1. Eric Young, "Some Notes on the Chronology and Genealogy of the Twenty-First Dynasty," JARCE 2 (1963) 101-2.

2. See Kitchen TIP 383 Nos. 31-33.

3. For a translation see BAR IV 645.

4. Both begin with the title Ka Nakht (strong bull) but then diverge. Cf. H. Gauthier, Le Livre Des Rois D'Egypte III, 250 XXIV and note 1.

5. Ibid, p. 251 XXIX, cf. note 1.

6. The critic may object by arguing that the mummy of Pinudjem II was identified only as that of a high priest, "son of Menkheperre and grandson of king Pinudjem.I". If Pinudjem II was a king when he died, why did he not so identify himself. There are several adequate responses to this hypothetical question. In the first place we observe that the genealogical inscription on the mummy of Pinudjem II is not overly concerned with titles. Menkheperre is assigned no rank at all, in spite of the fact that he is known to have been both high priest and king. We note also that the two funerary chests which lay alongside the coffin of Thutmose I in DB320 (see immediately below), those clearly identified with the burial of Pinudjem, son of Piankh, i.e. Pinudjem I, were inscribed only with the name of "the high priest Pinudjem". They make no mention of his kingship, confirming an observation we will make repeatedly throughout the discussion which follows, that the high-priests/kings of this dynasty appear to have held the high priesthood in more esteem than the kingship. They regarded themselves, first and foremost, as clerics.

7. It is possible that none of the monuments which name Aakheperkare Thutmose, at least those discussed below, belong to Pinudjem I. The discussion related to Pinudjem's kingship, based on the Coronation and Tombos inscriptions, is not a necessary part of our argument.

8. Gauthier Le Livre Des Rois D'Egypte III 246 XI A - J

9. Ibid., 246 XI D

10. This according to Breasted who provides the translation used below.

11. BAR II 75,76.

12. This assumes that Herihor outlived Piankh by at most as few months, though it is possible that the armies controlled by both Herihor and Piankh were called to service elsewhere in defense of the Assyrian Empire, leaving Pinudjem free to assume both the high priesthood and a nominal kingship.

13. H.E.Winlock, The Tomb of Queen Meryet-Amun at Thebes (1932) 37

14. Cf. Kitchen, TIP 54 E

15. Maatkare was considered to be Pinudjem's wife by early 20th century scholars, but the inscription clearly identifies all three as being "king's daughters". Cf. Kitchen TIP 48 A

16. See the extensive discussion by Kitchen TIP 344

17. See Nubuchadnezzar & the Egyptian Exile, chapter 5.

18. See Kitchen TIP 321

19. BAR IV 942

20. For sources see BAR IV 942 note e.

21. See Kitchen TIP 344

22. Immanuel Velikovsky, Peoples of the Sea (1977) 182ff.

23. Eric Young, "Some Notes on the Chronology and Genealogy of the Twenty-First Dynasty," JARCE 2 (1963) 99-101 Young argues, based on a pair of inscriptions from the Annals of the Priests of Amun in the Karnak temple, that a single generation separates the year 2 of a king Aakheperre Setepenre, and the year 17 of king Siamon. He concludes that Aakheperre must be the prenomen of an otherwise unattested Osorkon (Manetho's Osochor) and therefore that Siamon must be Psinaches. The argument is reasonable if only there existed evidence attesting the existence of a 21st dynasty Aakheperre Osorkon, which there isn't . But there is an Aakheperre Setepenamun Osorkon, (an acceptable variation) whose 2nd year preceded the 17th of Siamon by only 50 years, a lengthy generation to be sure, but sufficiently close to explain the Annals inscriptions. But the Osorkon of which we speak is Osorkon IV who was in office in 617 B.C. (possibly his 2nd) when Piankhi
invaded the delta, and the 17th year of Siamon, as we will argue below, corresponds to the Julian year 564 B.C. Young's evidence better suits the revised history

24. TIP 56

25. If higher dates are confirmed then they must belong to his sojourn at Siwa.

26. Livre des Rois III 292 II. Cf Kitchen TIP 388 #51.

27. Gauthier, Le Livre Des Rois D'Egypte III p. 64.

28. Ibid, pp. 68-9.

29. 'The best that Kitchen can do is differentiate between the high priests at Tanis and those of the Theban temple. He argues that the Tanite high priesthood was more of a ceremonial position, not requiring the title bearer to perform any clerical function. We leave the matter at that. The inscription does provide food for thought for those who would argue that Menkheperre was too young to become high priest in Pinudjem's 22nd year.

30. The most remarkable according to Montet was a lapiz lazuli statuette inscribed by the "king's son of Ramses, Pashedbast", believed by him to be a son of Osorkon I (see Montet's Osorkon, p. 66). Others have argued that he was another son of Osorkon II. We have alluded to this person previously, when we expressed our belief that the title "king's son of Ramses" indicates descent from the Ramesside kings, and if so then the statuette is not out of context. Harnakht, in the late 8th century, would be a contemporary of the king's Ramses V-VIII. Pashedbast could well be a son of Ramses III.

31. We admit that we find no reference to a king Amenemopet on the great Piankhi stela, inscribed in the year 617 B.C. But this does not necessarily mean his reign had not begun. There were many unnamed delta dynasts who paid homage to Piankhi at the conclusion of Tefnakht's rebellion.

32. Cf. Gauthier, Le Livre Des Rois D'Egypte III p. 285. Gauthier assigns both dates to Psusennes II, as do most Egyptologists (others chose Siamon and still others assume this high priest should not be distinguished from the high priest/king Psusennes II), based largely on the belief that the Theban and Tanite dynasties ran simultaneously and that Psusennes II should be living parallel with Psusennes III. Since we believe Psusennes III also became a king, there may be documents belonging to him that have mistakenly been assigned to his namesake Psusennes II (Montet's Psusennes) of the Tanite dynasty. If so they must bear year dates numbered 1-7, since the reign of Psusennes III lasted only that long (see below).

33. Kitchen assigns the year 5 bandage to the reign of Siamon and the year 12 bandage to the reign of Psusennes II, entirely without evidence. This assumes that Siamon is Psinaches and must therefore be followed in office by Psusennes II. Assigning the two dates in this manner makes it necessary for Kitchen to assign to Psusennes III a pontificate lasting through years 5-19 of Siamon (note he assumes Siamon reigned 19 years) and years 1-12 of Psusennes, a time span of 26 years. No wonder Egyptologists have trouble with the chronology of this period. As we will soon see, the high-priesthood/kingship of Psusennes III lasted only 6 years.

34. See Kitchen, TIP 388 XI No. 51 for references. This is the year 48 inscription mentioned earlier by Young. As interpreted here it does not refer to Menkheperre as high priest.

35. See Kitchen TIP 388 XI No. 50 for a list and for references.

36. See Kitchen TIP 389 XIII Nos. 71, 76

37. Eric Young, "Some Notes on the Chronology and Genealogy of the Twenty-First Dynasty," JARCE 2 (1963) 104-108.

38. The critic may enquire why the line of priest/kings from Herihor through Pinudjem II was not included in Manetho's list. It is a legitimate question, and one to which we have no ready answer, save to argue that to the priest/historian Manetho they appeared to be more high priests and army commanders than kings. Perhaps they were discussed elsewhere in his history, now lost to us. We have already argued many times that these 21st Theban priest/kings appear to have considered themselves, first and foremost, as priests. We are not surprised that Manetho did not include them among the dynasties of "kings". If that explanation is deemed insufficient, the critic should ask the traditionalist historians the same question. He/she will get the same answer.

39. Though we have argued that a king by this name participated in the Syrian campaign of Piankhi the documents that suggest this need to bemore closely examined to see if they actually do belong to the 7th century. We need to be constantly mindful that the names on Egyptian monuments were often altered, and sometimes multiple times. Nor is it necessary to argue that this king was Shabaka. Only one set of inscriptions argued that connection. It is also not necessary to assume that Shabaka, or a contemporary who used the name, adopted the fulltitlulary of this king.

40. See Nebuchadnezzar & the Egyptian Exile, chapter 1.

41. It may even be possible that he, unlike his predecessors, dated his inscriptions during these final years by the years of Taharka, now the dominant force in Egypt. That would make no difference to our thesis. Taharka's reign began in 670 B.C. Psusennes' high priesthood began in 671 B.C. The change would move the year 5 inscription of Psusennes back one Julian year.