The balance of this chapter is intended to undergird the relative chronology outlined above. Three strands of evidence are examined: 1) the Berlin and Louvre genealogies of the Deltite high priests of Ptah; 2) the sequence of deaths of the sacred bulls of the Osiris/Apis cult from the famed Serapeum near Memphis; and 3) the evidence related to the ordering of the Theban high priests of Amun. We examine them in reverse order.
 

High Priests of Amun

        To date we have outlined a chronology strictly in terms of the kings of the various dynastic groups. But the clergy were almost as vocal as the kings, and they have left behind a considerable body of literature, some of which contributes significantly to proving our case. In particular the Theban high priests of Amun, at least at the lower end of the temporal spectrum, lend support to our cause, not by what they say, but by what they do not say, i.e. by their apparent silence in the traditional history. While not directly related to 8^th century chronology, the mysterious silence of the high priests during the late 22^nd through early 25^th dynasties indirectly supports our cause. Clearly a word of explanation is necessary.

        When we moved the 106 years of the 21^st Theban dynasty forward into the 7^th century, placing Herihor, Piankh, Pinudjem, Minkheperre Piankhi, etc., as successors to the high priest Takeloth, at precisely the time when this pontiff assumed the kingship and became Takeloth III (Tarqu), there should have resulted some conflict with the traditional history. At the time we refrained from asking the question we now propose. But it needs to be asked. On the assumption that the traditional history has no Theban high priests positioned in the100 year interval which separated the high priest Takeloth and the time of Taharka, where they would clearly conflict with our revised history, we wonder what happened to them?. And while we are pondering that query we take the opportunity to go further afield and ask a related question. Since we have argued that there existed, following the Babylonian invasion of Egypt in the early years of Taharka, a twenty year interregnum which preceded the advent of Psamtik I and the beginning of the recovery of temple worship, we wonder whether the traditional history has recorded this additional twenty year gap in the high priesthood. Both questions receive the expected response from traditionalist historians. The Theban high priesthood was unexpectedly (but conveniently) vacant precisely where it had to be for our thesis to be credible!

        According to Kenneth Kitchen:

What happened to the high-priesthood of Amun of Thebes after the accession of Takeloth III remains a total mystery. While perhaps some record of a couple of incumbents for the 40 years down into the reign of Shabako remains to be found, yet the simplest explanation may well be that the office was actually left in abeyance. TIP 164 (emphasis added)

        We argue instead that the high priesthoods of Haremakhet and Harkhebi existed back to back in the recovery period which began with the death of Taharka, twenty years after the 565 B.C. invasion of Nebuchadrezzar. Since Haremakhet is associated with Tanuatamon in several inscriptions, his dates are probably c.a. 543-535 B.C., while those of his son and successor must be roughly 535-510? B.C. ⁽⁹⁾ We also believe that Nitocris, not long after her "adoption"and at the time of death of Harkhebi, took over the role of high priest at the behest of Psamtik I and in time handed that office over to Ankhnesneferibre. In the revised history the only vacancy in the Theban high priesthood took place during the first half of the Egyptian exile (564-543 B.C.). The problem of empty pulpits simply does not exist. Egyptologists are searching for what they will never find, high priests to fill a void they have artificially created by moving the 21^st Theban dynasty successors of Takeloth III hundreds of years back into the remote past.

        Enough said about temporal concerns related to the latter part of our revised chronology. The other two priestly sources speak to issues more directly concerned with our 8^th century chronology.
 

Apis Bulls of the Osiris Cult

        Many times already we have had cause to seek the testimony of various stelae found by Mariette in the vaults of the Memphite Serapeum of the Osiris/Apis cult in the latter half of the 19^th century. Much of the relative chronology of the late 22^nd through 26^th dynasties (of both the traditional and revised histories) depends on documentation found on the official stelae deposited by clergy of the cult at this location. What surprised Mariette at the time of his discovery, and has continued to perplex Egyptologists in the century and a half following, is the complete absence of evidence attesting the involvement of priests from the 21^st dynasty and the initial years of the 22^nd dynasty, a time span of several hundred years. Did the cult cease to exist for this extended length of time?

