CHAPTER EIGHT

Egypt to the Persian Conquest

The next big surprise in Egyptian history is the dating of Ramesses the Great and Dynasty XIX. Few scholars were willing to consider the evidence, presented in 1945, for dating Ramesses about seven centuries later than the conventional dating (see "Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History," "Scripta Academica-Hierosolymitana", Scientific Report III, by Immanuel Velikovsky).

Ramesses the Great was a contemporary of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon! The king of Hatti whom Ramesses fought at Kadesh was the Chaldean king Nebuchadnezzar. At the rise of Babylon to a world power, Nebuchadnezzar had conquered Hatti -- the ancient name of Syria, Palestine and a portion of Asia Minor.

The site of the battle of Kadesh, which Ramesses made so famous in his monuments, was not a city on the Orontes River in Syria, but the famous city of Carchemish. Kadesh is a Semitic word for "holy." Kadesh was a holy city. A number of cities in the ancient world bore the name Kadesh because they were holy places. Carchemish was famous -- as was Jerusalem -- as a holy city. The Greek name of Carchemish was Hieropolis, meaning Holy City.

Before proceeding with the detailed relationship between Ramesses and Nebuchadnezzar, we should first establish the chronology of the period from Manetho's transcribers. The exact dating of Dynasty XVIII (and preceding dynasties) has been established and confirmed by the Biblical record. Dynasty XIX follows Dynasty XVIII -- and therefore ruled in the eighth, seventh and sixth centuries B.C.

The following table establishes the proper chronology of the period.
 

The Egyptian year at this period began January 1 531 B.C. and January 1, 524 B.C. This makes the calendar year 525 the last full year of Thuoris. With Queen Thuoris, a contemporary of Psamtik III, this royal line of Egypt and Nubia died out as Ezekiel foretold.

Dynasty XIX has been greatly confused in history books because historians carelessly discarded Manetho. They confounded several Ramesses in Manetho's list into one. It will be proved later that the Ramesses who ruled from 773 to 705 was the Ethiopian Piankhi. Modern historians have long assumed Manetho overlooked him. He didn't. Ramesses (773-705) is not a mere duplicate of Rampses (610-544). They are two different individuals.

The last documented year of Ramesses the Great recorded on any monument in Egypt is year 44 -- 567-566. The dynasty withdrew to Nubia following Nebuchadnezzar's attack on Egypt.

The "Israel" Inscription

This restoration of history for the first time makes sense out of the Egyptian account of "Israel" under Ramesses' son, Merenptah.

The name "Israel" has been clearly found only once in all Egyptian annals. This illustrates how inadequate is archaeology when used as the whole source of knowledge. The single inscription appears from the reign of Merenptah, son of Ramesses the Great. It is often referred to as the "Israel Stela." The reference to Israel is as follows:
 

"... Plundered is the Canaan with every evil;
"Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; ...
"Israel is laid waste, his seed is not ...."
(See Pritchard, "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", page 378.)

It is to be specially noted that in the Egyptian text all names are preceded with a determinative sign meaning land, except for the name of Israel. The hieroglyphic determinative which precedes the name of Israel refers to people, not land. The record of Merenptah is therefore a historical account of the disappearance of the people of Israel from Palestine. This was never completely fulfilled until the captivity of the House of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar!

For decades historians have attempted to read into this document an account of the exodus, or of Joshua's invasion! Utter nonsense! It is a contemporary record of the deportation of the last remnant of the people of Israel from Palestine.

The "Thirteen Fatal Years"

In Josephus' "Contra Apionem", I, 26-31, there is a remarkable account of Egyptian calumnies against the Jews involving this period. The story involves "thirteen fatal years," and foreign invaders who polluted the Egyptian religious temples. The Egyptian Manetho made it appear that the enemies of Egypt were the Jews. The enemies were not the Jews but the Assyrians who sent their troops into Egypt, conquered the land and polluted its religious worship.

The setting of the event is during the time of an Amenophis. Josephus doubted such an individual lived. Josephus was correct in assuming the account was propaganda against Jews, but he was incorrect in denying the historical reality of the personages involved. Amenophis, king of Egypt, had, at the beginning of the thirteen years of exile, a five-year-old son Sethos. Young Sethos was named Ramesses after his grandfather. Amenophis was subject to the Ethiopian king, Manetho reports.

The grandfather Ramesses is the Ramesses who rules from 773-705. The Amenophis is his son who ruled during the years 705-665 (including the 13-year exile). The 5-year old son is Sethos (665-610), father of Ramesses the Great. The period is the Assyrian occupation during Dynasty XXV.

Nebuchadnezzar and Ramesses the Great

As final proof of the dating of Ramesses' reign to 610-544, notice the parallels between Egypt and Chaldaea. The history of Chaldaea for this period is best summarized in the "Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings" 626-556 (B.C.), edited by D.J. Wiseman, 1956 edition. Egyptian source material may be found in J.H. Breasted's "Ancient Records of Egypt", vol. III.

From these Chaldaean and Egyptian records the following events are extracted.
 

