Original Documents
Home Addtopics Submenu
The 21st and 20th/30th Dynasties of Egypt - Part 2

Go to Part 1 of 2 on the 21st Dynasty

From Ramses IV (Tachos, Teos) and Ramses VI (Nectanebo II) to Si-Amon

21st Dynasty I
Main Menu
Persia in Egypt
Ramses IV/Tachos
Tomb of Ramses IV
Ramses V
Ramses VI/Nectanebo II
Ramses VII and VIII
Ramses IX and XI
Ramses XI
Ramses X
Ramses IX
Persian period tombs
Psamshek, Nekht-nebef and Nekht-hor-heb
The first fixed date
The second fixed date
The Rise to Power of the 30th Dynasty
The Papyrus Mayer A
The 22nd Dynasty
Ramses III
Canopus Decree
20th/21st Dynasties

Discussion of the representatives of the 21st Dynasty Priest/Kings

In discussing the time of the 21st Dynasty potentates we must realize that the evidence for the chronology and historical setting of this time period does not come from knowing exactly about the individuals making up this dynasty but rather from the many written documents which have survived from that time and from tips and inferences we can make of bits of information. The same sources are available for all proponents of chronological scenarious but which historical background we place this dynasty in makes all the difference if a scheme is tenable or if it is faulty.

In general we must realize that in the revised setting the dynasty existed against the background of Persian overlordship. At times the influence of individual priests would wax or wane according to political and/or social conditions. We also notice that the 20th/30th Dynasty of Ramses II/Nectanebo falls within the duration of this Dynasty. Determining how Ramses III came to power, which political conditions led to his climbing the throne of Egypt, his lineage and influential supporters is a task we have not yet undertaken. By posing these questions we may come to a better understanding to perhaps find some answers to them.

We also realize that the period of the 21st Dynasty encompasses the life spans of such illustrious people as several (8) Persian kings from Cambyses to Darius III. It existed against the background of the theocracy of Judah begun by Ezra and Nehemia. The Spartan king Agesilaus lived in its heydays (about 430-355), so did Xenophon (435-335) and supposedly the somewhat mythological figures of Socrates (?-399), Thucydides (?-409) and Plato (429-3?). In Egypt the 21st Dynasty encompasses also what is known as the 30th/20th Dynasty, the likes of Setnakht (Acoris), Ramses III, Ramses IV (Tachos) and Ramses VI (Nectanebo II). Scholars recognize that the 20th/30th Dynasty ended in turbulent times according to a fragmentary papyrus in Turin. The workman of Ramses V stopped digging his tomb (KV9 [100]) because of fear for enemies: "... idle from fear of the enemy." His mummy was found in KV35. [200] In conventional view these `enemies' are unknown, in revised view they are most likely the Persians since Darius III regained brief, limited control over Egypt in 336 for some 6 years until the arrival of Alexander the Great. The Macedonian Dynasty lasted from 336-323 BC after which followed a 22 year struggle for supremacy among Alexander's generals. During this time Ramses VII and VIII lived their brief lifes, having wealth and fame because of their father, but no real power as kings.

The Start of Persian interest in Egypt

After Cyrus had conquered Babylon and he became the Great King of Persia, he began to look for sources of wealth. His gaze turned toward the west and allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild their temple certainly appeared to him as a good political decision in that he would have them on his side since they perceived him as their deliverer. "Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth has the Lord God of heaven given me; and he has charged me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah." [2.Chronicles 36:23] But Jerusalem was just a bridge toward the treasury of Egypt. But it was not Cyrus himself who would take on Egypt whose astounding cultural and material achievements were known in all of the Orient. These long range plans were carried out by his son and successor, Cambyses (-530-522), who in -525 led his Persian army toward the land which just at this time had lost the long reigning Amasis and the short lived Seti II. The Persians had their plans ready, they lost no time to consolidate their power by taking over the already established fortresses facing Libya and the Nubian regions. This was largely accomplished by Darius I (-522-485) Cartouche of Darius I; his cartouche can sometimes also show a reclining lion known in Egypt as `Setutre' or `Mesutira'. In thus making Darius known in Egypt the priest Wedjahorresnet was instrumental. His cartouche was found in the Temple of Hibis, in the fortress of Qasr el-Ghuieta and on a rare alabaster storage jar found at Susa. His lengthy inscription at `el Khargeh' was published in 1877. [300] By about -486 his attention was diverted from Egypt toward Greece and influential native rulers could stage a revolt against the supressive financial burden placed on their country through the cruelty of their first satrap Achaemenes, son of Xerxes. Not long after that and Arsames was now the name of the satrap whose long life brought on a repression `from without' for many years.

Ramses IX and XI

Ramesses IX: Neferkare Setepenre Ramesses Khaemouaset Meryamun
Ramesses XI: Menmaatre Setepenptah Ramesses Khaemouaset Mereramun

An important realization about the kings known as Ramses IX to Ramses XI.

It is important for us to realize that the chronological sequence of the Ramessides numbered IX, X and XI is not tied to Ramses III at all since their true position in the 20th Dynasty cannot be linked to Ramses III or Ramses VIII. Therefore there is no evidence that they followed chronologically the time from Ramses III to Ramses VIII. It is more correct in considering these two Ramessides as links to the 19th Dynasty but they lived a little over 100 years after the end of that dynasty in 525 BC. [400]

Ramses XI

He is credited with 28 years but his proper time frame is still uncertain but was after 458 and before 410 BC but if he was Inaros, Ramses XI/Inaros was executed in 454 BC. The story of Wenamon is supposed to be from his time. The reason we place him before Ramses IX is because he is shown in a relief carving being offered flowers by the high priest Amenhotep whose downfall we date to 458 BC. We understand that he was deposed together with the 5th century Amenhotep and may have been known to the Greeks as Inaros [500]. This Inaros caused the Persians many problems. Soon after 458 BC the high priest Herihor comes on the scene. A pair of massive gold ear-plugs were found at Abydos inscribed on the back with the name of Ramses XI [Menmaatre Setepenptah] but came from the body of an unknown lady of the court. She may have been a fan of the rebell. In KV4 there was also found a crude alabaster ushabti of him but according to as yet unsubstantiated reports more recently (1978) a complete, intact statue of Ramses XI was found in KV4. No further details are known at this time. The beeswax figure, a sculptor's model, of Ramses XI standing before the goddess Maat was also found in KV4. None of these finds seem to affect the chronological order here presented.

Greek Historians Input

According to Herodotus, Aahmes (-569) granted priviliges to the city of Naukratis. However, Strabo wrote that Inaros (-461) founded Naukratis. Because of this apparent inconsistency, Petrie rejected the account of Strabo. If Ianaros founded Naukratis, he should have done that then before -569. Some concluded from this anachronistic situation that the Ianaros of the time of Aahmes was a different one then the one who was overcome in a sea fight against the Milesians. A conjecture is that Ianaros lived during the life time of Psamtik. Conventional historians of course date Psamtik to the middle of the 7th century BC. Sir Flinders Petrie found numerous glazed over scarabaei at Naukratis made of a sandy paste whose colors ranged from blue, green and yellow and various shades of these. According to historians, "Many scarabs were found of the date of Psamtik I, some of Psamtik II, and some of which belong possibly to Uahabra (Apries). This brings the date of the (scarab) factory as late as 580 BC." [600]

Because at the site of Defenneh, on the eastern bank of the Nile, so many Greek remains were found and so few Egyptian, Petrie concluded that this site must have been a Greek camp. He then concludes that this site was the camp of the Ionians described by Herodotus as having been founded by Psammetichus I on the Pelusiac branch of the Nile. He then is quoted as saying, "..., and on reaching down to the foundation of the fort, I there took out tablets with the name of Psamtik I as founder. But Herodotus relates a tale about Sesostris having been attacked here by treachery, suggesting that buildings had existed here in Ramesside times; and beneath some work of Psamtik, I found part of a wall of baked bricks, such as were used in tombs at Tell Nebesheh, not far from this, and only in Ramesside times. ... This place then appears to have been an old fort on the Syrian frontier guarding the road out of Egypt; and here Psamtik settled part of his bronze men from the sea and built a great fortress and camp." [700]

Well, may be yes, may be no. Without further searches in surrounding areas such conclusions are very circumstantial at best.

We notice that the attribution of the scarabs from `the scarab factory' was not based on the names of these individuals being engraved on the scarabs, just style led archaeologists to assign these items.

One other feature should probably be mentioned at this time and that is the cartouche of Ramses XI. Ramses XIDavid Rohl, as quoted by Damien Mackey has mentioned that the combination of the seated `Ra' figure with the ankh sign on its knee, the `mes' sign of the three fox skins which are immediately adjacent to the folded-cloth sign (`s' or `sh') were unique to the cartouche of Ramses II. In their thinking then this feature places Ramses II before the 22nd Dynasty. But we also find these same signs in the cartouche of Ramses XI as well as that of Thutmose I, albeit `Ra' with the ankh sign appears in the latters prenomen only. [800]

Ramses X

Ramesses X: Khepermaatre Setepenre. - Name des Imisiba, Zeit des Ramses X Name aus dem Grab des Imisiba aus der Zeit Ramses X nach der Meinung von Wreszinski, Atlas, Bd. 2, Tafel 224; Schech abd el Gurna Nr. 65, linke Eingangswand.

Nothing of chronological consequence is known about this prince Ramses X.

Ramses IX

In the revised scenario Ramses IX lived after XI but before Ramses III and his successors. Most often he is credited with 18 years without being able to substantiate it with evidence of inscriptions, constructions or any other activities. His tomb KV6 was found. Being closer in time to the age of Ramses II. than Ramses III, Ramses IX also built this tomb (KV6) called a `syringe' tunnel imitating those of that type of the 19th Dynasty. Artifcats from his time include a wooden `royal guardian' figure with no arms which once flanked the approach to the sarcophagus of the/a king and is now in the British Museum. [900]

His tomb paintings exhibit fine colors and motives. There exists a green schist statue of him on his knees in a croutched position presenting a shrine with the sacred scarab beetle (kheper) on top of it as well as a ivory veneered wooden casket fragment bearing his name and titulary.
From his time we also have a papyrus (B.M. 10053) dealing with instances of theft of gold from a temple. [1000]

Persian period tombs and/or artifacts in Egypt

The Persian tombs, sometimes refered to as shafts, were found to the south of the Pyramid of Unas. About 80 feet below the ground the tombs of the following officials known from the Persian period can be reached by a spiral staircase. These officials were `Psamtek', a chief physician, and `Djenhebu', an admiral, whose mummy was found intact with many gold items and jewelry and the tomb of `Pedese', the son of Psamtek.

But typical Persian artifacts like pottery, weapons or other dateable items are rare or have not been found in Egyptian tombs from the Persian period. Persian officials living in Egypt often were Egyptians and everything they used and were surrounded with was Egyptian. Persian manufactured goods may have been in the possession of Persian troops stationed in Egypt but where and how many there were we have no accurate knowledge of. The University of Lille III/SCA mission directed by Dominique Valbelle discovered and investigated, during the last three seasons, a palatial and religious complex associated with the large enclosure, all constructed of cylindrical bricks at Tell el-Herr, North Sinai. Analysis of the stratigraphy and study of the associated ceramics date the construction phases of the fortress to the 4th century BC; it was built over the remains of a Persian fortress. Persian presence was supposed to have been detected at Qasr el-Ghieta but nothing further is known. It appears that Persian troops largely were stationed for longer periods of time along the approaches to Egypt rather than in Egypt itself. There certainly is no lack of Persian artifacts in Israel, the Negev and the Sinai.

Latest news on Persian presence in Egypt!

At the fortress of Qasr el-Ghuieta evidence was found that it dates to the reign of Darius I (521-485 BC) when compared to evidence found at the Hypostyle Hall B at the Temple of Hibis, dated to the time of Darius I. The earliest parts of the Hibis Temple, however, where dated to the Saite period.

Who was Smendes?

In conventional chronology there were two Smendes, Smendes I was `Hedjkheperre Setepenre' or `Nesbanebdjed' (conventional 1069-1043 BC) and Smendes II, a priest, the son of Menkheperre. We don't know the parentage of Smendes I using conventional data. Smendes I is apparently the Greek name for the Persian Gaumata who was defeated by Darius just like the rulers of the 30th Dynasty are only known to us from Greek, not Persian sources. Some claim that one of the Smendes was the predecessor of Psusennes I. [1200] If that is so Smendes (II) would be the one during whose time someone left a linen docket on the mummy of Nodjmet, wife of Herihor, stating that she was embalmed in or after Year 1 of Smendes.

Inscriptional evidences for Smendes I/Smerdes in Egypt:

"Significantly, the only two real `monuments' of the reign link Smendes I with Thebes.

1. a stela inscribed in the quarry at Dibabieh near Gebelen describes how the king, while residing in Memphis, heard of a danger to the temple of Luxor from flooding, gave orders for repairs and
2. received news of the success of the mission.
3. at Karnak itself, acknowledgment of Smendes is evidenced by the graffito-like insertion of his name and figure in a scene of Sethos I (our Seti the Great) on the gateway of Thutmose I in the precinct of Montu." [1300]

Funerary activities of a `Smendes' were found in connection with:

1. the mummy of Amenophis I, successor to Ahmose of the 18th Dynasty, who was furnished a replacement coffin very similar to that given to Tuthmoses II in Year 6 of Smendes apparently on the basis of a docket left behind.

