Having set forth the chronology and discussed the relevant documents related to Pinudjem I, we proceed to examine the inscriptions bearing on the life of his eldest son Masaharta and the early years of his more famous son Menkheperre, concluding with a few brief comments on the enigmatic and problematic Mutemhet Maatkare, Pinudjem's daughter.
 

Masaharta

        The inscriptions which name Masaharta are either bandage epigraphs from DB320 or miscellaneous graffiti, and are otherwise uninformative. There are only two exceptions, and they have some bearing on our revision insofar as they illustrate the tomb robbery and name borrowing which, according to our thesis, are characteristic of the 21st Theban dynasty priests. Both inscriptions are found on the re-wrapped mummy of queen Merytamun, found in her tomb in a cliff face near the Deir el Bahri temple of queen Hatshetsup.

        The tomb was discovered in 1929 by H. E. Winlock and clearance was completed by the next year.. The results of the excavation were published in 1932 in a volume entitled The Tomb of Queen Meryet-Amun at Thebes. According to this report two mummies were found inside, that of a late 21st dynasty queen Entiu-ny, whose body and funerary equipment had been hastily inserted into the tomb immediately before its final sealing, and that of an 18th dynasty queen Meryetamun, for whom the tomb had been constructed originally. According to Winlock, in the interim between the original burial of Meryetamun and the rude and hasty intrusion of the body of Entiu-ny, the tomb had been robbed and restored, then robbed again and restored again. The final restoration had been carried by the high priest Masaharta in the 19th year of an unnamed king, whom we have identified as Pinudjem 1.   According to our chronology this would be the year 643 B.C.. Winlock's theory of two robberies and two restorations is questionable, since he admits that "there is only the most meager evidence that the earlier robbery ever took place at all."[13]

        What caused Winlock to assume two robberies were the large number of intrusive objects in the tomb, presumbly left by the restoration parties clearing up after each robbery. These consisted of large boxes made of fragments of 20th dynasty coffins, many large pots, clearly of late date, which had contained supplies for the restoration(s), and assorted other artifacts, too many apparently to assume a single enterprise (though Winlock agrees that the two restorations took place in relatively quick succession). Apparently the restorations were a large scale operation.  In reference to the second restoration Winlock has this to say:

When a preliminary investigation had fixed the seriousness of the damage done in the tomb, a party of restorers was sent there with full equipment. There was a scribe who was supplied with an official seal, there were embalmers - or bandagers at least - and there must have been workmen, who brought their own food intending to stay until they had thoroughly cleaned up the tomb. The party brought linen to rewrap the mummy, flowers to redecorate it, and offerings to lay at its feet. They brought paint and plaster and strips of glass to refurbish the coffins, and they brought boxes and pots for their materials. p. 42

To light their way the thieves made lamps of small broken saucers. That they came equipped with tools is clear enough. They chopped, sawed and broke up the sarcophagus and the third coffin because both were so bulky that that was the easiest way to get into them. They seem to have considered that some of the bigger pieces of wood were worth taking, however, for they had sawed through the corner dovetails to separate the planks without breaking them, and all the larger boards were missing. The second coffin was opened without much damage. The lid was wrenched away, but that only broke the edeges opposite the tenons. Then it was methodically peeled, inside and out. The sheets of gold were ripped up, nails and all, and the linen backing of the gilded gesso was stripped off the head, the shoulders, and the column of inscription, bringing the inlays with it. The eyebrows and eyelids were pried out. They were glass and therefore remeltable, while the stone eyes themselves were left as worthless. The first coffin was treated in the same way, and while it had no inlays, the vulture head which was probably of solid metal was well worth removing. If there was a mask on the mummy, it was taken away bodily. The bandages were then slit with a knife down the front from crown to toes, and the inner wrappings, hardened with resin, were hacked with an adze as far as the jewelry went. Over the heart scarab and the incision plaque this meant practically to the skin. As we have seen, the thieves missed nothing, barring a stray bead or two, a valueless lock-pin from a bracelet, and the the part of the girdle which was stuck in the resin-soaked bandages across the back. The destruction of the furniture has already been noted. The chopped-up pieces of wood were taken away and doubtless burnt for the recovery of the gold and silver leaf, while boxes were probably serviceable enough to be kept for their own sakes. Of metal objects not a trace was found and even alabaster seems to have had its value, for only broken chips of the ointment jars were left, and three of the canopic jars had entirely disappeared. pp 40,41 (emphasis added)

