The Burial of Psusennes I and “The Bad Times” of P. Brooklyn 16.205

Ad Thijs

The Burial of Psusennes I and “The Bad Times”of P. Brooklyn 16.205

Summary: This article deals with the last decade of thereign of Psusennes I in the light of the short chronology setout in earlier articles by the same author. It is argued thatthe burials of Psusennes I, HPA Menkheperre, HPA Nesu-banebded, Khakheperre Pinuzem, the Devotee of HathorHenttawy and Queen Nodjmet all took place within a veryshort period of time, called in P. Brooklyn 16.205 “the BadTimes”. Elements of the funeral equipment of these indivi-duals are discussed and several severe problems with thetraditional views on these burials are highlighted. Theauthor further discusses the Report of Wenamun and pre-sents an alternative identification for its Nesubanebded.

Keywords: 21st dynasty – chronology – Henttawy – Ned-jemet – Pap. Brooklyn 16.205 – Psusennes I – Wenamun

DOI 10.1515/zeitschrift-2014-0014

The wHm mswt: From theBanishment Stele to the Oracleof Herihor

In a long series of articles, a whole number of anomalieswas used by the present author to postulate an overlapbetween Ramses IX and X on the one hand and RamsesXI on the other (see Fig. 1).1 In the process it becameclear that most of the documents believed to stem fromthe first two decades of Ramses XI should in fact be reas-

signed to the wHm mswt, extending the era into a year15.2 When a war broke out in year 3 of Ramses X, thisking disappeared off the stage and his relative, RamsesXI, who had already been on the throne for some 17years somewhere in the North, took over in Thebes,where the High Priest of Amun (HPA), Amenhotep, hadbeen suppressed by the viceroy Panehsy. Ramses XI hadPanehsy chased out of Thebes, restored Amenhotep tohis former position and proclaimed an era called thewHm mswt.3

The reascription of the Banishment Stele to the peri-od of the suppression of Amenhotep4 made it clear thatRamses XI had a coalition partner: Psusennes I, whosegeneral/HPA, Menkheperre, actually liberated Thebes,after which the latter proclaimed himself Theban HPA.However, when it turned out HPA Amenhotep was stillalive, Menkheperre had to step down, but apparentlyonly after certain promises had been made concerningthe eventual succession of Menmare.5 When this kingdied after some 15 years of the wHm mswt, he was suc-ceeded by Khakheperre Pinuzem, but in an oracle it wasproclaimed that the Theban HPA, Herihor, would in turnsucceed Khakheperre Pinuzem.6 The year spans pro-mised to Herihor in the oracle, 20 and 30 years, doubt-lessly only filled in ex eventu, are to be understood as 30years of life, 20 years of which he would reign as king (seeFig. 2).7 King Khakheperre is not to be identified with theHPA Pinuzem, son of Piankh. A careful study of the dec-orations in the Temple of Khonsu brought to light thatroyal scenes cut for the former were later usurped by theHPA Pinuzem.8

Ad Thijs: Van Diemerbroekstraat 103, 6512 BA Nijmegen,The Netherlands, E-Mail: [email protected],kun.academia.edu/AdThijs

1 Thijs, GM 167 (1998), 95–108; GM 170 (1999), 83–99; GM 173(1999), 175–191; GM 175 (2000), 99–103; GM 179 (2000), 69–83; GM181 (2001), 95–103; GM 184 (2001), 65–73; GM 199 (2004), 79–88; DE60 (2004), 87–95. – For brevity I will often refer to dated sources viaK. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 2nd revised editi-on, Warminster 1986, 417 ff: e.g. Wenamun will be referred to as TI-PE no. 1, etc. The publication itself will be indicated as TIPE, follo-wed by the page number.

2 Thijs, GM 173 (1999), 175–191; comp. GM 179 (2000), 69–83; GM181 (2001), 96–99; GM 199 (2004), 79–88, GM 240 (2014), 69–81.3 Thijs, SAK 31 (2003), 289–306; SAK 35 (2006), 307–326; SAK 38(2009), 343–353.4 With its year 25 of Psusennes I overlapping with year 18 of Ram-ses XI: Thijs, ZÄS 138 (2011), 163–181.5 Thijs, ibid.6 Thijs, ZÄS 132 (2005), 73–91; comp. GM 211 (2006), 81–88; ZÄS134 (2007), 50–63; ZÄS 138 (2011), 163–181; ZÄS 140 (2013), 64–66.7 Thijs, ZÄS 132 (2005), 85–88. His 21st year may have been veryshort.8 Thijs, ZÄS 134 (2007), 50-63; comp. GM 211 (2006), 81–88.

ZÄS 2014; 141(2): 209–223

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCSAngemeldet

Heruntergeladen am | 14.04.15 09:57

Fig. 3: The successors of Psusennes I tentatively added.9

At the end of my article on the Banishment Stela,10 Imade two promises regarding my next publication:

[1] to discuss the remainder of the reign of PsusennesI from his year 40 onwards.

[2] to provide absolute dates for the reigns of Psu-sennes I, Amenemope, Osochor and Siamun as well asfor the wHm mswt by connecting the 21st Dynasty chrono-

logically to my new dates for Shoshenk I as based on thelunar eclipse of Takelot II.11

Originally, I set out to do just that. However, in theprocess, the paragraph on Nodjmet (rather: on Nodjmet Aand B) kept on expanding and expanding. Ultimately,this resulted in a separate article, which offers an alterna-tive outline for the genealogy of the High Priestly familyfrom Ramessesnakht to Masaharta.12 Even with a largepart of it turning into a separate publication, my origin-ally intended article became too long to be published in

Fig. 1: The reigns of Ramses IX, X and XI.

Fig. 2: Psusennes I contemporary with the extended 20th Dynasty.

9 The entire basic structure as given in Fig. 3 can be reached with-out the use of lunar evidence. In fact, I had reached this model longbefore I began working with lunar dates.10 Thijs, ZÄS 138 (2011), 181.

11 Thijs, ZÄS 137 (2010), 171–190.12 Thijs, ZÄS 140 (2013), 53–68.

210 A. Thijs, The Burial of Psusennes I and “The Bad Times” of P. Brooklyn 16.205



one go. The only viable way to cut it down in size was topostpone my second promise: the large cluster so far cre-ated (see Fig. 2) will temporarily have to remain floatingin time. My views on the kings following Psusennes I willalso have to wait. However, to more or less mitigate theeffects of this unavoidable downsizing and to satisfy thecuriosity of the reader to a certain extent, I will here al-ready give some pointers of what is to come:– Our alternative model will alter very little as far as

the general relative chronology of the successors ofPsusennes I is concerned. For the time being, Fig. 3should provide a rough presentation of the relativepositions of Amenemope, Akheperre and Siamun inrelation to both Psusennes I and the extended 20th

Dynasty.– The reign of Psusennes II will largely be put along-

side that of Shoshenk I.– The start of the 21st Dynasty will turn out to fall in

the tumultuous period surrounding the succession ofRamses III.