2. the mummy of Amenophis III was interred inside WV22 but later moved to the tomb of Amenophis II (KV35) where it was found by Victor Loret in 1898. Beneath the shroud of the mummy he found a docket recording its restoration in the Year 12/13 of Smendes.

3. According to some information a canopic jar belonging to Smendes had been found at Tanis leading to the conclusion that he lived and died there. [1400] Such items as canopic jars can easily be gifts to highly placed or regarded personalities. As such it would not have been unusual for Smerdes/Smendes to have received a canopic jar. Found outside palace walls under unknown circumstances it does little chronologically speaking.

In revised chronology Smendes (I) was the same also known as Smerdes, brother of Cambyses, who Cambyses had sent back to Persia along with an assassin. [1500] Out of that an amazing mixup occurred which brought Darius, son of Hystaspes, to power in 521 BC. Smendes/Smerdes for the same reason (that he was a Persian ruler) burried no Apis bull at the Serapeum.

In this scenario then Smendes/Smerdes was a Persian native who became known under his hieroglyphic name while he spent some time in Egypt just like several Persian kings, among them Artaxerxes and Darius III, also had their name written in a cartouche. The following considerations may help us to understand why a foreigner could be leaving behind trace evidence causing today's historians to think of him as a king of Egypt. The very reason why Cambyses is said to have decided to have his own brother assassinated might include these reasons:

1. It appears Smendes/Smerdes did things which made him appear to favour in particular Egyptian priests, i.e. with respect to their sensitivities about after life, during his period of activities ("reign"), mummy's were relocated and docket entries made referring to years of his `reign'. We believe that is so because he was the local potentate at the time.
2. His Egyptian oriented actions may have made him a favorite among them, even though they probably well understood he was a member of a foreign, royal family.
3. His rise in popularity may have been the reason why Cambyses decided to set in motion an assassination plot.
4. Champollion tried to discover his name unsuccessfully on Stela C14 first published by Lepsius and later translated by Maspero. [1600]

The mummy of Smendes was never found.

Ramses IV - Ramses IV

Ramses IV claimed that he was a legitimate heir and did not usurp the throne. Conventionally he is dated from about 1151-1145 BC and in our revision from 360-354 BC. We identify him with Tachos or Teos. It is said that of Tachos no inscriptions have been found in Egypt but if he was Ramses IV that detail changes. His queen was Tentopet who was buried in tomb 74 in the Valley of the Queens and his viceroy was Hori. We have no information that he had priestly functions at any time, but he was a military commander, a `hereditary prince, royal scribe or generalissimo'. It appears that at one occasion at least he led a sorty into Upper Nubia. [1800] Records indicate that he was interested in obtaining good `Bekhen-stone' for statues. He may have had visions of greatness of the type of Ramses II, whose colossal remains were known to all, and that is why he was interested in obtaining stones. According to excavation report information a scarab of Ramses IV was found `in one of the Philistine pits' at Aphek. Even though the report states, "After the abandonment of the Early Iron Age settlement at Aphek, the Philistines arrived from their coastal towns south of Sorek Valley. Their presence at Aphek is evidenced by their characteristic bichrome decorated pottery and figurine heads ... The Philistines did not erect any substantial buildings on the acropolis. In one of the `Philistine pits' a scarab of Ramses IV was discovered." [1900] Other than that, he (RIV/Tachos) was a contemporary of Agesilaus whom he met at least once according to Herodotus. This underscores the above information that he had military functions. The resolute punishment of the conspirators who had made plans to assassinate his father, in which they may have succeeded, may have had the effect to enhance his reputation among the military. Desert warriors of old
The California Institute for Ancient Studies adventure series.
Can we coordinate the deeds of Ramses IV with those of Tachos? Of Tachos it is said that his determined anti-Persian stance led him to incur great debts which he paid by stripping the economic assets of the temples. He may have reasoned that his land was in dire emergency from the long and sometimes cruel or more often economically depressing Persian domination making this approach necessary.

Ramses/Tachos was a proud man. When he met the famous Spartan general Agesilaus on the shores of Egypt the Spartan's dislike for pomp and ceremony and pharaoh's likes for impressive externals is made evident in the account of this meeting.

"As this great man had found nature favorable in giving him excellent qualities of mind, so he found her unpropitious with regard to the formation of his body; for he was of low stature, small in person, and lame of one foot. These circumstances rendered his appearance the reverse of attractive and strangers, when they looked at his person, felt contempt for him, while those who knew his merits could not sufficiently admire him. Such fortune attended him, when, at the age of eighty, he went into Egypt to the aid of Tachos, and lay down with his men on the shore without any shelter, having merely such a couch that the ground was but covered with straw, and nothing more than a skin thrown upon it, while all his attendants lay in the same manner, in plain and well-worn attire ... The news of his arrival having reached the king's officers, presents of every kind were soon brought to him; but when the officers inquired for Agesilaus they could scarcely be made to believe that he was one those who were sitting before them."

When Agesilaus chose a few things from those offered to him and ordered others to be carried back, "the barbarians looked upon him still more contemptuously, thinking that he made choice of what he had taken from ignorance of what was valuable." [2000]

Plutarch's account of Agesilaus' landing in Egypt also presents the unfavorable impression the general made on the Egyptians, by his small stature, his apparel and demeanor.

On a wall at the temple of Medinet Habu it is written:

"His majesty had brought a little one of the land of Temeh, a small one supported by his strong arms, appointed for them to be a chief, to regulate their land." [2100]
This inscription was and still is a dark passage to scholars. But the chronology here presented clears up the meaning of it. The Egyptians called neighboring Libya Tehenu. Its inhabitants had dark skin and curly hair. But for some time another people were being described as inhabiting the eastern, coastal parts of Libya. They had fair skin and blond hair and became known as Temeh [2200] and were Spartans and those of Greek descent who had come to live in this land of their asylum because of the many wars in their homeland. It seems to make much more sense in concluding that Tachos must have had good credentials and probably also had access to state funds, i.e. having been of royal lineage, for the Greeks and Spartans to negotiate with him. If he was Ramses IV that aspect is fulfilled.

The Tomb of Ramses IV

Ramses' IV tomb was found in the Valley of the Kings and is known as KV2 and was opened more recently. His end came when he was in Palestine and his half brother, Ramses VI/Nectanebo II revolted supported by Agesilaus, and RIV/Tachos fled to Sidon and from there into exile in Susa, the capital of Persia.

The first recorded visit of KV2 in modern times was by Richard Pococke in 1737, and Francoise Champollion used it as his lodging in 1828. This tomb also once served as a Coptic church - the ancient Christians having left graffiti on the walls. The decorations of its ceiling have been noted for its depiction of the goddess Nut supported by the standing figure of Shu. Another ceiling painting shows a vulture painted in a very similar style to those found on the leather canopy of the funeral tent of Si-Amon. The second bird of pray is damaged in the head region and we cannot be certain if it represented a hawk or a second vulture.

In conventional view Ramses IV reigned from 1151-1145 and Si-Amon from 978-959 BC. In revised view Ramses IV reigned from 360-354 and Si-Amon was active about from 300-260 BC under the Ptolemies. The difference is almost 200 years in the former and 80 years in the latter case. In view of the art work of the vultures being so similar which scenario is more likely? The tomb of Si-Amon reveals definite Greek influence as shown in images from his tomb posted on the website. Some claim that his mummy was found in a reinscribed sycamore coffin originally belonging to a wab-priest named Ahaaa. [2300]

Ramses V

What is there to say about Ramses V? He is the one who died in year 2 of Ramses VI, we are told of smallpox on the basis of lesions found on his face. The Wilbour Papyrus in the Brooklyn Museum is dated to the 4th year of this prince. It has to do with the measurement and assessment of fields along a 90 mile stretch from the Fayyum to the town of el-Minyeh. His mummy was found in KV35.

Ramses VI/Nectanebo II

With the defeat of the Sea Peoples campaign against Egypt in the days of Ramses III there were found signs in Palestine that Ramses III actually did occupy or enter into the defenseless regions of Palestine. Rameside period lion If it was in pursuit or after the withdrawal of the Persian's main forces we don't know. In a pile of discarded items archaeologists found a pen case belonging to a messenger of Ramses III and a scarab bearing his name. Also in Lachish and in Beth Shan were statues found of him. Between the first unsuccessful campaign of Artaxerxes III against Egypt in 350 BC and the second successful campaign in -343, Palestine was in the sphere of influence of Ramses VI/Nectanebo II. This is evidenced by finds like the base of a bronze statue of Ramses VI discoverd in Megiddo in 1934. As a result of that find certain conclusions were made as to the stratigraphy of Megiddo. A revealing footnote written by the excavator G. Loud says that the statue was found "under a wall in stratum VIIB room (number) 1832 as if deliberately buried there and therefore intrusive." [2500] Today we have an image of this bronze base on file. A city with the history of Megiddo certainly makes it likely that someone might try to hide certain items for one reason or another and to draw chronological conclusions from one such artifact seems unwise. Examples of `hidden stashes' are known from Ugarit/Ras Shamra, Qatna and other places.

From this kind of comment on potentially chronological important artifacts it is difficult or even impossible to draw chronological conclusions. Stratum VIIB was considered to be "19th and early 20th Dynasties." It appears when something doesn't fit expectations it is explained away as intrusion. The other possiblity for such items to end up far away from Egypt of course may be that others took them there and we should not make too much of them chronological speaking. Other incidental considerations as the geometric/mathematical capabilities of the Egyptians compared to the Greeks shows that they were probably closely related. The geometrical ellipse from the time of Ramses VI relating to the construction of a roof for his tomb is an example.

Like we have seen that one of the royal names of Ramses III contains the part `Nekhtaneb' so also in the case of Ramses VI we find the part `Neb' in Nebmare-meramun Ramesse-itamun-nutehekaon or as others put it, `Meryamun Nebmaatre Ramese'. `Nekht' or `Nect' (Greek) means `mighty' but the part `Nebo' is striking.Ramses VI bronze statuette base In revised view Ramses VI represents the last king of pharaonic Egypt and the year 342 BC the last year of that significant period in ancient history. A bronze base for a statuette of Ramses VI was found at Megiddo. [2700]

Since we identify Ramses VI with Nectanebo II we must find out who that person was whom modern scholars chose to represent Nectanebo II in the Egyptian monuments. We have already seen that Nekht-nebef was selected to represent Nectanebo I. For Nectanebo II they selected a man by the name of Nekht-hor-heb or variously spelled as `Nakhthoreb'. Who was he? We meet Nekht-hor-heb as a governor and treasurer of the state but also as the administrator of the estates of Arsames, the Persian plenipotentiary of Egypt. Both, Nekht-nebef and Nekht-hor-heb were Egyptian officials who enriched the Persian king and Arsames his satrap; but before anyone else they enriched themselves. From their own inscriptions we learn that each one of them was well liked by the priestly class and endowed cloisters and temples with grants and with serfs. [2900] Both of them, and also Psamtek, wrote their names in cartouches pretending to have royal titles since the Persian king did not care about that: He was King of Kings anyway.

But more significantly so, Nekhthoreb was one of the most energetic of the active builders in his days. He constructed and restored many monuments in the Nile Valley and the oases. For example he restored and added to the `Temple of Kharga' and built the `Temple of Ummubaydah'. More information can be found in this file.

We should mention how the sarcophagus of Ramses III was built on the model of that of Nekht-hor-heb. This similarity extends to the semi-oval shape at one end and many other features and ought not to surprise us since they did not live 700 years apart but only about one generation.

In 1898 the grievously battered mummy of Ramses VI was found in KV35. Of all the royal mummies it was the most savagely attacked.

Ramses VII and Ramses VIII

Ramesses VII: Ousermaatre Meryimen Setepenre - (It) Amun
Ramesses VIII: Ousermaatre Akhenamun Ramesses Meryamun Seth(her)khepeshef
Their time falls under the conditions existing when Agesilaus came to Egypt after being called by Tachos and who then withdrew his support from Tachos and shifted it to Nectanebo II whom he deemed to be better for his own causes. Among those trying to influence his decisions may have been these two princes who never really held power except perhaps in some locality of Egypt. The tomb of Ramses VII is KV1 but there is none for Ramses VIII. Neither princes mummy has been found.

Ramses VII, whose [fore]father (predecessor) was `Nebmare-meryamun, Son of Re.