Here is historical confirmation of astounding significance. We have proceeded with the restoration of Egyptian history from its earliest period. That restoration required that Ramesses the Great be placed in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. -- contemporary with Nebuchadnezzar. And when the pages of history are opened for those centuries. the parallels are there!

In conclusion. note the deeds of Ramesses "the Great" found on the monuments under the name of Tirhakah, in classical tradition a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar.

Inscriptions found upon certain reliefs at Medinet-Habu -- the Pylon of the Ethiopians -- record the statement that a king Tirhakah claimed sovereignty over Western Mesopotamia, the land of Hatti, part of Assyria, as well as Libya and other regions of Africa (G. Daressy, "Medinet Habou", page 9). Scholars immediately recognized this vast realm was unhistorical for the Tirhakah of Dynasty XXV. The list was pronounced "worthless." Then Mariette discerned that the same record appeared elsewhere on the base of a colossal statue of Ramesses II. (See Mariette's "Karnak", page 67, plate 18.) Mariette refused to believe his eyes. But there was the evidence: This Tirhakah was indeed Ramesses "the Great."

"Curiously enough," admits E.A. Wallis Budge in "A History of Egypt", vol. VI, page 157, "Tirhakah obtained the reputation of being a great traveller and conqueror, and Strabo, under the name of 'Tearko the Ethiopian,' mentions him ... as one whose expeditions were not generally known." (See "Strabo", book I, chapter 3, part 21.) "In another place he quotes Megasthenes, who says that ... Tearko the Ethiopian advanced as far as Europe ...." (See "Strabo", book XV, chapter 1, part 6.)

Catching Up Loose Ends

Now to complete the restoration of Dynasty XIX from archaeology and Manetho's transcribers. According to Eusebius, Manetho assigns 8 years (544-536) to Ammenephthis (known as Merenptah from archaeology). In Syncellus' copy of Eusebius' epitome of Manetho the figure given is 40 years -- that is 576-536. Now see this confirmed from archaeological sources:
 

Compare this chart, based on archaeological evidence, with the record of Manetho. The reign of Merenptah (Ammenephthis) is given as 8 years in the Armenian version of Eusebius. This eight year period followed the reign of Ramesses. But Syncellus' copy of Eusebius' Manetho reads 40 years. Merenptah therefore reigned jointly with his father Ramesses for 32 years. Since the 10-year reign of Merenptah is recorded in Egypt, and not solely in Nubia, these ten years are Merenptah's first ten years -- 576-566. Merenptah continued his reign in Nubia after Egypt was depopulated between 570 and 566 by the Chaldaeans.

The reign of Ramesses in Nubia was followed by those of Sethos II, Siptah and Twosre. All the historical inscriptions of Siptah are Nubian graffiti, primarily from Wadi Halfa. Here again is confirmation of Ezekiel's prophecy of Egypt's 40-year desolation (Eze. 29:8-16).

The tombs of these rulers are all found in Egypt. The explanation is simple. Manetho's longer figures indicate that each began to reign in Egypt jointly with Ramesses before the land became desolate. Notice these additional figures from Manetho confirming the joint reigns!
 

For the date 656 marking the beginning of the reign of Sethos, see Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaohs", p. 450, especially the comment on the reign of Tanuatamun.

With this, the restoration of Dynasty XIX has been completed. But what are we to do with all the other dynastic houses which, historians say, ruled Egypt during these centuries? And who is that other long-lived Ramesses dated 773-705?

Dynasty XXV, the Ethiopians

Drop back in time to the end of the eighth century B.C. This is the period of Ethiopian rule of Egypt. The evidence from Assyrian sources for the proper dating of this period is so overwhelming historians have been unable to upset it.

From archaeological discoveries the reigns of the recognized kings of Dynasty XXV appear as follows:
 

In 663 Thebes was sacked by the Assyrian king Assurbanipal. In 663 Taharka was succeeded by another Ethiopian Bakare Tanuatamun, whom the Assyrians named Urdamane. Archaeology has recovered indications of only 8 regnal years, but the history of Dynasty XXVI of Sais preserves evidence that his reign following the destruction of Thebes was 9 years -- 663-654.

The account of Dynasty XXV from Eusebius provides additional information of joint rulership not discovered by archaeologists.
 

The name of Tanuatamun does not appear in the dynasty. In the book of Sothis the names are as follows: 75 Sabacon; 76 Sebechon; 77 Taraces. The lengths of reign are those of Eusebius.

A comparison of Eusebius' Manetho with archaeological finds indicates Shabako and Shebitku reigned as equals for 3 years -- 695-692, as did Shebitku and Taharka for 6 years -- 689-683.

The account of Africanus differs somewhat from that of Eusebius.
 

The shorter reign of Sabacon will be explained later by the 46-year reign of Bochchoris, preserved by Eusebius. Thus:
 

In Africanus it may be observed that Sebichos (Shebitku) is found associated on the throne in 697, two years earlier than the coregency indicated by Eusebius. A Biblical parallel may be observed in the relationship of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram. Jehoshaphat associated his son Jehoram on the throne with him in year 17, but it was not till year 22 that he was made full co-regent (compare I Kings 22 with II Kings 1 and 8).

Again these figures illustrate that if all the information is available, the records fit perfectly.