        We can only surmise that the robbery and restoration were part of a single enterprise, carried out clandestinely to avoid detection by Assyrian authorities, or to conceal from the Egyptian public the fact that clerical officials were rifling the tombs of their revered ancestors. Winlock admits that the robbery probably took place only days or weeks before the restoration. But the evidence admits the possibility, if it doesn't argue the probability, that the events coincided.

        This tomb is the only existing evidence of the thoroughness of the process of tomb robbery carried out by the 21st dynasty priests. The reports of the excavation need to be reexamined by scholars with our reconstruction in mind. But our purpose in documenting the excavation is not solely to prove and illustrate our hypothesis of tomb robbery sanctioned by the Theban priests. Three other observations are relevant to our overall thesis.

        We have several times already argued that the Theban priest/kings borrowed their names from the dockets on the mummies of the 18th dynasty kings whose tombs they robbed. That name borrowing process is also in evidence in the case of the Meryetamun tomb, though in this instance it is the name of a queen, not that of a king, that is borrowed. We known that the 19th year inscription of Masaharta is dated approximately two years before his death, at which time Menkheperre assumed the high priesthood. At the time of the robbery Menkheperre would have been an influential priest in the Theban temple, and, if not part of the robbery/restoration party, then certainly privy to details concerning the tomb's contents. It is therefore significant that he later named one of his daughters Meryetamun, to our knowledge the only occurrence of this name within the third intermediate period.[14]

        A second comment relates to the thoroughness of the robbery, which included all funerary artifacts, including many which must have borne the name of the deceased. This is as good a time as any to enquire what use might have been made of such unique personal items. No doubt, in the case of the 18th dynasty kings whose tombs were robbed, some of the stolen trappings of royalty might have been used by their 25th dynasty namesakes as part of their own royal insignia. Others may have been melted down or broken apart for the material content. But there certainly existed many other items whose value lay primarily in their "antiquity."  Probably these were sold for fair value to enterprising entrepreneurs. And therein lies a partial solution to a dilemna we faced earlier. The vast majority of tomb robberies took place during the reigns of Ramses IX through XI, i.e., the time of the great disruption (701-671 B.C.), and during the tenure of the 21st dynasty Theban priests, at least through the end of the Assyrian domination (671-637 B.C.). Scarabs and other items belonging to most of the famous kings of Egypt, perhaps including Mycerinus, would have come on the "antiquities market" of the day, via the robberies of the royal tombs. This was the heyday of the colonization of the Mediterranean by the Phoenicians, the time of the creation of the cemetery at Carthage. In the traditional history the two events cannot possibly be related, since the tomb robberies must be dated three to four hundred years before the Phoenician expansion. But in the revised history they coincide and provide a possible explanation for the presence of so many mementos belonging to ancient Egyptian kings in the graves of Phoenician sailors and on the Phoenician coastline.

        Our final comment relates to the burial in Merytamun's tomb of Entiu-ny, the daughter of a 21st dynasty king, apparently several decades after the robbery/restoration in the days of Masaharta. It was clearly carried out in haste and entirely without planning or ceremony. We let Winlock tell the story:

    Curiously enough, the tomb of Meryet-Amun could not have been opened in advance of the arrival of Entiu-ny's burial party. It makes an interesting picture of the funeral of a Twenty-first Dynasty princess when we realize that up to the very moment of Entiu-ny's interment no preparations had been made at the tomb for her burial. In fact, so carelessly was the affair conducted that her coffins had never even had their lids fitted on them before they were brought with the mummy to the tomb. Everything was hurried. While the mummy and its open coffins were lying around on the ground and the burial party was waiting, the grave diggers were still digging out the pit. As soon as they had uncovered the top of the entrance blocking, without taking the trouble to dig any deeper they broke through the wall, and bricks and dirt went clattering down onto the pots and baskets just inside. In this way there was opened a sloping hole just big enough for a man to crawl through, and the first of the party slid down. Probably his first act was to throw back onto the surface some of the basket lids and pieces of the third coffin [of Meryetamun] and some of the rags and fragments of pots which were in his way, and which we afterwards found in the pit.
    The coffins were then passed down, regardless of order. The wooden cover for the mummy came first; the body of the outer coffin went next; the lid of the inner coffin followed; the lid of the outer coffin after it; and finally came the inner coffin with the mummy. Meantime, such of the party as were below began to carry the coffins back along the corridors until the first man, with the wooden cover, found himself brought up short on the brink of the protective well. He put the cover down; the bearers of the outer coffin, crowding behind him laid down their burden; the inner coffin lid was dropped beside it; the outer lid was propped against the wall at the turn in the corridor; and the inner coffin, containing the mummy with a wig at its head, came to a stop in the first corridor. A collar of flowers seems to have been brought separately and to have been torn in two by some accident. Part of it was dropped on the chest of the mummy as it lay in the coffin, and the rest was dropped in the corridor just behind the coffin. Meantime, those at the entrance were passing down the seven shawabti boxes and the Osiris figure containing
the Book of the Dead. When they heard that their companions were held up they piled the shawabti boxes out of the way at the side of the corridor on the rubbish which had just fallen onto the pots standing there. Everyone was hurried. The high ends of box 5 broke off and were laid on its own lid. So careless was the handling of the Osiris figure that its head was knocked off against the low ceiling and bell behind the pots, and it was a headless Osiris that was stuck in the nearest basket. Pp.54-55. (emphasis added)

        With that we move on to Menkheperre, where the focus of our attention lies.
 

Menkheperre

        We have argued that Menkheperre, son of Pinudjem I, replaced his brother Masaharta as high priest in the 21st year of Pinudjem (641 B.C.). We have further argued that Menkheperre's year 25 inscription, the Maunier Stele, is referenced to the years of Pinudjem, and must date to the year 637 B.C. In the first five chapters of this book we argued that this was the initial year in the 54 year long kingship of Menkheperre Piankhi. It is therefore most fortuitous that the Maunier Stele describes the beginning of the reign of the priest/king Menkheperre. If this is merely coincidence it is a most gratifying one. In view of the significance of this particular year it is extremely important that we examine the year 25 document.

        The Maunier inscription is written on a black granite stele known popularly by the descriptive title "Stele of the Banishment". We should be mindful as we read this important document that Pinudjem has only recently died. The year is still dated by his years in office. We should also be aware that his base of operations for duration of his kingship had been the town of el Hibeh in north central Egypt.  From that strategic location his army exercised control over the Assyrian vassal state. We must assume that Menkheperre was also based in that same city, a fact confirmed by the presence there of his name (in a cartouche) on multiple bricks used for construction. Menkheperre is now in control of the army, and no doubt possessed with a determination, inherited from his father, to free Egypt from Assyrian domination. It is now thirty years into the reign of Ashurbanipal. Assyrian power is on the wane. Menkheperre, sensing that the time was right, apparently determined to free Egypt from Assyrian restraint. The death of his father was the signal to act.  The stela of the Banishment, thus conceived, describes Menkheperre's overt break with his Assyrian overlord. We let Breasted describe the contents:

We find Menkheperre coming from the north, supposedly from Tanis, to Thebes in Paynuzem I's twenty-fifth year, and the remarkable errand which brought him thither is intentionally narrated in such veiled language that it is impossible to determine exactly what its nature was. He came to put down certain unknown enemies, and to restore affairs in Thebes to their ancient status (ll. 6 and 7). This probably indicates a rising of some sort among the Thebans. When this had been quelled Menkheperre appeared before Amon, and with the usual prodigies, customary, at least since the time of Hrihor, he secured an oracle from the god permitting the return to Egypt of all those who had been banished to the Southern Oasis. Furthermore, he also obtained the god's consent to a decree forever forbidding such banishment in the future, and our stela is the permanent record of that decree. The interview with Amon closed with the god's consent that all murderers should be slain. BAR IV 650

The interesting question as to the identity of the banished, who are thus pardoned, is one on which our document is studiously silent. Were they Thebans, on whose behalf the city had risen in insurrection (ll. 6 and 7)? And were they recalled to appease and quiet the turbulent city? And is the last grim enactment of the god a reminder to the violent of what they might expect in case of further insurrection? BAR IV 651

        In the 25th year of Pinudjem, Menkheperre raised the national army and marched from el Hibeh (not Tanis as Breasted says) against Thebes, where we assume a few diplomatic representatives (and perhaps even a garrison of troops) of Ashurbanipal resided. There he encountered minimal resistance, and was met with a boisterous celebration.

Year 25, first month of the -- [season, day] --. Then spake his majesty to the people: "Amon-Re, lord of Thebes -- -- -- their heart is firm -- -- -- their multitude -- -- the High Priest of Amon-Re, king of gods, commander in chief of the army, Menkheperre, triumphant, son of King Paynozem-Meriamon -- -- -- his -- -- -- -- companion of his footsteps, while their hearts rejoiced because he had desired to come to the South in might and victory, in order to make satisfied the heart of the land, and to expel his enemies, that he might give -- -- -- [as] they were in the time of Re. BAR IV 652 (emphasis added)

He arrived at the city (Thebes) with a glad heart; the youth of Thebes received him, making jubilee, with an embassy before him. The majesty of this August god, lord of gods, Amon-Re, [lord of] Thebes, appeared (in procession) -- -- -- that he might [--] him very greatly, very greatly, and establish him upon the throne of his father, as High Priest of Amon-Re, king of gods, commander in chief of the armies of the South and North. He (the god) decreed to him many gracious wonders, (such as) had never been seen since the time of Re. BAR IV 653 (emphasis added)

        The text goes on to describe Menkheperre's action in recalling multitudes who had been banished to the oasis. Unlike Breasted we know precisely who they are. Several times already we have remarked on the fact that the Assyrians, noted for deporting entire populations of vanquished cities, had exiled king Ramses XI along with multitudes of Egyptians in the year 671 B.C. We noted that they remained in exile into the high priesthood of Pinudjem I and we pointed out how Pinudjem as king had confiscated for himself Ramses' unfinished tomb. We assume that Ramses died in exile many years before the arrival in Thebes of the liberating army of Menkheperre, but according to the banishment stele what must have been a large number of Egyptians, perhaps thousands, remained in the oases, apparently prohibited from returning by order of the Assyrian authorities. Now they were freed from their exile. But only after Menkheperre received the sanction of the god Amon.

Then the High Priest of Amon, Menkheperre, triumphant, recounted to him, saying:
"O my good lord, (when) there is a matter, shall one recount it --?" Then the great god nodded exceedingly, exceedingly. Then he went again to the great god, saying: "O my good lord, (it is) the matter of these servants, against whom thou art wroth, who are in the oasis, whither they are banished." Then the great god nodded exceedingly, while this commander of the army, with his hands uplifted was praising his lord, as a father talks with his own son: "Hail to thee, [maker] of all [that is], creator of all that exists, father of the gods, fashioner of goddesses; who equips them in the cities and districts; begetter of men, and fashioner of women, maker of the life of all men. ... Thou shalt hearken to my voice on this day, and thou shalt [relent] toward the servants whom thou hast banished to the oasis, and they shall be brought (back) to Egypt." The great god nodded exceedingly. BAR IV 655