Of Ramses VII it is said that during his time Egypt experienced a period of steep inflation. [Cerny] The reason for this observation seemed to be that prices ceased to be quoted in `pieces' at that time. If this observation has merit can revised chronology shed any light on it? Ramses' VII time was concomitant with that of Ramses IV to Ramses VI, between about 370-340 BC. What was Egypt's economy like during that time? Does the Papyrus Harris present a stable economy or inflationary times? Certainly the war efforts against Persia were costly and mercenaries and the use of Greek and other Mediterranean nations war ships had to be paid for. [3000]

What was the price for mercenary services during that time? "The Greek city/states of the 5th century BC did not use mercenaries as the affluence of the era enabled most of the population to be employed in civilian pursuits. By the end of the Peloponnesian War in 404 BC, this no longer was true. The war had lasted nearly 30 years, and "the peace must have let loose upon the Mediterranean world many Greeks who had become accustomed to earning their livelihood by fighting." [3100]

"The Greek agricultural sector was depressed throughout the 4th century, and the depression forced many peasants, who had been the backbone of the Greek armies, to abandon the farm to become mercenaries. Isocrates wrote in 380 BC of "many compelled through want of daily bread to serve as mercenaries." [3200] This translates into wages comparable with other occupations. Therefore, being a mercenary during this time was not a financially unproductive occupation. Those utilizing their services had to pay fairly high prices. The earliest known struck pieces of gold coinage are from the period of ca. 405-343 BC, when the Greek mercenaries demanded payment in gold coin. It was the Persians who had encouraged the Greeks to demand gold coins, whereas earlier in the Saite period, the Greeks were content with land as payment.

Ramses VIII

Unlike the other Ramesides which usually use the names of `amon' or `re' in their name, Ramses VIII features the name `seth'. As an aside, at the entrance of the tomb of Ramses VII visitors in ancient times left numerous graffiti written in Greek and thought to date between 278 BC - 537 AD. [3300]

Who was Amenemope

At least two individuals by that name are known to us. One was `a scribe in command of the army', the other was `Usermaatre-meryamun-setepenamun(t)' ("The justice of Re is powerful, Beloved of Amun") is `Amenemope(t)'. The latters mummy came from TT148 and now rests in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Amenemope, the scribe, is part of a written exchange between Hori, his superior scribe, and himself. But the second Amenemope, just like Psusennes I, he was also a priest of the 21st Dynasty who wrote his name inside a cartouche. When the Persian occupation had left no vestiges of pharaonic Egypt, these priest-king-rulers were the only men of native authority which could be looked upon as connecting to the older past of kings with royal pedigrees. As such they were revered by the people and their mummies were stored among those of pharaonic kings. But they existed under the sometimes waxing and waning shadow of the Persian crown. That is why their tombs and artifacts are of lesser quality and workmanship than that of pedigreed kings before them. The artisans were removed further in time from their skilled predeccors, their resources were harder to maintain and their level of skill and artistic energy and pride had suffered by difficult living conditions in Persian times.

Artifats of Amenemope include a gold pectoral plate and his gilded, wooden funerary mask. We don't know his parentage.

Who was Herihor?

Herihor was the priest who sent Wenamon on his voyage to bring cedar wood for the construction of a royal barge to Egypt. The name of his wife was Notjmet, a son of theirs was Amenemnisu. Both, Herihor, a priest, and Nesubanebded a governor in the Delta, were influential officials under Ramses IX. The name of his wife was `Nodjmet'. The monument confirming the powers of Herihor is the temple of Khonsu at Karnak. The reliefs represent Herihor the same size as his king, although not in the same scene, and his name is written in cartouches. For powerful, non-royal man to cartouche their names was possible under Persian overlordship since the great King did not care, he was still the king. The time of Herihor and his successor priests is also marked by a diminishing number of titles. This was probably due to the growing influence of the Persian occupiers and other foreigners in Egypt resulting in a shift in religious attitudes in particular toward the old gods of Egypt. It appears that one of the results of the rebellion of Inaros, besides having inflicted much expense to the Persians, was that native individuals of some royal bloodline came to the forefront, i.e. Ramses IX - XI. As we already pointed out these cannot be linked as descendants of Ramses III and lived actually before his time. To make things even more different, Ramses XI actually preceded Ramses IX because he is shown in a relief being offered flowers by a high priest Amenhotep. Both of these kings belong in the 5th century, both use the nomen `Khaem-Waset'. In the papyrus of Wenamon the reference must be to the earlier one of these two, who was deposed together with the high priest Amenhotep in the earlier part of the reign of Artaxerxes I. He was most likely Inaros of the Greek historians who rebelled against Artaxerxes I (465-425 BC).

Who was Paiankh?

Paiankh/Payankh was the son of Herihor who in turn also had a son known to us as Peinuzem I. While Herihor preceded Ramses III/Nectanebo I, his son Paiankh lived to see Ramses rise to power and be seated on the throne of Egypt. Paiankh, like his father, was high priest and never claimed kingship. Of Painakh we have a papyrus letter which reads: `To the fan-bearer on the king's right hand, royal scribe and general, high priest of Amonre, king of the gods, viceroy of Cush, ... Paiankh, from the two chief workmen, the scribe of the necropolis, Butehamun, the guardian Kar, and [...] etc... ." [Letter #28] Paiankh and Piankhy were two unrelated individuals.

Who was Peinuzem/Pinudjem?

Peinuzem, also variously spelled as Pinudjem, is supposed to include two representatives, I and II. Peinuzem's (I) life span includes the reign of the Persian kings Darius (424-404 BC) and Artaxerxes II (404-358 BC). In Egypt it also included the reigns of Acoris/Setnakht (393-380 BC), Ramses III (379-361 BC) and Tachos/Ramses IV (360-354 BC). He was the son of Nesubanebded of the Wenamon story, son-in-law- of Herihor, and a high-priest. During his term as high priest his son Psusennes I also became high priest. Later in his life, during the time of Ramses VI (354-about 342 BC), Peinuzem rewrapped the mummy of Ramses III in about 350 BC. If Nectanebo II/Ramses VI was aware of this we don't know. But tomb robberis decimated the royal depositories at a fast pace and something needed to be done to save what was left. We might guess that Ramses VI did not know about this undertaking of Peinuzem depending on the level of trust between these two. Having different functions they lived quite independent lives. Peinuzem I survived Ramses IV. First Ramses IV inscribed his name on the Colossal granite statue of Ramses II by the entrance to the Hypostyle Hall, later Peinuzem I wrote his name over that of Ramses IV. [4000]

The wife of Peinuzem I was Istemkheb, daughter of the high priest Menkheperre. Recently archaeologists found a fired brick with the name of `Menkheperre' stamped on it. Menkheperre As we have already seen bricks with the name of a king stamped on them were also made by Ramses II just about 250 years before. Knowing that their historical times might be forgotten because of foreign occupations [Persian] these priests sought to keep themselves in memory this way for a long time to come. Sometimes scholars claim that a second, unproven wife of Peinuzem, Nesikhones, existed. Of these the coffin used for Nesikhons (Cairo CG 61030) is the earlier type and the one for Istemkheb (Cairo CG 61031) dates from the late 21st Dynasty. Both women, if both were his wives or not, may have been considerably younger than Peinuzem. Nesikhones was buried in the 5th year of Si-amon (was around between about 298- 240 BC). For Peinuzem II click here.

The years and overlapping years of the 21st Dynasty personalities can perhaps be deduced adequately from father, wife, son relations to various funerary dockets and written sources but there is some room for adjustments. Suffice it to say that the scenarios presented by conventional scholars about the goings on during their time fit just as well into the Persian period as the period they assigned these individuals to.

Who was Psusennes?

Akheperre-setpenamun Psibkha`emne-meramun, Psusennes (I) was the son of Peinuzem I. The name of his wife was Mutnodjmet. Psusennes I had two sons, Masaherta and Menkheperre.[4050] Sir Flinders Petrie calls him Pisebkhanu of whom he found extensive constructions at Tanis like an 80 foot brick wall at the end of the temple (of Tanis) axis where each brick had his name stamped upon it. Petrie estimated that this wall "originally measured 45 feet high, 70 feet thick, and 3400 feet in length - an estimate rather under than over the truth. There must have been over twenty million of these large bricks stamped by Pisebkhanu; the bricks averaging from 16.6 to 18.0 inches long, 8.4 to 8.7 inches wide, and 5.0 to 6.1 inches thick." Psusennes/Pisebkhanu was active for nearly 40 years in the middle of the 4th century BC approaching the time of the arrival of Alexander the Great in Egypt. Petrie continues then: "The temple does not seem to have had any great enclosure in Ramesside times, as the wall of Pisebkhanu appears to be a work de novo. ... Part of the wall had, however, been ruined (or finished?) within a few centuries of its being built, as all the north side, except a few courses at the base, is built of rather smaller bricks, inferior in quality, and without any stamp upon them. As there is no sign of Ptolemaic or later alteration to the temple, this rebuilding must belong to some intermediate king." Psusennes/Pisebkhanu's wall was still fairly new in Ptolemaic times and the smaller bricks of the north side may very well represent those parts of the wall finished after the original project had lost the incentive of its originator or represent alterations made toward the end of the Ptolemies closer to Roman times. Roman period artifacts were found. Petrie thought the 22nd dynasty Sheshonks made these repairs. But the reworked blocks with their names were found associated with a pavement underneath the wall, not above or at least in or close to the same level of it. No mention is made of a nearby slope explaining how a wall could be built below another wall from a different age.

According to some historians there exists a tie between Soshenk I of the 22nd Dynasty and one `Psusennes' reputedly of the 21st Dynasty. Since in our revision Sheshonk I reigned about 823-802 BC and Psusennes I in 371-350 and Psusennes II from 309-296 BC we must explain the situation [4100]. One of the sources sometimes cited is the `Neseramun' genealogy, a family tree supposedly mentioning Si-Amun. This genealogy we shall address at a later time. How does the Demotic Chronicle fit in?

Egyptologists Explanations:

The basic "problem" is that the text reads, "Ma`e-kheper-Re` [sic], Chosen of Re`... Sheshenq, Beloved of Amen" then goes on to say, "His Majesty made a monument for his father Aten [sic, surely for Amen],[rene]wing for him his name on account of (the one) who fashioned [= ms] h(im), (namely)... Tit-kheper-Re`, Chosen of Re`... Heru-p(a)-seba-kha`i-(en)-niwt (=Psusennes II), Beloved of Amen."

The text has a very odd looking "ma`et" feather in the 1st cartouche of the Sheshenq. This has led some scholars to propose it is a bad writing for Heqa-kheper-Re` Sheshenq II since the text goes on to say that the king renewed Amen's (?) name for "the one who fashioned" (ms = bore) him. Under Kitchen's scheme, Sheshenq II was the grandson of Psusennes II, so this makes genealogical sense; see Jansen-Winkeln 1995 and Römer 1990. [4400]

The other option that has been adopted, particularly by von Beckerath, is that the name should be read as written and the Ma`e-kheper-Re` Sheshenq is actually a new king of that name, and otherwise unattested in the record, though he does claim British Museum statue EA 8 is this Sheshenq's as well, making Heqa-kheper-Re` Sheshenq (who is normally associated with EA 8) a separate king. [4500]

The traditional option is that the oddly-shaped "ma`et" feather is not a Heqa-sceptre (as above; unlikely in any event), but a somewhat abnormally thin white crown, thus Hedj-kheper-Re` Sheshenq I. (For photos and line drawings, see both the J-W and von B. articles) There is not a huge difference in the hieratic forms of the feather and the white crown, so I can imagine there may have been some confusion (and there are a number of other serious scribal errors in this text as well; Aten being written for Amen one of them). The difficulty with this is that Sheshenq I was not related by decent to Psusennes II as the text literally says. However, if Psusennes II was the political "father" of Sheshenq I, it might be taken metaphorically. Personally I have a lot less trouble with this than proposing a new king. The scribal error theory for the Heqa-sceptre involves too extreme an error (thin sceptres do not resemble wide feathers very much).

Part of an exchange between Kenneth Kitchens and David Rohl went as follows:

"First, the statue dedication to Har-Psusennes (II) by Hedjkheperre Shoshenk (I) turns out, in fact, to be the work of a newly discovered pharaoh Maatkheperre Shoshenk. Kitchen was well aware of the work of Carl Jansen-Winkeln on this statue [4600] but chose to ignore the new first-hand re-reading of the crucial cartouche."

What is the implication of this statement? Who was this `newly discovered pharaoh' and when did he live? And was this Har-Psusennes the one we know was a link in the 21st priestly dynasty? To answer the second question first we cannot exclude the possibility that this Har-Psusennes was entirely unrelated to the 21st Dynasty Psusennes.

As the Egyptologists account shows different views on this `new' Sheshonqe' pharaoh have also been voiced. Given the number of wives these rulers typically had and with it the number of sons and daughters, it should not surprise us to find evidence for another `Sheshonq', not necessarily a seated king contender, but likely a blue blood and of elevated status, probably a prince. His time would indeed be difficult to surmise correctly.

How does the Memphite Chronicle fit in? Was the mummy of Psusennes ever found? For all we know, Pierre Montet did not discover any royal mummies on the opening of the tomb at Tanis in the Nile Delta on April 16, 1940. The atmospheric conditions there are quite different than those prevailing in the Valley of the Kings. All Montet found in the coffin of Psusennes was blackish dust, perhaps a skull and a few bones, but no mummies and no funerary mask was found. [4700]

Yet, despite the apparent lack of treasures associated with the tomb of Psusennes, a gold breast plate is being exhibited which is said to have come from his tomb. The plate was suspended from a gold chain and has numerous rows of polished carnelian and blue-green amazonite feldspar stones set in gold. If true, seemingly a true example for the use of breast plates even among Egyptian priests, since Psunnese was a representative of the so-called 21st Dynasty of priests.