        On the desert surface east and south-east of the ground above the "lesser vaults" Mariette found a series of tombs built individually for the sacred bulls which died in the 18th dynasty under Amenhotep II and his successors. These tombs continued through the reign of Haremheb and into the time of Seti I. The subterranean "lesser vaults" (see Figure 3 below) had their origin under Ramses II, in whose reign at least five vaults were built (Mariette's G - K) with a common corridor. Vault construction was extended northward in succeding generations with the addition of four vaults (L-O), three attributed to Ramses III and his successors, and one left unidentified (inconnu). Though Mariette attempted to associate several of these individual crypts with more than one Apis, there is no evidence in any of these tombs to suggest that fact, other than the presence of dedicatory material in one of the tombs naming multiple 20^th dynasty kings. On the assumption that an Apis bull in these times lived an average of around 13 years ⁽¹⁰⁾, these four tombs can represent at most around 50 years. Thus, whether we are speaking of the traditional or the revised histories, they can represent only the time interval between Ramses II and the ephemeral successors of Ramses III. In the revised history, on the assumption that the first bull died mid way through the reign of Merenptah, the deaths of the four bulls might be dated 768, 755, 742 and 729 B.C. respectively. We are not concerned with the fact that later Ramesside kings might have left dedicatory inscriptions in these vaults; it is the probable sequence of bulls that is important.

        After the bulls from the Ramesside era the corridor was gradually extended much further north by the 22^nd dynasty kings and their 24^th and 25^th dynasty successors, though the first bull, that belonging to the 23^rd year of Osorkon II (718 B.C.) must have been laid to rest somewhere in the southern complex, where the stela which records the event was discovered by Mariette. These later burials, which ran sequentially from Osorkon II through the early years of Psamtik I were all built off this extended corridor (P-T). The most northerly burial (T) belongs to Psamtik, in his early years, after which a "cave-in" (eboulement) over vault L caused Psamtik to begin a new sequence of vaults (the "greater vaults") extending to the west. At least six vaults were built off the corridor in these "lesser vaults" which were apparently intended to be used, but which were left unoccupied because of the cave in (Nos. 1-6).
 

        Egyptologists rightly ask themselves what happened to the bulls that died during the reigns of the 21^st and early 22^nd dynasty kings. The Serapeum vaults seem to preclude their (independent) existence. But we know what happened. We have already suggested dates for the death of all bulls between Ramses II and the 23^rd year of Osorkon. They fit perfectly, leaving no gaps in the sequence. The 21^st dynasty kings were contemporaries, first of the early Ramessides and then of the later 22^nd dynasty pharaohs. Apparently they were not associated with the cult of Osiris. Their preoccupation was with the god Amun. The early 22^nd dynasty kings were contemporaries of the early Ramessides. They were probably confined to the north-western region of the delta and had little association with Memphis. Only with Osorkon II did the seat of power shift to the Bubastis region and the 22^nd dynasty become involved with the Apis cult. In the revised history there is no 200 year-long break in the sequence of Apis bulls. All is well with the Oiris cult as it was with the Theban high priests of Amun. The problem lies squarely on the shoulders of the errant chronology of the traditional history.
 

The Berlin & Louvre Genealogies

        The high priests of Amun and of the Osiris/Apis cult are not the only clerics who lend support to our thesis. The high priests of Ptah, as listed in the Berlin and Louvre genealogies, have a word to add. The most economical means of introducing these genealogies is to quote from Kenneth Kitchen's massive Third Intermediate Period which has this to say:

Two major genealogical documents form the core of our knowledge of Memphite pontiffs for this period, and (combined with contemporary data) have an important and direct bearing on 21st-Dynasty chronology. These are the remarkable genealogies of Memphite priests, one of which is in Berlin (23673) and the other is a partial parallel from the Serapeum, which is now in the Louvre ('96; Cat. 52). (TIP 151)

        It almost goes without saying that the two genealogies identify each cleric as the son of the priest in the preceding generation. And since several of these priests are said to have exercised their trade under specific kings, they provide a valuable tool for reconstructing the chronologies of dynasties 21 through 18, since kings from each of dynasties 18 and 21 are clearly identified. And if we extend the Louvre genealogy downward to its beginning, we can trace the family lineage back to its origins beyond the end of the 22^nd dynasty.

