Chapter 4 Invasion & Exile 570-543 B.C.

Rudamon to Shabataka

In 664 B.C. Ashurbanipal drove Rudamon, grandson of Osorkon III and nephew of Takeloth III, out of Thebes, presumably into Nubia. We assume he lived out his life in Nubia.[1]

In 570 B.C. Taharka, the terminal 25th dynasty king, began his reign after the death of his brother Shabataka. This date is calculated by reducing his traditional dates by 121 years. In his seventh year (564 B.C.) he was driven from Egypt into Nubia where he remained until his death in 543 B.C.

The occupants of Egypt during the 100 years between the expulsions of Rudamon and Taharka are not the particular concern of this book. The purpose of our discussion here is to prove the historicity of the Egyptian exile, not to rewrite 25th dynasty history. But since Shabaka and Piankhi have already entered the picture some discussion of the 25th (Cushite) dynasty is inevitable. More will be said in the second book of our series, which is concerned exclusively with the history of the 7th and early 6th centuries.

Before we discuss the 25th dynasty we repeat our claim, made several times already, that Assyria retained its suzerainty over Egypt until 637 B.C., the 1st year of Piankhi. This opinion, which must remain undefended for the time being, is more than a common sense deduction. In our second book we will examine an inscription in which Piankhi documents the event. Meanwhile we depend on circumstantial evidence. We have already argued the case that the Assyrian annals, written as late as 637 B.C., give no indication that Assyria has been expelled from Egypt. But by the time of Piankhi’s invasion in 617 B.C. Assyria is no longer in the picture. Egypt is an ally, not a vassal, of Assyria. It follows that the takeover of the country must have taken place between 637 and 617 B.C. The fact that the 1st year of Piankhi is dated in 637 B.C. suggests strongly that this is the date when Assyrian sovereignty in Egypt ended. If we accept our earlier argument concerning Shabaka’s possible involvement in Piankhi’s victory over Assyria, that date is further confirmed. The Rassam cylinder annalist, writing around the year 637 B.C., makes no mention of the loss of Egypt, but is well aware of the name of Shabaka. If the takeover of Egypt was a fait accompli it must have occurred only recently. There is a good possibility it was happening at the moment.

We assume therefore that the Assyrian domination of Egypt, following the expulsion of Rudamon, lasted 27 years. The 25th dynasty ruled for the balance of the 100 years, thus for 73 years (637-564 B.C.) Our focus in this book lies almost exclusively on the first six years of the reign of Taharka. We will do no more than itemize the salient points concerning the reigns of Piankhi, Shabaka, and Shabataka.

1) We begin by repeating, for the record, the revised dates for the 25th dynasty kings diagrammed earlier. These will change marginally as new information is added in the sequel to this book.

Table 9: Revised Dates for the 25th Dynasty Kings

Name	Traditional History	Revised History[2]
Piankhi		637-597 B.C.
Piankhi invasion	738 B.C.[3]	617 B.C.
Shabaka	721-706 B.C.	600-585 B.C.
Shabataka	706-690 B.C.	585-569 B.C.
Taharka (within Egypt)	690-664 B.C.	569-564 B.C.
Taharka (in Nubia)		564-543 B.C.

2) Egypt was throughout this period fragmented in much the same way as described in the Assyrian annals. Petrie's comment earlier[4] suggested as much. Piankhi expelled the Assyrians, but he left intact the system of administrator-kings.

3) Piankhi is known to have reigned at least 40 years. This would date his reign, minimally, in the years 637-597 B.C. That reign length will ultimately be increased, but this development must await the book that bears his name. Later in life Piankhi became less active, both politically and militarily. Increasingly the administrator-kings were summoned to assist in military actions. Their autonomy increased. Ultimately they acted independently of their Cushite overlord, and began to date their monuments accordingly.

4) The genealogy of Shabaka must remain an open question. But whether or not he was a son of Rudamon he must have been born in Nubia, perhaps shortly after the expulsion of Rudamon. The fact that he was ultimately buried in Napata suggests that this was his home. Perhaps he was summoned by Piankhi to assist in the expulsion of the Assyrians, bringing with him a contingent of the Nubian army

5) If Shabaka was the son of Rudamon and if he did assist Piankhi expel the Assyrians, multiple conclusions follow naturally. Following the 637 B.C. coup Shabaka must have remained in Egypt. He was probably installed as governor-king in Memphis by Piankhi, and as the most influential of the nomarchs (due to the prominence of Memphis and his family connection with Piankhi) became the de facto ruler of the north of Egypt. Thus Manetho credits him with founding a dynasty. But in fact, as a successor to Rudamon, along with other relatives of that king, he was merely perpetuating the 23rd dynasty.