Then the High Priest of Amon, Menkheperre, triumphant, spake again, saying: "O my good lord, then my [--] is [for] myriads of times, and the command is for father and mother in every family. My every word shall please the heart in [thy] presence, I am thy faithful servant, profitable to thy ka. I was a youth in thy city, I produced thy provision and thy [--], while I was in the womb, when thou didst form (me) in the egg, when thou didst bring me forth [to the great joy] of thy people. Grant that I may spend a happy life as a follower of thy ka. There is purity and health wherever thou tarriest. Set my feet in thy way, and direct me on thy path. Incline my heart [-- --] to do --. Grant that I may pass a happy [old age] in peace, while I am established, living in thy August house, like every favorite [-- --] BAR IV 657.

        There are no inscriptions of the priest/king Menkheperre which inform us concerning actions taken during the next twenty years of his reign. There is a distinct possibility that among the hundreds of inscriptions assigned to the reign of the 18th dynasty Menkheperre there exist some which belong to Piankhi and which, therefore, could be used to illuminate these decades. But the task of sorting out which documents belong to which king lies far beyond the scope of this paper. We leave the task to others.

        What we do know is that by year 21, the date of the great Piankhi stele, Menkheperre is resident in Napata, and must therefore have succeeded the line of Melukkhan kings to whom he was distantly related. Perhaps a marriage alliance or perhaps military conquest led to this state of affairs. There is no suggestion in the year 21 stele that Napata is his permanent residence, only that he was there when news broke concerning the Tefnakht rebellion. The matter will be discussed further in connection with the god's wife Maatkare, Piankhi's sister.

        We also know from the Annals that by year 21 Menkheperre claims to have lost control of the Syrian provinces once claimed by his father (under the name Aakheperkare Thutmose). Since the earlier claim was in part a fiction, this is not surprising. As we have suggested, Pinudjem was then acting on behalf of  (and in league with) Assyria in all military actions.   Now under Menkheperre the fiction can no longer be maintained.  Assyria, while accepting its loss of Egypt in 637 B.C., may have acted to secure its hold on Syria.  Either that or the Syrians, under the leadership of the prince of Kadesh, had also declared independence from Assyria.

        Pending further evidence, we must leave the matter there.
 

Mutemhet Maatkare

        Pinudjem I not only had two sons who became high priest, he also had a daughter who became a high priestess, a so-called "god's wife" or "divine votaress" of the god Amon. He named her Maatkare after the famous 18th dynasty queen Maatkare Hatshetsup, who also self styled herself as a god's wife, this being yet another instance of the borrowing of 18th dynasty names by 25th dynasty royalty. A portrait of the second Maatkare is contained in the well known graffiti inscription on the wall of the Luxor temple, in which Pinudjem is shown followed by three of his daughters: Maatkare, still a young girl, and her elder sisters Henttawi, and Nedjemmut[15]  We mention her name and titles not only as confirmation of the common practice of name borrowing in the 21st dynasty, but in order to develop several themes related to our revision.

        In the first place Maatkare's genalogical connections ought to make us doubly cautious in interpreting the monuments. In at least one interpretive stream of 18th dynasty history Menkheperre Thutmose III and Maatkare (Hatshetsup) are considered to be son and daughter respectively of Thutmose 1, precisely the relationship that exists in the 25th Theban dynasty where Mutemhet Maatkare and Menkheperre (Thutmose) Piankhi are offspring of Pinudjem I, who adopted the names of Thutmose I. It remains to be seen how much confusion has been introduced into 18th dynasty history by this duplication of names. We are mindful of the debate that existed throughout the 20th century concerning the succession of kings in the 18th dynasty, the so-called Thutmosid Succession. Without going into details of the correctionist theory of the Egyptologist Sethe, supported by no less an authority than Breasted, we wonder to what extent, if any, the 25th dynasty namesake kings and queens actually altered the 18th dynasty monuments to suit their purposes, giving rise to the bizarre genealogical theories of the two famous scholars. The first lesson related to Mutemhet Maatkare is that caution ought to be the order of the day in any future reading of the monuments.

