1. 150×153×30 cm.

2. The narrative does not specify where the Egyptian armies were based. We can reasonably assume that at least some troops were garrisoned in Thebes, or that conscript forces were requisitioned from cities loyal to Piankhi in the vicinity of Thebes. But the fact that two commanders are specifically named in the inscription suggests that two separate armies served Piankhi within Egypt. We suggest El Hibeh, in central Egypt, as a likely location for the other garrison. There were, of course, officers (commanders) of lesser rank.

3. BAR IV 825

4. BAR IV 840

5.The early months of the New Year in Egypt were the time of the annual flooding of the Nile, the proverbial inundation, which severely limited mobility within the country. This was not the time for a major battle between land based armies. Piankhi's delay resulted only in part from religious sentiment. Climate was as much the cause. This assumes, of course, that the Egyptian New Year at the time of Piankhi began in July.

6. Ibid.

7. BAR IV 852

8. BAR IV 865

9. BAR IV 882

10. D.A. Aston, "Takeloth II - A King of the 'Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty'?" Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75 (1989) 139-153.

11. Kraus Baer, "The Libyan and Nubian Kings of Egypt: Notes on the Chronology of Dynasties XXII to XXVI," JNES 32 (1973). According to Baer "The mummy bandage Brit. Mus. 6640 ... indicates that Piye reached his year 40. It reads sp x + 20; and, from the grouping, x can only be an even number of tens, probably 20 since the preserved two tens occupy about half the available space. This would place Piye's accession in 753 and the campaign of year 20 in 734 B.C. at the latest. (p.7)