Who was Psamshek, Nekhta-nebef and Nekht-hor-heb and the Athens Grain Project

Two fixed dates help us analyze the times and establish chronological coordinates.

How is 445 BC the first fixed date? The name Psamtek or Psamshek also occurs in Greek sources and with their help we can figure out the events surrounding his time. In our paper on Ramses III we have already shown that conventional historians in the last century (late 18 hundreds) selected Nekht-hor-heb to take the place of Nectanebo I and Nekht-nebef the place of Nectanebo II. But the disturbing fact was that neither of these two individuals had anything to say about the great wars they were supposed to have fought, Nectanebo I against Artaxerxes II and his mercenaries, on land and on the sea, and Nectanebo II, against Artaxerxes III before he was defeated in his final campaign. Instead, their inscriptions are vainglorious, and therefore an absence of any reference to their exploits in war resulting in victories seemed surprising. Because they left many inscriptions in Egypt, it could not be claimed that by chance all those relating to their war exploits had been destroyed. Yet, for lack of any other candidates to fill the shoes of the two Nectanebos, otherwise only known to us from the writings of Greek historians, Nekh-nebef and Nekht-horheb were chosen to represent them.

Then in the early 1900's W. Spiegelberg, a German Egyptologist of the University of Munich, found reason to reverse the identity and from now on it was that Nekht-nebef was Nectanebo I and Nekht-hor-heb became Nectanebo II. [4800]

Since we matched Ramses III with Nectanebo I and Ramses IV with Nectanebo II, we must determine who Nekht-nebef and Nekht-horheb were. To help clarify the identities of these men once more let us point out that a) their story is told from the Egyptian hieroglyphic point of view where their true identities are those of high ranking officials working for the interests of the Persian satrap Arsames and then b) their story is told by the Greek historians who mention two Nectanebos which are Ramses III and Ramses VI.


In order to show that Nekht-nebef lived and acted a little earlier in the days of the Persian satrap Arsames, we have to occupy ourselves with the person of Psamshek or Psamtek. Conventional historians equate the person of Psammetichus known to us from the History of Herodotus with Psamtek. What is the basis for equating these two?

There exists a basalt slab of Psamtek, carved on the reverse side by Nekht-nebef whose Horus name and cartouches are nourished by the cobra-goddess Wadjyt. At Kom el-Sultan, was found a `bank of white lime stone chips', described as `all that remains of the temple of Nakht-neb-ef.' Apparently the locals used all of it for their own needs. [4900]

We also postulate that the reason for both, Psamtek and Nekht-nebef to have carved their cartouches on the same basalt slab is more consistent with their non-royal status since reigning pharaohs rarely did so without usurping or even damaging the former's carvings. Furthermore, there exists another basalt block showing Psamtek identified by his Horus name and cartouches. So we see that in Persian times apparent non-royal lineage high ranking individuals felt free to attribute to themselves royal name privileges. This custom was strongly discouraged during the time of Alexander and the Ptolemies.

We have already identified Seti-Ptah-Maat [Seti the Great] of the Egyptian monuments with Psammetichus of Herodotus. But modern historians looked for Psammetichus' monuments apart from those of Seti the Great. They did find relics with the name of `Psamshek'. However, among these relics nothing could be found which would recall anything which would remind one of the stories about him as we find them in Herodotus and other classical historians. Why was nothing found about his great deeds in war and in peace? Nothing on how he managed to overcome the eleven regional rulers of Egypt, how he returned from Palestine where he escaped to from the Ethiopians, how he received help from the Carians and Ionians who arrived by sea, how he built military camps for them and was the first among the pharaohs allowing Greeks to settle in Egypt, how he freed Egypt from Assyrian hegemony, and how as an ally of the Assyrians he made war in Syria? Nothing was found, not even the smallest allusion can we find in these relics of Psamshek to any of these events.

The true situation on Psamshek is quite different. The relics with his name on it can be safely ascribed to Psamshek, the administrator of Egypt under his Persian plenipotentiary, the satrap Arsames. From the letters written on cowhide leather and coming out of the offices of Arsames in Babylon, addressed to his subordinates in Egypt, we learn that, before Nekht-hor, Psamshek was the administrator of Upper and Lower Egypt. As soon as we return Psamshek/Psamtek, to his true time in the middle of the 5th century BC everything will fall into place. We also have a reference in Greek sources how in 445 BC `King Psammetich' sent grain by ships to the people of Athens. [5000] Ever since the days of Psammetichus I [Seti the Great], Egypt had become the bread basket for Greece. Historians assume that this reference to a 5th century Psammetich is a namesake of the famous 7th century Psammetich and that otherwise we know nothing of him. That is not true - this `Psammetich' II is the same person we know as Psamshek or Psamtek, governor of Egypt under Arsames. It is quite certain that Psamtek did not send grain to Athens without the knowledge of Arsames. It happened during a time when Persian interests dictated support for Athens.

Some may raise the objection that in the Greek sources Psammetichus is referred to as `King of Egypt'. Psamtek was the highest official in Egypt only responsible to the Persian plenipotentiary Arsames. At this time there was no seated pharaoh with a pedigree. For all practical purposes Psamtek had royal powers in the understanding of the ancients. The Persians did not care, they were still the overlords.

Other investigators will state that sometime between 514 and 489 BC `there is an almost total absence of historical information forthcoming from Egypt.' In an effort then to make this Psamtik, Persian official, a relative of Pharaoh Psamtik/Psammetichus they calculate his life span to have been from about 564 or close to it, to 489 BC. But we show that Psamtik was alive and well in 445 BC. The absence of records is not so much in fact since the records which do exist are wrongly attributed to Pharaoh Psammentichus, our Seti the Great.

Nekht-horheb - Pinpointing the second fixed date

From writings attributed to the 21st Dynasty period we learn about the identity of Nekht-nebef and Nekht-hor-heb. In these writings we mention again the cowhides which represent correspondence between the powerful and opportunistic Persian potentate Arsame (Arsa) and his Egyptian plenipotentiary Nekhtor. Is Nekhtor the same as Nekht-horheb? The letters were addressed "From Arsham to Nekht-hor". Because of the unceremonial way in which Arsames wrote to his representatives in Egypt, it is understood that Arsames just dropped the last part of their name just like he dropped also all salutation in a letter from him to a Persian nobleman visiting Egypt.

Can we say then that Nekht-hor stands for Nekht-hor-heb? Fortunately there is an inscription which allows us to do just that. This inscription was on two figurines from a private collection. One statue represents a kneeling man (the head is missing), holding in his arms a small naos (icon) with the figure of Osiris in it. The base of the figure had the inscription.

An inscription of Nekht-hor-heb: "... [making offering] to Neith, the great, divine Mother ... for the soul [ka] of the noble Lord, hereditary prince - of the King of the North - [makes offering to Neith], the great Mother Divine, that she grant funerary meals, every perfect thing ... for the ka of the noble lord, hereditary prince, the carrier of the seal of the King of the North, a unique patron, chief commissioner of estates - governor of the entrances [to Egypt] by land and by sea, Nekht-hor-heb, born of Nes-en-per-Mut. ... I was truly distinguished in manners, excellent of character, a functionary free of reproach, my heart was (always) harmonious, my thoughts without disguise and there was nothing in my breast to conceal ..." [5500]

The reference to "the king of the north" refers to the Persian monarch and the prayer for the soul of this "noble lord and hereditary prince" must mean that it was produced on the occasion of the death of Arsames. The last time Arsames is mentioned is in an Elephantine letter written in 407 BC. He must have died soon after or even before that date since the Elephantine letter refers to his visit to king Darius in 410 BC (Darius died in 404 BC).

To the best of our knowledge the very extensive text on the sarcophagus of "King Nekht-hor-heb" was never translated and may contain the name of his mother. But the evidence to the identity of Nekht-hor-heb, who was a satrap's agent and governor, is already at hand in the letters of Arsames and the above text on the icon figurine. The time he lived in was during the latter part of his Persian lord Arsames, who died close to 407 BC. The year 407 BC or close to it represents the second fixed date when Nekht-hor-heb deplored the death of his master Arsames.

From the Aramaic letters of Arsames we know of a person by the name of Nekht-hor who lived at the same time, late in the courier of Arsames, as Nekht-hor-heb and both had the same official duties. From this we realize that Nekht-hor-heb and Nekht-hor were the same person. The only difference is that Arsames dropped the last part of the name in letters to his underlings. Edouard Naville mentions in his `The Mound of the Jew' that he found the name "of Nekht-horheb, who built a temple with a sculptured sanctuary", in location he identified as Belbeis in the eastern Nile Delta.

According to conventional wisdom, Psamtek/Psamshek was Pharaoh Psammetichus but one looks in vain for any discussion on the representatives of `Arsames', the Persian satrap, governing Egypt during most of the 5th century BC and named as `Ahapi', `Psamtek' and `Nekhthor' in their (conventional) books. These pekidas held sway over Egypt with an iron hand and exacted painful tribute from the local population for the Persian crown leading to rebellions and wars, yet, their history is more often than not left untold. Why? We believe their records have been interpreted to belong to the kings of the mythical 26th Dynasty and therefore there are no records left to tell the story of the pekidas of the 5th century. The greatest names among modern Egyptologists have nothing or little to say on this important period in Egypt's history, it represents a check on the intricate falsification of this era of Egypt's ancient history.

Additional Aspects of the two conventional Nectanebos - Nekhta-nebef and Nekht-horeb

French archaeologists were surprised to find much evidence of building monuments in the delta region [Sebennytos (birthplace of Manetho), Samanood] he (Naville) thought dated to these two individuals. "It is not only extraordinary that they should have erected so many large buildings, but that they should have erected them in so beautiful a style, reminding us of the art of the 12th Dynasty." [E.Naville, `Mound of the Jew', p. 25] In this same location he mentions 3 fragments of basement stones of a temple bearing his cartouche which had a list of nomes written on them. As a collector of tribute for the Persian crown such a list should not surprise us. Nekht-horheb was a wealthy man who could well afford such constructions.

The Rise to Power of the 30th Dynasty

The rebellion of Inaros against the Persian domination of Egypt began in 463 BC and continued until 454 BC. Inaros was in this supported by the Athenian fleet. This fact indicates to us that he was more than just a priest. He had to have some credentials to convince Athens that he was worthy of their support. Therefore it stands to reason that his proposed identity with Ramses XI is a strong possibility.

In response to the Greek support of Inaros, the Persians send Achaemenes to crush the rebellion. In the first encounter Achaemenes was victorious, but the Athenians ordered a fleet of 200 vessels then at anchor at Cyprus to sail to Egypt and aid Inaros. They sailed up the Delta to Memphis, attacked the Persian garrison, and occupied the city. In 460 BC a large army under Megabyzos, supported by 300 Phoenician ships, fought the Egyptians and their Greek allies, forcing the latter to retreat to Prosopitis, where they withstood starvation and siege conditions for 18 months. Then the Persians diverted the water of the branch of the Nile in which the Athenian fleet was moored, and the Greeks burned and stranded their fleet and surrendered. In doing so the Persians used the same tactics employed in the siege of Babylon in 538 BC, just 78 years earlier. [5600] The war was terminated with a treaty in 448 BC under Artaxerxes I and Athens. A few years after these events Herodotus visited Egypt and described a land which seemed to be well governed. As a result of the treaty Athens left Cyprus and Egypt to the Persians and promised not to attack the Greeks living on the coast of Asia Minor. As a result of this non-intervention policy and the resulting improved relations with Persia, a peace followed in 446 BC among the Greek states, Attica (Athens), Boeotia (The Greek Thebes), Lacedemonia (Sparta) with its long sought capital of Sparta/Palaeochori by the river Potamos - once so eagerly sought after by the French writer `Vicomte Francois Rene de Chateaubrians', and others. This peace treaty was later called the Thirty-Year-Peace. Artaxerxes I regained full control over Egypt and gave it to his satrap Arsames, who continued living in Babylon (the third capital of Persia after Persepolis and Susa), and Ah-hapi, mentioned in a letter, was from some date on his plenipotentiary there. After the death of Ah-hapi, his son Psamshek was appointed to take over. [5600]

Having retold the story we have two fixed dates, 445 BC when Psamshek send grain to Athens and 407 BC (or close to it) when Nekht-hor-heb deplored the death of his master Arsames. These two fixed dates will enable us to disentangle a number of historical problems where historical personalities have lost their true roots on the time scale. How confusing this situation is for conventionally bound scholars is made clear by W.S. Smith:

"Strange portraits of two kings, Psamtik I and Nectanebo I [Nekhtnebef], are to be found in royal reliefs, and these seem to indicate that the taste for representing individual characteristics had not disappeared in the late time between early Dynasty 26 and the Ptolemaic period. They appear on basalt slabs, 4 feet in height, which seem to have formed a balustrade for a single monument. It is not easy to visualize the original appearance of this monument or to explain how a large part of it came to be left uninscribed for over 200 years until Nectanebo took up the work again. The same scheme of decoration is carried out on the two sets of slabs which are carved on both sides. On one side, closely spaced kneeling figures of the king make offering to various deities, with a hawk frieze above. On the other side of the slab a single figure of the king is set against a black background, and there is a uraeus cornice." [5700]

As we now realize, the two personalities, Psamtek and Nekht-nebef, both wrongly identified - one with a pharaoh of the 7th century, the other with a pharaoh of the 4th century - were not separated by "over 200 years" (actually nearer 300 years): both belong to the 5th century. Their history we described above.