6) In the traditional history Shabaka ruled only 15 years, or thereabouts. When we lowered his traditional dates, the revised dates fell at the beginning of the 6th century (see figure 17 and table 9). But if he did assist Piankhi in 637 B.C. and subsequently began to reign in Memphis, his dates must be extended back an additional 37 years. His reign length must have been an impressive 52 years. His dates – 637-585 B.C. – parallel those of Piankhi. We wonder at the relatively few monuments that bear his name. A partial explanation can be found in the fact that for much of his “reign” he was a nomarch and army commander, not a pharaoh. There are other factors involved.

7) The military activity and lengthy reign of Shabaka has some documentary support. Herodotus claims "Egypt was invaded by Sabacos king of Ethiopia and a great army of Ethiopians" following which "the Ethiopians ruled Egypt for fifty years."[5] The "fifty years" must preserve the memory of Shabaka's extensive involvement in Egyptian affairs. But according to our version of history he ruled in conjunction with and subservient to Piankhi, and in a country fragmented into multiple political units. In modern terminology we would refer to Pefdjuawybast, Iuput, and Shabaka as nomarchs, rulers of quasi-independent states (nomes) within an Egyptian confederacy, at least from 637 through 600 B.C. In the next book of our series, which deals exclusively with the time period in question, we will flesh out the political situation that existed. Needless to say many surprises will emerge from our research.

8) At some stage in the life of the aging Piankhi, Shabaka became independent of his relative. He must have begun erecting and dating monuments from this point in time. We can’t be far wrong in assuming this took place around 600 B.C. If Shabaka's emergence as pharaoh dates to this year, then the dates we have assigned to his independent reign (600-585 B.C.) must be reasonably accurate. They agree substantially with Manetho who credits him with 8 (Africanus) or 12 regnal years (Eusebius).

9) The fact that Shabaka's rule in Egypt lasted as late as 585 B.C. has independent corroboration. According to the monuments he had two throne names - Wahibre, and Neferibre.[6] In chapter one we quoted Jeremiah's prediction that the unnatural death or deposition of pharaoh Wahibre (Hophra) would be a sign to the Judaean exiles that Nebuchadrezzar would invade Egypt. Those comments were likely made soon after the 586 B.C. fall of Jerusalem and subsequent flight to Egypt of the refugees, very likely in 585 B.C. We assume that the prophecy received immediate authentication.[7]

10) Piankhi and Shabaka were clearly of the same generation. In the traditional history they are considered to be brothers, or possibly father and son. Both possibilities remains, but only if we set aside the genealogy that makes Shabaka the son of Rudamon. That, in turn, would affect some of the dates and much of the discussion above. The question must remain open. It will be raised again in Piankhi the Chameleon, but only after the genealogy of Piankhi is developed. Assuming instead that Piankhi and Shabaka are only distantly related, and that the term “25th dynasty” should be used only in reference to the sequence of kings Shabaka, Shabataka, Taharka, and their near relatives, then technically Piankhi is not a 25th dynasty king. For the time being, however, we will continue to include him with this dynasty in keeping with the practice of the current generation of scholars. However, this does raise an intriguing question. If Piankhi is not a 25th dynasty king, then to what dynasty did he belong? And why does Manetho not mention him?

11) The dates for Piankhi and Shabaka, and the presence of Shabaka's seals in the ruins of the Kouyunyik palace in Nineveh, suggest that both kings were involved in the wars with Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar as described in the Babylonian Chronicle. One of these kings must be identified as the pharaoh Necho who is responsible for the death of Josiah, king of Judah. In due time we will explain the origins of the name Necho.

12) Shabataka reigned immediately after Shabaka and prior to Taharka. We have assigned him the dates 585-570 B.C. This agrees favorably with Manetho who assigns him either 12 or 14 years, though his year three is the highest known from the monuments. Early in his reign Shabataka is known to have summoned his brother Taharka to assist him in warding off some unknown threat to Egypt. In 585 B.C. Nebuchadrezzar was at the doorstep of Egypt. An invasion was a distinct possibility. Instead Nebuchadrezzar invested Tyre. The siege was prolonged due to the inaccessibility of the city. The invasion of Egypt was delayed. By the time it came, Taharka had succeeded his brother.

13) Taharka's kingship lasted from 569-543 B.C., but only from 569-564 B.C. was he resident in Egypt. Late in his 6th year he was driven from the Nile delta into the desert by the army of Nebuchadrezzar. He found his way to Thebes. Early in his seventh year he fled from Thebes into Nubia. Even there he was not safe. He died in exile. Egypt, during the final two decades of Taharka's life, had no resident king and a sparse population. Babylonian garrisons policed the country. The balance of this chapter provides documentation supporting these claims.

