Osorkons, Sheshonks &
Takeloths
A Revised 22nd/23rd Dynasty Chronology
According
to the traditional history, for two hundred years from c.a. 950 B.C. to c.a.
750 B.C.
In the middle of this time frame, during the latter
part of the reign of Osorkon II, the 22nd dynasty lost control of
With Osorkon II we
are at the upper end of a line of kings stretching continuously down to Amasis
at the end of the 26th dynasty. In this
time period there are only a few significant questions concerning reign lengths
- see the discussion below - and equally few problems related to the placement
of minor kings. The sequence of kings
outlined below is otherwise generally accepted.
Table 6: Dynasties 22 & 23 Kings:
Traditional History
|
DYNASTY 22 |
DYNASTY 23 |
|
Osorkon II 861-833 B.C. |
Takeloth II 836-811 B.C. |
|
Sheshonk III 833-781 B.C. |
Pedubast I 826-800 B.C. |
|
Pamay 781-775 B.C. |
Iuput I 812-? B.C. |
|
Sheshonk V 775-738 B.C. |
Osorkon III 794-766 B.C. |
|
Pedubast II 738-730 B.C. |
Takeloth III 771-764 B.C. |
|
Osorkon IV 730-715 B.C. |
Rudamon 764-745 B.C. |
If
our proposed alteration of Egyptian chronology is sound, it follows that the dates
for the kings in Table 6 must be reduced. How large a reduction is the only
question. It need not be the same 121 years applied to the Saite kings, since
reign lengths prior to Taharka and the Saite dynasty are not so well
established as within the Saite period.
But 121 years cannot be far wrong and is applied tentatively. The result
is shown in Table 7 below.
Table 7:
Dynasties 22 & 23 Kings: Revised History
|
DYNASTY 22 |
DYNASTY 23 |
|
Osorkon II 740-712 B.C. |
Takeloth II 715-690 B.C. |
|
Sheshonq III 712-660 B.C. |
Pedubast I 705-679 B.C. |
|
Pamay 660-654 B.C. |
Iuput I 691-? B.C. |
|
Sheshonq V 654-617 B.C. |
Osorkon III 673-645 B.C. |
|
Pedubast II 617-609 B.C. |
Takeloth III 650-643 B.C. |
|
Osorkon IV 609-594 B.C. |
Rudamon 643-624 B.C. |
We are not quite
finished. There are two pharaohs in Table 7 whose dates are hotly contested,
namely, Sheshonq III of the 22nd dynasty and Osorkon III of the 23rd. Two widely
disparate possibilities exist for the reign lengths of the two kings. Scholars
are divided on the issue. Aston follows K.A. Kitchen in assigning 52 years to
Sheshonk III and 28 years to Osorkon III. Other Egyptologists credit Sheshonk
III with only 39 years and Osorkon III with only 6 years. The lower figures are
the highest attested dates on the monuments of these kings and are probably
correct. Incorporating these lower reign lengths into Table 7 results in the
alternative revised history shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Dynasties 22 & 23 Kings:
Alternative Revised History
|
DYNASTY 22 |
DYNASTY 23 |
|
Osorkon II 740-712 B.C. |
Takeloth II 715-690 B.C. |
|
Sheshonq III 712-673 B.C. |
Pedubast I 705-679 B.C. |
|
??? |
Iuput I 691-? B.C. |
|
Pamay 660-654 B.C. |
Osorkon III 673-667 B.C. |
|
Sheshonq V 654-617 B.C. |
Takeloth III 672-665 B.C. |
|
Pedubast II 617-609 B.C. |
Rudamon 665-646 B.C. |
|
Osorkon IV 609-594 B.C. |
|
The 13-year reduction
in the reign-length of Sheshonk III leaves a gap of that duration in the
chronology.[4]
For the time being we leave the space unfilled.[5]
The chronology in Table 8 will require no further major
adjustments. It agrees within a year with the dates provided by Karl
Jansen-Winkeln[6]
in a recent study, this of course after this scholar’s absolute dates are
systematically lowered. We are confident
that this is the true historical position of these kings, though that fact
remains to be proved. Little time will be spent establishing Osorkon II in the
time frame 740-712 B.C. Others have already effectively argued the case for a
late 8th century date for this king. Our focus will be on Takeloth II and his
successors in the 23rd dynasty. We do begin, however, with Osorkon II. Every
argument that links this king to the latter half of the 8th century B.C.,
rather than the middle years of the 9th century, is an argument in support of
the current revision.
