You are on page 1of 14






CONTENTS Contents............................................................................................................................................ v Introduction .................................................................................................................................... vii David A. Aston, Takeloth II, A King of the Herakleopolitan/Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty Revisited: The Chronology of Dynasties 22 and 23. ......................................................................................... 1 Mariam F. Ayad, The Transition from Libyan to Nubian Rule: the Role of the Gods Wife of Amun ..................... 29 Susanne Bickel, The Inundation Inscription in Luxor Temple ................................................................................. 51 Helmut Brandl, Bemerkungen zur Datierung von libyerzeitlichen Statuen aufgrund stilistischer Kriterien ........... 57 Gerard P.F. Broekman, Takeloth III and the End of the 23rd Dynasty ................................................................................. 91 Aidan Dodson, The Transition between the 21st and 22nd Dynasties Revisited..................................................... 103 Claus Jurman, From the Libyan Dynasties to the Kushites in Memphis: Historical Problems and Cultural Issues ....................................................................................................................... 113 Danel Kahn, The Transition from Libyan to Nubian Rule in Egypt: Revisiting the Reign of Tefnakht........... 139 Olaf E. Kaper, Epigraphic Evidence from the Dakhleh Oasis in the Libyan Period ............................................ 149 Kenneth A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: An Overview of Fact & Fiction................................... 161 Eva Lange, The Sed-Festival Reliefs of Osorkon II at Bubastis: New Investigations .................................... 203 Marc Loth, Thebanische Totenstelen der Dritten Zwischenzeit: Ikonographie und Datierung ...................... 219 Rita Lucarelli, Popular Beliefs in Demons in the Libyan Period: The Evidence of the Oracular Amuletic Decrees........................................................................................................... 231

Jos Lull, Beginning and End of the High Priest of Amun Menkheperre .................................................... 241 Matthias Mller, The el-Hibeh Archive: Introduction & Preliminary Information.............................................. 251 Brian Muhs, Oracular Property Decrees in their Historical and Chronological Context .................................. 265 Andrzej Niwinski, The Tomb Protection in the Theban 21st Dynasty: Unknown archaeological facts gathered during the excavation of the Polish-Egyptian Cliff Mission at Deir el-Bahari in the seasons 1999-2006.............................................................................................................. 277 Frdric Payraudeau, Takeloth III: Considerations on Old and New Documents........................................................... 291 M. Carmen Prez Die, The Third Intermediate Period Necropolis at Herakleopolis Magna............................................ 302 Robert Ritner, Fragmentation and Re-integration in the Third Intermediate Period............................................ 327 Troy Leiland Sagrillo, The Geographic Origins of the BubastiteDynasty and Possible Locations for the Royal Residence and Burial Place of Shoshenq I ............................................................. 341 Cynthia May Skeikholeslami, The End of the Libyan Period and the Resurgence of the Cult of Montu .................................... 361 John H. Taylor, Coffins as Evidence for a North-South Divide in the 22nd 25th Dynasties ............................. 375 Anthony Leahy, Dating Stelae of the Libyan Period from Abydos ........................................................................ 417 Discussions ................................................................................................................................... 441 Richard A. Fazzini, Addendum to the Discussions on the Chapel of Osiris Heqa-Djet............................................... 446 Index of Place Names ................................................................................................................... 449 Index of Proper Names ............................................................................................................. 451


Danel Kahn Introduction

In the following article I shall summarize the research regarding Tefnakht which Olivier Perdu so expertly published in his article De Stphinates Ncho ou les dbuts de la XXVIe Dynastie.1 Tefnakht, ruler of the Libyan and Meshwesh tribes and Ruler of the West is known by two stelae from Buto dating to years 36 and 38 of an unnamed king, commonly identified with Shoshenq V.2 A statue donated to Amun by Tefnakht, which sheds light on his parentage was recently published.3 The Victory Stela of Piankhy describes Tefnakhts solidification of power throughout the entire Delta and his march southward through the Nile valley, which was halted by Piankhy's Kushite forces near Herakleopolis. Piankhy marched northward and conquered Memphis and subdued the eastern and middle Delta dynasts, after which Tefnakht retreated to his original domain.4 Two additional stelae bear the name of a king Shepses-Re Tefnakht, namely the Athens Stela5 and the Michaelides Stela.6 The identity of king Shepses-Re Tefnakht is disputed and will be the subject of the present article. Tefnakht is not mentioned in any of the versions of Manethos king list of the 24th Saite dynasty. However, Diodorus Siculus I 45 mentions a king Tefnakht, the father of Bocchoris the wise. The widely held view is that this king Tefnakht should be identified with Tefnakht, Chief of the Western Delta and the Meshwesh and Libu tribes. According to the Athens Stela he reigned into his eighth regnal year. Since Tefnakhts titles on the Piankhy stela portray him as a Great Chief, scholars disagree on whether he assumed his royal titles before or after7 the campaign of Piankhy; and in the latter case, if his reign was counted retrospectively from the day he became Great Chief,8 or from the day he was crowned. Still, not everybody accepts the identification of king Shepses-Re with Tefnakht, Chief of the Meshwesh. Priese questioned the kingship of Tefnakht I and claimed that the stelae portraying a king Shepses-Re belonged to Tefnakht II, to be identified with Stephinates, founder of

1 Comptes rendus de lAcadmie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres, Paris 2002, 1215-1244 2 .J Yoyotte, Les principauts du Delta au temps de lanarchie libyenne (tudes dhistoire politique), Mlanges Maspero I, 4, (MIFAO 66), Cairo 1961, 151-154. K.A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 BC.), 2nd rev. ed., Warminster 1996, 104. 3 P.R. Del Francia, Di una statuette dedicate ad Amon-Ra dal grande capo dei Ma Tefnakht nel Museo Egizio di Firenze, S. Russo (ed.) Atti del V Convegno Nazionale di Egittologia e Papirologia, Firenze, 10-12 dicembre 1999, Firenze 2000, 63-112. 4 N.-C. Grimal, La stle triomphale de Pi(ankh)y au muse du Caire, MIFAO 105, Cairo 1981. 5 W. Spiegelberg, Die Tefnachtosstele des Museums von Athen, RecTrav 25 (1903), 190-198. 6 J. Yoyotte, Notes et documents pour servir a lhistoire de Tanis, Kmi 21 (1971), 37-40. 7 D.B. Redford, Sais & the Kushite Invasions of the Eighth Century B.C., JARCE 22 (1985), 11-13. 8 Redford, JARCE 22 (1985), 11, n. 50; Kitchen, TIP3, XXXV.