Scribal errors are not the cause of the variations. More important is the individual author's evaluation of events which leads him to emphasize different dates.

The short 18-year reign of Taharka (to 665 instead of 663) is easily accounted for by Egyptian and Assyrian information. Two years after Assurbanipal attacked Memphis (667) the Assyrian records indicate Tanuatamun came to the throne. He was king of Egypt during the final Assyrian attack on Thebes in 663. Though archaeology has provided no documents mentioning a joint reign, the classical writers plainly confirm the Assyrian record. Taharka and Tanuatamun were ruling jointly for two years: 665-663. With the end of the reign of Tanuatamun the last vestiges of Ethiopian control of Egypt cease.

Dynasty XXVI of Sais

The Ethiopian rule over Lower Egypt ended in 663 with the end of the reign of Taharka. Thereafter It passed to Dynasty XIX. In Lower Egypt in that year Dynasty XXVI of Sais rose to power. It was established by Assyrian authority, but its rulers were, to some extent, related to the Ethiopian Theban line by marriage. From the monument the following list of kings, parallel with Dynast; XIX Thebes in Upper Egypt, has been firmly established.
 

The Persian invasion occurred in the year 525 and the line of Egyptian royalty passed from the scene. The princes that had ruled Egypt for centuries ceased. At this point the proof of the restoration of Egyptian history is established. It agrees to the very year -- from the Tower of Babel in 2254 to the Persian conquest in 525.

Though the archaeological record for the last Saite dynasty is amply demonstrated, some scholars have been puzzled by the dating of the last king Psamtik. A record early in his year 2 has been found. The answer is, of course, that he counted the 44th year of Amasis, during which he came to the throne, as his first year. This method of pre-dating hereafter became the usual mode of reckoning the Persian rulers in native annals. Psamtik's six months of reign overlapped the end of one calendar year and the beginning of the next, hence the date "year 2" during which he was overthrown.

The classical writers preserve some important additional information concerning Dynasty XXVI that is not known from archaeology.

Manetho's Account of Dynasty XXVI

The evidence from Herodotus is especially valuable, as it gives a fuller view of joint reigns of the various kings. His information for the reign of Apries, the Hophra of the Bible, is as follows:
 

The overlap of Necho II is insignificant. But it is worthy of note that Herodotus pictures Apries and Psammetichos exercising power from the same year. Both Africanus and Eusebius preserve a short reign of 6 years for Necho II, and Eusebius assigns 17 to Psammetichos. Thus:
 

Psammetichos died in the early part of 588, near the beginning of his 17th calendar year. From this it appears that Psammetichos and his father Necho shared the throne jointly for 10 years -- 604-594.

In Eusebius' "Chronicon" another set of regnal years (though improperly dated) is preserved for Apries and Psammetichos:
 

Here again one sees that Apries exercised equal authority with Psammetichos II even prior to his sole reign, whatever the significance of the year 599 may be.

Eusebius has two other variants of historical significance. He assigns Amasis 42 years only 567-525 -- dated from his expulsion by the Chaldaeans to Cyprus. Also, Eusebius assigns for the Theban reign of Psammetichos I 45 years (according to Syncellus) and 44 in the Armenian Version. These may be easily understood if 9 years (to be proved from book of Sothis) are assigned to Tanutamun, nephew of Taharka, and if 610 and 609 are considered the beginnings of the reign of Necho II. It should be remembered that Psamtik I ruled in Lower Egypt nine years before his first year at Thebes commenced.
 

These are not scribal blunders, but consistent evaluations based upon different points of view. Some dates are predated, others postdated. The year 610 is predated. It marks the year in which Ramesses the Great, Necho's contemporary, rose to power. Dynasty XIX of Thebes and Dynasty XXVI of Sais were undoubtedly related. Their kings participated on joint ventures -- as, for example, the wars of Ramesses and Necho with Nebuchadnezzar.

Before the reign of Psamtik I, Manetho preserves a number of kings not included in archaeological lists. From Africanus the following list may be drawn up.
 

Eusebius adds the following extra information from Manetho not preserved by Africanus:
 

The remainder of the list is the same as Africanus'.

Book of Sothis and Dynasty XXVI

Before restoring other dynasties of this period, look at the book of Sothis. It ends with additional figures for the Saite dynasty. It appears so divergent from all other records that it has been totally rejected. Yet its details agree with this restoration of history. In the following chart the dates have been inserted, after which they will be analyzed.
 

Several of these dates are in chronological order, others are not. In numerous instances the reigns apparently indicate the total length of public service. They take on meaning only after a consecutive chronology for the period has been established.

What is the significance of Nechepsos' 13-year reign? According to Manetho, his 7-years' reign ended in 671 at the Assyrian invasion of Esarhaddon. The 13 years of his reign must therefore precede that date. His reign parallels that of Stephinathes, beginning 684.

In the Sothic list Amaes is given as the successor of Taharka. (The break in continuity occurs after Amaes' name, not before.) Tanuatamun was his Egyptian name. Urdamane is the name in Assyrian. He was the son of Shebitku and nephew of Taharka. He reigned as late as calendar year 655-654 according to Manetho. His 38-year reign would therefore extend from 692-654. It is significant that in 692 Shebitku assumed control of the government according to the archaeological record of Dynasty XXV. Shebitku then associated his son on the throne with him when he came to power.

