xxv
II Historical Background
II.1 The Twenty-first Dynasty
Towards the end of the Twentieth Dynasty, during the reign of Rameses IX, the High
Priest of Amun at Karnak, Amenhotep, was depicted in a relief at the same size as
the king, indicating a previously unprecedented equality of status between the two.1
During this time Egypt had suffered from repeated disturbances brought about by
groups of Libyans, declining economic conditions, and, consequently, strikes and
tomb robberies. After the very short reign of Ramesses X about whom almost
nothing is known, the situation continued into the reign of Ramesses XI and appears
to have worsened. At a certain point no later than his year 12, the Viceroy of Nubia,
Panehsy arrived in Thebes to restore order, however the economic situation made it
difficult for him to feed his troops leading him to assume the role of Overseer of the
Granaries which brought him into conflict with the High Priest Amenhotep. The
latter was at one point besieged in the temple complex of Medinet Habu by Panehsy
and appealed to the king for help. Panehsy began marching north, ransacked Hardai
in the 17th
Upper Egyptian nome, and perhaps reached further north but was
eventually pushed back to Nubia by an army of the king led probably by a general
named Payankh.2 Payankh subsequently took over the titles of Panehsy including
Viceroy of Nubia, and also that of Vizier, and became Chief Priest of Amun on the
death of Amenhotep. All the most important Upper Egyptian titles were thus
concentrated in a single individual and Payankh’s ‘coup’ brought about the
beginning of a new era known as wHm mswt meaning ‘repeating of births’,3 a
formula commonly used to signify the beginning of a new era,4 to which events in
Thebes would now be dated.
1 Van Dijk 2000, 301.
2 Van Dijk 2000, 308-9. The general was presumably the later successor of Amenhotep as chief priest
of Amun, however there is as yet not universal agreement as to whether this was Payankh or Herihor
(see below). 3 Scholars often refer to this as the period of ‘renaissance’ (see e.g. Kitchen 1986, 248). The term is
not used here however as ‘renaissance’ in the English language refers almost exclusively to the revival
in art and literature during the 14th
-16th
centuries AD. The meaning in the context of the late New
Kingdom is quite different; ‘rebirth’ is a more neutral term but the Egyptian ‘wehem mesut’ is
preferred here. 4 Grimal 1992, 292
xxvi
During this time, another key figure was to emerge: a Delta official named Smendes
who had taken control of the north, an equal of Payankh in the south.5 The line of
Twentieth Dynasty kings came to an end with the death of Ramesses XI in his
twenty-ninth year in approximately 1069 BC and thus Egypt was now divided
between Smendes, pharaoh of the new Twenty-first Dynasty line in the north, and the
Chief Priest of Amun in the South.
Payankh’s descendents held the office of chief priest of Amun for a further four
generations. Scholars had at one stage concluded that the Chief Priest Herihor was
the predecessor of Payankh, the office having then passed to Payankh and then
directly from Payankh to his son Pinudjem (I).6 However this has now been
challenged.7 The dated documents relating to these individuals suggest Herihor was
the predecessor of Payankh as does the fact that every other chief priest of Amun
thereafter to the beginning of the Twenty-second Dynasty was a descendant of
Payankh’s, however there are several reasons for concluding that the order of these
two individuals should be reversed:8
The titles of Payankh do not fit well with those of his successors whereas
Herihor’s do. Payankh’s are more detailed showing his rise through the
military ranks, and they are closer to those of Panehsy who was in charge of
Nubia from the beginning of the period of wHm mswt. Payankh’s titles refer
to a Pharaoh as in Ramesside times, whereas Herihor’s do not.
Payankh never assumed any royal attributes whereas Herihor and his
successors did.
Herihor and Pinudjem I were both builders in Thebes and Pinudjem
succeeded Herihor directly in decorating the temple of Khonsu.
In any case, by the commencement of the Twenty-first Dynasty a clear shift had
occurred in the way that Egypt was governed, the principal change being that the
country was now divided between the line of Smendes I in the north and the chief
priest of Amun and army commander in the south, the boundary of the two lands
5 Kitchen 1986, 250
6 Kitchen 1986, 252-3.
7 Jansen-Winkeln 1992, 22-37, and 2006c, 225, and refuted by Kitchen 2009, 192-4.
8 Jansen-Winkeln 2006c, 225.
xxvii
having been in the region of Herakleopolis and El-Hibeh. The two rulers were not set
against one another but mutually agreed on the division of territory between them. In
all but minor details there is agreement among scholars on the sequence of
individuals who held power in the north and south, as illustrated in tables 0.1 and
0.2.
Table II.1. Tanite kings of the Twenty-first Dynasty. Kings whose names appear in
bold are well-attested in the archaeological evidence.
Monumental evidence Manetho Notes
Smendes (Nesbanebdjed) I Smendes (26 years) Father in law to HP
Pinudjem I
Neferkare Amenemnisu Nepherkeres (4 years)
Psusennes
(Pasebkhaemniut) I
Psusennes (41 years)
Amenemope Amenopthis (9 years)
Osorkon ‘the Elder’ Osochor (6 years)
Siamun Psinaches (9 years) Identification of Siamun /
Psinaches uncertain.
Psusennes (Pasebkhaemniut)
II
Psusennes (35 years) Almost certainly the
same individual as the
Theban chief priest of
Amun Psusennes
Table II.2. Theban Chief Priests of Amun during the Twenty-first Dynasty.
Individuals whose names appear in bold assumed royal attributes
Chief Priest of Amun
1 Panehsy
2 Payankh
3 Herihor
4 Pinudjem I
5 Masaharta
xxviii
6 Djedkhonsuiuefankh
7 Menkheperre
8 Smendes (Nesbanebdjed)
(II)
9 Pinudjem II
10 Psusennes
(Pasebkhaemniut)
On the surface the division of the country between a king in the north and a chief
priest and army commander in the south was maintained throughout the Twenty-first
Dynasty however the nature of the relationship between the two lines may have
altered significantly over time. Among the chief priests in Thebes all but Herihor
were part of the same family. In several cases the family background of the northern
kings in unclear but there were clearly connections between the two lines.