Taharka the Conqueror

Two series of 20th century excavations significantly influenced the current conception of the Ethiopian 25th dynasty. The first were those at Napata and vicinity, conducted by the Harvard Exploration Society under Reisner in the early years of the 20th century.[8] From the town site itself and from the associated cemeteries at Barkal, Kurru and Nuri, came considerable inscriptional material. More significant for the present discussion were the excavations at Kawa, north of Napata, in 1930-31, conducted by F. Ll. Griffith on behalf of Oxford University.[9] This site provided a wealth of information related to Taharka, the primary builder at the site. Of particular interest are a series of inscriptions that reveal details of the first ten years of his reign. Since we are compelled to date Taharka’s reign in the years 569-543 B.C., and the Babylonian invasion around 564 B.C., in Taharka’s 6th year, these first ten years are of primary concern.

Our attention throughout this section is focused primarily on four stelae inscriptions from Kawa, numbered III-VI by MacAdam. They relate to the years 2-8 (III), 6 (IV), 6 (V), and 8-10 (VI) of Taharka. Though primarily concerned with the construction and furnishing of a temple at the site of Kawa, these stelae are highly informative on other relevant matters. In the next few sections of this chapter we examine the inscriptions for evidence 1) that Taharka was militarily active in those regions of the Near East where he might antagonize Nebuchadnezzar and invite retaliation; 2) that Taharka's 6th year witnessed an unusually high Nile during which “no foot of man or beast” could move within Egypt, and 3) that Taharka lost possession of Egypt and temporarily of Kawa itself shortly after this high Nile.

Figure 22: Map of Cush/Melukkha (7th Century B.C.)

Taharka's Empire

One stela from Kawa tells us that a youthful Taharka, at the time resident in Nubia, was summoned to Egypt by his brother Shabataka. En route he passed by the site of Kawa (ancient Gempaten) (IV:7-9), accompanied by “the army of His Majesty” (IV:10). In the traditional history this incident has only one reasonable explanation. Auxiliary forces are being summoned by Shabataka to assist Hezekiah and relieve Jerusalem, at the time under siege by Sennacherib. The year would be 701 B.C. Since Taharka did not become king until 690 B.C., the assumption is made that he acted as General of the Army for at least these 11 years.

In the revised history Taharka is also bringing auxiliary forces to assist the Egyptian army at the request of Shabataka. But the threat is from Nebuchadrezzar. We don’t know the precise year, though it must lie in the interval 585-569 B.C. We do know that Taharka was twenty years old when he left Nubia (V:17). It follows that his military career under the authority of his brother might have lasted a few years or over a decade. Some indeterminate time after Taharka's arrival in Lower Egypt, Shabataka died and Taharka assumed the throne. In his own words:

I came from Nubia in the company of the King’s brothers, whom His Majesty had summoned, that I might be there with him, since he loved me more than all his brethren and all his children, and I was preferred to them by His Majesty, for I received the crown in Memphis after the Hawk (= Shabataka) had soared to heaven, and my father Amun commanded me to place every land and country beneath my feet, southward to Retehu-Qabet, northward to Qebh-Hor, eastward to the rising of the sun and westward to its setting. (V:13-16)

Taharka, at the outset of his reign, claims sovereignty over extensive territory eastward from the Egyptian border. This would imply that in the years in which he assisted Shabataka, or immediately after assuming the kingship, he was engaged in aggressive military activity in those regions he boasts of possessing. The passage quoted gives the impression that his influence extended at least as far as the Euphrates. This is hardly surprising. For decades there has been a contest between Babylon and Egypt for control of the eastern Mediterranean coastal area, including Israel, Phoenicia, and Syria north to the Euphrates. Around 609 B.C. Egyptians armies were active in the highlands of the Upper Euphrates, allied with the Assyrians in their struggle against the ascendant power of Babylon. In 605 B.C. the two nations engaged in battle at Carchemish on the Euphrates. Skirmishes in Syria were frequent. The kings of Judah from Josiah through Zedekiah, in the years 609-586 B.C., were all pawns in this power struggle between Babylon and Egypt. In the traditional history the opponents of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar are identified as the Saite dynasty kings Nechao, Psamtik II, and Apries. With the dynasties correctly positioned it is Piankhi, Shabaka, Shabataka and Taharka who contested with Babylon.

For most of his reign of 42 years Nebuchadrezzar (605-562 B.C.) prevailed in this struggle. But the Hebrew Bible informs us that he experienced a mental breakdown late in his life. His recovery took seven years, time enough for Egypt to reassert itself. In chapter one we dated Nebuchadrezzar's mania to the years 572-566 B.C., spanning the last few years of Shabataka and the first four years of Taharka's kingship. Taharka’s boast is therefore well founded. First as military commander under his brother, then as king, he re-established Egyptian sovereignty "over every land and country" eastward to the Euphrates and beyond into northern Mesopotamia, "to the rising of the sun”. While Nebuchadrezzar languished in Babylon during his “mania”, Egypt recovered the Assyrian domains of her former ally. It is not surprising that Nebuchadrezzar reacted in anger when his illness subsided.