Manethos 26th dynasty, who ruled for 7 entire years.9 Priese rightly claimed that the political patchwork of chiefdoms and kingdoms in Lower Egypt did not change throughout the 25th dynasty. Thus Priese argued that according to the names of the rulers, the dynasties were continuous and that Dynasty 26 probably followed on Dynasty 24. Tefnakht, ruler of Punubu in the Western Delta,10 and Bukurninip (Bakenranef) from Paxnuti (not localized),11 mentioned in the Assyrian records of Assurbanipal, may have been scions of the dynasty alongside Necho I. Priese did not take into account the possible similarity of fashionable names. Von Beckerath noted without further elaboration, that the date of the Athens Stela fits better in the later part of the 25th dynasty on stylistic grounds. He accepted the veracity of Manethos list of rulers of the 26th dynasty and rejected his own initial acceptance of the kingship of Tefnakht I.12 Perdu, in his article about the onset of the 26th dynasty has endorsed Prieses view. Perdu mainly relies on Manetho, as the only extensive source for the beginning of the dynasty, which gives a consecutive line of rulers. Furthermore, Perdu was the first to conduct a thorough and systematic iconographic and stylistic investigation.13 Perdu's conclusions are that the stelae of king ShepsesRe Tefnakht belong to the end of the 25th Dynasty, and so confirm the information of Manetho. Piankhys highest known date was regnal year 24, III Akhet 10 mentioned in the Smaller Dakhleh Stela (Ashmoleum Museum No. 1894.107b).14 Theoretically, the lack of attested regnal years for Piankhy supports the view of Perdu, though not negating that Piankhy might have reigned more than the attested 24 regnal years.15 The answer to the question whether king Shepses-Re Tefnakht should be identified with the adversary of Piankhy or with the founder of the 26th dynasty, as recorded by Manetho, can at present not be decided beyond reasonable doubt, and depends on the interpretation of circumstantial evidence. My counter arguments to the identification of Shepses-Re Tefnakht with the founder of Dynasty 26 who ruled from 685-678 BC during the reign of Taharqa (690-680 BC) are:

1. The reliability of Manetho

The dates given by Manetho according to Africanus for the reigns of Psammetik I, Psammuthis (Psammetik II), Apries and Amasis are correct and reflect their full regnal years. The six months of reign for Psammetik III also seem to be correct and even though he started his second year, he did not complete a full regnal year.16 According to Manethos information, Necho II reigned six years. Counting from Psammetik I death in 610 BC, Necho II's final year should be dated to 605 BC, immediately after Necho IIs

9 From where derive the regnal years of the first rulers of the 26th dynasty if they didn't reign as kings? Cf. K.H. Priese, Der Begin der Kuschitischen Herrschaft, ZS 98 (1972), 19-20. 10 Priese ZS 98 (1970) 19, n. 19. The ruler of Ihnu, whom Priese identifies as a Bocchoris is actually the Assyrian rendering of BAk-n-nfy. See: H.-U. Onasch, Die Assyrischen Eroberungen gyptens, Teil I: Kommentare und Anmerkungen, AT 27, Wiesbaden, 1994, 54 11 Onasch, Die Assyrischen Eroberungen gyptens, 55 notes that according to the geographical order of the list, this place should lie to the south of Memphis. 12 J. von Beckerath, Chronologie des pharaonischen gypten, Mainz am Rhein 1997, 93. 13 Perdu, CRAIBL 2002, 1220-1233. 14 J.J. Janssen, The Smaller Dakhla Stela (Ashmolean Museum no. 1894.107b), JEA 54 (1968), 165-172. In early 2006, the Tomb of the Southern Vizier Padiamonet, son of Pamiu, was discovered on the Upper Terrace of Queen Hatshepsut's mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahari by the Polish Mission of the Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology. Padiamonet's tomb contains a burial inscription which is dated to Year 27, initially thought to be of Piankhy. It seems, however, that this date belongs to Osorkon III. See: Z.E. Szafraski and M. Barwik, Polish-Egyptian Archaeological and Conservation Mission of the Temple of Hatschepsut at Deir el-Bahari Season 2004-2005, ASAE 80 (2006), 533. 15 Kitchen TIP3, xxvi GG; year 30, p. 370, n. 732. Redford, JARCE 22 (1985), 10-13. 16 Manetho (trans. W.G. Waddell), London 1964, Fr. 68, 69, pp. 169-174. Eusebius has several errors.