The Chief Priest of Amun Pinudjem I was married to Henttawy A, daughter of
Smendes I and sister of Amenemnisu; Psusennes I was son of Pinudjem I; the chief
priest Menkheperre, son of Pinudjem I, married Istemkheb C, daughter of Psusennes
I (i.e. he married his own niece); Maatkare B, daughter of Psusennes II, married
Osorkon I, the second king of the Twenty-second Dynasty.9 An alternative
reconstruction of the genealogy of the family of Payankh allows for the possibility
that Pinudjem I was nephew of Smendes I, and his senior living descendent after the
death of Amenemnisu, and that Pinudjem therefore claimed the throne in Tanis at
that point, ensuring that his own son, Psusennes (I) could then take the throne after
him.10
It has been noted that in the earlier part of the Dynasty, while Herihor,
Pinudjem I and Menkheperre were in power, the Lower Egyptian kings were hardly
represented in Thebes at all, but by contrast after the end Menkheperre’s rule, the
kings Amenemope, Siamun and Osochor were all documented in Thebes, while at
that time the chief priest Pinudjem II did not adopt any royal attributes.11
It seems
likely therefore that in the first half of the period the chief priests with royal
attributes dated by their own ‘reigns’ whereas after that the dates all relate to the
9 Kitchen 1986, 282.
10 Taylor 1998, 1154.
11 Jansen-Winkeln 2006c, 229.
xxix
reigns of Lower Egyptian kings, the implication being that Amenemope’s reign
might have signalled a change to the dating system and to the political structures.12
Events described in the so-called ‘Banishment stela’ may shed further light on this
transition. The text inscribed on the stela relates to a rebellion quelled by
Menkheperre. It has been suggested that the reigns of Amenemnisu and Psusennes I
overlapped slightly, and that this, combined with an amnesty declared by
Menkheperre represented an attempt by Pinudjem, who by this time, had handed the
role of chief priest to his sons, but retained power as a royal figure in Upper Egypt, to
stabilize the situation after the rebellion.13
One further potential connection between the Upper and Lower Egyptian lines is that
the chief priest Psusennes, may be one and the same as the northern king Psusennes
II who is now firmly established as having had an independent reign prior to the
accession of Sheshonq I.14
If the chief priest and king of this name are one and the
same individual it would seem there must have been some kind of agreement
between the two lines that Psusennes would succeed Siamun, and it would also have
united the important office in both Upper and Lower Egypt in the hands of a single
individual. There is no evidence of any chief priest having held office in Thebes after
this point and prior to the installation by Sheshonq I of his son Iuput, suggesting that
Egypt was truly united at this point and the transfer of the governance of the entire
country to Sheshonq I at the start of the Twenty-second Dynasty was peaceful.
This division of the country which characterised the Twenty-first Dynasty was “the
single most important element in Egypt’s political structure in the first millennium
BC”15
and is crucial to an understanding of the political situation in Egypt following
the New Kingdom. This situation was maintained for over a century before the
country was ostensibly reunited under Sheshonq I, founder of the Twenty-second
12
This remains a contentious issue. The possibility that events in Upper Egypt were dated by the
‘reigns’ of the Theban rulers was first proposed by Jansen Winkeln (1992) contrary to the previously
accepted view that all dates from the period related to the Lower Egyptian kings. Kitchen has since
strongly defended the latter position: Kitchen 2009, 191-2. 13
Lull 2009, 244-5. 14
Dodson 2009, 103. 15
Leahy 1990, 155.
xxx
Dynasty, which ruled from the north16
but was also recognised in Thebes. Leahy has
described the situation in the country as follows: in the Delta there was “a patchwork
of small units ruled by chiefs of the Meshwesh and Libu who exercised a varying
degree of autonomy vis-à-vis their royal ‘superiors’ at Bubastis and Tanis” while
“Beyond a general impression of Theban dominance, the internal situation in Upper
Egypt is less clear.”17
What does seem clear is that, unlike during the New Kingdom,
Egypt was not governed as a single unit from a single centre (i.e. Memphis as it had
been for most of Egyptian history).
The model of a divided country with Thebes and the south under the jurisdiction of
an individual as Chief Priest and commander of the armies was, to a certain extent,
retained but this time the northern pharaoh ensured he had overall control of the
country through a clear and deliberate policy of installing trusted family members to
high office in Thebes (see Chapter 3).
II.2 The Twenty-second Dynasty: the reigns of Sheshonq I to Osorkon II
Scholars are agreed in all but the finer details on the reconstruction and dating of the
first few reigns of the Twenty-second Dynasty, specifically that:
Sheshonq I acceded the throne as king ruling from Bubastis in approximately
943 BC;
After a minimum of X years he was succeeded by his son Osorkon I,18
who
ruled for a minimum of 33 years;19
The son of Osorkon I was then either succeeded by his son, Heqakheperre
Setepenre Sheshonq IIa,20
or installed him as a co-regent.21
16
At Bubastis, Tanis or Memphis: Sagrillo 2009, 350-4. 17
Leahy 1990, 155. 18
Jansen-Winkeln 2006d, 236. 19
Aston 2009, 6-7. 20
Aston 2009, 4-5, 21. The numbering of the kings named ‘Sheshonq’ here follows the resolution
agreed at a conference held in Leiden in October 2007: Broekman et al 2008, 9-10; Kaper 2008, 38-9;
Broekman et al 2009, 444-5. 21
Jansen-Winkeln 2006d.
xxxi
Sheshonq IIa was then succeeded either directly, or after one or two
additional short reigns, of Sheshonqs IIb and IIc,22
by Osorkon II whose
reigned lasted for a minimum of X years.
The northern kings’ control of the south was short-lived however.
From this point, up to the accession of Taharqo,23
penultimate ruler of Dynasty 25
there is still much discussion as to how the evidence should be interpreted. The Piye
Stela provides a snapshot of the political geography of Egypt at the moment of that
king’s invasion, and shows there to have been several kings ruling simultaneously.
Some of the individuals named in the text can be identified in the archaeological
record, however the evidence provides us with the names of more kings than can
easily be placed either in time or geographically. The question then is how many
lines of kings were there at any given point, to which line did each of the kings
attested belong, where was each line based and over what territory did it hold sway.
