Tanis - An Abreviated account of Petrie's findings at Tanis

Original Documents

Tanis - An Abbreviated Account of Petrie's Findings at Tanis

Compiled by CIAS staff

Architectural Problems in Dating Ramses

Some suggest that Ramses II could not have reigned after the Libyan period because limestone and pink granite were used in the walls and roof of the tomb of Osorken II and cut sections from his giant colossus in the gateway of Shoshenk III adjacent to the Temple of Amun at Tanis [Ancient Egypt, Feb, 2005, p. 44.]. Of course the tomb of Osorken does not have a roof today and no walls are still standing. In addition, that the only source for limestone at Tanis were prior constructions of Ramses has not been researched adequately to our knowledge. Until more exact analysis is made on the sources for the limestone and the pink granite such statements could be misleading. There were other kings who built at Tanis also known as `T'aan' and `Zoan' prior to Osorken and Ramses. `But beneath the capital of Ramses there must lie the older town of the bearded Hyksos ... and yet underneath that again, the town of Amenemhet and Usertasen which first made it their capital.'[Petrie, `Tanis', p. 2] And so Petrie relates in his first chapter on Tanis "6. The first piece of work as yet known to belong to San is the red granite colossus of Amenemhet I., the first king of the twelfth dynasty. This is broken in three pieces, the head, chest, and throne. The granite is of a full brick-red, and somewhat badly weathered on the feet, though the head is perfect. On the back Amenemhet is named as beloved of Ptah, and a remarkable group surrounds the so-called `banner' of the king. The greater part of the lower inscription has been hammered out by Merenptah I., in order to substitute a barren repetition of his own name in the rudest style, only the strip of old titles being left in the middle. ... 10. There is a part of an architrave of Usertesen III. executed in pinkish granite. ... 11. ... Another monument of the same period, also appropriated by Ramses II., is a red granite obelisk. ... To the twelfth dynasty also must be attributed the two great red granite sphinxes; one remaining at San, broken in several pieces ... "

The next sentences may help the chronological questions on the sequence from the 22nd to the 19th, or was it from the 19th to the 22nd Dynasty? Petrie continued still referring to the red granite sphinx above:

"These sphinxes have passed through several appropriations, but they were executed in the 12th dynasty, to judge by the fineness of the work, and the treatment of the details. On the chest of the sphinx in the Louvre may be seen the finest traces of the so-called banner of a king, with a hawk above it. A fragment of the end of a sickle may also be distinguished on it, and this shows that it must be attributed to Amenemhet II. or Usertasen II.^*) In the inscription (14D) is shown the trace of the end of the standard, and of the lines of hair appearing in the midst of the later cartouche. The next name is that of the Hyksos Apepi, of which I could only see the inscription (14F) on the right side of the base; there is also an erased Hyksos inscription, beginning with "Sutekh", on the right shoulder. After this Merenptah appropriated it, cutting out the earlier names with his usual brutality, and placing his cartouches on the right shoulder. Finally, Sheshonk I. - the great Shishak - occupied the left shoulder with his cartouches (14E), and cut a long inscription all around the base."

"The sphinx at San is more damaged, but there is evidence of its equal antiquity in the titles of an erased name by the left hind paw (15A); these are cut with much fineness, and can hardly be attributed to a later time than the 13th dynasty, and yet they are on a defaced surface, showing that some earlier name has been erased. This seems to show that the appropriation began as early as the 13th dynasty. After that Merenptah of course appropriated it with his inscription (15B) on the left shoulder (so that both sphinxes showed his inscription to the spectator approaching the temple), and Siamen followed his example by adding an inscription of his own by the side of it." [Petrie, `Tanis', p. 7-8; See also Photoassay, `Tanis -Ghost Capital in the Delta', KMT, Vol. 10, Summer, 1999, p. 42-49]**)

*) Investigation of these two names seems to suggest that Petrie should have written here Amenemhet III. rather than Usertasen II. In the latter's name we could find no sickle.
**) The order of inscriptions in revised view would be, 1. the 12th dynasty king. 2. the Hyksos on the right shoulder, 3. Seeing that the right shoulder was already taken Shishak used the left shoulder, 4. Seeing that the left shoulder and prominent base were already taken Merenptah had the Hyksos inscription erased and his own added. Perhaps this also helps us realize that the Libyans of the 22nd dynasty were not the enemies of Merenptah who did not destroy their name but rather that of the detested Hyksos.

