The Coronation Inscription

        Two separate but incompatible traditions exist regarding the enthronement of the 18th dynasty king Thutmose III. According to one he began his kingship as an infant and in consequence Egypt was ruled by his "sister" Hatshepsut until the child king reached maturity.  According to the other he was a priest in the temple of Amun when the god, in the course of a procession through the temple, singled him out from among his fellows and promised him the kingship.  Egyptologists have struggled to merge the two traditions.   The effort was in vain and for good reason.  The respective source documents belong to different centuries and refer to distinct but namesake kings.   The infant king, the earlier of the two, belongs to the 18th dynasty; the priest/king Menkheperre must be the author of the Annals, whom we identify as the 7th century king Meryamun Piankhi.

        The document which informs the second of the two traditions is known popularly as the "coronation inscription" of Menkheperre.   We should pause here to read a brief selection.    If we are correct it is Piankhi's autobiography we will be reading.  The document in question has been widely published since first read by Egyptologists in the middle of the 19th century.   It is inscribed on "the exterior of the south wall of the chambers south of the sanctuary" in the temple of Amun at Karnak, and was first published (partially) by Brugsch in 1863.  We quote from Breasted's 1905 translation.   But first we let Breasted describe the document:

This inscription contains historical material of the highest importance, which has been overlooked in all the histories.  On the occasion of the completion of one of his numerous additions to the Karnak temple, sometime between the years 15 and 22 (l. 17), Thutmose III held an audience and addressed his court, informing them that he owed his crown to Amon, and that he had shown his gratitude by great buildings and sumptuous offerings (ll. 1-22).   The court replied, acknowledging his divine call to the throne (ll. 22-24).  All this is now recorded as an introduction to a three-fold list of the king's benefactions to the god: first, his buildings (ll. 25-36); second, his offerings of the field, and the herds, besides gifts of lands (ll. 36-41); third, temple utensils and the like (ll. 42-48).   A short peroration concludes the record (ll. 48-49).  BAR II 131

I am his (Amon's) son, whom he commanded that I should be upon his throne, while I was one dwelling in his nest (i.e. temple); he begat me in uprightness of heart -- there is no lie therein; since my majesty was a stripling, while I was a youth (inpw) in his temple, before occurred my installation to be prophet -- my majesty.  I was in the capacity (i.e. role) of the "Pillar of his Mother," like the youth Horus in Khemmis.  I was standing in the northern hypostyle ----.   ---- the splendors of his horizon.  He made festive heaven and earth with his beauty; he received the great marvels; his rays were in the eyes of the people like the "Coming forth of Harakhte."  The people, they gave to him [praise] -- the [altar] of his temple.  His majesty placed for him incense upon the fire, and offered to him a great oblation consisting of oxen, calves, mountain goats, -- -- [the god] made the circuit of the hypostyle on both sides of it, the heart of those who were in front did not comprehend his actions, while searching for my majesty in every place.  On recognizing me, lo, he halted -- [I threw myself on] the pavement, I prostrated myself in his presence.  He set me before his majesty; I was stationed at the "Station of the King."  He was astonished at me ---- without untruth.  Then they [revealed] before the people the secrets in the hearts of the gods, who know these his --; there was none who knew them, there was none who revealed them [beside him]. BAR II 138-140

[He opened for] me the doors of heaven; he opened the portals of the horizon of Re.  I flew to heaven as a divine hawk, beholding his form in heaven; I adored his majesty -- feast.  I saw the glorious forms of the Horizon-God upon his mysterious ways in heaven.  Re himself established me, I was dignified with the diadems which [we]re upon his head, his serpent-diadem, rested upon [my forehead] -- [he satisfied] me with all his glories; I was sated with the counsels of the gods, like Horus, when he counted his body at the house of my father, Amon-Re.  I was [present]ed with the dignities of a god, with -- my diadems.   His own titulary was affixed for me. BAR II 141-143a (italics mine)

        For the record we include the titulary names which follow in the text.

