In chapter 3 of Nebuchadrezzar & the Egyptian Exile we briefly discussed the troublesome reference to "Urdamanie, son of Shabaka" in the Rassam cylinder inscription, an Assyrian document dated in the eponymy of Shamash-daninanni, thus sometime between 644 and 636 B.C..    To facilitate our discusssion here we quote our earlier introduction to the subject:

We have argued the case that Urdamanie, the successor of Tarqu in the annals of Ashurbanipal, is none other than Rudamon, the successor of Takelot III of the Libyan 22nd dynasty.  We postponed comment on the problematic reference in the Rassam cylinder to "Urdamanie son of Shabaka".  Scholars typically identify this Shabaka with either Shabataka or Shabaka of the 25th dynasty, kings intermediate between Piankhi and Taharka.  If true, then this genealogical construct is a problem for the current revision.  According to the revised chronology, the entire 25th dynasty followed the Assyrian invasion.  Shabaka's dates will soon be established as c.a. 635-585 B.C.  He can hardly be identified as the father of a king who invaded the Egyptian delta in 665 B.C.  But is it true that the Rassam cylinder refers to "Urdamanie son of Shabaka."?

    Our purpose here is to discuss a possibility omitted from the initial publication, one which has the advantage that it reads the Rassam cylinder precisely as do a majority of Egyptologists.  Furthermore, it answers a question not even raised in the initial publication, namely, how the 25th dynasty Napatan kings gained a foothold in the area of Thebes formerly controlled by the 23rd dynasty kings Osorkon III, Takeloth III and Rudamon.   The failure to discuss this third possibility in Nebuchadnezzar is related in part to the length and complexity of the supporting argument, which would of necessity have included a detailed discussion of the Tang-i Var discovery discussed in question 2 in the present section of this webpage.  [In hindsight this third possibility should probably have been included, at least in summary form, and may well be introduced in the edited version of the book.]

    The Tang-i Var inscription, which makes reference to a Shabataku, king of Melukkha, belongs to the era of the Assyrian king Sargon II and is dated to around 706 B.C.   In our discussion of  that relief inscription it was argued that this king of Melukkha is not the 25th dynasty king Shabataka, but rather an ancestor of like name.   We will not repeat the argument here, but we assume its validity in all that follows.

    In our initial remarks concerning "Urdamanie son of sha-pa-ku-u" we noted that scholars typically identify "sha-pa-ku-u" with either Shabataka or Shabaka of the 25th dynasty".    The possibility that the name refers to Shabataka was completely ignored.   We return to consider that alternative here.

    It is the opinion of a majority of Egyptologists that the Assyrian annalyst actually intends to refer to Shabataka.   There are multiple reasons for this sentiment.  The first is chronological.  According to the traditional history Shabaka died in or around 703 B.C.   Shabataka ruled Egypt afterward until his death in 690 B.C., and he in turn was followed by his brother Taharka.  Since Urdamani (Tanuatamon in the traditional history) invaded Egypt immediately following the death of Taharka in 665 B.C., it is more likely that he is the son of a king who died twenty-five years earlier than one whose death occurred forty years before.  That argument has even more validity in view of the revised dates for Shabaka's death -  713 B.C. or earlier - suggested  by the Tang-i Var inscription.

    There are also genealogical reasons.  In the traditional history Shabataka is the brother of Taharka while Shabaka is of the prior generation.   Urdamanie/Tanuatamon is a nephew of Taharka, and more than likely belongs to the subsequent generation.  It is unlikely, therefore, that Shabaka could have been his father.   Either "son of" means "grandson of" in the Rassam cylinder inscription, or Shabaka is intended to refer to Shabataka.

     K.A. Kitchen provides an alternative explanation.

The parentage of Tantamani is not absolutely certain; the 'Rassam Cylinder' of Assurbanipal calls him 'son of Shabaku', while Cylinder B makes him 'the son of his (Taharqa's) sister', cited above.  It would be possible for Tantamani to have been a son of Shabako by an elder sister of Taharqa.  This solution, however, would make Tantamani the son of an uncle/niece marriage; and most scholars prefer - perhaps correctly - to take the Assyrian 'Shabaku' as intended (or an error) for Shibitku.  As the latter was a brother of Taharqa, Tantamani would then have beena the offspring of a brother/sister match precisely like the marriages of Alara and Kasaqa, Kashta and Pebatma, Piankhy and three of his five wives, and Taharqa and two wives.  So,  provisionally, I adopt this latter solution here.  TIP 121

    Provisionally we agree with the majority opinion,  though for reasons other than those suggested by Egyptologists.   If the assumption of an errant orthography is reasonable for the traditional history then it is reasonable for the revised history.  And if "Urdamanie, son of Shabaku" means "Urdamanie, son of Shabitku" then our problem with the Rassam cylinder inscription completely disappears.   In fact, the new reading allows for the creation of a fairly detailed chronology of the transition period between the 23rd and 25th dynasties.

