Egypt under Menkheperre finally achieved its independence from Assyria in 637 B.C.  By 617 B.C. Piankhi ruled all of Egypt and Nubia as far south as the 4th cataract.  Beginning in 616 B.C. he acted to reestablish control of Syria and after the fall of Assyria in 612 B.C. effectively replaced that nation as the dominant power throughout the Mediterranean region, in alliance with the Phoenicians.  Though control over Syria was lost late in his reign it was apparently regained under Taharka, who for a time extended Egyptian sovereignty as far as the upper Tigris, inhabiting the ruins of Nineveh during the mania of Nebuchadrezzar and gaining for himself the reputation as one of the great military leaders of history.  Then, suddenly, all was lost, as Nebuchadrezzar recovered from his illness and took revenge on Egypt.  These later events were covered briefly in Nebuchadrezzar & the Egyptian Exile.  It is our concern in this concluding section to flesh out these final years.  In particular we are concerned to fit the 21st Theban dynasty successors of Menkheperre (Smendes II, Pinudjem II and Psusennes III) into the picture.  But first we need to consider the assumptions on which Egyptologists base their conclusions regarding the chronology of these terminal 21st Theban dynasty priest/kings.
 

Errant Assumptions

        Since Manetho makes no mention of the Theban 21st dynasty, Egyptologists have constructed the chronology of the southern priest/kings based entirely on the documents which name them, primarily the bandage and docket inscriptions from the two caches at Deir el Bahri. That process appears to have been successful, at least through the high priesthood of Menkheperre.  Even the length of their tenure in office has been determined with reasonable accuracy, again as far as the kingship of Menkheperre.  But the same success cannot be claimed for the balance of the dynasty, in part resulting from a fundamental error. We have remarked on the fact that most (though not all) Egyptologists relate the year dates on all of the Deir el Bahri inscriptions to the reigns of the Tanite kings, whose own years in office are by that means estimated and adjusted to fit the data provided by Manetho.  And we have noted that this practice is entirely without warrant. We fail to appreciate why Theban kings would reference their inscriptions to the years of kings ruling 500 miles to the north, all the while ignoring their own years in office. We have already argued the case in connection with terms in office of Pinudjem I and Masaharta. And the situation for Menkheperre is all the more certain considering his status. Not only must his personal inscriptions be referenced to his own regnal years, so also must those authored by members of his extended family during his lengthy kingship. And consistency suggests that this practice likely continued into the priesthoods of Menkheperre's successors, Smendes II, Pinudjem II and Psusennes III. The dates on their inscriptions should not, barring evidence to the contrary, be referenced to the years of the Tanite kings Amenemepet and Siamon, as is commonly done.

        There are at least three other reasons why the successors of Menkheperre have been misplaced chronologically. Three further erroneous assumptions undergird all scholarly discussion vis-a-vis the Theban priest/kings, namely, the belief 1) that the 21st Tanite and Theban branches of the dynasty ran parallel with each other; 2) that there could not exist at one and the same time multiple high priests of Amun; and 3) that the priest/kings in both branches of the dynasty had terms in office that ran sequentially, i.e. did not overlap. In a moment we will discuss the first of these errors, by far the most substantial. As for the second and third we need only add a few comments to those made earlier on the subject.

        We have previously stated our opinion that throughout the duration of the Theban dynasty there likely coexisted at least three "high priests of Amun", one in Tanis, one in Thebes, and one in Napata. Though we agree with the experts that at any given temple at any one time there could only be one acting high priest, this is not to say that a priest/king had to die in order to give way to a successor. We have already seen in the case of Pinudjem I that a king can relinquish his high priesthood, or at least the duties thereof, to a successor, all the while maintaining the honorific title "high priest", much as any 20th century dignitary, a mayor for example, continues to be referenced by his former title long after leaving office. We pointed out how he took to his grave two funerary chests which ignore his kingship and address him only as "high priest".  Apparently he was a priest until his death, thus through the high priesthood of Masaharta.  In such cases we have what amounts to overlapping priesthoods. For the duration there coexist two high priests, at least in name, though only one is actively involved in the temple worship.  Assuming this to be true it follows that the third assumption must be in error. The term in office of a pontiff, functioning during the kingship of a former high priest, would not begin with the death of the king, but with his own assumption of office. We will see this principle operating in the case of both Smendes II and Pinudjem II.  We are not guessing. The monuments argue in our favor.

        The first of the three errant assumptions - that the Tanite and Theban 21st dynasties ran parallel with each other - will require a more detailed examination.  To date we have have done little more that state our opinion that the Theban kings are not part of the 21st dynasty, and that the Tanite dynasty had all but run its course by the time of the Assyrian invasion when the Theban priest/kings were arriving on the scene. According to that opinion the king Psusennes, whose body Montet discovered at Tanis, was not that of Psusennes I, the second king of the dynasty, but belonged instead to Psusennes II, who brought the dynasty to a close. But all of the argument produced by scholars in the journals and monographs related to the Theban 21st dynasty assumes that the Tanite contemporaries of Pinudjem 1 through Psusennes III must be the kings documented by Manetho, as preserved by Africanus, namely, Psusennes I, Nephercheres, Amenophthis, Osochor, Psinaches and Psusennes II. The reader can imagine the confusion that must have resulted, if in fact the scholars are wrong. If we are correct, and the king Montet identified as the first in this sequence is actually the last, then it follows that the four kings named in the middle of the list must precede rather than follow his king Psusennes.