Necho II's 9 years of reign in the book of Sothis immediately precedes an unusual 34 years of Hophra. This evidence indicates that Hophra, or Apries, assumed powers of government in 600. It explains the emphasis placed by one account of Eusebius on the next (postdated) year -- 599 -- as the commencement of the reign of both Psamtik II and Apries.

But did Hophra live into the calendar year 567-566? Indeed he did. His death is recorded on the Elephantine Stela as occurring in Year 3 of Amasis. Amasis' year 3 was from 567-566. The 50-year reign of Amasis is obviously his sole rule and co-regency.

And what is the origin of the unusual dating of Psammetichus? For an explanation we must turn to an earlier portion of the Book of Sothis.

Another Look at Book of Sothis

The account commences with the end of Dynasty XVIII.
 

This unusual list seems clearly to be based on political events and royal family relationships otherwise unrecorded. Notice the reign of Psammuthis (Psammetichus), beginning in 648. Observe also the date 702. Compare this with the 18-year reign of Ameres from Eusebius' version of Manetho's Dynasty XXVI presented earlier. Ameris the Ethiopian succeeded Ramesses-Piankhi the Ethiopian in 702.

Now turn back Egyptian history to the beginning of the Ethiopian period in Egypt.

Appearance of Dynasty XXIV of Sais

Immediately before the reign of Shabako of Dynasty XXV the city of Sais, in the Delta, became prominent in politics. Its dynasty is famous for one man, Bochchoris. His father Tefnakhte was of much less importance. The classical writers mention only Bochchoris. Archaeologists recovered the name of Tefnachte. The total duration of Dynasty XXIV was 44 years.

Africanus assigns only 6 years to Bochchoris, but Eusebius and the book of Sothis each attribute 44 years to him. The variation allows for a simple explanation. Tefnakhte, Bochchoris' father, was a local prince before he became king. At the time he rose to kingship he associated his son with him on the throne. Tefnachte must have survived 38 years. The dates of the dynasty are as follows:
 

or

The end of the official reign of Bochchoris is 707.

In one document Eusebius indicates Bochchoris survived two more years, for he assigns 46 years to his entire reign -- 751-705.

Africanus informs us that Bochchoris was captured by his successor Sabacon (Shabako).

Who Was Usimare Piankhi?

The pages of history must be turned back a few years again to establish the identity of the Ethiopian Usimare Piankhi, of Dynasty XXV, the immediate predecessor of Shabako, who ruled over all Egypt in the eighth century before the present era. By archaeologists Piankhi is determined to be the father of Taharka (689-663), and of Shebitku (692-689), and the brother of Shabako (perhaps the English "half-brother" would be more correct).

All archaeologists have expressed surprise that Manetho would have neglected so famous a ruler! But Manetho did not neglect him! The annals of Usimare Pianki reveal who he was.

No archaeologist professes to know when Piankhi obtained control of Egypt. They do know, however, that in the year 21 of his reign a rebellion broke out in Egypt against his rule. (Breasted, "Ancient Records", vol. IV, page 418). The leader of the revolt was Tefnakhte, the father of Bochchoris. In the Piankhi stela Tefnakhte is commencing his rise to power; he is not yet a king. His official title is only great prince. Upon hearing of the attempt to seize the Delta, Usimare Piankhi ordered his troops in Egypt to quell the rebels, while he remained in Napata, Nubia. The revolt was not quelled. Then, in the succeeding year (see Breasted's footnote on the dating in the Piankhi Stela), Piankhi himself led an expedition and drove Tefnakhte into the marshes of the Delta. An agreement was finally signed before the two, and local autonomy seems to have been granted Tefnakhte, the founder of Dynasty XXIV.

Now turn to the tables of the rulers of Dynasty XXIV of Sais. The 21st and 22nd calendar years of Piankhi's reign must have preceded the first year of Tefnakhte rulership (751-750) for in Piankhi's inscriptions Tefnakhte was not yet king. Here are the limits. The 21st and 22nd years of Usimare Piankhi must not be later than 751. What famous king was in Egypt already in control of Egypt in these years, whose 21st year was 753-752 and whose 22nd year was 752-751 at the latest?

Only one! Ramesses Aegyptus at the end of Dynasty XVIII of Manetho. Ramesses Aegyptus (773-707) was of the Cushite line of Sheba that had been ruling Egypt from Solomon's day. They had intermarried for generations with Egyptians. Piankhi was also a Cushite or Ethiopian ruling Egypt. Archaeologists have discovered his Ethiopian name. They have completely overlooked the fact that Manetho mentioned him under his Egyptian name.

Archaeological evidence indicates that Ramesses-Piankhi made Napata in Nubia his royal city, ruling Egypt from Thebes. The other kings of Dynasty XVIII who succeeded Ay also must have made Nubia their center of operations, since archaeologists have not been able to find evidence for them in Egypt. They have ruled through General Haremhab.