defeat by Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian crown prince, thus depriving him of his victory over the Babylonians in 601 BC.17 If we backdate Necho IIs reign from the end of the 26th Dynasty we would deprive him the joy of killing Josiah at Megiddo in 609 (II Kings: 29-30; II Chron. 35: 20-24), while reigning the complete 15 years and even into his 16th year.18 The early regnal years of the 26th dynasty according to Manetho cannot be corroborated except for the reign of Necho I. However, the regnal years do not reflect Necho Is rule over Memphis, since Taharqa is known to have controlled the town during most of Necho Is reign.19 Not one of the figures given by Manetho for the twenty-fifth dynasty is correct. Manetho omits Piankhy and Tanutamun who reigned in Memphis for some time. The regnal years for the mentioned kings are all wrong and these have been explained by scholars in various ways.20 Manethos information about the reign of Bocchoris, sole ruler of the 24th dynasty, seems at first sight to fit the information from his monuments. At the end of Bocchoris fifth year the death of an Apis bull was commemorated on various stelae (HAt-sp 5 Abd 2 Smw sw 29 = midDecember).21 The interment of this bull seventy days later was commemorated at the beginning of Bocchoris sixth year (HAt sp 6 tpy Axt sw 6 =end February).22 Bocchoris received six full regnal years from Manetho.23 However, if the reconstruction of events at the end of his reign is accepted, Shabako conquered Memphis at the beginning of Bocchoris sixth regnal year, the year in which Sebennytos too acknowledged Shabakos reign. Did Bocchoris hold out in besieged Sais for a whole year, or did Manetho not record his full regnal years? Manetho does not give any information about the reigns of contemporaries of Bocchoris and his immediate predecessors in Egypt; namely: Iuput II and Osorkon IV in the central and eastern Delta; Piankhy in Upper Egypt (after his campaign in the whole of Egypt including Memphis); and the rulers of the Nile Valley Peftjauawybast of Herakleopolis and Nimlot of Hermopolis. To these known rulers, neglected by Manetho, we may add the postulated predecessor of Bocchoris in Sais, Tefnakht I, although his inclusion in the list rests on a circular argument. Also for the 23rd dynasty, its length, location, origins and the order of its kings are disputed by scholars. In fact, no dynasty is known to fit exactly with the information given by Manetho (this does not have to prove him wrong!).24 The rulers of the Nile Valley dynasties, with their respective seats in Thebes, Hermopolis and Herakleopolis are not mentioned in Manethos work at all. The 22nd dynasty is not completely covered by Manetho and only 116/120 years are recorded.25 This dynasty is known to have ruled from 945/3 BC26 until ca. 734 BC.27

17 A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Locust Valley, New York 1975, 99-101, Chron. 5, Obverse 18, Rev. 5-7. 18 Herodotus II 159 ascribes him 16 regnal years. See: Von Beckerath, Chronologie, 86. 19 A.J. Spalinger, The Foreign Policy of Egypt Preceding the Assyrian Conquest, CdE 53 (1978), 46-47. 20 Manetho, Fr.66, 67, pp. 167-169. Note also the differences between Africanus version (the more reliable for the 26th Dynasty) and Eusebius. Cf. D. Kahn, The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var and the Chronology of Dynasty 25, Orientalia 70 (2001), 5, n. 23. 21 J. Vercoutter, Une pitaphe royale indite du Srapum (Contribution l'Histoire des Apis et du Srapum de Memphis), MDAIK 16 (1958), 341. 22 M. Malinine, G. Posener and J. Vercoutter, Catalogue des stles du Srapum de Memphis, Paris 1968, 84: No. 102, line 6. Redford, JARCE 22, 6-9. Von Beckerath, Chronologie, 198-199. 23 Manetho, Fr. 64, 65, pp. 164, 165. Eusebius gives Bocchoris a reign of 44 years. 24 Manetho, Fr. 62-63, pp. 160-163. See most recently, J. v. Beckerath, ber das Verhltnis der 23. zur 22. Dynasty, in N. Kloth, K. Martin and E. Pardey (eds.), Es werde niedergelegt als Schriftstck: Festschrift fr H. Altenmller zum 65. Geburtstag, (Studien zur altgyptischen Kultur Beihefte 9), Hamburg 2003, 31-36. 25 Manetho, Fr. 60-61, pp. 158-161. 26 R. Krauss, Das wrS-Datum aus Jahr 5 von Shoshenq [I], Discussions in Egyptology 62 (2005), 43-48. 27 Kahn, Or 70 (2001), 18.