        We anticipate that the critic will immediately object by pointing out that some of the documents which name Smendes II and Pinudjem II actually name two of the kings in the list of Manetho, thus vindicating the traditional history. But that is not the case. The only two Tanite kings actually named in the documents of the Theban pontiffs are Amenemopet and Siamon, and neither of these kings are named by Manetho.  It is true that the name Amenemopet bears some resemblance to Manetho's Amenophthis, but so also do the names of multiple Egyptians bearing names compounded with that of the god Amon.  Amenhotep, for example, was a most popular name with dignitaries, used by at least one notable high priest, who not only has the right name, but is correctly positioned chronologically to be identified with Manetho's Amenophthis in the revised history. According to Manetho the reigns of Amenophthis and Psusennes II are separated by only 15 years. If the reign of Psusennes II began in 661 B.C., as we have suggested, then we should expect that a high priest Amenhotep might be found 15 years earlier, around 676 B.C.. This is in fact the case. During the war of the high priests which took place during the period of the great disruption (701-671 B.C.) the central character was an otherwise unknown high priest named Amenhotep. All that can be said about him from the few documents which name him is that for a time he took control of the Theban temple, from which he was driven during one of the forays of the enigmatic viceroy of Nubia named Pinhasi. There is no need to pursue the matter. The time is right, even if we lower the dates of Psusennes II by a few years. The name is also right. Amenhotep is arguably an intruder from the north, and thus can reasonably be identified as a high priest of the Tanite temple of Amun. That his high priestly role (rather than his kingship) is emphasized in the monuments cannot be considered a problem. This dignitary was clearly no mere cleric. Barring evidence to the contrary we can safely identify him with Manetho's Amenophthis.

        Even if that identification should be questioned, for other reasons we remain convinced that Amenemopet cannot be identified as Manetho's Amenophthis. The tomb of Amenemopet at Tanis was found by Montet. It belongs to the 7th century.  In a moment we will return to discuss his tomb and argue the case that he could not belong to the 21st dynasty and in fact, is probably the successor of Sheshonk V of the 22nd dynasty. .

        The claim that Siamon belongs in Manetho's list requires even less time to refute. Manetho does not seem to know this name.  Egyptologists have wondered for years whether he should be identified with Osochor or Psinaches in Manetho's list, and if not then why his name was omitted from the dynastic succession. They can stop wondering. Siamon's temple in Tanis was also excavated by Montet and his burial chamber in the Siwa oasis made the subject of extensive analysis by Immanuel Velikovsky in that author's final publication.[22]  It is clear from those excavations that Siamon cannot be identified as Psinaches, in spite of a recent attempt by the Egyptologist EricYoung to argue the case.[23] All of the evidence suggests that Siamon was the last Tanite king to rule before some disaster befell not only Tanis, but all of Egypt. In a moment we will identify this calamity with that imposed by the armies of Nebuchadrezzar in 564 B.C.  Siamon was not succeeded by a king named Psusennes, nor by any other king. He was driven from Egypt into the Siwa oasis where he lived out his life and died impoverished. We will pick up this discussion later.

        One final series of comments must suffice to prove our case that Manetho's kings precede, rather than follow, Montet's king Psusennes. In the first place, following up on our discussion of the high priest Amenhotep, it must be the case that his successors are the kings Osochor and Psinaches in Manetho's list of 21st dynasty kings, who are assigned reign lengths of 6 years and 9 years respectively.  The second of these names must be identified as our king Nesubanebdjed, the predecessor of Montet's king Psusennes in the revised history.  The first name must refer to an otherwise unknown Osorkon.  We have no explanation why Manetho would call Nesubanebdjed by the name Psinaches, but then traditional historians cannot explain why they believe that Nesubanebdjed should be rendered as Smendes or why Siamon should be called Psinaches. Nor can we identify the Osorkon who is being referred to, but then again, neither can Egyptologists. If we take Manetho's dates seriously, and if Nesubanebdjed is Psinaches, then we should extend Nesubanebdjed's dates beyond those previously assigned him, placing him in the time frame 665-656 B.C.. Working both ways from these dates we can assign regnal dates to the kings who immediately preceded and followed, using the reign lengths provided by Manetho. Thus we would date Neferkare in the time frame 684-680 B.C.; Amenophthis, 680-671 B.C.; Osochor, 671-665 B.C.; and Psusennes II, 656-642 B.C. (assuming the reign length 14 years preserved by Africanus rather that the 35 years of Eusebius). These dates are, of course, very tentative. Some of these king's reigns may have overlapped, and Manetho's data may be seriously flawed. We are impressed, however, to see Osochor ruling during the first six years of the Assyrian occupation, and his death dated to the immediate aftermath of the second failed coup, when multiple kings in Egypt lost their lives. And we have already noted that Amenophthis is positioned precisely where we expect, on the assumption that he is the high priest Amenhotep. But what about Neferkare?  If the traditional history is correct he should follow Montet's Psusennes; if the revised history is correct he should precede him.