    If the alternative reading of the Rassam cylinder is assumed, and if our interpretation of the Tang-i Var inscription is correct,  then Urdamanie/Rudamon must be the offspring of a marriage between a sister of Takeloth III and Shabataku, the king of Melukkha named in that Sargonid rock relief.    The resulting chronology is diagrammed below:
 

    There can be no chronological objection to our proposal that Urdamanie (Rudamon) is the son of a marriage between an unnamed daughter of Osorkon III and Shabataka, king of Melukkha, named in the Tang-i Var relief.  The Melukkhan king was ruling in the extreme south, probably in the area of Napata (though the precise location of Melukkha is not known) around the year 712 B.C.   The length of his reign is a complete unknown, but we can safely assume that he ruled for yet another decade, or even longer.  His Melukkhan kingship paralleled the rule of Takeloth II in Thebes (715-690 B.C.) and may have continued into the turbulent years which followed, as multiple rulers contested for power within Egypt.

    Early in his reign Takeloth II, already quite elderly, was assisted by his son Prince Osorkon, later to become Osorkon III.  Around his 10th year (706 B.C.) Takeloth installed Osorkon as High Priest of Amon in Thebes.    Osorkon could not have been a young man.   On the one hand he was the eldest son of an elderly king.  On the other, his elevation to such a prestigious and powerful office implies that he was middle aged.  We assume that he was born at least as early as 750 B.C.   It is reasonable to assume that he had a daughter of marriageable age by the time he became High Priest.   It is also reasonable that he (or his father) would seek to forge an alliance with Shabataku, the king of Melukkha.

    Osorkon lived in an age of uncertainty.   Not only was Egypt threatened by the expansionist policies of Sennacherib of Assyria, but control of the Theban area by Takeloth II and his 23rd dynasty relations was threatened by contesting factions within Egypt.    It is understandable that Takeloth II, the biblical Tirhakah,  would attempt to minimize any threat on his southern border by means of a marriage of convenience.  Therefore, soon after Osorkon assumed the rank of High Priest his eldest daughter was sent to marry Shabataku, king of Melukkha (any daughters of Takeloth would be either too old or already married).   The offspring of that marriage, Urdamanie, would have been raised in Melukkha, and would be around thirty to forty years old when he invaded Thebes immediately following the death of Takeloth III (Tarqu) in 665 B.C.

    Takeloth III, the Tarqu of the Assyrian annals, was a son of that same high priest Osorkon.  He was therefore the uncle of Rudamon, his sister's son.    The Assyrian documents are entirely accurate.   Rudamon was "the son of his (Tarqu's) sister".   He was also the "son of Shabaka (= Shebitku = Shabataka)".

    The Tang-i Var inscription, in conjunction with the reading Shabataka in the Rassam inscription, adds a surprising new element to the genealogy of the 23rd dynasty kings.  Whereas Osorkon III and Takeloth III were strictly Theban area monarchs - Cushite in the sense that the term Cush in this time period, at least as used by the Assyrian and biblical annalists,  refers to Upper Egypt and the area immediately south, perhaps as far as the 2nd cataract (see question 1) -  Rudamon and his successors laid claim to a much wider territory.   With Rudamon the 23rd dynasty extended its influence into the area of Napata, or rather, the 25th dynasty began it's association with Egypt.  A connection with the 25th dynasty is forged.

    The 25th dynasty kings Shabaka and Shabataka are almost certainly descendants of the Melukkhan king Shabataku, and are therefore related to Rudamon.    If the accepted genealogy of the 25th dynasty  is correct, and Piankhi and Shabaka are indeed sons of a dignitary named Kashta, then it is likely that Kashta is a brother of Rudamon, and the family tree can be extended as shown below.  We have included in the proposed genealogy the only confirmed descendant of Rudamon, a daughter who married Peftjuawybast, king of Heracleopolis,  who ruled his city state at the time of Piankhi's invasion of the Nile Delta in 617 B.C.  (see the argument in Nebuchadnezzar for this date).  The expanded genealogy is as shown:

    This genealogy will be encountered again in Piankhi the Chameleon, the next book in this Displaced Dynasties series, where it may be emended slightly.