1. The fact that Takeloth is termed a "son of Ramses" must be taken literally, a belief we have expressed with regard to the usage of this phrase elsewhere. But since he is the son of Osorkon III on his paternal side, the reference must be to his descent from a Ramesside king on his maternal side. This would explain why it is his mother Tentsai, not his father, who is mentioned in the inscription.

2. Most Egyptologists identify the name with Hermopolis, further south in central Egypt, but this identification is based entirely on the fact that a king Nimlot ruled in that city during the Tefnakht rebellion in the time of Piankhi, fifty years later in the revised history.

3. It is not necessary that Osorcho be linked to Tanis, the traditional home of the 21^st dynasty kings, though it may be that the Assyrian Sa-a-a is in fact a reference to Zoan (Tanis) not Sais as scholars typically render the term. Having said that, we must admit that the city Sa-a'a-nu ruled by Putubishti, is a more likely candidate.

4. As we argued earlier for Piankhi, we again suggest that the nickname Necho likely derives from the Horus name of the king. The Egyptian Nakht Ka meaning "stong bull" was a favorite of most kings in this era, and even though written (and likely pronounced by Egyptians) in reverse order (Ka Nakht) we see no reason why the Assyrians might not inverted the order of these elements to conform to Assyrian grammatical usage. The Horus name of Sekhemkheperre Osorkon is otherwise unknown, but since all 22^nd dynasty kings whose Horus names are known chose Ka Nakht as an element thereof, we can safely assume Osorkon did likewise.

5. G. Legrain, "Textes graves sur le quai de Karnak", ZAS 34 (1896) 111-121

6. Much of this entire argument would also support an identification of the Osorkon on the quay inscription with Osorkon III, to whom we have assigned dates almost identical to those of Sekhemkheperre. But Osorkon III is connected more with the south of Egypt where Siamon ruled as high priest/king in support of the Assyrians. He is very clearly associated with the 23rd dynasty and by marriage to the 25th dynasty kings. Sekhemkheperre Osorchon/Osorcho is very much connected to the north and the 21st dynasty.

7. This distinction ought to have been made regardless of the arguments cited if only to explain why a king Siamon residing in Tanis would have been so involved in the mass (re-)burials in the Deir el Bahri tombs hundreds of miles to the south in Thebes. We leave unspecified and as a subject for further research his likely residence.

8. It needs to be pointed out that Sheshonk V periodically spelled his prenomen Aakheperure instead of Aakheperre. This has caused some confusion in the monuments. As pointed out by Petrie a century ago in his History of Egypt "many objects of Amenhotep II have been misattributed to this reign, as the cartouches are almost the same". (HE III 259) For the revised history this confusion has added significance. We have assumed the existence of a second king Aakheperure Amenhotep in this same time frame, one of the several instances of 18th dynasty namesakes that characterize this time frame. The fact that Sheshonk V used this same prenomen makes us wonder on the one hand, whether this king lived past the dates assigned him in our listing and changed his nomen to Amenhotep, or minimally, that the second Aakheperure Amenhotep was his son.

9. Haremakhet must have been a son of Shabaka's old age, since that king died around 580 B.C.. We believe he lived in exile in Napata with Taharka and likely moved to Egypt during or immediately following Tanuatamon's invasion in 544/3 B.C.

10. Egyptologists have reckoned that the average life-span of pre-Ptolemaic Apis bulls is around 16/17 years (cf. TIP 126), but we are here dealing with bulls that lived in the midst of twenty years of political and terrestrial upheaval. We do not mean to imply by the dates given that each bull lived 13 years. The probability is that several of these bulls died prematurely resulting from the turbulent conditions which surrounded them. This would lessen the average life span considerably.

11. Cf. Kitchen TIP 152 n.6 for bibiliography.

12. Ludwig Borchardt, Quellen und Forschungen zur Zeitbestimmung der Agyptischen Geschichte (1935) 96-112.

13. The notion that a slab precisely the depth of only the top row in the inscription was originally present and that it extended precariously to the left but has subsequently broken off is, frankly speaking, absurd. The left side of the block is clearly preserved to its original extent on the first row. To my knowledge there exists no other monuments among the tens of thousands of extant monuments in Egypt that is constructed with the odd dimensions suggested by this remark. To his credit Kitchen later states his preference for the alternative suggestion, i.e. the haplography.

14. We can see why Kitchen is insistent on a lengthy reign for Osorkon II. He has to fit the six generations which follow Shedsunefertem in the Louvre genealogy between the reigns of Sheshonk I and the end of the reign of Osorkon II. The reader should keep that fact in mind should Egyptologists question the 15 years we have assigned to each generation of Memphite priests, claiming it to be too low. Kitchen's scenario assumes a figure much less than ours.