But lest we be accused of reading too much into one boastful phrase, we should add that we are not speculating. Taharka has left a record of his military activity. It is not widely publicized, and where it is mentioned Egyptologists immediately discount it. The reader by now understands why. Taharka has been wrongly placed in an historical context 121 years too early, in the time of the powerful neo-Assyrian empire, coterminous with its most energetic and successful kings - Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal. Their detailed annals record no expansionist activity on Egypt’s part, save for a possible political association with Phoenicia. But Taharka’s claim is much more comprehensive.

Two inscriptions in particular add substance to Taharka’s boast. Both are quickly glossed over and negatively evaluated by Flinders Petrie in his popular History of Egypt:

On the extent of Taharqa’s power in Palestine we cannot judge. On his list of conquered towns, found in the great court of Karnak, he claims much of Palestine; but this list is a mere copy of Seti. Again, on his statuette is a long list of captured cities (MK 45a); but this is only a copy - with a few blunders - of the list on the colossus of Ramessu II (MK 38f) and Taharqa was as much ruler of Qedesh and Naharaina as George II was king of France, though officially so called. HE III 297

Petrie is not the only scholar who makes light of Taharka's lists of conquered territory. An equally colorful put down is provided by E.A. Wallis Budge, who scornfully describes how Taharka, “in commemoration of a campaign which he did not fight, in a country which he never entered”, caused “a list of great peoples of Syria and Palestine to be cut on the base of his statue as nations which he had conquered." "In this list," according to Budge, "we find the names of Kadesh, Assur, Kheta, Neherin, and of many other Western Asiatic places together with the names of several districts of the Sudan.”[10] It is the opinion of Budge that Taharka's boast was mere pretence.

These two sources - a wall inscription in the forecourt of the Amon temple in Karnak and a statue inscription from the temple of Mut[11] - specifically list Kadesh, Naharina (or Naharain), Hatti (Kheta) and Assur (Ashur) among the possessions of Taharka. Carchemish is included in the list. Kadesh is located on the Orontes River in northern Syria and Naharain is a common designation for the land mass bordering the western bend of the Euphrates on the east. Kheta must be the Hatti lands, a reference to northern Syria. Carchemish is on the Euphrates itself. Petrie is correct. Taharka could not have controlled those territories in 690 B.C. Egypt was closeted in its own land by Esarhaddon.

If the conquest of Kadesh, the Hatti lands, Carchemish, and Naharain was unlikely, that of Assur was impossible. Assur, in the traditional history, can refer here only to the Assyrian homeland, ruled by Esarhaddon, then Ashurbanipal. Under no circumstance could Taharka have conquered Naharain and Assur in the days of the powerful Assyrian Empire. No wonder Egyptologists are in denial.

Taharka's claim to rule Assur in 690 B.C. could be safely discounted, but the identical claim in 572-566 B.C., during Nebuchadrezzar’s mania, is another story. The Assyrian Empire has by this date run its course, though the land maintained its traditional name. After the fall of Nineveh in 612 B.C. Assur became a Babylonian province. Taharka's army could conceivably have ventured to the northern edge of Babylonia, establishing a symbolic presence in the homeland of its former ally.

The presence of several statues of Taharka, found in 1955 in the ruins of Nineveh, argue strongly that Taharka actually set up a temporary base of operations in the former Assyrian capital.[12] Further confirmation is provided by a fragment of a Babylonian religious text that records military activity involving an Egyptian army. The heavily damaged fragment is dated in the 37th year of Nebuchadrezzar, thus in 568 B.C. The nature and provenance of the activity is unknown but the inscription is consistent with the presence of Taharka in the upper Tigris/Euphrates area.[13]

While scholars are in general agreement in rejecting Taharka's claims to foreign conquests, they are less than consistent in the specifics of their criticism. Gauthier[14] agrees with Petrie that the statuette inscription was copied from an ancient list of Ramses II. Leclant[15] is of the opinion that it was copied from an inscription of Horemheb. Leclant declines comment on the wall inscription from the Karnak forecourt. Since the Karnak list was no longer visible in 1965, the date of his comprehensive collection of 25th dynasty Theban monuments, he argues against Maspero and Petrie that it ever existed. He suggests instead that these notable 19th century Egyptologists, who actually read the inscription, mistakenly ascribed to Taharka another list left by the Ptolemies centuries later.[16] We understand the divergence of opinion. If the wall inscription did not exist we are spared the necessity of explaining its content.

On at least one point the scholars agreed - Taharka did not rule an empire that included Kadesh, the Hatti lands, Carchemish, Naharain, and Assur.