Now consider what occurred in Lower Egypt prior to the Dynasty of Tefnakhte and Bochchoris of Sais.

Dynasty XXIII of Tanis

Dynasty XXIV of Sais was preceded in Lower Egypt by Dynasty XXIII of Tanis. Here are the facts surrounding the new royal family ruling in Lower Egypt while the Thebans of Dynasties XVIII and XIX ruled from Upper Egypt. In the following table "A" and "E" stand for Africanus and Eusebius.
 

For the dynasty the book of Sothis provides the following:
 

These figures may, at first, seem confusing. They can be immediately simplified by the following arrangements.
 

The year of overlap of Osorthon with Petubastis is probably the result of the co-regency having commenced during the 25th year.

This dynasty is very important in Greek history. Africanus wrote of Petubates: "in his reign of the Olympic festival was first celebrated" ("Manetho", by Waddell, page 161). The Olympic festival commenced in 776, about the middle of Pedubastes' reign.

Further, Osorthon, or Osorcho, was by the "Egyptians called Heracles." In Greek history, Heracles lived three generations before the famous Trojan War. He was also the originator of the Olympic games. No historian has ever been able to reconcile these two facts. The reason? None recognize that there were two major Trojan Wars -- one ending 1181, the other over 500 years later in 677. The full story of this dynasty and of the Trojan War must wait the restoration of Greek history.

Documents have been found dated to year 6 of Pedubast and year 12 of an unnamed king, and to year 16 of Pedubast and year 2 of Yewepet. Yewepet was king of Mendes, but none of the Mendesian dynasties have been recorded by Manetho. These parallel datings with Mendesian kings are of value in dating Piankhi contemporary with Dynasty XXIII of Tanis. (See references in Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaoh's", page 449; "L'Egypte", by Drioton and Vandier, vol. II, page 542, Elgood, "Later Dynasties of Egypt", page 52.)

Eusebius, unlike Africanus, ended Dynasty XXIII of Tanis with the reign of Psammus in 751, at which point he took up the Dynasty of Sais.

The date of 794 for the beginning of Dynasty XXIII is undoubtedly associated with events in the reigns of Acherres (802-794) and Cherres (794-779). But neither history nor archaeology has preserved any worthwhile events for this period.

In Manetho, Dynasty XXIII of Tanis was preceded by a royal family of foreign origin. It was Libyan, numbered Dynasty XXII and ruled from Bubastis.

Dynasty XXII of Bubastis

Few points in Egyptian history are more misunderstood than this dynasty. Archaeologists have turned up a wealth of information pertaining to Libyans from Bubastis. But they have failed to notice that their kingly line is utterly different in number and sequence from Manetho's. First, one must compare Manetho with history. Then the archaeological evidence must be examined.

Diodorus of Sicily tells us that during the reign of Horus the Libyans from North Africa west of Egypt came into Egypt during the expansion of their realm and dominated the land. That Horus is the Orus of the Greeks the Akhenaton of Dynasty XVIII!

In the previous investigation of this dynasty it should be noted that Orus or Akhenaton actually lived longer than the mere 17-years assigned to his reign by archaeological investigation. Manetho assigns him a reign that even outlasts Ay. This explains several enigmas that historians have puzzled over.

The most plausible moment for the Libyans to have established their dynasty would be just after the death of Ay, in 837, while Akhenaton (Orus) still lived. At this moment in history a curtain of silence descends on the family of Akhenaton. How long Libyan control in lower Egypt lasted may be determined by examining Assyrian records of Egypt. When Essarhaddon and Assurbanipal invaded the land of Egypt in 671-663 they found no Libyan dynasty ruling at Bubastis. But 90 years earlier Piankhi the Ethiopian specifically names a Libyan as king in Bubastis. (See Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", pp. 289-295 for the Assyrian account.) The only recorded king of the Libyans mentioned in the Bible is "So, king of Egypt" (II Kings 17:4). The king's full name would be the Libyan "Soshenk" or "Soshenq".

For years the name Soshenk has been mistaken for the Biblical Shishak. The assumption is that the Libyans under Soshenk attacked Jerusalem after the death of Solomon. Impossible. No philologist can demonstrate why the "n" should have disappeared from Soshenk to become Shishak.

Several historians have questioned the authenticity of the Biblical So. But they need not have done so. The account of So is preserved by the Assyrians in the records of Sargon. In Assyrian the name is spelled Sib'e. The Greek Septuasint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament renders the name "Soba". According to the Biblical record So was a Delta king second in rank to the Ethiopian rulers of Upper Egypt. For that reason the Assyrians refer to him as "Turtan", or second in command, to the great "Pir'u" or Pharaoh.

King So or Sib'e conspired with Hoshea, king of Israel. The time was the calendar year 722-721. The Assyrians quickly heard of it. Sargon dispatched his army to Israel. "At the beginning of my royal rule" (in 721 -- the accession year of Sargon) the Assyrian king besieged and captured Samaria, carried away 27,290 captives and imprisoned King Hoshea. "I installed over them an officer of mine and imposed upon them the tribute of the former king," reports Sargon. In the second year of Sargon's rule (720) "Hanno, king of Gaza and also Sib'e, the "turtan" of Egypt set out from Rapihu against me to deliver a decisive battle. I defeated them; Sib'e ran away ... and has not been seen again" (Pritchard's Texts, pp. 284-285). So disappeared from the scene in 720.