        The Louvre Serapeum stele was dedicated at the death of an Apis bull by a priest named Ashakhet, son of Pakher, son of Osorkon, son of Takelot, son of Osorkon, son of Sheshonk, son of Shedsunefertem, the HPM named in Table 5 above. It follows that if we can date this Ashakhet, and if we can determine the approximate number of years in each generation of these high priests, we can work backward to establish a rough dating for Ramses II.

        The dating of the stele is simplified somewhat by the fact that Mariette, its discoverer, assigned it, probably on stylistic grounds, to the time of Bocchoris, approximately 610-600 B.C. in the revised chronology. Traditional historians discount this creditation, arguing that the time of Bocchoris is much too late to complement other data of the traditional history. We argue that Mariette has dated it about twenty to thirty years too early. It was found near the entrance to the lesser vault of the Serapeum, and any explanation of its date must take account of the fact that it was not found within the confines of any vault occupied by a deceased Apis. It appears to have been deposited in haste. The location of the bull which died during the reign of Bocchoris is well known (tomb S), and it contained several stelae. Ashakhet's was not among them. Ashakhet cannot date precisely to that time. Another bull, two generations removed, supposedly died early in the reign of Taharka, only shortly before the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar in the revised chronology (perhaps in the initial stages of that conflict). Considering the location of Ashakhet's stela it is tempting to date his priesthood in this time frame, around 565 B.C. If so then we should date the birth of Ashakhet around the year 600 B.C. This is, of course, a rough approximation, but sufficiently accurate to prove the point we are about to make.

        There remains the task of determining the length of a generation in the structured lives of the priests of the god Ptah. Initially we are inclined to adopt, for various reasons, a figure of around 15 or 16 years. These priests were very likely among the first born of their respective families, and they were likely set aside to perform their lifelong tasks at a very early age (witness the fact which we observed in Piankhi the Chameleon that the youthful Harnakht, son of Osorkon II, was already, at the age of 7 or 8 years, identified as a high priest of Amun). We can assume that they were provided with a wife in their early teens, and likely produced their first offspring by their mid-teens. This is not all speculation. The genealogies themselves provide a clue.

        We can see already in the Table 5 genealogy that four generations of priests from this same family served during the 66 plus years of the reign of Ramses II. Were we to extend the genealogy upward in time two more generations we would see that these two forefathers served under Seti I, Ramses's father. Seti is only credited with 10 years of independent rule by the traditional history. Taking the two reigns together we see six consecutive generations of priests serving kings whose combined reigns spanned at most 77 years. Clearly our estimated figure is not excessive. In the table below we list the entirety of the Louvre genealogy as extended by the Berlin genealogy back through the reign of Ramses II. Allowing 16 years per generation, and assuming that Ashakhet was born around 600 B.C., we arrive at approximate dates for the birth of each priest. The fact that our assumptions are reasonably accurate will be borne out as we examine the results.
 
 

        There remains for us to comment on the general reliability of the data supplied by this table. At least four generations of this genealogy are attested elsewhere on assorted monuments. Again Kitchen speaks to this issue, noting that ...