Meanwhile the Persian oppression before the death of Darius II in 404 BC lead to the rebellion of one named Amyrteos who established his authority over a part of Egypt in 400 BC. No cartouche of Amyrteos has been determined. He is the only representative of the 28th Dynasty. Herodotus wrote, "... nobody ever caused the Persians more trouble and loss than Inarus and Amyrtaeus." [5800]

After Amyrteos [5900] another secular leader by the name of Nepherites [died 393 BC] revolted. With Nepherites (Nefaarud I, image) Nepherites Iwe have already left the history as told by Herodotus who died in about 424 BC. We are now in the period of the Greek military historian Xenophon [from about 435-after 362] whose history however is not concerned with Egyptian affairs and who began his account of Greek events with the year 401 BC and that of Thucydides [about 460-400 BC]. Nepherites also obtained some measure of independence, which Egypt had not had for some 130 years before in 395 BC. When he died, Nepherites was not followed by a son of his but by one named Acoris [393- about 380 BC]. It is possible that some Persian intrigue was behind this seizure of the throne for Acoris sided with Persia at least in the beginning. But after a while he too rebelled. When Evagoras, king of Cyprus, aided by the Athenians, revolted against the Persian king, Acoris decided to revolt too and was successful to repulse a Persian fleet in 385 and 383 BC. In 381 the fleet of Evagoras was defeated by the Persians and Acoris died in 379 or 378 BC. The throne of Egypt was ceased by Nectanebo I, who claimed to be of the parentage of Nepherites, but who was a son of a military man and an officer himself. It appears that he had served on the Libyan front, scoring there some successes before he declared himself to be king of Egypt. Such was the rise to power of Nectanebo I, aka Ramses III, son of Achoris/Setnakht (Usikhaure-meramun-setpenre Setnakhte- merrere- meramun). According to Papyrus Harris Setnakht was the predecessor of Ramses III. Setnakht's coffin was found in a royal cache in Amenhotep II's tomb (KV 35) in 1898. Of Setnakht the papyrus Harris relates that he put down rebellions begun by Asiatics, he relieved besieged cities, brought back those who had gone into hiding, and reopened the temples and restored their revenues. [5950] In these days and those of Ramses III/Nectanebo I short lived commercial ties existed between Atika/ Athens, Punt/God's Land, the land of the inverted water, and Egypt. The range of events illustrate the difference how Egyptian texts relate events compared to Greek authors, one translated from pictoral hieroglyphics and papyri in hieratic writing, the other from alphabetic texts.

The defeat of Evagoras, the improvement of relations between Athens and Persia, and the assistance given by Persia to Athens against Sparta influenced the state of affairs in Egypt. Ramses III/Nectanebo too, at first recognized Persian over lordship but soon began to reactivate his troops and fleet to meet the advance of the Persian army and navy. He pretended to be pro Persian only for a short time.

Diodorus tells us that in 375/374 "Artaxerxes, King of the Persians, intending to make war on the Egyptians and being busily engaged in organizing a considerable mercenary army, decided to effect a settlement of the wars going on in Greece." By pacifying the western front (Greece), he hoped to be able to concentrate on the southern front, Egypt. He also hoped, "that the Greeks, once released from their domestic wars, would be more ready to accept mercenary service." But the result of this so called King's Peace, which should have given autonomy to each Greek city, brought new strife among them, since the Thebans, led by Epaminodas, disagreed on procedures; and besides, upon obtaining autonomy, "the cities fell into great disturbances and internal strife, particularly in the Peleponese."

The attempt to reach a general settlement resulted in new hostilities between Sparta and Athens; Sparta, blockading the Hellespont, coerced Athens to a peace with Persia; Sparta occupied the citadel of Cadmeia in Thebes, capital of Boeotia; the Theban exiles recovered Cadmeia by a coup. Athens allied itself with Thebes. In 376 BC the Athenian admiral Chabrias destroyed the Spartan fleet off the coast of the island of Naxos in a decisive battle.

The next year "King Artaxerxes sent an expedition against the Egyptians, who had revolted from Persia." Giving a description of this expedition and of its disastrous ending, Diodorus reverted to the political conditions among the Greek states and wrote: "Throughout Greece now that its several states were in confusion because of unwanted forms of government ... many uprisings were occurring in the midst of the general anarchy..."

This state of affairs shows Greece in turmoil. The Corinthian War had just ended before a new war between Greek city-states and islands was in progress. In response to these conditions Ramses III wrote: `"the islands" were restless, disturbed among themselves.' [6000]

"The countries ... the Northerners in their isles were disturbed, taken away in the fray - at one time. Not one stood before their hands [arms], from Kheta [Ht], Kode [the `circling' of the Syrian coast at the Gulf of Iskanderum], Carchemish, Arvad [in northern Syria], Alasa [Cyprus], they were wasted. They set up a camp in one place in Amor [Syria]." [6100]
Are there any constructions attributed to the 30th Dynasty (380-343 BC)? One such construction is the propylon of Khonsu at Karnak with relief carvings done at a later date and attributed to Ptolemy III (246-222 BC). We have already mentioned the overall similarities of the pylons of Khonsu and Medinet Habu, both belonging into Greek times. But the bas-relief artwork of the artists of Ramses III/Nectanebo I and those of the Ptolemies are of course separated by some 100 years or more.

But we are not done revising the 21st Dynasty until we present the story of Si-Amon.

Si Amon - the last of the 21st Dynasty

Si-Amon is the final figure of the 21st so called Dynasty. He was the one who buried the mummies, closed and sealed the royal cache of the ancient pharaohs during the burial of Peinuzem II. Peinuzem II did not `reign' in the 10th century but was active under Ptolemy I Soter (305-285 BC). Si Amon must have lived under the same king or, more probably, under his successor, Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BC). Ptolemy I was a warrior king while his son was a splendor loving king enthusiastic about Greek culture. He abhorred the native Egyptian religious cults and supplanted the ancient idols of Amon, Ptah, and other deities with that of Serapis. But despite the changes in Egypt the Egyptian priesthood continued to enjoy the patronage of the kings; temples were built in Kom Ombo, in Esneh, and in other places that in architectural style did not look different from the temples of the 20th Dynasty.

Were there two `Si-Amon's', one a king and the other a priest-king?

Cartouche of the conventional Pharaoh Si Amon
Hieroglyphic name of the 21st Dynasty Pharaoh Si Amon
Hieroglyphic name of Si Amon as found in inscriptions of the Siwa Oasis
Hieroglyphic name of the Si-Amon known from the Siwa Oasis. [A.Fakhry, `Siwa Oasis', Fig. 77, p. 202] Figure 70Figure 70, hieroglyphic signs.
Cartouche of the throne name of the conventional Pharaoh Si Amon
Hieroglyphic throne name of the 21st Dynasty Pharaoh Si Amon on a red granite sphinx from Tanis (Petrie).

Comparing the hieroglyphics from Tanis with those of the Siwa Oasis we can see similarities as well as differences. The differences could be accounted for Si-Amon having used different names as kings do when they use Horus, Son of Re and Suten Bat, etc. names. The lack of a name circle may be due to new political conditions since in the revision Si-Amon was a contemporary of Ptolemy I. It took time for Ptolemy to assert his authority throughout Egypt. In addition we should not assume that he spent much time at Siwa and therefore his documentation there varies from that elsewhere. Different artists produced the tomb and temple work at Siwa; artists, who may have been out of touch with the Nile Valley artistic conventions.

The only written documentation of the time of the conventional Si Amon in Breasted's `Records' is the follwoing:

"Year 8, month 3, of the second season, day 29. His majesty, L.P.H., sent to give a place to the king's-son, Si-Amon." [6300]

King here does not mean necessarily one living in splendor being seated on a throne. It just means ruler of a piece of land whose taxable income supports him. The few construction projects attributed to Si-Amon are well within the possibilities of a wealthy ruler. Workers produced what they got paid for. Si-Amon's portrayal as warrior king may be just due to his part in campaigns or trips made during the period of the rise of the Ptolemies in their 22 year struggle for supremacy. His workers then tauted their leader as the hero for them. In the revision some 110 years intervened between Wenamon and Si-Amon.

Did Osorken built his temple court at Tanis after Si-Amon?

Some historians suggest that Si-Amon added his court at Tanis after Psusennes I and Osorken II added his after S-Amon's court was built while others state that Osorken came first followed by Psusennes. How can that be in our reconstruction of the chronology? Osorken II was a member of the 22nd dynasty and in the distant past by the time of Si-Amon.

This Osorken could be Osorken the elder. That makes Psusennes Akheperre Psusennes I rather than Har-Psusennes II. It also makes Sheshonq in the tomb of Psusennes I Heqakheperre Sheshonq I. Also I seem to remember that Sheshonq had a neck piece of Sheshonq I. Therefore Shoshenq must precede Psusennes II. This implies for the conventional view that the dynasties overlap. However, any overlap of 21/22 produces conflicting priestly athorities at Tanis and Thebes and probably others. So Sheshonq I must precede 21st Dynasty. (The genealogies are all two or more genealogies tied together by a common name or a common name and a common title. It appears the different connecting genealogies make assumptions, first, that the same person is involved and, secondly, that this validates the dynastic order. Actually, the genealogies are arranged by the dynastic order and therefore cannot validate it.)[As suggested by Alan Montgomery]

To decorate the new city of Alexandria, the Ptolemies ordered several obelisks to be transferred and erected in public places. The two obelisks that today stand near the Thames in LondonLondon Obelisk and in the Central Park in New York City,New York Obelisk were those erected before the Caesarion in Alexandria by Octavius Augustus; but we are not certain when they were transferred to Alexandria from their original location in Heliopolis. It is possible that the removal of the obelisks from Heliopolis required an authorization by the priesthood. The texts on the obelisks date from Thutmose III but close to the base there are or were, according to Maspero, hieroglyphics with the name of Si-Amon added at a later time. We gather that this was read by Maspero at least on one of these two obelisks. It is possible that this inscription may have gotten lost or obliterated upon erection in the western cities on the rather poor preserved lower sections of these obelisks. [6400]

In his efforts to preserve or restore temples and monuments Si-Amon left his name on numerous objects found in Memphis, Tanis, and other locations in Upper Egypt. When converting the tombs of two ancient, little known queens into the depositories for the mummies of the ancient pharaohs he made their entrances so inconspicious that through the entire Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Mameluke, and Turkish rules, until the end of the 19th century, they were not found. The transfers were most likely done at night with no fanfare.

In the hill tomb were Si-Amon lies buried there was another tomb for Ni-per-pa-Thoth, "prophet of Osiris, scribe of the divine books, the priest" according to a text on the wall. He was eulogized as "the great one of his town", "the follower of his god", and "excellent man". The god Amon was not mentioned.

Fakhri wrote: "Daressy dated it [the tomb of Ni-per-pa-Thoth] to the 20th Dynasty when he first examined the drawing, but later on preferred a later date thinking that it was from the time of Alexander the Great." [6500]

Another artifact exists which is the triumphal relief by Si-Amon erected at Tanis. The peculiar feature of this monument is the apparent depiction of a unique weapon resembling a double battle ax with crescent shaped blades held in the hand of the victim of Si-Amon where only the right upper body is still preserved minus the head which was part of the broken off piece. [6600]

The synchronism thought to be deduced from this battle ax was, it was perceived to be of Aegean or Balkan origin. In our opinion such a source for the weapon, or even Celtic, is even more likely if revised chronology is applied.

About the tomb of Si-Amon in the northwest side of the hill found in 1940 it was said: "This tomb is by far the best that has yet been found in the Western Desert and rivals any work of the period in the tombs of the Nile Valley." [6700] Since that time it has been subjected to much destruction. The striking phenomena however is, that the royal cartouches were left empty and nowhere is the word `king' written indicating Ptolemaic times during which such usages were a grave offense. The painting betrays Greek style in clothing, hair and other details. How can we be sure that the Si-Amon from the oasis was the same who sealed the royal cache? When E. Brugsch opened up a thick package of rolled hide he found it to have been the funerary canopy used by Si-Amon with the name of Peinuzem II written on it in cartouches. The details of the artwork of this canopy is so closely similar to art work from the tomb of Si-Amon that we conclude they were produced probably by the same artist.

List of identities of the artworkof the funerary canopy with that in the tomb of Si-Amon
Within rectangular spaces are vultures painted whose heads are crowned with royal headgear.
There are vultures and falcons alternating
In their talons the birds hold widely spread ostrich feathers with 3 alternating dark and 3 light portions.
Similarity in the design of the heads of the birds of prey
Similarity in the design of the feathers
Similarity in the confines of the wings - semi-oval from below, straight at the upper edge
The royal birds are arranged in colors one under another in long rectangular spaces surrounded by rosettes
There is a frieze of lance heads set on circles
There are carpet motives of checkered squares in both paintings.
The design of the vultures is very similar to one found on page 72 of `KMT' Magazine,
Vol. 11, No. 2, Summer 2000 telling us that the sarcophagus used to inter the so-called mummy of
Thutmose II is one of the late 21st Dynasty/Persian period.