San el Hagar or San for short under the Empire

"Having arrived at the Ramesside period, it becomes possible to give some connected outline of the architectural arrangements of the great temple... "[Petrie, `Tanis', Ch. II, Sec. 17, p. 12]

The 22nd Dynasty connection with Ramses II at Tanis

Sir Flinders Petrie several times draws conclusions seeming to confirm that Ramses II time preceded that of Sheshonk. How could that be?

Petrie's account

"The present pylon ... was entirely built by Sheshonk III (pl. xv, 1); and the account of the sculptures will be given further on in chronological order (in the second memoir), but we may here note its construction. It appears to have been built largely out of the fragments of the colossus of Ramessu, supplemented with various other blocks appropriated from the earlier buildings, such as an architrave, a sandstone obelisk, and a large historical stele. ... All the blocks I found to lie on the surface of the ground, or what was the surface in early Arab times, and beneath them is a bed of accumulated mud and dust, derived from the disintegration of the wall, such as covered nearly all the temple area ... it was the destruction of the backing of the granite, by plunderers, or by weather, that exposed the granite faces of the passages to ruin; and it was probably as late as Arab times that the walls finally fell into their present dilapidation. The pavement of the pylon, which stretches out about 27 feet in front of it, is composed of earlier blocks, including pieces of the great granite colossus, propped up with the stones of Ramessu II; thus the whole face of the Ramesside pylon must have been stripped away before Sheshonk III. The present pavement is 23 feet above the low Nile, or 7 feet above the limestone pavement nearer the river." [Petrie, `Tanis', Ch. II, Sec. 18, p. 14]

"Beyond the pylon, from about 50 to 150 feet further in, stood an avenue of columns, of which but few remain. These were monoliths, the shaft and capital being all in one piece. They were original works of Ramessu II; and some later king has begun to appropriate them by cutting out the mes-s-su from the second cartouche. As no later king had the name Ra-user-ma sotep-en-ra excepting Sheshonk III, it was probably that king who altered these columns; if so, the Ra in the second cartouche would need to be altered to Bast." [Petrie, `Tanis', Ch. II, Sec. 19, p. 14]

Further, as it relates to changing of names Petrie continues elsewhere in his paper:

"A very curious point about the southern obelisk, is that there are traces of an erased inscription of Ramses II, upon it: portions of a cartouche (Ra ...... sotep .. ra) can be traced, and also of the personal name in the lines of the messu. This is not merely a trial outlining afterwards abandoned, but a deeply-cut inscription which has been wholly cleared away. It shows that the Ramesside rage for alteration even extended to works only just finished." [Petrie, `Tanis', Ch. II, Sec. 31, p. 26]

"The next objects that were placed across the temple were the two colossal sphinxes, originally of the 12th dynasty, and appropriated by the Hyksos (southern one, Plan 51). Ramessu did not deface them further, but placed them as guardians at the entrance of the temple proper, facing each other, with their sides toward the hall and pylon. Then Merenptah cut his cartouches on the sides, facing the pylon; thus placing the name on the right shoulder of one, and on the left of shoulder of the other. Siamen added his name by the side of Merenptah's on the southern sphinx, and finally Sheshonk I appropriated the bases of both the sphinxes."[Petrie, `Tanis', Ch. II, Sec. 20, p. 15]

Discussion

If Ramses II preceded Sheshonk, and he did in the thinking of Sir Petrie, then his interpretation is classical conventional scenario. But if Ramses II reigned after Sheshonk III, then how can we explain his observations?

At this point it may help to contrast what Petrie wrote and rewrite his interpretation with revised chronology in mind to perhaps get a better grip on any significant aspects of his account. How then would it sound in revised view? We start with the blue quotation above and rewrite it in green:

Sheshonk I wrote his name on the bases of both sphinxes, the most prominent, easily read part of the sphinxes not affecting the originally artful carving itself. After him did Merenptah, seeing the prominent place was already taken up by Sheshonk, write his name on the shoulders of them. Later Siamen, seeing that the best writing areas were already taken added his name to the side of one of the sphinxes.

But what about the other remarks by Sir Flinders Petrie as to the sequence from Sheshonk to Ramessu?