... some first-hand confirmation of this genealogy and its dates of dignitaries is available. Happily, the high priest Shedsunefertem is securely attested in office under Shoshenq I, in the early 22nd Dynasty. He named his own son (who succeeded him in office) Shoshenq after his royal patron and relative-by-marriage; his own father is likewise confirmed as the high priest Ankhefensekhmet (A). Two generations before Ankhefensekhmet and Shedsunefertem, the high priest Pipi B is attested under Siamun on a temple building at Memphis, where the well-sculptured gateways included a lintel of the high priest 'Neterkheperre Meryptah who is called Piupiu'. He attends on Siamon in whose honor he adopted this loyalist name which is based on the king's prenomen. TIP 152

        We also question the identifications in Kitchens second remark. We can as easily consider the high priest in question to be Pipi A rather than Pipi B, and as argued earlier we believe that the king Neterkheperre Siamon should be identified as Smendes, the founder of the 21^st dynasty and not Psinaches as Kitchen is arguing. We have dated Smendes to the years 756-730 B.C. and the birth of Pipi A to the year 776 B.C. The fit is perfect.

        Traditional historians generally (though not unanimously) identify the two references to Psebkhannu as allusions to Aakheperre Psebkhannu, the first Psusennes in that schema. We agree that we are here dealing with Psusennes I, though we believe that this is the Tyetkheperre Psebkhannu of the monuments. We have assigned to him the years 730-684 B.C., a time frame which agrees perfectly with the assumed birth dates of the two pontiffs who served him. Harsiese J (b. 760) and Pipi B (b. 744) would each have been around 40 years of age at the end of the first and third quarters of Psusennes' reign.

        As for the Aakheperre Setepnamun who was served by Pipi A we again find substantial agreement with the chronology of Table 6., though here some explanation is required. The traditional history typically identifies this king as Aakheperre Psebkhannu, as in the two adjacent generations which provide the nomen, instead of the prenomen of this king. That is, of course, an impossibility in the revised history, wherein the rationale for much of the argument depended on placing Aakheperre at the end of the 21^st dynasty, not near its beginning. Even many Egyptologists question why the author of the inscription would refer to Psusennes by his prenomen once and his nomen twice, and thus they assign the reference in question to Psusennes I and the two following instances of the name Psebkhannu to Psusennes II (thereby effectively discounting the reliability of the genealogy as an historical source). Fortunately we have an explanation ready at hand. There are two Egyptians kings who had the identical prenomen Aakheperre Setepnamun - Psusennes I (our II) and the 22^nd dynasty king typically numbered Osorkon IV. We have previously argued the case for renumbering this Osorkon as Osorkon I and have assigned to him the (provisional) dates 755-740 B.C. It is not surprising that he was served by Pipi A who was born in 776 B.C . Nor should it be surprising that this same Pipi served Siamon of the 21^st dynasty. The two competing dynasties had only recently come into existence. These were troublesome times in which a symbiotic relationship likely existed between the delta kinglets of the 21^st and 22^nd dynasties.

        Only one datum in the entire listing in Table 6 is problematic for the revised history (as it is also for the traditional history). In the Berlin genealogy (see Figure 4 below) at the left end of the uppermost line we find the 15^th generation name of the king served by Ashakhet A (thus numbered 1.15 in Kitchen's table for 1^st row, 15^th element) transliterated Amenemnisu by Kitchen (following Grdseloff and Kees ⁽¹¹⁾) but Amenophthis by Borchardt, who first published the Berlin document ⁽¹²⁾. Borchardt transliterated the cartouche name, which unfortunately lies near the broken left end of the inscription, as 'Imn-m-ip-t-rs-t, a considerably different reading than that provided later by Grdseloff and Kees. All three scholars suffer from the same handicap. They are attempting to read a 21^st dynasty name into the damaged section of hieroglyphs, one believing that the name must refer to Manetho's Amenophthis (Amenemepet), the other Manetho's Nepherkare (Amenemnisu). But the orthography actually resembles neither name as found elsewhere. We believe that the reading Amenmesse Heka-waset may be the correct reading but confess that we are influenced in our judgment by the revised chronology and the desire to read here a name from the period of civil unrest which followed the death of Ramses II. It may well be that the king named here is otherwise unknown to historians. It could be one of Ramses many son's, some of whom no doubt contested for power but left no other record of their existence. We note that Ramses did have a son named Amenemopet with orthography close to what is visible in the inscription. Perhaps Borchardt was correct in the reading but wrong in the assignment of the name. We leave the matter there.