        Up until the middle of the 20th century the very existence of this king was suspect. No monument existed bearing his name. But that situation changed abruptly with the excavation of Psusennes' tomb when Montet found two gold bow-caps bearing the twin cartouches of both Psusennes and a king named Neferkare Amenemnisu. According to Kitchen, who is representative of scholarly opinion on the matter, "This at once confirmed the existence and provided the identity of 'Nepherkheres', besides linking him firmly with Psusennes I, in so far as the two prenomens and two nomens were grouped together in pairs and not by separate kings."[24]

        These bow caps could, of course, be viewed as confirmation of the traditional history, since in that history Neferkare immediately followed Psusennes I, the assumed occupant of Montet's tomb. But the objection is raised by Kitchen and others that this would be possible only if the reigns of the two kings overlapped, allowing either Psusennes the opportunity to associate himself with king Neferkare, or for Neferkare to affix his cartouche names alongside those of Psusennes on a gift. And scholars have found the notion of overlapping reigns difficult to accept. Thus they position Neferkare immediately preceding Psusennes.  Kitchen provides a representative discussion of this reasoning:

However, if the association of names on the bow-caps merely indicated a wish of Psusennes to link his name with his predecessor's for some reason, then no co-regency need by postulated. One would simply assume that Psusennes I wished merely to emphasize his legitimacy and the continuity of the kingship on this ceremonial object (and perhaps on others?), and that this piece ended up in his tomb as a personal heirloom from his earliest years, and a ceremonial weapon for the hereafter. TIP 56

        Neferkare did not immediately preceded Psusennes, as Egyptologists argue. According to the dates suggested earlier he died twenty-four years before Psusennes' reign began. If we assume a father-son relationship between all the kings in Manetho's list, he would have been Psusennes great-great grandfather. But clearly that possibility is ruled out by the chronology.  According to Montet, the mummy of Psusennes was that of an old man.  If he ruled only 14 years then Neferkare was possibly his father, and Amenophthis, Osochor and Psinaches were all Psusennes' brothers, who died prematurely. Their reign lengths were short and the circumstances in which all of them lived would easily contribute to a premature death. If Psusennes ruled 35 years, following Eusebius, then grandson-grandfather might better describe the relationship. In either case, assuming that the bow was formerly owned by Neferkare and originally contained only his cartouche names, we can appreciate why Psusennes might add his own names to the bow finials when the bow came into his possession. Whatever the precise circumstances, the bow ends provide further argument for the accuracy of our thesis that Neferkare preceded Montet's Psusennes.  When we examine the Berlin genealogy in the book which follows, we will see that the two occurrences of the name Pesebkhanu (Psusennes I) contained therein belong to the 8th century, not the 7th, further confirming our revised chronology.

        At long last we are ready to date the terminal priest/kings of the 21st Theban dynasty and their Tanite counterparts Amenemopet and Siamon. We begin with the Tanite kings:

.
Amenemopet and Siamon

        The highest year date assigned with certainty to Siamon is his 17th. We assume that this was close to his last year as king in Tanis.[25]   It is known that in his tenth year Siamon buried Pinudjem II and that in his remaining years he filled that same tomb (DB320) with the bodies of the multiple pharaohs named earlier in this book. There must have been good reason for this action, perhaps some impending peril. We assume therefore that his reign immediately preceded the arrival of Nebuchadrezzar in Egypt, and that the threatened invasion was the catalyst which prompted the mass burials. And since Siamon's mortuary chapel in the Siwa oasis suggests a less than auspicious end to his life, we assume that some time shortly after his 17th year he was driven from Egypt by the armies of Nebuchadrezzar. We cannot be far wrong if we date the 17th year of Siamon to the Julian year 565 B.C. Working backward from this date we tentatively assign the beginning of his reign to the year 581 B.C., two years after the death of Menkheperre Piankhi.  The years 581-564 B.C. provide, at minimum, a working framework for discussion.  Providing dates for Amenemopet, Siamon's predecessor, is not so straightforward.

        We have no reason to assume that the reigns of Amenemopet and Siamon ran consecutively, nor do we know the length of the reign of Amenemopet. However, one bandage inscription does name this king, followed immediately by a reference to the year 49, leading many Egyptologists to assign his a reign length of 49 years. But there is no overt suggestion in the inscription that this year date belongs to Amenemopet. Since the bandage was likely produced by a Theban pontiff it must relate to the years of Menkheperre. Thus we conclude that Amenemopet was ruling at least as late as 588 B.C., the 49th year of Piankhi. Yet another inscription refers to Amenemopet and the year "[x] plus 3", on linen produced by the high priest Pinudjem II. Gauthier reads this as "year 43"[26], but we believe on other grounds that it should read "year 53". If so, considering that the year 53 of Menkheperre Piankhi (584 B.C.) is only three years removed from the date assigned to the beginning of Siamon's reign, we can safely assume that Amenemopet and Siamon ruled consecutively. They may have been father and son.