As far as we know Manetho did not invent dynasties. He might have adjusted some dynasties according to a certain pattern of an Ennead as Redford has suggested.28 On the basis of the brief survey above, Manethos reliability should be treated with due caution. Perdu conducted a comparative study into the iconographic and stylistic features of the stelae of king Shepses-Re Tefnakht and other contemporary two-dimensional representations of divine and human figures.29 He especially focused on the following features: 1. The animal headed god a. The depiction of the tripartite wig, particularly the visibility of the back of the wig. b. The curves/folds of the dress c. The way the falcon-headed god keeps his head upright 2. The silhouette of the person is slender 3. The decoration of the scene as a whole, with a heaven supported by wAs scepters Perdu claims that these features mostly appear in combination on monuments from the middle and end of the 25th dynasty. Thus, he dated the reign of Shepses-re Tefnakht to the reign of Taharqa. However, as Perdu noted himself, the above-mentioned features each appear individually already earlier in the dynasty, and some also combined.30 -The invisible back side of the tripartite wig can be found on the donation stela of Shebitku from Pharbaitos and on the Bocchoris vase dating to the last days of Piankhy and the beginning of Shabako.31 The head of the falcon-headed god is, as Perdu noticed, similar in style to the stela of Tefnakht, chief of the Meshwesh.32 -The slender figure can be found in the unpublished Piankhy reliefs from Gebel Barkal,33 the stela of Shabakos second regnal year from Pharbaitos,34 and a newly published stela of King Bocchoris.35 -The heaven supported by wAs scepters appears in the smaller Dakhleh Stela of Piankhy (and possibly on a stela from the days of Shoshenq V),36 while the winged disc with two uraei in the Athens Stela is similar to that on the stela of Bocchoris.37 One must keep in mind that it is difficult to date the Athens and Michaelides stelae on stylistic and iconographic grounds so precisely for the following reasons:
28 D.B. Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books: A Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History, Mississauga 1986, 326-327. 29 Perdu CRAIBL (2002), 1225-1230. 30 Perdu CRAIBL (2002), 1225-1230, notes 55, 59, 63, 69, 73. 31 Perdu CRAIBL (2002), 1229, n. 73. Mr. Marc Loth of the Humboldt University at Berlin kindly informed me that the invisible back side of the tripartite wig occurs in several Theban tomb stelae from the second half of the 8th century BC and probably even on earlier Theban stelae. E.g. London BM 8448; Athens X 198, Berlin 823 (unpublished), Cairo Collection Tigrane Pacha 450 (son of Vezir Nesmin, about 720 BC, catalogue Daninos Pacha 1911), Kairo SR 9913 (possibly wife of the vizier Nesmin, after 740 BC); Boston MFA 04.1671, London BM 8449, Cairo SR 9422, 9449. 32 Perdu, CRAIBL (2002), 1228, n. 64. 33 I thank Dr. T. Kendall for this information and for supplying me with photos of the reliefs. 34 Louvre E 10571. I thank Prof. D. Meeks for showing me a photo of this stela. 35 Cf. Perdu, CRAIBL (2002), 1228, n. 63, 64. For the Bocchoris Stela, see: M. von Falck, Eine Landschenkungsstele des Knigs Bokchoris im Gustav-Lbcke-Museum Hamm, in: A. I. Blbaum, J. Kahl and S.D. Schweitzer (eds.), gypten Mnster: Kulturwissenschaftlische Studien zu gypten, dem Vorderen Orient und verwandten Gebieten, donum natalicium viro doctissimo Erharto Graefe sexagenario ab amicis collegis discipulis ex aedibus Schlaunstrae 2/Rosenstrasse 9 oblatum, Wiesbaden 2003, 113-124, Tables 3, 4. 36 The heaven supported by wAs scepters is a common feature in Theban tomb stelae of the 9th century BC. I thank Marc Loth for this information. Cf. the Pasenhor Stela. See: M. Malinine, G. Posener and J. Vercoutter, Catalogue des stles du Srapum de Memphis, Paris 1968, nr. 31. 37 von Falck, gypten Mnster, pl. 2.

2. Stylistic features



1. The quality of execution of the sunk relief of the Michaelides stela is poor. 2. There is only a small quantity of wall reliefs and free-standing stelae from the time of Piankhy available for comparison, mostly of deteriorated quality. One example will show the methodological difficulties of the method used by Perdu: The closest example for the silhouette carvings of the Bocchoris stela (720 BC at the latest) is the stela dated to Psammetik Is 23rd regnal year (642 BC), some eighty years later.38 If we use Perdus methodology, we would be obliged to treat these two stelae as contemporaries. In conclusion regarding the stylistic analysis: the elements which Perdu used for dating the stelae of King Shepses-Re to the end of the 25th dynasty already appear in the days of Piankhy and Shabako (and even earlier), contemporaries of the postulated reign of Tefnakht I. Most of the stelae were probably manufactured by several individual artists in different ateliers. In fact, all features which were used by Perdu to date the stelae to the late Kushite dynasty occur decades before, some of them used in combination on the surviving monuments. Thus, there is no reason to discard the beginning of the 25th dynasty from the discussion. In his publication of the Michaelides stela Yoyotte discussed the identification of the location of the town where the land donation was given.39 The name of this place is 6A Snwt inb HD unusually written with the tree classifier. Yoyotte raised the possibility that this is an unknown locality in the western Delta, but opted to identify the name with the slightly different sign for Snwt, used for a known locality in the eastern Delta 6A Snwt inb HD the Granaries of the White wall/Memphis, which was probably situated at Tukh el Qaramus, 9 km NE of Bubastis/Tell Basta.40 I concluded, therefore, that we must identify Tefnakht, the donor of lands in the eastern Delta, with Tefnakht I, the adversary of Piankhy.41 This fact could be strengthened by citing Diodorus Siculus I 45, who says that Tnephachtos, the father of Bocchoris, who was king, marched to Arabia, where provisions failed him in the rough and desolate terrain. This information provides additional, albeit literary and late evidence for Tefnakht Is kingship and activity in the East. However, Perdu has questioned Yoyottes identification, suggesting a locality in the western Delta near Buto. This is indeed possible, and it would weaken my claim of identifying ShepsesRe Tefnakht with Tefnakht I considerably, since, in this case, Shepses-Re Tefnakht would not have donated lands in the eastern Delta, but in the vicinity of Buto in the western Delta during the reign of Taharqa.42 Some, admittedly faint, objections can be raised against the identification of Perdu: Not many geographic names are known to be connected with Inb HD let alone the acacia (6A Snt) of Memphis, which is too similar in sound to the granaries (6A Snwt) of Memphis. Of course it should be said that we do not know the names and locations of all settlements in the Delta. Perdu rightly noted that the evidence is uncertain. It seems, however, that although the geographical identifications are not conclusive, they should not be totally discarded from the discussion about the activities of the 24th dynasty in the eastern Delta and beyond.

3. Historical Geography

4. The Historical reality in the days of Taharqa

Perdu claimed that the 26th Saite dynasty was established in the western Delta approximately in the sixth regnal year of Taharqa.43 What was the Sitz im Leben of the crowning of Tefnakht II in the days of Taharqa and the establishment of a new royal dynasty at Sais?
38 von Falck, gypten Mnster, 119. 39 J. Yoyotte, Notes et documents pour servir a lhistoire de Tanis, Kmi 21 (1971), 37-40. 40 A second location in the western Delta was postulated, but an eastern location was preferred. See: Yoyotte, Kmi 21 (1971), 40; Cf. Perdu, CRAIBL (2002), 1224, n. 44, 1231, n. 81. 41 D. Kahn, Did Tefnakht I rule as king?, Gttinger Miszellen 173 (1999), 123-126. 42 Perdu, CRAIBL (2002), 1224, n.44 and 1231, n. 81. 43 O. Perdu, La Chefferie de Sbennytos de Piankhy Psammtique Ier, RdE 55 (2004), 108.