        One last corroboration of the accuracy of our historical revision is clearly visible in the Berlin genealogy. The second row of names begins on the extreme right (2.1) with a high priest who served an unknown king (perhaps Merenptah) followed by four others (2.2-2.5) who served Ramses II. Since we have dated Ramses II to the years 840-774 B.C. there is perfect chronological agreement with the revised history. The four priests who functioned under Ramses were born between the years 872-824 B.C.. Conceivably all four could have been in their late 30's when they served at various times under Ramses II.
 

        This discussion of Ramses II brings to the fore the obvious question for which the traditional history has no reasonable answer. Why is the 21^st dynasty (21st/22nd dynasties according to our interpretation) preceded immediately by the 19^th in the Berlin genealogy? What happened to the 20^th dynasty?

        The problem has been debated since Borchardt first published the inscription. Kitchen acknowledges the fact that "for roughly 150 years or more from the death of Ramesses II to the early 21^st dynasty, the Berlin document has only one generation (Ptah-em-akhet B) between Ramesses II and Amenemnisu" (TIP 153) He goes on to suggest that "it is theoretically possible to argue a simple omission of six or seven names (a haplography?) or even that further names in the top row are lost on some slab that was once contiguous with it", and then he goes on to point out other flaws in the Berlin sequence that cannot be so easily dismissed. But we should not pass by Kitchen's explanation so quickly. Neither proposal is even remotely possible considering the structure of the genealogy and the careful planning that has gone into its construction. ⁽¹³⁾ And we challenge Kitchen to cite chapter and verse of any other inscription where such a lengthy haplography has occurred. Perhaps a single hieroglyph; occasionally a word or phrase; but a whole line of text and figures on a block which in all probability was drawn out on the polished surface before the artisan inscribed it in stone - impossible! And why, we ask, did the distinguished priest whose genealogy is here reproduced, not object to the supposed omission?

        This stele at minimum shows the bankrupt state of the traditional chronology and thus of the history enmeshed within it. And it establishes, as does no other single document, the essential reliability of the relative chronology of the revised history. And the mere fact that we could construct a genealogy with dates included, as in Table 6, which explains every aspect of the Berlin and Louvre genealogies, goes a long way to proving the essential reliability of our absolute chronology.

        In passing we should answer one anticipated objection to the discussion related to the High Priests of Ptah in Memphis (HPM). The critic will surely point out that there are other high priests of Ptah which are not included in the Louvre and Berlin documents, names such as Sheshonk, Merenptah, and Pediese to name a few. In the traditional history these are appended to the end of the Louvre genealogy. The claim is made that the Louvre and Berlin lists take us into the 22^nd dynasty at the time of Shedsunefertem, this on the assumption that Hedjkheperre Sheshonk, the contemporary of Shedsunefertem, is Sheshonk I, the founder of the Dynasty. It is then claimed that the remaining names on the list take us further into the 22^nd dynasty (roughly to the time of Osorkon II) and that the additional high priests of which we speak (one, the son of Osorkon II, one from the time of Takeloth II, one a contemporary of Sheshonk III, etc) continue through the balance of the dynasty. ⁽¹⁴⁾ But according to the revised history the last priest of the Louvre stele lived decades beyond the close of the 22^nd dynasty. There is no room for additional high priests. Then where do we place these superfluous names? The answer is simple. We place them alongside the names from the Louvre and Berlin genealogies. Throughout much of the 22^nd dynasty period there must have existed at least two high priests of Ptah, one in Memphis to be sure, but also at least one elsewhere, possibly though not certainly in Bubastis, associated more intimately with the 22^nd dynasty kings. After all, this was the age of competing dynasties. None of the titles of any of these high priests contains a specific mention of the city of Memphis as if to imply that they must be associated with the Ptah cult centered there. Enough said.