        Determining the year when Amenemopet began his reign is much more difficult, there being little evidence on which to base a conclusion. We cannot assume with the traditional history that he was the successor of Montet's Psusennes, since we have argued that that king is not Psusennes I and Amenemopet is not Amenophthis. Amenemopet's tomb was found by Montet near that of Psusennes and Sheshonk V, and clearly postdates Psusennes' tomb, all but confirming our argument that he belongs to the 7th century, as they do. The tomb had been robbed of all but a few trinkets, one bearing the name of Siamon, his successor, understandable if Siamon assisted in his burial.  His body had been removed from his desecrated tomb and transferred to the tomb of Psusennes, where it was placed in the coffin Psusennes had provided for his wife, queen Mutnodjmet. This evidence raises the question: who descrated Amenemopet's tomb? and who relocated his body in Psusennes' tomb? questions to which we have no definite answer. We do note that another artifact bearing Siamon's name was found at the entrance to Psusennes' tomb, leading to speculation that it was he who reinterred his predecessor. That would imply that Amenemopet's tomb was desecrated during the lifetime of Siamon, either while Siamon was tenured in Tanis, or possible while he lived in exile in the oasis, whence he must have returned surreptitiously when only garrisons guarded the country. In the latter case we assume that the Babylonians robbed the tomb. But none of this discussion tells us when the reign of Amenemopet began.

        Only one artifact even remotely suggests an answer to our question. When Montet excavated the tomb of Osorkon II, he found in one of the adjoining rooms the body of a youth named Harnakht, whose mummy, according to "expert opinion", belonged to that of a child around 8 or 9 years old[27]. A single bracelet inscription identified the child as the son of Osorkon and his wife Karoama.[28] Surprisingly, while much of Osorkon's tomb had been looted by robbers, the crypt containing the remains of Harnakht, while in a state of disarray, contained a considerable number of gold and silver artifacts, including a silver coffin. Even more curious was the fact that several inscriptions belonging to Harnakht identified him as a high priest of Amun, a revelation that caused Egyptologists to scramble for explanation.[29] Near the coffin were found several artifacts which are believed to be out of context, a fact requiring explanation.[30] That which concerns us here is a small lapis-lazuli statuette inscribed by "the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, first prophet of Amon, Amenenapit, beloved of Amon. In spite of the spelling error, the statuette clearly belongs to our king Amenemepet. How do we explain the presence of this artifact in the tomb of a young prince whose death and burial probably took place prior to the death and burial of Osorkon II in 712 B.C., almost 130 years before the earliest date thus far attested for Amenemhet's reign (588 B.C.)? Before we attempt to answer this admittedly difficult question we should point out that explanation should also be required from traditional historians. In that history Amenemopet was an insignificant 21st dynasty king who ruled for 9 years around 990 B.C. Harnakht, on the other hand, was an equally insignificant youth of the 22nd dynasty who died prematurely sometime during the reign of his father, say around 850 B.C. How do historians explain the presence of a 140 year old artifact in the tomb of an infant belonging to another dynasty? This fragile statuette was not a toy and would have had no historical significance to a child barely reaching puberty. Whence did it come to lie in Harnakht's tomb? To simply reason, as some do, that it must have been a present given to an ancestor of Harnakht and passed down as an heirloom, is to avoid the question.  Why would Osorkon have placed the statuette in the tomb of his infant son, as if it had some meaning for the child? And how did this delicate object survive the 140 year interval?

        We see no possible viable explanation forthcoming from the traditional history. There are, however, several possible explanations available in the revised history. In the first place, as suggested already, the proximity of the tombs of Amenemepet and Sheshonk V in the vicinity of the Amun temple suggests contemporaneity, and we might suggest a possible family connection between the two kings. We believe that Amenemepet was a 22nd dynasty successor of Sheshonk V, and thus only three generations removed from the time of Osorkon II. If so then Osorkon and Harnakht were undoubtedly revered ancestors. Harnakht in particular might be held in esteem because he, like Amenemepet, was in the line of "high priests of Amun" in the Tanite temple, even if only de lecto. We know that the tomb of Osorkon was only lightly sealed, kept open for the burial of subsequent generations. It certainly remained accessible through the end of the reign of Takeloth II, since it contained his body. How much longer we can only guess. We also know that one wall of Osorkon's tomb had been breached, probably by accident, during the construction of Psusennes' tomb, whether in 642 B.C. (assuming a reign of 14 years, following Africanus) or in 621 B.C. (assuming a reign of 35 years, following Eusebius). In fact, the breach may have taken place much later, as the tomb was enlarged to hold the bodies of Psusennes extended family.   We also know that Psusennes tomb remained accessible through to the time of Siamon, certainly through the reign of Amenemepet (since it conatined his body), providing ample opportunity for Amenemepet to view the remains of his ancestor and leave a memento of his visit. In fact, we cannot imaging his not viewing Osorkon's tomb, assuming it was breached or otherwise open during his lifetime.