The Reign of Psusennes I:Beyond Year 40

Since, so far, we have only discussed the sources for Psu-sennes I up until year 40,13 we will now, as promised,have a closer look at the sources from the last decade ofhis reign. For the next attested year, “year 48”, twosources are known: a stele found in Karnak, mentioningsome work done by the HPA Menkheperre,14 and a pieceof mummy linen from the priestly cache at Deir el Bah-ri.15 The linen stems from the mummy of the priest ofMut, Userhatmose, on whose body another strap wasfound, dated to “y1 m4 d1”, probably from the reign ofAmenemope.16 The braces of this mummy were stampedwith the name of the HPA Pinuzem.17 Although no paren-tage is given, it seems clear that we are dealing with

HPA Pinuzem II, whose name is omnipresent in thepriestly cache.18

Given our chronological starting-point, derived fromthe Banishment Stele (year 25 Psusennes I = year 18Ramses XI Menmare), “year 48” of Psusennes I wouldbring us roughly to ca. “year 8” of the successor ofRamses XI, the king we have identified as KhakheperrePinuzem (see Fig. 2).19 By now, it should no longer sur-prise us to find the name of HPA Menkheperre in Thebesduring this reign: if our reconstruction is correct, Men-kheperre’s inspection of Theban temples in year 40 ofPsusennes may have been instrumental in securing theultimate succession of Herihor, following the reign ofMenmare’s direct successor, Khakheperre Pinuzem.20

The following item we will have to look into is thehotly debated bandage fragment naming a “year 49” to-gether with a reference to king Amenemope.21 In thepast, this has led to some serious chronological discus-sion.22 Kitchen has brilliantly shown that, within the tra-ditional framework, these high regnal years must be as-cribed to Psusennes I. Since we have already reached thesame conclusion for our own chronology, there is littlepoint in going over this matter once again. With Kitchen,this fragmentary date is taken to refer to “[year x of] KingAmenemope; year 49 [of King Psusennes I]”.23

Back in 2004, Jansen-Winkeln has drawn renewedattention to a more or less forgotten source mentioning ayear 49: a reburial from the cemetery at Kom Ombo.24

There are good reasons to ascribe this source to the timeof Psusennes I rather than to the long reigns of Thutmo-sis III, Ramses II or Shoshenk III.25 An inscription in theburial chamber gives “y49 m3 d5” as the actual date ofthe reburial.26

If Psusennes I died in his 49th year, his death wouldfall near the very end of the 10-year reign of Khakheperre

13 Thijs, ZÄS 138 (2011), 163–181. N.B., I have since partly revisedmy position with regard to the aim of the inspection of year 40 Psu-sennes: Thijs, ZÄS 140 (2013), 64–66.14 TIPE no. 45; H. Gauthier, LR III, 265, V; P. Barguet, Le templed’Amon-Rê à Karnak, Cairo 1962, 36–38, pl. 32,B.; K. Jansen-Win-keln, Inschriften der Spätzeit, I, Wiesbaden 2007, 74, nr. 6.2.15 TIPE no. 46; Gauthier, LR III, 265, VI; G. Daressy, ASAE 8 (1907),30, mummy nr. 105; Kitchen, TIPE, 14, with notes 64 and 65; Jan-sen-Winkeln, Inschriften, 90, nr. 6.38.16 TIPE no. 51; Daressy, o.c., 30; Jansen-Winkeln, Inschriften, 106,nr. 7.40.17 Daressy, o.c., 30; Jansen-Winkeln, ibid. i; D. Aston, Burial As-semblages of Dynasty 21–25, Vienna 2009, 182.

18 Daressy, o.c., passim. Although mostly called “son of Men-kheperre” (nr. 12; 26; 32; 38; 81; 113 [in cartouche]; 114; 119; 120; 124;127; 130; 133; 143; 151), he is sometimes referred to as “son of kingPsusennes” (nr. 24; 61; 81; 82; 113; 119; 120; 127; 139).19 Year 40 of Psusennes seems to have been very close in time tothe end of the wHm mswt: Thijs, ZÄS 138 (2011), 177–181.20 Thijs, ZÄS 140 (2013), 64-66, correcting my original hypothesisin which Khakheperre Pinuzem was the beneficiary of the interven-tion.21 TIPE no. 47; Gauthier, LR III, 293, IV; Kitchen, TIPE, 32f, 411–416;Jansen-Winkeln, Inschriften, 108, nr. 7.47.22 TIPE, 16, 24 ff.23 Kitchen, TIPE, 32 f.24 Jansen-Winkeln, GM 202 (2004), 71–78.25 Jansen-Winkeln, o.c., 76; Although Jansen-Winkeln himself pre-fers ascription to the HPA Menkheperre: GM 157 (1997), 71.26 Jansen-Winkeln, GM 202 (2004), 74.

A. Thijs, The Burial of Psusennes I and “The Bad Times” of P. Brooklyn 16.205 211



Pinuzem which we derived from the oracle of Herihor(see Fig. 2). Unfortunately, several factors prevent usfrom being too precise. We know that the wHm mswtlasted into its year 15, but the exact length of the era isnot known. On our present knowledge, the accession dayof Khakheperre Pinuzem cannot be established and theinterval for the accession day of Psusennes also stillcomprises most of the year.27 Nevertheless, it is clear thaton our timetable the burial of Psusennes I and the deathof king Khakheperre Pinuzem must have fallen quiteclose in time. Are these two events merely juxtaposed onthe basis of some misguided chronology or are we deal-ing with a real synchronism which can be substantiatedwith evidence from the sources?

The Burial of Psusennes I

The burial of Psusennes provides one of the severest oftests imaginable for our reconstruction. Since we haveoverlapped almost the entire 21st Dynasty with the (ex-tended) 20th Dynasty, we might expect to run into somegrave trouble (no pun intended) if this move is based onan incorrect premise. In traditional chronology the burialof Psusennes I took place long after the 20th Dynasty hadleft the stage. Since we are forced to put his death some20 years before the end of the extended 20th Dynasty,there is a real danger of serious anomalies turning up.Our reconstruction brings the death and burial of kingPsusennes I in Tanis very close in time to the accessionof king Herihor, which to most readers will hardly seema bonus.

Tanis Goblet No. 398

One of the grave goods found in the tomb of Psusennesis a golden goblet inscribed by the HPA Pinuzem, son ofPiankh, which depicts him together with a king’s daugh-ter Henttawy.28 In traditional chronology this is inter-preted as naming Pinuzem I and Henttawy “as husbandand wife, before he became ‘king’ and perhaps beforeshe became Devotee of Hathor, if she is the DH Henttawy

buried at Deir el Bahri”.29 This interpretation automati-cally makes our object into some sort of heirloom: Pinu-zem’s supposed pre-royal phase is believed to haveended in year 15 of Smendes, which implies our gobletwas manufactured between c. 15 and 30 years before theaccession of Psusennes and some 65 to 80 years beforehis burial (see Fig. 4). Pinuzem I is believed to have beena contemporary of Psusennes I, but by that time he wasno longer HPA. It is hardly likely that Pinuzem, in hishard-fought royal phase, presented to Psusennes a gobletrepresenting himself merely in his own former pontificalstatus.30 In short, within traditional chronology, there isno obvious reason for this goblet to turn up at the burialof Psusennes.

In our short chronology, goblet no. 398 is not a mereheirloom, but a contemporary gift from the (newly ap-pointed) Theban HPA for the burial of the deceased Ta-nite king. From the inclusion of this goblet we learn thatwhen the burial of Psusennes I was closed, Pinuzem sonof Piankh was already HPA, which means that Herihorhad already become king, although the burial must havetaken place at the very start of their respective careers.31

This is not some gratuitous coincidence: it is an extre-mely tight fit which, when combined with the evidencefrom the Banishment Stele can be used to pinpoint bothroyal lines quite exactly. The interval between year 18 ofRamses XI32 and year 1 of king Herihor roughly amountsto some 25 years.33 This seems to match nicely with theinterval between year 25 of Psusennes and the burial ofthis king in or following his year 49. As soon as we addeven one or two extra years to either the wHm mswt or thereign of Khakheperre Pinuzem, we immediately run intoserious trouble: with Khakheperre Pinuzem still on thethrone when the burial of Psusennes I was closed, ourwhole model would immediately falter.

27 Thijs, ZÄS 138 (2011), 170.28 Tanis Goblet no. 398; P. Montet, Les Constructions et le Tom-beau de Psousennès à Tanis, Paris 1951 [La nécropole de Tanis II],100-101, fig. 41, pl. LXX; Aston, Burial Assemblages, 47; Kitchen,TIPE, 52 f, with n. 241 for “m t#” following the name of HPA Pinu-zem, as a mistake for “m#ot-Xrw”; Jansen-Winkeln, Inschriften, 58,nr. 4.80; Comp. Thijs, ZÄS 140 (2013), 55.