        We also need to comment on the rather strange circumstance that exists in the traditional history wherein a solitary 21st dynasty princess took the office and titles of divine votaress fully three hundred years before the institution emerged in its developed form in the time of Osorkon III (a four hundred years gap in the revised history). To our knowledge no other princess of the 21st dynasty inherited that office. Certainly the title is otherwise unattested. Maatkare, as god's wife, is literally hundreds of years out of place, an anomaly or anachronism that ought to have caused historians to question the time line that assigned her to the eleventh century. In the revised history she is appropriately positioned in the middle to late 7th century, only decades after Osorkon III (re-)instituted the tradition by appointing his daughter Shepenwepet to the office. There remains the question where Maatkare fits into the sequence of god's wives of the 7th century B.C.

        Our third observation is related to the last question and introduces us to the vexed problem concerning the identity of the king named Kashta, who according to some scholars was the father of Piankhi and whose daughter Amenirdis, according to one interpretive tradition, was installed in office by Piankhi as the adoptive daughter of Shenenwepet I, and later became the god's wife in her stead. A detailed examination of the problem is beyond the scope of this discussion. Sufficient here to outline its details and suggest a likely solution.

        The problem referred to is simply stated. Who is Kashta and how do he and his daughter Amenirdis relate to Pinudjem and his daughter Maatkare, since in both cases we have individuals who are said to be the father of Piankhi and also the father of a divine adoratrix?. The simplest solution to the problem is simply to argue that Kashta is but an epithet, perhaps a title, of Pinudjem, used by this king in various contexts, and that Maatkare as divine votarix assumed Amenirdis as her adoptive name. But there are problems squaring this suggestion with the monuments which describe Kashta and his daughter.  Thus we suggest an alternative explanation.

        In the first place there is absolutely no evidence that Kashta was the father of Piankhi.  In fact, the only monument that explicitly connects the two personages identifies Kashta as Piankhi's father-in-law. According to Kenneth Kitchen:

Piankhy's predecessor was Kashta. Their sequence by generation (and so, also, by succession) is indicated by some doorjambs which were found at Abydos from a tomb or chapel of the princess Peksater; she is named as daughter of Kashta and Pebatma, and royal wife of Piankhy. TIP 120

        The problem of Amenirdis and Maatkare is more complex. According to the traditional history there existed an unbroken sequence of four god's wives spanning the years between the inauguration of Shepenwepet, daughter of Osorkon III, and the adoption of Nitocris, daughter of Psamtik I, who "ruled" in the late 6th century. For the record we tabulate the accepted list of god's wives (see below). For the sake of the uninformed reader we should perhaps point out that the dates, other that the one assigned to Shepenwepet I, represent when the existing god's wife "adopted" her future replacement. We do not know, in the case of any of the named dignitaries, when the god's wife died.:
 
 

        Several aspects of this list are worth noting.

        1. The fact that Amenirdis was adopted by Shepenwepet seven years into her "reign"is based entirely on a graffiti found in the desert region of the Wadi Gassus in which side by side inscriptions refer to the 12th year of an adoratrix Amenirdis and the 19th year of a god's wife Shepenwepet. Whether these inscriptions are meant to be read together, whether they refer to the first or second god's wives bearing these names, and the precise meaning of the dates are all the subjects of considerable debate.[16]   We accept the relative dates as a possibility only because it seems likely that Shepenwepet would have adopted a "daughter" at an early date.

        2. In the first book of our series we dated the "adoption" of Nitocris by Shepenwepet II (who apparently outlived her adoptive daughter Amenirdis II) to the year 514 B.C.[17]  But this creates a major problem, regardless of the precise dates when the other god's wives were adopted. A quick glance at the chart shows that the combined terms in office of two consecutive god's wives (Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II) must have spanned at minimum (since Shepenwepet II is still alive and in office at the adoption of Nitocris) the 156 years from 660 B.C. to 514 B.C. This is clearly an impossibility. Of course the critic will argue that our analysis in the earlier book is incorrect and that we must accept a 535 B.C. date for the adoption of Nitocris. But even this would require that the two terms in office add up to 137 years - better, but still all but impossible. Clearly there is some error in the traditional schema, and the conclusion is inevitable that at least one god's wife has been omitted from the list. We should perhaps note that the difficulty is much the same in the traditional history, where all dates are consistently about 121 years higher that those provided above.