According to conventional historians the reign of Si-Amon of the 21st Dynasty has been clearly linked by the independent Mesopotamian and Egyptian chronologies and the parallel Hebrew dates (linked to Assyria) making Solomon and Si-Amon contemporaries. Historians state that Si-Amon corresponds to a `Psinaches' of the list of Manetho. There is no similarity between these two names and to that identification we cannot agree. Similarly there exists no conclusive evidence to date Si-Amon into the time of King Solomon.

The Chronological Impact of the Royal Tomb

In this section we discuss the points made by David Rohl which do not present a problem for our placement of the 21st Dynasty. When the tomb of the kings was found in 1886 the coffins of many kings were still in place as they had been interred by Peinuzem I. In order to get an understanding of the logistical problems involved to place the various coffins we must discuss the important aspects. The resulting irrefutable conclusion will be that Seti the Great was interred in that tomb after the 22nd Dynasty period as we have already shown that he was Psammetichus and lived in the second half of the 7th century BC.

The chronological paradox the royal tomb presents for conventional chronology is that the mummy of one Djedptahefankh/Djeptahiufankh was found in the deepest recess of the tomb but he belongs into the 8th/9th century.[6770] The problem is that in order to get his coffin into the space where he was found through the narrow corridors would have been impossible with the coffins stored in that passage way. The question that needs to be answered is how did they get a coffin of an 8th/9th century person past that of Seti the Great supposedly of the 13th century? And if Si-Amon did the burial how could a 10th century Si-Amon burry an 8th/9th century Djedptahefankh?

Who was Djedptahefankh (Djed-Ptah-e- fankh)? He was a Second Prophet of Amun during the 22nd Dynasty. His name was written on a funerary docket in ink on the bandages used to wrap his mummy.

It read:

"Noble linen, which the Dual King, Lord of the Two Lands, Hedjkheperre, Son of Re, Lord of Appearances, Shoshenk-meryamun made for his father Amun (in) Year 10." [6800]
A second label mentioned also the year 11 which was understood to refer to the same king. Hedjkheperre Shoshenk I is regarded to have been the founder of the 22nd Libyan Dynasty which reigned in the revised view from about 830-715 BC, in the conventional view from 945-715 BC.


The following table will help to visualize the time problem.

Conventional Dates David Rohl's Dates Revised Dates
Seti the Great
Ramses II
Sheshonk I
Peinzuem II
21st Dynasty
1294 - 1279 BC
1279 - 1213 BC
0945 - 0924 BC
0990 - 0969 BC
0969 - 0950 BC
1069 - 0945 BC
0978 - 0959 BC
665 - 609 BC
609 - 569 BC
823 - 802 BC
during reign of Peinuzem II
~ 317 - 296 BC
285 - 246 BC
~ 417 - 246 BC

We see here that in the revision the 22nd comes before the 19th Dynasty.

The 21st Dynasty is made up of the following individuals given with their revised dates.
Psusennes I
Peinuzem I
Peinuzem II
Psusennes II

(some of these years may have to be fine tuned as more information comes in) - or 246

Note: The Throne names of the 26th Dynasty kings according to E.A.W. Budge
Uah-ab-Ra III Psamthek I (Greek rendition was Psammetichos)
Uhem-ab-Ra Nekau (Greek rendition was Necho)
Nefer-ab-Ra II Psamtek II
Haa-ab-Ra I Uah-ab-Ra IV (Greek rendition given as Ouphris, Apries)
Khnem-ab-Ra Aahmes II (Greek rendition given as Amosis)
Ankh-ka-Ra II Psamtek III
We notice that all these throne names contain the ending `abra', or sometimes given as `ibra', representing a continuation of the simple forms of names already found during the 25th (Ethiopian, Kushite) Dynasty. Comparing the 26th Dynasty names with those of the 19th Dynasty, we find that the 19th Dynasty names are also shorter than other Dynastic names.

Since the coffin of Djedptahefankh was found in the chamber furthest away from the entrance and the coffin of Seti the Great in the first corridor after descending from the vertical entrance shaft and Seti's coffin was larger, image (B) illustrates that it would have been impossible to get Djed's coffin past that of Seti's and consequently Djed must have died before Seti. The day of the transfer fell into the 10th year of Si-Amon and the occasion for the transfer of the royal mummies into the tomb of Queen Inhapi was the death of Peinuzem II. The reason for assembling the coffins of all these royalties into one tomb was the constant threat of grave robbers destroying their abode. In conventional thinking the year 10 of Si-Amon was 969 BC in the revised view it was either the 10th year of Ptolemy I (295 BC) or Ptolemy II (275 BC).

Since Seti's coffin was the last and largest of 4 coffins in the 1st corridor David Rohl claims it was impossible to carry Djed's coffin past that of Seti and consequently Djed died before Seti. But David Rohl claims that Djedptahefankh was a son-in-law of Peinuzem II implying that the 22nd and 21st Dynasty were contemporaneous at that time. That claim of Djed having been the son-in-law of Peinuzem II is not substantiated.

In revised view this tomb was chosen by the group of Si-Amon even though Djedptahfankh was already interred there. All of these mummies were placed there in no specific order by Si-Amon after the death of Peinuzem II in about 296 BC or sometime after that but close to about 275 BC. Sheshonk died first, then Djed and after him Seti the Great. But Sheshonk was not among the mummies found in the Royal Cache Tomb. Djed's mummy was there long before Seti's arrived in the 10th year of Si-Amon. The ponderous conclusion is that this tomb forces Egyptologists to face the fact that here is evidence that the 22nd Dynasty preceded the 21st. Conventionally bound scholars assumed that the mummy cache had been reopened under the Libyan kings to insert the body of the priest Djedptah-efonkh.
But this insertion of Djed could not have taken place without taking all the mummy cases out of the corridor, bringing them to the surface, carrying Djed's coffin into the furthest chamber and then returning Seti's and the other 3 coffins into the corridor. It is preposterous to suggest this was done to bury a high priest. These stone coffins are not easily moved and to lift them out would have been a much harder task than lowering them down the shaft.

Maspero, `Les Momies royales' (Paris, 1889), pp. 572-573.
B. Porter and R. Moss, `The Theban Necropolis' (Oxford, 1964), p. 666.
Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 320.
H. Gauthier, `Annales du Service des Antiquities de l'Egypte', Vol. 18 (1919), pp. 252ff.

But even given these facts, David Rohl still misses the real setting of the 21st Dynasty. On what basis do we place the 21st so much later than anyone else dares?
1. The political, social background of the 21st Dynasty fits the Persian period. It is a well known saying that things don't happen in isolation. That is also true with internal events in Egypt, Palestine, Assyria or other countries.
2. The tomb paintings in the tomb of Si-Amon belong into the Greek period based on the typically Greek cloak worn by him and his son.
3. To date the only hieroglyphic inscription remaining from the time of Cambyses is that of Udjeharresne who wrote an autobiographical sketch on a statue now in the possession of the Vatican Museum.

E.A.W. Budge grouped the 21st Dynasty into two groups: I) The 2 Groups
The High-Priests of Amen at Thebes
1. Her-Heru, Pai-ankh, Pai-netchem I
2. Tchet-Khensu-auf-ankh
3. Masaherth, Men-kheper-Ra
4. Pai-netchem II
5. Taa-kheperu-Ra setep-en-Ra Pasebkhan
6. Auapat.
The Kings at Tanis
1. Hetch-kheper-Ra I
2. Pasebkhan I
3. Pasepbkhan II
4. User-maat Ra VII
5. Sa-Amen
6. Pasebkhan III.
These two groups are arranged quite arbitrarily and only shown to help us understand the weak reasons historians used to explain what they found.
II) Udje's Inscription Evidence
1. Udjeharresne's inscription helps us understand the political problems in his days:
"There came to Egypt the great chief of every foreign land Cambyses, the foreigners of every country being with him. When he had taken possession of this entire land they settled down there in order that he might be the great ruler of Egypt and the great chief of every foreign land. His Majesty commanded me to be the chief physician and caused me to be at his side as companion and director of the palace, and I made his titulary in his name of King of Upper and Lower Egypt Mesutire. And I caused him to know the greatness of Sais which is the seat of Neith the great, the mother who gave birth to Re and who was the initiator of birth after there had been no birth. ... Great trouble had come about the entire land of Egypt. ... all those foreigners who had settled down in the temple of Neith, His majesty commanded that the temple of Neith should be cleansed." [7000]
Cambyses also took for himself the, for Egyptian ears, provocative throne name `Sematawy', `Unifier of the Two Lands'. This fact shows how easy it was to disguise personalities by using other names making assigning of dates difficult. Therefore we are looking also for other criteria, i.e. similarities in their actions and achievements, to help us understand who was who.
2. Udje states that "Great trouble had come about the entire land of Egypt" and continues making it appear that the burden of occupation was alleviated by law and royal decree, while Herodotus paints a picture of many troubles. Udje, being dependent on Cambyses, did not present an unbiased viewpoint as we gather from another contemporary document which sides with the account of Herodotus.
III) Ourmai's Letter Evidence
1. This other document is Ourmai's Letter of Laments which dates from the early 21st Dynasty. It was written by Ourmai, "gods father" of the temple in Heliopolis, to Re-Nekht, a royal scribe in Heracleopolis.
`God's father' means probably there was an intermarriage relationship with the royal house. In other words, he was one of the `king's father in law' according to the number of his wives.
Ourmai's Letter of Laments
"I was carried away unjustly, I am bereft of all, I am speechless [to protest], I am robbed, though I did no wrong; I am thrown out of my city, the property is seized, nothing is left [to me]. I am [defenseless] before the mighty wrongdoers ... They are torn away from me; their wives are killed [before them]; their children are dispersed, some thrown into prison, others seized as prey. I am thrown out of my yesterday's domicile, compelled to roam in harsh wanderings. The land is engulfed by enemy's fire. South, north, west, and east belong to him. ... marines withdrew ... I am compelled to march an entire day from my city, but it is no more my city. ... Bodies [of the dead] and bones [are] thrown upon the ground, and who will cover them? ...
Their altars disappeared, and [so also] offerings, salt, natron, vegetables.
... I suffered hunger ... my grain that was given to me by soldiers. ... his taxes are heavy ... great crime against god ... Thy power, o lord creator, should manifest itself. Come save me from them."
1. Ourmai's letter leads one to conclude that at his time (21st Dynasty), conditions existed in Egypt typically indicating foreign occupation. In conventional written history, no invaders are known to have had a hold of Egypt.
2. Our conclusion is: Herodotus complements the account of Ourmai in his `History' during the time of the 21st Dynasty.
IV) The Persian Succession Helps Explain the Historical Background to Events
1. With the fall of Memphis Egypt did not resist the Persians any further. Cambyses intended to attack Carthage but the Tyrians refused to lend their ships for that purpose. As a result Cambyses send a force of 50,000 soldiers on a westward march to the Siwa Oases of the Libyan desert as an initial step toward that goal. This army perished in a desert sand storm.
2. Cambyses had send his brother Bardiya (Smerdis) home but send also someone to murder him along. As a result of this, one by the name of Gaumata (False Smerdis) proclaimed himself king. Darius, who had served under Cambyses, went up to Gaumata and killed him and became king in 521 BC.
3. The Egyptian name of Darius according to inscriptions at el-Karkeh was `Settu-Re', he was also called Endarius. In the 6th year of Darius the Jerusalem Temple reconstruction was finished (Ezra 6:15), this ushered in the period known as Bait-Sheni - the Second House, or second commonwealth which lasted for some 600 years. Toward the end of his reign Persia suffered its first reverses in encounters with Greek soldiers.
4. After Darius came Xerxes who continued constructions at Persepolis1) and from whose time we have the reliefs of the "immortals" and other nobles of the conquered nations paying homage to the King of kings of Persia, on each New Year's Day, when with great pageantry the kingdom was "renewed". [This custom became in time known as the `Repetition of Births'.]