29 Kitchen, TIPE, 53. N.B., in the reconstruction defended here, thislady is to be distinguished from the Devotee of Hathor discussed byKitchen in paragraphs 42–44: TIPE, 49–50. Comp. Thijs, ZÄS 140(2013), 55, 66, n117. See also below.30 For the anomalies surrounding the career of “Pinuzem I”: Thijs,GM 211 (2006), 81–88; comp. ZÄS 134 (2007), 50–63.31 We have already seen that by this time the High Priesthood hadbecome the stepping stone towards true kingship. When HPA Heri-hor succeeded king Pinuzem, one of his first acts must have been toappoint a new High Priest as his own successor in the High Priest-hood. Thijs, ZÄS 132 (2005), 90; ZÄS 134 (2007), 60ff. As I haveshown, he appointed his brother: Thijs ZÄS 140 (2013), 57–58, 61.32 We have equated “y25 m11 d29” of the Banishment Stele with“y18 m11 d29” of Ramses XI Menmare: Thijs, ZÄS 138 (2011), 178.33 Ca. 15 years Renaissance + ca. 10 years Khakheperre Pinuzem asper the Oracle of Herihor: Thijs, ZÄS 132 (2005), 85–88.




Vessel No. 393

Among the grave goods from the burial of Psusennes Ithere is another object which fits our model in a very in-teresting way. Item no. 393 is a gold vessel, inscribedwith the cartouche of Amosis I, the king who expelledthe Hyksos and founded the 18th dynasty.34 It is highlyunlikely that so delicate an item could ever have sur-vived ‘above ground’ for such an extreme stretch of timewithout being altered or reused by or buried with someintervening king. There is, however, a far more attractiveoption: this vessel may well have been discovered in and‘salvaged from’ an 18th Dynasty tomb, possibly that ofAmosis himself. Through a fortunate coincidence we arein a position to establish quite precisely when the burialof Amosis was reopened and probably stripped of its va-luables. In his “year 8”, king Khakheperre Pinuzem com-manded to osirify Amosis I.35 On our timetable this “year8” just slightly precedes the death and burial of kingPsusennes I.36

The Date of Wenamun

As the next step in our investigation we will look into thefamous “Report of Wenamun”.37 Whatever position onewould like to take with regard to its historicity, we are

faced with the fact that the text undeniably contains anumber of names that are also attested outside the pa-pyrus. The first ones we encounter are Nesubanebdedand Tentamun.38 They appear to reside in Tanis, and aredescribed as “those organisers (snty) of the land, whomAmun appointed for the North of his country”.39 Herihoris mentioned twice, and although he is not explicitlynamed as such, it seems clear that he was High Priest ofAmun.40 The story is set in an unspecified “year 5”. Inthe early days of Egyptology this was normally taken torefer to “year 5 of Ramses XI Menmare”,41 a date whichwas later altered to “year 5 of the wHm mswt”.42 This enig-matic era was interpreted as the beginning of the end forthe 20th dynasty: a power crazed HPA Herihor began toappropriate royal titulary and became the de facto rulerin the south with Nesubanebded as his northern counter-part taking control of the Delta. In 1992, Jansen-Winkelnshowed that the order of Herihor and Piankh should bereversed. This of course had consequences for the dateof the Report of Wenamun: the document now turnedout to post-date the rule of Ramses XI.43 Jansen-Win-keln’s new scenario led him to postulate that Herihor asa Theban would-be king used eponymy instead of sim-

Fig. 4: The ‘traditional’ view on the career of Pinuzem.

34 “une aiguière”: Montet, o.c., 97 f with Fig. 38; Aston, Burial As-semblages, 47.35 TIPE no. 40; Jansen-Winkeln, Inschriften, 22, nr. 3.32. Comp.C. Reeves, Valley of the Kings, London 1990, 282, n. 103.36 Kitchen favors ascription of this “year 8” to king Psusennes I:TIPE, 30; Comp. Jansen-Winkeln, in: E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D. War-burton, Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Leiden, 2006, 228, but we ha-ve already seen that such a model bristles with problems: Thijs, GM211 (2006), 81–88. To name but one thing: it goes against the soundprinciple that a king uses his own eponymy and not that of someother ruler, succinctly summarised by Jansen-Winkeln as “Ein Königdatiert nach sich selbst.”: GM 157 (1997), 71.37 A. Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Stories, Brussels, 1932 [BAe 1], 61–76(henceforth LES); H. Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun, Baltimore& London (1975).

38 LES 61, 4 f; LES 61, 8 f; LES 66, 11; LES 70, 9 f; LES 71, 1 f; Nesu-banebded appears alone in LES 62, 8; LES 66, 13 ; LES 67, 3; LES67, 5.39 LES 70, 10. For the title: LES 70a; Goedicke, Wenamun, 92; M.Römer, Gottes- und Priesterherrschaft in Ägypten am Ende des Neu-en Reiches, Wiesbaden 1994, 75; A. Egberts, ZÄS 125 (1998), 101.40 Herihor is named in: LES 62,8; 69,10; the title HPA is mentionedin: LES 66,10; 73,7. Wenamun states that it was Herihor who dispat-ched him: LES 69,10.41 J.H. Breasted, BAR IV, 274 f; A. Erman, ZÄS 38 (1900), 2. Thistemporary consensus followed a confused period in which not eventhe identity of the main protagonists had been sorted out, SiamunHerihor sometimes being identified with either Siamun or (via Ma-netho’s Smendes) with Nesubanebded. Comp. Thijs, ZÄS 132 (2005),74.42 J. von Beckerath, Tanis und Theben, Hamburg & New York 1951,88f.43 Jansen-Winkeln, ZÄS 119 (1992), 22–37; GM 157 (1997), 49–74;Thijs, ZÄS 132 (2005), 73–80.




ply dating to his northern counterpart, who by now hadbecome the first king of the 21st dynasty.44 During thewHm mswt it had been possible to see Nesubanebded asa mere official, but with the date of the Report fiveyears into his reign, parallel to that of Herihor, it be-comes a little strange to see him portrayed as a mere“organiser of the land” (see Fig. 5).45 Although Jansen-Winkeln’s model has certain advantages over the tradi-tional one which has Herihor before Piankh, it runs intotrouble on the level of datelines. Likewise, it fails totake into account/explain the explicit time spans (20and 30 years respectively) promised to Herihor in his fa-mous oracle.46

Notwithstanding these problems, it could be arguedthat Jansen-Winkeln’s scenario at least retains the possi-bility to equate Nesubanebded, the “organizer in theNorth” with king Smendes, Manetho’s founder of the 21st

Dynasty, albeit in a quite awkward way. This is an appar-ent advantage the chronology defended here seems togive up entirely. The story of Wenamun is now dated toyear 5 of king Khakheperre Pinuzem (see Fig. 6), whichat least has the benefit of having Wenamun date his re-port to the years of a regular king, not to someone whois supposed to be king in the dateline, but a mere Taniteofficial or High Priest in the body of the text. Our modelalso can claim the best possible explanation for Herihor:the report is dated to a time when he was still only highpriest without any royal overtones, which is exactly howhe is portrayed in the document.47 The fact that the rul-ing king is not named in the dateline, should not sur-prise us: implicitly dated sources seem to have been verymuch in vogue in the aftermath of the wHm mswt.48

Although these are promising bonuses, they seem to bedwarfed by one serious setback: whereas the Report, andwith it Herihor, Nesubanebded and Tentamun, retaintheir old position close to the end of the 20th dynasty,49

the start of the 21st dynasty, and with it Manetho’s kingSmendes,50 is placed many years earlier. The ascriptionof the Banishment Stele to year 25 Psusennes/year 18Ramses XI which is at the centre of our reconstruction,leaves us no other option. In other words: our recon-struction loses the possibility to connect Wenamun’s “or-ganiser of the land” with the first king of Manetho’s 21st

Dynasty, who by this time had been dead for decades.This is a serious disadvantage: no-one would even con-sider the possibility that the author of the report, even ifit were intended as a mere piece of fiction, would bringtogether prominent individuals from such totally differ-ent timeframes. That would seem to be too modern (orrather ‘post modern’) a concept for the time we are dis-cussing. If in Egyptian history there had been only oneNesubanebded, the new chronology would surely meetits Waterloo here. Of course, it would be possible to pos-tulate a hitherto unknown Nesubanebded, but, althoughthis could perhaps be justified with a claim to the una-voidable and omnipresent gaps in our knowledge, thiswould not be an ideal solution. Luckily, the name Nesu-banebded is not entirely unique and we do have an inter-esting alternative candidate at hand. On the basis of thesynchronisms provided by the Banishment Stele, the re-port of Wenamun should be roughly contemporary with

Fig. 5: The traditional alternatives for the date of Wenamun.