The Stela shows unambiguously that there were ‘kings’ ruling in Upper Egypt. For
how long, however, had the seat of kings Peftjauawybast at Herakleopolis and
Nimlot at Hermopolis been established, which, if any, of the other kings attested in
the archaeological record were part of lines based in these centres, and were there
other lines, not attested at the time of Piye to which other of the attested individuals
belong? Until recently the accepted view had been that the Upper Egyptian lines had
become established only a very short while before the invasion of Piye, and that
almost all other attested kings belonged either to the Twenty-second Dynasty line of
Sheshonq I and his successors (see above), or to the Twenty-third Dynasty, which,
according to Manetho, consisted of four kings: Patubates, Osorthon, Psammous and
Zet.24
Of the kings attested in the archaeological evidence from this period Kitchen
22
The majority view among specialists of the period is that the praenomina Tutkheperre (Sheshonq
IIb) and Maakheperre (Sheshonq IIc) do represent individual rulers distinct from any of the others
who bore then Sheshonq nomen, and that they should be placed, chronologically, between Osorkon I
and Takeloth I – see notes 12 and 13. Kitchen (2009, 172-3), however, believes Maakheperre and
Tutkheperre to have been nothing more than early praenomina of Hedjkheperre Sheshonq I (this
‘definitive’ prenomen being attested no earlier than his year 5), and that the kings Sheshonq IIb and
IIc should in fact be identified as one and the same as Sheshonq I. 23
There is general agreement that this point remains the earliest securely fixed absolute date in
Egyptian history: Spalinger 1973, 98. 24
Waddell 1940, 161-3.
xxxii
has sought either to identify them as the kings named by Manetho or to add them to
Manetho’s lists on the understanding the latter made mistakes or that the text has
come down to us in corrupted form. Both lines continued down to the time of Piye
and were represented on the stela by Osorkon of Bubastis (of the Twenty-second
Dynasty) and Iuput of Leontopolis (the Twenty-third Dynasty). This was the
reconstruction published in Kitchen’s masterpiece synthesis volume, The Third
Intermediate Period.25
However, a series of articles published from the 1980s
onwards cast doubt on this interpretation; these argued that several of the kings
attested archeologically, in some cases representing several members of a lineal
succession, did not form part of either of the two main Delta lines as they are attested
exclusively in Upper Egypt, and formed part of an independent line(s) which held
sway in Upper Egypt only, of which the Upper Egyptian rulers of the Piye stela may
also have been a part.
II.3 The independent, Upper Egyptian lines
Spencer and Spencer noted in 1986 that there was no evidence to link the kings of
Kitchen’s Twenty-third Dynasty with the Delta: their monuments came exclusively
from Upper Egypt and they were not recognised in Memphis, which lay between the
location of their monuments and their supposed base.26
Leahy expanded on this idea
this to provide a dramatically revised reconstruction of the lines of kings and the
location of the seat of power in each case. Following a hypothesis already put
forward by Priese27
and Baer28
independently, he proposed that the core of Kitchen’s
Twenty-third Dynasty were rulers of a Theban line, and that the remaining rulers
represented the successors of the Bubastite Twenty-second Dynasty rulers and not an
‘offshoot’ ruling contemporaneously with them.29
This is now the majority view
among specialists in the history of the period, however there remain scholars
committed to Kitchen’s interpretation including Kitchen himself, and there is still
considerable scope for revision of the detail of each interpretation. The main features
25
Kitchen 1986. 26
Spencer and Spencer 1986, 198-201. 27
Priese 1970, 20, n. 23. 28
Baer 1973, 11-12, 15-23. 29
Leahy 1990, 179.
xxxiii
of each of the two interpretations are summarised in the following tables (see tables
0.3 and 0.4).
II.4 Takeloth II
The origin, family connections and seat of power of Hedjkheperre Setepenre
Takeloth II Siese have been much discussed. In Kitchen’s reconstruction this
individual was part of the Bubastite Twenty-second Dynasty as the direct successor
to Osorkon II.30
Aston, however, noted that Takeloth II is only attested in Upper
Egypt, he has the epithet nTr Hq3 W3st, his family reveal no connections to Upper
Egypt, and genealogical evidence suggests he flourished a generation after the death
of Osorkon II.31
Kitchen’s counter-arguments have been summarised by Jansen-
Winkeln but rejected.32
The ‘Chronicle of Prince Osorkon’ provides an account of events which took place
over a thirty-year period in Upper Egypt, beginning in Takeloth’s eleventh year,
when his son, the eponymous Chief Priest of Amun, Osorkon (B) made a ceremonial
visit to Karnak.33
The text, supplemented by other sources, provides a detailed
account of the struggle for supremacy in Thebes between two rival factions, each
headed by a ‘king’ and their chosen Chief Priest of Amun. The upper hand seems to
have passed back and forth between the two factions on several occasions, but
ultimately it was Takeloth II’s line that would emerge triumphant,
The events described in the ‘Chronicle’ are dated by the reigns of Takeloth II and
Sheshonq III. If they ruled in succession as Kitchen proposes however there would
be a twenty-year gap in the narrative during which no events are described. However
if the two kings reigned not successively but concurrently there would be no such
gap – year 1 of Sheshonq III would be equivalent to year 4 of Takeloth II, and the
change would be explained by the trasfer of authority in Upper Egypt from the line
of Sheshonq III to that of Takeloth II. Furthermore, Prince Osorkon B of the
‘Chronicle’, son of Takeloth II has now been identified with king Usermaatre
30
Kitchen 1986, 107 31
Aston 1989, 139-53 32
Jansen Winkeln 2006b, 242-3. 33
Caminos 1958, 17
xxxiv
Setepenamun Osorkon III; the two were therefore part of the same line running
parallel to that of Sheshonq III, and not attested in the Delta.
The interpretation of the evidence for the political landscape of Egypt from the reign
of Osorkon II onwards is crucial as it raises a number of important issues concerning
the importance of Thebes and other regional centres particularly in Upper Egypt, the
situation at the time the Kushites became influential and beyond, and more generally
the administrative and governmental structure of the country in the centuries
following the New Kingdom.
II.5 The situation in the years leading up to the establishment of Kushite rule in
Upper Egypt
The Piye Stela shows that Piye was in charge at Thebes by the time of his campaign,
but at what point did the Kushites take control of the city, and what was the nature
and extent of this control and of their presence in Thebes?
Osorkon III ruled for 28 years and Takeloth III. At approximately the same time,
Osorkon installed a daughter Shepenwepet (I) as God’s Wife of Amun, a position
which had existed since the beginning of the New Kingdom but took on a new
significance from this time (see Chapter 3).