Shalmanezer attacks
In the 12th
year of Ahaz, king of
Many
monographs have been written speculating on the identity of the pharaoh
"So" on whom Hoshea relied in vain. K.A. Kitchen argues for
(O)so(rkon) IV, based largely on the traditional chronology that makes this
pharaoh a contemporary of Hoshea (see Table 1). If our revision is correct
(O)so(rokon) II is a better candidate. There is at least some evidence that
Osorkon II had diplomatic links with
A Commemorative Vase
From
the 1908-1910 Harvard excavations at
But
the revisionist historian Immanuel Velikovsky argued in 1979 that the
identification with the time of Ahab is incorrect. He pointed out that the jar
with Osorkon's inscriptions was found near, but not in, Ahab's palace. And
furthermore, it happened that
beneath
the layer of Osorkon’s jar were discovered written documents that shattered its
significance as chronological evidence: Ostraca, or inscribed potsherds, were
found near the palace. They were first thought to date from Ahab’s reign, but
upon re-examination they were attributed to Jeroboam II’s reign. Now, according
to the excavators, the foundations of the Ostraca House (containing the
inscribed sherds) “must have been destroyed previous to the construction of the
Osorkon House” (so called because of the jar found in its ruins). It follows
that the potsherds were of an earlier date than the Osorkon jar, or the time of
its deposition; and that, if anything, the jar can prove only that Osorkon
lived after Jeroboam II, not in the days of Ahab. Nevertheless we read again
and again that the jar with the seal impression of Osorkon II proves that Ahab
and Osorkon were contemporaries.[9]
Jeroboam
II reigned forty-one years in
Almuñécar Vases
Osorkon
II formed alliances not only with Hoshea in
One
very important site is the early Phoenician cemetery at Cerro de
Excavations
at other Phoenician sites in southern
Cintas
is correct when he argues that the inscriptions are the manufacture of the
pharaohs whose cartouche names they bear. Other explanations are strained. But
there is no need to postulate a lengthy pre-interment usage. Osorkon II and his
near contemporaries Takeloth II and Sheshonk III are occupants of the late 8th
and early 7th centuries, the dates assigned to the necropolis by the
excavators.
Centuries of Darkness
Many
similar finds favouring a lowering of 22nd dynasty dates, including those of
Osorkon II, are presented by a group of
Inscriptional
evidence from
At
These
inscribed objects, individually problematic for the traditional history, are
collectively an embarrassment. And they
are but small parts of a broader argument.
In hundreds of pages of closely reasoned text the authors of Centuries
of Darkness apply results from many scientific disciplines, including
archaeology, to argue their case that the dark ages which exist in many Near
Eastern and Balkan countries, including
There
is but a single criticism to be levelled at the
A
chronological firewall had been reached.
By
the time of the 26th Dynasty (664-525 BC) we are well within the era of solidly
dated history, where large-scale adjustments can be ruled out by a wealth of
interlocking evidence from Greek, biblical, Assyrian and Babylonian sources, as
well as Egyptian. (CD 220)
We are
advised by the Centuries of Darkness authors that "The starting
point for a revised chronology must be the later 25th Dynasty, whose last kings
can be fixed exactly in time by links with the 26th Dynasty and the Assyrian
kings."[16]
Taharka's "certain dates" are not merely the bane of
Egyptologists. They are the Achilles heel alike of traditionalists and
reformers, a barrier to progress.
It is
time for the barrier to fall.