Using the date of 720 as a guide for the reconstruction of the Bubastite Libyan Dynasty, the following table may be constructed.
 

It is significant that 720 also marks the full end of Dynasty XXIII of Tanis, with the demise of Zet. Assyrian power overwhelmed the petty dynasts and the Pir'u (Pharaoh) himself offered the Assyrians tribute to keep the peace.

Manetho's transcribers have not recorded the names of each of the three other kings. From contemporary sources discovered through excavations in the past century the following names may be supplied. For the period extending from 762 to 720 the Ethiopian Piankhi names "King Namlot and King Yewepet. Chief ... Sheshonk, of Per-Osiris (Busiris) ... King Osorkon, who was in Per-Bast (Bubastis)." (Breasted's "Ancient Records", vol. IV, pp. 423-424, 439) All these were Libyan kings in the Delta of Egypt at the time of Piankhi's war in the years 753-751. Manetho's second group of "three other kings" are here named, together with So or Sib'e. The implication is that during this period the Bubastite family ruled the Delta from three cities -- Osorkon in Bubastis, Yewepet in Tentremu and Tayan, and Namlot in Hermopolis. At a later time anyone of these three kings would have been replaced in his local realm by a son or other near relative. That is probably how So, thirty years later, came to be one of three kings.

For the same threefold division for the earlier period -- 800-775 -- we have the mention of a Libyan king Yewepet (who came to power in 780) as a contemporary with the Tanite king Pedibast. It is doubtful that any other names have yet been recovered.

So-called Dynasty XXII

Archaeologists and historians have totally discarded Manetho's account of Dynasty XXII. They have substituted for it a totally different group of Libyan kings and mislabeled it "Dynasty XXII." They never asked themselves whether they may have found another dynasty of Libyans not mentioned by Manetho. They took for granted without proof, that Manetho couldn't be correct.

It is admitted by all historians that the so-called Libyan Dynasty XXII followed Dynasty XX of Thebes. When did Dynasty XX of Thebes rule? After Dynasty XIX. But that would put Dynasty XX of Thebes after the Persian conquest of Egypt in 525 -- the date for the end of Dynasty XIX.

That shocking fact will be proved in the next chapter! There it will be established that Dynasty XX of Thebes governed Egypt during the fourth and third centuries B.C.! The Libyan Dynasty archaeologists have discovered therefore existed sometime during the Ptolemaic period of Egyptian history!

These kings of so-called Libyan Dynasty XXII were not Pharaohs in the ancient sense. They were only local dynasts -- similar to the princes and kings of colonial areas in the nineteenth and early twentieth century of the present era.

The kings of this mislabeled dynasty boasted of being related through intermarriage to the "royal sons of Ramesses" (page 327 of Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaohs" and other volumes for this period). Historians are hard pressed to explain away the "royal sons of Ramesses" who survived their father upwards of two centuries! They were indeed what the monuments and stelae claim, the sons of the Ramessides of Dynasty XX.

The monuments and historical inscriptions of the true Dynasty XXII are scarce. Nevertheless archaeology has contributed greatly to our knowledge of the later Bubastite royal family. No small portion of it has been derived from the foreboding Memphite Serapeum, a vast subterranean structure where Apis bulls were buried. It was reopened by the Greek king of Egypt, Ptolemy I, after the Persians had forbidden its use.

Discovered by Mariette in 1851, the Serapeum contained huge sarcophagi with mummies of no less than sixty-four bulls. During its lifetime an Apis bull was worshipped as the embodiment of Apis -- a name connected with Orisis. On its death and replacement by another living animal it was mummified and buried with pomp. Stelae were erected in the Serapeum designating, among numerous details, its time of birth, time of death and length of life. The chronological value of the find is obvious. Its historical value negligible.

From the monuments, Nilometer inscriptions and these stelae the following restoration of the so-called Dynasty XXII of Bubastis is now possible.

Here briefly is the proper restoration of the later Libyans during the Hellenistic period.
 

The Roman numerals given after the preceding rulers are those assigned by archaeologists. They are not correct and overlook completely earlier rulers of the real Dynasty XXII mentioned by Manetho. The priest Manetho lived and wrote during the early third century B.C. and died 150 years before the last of these Libyans from Bubastis reigned! No wonder they are not mentioned by Manetho!

These dates are established by the following facts. Soshenk "I" built the Bubastite Portal adjoining a small temple of Ramesses III of Dynasty XX. This Portal was built sometime AFTER Ramesses III completed his temple. Ramesses III lived near the close of the Persian Period as shall be proved in the next chapter. The Bubastites were therefore contemporary with and subject to the Ptolemaic Greeks of the Hellenistic Period. The last heir of Alexander the Great died about 308. (See Mahaffey's "The Empire of the Ptolemies".)

Alexander had been proclaimed a god-king by the oracle at Ammon in the Libyan desert. Apparently at the death of his last heir, about 308 B.C., the Libyans assumed the right to succeed his line. The first king of this new dynasty, Soshenk "I," is commonly -- though erroneously -- assumed to be the Shishak of the Bible. The inscriptions arraying his captured towns in the Palestine-Syria area are found on the Bubastid Portal at Thebes. In them no reference is made to Jerusalem, or to any important town in Judah. Writes Sir Alan Gardiner of the vanishing list: "The innumeration is disappointing, of the 150 and more places named only a few are well enough preserved to suggest definite routes and these skirt around the hill-country of Samaria without reaching the centre of the Israelite kingdom; nor is there any hint that they ever touched Judah at all. There are, however, some indications of a raid into Edomite territory" ("Egypt of the Pharaohs", page 330).

Soshenk did not live in the fabulously rich Solomonic period. His was the period of Ptolemaic control of Egypt. His claimed capture of Palestinian and Syrian towns -- perhaps villages is the better word -- occurred as a general of Egyptian troops under Ptolemy I.

In the fourth year of Osorkon "I" -- 284-283 -- a vast compilation of wealth was donated to the temple service. Here again is a parallel with Ptolemaic history. In the year 284 prodigiously rich coronation ceremonies were celebrated for Ptolemy II Philadelphus. No small portion of the riches were later donated to the pagan temple service.

Also, a flood in the third year of Osorkon "II" corresponds to the period of upset weather conditions mentioned in the Canopus Inscription in the 240's. In Egypt famines are cause by either too much water or an insufficient amount of water flowing in the Nile at the period of inundation.

Osorkon "II," in most Biblical studies, is falsely equated with the Ethiopian Zerah of Scripture. Osorkon "II" was not an Ethiopian. Much less did he ever command a million troops in an attack on Palestine. It was Twentieth Dynasty Ramesside culture that influenced Palestine just prior to and during the years of Osorkon ("Archaeology of Palestine", by W.F. Albright, page 137). Osorkon "II" reigned after the fall of Persia, not in the days of Israel's kings.

In the 15th year of Osorkon's successor Takelot II, Egypt was devastated by revolt and Nubian invasion. "Now, afterward, in the year 15 ... great wrath arose in this land .... They set warfare in the South and North ----- not ceasing to fight against those who were therein ... while years passed in hostility each one seizing upon his neighbor ..." (Breasted, "Ancient Records", vol. IV, sec. 764).

It was during the last two years of the life of Ptolemy IV that Upper Egypt revolted, beginning in the year 207-206.

E.A. Wallis Budge writes: "... a revolt broke out in Upper Egypt, and the Nubians endeavoured to include the Thebaid in the kingdom as in the days of Piankhi I and his successors; this rising was not quelled when Ptolemy IV died, and the Nubians carried on their revolt into the reign of his son." (Page 251 of "Egypt Under the Saites, Persians and Ptolemies", vol. vii of the series "History of Egypt".)

The end of this Libyan dynasty is not necessarily indicated by the year 101. That is merely the last record in the Serapeum.

Dynasty XXI of Tanis

Yet another dynasty of Manetho must be restored -- number XXI of Tanis. Historians recognize that it preceded a Libyan dynasty. The question is, which one? Should it precede Manetho's Dynasty XXII of Bubastis because it is mentioned previous to it? Or should it be associated in some way with Dynasty XX of Thebes because it is mentioned after it? It means a difference of centuries!'

The answer may be found in the Serapeum. Writes Sir Alan Gardiner in "Egypt of the Pharaohs": "Strangely enough not a single inscription of Dyn. XXI was found in the Serapeum, but the material bearing upon Dyn. XXII ... is all the richer" (p. 326). On the same page Gardiner adds: "Huge sarcophagi had contained the mummies of no less than sixty-four bulls, the earliest dating from the reign of Amenophis III and the latest extending down to the very threshold of the Christian era."

Yet none from Dynasty XXI of Tanis? Absurd -- unless there was a period when use of the Serapeum was forbidden. Just such a period occurred -- under the Persians and early days of the Greeks before Ptolemy I.

When Cambyses conquered Egypt he ended the religious worship of Apis bulls by ordering the Egyptian priests to devour their god as food! Not until Ptolemy I was the old worship restored to favor ("A Dictionary of Egyptian Civilization", art. "Serapeum").

Dynasty XXI of Tanis is the Persian and early Greek period and immediately precedes the mislabeled Libyan Dynasty XXII of Bubastis.

When Herodotus visited Egypt around 450 B.C., he did not find this dynasty ruling in Tanis. It therefore commenced sometime later. It could not have continued further than into the reign of the first Ptolemies.

Archaeology has provided evidence that the last king of Manetho's Dynasty XXI -- Psusennes II -- gave his daughter in marriage to the Bubastite Osorkon. He was the son of the Soshenq who founded the Libyan Dynasty. Therefore Psusennes was a contemporary of Soshenq and the daughter was of the same generation as Osorkon.

Archaeology has recovered the latest known year of Soshenq from his monuments as year 21. Whether this was his latest year or not may be answered by Manetho.