But discounting these two inscriptions does not eliminate the problem. They are not the only evidence of Taharka’s widespread conquests. There has existed since classical times unequivocal testimony to Taharka's military prowess. Commenting on this tradition Budge has observed:

There must have been something attractive in his (Taharka's) personality, and his deeds appealed so strongly to the popular imagination, at all events in Greek times, that they were regarded as the exploits of a hero, and he had the reputation of being a great traveler as well as a great conqueror.[17]

The reference cited by Budge is to Strabo, who, following Megasthenes, includes Taharka among a list of history's great conquerors. But Budge’s explanation begs the question. Legends must have some historical foundation. The memory that passed into folklore was of military conquest. And the Taharka of the traditional history at most rallied a group of delta kinglets to rebel against a small Assyrian occupation force. And in that action he was thoroughly defeated. Of such deeds legends are not made.

Leclant, endeavoring to explain the legend of Taharka the conqueror, can do no better than Budge. He discounts the possibility, entertained by some critics, that the legend was initiated by Taharka himself, through the publication of fictitious claims such as that contained on the statue cited above. He argues, correctly, that the statue inscription was not intended as propaganda, since it was hidden away in the interior of the temple of Mut, where it would have limited exposure. Instead he argues that Taharka has become a celebrated conqueror only because his name emerged as a symbolic representative of the combined military exploits of all the 25th dynasty pharaohs. Other explanations are equally strained.[18]

We suggest a better reason. Taharka was renowned as a great conqueror because he was a great conqueror. Granted, he benefited from Nebuchadrezzar’s incapacity, but his domains, though short lived, were extensive. His inscriptions should be taken at face value. Why copy a list of conquered territories, knowingly false, only to bury them in a temple? Leclant’s argument is well founded, but Leclant has missed the point.

The Great Flood

By 566 B.C. or 565 B.C. Nebuchadrezzar's illness passed. The prophet Daniel preserves a record of the king's reaction:

At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even greater than before. Dan. 4:36

Within a year Nebuchadrezzar had re-established the borders of his former kingdom and prepared to avenge the humiliation suffered during his dementia. He prepared to invade Egypt. If our chronology is correct it was the summer of 564 B.C., the sixth year of Taharka's reign. Egypt was in flood.

In chapter one we quoted Ezekiel 29:11 as a reference to a Nile flood which preceded immediately the invasion of Egypt. “There will not pass over it a man’s foot nor will any animal’s foot pass over it; then, no one will inhabit it for forty years.” If we are correct in our revision, there should be reference to a Nile flood of unusual dimensions in Taharka’s sixth year. We are not disappointed.

For well over two hundred years records of inundation levels of the Nile were engraved periodically on the quay of the Karnak temple in Thebes. Legrain documented the forty-five inscriptions preserved on the quay late in the 19th century and Von Beckerath diagrammed their positions a half century later.[19] Of the recorded positions two stand out above the rest. The second highest level occurred in the 3rd year of Osorkon II; the highest in the 6th year of Taharka.

The inscription recording the flood in the 3rd year of Osorkon merely records the king's name and the Nile level. But the flood of that year is also described in a hieratic inscription recorded on the inner wall, in the northwest corner of the hypostyle of the Luxor temple. It is a vivid reminder of the power and expansiveness of such a high flood:

Year 3, first month of the second season, day 12, under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Usermare-Setepnamon, L.P.H.: Son of Re, Lord of Diadems, Osorkon (II)-Siese-Meriamon, given life forever. The flood came on, in this whole land; it invaded the two shores as in the beginning. This land was in his power like the sea, there was no dyke of the people to withstand its fury. All the people were like birds upon its [-], the tempest - his -, suspended - - like the heavens. All the temples of Thebes were like marshes. BAR IV 743

If Osorkon's flood was able to overrun the containing dikes and make islands of the temple sites, flooding the entire Nile valley, then that same situation must have prevailed in the even higher flood of Taharka's 6th year. Taharka's flood, like that of Osorkon 150 years earlier, was also sufficiently memorable to warrant inscriptional comment. The details are contained on one of the stela inscriptions from Kawa.

Wonders have come to pass in the time of His Majesty in the sixth year of his reign, the like whereof had not been seen since the time of those of old, so great did his father Amon Re’ love him. His Majesty had been praying for an inundation from his father Amon-Re’, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands, in order to prevent famine happening in his time. Now everything that issues through the lips of His Majesty, his father Amun grants it to happen forthwith, and when the season came for the flooding of the inundation it continued flooding abundantly each day and spent many days rising at a rate of one cubit every day. It penetrated the hills of Upper Egypt, it overtopped the mounds of Lower Egypt, and the land became a primordial ocean, an inert expanse, and there was no distinguishing the land from the river. It flooded to a height of 21 cubits, 1 palm and 2½ fingers at the quay of Thebes. His Majesty had the annals of the ancestors brought to him, in order to see the (kind of) inundation that had happened in their times, but the like thereof was not found there. Moreover the sky rained in Nubia, it made all the hills glisten. Every man of Nubia had abundance in everything, Egypt was in happy festival ... (V:5-9)

Taharka took the flood as an indication of Amun's favor. It was instead a sign of the imminent loss of his Egyptian kingdom. The Nile floods typically from June through August. Soon after the Nile subsided, Nebuchadrezzar invaded.