        The likelihood of the accidental opening of Osorkon's tomb occurring during the lifetime of Amenemepet increases the earlier we date his reign. Thus the rationale for this extensive discussion. If we assume the longer reign length for Psusennes then his burial took place in 622 B.C.. It may be possible to date the beginning of Amenemepet's reign that early, giving him a reign length of 41 years (622-581 B.C.). Alternatively, assuming him to be a successor of Sheshonk V, who died in 618 B.C., we might assume a reign length of 37 years (618-581 B.C.).[31] But as we have explained, there is really no need to extend either the reign of Psusennes or Amenemepet.

        What have we learned about the beginning of Amenemhet's reign from this endless speculation? Only that his reign may have begun as early as the year 620 B.C., and earlier still  if some insist on assigning to his reign the year 49 bandage inscription. We believe it likely that it began much later.

        The stage is now set to assign dates to Smendes II, Pinudjem II, and Psusennes III, working in reverse order.
 

Psusennes III

        This high-priest/king is known only from multiple bandage inscriptions on mummies from the second find at Deir el-Bahri.[32]   Only two are dated, one in year (4 or) 5 and the other in year 12. The king's name, as usual, is omitted. Both read simply: "Bandage made by the high priest of Amun Psusennes, son of Pinudjem, for his lord Amun in year (5/12)" Seven other mummies have essentially identical inscriptions, omitting only the year date. We must assume, consistent with our belief that the year dates belong to Theban kings, either that these years belong to the kingship of Pinudjem II or that one or both refer to the regnal/pontifical years of Psusennes III himself. For the time being we must leave the options open, though in a moment we will argue that the year 12 bandage dates to the kingship of Pinudjem II while the other refers to the kingship of Psusennes III himself, which followed immediately the death of Pinudjem.[33]
 

Pinudjem II

        Pinudjem II is clearly named on the bandage inscription belonging to mummy No. 124 from the "second find" which bears the damaged year date "[x} + 3", a document we discussed earlier. The date must refer to either year 43 or year 53 of Menkheperre. Pinudjem was therefore high priest at least that early. Another bandage on mummy No. 105 from the same "second find" is dated to "year 48 of Menkheperre" (lit. year 48 for (n) Menkheperre). A reference to a "year 1" has been added.[34]   The same mummy contains braces bearing the name of the high priest Pinudjem II. This inscription is generally assigned to Menkheperre, as if made by him. But the language suggests that it was made for him (i.e. on his behalf) by someone else, probably Pinudjem, in menkheperre's 48th year. Then what do we make of the reference to "year 1" on the same mummy?

        It is our contention that Pinudjem began his high priesthood under Menkheperre, at least as early as that king's 48th year (his 43rd if the mummy No. 124 document is thus interpreted). After the death of Menkheperre, Pinudjem assumed the kingship, adopted the name Kheperkhare, and from this time on functioned as both high priest and king, continuing to bury the dead, but now dating his documents to his own regnal years. We assume that the linen which wrapped mummy No. 105 was made by Pinudjem in Menkheperre's 48th year, but was not used for five years. The death must have taken place in 583 B.C., the first year of Pinudjem II as king. How else should we interpret this document? All of the remaining bandage inscriptions of Pinudjem II which contain dates are dated between years 1 and 10, which confirms that a change in kingship has taken place. The year 8 bandage naming king Kheperkhare Pinudjem, assigned by scholars to the reign of Pinudjem I (where the year date is clearly an anomaly), must belong in this sequence, further confirming our hypothesis.

        The year 583 B.C. marks the dividing line between the two distinct groups of numbered documents of Pinudjem II. And since Amenemopet died in the year 581 B.C. and was succeeded by Siamon, a date very close to the time when Pinudjem became king, we expect that most, if not all of the documents from Menkheperre's reign will name Amenemopet as king, while those documents from the time of Pinudjem's kingship will be contemporary with king Siamon. All the documents which name Pinudjem can be so interpreted.  Amenemope and Pinudjem II are named in "various combinations on braces, pendants and (undated) linen from nine mummies" of the second find at Deir el Bahri.[35] and on none of the inscriptions dated in the years 1-10, suggesting that they form a distinct group from a distinct period of time. We place them all in the years preceding the death of Menkheperre.

        On the other hand, the inscription numbered 1-10, even though they do not mention Siamon, must be synchronous with his reign since we know from graffiti left in DB320, the burial tomb of Pinudjem II, that Pinudjem died and was buried (by Siamon) in Siamon's 10th year (571 B.C.). The 10th year of Pinudjem must be near to his last, regardless of the chronology of the period. It is therefore significant that according to our revised chronology that the 10th year of Siamon is the 12th year of Pinudjem II. Apparently Pinudjem, son of Menkheperre, by this date an old man, was ill and incapable of continuing his priestly duties. Thus by year 12, the year of his death, we see that Psusennes III is involved in the burials at Deir el Bahri (his year 12 inscription).  Only seven years years remained before the coming of Nebuchadrezzar in 564.

        We should point out in passing, for the sake of those who might be bothered by our earlier argument that mummy bandages made and inscribed in Menkheperre's 48th year were not actually used until his death six years later, that the mummy of Pinudjem II contained bandages made by himself in his regnal years 7 and 9 [36], the first of these being five years prior to his death.