Osorkon
II ruled from 740 B.C. through 712 B.C. In the final three years of his life he
shared power with Takeloth II who had assumed control over
Figure 12:
Timeline – End of 8th Century (Revised History)

Sennacherib Attacks
With
the demise of the Hoshea’s northern kingdom,
had
become afraid and had called (for help) upon the kings of
The
siege of
That
night the angel of Yahweh went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five
thousand men in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning -
there were all the dead bodies. So Sennacherib king of
The
date of the siege of
Who
was king Tirhakah, the king of
In the
traditional history the date 701 B.C. is a decade in advance of the “certain”
dates of Taharka (690-664 B.C.), the Ethiopian (Cushite) king of Egypt who
opposed Assurbanipal and whose death immediately preceded the Saite
dynasty. In spite of the lack of
correspondence in date the assumption is made, and never questioned, that the
Jewish historians are referring to this 25th dynasty king. They have no option. With the dynasties displaced no other
candidate is on the scene.
But the chronological difficulty with this identification has not gone
unnoticed. The Tirhakah who moved to assist Hezekiah in 701 B.C. was called
“king of
Two
distinct resolutions of the problem emerged.
Most historians, following the lead of Egyptologists, assumed that prince
Taharka was acting in 701 B.C. as a commander of the armies of his brother
Shabataka. The reference to him as
“king” was either anachronistic or, as Kitchen explains it, proleptic.[18]
An
alternative solution, proposed and defended by biblical scholars, assumed that
the battle referred to actually occurred later in the careers of Hezekiah and
Sennacherib, when Taharka was in fact the king.
The historian John Bright takes a dozen pages of his History of
Israel (2nd) to analyze what he terms this “difficult problem.” Bright sides with those who argue for two
campaigns, one in 701 B.C. which ended in the “miraculous” slaughter of the
Assyrian army, and one in 686 B.C. in which Tirhakah participates.[19]
The
arguments and counter arguments serve only to emphasis the difficulty inherent
in the proposed identification.
The
debate about Tirhakah king of
There
is a better candidate on hand in the restored chronology. Takeloth II was a contemporary of Sennacherib
and Hezekiah. He ruled over
The
22nd dynasty kings were not native Egyptians. Their personal names Osorkon,
Takeloth, and Sheshonk are of unknown provenance and meaning.[21]
They are simply spelled out using consonantal hieroglyphs. Vowel sounds are not represented. Thus the personal name of Takeloth is written
t-k-l-t, or t-k-r-t. The variant third consonant is the Egyptian
“mouth” hieroglyph. It has the value of
an “r” in Egyptian, but serves to represent an “l” where this sound occurs in
foreign names (Egyptian has no “l”). Without corroborative evidence from
foreign texts, there is no rationale for choosing between the spellings
Takeloth and Takeroth. Early
Egyptologists use both.
So
Takeloth becomes Takeroth merely by giving the hieroglyph its usual value. But even the order of the consonants is not
certain. While Egyptian texts are
usually - though not always - read in a fixed order following a traditional
sequence pattern, not so foreign names. When Assurbanipal entered
Finally,
we are reminded that foreigners often abbreviated the names of pharaohs. If it
can be argued that pharaoh So is (O)so(rokon), then we should not be surprised
if the "t" ending in t-r-k-t was not sounded. It may never have been vocalized within
Combining
all of the arguments noted above we conclude that the name traditionally
written Takeloth was actually T(e)r(e)k or T(e)r(e)ka,
this with hypothetical vowels included. The Hebrew consonants thrkh support
this conjecture. Tirhakah is but one of many possible renderings of the Hebrew
name. The Hebrew consonantal text preserves his name as t-r-h-k-h. Vowels and inflection points were added by
Jewish linguists (Massoretes) in the 16th century of the present era, roughly
two thousand years after the event. Theirs was only a guess as to the original
pronunciation. If we take the two h’s as vowel indicators then the Hebrew text
could be repointed as T(e)r(eh)k(ah). In this case both the Hebrew and Egyptian
vocalizations are identical.
Based
on these considerations we argue that Tirhakah, king of
Concerning these turbulent times more can be said.