Of Xerxes we read the following story:

The three kings following Cyrus were, Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius and Xerxes who was "far richer than they all." He had the treasures of his father, Darius, who was called the `merchant' or `hoarder' by his own people, and Xerxes gathered stores of wealth in addition. When Xerxes was on his way to invade Greece, a Lydian named Pythius entertained the whole Persian army with feasts, and offered to aid in bearing the expense of the campaign. Xerxes asked who this man of such wealth was. He was answered:
"This is the man, O king! who gave thy father Darius the golden plane tree, and likewise the golden vine; and he is still the wealthiest man we know of in all the world, excepting thee." [7500]

5. Next came Artaxerxes I under whom the Egyptian population of the Delta region under the priest Inaros rebelled. Artaxerxes send Achaemenes to quell the insurrection in which he was successful. In response the Athenians send 200 navy vessels from Cyprus to Memphis where they attacked the Persian garrison and occupied most of the city. In 460 BC a large army under Megabyzos, supported by 300 Phoenician ships, fought the Egyptians and their Greek allies, forcing the latter to retreat to Prosopitis, where they withstood a siege for 18 months. Then the Persians diverted the water of the branch of the Nile in which lay the Athenian fleet, and the Greeks burned their stranded ships and surrendered. Sometime after this Herodotus visited Egypt. This war later on led to the wars of Ramses III against the Persians.
V) The Papyrus Mayer A Evidence
1. The Papyrus Mayer A in talking about the interrogation of Ahautinofer underscores the fact that "Barbarians (Persians)" had seized the temple he was in charge of. It talks about the removal of the high priest Amenhotep who is associated with Neferkere-setpenre (Ramses IX). This removal was done by foreigners (barbarians) indicating they were the real masters of the land during the 21st Dynasty time. [7600]
The `barbarians' were organized at least up to the point that they had `hryw-pdt', `troop captains'. [Ibid, p. 84]
The leader of the band of Persians who seized Amenhotep was a man named Pinehas [7700] who punished the thieves and reestablished order in Egypt. The Papyrus Mayer A says that some tomb robbers were killed by Pinehas, meaning upon being convicted. Pinehas was an enemy of the loyalists at Thebes, the absence of his titles shows that he was a well known personality. He also imposed taxes and occasionally made the population scatter in fear of some people who are described in the hieroglyphic texts by a foreign word, "mdwt-'n". According to J. Cerny in Cambridge Ancient History: "The exact nature of these mdwt-'n is obscure." But the first time we see this word it is written with the determinative for men. This fact leads us to conclude that the Medes may be meant by it.
K. Kitchens argues: Panhesy held office of `Viceroy of Nubia' in the years 12 and 17 of R.XI. Herihor also was `Viceroy of Nubia' which he therefore according to Kitchen could not hold until after Panhesy.

Additional evidence comes to us from a relief picture where Ahautinofer is shown offering a homage of flowers to Ramses IX.
Once more: What is the nature of the evidence?

a) Ahautinofer is shown offering a homage of flowers to Ramses IX. 1. These `barbarians' were not Arabs or Libyans (tent dwellers),
b) The papyrus shows that the `barbarians' were organized to the point of at least having `hryw-pdt', `troop captains'. 2. neither were Ethiopians called `barbarians'.
c) The usage of certain words and foreign names shows we are in times where Egypt was not independent. 3. Conventional chronology needs to find out who these barbarians were.

Pinehas is credited with appointing Herihor, a man of military profession, with no known pedigree, to the post of high priest to take the place of Amenhotep a number of years later - after 458 BC.
Pinehas received a royal order (the name of the issuing king is unknown) to cooperate with the royal butler `Yenes' in supplying a quantity of semiprecious stones for the workshops of the Residence City (Persian Capital). Again such events indicate Persian times.
VI) The rewrapping of the royal mummies.

The work was begun by



Herihor, additional mummies were rewrapped under the supervision of his son
Paiankh, more were rewrapped under
Peinuzem I (son of Paiankh) - he rewrapped the mummy of Ramses III making Paiankh and Peinuzem contemporaries of Ramses III. [Peinuzem calls `Psusennes his father which probably means `father-in-law'.]
Other individuals who helped were: Mesahert and Menkheperre (sons of Peinuzem I)
Peinuzem II (son of Menkheperre)
Si- Amon completed the rewrapping
Who were Setnakht and Tausret and what do we know about them?
The royal name of Setnakht, father or father-in-law of Ramses III, was User-khau-Ra setep-en-Ra Set-nakht meri-Amen-Ra. Conventionally he is dated from 1185-1182 BC in the revised view between 390-380 BC. According to the great Papyrus Harris he was buried with full honors. His coffin was found in the royal cache in Amenhotep II's tomb KV35 in 1898.

"When Setnakht became king he began to build for himself a tomb known today as KV11 in the Valley of the Kings. But during construction this tomb broke into that of King Amenmesse, KV10, and Setnakht abandoned it and took over Tausret's tomb (KV14) which he expanded by adding two lower passages and a pillard hall for his own interment. ... We don't know if he left Tausret's burial in place but he had her representations plastered over. He also did not complete the unfinished parts of the forward part of the tomb. In his vaulted burial chamber he placed a mumiform granite sarcophagus with a representation of himself on the lid." [7900]

His burial chamber was left unadorned except for a few scenes from the Book of Gates but in the corridor are decorated scenes from the Amduat.

We learn from the Elephantine stele that Setnakht fought against an unnamed enemy who, during his escape, left behind gold and silver items.

"... as for those who are repul[sed] before him, assuredly fear of him has seized their heart(s) and they flee (faster) than a flight of sparrows (?) when a falcon is after them. They have abandoned silver and gold [with]in Egypt (from) amongst them that which they had given to these Asiatics, in order to hasten them (as) the cham[pions] and [head]men (of) Egypt. Their wisdom failed and their threats were idle ..."

Some conventional historians suggested that the enemy Setnakht was fighting was Bay [8100], others argued that both, Siptah and Bay, were not anymore alive at the time of this persuit [8200] and that Tausert was being put to flight here.

In revised view however what happened between 390-380 BC which could explain the text on the Elephantine stele? It could not have been Tausret/Twosert since we place her into the time of the three brothers. In revised view Setnakht was the same person known from Greek sources as Acoris and we have already described his conflicts above. It appears that the incident described on the Elephantine stele had to do with these conflicts. We doubt that Tausret or any other Egyptian sovereign would have been lumped together with the appellation `Asiatics'.

Who was Tausret?

The decorations of Tausret's part of the tomb usurped by Setnakht are largely well painted sunk relief. Her vaulted burial chamber is decorated with scenes from the Book of Gates and the Book of Caverns, and there are also astronomical scenes on the ceiling. She is also known by the name of Twosert (rev. date about 730-720 BC) and we discuss her under the subject of Harmhab. In conventional view she was the wife of Seti II, the last of the 19th/26th Dynasty royals, in revised view this Seti II, who is called `Sethos' was one of the three brothers and had nothing to do with the 19th Dynasty. Some 340 years separate her from Setnakht in the revised view. In conventional view she reigned from 1187-1185. We can see that her reign ended just 3 years before that of Setnakht began. But their deaths (end of reign) are separated conventionally by 34 years. Is it reasonable to assume that Setnakht would usurp the tomb of another royalty so soon after their passing?

See also E.R. Ayrton's article [8800] showing a B&W photo of a `gold wig-pendant with the names of Seti II. Mr. Davis excavated along the south slope of the tomb of Ramses VI (No. 9), at the depth of some 15 feet below the present surface of the valley, the entrance to a deep shaft cut vertically in the rock. From this a single chamber opens up to the north. This was found to be full of rubbish, we found some pottery and alabaster vases, two of the latter inscribed with the name of Ramses II, and a small heap of jewelry. This jewelry bears the name of Tausret, with that of Seti II, and on one piece is the name of Ramses II. Other items found included:

[01] 2 broad silver bracelets, with a scene stamped in low relief showing Tausert playing the sistrum before Seti Merenptah, who is seated.
[02] 8 gold rings, one of which, in feligree bears the name of Ramses II, a 2nd that of Tausret, and a 3rd the cartouche of Seti II, others have the name of Tausert on the bezel.
[03] 6 plain gold bangles and a silver ring with the cartouches of Seti II. The rings were all found in 2 hollow silver bands.
[04] Besides we found beads and pendants of a necklace in filigree gold-work and two heavy gold wig-pendants with the cartouche of Seti II (see Plate).
These, with numerous smaller objects, were the only things found in a pit, which is probably to be regarded as a cache, and not in an original burial place.

Who was Siptah?

Since conventional books and websites frequently mention `Siptah' in the context of the 19th/20th Dynasty we briefly reiterate here that there were two `Siptahs', 1. Ramses-Siptah and 2. Merneptah-Siptah. Ramses-Siptah was one of the three brothers who was killed by his brother Sethos (this is Seti II of conventional authors). Merneptah Siptah reigned for about 6 years but was a child and the real authority was Twosert (Tausert) and Bay, the royal treasurer. We are talking about the years from 722-ca. 700 BC, the time between the 22nd, Libyan and 25th, Ethiopian Dynasties. During the absence of Sethos, he had put his brother Armais(Harmhab) in charge of Egypt. Harmhab did not follow the strict directions of his brother changed his allegiance from Ethiopia to Assyria and was crowned king by Sennacherib whose daughter he also married. The conventional Siptah then was either Ramses-Siptah or Merneptah-Siptah.

In Brief:
The latest books of the Old Testament are those of Ezra, Nehemia and Esther and stem from the 4th century. The book of Malachi, who lived after the Jerusalem Temple had been reconstructed enough to be reconsecrated for holy services once again, is from around 520 BC. When the biblical books and Assyrian-Babylonian sources cease to provide historical background information we must turn to the Greek writers since the Persian and Babylonian records are not as eloquent and plentiful as the Assyrians were. Some have stated that the Assyrian King Ninos (ca. 750 BC) destroyed written histories of other nations which were not regarded as important', and so he 'ordered the destruction of vast numbers of volumes that told of these and other achievements'. [8850] We had already arrived at the Thirty Year Peace treaty. It was the time of Pericles (443-429) when Greece achieved the zenith of its political/cultural achievements. Then in 431 BC the long drawn out Peleponesian War between Sparta and Athens began and lasted until 404 BC. The Spartans were victorious in 418 BC by a location called `Mantineia' and Sparta began its rise which lasted until 380 BC. These were the glory days of the diminutive but famous Spartan general Agesilaus who must have been a ready made model for Alexander the Great in his quest for power.

In order to put together the events leading up to the time of Ramses III and the Wars of the Peoples of the Sea we must talk about Acoris (393-380). Soon after the time when the 8 year long Corinthian War began (395-387), Acoris (393-380) became king in Egypt. In this famous war the Spartans were supreme on land but the Athenian general Iphicrates destroyed in 391 a heavily, slow moving armored Spartan army with his lightly clad and easily maneuverable Athenian regiments whose defensive and offensive arms he had reformed so as to obtain greater mobility and thrust.

The story of the enigmatic 21st Dynasty as retold above against the background of Jewish, Persian and Greek history which should help the reader to become acquainted with some of the issues and problems involved and how historians may utilize clues to aid in placing the representatives of this dynasty in such away that the documents and conditions among nations make sense. We believe we have shown adequate proof that conventional historians are in error in assigning this Dynasty into the 10th century BC.

There is not one sentence or one hint which by itself gives a strong enough clue on how to date what we call today the 21st dynasty. Instead there are a serious of subtle clues, available to both, revisionists as well as conventionalists, which, when taken together lead us to conclude that our scenario is far superior to the conventional model. What keeps the 21st Dynasty in its conventionally assigned place today is not evidence but perhaps just inertia, lack of willingness to concede the need to change and whatever else ails scholars caught up in a scheme that somehow seems to work but does violence to real history. Since revised chronology is so very different throughout BC history, and since conventional BC chronology was established pretty solidly already before all the evidence was in, it is inertia, the volumes of books written at great expsense which seems to keep things the way they are. Also there is this continous effort to connect some civilization to some Neanderthal like people in the evolutionary models, which stymies ancient history of the Bible Lands in particular but not only. Ancient history can hardly go much beyond 2000 BC, since the Great Flood took place ca. 2300 BC. All this assigning of cultures before this date is unwarranted and just human opinion. .

