the title of founder of the 22^nd dynasty, and how long did he reign within Egypt?

        When Montet excavated the Tanite tomb of Psusennes (II) he found in the vestible the silver coffin & mummified remains of a king Hekakheperre Sheshonk, not known to Egyptologists outside of that soletary find. We suggest that this king was the founder of the 22^nd dynasty in Egypt and that the Psusennes tomb originally belonged to him. We are not the first to suggest this identification, nor the fact that Psusennes usurped and enlarged this king's tomb to house the remains of his extended family. But if Hekakheperre was indeed Sheshonk I then he cannot have ruled 21 years in Egypt, else we should reasonably expect to find evidence of his existence. We believe instead that this king ruled outside of Egypt for much of his tenure in office, that he was a tribal chieftain who participated in the Libyan invasions of Egypt which, as we will soon see, characterized the two middle decades of the 8^th century B.C. Accordingly we assign him only a few years as king within Egypt. If Manetho is privy to reliable information regarding his kingship, then the 21 year total must combine his tenure as both chieftain and king.

        If we assume the accuracy of the dates we assigned to the Pasenhor Genealogy, then we must accept the fact that Sheshonk was an elderly man when he first entered Egypt. Born around 820 B.C. he would be around 62 years old when he began his Egyptian reign in 758 B.C., well within the realm of possibility.

        Having fixed in place the 20^th, 21^st, and 22^nd dynasties, albeit tentatively, we are now positioned to assign provisional dates to the 19^th dynasty kings, particularly to Ramses II and Merenptah.
 

19^th Dynasty Chronology

        In the traditional history the 19^th dynasty ended in a period of civil unrest in which four or five of the immediate descendants of Ramses II vied for power. There is even conjectured a brief interregnum based on a soletary historical reference in the so-called Harris Papyrus. The end of the 19^th dynasty is also associated with at least one major physical catastrophe which contributed to the demise of the famed Anatolian Hittite Empire as well as the Canaanite civilization which flourished in the city state of Ugarit. These were troublesome times, from which emerged the 20^th dynasty under its patriarch Setnakht, the father of Ramses III.

        This is not the time to examine the nature of these social and terrestrial catastrophes. Needless to say that, according to our reconstruction of history, they all must be dated to the middle years of the 8^th century B.C., and that there emerged from the ashes not one, but three Egyptian dynasties, numbered 20 through 22 in Manetho's numeration schema. Our interest in this chapter lies strictly in the chronology of the times.

        The traditional history, as represented by Alan Gardiner in his Egypt of the Pharaohs, assigns to Ramses II and his son and successor Merenptah the years 1290-1224 B.C. and 1224-1214 B.C. respectively, while Setnakht is dated in the years 1184-1182 B.C. In the thirty years which lie between Merenptah and Setnakht (1214-1184 B.C.) is placed the internecine feuding among those vying to succeed Merenptah, i.e. Sethos II, Amenmesse, Siptah and Twosre, as well as the machinations of the "king maker" Bay. Since Twosre is assigned the years 1202-1194 B.C. by Gardiner, there is clearly assumed an interregnum of ten years before the advent of Setnakht. All of these dates, however, are pure conjecture. Most of the (few) monuments of this period are undated and there is no clear evidence that these kings ruled in succession to one another. In fact, the evidence suggests otherwise.

        We propose instead that the interval between Merenptah and Setnakht was much shorter than that suggested by Gardiner, possible as little as five years. Merenptah's activity, as we will soon see, was confined to the north of Egypt. The strivings of Sethos II and the other named antagonists, all successors of Ramses II, are restricted to the vicinity of Thebes. We believe they overlapped to a large extent the rule of Merenptah in the delta. And we cannot fathom any reason for assuming an interregnum longer than a few years. Accordingly we reduce the interval between the 10^th year of Merenptah and the 1^st year of Setnakht from thirty years to five. And since we date the first year of Setnakht to the year 759 B.C., not the 1184 B.C. of the traditional history, we must reduce the dates of Ramses II and Merenptah to 840-774 B.C. and 774-764 B.C. respectively, a 450 year reduction from the traditional dates. Needless to say, if we are correct, the famed warrior king Ramses II cannot be the pharaoh of the Exodus, as is typically claimed, no matter how much scholars strive to lower the dates for that event. He may well have been a contemporary of Jeroboam II of Israel, but of Moses he certainly knew nothing.

        The balance of this book will be devoted to proving either the relative or the absolute chronologies herein proposed, i.e. that the rule of Ramses II ended only a short time before the beginning of the 21^st and 22^nd dynasties and/or that he ruled roughly in the time frame 840-774 B.C. The evidence will at times take us far afield.