        The years from 571 B.C. to 564 B.C. witnessed as flurry of activity in the Deir el Bahri tombs, mass (re-) burials by Psusennes III, assisted by Siamon, intensifying in the 16th year of Siamon, when many important kings were moved into Pinudjem's tomb.  Significantly, these final interments preceded the arrival of Nebuchadrezzar by less than a year. Though Egyptologists have been unable to explain the cause of these hurried burials, they have not failed to observe them. Kitchen best represents current opinion:

Finally, Year 10 of Siamun (c. 969 B.C.) was a year of drastic upheaval in the necropolis of Western Thebes. In that year, Pinudjem II died and was succeeded by his son, Psusennes "III". For over a century, the new man's predecessors had striven vainly to check the plundering of the noble dead, the pharaohs and great families of the empire. Here and there, groups of mummies had been collected in one tomb or another for greater safety. Now at last it was decided to guard the ancestral dead in the same way as had been used by the priests themselves to secure the burials of their own company: by interment in one or two large groups in secret hiding-places. So the bodies of the revered Amenophis I, and of Ramesses I, Sethos I and Ramesses II were lodged in the secret tomb of Pinudjem II and his wife.  Psusennes 'III' then proceeded to inter almost forty mummies of empire pharaohs and their relatives and of his own line, together with the battered remains of their funerary equipment. TIP 233

        The reader will notice that we provided no firm dates for the beginning of the high-priesthood of Pinudjem II.  We mention only that he was in office by either the 43rd or 48th year of Menkheperre, contemporary with the reign of Amenemepet. The fact that there exist at least nine mummy inscriptions naming both Pinudjem and Amenemepet suggests that the lower number might be the more realistic figure, regardless of whether the relevant inscription is correctly read. If so then his combined high-priesthood/kingship lasted 22 years, from 594 B.C. through 571 B.C. For all we know it might have lasted twice that length of time, i.e. from 616 B.C. through 571 B.C.  We mention those dates not because we documents support them, but because they highlight what we believe to be the rationale for Menkheperre elevating his sons to assist him in his priesthood.  In 616 B.C. he initiated years of intensive warfare in Syria which kept him away from Egypt for extensive periods of time, perhaps as much as half of each year. And some of the remaining time might have been spent in Napata.  We anticipate that Menkheperre may have relinquished his high priesthood for the duration of his wars.
 

Smendes II

      Pinudjem II was not the eldest son of Menkheperre. That honor fell to Smendes II, who was high-priest briefly before him.  If so, then perhaps Smendes ruled the larger part of the additional 22 years, i.e. from 616 B.C. to some undetermined date prior to 594 B.C.  Since no documents of this high priest provide a year date we must fix his place in history on some other basis. Of the handful of inscriptions bearing his name (Nesubanebdjed), only two have any bearing on our positioning of his high priesthood.  They need to be examined.  In our discussion we will continue to use the name Smendes as if that name is synonymous with the Nesubanebdjed actually found on the monuments.   But we do so only to maintain consistency with established usage.  We have already argued that Smendes I, Manetho's name for the predecessor of Psusennes I, is not the king named Nesubanebdjed, who preceded Montet's Psusennes, since that king was Psusennes II.  But the use of Smendes as a replacement for Nesubanebdjed, applied by extention to the name of the high priest Nesubanebdjed, is by now well established.  No matter which way we handle the problem there is bound to be confusion. On that note we proceed.

        Mummy No. 135 from the "second find" contains the name Amenemope on braces and Smendes II (Nesubanebdjed) as high priest on pendants, confirming that this high priest was a contemporary of Amenemope.   He identifies himself only as the "son of Menkheperre", leaving the question open as to whether he preceded or followed Pinudjem II in office.  According to our chronology he must precede Pinudjem, a conclusion reached a century ago by Daressy who first published the inscriptions from the Deir el Bahri mummies.   But Daressy, and the century of scholarship which followed him, assumed (entirely without evidence) that the priesthood of Smendes began only at his father's death, a belief that continued throughout the 20th century in spite of Montet's discovery in 1940 of a second inscription which appeared to contradict it.

        When Montet excavated Psusennes' tomb he found on the body of Psusennes a pair of bracelets which contained inscriptions naming a "high priest Nesbanebdjed (Smendes?) son of Menkheperre",  a title consistent with the Deir el Bahri finds.  But the inscriptions created problems for the traditional historians, not the least of which was explaining how Pinudjem I could be a contemporary of Psusennes (see earlier discussion), while his grandson Smendes was also high priest during that same reign, a situation particularly difficult to explain for those who assign to Menkheperre upwards of 50 years in office.   Summarizing the reaction of scholars to the problem would be interesting, but not germane. We need say only that the difficulty was sufficiently serious to prompt at least one scholar, Eric Young, to suggest that this Nesbanebdjed should not be identified with the Nesubanebdjed who was a contemporary of Amenemepet,[37] but was instead the son of a completely different Menkheperre, who may or may not have been a high priest. After all, the bracelet inscription omits any title for Menkheperre. Young's theory has not been widely accepted.

