Osorkons, Sheshonks & Takeloths

Osorkon II & Takeloth II

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. Egypt was ruled, at least in Lower Egypt, by a series of 22nd dynasty kings bearing the names Sheshonk, Osorkon, and Takeloth. According to the Egyptologist K.A. Kitchen there were seven Osorkons, five Sheshonks, and three Takeloths. It is a confusing period.

In the middle of this time frame, during the latter part of the reign of Osorkon II, the 22nd dynasty lost control of Upper Egypt to the rival 23rd dynasty. For the next one hundred years the two dynasties ruled simultaneously in the north and south respectively. The dates for Osorkon II and the usurper Takeloth II have been reviewed recently by D.A. Aston[1], who provides a range of dates for Osorkon II (874-835/30 B.C.) and for Takeloth II (c. 838/33-812/07 B.C.). He identifies Osorkon II with the 22nd dynasty and Takeloth II with the 23rd.[2] Aston's median dates for the two kings and for their immediate successors are incorporated intact into Table 6.[3]

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 Samaria 722 B.C.

In the 12th year of Ahaz, king of Judah, Hoshea became king of Israel in Samaria and he reigned nine years (731-722 B.C.) Early in his reign Hoshea made a bid for freedom. Withholding tribute from Assyria, he "sent envoys to So, king of Egypt." (2 Kings 17:4) The diplomatic mission failed to gain the needed assistance, and the Assyrian king Shalmanezer V (727-722 B.C.) laid seige to Samaria. Three years later, in the 9th year of Hoshea, Samaria fell, its population was deported to Assyria, and the northern kingdom of Israel effectively ended. The palace of Hoshea, built in the time of Omri and Ahab, was destroyed.

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 Samaria. Not so with Osorkon IV.

A Commemorative Vase

From the 1908-1910 Harvard excavations at Samaria, from the palaces of Omri (876-869 B.C.) and Ahab (869-850 B.C.), there surfaced "the remains of a large alabaster vase bearing traces of the cartouches of Osorkon II".[7] The excavators identify the vase as "part of the gifts of an Egyptian embassy to the court of Ahab and Jezebel."[8] Thus interpreted the vase became a lynchpin in the traditional chronology. Since Ahab ruled from 869-850 B.C., and since, on the sole basis of this vase Osorkon II was his contemporary, then Osorkon II must date to the mid 9th century.

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 Israel. His dates are 786-746 B.C. The Osorkon jar was found in the excavation layer above Jeroboam’s. It must be dated in the final quarter of the 8th century.

Almuñécar Vases

Osorkon II formed alliances not only with Hoshea in Israel, but also with the Phoenicians in the coastal towns of the eastern Mediterranean. He claimed to have ruled over "Upper and Lower Retenu".[10] An inscribed statue of Osorkon II was discovered in Byblos. Unfortunately it lacks a clearly dateable context. But elsewhere several inscribed alabaster jars attest Osorkon's commercial, if not his political associations with the Phoenicians. And these argue strongly for a late 8th century date. They derive from a Phoenician necropolis in southern Spain. Donald Harden, the excavator of Carthage, comments:

One very important site is the early Phoenician cemetery at Cerro de San Cristobal, Almunecar, the ancient Sexi, some 70 km. East of Malaga, excavated by Pellicer Catalan. This yielded, inter alia, a series of alabaster jars, two with genuine Egyptian cartouches of Osorkon II (870-47) and Takelothis II (847-23) and two others with imitation cartouches of Osorkon II and Sheshonq III (847)... Despite the presence, however, of these apparently ninth-century vessels, the cemetery is not thought to be earlier than the late eighth and early seventh centuries B.C., since two early proto-corinthian kotylai of the first quarter of the seventh century were found in tomb.[11]