Perdu believes that the Kushite kings lost their hold over the Delta. On the Pharbaitos stela from year 2 of Shabako, only the king appears to donate lands.44 In Shebitkus reign, on the other hand, the king is followed by the local ruler in a scene of donation from Pharbaitos,45 which according to Perdu points to a weakening of the Kushite grip over the Delta. However, one should remember that the stela from Shabakos second regnal year is out of the ordinary, since it was the year of his reconquest of the Delta, and the burning alive of Bocchoris! Shabako was at the peak of his power and present in the Delta. According to Herodotus, Book II, 141, the Egyptian king Sethon mistreated his warriors and confiscated their land. When Sennacherib marched against Egypt, Sethon therefore was obliged to enlist lower elements of Egyptian society. Sennacherib arrived at Pelusium with a great force of Assyrians and Arabs, where mice attacked them and chewed their bow strings and quivers. This story is another proof cited by Perdu of Kushite weakness in the Delta. If the mice story relates to Shebitku in the days of Sennacherib, one should weigh the credibility of Herodotus account against the Assyrian annals that clearly state, that the charioteers and Egyptian princes were present at the battlefield of Eltekeh and were captured alive.46 Even if there was a diminished Kushite control over the Delta as Perdu postulates, it was still strong enough to lead the Delta rulers in the decisive battle against the Assyrians in 701 BC. In Kawa Inscription IV, 7-8 it is stated that Taharqa, as prince, was summoned north by Shebitku together with the rest of the army.47 In Kawa V, 17 Taharqa is said to arrive at the age of 20 together with Shebitku in the Northland.48 Shebitkus highest, and in fact, only attested regnal year was his third.49 Manetho ascribed to Shebitku twelve or fourteen regnal years.50 Since Shabako is known to have reigned into his 15th year51 and Manetho ascribed to him only eight or twelve years,52 scholars switched the regnal years of both kings, assigning Shabako fourteen regnal years and Shebitku eight years.53 According to this scheme, Taharqa ascended the throne in 690 BC and Shebitku ascended the throne eight years earlier. Taharqa would then have arrived

a. Alleged deterioration of Kushite control during the reign of Shebitku

44 Perdu, RdE 55 (2004), 104. Perdu arrived at this date backdating the regnal years given by Manetho for the 26th Dynasty. Shabako is also attested in donation stelae in Years 3 and 6 from Zagazig (5 km south-west of Bubastis) and Buto respectively. See: D. Meeks, Les donations aux temples dans lgypte du Ier millnaire avant J.-C., in: E. Lipiski (ed.), State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East II, OLA 6; Leuven 1979, 673, 25.4.3 and 25.4.6. A further stela of Shabako dating to his fourth regnal year (I.1.a.5646) possibly comes from Sais. See: S. Hodjash and O. Berlev, The Egyptian Reliefs and Stelae in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow 1982, 165, pl. 108. Other undated finds mentioning Shabako are listed in: J. Leclant, Schabaka, L V (1983), 501ff. 45 New York M.M.A. 65.45. Available via the website of The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 46 E. Frahm, Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften, BAfo 26; Horn 1997, 59. 47 M.F.L. Macadam, The Temples of Kawa I, London 1949, 15, pl. 8, ll. 7-8; T. Eide, T. Hgg, R.H. Pierce and L. Trk (eds.), Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Textual sources for the History of the Middle Nile Region between the Eighth Century BC. and the Sixth Century AD. Vol. I, From the Eighth to the Mid-Fifth Century B.C., Bergen, 1994 (henceforth FHN I), 138-139. 48 Macadam, The Temples of Kawa I, 28, pl. 10, l. 17; FHN I 154. 49 J. von Beckerath, Die Nilstandsinschrift vom 3. Jahr Schebitkus am Kai von Karnak, GM 136 (1993), 7-9. 50 Manetho, Fr. 66, p. 167. 51 Shabako ruled for at least fourteen full years. His last dated monument is from year 15, month of Painy (2 Smw), day 11 i.e. eighty-four days before he completed fifteen full years; J. ern, Philological and Etymological Notes, ASAE 51 (1951), 441-446; J. Leclant, Enqutes sur les sacerdoces et les sanctuaires gyptiens lpoque dite thiopienne (XXVe Dynastie), BdE 17, Cairo 1964, 15-27. 52 Manetho, p. 167. Fr. 66 (according to Africanus) gives Shabako 8 years and Shebitku fourteen years, while Fr. 66 (according to the less reliable Eusebius) gives Shabako and Shebitku 12 regnal years each. 53 J. von Beckerath, Zur XXV. Dynastie, SAK 29 (2001), 2.



in Lower Egypt after Shebitku's third regnal year, at about 695/694 BC.54 If no war with Assyria is attested during these years, it could be suggested that Shebitkus army came north to crush a Libyan revolt. This is however not the case. Taharqa, the son of Piankhy,55 arrived in Egypt at the age of 20 and stayed there until his sixth regnal year at least (Kawa V, 17). Piankhy died in 721, thus Taharqa arrived in Lower Egypt in 701 BC just in time to be involved in the war against Sennacherib at Eltekeh. Perdu claims that in the reign of Taharqa a further deterioration occurred. People from the north were brought (probably forcefully) to Kawa.56 From Taharqas inscriptions as well as from Assyrian inscriptions the following information may be gathered. According to Kawa IV, 22, Taharqa was still in Memphis in his sixth regnal year. Year 6 was also the year of wonderful events of abundance and miracles. Could this have been the year of a failed campaign, the loss of the north and the establishment of a new royal dynasty in Sais, while these wonders were carved on several stelae, one of them set up at Tanis commemorating the events? In Kawa III, 15, the donation of a statue of king Taharqa smiting foreign countries is mentioned in regnal year 8. This type of statue is too common to warrant conclusions. In Kawa III, 22, provisions to the temple of the Tjehenu chieftains children (ms.w [n] HqA.w THnw) are mentioned (still in year 8).57 The land of Tjehenu lay to the west of Egypt and had to be approached through the western Delta.58 In Kawa VI, 21, these children are called the children of every foreign