        The problem does not exist for the revised chronology, in large measure because we believe, based on the analysis thus far presented, that Smendes' high priesthood did not sequentially follow that of Menkheperre.  And we have argued that Psusennes died as early as his 14th year (642 B.C) or as late as his 35th year (621 B.C).  If we accept the longer reign length, then it would be possible for an eldest son of Menkheperre, if born to him around the time he first assumed the high priesthood from Masaharta (641 B.C.), to assist his father in performing the high priestly duties.  If so it is not at all surprising to see some evidence of Smendes' presence at the funeral of Psusennes. The time is certainly right. The year 621 B.C. would be the 17th of Menkheperre, only a few years before the Tefnakht rebellion. Sometime around then Menkheperre "inherited" the kingship in Napata and established an alternate home in that region.  This would be reason enough for yielding the high-priesthood to Smendes (though we should be mindful that Smendes might have been established as high priest in Napata, from which location he sent the bracelets as a gift to adorn the body of Psusennes).  If our reasoning is correct then the bracelet inscriptions provide the final piece in the chronological puzzle.  We should accept the longer reign for Montet's Psusennes (II) and date the advent of Smendes II to around the year 621 B.C.  If Smendes was a Theban high priest then he may have continued as high priest until his death, at which time his brother Pinudjem (II) replaced him in office.  Or there may have been a brief period of time between the high priesthoods of Smendes and Pinudjem II in which Menkheperre resumed the duties of high priest.   We don't know precisely when Smendes died, but we do know that his death must postdate the beginning of the reign of Amenemepet.

        We might leave the matter there, pending further evidence.  After all, the revised history has no problem with the bracelet inscriptions.  But for others reasons we continue the discussion.  We do wonder if the Egyptologist Eric Young has been too quickly dismissed by scholars.  The bracelet inscriptions contain more than simply the name and title of "Nesbanebdjed, son of Menkheperre".  They prefix the name or monogram of Psusennes.  The complete inscription, as translated by Montet, actually reads "Psusennes, born of the high priest Nesbanebdjed, son of Menkhepperre", implying (for the traditional history) that the high priest Nesbanebdjed mentioned here should be identified as the Smendes who founded the 21st dynasty, not the son of the Theban high priest Menkheperre.  That suggestion is rejected by traditional scholars for various reasons, not the least of which is their acceptance of the emerging theory that Neferkare immediately preceded, rather than followed, Psusennes I and was probably his father.  To justify their rejection they argue that the hieroglyphs translated "born of" (ir.n) by Montet are as often (and even more often on artifacts) translated "made by".   They are correct.  But we believe that Montet was possibly accurate in his translation here, and therefore that Young was possibly correct in his conclusions (based, for the most part, on other evidence).  The revised history has already identified the predecessor of Montet's Psusennes as a king named Nesubanebdjed, who ruled in Tanis during the time of Wenamun. We have argued that he must be identified as the king called Psinaches by Manetho, who was preceded by kings named Osochor, Amenophthis (Amenhotep), and Neferkare.  It is possible that our earlier discussion of the family connections between Neferkare and Psusennes, based on the presence of both names on a pair of bow finials, needs to be modified.  If the father of Psinaches (Nesubanebdjed) was named Menkheperre, we must assume a break in the family line after Osochor.  Psusennes must have treasured (and added his names to) the bow once owned by Neferkare for reasons other than family ties.  Perhaps he just liked it.

        The possibility that Psinaches represents "new blood" in the line of 21st dynasty priests is implied by our earlier argument. We suggested that Nesubanebdjed might be identified with the king Nabushezibanni who ruled in the delta from 665 B.C., at least through 661 B.C.. We also argued that he replaced a high priest Osochor (who was not necessarily his father) who was likely killed in the purge which followed the second aborted coup in 665 B.C.  This determination was based in part on the dates for the 21st dynasty Theban priest/kings provided by Manetho.  The father of Nabushezibanni was called Necho by the Assyrians. Necho might have been a native Egyptian named Menkheperre. The name Necho is almost certainly an epithet.

        Clearly this line of reasoning contains too many hypotheticals to allow for any definite conclusion to be reached.  We mention the possibility that there were two high priests named "Nesbanebdjed son of Menkheperre" not because we prefer this variant explanation of the name of Nesubanebdjed in Psusennes' tomb, but because evidence might emerge one day that the reign length of Psusennes was closer to 14 than to 35 years, in which case the earlier explanation might have to be rejected. For the time being we accept the modern scholarly consensus that there existed only one high priest Nesbanebdjed son of Menkheperre.
 