Usermaatre Setepenamun Osorkon III ruled for 28 years,34
oversaw the installation
of his daughter as God’s Wife of Amun, and consolidated his control of the south by
the appointment of a son, Takeloth, as Chief Priest. Takeloth would succeed his
father becoming king Usermaatre Setepenre Takeloth III after a brief co-regency
between the two, of 5 years. The situation following the reign of Takeloth III is less
clear. Several further Upper Egyptian kings are known: Rudamun, Hedjkheperre
Sheshonq VIa Siese, Peftjauawybast, Nimlot and Iny.35
At some point during or after the reign of Takeloth III the Kushites, under Kashta or
Piye, assumed control of Thebes. Up to this point, Upper Egypt, probably from
34
Jansen-Winkeln 2006d, 252. 35
Jansen-Winkeln 2006d, 253.
xxxv
Herakleopolis and perhaps further south, was controlled by Osorkon III and Takeloth
III. As the Kushites expanded their territory northwards however, the area formerly
controlled by Osorkon and Takeloth was reduced and those listed above who may
have succeeded Takeloth III were either based elsewhere (principally Hermopolis or
Herakleopolis) and/or were only pretenders to authority in Thebes, in opposition to
the Kushites. It is unclear therefore to what extent these individuals formed part of a
single line or indeed whether they bore any relation to one another at all. Rudamun
was a brother of Takeloth III, and Peftjauawybast a son-in-law of Rudamun.
However Rudamun is more closely connected with Hermopolis than any other
centre,36
Peftjauawybast was in charge of Herakleopolis at the time of Piye’s
campaign. Peftjauawybast was contemporary with Nimlot, ruler of Hermopolis at the
time of the campaign. In other words, individuals with connections to the line of
Osorkon III were to be found at both Herakleopolis and Hermopolis at the time of the
campaign, and neither was recognized at Thebes by this point, so the political
geography of the region had changed dramatically by this time.
The existence of Sheshonq VIa Siese was recognized recently by G. Broekman37
and
this individual is considered to have been a successor of Takeloth III, assuming the
throne from the latter either directly,38
or following Rudamun.39
Iny was clearly
attested at Thebes to a regnal year 540
but is thought by Aston to have reigned after
the campaign of Piye.41
The Piye stela narrative implies that Thebes was already within the control of the
Kushites by the time of Piye’s invasion. The events leading to this remain obscure
however and we are reliant on scraps of evidence for the processes involved.
The earliest known ruler in the Twenty-fifth Dynasty sequence is Alara, whose name
is mentioned in texts of later periods, once as the father of Tabiry, a wife of Piye.42
His name was written in a cartouche and he was given the epithet ‘son of Ra’
36
Perdu 2002, 169-70. 37
Broekman 2002, 163-78. 38
Jansen-Winkeln 2006d, 255. 39
Aston 2009, 24. 40
Jansen-Winkeln 2006d, 255. 41
Aston 2009, 19-20, 24-5. 42
Eide et al 1994, 41.
xxxvi
indicating that he was regarded as a traditional Egyptian king, although there is no
evidence that his influence was felt in Egypt itself. The presence of his successor
Kashta at Elephantine is, however, attested by a fragmentary dedication stela naming
him as the ‘King of Upper and Lower Egypt, and ‘Lord of the Two Lands’.43
Furthermore, circumstantial evidence suggests that Thebes may have been brought
under Kushite control during his reign. In continuation of the tradition of establishing
family members in prominent positions, Osorkon III had established his daughter
Shepenwepet (I) as ‘God’s Wife of Amun,’ a position which took on new
significance at this point. The subsequent establishment of Kashta’s daughter
Amenirdis (I) as the heiress to Shepenwepet can only have occurred after the
Kushites had begun to exert some influence at Thebes and may even have marked
the moment of the transfer of authority, as it would almost a century later when
Nitocris, the daughter of Psamtek I, was adopted as heiress to the God’s Wife,
signaling the transfer of Theban allegiance to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty kings (see
Chapter 4). On the basis that in every other recorded instance the heiress to the God’s
Wife was installed by her father,44
it seems most likely that this occurred during
Kashta’s reign.45
Until recently, a double-dated inscription in the Wadi Gasus had been taken to
commemorate the transfer of power in Thebes from the line of Osorkon III to the
Kushites. The inscription gives the names of Shepenwepet I and Amunirdis I each of
which is accompanied by a date, year 19 in the case of the former, and 12 in the
latter. The 12th
year was thought to be that of the reign of Piye, and the 19th
that of a
king of Osorkon III’s line, which had been interpreted to mean that the inscription
commemorated the transfer of authority in Thebes to Piye in his year 12, several
years before his campaign.46
However, it has now been demonstrated that the
inscription is not the work of a single hand, and that the names and dates may have
43
Ritner 2009, 459-60. 44
Morkot 1999, 195-6. 45
The decoration on some blocks inscribed for Piye and discovered in the Mut enclosure at Karnak,
has been thought to represent the arrival of the Amunirdis in Thebes, in Piye’s year 5, to be installed
as heiress to the God’s Wife Shepenwepet. However some doubt has now been shed on this
interpretation. O. Perdu has convincingly shown that what had been read as a year date is in fact part
of a list of commodities relating to Nubian ochre; the interpretation that the scenes might show the
arrival of the princess is based only on their similarity with those of the adoption of Nitocris at the
beginning of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, which is not sufficient to be convincing. The question of
when the princess was installed in Thebes remains open therefore. Perdu 2010, 151-7. 46
Aston and Taylor 1989, 144.
xxxvii
been written at different times. It cannot therefore be used to fix the relative positions
of the reigns of any kings of this time.47
The region certainly seems to have been under the control of the Kushites by the time
of Piye’s invasion, since no ruler is mentioned in Thebes itself and it is likely that by
this time Osorkon III’s line may have been represented either by Peftjauawybast of
Herakleopolis or Nimlot of Hermopolis,48
but the nature of the relationship of the
Kushites to this and other local centres at this point remains unclear.
II.6 Fragmentation by the time of Piye’s conquest
In the final years of the Libyan Period it seems the Twenty-second Dynasty of
Manetho was succeeded directly, at Tanis and Bubastis, by his Twenty-third
Dynasty, of whom a Petubastis and Osorkon (IV) can be identified in the
archaeological and textual evidence. At this time Egypt, and particularly the Delta
had become fragmented, and Sais, in the western Delta, had become an important
centre. Its ruler, Tefnakht, also controlled a series of principalities in the western
Delta, and had taken charge of Memphis and begun to expand into Upper Egypt,
besieging the town of Herakleopolis and subduing those further south towards
Hermopolis. Hermopolis itself had by this point been brought under the control of
the Kushite king, Piye, whose base at this time was at Napata in Sudan. The
submission of Hermopolis to Tefnakht’s forces prompted Piye to take action. His
troops were able only to arrest Tefnakht’s progress and so Piye himself journeyed
north to join the battle. Hermopolis was reclaimed, and the Kushites then continued
north conquering a series of towns in the Nile Valley, and ultimately, after a bloody
battle, Memphis itself. From here Piye proceeded to the Delta where he received the
submission of various rulers and finally Tefnakht himself.