b. Alleged deterioration of Kushite control during the reign of Taharqa

54 J. von Beckerath, gypten und der Feldzug Sanheribs im Jahre 701 v. Chr., UF 24 (1992), 7; R.G. Morkot, The Black Pharaohs. Egypts Nubian Rulers, London 2000, 224-225. D.B. Redford, From Slave to Pharaoh: The Black Experience of Ancient Egypt, Baltimore, Maryland 2004, 93-95 proposes that the reason for the summoning of Taharqa and his royal siblings to Thebes may be the gathering together under the watchful eye of the king of a batch of young siblings tending towards unruliness and to let Amun decide the successor. Redford dates these events somewhere between 697-692. 55 Kitchen, TIP3, 149, 165-166, and n. 343; D. Kahn, Or 70 (2001), 7. 56 Perdu, RdE 55 (2004), 108-110. 57 Macadam, The Temples of Kawa I, 9, pl. 6. 58 The Tjehenu are identified from early Egyptian history onward. According to the occurrences of the term, it is clear that they were not regarded as inhabitants of the Delta, but probably lived close to the Western Delta. During the New Kingdom this term was suppressed by the more recent terms Meshwesh and Libu. It continued in general use for the country to the West of Egypt. Cf. A.H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, Oxford 1947, *116-*119. D. OConnor, The Nature of Tjemehu (Libyan) Society in the Later New Kingdom, in: A. Leahy (ed.), Libya and Egypt c. 1300-750 BC, London 1990, 30, 33; J. Osing, Libyen, Libyer, L III (1980), 1015-1033; Tjehenu was used in the 25th and 26th dynasties as an archaizing term. In the days of Ramesses II, Zawiyet Umm el Rakham (approximately 320 km West of Alexandria) was situated in the hill-country of Tjemeh (See: S. Snape, Walls, Wells and Wandering Merchants: Egyptian Control of Marmarica in the Late Bronze Age, in: C. Eyre (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Leuven 1998, 1083. Under Ramesses III the land of the Tjehenu came ... being Libu, Spdw, and Meshwesh (Medinet Habu, KRI V, 22,12). The Tjehenu are described as being outside of Egypt, but the Meshwesh and Libu tribes which inhabited the land of Tjehenu at the time, later settled in Egypt. In the TIP, Tjehenu or Tjemehu are hardly ever mentioned. Before his accession (and once even after), Shoshenq I was also called "Great Chief of the Meshwesh (actually the reading of the term Meshwesh is a convention, and the ideograms A 49 and A 109 C together with the throwing stick T14 are used to designate the tribe) see: J. von Beckerath, Handbuch der gyptischen Knigsnamen, MS 49, Mainz am Rhein 1999, 185. but in the Pasenhor-stela (see n. 36 above) his ancestor, Buyuwawa is designated Tjehenu. It is not clear if Buyuwawa, the ancestor of the genealogical line, lived in Egypt. None of his descendants are designated as Tjehenu. Note also that the Tjemehu and Tjehenu were regarded as foreigners by the Western Delta originating rulers of the 26th Dynasty: See: P. der Manuelian, Living in the Past: Studies in Archaism of the Egyptian Twenty-sixth Dynasty, London 1994, 325, 327, fig. 64, l. 5: Have the Tjehenu conspired [in] their foreign land ( (Psammetik I's stela VII from the Dahshur Road). See also the titles of Psammetik, Chief physician and head of the Tjemehu foreigners at the end of the 26th dynasty or beginning of the 27th dynasty. See: L. Gestermann, Grab und Stelle von Psametich, Oberarzt und Vorsteher der 7mH.w, RdE 52 (2001), 135138. I thank Prof. Dr. Karl Jansen-Winkeln for reminding me of some of these occurrences.



country.59 At the temple of Kawa the massacring of Libyans by Taharqa in the form of a sphinx is depicted, while a Libyan family is surrendering to him.60 No hostility against Libyans is mentioned before year 8 of Taharqa (683 BC). Furthermore, in Kawa III, 21, acacia, cedar and juniper wood, which grow in the Levant (particularly in Lebanon), are said to be donated to the temple of Amun.61 Taharqa clearly had commercial or military access to the Levant, and thus he had to have control over at least part of the Delta.62 Taharqa brought gardeners from Djesdjes (Bahariya Oasis) and the North-Land,63 and also maidservants for the temple. They were the wives of the chiefs of the North-Land to serve in the Temple of Gem-pa-aton at Kawa (Kawa VI, 15, 22; year 10 = 681 BC).64 Perdu interprets this as a sign of forceful resettlement of his adversaries.65 Were the inhabitants of Bahariya Oasis hostile to the Kushite ruler? There is no evidence of any hostility during Taharqas regnal year 10 (681). The reason that these people were brought to the temple is merely that it was finished and needed professional personnel. Likewise, a vineyard and orchards had been planted which needed proper gardeners. In Kawa VI, 18-21, in Taharqas regnal year 10 (681 BC) cedar and Asiatic bronze were donated to the temple of Amun and gardeners from the Mnty.w 4Tti.w were brought from Asia to cultivate its vineyards, clearly indicating that Taharqa had active relations with the Levant.66 At the pinnacle of Gebel Barkal an inscription mentions [smiting] the Tjemehu on the west side, while on the east side a similar reference to the Mnty.w sty.w is made.67 It is clear that here the reference is to the smiting of the peoples to the west and east of Egypt and not to the Delta inhabitants. As the Mnty.w sty.w are mentioned among the events of year 10 (Kawa VI 21), it seems that the mention of the Tjehenu/Tjemehu Libyans will also refer to regnal years 8 and 10 of Taharqa. Kushite presence was feared by the Assyrians at Ashkelon, probably in 679 BC. Taharqa lost his hold over the Levant only after Esarhaddon's move towards the border of Egypt in 679 or 675 BC, but after the victory over the Assyrian army in 673 BC Taharqa resumed his contacts with Phoenicia.68 Taharqas setback in Egypt only occurred following the Assyrian invasion in the summer of 671 BC.69