Piankhi's Extended Family

        We have completed our task. Piankhi and his family have been identified and assigned their rightful place in history. If the reader still wonders about Shabataka, Shabaka, and Taharka he should read the first book of this series where some of their activities are described. They belong to a different branch of the family as we suggested in the last chapter, and as we might have suspected considering that Manetho refers to them as a group unto themselves, making no mention of Kashta, Piankhi, Pinudjem and Menkheperre.[38]   We have already positioned Shabaka in the scheme of things, suggesting that at some point of time, though not necessarily throughout his reign, he adopted the name Menkheperure Thutmose.[39]   In the earlier book we placed his death in the year 580 B.C.. His reign appears to have been centered around Memphis, and as part of Piankhi's extended family he played a major part in the Syrian campaigns. Apparently he also shared Piankhi's liking for the land of his ancestors. His tomb at el Kurru suggests that he inherited the Napatan throne at Piankhi's death. If so he reigned for only three years, consistent with the fact that no artifacts belonging to him are found at the sight of the Barkal temple. We have no explanation for why Piankhi was not succeeded in that region by Pinudjem, save for the fact that the Theban high-priesthood/kingship, and control of the Egyptian army that went with it, must have seemed, for Pinudjem, a more prestigious and powerful position than the Nubian throne. Apparently neither Pinudjem nor Shabaka had the charisma to control both Egypt and Nubia, as had Piankhi.

        Shabataka must have been, at least at the outset, strictly a Nubian king, the successor of his father Shabaka in Napata. He adopted the prenomen Menkheperre, possibly patterned after his father's adopted name (Menkheperure), rather than after Piankhi's.  Sometime early in his reign he was summoned to Egypt to assist in defending the delta, understandable since in the years 585-573 B.C. Nebuchadrezzar and his army were conducting a prolonged siege of Tyre, near the Egyptian border.[40] The threat to Egypt was real. We can only speculate on who summoned his assistance, but according to our chronology it must have been king Kheperkhare Pinudjem (II), who likely commanded the main Egyptian army; though it may have been Siamon, whose home in Tanis, near to the eastern border of the delta, was most threatened. But we should be mindful that multiple kings ruled in Egypt through to the arrival of Nebuchadrezzar, as they had during the Tefnakht rebellion, and as far back as the time of Esarhaddon.

        It appears that Taharka reasserted Nubian influence in Egypt at the very beginning of his reign. According to the Kawa inscriptions he was summoned to Egypt during the tenure of Shabataka, and while there he appears to have taken control of the Egyptian army from Pinudjem II, perhaps during that king's final two years (573-571 B.C.), i.e. the years 11 and 12, when we find no dated inscriptions authored by Pinudjem, perhaps an indication that he was ill. When Shabataka died in 570 B.C., Taharka was already in control of the Egyptian army. Now he was king in Nubia. Psusennes III was relegated to a clerical role.[41]

        And with that we conclude our discussion.
 

Epilogue

        We set out with a single purpose, to demonstrate that the king named Necho who fought and killed Josiah, king of Judah, in 609 B.C., must be Piankhi, whom historians consider to be the patriarch of the 25th dynasty kings. Early on we discovered that a mistake of colossal proportions had been made by historians. The monuments of Piankhi had been wrongly assigned to an 18th dynasty king who lived, supposedly, in the 15th century B.C.. So perfectly did Piankhi's newly discovered monuments synchronize with the 7th century dates assigned to him in our earlier book, that there is no possibility we are mistaken in our identification. Five chapters of the present book have laboriously compared his miliary campaigns, as described in his Annals, with the actions of the Babylonian kings Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar. They matched perfectly for over twenty consecutive years! And we surmised that Piankhi's Horus name Ka Nakht , meaning "strong bull", a favorite epithet of many Egyptian kings, was the likely source of his Hebrew name Necho. Apparently the Jewish scribes deliberately inverted the order of the hieroglyphic elements and called him Necho (the disabled) in parody of the title Nakht Ka. Let the reader carefully review our argument and judge for himself whether or not we have correctly positioned Piankhi in the years 637-583 B.C.

        By the end of chapter five we had already achieved our purpose. And the means, as it turned out, were more fascinating, if not more important, than the end. But there remained the task of identifying Piankhi's family. The similarily in name and length of term in office between Menkheperre, a 21st dynasty priest king, and Menkheperre Piankhi, our ultra religious 25th dynasty king, led us to conclude that the two individuals were one and the same person. Further research confirmed our suspicion.  Thus it was that the Piankhi we found was not the 25th dynasty patriarch we sought. He was instead a priest/king belonging to a dynasty of priest/kings whom Egyptologists had mistakenly assigned to the 11th century, placing them alongside a Tanite dynasty of kings called the 21st, itself misplaced in history. We were compelled to move both the Tanite 21st dynasty and the Theban dynasty of priest kings to positions far removed from their traditional chronological framework, with consequences far more significant than the identification of Piankhi we had set out to achieve. Since Piankhi grandfather Piankh lived near the end of the whm mswt, that mysterious 10 year period of civil unrest which began in the 17th year of Ramses XI, we had inadvertently discovered the true time frame for the conclusion of the 20th dynasty. And when we understood for the first time the identity of the king named Psusennes excavated by Pierre Montet in 1929, a king contemporary with Piankhi's father Pinudjem, we had also fixed in place the end of the 21st dynasty . Much work remains in confirming the accuracy of our conclusions vis-a-vis those two dynasties. Tracing their history back through the 8th century is a task which we leave to the next book of this series. We wonder if that investigation will prove to be anywhere near as revolutionary as the one we have just concluded,