44 Jansen-Winkeln, ZÄS 119 (1992), 34 f; Egberts, ZÄS 125 (1998), 97.45 A point already made by Erman, ZÄS 38 (1900), 2.46 Thijs, ZÄS 132 (2005), 85–91.47 There is also no need to invoke the concept of ‘lively anticipati-on’ with regard to the construction of the bark of Amun Wenamunwas sent to fetch the timber for: comp. Kitchen, TIPE, 252; Epigra-phic Survey, TOK I, xiv.48 In the summing up of LES 62, 7 f. king Pinuzem may well havebeen one of the “other great ones of Egypt”. Since, as Egberts pointsout, the use of ktX (“other”) suggests that Nesubanebded and Heri-hor were included among the “great ones” themselves, the term

need not refer to some subordinate category of nobles: Egberts, ZÄS125 (1998), 101. Pinuzem may well have remained unnamed becausehis financial contribution to the expedition had been relatively limi-ted compared to that of Nesubanebded and Herihor. On the otherhand, “Wenamun” may have minimised the role of both kings be-cause the tale he had to tell was not a glorious one. See also belowfor the possibility that Khakheperre Pinuzem was represented by hismother in law, Tentamun.49 Albeit not as close as is normally assumed, since the rule of Pi-nuzem was still to be followed by 20 years of King Herihor, whowas the real last king of the 20th Dynasty.50 To avoid misunderstanding: the identification of the Greek formSmendes with the Egyptian name Nesubanebded is not questionedhere.




year 45 of Psusennes I (see Fig. 6). As we have seen, theend of the ca. 10-year rule of Khakheperre Pinuzem moreor less coincided with the death and burial of PsusennesI.

On the knees and ankles of the mummy of Psu-sennes I bracelets were found naming the HPA Nesuba-nebded, son of Menkheperre.51 On the pendants of mum-my no. 135 from the “second find” at Deir el Bahri wefind the name of HPA Nesubanebded, while the name ofking Amenemope appears on the braces.52 Although onthe pendants no parentage is given, it seems beyonddoubt that in both cases we are dealing with the same,clearly ephemeral High Priest of Amun.53 With his father,HPA Menkheperre, still in office in year 48, and hisbrother, Pinuzem II, already active under Amenemope,54

his pontificate can only have been very brief. However, itis not unlikely that before succeeding his father as HPAhe held some other important position.55 And so, insteadof identifying the Nesubanebded from the Report of We-namun with Manetho’s king Smendes (with all the pro-blems this presents for the non royal way he is pre-sented), we can now identify this individual as“Nesubanebded, son of Menkheperre”, a few years be-fore he rose to the High Priesthood! At the time he maywell have been an “organiser of the land, whom Amunappointed for the North of his country”. And so,although we have been cutting up both the 20th and 21st

dynasties quite rigorously, it turns out that an alternative

Nesubanebded was laying in waiting at exactly the rightperiod of time; an unlikely outcome should our alterna-tive model have been based on some fundamental misa-lignment of the pertinent sources.

Pap. Brooklyn 16.205and “The Bad Times”

Pap. Brooklyn 16.205 is a Theban oracle papyrus from anunspecified “year 4” following an equally unspecified“year 49”.56 Although its subject matter is in itself notthat interesting, it contains one very intriguing detail: intwo cases its “year 49” is referred to as “the bad time”(H#w bjn); as intriguing a way to describe a year as thewell-known “year of the Hyena’s” from Ramessidetimes57. Parker wrote “We do not know from othersources of a bad time, which might be famine, pestilenceor some other evil, in the last years of Sheshonq III(…)”.58 Von Beckerath, who connected the document tothe time of Psusennes I and his successor instead of tothe 22nd Dynasty, interpreted “the bad time” as a refer-ence to a famine, but he was not able to produce anyexternal evidence for a “bad time” during the reign ofPsusennes I either.59 Only now it becomes possible to es-tablish with just how much right “year 49” of PsusennesI could be labelled “the bad time”.60 For one thing, it

Fig. 6: The date of Wenamun in our model.

51 Montet, o.c., 149, Fig. 54; 154 f, no’s 598–601; TIPE no. 48; TIPE,29, 34 f; Aston, Burial Assemblages, 46.52 TIPE no. 49; Daressy, ASAE 8, 35 f; TIPE, 5, 14; Aston, Burial As-semblages, 189.53 TIPE, 29, 34 f.54 TIPE no. 50; with mummy no. 24 both HPA Pinuzem II and Ame-nemope appear on the braces: Daressy, o.c., 23; Aston, Burial As-semblages, 167; braces and pendants were mostly contemporarywith the burial; TIPE, 14, note 57. Comp. mummies no. 38, no. 81,no. 82, no. 113.55 Comp. J. Lull, in: G. Broekman, R. Demarée, O. Kaper (eds.), TheLibyan Period in Egypt, Leiden/Leuven 2009, [EU 23], 247.

56 R. A. Parker, A Saite Oracle Papyrus from Thebes in the Brook-lyn Museum [Pap. Brooklyn 47.218.3], Providence, Rhode Island1962, appendix I, 49–52.57 Pap. BM 10052, 11, 7–8; KRI VI, 791; T.E. Peet, The Great Tomb-robberies of the Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty, Oxford, 1930, 153.58 Parker, o.c., 49.59 Von Beckerath, GM 140 (1994), 15. In his ascription to PsusennesI and Amenemope he was followed by Jansen-Winkeln: Inschriften,101, nr. 7.33.60 It is interesting to note that with the two references to “year 49”(col. 4, lines 2 and 7) the year numbers are palimpsest. Although inline 4,2 no traces remain of what was written first, in line 4,7 the




saw the death of this long-lived Pharaoh, but the meredeath of a king would hardly be enough for it to go downin history as “the bad time”. As it happens, both Men-kheperre’s own last attested date (“year 48”)61 and thefact that his son Nesubanebded donated bracelets for thedeceased Psusennes I,62 suggest that HPA Menkheperremay have also died in or otherwise only shortly beforeyear 49 of Psusennes I, which would bring the death tollup to two very prominent individuals within a quite shortspace of time. The career of HPA Nesubanebded seemsto have been ephemeral to say the least. As we have al-ready seen above, the evidence from the mummy of thepriest Userhatmose, which combines bandages dated to“year 48 n Menkheperre” and to a “y1 m4 d1” with bracesmentioning HPA Pinuzem, suggests that the pontificateof HPA Pinuzem II may have started quite early in thereign of Amenemope. This would allow for the possibilitythat we should include HPA Nesubanebded among theprominent persons who died in or very shortly after year49 as well. If the evidence ended here, there would al-ready be at least some justification for Pap. Brooklyn16.205’s sinister epithet but, as we have seen, the inclu-sion of Tanis Goblet no. 398 among the grave goods inthe burial of Psusennes shows that at that time Herihorhad already become king. Given our rather tight time-frame, the death of his predecessor, king Khakheperre Pi-nuzem, must have almost coincided with the death ofPsusennes. This would bring the number of prominentdeaths up to four: two kings and two High Priests. Trulya “bad time” in anybody’s book, but as we will see, thereare indications that some more names may yet have tobe added.