59 Macadam, The Temples of Kawa I, 36, n. 63. 60 Macadam, Temples of Kawa, II, Pl. IX b; J. Leclant, La famille libyenne au temple haut de Ppi Ier, in: J. Vercoutter (ed.), Livre du centenaire: 1880 1980, MIFAO, Cairo 1980, 52, n. 10; D. Stockfisch, in: Wege ffnen. Festschrift fr Rolf Gundlach zum 65. Geburtstag, AT 35, Wiesbaden 1996, 316-317. 61 Macadam, Temples of Kawa, 9, n. 73; pl. 6. 62 See: D. Kahn, Taharqa, King of Kush and the Assyrians, JSSEA 31 (2004), 110-112, 115. 63 Not necessarily the Delta; cf. J. Quaegebeur, A propos de lidentification de la Kadytis dHrodote avec la ville de Gaza, Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East, Fs. E. Lipiski, OLA 65, Leuven 1995, 245-270, esp.259-264. 64 Macadam, The Temples of Kawa I, 36, pl. 12, ll. 15, 21; FHN I 171-172. 65 Perdu, RdE 55 (2004), 108, n. 84. 66 Macadam, Temples of Kawa, 36, n. 49, 67; pl. 12: Kawa VI, 18-21; p. 42, pl. 14: Kawa VII, 4. 67 T. Kendall, The Monument of Taharqa on Gebel Barkal, in: S. Wenig (ed.), Neueste Feldforschungen im Sudan und in Eritrea: Akten des Symposiums vom 13. bis 14. Oktober 1999 in Berlin, Wiesbaden 2004, 33. 68 Kahn, JSSEA 31 (2004), 110-111. 69 D. Kahn, The Assyrian Invasions of Egypt (673-663 B.C.) and the Final Expulsion of the Kushites, SAK 34 (2006), 252.



Taharqas presence is poorly attested in the Delta, but several remains were unearthed at Athribis70 and possibly at Sais.71 Even though these finds are not dated, it seems probable to me that they derive from the period before the Assyrian onslaught against Egypt. A bronze statue of the daughter of Akanosh from Behbeit el Hagar, named Takushit (6A k-SA), has been used to show the good relations between Akanosh, the ruler of Sebennytos and Piankhy.72 Perdu, however, assigned this statue to the period of Akanosh B, who officiated, according to him, from the beginning to the middle of the reign of Taharqa.73 This means that Akanosh B had a daughter called 6A k-SA the Kushite, probably from a diplomatic marriage,74 which cannot be used as proof of a fundamental weakness in Kushite rule in the Delta. In the stela dated to year 2 of Necho I (672-664 BC) from Sebennytos, Necho I, the ruler of Sais, is the legitimate ruler and not Taharqa. Perdu claims, basing himself on the stela from Sebennytos, that Necho I was the new power in the Delta, hostile to the Kushites.75 However, according to Perdus iconographical criteria, it is remarkable that Necho I is not even depicted on the stela. After the reign in Sais of his predecessors, Necho Is authority in the Delta could thus be even less effective than the Kushite power at its weakest. Secondly, Necho Is second regnal year is to be dated in 671, when Taharqa was defeated by the Assyrians and fled southward from where he did not return for several years. The ruler of Sebennytos acknowledged an Egyptian ruler, who entered the vacuum instead of the Assyrian king not the Kushite.76 According to the Assyrian lists of the Egyptian vassals of Esarhaddon, which were reinstated by Assurbanipal, Necho I, king of Sais did not even rule the entire western Delta as in the days of Tefnakht, Chief of the Meshwesh and his predecessors. Also Tefnakht (Tapnaxti) of Punubu (Pr inbw?) and Eptimurteu (Nefertemirdisu) of Pixatixurunpiki (Pr-1wt-1r-nb.t-Mfk.t = Kom Abu Billo) were acknowledged by the Assyrians as rulers in the western Delta.77 I conclude that there is no hint of a Sitz im Leben for the establishment of a Saite dynasty in 685, which is Taharqas sixth regnal year, while Kushite loss of power did not occur until the arrival of the Assyrians.

5. Saite Kingship at the aftermath of Piankhy's campaign in his 20th regnal year a. The outcome of the campaign of Piankhy against Tefnakht

If there is no political reality for the ascendance of a Saite kingship during the reign of Taharqa, is there a Sitz im Leben for the assumption of royal power by Tefnakht, the adversary of Piankhy? After campaigning for almost a year against Tefnakht and his vassals, Piankhy reached the Delta and Tefnakht retreated to his initial power base in the western Delta marches. Piankhy did not try to deal Tefnakht the final blow and subdue or punish him. Instead a long and flattering letter begging for submission, purportedly written by Tefnakht, is quoted in Piankhys victory stela. Piankhy sends his officer together with a priest of Amun to receive Tefnakhts surrender, or rather: in order to reach a mutual agreement. Tefnakht is said to have accepted Piankhys superiority. Thereupon, Piankhy returned back to Napata, his capital, some 1700 km away. Tefnakht was the only adversary of Piankhy, who remained in power even though he was beaten.