II.7 Piye Stela
The conquest of Egypt by Piye provides an anchor point. The text begins with a
report relayed to Piye, certainly residing south of Thebes at this point, probably in
47
Jurman 2006, 88-9. 48
Aston and Taylor 1989, 145.
xxxviii
Napata, that Tefnakht of Sais had taken control of the western Delta and Upper
Egypt as far south as Hermopolis, and was besieging Herakleopolis although he had
not yet been able to break through its defences. The text then contains a plea from
“these chiefs, counts and generals who were in their cities” who ask Piye if he has
been “silent so as to ignore Upper Egypt and the nomes of the residence”,49
implying
that they – presumably the governors of the towns already mentioned as having been
taken by Tefnakht – were at least aware that Piye might be able to liberate them, or
even possibly that he already had some responsibility to them.50
Piye then decides to
take action and calls on “the counts and generals who are in Egypt, the commander
Pawerem, and the commander Lamersekny, and every commander of His Majesty
who was in Egypt”, again implying that Piye already had a series of allies in the
country, to prepare to engage Tefnkaht’s forces, and dispatched an army, presumably
from somewhere south of Thebes as Piye is very careful to ensure that his troops stop
there to pay homage to Amun in Thebes on their way.51
Piye himself joined the army
in besieging Hermopolis which eventually surrendered, apparently acknowledging
him as the king of Lower Egypt (bity) at this point.52
Nimlot subsequently claims “I
am one of the kings servants who pays taxes to the treasury as daily offerings. Make
a reckoning of their taxes. I have provided far more than they”53
implying that he had
already(?) been paying taxes to Piye, as had others among the local rulers who had
subsequently joined Tefnakht. Piye subsequently sailed north to Memphis which he
took by force, and then proceeded to Heliopolis and on to the Delta where Tefnakht
armies were eventually forced to surrender.54
The names and titles of the various local rulers mentioned in the stela is summarised
in the following table:
Table II.3. List of rulers named in the Piye Stela text. References are taken from the
lunette (Ritner 2009, 467-8) and two sections in the main text: lines 17-20 (Ritner
2009, 479-80) and 114 (Ritner 2009, 488-9). The main titles are as follows:
49
Ritner 2009, 478. 50
An alternative interpretation of the text however suggests that it was only a single individual, the
army general (singular) who made the appeal to Piye: Goedicke 1998, 17-18. 51
Ritner 2009, 478-9. 52
Ritner 2009, 481, 491, n. 12. 53
Ritner 2009, 482. 54
Lines 123-4-: Ritner 2009, 489-90.
xxxix
Chief of the Ma wr n Ma
Great Chief of the Ma wr a3 n Ma
King nsw
Herditary Prince iry-pat
General imy-r mSa
Count H3ty-a
Name Title(s)
Location Lunette Lines 17-20 Line 114
Akanosh The Great Chief of
the Ma
X
Djedamuniuefankh The Great Chief of
the Ma,
X
Nimlot King X
Osorkon IV King, King Iuput
II,
X
Padiese The Hereditary
Prince
X
Pamai Count X
Patjenfy Count X
Peftjauawybast King X
Every plume
wearing chief who
was in Lower
Egypt
X
Bakennefy The army of the
hereditary prince
X
Djedamuniuefankh Great Chief of the
Ma, of
Mendes X
Nimlot King
X
Osorkon IV King who was in Bubastis and in the district of
Ranefer
X
Sheshonq Chief of the Ma of Busiris X
Tefnakht Great Chief of the West, the ruler of estates of
Lower Egypt, the prophet of
Neith, Lady of Sais, the
setem-priest of Ptah,
X
Akanosh Count in Sebennytos, in Iseopolis
(Behbeit el-Hagar) and
X
xl
Diospolis Inferior
Ankhhor His eldest son, the
General in
Hermopolis Parva X
Djedamuniuefankh Count in Mendes and the Granary of
Re
X
Djedkhiu Count in Khentnefer X
Horbes Count in the estate of Sakhmet, Lady
of Eset, and the estate of
Sakhmet, Lady of Rahesu
X
Iuput (II) King in Leontopolis (Tell Moqdam)
and Taan
X
Nakhthornashenu Count and Chief of
the Ma, in
Pergerer X
Nesnaiu Count and Chief of
the Ma, in
Hesebu X
Osorkon IV King in Bubastis and in the district of
Ranefer
X
Pabasa Count in Babylon (Old Cairo) and in
Atar el-Nabi
X
Padihorsomtus Prophet of Horus, Lord of Letopolis
(Ausim)
X
Pamai Count and chief of
the Ma, in
Busiris X
Patjenfy Count and Chief of
the Ma, in
Saft el-Henneh and in the
Granary of Memphis
X
Pentabekhnet Chief of the Ma X
Pentaweret Chief of the Ma X
The stela text is revealing in several ways. The inscription provides the names and
titles of various local rulers, and the areas they governed. Most had joined Tefnakht’s
alliance (willingly or otherwise), but one, Peftjauawybast of Herakleopolis, was loyal
to Piye throughout. The text also implies:
That those who were kings were ultimately treated as the equals of the other
rulers in submitting to Piye, although they were also singled out particularly
at the end of the narrative when they arrive to pay homage to Piye;
That Egypt at least as far north as Thebes was already under the control
(meaning?) of the Kushites at this point;
xli
That the Kushites had an ally as far north as Herakleopolis and may have
controlled the entire territory northwards to that point prior to Tefnakht’s
advance.
It also provides some indication of the motivations of the Kushites in establishing
themselves as overlords of Egypt. The repeated mention of the bounty carried off by
the Kushites from each locality is clear indication that this presented at least a fringe
benefit for Piye even if it was not the central reason for the campaign i.e. restoring
the tribute already paid by the various towns. Piye is not explicit in condemning the
claims of Nimlot et al to kingship indeed the composer of the text was careful to
ensure they were referred to as kings, and there is no mention of Piye having revoked
their royal status at any point. Indeed it has been suggested that certain of these
kings, especially, Nimlot and Peftjauawybast may even have been installed by the
Kushites;55
this seems not impossible and would certainly fit with Piye’s claim made
some years before the campaign in the text of the ‘sandstone stela’ from Gebel
Barkal in which he claims that
“The one to whom I say: ‘You are chief,’ he becomes chief. The whom
I say: ‘You are not chief,’ he does not become chief. Amon in Thebes
appointed me to be ruler in Egypt. The one [to whom] I say: ‘Appear
(as king),’ he appears. The] one to whom I say: ‘Do not appear,’ he
does not appear.”56
The stela also provides information as to what was important to Piye (or at least what
he should be seen to consider important) e.g. the observance of ritual at important
cult centres such as Thebes, Hermopolis, Memphis, Heliopolis and Athribis, the
proper treatment of horses, circumcision as an indicator of purity, abstention from
eating fish.