Page 1

Notes and References

[0001] M. Wheeler, `Flames over Persepolis', N.Y., 1968.
[0100] Calculated on volume of stone removed KV9 is one of the largest tombs and collides with KV12 at the end of its straight, long shaft. [F.Abitz, `Baugeschichte & Dekoration des Grabes R. VI', 1989, p. 7, 29.]
[0200] For a drawn image of an inscription of the foot of the sarcophagus of KV35 see, J.P. Allen, `Two Altered Inscriptions of the Late Amarna Period' in JARCE, Vol. XXV, 1988, p. 123. For an isometric drawing of KV35 see KMT, Vol. 14, Winter 2003, p. 58.
[0300] S. Birch, Inscription of Darius at the Temple of El-Khargeh' in TSBA, Vol. V, 1877, p. 293-302; includes plates of the hieroglyphics.] "né l'an, 16, le 7 de Paophi, de Nechao: intronisé l'an 1, le 9 d'Epiphi, de Psammétichus II: mort l'an 12, le 12 de Pharmouthi, d'Ouaphres: enseveli l'an 12, le 21 Payni: âgé de 17 ans, 6 mois et 5 jours." [J.W. Bosanquet, `Chronological Remarks on the History of Esther and Ahasuerus' in TSBA, Vol. V, 1877, p. 225-(251)-292, 568, `Copies of this inscription of 46 lines from the SW wall of the 2nd chamber of the temple had been found among the papers of Mr. Hay of Linplum.]
[0400] Disregarding Ramses X; In one of the articles laying the foundation for the 20th-21st dynasties see W.M.F. Petrie, `The Arrangement of the XXIst Dynasty' in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology PSBA', Vol. XVIII, Jan-Dec 1896, p. 56-64.; Petrie claims: "The series of the Ramesides, from IV to XII, follows - with but two additions - the order of the sons of Ramessu III. The only exceptions are Ramessu V, probably a son of R. IV; and R. IX, probably a son of the VIIIth. All the others, IV, VI, VII, VIII, Meritum, X, XI, XII, stand with the same personal names and order of succession as the recorded sons of R. III. ... This descent of R.XII as a son of R.III is not at all improbable in its dates: if this last Ramesside were born even 5 years before his father's death he would be not more than 80 at his own death." No proof is offered connecting R.IX-XII with R.III.
[0500] The name `Inaros' or `Ianaros' has most of the letters of the name `Ramses' except the replacement of `m' with `n'. If the Greeks derived `Inaros' from `Ramses', however, we don't know, we are just mentioning this as an interesting observation.
[0600] E.M.Smith, `Naukratis', p. 19, 20.
[0700] E.M. Smith, `Naukratis', p. 21.
[0800] D. Rohl, `The Bubasite Portal: Evidence Against Velikovsky's Placement of Ramses II in the Late 7th Century', SIS Review, Vol. VIII (UK), 34-35; D. Mackey, `Rewriting Late Egyptian History', p. 6-8.]
[0900] KMT, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1999, p. 59.
[1000] T.E.Peet, `Great Tomb-Robberies of the XXth Egyptian Dynasty', (Oxford, 1930), p. 118, pl. XX.
[1200] Rohl, p. 98.
[1300] See A. Varille, `Karnak [-Nord] I', 1943, p. 36, Fig. 26, pl. 71; C.Robichon/L.Christophe, `Karnak-Nord III', 1951, p. 77; No doubt exists over reading of the prenomen; of the nomen, final dd is clear.]
Kitchen, `3rd Intermediate Period', p. 255; Herodotus, Bk. 3, Sec. 30.
[1400] W.C. Hayes, `Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art', New York, NS 5 (June 1947), pp. 261-3.
[1500] Herodotus, Bk. 3, Sec. 30.
[1600] Gaston Maspero, `The Stela C14 of the Louvre' in TSBA, Vol. V, Jun 1877, p. 555-562.
[1800] Graffito in the temple of Amenophis III at Soleb. See KRI, V, 372-373.
[1900] Moshe Kokhavi, `Aphek in Canaan', p. 23, XXIV; Does this mix of factual discoveries and explanatory theories mean perhaps the Philistines erected no buildings?
[2000] Cornelius Nepos, `Agesilaus', trans. Watson.
[2100] J.A.Wilson, `The Libyans and the End of the Egyptian Empire', American Journal of Semitic Languages, January, 1935.
[2200] Ahmed Fakhry, `Siwa Oasis', p. 76.
[2300] A.J.Peden, `The Reign of Ramses IV, 1994, p. 48.
[2500] James Henry Breasted, in Gordon Loud, `Megiddo II (1948)', p. 135.
[2700] `The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1935, p. 35.]
[2900] Friedrich Karl Kienitz, `Die politische Geschichte Ägyptens vom 7. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert', Berlin, 1953.
[3000] Diodorus, Bk XV, Sec. 90.
[3100] Parke, H.W., `Greek Mercenary Soldiers: From the Earliest Times to the Battle of Ipsus', (Oxford: At the University Press, 1933), 18.
[3200] Griffith, Guy Thompson (1908-1985), `The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World', (Groningen: Boom's Boekhuis N.V. Publishers, 1968), 4; http://www.personal.psu.edu/ faculty/d/x/dxl31/research/ presentations/mercenary.html.
[3300] Reeves, `The Complete Valley of the Kings', p. 51.
[4000] T.G.H. James, `Ramses II', Friedman,Fairfax, 2002, p. 136, 211; James on p. 136 wrote `Ramses VI' in error.
[4050] For images and an article of this era see Aldan Dodson, Part iv: The 3rd Intermediate and Late Periods in KMT, Vol. 17, No. 1, Spring 2006, p. 40-47. The article shows the plan of D22 of Psusennes and DB320 of Psusennes and Mutnodjmet.
[4100] For color images of the sarcophagus and mummy of Psusennes see Bob Brier, Treasures of Tanis in Archaeology, May/Jun 2005, p. 18-(20)-25.
[4400] Kitchen has apparently adopted this view in the 1996 ed. of his Third Intermediate Period (p. xlvi, contra his older view in sections 5, 238, 245).
[4500] See also von Beckerath's, `Handbuch der ägyptischen Köningsnamen', 2nd ed., page 196.
[4600] 'Historische Probleme der 3. Zwischenzeit' in JEA 81 (1995), pp. 129-49.
[4700] `Gold of the Pharaohs': Catalogue of the exhibition of treasures from Tanis, City of Edinburgh Art Center, 1998. Note: It appears that the funerary mask had already been removed. This source is not standard and may be hard to obtain.
[4800] W. Spiegelberg, `Die Sogenannte Demotische Chronik des Papyrus 215 der Bibliothek Nationale zu Paris', (Leipzig, 1914); The So-called Demotic Chronicle Papyrus 215 of the National Library in Paris.
[4900] See KMT Magazine, Spring 2001, p. 34; Note: KMT does not show the reverse side of this slab with the name of Psamtek on it. But Stephen Quirke makes reference to it in his `Who were the Pharaohs', p. 40. See Omm Sety & Hanny Elzeini, `Abydos: Holy City of Ancient Egypt', p. 252.
[5000] Plutarch's `Lives', Pericles, p. 26 [ed. 2001, p. 232][John Dryden translation (1683-6), NY, 1864, p. 210.] says:
"The city having made trial of other generals for the conduct of war, and orators for business of state, when they found there was no one who was of weight enough for such a charge, or of authority sufficient to be trusted with so great a command regretted the loss of him, and invited him again to address and advise them, and to reassume the office of general. He, however, lay at home in dejection and mourning; but was persuaded by Alcibiades and others of his friends to come abroad and show himself to the people; who having, upon his appearance, made their acknowledgments, and apologized for their untowardly treatment of him he undertook the public affairs once more; and, being chosen general, requested that the statute concerning base-born children, which he himself had formerly caused to be made, might be suspended; that so the name and race of his family might not, for absolute want of a lawful heir to succeed, be wholly lost and extinguished. The case of the statute was thus: Pericles, when long ago at the height of his power in the state, having then, as has been said, children lawfully begotten, proposed a law that those only should be reputed true citizens of Athens who were born of such parents as were both Athenians. After this, the King of Egypt having sent to the people, by way of present, forty thousand bushels of wheat, which were to be shared out among the citizens, a great many actions and suits about legitimacy occurred, by virtue of that edict; cases which, till that time, had not been known nor taken notice of; and several persons suffered by false accusations. There were little less than five thousand who were convicted and sold for slaves; those who, enduring the test, remained in the government and passed muster for true Athenians were found upon the poll to be fourteen thousand and forty persons in number.
For other comments see also:
"For example, a number of sources mention a gift of 30,000 medimnoi of grain in 446/5 from Psammetichos of Egypt to Athens (Philochorus, `Atthis', FGrH 398 F 90; Plutarch, Pericles 37), supposedly in connection with a food shortage. Garnsey discusses this passage,(2) reaching the conclusion that the gift is not useful evidence for such a food crisis; but the gift shows at least that Psammetichos thought that this would be the sort of thing that would go down well at Athens. This would seem to imply that, even if a point of crisis had not yet been reached, it was recognised that Athens placed some weight on grain supplies. Garnsey admits that if the Attic crop failed in any given year, the effect would be disastrous.(3)"
Just a few years before 445 BC, in the days of Ramses XI according to our revision (about 463-454 BC), large corn cor = šs (barley=barley = it-m-it) shipments for tax purposes are reported in Turin 1895+2006. We are not sure about the hieroglyphics for grain if they are the same as for barley unless grain stands for wheat wheat = swt. The article quoted from shows that around this time, in the revision, Egypt produced large quantities of crops. It reads, "Year 12, 2nd month of the Inundation season, day 16, under His Majesty the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, the Lord of the Two Lands, Menmare-setpen[ptah, the son of Re, the Lord of the Diadems], Ramesse khaemwese mereramun, the god ruler of Heliopolis, given life eternally ... Document of receipts of corn of khato-land of Pharaoh from the hand of the prophets [of the temples of Upper Egypt which ?] the fan bearer on the right side of the King, the Royal scribe, the general, the overseer of granaries of [Pharaoh, the King's son of] Cush, the commander of southern lands, the leader of the troops [of Pharaoh] Penhasi [ordered to be delievered?] Done by Duthmose, the scribe of the great and noble Necropolis of Millions [of Years of Phar]aoh. [Brought] to the necropolis [of] the corn of khato-lands of Pharaoh by the hand of the prophet of Such[us Pheni]..." [A. Gardiner, `Rameside Texts on Taxation, etc. of corn' in JEA, Vol. 27, 1941, p. 23]
2) P.D.A. Garnsey, `Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco- Roman World', (Cambridge, 1988) p. 105.
3) Ibid., pp. 125-127.
[5500] Abbe Paul Tresson, `Sur deux monuments egyptiens inedits', Kemi, Vol. IV (1931, published 1933).
[5600] Herodotus Bk. I, Sec. 191; Isaiah 45:1; George Rawlinson, `The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World', Vol. II, pp. 254-259; Humphrey Prideaux, `The Old and New Testament Connected in the History of the Jews', Vol. I, pp. 136, 137.
[5700] W.S. Smith, `The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt', UCB N5350 S62.
[5800] Herodotus, Bk. III, Sec. 15.
[5900] Amyrtaeus is the only representative of the so-called 28th Dynasty.
[5950] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 399, 400, 403-409.
[6000] Diodorus, `Historical Library', XV.
[6100] Breasted, `Records', Bk. IV, Sec. 64.
[6300] Breasted, `Records', Vol. IV, Sec. 646.
[6400] Maspero, `Les Momies royales', p. 674; K.A. Wiedeman, `Ägyptische Geschichte', (1884-1888, p. 532.
[6500] Ahmed Fakhri, `Siwa Oasis', p. 179; Fakhri thought that Si-Amon from the oasis had nothing to do with Si-Amon of the 21 Dynasty.
[6600] BAR, Sep/Oct 2001, p. 35; Pierre Montet, `Le tombeau d'Osorken II', Paris 1947; plate IX:1; Alberto R.W. Green, "Solomon and Siamun: a Synchronism between Early Dynastic Israel and 21st Dynasty Egypt", `Journal of Biblical Literature 97', 1978, pp. 364-365.
[6700] Montet, ed. 1944, p. 132; ed. 1973, p. 190.
[6770] For a full page color image of the mummy inside the sarcophagus see KMT, Vol. 15, No. 4, Winter 04/05, p. 33.
[6800] [David Rohl, `Pharaohs and Kings', p. 76.
[7000] a) Inscription on the statue of Udjeharessne now located in the Vatican Museum (See website for image). See A.H. Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', Galaxt ed. 1966, p. 366. The Biography of Udjahorresne, G. Posener, La premiere domination perse en Egypte, 1936, p. 1-26.
b) Alan B. Lloyd, `The Inscription of Udjahorresnet - A Collaborator's Testament', JEA, Vol. 68 (1982), pp. 166-180.
[7500] Herodotus, Bk. 7, Sec. 27.
[7600] E.F. Wente, `The Suppression of the High Priest Amenhotep' in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. XXV, 2 (April 1966).
[7700] This name is variously spelled Pinhasi, Pinhesi, Pinehas, Panhesy ...
[7900] KMT, Spring 2000, p. 35. For color images of KV14 and info on Ramses, Merneptah, Tausret, Siptah and Setnakht see Gae Callender, The Cripple, the Queen & the Man from the North in KMT, Vol. 17, No. 1, Spring 2006, p. 49-63.
[8100] Renate Drenkhahn, `Die Elephantine-Stele des Sethnacht und ihr historischer Hintergrund', Wiesbaden, 1980 [AeA, 36)
[8200] Hartwig Altenmüller, `Tausret und Sethnacht', in: JEA, vol. 68, pp. 107-115, 1982
2) Hartwig Altenmüller, `Das Grab der Königin Tausret', (KV 14), in: GM 84, pp. 7-17, 1985
3) Hartwig Altenmüller, `Bemerkungen zu den neu gefundenen Daten im Grab der Königin Twosre (KV 14) im Tal der Könige von Theben', in: C. N. Reeves, After Tutankhamun, 1992, pp. 141-164
4) Hartwig Altenmüller, `Die verspätete Beisetzung des Siptah', in: GM 145, pp. 29-36, 1995
5) Hans Goedicke, `Comments on the Sethnakhte Stela', in: MDAIK, vol. 52, pp. 157-175, 1996
6) Stephan Johannes Seidlmayer, `Epigraphische Bemerkungen zur Stele des Sethnakhte aus Elephantine', in: Heike Guksch, Daniel Polz (eds.), Stationen. `Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens'. R. Stadelmann gewidmet, Mainz, 1998 (Fs Stadelmann), pp. 363-386, KRV, 671-672
Transcription and Translation: 7) A.J. Peden, `The Elephantine Stela of King Sethnakhte', Year 2, in: A.J. Peden, `Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the Twentieth Dynasty', Jonsered, 1994, pp. 1-6
[8800] E.R. Ayrton, `Recent Discoveries in the Biban El Moluk at Thebes' in PSBA, Vol. XXX, 1908, p. 116-117.
[8850] That info may not amount to much for us on this topic considering the date he reigned (750 BC) according to Heinsohn, however, I was not able to confirm that date yet. The date is occupied by Ashur Nirari V., if he was this Ninos, I have no information on.

Previous Bible Topics Main Menu Submenu Next