Niwiński’s Three ExceptionalCoffins

In his study of 21st Dynasty coffins, Niwiński remarks:“Of all the known coffins of the period, three are promi-

nent for their richness. (...) These exceptional coffins be-longed to Pinudjem I, the Devotee of Hathor Henttawy,and Nodjmet, i.e. three all-important and much dis-cussed persons of the XXIst Dynasty”.63 Further on henotes: “The dissimilarity of these three coffins from allothers known from the period clearly indicates the sametime of origin, perhaps also the same workshop or eventhe same authorship for all three objects in question. It isnot unlikely that they were made simultaneously by thesame king’s order, probably Pinudjem’s”.64 His observa-tions provide us with an interesting test: will our radi-cally new chronology somehow bring together the dec-orations on these three coffins or will we be forced toexplain away their apparent similarity because wemessed up a sound chronology?

In an earlier article in this journal we have alreadyworked out the family relationships of the three per-sons involved (see Fig. 7).65 Since the mummy found inthe Royal Cache was that of Nodjmet A and not ofNodjmet B,66 we can now see that these three coffinsbelonged to king Pinuzem, his wife and his sister. Itwould be very interesting to find out whether thesethree individuals died many years apart or close intime. The question is: can we establish when each ofthem was buried and/or when their coffin must havebeen decorated?

We will start with the coffin of king Khakheperre Pi-nuzem.67 The fact that on his coffin he is presented asking, both with nomen and prenomen, gives us an inter-val of some 10 years, i.e. the length of his reign, for thedate of the decorations (see Fig. 2). Naturally, his burialmust have taken place during the first days of his succes-sor, king Herihor.

The next one we will look into is that of queen Nodj-met A, the mother of king Herihor and sister of king Pi-nuzem.68 As we have seen from her funerary equipment,when she died, her son was already king.69 It follows

scribe forgot to erase the numeral 3, possibly part of an original“day 3”: Parker, o.c., 49, 52, plate 19. Given that a hypothetical fulldate (“year x, month y, day 3”) should fit the space now occupiedby a mere “year 49”, the original year number can only have been alow one. It is tempting to suggest that the original year numbermight have been that of the parallel reign of Amenemope (*“year 1,month y, day 3”?). The overlap between the reigns of Psusennes Iand Amenemope will be discussed in the follow up to the presentarticle.61 TIPE no. 45, no. 46, with no. 51.62 TIPE no. 48. See above.

63 A. Niwiński, 21st Dynasty Coffins from Thebes, chronological andtypological studies, Mainz am Rhein 1988, 40; also in JARCE 16(1979), 49.64 Niwiński, 21st Dynasty Coffins, 42; JARCE 16 (1979), 52. As Niwiń-ski stresses, his remarks only apply to the outer decorations of thecoffins: 21st Dynasty Coffins, 42, n. 52; JARCE 16 (1979), 62, n 19.65 Thijs, ZÄS 140 (2013), 57–68.66 Thijs, ZÄS 140 (2013), 53–58, basically replacing Thijs, GM 163(1998), 101–110.67 CGC 61025, in: Daressy, Cercueils des cachettes royales, Cairo1909, 50-63. Jansen-Winkeln, Inschriften, 23, nr. 3.39.68 Mummy CGC 61087; Smith, o.c., 94–98, pl. LXIX, LXX and LXXI;Coffin CGC 61024, in: G. Daressy, Cercueils, 40–50; Jansen-Winkeln,Inschriften, 30–31, nr. 3.57a.69 Thijs, ZÄS 140 (2013), 55–57.




that she must have survived her royal brother, but not ne-cessarily by too many years: according to Elliott Smith, abandage on her right foot, now lost, ‘contained a referenceto “the first year of Pinotmou”’.70 On the evidence ofSmith’s description alone we cannot be sure whether thisPinuzem was the high priest Pinuzem, son of Piankh, orrather king Khakheperre Pinuzem. However, a cursorystudy of bandage-epigraphs strongly suggests that the re-ference was to the HPA rather than to the king.71 If Smith’s“Pinotmou” was indeed the HPA Pinuzem, son of Piankh,the year 1 of the bandage must of necessity refer to kingHerihor, which would seem to put her date of death only alittle later than that of king Pinuzem (see Fig. 2). Alreadyat this stage, it seems that we must at least slightly modifyNiwiński’s hypothesis about the coffins having been made“simultaneously by the same king’s order, probablyPinudjem’s”. The presence of the title “King’s mother”with Nodjmet strongly suggests that it must have beenmade during the reign of Herihor, rather than Pinuzem.

This leaves us with one further coffin and burial toinvestigate: that of the Devotee of Hathor (DH) Hentta-wy.72 According to her mummy braces, she was buriedunder HPA Menkheperre.73 On our model, this must havebeen sometime between Menkheperre’s first attestationin Thebes in “year 25” and his death in “year 48/49” ofPsusennes I (see fig. 2). We also know that she died as a(chief) queen.74 Several sources suggest that she was clo-

sely connected to Khakheperre Pinuzem.75 It is not en-tirely clear from the sources whether she was his wife orrather his mother, although the simplest solution wouldbe to see her as his wife.76 In our model, the matter isacademic, since Khakheperre Pinuzem was a son of“King’s mother Hrere” (see Fig. 7), whose title cannototherwise be explained.77 In fact, we have seen that thishypothesis allowed us to explain the position of HPA Ma-saharta, “son of king Pinuzem” within the pontifical suc-cession in a very simple and natural way.78

From her funerary papyrus, we know our DH Hent-tawy to have been the daughter of a queen Tentamun.79

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we will tenta-tively identify her mother as the Tentamun from the “Re-port of Wenamun”.80 The most likely candidate for thehusband of Tentamun and father of DH Henttawy wouldbe Ramses XI Menmare. In year 5 of her son-in-law, Kha-kheperre Pinuzem, she would be a widow, which mightperhaps explain why she is not highlighted as queen inthe “Report of Wenamun”, although the Report seems totake on a rather cavalier approach to official titles any-way. We might presume that, just as Nesubanebded, son

Fig. 7: Genealogy of the family of High Priests of Amun.

70 Smith, The Royal Mummies, Cairo 1912 (CGC), 97.71 In the majority of cases the bandages do not mention the king;TIPE, 411 ff.; Thijs, ZÄS 132 (2005), 84.72 Coffin CGC 61026: Daressy, Cercueils, 63–66; Mummy CGC61090: Smith, The Royal Mummies, Cairo 1912, 101–104, pl. LXXVand LXXVI; Gauthier, Livre des Rois III, 255–259; Jansen-Winkeln,Inschriften, 84–87, nr. 6.28.73 G. Maspero, Momies Royales, 676–577; Jansen-Winkeln, Inschrif-ten, 84, nr. 6.28. TIPE, 50, n. 231.74 The titles given on her burial equipment are conveniently sum-med up in TIPE, 50.

75 Most notably, the Sekhmet statue of Amenophis III: TIPE, 53 f;and the Coptos Stele: TIPE, 54f; A. Abdallah, JEA 70 (1984), 65–72.76 One could argue from her titles on the Coptos stele that she wasthe mother of king Pinuzem rather than his wife, but the fact thathere she is not entitled “King’s Wife” need not necessarily speakagainst her being his queen. Under normal circumstances one mightexpect the Wennofer who dedicated the stele to simply mention hisking and queen. Perhaps we may interpret the list of titles as anenumeration of her ’further’ titles, i.e. those that were not alreadyobvious from her being depicted behind her husband.77 This title appears on Nodjmet’s funeral papyrus, P. BM 10490;Jansen-Winkeln, Inschriften, 32, nr. 3.57d; Thijs ZÄS 140 (2013),63 ff.78 Thijs, ZÄS 140 (2013), 66.79 TIPE, 49; Gauthier, Livre des Rois III, 258; Jansen-Winkeln, In-schriften, 85, nr. 6.28.80 E. Wente, JNES 26 (1967), 160.




of Menkheperre, represented the court of Psusennes I,Tentamun will have represented the interests of king Pi-nuzem. This would explain the latter’s apparent absencefrom the narrative in a very natural way: Wenamun didindeed refer to the court of the king he dated his docu-ment to, but he did so via the king’s mother in law, whohappened to be the person he had to deal with.