It should not necessarily be taken necessarily to indicate that:
The Kushites were from that point on established as rulers over all Egypt;
55
Morkot 2009, 20. 56
Ritner 2009, 463.
xlii
That claimants to the kingship ceased their claims;
That they and other local rulers were no longer able to operate independently,
without the approval of the Kushites;
That any lasting change with regard to political or administrative structures
had been effected;
It is crucial however for our interpretation of the archaeological and textual evidence,
particularly in exploding the idea that there ought only to be one king at a time. It
also suggests that Egypt was ‘fragmented’ at this time, but this idea is underpinned
by the assumption that at other times there was one ruler of the country and that all
other local governors etc. were equal and subservient to him, while at this point the
country was entirely divided into small units ruled at a local level. In reality at this
time and at others the situation was perhaps somewhere in between. The apparent
equality of the other rulers (with the exceptions of Peftjauawybast, Nimlot and
Tefnakht) as shown in the lunette of the stela and in the general treatment in the text
should perhaps be questioned: Tefnakht seems to have been pre-eminently
influential, if only by dint of military supremacy, but was not a ‘king’ at this point.
To what extent did the use by more than one individual of a particular title (king,
great chief) imply equality of influence etc.? Without the Piye stela we might still
conclude that there was a degree of fragmentation in Egypt, due to the number of
kings attested in the archaeological record (showing Manetho to have been aware of
the situation in part only, at best) and other sources such the ‘Chron of Prince Os’,
and Rassam text. We would be much less clear about the extent of the situation
however.
The stela provides a ‘snapshot’ of the situation at one particular moment, and that at
that time the political situation in the country was dramatically at odds with the
conventional picture of the nation united under pharaoh. The stela implies that this
situation was brought to an end by the invasion but this is not necessarily the case; it
also gives no information as to how long this had been the situation. The history of
Egypt in the period following the New Kingdom helps to explain how the events
described in the text came about.
xliii
II.8 The date of Piye’s campaign and events following it
Piye’s campaign is thought to have taken place in approximately his 20th
year.57
There is little evidence of any activity having been undertaken by Piye in Egypt
following the campaign and it has been assumed that he returned to Napata never to
set foot in Egypt again.58
The stela text makes it clear that Piye took away much
booty (‘the ships were loaded with silver, gold, copper, clothing and everything of
Lower Egypt, every product of Syria, every incense pellet of god’s land’59
), and
much of this may have been used in the embellishment of the Amun temple at
Napata where the stela was set up, and on which most of Piye’s energies would seem
to have been devoted in the remaining years of his reign. He was buried at El-Kurru.
Before proceeding to narrate the sequence of events following Piye’s campaign it is
necessary to establish a chronological framework. Piye’s highest attested regnal date
is year 24,60
however he it is likely that he reigned into a thirty-first year.
Tefnakht of Sais was not given the title of ‘king’ at the time of the campaign
according to the stela, but rather ‘Chief of the West, count and chief in Behbeit el-
Hagar (wr n Imnt H3ty-a wr m Ntr),61
however this same individual appears as a king
in his eighth regnal year on two stelae.62
If the stela text is correct in not giving the
royal title to Tefnakht, he must have become king only after Piye’s campaign.
Tefnakht appears to have been succeeded as king of Sais by Bakenrenef, whose
name appears on several stelae from the Serapeum with a regnal date of year 6. This
date relates to the burial of an Apis bull which is also commemorated by an
inscription dated to the second year of the reign of Shabaqo.
57
The main text begins with the date ‘Regnal year 21, first month of inundation’ (Ritner 2009, 477),
the first day of the new year, and it is assumed that the events described in the following lines
occurred shortly beforehand. 58
Morkot 2000, 198. 59
Ritner 2009, 490. 60
Jansen-Winkeln 2006d, 262. 61
Ritner 2009, 468, 478. 62
Jansen-Winkeln 2006d, 262, n. 193. The identification of king Shepses-Re Tefnakht with the
Tefnakht encountered by Piye has recently been challenged however: Perdu 2002, 1215-44; see also
Kahn 2009, 139-48.
xliv
On this basis Tefankht’s 8-year reign and the first five of Bakenrenef’s must be fitted
into the last years of the reign of Piye, following the campaign, giving Piye a
minimum reign length of 31 years, giving a period of approximately 11 years during
which Kushite presence in Egypt was minimal. Piye was succeeded by another son
of Kashta, Shabaqo, who engaged in a similar campaign against a group of Delta
kinglets to his predecessor, probably in his second year.
The assumption of royal titulary by Tefnkaht and Bakenrenef and the recognition of
the latter at Memphis demonstrates that in the relatively short period following
Piye’s triumphant return to Napata the dominance of Sais over the Delta and beyond,
to Memphis at least, was quickly restored. There is no evidence that Bakenrenef had
made any move into the territory beyond Memphis, e.g. to Herakleopolis, but
nonetheless, it is not surprising that Shabaqo moved quickly to restore Kushite
authority in the North of the country. No Egyptian account of this survives but
Manetho tells us that it was Shabaqo who, “taking Bocchoris (Bakenrenef) captive,
burned him alive…”,63
and a commemorative scarab now in Toronto records that
Shabaqo had “slain those who had rebelled against him in the South and the North,
and in every foreign country. The Sand-Dwellers who rebelled against him are fallen
down through fear of him, They come of themselves as prisoners.”64
The reference to
‘Sand-Dwellers’ may indicate a consolidation of security at Egypt’s borders in Sinai,
illustrating that Shabaqo’s influence extended right across northern Egypt, and this is
confirmed by donation stelae inscribed with his name from Pharbaithos, Bubastis and
Buto.65
II.9 Absolute Chronology
The sequence of Twenty-fifth dynasty rulers is as follows: Kashta, Piye, Shabaqo,
Shebitqo, Taharqo, Tantamani. The earliest fixed point in Egyptian history is agreed
to be 690 BC, the date of accession of Taharqo, whose reign ended in his twenty-
seventh year, in 664 BC.66
Shebitqo’s reign therefore came to an end in 690. The
63
Waddell 1940, 169. 64
Eide et al 1994, 124. 65
Eide et al 2004, 125. 66
Spalinger 1973, 98.
xlv
highest known regnal date for Shebitqo is 367
however his name appears in an
Assyrian inscription at Tang-I Var which appears to demonstrate that he was on the
throne as early as 706 BC, giving him a much longer reign than the highest date
would suggest and pushing back the reigns of his predecessors.68
The highest attested regnal date for Shabaqo is 14. On the basis that Shebitqo had
succeeded Shabaqo no later than 706, Shabaqo must have acceded the throne no later
than 719 BC.