He fixed my Horus upon the standard; he made me mighty as a mighty bull.  He caused that I should shine in the midst of Thebes [in this my name, Horus: "Mighty Bull, Shining in Thebes" (1)
[He made my kingship enduring, like Re in heaven, in] this my [name], Favorite of the Two Goddesses: "Enduring in Kingship, like Re in Heaven." He formed me as a Horus-hawk fo gold, he gave to me his might and his strength and I was splendid with these his diadems, in this my name [Golden Horus: "Mighty in Strength, Splendid in Diadems"],  -- [in this my name], King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands: "Menkheperre" (the being of Re abides).
I am his son who came forth from him, a likeness fashioned like the presider over Hesret; he beautified all my forms, in this my name, Son of Re: "Thutmose, Beautiful of Form," living forever and ever.  BAR II 143-147

        It is also clear from this inscription that Menkheperre, alias Piankhi, began his kingship as a priest. And once a priest, always a priest.  In the first chapter we observed how king Meryamun Piankhi, in the process of invading Egypt to suppress the Tefnakht rebellion, behaved very much like a cleric.  He seemed to have an intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Amun temple in Thebes, detailing every action to be taken by his emissaries in their attempt to secure for his upcoming military action the blessing of the god Amun.   Even the words of address (prayers) to the god were spelled out in detail.   We now understand whence came this intimate knowledge.

        The "coronation stele" also provides us with insight into Piankhi's age.  He is called an inpw in this narrative.  He may well have been as young as 13.   But he is not yet king.   The promise of kingship implied by his "anointing" relates to the future.  His enthronement took place a decade later, perhaps longer.   This is important insofar as it relates to our earlier discussions regarding the age at death of this king.   We have assumed throughout our discussion that Menkheperre was at least seventy years old when he died, and more likely closer to eighty.  This document is one basis for that assumption.
 

The 21st Dynasty Priest King Menkheperre

        In our second chapter we remarked on the fact that the name Menkheperre, at least in the traditional history, was borne by only three kings - the 18th dynasty pharaoh by that name, Shabataka, son of Piankhi, and a 21st dynasty king whose other titulary names are unknown.  The revised history has added a fourth king - Piankhi.   But one of these kings is an illusion, a phantom.   And it is not Piankhi.

        According to the textbooks the 21st dynasty consisted of multiple kings who began their lives as priests and continued throughout life to bear the dual titles of "King of Upper and Lower Egypt" and "High Priest of Amon" (HPA).   The king Menkheperre, who belonged to the Theban branch of this dynasty, was one such king.  At least one document suggests that he continued to function as a priest into his 49th year.   His kingship is also well attested. (2)  Various inscriptions indicate that he began his rule at el Hibeh in north central Egypt and extended his authority later to the Theban area.  His titles were not honorary, but functional.  He was de facto both a priest and a king.

        We thus have two priest kings by the name of Menkheperre ruling at Thebes, one in the 21st dynasty and one in the 25th dynasty.   Each maintained the dual offices of priest and king for upwards of 50 years.   We are intrigued by this duality and wonder at the possibility that a phantom king has been inserted into the framework of Egyptian chonology by well intentioned but confused scholars.    We cannot help but wonder if the 21st dynasty priest king Menkheperre and the 25th dynasty priest king Menkheperre (Piankhi) are actually one and the same person.   With this suspicion in mind we turn our attention briefly to the 21st dynasty.
 

21st Dynasty - Theban Branch.

        In the traditional history, following the schema introduced by Manetho (as preserved by Africanus), the 21st dynasty consists of seven kings from Tanis, whose combined reign lengths added up to approximately 135 years.    According to Africanus the seven kings of this dynasty bore the names Smendes, Psusennes, Nephercheres, Amenophthis, Osochor, Psinaches and (a second) Psusennes.  Five of these kings (Osochor and Psinaches excepted) have been identified in the monuments with kings named Nesubanebdjed, Psebkhannu, Amenemnisu, Amenemope, and (a second) Psebkhannu respectively, though these names differ significantly from the names provided by Africanus.   There is no consensus on the identity of Osochor and Psinaches, though many Egyptologists identify the later as a king named Si-Amon.

        Scholars are agreed that Smendes, the proverbial founder of the dynasty, must be identified with a king named Nesubanebdjed on several monuments, and a king by the same name on a papyrus which narrates the travels of a (king) Wenamun. (3)  The accuracy of that identification remains to be seen.   But based on that assumption the 21st dynasty Tanite king list was set in place at the beginning of the 20th century, though with many questions concerning the order of the kings and considerable controversy related to individual reign lengths.

        In the history books we are also told that a parallel dynasty of kings ruled in Thebes in some undefined relationship to the Tanite kings.   Many questions also exist concerning this sequence of kings, but predicated on the fact that its founder Herihor was a contemporary of Nesubanebdjed, the two branches of the dynasty are considered to have run parallel to one another throughout the roughly 135 years of their existence.   The Theban branch of this dynasty is dominated by four names in addition to that of Herihor.  In chronological order they are Piankh, Pinudjem, Menkheperre, and a second Pinudjem.   Two other priests fill out the sequence, a second Smendes (Nesubanebdjed) and a third Psusennes.  Our emphasis here will be on Herihor, Piankh, and Pinudjem (I).   The others will dominate our discussion in our concluding chapter.

        Both branches of the 21st dynasty as outlined above, together with approximate reign lengths or terms in office, are listed below precisely as found in K..A. Kitchen's The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt. (4)
 
 
 

   It is clear from this table that the 21st dynasty has been placed by Egyptologists in the time frame 1080-945 B.C., immediately following the 20th dynasty, whose dates run roughly from 1180-1080 B.C.   This assumes that the 21st dynasty follows on the heels of the 20th, one possible interpretation of Manetho.   That conclusion appears to be confirmed by the fact that Herihor and Piankh, the founders of the Theban branch of the dynasty, are firmly connected to the time of Ramses XI, the terminal king of the 20th dynasty.  So also is the king Nesubanebdjed who figures prominently in the Wenamun story,  identified by all scholars as Smendes I, founder of the Tanite branch.

        Based on this chronology it is clearly impossible that the 11th/10th century priest king Menkheperre can be identified with the 7th century priest king Menkheperre Piankhi.   But there are serious objections to several of the fundamental assumptions on which this chronology is based.  We need to spell these out before we proceed, for it must be abundantly clear by now that we do intend to relocate the Theban branch of the 21st dynasty, if not the entire dynasty.
 

A Modified Chronology

        Already in the first book of this series we lowered by 121 years the dates of the 22nd dynasty beginning with Osorkon II, and we continued that reduction through the 26th dynasty.   We suggested at the time that this displacement would have serious implications for all dynasties prior to the 22nd.   We certainly implied a lowering of dates for all earlier dynasties, including the 20th and 21st,  by at least an identical 121 years.  But we also hinted at the fact that the changes would be more substantial.

        In response to questions regarding that earlier book (6) we suggested that the traditional founder of the 22nd dynasty, Hedjkheperre Sheshonk (I) was a king of little consequence.  Most of the inscriptions credited to him, including the authorship of the famous Bubastite Portal, belong instead to a second Hedjkheperre Sheshonk whose existence until recently was not even suspected.   This namesake king lived during the time of the Assyrian domination of Egypt (671-661 B.C.).  What we have not stated previously is our belief that the kings who followed Sheshonk I in the traditional history, Osorkon I and  Takeloth I, are of even less consequence.   So little is known about them that we cannot help but suspect that they were only  regional kings, ruling in conjunction with pharaohs from overlapping dynasties.   They are named in the famous Pasenhor genealogy, and in Africanus' list of Manethonic kings, but are entirely absent from the monuments.   If we read any popular history of Egypt we will be hard pressed to find mention of them.  Gardiner, in his Egypt of the Pharaohs, passes over their reigns in a single line of text:

Little is known about the first Osorkon and his successor the first Takelot except that the former reigned at least thirty-six years and the latter possibly as much as twenty-three.  The obscurities of Egyptian history now deepen to such an extent that only rarely can a glimpse of the sequence of events be caught. EP 330

Overlapping Dynasties

        For the longest while Egyptologists operated on the unproven assumption that the dynasties of Manetho must be sequential, one dynasty completely yielding authority to a successor.  This had the effect of stretching out or unduly lengthening the chronological schema on which Egyptian history is founded.   Recent studies, however,  have shown significant overlap between select dynasties,  the most notable example being the 22nd and 23rd.   We added yet another instance when, in the first book of this series, we moved almost the entirety of the 26th Saite dynasty to overlap the 27thPersian dynasty.   We also observed in that earlier book the rather chaotic state of affairs that prevailed in Egypt at the end of the reign of Osorkon II near the end of the eighth century, and especially in the three decades immediately following his reign, when at least two dynasties (the 22nd and 23rd) and as many as four kings ruled over regions of Egypt at the same time.  While we did not contest the claim by scholars that Osorkon II ruled the whole of Egypt earlier in his reign and that this chaotic state emerged only afterward, neither did we confirm it.  In fact we now argue otherwise.