Perhaps more importantly, this genealogy would ex-plain the succession of Ramses XI in a most logical andelegant way. We have seen how, when Menmare died,the pontifical family saw their ambitions fulfilled, with ason of HPA Amenhotep succeeding to the Egyptianthrone. The interests of the 21st dynasty seem to havebeen safeguarded via an oracle: Herihor, son of Piankh(probably of 21st Dynasty stock) was to become the nextin line for succession. The only element missing from thepicture, is a clear link with the existing dynasty. How-ever, with Tentamun as (Chief-)Queen of Ramses XI, Ra-messide interest would be more than represented via herdaughter, Henttawy (see Figs. 7 and 8).

If DH Henttawy was indeed the wife of king Pinu-zem, we end up with roughly the same ‘10 year window’for her coffin decorations as with king Pinuzem himself.Kitchen sums up her titles, which he calls “the mostgrandiloquent series of feminine titles for this entireepoch”, as follows:81

1. King’s Daughter2. Chief-Queen’s Daughter3. King’s Wife; 1st Chief Queen of H.M.4. King’s Mother5. Mother of the Chief Queen6. Leading Lady, 1st Chief of the Harim of Amun7. Mother of the High Priest of Amun8. Mother of the Generalissimo of S. and N.9. Mother of the God’s Wife of Amun

Titles no. 1, no. 2, no. 3 and no. 5 have already beendealt with. Given the somewhat fluid distinction betweenKingship and High Priesthood during this period, no. 6probably simply refers to her marriage to KhakheperrePinuzem.82 For our present purposes, no. 4, no. 7 and no.8 are the most relevant. With no. 4, there are basicallytwo possible solutions. Perhaps the simplest solutionwould be to interpret this as “King’s mother-in-law” forHerihor, but, given our chronological model, there is also

the possibility that she was the mother of king Amene-mope. As we have seen, he gained the throne round-about the time king Pinuzem died, during “the badtimes”. One could speculate that possibly this dark peri-od left Psusennes I without a heir of his own. However,not to unnecessarily introduce far reaching hypotheses,we will here opt for the first option, keeping the alterna-tive in the back of our minds for possible later research.

Although Masaharta certainly was a son of king Pi-nuzem, Henttawy’s title as “Mother of the High Priest ofAmun” (no. 7) cannot refer to him, since he only becameHigh Priest in year 15 of king Herihor, some 15 years afterher death (see Fig. 2). However, it is well possible that,during the life of Henttawy, Masaharta was already Gen-eralissimo (no. 8).83 Her title as “Mother of the HPA”probably merely reduplicates her being the mother-in-law of Herihor. The fact that he acted in this capacityduring the entire reign of her husband would surely war-rant a separate mention of his pontifical career, apartfrom his newly gained position as king.

The reader will already have deduced that it is hertitle as “King’s Mother” which is of crucial importancehere. Irrespective of whether this refers to king Herihoror king Amenemope, it follows on our timetable that sheonly could have risen to that status near the very end ofthe reign of her husband. In other words: her coffin dec-orations exactly fit the date we already arrived at inde-pendently for both Khakheperre Pinuzem and queenNodjmet A. All the evidence points in the direction of thethree coffins having been made at the same time, ‘by thesame king’s order, probably Herihor’s’. And so, Niwińs-ki’s observation turns out to be a considerable bonusrather than a chronological problem. Despite our cuttingup and redistributing large parts of the 20th and 21st Dy-nasties, including ‘splitting up’ both “Pinuzem I” and“Nodjmet”, we end up with a chronological modelwhich, at least in this respect, seems to be far more co-herent than traditional models.

The Elusive Burial Dateof Nodjmet A/B

Whereas in our alternative model all the evidence turnsout to convene in a very natural way, in traditionalchronology we encounter a number of anomalies sur-rounding the funeral equipment of Nodjmet which de-

81 TIPE, 50.82 Comp. how Psusennes I used the pontifical title in his titulary:Bonhême, Les Noms Royaux dans l’Égypte de la Troisième PériodeIntermédiaire, Cairo 1987 [BdÉ 98], 73 f.

83 Coffin CGC 61027: Daressy, Cercueils, 66f; Gauthier, Livre desRois III, 262, V.a, c, e, f.




serve closer attention. While discussing Nodjmet’s fun-eral papyri, Niwiński calls the hieratic P. BM 10490 “anexceptional phenomenon, especially from the point ofview of the chronology”.84 Having ascribed the burial of“Nodjmet” to the early years of Psusennes I, Niwińskisubsequently states that “this date seems, however, to betoo early for the papyrus (...)”. From his wording it isclear that he would have preferred a date under the lastyears of HPA Menkheperre or rather under the pontificateof HPA Pinuzem II, son of Menkheperre. But since thesupposed burial date of “Nodjmet” and the pontificate ofPinuzem II are separated by several (almost totallyempty!) decades under Psusennes I, Niwiński can onlybring them together by assuming “a post-mortem com-pletion of the funerary equipment of Nodjmet some 50years or more after her death”.85 He suggests that, sincethe original papyrus had been robbed or destroyed, an-other one was apparently made for her during her rebur-ial. Although this is a theoretical possibility,86 it is worth-while to notice that in our reconstruction the entireproblem simply does not exist: the burial of Nodjmet Atook place very near the start of the careers of both HPAPinuzem, son of Piankh and HPA Pinuzem II.87 There-fore, the style of her funeral papyrus exactly fits in withthe period our reconstruction cut out for her. What ismore, traditional chronology will have to explain the em-barrassing fact that on her ‘newly manufactured papyrus’these hypothetical pious restorers did apparently restrictthemselves to calling its *Nodjmet A/B merely “King’smother”. They must have known who she was, since therest of her extant funerary equipment shows that shewas somehow closely connected to ‘King Herihor’. Quiteapart from the fact that she was hardly ancient history,the procession scene in the Temple of Khonsu wouldhave sufficed to make it clear to them that she was hiswife and not his mother. If the traditional view is correct,we might therefore expect them to highlight her positionas Chief Queen to ‘King Herihor’, and explicitly mentionthe identity of her royal son. Did our hypothetical re-storers slavishly restrict themselves to the scant informa-

tion actually found with the mummy to the exclusion ofadditional knowledge they surely must have had? This ishard to believe: If they knew that she was Chief Queen toHerihor, not mentioning this ‘fact’ in her funeral papyruswould come down to actively trying to deny her this partof her identity in the afterlife. In other words: assuming“a post-mortem completion of the funerary equipment ofNodjmet some 50 years or more after her death” raisesfar more questions than it answers.

Besides Nodjmet’s funeral papyri there are other fac-tors which suggest that there may be something seriouslywrong with traditional chronology. In 1981 J.-F. Aubertdiscusses a ‘reis shabti’ of queen Nodjmet (our A) whichhad come to light in 1976.88 He writes that the overseer“est en outre coiffé d’un bandeau libyen noué derrière latête, don’t l’existence n’était précédemment attestée qu’àpartir de Masaharté. Par ailleurs, la massue que tient cejoli contremaître apparaît curieusement identique à celledes chefs de Psousennès I, arrière-petit-fils de la reine.”