For some time, scholars were agreed that 712 BC represented a terminus post quem
for the campaign undertaken by Shabaqo. In this year Yamani of Ashdod, (in Israel)
rebelling against Assyrian rule, contacted an Egyptian pharaoh for assistance.69
This
pharaoh sent no aid, Yamani was defeated and fled through Egypt arriving at the
border with Kush, and was eventually returned to the Assyrian King, by the king of
Kush. Shabaka’s invasion of Egypt (and removal of local kinglets) was thought to
have fallen between Yamani’s appeal, and his flight, as despite his appeal to an
Egyptian pharaoh, he apparently encountered none during his journey through
Egypt,70
supposedly because Shabaqo’s invasion had removed the last remaining
Delta kinglets who had continued to exercise authority even after the campaign of
Piye. Evidence for contact between Egypt and its neighbors in the years leading up to
712 suggest that Egyptian pharaohs were present but provide no evidence of the
Kushite overlords. In order to solve this problem several scholars have suggested that
Shebitqo may have ruled as a co-regent with Shabaqo, allowing for Shabaqo’s
accession to have fallen after Yamani’s appeal while accepting that Shebitqo was in
charge in Kush as early as a few years later. There is however no evidence for a co-
regency, and the continuing presence of rulers recognized by the Assyrians as
Egyptian kings later in the Twenty-fifth Dynasty71
suggests it is possible these kings
remained and were indeed in contact with Yamani.
67
Jansen-Winkeln 2006d, 258 68
G. Frame, “The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-I Var” Orientalia 68, (1999), 54. 69
D. B. Redford, “Sais and the Kushite Invasions of the Eighth Century B.C. “ JARCE 22 (1985), 6. 70
L. Depuydt disputes this: “The date of Piye’s campaign and the chronology of the Twenty-fifth
Dynasty”, JEA 79 (1993), 272. 71
Twenty local rulers who were established or confirmed in power by the Assyrian Emperor
Esarhaddon in 671, and reappointed by Ashurbanipal a few years later, are named in the Assyrian
records. Of these, six can be identified: Necho of Sais, Bakennefi of Athribis, Pakruru of Pispodu,
Sehetepibre Pedubast in Tanis, Nespamedu in Thinis and Montuemhat in Thebes: Leahy 1979, 31-9.
xlvi
In summary Shebitqo came to the throne no later than 706 BC and Shabaqo no later
than 719 BC. If Piye’s reign continued into his 31st year the campaign of year 20
would have taken place in approximately 731 BC.
II.10 Shabaqo
Shabaqo was a son of Kashta and brother to Amunirdis I.72
His defeat of Bakenrenef
seems to have had a more lasting effect than Piye’s defeat of Tefnakht: Bakenrenef is
the only king of the Twenty-fourth dynasty according to Manetho. Significantly,
rather than returning to Napata, Shabaqo may have established his residence at
Memphis73
allowing him more easily to retain control of the whole of Egypt: a series
of inscriptions mentioning his name and fragmentary evidence of minor buildings in
the area attests to his presence ,74
and the ‘Memphite Theology’ which was inscribed
on a block of stone now in the British Museum dating to the reign of Shabaqo and
emphasizes the importance of Memphis as ‘the balance of the two lands’,75
may be
taken as further indication of the importance of this location to the king at this time.
As well as the building at Memphis the new king’s reign also saw the beginning of a
programme of monumental renewal, embellishment and construction at several
Theban temples making the Kushite presence visible for the first time, and reviving
the image of the city’s monuments.
Shabaqo also seems to have been more involved in direct relations with international
contacts in the Near East, perhaps cause or effect of his establishment of a residence
in Memphis. According to Kahn in 720 his commander met the Assyrian forces in a
pitched battle at Raphiah and, according to Assyrian accounts, was defeated.76
II.11 Shebitqo
72
Morkot 2000, 205. 73
As is asserted in Morkot 2000, 205. 74
Jurman 2009, 122-3. 75
Morkot 2000, 217-8. 76
Kahn 2006, 251. As has been pointed out by Jansen-Winkeln however, the Nubian troops involved
may have been mercenaries and not in the service of the Kushite king: Jansen-Winkeln 2006d, 260,
n.174.
xlvii
In contrast to his predecessor, evidence for the activities of Shebitqo in Egypt is
sparse. Manetho asserted that he was a son of Shabaqo.77
On the basis of the theory
of brother succession which has been applied to the Kushite royal line, it has also
been suggested that he was a son of Piye and elder brother of Taharqo, but as has
recently been argued by Morkot78
and Kahn79
it seems more likely that in this case
Manetho was correct.
Very few inscriptions dating to Shebitqo’s reign are known. Karnak Nile Level text
no. 33 was inscribed in his year 3,80
the highest known, and he also built a chapel by
the sacred lake at Karnak81
and enlarged, with Amunirdis I, the chapel of Osiris
Heqa-Djet also at Karnak,82
and his name was inscribed on the southern exterior wall
of the Luxor temple.83
The head of a seated statue and unattributed block have also
been found at Memphis,84
which may also have been Shebitqo’s main residence.85
II.12 Taharqo
Shebitqo was succeeded by Taharqo, a son of Piye about whom we know more than
we do about any of the other Kushite kings. Kawa stela V tells us that Taharqa
“received the crown in Memphis”. His years 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 21, 24 and 26 are
securely attested, and his names appears on monuments found throughout Egypt and
Nubia.86
By this point the Kushites were well established in Egypt. Monuments in the name of
Shabaqo particularly and also Shebitqo could be found throughout the country, and
the Libyan princess Shepenwepet I had been succeeded as God’s Wife of Amun by
77
Waddell 1940, 169. 78
Morkot 2000, 223-4. 79
Kahn 2005, 160. 80
Eide et al 1994, 128-9. 81
Ritner 2009, 501-5. 82
Leclant 1965, 47-54. 83
Leclant 1965, 139-40 84
PM II.ii, 837, 839. 85
Aston (2009, 24) states that Shebitqo chose Memphis as his capital late in his reign and Broekman
et al (2009, ix) that “During the 25th
Dynasty Shebitku and Taharqa made Memphis their seat of
residence, so there is no debate about that.” Though no evidence is provided in either case. 86
Dallibor 2005, 203-32.
xlviii
the Kushite princess Amunirdis I during the reign of Shebitqo at the latest.87
There
would be no significant external threat to the Kushite regime until the second half of
Taharqo’s reign (see below) and there is no evidence of any internal uprising of the
kind quelled by Piye and Shabaqo. The construction of the series of large private
tombs belonging to officials such as Karakhamun may also have begun by this
point,88
and would continue during the reign of Taharqo.