        3. The table as presented assumes that Amenirdis is both the daughter of Kashta and the sister of Piankhi. But the only genealogical data given by the monuments shows only that Amenirdis was the daughter of Kashta and thus the (older) sister of Peksater, Piankhi's wife.  Several of her inscriptions refer to her father by name. None mention Piankhi as her brother, a relationship which assumes that Piankhi was also Kashta's son and had married his sister Peksater. That suggested genealogy, supported by many Egyptologists, is absolutely without warrant.  It is certain that Piankhi did not give Amenirdis to Shepenwepet as the later's adoptive daughter, as some suggest. Again there is no documentary support, and the chronology makes that event impossible. We maintain instead that Amenirdis was given to Shepenwepet by Kashta. The range of dates when this event likely took place (664-660 B.C.) suggests that the Nubian viceroy Piankh might have had a hand in the matter. How else do we explain how Kashta had such influence in the Theban area other than by assuming some family relationship between him and the Nubian viceroy Piankh. Perhaps they are brothers.

        4. The time line clearly rules out the possibility that Mutemhet Maatkare and Amenirdis are one and the same person. Besides, at least one inscription suggests that the prenomen of Amenirdis (I?) was Khaneferumut[18], clearly distinguishing her from Mutemhet.

        5 The Nitocris stela, which we examined in brief in the earlier book, does state that Piankhi had a sister who was a god's wife.[19]   But it does not name his sister. In the sequence of god's wives this sister must immediately precede Shepenwepet II. Scholars simply assume it was Amenirdis I, but convincing evidence is lacking.[20]   Since we know that Piankhi had a sister named Maatkare who was a god's wife, she must be the unnamed god's wife in the Nitocris stela. And she must have been placed on the throne by Pinudjem, since she already bears the title god's wife in the processional pictured on the mural from the Abydos temple.

        6. The god's wife Amenirdis I lived into the reign of Shabaka as attested by a document dated in that king's 12th year.[21] Since we have argued that the reign of Shabaka overlapped that of Piankhi, this creates no chronological problem for the revised history.   A god's wife Amenirdis is associated with Shabataka in constructions at the temple Osiris-Ruler-of-Eternity which adjoins the Karnak temple.   This must be Amenirdis II, not Amenirdis I as suggested by Egyptologists.

        Collectively the evidence suggests that the list of god's wives should be emended as follows:
 
 

        Far from being a problem for the revised history, the god's wife Mutemhet Maatkare makes sense out of an otherwise confused sequence of god's wives and all but confirms our suggestion that Kashta was the Napatan king contemporary with Piankh and Pinudjem, into whose family Menkheperre married prior to the beginning of the Tefnakht rebellion.

        There remains for us to comment briefly on the lives of Smendes II, Pinudjem II and Psusennes III, successors of Menkheperre in the Theban 21st dynasty, who are assigned collectively by traditional historians upward of forty years in office, an impossibility if they followed Piankhi sequentially.  Piankhi died in 583 B.C.. Shabaka died about three years later. Shabataka ruled from 580 through 570 B.C. when he was replaced by Taharkha, who was driven from Egypt in 564 B.C.   Less than twenty years after Piankhi's death Egypt was overrun by the army of Nebuchadrezzar and for twenty years after that all temple ritual and all native government ceased.  Where do the three named high priests fit in the picture?  And what about Amenemopet and Siamum, Tanite rulers named in the inscriptions of Smendes II and Pinudjem II?  Supposedly they were succeeded by yet another Tanite king Psusennes II.  Something must be wrong with 21st dynasty history as presently written in the textbooks.