For us, Aubert’s remark about the Libyan headband‘otherwise not attested before the time of Masaharta’ haslost much of its value now that most of the 21st Dynastyis to be dated before Masaharta rather than after (seeFig. 3). On our reconstruction, some other individual willnow become the first attested with this feature. This typeof evidence has no absolute value: it simply changeswith each chronological model and only functions withinthis specific model. What is more interesting, is the ap-parent resemblance of the mace (‘massue’) held byNodjmet’s overseer to those attested with overseers ofPsusennes I. Aubert further notes an “extraordinary re-semblance” between the Nodjmet overseer and an over-seer of king Khakheperre Pinuzem.89 In our model theresemblance is precisely what we would expect: both the“year 1 of Pinotmou” bandage and the style of her coffindecorations show that Nodjmet A, the mother of Herihor,died only very shortly before or after Psusennes I, prob-ably within months. The similarity between the reis shab-ti’s of Nodjmet (A) and king Khakheperre Pinuzem alsofits our model perfectly. In fact, if we were to make blindpredictions about the form of the shabti’s of Nodjmet, Pi-nuzem and Psusennes I, solely based on our chronologicalreconstruction, this is exactly what we would arrive at.

84 Niwiński, Studies on the Illustrated Theban Funerary Papyri ofthe 11th and 10th Centuries B. C., Freiburg & Göttingen, 1989, 210;comp. Aston, JEA 77 (1991), 97.85 Niwiński, ibid, 210.86 However, one might ask, given the many incomplete burialsfound in the Royal Caches, whether a missing second (!) funeral pa-pyrus would have been felt as something which had to be remediedat all. If it were indeed missing, would it have been missed in thefirst place?87 HPA Pinuzem II began his career very shortly after the burial ofking Psusennes I, which equals the very first years of king Herihor.

88 “le chef des chaouabtis de la ‘Maîtresse des Deux terres, Mèreroyale Nedjmet’, No 106”: J.-F. Aubert, CdÉ 56 (1981), 17; Aston, Bu-rial Assemblages, 222.89 “Le chaouabti de la reine Nedjmet nous apparaît en tout cas ex-tra-ordinairement semblable au chef de Pinedjem I représenté dansnotre livre, pl. 25”: Aubert, CdÉ 56 (1981), 17.




Aubert also points out the peculiar fact that the over-seers of Henttawy, king Pinuzem, Nodjmet A and a ladycalled Tayu-Heret90 all have a type of beard which makesit clear that they are to be seen as representations of liv-ing persons rather than of the deceased.91 Focusing onthe first three persons of this quartet, it is once more acase of “guère etonnés de se trouver ensemble”: the newevidence fits in seamlessly with our dates for these indi-viduals. The similarity between their coffin decorationscan now be seen to be augmented by the peculiarities oftheir reis shabtis. But if we try to work out a burial datefor ‘Nodjmet A/B’ within traditional chronology, we arefaced with a whole series of chronological problems.Time and again we see that the burial of “Nodjmet” istorn apart between two or three different periods of time.In other words, in traditional chronology the burial of“Nodjmet” should ideally be both earlier and later at thesame time. One could be forgiven for saying that “sheseems to be all over the place (...)”:[1] Apparently, the Libyan headband on her ‘reis shabti’

has not been attested before the pontificate of HPAMasaharta, which suggests that she may have diedsometime during or after his term of office. In itselfthis presents no problems, but it ill fits the next pieceof evidence.

[2] The famous date on her mummy linen strongly sug-gests a “year 1” during the pontificate of the HPA Pinu-zem, son of Piankh, which would come down to “year1 of king Smendes”.92 This would be some 15 years ear-lier than the pontificate of Masaharta and perhapseven some 25 years before his death. Are we to viewher shabtis as the first representatives of the Libyanheadband-type despite the resulting gap? Ascriptionto some alternative “year 1” somehow connected tothe supposed royal phase of ‘Pinuzem I’ (either “year 1of Amenemnisu” or “year 1 of Psusennes I”) would re-quire special pleading, both on the grounds of themummy linen itself and the very problematic and over-stretched career of “*King Pinuzem I”.93

[3] Comparison of her coffin decorations with those of“Pinuzem I” would suggest a date near “year 8” ofPsusennes which, in traditional chronology, is the last

attested date for “King Pinuzem I”.94 There are someeight years minimum between this date and the mum-my linen.95 Naturally, one could bring the two closertogether by suggesting Pinuzem and Nodjmet hadtheir funerary equipment made years before “year 8”of Psusennes, but assigning the burial of Nodjmet tothe reign of Amenemnisu or the first years of Psu-sennes I causes several very serious other problems.

[4] As we have seen, one of her funeral papyri (P. BM10490) would rather suggest a date under the pontifi-cate of HPA Pinuzem II or, at the earliest, the last yearsof HPA Menkheperre. Whereas this requires specialpleading in traditional chronology, in our model thisis exactly what we would expect (see Figs. 2 and 3).

[5] The mace held by one of her reis shabtis is very simi-lar (“curieusement identique”) to that held by the reisshabtis from the burial of Psusennes I. However, itseems highly unlikely that Nodjmet received newlymade (reis) shabtis during a (hypothetical) reburialsometime near the burial of Psusennes I. Whereas tosome this might seem a convenient way out of thisparticular problem, such a model would become un-tenable in the light of the next issue:

[6] The striking resemblance between the reis shabtis ofNodjmet and king Khakheperre Pinuzem neither sup-ports a burial near “year 1 of HPA Pinuzem, son ofPiankh” (i.e. under king Smendes), nor one near theburial of Psusennes I/the pontificate of HPA PinuzemII. In traditional chronology the interval between theburials of the composite personages “*Nodjmet A/B”and “*King Pinuzem I” on the one hand and Psu-sennes I on the other hand, seems to come down tosome four decades. As we have seen, this alreadyproblematic interval can only be reached by invokingthe very spurious career of a “HPA Pinuzem turnedpseudo-king”, dying sometime after a “year 8”which, contrary to the explicit evidence of the sourceitself, is ascribed to the eponymy not of Pinuzemhimself but of Psusennes I.96 Given the relative paceof stylistic development during the better attestedparts of the 21st Dynasty, it seems highly unlikely thatduring this period of some forty years there was littleor no development at all, as implied by Aubert’s ob-

90 TIPE, 68.91 “Une autre particularité, non moins intéressante, est la présenced’une petite barbe de vivant chez certains chefs de la reine Henout-taoui et de la grande supérieure Taïouhert, comme parfois chez Pi-nedjem I ou chez la reine Nedjmet.” Aubert, o.c., 28.92 Harris, Wente, An X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, Chicago1980, 270.93 Thijs, GM 211 (2006), 81-88.

94 Based on TIPE no. 40. By ascribing TIPE no. 40 to “year 8” ofPsusennes I, Kitchen rather nonchalantly added two otherwise total-ly unattested decades to the supposed career of ‘Pinuzem I’: Thijs,GM 211 (2006), 82.95 Some 4 years more, if one ascribes “year 1 of Pinotmou” to thestart of the reign of Amenemnisu; some 30 years, if we accept thatthe linen named the HPA Pinuzem instead of the would-be king.96 Thijs, GM 211 (2006), 81–88; ZÄS 134 (2007), 50–63.




servation of the ‘extraordinary resemblance’ betweenshabtis from both ends of the interval. Whatever ap-proach one chooses, the long reign of Psusennes re-mains a serious problem. It is singularly void of da-ted sources, with the periods before and directlyafterwards in many cases inexplicably closely con-nected. No doubt, all kinds of ways can be found toexplain these apparent discrepancies. One can thinkof gravegoods made years in advance combined withgravegoods restored many years after the original in-terment, etc., etc. The central point, however, re-mains that, contrary to what one might expect, it isthe alternative chronology which has no need forsuch elaborate explanations. So far, our chronologi-cal model, reached without taking into account anystylistic evidence whatsoever, happens to provide byfar the simplest and most straightforward explana-tion for a whole series of observations.