It appears that Petrie presents good evidence that Sheshonk changed the name of Ramses for his own purposes. Ramessu's name, `Ra-user-ma sotep-en-ra' or as given by others `User-maat Ra setep-en-Ra' is shared by which other kings? Remember, we need to match only the `Ra ... sotep ... Ra' part of the name in these transliterations:

22nd Dynasty Sheshonks

20th Dynasty Ramesses

User-maat-Ra setep-en-Ra

Sheshonk III (or Shashank III)
(dated between 800-750 BC)

User-khau-Ra setep-en-Ra
User-maat-Ra setep-en-Ra meri-Amen
Nefer-ka-Ra setep-en-Ra Kha-em-Uast Maat meri-Amen
Kheper-maat-Ra setep-en-Ra Amen-her-khepesh-f

Setnekht (393-380 BC)
Ramses VII (after 350 BC)
Ramses IX (between 425-405 BC)
Ramses X (uncertain)

21st Dynasty Candidate

Taa-kheperu-Ra setep-en-Ra

Pasebkhani / Psusennes

As we can see, there are at least four 20th Dynasty and one 21st Dynasty potentates whose names contain the name characters we are looking for. But there is only one 22nd Dynasty candidate. In addition let us be reminded that the 20th Dynasty rulers cover the period from 393-342 BC and the 21st Dynasty from about 425-265 BC with a 10 year uncertainty for Si-Amon if the 10th year, when he sealed the royal tomb, occurred during the reign of Ptolemy I or Ptolemy II. Therefore the statement by Sir Petrie that "... the Ramesside rage for alteration even extended to works only just finished" does not apply in revised view. In our view Psusennes I is dated between 370-340 BC, Psusennes II between 310-290 BC with a degree of uncertainty. The last year of Ramses VI, 343/342 BC, represents the end of native pharaonic Egypt in conventional and revised view when the Persians removed Nectanebo II/Ramses VI from office.

Comparing the hieroglyphics themselves may help us to come to a conclusion which pharaoh wrote his name over that of Ramses II. The sign for `Ra' or the `Sun god Ra' is a circle with a dot in the middle. Sometimes there is no dot in the middle but little add ons on the outside of the circle. The part `setep' is written as follows,

and Setepen-Re is

. `Sotep' and `setep' are equivalents since the vowels were not written like in Hebrew.

Next we want to examine what Sir Petrie saw at `San el Hagar' which is the name of the Arabic village where Tanis was located.

Notice below the two red colored rectangles in a) which contain the part of the name of interest to us. These are part of the inscriptions as Sir Petrie found and described them as `East pair of obelisks in middle of Temple'; and of which we show the inscription on the `South Obelisk' which is also reflected on the `North Obelisk'. The part `Ra-setepen-Ra' made up of `Ra' or `Re', the circle with a dot usually, the `n' as in `en', indicated by the wavy line and `setep' the remaining glyph are easily read. These signs have the rulers mentioned above in common.

The next task is to try and locate where the erasure of the name of Ramesse occurred and what we find in its place. He states that this erasure was on `the southern obelisk'. The most likely spot seems to be the one shown here by the red dot in b) because of surrounding damage. However, where exactly he noticed the erasure is not specified and the drawing doesn't indicate it unless the cartouche itself was shortened and the erasure below indicates that. It seems he drew the original name and left the change undocumented.

Our conclusion is then that Sheshonk was not the only one who could have made such a change of name, Setnakht or Psusennes for instance might have been good candidates for trying to do so. That in turn means that the statement by Sir Flinders Petrie that the 22nd Dynasty (Sheshonk III) followed the 19th Dynasty (Ramses II) is not necessarily supported judging by his evidence since other, later rulers also had the name `Ra-setepen-Ra'. The 20th Dynasty followed the 19th Dynasty in both chronologies, the conventional and the revised. The only difference is how many years after the 19th the 20th Dynasty came to power.

In support of our suggestion that Psusennes for instance could have changed the name of Ramses II is that he and other 21st Dynasty potentates certainly were active in Tanis as evidenced by the Theban trio of the gods Amun, Mut and Khonsu found at Tanis by Pierre Montet in about 1940. That Setnakht's activities brought him to the Nile delta is evidenced by his putting down the `rebellious Asiatics' according to the Papyrus Harris.