Taharka's Lament

We assume that by the time of the great Nile flood of 564 B.C. the upper Euphrates and the trans-Euphrates Hatti lands had been lost to Taharka, whose domains were by now restricted to the eastern Mediterranean coast, Syria and Lebanon, the territory known on the monuments as Khor. In the few months immediately following the flood, possibly in late August or September of 564 B.C., the army of Nebuchadnezzar moved toward Egypt. Khor was lost and Egypt was invaded. Memory of the ensuing holocaust is preserved in the writings of Ezekiel and Jeremiah. Egyptian scribes, who might have preserved the memory of the event in Egypt, were removed into captivity. Taharka, driven from Memphis into the desert, ultimately made his way to Thebes. Meanwhile, Nebuchadnezzar consolidated his position. The Babylonian king was a seasoned military strategist. The four hundred mile journey of conquest upriver to Thebes was not to be hazarded without due preparation. The battle would be resumed months later. Meanwhile Taharka rested in Thebes, his spirit broken. In a lengthy inscription he lamented his loss.

Within the temple of Amon in Thebes, on the back of a wall attributed to Thutmose III, Taharka hastily composed an inscription, both penitent and pleading. The wall inscription, intact in the days of Lepsius, now broken apart, was pieced together and retranslated recently by Vernus.[20] It is a most unusual text. According to Spalinger:

From the first fifteen columns of the text, all that can be determined is that Taharqa contemplates a future action owing to some failure of his in the past. Future events are predicted: "You will repulse for me..." (col. 14) and "... the lands (??) which do not belong to me, place them under my domination" (col. 10) A two-fold logical reasoning can be determined from this poetical speech of Taharqa. A plan of his did not succeed as something went wrong. Amun cannot be (at) fault as he is good; therefore, it is the deed itself which was evil. ... Secondly, since the plans failed Amun must take charge in order to insure an eventual success. Hence, the passages: "... it is you who give the orders..." (col. 19) and "O Amun, there is no bad action in doing what you have done concerning he who will..." (col. 21)[21]

Something has gone terribly wrong. Taharka is confused. His first instinct is to question Amun, his patron deity.

It is readily evident that the importance of Amun in the world is paramount and that Taharqa is imploring his deity and master in terms surprisingly personal and factual for an Egyptian Pharaoh. Also, clearly, control of the Asiatic lands has, in some manner, been lost (whether or not these lands were directly controlled by Taharqa is not germane to this argument) and Taharqa is to blame. Taharqa asks Amun to aid him in the performance to the good end of a bad situation (col. 6) "Preserve me from unhappiness and preserve me from any bad action" is a further remark by Taharqa. The Pharaoh stresses the perseverance of his god Amun, who never abandons his son Horus (Taharqa) despite the latter's mistakes. Amun always completes his plans; and Taharqa's present situation seems (to him) quite incomplete (col. 5).[22]

What is the nature of the loss recently suffered by Taharka? The text is not entirely clear. It seems to Spalinger that "Taharka is purposely avoiding an explicit statement of what has gone wrong." Column 16 of the inscription specifically mentions the loss of the tribute (inw) of Khor (Syria-Palestine), but surely such losses were commonplace in the ebb and flow of political fortunes in the ancient world.

In essence, this powerfully written yet very indirect composition presents Taharqa's version of a debacle, the significance of which climaxes in the sixteenth column wherein the king announces to Amun that the territory of Khor no longer sends its tribute to Egypt. The previous fifteen columns set out Taharqa's explanation of this disaster: something went wrong abroad. As it could not have been Amun who caused the plans to fail, and as Taharqa is equally unwilling to implicate himself, then it must have been the fault of those plans themselves. Alternatively, Taharqa offers the suggestion that it is equally possible that, as Amun never fails in his acts, any setback - such as his present debacle - only shows that the entire sequence of events has not yet been completed. Hence, a dual analysis is at work here: namely, the acts leading up to the Asiatic debacle were at fault (and not the king); or else the entire episode is still to be resolved and any setback is temporary.[23]

The question that confronts Taharka is clear. He has suffered a humiliating military defeat, resulting in the loss of the tribute of Khor. Should he continue to do battle or abandon the fight? But fight against whom? No specific enemy is named in the text. According to Vernus and Spalinger there is no question. Taharka ruled Egypt in the early decades of the 7th century. His adversary was Assyria. The inscription must date in the years immediately preceding Esarhaddon's failed battle against Taharka in 674 B.C. It is assumed that prior to this date Taharka engaged in a failed attempt to regain control of Phoenica for Egypt.[24] This "temporary counter-offensive" against Esarhaddon must, according to Spalinger, be what the Pharaoh alludes to in the Vernus text.[25] The Karnak inscription must therefore date to 675 B.C.