Psusennes, the contemporary of Soshenq is assigned two lengths of reign by Manetho -- 14 years and 35 years. The difference is 21! The answer is clear. Soshenq did reign only 21 years at Bubastis before Osorkon, his son, came to the throne. And those 21 years overlapped with the last 21 years of Psusennes II. With the date 308 (see preceding chart of Bubastite Libyans) for the end of the 14-year reign of Psusennes II, the entire twenty-first dynasty may now be reconstructed from Manetho. In the following chart the letters "A" and "E" stand for Africanus and Eusebius.
 

The Book of Sothis preserves the following variations:
 

These charts are in perfect harmony. The Book of Sothis preserves the length of reign of Psusennes, not from the beginning of his reign, but from an event in 384 -- a little-known war between Persians and Egyptians to be explained in the next chapter. It also provides additional information regarding the longer joint reign of Amenopthis.

The beginning date of 417 for the dynasty occurs during a period, which, for historians, is "a complete blank so far as Egypt is concerned" (Gardiner, "Egypt of the Pharaohs", p. 371). All that is known of the period in that the Persian king who then governed Egypt never visited the country. The Tanites were probably established to maintain Persian authority in the absence of the Persian King. The dynasty survived severe struggles between Egyptians, Greeks and Persians as the only symbol of authority in the Delta, or Lower Egypt. Its last king had only a daughter as heir, and the line was superseded by Libyans who intermarried with the Tanite line.

What Eratosthenes Revealed

Up to this point little has been presented from Eratosthenes, the Alexandrian astronomer, geometer, geographer, grammarian and philosopher who became chief librarian, under Ptolemy III, of the Library at Alexandria. Eratosthenes is noted as the founder of "scientific chronology." He had access to the Theban records, preserved by the priests, of all the kings of Egypt. A fragmentary account of his complete book has come down to us through the work of George the Monk -- Syncellus.

Syncellus preserved only those points of Egyptian history of most interest to the Greek mind of his day. Included were the adventures of Cush, Nimrod, Horus, Heber, Shem. Next he preserved the kings who reigned from the momentous year 1958 -- when Babylonia was recovered from the Medes -- to the time of Job (Cheops) and his successors. Then the period of the Exodus.

Syncellus records nothing more of the original Eratosthenes. There is added beginning, with the king of Dynasty XXVIII, a series of rulers under the Persians and Greeks This additional list of kings is from later sources, not Eratosthenes. (See "Apollodors Chronick" by Jacoby, for proof the last section of the list is not Eratosthenes'.)

The proof of the dating of this list of petty dynasts is found in the names of the so-called "kings of Thebes." None are typical of the days of Egypt's greatness. Number 32 is called the second Ammenemes. The previous king of that name was Ammenemes of Dynasty XIX who ruled from 557-531. This earlier Ammenemes does not appear in the list ascribed to Eratosthenes though, some transcribers have incorrectly inserted his name. This second must then have been later! Number 30 is titled Ochytyrannus -- meaning a tyrant like king Ochus -- the Persian who reconquered Egypt in 343. This king of Thebes must have been after the reign of Ochus to have borne such a title! This list is really of petty princes, priests or commanders of the army of upper Egypt who pretended to greatness by the names they took.

Eratosthenes' record continues with events after 1958
 

(From here Eratosthenes proceeds to rulers of Dynasty VI who are recognized as rulers at Thebes as well as at Memphis, where the royal line originated.)

Eratosthenes' original list ends here. The succeeding kings are no part of the original Eratosthenes who wrote in the third century B.C. These rulers extended two centuries beyond his time.
 

The calendar year 47 marks the year of Caesar's invasion of Egypt, and the perishing of native Egyptian dynasts under Greek Ptolemaic rule.

The dating of the first king of this period -- Myrtaios (421-399) -- is based on the known date 399, when, as the sole king of Dynasty XXVIII, he ceased to reign. The year 421 consequently marks his rise to power. It was undoubtedly to counteract this aspiring ruler that the Persians established Dynasty XXI of Tanis as a counterweight in 417.

The events that led up to the catastrophe of 47 is told by Budge. Ptolemy XIII died in 51 and "left his kingdom by will to his daughter Cleopatra VII., and to his elder son Ptolemy XIV., surnamed Dionysius, who was to marry his sister; three years later (B.C. 48) a violent dispute broke out between brother and sister, who had reigned jointly until that time, and Cleopatra was obliged to leave Egypt. In 47 Caesar sent troops to support her claims, and as a result her brother's forces were defeated with great slaughter. Ptolemy XIV, was accidentally drowned in crossing a river whilst trying to escape" ("A History of Egypt", vol. viii, p. 87).

As commander of the Egyptian contingent under Ptolemy, the last native dynast perished in 47.

This chapter of the Compendium closes the history of Egypt to the Babylonian and Persian conquests with a quick, and needed, view into two later dynasties. In all there were twenty-four recorded dynasties ruling from the time of Babel to 525 B.C. Now we come to Dynasty XX of Thebes! These are the many Ramessides III to XI. Where do they belong in Egyptian history? Is the story of Thebes not yet complete?

The answer will be found in the next and final chapter on Egyptian history.

Next

Prev

Table of Contents