Excavations at other Phoenician sites in southern Spain confirm the date of colonization of this area. Harden makes no further comment on the Almunecar find, though clearly some explanation is in order. Jean Leclant dates the cemetery in the early part of the seventh century.[12] Pierre Centes, another noted authority, agrees.[13] Then how do they explain the vases? Both scholars suggest that some of the tombs may be slightly earlier than the excavators suggest. Leclant conjectures additionally that some of the vases may have been local imitations while others spent some time in an eastern Phoenician context before being transmitted to Almunecar, where they were eventually entombed with their owners. Centes disagrees with Leclant, arguing that the cartouches cannot be anything other than the manufacture of the pharaohs they depict. But with Leclant he agrees that the ninth century vases had already known a lengthy usage at the time of their entombment. What else could be argued? If the tombs are at earliest mid-eighth century while the vases are at latest mid-ninth century, then the vases must be later imitations or have been preserved in some unknown context for over a century before being entombed with their present owners. How likely is this scenario? Let the reader judge.

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 Cambridge scholars in the recently published Centuries of Darkness (1991). These include "a relief chalice fragment at Beuseirah in Edom" dated 200 years earlier than its context and "a scarab of Osorkon I or II found in a tomb at Salamis, Cyprus, the other contents of which were dated by Karagiorghis to around 700 B.C."[14] It is claimed by the excavators in both cases that these are "heirlooms."

Inscriptional evidence from Carthage is particularly abundant.

At Carthage a number of Libyan period scarabs were found in tombs, along with pottery from the earliest days of the city. The scarabs carry the names of Pedubast I (eight tombs), Pimay son of Shoshenq III (one tomb) and Osorkon III (one tomb). Cintas attempted to use these finds to date the tombs to the early 8th century BC, supplying the evidence needed to take the history of Carthage back to its traditional foundation date of 814 BC. Unfortunately for Cintas, the Greek and Phoenician pottery also excavated from the lowest levels shows that they can be no earlier than about 720 BC, which would leave the scarabs, now rarely mentioned, as another collection of ostensible 'heirlooms'. (CD 253)

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 Greece, are a fiction. They result from a faulty Egyptian chronology to which the histories of these countries are linked. That faulty chronology includes dynasties 18 through 22. Dates for all these dynasties, not just the 22nd, need to be lowered by at least a century. Every detail in this extremely important anthology is indirectly an argument supportive of the present revision.

There is but a single criticism to be levelled at the Cambridge scholars. They ended their reconstruction with the 22nd dynasty at the end of the 8th century. This was a mistake. It created a chronological bottleneck at the terminal point in their revised chronology. According to Peter James, the spokesman for the group, "it is too early to offer a complete revised scheme, with every king slotted neatly into place." The reason for the caution is understandable. By correctly identifying the true position of the 22nd/23rd dynasty complex of pharaohs, the authors had already overlapped the traditional territory of the 25th dynasty. The 22nd dynasty was moved; the 25th dynasty was left in place. In the opinion of the authors: "Whilst there is still some doubt, the date of the Kushite invasion of Egypt by Shabaqo is most likely to fall within the parameters established by Kitchen and Redford, i.e. 716-711 BC." Unable to determine exactly how to fit the 22nd/23rd dynasties in the same space occupied by the 25th dynasty they wisely stopped. "Without giving precise dates for each pharaoh", they had established "broad lines of a new construction".[15]

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 Upper Egypt. Takeloth II, according to our revised dates, ruled from 715-690 B.C. We have already noted the Almunecar vase inscriptions that provide some confirmation of these dates. Is there other evidence that Takeloth II lived and ruled in Egypt at this time?

Figure 12: Timeline – End of 8^th Century (Revised History)

Sennacherib Attacks Jerusalem 701 B.C.

With the demise of the Hoshea’s northern kingdom, Judah continued as the sole surviving Jewish state. Ahaz died and was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (715-686 B.C.). In Assyria as well power changed hands - first, from Shalmanezer to Sargon (722-705 B.C.), and then to his son Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.). A quarter century after the envoys of Hoshea sought the assistance of pharaoh So, king Hezekiah challenged the authority of Sennacherib. The Assyrian king reacted, laying seige to Jerusalem. This time Egyptian support was forthcoming. In the midst of the seige “Sennacherib received a report that Tirhakah, the Cushite king of Egypt, was marching out to fight against him”. (2 Kings 19:9) The threat was not taken seriously by the Assyrian monarch, who sent messengers to Hezekiah with the word: "Say to Hezekiah, king of Judah: Do not let the god you depend on deceive you when he says, ‘Jerusalem will not be handed over to the king of Assyria'". (2 Kings 19:10) Apparently the advancing Egyptian army did not intimidate Sennacherib. The Hebrew Bible omits any mention of the ensuing battle but the annals of Sennacherib record the event. In those annals, which document the 3rd campaign of Sennacherib, in the midst of a description of the assault on Jerusalem, it is noted that Hezekiah.

had become afraid and had called (for help) upon the kings of Egypt (Mus(u)ri) (and) the bowmen, the chariot(-corps) and the cavalry of the king of Ethiopia (Meluhha), an army beyond counting - and they (actually) had come to their assistance. In the plain of Eltekeh (Al-ta-qu-u), their battle lines were drawn up against me and they sharpened their weapons. Upon a trust (-inspiring) oracle (given) by Ashur, my lord, I fought with them and inflicted a defeat upon them. In the melee of the battle, I personally captured alive the Egyptian charioteers with the(ir) princes and (also) the charioteers of the king of Ethiopia.[17]

The siege of Jerusalem resumed. There is no further mention of Egypt by the Jewish historians. Instead we are informed regarding some intervening “miraculous” deliverance of Hezekiah’s city. It came at night. How long after the battle of Eltekeh we can only guess.

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 Assyria broke camp and withdrew. He returned to Nineveh and remained there. (1 Kings 19:35,36)

The date of the siege of Jerusalem, of the advance of Egyptian forces under king Tirhakah, and of the “miraculous” deliverance of Jerusalem, was 701 B.C.

Who was king Tirhakah, the king of Cush who, along with other Egyptian kings, provided military assistance to Hezekiah? Unlike the question regarding the identity of king So, historians were able to answer this one unequivocally. A perfect candidate was at hand. Or nearly so.

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 Cush”. Taharka did not become king until 690 B.C.

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 Cush is unnecessary. The similarity of names notwithstanding, Taharka was neither prince nor king of Cush in 701 B.C. He was born in the early 6th century B.C. He could not have come to the assistance of Hezekiah in the last year of the 8th century B.C.

There is a better candidate on hand in the restored chronology. Takeloth II was a contemporary of Sennacherib and Hezekiah. He ruled over Upper Egypt. He is arguably a king of Cush.[20] And his name is right.

Takeloth = Takeroth = Tarkoth

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 Egypt two decades after Sennacherib's attack on Hezekiah he encountered a king Limintu. Egyptologists have no qualms about equating Limintu with a minor king Nimlot (n-m-l-t) though this implies a complete inversion of the order in which the hieroglyphs are typically read. Other instances can be cited of similar inversions especially at the time of the 22nd/23rd dynasties. The only certain way of knowing whether the consonants are to represent the sequence t-k-r-t or t-r-k-t or even some third variant is to fortuitously encounter a reference to the Egyptian king in a foreign language text where the reading is certain. Hebrew is one such language. Assyrian is another. We assume therefore that the name read as tkrt may have been vocalized as trkt by the Egyptians.[22]

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 Egypt.[23]

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 Cush is none other than Takeloth II. The name is right. The time is right. Takeloth II was a Theban pharaoh, and in that sense referred to by the biblical author as a king of Cush.[24] When Sennacherib describes the battle at Eltekeh he refers to his opponents in the plural. He fought a combination of Egyptian kings and a king of Melukkha. It is possible that the Assyrian annalist is here preserving the same distinction we make between Lower and Upper Egypt, the former ruled by “kings of Egypt”, which must include Sheshonk III, the latter by Takeloth II, king of Cush (or Melukkha).[25] Concerning Takeloth II little is known, save that he was the founder of a rival dynasty and therefore arguably ambitious and militarily capable. His burial in a second-hand sarcophagus in a side chamber of the tomb of Osorkon II in Tanis, excavated by Montet in 1939, reflects the turbulent character of the times in which he lived.

Concerning these turbulent times more can be said.