But this interpretation is strained. We wonder what great loss was suffered by Taharka in 675 B.C., or thereabouts, to evoke from him the atypical emotional outburst of the Karnak inscription. There is absolutely no evidence that Phoenicia around this time had been a vassal of Egypt, contributing substantial sums to the treasury of Amun in Thebes. And the emotional outburst of Taharka can hardly be attributed to a failed land-grab.

In the revised history there is no problem understanding Taharka's agony. Only a few years earlier he ruled over lands as far afield as the Hatti lands, Naharain and Assur. Those territories have been abandoned. The Karnak wall inscription specifically ascribed to him control of all of Syria/Palestine, the lands of Khor. This too is gone. But he has lost more than the tribute of Khor; he has lost all of Lower Egypt. The fact that he does not explicitly recount the loss of Lower Egypt is understandable. He has not yet accepted the fact. Clearly he hopes for a reversal of fortunes. His pleading appears intended to gain Amun's blessing on a counter-attack, though he equivocates, uncertain of the viability of such action.

In the traditional history Taharka's lament dates to his seventeenth year (Spalinger) or between years 14 and 17 (Vernus). If we are correct it must date to his 6th year, only months after the high Nile, and a century removed from the time of Esarhaddon.

The inscription itself contains no date. Following the initial lines of text containing the traditional praise to the deity, Taharka credits his control of Upper and Lower Egypt to Amun (col. 4). He reminds him that even before his coronation "a great flood" had been foretold for him, from which would follow blessing, not trouble (cols. 8-10) He pleads, apparently still referring to the flood and its consequences: "Deliver me from the pain, deliver me from every bad result" (col. 12) He asks instead that he might experience an abundance (that should result from such a flood) to make his heart happy (cols. 13,14). There follows immediately the lament concerning his territorial loss.

There is no doubt that the "great flood" of column 9 refers to that which occurred in Taharka's sixth year. Since the description of Taharka's territorial losses follows immediately the mention of the great flood it should follow that this loss of territory occurred immediately following the flood. No other explanation is reasonable. Taharka, only months earlier, had praised Amun for the great flood, construed as a token of divine favor, a source of multiple blessings. Instead there followed the unspeakable horrors of the Babylonian invasion, the humiliating loss of his Memphite capital, and the near loss of his life. Perplexed, he waits for Amun to turn defeat into victory. Instead, only further loss ensued. The Karnak inscription was barely finished when Taharka was driven out of Thebes.

Taharka in Nubia

Late in 564 B.C. or early in 563 B.C. Nebuchadrezzar extended his conquest southward to Thebes. The fact can be confirmed only circumstantially. There is evidence that building activity in Thebes ceased after Taharka's seventh year. There is also indication that later in his seventh year Nebuchadrezzar moved even further south into Nubia. The evidence can be otherwise interpreted, but in combination with what has already been stated it is at least corroborative.

Taharka the Builder

Scholars claim that Taharka was a prolific builder, and in comparison to his predecessors Shabataka and Shabaka the fact is uncontested. His building activity is restricted almost exclusively to the south of Egypt, primarily to Thebes and to numerous sites in Nubia, though some evidence of building in Memphis has been discovered. Confirmation of this extensive construction consists primarily of undated inscriptions and cartouches adorning walls and colonnades. There is no unequivocal evidence that these structures were conceived by and erected by Taharka. He does not claim to have built them. It could be argued that he merely adorned existing structures with his own inscriptions, as did Ramses II centuries earlier.

It is significant for the present revision that there is no inscription of Taharka dated beyond his 7th year, save for a single Karnak quay record confirming the height of the Nile flood in his 9th year.[26] Since we believe that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in Taharka’s 7th year, and claim that destruction and desolation, not thriving building enterprise, characterized the years immediately following, this absence of inscriptions beyond Taharka’s 7th year is of considerable significance. But it is clearly an argument from silence. Most of Taharka’s inscriptions are undated. We cannot prove his constructions do not originate from later years, though Egyptologists date the majority to the first half of his reign. At least in one notable instance, however, we are able to follow the progress of a physical construction clearly attributed to the early years of Taharka. It presents an interesting picture. We refer, of course, to the Kawa temple in Nubia.

The Kawa Temple Construction

It is well known that Taharka was the builder par excellence in Nubia. There he erected large temples in widely dispersed sites as far south as Meroe, 800 miles south of Thebes. Within a 500-mile stretch of the Nile, from 300 to 800 miles south of Thebes, he built at least five large temples, all clearly attributed to him. If nothing else, these massive constructions attest to his preoccupation with this southern region, if not to his permanent residence in the area. They are at least compatible with our thesis that Taharka was driven from Egypt early in his reign, and lived out the balance of his life in Nubia. But only in Kawa do we have sufficient dated inscriptional material to argue that this change in homeland dates from his seventh year.