Masaharta and the Oracleof Herihor

When Ramses XI died, his son-in-law and daughter be-came the new king and queen (see fig. 8). Whether or notthis was through a lack of surviving male heirs is difficultto say. Even if Ramses XI had sons, it might have beenopportune to bring about a ‘merger’ between the familiesof Amenhotep and the Ramesside royal family. At thetime of this decision, Herihor was already HPA and oneof the most prominent persons in Egypt. Although, viahis mother, he was directly related to the pontifical fa-mily, about the origins of his father we are still prettymuch in the dark. In the past, I have speculated that therole played by HPA Menkheperre and Psusennes I inending the suppression of HPA Amenhotep came at aprice for Ramses XI.97 This is borne out by the fact thatfrom “year 25” of Psusennes I onwards, we see a gradu-ally increasing influence of the 21st Dynasty in the The-baid. In fact, one could say that this crucial year formedthe very starting point of 21st Dynasty influence over thesouth. It seems to have been the aim of the ‘Oracle ofHerihor’ to safeguard Herihor’s claim to the Thebanthrone, following the reign of Pinuzem.98 If Piankh wassomehow connected to Menkheperre and/or Psusennes I,this move would ultimately lead to the much desired 21st

Dynasty influence over the Thebaid. At the time of the

Oracle, Herihor was probably already the son-in-law ofthe king-to-be.99 This would make him a candidate tosucceed to the throne, in parallel to the previous succes-sion (i.e. via the female line as well), unless there wereother factors to be considered.

In “year 16” of king Herihor, Masaharta, son of King(Khakheperre) Pinuzem, became the new High Priest ofAmun. His pontificate probably only lasted for a fewyears. Although relying on the estimated age of mum-mies is quite hazardous, it seems Masaharta died as amiddle aged man.100 As soon as his age at death exceedsca. 30 to 35 years, pending on the actual length of hispontificate, it seems likely that he was already bornwhen Ramses XI died. His very existence may, in fact,have been what prompted the Oracle. As a son of thenew king, Pinuzem, and of his chief queen, DH Hentta-wy, under normal circumstances, Masaharta might beconsidered a (if not “the”) candidate for the throne. Butcircumstances were far from normal: the expulsion of Pa-nehsy by the coalition of Ramses XI and Psusennes I hadcreated a very complicated political situation in whichPsusennes I and Menkheperre had to be recompensed fortheir part in the coalition to end the suppression ofAmenhotep. If Masaharta were to succeed his father tothe throne, this would leave the 21st Dynasty empty-handed for all their effort. In other words: the presenceof a possible male heir to Khakheperre Pinuzem duringthe final year of the wHm mswt would make it all the morenecessary for the faction backing Herihor to officiallysafeguard the latter’s interests against a “bodily king’sson” of his father-in-law.

When he became king, one of Herihor’s first actsseems to have been to appoint his brother Pinuzem ashis successor as HPA. If all went well, Pinuzem wasprobably also supposed to succeed his (older?) brotheras king.101 When Pinuzem died before his brother (in year15 of Herihor), Masaharta appears to have re-entered thepicture as candidate to succeed as HPA. His original po-sition as “heir-passed-over” may well have given him theedge over the sons of Herihor. Whether his appointmentas HPA also entailed him becoming the intended succes-

97 Thijs, ZÄS 138 (2011), 163–181; ZÄS 140 (2013), 64–66.98 Thijs, ZÄS 140 (2013), 64–66.

99 This can be inferred from the procession of princes and princes-ses in the Temple of Khonsu. I hope to show in a coming article thatthis scene must stem from the very start of Herihor’s reign. For now,I can only offer this as a working hypothesis. A date early in thereign of Herihor would put the birth of at least some princes andprincesses in the last years of Ramses XI.100 G.E. Smith, The Royal Mummies, Cairo 1912, 106; “probablyover forty years of age”: Wente, JNES 26 (1967), 160.101 Thijs, ZÄS 132 (2005), 90; ZÄS 134 (2007), 60–61; ZÄS 140(2013), 62.




sor of Herihor as king, we will probably never know. Un-fortunately, the end of the reign of Herihor is stillwrapped in clouds. For all we know, Masaharta may wellhave predeceased his king as well. Although the sourcesare silent, this may well have been a factor in the ulti-mate change of dynasty, which seems evidenced by theeffacement of Herihor’s Leiden Stela.102

The Bad Times Revisited

At the end of this article, it might be worthwhile to returnto the topic of the multiple deaths during “the bad times”to see if we can somehow establish their relative order. Itturns out that, if we analyse the events within our chron-ological reconstruction, a quite solid basic frameworkemerges which we can use to fit in other, less preciselydefined, events, at least to some extent:[1] King Khakheperre Pinuzem dies (ca. “year 10” of his

reign)103 and is succeeded by king Herihor. Herihorappoints his brother Pinuzem as HPA. From this mo-ment on, DH Henttawy, widow of the former king,can call herself “mother(-in-law) of the King” (= Heri-hor) and “mother of the Chief Queen” (= Nodjmet B).

[2] Shortly afterwards DH Henttawy dies. The HPA Men-kheperre provides mummy braces.104

[3] HPA Menkheperre dies. His son, Nesubanebded, be-comes the new HPA. Bracelets mentioning HPA Nesu-banebded were found on the mummy of Psusennes I,therefore, HPA Menkheperre himself must already

have been dead when the burial of Psusennes wasclosed.105

[4] King Psusennes I is buried by the (21st Dynasty) HPANesubanebded. The newly appointed (20th Dynasty)HPA Pinuzem, son of Piankh, donates Tanis Gobletno. 398.

This sequence directly follows from our reconstruction.Other, less precisely datable events can now be dove-tailed in:[a] The death and burial of Nodjmet A must postdate the

death of Khakheperre Pinuzem, since she died as aKing’s mother. This is confirmed by the notoriouspiece of mummy linen dated to “year 1 of Pinotmou”.

[b] From the much debated bandage fragment mention-ing “year 49”106 it seems that Amenemope becameking just prior to the death of Psusennes.107

[c] The combination of the names of king Amenemopeand HPA Pinuzem II on several mummies from the‘second find’ at Deir el Bahri suggests that HPA Nesu-banebded died only shortly after king Psusennes I.108

What still eludes us, is the nature of “the bad times”.Was it an epidemic? If so, evidence might still be discov-ered in the mummies which have come down to us.109 Afamine seems less likely, since persons royal and pontifi-cal will probably have been the very last to suffer from

Fig. 8: Succession from Ramses XI to Herihor.

102 Leiden V 65: B. Haring, SAK 41 (2012), 139–152.103 Derived from the “vaticinium ex eventu” included in the Oracleof Herihor: Thijs, ZÄS 132 (2005), 85–88.104 That her mummy braces mention HPA Menkheperre (G. Maspe-ro, Momies Royales, 676–577; Jansen-Winkeln, Inschriften, 84, nr.6.28. TIPE, 50, no. 231) should not be seen as an anomaly. Closerrelatives may well have provided more important gifts which never-theless cannot be retraced to them because the name of the bene-factor was not mentioned. It is psychologically understandable thata more distant relationship is more prone to generate items in whichthe benefactor is explicitly named.

105 N.B., given the 70-day period of mummification it does not ne-cessarily follow that Menkheperre actually predeceased his king: hemay well have survived him by a few days or weeks. All we know isthat when the burial of Psusennes I was closed, Nesubanebded hadalready taken over as HPA.106 TIPE no. 47; Kitchen, TIPE, 32f, 411–416.107 As we have seen above, the erasures on Pap. Brooklyn 16.205suggest that “year 49” (of Psusennes I) may well have coincidedwith a low yeardate of his successor, Amenemope.108 TIPE no. 50 and no. 53.109 That is to say Nodjmet and DH Henttawy. The mummy of Psu-sennes I has deteriorated too much due to the damp conditions ofthe Delta. The present whereabouts of the mummy of Pinuzem Iseem to be unknown.




lack of food. On the other hand, the mere fact that somany high placed persons died of natural causes (oldage) within such a short span of time might in itself beenough to coin the phrase.

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank L. Popko andR. Porter for their valuable criticism and suggestions. Thetheories presented here remain the sole responsibility ofthe author.




The Burial of Psusennes I and “The Bad Times” of P. Brooklyn 16.205

Documents

Transcript of The Burial of Psusennes I and “The Bad Times” of P. Brooklyn 16.205