        Manetho's numbering of the dynasties is arguably based on a single principle.   If the founder of one dynasty began his reign prior to that of the founder of a second dynasty,  then Manetho appears to assign to the first a lower number than he does to the second.   We should read no more into his numbering system than that.   Whether one dynasty begins precisely at the conclusion of its numerical predecessor, or whether the two dynasties overlap during much of their extent, must be determined on the evidence.   When we argued in a sequel to book one that all of the monuments of the 22nd dynasty king Hedjkheperre Sheshonk I actually belong to a namesake king whose reign overlapped that of Sheshonk III, we essentially removed the existing but highly questionable link between the end of the 21st and the beginning of the 22nd dynasties.  There can be no serious objection, based on this assumed link, to our now further lowering the dates for the 21st dynasty.   All that is demanded by Manetho is that the 21st dynasty begin prior to the start of the 22nd dynasty, i.e. prior to the reign of the ephemeral Sheshonk I.

        When we suggested earlier that the dates for the 21st dynasty could be lowered to 880-745 B.C. we were already assuming this principal of overlapping dynasties.   Those dates assume that the 21st dynasty overlapped the reigns of Sheshonk I, Osorkon I and Takeloth I and ended in 745 B.C., the date assigned to the beginning of the reign of Osorkon II in the revised history.  But there is no reason to restrict the overlap between the 21st and 22nd dynasties to only 40 years.   On the assumption that these three kings ruled a combined 40 years the reign of Sheshonk I began around 785 B.C.   In fact, we believe 30 years to be a more likely figure, and accordingly we date the beginning of the 22nd dynasty in 775 B.C.   The 21st dynasty, in theory, might have begun only a few years before this date, still qualifying for the lower Manethonic number. Hypothetically it could be placed in the time frame 785-650 B.C., barring evidence to the contrary.   And the beginning of the 20th dynasty could be dated only a few years before the beginning of the 21st, assuming that Manetho was consistent in his numeration system.  If so, it might have begun as late as 800 B.C. and have run through the balance of the 8th century, overlapping much of the 21st and 22nd dynasties..  When it ended is a moot point.   Egyptologist have assigned barely 100 years to this dynasty, but Mathetho states that it consisted of 12 Diospolite kings who ruled for 135 years (Africanus) or 178 years (Eusebeus).  If we take the lower figure of 135 years, and assume the dynasty began around 800 B.C., then it must have ended around 665 B.C.    Clearly we are merely speculating on possibilities.   Nothing has been proven thus far.  But in fact we do believe that these approximate dates are reasonably accurate, and for purposes of this book should provide a workable framework for discussion.

        For reference purposes we tabulate our hypothetical dates:
 
 

     The critic should not be too quick to judge the merits of our claim that dynasties 20 through 22 began in quick succession and overlapped for much of their extent.  These dates are not entirely speculative.  There is considerable evidence to support them.  But this is not the place to interject a lengthy historical discussion.  We must be content at this time with a point by point summary of our argument.

        1. We have quoted Gardiner regarding the complete absence of monumental evidence which exists for the early kings of the 22nd dynasty, suggestive of the fact that they were petty kings or nomarchs with very limited power.   Even the reign of Osorkon II yields inscriptional evidence very narrowly centered around Bubastis in the delta, suggesting that he was merely a regional ruler.  There is absolutely no evidence supporting the claim that these early 22nd dynasty kings ruled the whole of Egypt.   Egyptologists speculate that the fragmentation of Egypt began only at the end of the reign of Osorkon II, when Sheshonk III and Takeloth II contested for power.   But again there is no evidence that this was so.   The Chronicle of prince Osorkon, the future Osorkon III, suggests that the first three decades of the 7th century were extremely chaotic, with multiple pharaohs competing for expanded power.  In the revised history this "great disruption" resulted in the conquest of Egypt by Esarhaddon of Assyria, who immediately divided Egypt among a dozen regional authorities, a division of power apparently patterned after the existing fragmented political structure.  And the arrival of Piankhi sixty years later reveals that Egypt continued to be divided at that time among at least five kings (assuming Piankhi already ruled in Thebes).    We wonder where Egyptologists have derived their notion of one nation, one king.   Every time the fog lifts briefly, and we obtain a glimpse of the political landscape in Egypt, we see multiple kings.   For all we know Egypt was never ruled by a single all powerful pharaoh, certainly not later than the 19th dynasty pharaoh Ramses II.   We are on firm ground when we suggest that the 8th century in its entirety witnessed the presence of multiple kings in Egypt.  We are bound by the evidence, not by the assumption of contiguous dynasties imposed upon us by traditionalist Egyptologists.

        2.  Manetho specifically tells us that the three dynasties we place in the 8th century consisted of regional kings.   We are informed by his excerptors, Africanus and Eusebius, that the 20th dynasty consisted of 12 Diospolite kings, whose names were not preserved.  These same sources tell us that the  21st dynasty consisted of seven kings from Tanis, and that the 22nd was made up of "nine kings of Bubastus."   Had scholars taken this data at face value they ought to have concluded that these three dynasties ruled regions of the country from their respective residence cities,  not the whole of Egypt.   The Diospolite kings ruled only in the south. (10)

        3.  It is well known that several 21st dynasty kings and dignitaries, and not a few members also of the 22nd dynasty, are associated in the monuments in some undefined way with the 20th dynasty.   The Tanite king Psusennes (I?) and his son Ankhefenmut at times identified themselves with the Ramesside kings by adopting, as it were, hyphenated names:  Ramses-Psusennes and Ramses-Ankhefenmut.   Various attempts have been made to explain the intrusion of the name Ramses into a 21st dynasty context, omitting the explanation which is most reasonable, namely, that Psusennes ruled in close association with a Ramesside king in the south.  The suggestion that he was actually a son of a Ramesside king does not hold water.   If that were the case we should wonder why Manetho considers Psusennes to be part of a distinct dynasty and why the successors of Psusennes make no similar claim to the name Ramses.   We would also expect that any real genealogical connection with the 20th dynasty would be described more overtly, either by naming the actual parent, or by employing the frequently used title "King's Son of Ramses" (see below).     K.A. Kitchen sidesteps the problem by suggesting that Psusennes merely claimed an association with the Ramessides where, in fact, none actually existed.   He leaves the matter there.  His comments are worth reproducing:

It has not escaped attention that Psusennes I appears to claim some connection with the preceding, Ramesside, dynasty.   Thus, one fragmentary block from Tanis bears the cartouche 'Ramesses-Psusennes, Beloved of [Amun]', which recurs on a ring-bezel from the burial of Wen-djeba-en-Djed in the tomb of Psusennes I.   Furthermore, in room 3 of his Tanite tomb, Psusennes I made provision for the burial of a prince who was doubtless a son that predeceased him, given the probable long duration of Psusennes' reign.  In brief form, this man was called simply 'the King's Son, Ankhefenmut'; but on the end of his sarcophagus were set out his full name and titles, calling him (inter alia): 'Bodily King's Son whom he loves, Ramesses-Ankhefenmut.'  These compound names, Ramessses-Psusennes and Ramesses-Ankhefenmut, are wholly in the style of those of the sons and successors of Ramesses III in the 20th Dynasty, and suggest that Psusennes I and his son claimed a link with the Ramessides, a claim which was not taken up by their successors. TIP 41

A fourth son was a "King's Son of Ramses", Commander of All Troops, Great Chief of [ -- ], Takeloth (C), son of the Lord of the Two Lands, his mokther being Djed-Bast-es-ankh', whose activity at Busiris is denoted by a donation-stela of Year 18, most likely of Shoshenq III.  A fifth possible prince was the 'High Priest of Amenresonter, King's Son of Ramesses, Mek-prince of Pawer ..., Army-leader, Padebehenbast', on a donation-stela of Year 28 of Shoshenq III, probably from Kom el Hisn. TIP 305.

        4.  One important  monument, the so-called "Berlin genealogy" (12), provides a listing of the high priests of Ptah in Memphis extending back several hundred years from sometime in the late 7th century (in the revised chronology).   This lengthy inscription in many instances names a king under whose rule the particular high priest held office.  According to this document two (or three) high priests ruled during the lengthy reign of Psusennes I near the beginning of the 21st dynasty, while the high priest in the third generation prior ruled under Ramses II of the 19th dynasty.  The 20th dynasty is noticeably absent, leading to speculation that some haplography has caused the artisan to omit entirely the line of priests contemporary with the Ramesside kings of the 20th dynasty.   That conclusion is, of course, an act of desperation.  It cannot be sustained by an examination of the monument.  There is no escaping the conclusion that the end of the reign of the 19th dynasty king Ramses II precedes the beginning of the 21st dynasty by no more than two generations (making allowance for the reign of Smendes), or even less.  This in turn is possible only if the 20th and 21st dynasties are contemporary with one another.   The Memphite priests naturally related their terms in office to the 21st dynasty kings whose realm included Memphis, ignoring complete the parallel 20th dynasty who ruled the Theban area 500 miles further south.  The Berlin genealogy, in and of itself, confirms the overlap between the two dynasties, a critical aspect of our revised chronology.

        All of the evidence cited above in support of our assumption of three contemporary 8th century dynasties will be examined in greater depth either in an appendix to this book, or in its sequel.    Our reasons for abbreviating the discussion here are patent.  In the first place we want to minimize the distraction.  Our emphasis is on the Theban 21st dynasty, which we will soon move to the 7th century, not on the history of the 8th century.   And secondly, the fact that the 20th dynasty ends around the time of the Assyrian occupation of Egypt, perhaps the most contentious aspect of the table 2 chronology,  will become self evident when we fix in place the Theban branch of the 21st dynasty. (13)

        Thus far we have reasoned that the 21st dynasty belongs historically in the approximate time frame 785-650 B.C.    But this separates by almost a century the 21st dynasty and 25th dynasty priest kings named Menkheperre, whom we believe to be the same person.  Clearly the Theban branch of the 21st dynasty must move.
 

Theban Branch Not 21st Dynasty

        Thus far we have assumed, following the traditional history, that the Tanite and Theban branches of the 21st dynasty were complementary factions of the same dynasty, ruling their respective halves of the country for precisely the same length of time, beginning and ending in the same years, a claim that should immediately cause us to wonder, since no reason is given in the traditional history for their simultaneous rise to power, nor for their synchronized demise.

        It is time to sever the chord between the two branches of the 21st dynasty.   In the chronology suggested in table 2 there is no possibility that the 21st dynasty Theban kings ruled the Theban area alongside the Tanite kings.   The south of Egypt was ruled by the 20th dynasty kings at that time.  There is no room for two sequences of kings in the identical area.

        Later in this chapter we will argue against the assumption, long held by Egyptologists, that the king named Nesubanebdjed in the monuments, and in the story of the travels of (king) Wenamun, is Smendes, the founder of the 21st dynasty.  We will argue instead that this Nesubanebdjed lived near the end of the 21st dynasty, not at its beginning.   And since Nesubanebdjed is a contemporary of Herihor, the founder of the so-called Theban branch of the 21st dynasty, it follows that the Theban branch overlaps at most the final decades of the 21st dynasty.  Its beginning lies a century after the time of Smendes, and precisely when we expect that the 25th dynasty ancestors of Piankhi began to rule in Egypt.   Properly understood, the "Theban branch of the 21st dynasty" is no more a part of the 21st dynasty than are the 22nd and 23rd dynasties, which overlap the 21st to a greater extent.   It is a misnomer to refer to these Theban  kings as 21st dynasty pharaohs.   As we will soon see, they include Piankhi and his immediate ancestors.

        The critic has no grounds to complain.   The Theban branch of the 21st dynasty is a figment of the collective imaginations of 20th century Egyptologists, based on a single unproven assumption (Smendes = Nesubanebdjed).   Manetho knows nothing about any Theban kings contemporary with his 21st dynasty.  Not a single monument connects Pinudjem I (1070-1032 B.C.) with either Smendes (1069-1043 B.C.), Amenemnisu (1043-1039 B.C.)  or Psusennes I (1039-991 B.C.) whose reigns his life presumably overlapped.  No monument of the priest king Menkheperre mentions a single Tanite king.   Once we remove the faulty Smendes = Nesubanebdjed lynchpin which mistakenly holds the Theban kings wrongly in place, we are at liberty to move them at will, so long as they fit in their new surroundings.

        With that in mind we detatch the Theban from the Tanite branch of the 21st dynasty and lower the dates for the Theban kings by a further 114 years (14), bringing them firmly into the 7th century, overlapping the final decades of the 21st dynasty Tanite kings.  Their dates are those forced upon us by the results of our previous analyses of the life of Piankhi, which clearly demonstrated that he ruled Egypt during the years 637-583.   We have merely taken Kitchen's table (our table 1), assigned these dates to the Theban priest king Menkheperre, and imposed the dates for Herihor, Piankh, and Pinudjem I by working backward from Menkheperre's reign on the assumption that he is Menkheperre Piankhi.  There remains for us the task of demonstrating the remarkable correspondence between these dates and information provided by a multitude of monuments.