Piye had clearly not ousted any of the local rulers at the time of his campaign, instead
preferring to retain them as loyal vassals. It is reasonable to assume that Shabaqo
pursued a similar policy with the exception of his execution of the Saite ruler
Bakenrenef, and that similar measures had been taken from at least as early as the
rule of Piye onwards in Thebes. Our knowledge of the officials of the Theban region
in the period leading up to the Kushite conquest and thereafter is extensive and
discussed in more detail below. It is clear however that several key appointments
were made, in some cases disrupting the existing system in which many of the most
prominent offices were held successively by members of a small number of
prominent families. Although precise dates for the installation of these individuals
elude us, it is notable that in addition to the God’s Wife Amunirdis and her adoptive
heiress, the daughter of Piye, Shepenwepet II, the office of Chief Priest of Amun
would be given to a son of Shabaqo, Haremakhet, and that of Second Priest to a son
of Taharqo, Nesshutefnut.
The network of sanctuaries dedicated to Amun on both sides of the Nile in Thebes
was added to and renewed during the Kushite Period and probably reached a peak of
splendour during the reign of Taharqo. It was along the processional route leading to
the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri that the very largest private tombs of the
Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth Dynasties were built, beginning with the tomb of
Harwa, construction of which was probably underway at the beginning of the reign
of Taharqo.
87
She appears as the living God’s Wife alongside representations of Shebitqo in the chapel of Osiris
Heqa-Djet at Karnak: Leclant 1965, 47-54, Ayad 2009a, 18. See also Ayad 2009b, 29-49. See also
Chapter 4. 88
Pischikova 2008, 187.
xlix
The second half of the reign of Taharqo saw Kushite rule significantly weakened by
the Assyrians. During the first two decades of the 7th
century BC Egypt and the
Assyrian Empire seem to have been at peace, but in 679 BC Sennacherib’s successor
Esarhaddon undertook a campaign in the south-western part of the empire to restore
Assyrian control of the Levantine region, eliminating Kushite influence there in the
process. In 677-6 BC Esarhaddon quelled a rebellion in the Levant after which his
grip on the region was secure, nonetheless the Assyrian Emperor seems to have felt
that the only way to prevent permanently the Kushites from reasserting themselves
was to invade Egypt and to drive them southwards away from the Egyptian border.
The Assyrians were defeated in a battle on Egyptian soil in 673 BC, but returned
more successfully in 671 BC when Memphis was sacked, Taharqo wounded and his
son and brothers captured. The Assyrians then quickly imposed a tribute and
appointed governors to rule as Assyrian vassals.89
After this point, Kushite influence was reduced. Assyrian texts suggest that Taharqo
was still perceived as being a threat by the Assyrians, and he is listed as one of three
main enemies to the west of the Empire, in late 671 BC / early 670 BC. However, it
seems that he had lost control of the Delta after the invasion of 671 BC, to Necho of
Sais, who ruled western Lower Egypt, and Sarruludari, who ruled the East.
Another text of 671-669 BC suggests that an Assyrian envoy, whom it was planned
would journey to Egypt, was faced with the threat of attack from Necho, Sarruludari
and/or the other vassals, suggesting that regardless of Taharqo’s relationship with the
vassals they were certainly not loyal to the Assyrians at this time. The situation in the
Delta was undoubtedly different to that in Thebes, but this is nonetheless interesting
for the light it sheds on the relationship of the Kushites to local rulers.
Esarhaddon died on his way to Egypt in 669 BC. The next Assyrian intervention in
Egypt took place in 668/7 BC, as a reaction to Taharqo’s reestablishment in Egypt.
The Assyrian forces defeated Taharqo at Kar Banite (the location of which has yet to
be identified), Taharqo fled from Memphis and the Assyrians then travelled upriver
to Thebes, but the sources do not record what happened there. A stela from Karnak
89
See n. 71.
l
records a victory of Taharqo’s in the Theban area, but does not state the enemy was
the Assyrians.90
During this invasion of 667 BC or immediately thereafter a rebellion
against the Assyrians was planned by Necho, Sarruludari and Paqrer. The conspiracy
was discovered and the rebellion quelled leading to the punishment of several Delta
rulers. For some reason Necho was reinstalled at Sais and his son NabuSezibanni,
commonly identified with Psamtek I, was given charge of Athribis. The Delta then
remained in the hands of the Assyrians but Taharqo never lost at Thebes and
continued to be recognised there until 665 BC.
Without more evidence for the precise dates at which the monuments of Taharqo, the
God’s Wives, and Montuemhat were constructed it is impossible to know whether
there was a clear trend away from building in the name of the king to initiatives of
others but we might speculate that the Assyrian recognition of Montuemhat signified
a shift in the balance of power at Thebes and perhaps more widely. Nonetheless that
Taharqo continued to be recognized in Thebes is not in doubt as is confirmed by a
sandstone stela commemorating the restoration of the enclosure wall of the Amun
complex at Karnak in his year 24.91
After this point Taharqo died and was replaced by Tanwetamani who, according to
the Dream Stela, marched northwards to reassert Kushite rule over the country. He
reconquered Memphis and shortly thereafter received the submission of the Delta
rulers, and killed the Assyrian ally Necho. Tanwetamani was ultimately defeated
however, either by Ashurbanipal or by Psamtek I. The Assyrians pursued him to
Thebes which they then sacked. Tanwetamani continued to be recognised at Thebes
beyond this point.92
However, Papyrus Rylands IX suggests that a non-royal
individual, Pediese, the ‘Master of Shipping,’ was in control of the region from
Psamtek’s year 4.93
90
Kahn 2006, 259, n. 52. 91
Spencer, P, ‘Digging Diary 2006-2007’ EA 31 (2007), 26. 92
See e.g. the date of year 9 on a genealogical inscription from the temple of Luxor: Vittmann 1983,
351. 93
Pressl 1998, 66.
Top Related