We have observed already in one Kawa stela inscription how Taharka came south to join Shabataka at age 20, and how he was later crowned in Memphis. On this earlier journey south he passed by the site of the abandoned and partially sand covered remains of the Kawa temple. In the inscription Kawa IV he recalls his sadness at the sight of the Kawa ruins and his vow to one day restore the temple.

Now His Majesty had been in Nubia as a goodly youth, a king’s brother, pleasant of love, and he came north to Thebes in the company of goodly youths whom His Majesty King Shebitku had sent to fetch from Nubia, in order that he might be there with him, since he loved him more than all his brethren. He passed to the nome of Amun of Gempaten that he might make obeisance at the temple door, with the army of His Majesty which had traveled north together with him. He found that this temple had been built in brick, but that its sand-hill had reached to its roof, it having been covered over with earth at a time of year when one feared the occurrence of rainfall. And his Majesty’s heart grew sad at it until His Majesty appeared as King, crowned as King of Upper and Lower Egypt, (and) when the Double Diadem was established upon his head, and his name became Horus Lofty-of-Diadems, he called to mind this temple, which he had beheld as a youth, in the first year of his reign.[27] Then His Majesty said to his courtiers, ‘Lo, I desire to rebuild the temple of my father Amon-Re’ of Gempaten, since it was built of brick (only) and covered over with soil, a thing not pleasant in the opinion of men’.

Temple construction began in Taharka's first year, though the king remained in Memphis.

‘And His Majesty caused his army to go to Gempaten together with numerous gangs and good craftsmen, innumerable, an architect being there with them to direct the work at this temple while His Majesty was in Memphis. Then this temple was built of good white sandstone, excellent, hard, made with enduring work, its face toward the west, the house being of gold, the columns of gold, the inlays(?) thereof being of silver. Its towers were built, its doors erected, it being inscribed with the Great Name of His Majesty. Its numerous trees were planted in the ground and its lakes dug, together with its House of Natron, it being filled with its implements of silver, gold, and bronze whereof the number is not known. And this God was made to rest within it, resplendent and glorious, for ever, the reward for this being life and welfare and the appearance upon the throne of Horus for ever.’ (Kawa IV: 7-27)

The inscription Kawa IV is dated in year 6 of Taharka. The text leaves no doubt that the temple was completed by this time. Even the landscaping was finished. In the final act of consecration, the (statue of the) god Amun was installed in his temple, “resplendent and glorious”.

Another stela, Kawa III, provides a year-by-year inventory of the gifts made to the Gempaten temple, from year 1 to year 7 inclusive. In meticulous details the furnishings of the temple are described. They are made of the finest materials available. The durable goods are made exclusively of gold and silver. Following the listing of equipment donated in the seventh and final year, the inscription proudly announces the completion of the project:

‘He established the god’s revenues, stocked his altars and provided his magazine with men and maidservants, even the children of the chieftains of the Tjehenu. This temple was furnished, which he made for him anew, and he filled it with numerous chantresses, their sistra in their hands, to play before his beautiful face...’ Kawa III:22-23

Having finished the physical construction, this installation of temple personal signaled the end of the project. But something untoward happened later in that seventh year.

From yet another stela inscription, Kawa VI, which “continues the record of gifts begun with Kawa III,” we get the distinct impression that the temple is not finished. The new inscription provides a second list of temple donations from year 7 and adds listings for years 8 and 9. The excavators are confused. Kawa III provided unambiguous references to the installation of temple personal, the necessary and ultimate prelude to initiating temple operations. Kawa VI concludes its listing of year 9 items with equally unambiguous references to the installation of temple personal:

The columns were set up, overlaid in beautiful gold, their inlays (?) being of silver; its pylons were built, of good work; its doors were set up, of true cedar, the bolts being of Asiatic bronze; it was inscribed with the Great Name of His Majesty by all sorts of skilful-fingered scribes and cut by good craftsmen who surpassed what the ancients had done; its store-house was stocked and its altars supplied. He filled it with drink-offering tables of silver, gold, Asiatic bronze, and every kind of real costly stone, innumerable; he filled (it) with numerous servants and he appointed maidservants to it, wives of chieftains of Lower Egypt. Wine is trodden from the vines of this city; it is more abundant that (that of) Djesdjes, and he appointed gardeners for them, good gardeners of the Mentiu of Asia. He filled this temple with priests, men who knew their spells, even the children of the great ones of every country. He filled his house with chantresses to play before his beautiful face. (italics added)

There can be no doubt from this inscription that the temple is just being completed in year nine. Any doubt is removed by yet another inscription, Kawa VII. This stela, says MacAdam, “records the official opening of the temple of Taharqa at Gempaten in his tenth year.” “It shows,” he adds,