70 B. Ruszczyc, Taharqa Tell Atrib, in: gypten und Kusch, Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients 13, Berlin 1977, 391-395. 71 R.G. Morkot, The Black Pharaohs. Egypts Nubian Rulers, London 2000, 231, n. 13. 72 J. Yoyotte, Les principauts du Delta au temps de lanarchie libyenne (tudes dhistoire politique), Mlanges Maspero I, 4, MIFAO 66, Cairo 1961, 160-161. 73 Perdu, RdE 55 (2004), 97, 98, 102. 74 With the feminine definite article mostly associated with ethnic or geographical designations. Contra Perdu, RdE 55 (2004), 103, 56. 75 Perdu, RdE 55 (2004), 109. 76 Kahn, SAK 34 (2006), 256. 77 Onasch, Die Assyrischen Eroberungen gyptens, 54.



Only he could fill the power vacuum which was created after the return of the Kushite army to Kush.

b. Activity in Memphis and the eastern Delta

As noted by Perdu, the origin of the Michaelides stela cannot be traced to the eastern Delta without reasonable doubt. The story, preserved in Diodorus I, 45, about a failed campaign to Arabia preserves some information about Saite activity in the east. The source of Diodorus story may be traced to the letter of submission of Tefnakht to Piankhy at the end of the Piankhy Stela (ll. 126-140).78 Bocchoris assumed royal titles and was acknowledged as king in Sais. He is known to have controlled Memphis as well, and he interred the Apis Bull at the beginning of his sixth regnal year.79 His realm was larger than the realm his father was left with at the end of Piankhys campaign. The territory of the western Delta kingdom expanded again. Yoyotte introduced into the discussion a 12 cm. fragment discovered at Tanis by Montet. It was the lower end of a cartouche with traces of rn.f, which he suggested as indicative of Bocchoris name in the cartouche. This fragment was used to suggest that Bocchoris was active in Tanis. Even though this is scant evidence on which to base the supposed Saite control over the eastern Delta, the cartouche signs fit no other royal name than that of Bocchoris. It seems to me that Tefnakht and Bocchoris, rulers of the western Delta, expanded their control over the eastern Delta while the Kushites were absent in the aftermath of Piankhys campaign. If Tefnakht I did not reign for about eight years, the campaign of Piankhy to conquer Lower Egypt would be dated to ca. 728/7 BC. As I have argued elsewhere, it would be difficult to explain the presence of Kushite horse-traders in Assyria and the trade embargo during 734-2, which was probably caused by the strengthening of Tefnakht in the eastern Delta.80 If one does not accept the chronology of the conquest of the Delta by Shabako in the beginning of 720 BC as I suggested several years ago, and one does not accept that Tefnakht I ruled for eight years as king, it would be difficult to explain the above Kushite relations with Assyria a decade to a decade and a half before their conquest of Egypt. The attempt to attribute the stelae of King Shepses-Re Tefnakht to Stephinates, the founder of the 26th dynasty of Manetho by Professor Perdu is problematic for the following reasons: -The Manethonian tradition is full of flaws. -The iconographic and stylistic evidence is far from conclusive. -The alleged Kushite weakness which would enable the foundation of a new dynasty in the Delta during the first decade of Taharqas reign could be explained as temporary setbacks caused by Assyrian military activity in the Levant or in Egypt. On the other hand, the historical circumstances, in which Tefnakht I could have been elevated to kingship are described in the Piankhy Stela, while the attribution of eight regnal years to Tefnakht elucidates events in the international arena more clearly. I therefore prefer to maintain the proposed identification of King Shepses-Re Tefnakht with Tefnakht, Chief of the Meshwesh and Libu tribes, the adversary of Piankhy.

c. Relations with Assyria

In conclusion

78 D. Kahn, Tefnakhts letter of submission to Piankhy, Beitrge zur Sudanforschung 9, (2006), 45-61. 79 See Vercoutter, MDAIK 16 (1958), 341.

Kahn, Or 70 (2001), 16-17.



Egyptological Publications
Volume 23

Series published by the Netherlands Institute for the Near East, Leiden

Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st-24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25-27 October 2007
G.P.F. Broekman, R.J. Demare and O.E. Kaper (eds.) XIII, 457 pp.; ISBN 978-90-6258-223-5. 80, (excl. VAT)


This volume contains the Proceedings of a conference held in October 2007 at Leiden University on the Libyan Period in Egypt. The study of the Third Intermediate Period, and most notably its chronology, has become stuck in controversies ever since publications by David Aston, Anthony Leahy, John Taylor and others raised doubts as to the chronology presented in Kitchens seminal study The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1972). There had been only a single conference held on the Libyan dynasties before, organized by Leahy at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London in 1986 under the title Libya and Egypt. There was clearly a need to discuss the controversial aspects of the chronology and culture of the period with all the parties involved. The timely nature of the conference was confirmed by the enthusiastic response from those colleagues who were invited to participate. In the end, a total of 24 speakers presented in front of an audience of some 120 scholars and students hailing from

fifteen different countries. It was thought that the chronological issues surrounding Dynasties 21-24, the Libyan Period, should be the principal focus of discussion, because it is here that the largest uncertainties still remain. In addition, several scholars were invited to present recent archaeological finds from their own field work. Only by considering new material may we hope to solve the remaining problems, and new insights into the Libyan Period are likely to emerge from the combined study of a wide variety of sources. The topics of controversy lie mainly in the realm of chronology. Apart from this, several papers deal with the cultural developments of the period. An interesting joint theme that emerges from these is the appearance of archaism in the art of the second half of the Libyan period. Several papers include comments on a newly found interest in the proportions and iconography from the classical periods of the past, notably of the Middle Kingdom.

Ordering information
Publications of the Netherlands Institute for the Near East may be ordered directly from the Institute. Website: Order online: E-mail: