The Reconstructed Chronology of The Egyptian Kings M. Christine Tetley

The Reconstructed Chronology
of the Egyptian Kings

M. Christine Tetley
Volume Two
The Ebers Calendar is probably the most valuable chronological tool

from Egypt that we are ever likely to possess. M. Christine Tetley
ISBN 978-0-473-29463-2 www.egyptchronology.comm

The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings – Volume Two
Author: M. Christine Tetley
Publisher: Barry W. Tetley
Address: 14 Workman Way, Onerahi, Whangarei, New Zealand 0110
Publication Date: July 2014
ISBN: 978-0-473-29463-2
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
© B.W. Tetley, 2014

[email protected]
Contents i
Contents
Author’s Preface iii
Editor’s Note v
Tables vii
Figures xvii
General Abbreviations xix
Bibliographic Abbreviations xxi
Synopsis xxv
Ch. 1. Introduction to Problems with the Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt 1

Ch. 2. Fixing the Chronology for Israel, Judah, and Egypt 19
Ch. 3. Investigating Ancient Egyptian Calendars 39
Ch. 4. Reviewing Gardiner's and Parker's Calendars 55
Ch. 5. Dating by Lunar Months and Phases 75
Ch. 6. Pondering Egyptian Calendar Depictions 85
Ch. 7. Revisiting Gardiner and Parker 103
Ch. 8. Recovering a Calendar with Wep Renpet as the First Month 119
Ch. 9. Exploring the Ebers Calendar 135
Ch. 10. Resolving the Eponymous Month Conflict 153
Ch. 11. Studying Sesostris III and Illahun - Sesostris III's Seventh Year 171
Ch. 12. Studying Sesostris III and Illahun - Feast Dates 179
Ch. 13. Studying Sesostris III and Illahun - the W3gy Feast 191
Ch. 14. Securing Neferefre's W3gy Feast Date 199
Volume Two
Ch. 15. Working with Egyptian King Lists 205
Ch. 16. Recasting the 5th and 6th Dynasties 227
Ch. 17. Clarifying the 8th Dynasty 247
Ch. 18. Regarding the Royal Annals 255
Ch. 19. Reconstructing the Royal Annals - Menes to Neferkare 267
Ch. 20. Reconstructing the Royal Annals - Neferkasokar to Menkaure 283
Ch. 21. Reconstructing the Royal Annals - Menkaure to Shepseskare 309
Ch. 22. Surveying the 9th-11th Dynasties 327
Ch. 23. Establishing the 12th Dynasty 335
Ch. 24. Reading Hekanakhte's Letters 347
Ch. 25. Reporting on the 13th-17th Dynasties 353
Ch. 26. Reinstating the 18th Dynasty – Introduction 359
Ch. 27. Reinstating the 18th Dynasty - Ahmose to Hatshepsut 367
Ch. 28. Reinstating the 18th Dynasty - Thutmose III to Amenhotep II 383
Ch. 29. Reinstating the 18th Dynasty - Thutmose IV to Tutankhamun 395
Ch. 30. Reinstating the 18th Dynasty - Tutankhamun to Horemheb 413
Ch. 31. Redating the 19th Dynasty 421
Ch. 32. Correlating Egypt and Israel, Manetho and Moses 439
Ch. 33. Positioning the 20th Dynasty 451
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley ii
Ch. 34. Revising the 21st Dynasty Once More 465

Ch. 35. Looking at Other Reconstructions of the 22nd to 25th Dynasties 483
Ch. 36. Framing the 22nd Dynasty 511
Ch. 37. Finishing the 22nd Dynasty 545
Ch. 38. Restoring the 23rd Dynasty 563
Ch. 39. Finalizing the 24th and 25th Dynasties 583
Author’s Preface iii
Author’s Preface
A military confrontation in the Middle East occurred about 3000 years ago in the
5th year of Judah’s King Rehoboam and the 20th year of Egypt’s King Shoshenq I.
Though the campaign was recorded in the annals of both nations, agreement on the
actual year—which could anchor the chronologies of each—has not been established,
despite much effort over the last century.
Edwin Thiele, a Seventh Day Adventist teacher, authored The Mysterious
Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, which—in the absence of a credible alternative—for the
last 50 years has been a standard reference for dating reigns in the 1st and 2nd Books of
Kings in the Old Testament. But Thiele based his theories only on the Hebrew Masoretic
Text which only goes back to about 1000 CE. He dismissed the variant numbers
recorded in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Text, as it stood about
1200 years earlier, around 200 BCE. The Septuagint was widely accepted at the time of
Jesus Christ, was quoted in the New Testament, and was used to spread Christianity
through the early centuries of the Common Era (CE).
Thiele explained the “mysterious” numbers by invoking separate calendars for
Judah and Israel, and many co-regencies; which find no mention in the records. He
supported his theory by a continuous list of Assyrian Kings which remains unproven.
My Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom published in 2005
considered all the biblical texts, and established that Rehoboam’s 5th year was 977 BCE,
52 years earlier than Thiele’s proposed date. But the date for Judah was only half of the
equation in the Rehoboam and Shoshenq I engagement. How did it fit with Egyptian
chronology?
During the last century the tempo and temperature in meetings and writings
between Egyptologists, scientists, and archaeologists has risen dramatically—all intent
on establishing the dates for Egyptian events. They have dealt with Ramesses II, the
Eruption of Thera on Santorini, which produced pumice used in some Egyptian
monuments, and many other themes. Inscriptions and evidence continues to emerge from
the sands of Egypt.
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom established the Egyptian
chronology in part, confirming that Shoshenq I’s 20th year was 977 BCE. Now I present
the full chronology for the Egyptian Dynasties 1-25 anchored by the heliacal risings of
Sirius (Sothis) and lunar phases, which modern reconstructions can identify precisely. A
new understanding of Egyptian calendars is a critical feature of the reconstruction.
With the completion of this reconstructed chronology of the Egyptian kings, the
date of Rehoboam’s encounter with Shoshenq I is established by independent
chronologies of Israel/Judah (in The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided
Kingdom), and of Egypt (herein). The date of 977 BCE in the total dynastic framework
of Egyptian chronology finally makes sense of all the evidence from inscriptions,
archaeological effort, and scientific research.
I wish to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of Dr. Lee W. Casperson in
accomplishing this project. In two JNES articles in the 1980s he employed astronomical
data to evaluate proposed dates for Thutmose III and Ramesses II—“The Lunar Dates of
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley iv
Thutmose III,” (J Near E Stud, Vol. 45, No. 2: 139-150) and “The Lunar Date of
Ramesses II,” (J Near E Stud, Vol. 47, No. 3: 181-184). The use of this data offered a
means for testing the feasibility of dates proposed from inscriptions and other sources.
Over the many years of this research, Dr Casperson has provided me (upon request) with
numerous sets of tables for specified periods. For this collaboration, and the
corroboration that his data has supplied, I am truly grateful.
M. Christine Tetley, Th.D,

Whangarei, New Zealand,
3 July 2013.
Editor’s Note v
Editor’s Note
Dr Christine Tetley died on 19 July 2013. She was the first female graduate of
New Zealand’s Laidlaw College to be awarded a Doctorate in Theology. It was awarded
by the Australian College of Theology, again the first awarded to a woman by thesis
(others had been honoris causa). Her thesis was published in 2005 by Eisenbrauns
entitled The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom. She completed this
present work two weeks before her death. Her husband, Rev. Barry Tetley (M.Div.
Hons.) has been in Christian ministry for 45 years, including 12 years as a lecturer at
NZ's Laidlaw College. He was responsible for the final editing of the text.
The central chronological thesis of this presentation is established by the
concordance of inscriptional and astronomical evidence available to Dr Tetley at the
time of compilation. It radically differs from most chronological estimates in current
Egyptological publications.
It establishes the early use of a civil Calendar in Upper Egypt with Wep Renpet
as the first month, with a changing four-year link to with the annual heliacal rising of
Sothis, referred to in inscriptions. A great number of events reported in historical
materials link to new or full moon events, that are pin-pointed by secure astronomical
evidence. This evidence establishes the date of Neferefre's reign as the earliest secure
date in Egyptian history. From this date, together with analysis of the Turin Canon, the
reconstructed Royal Annals, and other ancient king-lists, Dr Tetley establishes new dates
for the first five dynasties. Later dynastic records contain numerous sothic or lunar
references, which enable the reconstruction of a chronology that conforms to
astronomical evidence. Such evidence is not susceptible to the vagaries of guess-work
and estimation from a flawed starting date, as is currently relied upon in much of the
present information available to the public.
Dr Tetley's methodology must be examined on its merits. The study of Ancient
Egypt is ongoing, and Dr Tetley hoped that her contribution to its chronology would
provide answers with a confidence that has so far eluded the Egyptology community.
New information can fill “knowledge gaps” and further refine her endeavour.
The editor invites readers who recognize such gaps, or errors in the compiled material, to
communicate directly with him. Any material of chronological significance that could
improve and refine the Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings would be
exactly within the intentions of Dr Tetley, and would be considered for inclusion and
recognition within the existing narrative.
Finally, I wish to thank Ruth Blaikie for her superb skills in copy editing this
project for publication.
Barry Tetley - [email protected]

The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley vi
Tables vii
Tables
(Note: the explanation of Casperson’s new moon tables is on page xv.)
The first number of the Table indicates the chapter it appears in.
Table Description Page

Table 1.1: Designated periods of ancient Egypt 2
Table 2.1: Variant chronological data of the Greek and Hebrew texts in the 25
Books of 1 and 2 Kings (Kgs) of the Early Divided Kingdom
according to textual witnesses
Table 2.2: Early Divided Kingdom chronology 26
Table 2.3: Chronological data of the Late Divided Kingdom according to 32
textual witnesses (kaige/MT/L)
Table 2.4: Late Divided Kingdom chronology reconstructed from MT/KR, 34
L and c2 data
Table 2.5: Significant dates in Ancient Near Eastern history addressed in 36
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom
Table 3.1: Chart of Julian calendar months plus five days of the Egyptian 40
civil calendar
Table 3.2: Heliacal risings of Sothis relating to Egyptian kings 45
Table 4.1: Gardiner’s examples of feasts held in the next month after their 58
eponymous month from the perspective of the Greco-Roman
calendar
Table 4.2: Gardiner’s supposed calendars 59
Table 4.3: Order of feasts on Mastabas as noted by Parker 64
Table 4.4: Feasts 4–8 according to Parker 64
Table 4.5: Amenemhet III, 30th and 31st years (new moon listing from 66
−1937 to −1936)
Table 4.6: Parker’s original lunar and civil calendars 70
Table 5.1: The 25-year cycles of the Carlsberg 9 Papyrus 77
Table 5.2: New moon days in a recurring 25-year cycle (Cy yr) dated to 78
the Julian Calendar (Jul.) 4th century BCE reconstructed from
the Carlsberg 9 Papyrus
Table 5.3: Carlsberg 9 cycle new moons compared for I 3ḫt over 25 years 79
Table 5.4: New moon dates proposed for Ramesses II’s 52nd year in 81
−1238 and −1227 with an accession date in 1290 and 1279
BCE
Table 5.5: New moon dates proposed for Ramesses II’s 52nd year in 83
−1337 with an accession year in 1390 BCE
Table 6.1: Comparison of month-names from month-lists 86
Table 6.2: Ramesseum ceiling month designations and their month-names 92
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley viii
Table 6.3: Translation of Cairo Calendar 86637, verso XIV 94

Table 6.4: Civil calendar month-names in Greco-Roman Period 99
Table 7.1: Actual sections of the text separated by the ellipses in (a) and 109
(b), and apparently by unmarked omission in the case of (c)
Table 7.2: Ptolemy III Euergetes I’s 10th year in −236 110
Table 7.3: New moon for August −236 111
Table 7.4: Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II’s 28th year in -141 (new moon 111
listing from −141)
Table 7.5: Ptolemy VIII Euergete II’s 30th year −139 (new moon listing 112
for −139)
Table 7.6: Full moon table for Amasis’s 12th year in 559 (−558) (full 113
moon listing from −558)
Table 7.7: New moon table for Amasis’s 12th year in −558 (new moon 113
listing from −558 to −557)
Table 8.1: Ramesses II’s sixth year −1383: Medinet Habu feasts (new 127
moon listing from −1386 to −1381)
Table 8.2: Chronological tabling of festivals, lists, or months that suggest 130
a calendar starting one month earlier than the Greco–Roman
calendar
Table 8.3: Month and day dates with wp rnpt as the first month with its 131
feast on I 3ḫt 1
Table 9.1: The Ebers Calendar 135
Table 9.2: Depuydt’s Lunar and Civil Calendars 145
Table 10.1: Alignment of Calendars of Upper and Lower Egypt 157
Table 10.2: The Ebers Calendar 159
Table 10.3: Sothic cycle ends/begins in 139 CE (new moon listing from 162
+139)
Table 10.4: Ptolemy III Euergetes I’s ninth year in −237 (new moon listing 163
from −237)
Table 10.5: Sothic cycle beginning at Memphis in 1314 BCE (new moon 165
Table 10.6: Quadrennia between 238 and 211 BCE in the reigns of Ptolemy 166
III Euergetes II and Ptolemy IV Philopator
Table 10.7: Ptolemy IV Philopator’s 11th year −210 (new moon listing 166
from −210)
Table 10.8: End of Sothic cycle at Thebes in −1413 (new moon listing from 168
−1413)
Table 10.9: Amenhotep I’s ninth year in 1642 BCE (new moon listing for 168
−1641)
Table 11.1: Beginning of a Sothic cycle at Thebes in 2870 BCE (new moon 173
Table 11.2: Heliacal rising of Sothis at Illahun in −1979 (new moon listing 173
from −1979)
Table 11.3: Sesostris III’s sixth year in −1980 (new moon listing from 174
−1980)
Table 11.4: Sesostris III’s eighth year −1978 (new moon listing from 174
−1978)
Table 11.5: Luft’s dates for new moons in Sesostris III’s sixth, seventh and 175
eighth years for −1867 to −1864 at Memphis (new moon listing
from −1867 to −1864)
Table 11.6: Krauss’s dates for Sesostris III’s sixth, seventh and eighth years 177
Tables ix
in −1831 to −1828 (new moon listing from −1831 to −1828)

Table 12.1: Sesostris III’s ninth year −1977 (new moon listing from −1977) 180
Table 12.2: Sesostris III’s ninth year in −1977 (full moon listing from 180
−1977)
Table 12.3: Phases of the Moon for selected months of the year −1977 181
Table 12.4: Sesostris III’s 10th year −1976 (new moon listing from −1976) 181
Table 12.5: Sesostris III’s 10th year according to Luft (new moon listing 181
from −1862)
Table 12.6: Amenemhet III’s third year −1964 (new moon listing from 182
−1964)
Table 12.7: Amenemhet III’s eighth year −1959 (new moon listing from 182
−1959)
Table 12.8: Amenemhet III’s 32nd year −1935 (new moon listing from 183
−1936 and −1935)
Table 12.9: Sesostris III’s fifth year −1981 (new moon listing from −1981) 183
Table 12.11: Amenemhet III’s ninth year −1958 (new moon listing for 184
−1958)
Table 12.12: Amenemhet III’s 10th year −1957 (new moon listing from 185
−1957)
−1931)
Table 12.14: Sesostris III’s 11th year −1976 and −1975 (new moon listing 186
from −1976 and −1975)
−1944 and −1943)
Table 12.16: Sesostris III’s fifth year −1981 (new moon listing from −1981) 187
−1943)
Table 12.19: Sesostrish III’s eighth year −1978 (new moon listing from 188
−1978)
Table 12.20: Amenemhet III’s 10th and 11th years −1957 and −1956 (new 188
moon listing from −1956 and −1956)
Table 12.22: Amenemhet III’s eighth year −1959 (new moon listing from 189
−1959)
−1938)
Table 13.1: Data from Papyrus Berlin 10052 Verso 192
Table 13.4: Full moon listing for Sesostris III’s 18th year −1968 (full moon 196
Table 13.5: Amenemhet III’s ninth year −1958 (new moon listing from 196
−1958)
Table 13.6: Amenemhet III’s first year −1966 (new moon listing from 197
−1966)
−1929)
Table 14.1: New moon dates in −2774 202
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley x

Table 15:1: The Turin Canon compared to the AbKL 218
Table 15.2: Names and years of the kings of the Turin Canon from Menes 220
to Unas compared with Manetho
Table 15.3: Kings of the Turin Canon beginning with Huni aligned with 223
kings of Manetho’s 4th and 5th Dynasties
Table 16.1: Latter half of 5th Dynasty reconstructed from the Turin Canon 227
and lunar dates
Table 16.2: Niuserre’s 22nd year −2724 (new moon listing from −2724) 231
Table 16.3: New moon dates in Djedkare Isesi’s eighth year in −2699 (new 232
Table 16.4: Options for II šmw 18 in Djedkare Isesi’s 42nd and 44th years 233
(new moon listing from −2665 to −2663)
Table 16.5: New moon dates in Djedkare Isesi’s 33rd year in −2674 (new 233
Table 16.6: Unas’s 22nd year in −2629 (new moon listing from −2629) 235
Table 16.7: New moon in Unas’s 28th year in −2623 (new moon listing 235
from −2623)
Table 16.8: Neferefre to Unas: Latter half of the 5th Dynasty reconstructed 236
from the Turin Canon and lunar dates
Table 16.9: 6th Dynasty: Reconstructed from the Turin Canon, the South 237
Saqqara Stone, and three lunar dates
Table 16.10: Full Moon date in Pepi I’s 32nd year in −2573 (full moon 240
Table 16.11: Pepi II’s fourth year in −2537 (full moon listing from −2537) 242
Table 16.12: Pepi II’s 63rd year in −2477 (new moon listing from −2478 and 242
−2477)
Table 16.13: 6th Dynasty: Reconstructed from the Turin Canon, the South 243
Saqqara Stone, and three lunar dates
Table 16.14: Comparison of the 6th Dynasty from the Turin Canon and 245
Manetho (Africanus)
Table 17.1: Comparison of names in the Turin Canon and Abydos King-list 247
(AbKL) for the 8th Dynasty
Table 17.2: Comparison of the Turin Canon and Abydos King-list (AbKL) 248
after Merenre Nemtiemsaf II
Table 17.3: Full moon listing from −2438 250
Table 17.4: Full moon listing from −2185 251
Table 17.5: 8th Dynasty reconstructed from the Turin Canon and the 253
Abydos King-list (AbKL)
Table 17.6: Summary of Reigns from Menes to the End of the 8th Dynasty 254
in the Turin Canon
Table 20.1: The Turin Canon compared to the Abydos King-list (AbKL) 283
Table 20.2: Comparing the Order of the Kings 287
Table 20.3: The Turin Canon listing of kings 289
Table 20.4: Turin Canon and Royal Annals discrepancies from 291
Khasekhemwy to Nebka (“Hudjefa”)
Table 21.1: Royal Annals: Menes to Shepseskare: Compartments, years, 323
and dates
Table 21.2: Comparison of the Turin Canon section 4.17–4.24 with the 5th 324
Dynasty from Manetho (Africanus)
Tables xi
Table 22.1: Kings of the 11th Dynasty 330

Table 22.2: Sothic date in the reign of Mentuhotep II (rising of Sothis from 331
−2185)
Table 22.3: 11th Dynasty = Turin Canon section 6.11–6.18 334
Table 23.1: 12th Dynasty kings with Sothic & Lunar references. 335
Table 23.2: 12th Dynasty kings reported in Manetho and the Turin Canon 336
Table 23.3: Sesostris III’s first regnal year in −1985 (new moon listing from 341
−1985)
Table 23.4: Total regnal years of the 12th Dynasty kings 345
Table 23.5: 12th Dynasty kings’ sole-reign and co-regency years 346
Table 24.1: The Calendar Used by Hekanakhte 350
Table 24.2: Sesostris I’s fifth year −2074 (new moon listing from −2074) 351
Table 25.1: Manetho’s 13th–17th Dynasties 354
Table 25.2: Kings of the 16th Dynasty and the first two of the 17th Dynasty 355
Table 25.3: Partial list of 17th Dynasty kings—incomplete years 356
Table 27.1: 18th Dynasty succession of rulers 367
Table 27.2: Ahmose’s accession and the beginning of the New Kingdom in 370
−1675 (new moon listing for −1675)
Table 27.3: Amenhotep I’s 9th/10th years in −1641 (new moon listing for 371
−1641)
Table 27.4: Amenhotep I’s first and second years (new moon listing from 372
−1650 to −1649)
Table 27.5: Amenhotep I’s 21st year and Thutmose I’s accession in 373
−1630/1629 (new moon listing from −1630 to −1629)
Table 27.6: Thutmose I’s ninth year and Thutmose II’s accession in −1621 375
(new moon listing for −1621)
Table 27.7: Thutmose II’s 18th year and Hatshepsut’s assumption as 377
Regent in −1603 (new moon listing from −1604 to mid −1603)
Table 27.8: Thutmose III’s accession and Hatshepsut’s co-regency −1589 378
and −1587 (new moon listing from −1589 to −1587)
Table 27.9: 18th Dynasty: Ahmose to Hatshepsut with regnal years and 381
dates
Table 28.1: 18th Dynasty: Ahmose to Amenhotep II 383
Table 28.2: Thutmose III’s 33rd year and the date of a Sothic rising on III 384
šmw 30 at Thebes (new moon listing from −1557)
Table 28.3: Thutmose III’s 23rd and 24th years −1567 and −1565 (new 386
Table 28.4: New moon date at Megiddo in Thutmose III’s 23rd year −1567 387
(new moon listing from −1567)
Table 28.5: Thutmose III’s 47th year in −1542 (new moon listing for 388
−1542)
Table 28.6: New moon in Amenhotep’s 19th year falls before III šmw 10 392
and IV šmw 10 (new moon listing from −1517 to −1516)
Table 28.7: Thutmose III’s 54th year begins in −1536 and Amenhotep II’s 393
Accession in −1535 (new moon listing from −1536 to −1535)
Table 28.8: 18th Dynasty: Ahmose to Amenhotep II with regnal years and 394
dates
Table 29.1: 18th Dynasty: Ahmose to Tutankhamun 395
Table 29.2: Amenhotep II’s 26th year and Thutmose IV’s accession in 397
−1509 (new moon listing from −1509)
Table 29.3: Thutmose IV’s ninth year and Amenhotep III’s accession 397
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley xii

Table 29.4: Krauss’s incorrect attribution of Akhenaten’s fifth year (new 399
Table 29.5: New moons in IV prt 1351 and 1355 BCE were not on IV prt 400
13 (new moon listings from −1350 and −1354)
Table 29.6: New moon in Akhenaten’s fifth year in 1459 BCE (new moon 401
Table 29.7: Amenhotep III’s 38th year begins in 1464 BCE and 401
Akhenaten’s accession is in 1463 BCE (new moon listings
−1463 to −1462)
Table 29.8: Akhenaten’s 17th year in −1447/1446 (new moon listing from 403
−1447 to −1446)
Table 29.9: 18th Dynasty: Regnal Years of Thutmose IV to Smenkhkare 403
Table 29.10: Death of Akhenaten and accession of 407
Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten in −1446; death of
Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten and accession of Tutankhamun in
−1443 (new moon listing from −1446 to −1445 and −1444 to
−1443)
Table 29.11: 18th Dynasty: Regnal Years of Thutmose IV to Horemheb with 408
regnal years and dates
Table 30.1: Tutankhamun’s ninth year and Ay’s accession in −1434 (new 414
moon listing from −1435 to −1434
Table 30.2: Ay’s fifth year and Horemheb’s accession in −1429 (new moon 415
Table 30.3 The 27th year of Horemheb and the 1st year of Ramesses I in 417
−1403 (new moon listing from −1404 to −1403)
Table 30.4: End of the Sothic cycle at Thebes in 1414 BCE or −1413 (new 418
Table 30.5: Beginning of new Sothic cycle at Memphis in 1314 BCE or 418
Table 30.6: 18th Dynasty: Ahmose to Horemheb with regnal years and 419
dates
Table 31.1: 19th Dynasty kings 421
Table 31.2: Ramesses I’s final year (his third) and Seti I’s accession in 423
Table 31.3: Seti I’s 11th year in −1390 and Ramesses II’s accession −1389 423
Table 31.4: Ramesses II dates tested by Casperson 425
Table 31.5: Ramesses II current consensus 425
Table 31.6: Scholars’ new Moon date on II prt 28 in Ramesses II’s 52nd 425
year in −1227 (new moon listing from −1227 to −1226)
Table 31.7: Tetley’s reconstructed chronology for Ramesses II 425
Table 31.8: Ramesses II’s 52nd year; new moon on II prt 27 in −1337 (new 426
Table 31.9: Feast of Min on I ŝmw 11 in Ramesses II’s sixth year in −1383 427
Table 31.10: Feast of Ptah on IV šmw 24 in Ramesses II’s 34th year in 428
−1355 (full moon listing for −1355)
Table 31.11: Ramesses II’s 47th year in −1341 (full moon listing from 429
−1342 to −1341)
Table 31.12: Ramesses II’s 41st year; heliacal rising of Sothis at Thebes on I 429
Tables xiii
3ḫt 22 in −1348 (new moon listing for −1348)

Table 31.13: Death of Ramesses II and accession of Merenptah in −1323 430
Table 31.14: Seti II’s second year in −1310 (new moon listing for −1310) 434
Table 31.15: Seti II’s sixth year in −1306 (new moon listing for −1306) 435
Table 31.16: Siptah’s third year in −1301 (new moon listing for −1301) 436
Table 31.17: Siptah’s sixth year in −1298 (new moon listing for −1298) 436
Table 31.18: Siptah’s sixth year in −1298 (full moon listing for −1298) 436
Table 31.19: Siptah’s “seventh year” = Twosre’s first year in −1297 (full 437
moon listing for −1297)
Table 31.20: 19th Dynasty from Ramesses I to Twosre with regnal years and 437
dates
Table 32.1: Rulers of the 18th and 19th Dynasties 439
Table 32.2: Manetho’s 18th Dynasty list 440
Table 32.3: Manetho’s 19th Dynasty 443
Table 32.4: Manetho’s concurrent dynasties 444
Table 33.1: 20th Dynasty kings 451
Table 33.2: Alignment and modified regnal years in comparison with The 452
Book of Sothis
Table 33.3: Twosre’s “Eighth” year and Setnakhte’s accession in −1296; 453
Setnakhte’s fourth year and Ramesses III’s accession in −1292
(new moon listing from −1297 and −1292)
Table 33.4: Ramesses III’s 22nd year in −1270 (new moon listing for 453
−1270)
Table 33.5: Ramesses VI’s year three full moon date on II šmw 20 in −1249 455
(full moon listing for −1249)
Table 33.6: Ramesses IV’s Seventh year and Ramesses V’s Accession in 455
Table 33.7: Ramesses V’s fourth year and Ramesses VI’s accession in 456
Table 33.8: Ramesses VI’s ninth year and Ramesses VII’s accession in 457
−1244/1243 (new moon listing from −1244 to −1243)
Table 33.9: Full moon date in III šmw in −1286 (full moon listing from 458
−1286)
Table 33.10: Ramesses VII’s seventh year in −1237 (full moon listing for 458
−1237)
Table 33.11: Ramesses VIII’s 17th year in −1216: Feast of Mut (new moon 459
Table 33.12: New moon in the third year of Ramesses X (new moon listing 460
for −1188)
Table 33.13: Ramesses IX’s 18th anniversary year and Ramesses X’s 461
accession in −1191 (new moon listing for −1191)
Table 33.14: Ramesses XI’s 25th year (new moon listing for −1126) 462
Table 33.15: 20th Dynasty kings with regnal years and dates 464
Table 34.1: 21st Dynasty published in 2000 by Jansen-Winkeln and by 466
Kitchen
Table 34.2: 21st Dynasty Tanite kings 467
Table 34.3: Smendes’s 25th year in −1096 (new moon listing for −1096) 468
Table 34.4: Amenemnisu’s fourth year in −1091 (new moon listing for 470
−1091)
Table 34.5: Years for locating I šmw 20 in years −1035 to −1030 for 472
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley xiv
induction of Nespaneferhor (new moon listing from −1035 to

−1030)
Table 34.6: Siamun’s 17th year in −1010 (new moon listing from −1011 to 473
−1010)
Table 34.7: Psusennes II’s 11th or 13th year −998? (new moon listing from 475
−998 to −997)
Table 34.8: Psusennes II’s third year in −1009 to −1008 (new moon listing 476
at turn of the year −1009 to −1008)
Table 34.9: Shoshenq I’s fifth year weresh feast in −993 (new moon listing 479
from −992 to −992)
Table 34.10: Tanite kings of the 21st Dynasty with regnal years and dates 480
Table 35.1: Succession of kings for the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 25th 484
Dynasties, based on Kitchen’s model in 2006
Table 35.2: Leahy/Aston succession of Tanite? Kings for the 22nd, 23rd, 486
24th, and 25th Dynasties
Table 35.3: Aston’s chronology for the 23rd Theban Dynasty 489
Table 35.4: Aston’s correlation of Takeloth II, Shoshenq III, Pedubast I, 491
and Prince Osorkon as High Priest of Amun (HPA)
Table 35.5: Kitchen’s revised chronology for the 22nd Dynasty (2006): 503
Options A & B
Table 35.6: Kitchen’s revised chronology for the 23rd Dynasty (2006): 503
Options A & B
Table 35.7: Aston’s Chronology for the 22nd Dynasty as supplied by 506
Broekman
Table 35.8: Aston’s Chronology for the Theban 23rd Dynasty as supplied 506
by Broekman
Table 35.9: 25th Nubian Dynasty according to Kitchen (2006) 508
Table 35.10: 24th Dynasty kings, Tefnakht and Bakenranef/Bocchoris, 508
according to Kitchen
Table 36.1: Early period of 22nd Dynasty kings with anchor points 511
Table 36.2: Later period of 22nd Dynasty kings with anchor points 512
Table 36.3: Numbering of 22nd Dynasty kings according to prenomens 512
Table 36.4: King names from 23rd Dynasty (or the so-called “Upper 512
Egyptian collateral line”)
Table 36.5: The nine kings of Bubastus in the 22nd Dynasty (fragment 60 513
[from Syncellus] according to Africanus)
Table 36.7: Nile Level Text (NLT) data for the 22nd Dynasty, according to 517
Broekman
Table 36.8: Nile Level Texts (NLT) data for the 23rd Dynasty, according to 518
Broekman
Table 36.9: Shoshenq I’s second year −995 (new moon listing for −995) 520
Table 36.10: Osorkon I’s third year −953 (new moon listing for −953) 528
Table 36.11: Osorkon I’s first year −956 (new moon listing from −956 to 529
−955)
Table 36.12: The early period of 22nd Dynasty kings with regnal years and 543
dates
Table 37.1: The later period of 22nd Dynasty kings 545
Table 37.2: The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon—regnal years for the 547
benefactions of Osorkon B
Table 37.3: Proposed order of kings in the later 22nd Dynasty 551
Table 37.4: Takeloth II’s 11th year −859 (new moon listing for −859) 552
Tables xv
Table 37.5: Pedubast I’s seventh and eighth years in −825 and −823 (new 553
Table 37.6: Pedubast I’s 14th year −818 (new moon listing from −818) 555
Table 37.7: Shoshenq III’s 39th Year in −799 (new moon listing for −799) 555
Table 37.8: Shoshenq III’s year 28 in −809 (full moon listing for −809) 556
Table 37.9: Apis bull installed in Shoshenq V’s 12th year −768 (full moon 559
listing for −768)
Table 37.10: The early period of 22nd Dynasty kings with regnal years and 561
dates
Table 37.11: The later period of 22nd Dynasty kings with regnal years and 561
dates
Table 38.1: Manetho’s versions of 23rd Dynasty kings of Tanis 564
Table 38.2: Traditional succession of kings for the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 564
25th Dynasties, based on Kitchen’s model in 2006
Table 38.3: 23rd Dynasty of Tanis according to Kitchen 565
Table 38.4: 23rd Dynasty kings with anchor points 565
Table 38.5: Assumed Lifespan for Osorkon B if he is also Osorkon III 569
Table 38.6: Comparison of Manetho and the proposed chronology for the 580
23rd Dynasty
Table 38.7: The 23rd Dynasty with regnal years and dates 581
Table 39.1: Piye’s 19th and 20th years in −730 and −729 (new moon listing 584
from −730 to −729)
Table 39.2: 24th Dynasty Anchor Points 585
Table 39.3: 24th Saïte Dynasty with Regnal Years and Dates 588
Table 39.4: Manetho’s 25th Dynasty 589
Table 39.5: 25th Dynasty (from the reign of Piye) 590
Table 39.6: Shebitku’s third year Amun feast in −703 (new moon listing 591
from −703)
Table 39.7: Amun Feast in Shebitku’s third year: Kitchen’s proposal (new 595
Table 39.8: Taharqa’s 26th year in −663 (full moon listing for −663) 596
Table 39.9: Psammetichus I’s 54th year in −610 (full moon listing from 596
−610)
Table 39.10: 25th Dynasty (from Piye to Taharqa) with regnal years and 597
dates
Table 39.11: Correlation of 25th Dynasty with 22nd, 23rd and 24th 598
Dynasties, 750–706 BCE
Note on Casperson Tables.

Explanation of tables supplied by Dr. Lee Casperson occur in the context of the book,
especially in chapter 4 (pp. 66-67), chapter 5 (pp. 81-82) and chapter 10 (p. 168). As can
be seen in the above list, there are over 130 tables related to new moons or full moons.
Many feasts and significant events referred to in inscriptions occurred in relation to lunar
events.
Casperson’s tables derive from astronomical calculation and are helpful in the first 11
columns for showing the comparative dates of the months of the Egyptian calendar and
the Gregorian and Julian calendars. But most of the tables are employed for identifying
the dates of new moons. The tables are based on the time of conjunction, shown in the 0
column, “the time of occurrence of the astronomical new moon, the instant of
conjunction at which the ecliptic longitudes of Sun and Moon are equal” as Casperson
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley xvi
says. This is the moment and day when the moon is invisible because it is directly
between the sun and the earth. For the ancients the day of invisibility was the day of the
new moon. In Casperson’s tables, usually the day of the new moon occurs on the day of
conjunction. But occasionally, the new moon—the day of its invisibility—occurred a day
before actual conjunction. This is shown in the tables if the number in the −1 column is
less than 100.
In the table below, in the −1 column all the values are over 100 so that the moon could
still be seen on the day before conjunction, except for the first and second months of the
Julian year −1936. The actual new moon date in those months recorded in Egyptian
historical inscriptions—when the moon was invisible—was the day before conjunction,
that is, January 19 and February 19 (using Julian month names).
Table 4.5: Amenemhet III, 30th and 31st years (new moon listing from −1937 to
−1936)
Illahun; Lat. 29.2, Long. 31.0; visibility coefficients: c1 = 11.5, c2 = 0.008
Julian Gregorian Egyptian DoW ToD Morning visibility
Yr Mo D Yr Mo D Yr Mo D −2 −1 0
−1937 9 12 −1937 8 26 844 9 26 1 16:53 5:34 297 5:35 173 5:36 53
−1937 10 12 −1937 9 25 844 10 26 3 5:06 6:01 224 6:02 106 6:03 −8
−1937 11 10 −1937 10 24 844 11 25 4 19:39 6:27 284 6:28 163 6:29 51
−1937 12 10 −1937 11 23 844 12 25 6 12:27 6:49 227 6:49 108 6:50 9
−1936 1 9 −1937 12 23 845 1 20 1 6:49 6:57 169 6:57 69 6:57 −9
−1936 2 8 −1936 1 22 845 2 20 3 1:14 6:48 130 6:47 53 6:46 −8
−1936 3 8 −1936 2 20 845 3 19 4 18:05 6:27 221 6:26 113 6:25 49
−1936 4 7 −1936 3 21 845 4 19 6 8:23 6:01 188 6:00 100 5:59 40
−1936 5 6 −1936 4 19 845 5 18 7 20:08 5:37 302 5:36 155 5:35 76
−1936 6 5 −1936 5 19 845 6 18 2 5:59 5:15 224 5:14 113 5:14 27
−1936 7 4 −1936 6 17 845 7 17 3 14:49 5:03 300 5:03 158 5:03 51
−1936 8 2 −1936 7 16 845 8 16 4 23:26 5:07 359 5:07 211 5:08 87
−1936 9 1 −1936 8 15 845 9 16 6 8:25 5:25 264 5:26 135 5:27 10
−1936 9 30 −1936 9 13 845 10 15 7 18:17 5:50 316 5:51 187 5:52 60
DoW = day of week; ToD = time of day.
These tables enable us to actually know the new moon dates reported in Egyptian
history; allowing us to rule out guesswork about Egyptian chronology. The multiple
network of anchor dates reported in this chronology give compelling corroboration to its
accuracy.
Figures xvii
Figures
The first number of the Figure indicates the chapter it appears in.
Figure Description Page

Figure 3.1: The Ebers calendar. 50
Figure 3.2: The Ebers calendar with hieroglyphic transliteration and English 51
translation.
Figure 6.1: Senmut astronomical ceiling 88
Figure 6.2: Karnak water clock 89
Figure 6.3: The astronomical ceiling in the Ramesseum at Thebes as 92
depicted in Gardiner, The Problem of Month-Names.
Figure 6.4: Table listing the lengths of day and night in Cairo Calendar 94
86637, C verso XIV.
Figure 6.5a: Edfu Frieze (panel 1) 97
Figure 6.5b: Edfu Frieze (panel 2) 97
Figure 10.1: Map of Upper and Lower Egypt. 154
Figure 15.1: My reconstruction of the Royal Annals. The nine registers on the 208
left are the recto side, with the verso side to the right.
Figure 15.2: The Palermo Stone, by permission of The Museum photographic 209
archive Archeologico Regionale “Antonio Salinas” in Palermo.
Figure 15.3: Michael St John’s representation of the Palermo Stone from his 210
The Palermo Stone: An Arithmetical View. London: University
Bookshop Publications, 1990.
Figure 15.4: The South Saqqara Stone. 212
Figure 15.5: A portion of the Turin Canon. 213
Figure 15.6: A drawing by Peter Lundström of a reconstructed Abydos King- 214
list.
Figure 15.7: Saqqara King-list as seen in 1864 by A. Mariette. 215
Figure 15.8: Karnak King-list as reconstructed by Peter Lundström. 216
Figure 15.9: Westcar papyrus. 217
Figure 18.1: The Cairo 1 recto fragment. 256
Figure 18.2: The top portion of the Cairo 1 fragment of the Royal Annals as 257
reconstructed by Toby Wilkinson.
Figure 18.3: Royal Annals recto as reconstructed by M.C. Tetley. 258
Figure 18.4: The Royal Annals verso, showing compartment size. 260
Figure 18.5: Verso showing the space between Cairo 1 and Palermo Stone in 261
the reign of Userkaf.
Figure 19.1: The Cairo 1 fragment (left) and register one of the Palermo Stone 267
(right).
Figure 19.2: Note the Djer titulary on Cairo 1 (C1) and the line marking the 268
end of Aha’s reign (and commencing Djer’s) on the Palermo
Stone (PS).
Figure 19.3: The repeated Horus sign shown on alternate years. 269
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley xviii
Figure 19.4: The Cairo 5 fragment. 270

Figure 19.5: Placement of Cairo 5 in relation to the Palermo Stone. 271
Figure 19.6: Sign for a Sed festival, which partly remains on Cairo 5, and also 271
on the Palermo Stone.
Figure 19.7: The first part of Den’s reign. 271
Figure 19.8: Djer’s years 19 to 27 on Cairo 1. 272
Figure 19.9: Anedjib’s reign between Palermo Stone (right) and Cairo 1 (left). 274
Figure 19.10: Semerkhet’s reign on Cairo 1 followed by Qa’a’s reconstructed 275
reign.
Figure 19.11: The Palermo Stone relating to the reign of Khasekhemwy 276
Figure 19.12: Reconstructing Qa’a’s early years on the left edge of Cairo 1. 276
Figure 19.13: Part of Ninetjer’s reign and titulary recorded on the Palermo 279
Stone.
Figure 19.14: Ninetjer’s reign, ending on Cairo 1, now obliterated. 279
Figure 19.15: Khasekhemwy’s reign. 282
Figure 20.1: Reigns displayed in the reconstruction of register 5. 284
Figure 20.2: Khasekhemy’s reign. 284
Figure 20.3: London Fragment. 285
Figure 20.4: Remains of register five on Cairo 1 (left). 288
Figure 20.5: Sneferu compartments on the Royal Annals. 292
Figure 20.6: J.D. DeGreef’s “very hypothetical” reconstruction of the Cairo 4 294
recto.
Figure 20.7: Sneferu’s 14th year on the Palermo Stone. 297
Figure 20.8: The Cairo 4 recto. 299
Figure 20.10: Possible location of Cairo 2 fragment. 302
Figure 20.12: Cairo 3 positioned directly below Cairo 1. 303
Figure 20:13: Menkaure’s 18th year on reconstructed annals verso. 307
Figure 21.1: Reconstruction of the Royal Annals verso. 310
Figure 21.2: Beginning of Shepseskaf’s reign on Palermo Stone verso. 313
Figure 21.3: Userkaf’s reign shown on register two of Cairo 1 (C1) Palermo 315
Stone (PS).
Figure 21.4: Sahure’s fifth year shown on register three on the Palermo Stone. 315
Figure 21.5: Sahure’s final year shown on resister four of the Palermo Stone, 317
followed by Neferirkare Kakai’s first year.
Figure 21.6: Neferirkare Kakai’s first and final years shown on the Palermo 320
Stone’s fourth and fifth registers respectively.
Figure 30.1: HELIAC program data from the Julian calendar. 419
Figure 34.1: Possible explanation of discrepant numbering. 477
Figure 36.1: Distribution of the Nile Level Texts. 517
Figure 36.2: List of kings in The Book of Sothis. 524
Figure 36.3: Hieroglyphics of 15 and 35. 527
Figure 36.4: Hieroglyphics of 41 using two additional ten-signs. 527
Figure 36.5: Hieroglyphics of 33. 527
Figure 37.1: The original number 33 from Manetho’s list (damaged). 557
Figure 39.1: Hieroglyphic script for the numbers 26 and 18. 597
General Abbreviations xix
General Abbreviations
AbKL Abydos King List
ACACIA Arid Climate, Adaptation and Cultural Innovation in Africa
AEC Assyrian Eponym Canon
AEC Ancient Egyption Chronology (2006)
(2006)
B.C.E. Before the Common Era (= B.C.)
BM British Museum
C.E. Common Era (= A.D.)
C1-6 Cairo fragments of the Royal Annals 1 - 6
DB Deir el-Bahari Temple
EA Egyptian Archaeology
FIP First Intermediate Period
Greg. Gregorian Calendar
HP High Priest
HPA High Priest of Amun
Jul. Julian Calendar
KR The Kaige Recension
KKL Karnak King List
KPA Karnak Priestly Annals
L Lucian/Lucianic
LXX Septuagint
MT Masoretic Text
NK New Kingdom
NLT Nile Level Text
NT New Testament
OG Old Greek
OG/L The Old Greek and Lucianic textual source
OK Old Kingdom
OT Old Testament
PS Palermo Stone
SCIEM Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second
SIP Millennium
Second B.C. II Period
Intermediate
SaqTab Saqqara Tablet
TC Turin Canon
TIP Third Intermediate Period
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley xx
Bibliographic Abbreviations xxi
Bibliographic Abbreviations
Ä und L Ägypten und Levante, a Journal published in Austria by Verlag der
Oesterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
ÄA Ägyptologische Abhandlungen, a German Journal published in
Wiesbaden by Harrassowitz since 1960.
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 Volumes published in 1992 by Bantam
Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. USA.
ACE Australian Centre for Egyptology, Department of Ancient History,
Macquarie University NSW 2109, Australia.
AEC (2006) Ancient Egyptian Chronology (eds. Erik Hornung, Rolf Krauss, and
David A. Warburton) Handbook of Oriental Studies 83; Leiden and
Boston: Brill, 2006.
AFAA Association Francaise d'Action Artistique
AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures was a journal
of Semitic and Hebrew philology, published by the University of
Chicago from 1895 as a sucessor of Hebraica, until 1941 when it was
succedded by the Journal of Near Eastern Studies (JNES).
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts (ed. J. B. Pritchard) Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1969.
ARAB D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, 2 vols;
repr. New York: Greenwood, 1968 (orig. Chicago, University of
Chicago Press 1926-1927).
ASAÉ Annales de Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte, is published for
Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt by the American University
in Cairo Press.
BAR Bibilical Archaeological Review, Magazine of the Biblical
Archaeological Society, Washington, DC, USA.
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, USA.
BdÉ Bibliothèque d'Étude, publications of the Institut Français
d’Archéologie Orientale (IFAO), Cairo, Egypt.
BES Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar published by Scholars Press of
the University of Michigan.
BIFAO Le Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archēologie Orientale
BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis, Journal for the Netherlands Institute for the
Near East (NINO), Leiden University, The Netherlands.
BibOr Biblica et orientalia published by the Pontifical Gregorian University,
Rome, Italy.
BSÉG Bulletin de la Société d’Égyptologie, Genèva, Switzerland.
BSFE Bulletin de la Société Française d'Egyptologie, Paris, France.
CAH Cambridge Ancient History, published in 14 volumes by the
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
CdÉ Chronique d'Égypte, published since 1925 by the Association
Egyptological Queen Elizabeth sponsored by the Ministry of
Education Foundation and the University of Belgium.
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley xxii
CFEETK Centre Franco-Égyptien d'Étude des Temples de Karnak

CG Catalogue General du Musee du Caire (series, Cairo Museum)
CRAIBL Comptes rendus de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres.
CRIPEL Cahier de recherches de l'Institut de papyrologie et d'égyptologie de
Lille
DE Discussions in Egyptology
EA Egyptian Archaeology
EU Egyptologische Uitgaven
GM Göttinger Miszellan
HÄB Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge
HAIJ J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah
(Philadelphia PA: and Westminster/London: SCM., 1986)
HPBM Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum
IFAO Institut français d'archéologie orientale.
JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association
JARCE Journal of the American Research Centre in Egypt
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History
JEOL Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux
JHA Journal for the History of Astronomy
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JSSEA Journal for the Society of Study of Egyptian Antiquities, Toronto,
Canada
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
Kêmi Revue De Philologie Et D Archéologie Égyptienne Et Coptes
KMT Kmt: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt
KRI K. A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical
(Oxford, 1969)
LÄ Lexikon tier Ägyptologie
Manetho Manetho (trans. W. G. Waddell; Loeb Classical Library 350; London:
William Heinemann Ltd. and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1940
MAA Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry
MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung
Kairo
MNHK1 E. R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings: A
Reconstruction of the Chronology of the Kingdoms of Israel and
Judah (1st ed.; Chicage: University of Chicago Press, 1951)
MNHK2 E. R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings:A
Reconstruction of the Chronology of the Kingdoms of Israel and
Judah (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Exeter: Paternoster, 1965)
MNHK3 E. R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (3rd ed.;
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983)
NARCE Newsletter of the American Research Center in Egypt
NINO Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten
OIC Oriental Institute Communications (Archeological communications
of the University of Chicago)
PÄ Probleme der Ägyptologie (Leiden)
Bibliographic Abbreviations xxiii
RAD Ramesside Administrative Documents (ed. A. H. Gardiner; Griffith

Institute, Ashmolean Museum, 1948)
RCDK M. C. Tetley, The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided
Kingdom (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005) originally a Th.D.
diss., Australian College of Theology, 1999.
Rd'É Revue d'Égyptologie published by the Société Française
d'Égyptologie.
SAK Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, published in Hamburg by Helmut
Buske Verlag since 1974.
SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, publications of the Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, IL.
SCIEM The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in
the Second Millennium B.C.
SCIEM II Proceedings of SCIEM Symposia at Schloβ Haindorf 15-17
(2000) November 1996, and at Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11-12 May 1998,
(ed. Manfred Bietak; Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 2000).
SCIEM II Proceedings of the SCIEM EuroConference at Haindorf, 2–7 May
(2003) 2001 (ed. Manfred Bietak; Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2003).
SCIEM II Proceedings of the SCIEM 2nd EuroConference Vienna, 28 May–1
(2007) June 2003 (eds. Manfred Bietak and Ernst Czerny; Vienna: Verlag
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007).
SOAS School of Oriental and African Studies
SSEA Society of the Study of Egyptian Antiquities (Toronto)
TIP K. A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650
BC), (Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1972, 1986, 1996).
Urk Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums
VA Varia Aegyptiaca
ZÄS Zeitshrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley xxiv
Synopsis xxv
Synopsis
The reader might expect a chart of key dates presented in this book, as a means
of comparison with his or her presuppositions. But the author’s methodology must be
well understood, before considering precise dates. The Egyptian calendar(s) must be
established in the first part of the book, to secure the date and year of Neferefre’s w3gy
feast, pivotal for dates before and after. The following synopsis is compiled by the editor
to assist the reader’s journey through the book, and to introduce the chapters where
specific Dynastic tables are to be found after full consideration of the evidence and
anchor points that determine the dates and length of each king’s reign.
The introductory chapter, “Problems with the Historical Chronology of

Ancient Egypt”, describes the ongoing yet unresolved chronological controversies within
the Egyptological community throughout the 20th century to the present. This includes
the dating of the Eruption of Thera which produced material for construction for a
limited period in Egypt. The chapter describes the views of Egyptologists who have
formed opinions on the chronology of ancient Egypt based on the comparatively
incomplete inscriptional evidence, and scientists who rely on carbon-dating and other
methodologies; a perceived difference of approx. 150 years. The selective reliance by
Egyptologists who seek to establish the chronology of ancient Egypt on uncertain
evidence and methodologies, and a rejection of alternative sources such as scientific
analysis, astronomical observation, and inscriptions not fitting their presuppositions (like
the Ebers Calendar), portrays a research discipline in considerable conflict.
Chapter Two reprises the author’s findings in her Reconstructed Chronology of

the Divided Kingdom (Eisenbrauns, 2005). She challenges Egyptologists for generally
accepting the dating methodologies of Edwin Thiele for the Israel/Judah chronology,
linked to a dubious Assyrian Eponym Canon, upon which they generally rely as an
accepted date for Egyptian chronological calculations. Based on her comprehensive
critical analysis of all Israel/Judean textual sources she reconstructs a cogent and
coherent presentation of the deliberately interlinked chronologies of Judah and Israel in
the canonical Books of Kings. She establishes that a crucial encounter between
Rehoboam of Judah and Shoshenq I of Egypt occurred in 977 BCE, not 925 as
commonly assumed. This is the primary synchronism for establishing the chronologies
of ancient Assyria, Israel/Judah, and Egypt.
In Chapters Three to Seven, Dr Tetley explains the importance to ancient

Egyptians of the annual rising of the star Sothis and other means of marking the passage
of time. She surveys the various calendrical images and devices known to Egyptologists.
Then she examines in laborious detail one of the primary chronological puzzles among
Egyptologists over the last century, which is the search to explain why various
inscriptions and calendar references report some feasts apparently held out of their
eponymous months in the Greco-Roman calendar. In particular she highlights the
information supplied by Sir Alan Gardiner in 1906 suggesting two civil calendars, and
Dr Richard Parker’s advocacy in 1950 of lunar calendars, and their subsequent irate
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley xxvi
interchanges in 1955 and 1957. She discusses the more recent workings of Winfried
Barta, Jürgen von Beckerath, Marshall Clagett, Leo Depuydt, Wolfgang Helck, Heidi
Jauhiainen, Rolf Krauss, Christian Leitz, Ulrich Luft, John Nolan, and Anthony
Spalinger, meticulously examining the calendrical materials. From this extended
narrative, describing an array of detail, contention and uncertainty, is highlighted a range
of observations upon which a constructive analysis can be eventually postulated. Tetley
repeatedly contends that no responsible chronology of Ancient Egypt can be ventured
without a satisfactory understanding of Egypt’s calendar or calendars, by which
chronological information on inscriptions, letters and elsewhere must be interpreted.
This section of the book is critical for engaging with the real situation in the twin
Kingdoms of Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt, and the calendrical solution that explains
feasts “apparently” held out of their eponymous months.
In chapter Eight and Nine evidence is examined that supports the existence of a
Calendar commencing with the month of Wep Renpet (wp rnpt). The evidence adduced
related not only to the first month of the year, but by implication other months and feasts
that conform to such a calendar. Chapter eight concludes with an extensive list of
evidence from many sources that validate the existence of such a calendar. Chapter nine
discusses in detail the famous Ebers Calendar.
In Chapter Ten, Tetley finally offers her explanation to resolve previously

described impasse. She validates the Ebers Calendar as the key document for
establishing the calendrical system and a chronological fixed point for Upper Egypt by
its reference to the heliacal rising of Sothis on III šmw 9 at Thebes (Upper Egypt) in the
ninth year of the reign of King Amenhotep I. She then explores the documentary
evidence for the Era of Menophres, and establishes how the calendar of Lower Egypt
eventually supplanted the calendar for Upper Egypt, a transition recognized as the Era of
Memphis (Lower Egypt). Throughout this and previous chapters Tetley’s proposals are
corroborated and validated by astronomical tables supplied by Prof. Lee Casperson, and
occasionally the calculations of Dr. Fred Espenek (NASA’s Goddard Space Flight
Center) for new moon phases. Readers will not appreciate and substantiate the remainder
of this work without understanding the importance of the Sothic cycle in the formation
of the Egyptian calendar, as well as the Casperson tables.
Chapters 11 to 13 engage in a case study of Sesostris III and Amenhotep III and
are pivotal to the validity of the entire work. Firstly, Sesostris III’s seventh year is linked
in diaries found at Illahun to a heliacal rising of Sothis recorded at Illahun. By analyzing
the seventh year date based on the Sothic cycle explicated in Chapter 10, the year can be
identified as 1980 BCE, confirmed by multiple corroboration through astronomical
analysis by Casperson. Also found at Illahun are papyrii (pBerlin 10282 and 10130)
describing festivals dated specifically to new moons in Sesostris III’s sixth and eight
years. Casperson’s tables can again be applied to the new moon dates in 1981 BCE and
1979 BCE respectively. They provide exact agreement. Of these three adjacent years,
Tetley says, “that the Sothic date and the lunar dates support each other is a compelling
argument for their reliability.” Chapter 12 examines the various feast dates occurring in
the Illahun papyri. Tetley concludes, “The inscriptional data in the Illahun materials
offer numerous dates that can be checked and corroborated by lunar phases. The
confirmation of multiple and connected chronological evidence shown in the detail of
this chapter affords a high level of confidence in the accuracy for the dates of the reigns
of Sesostris III and Amenemhet III and provides a secure anchor for dating the rest of the
12th Dynasty, which we come to later.” Chapter 13 involves the discussion of fixed and
Synopsis xxvii
movable w3gy feasts also from Illahun records, that is of more than academic interest.
Tetley concludes the chapter by saying, “The date of a movable w3gy feast in the reign
of Neferefre (Raneferef) secures a date in the Fifth Dynasty. This results in exciting
implications for Egyptian chronology.”
In Chapter 14, “Securing Neferefre’s W3gy Feast Date”, the previous

painstaking study of feast dates pays off, permitting the interpretation of inscriptions
discovered as recently as 1982 relating to the brief reign of the Fifth Dynasty King
Neferefre (aka Raneferef). Based on the previous analysis of movable w3gy feasts in
chapter 13. The date of the feast is located within the 25 year range to which it applied.
Alternative ranges are shown to be inadmissible, confirming the date of 2750 BCE as the
earliest secure date of Egyptian chronology. This landmark discovery will be later
corroborated by nine lunar dates relating to five subsequent kings in the Fifth, Sixth, and
Eighth Dynasties.
Chapter 15 introduces the fragmentary data that comprise early Egyptian

chronological constructions including the Royal Annals, South Saqqara Stone, Turin
Canon, Abydos King-list, Saqqara Tablet, Karnak King-list, Papyrus Westcar, and
Manetho. While providing important historical material, the deficiencies and
discrepancies between these sources are also noted. Tetley then describes her approach
to the reconstruction of the Egyptian dynasties. She will proceed forwards from
Neferefre’s Fifth Dynasty anchor date of 2750 BCE to the Eighth Dynasty, examining
inscriptional and astronomical evidence along the way. Then she will return to the Royal
Annals and its prior record of Dynasties One to Five.
Chapters 16 and 17 recast the latter part of Dynasty Five, then Six and Eight
(Manetho’s Seventh Dynasty is apparently a garbled list of localized reigns that seem
unconnected with kings appearing in other chronological materials). These chapters
exhibit Tetley’s approach, drawing on all the available (though incomplete) evidence in
the materials mentioned in Chapter 15. She reports and interacts with the chronological
information from fragments reported in all the latest published scholarship, confirming
and occasionally contesting proposed conclusions. And, importantly for this period, she
interprets inscriptional information contained on fragments in the light of the fixed and
uncontested astronomical computations of lunar risings etc, of which there are nine
relating to the reigns of five kings. She treats with due caution every item of information,
including the occasional summaries of periods in the Turin Canon. Also important to
resolve are claims for annual or biennial numbering of regnal years, and the
discrepancies between the lists of kings in the Turin Canon etc. and Manetho.
Chapter 18 introduces the Royal Annals. The Cairo 1 fragment is displayed.

Toby Wilkinson’s book in 2000 is acknowledged and appreciated though it doesn’t offer
a chronological reconstruction. Tetley’s earlier chapters have supplied a provisional
dating range, by which the possible edges of the Annals may be constrained. This brief
chapter introduces the three-stage discussion that follows; the essential description and
history of the Annals, which also includes charts displaying Tetley’s own
reconstruction—preliminary to the detailed arguments offered to substantiate later
conclusions and proposals.
Chapter 19. The fragmented chronological information about each successive

king—Menes to Neferkare—in TC, AbKL, and SSS, is first reported. Inscriptional
evidence known to Egyptologists is disclosed including the various uncertainties that
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley xxviii
exist. Then the discussion turns to the evidence of the Annals. Tetley fully discloses her
methods of reconstruction. Some lengths—of—reign, changes of reign, Heb Sed
festivals, and other chronological indicators are represented on the Palermo Stone (PS)
and the Cairo 1 (C1) fragment. Cairo 5 (C5) also has a key place in the reconstruction.
But the gaps in the Annals hold the greatest intrigue, and Tetley carefully explains every
“gap” and consequently every length—of—reign with simplicity, associated extracts
from her reconstruction, and where necessary the uncertainty of scholars about particular
reigns. As with the other chronological sources, in a few cases the lengths—of—reign of
some kings in the period of the Annals must be estimated from other inscriptional
evidence (such as the Turin Canon), or as suggested by the overall structure of the
Annals. The Annals was a two-sided stone record with a clear and discrete structure,
size, format of registers, and compartments representing each individual year, many
which are explicitly allocated to kings identified on the Annals. Chapter 20 completes
the discussion of the recto side of the Annals, and Chapter 21 addresses the issues of the
verso side. Alternative views are considered. However, the combination of
archaeological findings to date, the Turin Canon and companion King-Lists, and the
structure of the Royal Annals with the detail of surviving fragments offering evidence of
its original form, permits a chronological reconstruction of the first four and a half
dynasties that display agreement between the summaries of the Turin Canon and the
reconstructed registers of the Royal Annals. Given the paucity of archaeological
information about each king, the missing material of the TC, and the few fragments of
the Royal Annals, this is a most remarkable contribution to the discussion for dating the
earliest dynasties of Egypt.
Chapter 22 surveys Dynasties Nine to Eleven, a period when, except for a Sothic
date in the reign of Mentuhotep II, extant records do not permit many of the kings
reported to be accorded precise dates or lengths of reign. The Sothic date derives from a
star clock on a coffin and via a Casperson Table, corroborated by the HELIAC Program,
Mentuhotep II’s first regnal year is located as 2186 BCE Eleventh Dynasty dates can be
confirmed, beginning in 2259 BCE. Earlier, the ending date for the Eighth Dynasty was
determined at 2434, but the 18 kings named in the Turin Canon for the Ninth and Tenth
Dynasities can not be more closely dated other than to say that collectively they reigned
for 175 years.
Chapter 23 establishes the 12th Dynasty, drawing again on the Sothic and lunar
dates ascertained in chapters 11-13. Dealing solely with chronological matters the author
says, “Chapter 11 … determined that Sesostris III’s sixth, seventh, and eighth years are
dated to 1981, 1980, and 1979 BCE respectively, which provide an anchor for the 12th
Dynasty. The length of Sesostris III’s reign is discussed below but I first look at his
accession in the year 1986 and the question of a co-regency with Sesostris II.” Accession
dates, lengths of reign, evidence for co-regencies, and specific dates for each reign and
for the whole of the dynasty, is the grist of a chapter, which may be more difficult to
beginners because the names of Amenemhet (I, II, III, IV), and Sesostris (I, II, III) are
repeated and interlinked.
Chapter 24. As a delightful diversion, Hekanakhte’s parcel of previously

unopened letters, discovered in the 20th century, contain domestic and agricultural
arrangements between a land-owner and his workers in southern Egypt, with seven
calendar references including two regnal years. The previous chapters relating to
calendars of Upper and Lower Egypt, the Sothic rising in the seventh year of Sesostris
III (chapters 11-13), and the other kings of the 12th Dynasty in chapter 23, enable Tetley
Synopsis xxix
to definitively date the letters, and the seasonal arrangements made by Hekanakhte. And
importantly for chronological interests, the Hekanakhte Letters provide further
attestation of the use of an Upper Egyptian calendar in the 12th Dynasty in Upper Egypt
in the same manner that the Ebers Calendar attests to its use in the 18th Dynasty.
Chapter 25 reports of Dynasties 13 to 17, about which little can be

chronologically affirmed due to the absence of records. This does not impede the
chronology because dates relating to the prior 12th Dynasty and the 18th and following
Dynasties are securely anchored as detailed in the relevant chapters. Meanwhile, the
author states, “The 13th-17th Dynasties await further clarification.”
Chapter 26 introduces the contested dates for the 18th Dynasty. She
recapitulates the process by which most Egyptian scholars begin to compute their dates,
and reports the 20th century and more recent years of debate. She notes the aversion of
Egyptologists to consider the Sothic cycle and the Ebers Calendar, the assistance of
astronomical data, and an absent awareness of distinct calendars for Upper and Lower
Egypt; all are at the heart of the coverage in previous chapters.
Chapter 27 reinstates the correct dates for the 18th Dynasty covering the first
five rulers. These include Amenhotep I, whose dates are anchored by the Ebers Calendar
when rightly understood. Tetley determines each ruler’s death and the accession of his
successor to the day, drawing from dates on inscriptions that are matched with
astronomical observations. A notable feature within this period is the discussion of
Thera’s eruption and the 150 years disparity between the dates of scientists (who
advocate an earlier date) and the conventional dates cited by many in the Egyptology
community.
Chapter 28-30 continue to establish the dates of the kings of the 18th Dynasty. A
heliacal rising in Thutmose II’s 33rd year is one anchor point, and four other lunar
references attested from various sources during the reigns of Thutmose and Amenhotep
II corroborate the proposed dates of their reigns. Chapter 29 considers the regnal dates
and lengths of reign between Thutmose IV and Tutankhamun. The author says, “The
virtual absence of anchor points places more reliance on inscriptional and circumstantial
evidence, which has considerable complexity.” It concludes with a discourse on
Akhenaten’s successor. Chapter 30 covers the reigns of Ay and Horemheb which
includes the end of the Sothic cycle in 1414 BCE. as viewed from Thebes in Upper
Egypt, leading to the adoption of a new Sothic cycle as viewed from Memphis in Lower
Egypt in 1314 BCE that would govern the future calendar of all Egypt.
Chapter 31 redates the 19th Dynasty centered in the reign of Ramesses II.
Tetley’s most controversial claim challenges the conventional pivot of Egyptian
chronology by determining the precise date of the famous new moon reported in a ship’s
log in Ramesses II’s 52nd year. Other lunar and heliacal rising dates during the reign of
Ramesses II and other 19th Dynasty kings add further unequivocal support for her key
dating claim.
Chapter 32 addresses the discrepancies between Manetho’s chronology (in

general accord with Josephus and Theophilus) and that which has been previously
covered. Tetley demonstrates that the total number of years from Manetho’s 18th and
19th Dynasties cover the same number of years as the 18th, 19th, and 20th Dynasties
known from contemporary sources and that Manetho’s 19th Dynasty in Lower Egypt
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley xxx
runs mostly concurrently with the Theban-based 20th Dynasty in Upper Egypt. However
the listing of kings and lengths of reign between the reigns of Ahmose and Ramesses II
are incompatible until Ramesses moves his capital to the Delta and builds Pi-Ramesses.
Ramesses is the king of Israel’s slavery. He is followed by an almost 40 year reign of
Amenophis, and then an unidentified pharaoh who reigned for one year and four months.
The events mesh with the narrative of Moses in Exodus, his exile during the reign of
Amenophis, and the death shortly after accession of a new pharaoh. Tetley then
documents the wider framework of interlocking synchronisms between Israel and Egypt
which support from both the chronology of Israel/Judah and of Egypt the claim that
Rehoboam’s fifth year coincides with Shoshenq I’s 20 year. It remains for the following
chapters to validate that claim by its treatment of the Egyptian Dynasties 20 to 25.
Chapter 33 Tetley sets out to “discuss the evidence that identifies the lunar
anchor points within the regnal years of the associated kings of the 20th Dynasty, the
dates and lengths of their reigns; proceeding from the anchor points of the 19th Dynasty
established in chapter 31 and the conclusion of Twosre’s reign in 1297 BCE.” This
period is “significantly informed by the chronological information attributed to Manetho
in its several versions. In the case of the 20th Dynasty, the larger ‘totals’ in the Manetho
versions offer greater consistency with other evidence than dates currently being
presented by some Egyptologists. Ancient historians were much closer to the events and
inscriptional evidence than people of our times, and their writings were intentionally
preserved.” The Book of Sothis also assists in providing several key dates, which are
helpfully tabled throughout each chapter.
Chapter 34 revises again the much debated 21st Dynasty of Tanite Kings. The
use of lunar dates referred to on inscriptions and Karnak Priestly Annals assist the
(tentative) determination of kings’ dates, although working with the incumbencies of
both kings and high priests can be taxing on the new reader, especially when some dates
in the records are uncertain. Nevertheless, Tetley produces a table of kings that
approximates those delivered by other scholars, though the absolute dates differ in
keeping with her overall chronology which also determines the astronomical period in
which lunar events occur and supportive evidence adduced.
Chapter 35 looks at other attempts to reconstruct the chronology of Dynasties 22

to 25 and shows the surprising breadth of disagreement and improvisation among
Egyptologists arising from not having a secure chronological framework and dismissing
the usefulness of anchor points from the astronomical evidence of that period. But the
chapter also serves to high-light recently found evidence, and the work or opinions of
Kitchen, Leahy, Aston and Taylor, Rohl and Dodson, Jansen-Wilkeln, von Beckerath,
Muhs, Frame and Redford, Broekman, Jaquet-Gordon, Payraudeau, Kaper and Demarée,
Perdu, Kahn, etc. Again, it can be hard reading in a very complex and contested area, but
it serves the author by preparing some of the ground in the final chapters to come.
Chapters 36 & 37. The most significant contribution here is the recognition that
Manetho gives a framework of the 22nd Dynasty in two divisions (which include several
unnamed kings now identified in recent years). Chapter 36 frames the reconstruction at
length, and Chapter 37 finishes it. Against recent and ever-changing theories forced by
the compressed chronologies advocated by Kitchen, Aston and others, the identity,
length of reign and actual dates are steadily pursued. Inscriptional evidence here includes
the inductions of High Priests and Apis bulls, with the given dates of induction
Synopsis xxxi
confirmed by astronomical data of new and full moons, as well as the fixed
synchronisms between various rulers within and without Egypt.
Chapters 38 & 39 examine and establish the dates of the 23rd, 24th, and 25th
Dynasties using the customary methodology of the author. She says “The chronology of
Dynasties 22-25 supplies the years from Shoshenq I in 998/997 BCE to the end of the
reign of Taharqa in 664 BCE which is the secure starting point for ancient Egyptian
history. Every year is accounted for in this time period. It cannot be truncated to begin
ca. 945 BCE.” She then concludes by showing how this Egyptian Chronology
synchronizes with her previous book, The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided
Kingdom (Israel and Judah), and again advocates that the Assyrian Eponym Canon be
reviewed to conform to the dates established in her work on Israel and Judah and now by
the Egyptian chronology that has been conclusively established upon the inscriptional
and astronomical evidence.
Chapter 15. Working with Egyptian King-Lists 205
Volume Two
Chapter 15
Working with Egyptian King-lists

Before formulating a chronology of Egyptian kings, we need to understand
problems associated with the counting of kings’ regnal years in the Old Kingdom. An
introduction to how kings were named, as given in a titulary, is also necessary.
Counting Regnal Years

Regnal years were originally identified by special events that occurred in them,
rather than by number.1 This is illustrated by the Palermo Stone, the largest of the
surviving fragments of the Royal Annals, which mentions particular events in each
year’s compartments. For example, the words rnpt sm3 t3wy mean “The Union of the
Two Lands” referring to a king’s accession year; that is, the part of the civil year the
king reigns after the death of his predecessor, and before the new calendar year begins.
Another example is the king’s sed-festival referred to in the sixth compartment of
register 3 recto, coming from the reign of Den, generally understood to refer to a king’s
30th regnal year.
Some reigns shown on the Royal Annals have alternating years exhibiting the
signs for the “following of Horus.” This event is understood to be the king’s travel
through his land with his officials, meeting the people, assessing the political and
economic climate, and recording a census count probably for the purpose of taxation.
The “following of Horus” is accompanied with a census count when both are represented
in the same year in the Annals.
The census or cattle count began in a king’s second year and took place every
second year of his reign. The words rnpt zp refer to the year of a census count, and rnpt
m-ḫt sp refer to the year after such a count.2 These are demonstrated in the reigns of
Ninetjer in register four recto (2nd Dynasty), and in the reign of Khasekhemy in register
five recto of the Palermo Stone (late 2nd Dynasty).
The nature of the census count is not always stated but appears to have been of
gold and fields in the earlier dynasties and cattle counts by the 5th Dynasty. The latter is
specifically mentioned in the reign of Userkaf, first king of the 5th Dynasty on the verso
1
A.H. Gardiner, “Regnal Years and Civil Calendar in Pharaonic Egypt,” JEA 31 (1945) 12; The Editors,
“Methods of Dating and the Egyptian Calendar,” Ancient Egyptian Chronology (eds. E. Hornung, R.
Krauss, D.A. Warburton; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006) 45; J. Kahl, “Dynasties 0-2,” AEC (2006)
99-100.
2
See Gardiner, “Regnal Years,” 11-23; A.J. Spalinger, “Dated Texts of the Old Kingdom,” SAK 21 (1994)
225-319; J.S. Nolan, “The Original Lunar Calendar and Cattle Counts in Old Kingdom Egypt,” Aegyptiaca
Helvetica 17 (2003) 75-97; idem, “Lunar Intercalations and ‘cattle counts’ during the Old Kingdom: the
Hebsed in Context,” Chronology and Archaeology in Ancient Egypt (The Third Millennium B.C.), (eds. H.
Vymazalová and M. Bárta; Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, 2008) 44-60; P. Posener-Kriéger, M.
Verner, and H. Vymazalová, Abusir X: The Pyramid Complex of Raneferef, (Prague: Czech Institute of
Egyptology, 2006) 327; M. Verner, “Dynasties 4 to 5,” AEC (2006), 124-43; idem, “The System of Dating
in the Old Kingdom,” Chronology and Archaeology, 23-43; M. Baud, “Dynasties 6 and 8,” AEC (2006),
144-58.
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley 206
of fragment C1 of the Royal Annals (register 2), referring to the year after the first
occasion of the cattle count in Userkaf’s third year.
However, three preserved compartments for the reign of Sneferu in register six
recto (5th Dynasty) refer to census counts on two consecutive years, prompting scholars
to speculate whether census counts were in fact biennial, or perhaps annual, or merely
that unforeseen contingencies interrupted a routine biennial process, and these adjacent
compartments were compensating for a delayed count on the previous year and then
returning to the usual procedure. The views of scholars diverge on this question, which
will be considered as the Annals are reconstructed in the following chapters.
Census counts appear in various contexts, such as in papyri, the South Saqqara
Stone, and in masons’ marks on bricks.
Kings’ Titularies
The ancient kings of Egypt were often known by up to five names—the latter two
being those with which Egyptologists are more familiar. An inscription giving their
names is called a titulary. Since some of these different names are used in discussing the
king-lists, an explanation is provided here.3
A full titulary consisted of a king’s five names. The first is his Horus name
usually written in a box-like structure representing the façade of a palace, called a
serekh, above which sits a Horus falcon, signifying that the king is the reincarnation of
the god Horus. The second is his nebty name indicating he is protected by “Two Ladies;”
that is, the goddess Nekhbet (a vulture) in Upper Egypt, and the goddess Wadjet (a
cobra) of Lower Egypt. The third is the king’s golden Horus name, which reflects a
divine aspect of his individuality. The fourth is his prenomen or throne name enclosed in
a cartouche, preceded by the nswt-bity signs: the sedge plant (Upper Egypt) and the bee
(Lower Egypt), indicating that he is king of Upper and Lower Egypt. The king took this
name when he ascended the throne and it is the name by which Egyptians referred to
their king. Re (the sun-god) is often included in the title. The fifth is his nomen, also in a
cartouche, preceded by the sign of the sa-re title, indicating he is the son of Re and his
heir on earth. This is his birth name by which Egyptologists know him today. Since
kings often took on the birth names of their predecessors, Roman numerals are added to
distinguish one king from another, such as Ramesses I and II.
An example of a full titulary is that of Sesostris I of the 12th Dynasty: “Horus,
‘Life-of-births’, Two Ladies ‘Life-of-births’, Horus of gold ‘Life-of-births’, King of
Upper and Lower Egypt ‘Kheperkare’, Son of Re ‘Sesostris’, (may he be) granted life,
stability, and wealth like Re eternally.”
The kings of the pre- and early Dynastic period were usually known by their
Horus names when alive, and by their nebty name when deceased. The Turin Canon and
Abydos King-list (AbKL) give the nebty names of the kings, not their Horus names.4
Anedjib, sixth king of the 1st Dynasty, is the first king known to have held a nswt-bity
name (“King of Upper and Lower Egypt”): Merpabia. The throne name, encircled by a
cartouche resembling an oval or magical rope, is not known until the reign of Sneferu of
the 4th Dynasty.5
Since each king was understood by the Egyptians to be a combination of the
divine and mortal, a tradition of royal ancestor worship developed where “the current
ruler made obeisance to his predecessors,” which was “the reason for the creation of the
3
Collated from I. Shaw, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)
8-9; “Pharaoh,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh
4
“Menes,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menes
5
Shaw, Oxford History, 9.
so-called king-lists … recorded on the walls of tombs and temples,… papyri,… or

remote desert rock carvings.”6
We now review ancient king-lists that may be helpful in reconstructing the
chronology of ancient Egypt.
Royal Annals or Old Kingdom Annals

The earliest existing record of Egyptian rulers is called the Royal or Old
Kingdom Annals.7 Only seven fragments survive. The largest one, known since 1866, is
currently in the Palermo Archaeological Museum, Sicily, Italy, from whence it gets its
name: the Palermo Stone. Smaller pieces discovered in 1910 are known as the Cairo
fragments C1–C4. The largest, C1, is similar in size to the Palermo Stone. They are in
the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Another piece, purchased in 1963, is in the Petrie
Museum in London, known as the London Fragment. The provenance of the annals is
not known, although the C4 fragment was discovered at Memphis. The annals were once
inscribed on a basalt stela assumed to have been originally about 210 (or 220) cm long,
61 cm high, and 6.5 cm thick. However, differences in thickness suggests that they do
not all derive from the same original, and some may be much later copies. The artistic
style is suggestive of the 25th Dynasty.8
Inscribed on both sides in early hieroglyphic writing, the annals began with rows
of mythological rulers covering thousands of years and predate Menes, the first king
named on the Turin Canon, understood to be the unifier of Upper and Lower Egypt, and
first ruler of the 1st Dynasty.
It is not clear whether Menes was once represented on the annals, but the first
preserved king on the Palermo Stone is his assumed successor, Aha. Contemporaneous
records cite a king called Narmer, not Menes, as the predecessor of Aha, giving the
impression that Menes and Narmer are the same.9 Some say that Aha is Menes because
Aha’s nebty name is Min (mn), understood as Menes.10
Kings are named and their reigns displayed in chronological order from Aha
down to Neferirkare Kakai of the 5th Dynasty, at which section the annals break off. The
annals are arranged in rows or registers so that each year is in a compartment divided by
vertical lines in the shape of a palm-rib curving at the top to the left, which is the
hieroglyphic sign renpet meaning “year.”11 The existing compartments within each
register have a uniform size (except for register six of which one of only three
compartments is larger than the other two). Each register has compartments that are
narrower or wider than those of other registers, so the number in each register varies
according to the width of the individual compartments. Each compartment represents
one year.12 I have reconstructed the Royal Annals in Figure 15.1 on page 210.
6
Ibid., 9.
7
Description mainly compiled from: T.A.H. Wilkinson, Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt: the Palermo
Stone and its Associated Fragments (Routledge, London: 2000) 18-65; also: I. Shaw, “Introduction:
Chronologies and Cultural Change in Egypt,” Oxford History, 4-5; The Editors, “Royal Annals,” AEC
(2006), 19-20; “Palermo Stone,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palermo_stone; A. Winston, “The Palermo
Stone,” http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/palermo.htm; J.S. Nolan, “Original Lunar Calendar,”
75-82; Spalinger, “Dated Texts,” 275-83; S-W. Hsu, “The Palermo Stone: The Earliest Royal Inscription
from Ancient Egypt,” Altorientalische Forschungen 37 (2010) 68-89.
8
Wilkinson, Royal Annals, 23.
9
Kahl, “Dynasties 0-2,” 97.
10
“Menes,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menes
11
Register 1 with mythological rulers has straight dividing lines.
12
There is one known exception: that of Aha’s last partial year followed by Djer’s first partial year—the
two compartments comprising just one year. This is discussed in chap. 19, pp. 268-269.
Figure 15.1: My reconstruction of the Royal Annals. The nine registers on the left are the recto side, with the verso
side to the right. Closer views of the Annals appear in chapters 18–21.
Large gaps between the extant fragments of the annals have resulted in the
absence of many compartments; the presence of which would have enabled the precise
numbering of a king’s regnal years.
In the first six registers on the recto, each king’s titulary was written in the
horizontal space (titulary band) between the registers, as shown on the Palermo Stone
(see Figure 15.2) and the C1 fragment. The preserved titularies cover about seven
compartments centred above each king’s regnal years, and it is assumed that the lost
titularies were of much the same length. However, the compartments on the verso of the
Palermo Stone and C1 fragments are very much larger than those on the recto, and in
these the titulary was written within and along the top of the king’s first compartment.
Some scholars think that this may also have been the position of the titularies on the
seventh to ninth registers on the recto (reigns of Khufu to Menkaure of the 4th Dynasty)
but since very little of the registers is preserved, the position of the titularies remains
debateable.
Each compartment from register two recto onward contains inscriptions
designating one or more important events for that year. In the larger compartments of the
verso, the descriptions become very comprehensive. Included is information on cult
ceremonies, offerings, taxation, sculpture, buildings, warfare, and the like.13
Figure 15.2: The Palermo Stone, by permission of The Museum photographic archive Archeologico Regionale “Antonio Salinas” in
Palermo.
13
D.B. Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists Annals, and Day-books: A contribution to the Study of the
Egyptian Sense of History, (SSEA 4; Mississauga, ON: Benben, 1986) 87.
The third feature of each register is the height of the Nile flood. This is written
under each compartment except for the first register of the recto where it is missing (see
Figure 15.3).
Figure 15.3: Michael St John’s representation of the Palermo Stone from his The Palermo Stone: An Arithmetical
View. London: University Bookshop Publications, 1990.
Toby Wilkinson, whose account of the annals was published in 2000,

summarized the attempts of scholars over the previous century to reproduce the Royal
Annals giving the appropriate number of compartments for each ruler.14 He writes: “It
seems highly unlikely that a definitive, or even plausible reconstruction of the annals
will ever be possible, infuriating as that may be. Nevertheless, there are certain elements
of a reconstruction about which we may be relatively confident.”15 Further on he states:
“It is highly unlikely that the annals were ever intended as an objective historical record,
and it is naïve to use them in this way. Where the annals do come into their own is as a
source for early Egyptian élite culture.”16
However, with the help of the king-lists and the Turin Canon in particular, plus
Wilkinson’s own commentary on the fragments, I have attempted a chronological
reconstruction of the annals giving what I believe are the number of appropriate
compartments, using the data at my disposal.17 This composition is reproduced in Figure
18.3 on pages 258–259, with higher definition excerpts throughout chapters 19–21. I
shall be interacting extensively with the Royal Annals and the Turin Canon when I seek
to date the kings of the 1st–5th Dynasties (prior to Neferefre). So I leave further
discussion until then.
The South Saqqara Stone

The South Saqqara Stone (see Figure 15.4) is one of the earliest inscriptions to
survive to the present. In 1932–1933, archaeologist G. Jequier discovered a basalt slab in
the westernmost of five storerooms south of the pyramid of Queen Iuput II within the
pyramid complex of Pepi II of the 6th Dynasty. The stone measures 243 cm by 92 cm
and is 6 cm thick. It is inscribed on both sides, much of which is illegible, especially the
central lines on the verso because the inscription was erased before being used as a
sarcophagus lid of one of Pepi II’s wives, either Ankhesenpepi I or Ankhesenpepi IV.18
It reads from right to left. With the help of modern photographic equipment, Michel
Baud and Vassili Dobrev, French Egyptologists, were able to make out many of the
words and published the annals in 1995.19 The South Saqqara Stone is housed in the
Egyptian Museum in Cairo and registered as JE 65908.20
14
Wilkinson, Royal Annals, 28-60.
15
Ibid., 77.
16
Ibid., 80.
17
The Editors of AEC (2006) have written a short chapter (“Royal Annals,” 19-25) mostly taken from
Wilkinson’s Royal Annals.
18
M. Baud and V. Dobrev, “De nouvelles annals de l’Ancien Empire égyptien. Une ‘Pierre de Palerme’
pour la Vie dynastie,” BIFAO 95 (1995) 23-63. F. Raffaele translated and summarized their description of
“South Saqqara Stone” at Wikipedia; M. Baud. “Dynasties 6 and 8,” 144; Posener-Kriéger et al., Abusir X,
330-31; J. Dunn writing as A. Winston, “The Pyramids of Pepi II’s Queens at South Saqqara,”
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pepi2squeensp.htm
19
Baud and Dobrev, “De nouvelles annals,” 23-63.
20
Posener-Kriéger et al., Abusir X, 330.
Figure 15.4: The South Saqqara Stone.
The South Saqqara Stone begins with a column on the right of the recto (above),
which contained the titulary of a king, probably Pepi II, of which only the initial Horus
sign of his name is preserved. To the left of the middle of the slab in this same row are
the names of King Userkare and further left the titles of Meryra Pepi (Pepi I) and the
name of Pepi’s mother, Iuput.
The registers below, which record the events of each year, have no horizontal or
vertical dividing lines, but six rows can be recognized because of traces seen of
memorial formulas (mnw). Referring to the reign of Pepi I, Baud writes:
The twelve surviving formulae (M3-M14) are spaced at rather regular intervals (×2 or ×3
where one, or perhaps two formulae are lacking), which supports an estimate of the
original number up to 25. Since both “occasion” and “after-occasion” years are known
for the reign, obviously each mnw-formula was associated with a pair of years, a census
year and a post-census year, presumably a regular biennial system.21
Baud goes on to say that it is not certain “that a single heading systematically
covered two years.”22 The year blocks give an estimation of the length of the kings’
reigns according to the number of blocks originally allocated for each. The six rows on
the recto refer to these kings: Teti, with an estimated 12 years; Userkare, with 2–4 years;
Pepi I, with 49–50 years; and Merenra (Nemtiemsaf) I, with 11–13 years. The verso
begins with the second part of Merenra’s reign and the first part of Pepi II’s reign,
although there is room for a longer inscription. The engraving is presumed to date from
Pepi II’s reign, which explains why his successor, Merenre Nemtiemsaf II, the last king
of the 6th Dynasty, is not mentioned.
21
Baud, “Dynasties 6 and 8,” 147.
22
Ibid., 147.
The Turin Canon

The Turin Canon, also known as the Turin Royal Canon or Turin King-list, was a
papyrus apparently discovered in a tomb23 by Italian collector and diplomat, Bernardino
Drovetti ca. 1823–1824, and acquired by the Egyptian Museum in Turin—hence its
name. It was designated papyrus no. 1874. The papyrus deteriorated rapidly with
handling, so that now an estimated 50% of the original papyrus remains, reduced to
about 300 fragments. The papyrus as now constituted is 170 cm long and 41 cm high.
The Turin Canon is written in hieratic on the back of a tax roll dating to the reign of
Ramesses II, and listed ancient Egyptian rulers, including gods and demigods, spirit
kings, and human kings. Part of the Turin Canon is shown below in Figure 15.5.
Figure 15.5: A portion of the Turin Canon.
In 1825, the French Egyptologist, Jean-François Champollion, attempted to

reconstruct the Turin Canon, followed later that year by the German–American
Egyptologist, Gustav Seyffarth, and later still by Munich Egyptologist, Jens Peter
Lauth.24 Publications by Farina, Gardiner, and Malek followed.25 Malek points out that
the Turin Canon papyrus that we now possess is not the original, evidenced by the layout
of the columns. The original, for example, had shorter columns.26 Redford discusses the
Turin Canon in his description of king-lists.27
Of special importance is the recent work done by K. Ryholt in his examination of
fragments of the Turin Canon in which he matched the directions of fibres resulting in
some new alignments of text. He discovered another column so that what was previously
column two is now column three. In the discussion below, Ryholt’s new numbering is
used. After examining the fibres, Ryholt published a new interpretation in 1997
particularly of the kings of the Second Intermediate Period.28 An article in 2000
23
K. Ryholt, “The Turin King-List,” Ä und L 14 (2004) 135.
24
“Turin King List,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_King_List.
25
G. Farina, Il papiro dei re restaurato (Rome: Bardi, 1938); A.H. Gardiner, The Royal Canon of Turin
(Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1959); J. Malek, “The Original Version of the Royal Canon of Turin,” JEA 68
(1982) 93-106.
26
Malek, “Original Version,” 93-94.
27
Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, 1-18, 197-98.
28
K. Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt During the Second Intermediate Period, c.1800-1550 B.C.
(Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies Publications 20; Copenhagen: University of
Copenhagen and Museum Tusculanum Press, 1997). Review by A. Spalinger in JNES 60 (2001) 296-300.
presented further results based on a new alignment of some of the fragments,29 plus a
detailed discussion in 2004,30 followed by a chapter in Ancient Egyptian Chronology in
2006.31 In 2009, unpublished fragments in good condition were found in a storage room
of the Egyptian Museum in Turin. “A new edition of the papyrus is expected.”32
The Turin Canon is a primary source for the kings and their regnal years from the
1st to the 12th Dynasty, since it originally gave what appears to have been a continuous
line of kings from Menes, first king of the 1st Dynasty in column three, line 11 (3.11),
down to a User … at 12.17. The kings from Menes down to Queen Sobeknefru at 7.2
(with a summation at 7.3) are recognizable from the kings’ cartouches on the AbKL
(Figure 15.6), except that the latter has a so-called 7th Dynasty, which is not given in the
Turin Canon. Where names are missing from the Turin Canon they are mostly filled in
by the AbKL or from other contemporary sources.
The kings from 7.4 to 12.17 in the Turin Canon supposedly from the Second
Intermediate Period and reflecting the 13th–17th Dynasties are missing in the AbKL and
only partially remain in the Turin Canon. These kings are not well known and most of
them do not have their regnal years intact except for a section from 7.24 to 8.8.33
The gaps in the papyrus and regnal year numbers given to some kings, which
may be annual or biennial (as in census counts), do not inspire confidence in the
reliability of the Turin Canon data. Miroslav Verner writes: “Obviously, comparison of
data from the very damaged papyrus with contemporaneous evidence can hardly be
expected to provide a definitive version of OK chronology.”34
The Abydos King-list (AbKL)

A list of 76 kings written in cartouches is engraved on the walls of Seti I’s temple
at Abydos, where Seti I and his son Ramesses (to become Ramesses II), are shown
worshipping their ancestors. There are two rows of 38 cartouches under which is another
row that repeats the prenomen and nomen of Seti I, all aligned neatly both vertically and
horizontally (see Figure 15.6).
Figure 15.6: A drawing by Peter Lundström of a reconstructed Abydos King-list.
29
Idem, “The Late Old Kingdom in the Turin King-list and the Identity of Nitocris,” ZÄS 127 (2000)
87-100.
30
Idem, ‘The Turin King-List.’ Ä und L 14 (2004) 135-55.
31
Idem, “The Turin King-list or so-called Turin Canon (TC) as a Source for Chronology,” AEC (2006),
26-32.
32
Four columns are shown above. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_King_List showing eleven
columns.
33
See Jacques Kinnaer, “Turin Kinglist,” http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/turin_kinglist/index.html
where one can click on the links provided to access any of 16 groups of kings in hieroglyphic form with
commentary.
34
M. Verner, “Contemporaneous Evidence for the Relative Chronology of Dyns. 4 to 5,” AEC (2006) 126.
The kings’ names are inscribed using their prenomens, though they are often
better known by their nomen or birth name. The cartouches are arranged in the same
order as in the Turin Canon except the AbKL appears to include a 7th Dynasty, which is
not given elsewhere or in the Turin Canon.35 The 8th Dynasty is not followed by kings of
the First Intermediate Period, understood to be the 9th and 10th Dynasties, but by the
11th and 12th Dynasties of which many names are missing. Then the Second
Intermediate Period is missing—that is the 13th–17th Dynasties—so that the 18th
Dynasty follows on from the 12th. However, Queen Hatshepsut (co-regent with
Thutmose III) and the Amarna (heretical) kings, Akhenaten, Smenkhare, Tutankhamun,
and Ay, are not included, so that the 18th Dynasty ends with Haremhab/Horemheb. The
list of cartouches concludes at nos. 75 and 76, giving the prenomens of Ramesses I and
Seti I, the first kings of the 19th Dynasty.
The 18th Dynasty kings of the AbKL are noticeably different from those
designated in Manetho (see page 219),36 both in name and regnal years, but those of the
AbKL are the same as those known from inscriptions on monuments or other sources.
Thus the AbKL corroborates the Turin Canon (except for the 7th Dynasty) for the 1st–
12th Dynasties but not Manetho’s king-lists.
A similar list to the AbKL was inscribed in the temple of Ramesses II at Abydos.
Now very damaged, only three partial registers of four survive.37 It is kept in the British
Museum.
Saqqara Tablet
A tablet was found at Saqqara in 1861 in the tomb of Tjuneroy (or Tjenry) a
court official and “Overseer of Works on all Royal Monuments” of Ramesses II. Figure
15.7 is an image of the relief decoration of the mastaba, which shows a scene in which
Tjuneroy was being presented before Ptah, preceded by two rows of cartouches
comprising a list of 58 kings from Anedjib and Qaa (fifth and seventh kings of the 1st
Dynasty) to Ramesses II (19th Dynasty).38
Figure 15.7: Saqqara King-list as seen in 1864 by A. Mariette.
In this list, only 47 cartouches survive with names, and many known rulers are
missing altogether. The tablet begins with Ramesses II at the top left and continues in
reverse chronological order with the 1st Dynasty kings at the end of the bottom row. It
omits rulers from the Second Intermediate Period (13th–17th Dynasties including the
Hyksos kings), Queen Hatshepsut of the 18th Dynasty (reign of Thutmose III), as well as
those of the heretic dynasty begun by Akhenaten in the mid-to-late 18th Dynasty.39 The
tablet is now housed in the Cairo Museum.
35
See “Abydos King List,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abydos_king_list
36
Manetho refers to the historian, Manetho refers to copies of the history attributed to him.
37
Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, 20-21.
38
“Saqqara Tablet,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqqara_Tablet.
39
J. Malek suggests how the list came to be arranged and why some of the names are missing in “The
Special Features of the Saqqara King-List,” JSSEA 12 (1982) 21-28.
In our designation, we number the kings in reverse, that is, from Anedjib (1) to
Ramesses II (58). This list is helpful in confirming names in the Turin Canon and AbKL
or in identifying some missing names.
Karnak King-list
The Akh-Menu Hall at Karnak was originally inscribed with a list of 61 kings
starting with Sneferu, the first king of Egypt’s 4th Dynasty, of which only 39 kings are
now legible. It was composed during the reign of Thutmose III (18th Dynasty), but it is
not a list of all the kings, although it is valuable as it gives the names of kings of the First
and Second Intermediate Periods, which are not included elsewhere in other king-lists.
It was first described by James Burton in 1825. In 1843, a Frenchman, Emil
Prisse, dismantled the blocks at night and stole them for France so that the German
expedition led by K.R. Lepsius, which was rapidly approaching Karnak, could not have
them. They are now severely damaged and on display in the Louvre in Paris.40
The kings are not arranged in a strictly chronological order, and with the large
gaps due to damage the list is not very helpful for reconstructing the kings of the 1st–8th
Dynasties (see Figure 15.8).
Figure 15.8: Karnak King-list as reconstructed by Peter Lundström.
Papyrus Westcar (pBerlin 3033)

Though not a king-list, the Westcar papyrus (Figure 15.9) is mentioned here
because it gives the names of several early kings. The papyrus was discovered in Egypt
in 1823 or 1824 by a British adventurer, Henry Westcar. Sometime around 1838 or 1839,
the German Egyptologist, Karl Richard Lepsius, acquired the papyrus, possibly from
Westcar’s niece. Lepsius apparently never made the papyrus public and after he died it
was bought by German Egyptologist Adolf Erman in 1866 who left it to the Berlin
Museum.41
40
See “Karnak king list” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnak_king_list.
41
Google “Westcar Papyrus” for Wikipedia information.
Figure 15.9: Westcar papyrus.
The papyrus is a palimpsest having been written over a prior text in red lettering.
It consists of 12 rolls and contains five stories that were told at the royal court of Cheops
(Khufu; second king of the 4th Dynasty). The papyrus has been dated to the Hyksos
Period (pre-18th Dynasty) but appears to date back to the 12th Dynasty. The author is
not known. The papyrus mentions the 3rd Dynasty kings, Nebka and Djoser; the 4th
Dynasty kings, Sneferu and Khufu; and 5th Dynasty kings, Userkaf, Sahure, and
Neferirkare Kakai. Historians have used the papyrus to reconstitute the history of the 4th
Dynasty.42 Its chronological interest lies in its attestations of early kings.
Manetho’s Aegyptiaca
Manetho was an Egyptian priest who lived 305–285 BCE in the reigns of
Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II.43 He served in the Temple of Sebennytos in the Delta where
he had access to ancient records and king-lists. Although he was familiar with Egyptian
hieroglyphic writing, he wrote a history of Egypt in Greek. His most important work was
his Aegyptiaca; that is, The History of Egypt, written in the reign of Ptolemy II.
Unfortunately, none of this original work has survived (perhaps burnt in a fire in
the library at Alexandria). However, it is understood by scholars that Flavius Josephus,
the 1st century CE Jewish historian, wrote a polemic against Manetho recorded in his
book Contra Apionem (Against Apion). At about the same time, a summary of
Manetho’s work, the Epitome, was circulated. Sections of Josephus’ writings are
preserved in the Epitome (fragments 42, 50, and 54).
The Epitome recorded dynastic lists going back to gods and demi-gods who ruled
before the 1st Dynasty, the latter beginning with Menes, the first king of a united Egypt.
The Epitome was preserved by Sextus Julianus Africanus, Bishop of Caesarea (ca. 220
CE), which was secondarily preserved by Syncellus, known as George the Monk, in the
ninth century CE. It was also preserved by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (ca. 320 CE)
and then it too was preserved by Jerome in the 4th–5th centuries, with an Armenian
translation in the 6th–8th centuries.
The Epitome covers the 1st Dynasty down to the 31st Dynasty ending with three
Persian kings of Egypt. It has further appendages and appendices, the one of most
interest being Appendix IV, The Book of Sothis, recorded by Syncellus. It has a very
mixed up tabulation of kings with only some recognizable as coming from the same
dynasty. While not afforded the same level of credibility as those of Africanus and
Eusebius, and considered by some as an ancient forgery, it too has similarities with the
42
Ibid.
43
Manetho vii-xxviii; “Manetho,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manetho
versions of Manetho, and, as we shall see, it has reign lengths in the 20th Dynasty not
found now in Manetho’s other copies.
Manetho is credited with dividing the rulers into dynasties—apparently based on
different locations or common origin—a dynasty being introduced when there was a
discontinuity of some sort. In scholarly discussion, these divisions have been
appropriated to the kings of the other ancient king-lists, though only the Turin Canon
utilizes divisions (shown by summation lines). But, as we shall see, they are not all the
same divisions as those given by Manetho.
The spelling of kings’ names in the versions of Africanus and Eusebius are often
somewhat different from each other, as are the regnal years attributed to the kings.
Africanus is usually (but not always) the more credible, probably because it is based on
an older copy of Manetho, and it has more complete lists. Sometimes Africanus is the
only version giving names of kings and their regnal years, with the other versions merely
giving truncated accounts of the number of kings and the total regnal years for the given
dynasty.
Despite all the errors that have crept in over the centuries of transmission and
recopying, the versions handed down from Manetho giving the names of kings, their
regnal years, and their dynastic divisions, are still used as the basis for Egyptian
chronology.
Divisions of the Turin Canon and the AbKL

I mentioned above that the Turin Canon and the AbKL appear to refer to the
same lineage of kings in contrast to those appearing in the dynastic lists of Manetho. It
becomes important in reconstructing the chronology to determine whether the kings
represented by the Turin Canon, AbKL, and the other lists mentioned are also
represented in Manetho’s dynasties, or whether the latter are in fact from a different
line(s) of kings. I now make a comparison of the names in the Turin Canon and AbKL
and then compare them with Manetho’s kings.
Table 15.1 compares the names of the Turin Canon with those of the AbKL
whose common name has been recognized by scholars.44 The two names are understood
to be the king’s Horus name and his throne name (nomen).
Table 15:1: The Turin Canon compared to the AbKL
Sections 3.11–4.26 of the Turin Canon Abydos King-list
Cartouche King: listed King: common
Ref King Years lived
no. name name
3.11 Menes lost45 1 Meni Menes
3.12 It[…] lost 2 Teti Hor-Aha
3.13
lost 10 [+ x] 28 d 3 Iti Djer
&14
3.15 [I]tiui lost 4 Ita Djet
3.16 Semti] lost 5 Septi Den
3.17 Merbiapen 74 6 Meribiap Anedjib
44
The table is based on the Turin Canon given at “Turin King List, or Turin Royal Canon,”
http://www.narmer.pl/tur/turyn_en.htm (with the numbering updated as explained above) compiled by
Darius Sitek. Sitek asserts “The most important publications are: G. Farina, Il papiro dei re restaurato
(Rome: Bardi, 1938), A.H. Gardiner, The Royal Canon of Turin (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1959) and J.
Malek, “The original version of the Royal Canon of Turin” in JEA 68 (1982) 93-106. Also consulted was
“Turin Kinglist: Columns II,11 to III,26/27” at
http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/turin_kinglist/index.html and “Turin Kinglist: columns IV,1 to
IV,17,” at http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/turin_kinglist/0401_0417.html (both created by Jacques
Kinnaer); and the Abydos King List at “Abydos King List,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abydos_king_list
The cartouches are displayed here.
45
The column reads “Menes, may he live, prosper and be healthy, has functioned…”
3.18 Semsem 72 7 Semsu Semerkhet

3.19 [Ke]behu 63 [ ] 8 Qebeh Qa’a
3.20 Baw[netjer] 95 9 Bedjau Hotepsekhemwy
3.21 Ka]ka[w] lost 10 Kakau Raneb
3.22 [Ba]netjer 95 11 Banetjer Ninetjer
3.23 [unknown] 54 12 Wadjnas Wneg
3.24 Sened 70 (?) 13 Sendi Senedj
3.25 Aaka lost [not given]
Years reigned
4.1 Neferkasokar 8 yr 3 mo [not given]
“Erased”, 1 yr, 8 mo, 4 d. Lived 34
4.2 ‘Hudjefa’ (a) [not given]
yr
4.3 Bebti 27 yr, 2 mo, 1 d. Lived 40 + x yrs 14 Djadjay Khasekhemwy
4.4 Nebka 19 15 Nebka Sanakhte
Netjerikhet
4.5 Djoser-It 19 yr, 1 mo 16 Djoser
Djoser
4.6 Djoser-Ti 6 17 Teti Sekhemket
4.7 ‘Hudjefa’ (b) “[Erased]” 6 yr 18 Sedjes Khaba
4.8 Huni 24 19 Neferkara Huni
4.9 Snofru 24 20 Sneferu Sneferu
4.10 lost 23 21 Khufu Khufu
4.11 lost 8 22 Djedfre Djedefre
4.12 Kha[fre] lost 23 Khafre Khafre
4.13 lost lost [not given]
4.14 lost 18 24 Menkaure Menkaure
4.15 lost 4 25 Shepseskaf Shepseskaf
4.16 lost 2 [not given] [not given]
4.17 [User]kaf 7 26 Userkaf Userkaf
4.18 lost 12 27 Sahure Sahure
4.19 lost lost 28 Kakai Neferirkare Kakai
4.20 lost 7 [not given] [not given]
4.21 lost lost 29 Neferefre Neferefre
4.22 lost 10 + x 30 Niuserre Niuserre Ini
4.23 Menkauhor 8 31 Menkauhor Menkauhor Kaiu
4.24 Djed 28 32 Djedkare Djedkare Isesi
4.25 Unas/Wenis 30 33 Unis Unas
Total of kings beginning with
4.26 Summation Menes down to [Unas, their
years …]
x = An uncertain number. “Hudjefa” means name lost to copyist. Two instances are (a) and (b).
There is general concordance between the Royal Annals and the list in Table
15.1. Where names exist, the table demonstrates that the Turin Canon and the AbKL
once recorded the same kings. The common names provided for the AbKL kings are
attested on the Royal Annals (where extant), demonstrating that all three king-lists
record the same lineage of kings. This same lineage is also applicable to the South
Saqqara Stone, Saqqara Tablet, Karnak King-list and Westcar papyrus.
Turin Canon 3.11–4.26 Compared with the 1st–5th Dynasties of Manetho

The Turin Canon has groups of kings that are separated by summation lines,
whereas Manetho has lists of dynasties. In the Turin Canon, the first two columns
contain the names of gods, spirits, and mythical kings.46 These can be understood as
comprising the first division. At section 3.10, there is a heading for the “Kings of the
house of Menes,” with Menes being named at section 3.11. This second division
continues down to section 4.26 where there is a summation that once gave the total
number of kings and the years they reigned for the kings from Menes to Unas, the latter
46
Note that the TC columns are advanced by one, due to Kim Ryholt’s recent analysis which led him to
insert another column between column one and column two (K. Ryholt, “Late Old Kingdom,” 87). Also
note that the lines of each king in column three are adjusted so that Djer is allocated lines 3.13 and 3.14 as
explained in chap. 19.
named at section 4.25. The total number of kings and years is now missing. This division
once comprised the names of about 38 kings. Scholars equate these kings with
Manetho’s 1st–5th Dynasties, though the Turin Canon does not indicate the disjunctions
that led Manetho to record new dynasties. Unas is the fourth king after Neferefre whose
reign is already dated to 2750 BCE (see chapter 14). The next division, from section 4.1
to section 5.13, is equated by scholars with Manetho’s 6th and 8th Dynasties, which we
shall discuss in later chapters.
Table 15.2 lists the names and years of the kings of the Turin Canon (where
extant) from Menes down to Unas (sections 3.11–4.25) and aligns the earlier kings with
those of Manetho’s 1st–3rd Dynasties. The 4th and 5th Dynasties are aligned with the
later part of the Turin Canon kings, discussed in a later chapter. It is assumed that the
Turin Canon kings, as well as those recorded by Manetho, are consecutively reigning
kings.
Table 15.2: Names and years of the kings of the Turin Canon from Menes to Unas
compared with Manetho
Sections 3.11–4.26 of Turin Canon 1st–5th Dyn. from Manetho
Ref King Regnal years No. King Regnal years
3.11 Menes lost 1st Dyn. Menes Afr. 62, Eu. 60, Arm. 30
of Thinis
1
3.12 Aha or It[…] lost 2 Athothis Afr. 57, Eu. & Arm. 27
3.13
Djer or Iti lost 3 Kenkenes Afr. 31, Eu. & Arm. 39
&14
3.15 Djet or [I]tiui lost 4 Euenephes Afr. 23, Eu. & Arm. 42
3.16 Den or Semti lost 5 Usaphaidos All 20
3.17 Andjib or Merbiapen lost 6 Miebidos All 26
Semerkhet or
3.18 lost 7 Semempses All 18
Semsem
3.19 Qaa or [Ke]behu lost 8 Bieneches All 26
Afr. 253 act. 263;
Total 1st
[no gap here] Eu. 252 act. 258, Arm. 252 act.
Dyn.
228
3.20 Hotepsekhemwy or lost 2nd Dyn. Boethos Afr. 38; Eu. & Arm. absent
Baw-[netjer] of Thinis
1
3.21 Reneb or [Ka]ka[w] lost 2 Kaiechos Afr. 39; Eu. & Arm. absent
Ninetjer or
3.22 lost 3 Binothris Afr. 47; Eu. & Arm. absent
[Ba]netjer
Afr. 17; Eu. & Arm. king and
3.23 unknown lost 4 Tias
yrs absent
3.24 Senedj or Sened lost 5 Sethenes Afr. 41; Eu. & Arm. absent
Afr. 17; Eu. & Arm. king & yrs
3.25 Aaka lost 6 Chaires
absent
Afr. 25; Eu. & Arm. king and
4.1 Neferkasokar 8 yr, 3 mo 7 Nepher-cheres
yrs absent
“Erased” 1 yr,
4.2 “Hudjefa” (a) 8 Sesochris All 48
8 mo, 4 d
Khasekhemwy or 27 yr, 2 mo, 1
4.3 9 Cheneres Afr. 30; Eu. & Arm. absent
Bebti d
Total 2nd
[no gap here] Afr. 302; Eu. & Arm. 297
Dyn.
Total 1st
[no gap here] & 2nd Afr. 555; Eu. 549; Arm. absent
Dyn.
4.4 Sanakht or Nebka 19 3rd Dyn. Necherophes Afr. 28; Eu. & Arm. absent
of
Memphis
1
4.5 Djoser or Djoser-It 19 yr, 1 mo 2 Tosorthros Afr. 29; Eu. & Arm. absent
Sekhemkhet or
4.6 6 3 Tyreis Afr. 7; Eu. & Arm. absent
Djoser-Ti
4.7 “Hudjefa” (b) “[Erased]” 6 yr 4 Mesochris Afr. 17; Eu. & Arm. absent
Soyphis
4.8 Huni 24 5 Afr. 16; Eu. & Arm. absent
Neferkara
4.9 Snefru (or Snofru) 24 6 Tosertatis Afr. 19; Eu. & Arm. absent
4.10 Khufu 23 7 Aches Afr. 42; Eu. & Arm. absent
4.11 Djedefre (or Djed) 8 8 Sephuris Afr. 30; Eu. & Arm. absent
4.12 Khafre lost 9 Kerpheres Afr. 26; Eu. & Arm. absent
Total 3rd Afr. 214; Eu. 8 kings for 198;
[no gap here]
Dyn. Arm. 197
Total 1st–
[no gap here] Afr. 769; Eu. 747; Arm. absent
3rd Dyn.
4th Dyn.
of
Memphis
4.13 Baka lost “belonging
to a
different
line”
4.14 Menkaure 18
4.15 Shefseskaf 4
4.16 Djedefptah 2
4.17 Userkaf 7 For kings of the 4th & 5th Dynasties aligned with
4.18 Sahure 12 the Turin Canon from Huni onwards, see Table
4.19 Neferirkare Kakai lost 15.3.
4.20 Shepseskare 7
4.21 Neferefre lost
4.22 Niuserre 10 + x yr
4.23 Mankauhor 8
4.24 Djedkare Isesi 28
4.25 Unas 30
Total of kings
from Menes
4.26 Summation
down to
[Unas…]
Dyn. = Dynasty or Dynasties. “Hudjefa” means name lost to copyist. Two instances are (a) and (b). Manetho is
represented by Afr. = Africanus, Eu. = Eusebius, and Arm. = the Armenian. x = An uncertain number.
Originally, all the kings were given regnal years, but from Menes to the end of
column three (reign of Aaka) no numbers survive, although some have their life-spans
still preserved. Those kings beginning with column four (reign of Neferkasokar) down to
Unas mostly have their regnal years preserved, but their name is often missing. Most of
these names can be filled in from the AbKL and/or the Saqqara Tablet, where the kings
are recognized by their names on consecutive cartouches.
Apart from the fact that both documents begin with the name Menes, it is hard to
identify any of the kings of the Turin Canon with those given by Manetho, with the
possible exception of the second king—Aha being the same as Athothis. Even if the
names could be explained as alternatives for the same king in both lists, the regnal years,
where preserved, are all different. How, then, can they refer to the same kings?
Notwithstanding this lack of identification, scholars use Manetho’s dynastic divisions to
group the kings in the Turin Canon to conform to Manetho’s account of history.
The evidence in contemporary records would suggest that there was no break in
the Turin Canon corresponding to where the 1st Dynasty ends in Manetho. Bieneches is
the last king of the 1st Dynasty aligned with Qaa in the Turin Canon at section 3.19, and
the 2nd Dynasty starts with Boethus, its ninth king, equated with Hotepsekhemwy (also
known as Baw[netjer]) in the Turin Canon at section 3.20. Jochem Kahl writes, “The
sequence of three Dyn. 2 kings is secure: Hetep-sekhemwy, who buried Qa-ca at Umm
el-Qaab—Rac-neb—Ny-netjer.”47 The sequence is “secure,” so why is the 2nd Dynasty
introduced here when there is no break? Apparently, it is because Manetho’s 2nd
47
Dynasty starts with the ninth king, so a break is assumed in the Turin Canon between its
eighth and ninth king, also, on the assumption that they are the same kings in the
different documents.
Similarly, where Manetho’s 2nd Dynasty ends after its ninth king, Cheneres, and
begins the 3rd Dynasty with Necherophes, a similar break is presumed after the next nine
kings in the Turin Canon, after Khasekhemwy (section 4.3), and the following king
Nebka, also known as Sanakht (section 4.4). However, scholars such as Seidlmayer note
that all attestations concerning Nebka come from near the end of the 3rd Dynasty, so that
Nebka’s presence in the AbKL is either a duplication or a shift out of its correct
position.48 Nebka is now inserted three lines further down where a “Hudjefa” (meaning
“name lost to copyist”) with six years now appears. Nebka’s transfer makes Netjerikhet
(Djoser I) the successor of Khasekhemwy. Netjerikhet is aligned with Manetho’s
Necherophes (section 4.5 to become section 4.4). Seidlmayer writes, “Recent
excavations at Abydos revealed unequivocal evidence that Horus Netjery-Khet buried
Khac-sekhemwy, the last king of Dyn. 2, there, making it certain that no reign (and
especially a chronologically significant one as shown in TC) could have intervened
between them.”49
The point established here is that there is no indication of any interruption to the
succession of kings in the Turin Canon between Khasekhemwy and Netjerikhet. But
Seidlmayer (in keeping with other Egyptologists) describes Khasekhemwy as the last
king of the 2nd Dynasty and his successor, Djoser Netjerikhet, as the first king of the 3rd
Dynasty.50 Referring to Manetho, he earlier wrote, “The surviving epitomes are
unfortunately marred by erratic repetitions and inflated reign lengths.” 51 Nevertheless,
Manetho is trusted to the extent that his dynastic divisions are transferred to the kings of
the Turin Canon.
At the beginning of column 4 starting with the name of Neferkasokar the Turin
Canon has preserved regnal years for a good number of its kings down to section 5.17
(equated with the end of Manetho’s 8th Dynasty). The years of the Turin Canon kings
can be compared with the years given the kings in Africanus’ copy of Manetho, albeit
with different names (regnal years not given in Eusebius or the Armenian version).52 The
alignment of the Turin Canon’s kings and Manetho’s kings for the 3rd Dynasty
continues, but notice the difference in the regnal years attributed to them. For example,
Necherophes, the first king of Manetho’s 3rd Dynasty at Memphis, reigned 28 years
according to Africanus, but Netjerikhet, with whom he is aligned, reigned 19 years and 1
month with a difference of about nine regnal years between them.53
The odd alignment continues (see Table 15.2). Netjerikhet’s successor,
Sekhemkhet (Djoser II) with six years (section 4.6) is aligned with Manetho’s Tosorthros
with 29 years, a difference of 23 years. “Hudjefa” understood to be the aforementioned
Nebka with six years (section 4.7) is aligned with Manetho’s Tyreis with seven years—a
difference of one year. Huni with 24 years (section 4.8) is aligned with Manetho’s
Mesochris with 17 years—a difference of seven years.
48
Later evaluation of the Royal Annals and the Turin Canon demonstrates that Nebka is indeed misplaced
between Khasekhemwy and Netjerykhet, even though the AbKL gives the cartouche (15) of Nebka
Sanakht between Khasekhemwy and Netjerykhet, as does the Turin Canon (sections 4.3–4.4).
49
S.J. Seidlmayer, “The Relative Chronology of Dynasty 3,” AEC (2006) 118.
50
Ibid., 118.
51
Ibid., 116.
52
Manetho, 40-41.
53
For the actual reign length see further discussion in chap. 20, pp. 287ff.
At this point, scholars place a new dynasty in the Turin Canon between Huni and
Sneferu. Seidlmayer writes, “As the last ruler of Dyn. 3, the TC and the Saqqara list cite
Huni.”54 This infers a dynastic break, but it is not indicated by a summation in the Turin
Canon or the Saqqara Tablet. Furthermore, Huni’s daughter, Hetepheres I, married
Sneferu, Huni’s successor, so the lineage was unbroken through the important maternal
line. Nor does a break appear to occur in Manetho’s list at this point since the 3rd
Dynasty, starting with Necherophes, does not end until eight kings later with the reign of
Kerpheres.
However, the 4th Dynasty begins with kings of Memphis “belonging to a
different line.”55 This proposes that the last four kings of the 3rd Dynasty, namely
Tosertatis, Aches, Sephuris, and Kepheres, were contemporary with the first three kings
of the 4th Dynasty, namely Soris, Suphis I, Suphis II, and Mencheres.
Table 15.3: Kings of the Turin Canon beginning with Huni aligned with kings of
Manetho’s 4th and 5th Dynasties
Ref King Regnal years No. King Regnal years
Soyphis
4.8 Huni 24 5 Afr. 16; Eu. & Arm. absent
Neferkara
4.9 Snefru (or Snofru) 24 4th Dyn. of Soris Afr. 29; Eu. & Arm. absent
Memphis
“belonging
to a
different
line”
1
4.10 Khufu 23 2 Suphis I Afr. 63; Eu. & Arm. absent
4.11 Djedefre (or Djed) 8 3 Suphis II Afr. 66; Eu. & Arm. absent
4.12 Khafre lost 4 Mencheres Afr. 63, Eu. & Arm. absent
4.13 Baka lost 5 Ratoises Afr. 25, Eu. & Arm. absent
4.14 Menkaure 18 6 Bicheris Afr. 22, Eu. & Arm. absent
4.15 Shefseskaf 4 7 Sebercheres Afr. 7, Eu. & Arm. absent
4.16 Djedefptah 2 8 Thamphthis Afr. 9; Eu. & Arm. absent
4.17 Userkaf 7 5th Dyn. of Usercheres Afr. 28;Eu. & Arm. absent
Elephantine
1
4.18 Sahure 12 2 Sephres Afr. 13; Eu. & Arm. absent
4.19 Neferirkare Kakai lost 3 Nephercheres Afr. 20; Eu. & Arm. absent
4.20 Shepseskare 7 4 Sisires Afr. 7; Eu. & Arm. absent
4.21 Neferefre lost 5 Cheres Afr. 20; Eu. & Arm. absent
4.22 Niuserre 10 + x yr 6 Rathures Afr. 44; Eu. & Arm. absent
4.23 Mankauhor 8 7 Mencheres Afr. 9; Eu. & Arm. absent
4.24 Djedkare Isesi 28 8 Tancheres Afr. 44; Eu. & Arm. absent
4.25 Unas 30 9 Onnus Afr. 33; Eu. & Arm. absent
Total for 5th
Total of kings
Dyn.: 248
from Menes
4.26 Summation yr, (The
down to
actual total
[Unas…]
is 218 yr).
x = An uncertain number. Manetho is represented by Afr. = Africanus, Eu. = Eusebius, and Arm. = the Armenian.
The first king of the 4th Dynasty is Soris equated with Sneferu, and the second
king is Suphis I equated with Khufu, otherwise known as Cheops. Manetho records that,
“The third of these kings, Suphis, was the builder of the great pyramid, which Herodotus
declares to have been built by Cheops.”56 In the Turin Canon, Khufu appears as
54
Seidlmayer, “Relative Chronology,” 121.
55
Manetho, 44, 49.
56
Eusebius and the Armenian cite Suphis as the third king of the Fourth Dynasty (Manetho, 48, 49). In
this case Huni would have been the first king.
Sneferu’s successor, who is alternatively known as Cheops. Therefore, Cheops/Khufu

had to be equated with Manetho’s Suphis I (or II) “the builder of the great pyramid.” The
positioning of Suphis/Khufu as second or third king of the 4th Dynasty, meant that a
break was assumed to have occurred in the Turin Canon between the reigns of Huni and
Sneferu.
The identification of Suphis with Cheops/Khufu rests on the assertion of
Herodotus who wrote about 450 BCE, so no credibility can be taken from his statement.
However, if Soris is the first king of the 4th Dynasty equated with Sneferu, the eight
kings of the 4th Dynasty can be understood to be approximately contemporary with the
nine kings from Huni to Djedefptah (section 4.16) followed by Userkaf (section 4.17).
Nevertheless, scholars see the need for a transposition. Baka of section 4.13 is
identified by scholars with Bicheris, fifth king of the 4th Dynasty, and Menkaure of
section 4.14 is identified with Mencheres, two kings earlier than Bicheris. However,
these two kings, Ratoises and Bicheris, are deemed to be in the wrong place, and they are
transposed to precede Mencheres so that they become the fourth and fifth king of
Manetho’s list instead of fifth and sixth. Verner writes, “Bicheris, preceded by Ratoises,
was inserted by Manetho between Mycerinus and Shepseskaf.”57
Manetho Lists a Different Line of Kings

Manetho’s 5th Dynasty is located at Elephantine, not Memphis, as in the 4th
Dynasty, and begins with Usercheres given 28 years, who is supposed to be the same as
Turin Canon’s Userkaf with 7 years (section 4.17; see Table 15.3). The 5th Dynasty has
nine kings ending with Onnus with 33 years. Onnus is identified by scholars with Turin
Canon’s Unas with 30 years (section 4.25), even though the intermediate years in both
lists have different names and regnal years for its kings. For example, Neferefre (with
the Abusir w3gy date) at section 4.21—and who appears to have reigned about two years
(as discussed in chapter 14)—is the fourth king after Userkaf, and is equated by scholars
with the fourth king after Usercheres, a certain Cheres, attributed 20 years. None of these
Elephantine kings can be easily recognized as the kings of the Turin Canon at sections
4.17–4.25 who lived in Lower Egypt near Memphis.58 This lack of identification stands
in contrast to later dynasties (the 12th Dynasty, and from the 21st Dynasty onward),
where, even with damaged copies, the kings named by Manetho can be identified with
those of contemporary records.
This discussion leads to the conclusion that the dynastic divisions given by
scholars to the Turin Canon are based on Manetho’s arrangement and not on the Turin
Canon itself. The first summation line in the Turin Canon comes at section 4.26 after the
reign of Unas. It is only here that the first “dynastic break” is recorded using a
summation of the years of the preceding kings. There is no reason, therefore, to attribute
Manetho’s dynastic divisions to the Turin Canon or to the other king-lists that give the
same kings as the Turin Canon. The very mention in Manetho that the 4th Dynasty kings
of Memphis come from “a different line” of kings from the 3rd Dynasty also “at
Memphis” indicates that kings of different ancestry ruled over various parts of Egypt in
these early centuries. What is more significant is that there is no observable
identification of Manetho’s kings with those of the Turin Canon (apart from Menes). The
kings of the Turin Canon are not the same kings as those recorded by Manetho in the 1st
–5th Dynasties. The reconstruction of the chronology of the Turin Canon cannot be
advanced by utilizing the regnal years of the kings given by Manetho. The Turin Canon
demonstrates one line of kings that are also found in other king-lists such as the Royal
57
Verner, “Dynasties 4 to 5,” 134.
58
Some scholars suggest that Manetho was mistaken in locating the 5th Dynasty to Elephantine.
Annals, the AbKL, the Saqqara Tablet, the Karnak King-list and the South Saqqara
Stone. Manetho stands alone in giving kings of other lineages and/or locations.
Nevertheless, because of the custom of scholars in attributing the dynastic
arrangement used by Manetho to the kings of the Turin Canon, it is easier to discuss the
Turin Canon kings as though they belong to the attributed dynastic divisions than to
divest them of these imposed cut-off points. They lived in the same period of history by
which we can attribute to them a certain “correspondence” between the dynasties of
Manetho and the divisions of the Turin Canon.
Order of Discussion Considering Neferefre’s Anchor Date of 2750 BCE

Having determined the nature of the information in the king-lists prior to the
reign of Neferefre, I will next discuss the kings from Neferefre down to Unas—the
remainder of the 5th Dynasty, and the kings of the 6th and 8th Dynasties. Beginning with
Neferefre, whose w3gy date fell in 2750 BCE, these kings are able to be dated through a
combination of data from the Turin Canon, lunar dates, other sources such as mason’s
inscriptions, and the census counts as provided by the South Saqqara Stone.
At the end of the 8th Dynasty, there are summation lines in the Turin Canon
giving the number of years given to the whole period from Menes down to the last
(unnamed) king of the 8th Dynasty (sections 5.16–5.17) This period is recorded as 955
years and 10 days (sections 5.16–5.17). Bearing this number of years in mind, I will later
return to the 1st–5th Dynasties and an intensive discussion of the Royal Annals to
determine the years between Menes and Neferefre. The Royal Annals ends (in its
preserved part) with Neferirkare Kakai who reigned just two kings before Neferefre, so
the period is largely covered by the Annals. Having determined the number of years
from Menes to Neferefre, and from Neferefre to the last king of the 8th Dynasty, they
can be added together to discover whether the Turin Canon figure of 955 years has any
credibility.
Chapter 16. Recasting the 5th and 6th Dynasties 227
Chapter 16
Recasting the 5th and 6th Dynasties

This chapter discusses the kings of the second half of the 5th Dynasty and
continues with the kings of the 6th Dynasty. The next chapter reconstructs the 8th
Dynasty. I follow this procedure because some of the kings of the later 5th Dynasty have
lunar dates, which, together with information from other sources help reconstruct their
regnal years.
Once the kings of the 5th, 6th, and 8th Dynasties are dated, the chronology of the
earlier kings of the 1st–4th Dynasties plus the first half of the 5th Dynasty (Userkaf to
Shepseskare) can be attempted. The regnal years attributed to these earlier kings
incorporate the data of the Royal Annals, the Turin Canon, and contemporary sources,
but no lunar or Sothic dates are known. On the other hand, census counts exist that assist
in reckoning the years of some of the kings.
The kings of the latter half of the 5th Dynasty are listed in Table 16.1 with lunar
dates referenced to the Sothic cycle. The discussion later in this chapter will determine
the regnal years and dates of Neferefre, Niuserre, Menkauhor, Djedkare Isesi, and Unas,
which do not appear in this table.
Table 16.1: Latter half of 5th Dynasty reconstructed from the Turin Canon and
lunar dates
Ref. Turin Regnal
King Dates BCE Lunar and sothic cycle anchor points
Canon years
From w3gy date: new moon III 3ḫt 11 in 2750 after
4.21 Neferefre
beginning of Sothic cycle I 3ḫt 1 in 2750
4.22 Niuserre
4.23 Menkauhor
1. 1st lunar day IV ŝmw 17 in 8th yr (rnpt zp 4) in 2700

Djedkare referred to in Louvre E 25279 recto.
4.24
Isesi 2. 1st lunar day II ŝmw 18 assumed to be rnpt ht zp 16,
or 33rd year in 2675 referred to in pBM 10735 recto
Unas 1. New moon III prt 3 in 22nd yr (rnpt zp 11) in 2630.
4.25
(Wenis) 2. New moon, II ŝmw 7 in 28th yr (rnpt zp 14) in 2624
I begin with Neferefre whose reign has been discussed in chapter 14 in

connection with the w3gy date in his reign.
Neferefre (Raneferef)
The Turin Canon entry appropriate for Neferefre (section 4.21) is damaged
giving no name. Only a tip of a vertical stroke has survived above a torn-off piece of the
papyrus, indicating one year.1 However, it is possible that the space might have indicated
a longer reign. The king is named Neferefre in the Abydos King-list (AbKL) (no. 29). In
the Saqqara Tablet (no. 29) he is called Khaneferre.
1
A.H. Gardiner, The Royal Canon of Turin (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1959) pl. 2.
In discussing w3gy feasts, the date of 2750 BCE for Neferefre was established by
a Sothic rising date and a new moon date (see chapter 14). An inscription from
Neferefre’s unfinished pyramid refers to a “Year 1,” and two more refer to a “Year of the
first occasion of the count.”2 Using biennial dating, the latter refer to Neferefre’s second
regnal year, indicating that at least two years can be attributed to his reign. Scholars
believe he had a short reign, presuming his pyramid was unfinished due to an early
death, and because tests of bone fragments reveal he died at the age of about 22–23
years.3
The Sothic date of 2750 BCE in the reign of Neferefre is a starting point for
dating his successors in the 5th Dynasty.
Niuserre
The name of Neferefre’s successor is also lost in the Turin Canon, but the king is
given a reign of 10 + x (an uncertain number) of years (section 4.22). The AbKL
identifies him as Niuserre (Nyuserre) (no. 30). His name is absent in the Saqqara Tablet,
where he should have been either the last king in the bottom row after Neferefre, or the
first king in the top row before Menkauhor (no. 30 in the Saqqara Tablet). Niuserre was
Neferefre’s younger brother, both of whom were sons of Neferirkare Kakai.
Miroslav Verner has recently proposed that Shepseskare, named before Neferefre
in the Saqqara Tablet (no. 28), should be placed after Neferefre and before Niuserre with
a reign of several months.4 In the Turin Canon, Shepseskare’s name is missing though
the king is given seven years (section 4.20). This matter is more appropriately discussed
under Shepseskare’s reign in a later chapter, but one of the deciding factors is whether
Shepseskare fits into the chronology after Neferirkare Kakai and before Neferefre, or
between Neferefre and Niuserre. I return to that shortly.
Verner cites instances inferring a lengthy reign for Niuserre. First is the twin
statue of Niuserre both as a young man as the sun-god, and as an older king as a
terrestrial ruler.5 Second, the first building stage of the mastaba of his vizier and director
of his building projects, Ptahshepses, was noted on a mason’s block as occurring in the
“year of the fifth cattle count;” that is, the king’s 10th year. The representation of
Niuserre’s daughter, Khamerernebti, was found on the second stage of the building of
the mastaba, probably at about the time she married Ptahshepses.6
Third, the state records of Niuserre’s extensive building activities at Abusir argue
for him having reigned about 30 years.7 Fourth, a carved relief in Niuserre’s solar temple
represents him celebrating a sed-festival,8 which may infer that he reigned 30 years, and
although some scholars are skeptical about attributing a 30-year reign to the relief, the
2
P. Posener-Kriéger, M. Verner and H. Vymazalová (eds.), Abusir X: The Pyramid Complex of Raneferef:
The Papyrus Archive (Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Charles University, 2006) 20-23.
3
M. Verner, “Archaeological Remarks on the 4th and 5th Dynasty Chronology,” Archiv Orientální 69
(2001) 400.
4
Ibid., 397; idem, The Pyramids: The Mystery, Culture, and Science of Egypt’s Great Monuments (New
York: Grove Press, 2001) 310.
5
Idem, “Once More to Niuserre’s Dyad (München, ÄS 6794),” Egyptian Museum Collections around the
World, Vol. 2 (eds. M. Eldamaty and M. Trad; Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities, distributed by the
American University in Cairo Press, 2002) 1194-203.
6
Ibid., 1199-200; idem, “Archaeological Remarks,” 403-4.
7
Ibid., 1201.
8
P. Posener-Kriéger et al., Abusir X, 326; description by J.S. Nolan, “Lunar Intercalations and ‘Cattle
Counts’ during the Old Kingdom: the Hebsed in Context,” Chronology and Archaeology in Ancient Egypt
(The Third Millennium B.C.), (eds. H. Vymazalová and M. Bárta; Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology,
Charles University, 2008) 55-58; Verner, “Archaeological Remarks,” 404.
other factors point to Niuserre having reigned for over 30 years.9 To determine how
many years Niuserre reigned, I must first discuss the remaining kings and the number of
years that compose this latter part of the 5th Dynasty. In the Turin Canon, the kings are
Menkauhor with eight years (section 4.23), Djedkare Isesi with 28 years (section 4.24),
and Unas with 30 years (section 4.25). These years must be confirmed, and extant lunar
dates for the dynasty help here (we return to the strict order of the kings shortly).
A Lunar Date and a Regnal Year Assigned to Djedkare

Two dates found in a roster from the Neferirkare archive were identified as lunar
by Pauline Posener-Kriéger. Unfortunately, they do not name the king in whose reign
they were recorded.10 But it seems that Posener-Kriéger presumed that both of the dates
came from the reign of Djedkare Isesi or his successor, Unas, since many of the papyri
found in Neferirkare’s mortuary temple are attributed to Djedkare though without direct
evidence.11 Both dates are from duty-tables written in a grid compiled for a month of
daily duties for the temple staff.12 The duties start with the first day of a lunar month
dated to the civil calendar, hence the dates can be seen as new moon days.
The first date is from a papyrus now in the British Museum, known as pBM
13
10735. The heading has five lines divided into eight sections separated by a horizontal
red line from the remainder underneath. The section beneath is divided into 3 groups of
10 compartments representing 30 days. “The arrangement of the table assigns to each
day a compartment for each of the tasks specified in the top lines.”14 There are other
secondary columns. The column important for our study is designated column h, which
appears on the recto and “deals with only one day of the month—the day on which the
rites for the royal statutes were performed.”15 The first line of the heading for the column
has the date II šmw 18,16 which corresponds to the first day of the lunar month; that is, a
new moon day.
The regnal year proposed for II šmw 18 is found on the lower part of the verso of
the papyrus where a damaged number is either rnpt zp 21 or 22—the latter being
preferred since there is a trace of another vertical stroke on the edge of a tear in the
papyrus.17 After the census year comes the date of IV 3ḫt 12 followed by a perforation,
which may or may not have contained further strokes.
On biennial dating, rnpt zp 21 or 22 refers to a king’s 42nd or 44th year.
However, there is no immediate connection of this date with the date of II šmw 18 on the
recto, though it is assumed by Egyptologists that II šmw 18 also applies to the king’s 21st
or 22nd year. The date does not come with a king’s name, but Posener-Kriéger, Verner,
9
Verner, “Once More,” 1201-2.
10
P. Posener-Kriéger, “Les archives du temple funéraire de Néferirkarê-Kakaï,” Les papyrus d”Abousir
(Vol. 2, BdÉ 65, Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire, 1976) 491; R. Krauss, “Lunar
Dates,” Ancient Egyptian Chronology (eds. E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D.A. Warburton; Leiden and Boston:
Brill, 2006) 429.
11
12
P. Posener-Kriéger and J. L. de Cenival, The Abu Sir Papyri (HPBM 5; London: British Museum, 1968)
xiii, 2.
13
Ibid., 2, pl. 3 and 4.
14
Ibid., 2.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid., pl. 4 and 4A.
17
Ibid., pl. 41 and 41A; Verner, “Archaeological Remarks,” 406 and n. 316; idem, “Dynasties 4 to 5,”
AEC (2006), 141 n. 144.
Spalinger, and Krauss have attributed the date to Djedkare Isesi.18 Spalinger writes,
“This is the highest regnal year recorded in the extant papyri from Neferirkare’s funerary
temple and it definitely is assigned to Djedkare.”19
Another Lunar Date

Momentarily leaving that aside, the second date identified by Posener-Kriéger is
also lunar. It is found on a papyrus registered as Louvre E 25279 recto, and is also a
monthly duty-table written out for the staff of a temple, compiled somewhat like pBM
10735. However, the month consists of 35 days indicating that it refers to IV ŝmw—the
last month of the civil year. Column f refers to pśdtyw in lines 17 and 18 indicating that
pśdtyw (new moon) fell on IV šmw 17 or 18 in the civil calendar. Since the date begins
in line 17, IV šmw 17 would seem to be preferable to day 18. Two years stated on the
verso are both rnpt zp 4, which, on biennial dating would be the eighth year.20
The new moon dates of II šmw 18 and IV šmw 17 are both applicable to the 24th
year of the 25-year lunar cycle. This is the same cycle year in which Neferefre’s new
moon date fell on III 3ḫt 11, which in this period of history had years ending in 50, 25,
00, and 75.
Because the king is not named on the papyri, and a question remains whether the
rnpt zp years should be doubled, several options deserve consideration. The papyri found
in Neferirkare’s archive are usually attributed to Djedkare or Unas, but it is also
recognized that they might cover a much longer period, coming from both before and
after their reigns, even into the 6th Dynasty, since the recovered papyri are only a small
fraction of what was originally written.21
While the day and month dates are certain, the years they refer to are not. When
did these dates occur in the reigns of the kings of the 5th Dynasty? Do they concur with
the years given on the first papyrus notation?
Returning to the date of 2750 BCE of Neferefre’s reign, I first look at the reign of
Niuserre who appears to have reigned at least 30 years. His 22nd year, on annual dating,
can be considered for a date in II šmw 18 in accordance with pBM 10735. Twenty-five
years after Neferefre’s new moon date, a new moon fell the day before conjunction on II
ŝmw 18 and on IV šmw 17 in 2725 BCE (see Casperson’s Table 16.2).
18
Posener-Kriéger et al., Abusir X, 328; Verner, “Archaeological Remarks,” 406, 410, 414; A. Spalinger,
“Dated Texts of the Old Kingdom,” SAK 21 (1994) 300; Krauss, “Lunar Dates,” 430.
19
Spalinger, “Dated Texts,” 300.
20
According to Krauss, the day-date corresponds to the year before rnpt zp 4. He refers this to a biennial
count of either year seven or six, but prefers the seventh. This infers a biennial count having taken place in
the king’s accession year or first full year, although a first census count starts in a king’s second year as
shown on the Royal Annals (to be discussed)—the first year being given over to rites of accession and
coronation. Michel Baud thought there was a possible exception to this practice in the reign of Merenre
(Nemtiemsaf I), fourth king of the 6th Dynasty, but on closer examination he found that the first count
probably took place in the king’s second year (M. Baud, “Ménès la mémoire monarchique et la
chronologie du IIIc millénaire,” Archéo-Nil 9 (1999) 125; idem, “Dynasties 6 and 8,” AEC (2006),
151-52). Krauss refers to this exception (“Lunar Dates,” 429 n. 141). Krauss sought to date these lunar
days according to his own chronology. For his first option he assigned the date of IV ŝmw 17 and 18 to
lunar day 1 and 2 in Djedkare’s year seven in 2339. He teamed this with Djedkare’s year 21 (not 22) in
2325 and the date of II ŝmw 18 in lunar day 2 (not 1). Krauss’ second option was to team year seven with a
date of 2314 or 2339 for Unas (Djedkare’s successor) with a lunar day 1 on IV ŝmw 17 or 18 with a year
40 (not 42 or 44) of Djedkare on II ŝmw 18 as lunar day 2 (“Lunar Dates,”429-31).
21
Posener-Kriéger and de Cenival, Abu Sir Papyri, xvi.
Table 16.2: Niuserre’s 22nd year −2724 (new moon listing from −2724)
Memphis; Lat. 29.9, Long. 31.2; visibility coefficients: c1 = 11.5, c2 = 0.008
−2724 3 20 −2724 2 26 56 9 19 4 14:42 6:22 186 6:22 56 6:21 −14
−2724 4 19 −2724 3 27 56 10 19 6 1:59 5:56 115 5:55 25 5:54 −35
−2724 5 18 −2724 4 25 56 11 18 7 11:24 5:31 230 5:30 80 5:29 6
−2724 6 16 −2724 5 24 56 12 17 1 19:41 5:10 417 5:10 157 5:09 55
−2724 7 16 −2724 6 23 57 1 12 3 3:36 5:01 237 5:01 111 5:01 11
The year 2725 BCE would be Niuserre’s 22nd year based on an accession in
2747. This would be consistent with Neferefre having a reign of about 2½ years. Thus
the date of II šmw 18 could be applicable if the year count was annual not biennial.
Obviously, the date of IV ŝmw 17 is not applicable as Niuserre’s fourth or eighth year
and therefore must refer to some other king.
While dating Niuserre’s 22nd year to the date on the pBM 10735 seems
plausible, the lack of a name on the papyrus could mean that the date belongs to another
king’s reign. Furthermore, if the date referred to a biennial count it would exclude
Niuserre because his 44th year—had he reigned that long—would not have fallen on II
ŝmw 18. It is not clear either, whether records of Niuserre’s reign were kept in
Neferirkare’s archive, and, furthermore, Spalinger wrote that the date “definitely is
assigned to Djedkare.”22 It remains then to determine if the date of II šmw 18 in the 22nd
or 44th year applies to Djedkare or another king—or if the date actually applies to either
of these years since II šmw 18 appears on the recto and the 21st or 22nd year appears on
the verso followed by the date of IV 3ḫt 12.
Whether or not the new moon date applies to his reign, evidence for Niuserre
suggests he reigned at least 30 years, thus the damaged 10 + 1 years of the Turin Canon
could be amended to 31 years (with two 10-signs added). This would give him the years
2747–2716 BCE.
Menkauhor
Between Niuserre and Djedkare Isesi, the Turin Canon names Menkauhor and
gives him eight regnal years (section 4.23). He is also named on the AbKL (no. 31) and
on the Saqqara Tablet (no. 30). He is understood to have had a short reign, though he did
build a sun temple and a pyramid, and a considerable number of sealings bearing his
name have been found in Neferefre’s mortuary temple.23
If the 31 years given to Niuserre is correct, the eight years attributed to
Menkauhor give him a reign of 2716–2708 BCE. In this period, there are no new moon
dates falling on II ŝmw 18 or IV šmw 17 since it does not include cycle year 24 in
2700—so the lunar dates are not applicable to his reign.
Djedkare Isesi
A Djed is preserved in the Turin Canon at section 4.24 and given a reign of 28
years. The AbKL has a Djedkare (no. 32) and the Saqqara Tablet has a Djedkare
Maatkare in the appropriate place (no. 31).
According to the dates suggested above for Neferefre, Niuserre, and Menkauhor,
Djedkare Isesi’s accession will have fallen on or around 2708. The dates for II ŝmw 18
and IV šmw 17 fall in the year 2700, which is Djedkare’s eighth year, which agrees with
22
23
Posener-Kriéger et al., Abusir X, 326; Verner, “Archaeological Remarks,” 405.
the rnpt zp 4 in papyrus Louvre E 25279 for the first day of the lunar month. We see this
in Casperson’s Table 16.3 in year −2699.
Table 16.3: New moon dates in Djedkare Isesi’s eighth year in −2699 (new moon
−2699 3 14 −2699 2 20 81 9 19 1 12:52 6:28 263 6:27 116 6:26 41
−2699 4 12 −2699 3 21 81 10 18 2 20:46 6:02 454 6:01 171 6:00 77
−2699 5 12 −2699 4 20 81 11 18 4 3:25 5:36 235 5:35 108 5:34 28
−2699 6 10 −2699 5 19 81 12 17 5 10:04 5:14 303 5:13 141 5:13 43
−2699 7 9 −2699 6 17 81 1 11 6 17:53 5:01 356 5:01 180 5:01 65
II šmw 18 can be assigned to Djedkare’s eighth year in 2700 BCE. Biennial

dating is used for this date and we would also expect it to be used for the second date of
II ŝmw 18. IV šmw 17 applies to the same cycle year as II šmw 18, but coming from a
different papyrus we expect that it refers to a different year. Egyptologists attributed the
date to Djedkare’s reign and proposed the year rnpt zp 21 or 22 found on the verso of
pBM 10735, which, on biennial dating, is his 42nd or 44th year. If the eighth year of
Djedkare’s reign is 2708, his 42nd or 44th years will have fallen in 2666 or 2664. This is
not applicable to the 24th lunar-cycle year. Furthermore, the Turin Canon only attributes
28 years to Djedkare (section 4.24). In order for the date of II šmw 18 to fall in
Djedkare’s reign he must have reigned at least 33 years, when the next applicable date
falls in 2675. So how long, then, did Djedkare reign?
According to an inscription on an alabaster vessel, Djedkare Isesi celebrated a
first Sed-festival, which infers that he reigned at least 30 years.24 At Abusir, an
inscription on the lid of the sarcophagus of Idu, scribe to Djedkare’s children, has the
reading rnpt (m-)ḥt sp 17, 3bd 1 ŝmw (?), ŝw 23; that is, the “Year after the 17th count, I
ŝmw 23.”25 This has been attributed to Djedkare Isesi by Posener-Kriéger and Verner,
and others.26 On biennial dating, this would refer to Djedkare’s 35th year.
Even more significant is a graffito, also on the sarcophagus of Idu at Abusir,
which refers to a year of the 28th count, with a date of III 3ḫt 5. Though the king is not
named, it mentions Neferirkare’s sun and mortuary temples, and the ancient hieratic
writing identifies it as belonging to the 5th or 6th Dynasty.27 Verner proposed that the
graffito belonged to Djedkare Isesi, having dismissed Unas, Pepi I, and Pepi II. 28 If the
“28th count” is biennial, it refers to Djedkare’s 56th regnal year.29 On this premise,
Djedkare could have had a biennial count in his 42nd or 44th year in which we might
expect to find II ŝmw 18. I refer to Casperson’s Table 16.4.
24
Ibid., 328-29.
25
Ibid., 328; Verner, “Archaeological Remarks,” 406, 410, 414; idem, “Dynasties 4 to 5,” 141; idem,
“The System of Dating in the Old Kingdom,” Chronology and Archaeology in Ancient Egypt (The Third
Millennium BC), (eds. H. Vymazalová, M. Barta; Proceedings of the Conference Held in Prague [June 11-
14, 2007]; Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, 2008) 23-43.
26
This badly damaged inscription was previously read as rnpt sp 14, but on re-examination it was found to
be rnpt (m-)ḥt sp 17 (Posener-Kriéger et al., Abusir X, 328 n. 54).
27
28
Ibid., 301, cited from “Die Konigsmutter Chentkaus von Abusir und einige Bemerkungen zur
Geschichte der 5. Dynastie,” SAK 8 (1980) 258-60 and pl. XVI.
29
This inscription is not mentioned by Verner in his later works.
Table 16.4: Options for II šmw 18 in Djedkare Isesi’s 42nd and 44th years (new
−2665 3 28 −2665 3 6 115 10 11 1 11:26 6:16 291 6:15 88 6:14 10
−2664 4 15 −2664 3 24 116 10 30 7 11:56 5:59 299 5:58 112 5:57 35
−2663 4 5 −2663 3 14 117 10 20 5 3:53 6:08 182 6:07 82 6:06 18

The dates given in the month of II ŝmw for the first lunar days are 10, 30, and 19,
so none fall on II ŝmw 18, although the last date is only one day later and might be
feasible if a mistake in the date had been made on the papyri. But the date is clearly II
šmw 18 in the heading of column h in pBM 10735. And by analogy with the pśdtyw date
in Louvre E 25279 when the ritual care of the images took place on the first lunar day,
the date of II šmw 18 should be the first lunar day in Louvre E 25279 recto, not the last.
A mistake on the duty-list would surely have been noticed and rectified.
If we dismiss Niuserre’s 22nd year-date because it is applicable only to an annual
or regnal year reckoning (and we have already dismissed its applicability to biennial
reckoning), and if we must eliminate Djedkare’s 42nd and 44th years because they do
not comply with the date given in pBM 10735 recto, then we are returned to the 33nd
year of Djedkare when II ŝmw 18 date would have fallen in the year in 2675. Casperson
supplies Table 16.5.
Table 16.5: New moon dates in Djedkare Isesi’s 33rd year in −2674 (new moon
−2674 3 8 −2674 2 14 106 9 19 5 3:47 6:33 228 6:32 93 6:31 3
−2674 4 6 −2674 3 15 106 10 18 6 11:17 6:08 299 6:07 107 6:06 12
−2674 5 5 −2674 4 13 106 11 17 7 18:48 5:42 435 5:41 129 5:40 22
The date is correct for II ŝmw 18. If we separate the 21st or 22nd rnpt zp years
from II ŝmw 18 in pBM 10735 there is nothing to prevent the assigning of 2675 to
Djedkare’s 33rd year. On biennial dating, this would have been “the year after the 16th
count.”
This exercise has explored several options:
a. Niuserre’s 22nd year on annual dating, which is in conflict with the
biennial dating of rnpt zp 4 for Djedkare’s eighth year and the correct date
of IV ŝmw 17;
b. Biennial dating of Djedkare’s 22nd year, which gives the incorrect date of
II ŝmw 19; biennial dating of Djedkare’s 42nd or 44th years does not
provide the date of II šmw 18;
c. Djedkare’s 33rd year, which has the correct date of II ŝmw 18 and is
consistent with the lunar cycle 25 years previously with years ending in
00, 25, 50, and 75. With this option, the date on the recto must be
differentiated from the 21st or 22nd year on the verso of pBM 10735.
However, these do not seem to be directly connected.
Of these options, only the latter seems satisfactory, and is the year proposed here.
Interim Summary of Years from Lunar References

The distance between Neferefre in 2750 (w3gy date) and the eighth year of
Djedkare dated to 2007 by the Louvre E 25279 recto enables us to allocate years to the
respective kings. About 2½ years can be attributed to Neferefre giving him the years
2750–2747, 31 years to Niuserre with the years 2747–2716, and eight years to
Menkauhor with the years 2716–2708 and the yet-to-be-resolved number of years to
Djedkare Isesi (but at least 33 years coinciding with the year 2675).
Now, is the inscription on the sarcophagus of Idu at Abusir, which refers to a
year of the 28th count, indicating a reign of 56 years for Djedkare, compatible with the
lunar dates and years attributed to Unas, his successor? If Djedkare began to reign in
2708 and reigned 56 years, the date of his death and Unas’s accession would be ca. 2652
BCE.
Unas
The Turin Canon names Unas, and attributes to him a 30-year reign (section
4.25). The next line contains a summation for the period from Menes to Unas, but the
number of years has been lost. This break is presumed to indicate a significant change,
possibly of succession, the location of the capital or royal residence, or culture. 30 Unas
appears in the AbKL (as “Unis,” no. 33) and in the Saqqara Tablet (no. 32). Scholars
regard him as the last king of the 5th Dynasty.
Not many inscriptions come from Unas’s reign. His highest attested date from
Neferirkare’s mortuary temple refers to a census count of his eighth year and the fourth
month of šmw, indicating his 16th year.31 However, there are two new moon dates
assigned to his reign. An article by Patrick O’Mara cites an unpublished manuscript by
the late Klaus Baer.32 According to O’Mara, “Baer ascribed to the reign of Unas two
pieces lacking royal identification but bearing fully recorded dates.”33
The first from the serdab of Rawer II is dated to III prt 3 of sp 11.34 (The sp here
is the aforementioned zp). O’Mara assumed that sp indicated a biennial count, thus zp 11
is Unas’s 22nd year. With Unas’s reign beginning in 2652, his 22nd year will be ca.
2630. Casperson’s table (Table 16.6) shows that a new moon fell on III prt 3, exactly the
date given.
30
D.B. Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books (SSEA Publication 4; Ontario, Canada:
Benben Publications, 1986) 136.
31
Posener-Kriéger et al., Abusir X, 329; Verner, “Archaeological Remarks,” 410-11; idem, “Dynasties 4
to 5,” 143; idem, “System of Dating,” 35; Spalinger, “Dated Texts,” 301. The day date is lost.
32
P.F. O’Mara. “Can the Gizeh Pyramids be Dated Astronomically? Logical Foundations for an Old
Kingdom Astronomical Chronology,” DE 33 (1995) 73-85, citing Klaus Baer, A Chronology of the
Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Dynasties (unpublished ms, Univ. of Chicago) [n.d.].
33
Baer, Chronology, 43; The rationale behind affording lunar dates to unspecified new moon or full moon
dates is explained by O’Mara: “If two or more calendar dates from different sp years would agree in
placing sp 1 in the same Julian year, then the dates are probably lunar in nature. In the case of Unas, for
instance, only two dated inscriptions survive from his long reign of three decades. When treated
astronomically they both converge at sp 1” (“Dating the Sed Festival: Was there only a Single Model?”
GM 136 [1993] 62-63).
34
O’Mara. “Can the Gizeh Pyramids,” 76.
Table 16.6: Unas’s 22nd year in −2629 (new moon listing from −2629)
−2629 11 11 −2629 10 20 152 6 3 1 20:45 6:25 244 6:25 148 6:26 53
−2629 12 11 −2629 11 19 152 7 3 3 16:16 6:48 228 6:49 122 6:50 24
−2628 1 10 −2629 12 19 152 8 3 5 9:25 6:59 192 6:59 76 6:59 −16
Unas’s second new moon date comes from, “an Abusir manuscript bearing the
uncertain and controversial dating II ŝmw 17 of sp 14 … Despite awkward uncertainties,
it is highly probable that the two pieces are from the same reign and are lunar in
nature.”35
O’Mara understood zp 14 to refer to a biennial count in the king’s 28th year.36
Unas’s 28th year must then fall six years after his 22nd year in 2630; thus, in 2624 or
2623—depending on when he acceded to the throne. Since his 22nd year included the
date of II prt 3, any date after this could qualify as the beginning of the next year. As
noted, O’Mara indicated that the date is controversial. In −2623, the date for the new
moon is II ŝmw 7, not II ŝmw 17, shown in Casperson’s Table 16.7.
Table 16.7: New moon in Unas’s 28th year in −2623 (new moon listing from −2623)
−2623 2 12 −2623 1 21 157 9 8 3 3:02 6:49 198 6:49 86 6:48 10
−2623 3 13 −2623 2 19 157 10 7 4 13:38 6:28 266 6:27 127 6:26 53
−2623 4 12 −2623 3 21 157 11 7 6 1:03 6:02 171 6:01 86 6:00 23
Since the year-date is compatible with Unas’s 22nd year in 2630, II ŝmw 7
appears as the original date for his 28th year in 2624. Two years later, Unas’s 30th year
fell in 2622. These dates are compatible with the 56-year reign of Djedkare Isesi,
indicating a biennial census count.
However, the 56 years conflicts somewhat with Djedkare’s presumed age at
death. Skeletal remains were discovered in his pyramid in the mid-1940s. They have
been subjected to independent anthropological examinations, firstly by A. Batrawi (prior
to 1947), and later by E. Strouhal, who both confirmed that the man died aged about 50–
60 years.37 If Djedkare reigned 56 years then he must have come to the throne as a child,
or his age at death was somewhat more advanced than estimated—unless the bones
belonged to someone else.
The incorrect rendering of Djedkare Isesi’s reign as lasting 28 years in the Turin
Canon and not 56 was perhaps due to damage to the list from which the numbers were
copied (perhaps half the number was missing), or numbers that were written so poorly or
had become so difficult to read that they were not transmitted correctly.
35
Ibid., 76.
36
O’Mara’s table gives the date as 14+, that is, the year after the cattle count, indicating the 29th year of
Unas, but this appears to be a mistake as he still uses the same Julian dates as for the 28th year. O’Mara
looks to the pśdntyw dates starting in 2550 and working downward in 50/25 year increments to 3735 for
Unas (“Can the Gizeh Pyramids,” 76, 84), which are not applicable to the present chronology.
37
M. Verner and V.G. Callender, Abusir VI: Djedkare’s Family Cemetery (Prague: Czech Insitute of
Egyptology, 2002) 108 n.19, 127-32; referenced to A. Batrawi, “The Pyramid Studies—Anatomical
Reports,” ASAÉ 47 (1947) 98; Posener-Kriéger et al., Abusir X, 329 and n. 60; Verner, “Archaeological
Remarks,” 405-10.
It may be noted that the lunar dates are based on biennial census counts. Annual
or irregular counts could not have produced the Julian year-dates that correspond to the
Egyptian new moons. Further confirmation of the biennial nature of the census counts is
demonstrated from an analysis of the data on the South Saqqara Stone referring to kings
of the 6th Dynasty, and the Royal Annals (recto and verso) covering the 1st–5th
Dynasties discussed in later chapters.38
The years for Unas’s reign based on lunar dates confirm that Djedkare Isesi
reigned 56 years from 2708 to 2652 BCE, and that Unas reigned at least 28 years, which
is only two years less than the 30 years given to him in the Turin Canon (section 4.25).
The 30 years for Unas is borne out by the years to be attributed to the first three kings of
the 6th Dynasty, Teti, Userkare, and Pepi I, dated by a full moon in the reign of the
latter. Thus we can confidently attribute to Unas 30 years as reported on the Turin Canon
and the dates 2652–2622 BCE.
With Neferefre’s reign beginning in 2750 and Djedkare’s beginning in 2708,
there are 42 years to be distributed between Neferefre, Niuserre, and Menkauhor.
Neferefre can be attributed approximately two to three years, and Menkauhor
approximately eight years, which leaves approximately 31 years for Niuserre. The
damaged total in the Turin Canon for his reign of 10 + x years can now be reinstated as
31 years, which is in line with projections for the length of his reign of at least three
decades. It was noted above that Verner wanted to place Shepseskare after Neferefre and
before Niuserre. This is clearly impossible based on the other kings’ regnal years
confirmed by lunar dates.
The reign of Unas brings to an end the kings assigned to the 5th Dynasty. Their
regnal years and dates are shown in Table 16.8.
Table 16.8: Neferefre to Unas: Latter half of the 5th Dynasty reconstructed from
the Turin Canon and lunar dates
Ref. Turin Regnal
King Dates BCE Lunar and Sothic cycle anchor points
Canon years
From w3gy date: new moon III 3ḫt 11 in 2750 after
4.21 Neferefre 2½ 2750–2747
beginning of Sothic cycle I 3ḫt 1 in 2750
4.22 Niuserre 31 2747–2716
4.23 Menkauhor 8 2716–2708
1. 1st lunar day IV ŝmw 17 in 8th yr (rnpt zp 4) in 2700
Djedkare referred to in pLouvre E.25279 recto.
4.24 56 2708–2652
Isesi 2. 1st lunar day II ŝmw 18 assumed to be rnpt ht zp 16, or
33rd year in 2675 referred to in pBM 10735 recto.
1. New moon III prt 3 in 22nd yr (rnpt zp 11) in 2630.
4.25 Unas (Wenis) 30 2652–2622
2. New moon, II ŝmw 7 in 28th yr (rnpt zp 14) in 2624.
Total 128 2750–2622
After the line for Unas in the Turin Canon at section 4.25, the Turin Canon has a
summation line. All that remains is, “Total of kings from Menes until [Unas…].”39 The
years for this can be determined because the next summation at section 5.14 gives the
total of 187 years, 6 months, and 3 days for section 5.1–5.13, which takes in the 6th and
8th Dynasties. (There is no 7th Dynasty as given in Manetho.) The second summation in
38
This is contrary to Verner’s opinion that, “No matter how cautiously may the conclusions be drawn, the
dated written documents seem to indicate that in the 4th and 5th Dynasty the dating system was irregular.”
(“Archaeological Remarks,” 414).
39
Ryholt notes that, “There is not space enough for this figure to have included years, months and days;
possibly even the years were excluded and simply the number of kings recorded.” (“Royal Canon of
Turin,” AEC [2006], 29 n. 12). However, the intention seems to be to give two subtotals at sections 4.26
and 5.14–5.15 that add up to the total at section 5.16–5.17. We do not have the original to know how much
space was provided.
the next two lines (5.16–5.17), with a total of 955 years and 10 days, spans from Menes
to the end of the 8th Dynasty. Thus, the total at section 4.26 for the first section is 767
years, 6 months, and 7 days—assuming that the Turin Canon figures are correct.
We now move to discuss the 6th Dynasty following the same procedure as
before.
6th Dynasty
The group of 6th Dynasty kings are shown in Table 16.9. (The regnal years and
dates are shown in a later table, after the discussion.)
Table 16.9: 6th Dynasty: Reconstructed from the Turin Canon, the South Saqqara
Stone, and three lunar dates
Ref. Turin Regnal
King Dates BCE Lunar dates
Canon years
5.1 Teti
5.2 Userkare
5.3 Pepi I Full moon IV 3ḫt 14 in 32nd year (rnpt zp 16) in 2574
Merenre
5.4
Nemtiemsaf I
Full moon III 3ḫt 15 in 4th yr (rnpt zp 2) in 2538.
5.5 Pepi II
New moon I ŝmw 20 in 63rd yr (rnpt (m)-ḫt zp 31) in 2482
Merenre
5.6
Nemtiemsaf II
Teti
Scholars recognize Teti as the first king of the 6th Dynasty. His name is lacking
at the beginning of column six in the Turin Canon (section 6.1), which begins a new
section. Teti’s name follows that of Unas in the AbKL (no. 34) and in the Saqqara Tablet
(no. 33). The years of Teti’s reign are not preserved in the Turin Canon, except for “6
months and 21 days” of what was a longer reign.
This new section of the Turin Canon comprises only 13 lines for 13 kings before
it ends with summations at section 5.14–5.15 and section 5.16–5.17. It includes the
supposed 6th Dynasty having six kings (section 5.1–5.6) followed by the so-called 8th
Dynasty having seven kings (section 5.7–5.13), although no division is given. The names
of the kings from section 5.1–5.7 are all missing.
The South Saqqara Stone once recorded the years of the kings of the 6th Dynasty.
Although the stone was subsequently used as a coffin lid with much of the original text
erased, it is still possible to give an estimate of the length of reign from the size of the
preserved year blocks and their location for the kings from Teti down to the reign of Pepi
II (fifth king of the 6th Dynasty). Michel Baud and Vassili Dobrev estimated that Teti
reigned at least 12 years. The mention of cattle counts in the reigns of Teti, Pepi I, and
Merenre I, with a recurrent formula in the “year of” infer that biennial counting was
used.40 The 12 years agrees with Teti’s highest attested date of a “Year after the 6th
occurrence” dated to the third month of šmw, day lost, found on a graffito at the alabaster
quarry of Hatnub.41 This date indicates a 13th regnal year.42
A census-type count of an unnamed king refers to an 11th-year count (ḥ3t/rnpt zp
11) and a date of I 3ḫt 20 found on an ink inscription in the tomb of Nykau-Izezi. It
40
M. Baud and V. Dobrev, “De nouvelles annales de l’Ancien Empire égyptien. Une ‘Pierre de Palerme’
pour la VIe dynastie,” BIFAO 95 (1995) 23-92, with translated summary and extracts by F. Raffaele for
internet access under “South Saqqara Stone” at http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/ssannals.htm
41
Posener-Kriéger et al., Abusir X, 330; Spalinger, “Dated Texts,” 303; Baud, “Dynasties 6 and 8,”146.
42
Baud, “Dynasties 6 and 8,” 156. If a census year refers to the 2nd, 4th, 6th years, and so on, then a post
census year infers odd-numbered years.
reads, “The eleventh count, first month of the inundation season, day 20. Burial in the
necropolis of the hereditary prince, the treasurer of the king of Lower Egypt,
Nikauisesi.”43
On biennial counting, this refers to a king’s 22nd regnal year. The tomb is
located in Teti’s cemetery built during Teti’s reign.44 The king under whom Nykau-Izezi
was buried is not stated, but it could only be Teti or his son Pepi I. Since the highest date
for Teti is the year after his sixth count (above), which is compatible with the 12–13
years of the South Saqqara Stone, the tomb inscription could only refer to Teti if the
count was annual, but this is contradicted by the use of zp in the date. Furthermore, it is
contradicted by the two biennial datings of Djedkare Izezi and the one biennial dating
accorded Unas already referred to in our discussion of the 6th Dynasty. Eliminating Teti
from consideration makes it Nykau-Izezi who must have died in the 22nd year of Pepi I.
As we shall determine, Pepi I’s 22nd year fell in 2584 confirmed by a full moon
in his 32nd year (biennial dating) in 2574. Two independent examinations of the skeletal
remains of Nykau-Izezi revealed that he was aged about 35–45 years when he died.45
Assuming that Nykau-Izezi was 45 years of age when he died in 2584, he would have
been born in 2629, which falls in the 23rd year of Unas, which is confirmed by his 22nd
year-date of a new moon in 2630.
Not being aware of the lunar dates and biennial counting attached to the reigns of
Djedkare Izezi and Unas, Egyptologist Naguib Kanawati cited 10 pieces of evidence
relating to the tomb of Nykau-Izezi that led him to believe that Nykau-Izezi “was born
and most probably started his career under King Isesi,”46 (i.e. Djedkare Izezi) after
whom Nykau-Izezi was named.47 In order to effect this, Kanawati proposed annual
dating for the kings of the 6th Dynasty. He explained the “year after” a census counts as
the year before the next count took place,48 which is unprecedented. He makes no
reference to the South Saqqara Stone and the cattle counts therein.
In order for Nykau-Izezi to be buried in the 11th year of the reign of Teti,
Kanawati proposed that Unas must have had a much shorter reign than 30 years; he
suggests about 15 years.49 Since we have established a 28th year for Unas based on a
lunar date and biennial dating, Kanawati’s proposal cannot stand.
Teti’s first year began on the death of Unas in 2622 BCE. According to the South
Saqqara Stone he reigned 12–13 years. The Turin Canon has lost his years but gives him
6 months and 21 days (section 5.1), so his reign can be set at 12½ years and the dates
2622–2610/2609.
Userkare
The name and regnal years of Teti’s successor is lost in the Turin Canon (section
5.2), but the existence of a king called Userkare is attested in the AbKL (no. 35). There
is no space for his name in the Saqqara Tablet between Teti and Pepi I. But Userkare is
also attested in the South Saqqara Stone. Baud writes:
The available space between the titularies of Teti and Pepy I, when compared to the size
of an average year compartment of the latter, indicates that Userkare’s reign must have
43
N. Kanawati, “A New ḥ3t/rnpt-zp for Teti and its Implication for Old Kingdom Chronology,” GM 177
(2000) 28.
44
Ibid., 29-30.
45
Ibid., 29.
46
Ibid., 27.
47
Ibid., 29; see also Baud, “Dynasties 6 and 8,” 154-55.
48
Ibid., 31.
49
Ibid., 30, 31.
been brief, from two to four years. This conclusion is consistent with the very few
monuments of the king, mostly seal impressions, so far recovered.50
Userkare does not appear to have any other known dates recorded from his reign.
The time between Teti and Pepi I (who has a lunar date) defines the length for
Userkare’s reign as 3½ years. Thus Userkare can be attributed the dates of 2610/2609–
2606. It is thought that Teti was murdered by his guards, so Userkare may have been a
usurper, subsequently ousted by Teti’s son, Pepi I.51
Pepi I (Meryre)
The Turin Canon has lost Pepi’s name but attributes to him 20 years (section
4.3). He is known as Meryre in the AbKL (no. 36) and as Pepi in the Saqqara Tablet (no.
34). His highest date comes from the South Saqqara Stone annals, which, in the block
allocated to Pepi, mentions rnpt zp 25 at the end of a column, and after this date no more
space in the compartment is allowed for further records.52 On biennial counting, the date
refers to his 50th year, and is consistent with the biennial dating already observed for
Teti and Userkare. However, this is inconsistent with the 20 years allotted him by the
Turin Canon. How long then did Pepi I reign?
Pepi I celebrated a first jubilee, normally understood to refer to a king’s 30th
regnal year. However, the texts mentioning his jubilee raise problems. Two expedition
graffiti refer to the year after the 18th occurrence, one from Wadi Hammamat (no. 107)
(rnpt ḫt zp 18) giving the date of III ŝmw 27 and mentioning the first jubilee, and the
other from Sinai graffito (no. 16) (rnpt m- ḫt zp 18) giving the date IV ŝmw 5, also
mentioning the first jubilee.53 Both texts indicate a year 37 associated with the first
jubilee.
There is also a record of an expedition to the Hatnub quarry on the date of rnpt zp
25 1 3ḫt with the day-date missing on a graffito (no. III), apparently referring to Pepi I’s
first jubilee.54
On biennial dating, the 25th year would be Pepi’s 50th year, which concurs with
his years on the South Saqqara Stone, but not consistent with a 30th-year jubilee 20
years previously. However, Baud points out that, “There is no direct equation between
the first jubilee and the date of the [Hatnub] expedition.”55 Furthermore, he notes that
there was “a tendency to mention the jubilee repeatedly in the years following its
celebration.”56 Concerning the South Saqqara Stone annals, he observes that there is only
half the usual space between year 18+ and 19 at the end of register D (in Pepi I’s reign),
and not appropriate for a jubilee celebration, whereas at the beginning of register D the
compartment is more than half the average length, corresponding to the 30th/31st year
on a biennial count.57 Thus the jubilee can be credited to Pepi I’s 30th/31st years since
the discrepancy caused by the dates need not be inexplicable.
Baud also refers to a year 32 on a block found at Pepi I’s pyramid at Saqqara.
Since this block appears to have come from an early stage of construction, and the other
50
51
N. Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992) 81.
52
Baud and Dobrev, “De nouvelles annalles,”; Posener-Kriéger et al., Abusir X, 331.
53
Posener-Kriéger et al., Abusir X, 331; Spalinger, “Dated Texts,” 303-4; Baud, “Dynasties 6 and 8,” 148.
54
Spalinger, “Dated Texts,” 304; Baud, “Dynasties 6 and 8,” 148. Posener-Kriéger et al., Abusir X, 331.
55
56
Ibid., 150.
57
Ibid.
counts are no greater than Pepi I’s 50th year—therefore, no 64th year—Baud concludes
that there were two counting systems: the annual, and the biennial.58
In connection with the king’s 32nd year, O’Mara writes, “A casing block from
the Meidum pyramid bearing the date of IV 3ḫt 14 from sp 16 of an unknown king
requires a more complex analysis.”59 He attributes this date to a full moon (śmdt).60
Since the previous new moons of zp 11 and zp 14 that O’Mara placed with Unas’s 22nd
and 28th years, respectively, were, according to biennial dating, by analogy, zp 16 refers
to a king’s 32nd year.
There are only three kings in this period of history to which the date of IV 3ḫt 14
might apply: Djedkare Isesi, Pepi I, and Pepi II. A full moon on IV 3ḫt 14 occurs in cycle
year 1 with years ending in this period of history in 74/49/24/99.61 Djedkare Isesi’s first
year began in 2708 BCE; thus, his 32nd year was 2676, which is not applicable. Pepi I’s
first year began in 2606 BCE; thus, his 32nd year fell in 2574, which is applicable. We
have yet to discuss the reign of Pepi II, but, as we shall see, his first year began in 2542;
thus, his 32nd year fell in 2510, which is not applicable. Therefore, the only king whose
32nd year had a full moon date on IV 3ḫt 14 is Pepi I in 2574. Casperson’s Table 16.10
shows the date.
Table 16.10: Full Moon date in Pepi I’s 32nd year in −2573 (full moon listing from
−2573)
Memphis; Lat. 29.9, Long. 31.2.
Julian Gregorian Egyptian DoW Time of Day
Yr Mo D Yr Mo D Yr Mo D Full moon Sunrise Sunset
−2573 8 10 −2573 7 20 208 3 14 6 19:48 5:07 18:07
−2573 9 9 −2573 8 19 208 4 14 1 13:50 5:28 18:28
−2573 10 9 −2573 9 18 208 5 14 3 8:50 5:56 18:56
DoW = day of week.
The 32nd year-date proves that Pepi I reigned longer than 25 years; thus, his 25th
cattle count refers to his 50th year on biennial dating, which would give the date of 2556
to his final year. Why, then, does the Turin Canon assign him just 20 years? See the next
section.
Merenre Nemtiemsaf I
The fourth king of the 6th Dynasty is not named in the Turin Canon, but it gives
to this king a broken […]4 years. He is known as Merenre in the AbKL (no. 37) and in
the Saqqara Tablet (no. 35). He is otherwise known as Merenre Nemtiemsaf I, the latter
being his nomen.
Based on the number and size of the last preserved year blocks in the South
Saqqara Stone, (register F of the recto), Baud and Dobrev estimate that Merenre reigned
11–13 years.62
Merenre’s highest attested year is the “year after the 5th count” found on Hatnub
graffito no. VI63 indicating that he reigned at least 11 years. This suggests that the Turin
58
Ibid., 148-49.
59
O’Mara, “Dating the Sed Festival,” 65.
60
Ibid.
61
O’Mara used a different time-frame based on his chronology and different 25-year cycle dates
(2452/27/02) and tentatively proposed Teti I as the unnamed king providing he had a co-regency with Pepi
I for the first or second year, although he admitted that there was no direct evidence. He noted a co-
regency of Pepi I and Merenre (“Dating the Sed Festival,” 65-66).
62
Spalinger, “Dated Texts,” 307; Baud, “Dynasties 6 and 8,” 151.
63
Baud, “Dynasties 6 and 8,” 152, 156.
Canon originally credited Merenre I with [1]4 regnal years. However, Kim Ryholt, who
has made a study of the fragments of the Turin Canon, points out that with regard to the
damaged regnal years for Nemtiemsaf I, “The trace immediately before ‘4’ is quite
incompatible with ‘10’. The sign in question is clearly a dot.”64
Ryholt explains that the traces for the word year (rnpt) align perfectly with this
group of kings’ regnal years, as well as aligning with the line above and two lines below.
He continues, “As for the damaged numeral following rnpt, the reading ‘40’ proposed by
Gardiner would suit the dot perfectly, since ‘40’ in hieratic is written with a dot above a
horizontal stroke. In this case the reign was recorded as ‘44 years’.”65
How then are we to understand the 44 years when the South Saqqara Stone
indicates about 13, perhaps giving [1]4 years to Merenre? It may be noted that the 20
years of the Turin Canon for Pepi I plus 44 years for Merenre give 64 years. On the other
hand, the 50 years given Pepi I in the South Saqqara Stone plus 14 years also give 64
years. This suggests that there was a co-regency between father and son, and that their
regnal years have been allocated differently in the Turin Canon and the South Saqqara
Stone. That would allow 64 years between the accessions of Pepi I and Pepi II, and
concurs with Pepi I’s reign beginning in 2606 and Pepi II’s beginning in 2542. Pepi I
reigned 20 years followed by a 30-year co-regency with Merenre I. After Pepi’s death
Merenre reigned a further 14 years, reigning 44 years altogether.
Hans Goedicke considered it to be “fairly certain” that Pepi I and his son
Merenre Nemtiemsaf I had a co-regency.66 He points out that “a gold trinket with both
royal names written on it and the famous copper statue of Pepi I found at Hieraconpolis,
which had a smaller figure accompanying it,” are specific evidence of the co-regency.67
Pepi II (Neferkare)
Merenre Nemtiemsaf I was succeeded by Pepi II. His name is missing in the
Turin Canon but it attributes to the king 90 regnal years (section 5.3). The AbKL refers
to him as Neferkare (no. 38) as does the Saqqara Tablet (no. 36). Only a part of Pepi II’s
reign was carved on the verso of the South Saqqara Stone after those of Merenre’s and
his years are not given.
There are various known years for Pepi II ranging from rnpt zp 2 to rnpt (m)ḫt zp
31 with an additional rnpt zp 33 or 24.68 So even without the latter giving him 66 years,
Pepi II has an attested 63rd regnal year.
O’Mara recognizes two lunar dates from Pepi II’s reign because they both
number back to the same first year. The earlier of the two lunar dates comes from Pepi
II’s fourth year. O’Mara writes, “The well-known ‘pygmy letter’ of the child Pepi to his
expedition commander Harkhuf is highly suggestive of a Full Moon dating, inasmuch as
its dispatch was on the 15th day of the civil month: III 3ht 15 of sp 2. Might this have
been as well the 15th day (smdt) of the natural lunar month, a sort of reinforcement of
the symbolic date?”69
64
K. Ryholt, “The Late Old Kingdom in the Turin King-List and the Identity of Nitocris,” ZÄS 127 (2000)
90.
65
Ryholt, “Late Old Kingdom,” 90, and see n. 17.
66
H. Goedicke, “The Death of Pepi II-Neferkare,” SAK 15 (1988) 118.
67
Ibid., 118.
68
Spalinger, “Dated Texts,” 307-8; Baud, “Dynasties 6 and 8,” 152-3.
69
O’Mara. “Can the Gizeh Pyramids,” 77. Harkhuf captured a pygmy on one of his expeditions to Nubia.
On hearing of this, the young king, Pepi II, sent word to Harkhuf that he would be greatly rewarded if he
brought the pygmy back alive, presumably to be used for court entertainment.
As noted above there were 64 years between the accessions of Pepi I and II, with
Pepi II’s first year beginning in 2542 BCE. This date comes from his fourth year (zp 2)
falling in 2538. Casperson provides the full moon information in Table 16.11.
Table 16.11: Pepi II’s fourth year in −2537 (full moon listing from −2537)
Memphis; Lat. 29.9, Long. 31.2.
−2537 7 4 −2537 6 13 244 2 16 7 4:39 5:02 18:02
−2537 8 2 −2537 7 12 244 3 15 1 18:18 5:04 18:04
−2537 9 1 −2537 8 11 244 4 15 3 10:45 5:22 18:22
DoW = day of week.
A full moon fell on III 3ht 15 in Pepi II’s fourth year in 2538 BCE confirming his
accession in 2542, and also confirming that biennial dating was used for the king’s
regnal years.
Referring to the second lunar date for Pepi II, O’Mara writes, “A graffito
inscription from Hatnub by a local official bears the name Neferkare in a cartouche and a
portrait of the king seated on his throne. The date is I ŝmw 20 of the year after the 31st
count (sp 31+), regnal year 62 or 63.”70 Since Pepi II’s first year dates to 2542 BCE his
62nd or 63rd year will date to ca. 2479-2478 BCE (see Table 16.12).
Table 16.12: Pepi II’s 63rd year in −2477 (new moon listing from −2478 and −2477)
–2478 12 21 –2478 12 1 303 8 21 6 17:58 6:54 236 6:55 118 6:55 12
–2477 1 20 –2478 12 31 303 9 21 1 11:52 6:58 190 6:58 78 6:58 −2
–2477 2 19 –2477 1 30 303 10 21 3 3:10 6:44 139 6:44 51 6:43 −13
A new moon date of I ŝmw 20 fell in January 20 in 2478 BCE, thus confirming
Pepi II’s 63rd year. This concurs with biennial dating (zp 31+), the year after the 31st
count.
How Long did Pepi II Reign?

From the Hatnub graffito, we know Pepi II reigned at least 63 years.71 But did he
reign the 90 years given him in the Turin Canon (section 5.5)? Noted above is another
less certain year count of rnpt zp 33 (?) or 24 (?) found in a decree for the mortuary cult
of Queen Udjebten at Saqqara.72 If it is 33 then on biennial dating it refers to Pepi II’s
66th year.
Goedicke, who proposed that Pepi II reigned only 64 years, objected to the
reading of the 33rd year on the basis of the arrangement of the numerals, and preferred
the reading of the 24th year because it would “place the concern for Queen Udjebten into
a more probable context; she did not belong to the late reign of Pepi II, but had died long
before him.”73. Goedicke also points out that if Pepi II had reigned 90 years, there are no
records for the last 30 years of his reign, which “is difficult to accept.”74 Goedicke
70
O’Mara. “Can the Gizeh Pyramids,” 76-77. O’Mara attributes this to Rudolf Anthes’, Die
Felsinschriften von Hatnub nach den Aufnahmen Georg Möllers; Leipzig: 1928, pl. 12, 12a.
71
Spalinger, “Dated Texts,” 308; Baud, “Dynasties 6 and 8,” 153.
72
Goedicke, “Death of Pepi II,” 112; Spalinger, “Dated Texts,” 308; Baud, “Dynasties 6 and 8,” 153.
73
Goedicke, “Death of Pepi II,” 112.
74
Ibid., 112.
suggests limiting Pepi II’s reign to 64 years on the basis of a scribal error, reducing the
figure of 94 years given to a Phiops by Manetho,75 whom he assumes is the same king.76
Lacking any higher counts than his 63rd (or 66th?) year, the length of Pepi II’s
reign has to be determined on the basis of the number of years allocated to the 6th
Dynasty and to the following 8th Dynasty which together are attributed 187 years, 6
months, and 3 days by the Turin Canon in its summation at section 5.14–5.15. If Pepi II
reigned 90 years, he may be assigned the dates 2542–2452 BCE. Following Pepi II, there
is just one more king in the 6th Dynasty.
Merenre Nemtiemsaf II
The name of Pepi II’s successor is lost in the Turin Canon, but he is given a reign
of one year and one month (section 5.6). He is referred to as Merenre Saemsef in the
AbKL (no. 39), and is known as Merenre Nemtiemsaf II. In the Saqqara Tablet, his name
and that of successive kings down to the 12th Dynasty are lacking—apart from two 11th
Dynasty kings (nos. 45 and 46) that come after the listing of the 12th Dynasty rulers
(nos. 37–44).
Posener-Kriéger’s discussion concerning the papyrus from Neferefre’s mortuary
temple ended with Pepi I.77 The South Saqqara Stone ends with the reign of Pepi II.
From Pepi II onward we have only the names of the kings in the Turin Canon and the
AbKL for the last king of the 6th Dynasty and those of the 8th Dynasty that follow.
Neither Spalinger nor Baud mention Merenre II in their discussion of texts and
years in the aforementioned literature. The Turin Canon assigns one year and one month
to Merenre II. If Merenre’s one year followed Pepi II’s 90th year Merenre may be
attributed the years 2452–2451 BCE. On the above dates, the 6th Dynasty lasted a period
of 171 years and 1 month. That leaves ca. 16 years for the 8th Dynasty. If this can be
shown to be the correct number of years, then Pepi II can be given a reign of 90 years.
(This number of years is established in the next chapter.) On this basis, Table 16.13
below provides the years for the kings of the 6th Dynasty, together with two other
summaries arising from the foregoing discussion.
Summary 1: The Kings’ Regnal Years and Dates of the 6th Dynasty
Table 16.13: 6th Dynasty: Reconstructed from the Turin Canon, the South Saqqara
Stone, and three lunar dates
Ref. Turin
King Regnal years Dates Lunar dates
Canon
5.1 Teti 12 yr, 6 mo, 21 d 2622–2610/9
5.2 Userkare 3½ 2610/2609–2606
20 (50 SSS; co- 2606–2586; or Full moon IV 3ḫt 14 in 32nd year
5.3 Pepi I
regent 30yrs) 2606–2556 (rnpt zp 16) in 2574
Merenre 44 (14 SSS; co- 2586–2542; or
5.4
Nemtiemsaf I regent 30 yr) 2556–2542
Full moon III 3ḫt 15 in 4th yr (rnpt
zp 2) in 2538.
5.5 Pepi II 90 2542–2452
New moon I ŝmw 20 in 63rd yr
(rnpt (m)-ḫt zp 31) in 2482
Merenre
5.6 1 yr, 1 mo. 2452–2451
Nemtiemsaf II
Total 171 yr, 1 mo, 21 d 2622–2451
SSS = South Saqqara Stone.
75
Manetho, 54-55.
76
Goedicke, “Death of Pepi II,” 115.
77
The 6th Dynasty lasted approximately 171 years from 2622 to 2451 BCE.
Caution is applicable to the summary statements in the Turin Canon as for every other
name or length of reign. The summaries are neither to be accepted without question, nor
summarily dismissed. In piecing together fragmentary evidence from a range of sources,
each item must be treated with caution and taken on its merits. Corroboration then
assumes great importance, which, in the cases of the 6th and 8th Dynasties, is helpfully
supplied by astronomical detail from inscriptions that can be confirmed by fixed and
factual tables such as those provided by Casperson, the HELIAC program, and other
authorities.
Summary 2: The System of Dating

Of the eight lunar dates that have been discussed in the latter half of the 5th
Dynasty (from and including Neferefre) and the 6th Dynasty, six have been recorded
using the biennial method of counting and a seventh is assumed by analogy. The
exception is Neferefre’s new moon date obtained from the w3gy date in his reign, which
falls on the 18th day of a lunar month on an annual dating system. The analogous
biennial date is that from the duty list of pBM 10735 where the date of II šmw 18 is
presumed to have once been attached to a “year after the 16th count” of Djedkare’s reign
or his 33rd year, which agrees with the 25-year lunar cycle dates.
If the census counts had been irregular, and not every second year, then the lunar
dates would not have coincided with the regnal years specified in the inscriptions. There
is no basis to the idea of years being “skipped” in accordance with a theoretical
intercalary lunar month about every third year as John Nolan proposed.78
When kings’ regnal years are attested as “years of” and “years after” for census
counts, it is evident that a biennial count is indicated. On the other hand, there is no
evidence that the Turin Canon ever recorded the regnal years of the kings by anything
other than annual dating.
Two methods of numbering kings’ regnal years were being used in the early
dynasties. We have witnessed this in the 5th and 6th Dynasties and, as we shall see, it is
explicitly demonstrated in the compartments of the Palermo Stone in the Royal Annals in
which not only is one compartment given to each separate year—and thereby using an
annual count—but also some were numbered according to biennial census counts
beginning with the king’s second regnal year, which is his first census count.79 See
chapter 18.
Summary 3: Data Comparisons for the 6th Dynasty between the Turin Canon and
Manetho
We now compare the above table of Dynasty Six with the Dynasty Six provided
by Manetho.80 The six kings are listed only by Africanus, shown below. The last ruler is
Queen Nitocris, whom Africanus alludes to as “The noblest and loveliest of the women
of her time, of fair complexion, the builder of the third pyramid, [who] reigned for 12
years.”81
The Manetho versions of Eusebius and the Armenian do not refer to the first five
kings, mentioning only Queen Nitocris giving her much the same accolades as
Africanus. Eusebius gives her three years, and 203 years in another copy, but the latter is
78
J.S. Nolan, “The Original Lunar Calendar and Cattle Counts in Old Kingdom Egypt,” Aegyptiaca
Helvetica, 17 (2003) 75-97; idem, “Lunar Intercalations,” 44-60.
79
The problem of counting in Sneferu’s seventh and eighth years will be addressed in the context of
discussing the Royal Annals, chap. 20, pp. 292-294.
80
Manetho, 54-57.
81
Ibid., 54-55.
the total of years for the 6th Dynasty as given by the Armenian, although the reigns as
given add up to only 197 years.
Table 16.14: Comparison of the 6th Dynasty from the Turin Canon and Manetho
(Africanus)
Turin Canon Manetho (Africanus)

King-names supplied from AbKL and
Ref. Years No. King Years
Saqqara Tablet
5.1 Teti 12 yr, 6 mo 1 Othoes 30
5.2 Userkare 3½ 2 Phius 53
20 (50 SSS; 7
5.3 Pepi I 3 Methusuphis
co-regent 30 yr)
44 (14 SSS; 94
5.4 Merenre Nemtiemsaf I 4 Phiops
co-regent 30 yr)
5.5 Pepi II 90 5 Menthesuphis 1
5.6 Merenre Nemtiemsaf II 1 yr, 1 mo 6 Q. Nitocris 12
Total 171 yr, 1 mo 197
AbKL = Abydos King-list.
The comparison of the dynasties given by Manetho, the AbKL, and the Saqqara
Tablet (which give the names missing in the Turin Canon) demonstrate that the kings are
not the same, neither by name nor by number of regnal years. While Pepi II with 90
years is identified by scholars with Phiops with 94 years, their place and years in the
respective lists set them apart: 90 years precede Phiops in Manetho, and 80 years precede
Pepi II in the Turin Canon, with different distributions of years to the preceding kings in
both lists. I can only conclude that the kings of Manetho’s dynasties lived in different
locations from those kings I have discussed above. I will have more to say about Queen
Nitocris being identified by scholars with the first king of the 8th Dynasty in the Turin
Canon (section 5.7) in the next chapter.
7th Dynasty
Scholars assign the kings of 5.7–5.13 in the Turin Canon to the 8th Dynasty
because they find no evidence of a 7th Dynasty—apart from that referred to by Manetho.
Africanus says that the 7th Dynasty consisted of 70 kings of Memphis who reigned 70
days. Eusebius says it consisted of five kings who reigned for 75 days, and the Armenian
says it was five kings who “held sway” for 75 years!82 From this garbled account we
cannot come to any conclusion as to how long the 7th Dynasty lasted. However, since
Manetho’s 5th and 6th Dynasties are not demonstrably the same as those assigned to the
5th and 6th Dynasties in the Turin Canon, there is no reason to believe that the 7th
Dynasty given by Manetho is represented in the Turin Canon.
82
Ibid., 56-59.
Chapter 18. Regarding the Royal Annals 247
Chapter 17
Clarifying the 8th Dynasty

The last king of the 6th Dynasty, Merenre Nemtiemsaf II, with one year and one
month in the Turin Canon at section 5.6 is followed—without the interruption of a
summation line—by the next seven kings who are referred to by Egyptologists as the
kings of the 8th Dynasty. The next summation comes at section 5.14–5.15 of the Turin
Canon at the end of the 8th Dynasty. It attributes 187 years, 6 months, and 3 days to the
period from the beginning of the 6th Dynasty (Teti) to the end of the 8th Dynasty. Since
the 6th Dynasty lasted 171 years, 1 month, and 21 days, the 8th Dynasty would account
for about 16–17 years.
New Join in Turin Canon

In Kim Ryholt’s examination of the Turin Canon papyrus he matched fibres in
fragments 43 and 40 of column five and discovered that fragment 43 should be moved up
a line from what had previously been the alignment.1 Fragment 43 is now adjoined on its
left side by the only two lines of fragment 40. Had the lines been complete they would
have ended between fragments 59 and 61 on the left. This places the line for Netiqerty
(or Nitekreti) in its extant part under and to the right of the name of Nemtiemsaf II where
previously there had appeared to be a line without surviving text.
Ryholt notes that the new join has disclosed that Netiqerty’s nomen is Siptah
(section 5.7) and that the nomen of his successor, Neferkare, is Khered-Sonb (section
5.8).2 Ryholt considers the latter is a corruption of Pepi-Sonb,3 seen in the Abydos King-
list (AbKL; no. 51). Since Netiqerty Siptah and Neferkare Pepiseneb (Sonb) come from
the same fragment, it appears that they reigned consecutively.
Table 17.1 shows a comparison of the names and years of the kings in the Turin
Canon and their counterparts by name in the AbKL.
Table 17.1: Comparison of names in the Turin Canon and Abydos King-list
(AbKL) for the 8th Dynasty
Turin Canon AbKL
Ref. no. King Years No. King
5.7 Netiqerty lost 50 Neferkahor
5.8 Neferka[…] lost 51 Neferkare Pepiseneb
5.9 Nefer[…] lost 52 Sneferka Anu
5.10 Ibi I 2 yr, 1 mo, 1 d 53 Kaukare
5.11 lost 4 yr, 2 mo 54 Neferkaure
5.12 lost 2 yr, 1 mo, 1 d 55 Neferkauhor
5.13 lost 1 56 Neferirkare
1
K. Ryholt, “The Late Old Kingdom in the Turin King-List and the Identity of Nitocris,” ZÄS 127 (2000)
87-89.
2
Ibid., 92-94.
3
Ibid., 94.
It is important to note that Netiqerty (section 5.7) is identified with Neferkahor

(no. 50). This suggests that Netiqerty was known also as Netiqerty Neferkahor Siptah.
The names of the remaining kings are identifiable: Neferka at section 5.8 is Neferkare-
Pepiseneb, and Nefer at section 5.9 is Sneferka Anu. Their years are now lost. Ibi I at
section 5.10 is Kaukare. He is identified with Kaukare (or Qakaure) because his
prenomen is written in a pyramid text. He was known as Qakare Ibi.4 In the Turin
Canon, due to the realignment of fragment 43 line 10 with fragment 61 line 10, Ibi I
becomes the only king of the 8th Dynasty in the Turin Canon to have his name and his
number of years preserved: two years, one month, and one day.
The remaining three kings whose names have survived only in the AbKL, have
their regnal years in the Turin Canon. Neferkaure has four years and two months;
Neferkauhor has two years, one month, and one day; and Neferirkare has one year,
though the reading is uncertain.
Comparison of Turin Canon Kings Section 5.6–5.13 with AbKL nos. 39–56
Between the name of Merenre Saemsaf (Merenre Nemtiemsaf II) at no. 39 in the
AbKL are the names of 10 kings that are not represented in the Turin Canon. These are
shown in the right column of Table 17.2, nos. 40–49.
Table 17.2: Comparison of the Turin Canon and Abydos King-list (AbKL) after
Merenre Nemtiemsaf II
Turin Canon AbKL Additional kings in AbKL
Ref. no. King Years No. King No. King
5.6 Merenre Nemtiemsaf II 1 yr, 1 mo 39 Merenre Saemsaf
5.7 Netiqerty (Siptah) lost 50 Neferkahor 40 Netjerirkare
5.8 Neferka[…] (Khered-Sonb) lost 51 Neferkare Pepiseneb 41 Menkare
5.9 Nefer[…] lost 52 Sneferka Anu 42 Neferkare II
5.10 Ibi I 2 yr, 1 mo, 1 d 53 Kaukara [Ibi] 43 Neferkare Neby
5.11 lost 4 yr, 2 mo 54 Neferkaure 44 Djedkre Shemai
5.12 lost 2 yr, 1 mo, 1 d 55 Neferkauhor 45 Neferkare Khendu
5.13 lost 1 (yr uncertain) 56 Neferirkare 46 Merenhor
47 Sneferka
48 Nikare
49 Neferkare Tereru
The question is whether the kings in the far-right column are missing from the
Turin Canon or whether they were never in the Turin Canon. Were they a collateral line
of kings and not part of the Turin Canon lineage? In other words, is Nemtiemsaf II
succeeded by Netiqerty (Neferkahor of the AbKL, no. 50) or by Netjerikare (no. 40)?
The question can be resolved due to a full moon date that applies to one of the kings of
the 8th Dynasty, who, however, is not named (see page 251 below). Therefore, I need to
reconstruct the chronology given by the Turin Canon and ascertain which, if any, of
those kings has the full moon date in his reign. If the full moon date applies to a king of
the 8th Dynasty as given above (that is, Netiqerty to Neferirkare) it will anchor his reign
and that will determine whether another 10 kings should come between Merenre
Nemtiemsaf II and Netjerikare, or whether Merenre is immediately followed by
Netiqerty. However, we first need to note the summation that appears at section 5.14–
5.15 because it is essential to the understanding of the chronology.
Ryholt supplies the following. All that remains now is:
‘[Total] of kings [down to (?) … X; their years] 181, 6 [months], 3 days: wsf 6;
total […]’5
4
Ibid., 99.
5
Ibid., 94.
The summation at section 5.14–5.15 gives a subtotal of 181 years, 6 months, and
3 days, to which is added a “lost” (wsf) six years, which would give the missing total of
187 years, 6 months, and 3 days. This total spans the section beginning with Teti (section
5.1) to the last king in this group (section 5.13). Of this total, 171 years, 1 month, and 21
days has been allocated to the 6th Dynasty leaving approximately 16½ years for the 8th
Dynasty. The six wsf years would be included in the amount as they are needed for the
total number. The only kings without regnal years in the 8th Dynasty are the first three
who may then be assigned two years each since none of their individual reign lengths is
known.
The second summation (section 5.16–5.17) includes the period of the 6th and 8th
Dynasties plus the preceding period back to Menes, the first king of the 1st Dynasty. It
reads, “[Total] of kings [beginning with] Menes, their kingship, their years [their (?)]
wsf, […] 9 months, 15 days, wsf: 6 years. Total [of kings, X], 955 [ye]ars, 10 days.”6
The subtotal before the six missing (wsf) years is partly lost ending only in a “9,”
but it can be reclaimed by subtracting six years from the total, which gives 949 years for
the subtotal.7 By subtracting the 181 years, 6 months, and 3 days given for the 6th and
8th Dynasties from the total of 955 years, it provides 767 years, 6 months, and 7 days for
the missing summation total at section 4.26—being the number of years from Menes
down to Unas.
Full Moon Date in the 8th Dynasty?

Having ascertained the regnal years for the kings, we can now return to the
question of whose reign the full moon date fell in, in order to determine whether the 10
kings from the AbKL should be fitted in between Merenre Nemtiemsaf II (no. 39) and
Neferkahor (no. 50)—the latter aligned with Netiqerty in the Turin Canon.
Hans Goedicke published a full moon date in 1994, which he attributed to the 8th
Dynasty.8 The inscription is now designated as Cairo JE 43290. The text is inscribed on
a broken piece of stela made of “dark grey diorite typical of Coptic monuments from the
very end of the Old Kingdom.” Because of its shape, Goedicke suggests the piece of
stone came from a temple wall, being a copy of an original papyrus document. The stela
describes a legal contract between two parties, the god Min and a certain Ḥtp-k3-Mnw,
described as the “king’s son,” which may or may not have been his actual status. That
this contract was undertaken at the time of the full moon, a festive occasion, is not in
doubt.
Goedicke translates from line one of the text, which gives the date of the
document: “Year (1) 4th month of 3ḫt, day 25—the day of the Half-moon feast.” The
year-numeral is missing but the presence of a year two in line six indicates that the first
line must refer to year one.9 Thus the king in whose reign the feast occurred must have
reigned at least into his second year if not longer. Goedicke attributes the inscription to
the reign of Nfr-k3w-Ḥr of the 8th Dynasty; that is, Neferkauhor (section 5.12), whom he
incorrectly states is the dynasty’s third ruler.10 Neferkauhor is actually the sixth and
penultimate king.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid., 95. Ryholt notes that “No months were recorded, the number being zero.”
8
H. Goedicke, “A Cult Inventory of the Eighth Dynasty from Coptos,” MDAIK 50 (1994) 71-84.
9
Ibid., 71-72. Referring to the regnal year “rnpt zp <1?>: IV 3ḫt 25” in Goedicke’s article, M. Baud
remarked that, “The numeral is omitted, but 1 is the most likely emendation … This could refer to the first
incomplete civil year—year 0 usually designated zm3 t3wy. This inscription presumably originates from
Coptos or nearby Khozam” (Baud, “Dynasties 6 and 8,” Ancient Egyptian Chronology [eds. E. Hornung,
R. Krauss, and D. Warburton; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006] 157 n. 79).
10
Goedicke, “Cult Inventory,” 83-84.
Spalinger wrote in 1994: “This small text is extremely important as it provides a

lunar equivalent (day 15) to the civil day of 4 3ḫt 25. Although no royal name is
mentioned, a z3 nsw [king’s son] with the name Ḥtp-k3-Mnw appears; the figure of 2
seems the most reasonable.”11
Goedicke says, “It is apparently Ḥtp-k3-Mnw’s social standing in Coptos which
is behind the contract with the god Min reflected in the text concerning us. The political
background for the implicit emphasis on Min’s culture reflected here is in the importance
of the Coptos district during the Eighth Dynasty.”12
Henry Fischer disputes the 8th Dynasty date, asserting it belongs to the early 11th
Dynasty.13 Does the full moon date apply to the 8th or early 11th Dynasty? If the full
moon date applies to the “8th Dynasty” equated with Turin Canon’s section 5.8–5.13, it
has to fall within the 16–17 years beginning in 2451/2450, and ending in 2435/2434
when the 187 years and 6 months period would end. The full moon of IV 3ḫt 25 occurs
every 25 years in dates ending in 64/39/14/89 (cycle year 14) in this period of history.
Looking at Casperson’s Table 17.3, we see that a full moon fell on IV 3ḫt 25 in the year
−2438 (2439 BCE).
Table 17.3: Full moon listing from −2438
Thebes; Lat. 25.7, Long. 32.6.
−2438 7 19 −2438 6 29 343 3 26 6 6:17 5:11 18:11
−2438 8 17 −2438 7 28 343 4 25 7 16:48 5:20 18:20
−2438 9 16 −2438 8 27 343 5 25 2 5:60 5:39 18:39
DoW = day of week.
This date applies to the reign of Neferkauhor, penultimate king of the “8th
Dynasty” who reigned two years, one month, and one day (section 5.13) and confirms
the identity of the king as suggested by Goedicke and von Beckerath. 14 Since the full
moon is dated to the king’s year one, his first year must include 2439 BCE. Assuming
his first year began in the second half of 2439 and he reigned for two years and one
month, his successor, Neferirkare, would have reigned from 2437/2436–2434 BCE
depending on the date of his accession.
The Turin Canon gives Neferirkare at least one year (section 5.13)—the actual
number being uncertain. However, from the beginning of Teti’s reign at the start of the
6th Dynasty to the end of Neferirkare’s reign at the end of the 8th Dynasty, there are 187
years, 6 months, and 3 days according to Turin Canon section 5.14-5.15. Since Teti’s
reign started in 2622, 187 years and 6 months later, Neferirkare’s reign would have
ended in 2434, concurring with the full moon date in Neferkauhor’s reign in 2439.
Summary of reigns
Reckoning backward from Neferkauhor, his predecessor, Neferkaure, had a reign
of four years and two months, and can be dated to 2443–2439. His predecessor, Qakare
Ibi, having a reign of two years and one month, can be dated to 2445–2443. The first
three kings have been assigned the six wsf years giving them two years each. Neferkamin
reigned two years from 2447 to 2445; Neferkare Pepi-Sonb reigned for two years from
11
Spalinger had seen the citation before the stela was published by H. Goedicke. A.J. Spalinger, “Dated
Texts of the Old Kingdom,” SAK 21 (1994) 312-13 and n. 102.
12
Goedicke, “Cult Inventory,” 74.
13
H.G. Fischer, “Notes on Some Texts of the Old Kingdom and Later,” Studies in Honor of William Kelly
Simpson (ed. P. Der Manuelian, Boston: Museum of Fine Arts; 1996) 267-70.
14
J. von Beckerath, “The Date of the End of the Old Kingdom,” JNES 21 (1962) 143.
2449 to 2447; and Netiqerty Neferkauhor Siptah reigned for two years from 2451 to
2449. Netiqerty’s reign begins where Nemtiemsaf II’s reign ends. This all seems fairly
straightforward.
However, Ryholt wanted to include the 10 kings in the AbKL from Menkare (no.
41) to Neferkahor (no. 50), the predecessor of Neferkare Pepi-Sonb (no. 51). Ryholt
separated Neferkahor from Pepi-Sonb and aligned Netjerikare (no. 40) with Netiqerty
Siptah (section 5.7 Turin Canon) and fitted in the 10 “missing kings,” Menkare to
Neferkahor, into the Turin Canon. Is it possible then that the full moon date should be
applied to a later king, such as in the 11th Dynasty as suggested by Henry Fischer? A
later date might provide years into which these kings between Netjerikare Siptah and
Neferkare Pepi-Sonb might be inserted.15
The above time-frame given for the kings and the full moon date can now be
compared with Fischer’s alternative proposal that stela Cairo JE 43290 with the full
moon date came from the early 11th Dynasty. This dynasty is represented in the Turin
Canon in section 6.12–6.17. The full moon date has to fall in one of the years ending in
61/36/11/86. To pre-empt the later discussion, the first year of Mentuhotep II fell in 2186
BCE. This date is gained from the regnal years allocated to his predecessors and by a
Sothic rising date attributed to the date of II prt 21, which fell in 2186 at Thebes.
However, in the intervening years since the 8th Dynasty, the dates associated with cycle
year 14 have moved by two days, so that the full moon fell on IV 3ḫt 23, not 25. See
Casperson’s Table 17.4.
Table 17.4: Full moon listing from −2185
Thebes; Lat. 25.7, Long. 32.6.
−2185 5 14 −2185 4 26 596 3 23 4 15:03 5:35 18:35
−2185 6 13 −2185 5 26 596 4 23 6 5:45 5:18 18:18
−2185 7 12 −2185 6 24 596 5 22 7 21:42 5:11 18:11
DoW = day of week.
The 11th Dynasty does not fulfil the criteria of a full moon in the first year of
Mentuhotep II or any of its other kings. We are then returned to Neferkauhor (section
5.12 in the Turin Canon) as the king in whose reign the full moon date fell in the year
2439 BCE. This date anchors the chronology. Consequently, there is no room for the 10
kings of the AbKL, Menkare to Neferkahor (nos. 41–50) to come between Netjerkare
Siptah and Neferkare Pepi-Sonb. My conclusion is that the 10 kings from the AbKL are
not part of the succession of kings represented in the Turin Canon. They appear to be
from a collateral line of kings, probably approximately contemporary with the 8th
Dynasty kings, perhaps located near Abydos.
Ryholt’s Proposal that Queen Nitocris is King Netiqerty-Siptah

Not being aware of the full moon date and the chronology that it supplies for the
kings of the 8th Dynasty, Ryholt discussed two inter-related proposals. First, he seeks to
identify Queen Nitocris, the sixth and last ruler of Manetho’s Dynasty (“the noblest and
loveliest woman of her time”)16 with a ruler in the Turin Canon. Ryholt points out that
Nitocris is not attested by contemporary sources, and that she is not named in the AbKL.
Ryholt writes, “It is generally believed that Nitocris was recorded under another name.
This is not surprising, in that Nitocris has been regarded as a nomen, whereas the kings
15
See Table 1 in Ryholt, “Late Old Kingdom,” 99.
16
Manetho, 54-57.
in the Abydos Canon were recorded under the prenomen alone.”17 Ryholt states, “The
earliest source to mention Nitocris is the Turin King-list, in the form of nt-iḳr.tỉ, and she
is otherwise mentioned only in the Greek Tradition, as Νιτωκρις.”18
Ryholt believed that the new fragment giving the nomen of Netiqerty as Siptah
solved the problem of the “identity of Nitocris once and for all.” He writes, “It now
emerges that the name Nitocris is actually followed by another name, Siptah. In all other
cases where a king is recorded under two names in the king-list, these represent the
prenomen followed by the nomen: i.e., the personal name of the king. Accordingly, we
must identify Nitocris as the prenomen and Siptah as the nomen…. Since the name
Siptah is masculine (meaning ‘Son of Ptah’), the obscure king ‘Nitocris’ must be
regarded as a man rather than a woman.”19
He claims that because Nitocris can be used as a prenomen, “which it is clearly
not by construction,” he suggests that the name is a corruption. Because of the phonetic
similarity in the names he equates nt-iḳr.tỉ/ Νιτωκρις, with the ntr-ke-rc/Netjerkare,
successor of Merenre Nemtiemsaf II in the AbKL. He writes: “The identification
between the two therefore seems inevitable.”20 Ryholt concludes, “Accordingly, the
female Nitocris never existed, but was instead a male king with the prenomen Netjerkare
and the nomen Siptah.”21 He proposes that the name had become corrupt in the Turin
Canon but preserved in the AbKL, and since it was the Turin Canon that survived until
the Late Period, “This destined king Siptah to be remembered as a woman, albeit a
beautiful one for more than two millennia.”22
Ryholt adds an appendix to his article citing James P. Allen who discussed the
proposed identification. Allen wrote, “Although the identification of Turin’s nt-jḳrtj
z3-ptḥ [Netiqerty Siptah] with Abydos’s nṭr-k3-rc [Netjerkare] seems inevitable I’m still
uncertain about the reasons for the apparent Turin ‘corruption’ of the name.
Phonologically the two names are not as similar as it might appear from the transcription
alone. Turin’s nt- jḳrtj was presumably vocalized *nitaqrati, judging from the Greek
Νίτωκρις.”23
After further discussion, Allen concludes that it was more likely that Netjerikare
was the king’s prenomen and that Netiqerty Siptah was his nomen, rather than Netiqerty
being corrupted from Netjerikare.24 Another possibility that Allen considered was “the
Nitocris entry might also represent ‘Nitiqerti (called) Siptah’.”25
Ryholt’s second proposal was that the 10 kings named in the AbKL at nos. 40–50
have been omitted from the Turin Canon and it is they to whom the six wsf years
belonged. He writes, “Both summations include the ‘lacuna of 6 years’ which can be
shown to refer to the ten successors of ‘Nitocris’ (col. 5/7) who are omitted: i.e., the
kings of Dynasty VII/VIII who had been lost through a lacuna in the course of
transmission of the king-list.”26 He also writes, “It is, however, clear that the two
summations cannot be original in their present form since they include a number of kings
17
Ryholt, “Late Old Kingdom,” 92.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid., 93.
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid., 99.
24
Ibid., 100.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid., 96.
whose records were lost during the transmission of the text: i.e., the kings whose reigns
were accounted for by the notation wsf, ‘lacuna’.”27
Since Ryholt has identified Queen Nitocris with Netiqerty Siptah, and she was
the last king of the 6th Dynasty, Netiqerty Siptah now takes her place. Believing that the
10 kings of the AbKL (nos. 40–49) have been lost from the Turin Canon, Ryholt now
has to place them after Netiqerty Siptah whom he has designated last king of the 6th
Dynasty and before Neferkare Pepi-Sonb. In the AbKL, the 10 kings not represented in
the Turin Canon are kings Netjerikare to Neferkare Tereru (nos. 40–49). Since
Netjerikare comes after Merenre Nenmtiemsaf II (no. 39) Ryholt identifies him with
Nitocris/Netiqerty-Siptah. Netiqerty Siptah, otherwise known as Neferkahor in the
AbKL at no. 50, is now removed to no. 40 and becomes the last king of the 6th Dynasty.
This means that Netjerkare, the first of the 10 “missing kings” in the Turin Canon
becomes represented in the Turin Canon by being identified with Netiqerty
Siptah/Nitocris, the last ruler of the 6th Dynasty. The first of the “missing kings”
becomes Menkare (no. 41). It is he who is presumed by Ryholt to be the first of the 10
kings inserted into the Turin Canon between Netjerkare Siptah and Neferkare Pepi-
Sonb.28
Ryholt’s proposals cannot be sustained in view of the full moon date in the reign
of Neferkauhor, which anchors the chronology and does not permit the insertion of
another 10 kings. Ryholt’s identification of Nitocris with Netiqerty Siptah/Netjerkare
Siptah seems to have arisen from his understanding that kings of Manetho’s dynasties
should be identifiable with kings of the Turin Canon. This belief led to his hypothesis
that Queen Nitocris was a man, whom he identified with Turin Canon’s Netiqerty Siptah
and then again with Netjerkare Siptah in the AbKL. Once it is realized that Manetho’s
dynasties and kings are not the same as those of the Turin Canon, these identifications
are seen to be without substance.
Turin Canon’s Kings from Section 5.7–5.13

The following table gives the kings of the Turin Canon’s 8th Dynasty with regnal
years where supplied, and their names attributed by the AbKL where missing.
Table 17.5: 8th Dynasty reconstructed from the Turin Canon and the Abydos King-list
(AbKL)
Turin AbKL
Regnal yr
Canon King Dates cartouche King
(lunar date)
ref. no. no.
[Neferkahor]
5.7 [2] 2451–2449 50 Neferkahor
Netiqerty-Siptah
5.8 Neferka(re) Khered-Sonb [2] 2449–2447 51 Neferkare Pepi-Sonb
5.9 Nefer[kamin] [2] 2447–2445 52 Neferkamin Anu
5.10 Ibi I 2 yr, 1 mo, 1 d 2445–2443 53 Qakaure [Ibi]
5.11 [Neferkaure] 4 yr, 2 mo, 0 d 2443–2439 54 Neferkaure
2 yr, 1 mo, 1 d.
(Yr 1, full moon
5.12 [Neferkauhor] 2439–2437 55 Neferkauhor
IV 3 t 25 in
2439)
5.13 [Neferirkare] 2 yr + 2437/2436–2434 56 Neferirkare
Total: 16½ yr 2451–2434
[ ] = names supplied from the AbKL, or regnal years as allocated.
These sections of the Turin Canon are joined to summary sections reproduced in
Table 17.6.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid., 99.
Table 17.6: Summary of Reigns from Menes to the End of the 8th Dynasty in the
Turin Canon
Turin Canon ref. no. King Regnal yr (lunar date) Dates
5.14–5.15 Summation for group 6th Dyn.: 171 yr + 8th 2622–2434
Dyn.: 16½ yr = 187 yr, 6
mo
5.16–5.17 Summation Total from Menes to 955 yr, 0 mo, 10 d 3389–2434
end 8th Dyn.
The 8th Dynasty lasted ca. 16½ years, which is the complement of the 171 years
attributed to the 6th Dynasty—the two together having been assigned 187 years and 6
months in the Turin Canon in the summation at section 5.14–5.15. In the following
summation (5.16–5.17), the total from Menes to the end of the 8th Dynasty is stated as
ca. 955 years. By subtracting the total for the 6th and 8th Dynasties, 767–768 years
remain for the 1st–5th Dynasties. This supplies the summation total at section 4.26,
which is now lost after the reign of Unas.
Manetho’s 8th Dynasty

Does Manetho’s 8th Dynasty bear any resemblance to the so-called 8th Dynasty
of the Turin Canon? According to Africanus, there were 27 kings of Memphis who
reigned for 146 years, but Eusebius and the Armenian say there were five kings who
reigned for 100 years.29 Individual kings with regnal years are not stated. Since the
period in the Turin Canon regarded by scholars as the 8th Dynasty (section 5.8–5.13)
spans only 16½ years, they can hardly refer to the same kings as those reported by
Manetho. We can only assume that they belong to a different line of kings.
Procedure
The Sothic date of 2750 BCE in the reign of Neferefre provided a fixed point for
dating his successors in the 5th Dynasty. Having completed a discussion of the
chronology of the kings from Neferefre (section 4.21) of the mid-5th Dynasty to the
summation at 5.16–5.17 (the end of the 8th Dynasty), we are now in a position to discuss
the chronology of the Turin Canon from Menes, its first king, down to Neferefre. In my
reconstruction of the chronology, I will utilize the Royal Annals as represented on the
Palermo Stone and associated fragments, the data of the Turin Canon, and other
resources. After that discussion (chapters 18–21) I will continue with the period covered
by the Turin Canon following the 8th Dynasty.
29
Manetho, 58-59.
Chapter 18
Regarding the Royal Annals

In previous chapters, Neferefre’s accession was shown to be dated in the mid-5th
Dynasty, precisely in 2750 BCE. On the basis of the w3gy date in his reign, and aided by
a full moon date in the first year of the reign of Neferkauhor, Neferirkare’s predecessor,
the last year of Neferirkare’s reign and the end of the 8th Dynasty was dated to 2434
BCE.
The late-5th Dynasty accounted for 128 years. The 6th Dynasty of 171 years
combined with the 8th Dynasty of 16½ years gave a combined total of 187 years and 6
months (and 21 days) concurring with the summation of the Turin Canon at section
5.14–5.15.
The question now is whether the total of 955 years (and 10 days) given in the
summation at section 5.16–5.17 of the Turin Canon covering the period from Menes,
first king of the 1st Dynasty to Neferirkare, last king of the 8th Dynasty, is credible.
Having already covered the years from Neferefre to Neferirkare, which amount to ca.
316 years (128 years plus 187 years and 6 months), the preceding years amount to 639
years; that is, from Menes to Neferefre (section 4.16). Can these years be confirmed?
The two main sources of information for reconstructing the period from Menes
down to Neferefre are equally fragmented: the Turin Canon and the Royal Annals. These
are supplemented by inscriptions recording census counts on materials such as papyri,
building blocks, or tombs found during excavations. The census counts may indicate a
king’s highest known regnal year, obviously an important datum.
There are no known Sothic or lunar dates from this early period that might assist
in dating a king’s reign. As discussed previously, the dynastic lists from Manetho do not
seem to be recording the same royal succession that is evident in the Turin Canon, Royal
Annals, South Saqqara Stone, Abydos King-list, and Saqqara Tablet. The early dynastic
lists originating with Manetho are not relevant for the following discussion—except for
the fact that Menes appears at the head of the 1st Dynasty not only in Manetho, but also
in the Turin Canon and the Abydos King-list, though not in the extant parts of the Royal
Annals (which appears to start with the second king, Aha).
Since the regnal years of the first 14 kings of the Turin Canon are lost due to
damage (though for many their age at death has survived), the main source for
recovering the length of their reigns comes from the Royal Annals. However, in the
Turin Canon at section 4.1, from Neferkasokar (mid-2nd Dynasty) down to Neferefre
(Raneferef) at mid-5th Dynasty, a reasonable number of the kings have their names and
regnal years intact (or partly so) in the Turin Canon, and these can be compared with the
information from the Annals and other sources.
Compartments Assigned to Each King’s Reign

The Royal Annals is not a list of names; instead, it assigns a compartment to each
year of a king’s reign in horizontal rows or registers. If the number of compartments on
the Annals is known, then that number represents the years of the king’s reign.1
Unfortunately, because only seven fragments of the original annals survive, far more of
the annals has been lost than has survived, and the positioning of each fragment has
hitherto been a matter of speculation.
The Royal Annals were briefly mentioned in chapter 15, pages 207 to 211. That
is now supplemented by the following comments relating to the way that regnal years
may be indicated. The Palermo Stone fragment, shown in chapter 15 and the Cairo 1
fragment (shown here at Figure 18.1) are the main basis for the following remarks, since
the smaller fragments have some variations. The transcription of the Cairo 1 fragment is
provided (Figure 18.2) from Toby Wilkinson’s book.
Figure 18.1: The Cairo 1 recto fragment.
1
There is one known exception in the reign of Aha, which will be discussed.
Figure 18.2: The top portion of the Cairo 1 fragment of the Royal Annals as reconstructed by Toby Wilkinson.
I have created a newly composed chart of the Palermo Stone and Cairo 1 together
with the smaller fragments (see Figure 18.3), which seem to provide more coherency and
confidence for clarifying the chronology than has been available before now. The recto
is presented on the following pages; the verso will be presented in conjunction with its
discussion. The Annals are to be read right to left.
Figure 18.3: Royal Annals recto as reconstructed by M.C. Tetley. C (1–5) = Cairo fragments; LF = London Fragment;
PS = Palermo Stone; REG = register. Continued on page 259.
Figure 18.3: continued from page 258. Royal Annals recto as reconstructed by M.C. Tetley. C (1–5) = Cairo
fragments; LF = London Fragment; PS = Palermo Stone; REG = register
The spacing between the Palermo Stone and Cairo 1 is a critical (and complex)
part of the discussion to follow, and will be portrayed later. In the meantime, it is
convenient to display both ends of the Royal Annals on adjoining pages. Note in these
representations, based on exact portrayals of these two major stones, the consistency
between the sizes of the compartments (differing in each register) on the stones, and on
the reconstruction of the parts of the Annals now lost, together with the precision of the
extreme right and left edges of the stone as it must have originally existed.
As can be seen (Figure 18.3), the two larger fragments are shown on the recto.
Cairo 1 is on the left and the Palermo Stone on the right. The backside (verso) of each
stone will be displayed later in this chapter. Much more information can be gained from
the Palermo Stone than Cairo 1, of which almost nothing is retained in the lower sections
due to damage. It may have been used as a door-sill.2 Other fragments are positioned on
the recto, but of these only the small London Fragment is represented on the verso.
The Royal Annals are arranged in horizontal registers on the recto and verso. On
the recto, in registers one to six, each is separated by a band from the one above and
below, and perhaps also for the lower registers, seven to nine, most of which are now
lost. Scholars describe this space as the titulary band where the names of the kings are
engraved.
The Schematic Form

From an overview of the two main fragments, the Palermo Stone and Cairo 1, it
appears that each titulary seems to have been about seven compartments long, and
centered above the middle compartments of a king’s reign. Thus if the regnal year of a
middle compartment of the titulary is known, it will give an indication of the length of
the king’s overall reign. On the verso of the Royal Annals (Figure 18.4), the titulary of
each king probably ran within and along the top of the width of a king’s first
compartment as shown for the reign of Neferirkare Kakai (register four on the Palermo
Stone verso). These compartments are much larger than those of the recto, as can be seen
in Figure 18.4.
Figure 18.4: The Royal Annals verso, showing compartment size.
Under the titulary band on the recto are the compartments of the registers that
comprise the kings’ annals. The compartments are separated by a rnpt sign, each
indicating a year. A horizontal line on the recto rules off a section at the base of each
compartment giving the height of the Nile when in flood.
When a change of reign is indicated on the recto, it is shown by a vertical line
that extends down from the bottom of the preceding register, through the register it
applies to, finishing at the base of the Nile band. It may come at the end of a year, or
within a compartment if the partial final year of one king and the accession portion of the
next king share a compartment. In such a case, the months and days of the partial year
that each king reigned may be noted, but there are not enough examples to know whether
this was always the case.
On the recto, the compartments of registers one to five have much the same depth
but register six is deeper. The compartments within each register have the same width,
except for register six where, of three existing compartments, one is wider than the other
2
Ibid., 18.
two. However, while the compartments within each register are uniform, the width of
compartments from one register to the next is not uniform. Register four has the
narrowest compartments and register six has the widest. The probable form of the
missing registers, seven to nine, not shown by markings on the Palermo Stone and Cairo
1, will be discussed as we reach the periods they originally displayed.
On the verso, there are only two examples of a change of reign. These are
discussed in chapter 21. In register one, there is a vertical band dividing the reign of
Menkaure from Shepseskaf, although the upper part is lost. Menkaure’s extant final
months and days are incised within his last compartment separated by the change of
reign band from Shepseskaf’s accession year, which also has a missing number of
months and days. The change of reign is also seen in register four dividing the reigns of
Sahure and Neferirkare, but here the band extends down to the top of the next register.
The months of the final portion of Sahure’s last year are incised within the band, with the
months for Neferirkare’s accession year noted on the right side of his first compartment.
These will be shown in finer detail in chapter 21.
The compartments on the verso are much deeper and wider than those of the
recto, with the width of one compartment taking up almost the whole width of the
Palermo Stone fragment. On the verso of Cairo 1, only parts of two compartments are
legible in register four and a small portion on its right side in register five.
The increasing size of the compartments gives the impression that as the project
continued, the inscribers realized that more and more space should be allocated to each
year.
Estimating the Regnal Years of Userkaf

In attempting to reconstruct the annals, it is important to know how far apart the
Palermo Stone and Cairo 1 were on the original; that is, how many compartments filled
the gap between the two fragments. On the verso of register two, shown in Figure 18.5
on pages 260-261, Cairo 1 and the Palermo Stone have compartments from the reign of
Userkaf. In Cairo 1, parts of two compartments remain—the first occupying about a
quarter of the space and the second about three-quarters. It mentions the “year after the
first occasion of the cattle count” indicating Userkaf’s third year, so the next
compartment of which about two-thirds remains on Cairo 1 refers to his fourth regnal
year. On the Palermo Stone, the entire length of one of Userkaf’s compartments is
shown. At the left edge of the compartment there is a reference to the “third occasion of
the cattle count,” indicating the king’s sixth regnal year.
Figure 18.5: Verso showing the space between Cairo 1 and Palermo Stone in the reign of Userkaf. C1 = Cairo 1
fragment; PS = Palermo Stone.
Therefore, in the gap between Cairo 1 and the Palermo Stone, there would have
been the last third of Userkaf’s fourth year followed by an entirely lost fifth year
compartment except for a few signs visible at the left upper edge on the Palermo Stone
before the rnpt sign indicating the beginning of his sixth year. The size of the
compartments gives some indication of the space that makes up the gap between Cairo 1
and the Palermo Stone on the verso of register two.
On the recto, the distance between the Palermo Stone and Cairo 1 in registers two
to five, and the number of years apportioned to the kings’ reigns, which cross the gap
from one fragment to the other, has to be consistent with the gap on the verso. The
sequence of the “following of Horus” signs, which occur every second year in registers
two and four on the recto, help define the number of years in the gap. The final number
of years for each king is ultimately attained when all factors are taken into consideration.
Processes of Reconstruction
The most difficult problem in reconstructing the annals is to reckon the number
of compartments for each register because there are no fragments that show the edges of
the annals or how they were arranged. However, we are helped in this regard by registers
five and six of the recto of the Palermo Stone where Djoser I Netjerikhet’s reign begins
(as shown by a change of reign vertical line) and immediately beneath, in register six,
there appears the third of three compartments from the reign of Sneferu. See Figure 18.3.
This compartment has problems in that it refers to the “eighth year of the cattle count”
indicating the 16th year, whereas the preceding year has the “seventh year of the cattle
count” indicating the 14th year. Its preceding compartment does not have a stated cattle
count. Once the correct regnal year for Sneferu’s “eighth year” has been determined,
detailed later in chapter 20, the distance from it back to Netjerikhet’s first year gives the
coverage of what amounts to one full register.
Having ascertained the distance covered by the compartments for one register
(the left side of register five, and the right side of register six) the years have to be fitted
in between the right and left edges of the annals. This has to take into consideration the
distance covered by the compartments on the verso with their much larger size, as well
as the overall number of years that are represented on the annals.
Provisionally, at this stage, the overall consideration is the 955 years that are
attributed to the kings for the period from Menes to Neferirkare in the Turin Canon
(sections 4.16–4.17). As noted previously, the accession of Neferefre is dated to 2750
BCE, and the last king whose name survives on the verso of Cairo 1 is Neferirkare
Kakai, just two kings before Neferefre. Thus, the annals record ends just shortly before
we have a definite date from which the earlier reigns may be reckoned.
From Neferefre with his first year dated to 2750 BCE down to the end of Unas’s
reign, there are 128 years, and from Unas to Neferirkare of the 8th Dynasty there are 187
years and 6 months (Turin Canon section 5.14–5.15) accounting for 316 years.
Subtracting 316 years from the overall total of 955 years leaves 639 years to be
attributed to Menes down to Neferefre. The Royal Annals do not include the reign of
Menes, the first king of the Turin Canon, or the reign of Shepseskare, the last king before
Neferefre in the Turin Canon, in its preserved fragments, so these have to be factored
into the 639 years obtained from the Turin Canon.
In my reconstruction of the annals, I assumed that the registers would have been
aligned at the right and left edges of the recto and verso. I used the differing widths of
the extant compartments in each register as a pattern for their respective rows. For the
last three registers of the recto (seven to nine), which have no preserved parts on the
Palermo Stone and Cairo 1, I averaged out the number of compartments for each row
having already accounted for the number of years attributed to the verso.
Since there are obvious differences in the size of the compartments on the verso
within and between registers, I had to average out the number of compartments to
accommodate the number of years for the reigns of each of the kings. Fortunately, most
of the surviving compartments have an indication of the regnal year of the king due to
the recording of cattle counts, and the highest number of years can be determined for the
kings’ reigns from the Turin Canon or from contemporary sources. Consequently, there
is little flexibility in the number of compartments required on the verso.
In the reconstruction of the annals, it is often necessary to count backward or
forward from the years recorded on the larger fragments to find when a king’s reign
began. For example, the mention of a Sed-festival in register three on the Palermo Stone
indicates that the king, Den, began to reign 30 years previously, because Sed-festivals
were held in a king’s 30th regnal year to bestow on him rejuvenation. Between Den’s
first year and the last year of Djer (in register two)—whose years can be obtained from
the length and position of his titulary—is the reign of Djet for which no years are known.
But it can be estimated by the number of compartments between Djer and Den.
However, scholars may count the number of years required differently, depending on the
particular factors they take into consideration.3
Of considerable importance is the record of census or cattle counts mentioned in
the compartments of some of the kings by which their regnal years can be reckoned.
However, as noted previously, scholars disagree about whether these census counts are
annual, biennial, or irregular. Contemporary sources may also give higher cattle counts
than those indicated by the regnal years afforded to the kings in the Turin Canon.
Wilkinson gave a summary of publications on the annals, and the Palermo Stone
in particular, appearing over the last century and even before. He notes the following:
Pellegrini (1895), Schäfer (1902), Naville (1903), Sethe (1903), Meyer (1904), Breasted
(1906), Maspero (1912), Gauthier (1914, 1915), Daressy (1916), Petrie (1916), Read
(1916), Borchardt (1917), Ricci (1917), Breasted (1931), Gordon (1952) , Helck (1956),
Tcherezov (1960), Kaiser (1961), Cenival (1965), Giustolisi (1968, 1969), Helck (1970),
Helck, (1974), Reeves (1979), Stewart (1979), O’Mara (1979, 1980), Barta (1981),
Roccati (1982), Helck (1982), O’Mara (1986a, 1986b, 1987), Clagett (1989), Spalinger
(1994), and O’Mara (1996).4
3
A summary of these can be seen in a table, Appendix 2, of Wilkinson’s Royal Annals, 256-57.
4
Wilkinson, Royal Annals, 30-45, citing the following: A. Pellegrini, “Nota sopra un’inscrizione egizia
del Museo de Palermo,” Archivio Storico Siciliano 20 (1895) 297-316; H. Schäfer, Ein Bruchstück
altägyptischer Annalen, (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin; Berlin: Verlag der
Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1902); E. Naville, “La pierre de Palerme,” RecTrav (Recueil de
travaux relatifs à la philology et à l’archéologie egyptiennes et assyriennes) 25, 64-81; K.H. Sethe,
Beitrage zue ältesten Geschichte Ägyptens (Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens
3; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903); E. Meyer, Ägyptische Chronologie (Berlin: Verlag der Königliche Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 1904); J.H. Breasted, “The Palermo Stone,” Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol 1: The
First to the Seventeenth Dynasties (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1906) 51-72; G. Maspero, “Une
inscription égyptienne du Musée de Palerme,” Etudes de Mythologie et d’Archéologie Egyptiennes, Vol. 6,
(Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1912); H. Gauthier, “Quatre fragments nouveaux de la pierre de Palerme au Musée
du Caire,” CRAIBL (1914) 489-96; idem, “Quatre nouveaux fragments de la pierre de Palerme,” Le Museé
Egyptien. Recueil de Monuments et de Notices sur les Fouilles d’Dgypte, Vol. 3 (Cairo: IFAO 1915) 29-53
and pls. XXIV-XXXI; G. Daressy, “La Pierre de Palerme et la chronologie de l’Ancien Empire,” BIFAO
12 (1916) 161-214; W.M.F. Petrie, “New Portions of the Annals,” Ancient Egypt (1916) 114-20; F.W.
Read, “Nouvelles Remarques sur la Pierre de Palerme,” BIFAO 12 (1916) 215-22; L. Borchardt, Die
Annalen und die zeitliche Festlegung des alten reiches der ägyptischen Geschichte (Quellen und
Forschungen zur Zeitbestimmung der ägyptischen Geschichte 1; Berlin: von Behrend, 1917); S. de Ricci,
“La Table de Palerme,” CRAIBL (1917) 107-15; J.H. Breasted, “The Predynastic union of Egypt,” BIFAO
30 (1931) 709-24; G. Godron, “Quel est le lieu de provenance de la ‘Pierre de Palerme’?” Chronique
d’Egypte 27 (1952) 17-22; W. Helck, Untersuchungen zu Manetho und den ägyptischen Königslisten
(Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens 18; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 1956); E.
V. Tcherezov, “Drevnejsaja letopis ‘Palermskij kamen’ i dokumenty drevnego zarstva Egipta (Les annales
de la pierre de Palerme et les documents de l’Ancien Empire),” Drevni Egipet (1960) 261-72; W. Kaiser,
“Einige Bemerkungen zur ägyptischen Frühzeit, II. Zur Frage einer über Menes hinausreichenden
ägyptischen Geschichtsüberlieferung,” ZÄS 86 (1961) 39-61; J.L. de Cenival, “Un nouveau fragment de la
pierre de Palerme,” Bulletin de las Société Franςaise d’Egyptologie 44 (1965) 13-17; V. Giustolisi
“La’Pietra di Palermo’ e la cronologia dell’Antico Regno,” Sicilia Archaeologica 1, 4 (1968) 5-14; ibid, 2,
6 (1969) 21-38; W. Helck, “Zwei Einzelprobleme der thinitische Chronologie,” MDAIK 26 (1970) 23-25;
idem, “Bemerkungen zum Annalenstein,” MDAIK 30 (1974) 31-35; C.N. Reeves, “A Fragment of Fifth
Dynasty annals at University College London,” GM 32 (1979) 47-51; H.M. Stewart, Egyptian stelae,
reliefs and paintings from the Petrie Collection, Part Two: Archaic period to Second Intermediate period
(Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1979); P.F. O’Mara, The Palermo Stone and the Archaic kings of Egypt
Furthermore, Wilkinson writes, “In the century since their first publications, PS
and its associated fragments have been the subject of many attempted reconstructions by
eminent Egyptologists. Each has sought to unlock the many mysteries of early Egyptian
history, using the annals as the key. Yet the perfect reconstruction has eluded scholars.
The task is so replete with problems and complications that even scholars from the same
tradition have produced very different results.”5
Wilkinson provides a summary of the reconstruction of the annals from the above
authors, naming Daressy (1916), Petrie (1916), Borchardt (1917), Ricci (1917), Helck,
(1956), Kaiser (1961), Helck (1974), O’Mara (1979, 1980), and Barta (1981). 6 He
writes, “It seems highly unlikely that a definitive or even plausible reconstruction of the
annals will ever be possible, infuriating as that may be. Nevertheless, there are certain
elements of a reconstruction about which we may be relatively confident, and these
afford us a limited amount of information.”7
The Royal Annals Reconstructed

I have sought to follow Wilkinson’s commentary on the Royal Annals, which has
been extremely helpful in positioning many of the kings’ reigns, together with his
observations from the works of earlier scholars. My own reconstruction tries to reconcile
the sometimes differing reign lengths given in the Turin Canon and Royal Annals, and to
make use of the most recent discoveries of regnal years found in excavations at places
such as Abydos, Abusir, and Dahshur, which were not available to earlier scholars.
Wilkinson offered a commentary on the existing fragments, but did not propose
the number of years between fragments and the edges of the annals. I have endeavored to
reconstruct the annals in a way that places the fragments, recto and verso, into their
original form, aided primarily by the chronological framework implicit in the fragments
themselves and the other sources already referred to elsewhere in this book.
I have assumed that the transcriptions of the Palermo Stone and Cairo 1 supplied
by Wilkinson have both been scaled to 50% of the original, though this is not stated. On
the verso of the Palermo Stone, I have used Naville’s earlier transcription (also supplied
by Wilkinson) because it has more text in the three lower registers. Naville’s copy is
slightly larger, and I have reduced it to the same size as the one given by Wilkinson. My
reconstructed Royal Annals measures just under one meter in length (98.7cm) from edge
to edge of the written text, and 36 cm deep. The main pieces, the Palermo Stone and
Cairo 1, fit roughly in the center of the reconstruction with a gap between their edges of
10–15 cm (the Palermo Stone is wider at the top). The other fragments fit within the
reconstruction at appropriate places.
(La Canada: Paulette. Studies in the structural archaeology of ancient Egypt 1, 1979); idem, The
Chronology of the Palermo and Turin Canons (La Canada: Paulette Studies in the structural archaeology
of ancient Egypt 2, 1980); W. Barta, “Die Chronologie der 1. bis 5. Dynastie nach den Angaben des
rekonstruierten Annalensteins,” ZÄS 108 (1981) 11-23; A. Rocatti, La littérature historique sous l’Ancien
Empire égyptien (Paris: Cerf, 1982); W. Helck, “Palermostein,” LÄ IV (1982) 652-4; P.F. O’Mara, “Is the
Cairo Stone a Fake? An Example of Proof by Default,” DE (1986) 33-40; idem, “Historiographies (ancient
and modern) of the Archaic period. Part I. Should we Re-examine the Foundations? A Revisionist
Approach,” DE 6 (1986) 33-45; idem, “Historiographies (ancient and modern) of the Archaic period. Part
II. Resolving the Palermo Stone as a Rational Structure,” DE (1987) 37-49; M. Clagett, “The early
Egyptian annals on stone, generally called the Palermo Stone,” M. Clagett, Ancient Egyptian Science. A
source book. Volume 1: Knowledge and Order, (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society Memoirs
184, 1989) tome 1, 47-141; A.J. Spalinger, “Dated Texts of the Old Kingdom,” SAK 21 (1994) 275-319;
P.F. O’Mara, “Was there an Old Kingdom Historiography? Is it Datable?” Orientalia 65 (1996) 197-208.
5
6
Ibid., 45-60.
7
Ibid., 77.
The extent of my work has been to use the data provided from various sources to
reconstruct the chronology of the Royal Annals as I perceive it to have originally existed.
The text of the missing areas is presumably lost forever—unless a copy of the whole is
discovered.
We now move on to the reconstruction of the first part of the recto of the Annals.
Chapter 19. Reconstructing the Royal Annals – Menes to Neferkare 267
Chapter 19
Reconstructing the Royal Annals - Menes to Neferkare

All that exists of the Royal Annals are seven fragments from a large stone slab,
which originally had a complete chronology of the early kings incised on the recto and
verso. Because of the smaller size and much greater number of annual compartments on
the recto side, this discussion is divided into chapters 19 and 20 for the recto, and chapter
21 for the verso.
Chapter 19: Menes to Neferkare
Chapter 20: Neferkasokar to Menkaure
Chapter 21: Menkaure to Shepseskare
Chapters 19 and 20 derive from the Royal Annals and the Turin Canon—the
latter from Menes (Turin Canon section 3:11) to Menkaure (section 4.15)—and
correspond to the 1st–4th Dynasties. Similarly, chapter 21, after completing the reign of
Menkaure on the verso, deals with the first four kings of the early period of the 5th
Dynasty (Userkaf, Sahure, Neferirkare Kakai, and Shepseskare Isesi). The latter period
of the 5th Dynasty (from Neferefre to Unas) was reconstructed in chapter 16.
Pre-Menes
The surviving portion of register one on the Palermo Stone contains “the names
and determinatives of predynastic kings” wearing the red crown of Lower Egypt (Figure
19.1, right).1 The Cairo 1 fragment shows only the determinatives, the names above them
having been lost (Figure 19.1, left).
Figure 19.1: The Cairo 1 fragment (left) and register one of the Palermo Stone (right).
Register one has no chronological value in determining the years of the kings.
Menes
Menes is listed as the first king in the Turin Canon (section 3.11) but his regnal
years are lost. He is called Meni in the Abydos King-list (AbKL; cartouche no. 1). His
name and reign are not on the existing annals. As seen in the reconstruction in Figure
18.3 (page 260) register two of the annals begins at the right-hand edge with the reign of
1
T.A.H. Wilkinson, Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt: The Palermo Stone and its Associated Fragments
(London and New York: Kegan Paul, 2000) 85.
Aha. The end of Aha’s reign appears in the Palermo Stone in the second compartment
followed by the next king, Djer, whose titulary is given in Cairo 1 (Figure 19.2).2
Figure 19.2: Note the Djer titulary on Cairo 1 (C1) and the line marking the end of Aha’s reign (and commencing
Djer’s) on the Palermo Stone (PS).
The sequence of succession has been attested as Narmer, Aha, Djer, Djet (known
as “Serpent”), Den, Adjib, Semerkhet, and Qa’a.3
The absence of Menes’ name at archeological sites combined with the attestation
of Narmer’s name in association with the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt has
caused most scholars to identify Menes with Narmer.4 Seidlmayer has opted for Aha on
the basis of “an ivory label from Naqada which shows the royal Horus-name Aha (the
pharaoh Hor-Aha) next to a building within which is the royal nebty-name mn, generally
taken to be Menes.”5
Aha precedes Djer at the beginning of register two of the annals. If Menes (being
different from Aha), was recorded in the annals, it most probably was in register one in a
piece that is now missing. The discovery of a label at Umm el-Qa’ab, citing one of
Narmer’s years, makes his inclusion in the annals a possibility.6 Narmer may be Menes’
Horus name, Menes being his nebty name.7 There are no contemporary records of the
length of Menes’ reign. Manetho’s copyists report Menes as the first king of the 1st
Dynasty but with differing regnal years; Africanus has 62 years, Eusebius has 60 years,
and the Armenian has 30 years.8 These display obvious corruption. Whether any of these
years can be considered to belong to Menes of the Turin Canon must await further
clarification. I have discussed Manetho’s records earlier in Summary 3 of chapter 16
(pages 244-245) and will comment further at the end of chapter 21 (pages 324-325).
Aha and Djer

Aha is the second king in the Turin Canon (3.12) where only the letters It[…] of
his nebty name remain.9 He is referred to as Teti in the AbKL (no. 2), but he is known by
his Horus name Hor-Aha in contemporary documents.
The first two compartments on the right edge of Palermo Stone in register two
are understood by scholars to be the last two compartments of Aha’s reign because the
next compartment belongs to his successor, Djer, who has his titulary on Cairo 1. The
2
In the Turin Canon Iti (Djer) has been given two lines (3.13 and 3.14) instead of the one line given to
other kings. We will use this numbering format throughout this chapter. The next chapter begins with
column four of the Turin Canon.
3
K. Kahl, “Dynasties 0-2,” AEC (2006) 96-97.
4
Wilkinson, Royal Annals, 72, 187.
5
S. Seidlmayer, The Rise of the State to the Second Dynasty, quoted in Egypt: The World of the Pharaohs,
2004 (translated from German, 2010), cited at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menes. Wikipedia frequently
supplies general information with references and extensive bibliographies for the Egyptian kings of the
dynasties covered in this book. Generally, the uncertainties of identity, regnal dates, and lengths of reign,
which this book aims to examine and reconstruct, are acknowledged.
6
7
“Hor-Aha,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hor-Aha
8
Manetho, 26-33.
9
“Hor-Aha.”
preceding two compartments must belong to Aha’s reign.10 The first of the two
compartments is damaged on the right side but shows part of the signs for the “following
of Horus” (šms-Ḥr). See Figure 19.3.
According to Wilkinson, “The ‘following of Horus’ is most likely to have been a
journey undertaken by the king or his officials at regular intervals for the purpose of tax
collection.”11 In the examples that survive in the Royal Annals, this “following of
Horus” took place every second year, but it is not present for the reigns of all of the
kings. Horus is signified by a falcon.
Figure 19.3: The repeated Horus sign shown on alternate years.
The “following of Horus” is significant in Djer’s reign because there are two
compartments before the next “following of Horus” in the reign of Djer. The first
compartment records the number of six months and seven days, which presumably is the
length of Aha’s final year before he died,12 and the second compartment gives 4 months
and 13 days, which is presumably the length of Djer’s accession year. The two numbers
only add up to 10 months and 20 days being 1 month and 10 days short of a year. The
two compartments are separated by a change-of-reign sign (a vertical marker going up to
the previous register; see Figure 19.3). One early commentator, Gustave Jéquier,
suggested that the compartments were firstly engraved with the rnpt markers for each
year and then incised with text. There was not sufficient space to record the material for
one year in a single compartment, so two were used. A vertical line was added to show a
change of reign, but the curve of the rnpt marker was unable to be erased.13
The conundrum of whether one or two years was intended by the two
compartments appears to be resolved by the “following of Horus” sign, which falls every
second year. Since neither compartment on either side of the change of reign marker has
a “following of Horus” sign, the two compartments must represent one year. The two
“length of days” compartments on either side of the change-of-reign marker represents
one year. This is the conclusion reached by most scholars,14 and is the view taken here.
It is not clear why the two numbers do not add up to one year as expected. It
could be a scribal mistake for an original 5 months and 23 days, or the numbers were not
completed due to lack of space, or perhaps there was a short period between the death of
Aha before Djer came to the throne, which was not reckoned to either king’s reign.15
Placement of the Palermo Stone in the Royal Annals

The question now is how many compartments originally existed in the gap
between the right edge of the annals and the right edge of Palermo Stone in register two?
The answer would provide the number of Aha’s missing years. To find the number of
10
11
Ibid., 90-91 citing, idem, Early Dynastic Egypt (Routledge: London and New York, 1999) 220-21; see
also 67.
12
Ibid., 89-90.
13
G. Jéquier, “De l’intervalle entre deux règnes sous l’ancien empire,” BIFAO 5 (1906) 59.
14
15
Ibid., 92-93.
years, it was first necessary to reconstruct the years of the kings in registers three, four,
five, and six. Then positioning the number of years in the registers on the verso,
attempting to make the absent parts of uniform size with the existing parts, and
allocating them proportionally to the right and left sides of Cairo 1 and the Palermo
Stone. After trialing various numbers of compartments on the recto and verso (and
keeping the edges even), and taking into account the suggested 639 years the Turin
Canon allocates from Menes to the end of Shepseskare’s reign (before Neferefre), it
appeared the space from the right edge of the annals to the right edge of the Palermo
Stone spanned 23 years/compartments in register two. These 23 years/compartments
added to the one year, six months, and seven days for Aha on the Palermo Stone indicate
a reign of 24½ years. Working backward from the 24th compartment with the “following
of Horus” sign, the second compartment would also have the sign, which is what would
be expected, as it would fall in Aha’s second year.
Cairo 5 Fragment (No. 18220)

Another of the annals’ fragments is relevant to Aha’s reign. The small Cairo 5
fragment is roughly square in shape measuring 9 cm by 9 cm 16 reconstructed by de
Cenival, and shown in Clagett Vol. I, fig. I. 40 (renumbered here as Figure 19.4).
Figure 19.4: The Cairo 5 fragment.
Parts of two registers remain with the upper showing just the lowest parts of three
compartments and a vestige of a compartment on either side. The Nile height band takes
up most of what remains of the upper register but there are no measurements engraved,
which suggests that they did not begin until the reign of Djer, Aha’s successor. These
compartments can be attributed to Aha’s reign because beneath them on the left side of
Cairo 5 in the titulary band of register three the Horus name of Den appears in a
serekh.17 This is the beginning of his titulary. Further to the left, after the gap between
Cairo 5 and the Palermo Stone, the last signs of his titulary appear on the Palermo Stone:
those of his mother Merit-neith.18 See Figure 19.5. Her name confirms that Cairo 5 and
the Palermo Stone are from the same part of the annals. Since we can position Cairo 5 to
16
Ibid., 18.
17
A serekh is a rectangular enclosure representing the niched or gated façade of a palace surmounted by
(usually) the Horus falcon, indicating that the text enclosed is a royal name. The serekh was the earliest
convention used to set apart the royal name in ancient Egyptian iconography, predating the later and
better-known cartouche by four dynasties and 500–700 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serekh).
18
Wilkinson, Royal Annals, 103-05; Kahl, Inscriptional Evidence, 97.
the right of Palermo Stone in register three because of Den’s titulary, the register above
must refer to Aha’s reign, also to the right of the Palermo Stone.
Figure 19.5: Placement of Cairo 5 in relation to the Palermo Stone. C5 = Cairo 5; PS = Palermo Stone; REG =
register.
Den’s titulary is helpful in positioning his years since titularies are presumed to
be incised above the middle compartments of each king’s reign. When Den’s regnal
years have been ascertained and positioned, the upper register of Cairo 5 showing the
damaged compartments of Aha’s reign can be assigned regnal years.
Den’s last compartment on Cairo 5 has the sign of a Sed-festival (see Figure
19.6) and 10 compartments further on in the Palermo Stone there is another sign of a
Sed-festival.19 It is well known that in the New Kingdom a first Sed-festival was held in
a king’s 30th year, whereas here it appears to have been held in Den’s 20th year—
assuming there was none earlier than this.
Figure 19.6: Sign for a Sed festival, which partly remains on Cairo 5, and also on the Palermo Stone (shown above).
Reckoning on a 30-year Sed-festival in the sixth compartment on the Palermo

Stone in Den’s reign (see Figure 19.7), and working backward, Cairo 5 comprises (for its
four main surviving compartments) Den’s 17th to 20th years. This is consistent with his
titulary spanning approximately six compartments, his 20th to 25th years. His middle
compartment is his 22nd year, which, if coming in the middle of his reign, gives Den a
reign of about 44 years (Figure 19.7).
Figure 19.7: The first part of Den’s reign. C5 = Cairo 5; PS = Palermo Stone; REG = register.
The 17th to 20th years of Den’s reign shown on Cairo 5 in register three
correspond to Aha’s 17th to 19th years in register two as shown in Figure 19.7. Since
Aha’s partial 24th year falls on the right edge of the Palermo Stone in register two, there
are four and a half years in the gap between Cairo 5 and the Palermo Stone. In register
three, in Den’s reign with its slightly narrower compartments and with Cairo 5 projecting
further to the left and the Palermo Stone further to the right, there are also four years
19
The 20th year compartment on Cairo 5 and in year 30 of the Palermo Stone appear the same.
(21–24). Unlike Aha’s reign, Den’s reign does not start at the right edge of the annals but
begins in the fifth compartment—the preceding four compartments belonging to the
reign of Djet (see Figure 19.7). I return later to Cairo 5 when discussing the reign of
Den, but I now turn to the reign of Djer, Aha’s successor.
Djer
Djer’s name is partially lost in the Turin Canon at section 3.13, but appears as Iti,
his prenomen, in the AbKL (no. 3). Djer’s first compartment follows the last partial year
of Aha in register two of the Palermo Stone. It records 4 months and 13 days for his
accession year, as discussed above.
Djer’s compartments in the Palermo Stone consist of eight full years and a
vestige of a ninth at the left edge (see Figure 18.3 on pages 260-261). The number of
compartments in the gap between the left edge of the Palermo Stone and the right edge
of Cairo 1 have to be determined in conjunction with the gap in registers three, four, and
five. The number of years for Ninetjer (register four) and Netjerikhet (register five) will
be guided by the reconstruction of the years given to them in the Turin Canon and other
sources, and the location of the change-of-reign marker in the annals. The distance of the
gap must also correspond to the width of the compartments on the verso.
The “following of Horus” appears in Djer’s first full year compartment (his
second compartment) in the Palermo Stone keeping the sequence correct for every two-
year period. But coming in his first full year means it falls on his odd-numbered years;
therefore the sequence in Cairo 1 must have the “following of Horus” in odd-numbered
years also. These factors considered, it indicates that 10 compartments should be
attributed to the gap in register two, these being Djer’s 9th to 18th years. The first
compartment on the right edge of Cairo 1 represents Djer’s 19th year. It has the
“following of Horus” sign, which means it could not have been Djer’s 18th or 20th year
(see Figure 19.8).
Figure 19.8: Djer’s years 19 to 27 on Cairo 1. C1 = Cairo 1.
The beginning of Djer’s titulary appears above his 20th year compartment in the
titulary band. It spans seven compartments ending above his 26th year. Djer’s cartouche,
giving his name, Iti, is written in the titulary. The 27th compartment, with its left side
missing, appears at the left edge of Cairo 1. Scholars have assumed that a titulary is
positioned above the middle years of a king’s reign and averages about the distance of
seven compartments.20 The middle of the titulary is positioned above Djer’s 23rd year
indicating that he reigned about 46 years. Since his accession year consisted of four
months and 13 days (possibly a mistake for 5 months and 23 days) given in his first
compartment, Djer can be attributed 46½ regnal years.
Djet
In the Turin Canon, Djer is succeeded by [I]tiui[…] (section 3.15), called Ita in
the AbKL (no. 4), also known also as “Serpent.”21 Djet’s regnal years are not recorded.
20
21
However, the number of years is estimated by the compartments between Djer’s 46th
and last year in register two, and the first year of Den, Djet’s successor in register three.
This brings into question the number of compartments between Cairo 1 and the
left edge of the annals. In my reconstruction (Figure 18.3 on pages 258-259) this needs
to be established in conjunction with Sneferu’s compartments in registers five, six, and
seven, detailed in chapter 20; a significant interlock in reconstructing the annals. And,
without prejudging its reliability, the Turin Canon’s overall allocation of 639 years to the
entire period covered by the Annals, both recto and verso, presents a tentative hypothesis
that should be tested by the evidence for individual reigns as far as they may be known,
and by the inscriptional evidence engraved in the stone of the annals still extant for
examination.
Once the compartments for Sneferu’s reign had been determined, it was then a
matter of aligning the left edge of the annals based on the width of the individual
compartments in each register. The resulting allocation is somewhat confirmatory
because the compartments in each register are of different sizes, yet the final
compartments all align with each other at the left edge as though that was their original
position. A different allocation would not have had this result.
As noted above, in register three, the sixth compartment of the Palermo Stone
records a Sed-festival. This was attributed to the 30th year of Den’s reign. Working
backward 30 years brings us to the first year of his reign, which is located in the fifth
compartment from the right edge of the Annals. It is preceded by the last year of Djet’s
reign, which begins in register two after the 46th year of Djer. Djet’s reign occupies 15
compartments in register two on the left edge of the annals and four on the right edge in
register three before Den’s reign begins. This allocates 19 years to Djet’s reign.
Den
Djet’s successor, Den, is referred to as Semti in the Turin Canon (section 3.16)
and as Septi in the AbKL (no. 5).
As noted above, Den has a Sed-festival recorded for his 20th year in Cairo 5,22
and for his 30th year in the Palermo Stone. Confirmation of Den celebrating at least one
Sed-festival is found on a label from Tomb T at Umm el-Qaab. A second occasion of a
Sed-festival has also been found in Tomb T on a limestone vessel fragment in the
southwest annex to Den’s tomb, which may belong to Den, though this is not
confirmed.23 The years that these Sed-festivals refer to is not stated. They may refer to
his 20th and 30th years. We know from Den’s compartments in the Palermo Stone that
he reigned at least 38 years—his 38th year being the last partial compartment on the left
edge. This number of years can be extended to 44 (finishing in the gap between the
Palermo Stone and Cairo 1) because the middle of his titulary falls above his 22nd year
(in the gap to the left of Cairo 5, though it begins at the left edge of Cairo 5 as shown in
Figure 19.4), thought to be positioned in the middle years of his reign.
Anedjib
The sixth king in the Turin Canon is called Merbiapen (section 3.17). The Turin
Canon gives his lifespan as 74 years. He is called Meribap in the AbKL (no. 6) and he is
the first king on the Saqqara Tablet where he is named Merbapen (no. 1). He is
22
Wilkinson attributes this compartment to Den’s 22nd year, which would make the titulary span only
four compartments, which is clearly too short, although elsewhere he reckons on about seven
compartments for a titulary’s length (Royal Annals, 78, 202-3). This mistake is copied in “Den (pharaoh),”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den_(pharaoh)
23
Wilkinson, Royal Annals, 107-8; Kahl, “Dynasties 0-2,” 100 and n. 52.
otherwise known as Anedjib or Andjib.24 After the 44th year of Den, six more
compartments remain in the gap between the Palermo Stone and Cairo 1, with the
bottom left half of the sixth compartment surviving on the right edge of Cairo 1 (see
Figure 19.9.
Figure 19.9: Anedjib’s reign between Palermo Stone (right) and Cairo 1 (left).
Then Cairo 1 has a further compartment divided by a change-of-reign vertical

line, indicating that half a year should be attributed to Anedjib and half a year to
Anedjib’s successor, Semerkhet. The latter’s titulary occupies the space of about seven
compartments above the register in Cairo 1.
A Sed-festival is attributed to Anedjib on inscriptions on stone vessels from
Gallery H of the Step Pyramid at Saqqara; Tombs X, Q, and U at Umm el-Qaab; and
Tomb S 2446 at Saqqara.25 However, it is not possible that 20 or 30 years can come
between the reigns of Den and Semerkhet. There is no change-of-reign in the
compartments for Den’s reign on Palermo Stone that might have indicated another ruler
had succeeded him.
The first compartment to which Anedjib might be attributed is the one to the left
of the damaged edge of the Palermo Stone, giving him—at the most—12½ years before
Semerkhet’s reign began. But due to the positioning of Den’s titulary, this is not
convincing. Thus, it seems that Anedjib had a brief reign and did not celebrate his own
Sed-festival.
A short reign for Anedjib has been explained as follows: “Recent investigations
suggest that every object showing the Hebsed and Adjib’s name together were removed
from king Den’s tomb. It would seem that Adjib had simply erased and replaced Den’s
name with his own.”26 Anedjib may have been quite old when he came to the throne
because of the long reign of his father, Den, which would have diminished his own
reign, and he may have come to a violent end.27 Another source reports that some stone
vessels at Abydos show that “an attempt was made to erase Anedjib’s name, and in one
case replace it with the name of his successor, Semerkhet. Perhaps it suggests a dynastic
dispute.”28
On the other hand, Anedjib’s reign is well-attested29 possibly indicating a long
reign. It has been suggested that he may have been co-regent with his father and
celebrated a Sed-festival soon after Den died.30 This is not implausible. But the fact
remains that all that can be attributed to Anedjib from information gleaned from the
Annals is six and a half years of sole reign.
24
Kahl, “Dynasties 0-2,” 98; “Anedjib,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anedjib
25
Ibid., 100 n. 53.
26
“Anedjib,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anedjib
27
Ibid., citing N. Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt (London and New York: Blackwell, 1994) 53, 54;
and W. Helck, Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit (ÄA 45, 1987) 124, 160-62, 212-14.
28
A. Boddy-Evans, “Anedjib,”
http://africanhistory.about.com/od/Pharaohs/a/Anedjib-First-Dynasty-Pharaoh.htm
29
“Anedjib,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anedjib
30
J. Dunn, “Anedjib, the 5th Ruler of Egypt’s 1st Dynasty,”
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/anedjib.htm, citing Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, 53-54.
Semerkhet and Qa’a

Semerkhet is called Semsem in the Turin Canon and credited with a lifespan of
72 years (section 3.18). He is called Semsu in the AbKL (no. 7), but is not listed in the
Saqqara Tablet.
In Cairo 1, the left half of the change-of-reign compartment in register three
belongs to Semerkhet’s accession year, approximately half a year.31 The “following of
Horus” is not present in the compartments for the reign of Den in the Palermo Stone.
However, it does appear in the compartments for Semerkhet’s reign beginning with his
first full year and each successive odd-numbered year.32 Semerkhet’s complete titulary
appears above the compartments for his reign beginning with his first full compartment
and ending above the seventh (see Figure 19.10).
Figure 19.10: Semerkhet’s reign on Cairo 1 followed by Qa’a’s reconstructed reign.
One more compartment remains for Semerkhet before a change-of-reign divides

his last compartment from the next belonging to his successor, Qa’a. Semerkhet’s
titulary includes the king’s cartouche with his nebty name, Iri-nebty.33 The change-of-
reign lines on either side of his titulary indicate that Semerkhet reigned eight and a half
years. Semerkhet’s reign is the only complete reign now represented in the annals.
One uncertainty associated with Semerkhet’s reign is the fact that the change-of-
reign marker does not fall within a year as it does for Anedjib, but divides Anedjib’s last
compartment from the first compartment of Qa’a, his successor, which seems to indicate
that both represent one year. The uncertainty is caused because Qa’a’s compartment does
not have a “following of Horus” sign where one might be expected, thus suggesting that
the two compartments should be treated as six months each, to make one year not two.
This is similar to the problem of the two compartments given for Aha and Djer
without a “following of Horus” in either, and whether they should be treated as one year
or two. In that case, the “following of Horus” in Djer’s next compartment indicated that
one year was meant. In the present case, the next compartment is not shown, being off
the left edge of Cairo 1, so we cannot know whether or not it contained the “following of
Horus”. If it did, then the two preceding compartments comprised only one year. But if
two years were intended, the sign’s absence may be due to the change of reign
happening at the end of a calendar year as suggested by Wilkinson.34 The sign might
have been omitted from the first year but recorded subsequently in the third year where it
would have continued the biennial sequence. Alternatively, the “following of Horus”
sign may not have been recorded for Qa’a’s reign at all (as in the case of Den’s reign).
If the second of the two compartments was Qa’a’s first year (a full one) it would
have been a “following of Horus” year even if not recorded as such. There is an example
of this in register five of the Palermo Stone recto in the reign of Khasekhemwy shown in
Figure 19.11. The reign of Khasekhemwy occurs on the right side of the Palermo Stone
where the final period of his reign is displayed, ending with a change of reign mark in
the titulary band.
31
J. Degreef read 4 months and 25 days here: “Gallery – Palermo,”
http://www.catchpenny.org/thoth/palermo/c1recto.htm
32
33
Ibid., 194.
34
Ibid., 201.
Figure 19.11: The Palermo Stone relating to the reign of Khasekhemwy.
The “following of Horus” are in his 12th, 14th, and 16th years, these being
numbered by the mention in them of the sixth, seventh, and eighth census counts.
Khasekhemwy’s 18th year comprises only “2 months and 23 days” and is sectioned off
from the accession year of Netjerikhet by a change-of-reign divider. This change-of-year
compartment does not have a “following of Horus,” though one might be expected.
However, that the usual sequence for the “following of Horus” was employed is
confirmed in the third compartment of Netjerikhet’s reign where the “following of
Horus” appears again and is present also for his fifth year, which equates to the last
broken compartment on the left side of the Palermo Stone. Wilkinson thinks that the
“following of Horus” was probably not written in the king’s first compartment because
the events of his accession and coronation take up the small space provided.35
By analogy, returning to the first year of Qa’a’s reign (see Figure 19.10), it does
not need to show a “following of Horus” sign. On this basis, I have attributed a year to
both the final year of Semerkhet and the first year Qa’a. Semerkhet can be attributed
eight and a half regnal years (the half-year coming from the beginning of his reign in the
compartment shared with Anedjib).
A problem in register three in Cairo 1 is that the compartments in this register
(and not in the previous two registers) are slightly wider than the compartments in the
Palermo Stone for the reign of Den. Space for 10 compartments in Cairo 1, is occupied
by about 11 compartments in the Palermo Stone, raising questions whether they derive
from the same original. Other extant fragments raised similar thoughts.
To retain the same number of compartments in register three as would be given
by the Palermo Stone, an extra compartment must be added to the years before the edge
of the annals. The sequence in register four is assured because the “following of Horus”
compartments are shown in the Palermo Stone (in the reign of Ninetjer), and by working
backward, the right edge should have a “non-following of Horus” compartment. Once
the missing compartment/year is inserted in register three, the sequence is retained in
having a “following of Horus” in every second year. This alternating sequence is a
distinctive feature of both the Palermo Stone and Cairo 1, as we have seen.
In order to introduce this amendment into my annals chart, I have elected to
divide the second year of Qa’a, the first compartment off the left edge of Cairo 1 in
register three, into two halves, assigning them a year each; that is, to Qa’a’s second and
third years. (This is shown by a dashed line in Figure 19.12).
Figure 19.12: Reconstructing Qa’a’s early years on the left edge of Cairo 1.
35
Ibid., 136.
This adjustment will mean that the left edge of the annals for register three will
align with the registers above and below it; while still assuming a regular width for all
the other compartments across the register.
Qa’a, Hotepsekhemwy, and Raneb

Qa’a is known as [Ke]behu in the Turin Canon and given a lifespan of 63 years
(section 3.19). He is called Qebeh in the AbKL (no. 8) and Qebehu in the Saqqara Tablet
(no. 2). As discussed above , his first year is represented by the last complete
compartment on the left edge of Cairo 1 recto in register three (see Figure 19.12).
Wilkinson notes that “The events recorded for Qa’a’s first year are the usual ceremonies
associated with accession and coronation: the ‘appearance of the dual king’, the ritual
‘unification of Upper and Lower Egypt’ and ‘circumambulating the wall (at
Memphis).”36
The rnpt sign dividing Qa’a’s first and second year can be seen on the extreme
left edge of register three in Cairo 1. Nothing further is known of the events of Qa’a’s
reign from the annals. However, a Sed-festival is recorded on two stone vessels from
Tomb Q at el-Qaab, another on a stone vessel from the Step Pyramid of Djoser I outside
galleries H and B, and on a fourth stone vessel held in a private Swiss collection.
Qa’a’s second Sed-festival is also attested by markings on stone vessels. One was
found on a vessel at the Step Pyramid at Saqqara, outside galleries H and B, and another
found likewise at gallery B. A third, also on a stone vessel, is held in a private Swiss
collection.37 Assuming that the second Sed-festival, if not the first—bearing in mind that
Den celebrated a Sed-festival in his 20th year—was the occasion of the king’s 30th year,
Qa’a can be attributed at least 30 years. If his first Sed-festival was held on his 30th
year, then his second may have been three or four years later as was the custom in the
New Kingdom.
Qa’a appears to have had a long reign, upwards of 30 years; therefore, I am
ascribing to him 36 years, though his actual years are unknown. The regnal years of his
two successors, Hotepsekhemwy and Raneb, are not known either, but on the basis of
other scholars’ reconstruction of the annals they assign to them 39 years,38 whereas I
assign to them 37 (see Figure 18.3). The 36 years of Qa’a and the 37 years of the two
following reigns amount to 73 years, which is the number of compartments coming
before Ninetjer, the next king, whose years are known and who can be positioned
accurately on the annals.
Qa’a was buried by his successor, Hotepsekhemwy, at Umm el-Qa’ab,39 the
necropolis of the early dynastic kings, formerly known as Abydos. Egyptologists close
off the 1st Dynasty with the reign of Qa’a because this is where Manetho’s eighth king,
Bieneches, assumed to be Qa’a, ends the dynasty. But there is no break in the Turin
Canon between Qa’a (section 3.19) and Hotepsekhemwy (section 3.20).
Hotepsekhemwy, Raneb, and Ninetjer

Hotepsekhemwy is known as Baw-[netjer] in the Turin Canon with a lifespan of
95 years (section 3.20), Bedjau in the AbKL (no. 9), and Baunetjer in the Saqqara Tablet
(no. 3). Kahl notes that the succession of Hotepsekhemwy, Raneb, and Ninetjer is
secure—this sequence being seen on the shoulder of a statue of a kneeling man (CG 1;
36
Ibid., 201.
37
Kahl, “Dynasties 0-2,” 99 n. 43, 100 and n. 54.
38
“Hotepsekhemwy,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotepsekhemwy; “Raneb,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raneb
39
Kahl, “Dynasties 0-2,” 199, 102.
Doc. 18),40 and on a number of stone vessels.41 However, between Hotepsekhemwy and
Ninetjer, the Turin Canon names a king [Ka]ka[w] (section 3.21), listed as Kakau by the
AbKL (no 10) and the Saqqara Tablet (no. 4). Since only one king comes between
Hotepsekhemwy and Ninetjer in the respective lists, Kakau and Raneb must be the same
person, Raneb being his Horus name, and Kakau, presumably, his nebty name. It is
possible that Raneb was also known as Nub-nefer as two inscriptions on stone vessels
associate this name with a building that is also associated with Ninetjer’s golden Horus
name, Ren, as given on the Palermo Stone in register four.42 This is consistent with
Raneb/Nubnefer being the predecessor of Ninetjer.
On the other hand, Jochem Kahl has proposed that Raneb was the Horus name of
another king known as Weneg because he claims that the name Weneg was written over
by the name of Ninetjer in an inscription from Tomb P at Umm el-Qa’ab in the British
Museum Egyptian Archeology (BM EA) collection 35556, thus Ninetjer’s predecessor
must have been Weneg.43 Weneg is not mentioned in the Turin Canon, but a line for the
name of a lost king and his regnal years with only “54” preserved being his lifespan
appears after the name of Ninetjer (section 3.22) and into this slot in the AbKL appears
the name Wadjnas (no. 12) whose Horus name was presumably Weneg. He is called
Wadjilas in the Saqqara Tablet (no. 6). It appears that Weneg/Wadjnas came after
Ninetjer not before. Kahl’s theory is still undergoing debate because the inscription on
the vessel is badly damaged.44
The regnal years of Hotepsekhemwy and Raneb are not known, but because
Raneb has fewer records than Hotepsekhemwy it is surmised that he had a shorter
reign.45 The Egyptologist Nabil Swelim points out that there is no record of
Hotepsekhemwy having celebrated a Sed-festival,46 but the absence of evidence does not
mean it did not happen. We are unable to define the regnal years of Hotepsekhemwy and
Raneb. Therefore, I attribute to Qa’a 36 years, and the remaining years to be distributed
to Hotepsekhemwy and Raneb before the reign of Ninetjer begins. Hotepsekhemwy’s
reign begins nine compartments from the left edge of register three of the annals, and
continues with his and Raneb’s from the right edge of register four for a total of 37
compartments between them; without—in the absence of evidence—suggesting how the
37 years were divided between them.
Ninetjer
Ninetjer is known as Banetjer and given a lifespan of 95 years in the Turin Canon
(section 3.22). He is known as Banetjer in the AbKL (no. 11) and in the Saqqara Tablet
(no. 5). Ninetjer’s reign begins five and half compartments to the right of the Palermo
Stone in register four. These compartments and the following 14 compartments that
survive in the Palermo Stone can be identified with his reign because his titulary begins
above the fourth compartment from the left edge of the Palermo Stone above his 20th
year. See Figure 19.13.
40
CG = Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire (Cairo Museum).
41
Ibid., 102.
42
Ibid., 103-4.
43
Ibid., 103 and fig. II. 2.1.
44
“Weneg (pharaoh),” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weneg_(pharaoh); “Raneb,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raneb
45
“Raneb.”
46
N.M.A. Swelim, Some Problems on the History of the Third Dynasty (Archaeological and Historical
Studies 7; Alexandria: Archaeological Society, 1983) 67-77; cited in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotepsekhemwy
Figure 19.13: Part of Ninetjer’s reign and titulary recorded on the Palermo Stone.
Ninetjer is the king’s Horus name, written in a serekh at the beginning of the
titulary. It is followed by a figure of the enthroned king. 47 The years of Ninetjer’s reign
on the Palermo Stone can be numbered because the third compartment on the stone
refers to “the fourth occasion of the census” indicating his eighth year. A census count is
repeated for every second compartment; thus, the last compartment on the left edge,
which is now damaged, would have had the “10th occasion of the census” (part of which
can still be seen) indicating his 20th regnal year.48 The “following of Horus” (ŝms-Ḥr)
also appears in every second compartment, accompanying the census counts in the
king’s even-numbered years. It is not clear what these census counts refer to, though in
register five they refer to “gold and fields.”49 A rnpt sign appears as the last visible
stroke at the left edge of the Palermo Stone indicating the beginning of the 21st
compartment. Records of a Sed-festival are attributed to Ninetjer, and also a 17th census
count, the highest known from his reign, which, on biennial reckoning, refers to his 34th
year.50
Ninetjer’s titulary begins above his 17th year, and if covering seven
compartments would end in his 23rd year indicating that Ninetjer’s middle compartment
was his 21st year, it implies a reign of about 42 years. In Figure 19.14, the gap between
the Palermo Stone (right) and the right edge of Cairo 1 (left fragment) accounts for 16
compartments (21–36), so Ninetjer’s 42nd year falls in the sixth compartment of Cairo 1
where we might expect to see a change-of-reign.
Figure 19.14: Ninetjer’s reign, ending on Cairo 1, now obliterated.
But there is no indication that a change-of-reign fell in this year—or one on

either side of it.51 The next change-of-reign falls in the ninth compartment from the right
edge (still visible on Cairo 1 despite almost other markings of the original now being
illegible or absent), which indicates that Ninetjer reigned about 44½ years—the last
compartment being shared with his successor.
Degreef’s transcription assigns 3 months and (what appears to be) 11 days to the
final part of Ninetjer’s reign,52 and the same partitioning is shown also in I.E.S.
Edwards’ transcription (dated to Cairo 1948) also supplied by Wilkinson.53 The length of
Ninetjer’s reign, if comprising 44½ years, infers that his mid-reign compartment would
47
48
Ibid., 121. The Wikipedia article illustrating Ninetjer’s 15 compartments on Palermo Stone incorrectly
assigns Ninetjer’s odd-numbered years to the census counts and to the “following of Horus,” so that it has
the fourth count in the ninth year instead of the eighth. As a consequence, it numbers his years 7-21 instead
of 6-20. “Ninetjer,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninetjer
49
Ibid., 120.
50
Ibid., 120; Kahl, “Dynasties 0-2,” 107 nn. 105, 106, and 107.
51
Ibid., 203.
52
http://www.catchpenny.org/thoth/Palermo/c1rectoc.htm
53
Wilkinson, Royal Annals, fig. 4.
have been his 22nd year, not his 21st. However, this might be due to the compartments
being very narrow, and the titulary may have spanned eight compartments—not seven—
which would make his mid-reign compartment his 22nd year, giving Ninetjer a reign of
about 44 years.
Wilkinson notes the presence of a Seth animal (a canine-like creature) incised in
the second and third compartments of register four on the right edge of Cairo 1.54 These
are shown in Edwards’ transcription supplied by Wilkinson,55 but are not seen in
Wilkinson’s own transcription. In my reconstruction, the two compartments correspond
to Ninetjer’s 38th and 39th years. Seth is usually associated with a king called Peribsen,
believed to have reigned in Upper Egypt when the country divided after the reign of
Weneg.56 However, Wilkinson says, “There is no reason why royal patronage of the cult
of Seth should not have occurred in the latter part of Ninetjer’s reign.”57 He observes that
the serekh in the titulary of Ninetjer’s successor is surmounted by a four-legged animal
that has been substituted for the usual Horus falcon. The only king known to have done
this was Peribsen.58 However, Peribsen is not mentioned in the Turin Canon, AbKL, and
the Saqqara Tablet. As discussed above, it seems that Ninetjer’s successor was Weneg.
On the other hand, referring to Weneg and Sened, Wilkinson writes: “It is
perfectly possible that one or both adopted a Seth name rather than the more usual Horus
name.”59 That being so, it is the beginning of Weneg’s titulary that appears after
Ninetjer’s reign on the left side of register four in Cairo 1.
It seems probable, based on the archeological evidence, that Ninetjer divided
Egypt into two states, with Peribsen followed by Sekhemib ruling over Upper Egypt
while Weneg and his successors ruled Lower Egypt. The country was again unified
under Khasekhemy at the end of the 4th Dynasty.60
Wilkinson also observes that Ninetjer’s successor had a short reign, and Peribsen
would not have had time to construct his tomb and funerary complex at Abydos.61
Weneg
Weneg’s name is lost in the Turin Canon at section 3.23 after the name of
Ninetjer (section 3.22) and before the name of Sened (section 3.24), but a Wadjnas,
believed to be Weneg, is named in the AbKL (no. 12) and a Wadjilas in the Saqqara
Tablet after Ninetjer (Banetjer) (no. 6), coming before Sened/j in both lists. These
records indicate that Weneg/Wadjnas succeeded Ninetjer.
A change-of-reign marker falls in what appears to be the ninth compartment of
Cairo 1 in register four, and indicates the end of Ninetjer’s reign. As noted above, I have
assigned 44½ years to Ninetjer. The remaining half-year should then be assigned to
Weneg’s accession year. It is followed by space for about four compartments with the
beginning of a fifth on the left edge of Cairo 1. The width is based on compartments two
and three of Ninetjer’s reign in Cairo 1—the remainder not being legible. However, my
reconstruction is based on the space given to the original Palermo Stone compartments
that would have been incised for Ninetjer’s last years and Weneg’s first year, but now
54
Ibid., 204.
55
Ibid., fig. 4.
56
For Peribsen see Kahl, “Dynasties 0-2,” 105. For Weneg see “Weneg (pharaoh),”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weneg_(pharaoh)
57
58
Ibid.
59
Ibid., 74.
60
Ibid., 3-5; “Sekhim-Perenmaat,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekhemib-Perenmaat
61
are only represented in Cairo 1 assumed from a different original. In the original of the
Palermo Stone, the space for each compartment would have been slightly narrower. This
causes uncertainty as to where the change-of-reign marker fell. Was it further to the left
or to the right? Did Ninetjer reign 44 or 45 years, or a fraction thereof?
Wilkinson affords Weneg 12 years on the basis of two years before and two years
after the titulary to which he gives the space of eight compartments.62 This infers that
Weneg’s titulary began in the third compartment from the change-of-reign marker. But
since I have attributed to Ninetjer a reign ending with six months, Weneg has six months
before his first full year. This gives him two and a half years before his titulary began. If
the titulary occupied eight compartments, this scenario gives 12½ years to Weneg.
In I.E.S. Edwards’ transcription, he places the serekh of the four-legged Seth
animal in the second full compartment (not third), coming one and a half compartments
after the change-of-reign marker.63 Since the existing titularies begin with a serekh, it is
analogous to insert the serekh (not shown in Wilkinson’s transcription), into the second
full compartment. The effect is that it shortens Weneg’s reign by one or two years since
there are now only one and a half compartments before the titulary, and one or two after
it. However, Edwards has assumed the width of the compartments as they fall in Cairo 1,
not as they fall in the Palermo Stone. This raises the uncertainty as to whether, in the
Palermo Stone, the compartments would have corresponded to the second or third year
before the titulary began; that is, whether Ninetjer reigned 44 or 45 years.
Another uncertainty is whether we can confidently define the length of a king’s
reign merely on the length of his titulary and the number of compartments before or after
it. The titulary of Semerkhet—the only titulary to cover an entire reign now extant on the
Annals—is not precisely set in the middle of his reign, with more space to the left (end
of reign) than to the right. Thus the amount of space given before a titulary need not be
the same as that after it. But the titulary is often the only means we have of making an
approximation of the length of reign, especially when the Turin Canon has lost the regnal
years of its kings. With these uncertainties in mind, I have taken the middle ground and
attributed 44½ years to Ninetjer, and 12½ years to Weneg.
Sened
Sened is named in the Turin Canon but his regnal years are lost. He lived to the
age of 70 (section 3.24). He comes after the “unknown king” identified as Weneg above.
In the AbKL, after Weneg is Sendi (no. 13) and in the Saqqara Tablet he is Senedj (no.
7). On the previous scenario, Sened ruled over Lower Egypt while Peribsen was king of
Upper Egypt. This may be implicit in an inscription on a false door found on a mastaba
tomb belonging to the high priest Shery at Saqqara, giving Shery’s title as “overseer of
all wab-priests of king Peribsen in the necropolis of king Senedj…”64
Sened’s length of reign is unknown. But the attestation of his funeral cult
surviving into the 4th Dynasty,65 and possibly into the 18th Dynasty, suggests he was not
an ephemeral ruler. His years and those of his successor, Aaka, whose regnal years are
also not known, will be combined to give a total length of their reigns, since the reign of
Neferkarsokar, Aaka’s successor, can be assigned a definite place in the annals.
62
Ibid., 203.
63
Ibid., fig. 4.
64
Kahl, “Dynasties 0-2,” 104, and n. 83 citing an inscription from the tomb of Shery, Saqqara B 3; A.
Mariette, Les mastabas de l’ancient empire (Paris, 1889) 92-93 cited in “Senedj,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senedj
65
Ibid., 104-5; Vendel, “Sened”, at http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/0egyptintro/2egypt/2main.htm
Aaka/Neferkar/Neferkare
Aaka succeeded Sened according to the Turin Canon (section 3.25). At this point
the AbKL leaves out three kings: Aaka, Neferkasokar, and “Hudjefa.” The latter word
refers to a king whose name was lost to the copyist. The Saqqara Tablet follows Senedj
with Neferkare (no. 8) and Neferkasokar (no. 9). Kim Ryholt attributes the change of
name from Neferkare to Aaka in the Turin Canon to damage, the scribe having omitted
the initial part of the cartouche (section 3.25).66
It is thought by some scholars that the three names have been omitted from the
AbKL because the names of Aaka and Neferkasokar have only been found in the region
of Memphis, and other kings were ruling in the south,67 possibly including Peribsen.68
This does not explain why neither the kings of Upper nor Lower Egypt are mentioned in
the AbKL between Sened and Khasekhemy (Djadjay in AbKL).
The number of combined regnal years for Sened and Neferkare/Aaka can be
estimated by the number of compartments from the end of Weneg’s reign in register four
to the left edge of the annals (42 compartments) and from the beginning of the right edge
of the annals in register five before Neferkasokar’s first year (six compartments),
totalling 48 years.
Locating Neferkare’s Reign vis-à-vis Neferkasokar

According to the Turin Canon, Neferkasokar reigned eight years and three
months (plus days missing) (section 4.1), and his successor, “Hudjefa,” reigned one year,
eight months, and four days (section 4.2) before Khasekhemwy began his reign (section
4.3). See Figure 18.3. Khasekhemwy can be positioned on the annals because his 12th
year appears on the right edge of the Palermo Stone (see Figure 19.15) where it refers to
the “sixth occasion of the census”.69
Figure 19.15: Khasekhemwy’s reign.
The combined years to the right of the Palermo Stone for Khasekhemwy,
“Hudjefa,” and Neferkasokar amount to 21 years (11 for Khasekhemwy, 1¾ for
“Hudjefa,” 8¼ for Neferkasokar). This leaves just 6 years for the final part of
Neferkare/Aaka’s’s reign at the right edge of the annals in register five.
In register four, back to the end of Weneg’s reign, there are 42 compartments,
which makes 48 in all for the combined reigns of Sened and Neferkare/Aaka. A lengthy
reign for Sened might be implied by the evidence that his reign was still being
commemorated in the 4th Dynasty (some 150 years later),70 and for Neferkare/Aaka who
is attested as late as the 6th Dynasty, among other rulers.71
Aaka’s reign is the last to be noted at the end of column three in the Turin Canon
(section 3.25). We proceed with the kings of column four in the next chapter.
66
67
O. Vendel, “Neferkare,” in The Early Dynastic period: Dynasties 1-2 at
http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/0egyptintro/2egypt/2main.htm
68
Kahl, “Dynasties 0-2,” 105 and n. 87. See also, “Seth-Peribsen,” at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth-Peribsen
69
70
Kahl, “Dynasties 0-2,” 104 and n. 83.
71
Vendel, “Neferkare,” 18.
Chapter 20. Reconstructing the Royal Annals – Neferkasokar to Menkaure 283
Chapter 20
Reconstructing the Royal Annals - Neferkasokar to Menkaure

This chapter continues the discussion of the recto side of the Royal Annals, and
the records of the Turin Canon.
The Turin Canon begins column four with the reign of Neferkasokar. From this
point to the end of the 8th Dynasty, some of the kings’ names have survived including
the majority of the kings’ regnal years. Note that reign lengths were recorded in years,
months, and days, though only a few are now complete. Evidently, the months and days
were important in the final tally of years given in the Turin Canon for kings from Menes
down to the last king of the 8th Dynasty, Neferirkare, where the summation is also given
in years, months and days (section 5.16–5.17).
Names missing in the Turin Canon can often be filled in from other records such
as the AbKL and the Saqqara Tablet. Reign lengths stated in the Turin Canon may be
problematical. Clarification may come from the reconstructed Royal Annals due to the
number of compartments allocated to the kings, especially if corroborated from other
sources. The part of Table 15.1 relating to this chapter is repeated here as Table 20.1.
Table 20.1: The Turin Canon compared to the Abydos King-list (AbKL)
Turin Canon AbKL
Cartouche King: listed King: common
Ref. King Years reigned
No. name name
Neferkaso
4.1 8 yr 3 mo [not given]
kar
‘Hudjefa’ “Erased”, 1 yr, 8 mo, 4 d. Lived 34
4.2 [not given]
(a) yr
4.3 Bebti 27 yr, 2 mo, 1 d. Lived 40 + x yrs 14 Djadjay Khasekhemwy
4.4 Nebka 19 15 Nebka Sanakhte
Netjerikhet
4.5 Djoser-It 19 yr, 1 mo 16 Djoser
Djoser
4.6 Djoser-Ti 6 17 Teti Sekhemket
‘Hudjefa’
4.7 “[Erased]” 6 yr 18 Sedjes Khaba
(b)
4.8 Huni 24 19 Neferkara Huni
4.9 Snofru 24 20 Sneferu Sneferu
4.10 lost 23 21 Khufu Khufu
4.11 lost 8 22 Djedfre Djedefre
4.12 Kha[fre] lost 23 Khafre Khafre
4.13 lost lost [not given]
4.14 lost 18 24 Menkaure Menkaure
x = An uncertain number. “Hudjefa” means name lost to copyist. Two instances are (a) and (b).
Neferkasokar
Neferkasokar is attributed eight years, three months plus x days in the Turin
Canon (section 4.1). He is not mentioned in the AbKL but is named in the Saqqara
Tablet (no. 9) after Neferkare (Aaka). Little is known about Neferkasokar, although
some think he might have been ruling only in Lower Egypt while Peribsen was ruling in
Upper Egypt from Thinis because Neferkasokar’s name appears on the Saqqara Tablet,
which lists Memphite kings, but is not mentioned in the AbKL.1 The reconstructed
annals allocates Neferkasokar 8½ compartments (see Figure 20.1), which is an important
inclusion in register 5 in order to correlate Khasekhemwy’s reign with the London
Fragment and the Palermo Stone after “Hudjefa” (a).
Figure 20.1: Reigns displayed in the reconstruction of register 5. REG = register.
“Hudjefa” (a)
Neferkasokar is followed by a “Hudjefa” in the Turin Canon (section 4.2).
“Hudjefa” appears twice in the Turin Canon (the other at section 4.7) written in a
cartouche, which has replaced the name of the king, and means “erased” or “lost”
presumably due to damage before a copy was made. The king is attributed one year,
eight months, and four days, and a lifespan of 34 years (section 4.2). In the AbKL,
Hudjefa’s name is the third missing name after Sendi (Sened) and before Djadjay,
identified as the nebty name of Khasekhemwy. The missing names are Neferkara/Aaka,
Neferkasokar and Hudjefa. Hudjefa’s name is also lost in the Saqqara Tablet (no. 10).
The omission of these kings may have been due to the partition of Egypt during the 2nd
Dynasty. Hudjefa’s identity is not known, though some scholars have postulated that he
might have been Nubnefer, Za, or Bird, known only from Saqqara, and that one of these
may have been king of Lower Egypt for a short time while Peribsen and his successor,
Sekhimib, ruled in Upper Egypt.2 A reign of less than two years would not have left
many records. Nevertheless, Hudjefa’s reign is important for the annals because he
precedes Khasekhemwy whose latter years, with census count numbers, are on the right
side of Palermo Stone in register five. Preceding Hudjefa is Neferkasokar with eight
years, three months, and x days. That leaves six compartments at the beginning of
register five for the remaining years of Neferkare/Aaka from register 4, whose reign
length is unknown.
Khasekhemwy
“Hudjefa” is succeeded by Khasekhemwy. The Turin Canon uses his personal
name Bebti (section 4.3), or as in the Saqqara Tablet, Beby (no. 11). He is credited with
27 years, 2 months, and 1 day with a lifespan of 40 + x years in the Turin Canon.
However, the Palermo Stone credits his reign with 17 years, 2 months, and 23 days.
Khasekhemwy is identified in the Palermo Stone recto, register five, compartment four,
by the mention of “the creation of a statue called ‘high is Khasekhemwy’.” This applies
to his 15th year of reign3 displayed in Figure 20.2.
Figure 20.2: Khasekhemy’s reign. LF = London Fragment.
1 See “Neferkasokar,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neferkasokar

2
“Seth-Peribsen,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth-Peribsen
3
The first preserved compartment on the right edge of the Palermo Stone refers to
the “sixth occasion of the census” indicating his 12th regnal year, and a census count is
also noted for the seventh and eighth occasions where it refers to gold and fields,
indicating his 14th and 16th years.4 The census count years are accompanied by the
“following of Horus” signs. A change-of-reign compartment appears for what is
Khasekhemwy’s 18th year. The reign divider appears about one-third of the way through
the compartment and Khasekhemwy is attributed 2 months and 23 days for his last
partial year. The remaining months and days for the accession year of his successor,
Netjerikhet, are not included in the remaining two-thirds section of the compartment, but
the two sections clearly indicate one calendar year.
The 17 years, 2 months, and 23 days attributed by the Palermo Stone to
Khasekhemwy conflicts with the 27 years, 2 months, and 1 day of the Turin Canon—a
difference of 10 years and 22 days. A 17-year reign for Khasekhemy implies that his
titulary would have been above his 5th–11th years (the middle seven compartments of
his reign), which are now lost off the right edge of the Palermo Stone. If the titulary had
been any longer, its final signs would have been preserved on the Palermo Stone. I
attribute 17 years, 2 months, and 23 days to Khasekhemy as on the annals.
However, his reign length again comes into question when looking at the years of
his successors: Netjerikhet, Sekhemkhet, and Nebka. First, we look at the London
Fragment of the Royal Annals kept in the Petrie Museum, registered as UC 15508
(Figure 20.3),5 which pertains to the reign of Khasekhemwy.
London Fragment
Figure 20.3: London Fragment.
Wilkinson writes: “The triangular London Fragment has a maximum height of

8.5 cm and a maximum breadth of 8 cm on the recto; it is 5.3 cm in thickness.”6 The
recto shows parts of two registers separated by a titulary band. The upper part, showing a
portion of register 5, displays the lower parts of four broken compartments of which the
second is the best preserved. Only a tiny part is preserved of the lower register (register
6).
4
Ibid., 133, 134.
5
Picture below displayed by courtesy of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, UCL.
6
Ibid., 18.
According to Wilkinson, the width of the compartments suggests that they

correspond to register five and a king of either the 2nd or 3rd Dynasty.7 Petrie, backed
by Wilkinson, suggested that Khasekhemwy is the king featured, believing that the
census count was biennial. However, Kaiser and Barta preferred Huni, a later king,
presuming a change from regular to irregular census counts had taken place at the end of
the 3rd Dynasty applicable to Huni and his successor, Sneferu.8
Wilkinson notes, “Most commentators have read the entry in the first (partially)
preserved compartment as ‘the first occasion of the census’.”9 However, the second
compartment has a damaged “following of Horus” sign and below this is clearly written
the “second occasion of the census,” which, in a biennial census, refers to the king’s
fourth regnal year. There is no census count in the third compartment but the very
damaged fourth compartment, which survives only in its bottom left half, shows the
remains of words ([zp] 3 [tnwt]) indicating the “third occasion of the census.”10 These
indicate the king’s sixth regnal year.
What, then, of the census in the first compartment? Wilkinson suggests it refers
to an unidentified event, and finds Clagett’s suggestion that it refers to a first census for
the counting of gold quite plausible. In this case, the idea of an irregular census count
indicated on the London Fragment is ruled out, and also the identity of the king as
Huni.11
The upper register of the London Fragment can be attributed to Khasekhemwy
and preserves parts of his third to sixth years and may be placed in the appropriate
position to the right of the Palermo Stone in register five. Khasekhemwy’s titulary, if
written over seven compartments, would have started just above the fifth-year
compartment of the upper register of the London Fragment, which, unfortunately, has
been broken off, and ended just to the right of the Palermo Stone in his 11th-year
compartment. Thus, none of the titulary has survived. According to Wilkinson, the tiny
surviving part of the lower register of the London Fragment, which he transcribes as
“halting at?...,” belongs to the reign of Sneferu.12 In my reconstruction, the tip of the
London Fragment falls in register six in the 10th year of Sneferu’s reign. See Figure 18.3
on pages 260-261.
The London Fragment is the only one of the smaller annals’ fragments to have
any surviving text on the verso.13 Due to its thickness and the way it was broken, a larger
area remains on the fractured surface of the recto than on the verso, which has only a
tiny inscription on the lower part. This is attributed to Neferirkare Kakai (see chapter
21).
Nebka, Netjerikhet, Sekhemkhet, “Hudjefa (b),” and Huni

Before discussing the reigns of these kings individually, the order of their
accession must be determined. Both the Turin Canon (section 4.4) and the AbKL (no.
15) name Nebka after Khasekhemwy, then Nebka is followed by Djoser-It (section 4.5)
7
Ibid., 248.
8
Ibid., 248, citing W. Barta, “Die Chronologie der 1. bis 5. Dynastie nach den Angaben des
rekonstruierten Annalsteins,” ZÄS 108 (1981) 13; W. Kaiser, “Einige Bemerkungen zur ägyptischen
Frühzeit, II. Zur Frage einer über Menes hinausreichenden ägyptischen Geschichtsüberlieferung,” ZÄS 86
(1961) 42-53. See also A. J. Spalinger, “Dated Texts of the Old Kingdom,” SAK 21 (1994) 276 n. 3.
9
10
Ibid., 250. The beginning of a cubit measure has survived. The Nile height measurement appears in full
in the preceding two compartments.
11
Ibid., 248-49.
12
Ibid., 251.
13
Ibid., 248.
known by his Horus name, Netjerikhet. Netjerikhet is followed by Djoser Ti known by

his Horus name, Sekhemkhet (section 4.6). Then in the Turin Canon comes a “Hudjefa”
(name lost: section 4.7) before Huni (section 4.8). Thus the order is: Khasekhemwy,
Nebka, Netjerikhet, Sekhemkhet, “Hudjefa,” and Huni.
Revised Order Ascertained

The Saqqara Tablet supplies a different order: Beby (Khasekhemwy) (no. 11) is
followed by Djoser (Netjerikhet), followed by Djoserteti (Sekhemkhet); then Nebkare
(Nebka) before Huni.14 Thus Nebka in the Saqqara Tablet is relocated from the Turin
Canon (section 4.4) and the AbKL to the place where “Hudjefa b” appears in the Turin
Canon (section 4.7). In the Westcar papyrus, Nebka also succeeds Djoser Netjerikhet15
Thus, the order here is: Khasekhemwy, Netjerikhet, Sekhemkhet, Nebka/Hudjefa, and
Huni. Table 20.2 shows the different orders of kings.
Table 20.2: Comparing the Order of the Kings
Turin Canon/Abydos King-list Saqqara Tablet
4.3 Khasekhemwy Beby (Khasekhemwy)
4.4 Nebka (19 years) Djoser (Netjerikhet)
4.5 Netjerikhet Djoserteti (Sekhemkhet)
4.6 Sekhemkhet Nebkare (Nebka)
4.7 “Hudjefa b” Huni
4.8 Huni
Seidlmayer writes, “Recent excavations at Abydos revealed unequivocal

evidence that Horus Netjerikhet buried Khasekhemwy, the last king of Dyn. 2, there,
making it certain that no reign (and especially a chronologically significant one as shown
in Turin Canon) could have intervened between them.”16 Furthermore, the sequence is
confirmed by several contemporary seal impressions found in tombs that indicate that
Khasekhemwy’s successor was Netjerikhet.17
Evidently, the Nebka (Turin Canon section 4.4) after Khasekhemwy (section 4.3)
is out of place, and should take the place of Hudjefa (section 4.7). This means that
Netjerikhet should be moved up a line in the Turin Canon while retaining the standard
numbering.
Having ascertained the order of these kings, and noting the confusion of the
Turin Canon, we can now discuss their lengths of reign, where again the Turin Canon
record of reign-lengths appears unreliable. The Royal Annals will show that the annals
were derived from a superior record, even though it now must be reconstructed from
fragments.
Djoser Netjerikhet
Netjerikhet is attributed 19 years and 1 month in the Turin Canon. In the AbKL
he is called Netjerikhet Djoser (no. 16) and in the Saqqara Tablet, Djoser (no. 12). Horus
Netjerikhet is identified by scholars as the first king of the 3rd Dynasty, and owner of the
first step Pyramid built at Saqqara.18
The final partial compartment of Khasekhemwy’s 18th year in the annals (the
Palermo Stone recto—see Figure 20.2) at register five showed him with 2 months and 23
14
“Saqqara Tablet,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqqara_Tablet
15
S.J. Seidlmayer, “Dynasty 3,” Ancient Egyptian Chronology (eds. E. Hornung, R. Krauss, and D.
Warburton; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006) 116, 118.
16
Ibid., 118.
17
J. Kahl, “Dynasties 0-2,” AEC (2006) 106.
18
Seidlmayer, “Dynasty 3,” 118.
days and was divided from the remaining portion attributed to the accession year of his
successor, who can now be named as Netjerikhet. The portion of Netjerikhet’s accession
year is not stated on the compartment, but the complement is nine months and seven
days to make one year (or 12 days when epagomenal days are counted). Following this,
there are three complete compartments, and most of a damaged fourth compartment on
the left edge of the Palermo Stone. Thus Netjerikhet’s first five years (approximately)
are recorded on the Palermo Stone. Using the same width for the compartments as in the
Palermo Stone, a further 13 compartments may be located in the space between the
Palermo Stone and Cairo 1, being years 6–18. Netjerikhet’s 19th year is the first
damaged compartment at the right edge of Cairo 1 in register five. (See Figure 20.4.)
Figure 20.4: Remains of register five on Cairo 1 (left).
If Netjerikhet had reigned only 19 years as given him in the Turin Canon at
section 4.5, there should be a change-of-reign divider at this compartment on Cairo 1,
but none is visible even though a compartment/year divider is positioned further along
the titular band in Wilkinson’s transcription.19 Furthermore, if there had been a change of
reign from Netjerikhet to his successor, Sekhemkhet—given six years in the Turin
Canon (section 4.6)—Sekhemkhet’s titulary should be detectable, even if badly worn,
above the original register compartments on Cairo 1, because the change-of-reign marker
is quite visible near the left side of Cairo 1. This seems to confirm that this change-of-
reign marker applies to the end of Netjerikhet’s reign and marks the beginning of
Sekhemkhet’s reign. The last year of Netjerikhet’s reign amounts to about six months
judged merely on the width of the compartments on the Palermo Stone for this register.
The remaining years (half, plus one year, plus half = two) on the left of register five
belong to the reign of Sekhemkhet.
Netjerikhet may be attributed about 27 years and 3 months. These are made up of
his initial nine months, followed by four years to the edge of the Palermo Stone, then 13
years in the gap, and about nine and a half years on Cairo 1. This is consistent with a
reign of nearly three decades that some scholars propose for Netjerikhet on the basis of
his many substantial building projects, particularly at Saqqara.20 Wilkinson affirms “28
complete or partial years” for Netjerikhet’s reign.21
Netjerikhet’s titulary, which is now lost, must have been in the gap between the
Palermo Stone and Cairo 1 with his middle compartment being his 13th or 14th year, and
ending before his 19th year on the right edge of Cairo 1.
Confused Dates between the Turin Canon and the Royal Annals
Going back to Khasekhemwy, we noted that he is attributed 27 years, 2 months,
and 1 day in the Turin Canon (section 4.3), whereas in the annals he reigns 17 years, 2
months, and 23 days, being 10 years less. As explained above, his successor, Djoser
Netjerikhet, is given 19 years plus 1 month in the Turin Canon and 27¼ years in the
annals—about 8 years more.
19
20
“Djoser,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djoser.
21
Wilkinson explains the extra years on the basis that the unfinished Step Pyramid Complex would
plausibly, on archaeological grounds, have taken this amount of time (Royal Annals, 209).
What might explain this discrepancy? The answer may lie in the duplication of
numbers in the Turin Canon listing of kings (Table 20.3).
Table 20.3: The Turin Canon listing of kings
Ref. King Regnal years
4.1 Neferkasokar 8 yr, 3 mo
4.2 “Hudjefa” (a) “Erased,” 1 yr, 8 mo, 4 d
4.3 Bebti (Khasekhemwy) 27 yr, 2 mo, 1 d
4.4 Nebka 19
4.5 Djoser-It/Netjerikhet 19 yr, 1 mo
4.6 Djoser-Ti/Sekhemkhet 6
4.7 “Hudjefa” (b) “[Erased]” 6yr
4.8 Huni 24
4.9 Snofru 24
4.10 lost 23
4.11 lost 8
4.12 Kha[fre] lost
4.13 lost lost
4.14 lost 18
In the Turin Canon, at section 4.4, Nebka is given 19 years followed by

Netjerikhet at section 4.5 also with 19 years, then Sekhemkhet at section 4.6 with six
years is followed by “Hudjefa” at section 4.7 also with six years, then Huni at section 4.8
with 24 years is followed by Sneferu at section 4.9, also with 24 years. This repetition of
regnal years, the incorrect positioning of Nebka at section 4.4, and the “lost” data lower
down the list raises suspicions of unreliability in the fragments of the Turin Canon
record. From a precise number of years, months, and days in the top three sections of the
list, the appearance of precision quickly degenerates.
Sekhemkhet
Sekhemkhet is named Djoser-Ti in the Turin Canon and given six years (section
4.6). He is called Teti in the AbKL (no 17) and Djoserteti in the Saqqara Tablet (no 13).
Sekhemkhet’s identity with Djoser-Ti is not in doubt, being owner of the second smaller
pyramid built after that of Netjerikhet’s. Also “the Nebti-Name of Sekhem-khet is
attested as Djosert(i)-cankh on an ivory plaque from his pyramid.”22 Sekhemkhet’s step
pyramid at Saqqara was discovered in 1951 by Zakaria Goneim, along with jar seals
inscribed with Sekhemkhet’s name. The pyramid was constructed only to its lowest step
at the time of his death suggesting a brief reign.23
Sekhemkhet’s accession begins at the change-of-reign indicator on Cairo 1 (see
Figure 20.4). As noted above, he is assumed to share a compartment with his
predecessor, Netjerikhet, giving to him about six months for his accession year.
Sekhemkhet then had a full year followed by half of his second year on the left edge of
Cairo 1 with his remaining years now lost beyond the edge. His titulary would be
expected over these compartments, and Wilkinson notes a Ḥr- (The Horus) in
Sekhemkhet’s change-of-reign compartment after which nothing remains of the
titulary.24 The fact that the titulary begins in the change-of-reign compartment indicates a
short reign for this king, which concurs with the six years given him in the Turin Canon.
However, this is a rounded figure, and to fit in with the years required for the succeeding
reigns of Nebka and Huni before that of Sneferu, I propose six and a half years to
Sekhemkhet allocated in the reconstructed annals.
22
23
“Sekhemkhet,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekhemkhet
24
Wilkinson, Royal Annals, 213-14. The Horus figure is seen in Edwards’ reconstruction, fig, 4.
“Hudjefa” identified as Nebka/re (Zanacht)

“Hudjefa” (“erased” or “missing”) in the Turin Canon at section 4.7 should be
identified with Nebka where the Turin Canon gives the king six years—the same number
as his predecessor, Sekhemkhet. This is one of three successive duplications and may not
be correct. The AbKL also notes the absence of the king’s name (“Sedjes”) (no. 18). The
Saqqara Tablet gives his name as Nebkare (no. 14). The name Nebka is also attested in
the papyrus Westcar.25
Several attestations link Nebka’s reign to the end of the 3rd Dynasty precluding
his presence at the beginning of the dynasty and in the Turin Canon at section 4.4.26
Nebka’s Horus name was Zanacht, identified from “a seal impression from mastaba K2
at Beit Khallaf where the names occur in parallel,” and in other sites.27 The layer
pyramid at Zawyet-al-Aryan, south of Giza and north of Abusir, is thought to belong to
Sekhemkhet’s successor, and therefore, to Nebka/re, or if not Nebka then to his
successor, understood to be Khaba, identified as the Horus name of Huni.28 To determine
the length of Nebka’s reign, given variously in the Turin Canon as 19 years (section 4.4)
and six years (section 4.7), we need to fit this reign and the reign of his successor, Huni,
into the annals before Sneferu’s reign begins.
Sneferu’s Reign Provides a Fixed Point

The record of Sneferu’s long reign gives great assistance to the reconstruction of
the annals. His reign encompasses parts of three registers and is witnessed on both the
Palermo Stone and Cairo 4 (which we come to later in this chapter). Again Figure 18.3
should be consulted to note his 1st year at the end of register five, years 2 to 44 through
the entirety of register six, and the final 6 years of his reign in register seven. Sneferu’s
year/compartments appear on the Palermo Stone in register six. Working backward from
these compartments will place Nebka’s and Huni’s reigns between Netjerikhet and
Sneferu.
Pre-empting a later conclusion, the 14th year of Sneferu appears on the right edge
of the Palermo Stone in register six. Going backward, his second year would have been
recorded on the extreme right edge of register six of the annals, and his first year on the
extreme left edge of register five. Working backward further, there are 33 compartments
between the beginning of Sneferu’s reign back to Sekhemkhet’s sixth and last year. Of
those 33 years, Huni is given 24 years in the Turin Canon (section 4.8), which leaves 9
years to be attributed to Nebka/Hudjefa. In section 4.4 of the Turin Canon, a line already
judged to be discrepant, Nebka was given 19 years—obviously 10 too many to fit with
Huni’s 24 years.
Reducing this number by 10 years to afford Nebka 9 years, the 33 years between
Sekhemket and Sneferu are accounted for. The ambiguous allocation of a reign to
“Hudjefa” at the Turin Canon section 4.7, now seen to belong to Nebka, reported an
erasure and 6 years, which may merely be a reduplication of Sekhemkhet’s 6 years at
section 4.6, with possibly three strokes missing from the total at section 4.7. The garbled
data obviously calls for speculation, but Nebka/re may be attributed 9 years and Huni 24
years.
Discrepancy between the Figures of the Turin Canon and the Royal Annals
The 9 years for Nebka may offer a clue about the 19 years given him erroneously
25
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid., 120-21.
28
Ibid., 119-22.
at section 4.4 in the Turin Canon. As noted, there appears to be a problem with the
“tens” in the existing record of the Turin Canon when compared with the annals. The
Turin Canon has 10 years too many for Khasekhemwy (27 instead of 17), 10 too many
for Nebka (19 instead of 9 erroneously at section 4.4), but lacks 8 years for Netjerikhet
in giving him 19 years and 1 month instead of 27 years. The 19 years appears to be a
repetition of the incorrect number given to Nebka in the preceding line, when 19 years
should have been 27 as in the annals.
The figures are shown in Table 20.4. The Turin Canon is approximately 17 years
in excess compared to the annals.
Table 20.4: Turin Canon and Royal Annals discrepancies from Khasekhemwy to
Nebka (“Hudjefa”)
Ref. King Turin Canon Royal Annals
4.3 Khasekhemwy 27 yr, 2 mo, 1 d 17 yr, 2 mo, 23 d
4.4 Nebka 19 --
4.5 Netjerikhet 19 yr, 1 mo 27 yr, 3 mo
4.6 Sekhemkhet 6 ca. 6 yr, 6 mo
4.7 Nebka (“Hudjefa”) 6 ca. 9 yr
4.8 Huni 24 ca. 24 yr
Total 101 yr, 3mo, 1d ca. 84 yr
Speculation suggests that 10 years was subtracted from Netjerikhet’s reign when
he originally had 27 years. This was then replaced with the incorrect 19 years, perhaps
the original number having been lost at that stage in the transmission of the canon. A
further repetition is noted in that Sekhemkhet is given six years (plus missing months?)
in both the Turin Canon and the annals, but the Turin Canon has also attributed this
amount to Nebka in the following line, whereas the Annals’ reconstruction shows that
the original number was likely to have been around nine years.
Damage to the Turin Canon leading to the corruption of the figures is inferred
from the incorrect positioning of Nebka between Khasekhemwy and Netjerikhet; the
incorrect number of years given to Khasekhemwy (section 4.3), Nebka (at section 4.4),
Netjerikhet (section 4.5); and the erroneous number of years for “Hudjefa” (at section
4.7). With these assumptions, the only years to have survived correctly are the six years
given to Sekhemkhet (rounded down) and the 24 years given to Huni.
Huni
Huni is named and attributed 24 regnal years in the Turin Canon (section 4.8) and
comes after Nebka and before Sneferu. In the Saqqara Tablet, Huni (no. 15) comes after
Nebkare and before Sneferu. In the AbKL Neferkara comes after “Sedjes” (Nebka) and
before Sneferu (no. 19). Neferkara is noted as the first king in the Karnak King-list (no.
1), where he comes before Sneferu. In summary, Neferkara precedes Sneferu in the
AbKL and Karnak King-list, while Huni precedes Sneferu in the Turin Canon and the
Saqqara Tablet. This appears to indicate that Neferkara and Huni are one and the same.
The span of time from the end of Sekhemkhet’s reign off the left side of Cairo 1
in register 5, to the 14th year of Sneferu’s reign on the right edge of the Palermo Stone in
register six, provides the framework for allocating the years for Nebka and Huni. As
noted, of these 33 years, 9 have been allocated to Nebka and 24 years to Huni.
I conclude that the annals once displayed the actual number of regnal years for
Khasekhemy to Huni as shown in Table 20.4.
Sneferu
The Turin Canon gives Sneferu (Snofru) 24 regnal years (section 4.9). He is also
known as Sneferu in the AbKL (no. 20), in the Saqqara Tablet (no. 16), and in the
Karnak King-list (no. 2). Scholars recognize Sneferu as the first king of the 4th Dynasty.
A Middle Kingdom papyrus, Papyrus Prisse, attests that after Huni died Sneferu became
king of Upper and Lower Egypt.29
The Sneferu Compartments on the Royal Annals

Figure 20.5 shows the three compartments for the reign of Sneferu that appear on
the Palermo Stone in register six with just a vestige of compartments showing on either
side. The compartments are deeper and wider than those of the preceding registers. The
compartment on the right refers to Sneferu’s boat building prowess, his military exploits
to “the Land of the Blacks” (presumably Nubia) in which he captured 7,000 prisoners for
his labor force, and 20,000 cattle, sheep, and goats to feed the people. It also refers to the
building of the house of Sneferu and 40 ships laden with cedar wood.30
Figure 20.5: Sneferu compartments on the Royal Annals.
This virtually complete compartment (except for a tiny portion at the bottom
right), is somewhat wider than the two that follow, presumably to include the activities
of that year. It is the widest compartment on the Palermo Stone, with four columns of
markings instead of the three columns in the next two. Yet, it does not record a cattle
count. And because the next two compartments both record cattle counts, many
questions have been raised about the regularity or irregularity of cattle counts in the 4th
Dynasty.
Regularity of Cattle Counts

The middle compartment records the “seventh year of the count” and the left
compartment records the “eighth year of the count”.31 The two successive counts are
contrary to previous attestations in the annals in which census counts appear to have
been held every second year as in the reigns of Ninetjer and Khasekhemwy, and occur in
even-numbered years indicating they were first undertaken in a king’s second year. The
question scholars are faced with is how to interpret these compartments. Why are two
consecutive compartments both given a census count? There are several possible
explanations.
The first possibility is that if the eighth count in the third compartment is correct,
and represents Sneferu’s 16th regnal year, then the first compartment of biennial
reckoning should represent his seventh count and his 14th year. But, instead, the second
compartment in the middle has the “year of the seventh count.”
The many activities in the previous year may have caused the census count to be
postponed to the next year, thus noted as the “seventh count.” In order to return the
sequence to even-numbered years, the next compartment would have to report the eighth
29
“Sneferu,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneferu
30
E.A. Wallis Budge, The Literature of the Ancient Egyptians (London: Dent, 1914) 100.
31
It also has two cartouches, the one on the right referring to “Sneferu high of the white crown” at the gate
on the south, and on the left “Sneferu (high of) the red crown” at the gate on the north of a building
(Wilkinson, Royal Annals, 144).
count representing the king’s 16th year—thus two census counts in two consecutive
years.
A second possibility is to equate the first compartment with Sneferu’s 13th regnal
year with the seventh census count taking place in the 14th year in the middle
compartment. But against this, there is no reason to have the eighth count in what would
be the odd-numbered next year, the 15th year. Furthermore, in the existing annals there
is no count attributed to a king’s odd-numbered year.
A third possibility may be to equate the first compartment with the 12th year with
an omitted sixth census count. This omission may have caused a scribe to mistakenly
attribute the next compartment to the “seventh count.” (It could hardly be called the
“sixth count” in an odd-numbered year or the “year after the sixth count” if none had
been held the previous year. The terminology for such a precedent seems lacking.) After
writing in the “seventh count” in the middle compartment, the “year of the eighth count”
has been squashed into the left lower corner of the next compartment. But it should not
have been included if the previous year had been an official census-count year. If the
first compartment was the 12th year and the third compartment the 14th (contrary to its
“eighth count”) this would place Sneferu’s accession two years later, which would add
two more years to the preceding period spanned by the reigns of Sekhemkhet, Nebka,
and Huni.
Our preceding discussion indicated that the years allocated to the annals for these
kings fitted into the compartments available. There is no indication they should be
extended by two more years. There is no valid reason to attribute the 12th, 13th, and 14th
years to Sneferu’s three compartments on the Palermo Stone.
Another view might be that census counts were held annually, but not recorded
for the first compartment, which would have been for the sixth year. Consequently, the
next two compartments were for the seventh and eighth years. However, all other
existing attestations of census counts in the annals point to a biennial counting system—
particularly shown on the verso—so there is no support for an annual census count in
Sneferu’s reign, if consistency is assumed for the remainder of the annals’ record.
Some scholars have proposed that an irregular form of census counting was used
in Sneferu’s reign, neither annual nor biennial. This would mean that census counts
could not be used to indicate kings’ regnal years. However, one of the purposes of
recording the census counts explicitly seems to be to record the years of a king’s reign.
An irregular count renders this reckoning meaningless.
John Nolan proposed the skipping of census counts every second or third year
based on an intercalary 13th lunar month.32 As we noted in our previous analysis of
lunar dates based on census counts in the 5th and 6th Dynasties, census counts were
held biennially and were not irregular. Furthermore, they were not based on a lunar
calendar, but a civil calendar. Previous extended discussions showed no evidence for a
lunar calendar having intercalated months to conform to the civil calendar.
The most credible explanation seems to be the first possibility outlined above.
The seventh census count was not held in Sneferu’s 14th year due to his other reported
activities—requiring a fourth column in lieu of the three columns in the adjacent two
compartments—and was instead held the following year, the 15th year. And to keep the
sequence correct, another census count, the eighth, was held in the next year, the 16th
year, requiring two consecutive census counts. My proposed reconstruction adopts this
explanation. The preceding compartments and regnal years from Nebka to Huni
accommodate the positioning of Sneferu’s reign with his first year on the extreme left
32
See Summary 2 in chap. 16, p. 244.
edge of register five, then 13 compartments in register six from the right edge of the
annals to the Palermo Stone which then records his 14th to 16th years.
In my reconstruction, the size of Sneferu’s missing compartments in register six
are based on the size of his smaller second and third compartments with a larger
compartment for every seventh year, like his first (existing) compartment for his 14th
year on the Palermo Stone. This may not be as it was in the original, but it is used to
make the right and left edges of register six align with the preceding registers and takes
into account the 43 compartments that seem applicable to register six.
Senferu’s 17th compartment on the left edge of the Palermo Stone is almost all
broken away on its surface except for the extreme upper and lower right side. As such, it
is the first compartment of the gap between the Palermo Stone and Cairo 1 and is
followed by five and a half more compartments to the edge of Cairo 1. The
compartments in Cairo 1 in register six (and seven) are so worn that it is not possible to
determine their original size or how the census counts were recorded for the kings’ years.
In my reconstruction, Sneferu’s 23rd compartment is positioned on the right edge of
Cairo 1 followed by five more compartments in Cairo 1 (though no detail is discernible)
with another 16 compartments in the space before the left edge of the annals. I determine
the length of Sneferu’s reign after discussing the Cairo 4 fragment (see Figure 20.6),
which pertains to his early years.
The Cairo 4 Fragment (JdE 44860)
Figure 20.6: J.D. DeGreef’s “very hypothetical” reconstruction of the Cairo 4 recto. See the actual fragment at Figure
20.8 on page 299.
The maximum dimensions of the recto of the Cairo 4 fragment are 11.5 cm high,
7.5 cm wide,33 and 0.81 cm thick.34 It has upper, middle, and lower registers.35 Differing
33
thicknesses as well as the absence of titulary bands between the registers on several
fragments has led scholars to suggest that there were at least two copies of the annals.
They suggest that the Palermo Stone, Cairo 1, and Cairo 3 come from an original that is
different from Cairo 2 and Cairo 4. But whether the latter two come from the same stone
is not determined.36 The upper register in Cairo 4 is damaged along the top and slopes
down to the left at the Nile height band, whereas the middle and lower sections slope
away from the Nile height band to the right so that the lower register extends beyond the
right edge of the upper and middle registers.
There are slight variations between the compartments for Sneferu on the Palermo
Stone and Cairo 4, which might indicate they are from different copies. Among the
variations are slight differences of width, and vertical lines separating text columns on
Cairo 4 (which are absent on the Palermo Stone). Wilkinson notes a different display of
its text, which has smaller signs, is thicker, and does not have the titulary bands between
its registers.37
Wilkinson suggests that what look like four compartments in the upper register
with dividing lines between them are probably only two compartments—the middle
dividing line being heavier than the vertical lines shown to the left in the upper and
middle registers. Wilkinson thinks the lines on the upper register are sloppily cut and are
too long, projecting down into the Nile height band.38 The presence of the Nile height
measurement in what appears to be the central text column on each side of the heavy
vertical line gives the impression that there are three text columns to one compartment.
The first preserved column in the upper register of Cairo 4 contains the cartouche
of Sneferu, confirmed by the presence of the serekh of Nebmaat, his Horus name, in the
second text column in the following compartment.39 In the first compartment in the
column before the heavy vertical line, the text refers to the “second occasion of the
census” (zp 2 tnwt)40 indicating Sneferu’s fourth regnal year. Here, as in the Palermo
Stone, the census count appears as the last entry before the next compartment, which is a
good indication that the heavy vertical line is a rnpt marker.41 The absence of a census
count in the second compartment is appropriate for biennial counting, and indicates the
king’s fifth year.
Without a titulary band between registers six and seven in Cairo 4, the
dimensions of Cairo 4 cannot be reproduced to the same scale as the Palermo Stone.
Were the scribes following the layout as they saw it before them? Or, for reasons best
known to themselves, did they decide to abolish the titulary band in favor of having the
next register come immediately below the Nile height band? The lack of a titulary band
means that the king’s titulary would have been incised within a compartment.
The verso of the Palermo Stone and Cairo 1 displays a Nile height band and what
appears to be an empty band between registers one and two, and between registers two
and three. But between registers three and four, and four and five on the Palermo Stone
(Cairo 1 not being evident) there is no empty band (i.e. titulary band) under the Nile
height band. The one existing compartment on the verso pertaining to the first year of a
king’s reign, that of Neferirkare in register four verso, has the titulary of the king under
34
Ibid., 25.
35
Ibid., fig. 9.
36
Ibid., 24-28.
37
Ibid., 25-28.
38
The reconstruction of the Cairo 4 fragment by J. DeGreef is located at
http://www.catchpenny.org/thoth/Palermo/c4rectob.htm used by permission.
39
40
Ibid., 233.
41
Ibid., 232.
and horizontal to the Nile height band, as the top line within his first compartment.42
This gives some support to the idea that there was no titulary band after register six on
the recto.
On the other hand, the small fragment, Cairo 3, appears to have a titulary band (a
significant horizontal space without horizontal rulings) between its upper and lower
registers.43 This fragment is thought to be broken off from the lowest register of Cairo
1.44 Since Cairo 3 gives space for a titulary band, register six must have had a titulary
band in Cairo 1, assuming Cairo 1 and Cairo 3 come from the same original. As
Wilkinson points out, the scarcity of fragments and the lack of overlap between them
tends to argue against multiple originals. There seems to be no finality on the subject of
whether or not the Palermo Stone and Cairo 1 had titulary bands in register seven and
below, but Cairo 4 does not show them.
The upper register of Cairo 4 contains the greater part of Sneferu’s fourth and
fifth years. The identity of the kings in the middle and lower registers of Cairo 4 depends
on the length of Sneferu’s reign and that of his successor, Khufu (Cheops).
Length of Sneferu’s Reign

Scholars have determined that Sneferu reigned longer than the 24 years attributed
to him on the Turin Canon (section 4.9).45 Anthony Spalinger compiled a list of
Sneferu’s “census counts” coming in his 2nd, 7th, 8th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 23rd,
and 24th years.46 Verner’s count, based on masons’ marks from either the Maidum
(Meidum) or Red Pyramid of Sneferu, assembled by Posener-Kriéger, are his 7th, 8th
12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 23rd, and 24th years. Added to these are three
attested rnpt (m-ḫt zp) years: 10th, 13th, and 18th.47
Of particular interest is the discovery of several dates of a 15th year count found
by R. Stadelmann and team in their first and second seasons when they were excavating
in the valley temple of Sneferu (1980, 1982).48 Stadelmann writes,
We discovered several dates of the 15th counting on the foundation blocks of the outer
walls of the open-festival-court and around the two stelae to the south of the temple. This
is certainly the date of the construction of the festival court and the accomplishing of the
temple for the Heb-Sed of the king in his 30th regnal year.49
This dating of the 15th count to the 30th year celebration of a Sed-festival
demonstrates that biennial dating was being used. Of even greater interest is the record
of a 24th counting documented by Erbkaum, indicating 48 regnal years for Sneferu,
42
For the discussion see Wilkinson, Royal Annals, 27-28.
43
Ibid., fig. 8.
44
Ibid., 26.
45
R. Krauss, “The Length of Sneferu’s Reign and how long it took to Build the ‘Red Pyramid’,” JEA 82
(1996) 43-50; R. Stadelmann, “Inscriptional Evidence for the Reign of Sneferu at Dahshur,” in
Chronology and Archaeology in Ancient Egypt (The Third Millennium B.C.), (eds. H. Vymazalová and M.
Bárta; Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Charles University, 2008) 104-10.
46
Spalinger, “Dated Texts,” 281-83, 318-19; cited by J.S. Nolan, “The Original Lunar Calendar and Cattle
Counts in Old Kingdom Egypt,” Aegyptiaca Helvetica 17 (2003) 95.
47
M. Verner, see table in “Contemporaneous Evidence for the Relative Chronology of Dyns. 4 to 5” in
AEC (2006) 128-131, citing P. Posener-Kriéger, “Graffiti in the Revetment Blocks of the Pyramid,” in Ali
el-Khouli, Maidum (ACE Reports 3, 1991) pls. 7-9. Verner’s AEC chapter updates his earlier article in
Abusir X: The Pyramid Complex of Raneferef: The Papyrus Archive (eds, P. Posener-Kriéger, M. Verner,
and H. Vymazalová; Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Charles University, 2006) 365-68.
48
Stadelmann, “Inscriptional Evidence,” 105-6.
49
Ibid., 108 and n. 2.
which was disputed by scholars on account of the Turin Canon’s 24 years for him.50 But
Stadelmann found in their third season “a very shattered fragment of a backing stone,
which too attests to a 24th year of counting in the season of prt.”51 Judging from its
battered state and high date, Stadelmann notes that it must have tumbled down from the
top of the pyramid in the last counting, that of Sneferu’s 46th or 47th year. 52 He suggests
that the compilers of the Turin Canon, which was composed 1,000 years after the end of
the Old Kingdom, may not have been aware that the year counts had to be doubled when
recording regnal years.53
On the other hand, as we have seen, the years of Sneferu’s predecessors, Nebka
(incorrectly positioned in the Turin Canon at section 4.4) and Netjerikhet (section 4.5)
were both credited incorrectly with 19 years. Sekhemkhet (section 4.6) and
“Hudjefa”/Nebka (section 4.7) were also credited with six years—although it is only
applicable to Sekhemkhet. Then we saw Huni with 24 years (section 4.8) followed by
Sneferu also with 24 years (section 4.9), but it is only applicable to Huni. Thus Sneferu’s
24 years may be a repetition of the 24 years given to Huni in the previous line, as with
the two couplets preceding him. Or Sneferu’s years could be the result of damage to the
Vorlage or from a scribal error. In either case, only half the number was preserved.
Assuming that the lost compartments in register six for Sneferu were the same
size as the two on the Palermo Stone for his 15th and 16th years, part of Sneferu’s 23rd
year and his 24th to 28th years would have been engraved on register six of Cairo 1.
These are not discernible now due to the worn nature of the fragment.54
Furthermore, assuming that Sneferu reigned at least 48 years, his 29th to 44th
years would have occupied the sixth register between Cairo 1 and the left edge of the
annals. His 45th to 48th years would have been engraved on the right part of register
seven, and if he reigned only 48 years, the reign of his successor, Khufu, would have
begun in the fifth compartment from the right-hand edge of register seven of the Royal
Annals. However, it is possible that Sneferu might have reigned another two years
depending on when Khufu’s reign began in the annals.
Evidence for Sneferu’s Reign of 50 Years

Beneath Sneferu’s 14th year in register six in the Palermo Stone (see Figure 20.7,
the first compartment on the right), there may be a fragment of register seven relating to
Khufu.
Figure 20.7: Sneferu’s 14th year on the Palermo Stone.
50
Ibid., 107.
51
Ibid., 107-108 and figs. 6 and 7. See also, idem, “Beiträge zur Geschichte des Alten Reiches,” MDAIK
43 (1986) 229-40.
52
Ibid., 107-8.
53
Ibid., 110.
54
There appears, “a female determinative which would have marked the name of
the king’s mother at the end of his [Khufu’s] titulary.”55 If the titulary was approximately
the same length as others noted previously on the recto, being about 14–16 cm wide in
the original, we have an indication that Khufu’s titulary may have started approximately
under the 11th year of Sneferu and the titulary would end under Sneferu’s 14th year,
where a female determinative is situated. The position of Khufu’s titulary does not come
midway in his reign but at the beginning of his reign. This is analogous to the position of
titularies on the verso and may indicate a change in the presentation from registers six
onward.
The implication of this positioning for Khufu’s titulary means that Sneferu must
be attributed two more years, giving him a long reign of 50 years. Sneferu earned the
reputation of the greatest pyramid builder of Egypt’s Old Kingdom.56 While other
scholars can validate a reign of 48 years, the Royal Annals seems to suggest a reign of
50 years, subject to any indications from further evidence.
A Vertical Tip
To the left of the female determinative under Sneferu’s 14th year (Figure 20.7), a
tip of a vertical line may be seen under the left side of Sneferu’s 15th compartment and
lower than the head of the female determinative. There is no horizontal line present on
either the right or left of the tip, which, had it been present, could have indicated that the
female determinative was in a titulary band.
This vertical tip is unprecedented in the earlier registers of the Palermo Stone or
in any extant compartments on the verso. Helck concluded that the tip was the top of a
text column divider.57 In my reconstruction, the vertical tip is at the top of a
compartment divider; that is, where a rnpt sign might have been located in the original.
The positioning of the female determinative and the vertical tip may indicate a layout
change from register seven onwards, but for lack of evidence this cannot be proven one
way or another.
Compartment Widths Differ for Registers Six to Nine

While the compartments in registers one to five are of similar width, those of
register six are much wider (as noted previously). This suggests that the compartments in
register seven, eight, and nine may be wider yet again. The number of compartments
attributed to registers seven, eight, and nine must be determined on the number of years
to be allocated to Sneferu, Khufu, Djedefre, Khafre, Bakare, and Menkaure. Their reigns
have to be fitted into the recto, before continuing on the verso. Menkaure’s regnal years
are divided between his 11th and 12th years on the recto and the verso.
Fortunately, the kings on the verso can all be attributed years with a fair amount
of certainty because of census counts recorded for their reigns and information from
other sources. As we shall find, these reigns contribute 56 years to the total, so the
remainder of the 639 years that are not accounted for on the recto will be the number of
compartments to be allocated to the above named kings.
In reconstructing the annals, the right and left sides of each register must align
with the edges of the annals as determined by the preceding registers. Since only small
portions of registers seven and eight survive in the small fragments of Cairo 2, Cairo 3,
and Cairo 4, and none at all for register nine, there is not enough text to demonstrate the
size of the compartments. Furthermore, it seems that Cairo 2 and Cairo 4 have a different
55
Ibid., 146.
56
Stadelmann, “Inscriptional Evidence,” 104.
57
Cited by Wilkinson, Royal Annals, 27.
layout to those of the Palermo Stone and Cairo 1. The 88 compartments that are required
for the remainder of the recto—if the overall 639 years are valid—are divided so that 31
years are allocated to register seven, 29 years to register eight, and 28 years to register
nine, consistent with their increasing widths.
Evidence from Cairo 4

A few indications exist to position the remaining kings’ reigns on the recto.
Pertinent to the right side of register seven is the middle register of Cairo 4 (see Figure
20.8).. The first of its text columns refers to the “fourth occasion of the running of the
Apis” (bull), which Wilkinson notes must belong to the “latter part of a lengthy reign,
since the numbering of this religious event began again from ‘one’ at the beginning of
each reign.”58
Figure 20.8: The Cairo 4 recto. See JD DeGreef’s reconstruction at Figure 20.6 on page 294.
Wilkinson also notes in the first column the engraving of a statue of a king. He
writes, “Traces remain of a royal figure wearing the white crown and carrying a staff or
sceptre, preceded by a serekh.”59 He identifies the king as Sneferu and attributes this
register to him because its content is, “reminiscent of the annals of Sneferu in PS r.
VI.”60
The reconstruction of the annals giving 50 years to Sneferu, of which his 2nd to
44th years are in register six, positions the Cairo 4 fragment so that the record of his
fourth and fifth years, displayed in register six (in the top portion of Cairo 4), is directly
above the major part of his 46th year displayed in register seven (the lower portion of
Cairo 4). It supplies a crucial interlock to the chronological reconstruction of the annals.
58
Ibid., 235; see also Krauss, “Length of Sneferu’s Reign,” 45.
59
60
Ibid., 235.
The allocation of 48 or 50 years to Sneferu, and not the 24 years attributed to him in the
Turin Canon, concurs with the identification by Wilkinson and others that Sneferu is the
king in the middle register of Cairo 4.
This conclusion also supports the biennial nature of the census count. Irregular
census counts in the annals have not been identified apart from the “exception” that the
count of the “seventh year” was a postponement of the count that should have taken
place in the preceding year.61 In the repetition of Huni’s 24 years and Sneferu’s 24 years
in the Turin Canon, Huni’s years appear to be correct, but not those of Sneferu. In the
Turin Canon, the papyrus fragment breaks off immediately after the 24th year in both of
their reigns.62 It is possible that Sneferu’s number had more digits but lacked two 10-
signs, or that it was a repetition from Huni’s reign and not applicable to Sneferu at all.
Khufu (Cheops)
The next king after Sneferu in the Turin Canon is not named (section 4.10) but
attributed 23 regnal years (section 4.10).The king must be Khufu as he is named in the
AbKL (no. 21) and the Saqqara Tablet (no. 17) after Sneferu and before Djedefre. He
was the son of Sneferu. Khufu is more popularly known as Cheops, builder of the largest
pyramid in Egypt at Giza.
Two counts giving Khufu higher dates than the 23 years of the Turin Canon have
become known relatively recently.63 The first is for the “year after the thirteenth time of
counting the cattle,” referring to Khufu’s 27th year.64 The inscription was found in the
Libyan desert in the Dakhla region after the “dedicated desert traveller” Carlo Bergmann
had discovered a series of about 30 sites from various pharaonic periods in 1999. Further
research by ACACIA (Arid Climate, Adaptation and Cultural Innovation in Africa, a
multidisciplinary project of Cologne University) brought to light many inscriptions on a
rock face of a small conical mound. The largest text recounted how Khufu sent out two
of his “Overseers of Recruits,” Iymery and Beby, to lead a 400-man expedition to the
desert to collect “mefat.” “Mefat” is thought to be a mineral powder used in paint.
The date of the “13th year after the cattle count” is very clear.65 This record
extends Khufu’s reign from 23 to 27 years. However, another inscription that was
discovered by Flinders Petrie in 1883 but was then lost, was rediscovered in 2001. Petrie
commented, “The name of the king is found repeatedly written in red paint with the date
of the 17th year on the blocks of masonry above the King’s chamber …”66
The location of the inscription was subsequently lost until Zahi Hawass found it
in a relieving chamber of Khufu’s pyramid. It referred to “a workmen’s crew named
‘drunkards of the crown of Khufu’ together with the note ‘year after the 17th time of the
61
Verner expresses extreme caution in estimating the length of Sneferu’s reign based on the irregularity of
the available documents and the disproportion of rnpt sp years and rnpt (m-)ḫt sp years. M. Verner,
“Archaeological Remarks on the 4th and 5th Dynasty Chronology,” Archiv Orientální 69 (2001) 365-72,
esp. 372).
62
A.H. Gardiner, The Royal Canon of Turin (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1959) pl. II.
63
Earlier cases of “years of” census counts are known for Khufu’s reign: his 4th, 5th, 8th (×2), 10th (×3),
and 12th (×2) years; but none for a “year after.” Spalinger, “Dated Texts,” 283-85; M. Verner,
“Contemporaneous Evidence,” 131-32.
64
R. Kuper and F. Förster, “Khufu’s ‘mefat’ Expeditions into the Libyan Desert,” Egyptian Archaeology
23 (2003) 26; “Khufu,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khufu
65
Ibid., 26, where the photograph of the inscription with Horus’ name and the cattle count can be seen.
66
W.M.F. Petrie, A History of Egypt, (London; 1924) Vol. 1, 60; cited by M. Verner, “Archaeological
Remarks,” 373.
cattle count’.”67 Assuming a biennial cattle count (as inferred by a “year after” not
applicable to annual counts), this inscription boosts Khufu’s regnal years to 35.
Applicable to Khufu’s reign are the fragments Cairo 2 and Cairo 3, which I now
discuss.
Cairo 2 Fragment
Cairo 2 is registered as JdE 39735. It is a triangular shaped fragment measuring
8.4 cm at its maximum depth and 9.2 cm at its maximum width (see Figure 20.9).68 It
slopes from the top right to the bottom left. It preserves parts of two registers on the
recto. Nothing is preserved on the verso.69
In the upper register, the lower half of the cartouche of Khufu appears to the left
of a statue of a king wearing the red crown.70 This identifies the compartment as
belonging to Khufu. The absence of a rnpt marker in the upper register appears to
represent just one compartment, because in the lower register the top half of a rnpt
marker is present, dividing two compartments of which only the upper parts exist.
Wilkinson suggests that the Nile height measurement is in the central part of the upper
compartment and that there is “a significant section missing on the right-hand side.”71
The incised signs are clearly legible, though crudely formed like those on Cairo 1 and
Cairo 3 in contrast to those on the Palermo Stone.72
There is no indication in the compartments as to what years Cairo 2 refers to, nor
is there any indication who the compartments in the lower register refer to, though
Wilkinson suggests that they too belonged to Khufu because a band is not provided for
his titulary, it having been given in register six. Wilkinson identifies the word sed in
compartment one, and suggests that it could refer to the god Sed or to a Sed-festival. In
view of the many attestations of a 30th-year Sed-festival for Egyptian kings, the
likelihood of Cairo 2 referring to the god Sed or a Sed-festival in Khufu’s reign is quite
plausible considering the evidence that he reigned the 35 years given him in the census
count in his pyramid. However, it is not clear that the 30th year of Khufu is represented
in the lower register of Cairo 2.
In the reconstructed annals, Khufu’s first to fifth years in register seven are
straddled in register eight by his 31st to 35th years (Khufu’s 5th year sits above his 35th
67
Cited at “Khufu,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khufu
68
69
Ibid., 226.
70
Ibid., 222.
71
Ibid.
72
Ibid., 222, 227; fig. 7.
and the first year of Djedefre). Thus Khufu’s 30th year does not fall under any of his
compartments in register seven. There is no easy resolution to the problem of where to
start Khufu’s reign, or the place of Cairo 2 on the annals. I have positioned Cairo 2 at the
head of Khufu’s reign, but other options are possible (see Figure 20.10).
Figure 20.10: Possible location of Cairo 2 fragment. C2 = Cairo 2, C4 = Cairo 4 fragment, LF = London Fragment.
Wilkinson concludes by noting that the events for Khufu’s reign are more like the
events recorded for the first three dynasties than for his predecessor, Sneferu, or his
successor, Menkaure.73 Because the events seem more like those applicable to earlier
dynasties, some scholars think Cairo 2 may be a fake.74 But Wilkinson says, “The
balance of evidence would tend to reject this view.”75
Khufu’s reign appears to be represented in another small fragment, Cairo 3 (see
Figure 20.11).
Fragment Cairo 3 (JdE 39734)

Cairo 3 measures a maximum of 11cm in depth and a maximum of 9 cm in
76
width. It has a large section on its right edge where the surface has been broken away
comprising about one-quarter of its width.77 The signs are crudely executed and heavily
worn like those of Cairo 1 and Cairo 2.78
73
Ibid., 226.
74
Ibid., 27, 226.
75
Ibid., 27.
76
Ibid., 18.
77
Ibid., fig. 8.
78
Ibid., 227.
Cairo 3 has two registers divided by what appears to be an unmarked horizontal

area, presumably what Wilkinson refers to as the “titulary band.”79 Citing Daressy (1916,
p. 170) Wilkinson states that, “Since C3 adjoins the bottom of CF1, the upper register of
CF3 may be regarded as corresponding to CF1 r.VII,” that is, register 7.80 Earlier
scholars, Kaiser and Helck, positioned the upper edge of Cairo 3 so that it adjoined Cairo
1 at the lower edge of its central section, but Barta located Cairo 3 further towards the
left side of Cairo 1.81 My position for Cairo 3 follows that of Kaiser and Helck. See
Figure 20.12.
Figure 20.12: Cairo 3 positioned directly below Cairo 1.
In the upper register, only a Nile height sign appears at the top left corner, which
by comparison with signs in Cairo 1, Wilkinson attributes to the reign of Khufu.82 In my
reconstruction, Khufu’s 11th to 14th years are represented in the bottom register of Cairo
1, which concurs with Wilkinson’s identification of the Nile height band belonging to
Khufu’s reign in register seven (represented by the upper register in Cairo 3).
A matter not yet solved by Egyptologists concerns a very damaged date found in
a boat pit at the southern side of Khufu’s pyramid. Some scholars attribute this date to
Khufu and others to Djedefre. The allocation is important for chronology.
Djedefre
Djedefre (or Radjedef) was the eldest son of Khufu (Cheops). Djedefre’s name is
lost from the Turin Canon but the king in section 4.11, who is understood to be Djedefre,
is credited with eight years. The number eight is written as two rows of four short
vertical strokes one above the other next to the year sign. 83 His name appears in the
AbKL (no. 22) and in the Saqqara Tablet (no. 18).
Apart from a reading of “Year one, month three” found on Djedefre’s pyramid at
Anu Rawash, there are no other attested counts for his reign. 84 However, there is one
controversial date that calls into question the eight years of the Turin Canon. I.E.S.
Edwards writes, “An ink graffito on a roofing-block of the more easterly of the two boat-
pits on the south side of the Great Pyramid [of Khufu] records an event which happened
in the tenth year of his [Djedefre’s] reign.”85 Edwards relied on the reading of the date by
79
Ibid.
80
Ibid., citing G. Daressy, “La pierre de Palerme et la chronologie de l’Ancien Empire,” BIFAO 12 (1916)
170.
81
“Three Reconstructions of Cairo 1 recto (Kaiser, Helck, and Barta),” at
http://www.catchpenny.org/thoth/Palermo/c1rectod.htm; cf. Royal Annals, 46.
82
83
Gardiner, Royal Canon, pl. II; J. Malek, “The Original Version of the Royal Canon of Turin,” JEA 68
(1982) 95.
84
Verner, “Archaeological Remarks,” 374; idem, “Dynasties 4 to 5,” 132 and n. 82.
85
I.E.S. Edwards, “Chephren’s Place Among the Kings of the Fourth Dynasty,” The Unbroken Reed:
Studies in the Culture and Heritage of Ancient Egypt in honour of A.F. Shore (London: Egypt Exploration
Society, 1994) 101, 105 n. 2.
Pauline Posener-Kriéger who read 11 (or 10) (rnpt zp), the year of the 10th or 11th cattle
count, which would be 20 or 22 years. However the reading is very uncertain.86
This is amplified by Verner, who writes, “The date of rnpt sp 11, 3bd 1 pr(t), św
24 (?) was found on a roofing block in the aforesaid boat-pit of Khufu together with a
number of other masons’ marks and inscriptions including names of crews and their
sections, measurements, etc. In the crew names, either Djedefra’s throne name or his
Golden Horus name occur exclusively. Nevertheless, the attribution of this date is far
from being unambiguous.”87
Egyptologists are divided on whether the date belongs to the reign of Khufu in
whose boat-pit the inscription was found, or to Djedefre’s crews who seem to be
exclusively connected to the building of the boat-pit.88 Concerning the latter, Verner
writes, “These marks and inscriptions seem to form a coherent collection relating to
different stages of the same building project realized by Djedefra’s crews…. The
attribution of just a single inscription—and what is more, the only one with a date—on
all the blocks from the boat-pit to somebody other than Djedefra does not seem to be
very plausible.”89
However, for those who attribute the date to Khufu, Verner explains: “Those who
ascribe the date in question to Khufu usually presume that the pit had already been
excavated before Khufu’s death and that only the burial of the boat, including the roofing
of the pit, took place after Djedefra’s accession to the throne.”90 A recent discovery by
the Franco–Swiss excavation at Abu Rawash, indicated that Djedefre’s pyramid—
previously thought incomplete—was finished before he died, suggesting that he reigned
longer than eight years. On the other hand, the scarcity of contemporary documents from
his reign indicate that the reign may have been quite short.91
If masons used the biennial method of dating in building pyramids as
demonstrated by the reign of Sneferu in having 48 or more years, the 10th or 11th cattle
count of the boat-pit must refer to a king’s 20th or 22nd regnal year. If the date refers to
Khufu’s reign, and he reigned 35 years, there is no problem. However, if it refers to
Djedefre’s reign there is a problem because he is attributed only eight years in the Turin
Canon.
Reconstruction Permits Eight Years for Djedefre

In my reconstruction of the annals, space allows room for Djedefre to have had a
reign of eight years. See Figure 18.3. But a reign of 20 or 22 years is out of the question
because we have to fit in the reigns of Khafre and Bakare before the beginning of
Menkaure’s reign in register nine. As we shall see, Djedefre’s eight years fit comfortably
into the time-frame remaining for the kings in registers eight and nine of the recto. The
remaining reigns on the recto side of the annals and the portion of Menkaure’s reign on
the verso, as shall be seen, offer added assurance to the suggested reign-lengths of Khufu
and Djedefre, and the provenance of the boat-pit inscription. In the light of the
concluding portion of this chapter, the biennial cattle count of the 10th or 11th year, seen
on the boat-pit inscription near Khufu’s pyramid, can be attributed to Khufu, and
Djedefre can be credited with the eight years of the Turin Canon (section 4.11).
86
Verner, “Dynasties 4 to 5,” 132 and n. 83.
87
Verner, “Archaeological Remarks,” 375.
88
Ibid.
89
Ibid., 376.
90
Ibid.
91
Ibid., 377. See also “Djedefre,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djedefre
Djedefre on Cairo 3
Awarding 50 years to Sneferu, followed by 35 years for Khufu, positions
Djedefre’s seventh and eighth years directly on the lower part of Cairo 3, which I
suggest belongs below Cairo 1. Djedefre’s first to sixth years fall to the right, under the
gap between the Palermo Stone and Cairo 1 (in registers six to eight). Note, however,
that there is no rnpt marker in this register on Cairo 3, unlike the upper registers of Cairo
1. The difference in formatting suggests that Cairo 1 and Cairo 3 may not be from the
same original, and begs the question of whether the two fragments were ever part of the
same piece of the annals.
Wilkinson identifies seven columns of text in the lower register of C3 as
belonging to a single year compartment.92 Among these is a very worn cartouche
recognized by Daressy as having the name of Djedefre, supporting its proposed position
in the annals, and appears to refer to the building of Djedefre’s pyramid.93 Ruins of
Djedefre’s pyramid and burial chamber are still visible today.94
Khafre (Chephren)
Khafre was a son of Khufu, brother to Djedefre. His regnal years are missing
from the Turin Canon (section 4.12).95 He is present in the AbKL (no. 23) and in the
Saqqara Tablet (no. 19). The second largest pyramid at Giza is attributed to Khafre who
may also have built the Great Sphinx.
Various sources record that Khafre had rnpt zp occasions numbered to his 1st,
5th, 7th (×2), 10th (×2?), 12th (×2), and 13th years; and rnpt (m-)ḫt zp (year after the
census) occasions from his fourth (×2) and fifth years (×2).96 The will of his son,
Nekure, was carved on the walls of the prince’s tomb and dated to “the year of the 12th
count” without naming the king. This is usually assumed to refer to Khafre’s reign,
although some have argued that it may refer to Menkaure, his (supposed) successor.97
However, against this is the reign of Bakare, which came between Khafre and Menkaure
(see below).
The highest known year for Khafre is painted on the back of a casing stone on
mastaba G 7650 where it refers to the king’s “year of the 13th occurrence;”98 therefore,
Khafre’s 13th rnpt zp refers to his 26th year. Thus 26 years are attributed to him here as
the length of his reign. Khafre’s reign occupies the final 11 compartments of register
eight and then the first 15 compartments of register nine.99 There are only two more
kings to be placed on the recto: Baka[re] and Menkaure.
Bakare/Baka/Bikka
The name of Khafre’s successor is lost in the Turin Canon along with the years
he reigned, though there is a line for him (section 4.13) between Khafre and Menkaure.
His name does not appear in the AbKL or in the Saqqara Tablet. However, Djedefre’s
92
93
Ibid., 228, 230; Daressy, “La pierre de Palerme,” 170.
94
Ibid., 230.
95
Spalinger, “Dated Texts,” 286. He writes (p. 288), “The lacuna in the Turin papyrus is particularly
troublesome as one may opt for 26 regnal years (or even higher) if the biennial hypothesis is adhered to.
On the other hand, others may prefer 13 years for his reign, with perhaps, a few more.”
96
Verner, “Archaeological Remarks,” 377-79; idem, “Dynasties 4 to 5,” 134; see Spalinger, “Dated
Texts,” 287-88.
97
Verner, “Dynasties 4 to 5,” 134 n. 91.
98
Verner, “Archaeological Remarks,” 378 and n. 140; idem, “Dynasties 4 to 5,” 134 and n. 92; Spalinger,
“Dated Texts,” 287; “Khafra,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khafra
99
Khafre (Khafra, Khefren, or Chephren) is misspelt as Kaphre in the Annals diagrams.
eldest son, Bakare, is believed to be the king who succeeded Khafre, his uncle. No dated
attestations for his reign have so far been found.
The Unfinished Pyramid at Zawiyet el Aryan, 4 km south of the royal cemetery
at Giza, was uncovered by Alessandro Barsanti at the beginning of the 19th century. He
found fallen building-blocks that had cartouches painted on their backs in red. But only
two hieroglyphic signs could be read, giving the readings of Neferka or Nebka. 100 Since
Djedefre had a son named Baka, this king is presumed to be Khafre’s nephew. The
pyramid of Djedefre at Abu Roash is believed to have had an oval sarcophagus. The only
other pyramid known to have an oval sarcophagus is the pyramid of Zawiyet el Aryan,
that of Khafre’s successor, Bakare.101
J.-P. Lauer, in an article on the Unfinished Pyramid, placed the owner of the
pyramid between Khafre (he calls him Chephren) and Menkaure (called Mycerinus),102
placing him where the Turin Canon has lost the name of the king at section 4.13.
Edwards, on archaeological grounds, prefers to place Bakare between Djedefre and
Khafre.103
Bakare apparently planned to erect a huge pyramid for himself about 200 m
square, similar to the size of those of Khufu and Khafre, but only some of the foundation
and enclosing walls were constructed; therefore, it is presumed he died prematurely after
a short reign. Verner notes that, “On the basis of our present knowledge of the building
of the Fourth Dynasty pyramids, the work on this unfinished monument must have been
terminated approximately after one or two years.”104
This is interesting in view of the fact that about two years is all that can be
attributed to Bakare without reducing the reign of any other king (for example, Sneferu
from 50 to 48). Thus Bakare, son of Djedefre, and the successor to his uncle, Khafre, is
assigned two years.
Menkaure
Menkaure is attributed 18 years in the Turin Canon (section 4.14) and unlike
Bakare, appears on both the AbKL (no. 24) and the Saqqara Tablet (no. 20).
Of six “counts” attributed to him by Spalinger (who calls him Mycerinus) only
the first two clearly belong to Menkaure. These are for the “Year of the 1st occurrence,
1st month of ŝmw, day 21,” and the “Year after the 1st occurrence, 2nd month of prt, day
21.” The other four are for the 2nd, 7th, 10th, and 11th occurrences, but the king(s) to
whom they belong is most uncertain. To the 4th Dynasty Spalinger attributes cattle
counts to three “year after” dates for the 2nd, 3rd, and 11th years of unnamed kings
referred to in papyri from Gabelein.105 Verner records the dates also.106 The attribution of
any count higher than Menkaure’s ninth year conflicts with the 18 years attributed to him
by the Turin Canon. An “occasion after the 11th year” indicates a 23rd year, but the king
is not named and does not need to refer to Menkaure.
Verner notes that at the time of Menkaure’s death his funerary complex was “left
largely unfinished,” “the valley temple had hardly been begun,” and of his mortuary
temple “only the nucleus of the main walls … had been built.”107 For these reasons,
100
Edwards, “Chephren’s Place,” 100.
101
Ibid., 98-99.
102
Ibid., 100.
103
Ibid., 100-04.
104
105
Spalinger, “Dated Texts,” 288-91.
106
Verner, “Archaeological Remarks,” 381-83; idem, Verner, “Dynasties 4 to 5,” 134-35.
107
Verner thought that estimations for a long reign for Menkaure of up to 28 years proposed
by some scholars could not be justified and that the 18 years attributed to Menkaure
could comply with the counts of the 11th year, or after the 11th year, if the count was
irregular.108
Assigning 18 years to Menkaure (as in the Turin Canon), with his 1st to 11th
years on register nine recto, and his 12th to 18th years on register one verso, fits
comfortably with the number of compartments on the Royal Annals. See Figure 20.13.
Figure 20:13: Menkaure’s 18th year on reconstructed annals verso.
Menkaure’s last compartment is preserved on register one verso of the annals

where the Palermo Stone sits according to its position on the recto. It is broken away at
the upper edge but “24 days” is legible.109 According to Gardiner’s reconstruction, the
upper part would have contained the signs for “four months,” which would be the last
part of Menkaure’s final year.110 This column can be identified with Menkaure’s reign
because after the change of reign at the start of a new compartment the name of
Shepseskaf, Menkaure’s successor, appears in a cartouche in the second text column. To
Menkaure can be attributed 18 years, 4 months, and 24 days.
The “occasion of the 11th year” and the “occasion after the 11th year” suggested
for Menkaure’s reign, must refer to some other king, possibly Khafre, who reigned 26
years.
Number of Compartments on the Recto

In my reconstruction, the number of compartments on the recto of the annals
amounts to 553. If Menes is included with 30 years assumed to have been located in
register one, the number is 583 years. The numbers of years for the registers are: register
one, 30; register two, 86; register three, 108; register four, 127; register five, 101;
register six, 43; register seven, 31; register eight, 29; and register nine, 28. For a full
tabulation with dates for the recto and verso see Table 21.1 at the end of the next chapter.
108
Ibid., 382-83.
109
110
A.H. Gardiner, “Regnal Years and Civil Calendar in Pharaonic Egypt,” JEA 31 (1945) 12 fig. c.
Chapter 21
Reconstructing the Royal Annals - Menkaure to Shepseskare

Describing the Royal Annals: Verso
The verso of the Royal Annals has legible inscriptions on the Palermo Stone for
registers one to five, on Cairo 1 for register two, and at Cairo 1’s right edge in register
three. There is a tiny portion on the lower part of the London Fragment.
The compartments are much larger than those on the recto. The only almost-
whole existing compartment is that of Userkaf’s sixth year on register two of the
Palermo Stone. It measures about 25 cm in maximum width,1 which gives a general idea
of the size of the other compartments. Unlike the recto, the depth of each register is
about the same. There is far more information in compartments on the verso than the
recto, and unlike the recto, which mostly records royal works, rituals, and festivals, the
verso also provides “lists of pious donations made by the kings to important cult temples
and royal mortuary foundations.”2 Wilkinson writes: “The verso of the Annals virtually
defies reconstruction altogether; it is especially difficult to establish the left-hand side.
Yet various suggested reconstructions have been proposed.”3
In my reconstruction, the overall width of each register is the same as the recto
(see Figure 21.1). Naturally, the recto and verso sides of the Palermo Stone and Cairo 1
must appear back-to-back in exactly the same position from the edges of the annals. This
means that the Palermo Stone is on the left of Cairo 1 on the verso.
Userkaf’s sixth compartment in register two of the Palermo Stone measures about
23 cm in the original, halved to 11.5 cm as given by Wilkinson’s representations. I have
used Naville’s transcription as it shows more of the text than Wilkinson’s, and adjusted
the size to 93% so that it corresponds to the depth of register two on Cairo 1 as supplied
by Wilkinson’s transcription.4
The distance between the right edge of the annals and the right edge of the
Palermo Stone—crossing the two partial compartments seen in Cairo 1 in register two—
is gained by ascertaining the number of compartments that fit into this space; and,
likewise, the number of compartments from the left edge of the Palermo Stone to the left
edge of the annals.
In my reconstruction of register two, there are 10 compartments, with 6 to the
right of the Palermo Stone, 1 in the Palermo Stone and 3 more to the left edge of the
annals. The size of the compartments is averaged, measuring to the right edge of register
two from the rnpt (year) marker at the right edge of the Palermo Stone, and measured to
the left edge of the register from the rnpt marker at the left edge of the Palermo Stone
(Userkaf’s sixth year). Since each of the registers on the Palermo Stone shows a change-
of-year (rnpt) vertical line at the end/beginning of a compartment, the compartments
1
T.A.H. Wilkinson, Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt: The the Palermo Stone and its Associated Fragments
(London and New York: Kegan Paul, 2000) 18.
2
Ibid., 148.
3
Ibid., 75.
4
Ibid., figs. 3 and 2, respectively.
were able to be measured to the right or left edge once the number of years for each king
became known, and in approximate proportion to the extant compartments on the
Palermo Stone and Cairo 1, though each one varies slightly.
Figure 21.1: Reconstruction of the Royal Annals, continued on page 311. C1 = Cairo 1; LF = The London Fragment;
PS = The Palermo Stone; REG = register.
The number of compartments attributed to each king’s reign is governed by the

record of census years and by regnal years associated with each king given in the Turin
Canon, the annals, or inscriptions such as mason’s records. A change-of-reign column is
shown in registers one and four of the annals, where a narrow column extends into the
Nile tide Level band below at the commencement of the reigns of Shepseskaf and
Neferirkare Kakai.
Figure 21.1: Reconstruction of the Royal Annals, continued from page 310.. C1 = Cairo 1; LF = The London
Fragment; PS = The Palermo Stone; REG = register.
It is assumed here that the annals and the Turin Canon recorded the correct
number of years in the original version, although allowance is made for later copyist or
transmission errors. Even though we have noticed that the Turin Canon has often not
retained the correct number of regnal years for kings on the annals’ recto, there is a
greater proportion of king’s regnal years on the verso that agree with contemporary
records. When combined with the cattle census years recorded on the annals, there is
little room for flexibility in allocating the proper number of years/compartments to each
king. This may mean that the final part-year of a king’s reign and the complementary
portion of the accession year of his successor may occupy one compartment. Examples
of this also occur on the recto. Clearly, the schematic assumptions of the original
compiler(s) calculated that approximations and rounding, which is still customary usage
in our day when precise months and days of reign lengths are unknown, could be
accommodated within compartments representing a year each.
The verso of the annals reports cattle counts in the reigns of kings Userkaf,
Sahure, and Neferirkare Kakai. These are consistent with the biennial dating noted on the
recto, but contrary to Verner’s cautious statement: “The available data indicate that the
dating system was irregular during Dyns. four and five, and not principally biennial with
few exceptions. In practice, annual cattle counts apparently prevailed.”5
In fact, the number of compartments that can be applied to the verso is so tightly
controlled by the number of regnal years pertaining to the kings that annual or irregular
dating of census counts is virtually ruled out. All in all, the verso displays a more
uniform format than the recto, which gives more assurance to the estimation of
compartment/year widths.
The extant fragments of the annals finish with the reign of Neferirkare Kakai the
last king noted on register five of the Palermo Stone. It is not known at what point the
original annals were ended. In my reconstruction, I have continued the annals down to
the next register to include the reign of Neferirkare’s successor, Shepseskare, given
seven years in the Turin Canon (section 4.20). After him is Neferefre (Raneferef) to
whose accession date of 2750 BCE was established in chapter 14. From this point
backwards to Menes, I can assign regnal years to the kings. According to our previous
discussion based on the Turin Canon, the time-span covered 639 years, which should
correspond to the total years represented by the Royal Annals.
Based on these considerations, I reconstruct the kings’ reigns on the verso of the
annals as now described.
Menkaure
In the previous chapter, Menkaure (or Mycerinus) was attributed 18 years in the
Turin Canon (section 4.15) of which eleven were allocated on the recto of the annals. A
further seven years makes up the complement in register one on the verso with his last
year being represented by a broken number on the damaged edge of his last compartment
before a change-of-reign column divides Menkaure’s reign from Shepseskaf’s, which is
recorded on the uppermost portion of the the Palermo Stone. The number of months has
been lost due to damage, but space allows for four months. Gardiner reconstructed the
number to be 4 months and 24 days.6 Menkaure may be allocated 18 years, 4 months,
and 24 days altogether.
5
The fact that masons’ marks consistently refer to only rnpt zp years and not to years-in-between
influenced his conclusion (M. Verner, “Dynasties 4 to 5,” Ancient Egyptian Chronology [eds. E. Hornung,
R. Krauss, and D. Warburton; Brill: Leiden, 2006] 126).
6
A.H. Gardiner, “Regnal Years and Civil Calendar in Pharaonic Egypt,” JEA 31 (1945) 12 fig. c.
Shepseskaf
Shepseskaf succeeded Menkaure, his father. His name is lost in the Turin Canon
but he is attributed four years (section 4.15). He is named in the Abydos King-list
(AbKL, no. 25), but his name is lost in the Saqqara Tablet (no. 21). His accession year,
known as the “Year of the Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt,” is mentioned in his
first compartment in the annals. The “Edict of Shepseskaf for the pyramid of Mycerinus”
mentions his “year after the 1st occurrence of count of (all) oxen and small cattle.”7
These are the only years of his reign that are certainly attested. 8 If the first census count
took place in the king’s second full year then the inscription refers to his third year.
Part of the first half of Shepseskaf’s first year is preserved on register one of an
extant part of the Palermo Stone. See Figure 21.2.
Figure 21.2: Beginning of Shepseskaf’s reign on Palermo Stone verso.
Following the final part of Menkaure’s reign and a change-of-reign divider, the
signs for 3 months and 11 days are visible in a separate column within the first
compartment of the new king. However, the top of this column is lost and Gardiner has
reckoned that the space provides for four more months, giving Shepseskaf’s accession
year as 7 months and 11 days.9 These figures with those of Menkaure’s final partial year
amount to one year of 365 days.
That the compartment belongs to Shepseskaf is confirmed by the presence of his
cartouche in the second column of text where it refers to his pyramid, actually “a
sarcophagus-shaped funerary monument at South Saqqara.”10 He is attested in funerary
inscriptions in Giza and Saqqara written by his officials, but the lack of detail suggests
he did not reign long.11 Shepseskaf was not able to complete his funerary monument
before his death. The four years of the Turin Canon is consistent with what we know of
him.12
Shepseskaf is identified as the last king of the 4th Dynasty by those scholars who
do not recognize Djedefptah as his successor.13 Shepseskaf’s reign of four years in the
Turin Canon seems to have been rounded up because all that can be attributed to him in
the annals (using the average size of a compartment in register one) is three and a half
years. See Figure 21.1.
7
A.J. Spalinger, “Dated Texts of the Old Kingdom,” SAK 21 (1994) 291.
8
Ibid., 291-2; M. Verner, “Archaeological Remarks on the 4th and 5th Dynasty Chronology,” Archiv
Orientální 69 (2001) 383.
9
Gardiner, “Regnal Years,” 12, fig. c.
10
11
“Shepseskaf,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepseskaf
12
13
Djedefptah
The name of Shepseskaf’s successor is lost in the Turin Canon, but the king at
section 4.16 is attributed two years. He does not appear in the AbKL between
Shepseskaf and Userkaf (nos. 25 and 26), and his name is lost in the Saqqara Tablet (no.
22). Nevertheless, this king has been given the name of Djedefptah in reconstructions of
the Turin Canon and the Saqqara Tablet. There are no known years attested for his reign.
He has been associated with the name of Manetho’s Thamphthis, a shadowy king of the
4th Dynasty, because in the juxtaposition of Manetho’s names for the 4th Dynasty and
those of the Turin Canon they are aligned. It has been suggested that Thamphthis’s
original name may have been Djedefptah or Ptahjedef.14 However, there is no
convincing evidence to suppose Thamphthis was Djedefptah.
Djedefptah’s two years are not represented on the surviving fragments of the
annals: the Palermo Stone, Cairo 1, etc. He was succeeded by Userkaf. In order to
accommodate the four years of Shepseskaf’s reign, followed by the two years of
Djedefptah’s reign, and have the third year of Userkaf’s reign fall in the right-side
compartment of Cairo 1 in register two, it is necessary to attribute to Shepseskaf’s last
year and to Djedefptah’s first year a shared compartment, apportioning to each king a
half-year. Otherwise the compartments between Shepseskaf’s first year and Userkaf’s
third year would be disproportionately smaller than the other compartments on the verso,
which are generally of similar width. This appears to be an appropriate option, and
invokes the obvious disclaimer, when reigns are imprecisely known throughout Egyptian
chronology, that years/compartments are only indicative. Rounding, as occurs here, has
the effect of accommodating the approximation of years’ reigned. Thus Shepseskaf is
attributed three and a half years and Djedefptah one and a half years. The shared
compartment is the last one on register one and Djedefptah’s second year (his first full
year) is represented by the first compartment in register two. See Figure 21.1.
Userkaf/Weserkaf
The next king in the Turin Canon is [Weser]ka[f] credited with seven regnal
years (section 4.17). He is succeeded by Sahure (section 4.18). In the AbKL, there is no
line for Djedefptah; thus, Userkaf (no. 26) appears after the name of Shepseskaf (no. 25)
who is succeeded by Sahure. In the Saqqara Tablet, after the name of Menkaure at no.
20, the next four names have been destroyed. The first two of these may be identified as
Shepseskaf and Djedefptah (nos. 21 and 22), but there are lines for two more names
before Userkaf appears at no. 25. It is not known to whom these lines refer, and why
they appear here. The annals appear to be consistent with the Turin Canon and AbKL’s
order of Userkaf followed by Sahure, so the unidentified extra names in the Saqqara
Tablet—being unknown in the other sources—are omitted from consideration here.
Scholars consider Userkaf to be the first king of the 5th Dynasty. However, his
mother is thought to have been Neferhetep, daughter of Shepseskaf, making him the
grandson of Shepseskaf. This does not indicate a break in dynastic continuity.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of a major change in the country or administration, as
officials of the 4th Dynasty continue into the 5th.15
Parts of two compartments are preserved in Cairo 1 in register two that belong to
Userkaf’s reign (Figure 21.3).
14
“Thamphthis,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djedefptah
15
“Userkaf,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Userkaf
Figure 21.3: Userkaf’s reign shown on register two of Cairo 1 (C1) Palermo Stone (PS).
Only about one-quarter of the first compartment remains on the right. It has four
text columns. The third column refers to Userkaf’s pyramid and the last records “the year
after the first occasion of the cattle count.” This refers to the king’s third year. 16 A rnpt
sign divides Userkaf’s third year from his fourth, with about three-quarters preserved on
Cairo 1. Userkaf’s cartouche appears at the beginning of the text along the upper edge
where it has the same phrase as appears in Userkaf’s sixth year compartment in the
Palermo Stone. The rubric reads: “The dual king N: he made as his endowment for: the
souls of Heliopolis….” It is followed by recipients of the king’s bounty and details of his
donations. The same format and phrase appear in the other existing compartments in the
Palermo Stone.17
The fifth compartment/year for Userkaf’s reign falls in the gap between Cairo 1
and the Palermo Stone with only a tiny section preserved at the top left corner of the
Palermo Stone where part of a bird-sign can be seen.
The sign appears in full at the top of the last column in the fifth year of Sahure’s
compartment (refer to Figure 21.1 and to Figure 21.4 below), beneath which is “the year
after the second occasion of the census”18 seen in the Palermo Stone in register three.
Figure 21.4: Sahure’s fifth year shown on register three on the Palermo Stone.
Referring to the partial bird-sign in Userkaf’s fifth year (Figure 21.3), Wilkinson
observes, “By analogy with the Annals for the fifth year of Userkaf’s successor Sahura
(the Palermo Stone v.III.I), the entry can be restored with some certainty as ‘third
occasion of (making) the inventory of the House-of-Horus-and-Seth.”19 Thus, both
compartments refer to the fifth year of the respective kings. This is borne out by the next
compartment.
Almost all of Userkaf’s sixth compartment/year is preserved on the Palermo
Stone except for a minimal amount at the right bottom at the base of a rnpt marker and at
the left top where the top of a rnpt marker is missing (Figure 21.3). The last text column
refers to the “third occasion of the cattle census”20 confirming that this is Userkaf’s sixth
year. A small section of Userkaf’s seventh year is preserved on the left of the rnpt
marker, but it does not convey anything of chronological significance.
In addition to the “third occasion of the cattle census” on the sixth compartment
of Userkaf’s reign in the annals, a mason’s graffito from the upper part of Userkaf’s sun
temple also mentions a cattle count of the third occurrence. This refers to his reign dated
16
17
Ibid., 153-54; see also 69.
18
Ibid., 161.
19
Ibid., 152.
20
Ibid., 154.
to III prt with the day-date missing.21 These are his highest attested years.22 Spalinger
remarks, “If the biennial census works at this point, then the six years derived from this
account fits neatly into the Turin Papyrus’ date of 7 years.”23
However, Spalinger discusses four limestone blocks containing inscriptions
found in the rubble of Userkaf’s sun temple at Abusir, but without a king’s name. Three
of these blocks refer to the “Year of the 5th occurrence” dating, respectively, to I 3ḫt, III
prt, and III ŝmw, without day-dates, and the fourth refers to the “Year after the 5th
occurrence” and dates to II prt, also without a day-date.24 On the biennial system it
would indicate Userkaf reigned at least 11 years, in conflict with the Turin Canon’s 7
years.
Two earlier scholars, Ricke and Kaiser, placed the four blocks in the reign of
Neferirkare (who reigned 10 + x years) as does Spalinger, but the latter with a question
mark.25 Verner explores the different views of scholars and decides in favor of Sahure
who completed Userkaf’s sun temple after the death of the king. 26 Userkaf was the first
king to build a sun temple at Abusir.
The question of whether Userkaf reigned 7 years or 11 years (or more) can be
assisted by the number of compartments/years that come between the seventh year of
Userkaf and the first year of Sahure, his successor. See Figure 21.1.
According to Wilkinson, Sahure’s second year appears on the right-hand side of
Cairo 1 in register three where only the last three text columns are preserved.27
Therefore, Sahure’s first year is the preceding year. Based on the width of the annals in
register two and the width of the almost complete sixth year for Userkaf in the Palermo
Stone, Userkaf can be assigned his final two years, his 10th and 11th, to the right of
Sahure’s first year in register three. In register two, there are three compartments to the
left of Userkaf’s sixth year in the Palermo Stone. The annals affirm that Userkaf reigned
11 years altogether.
However, the question of the ownership of the three blocks referring to the “Year
of the 5th occurrence” and the fourth referring to the “Year after the 5th occurrence” 28 is
not settled because, as we shall see, Sahure reigned 15 years and Neferirkare Kakai
reigned 11 years; thus, they too could have had a “year after the 5th occurrence.”
Userkaf is here attributed 11 years as indicated by the compartmental space given
to him in the annals, regardless of whose reign the four blocks came from. The seven
years credited to Userkaf by the Turin Canon appear to be deficient by four years.
Sahure
The name of the king who follows Userkaf is lost in the Turin Canon at section
4.18, but it gives him 12 years. Sahure is the name of the king following Userkaf in the
AbKL (no. 27) and in the Saqqara Tablet (no. 26). Evidently, Sahure is the name missing
in the Turin Canon.
Sahure’s reign is represented in the annals for his second year (Cairo 1), and fifth
and sixth years (the Palermo Stone) in register three (see Figure 21.4), and final (15th)
21
22
23
24
Ibid., 295-96.
25
Ibid., 295-96 and n. 51.
26
Verner, “Archaeological Remarks,” 386-90.
27
Wilkinson, Royal Annals, 220. In his fig. 6 of the verso of Cairo 1 only the second and third columns
are transcribed in register three.
28
year in register four (the Palermo Stone, see Figure 21.5), though that is disputed by
some scholars.
Figure 21.5: Sahure’s final year shown on resister four of the Palermo Stone, followed by Neferirkare Kakai’s first
year.
Mason’s inscriptions from Sahure’s mortuary temple attest to rnpt zp 2 (Year 4),
rnpt zp 4 (Year 8), and inscriptions from Userkaf’s sun temple have been attributed to
Sahure: rnpt zp 5 (Year 10) in tablets A, B, and C, and rnpt(m-)ht zp 5 (Year 11) in tablet
D.29 Verner discusses a “Year 12” found in the damaged pavement of Sahure’s valley
temple. He concluded that the date was written by a visitor to Sahure’s temple complex
sometime in the New Kingdom.30
The last three text-columns of Sahure’s second year appear on the right edge of
Cairo 1 in register three (see Figure 21.1). The second text column records “six
likenesses of Sahure” referring to statues,31 which confirms that it belongs to Sahure’s
reign. Wilkinson also notes that the compartment refers to the first occasion of an event
that may be the “making of an inventory of the House-of-Horus-and-Seth.” He notes
Daressy’s prior suggestion that the inventory may have been made in the king’s first year
and published in his second. If so, there was not only the biennial system of counting
cattle, but also a system of biennial inventories.32 The “first occasion” (rnpt zp 1)
identifies this compartment as belonging to Sahure’s second year.
Sahure’s third compartment follows the second in Cairo 1. Most of it falls in
Cairo 1 and a final portion of it would have extended beyond the broken left edge. All
that Wilkinson could read was the usual phrase, “The dual king Sahura: he made as his
endowment for: his father?...”33 Sahure’s fourth year compartment falls entirely in the
gap between Cairo 1 and the Palermo Stone.
As shown in Figure 21.4, his fifth year compartment begins to the right of the
Palermo Stone in the gap, though most of the compartment is present on the Palermo
Stone. The size of Sahure’s fifth compartment on the Palermo Stone can be compared
with the complete compartment of Userkaf above it in register two (see Figure 21.1).
Both end almost at the same place with Sahure’s sixth year compartment in register three
ending slightly to the left of Userkaf’s in register two, suggesting that they both began at
about the same place. From this we may assume that the same number of compartments
in both registers can be fitted into the distance from the right edge of the annals across to
the Palermo Stone on the left (including those in Cairo 1).
Apart from the introductory formula, Sahure’s fifth year compartment is divided
into precisely defined text columns of uniform width. The upper part of the last column
refers to the “third occasion of making of an inventory of the House-of-Horus-and-
Seth”34 which, as we noted earlier, Wilkinson assumed had also been written in the last
29
Verner, “Archaeological Remarks,” 391 and nn. 223-27, 229; idem, “Dynasties 4 to 5,” 137-38.
30
Verner, “Archaeological Remarks,” 392-93.
31
32
Ibid., 220-21.
33
Ibid., 221.
34
Ibid., 161, 165.
column of Userkaf’s fifth year where only part of the sign remains on the damaged
edge.35 This column concludes by recording the cattle count in the “year after the second
occasion of the census,” thus confirming that it belongs to Sahure’s fifth year.
A rnpt marker separates Sahure’s fifth year from the beginning of the sixth. Of
the latter only a small portion of the right side survives in the Palermo Stone with the
remainder lost to the left. Before the edge of the annals there is space for two more
compartments, Sahure’s seventh and eighth. Sahure’s reign continues on the right of
register four with his ninth year. Wilkinson notes that there is no titulary band separating
register three and register four. He suggests that this is because there was no need to
repeat Sahure’s titulary since it had been given in the preceding register.36 Four
compartments would have been present in register four before the right edge of Cairo 1.
Sahure’s 13th year would have occupied most of Cairo 1 with about a quarter of his 14th
year on the left side. Nothing is legible there now.
Approximately the last third of Sahure’s 15th and final compartment appears in
register four on the right side of the Palermo Stone (Figure 21.5). It is separated from the
next compartment by a column of text that extends down to the next register (which does
not have a titulary band). In its upper part, the column contains a cattle count, and in its
lower part the months and days of the king’s last year. Apparently, there was too much
text to be contained in the normal column length. The signs are very worn and difficult
to read.
Spalinger agrees with the view of earlier scholars that the cattle count signs read,
“Year after the 7th occurrence”;37 that is, Sahure’s 15th year. Gardiner’s transcription
shows the presence of seven strokes.38 However, Wilkinson’s transcription shows the
presence of six strokes.39 He writes, “The most plausible reading is rnpt (m-)ḫt zp 6 tnwt,
‘year after the sixth occasion of the census’.”40 He suggests it may refer to Sahure’s 13th
year.41 Though the year itself is unclear, the “year after” sign is not in dispute.
According to the space provided for the years of Sahure’s reign, his last year was
his 15th. If it had been his 13th year, the size of the compartments in register four would
have had to be disproportionately larger than those of the preceding registers.
Between the right edge of the annals and the right edge of the Palermo Stone in
register one there are six and a half compartments; in registers two and three there are six
(being slightly larger than those of register one); and in registers four and five there are
six and three quarters (because the damaged edge of the Palermo Stone slopes to the
left). In other words, there is some comparability of size of the compartments in all the
registers.
But if two compartments were taken out of register four, to give Sahure 13 years,
there would only be five compartments to the right of the Palermo Stone—unless one
was taken from register three and one from register four. But the same disproportion of
compartment sizes per register would occur. This conclusion indicates that the census
count was for the “year after the 7th occasion” in Sahure’s last compartment and was
based on biennial counting.
According to Gardiner’s reconstruction, Sahure’s last year consisted of 9 months
and 28 days, with the complement being seen in Neferirkare’s first year where he is
35
Ibid., 152, 165.
36
Ibid., 167.
37
38
Gardiner, “Regnal Years,” 12, n. 1 and fig. d.
39
40
Ibid., 169, 171.
41
Ibid.
given two months and seven days.42 Sahure, therefore, reigned 14 years, 9 months, and
28 days, or a rounded 15 years.43 The 12 years given to Sahure in the Turin Canon
(section 4.18) has apparently lost three strokes.
London Fragment: Verso

Associated with the reign of Sahure is the small London Fragment. Its verso side
covers a small area. Nothing is seen in the upper and middle areas, but the lower part
shows traces of signs. The positioning of the London Fragment in relation to the Palermo
Stone in register five of the recto precisely defines its location on the verso side,
confirmed by measurements. The upper part of the London Fragment falls mostly in the
bottom left corner of Sahure’s sixth year compartment, and the larger part falls in the
second year of Neferirkare’s reign, concurring with earlier suggestions of other
scholars.44 The small portion of preserved text has no data of chronological value, but it
does mention arable land.45
Neferirkare Kakai
The name of Sahure’s successor and the years he reigned are lost in the Turin
Canon at section 4.19. However, he is named in the AbKL as Kakai (no. 28) and as
Neferirkare in the Saqqara Tablet (no. 27). Once understood to be Sahure’s brother, new
evidence has now been interpreted to mean that Neferirkare was the elder of twins, the
other being Netjerirenre, Sahure’s firstborn of six sons.46
As noted above, Neferirkare’s first compartment/year follows that of Sahure’s in
register four on the Palermo Stone (Figure 21.5). Along the top of, and within, the
compartment are the preserved signs of his titulary.47 Noted in the first text column is the
duration of his accession year amounting to two months and seven days, the complement
of Sahure’s last partial year.
Two stonemasons’ inscriptions, one from the pyramid of Khenthaus II
(Neferirkare’s queen), and the other from Neferirkare’s own pyramid, both record the
king’s rnpt zp 5, his 10th year.48 A rnpt zp 5 appears in the small preserved section on
the left upper corner of the Palermo Stone in register five,49 and this is confirmed as
belonging to Neferirkare’s 10th year because his cartouche appears in the next
compartment, his 11th year/compartment.
In register five of the Palermo Stone his 11th compartment appears directly
below his first compartment in register four (see Figure 21.6).
42
Gardiner, “Regnal Years,” 12 n. 1 and fig. d. Note the assumption of 30-day months, plus five
epagomenal days.
43
Verner states that the length of Sahure’s tenure cannot be established because it is not known how
regular census counts were held in his reign (“Dynasties 4 to 5,” 127). The conclusion above that Sahure
reigned 15 years to “the year after the 7th occasion” indicates that the census count was biennial.
44
Ibid., 252.
45
Ibid.
46
For Sahure’s family relationships and progeny see T. El Awady, “The Royal Family of Sahura. New
Evidence,” Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005: Proceedings of the Conference held in Prague (June
27-July 5, 2005), (eds. M. Bárta, F. Coppins, J. Krejčí; Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Charles
University 2006) 191-218. See also, “Nefererkare Kakai,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neferirkare_Kakai
47
48
Verner, “Archaeological Remarks,” 393; idem, “Dynasties 4 to 5,” 138.
49
Figure 21.6: Neferirkare Kakai’s first and final years shown on the Palermo Stone’s fourth and fifth registers
respectively.
Nefrirkare has three compartments/years in register four, the first on the Palermo
Stone then two more to the left edge of the annals. From the right edge of register five
there are eight compartments/years to his 11th and final year on the Palermo Stone.
Neferirkare’s 11th year compartment on the Palermo Stone, of which only the upper
right part survives, is the last section of the annals that is preserved.
There is space for two more compartments in register five on the left of the
Palermo Stone after Neferirkare’s 11th year. Was Neferirkare’s 11th year his final year?
Verner discusses a stonemason’s graffito found on a yellowish block in the core of
Neferirkare’s pyramid to the west of the burial site, earlier commented on by Borchardt
in 1909. Spalinger proposed that the damaged reading could be “Year of the 10 + xth
occurrence, 4th month….” And he hesitantly suggested that it might refer to Neferirkare
and a possible 15 or 16 years.50 However, Verner points out that such a high date is not
in accord with the archaeological evidence for Neferirkare, and the position of the block
in situ excludes its assignation to a later king, such as Niuserre.
Furthermore, the signs for the dates are horizontal, whereas Edel, an earlier
scholar, emphasized that at this time numerals were written in a vertical line. Based on
these considerations, Verner suggests that with a vertical reading the inscription read
rnpt zp 5, 3bd 4;51 that is, the fifth census count and the fourth month of the year. This
adds to the two dates for the same fifth count and month four as referred to above, and
agrees with the annals’ count stating his fifth census count in Neferirkare’s 10th year
compartment. Therefore, no higher date for Neferirkare is known than his 11th year on
the last (partially) existing compartment in the Palermo Stone. Neferirkare’s name is
written within a cartouche in the introductory phrase along the top.52
Shepseskare
Shepseskare’s name is lost in the Turin Canon, but the king at section 4.20,
where he would have appeared, is attributed seven years. His name is missing in the
AbKL between Kakai and Neferefre, but it appears in the Saqqara Tablet as Shepseskare
(no. 28). He is known as Shepseskare Isi (or Isesi). Only a few contemporaneous written
50
51
52
sources refer to Shepseskare and only four of five sealings bear his name. No
contemporary monuments refer to him or give his name.53
Neferirkare Kakai is known to have had only two sons, Neferefre his firstborn,
and Niuserre.54 Shepseskare’s position between Neferirkare and Neferefre has been
challenged by some scholars due to archaeological considerations.
Verner has suggested that Shepseskare reigned after Neferefre. He notes that,
“The four pyramids of kings were built in Abusir in the order: Sahura, Neferirkara,
Neferefra … and Nyuserra.”55 Shepseskare is not included. This same sequence is found
in strings of titles of tomb owners, and Shepseskare’s name never occurs in them, or in
personal names, or in names of funerary estates.56
Verner wonders why Shepseskara, who is not present in lists of Sahure’s
descendants, is placed between Neferirkare and Neferefre in the Turin Canon. He
suggests that archaeological evidence places Shepseskare after Neferefre. He points to
the fact that the pyramid of Neferefre appears to have been built immediately after that
of Neferirkare.57 But Verner’s suggestion that Shepseskare reigned after Neferefre has to
be ruled out.
As I asserted in chapter 16, the period from Neferefre’s accession in 2750 BCE to
the end of Unas’s reign in 2622 BCE amount to 128 years, being the total for the reigns
of Neferefre (2–3), Niuserre (31), Menkauhor (8), Djedkare Isesi (56), and Unas (30).
These are confirmed by the w3gy date in Neferefre’s reign (based on a lunar and a Sothic
date) and lunar dates in the reigns of Djedkare Isesi, and Unas. There is no possibility of
inserting Shepseskare’s reign after Neferefre into this sequence of kings. Therefore,
Shepseskare must have reigned after the death of Neferirkare, where the king-lists put
him. Verner’s proposal that in the Turin Canon Neferirkare’s place should be moved
from section 3.19 to 3.20 (now section 4.19–4.20) so that Neferirkare can be attributed
the seven years now assigned to Shepseskare58 has no merit. Furthermore, seal
impressions bearing Shepseskare’s name, Horus Sekhemkau, were found in the oldest
part of Neferefre’s mortuary temple at Abusir, built after Neferefre’s death, suggests that
Shepseskare reigned after Neferirkare and before Neferefre.59
It has also been suggested that Shepseskara may have been one of Sahure’s
sons.60 Tarek El Awady hypothesizes that after the death of Neferirkare and before
Neferefre was old enough to become king—he died at the age of about 22 after reigning
2–3 years—Shepseskare ascended the throne for a “short time.”61 The only attestation
for the length of Shepseskare’s reign is the seven years given him in the Turin Canon,
though Verner thinks it is too long, asserting that a pyramid on the northern edge of
Abusir was scarcely begun when it was abandoned. Had it been constructed it would
have been the second largest pyramid at Abusir (after Neferirkare’s). Verner proposed
that Shepseskare was “an ephemeral king whose reign was only short-lived.”62
53
M. Verner, “Who was Shepseskara, and when did he Reign?” Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000,
(eds. M. Barta and J. Krejčí; Archive Oriental Supplement IX. Prague: Oriental Institute of the Czech
Academy of Sciences, 2000) 582-85; idem, “Archaeological Remarks,” 396, 400.
54
Ibid., 590.
55
Ibid., 586.
56
Ibid., 588.
57
58
Ibid., 395.
59
M. Verner, The Pyramids (New York: Grove Press, 2001) 310.
60
Verner, “Who was Shepseskara?” 595-97.
61
El Awady, “Royal Family of Sahura,” 217.
62
The only kings of the 5th Dynasty whose pyramids have not been identified are
those of Shepseskare and Menkauhor, with Shepseskare being the better candidate as
Menkauhor’s pyramid is thought to have been built at Dahshur or at North Saqqara.63
Years for Neferirkare and Shepseskare

Returning now to the number of years to be allocated to Neferirkare and
Shepseskare before the reign of Neferefre began, of the 639 years covered by the Turin
Canon from Menes to Neferefere only 7 years remain unaccounted for.
The Turin Canon gives 7 years to Shepseskare, which means that no further years
can be attributed to Neferirkare beyond the 11 years already assigned to him! To the left
of the Palermo Stone in register five of the annals, Shepseskare has two compartments
with the remaining five on the right of register six before Neferefre’s reign begins. The
fact that the seven years is the exact number required to complete the 639 years, and
there is no other king who might have come between Shepseskare and Neferefre, makes
it almost certain that Shepseskare reigned seven years, regardless of the short reign that
is attributed to him by some archaeologists.
End of Verso
To conclude our discussion on the verso side of the Royal Annals, we note that
Neferefre is allocated two and a half years/compartments in register six, leaving the
remaining two and a half compartments for the beginning of Niuserre’s reign. If the
verso of the annals extended to the same depth as on the recto there would be space for
another three registers, except that there is no titulary band between registers three and
four, and four and five. If registers seven, eight, and nine had 10 compartments each they
would account for 30 years. Niuserre reigned 31 years. This would leave one
compartment unassigned, but if the annals were to end with Niuserre’s reign, it is
feasible that one of the registers had only nine compartments so that the annals finished
with Niuserre’s 31st year at the left edge. However, there is no surviving fragment to
indicate when the annals ended on the verso.
Allocation of Years and Dates from Menes to Shepseskare

It now remains to allocate years to the kings as given in this reconstruction
(Table 21.1) based on the Turin Canon and the Royal Annals beginning with Menes and
ending with Shepseskare.
63
Ibid., 398.
Table 21.1: Royal Annals: Menes to Shepseskare: Compartments, years, and dates
Turin Royal Annals ref. to
No. King Regnal years Date BCE
Canon ref. compartments
Register 1 recto Dyn. 1 starts
1 3.11 30 3389–3359
Not provided Menes
2 3.12 II. 1–25 Aha 24 yr, 6 mo 3359–3334
3 3.13 & 14 II. 26–72 Djer 46 yr, 6 mo 3334–3288
4 3.15 II. 73–88 + III. 1–4 Djet 19 3288–3269
5 3.16 III. 5–48 Den 44 3269–3225
6 3.17 III. 49–55 Anedjib 6 yr, 6 mo 3225–3218
7 3.18 III. 55–65 Semerkhet 8 yr, 6 mo 3218–3210
8 3.19 III. 66–99 Qa’a 36 3210–3174
9 3.20 Dyn. 2 starts:
III. 100–109 + IV.28 Hetepsekhemy 37 3174–3137
10 3.21
& Raneb
11 3.22 IV. 29–74 Ninetjer 44 yr, 6 mo 3137–3099
12 3.23 IV. 74–86 Weneg 12 yr, 6 mo 3099–3080
13 3.24 Sened &
IV. 97–128 + V. 1–6 48 3080–3032
14 3.25 Aaka
15 4.1 V. 7–15 Neferkasokar 8 yr, 3 mo 3032–3024
16 4.2 V. 15–16 “Hudjefa” 1 yr, 9 mo 3024–3022
17 4.3 V. 17–34 Khasekhemwy 17 yr, 2 mo, 23 d 3022–3005
[Nebka deleted
18 4.4
here]
Dyn. 3 starts
19 4.5 V. 34–61 Netjerikhet (Djoser 27 yr, 6? mo 3005–2978
I)
20 4.6 V. 61–67 Sekhemkhet 6 yr, 6? mo 2978–2971
21 4.7 V. 68–76 Nebka (Sanacht) ca. 9 2971–2962
22 4.8 V. 77–100 Huni ca. 24 2962–2938
Dyn. 4 starts
23 4.9 V. 101 + VI. 1–44 +VII. 6 50 2938–2888
Sneferu
24 4.10 VII. 7–31 + VIII. 10 Khufu (Cheops) 35 2888–2853
25 4.11 VIII. 11–18 Djedefre 8 2853–2845
26 4.12 VIII. 19–29 + IX. 1–15 Kaphre 26 2845–2819
27 4.13 IX. 16–17 Bakare 2 2819–2817
28 4.14 IX. 18–28 + verso I. 1–7 Menkaure 18 2817–2799
29 4.15 I. 8–11 Shepseskaf 3½ 2799–2795
30 4.16 I. 11 + II. 1 Djedefptah 1½ 2795–2794
Dyn. 5 starts
31 4.17 II. 2–10 + III. 1–2 11 2794–2783
Userkaf
32 4.18 III. 3–10 + IV. 1–7 Sahure 15 2783–2768
33 4.19 IV. 8–10 + V. 1–8 Neferirkare Kakai 11 2768–2757
34 5.1 V. 9–11 + VI. 1–5 Shepseskare 7 2757–2750
Total 640 compartments64 Total 639 yr, 2 mo, 23 d 3389–2750
Dyn. = Dynasty.
The reconstruction of the annals giving 639 years from Menes to the last year of
Shepseskare in 2750 BCE (shared with Neferefre) dates Menes’ accession to 3389 BCE.
From this date down to Neferirkare of the 8th Dynasty (ending in 2434 BCE), there are
955 years as recorded in the Turin Canon summation total of section 5.16–5.17. The
concurrence of regnal years giving the span of 955 years makes credible the summation
record. This indicates that the original numbers in the Turin Canon and the reign lengths
afforded to the kings in the annals were from an authentic record. Over the course of
time, many of the figures in the Turin Canon were lost or damaged or were corrupted in
64
Aha’s last compartment and Djer’s first compartment are parts of the same year so there is one more
compartment than there are regnal years. Obviously, in very many cases, years are approximate having
been rounded up or down, despite the attempt by some entries in the Turin Canon and of data in the annals
to state reign lengths with absolute precision.
the process of copying or miss-copying, and as a result the figures as now given do not
add up to the 955 years.
What has been recovered from the annals in the existing fragments gives a good
indication that the annals were once a reliable record of the kings’ reigns. The accession
year of Menes set in 3389 BCE may be the earliest date that we can ever credibly assign
to Egyptian historical chronology.
The Early 5th Dynasty

In chapter 16, I discussed the kings from Neferefre of the mid-5th Dynasty to the
end of the 6th Dynasty because the kings of this period could be confirmed by lunar
dates. The same is not true for the kings of the earlier 5th Dynasty for which we have no
lunar-dated events. Instead, their regnal years are reckoned by using the Royal Annals
and contemporary records. The regnal years and dates for Userkaf to Shepseskare are
given at the bottom of Table 21.1 and make up the first half of the 5th Dynasty. The
table for the latter half of the 5th Dynasty can be found in chapter 16, page 236 (Table
16.8).
Comparison with Manetho’s Kings

For comparison, the 5th Dynasty given by Manetho is shown below in Table
21.2. The introduction states that it was composed of eight kings (though nine are given)
who reigned from Elephantine.
However, the “5th Dynasty” kings of the Turin Canon reigned from Memphis.
Because scholars seek to reconcile the dynasties as though they were referring to the
same kings, the following table compares the names and regnal years for the 5th Dynasty
from the Turin Canon and from Manetho.
The versions of Manetho have become confused at the 5th Dynasty with only
Africanus giving a list of kings with regnal years.65 Eusebius and the Armenian record
only two kings: Othoes, the first king, who was killed by his bodyguard, and Phiops the
fourth king who reigned for 94 years from the age of six.66 However, these two kings
have been wrongly recorded for the 5th Dynasty, having been taken from the 6th
Dynasty as given by Africanus. Thus there are no 5th Dynasty kings recorded by
Eusebius or the Armenian. Accordingly, there is only one actual version in Manetho for
the 5th Dynasty, that of Africanus, shown in Table 21.2.
Table 21.2: Comparison of the Turin Canon section 4.17–4.24 with the 5th Dynasty
from Manetho (Africanus)
Turin Canon Manetho
Ref. King Years No. King Years
4.17 Userkaf 7 1 Usercheres 28
4.18 Sahure 15 2 Sephres 13
4.19 Neferirkare Kakai 11 3 Nephercheres 20
4.20 Shepseskare 7 4 Sisires 7
4.21 Neferefre 2½ 5 Cheres 20
4.22 Niuserre 31 6 Rathures 44
4.23 Menkauhor 8 7 Mencheres 9
4.24 Djedkare Isesi 56 8 Tancheres 44
4.25 Unas 30 9 Onnus 33
Total 167½ (rounded to 168) Total 218
The first four kings seem to show some resemblance in their names—those in the
Turin Canon being transliterated from Egyptian and those in Manetho translated into
Greek. Of the remaining five names, only the last, Unas with 30 years, and Onnus with
65
Manetho, 52-55.
66
Ibid., 50-53.
33 years, seem identifiable with each other. Even if it could be argued that some of the
kings were known by alternate names, all the regnal years are different except for
Shepseskare and Sisires who both reigned seven years.
But since the preceding kings in the Turin Canon reigned 33 years and in
Manetho reigned 61 years, the reigns of Shepseskare and Sisires do not coincide. It
seems hardly credible that only one king from Manetho’s list could have had his regnal
years survive intact and all the rest be divergent from the actual as reconstructed above
and in the previous chapters. Furthermore, the Turin Canon totals 168 years and
Manetho totals 218 years. Our previous comparison (chapter 16) of the 6th Dynasty
kings in the Turin Canon and Manetho showed even greater dissimilarity, where only
Pepi II with 90 regnal years (the Turin Canon) is similar to Phiops with 94 years. It is
hard to see how the kings listed in the Turin Canon (and the associated king-lists) and
the annals, can be identified as the same as those listed by Manetho. The Turin Canon
demonstrates its original similarity with the Royal Annals in names and numbers, even if
it has become corrupted and fragmented over the centuries. But the same similarity is not
demonstrated in Manetho’s dynastic lists for the Old Kingdom.
Nevertheless, Manetho is indispensible when compiling the chronology for the
Middle Kingdom, the New Kingdom, and the Third Intermediate Period—as we shall
see.
Chapter 22. Surveying the 9th–11th Dynasties 327
Chapter 22
Surveying the 9th–11th Dynasties

The discussion of the 1st–8th Dynasties in earlier chapters determined the period
from Menes (Turin Canon section 3.11) to Neferirkare (section 5.13) may be confirmed
as 955 years and 10 days (section 5.16–5.17), dated to the years 3389–2434 BCE.
Kings of the Turin Canon Section 5.18–6.10 Representing the 9th and 10th
Dynasties
Following the summation at 5.16–5.17, the Turin Canon continues with another
section of 18 lines representing 18 kings. The summation for this section at 6.10
preserves only the words “Total: 18 kings…” with the remainder lost.1 Following this
there is a heading at 6.11 of which only “Kings of” remains. But it is followed by the
names and some regnal years of the kings of the 11th Dynasty that can be identified as
such from contemporary sources. Egyptologists consider the kings between Neferirkare
at section 5.13 and before the 11th Dynasty with its heading at section 6.11, as kings of
the 9th and 10th Dynasties. The Abydos King-list (AbKL) and the Saqqara Tablet do not
record these kings.
Most Egyptologists recognize the 9th and 10th Dynasty kings, and kings of the
11th Dynasty down to Mentuhotep II (Nehepetre), the fifth of seven kings, as belonging
to the First Intermediate Period.2 During this time, Egypt is understood to have been
divided between competing powers—the kings residing at Herakleopolis and the kings in
Upper Egypt at Thebes. The Thebans conquered the north under the rule of Mentuhotep
II who is credited with the reunification of Egypt.3 This victory defines the end of the
First Intermediate Period.
Scholars attribute the 9th and 10th Dynasties to the 18 kings of the Turin Canon
by appropriation from Manetho’s 9th and 10th Dynasties. However, according to
Africanus, for the 9th Dynasty there were 19 kings of Herakleopolis who reigned for 409
years, but Eusebius and the Armenian have four kings of Herakleopolis who reigned for
only 100 years. It is possible that Manetho originally had 109 years for four kings,
which, in the version of Africanus, has been corrupted to 409 kings, and then the four
kings changed to 19 appropriated from the next dynasty (Manetho’s 10th Dynasty), to
take into account this expanded number. The 100 years given to the 9th Dynasty by the
Eusebius version and the Armenian version may have been corrupted from an original
109 years. The only king mentioned in all three versions is the first, King Achthoes, who
is described as being crueler than all his ancestors, went mad, and was eaten by a
crocodile.4 His regnal years are not stated.
1
K. Ryholt, “The Turin King-List or So-called Turin Canon (TC) as a Source for Chronology,” Ancient
Egyptian Chronology (eds. E. Hornung, R. Krauss, and D.A. Warburton; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006)
29.
2
S.J. Seidlmayer, “First Intermediate Period,” AEC (2006) 159.
3
Ibid., 159.
4
Manetho, 60-63.
For the 10th Dynasty, all three versions of Manetho have 19 kings who reigned
for 185 years, which, when added to 109 years for the 9th Dynasty allocates 294 years to
the 23 kings. The Turin Canon with 18 lines for 18 kings does not indicate two separate
dynasties covering 294 years. In order to explain the disparity between the Turin
Canon’s 18 kings and Manetho’s 23 kings, Jaromír Malek has hypothesized that the first
four kings became separated from the main group of the Turin Canon due to
misunderstandings when the original was copied. The 19 kings stated by Africanus for
the 9th Dynasty is said to be a duplication of the 19 kings stated for the 10th Dynasty. 5
The discrepancy of an extra king is explained by Seidlmayer as a possible omission of
the last king who was supposedly not legitimate and removed from power when the
Thebans triumphed over the Herakleopolitans.6 Since the alleged textual corruption
caused the one dynasty to become two, Seidlmayer suggests that the Herakleopolitan
rule be recognized as having had only one phase, not an earlier and later phase.7
If Manetho is not referring to the same kings as in the Turin Canon, the disparity
does not exist and textual corruption need not be hypothesized.
The 9th and 10th Dynasties?

In the 18 lines of the Turin Canon from section 5.18–6.9, only seven names are
represented. The names or partial names are:
5.18 (lost)
5.19 (lost)
5.20 Neferkare
5.21 Kheti
5.22 Seneh[…]
5.23 (lost)
5.24 Mer[ibre]
5.25 Shed[…]
5.26 H[…]
The lines in section 6.1–6.9 are from a new column and have neither names nor
regnal years for the kings and only the word “months” appears in line 6.1 and the
aforementioned total of 18 kings at line 6.10.
The House of Kheti

Egyptologists identify Achthoes/Ochthosis of Manetho’s 9th Dynasty, the first
ruler and only king named by Manetho, with a king known from contemporary sources
as Wakhare Kheti, who is designated Kheti I, assumed to be the name of the missing
king at section 5.18.
Then another Kheti, known as Wankare Kheti, is presumed to be the former’s
grandson, Kheti II, the Kheti at section 5.21. Meribre at section 5.24 is also known as
Kheti8 either III or IV depending on whether there was a Khety at section 5.23.
Seidlmayer notes that the Herakleopolitan kingdom was referred to as pr Hty “the
house of Khety” in contemporary sources.9 He suggests that Neferkare (section 5.20)
could be identical with a k3-nfr-Rc found “on a label in the tomb of cAnkhtifi at
5
J. Malek, “The Original Version of the Royal Canon of Turin,” JEA 68 (1982) 105; amplified by
Seidlmayer, “First Intermediate Period,” 164.
6
7
Ibid., 164.
8
“Kheti,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kheti
9
Seidlmayer, “First Intermediate Period,” 164, 166.
Moalla.”10 He also proposes that the last king of the dynasty may be a Merykare who is
known from texts associated with the “final phase of the Theban–Herakleopolitan war in
Siut tomb IV and whose pyramid complex at Saqqara is attested in the titles of funerary
priests.”11
The contemporary sources indicate that the surviving names in the Turin Canon
accord well with a Herakleopolitan dynasty. However, the identity of Manetho’s
Achthoes, also from Herakelopolis, with the missing name at section 5.18, presumed to
be Kheti I, is not confirmed. Moreover, Malek’s reduction of Manetho’s 9th and 10th
Dynasties to just one dynasty of 19 kings in order to reconcile Manetho’s record with the
Turin Canon’s 18 kings is mere speculation when there are two different dynasty
lengths, possibly 109 years for the 9th and 185 for the 10th, amounting to 294 years.
If the Turin Canon is not recording the same kings as Manetho, then there can be
no agreement of dynasty names or numbers. Seidlmayer writes that if Manetho’s data is
disregarded “there are no other sources available for fixing the length of Herakleopolitan
rule before Dyn. 11.”12 How long then did the period from section 5.18 to section 6.9 of
the Turin Canon last; that is, from the end of the (so-called) 8th Dynasty to the beginning
of the 11th Dynasty?
The total regnal years of the Turin Canon’s 18 kings can be determined if the
date for the beginning of the 11th Dynasty is subtracted from the date of 2434 BCE at
the end of the 8th Dynasty. We now seek to determine the date for the beginning of the
11th Dynasty; that is, the kings beginning with a damaged heading at section 6.11, and
we need to discuss the 11th Dynasty in order to do so.

Unlike the period from Menes down to the end of the summation at Turin Canon
section 6.10, which, as I have concluded, gives a different line of kings from those in
Manetho for Dynasties 1 to 10, the 11th and 12th Dynasties record the same kings as
those of the Turin Canon from section 6.12 (Mentuhotep I) to section 7.2 (Queen
Sobeknofru).
In the Turin Canon, the years for the kings of the 11th Dynasty are partially
recorded followed by a summation line at section 6.18 which contains “[...] 6 kings,
making [...] years [...] [wsf = erased] 7, total 143.” Manetho’s equivalent summation of
the 11th Dynasty is brief. Africanus writes, “The Eleventh Dynasty consisted of sixteen
kings of Diospolis who reigned for 43 years. In succession to these Ammenemes ruled
for 16 years. Here ends the First Book of Manetho. Total for the reigns of 192 kings,
2300 years.”13 The Eusebius version and the Armenian version are similarly worded. It is
apparent that the 6 kings have become 16, and the 143 years is now 43 years.
It should be noted that Ammenemes is included in succession to, not as part of,
the 11th Dynasty. This is important because it infers he reigned between the 11th and
12th Dynasties, but only his 16 regnal years are recorded here.
Book II of Manetho begins with the 12th Dynasty and does not include the
mention of Ammenemes. However, a list of seven kings is given; the first king being
“Sesonchosis, son of Ammenemes,” which leads scholars to identify Ammenemes
referred to in Book I as the first king of the 12th Dynasty. In the Turin Canon (section
6.20) a Sehetepibre is understood to be Amenemhet I, presumably the same as
Ammenemes because he comes after Mentuhotep IV, the last king of the 11th Dynasty,
10
Ibid., 165; citing J. Vandier, Mocalla (Cairo: BdE 18, 1950) 36. Moalla is 30 km south of Thebes.
11
12
Ibid., 166.
13
Manetho, 65.
and before Kheperkare, otherwise Sesostris I. On this identification, Sesostris I

(Sesonchosis in Manetho) becomes the second king of the 12th Dynasty.
Manetho’s brief statement of the 11th Dynasty can be supplemented by the Turin
Canon, represented in the table below, which integrates the available data. Only two
partial names have survived in the Turin Canon at section 6.12–6.17. Fortunately, the
kings have been identified from contemporary sources, and their names have been added
to the list below. The Karnak King-list from the “Chamber of Ancestors” in the Festival
Hall of Thutmose III has five lines at the beginning of its second row that refer to kings
of the 11th Dynasty. In reverse order, the first name is Intef (no. 13), the second is
Men[…] (no. 12), the third is In[…] (no. 11), the fourth is Intef. The fifth name is
destroyed.14 It is not clear which of the names are represented by those in Table 22.1
since the order is different and not all kings are present. The Saqqara Tablet has only two
names identified with kings of the 11th Dynasty: Nehepetre, known as Mentuhotep II
(no. 46) and Seankhare, known as Mentuhotep III (no. 45).
Table 22.1: Kings of the 11th Dynasty
Ref. Turin King Turin Ref. Saqqara Saqqara Known as Regnal years, Turin Canon
Canon Canon 6.11–6.18 Tablet Tablet
6.11 Heading The kings
6.12 Wah[…] Mentuhotep I lost
6.13 lost Intef I lost
6.14 lost Intef II 49
6.15 lost Intef III 8
6.16 lost no. 46 Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II 51
6.17 Sankhka[re] no. 45 Seankhkare Mentuhotep III 12
6 kings, making […] years
6.18 Summation
[…] [erased] 7, total 143
Mentuhotep I and Intef I

The first king of the 11th Dynasty has been identified as Mentuhotep I (or
Montuhotep) a local Egyptian prince (nomarch) of Thebes. He was the father of Intef I15
also known as Antef or Inyotef. Intef I is credited with gaining control of Coptos,
Dendera, and three of the nomes (territorial areas) of Hierakonpolis (in the south) by the
end of his reign. He was succeeded by Intef II, who was possibly his brother.16
The regnal years for Mentuhotep I and Intef I in the Turin Canon have been lost
due to damage, but their combined reigns can be allocated by subtracting the known
reign lengths, as discussed below, from the total of 143 years given in the summation at
section 6.18. That gives 16 years between them.
Intef II
Intef II is attributed 49 years in the Turin Canon (section 6.15). His throne name
was Wahankh. Intef II expanded his domain from the First Cataract south, possibly by
his 30th year, judging by a sed-festival robe found at Elephantine, and to Abydos in the
north held by the nomarchs of Herakleopolis. The stele of Djary, a military officer under
Intef II, recounts that, “Intef fought the house of Khety to the north of Thinis.”17
Intef III
Intef II was succeeded by his son, Intef III. The relationship is confirmed by the
stela of Tjeti, chief treasurer during the reigns of Intef II and III, which records the
14
“Karnak king list,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnak_king_list
15
“Mentuhotep I,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentuhotep_I
16
“Intef I,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intef_I
17
“Intef II,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intef_II
accession of Intef III, the son of Intef II, upon the latter’s death.18 During his reign Intef
III defended the territory won by Intef II. 19 The Turin Canon attributes to him eight years
(section 6.15).
Intef III married Iah, thought to be his sister, and they became parents of
Mentuhotep II.20 The parentage is confirmed by the stele of his chief steward, Henenu,
(Cairo 36346) and by a relief at Shatt er-Rigal.21
Mentuhotep II
Mentuhotep II’s throne name was Nebhetepre. The Turin Canon credits
Mentuhotep II with 51 years (section 6.16). Egyptologists place Mentuhotep II as the
first king of the Middle Kingdom within the 11th Dynasty. In his 14th year, Mentuhotep
II crushed a revolt at Abydos, driving the Hierakleopolitan forces north, which
eventually led to his rule over both Upper and Lower Egypt. 22 Thus, he is famous as the
king who reunited Egypt.
Dating Mentuhotep II’s reign

The possibility of dating Mentuhotep II’s reign comes from an inscription on a
coffin (T3C) belonging to Princess Ashyat found in Mentuhotep II’s mortuary temple
complex at Deir El Bahri in 1920. A star clock on the coffin records a heliacal rising of
Sothis on II prt 21.23 Because the star clock precedes the death of the princess, its date is
attributable to the reign of Mentuhotep II, but a regnal year is not given. Assuming that
the observation of the heliacal rising of Sirius was viewed from Thebes (in the vicinity
the coffin was found), we can calculate the date of the rising from the beginning of a
Sothic cycle that commenced ca. 2870 at Thebes. II prt 21 is 171 days from I 3ḫt 1,
which amounts to 684 years from the cycle’s inception, bringing the date to 2186 BCE
(see Casperson’s table, Table 22.2).
Table 22.2: Sothic date in the reign of Mentuhotep II (rising of Sothis from −2185)
Thebes; Lat. 25.7, Long. 32.6; visibility coefficients: c1 = 11.5, c2 = 0.008
−2185 5 29 −2185 5 11 596 4 8 5 19:32 5:26 460 5:26 149 5:25 40
−2185 6 28 −2185 6 10 596 5 8 7 2:47 5:13 229 5:13 95 5:12 −4
−2185 7 27 −2185 7 9 596 6 7 1 10:35 5:12 283 5:12 149 5:12 37
Converting this table to Sothic risings recorded in Upper Egypt, the date of I prt
8 equates to II prt 8; that is, June 28. Therefore, II prt 21 fell 13 days later on July 11 in
−2185 to −2182. Using an altitude of 3 degrees the HELIAC Program sets the date on
11, 12 or 13 July in these years. So the date of II prt 21 falls on the day of a heliacal
rising of Sothis as the tomb inscription states. Between 2259 and 2186 BCE, there are 73
years. The years for Mentuhotep I and Intef I combined are 16, dated to 2259–2243
BCE, followed by Intef II with 49 years, 2243–2194; and Intef III with 8 years, 2194–
18
“Intef III,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intef_III
19
Ibid.
20
S.J. Seidlmayer, “First Intermediate Period (c.2160–2055 BC),” Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (ed. I.
Shaw, OUP, 2003 chap. 6, pp.108-136) 125; “Intef III,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intef_III
21
“Mentuhotep II,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentuhotep_II; J. Dunn, “Mentuhotep II, First Ruler of
the Middle Kingdom,” http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/mentuhotep2.htm
22
Ibid.; Seidlmayer, “First Intermediate Period (c.2160–2055 BC),” 125-26.
23
R. Krauss, “Egyptian Sirius/Sothis Dates, and the Question of the Sothis-based Lunar Calendar,” AEC
(2006) 447, and see articles cited there.
2186, which amount to the same 73 years. Thus, the Sothic date was recorded in
Mentuhotep II’s first regnal year in 2186 BCE.
Mentuhotep III
Mentuhotep II was succeeded by his son Mentuhotep III, whose birth name was
Sankhkare,24 which appears in the Turin Canon at section 6.19, where he is attributed 12
years. Since his father had a long reign, Mentuhotep III was probably quite old when he
became king. He is particularly known for an expedition to Punt in his eighth year. 25 He
reigned from 2135–2123 BCE.
Mentuhotep IV
The Turin Canon closes the section for the 11th Dynasty kings with a summation
at section 6.18, but another king, Nebtawyre Mentuhotep, is known from contemporary
sources as the last king of the 11th Dynasty. He is presumed to be the son of Mentuhotep
III. Mentuhotep IV is absent from king-lists, but inscriptions from Wadi Hammamat
record his expeditions to the Red Sea to quarry stones for his monuments.26 Despite
Mentuhotep IV’s absence in the Turin Canon, the summation refers to an wsf “lost or
erased” seven years as part of the total of 143 years for the dynasty and it is understood
by Egyptologists that these apply to Mentuhotep IV. His reign can be dated to 2123–
2116 BCE.
Summation for the 11th Dynasty

The Turin Canon gives 143 years (section 6.18) to the 11th Dynasty. The years as
given for five of the seven kings account for 127 years. The remainder of 16 years has
been allocated jointly to the first two kings, Mentuhotep I and Intef I, as given above.
Manetho’s versions, which give 16 kings for 43 years, is understood to be an error of 6
kings for 143 years. The wsf or missing king was presumably not counted in the number
of kings as there ought to be seven kings not six. The seven kings add up to 143 years
and date to 2259–2116 BCE.
Period Covered by the 18 Kings

Having resolved the date of 2259 BCE for the beginning of the 11th Dynasty and
the end of the 8th Dynasty in 2434 BCE, the period of the 18 kings in the Turin Canon at
section 5.18–6.9 amounts to 175 years. It is not possible to give a table for these kings
because of the missing names and regnal years in the Turin Canon.
Before concluding the discussion of the 11th Dynasty, we need to resolve the
years to be attributed to Ammenemes.
Ammenemes
The 143 years of the Turin Canon at the closure of the 11th Dynasty does not
include the 16 years that Manetho credited to Ammenemes after the end of the 11th
Dynasty.27 Where then should Ammenemes and his 16 years be placed?
Manetho does not begin the 12th Dynasty with a king Ammenemes but with
Senonchosis, that is, Sesostris I, but he describes him as the “son of Ammenemes.” Thus,
the Ammenemes at the end of the 11th Dynasty is probably the father of Sesostris I.
Furthermore, in this position, between the last king of the 11th Dynasty, Mentuhotep IV,
and Sesostris I (Kheperkare in the Turin Canon section 5.21) there is a Sehetepibre,
24
“Mentuhotep III,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentuhotep_III
25
Ibid.
26
“Mentuhotep IV,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentuhotep_IV
27
Manetho, 62-65.
otherwise known as Amenemhet I. The Turin Canon assigns to Amenemhet I [x]9 years
(section 6.20),28 which can be restored to 29, the number of years now credited to
Amenemhet I by Egyptologists.29
If Ammenemes is actually the same person as Amenemhet I, how long did he
reign? Are the 16 years attributed to him by Manetho part of the 29 years attributed to
him as Amenemhet I by the Turin Canon? Or are they two distinct but consecutive
periods?
Applying Sothic Dates

The time-span between the end of the 11th Dynasty in 2116 BCE and a Sothic
date in the reign of Sesostris I can be consulted to see how many years fit into this period
and whether it conforms to 16 years, or 29 years, or some other number.
Pre-empting our later discussion in chapter 24 of the date for Sesostris I’s fifth
year found in the Hekanakhte Letters, Sesostris I’s fifth year can be dated by a Sothic
rising to 2075 BCE, making his first year 2079 BCE. Between 2116 and 2079 BCE are
36 years. This means that the 16 years of Ammenemes followed by 20 of the 29 years of
Amenemhet I are needed to fill the space between Mentuhotep IV’s last year and
Sesostris I’s first year. It is probable that after Ammenemes ruled for 16 years, he was
raised to the status of king and began the 12th Dynasty reigning for a further 29 years—
the last nine being co-regent with his son Sesostris I. This is the view of most
Egyptologists.30 It will be determined in our next chapter that the first six kings of the
12th Dynasty had co-regencies.
The Turin Canon records 143 years for the 11th Dynasty. With the addition of the
16 years to be credited to Ammenemes, there are about 159 years to be attributed to the
chronology: the years 2259–2100 BCE. However, in discussing the 12th Dynasty in the
next chapter, Sesostris I’s fifth year is dated to 2075 BCE making his first year in 2079
BCE. With the prior 20 years for Amenemhet I, the 12th Dynasty began in 2099 BCE
not 2100 BCE. The one-year discrepancy is probably because no months and days have
been added to the 143 years, which is a rounded figure, as are the reign lengths of the
individual kings. Assuming that the 143 years should have added months and days, the
final date for Ammenemes as the successor to Mentuhotep IV can be dated 2116/2115–
2099 BCE. Altogether, the 11th Dynasty lasted 160 years as shown in Table 22.3 on the
following page. Its final date of 2099 BCE concurs with the commencing date of the
12th Dynasty.
28
The number 9 is assumed on the presence of a tip of the hieratic at the left edge of fragment 64
(Gardiner, Royal Canon, 16).
29
Based on an inscription found at Korosko referring to Amenemhet’s 29th year. M. Bunson, “Korosko,”
Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (Revised Edition; New York: Facts On File, 2002). See
http://ancient_egypt.enacademic.com/108/Ammenemes_I
30
See, e.g., J. Dunn, “Amenemhet I, 1st King of the 12th Dynasty,”
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenemhet1.htm
Table 22.3: 11th Dynasty = Turin Canon section 6.11–6.18

Turin Canon ref. King Years Dates BCE Sothic date
6.11 The Heading
6.12 and 6.13 Mentuhotep & Intef I 16 2259–2243
6.14 Intef II 49 2243–2194
6.15 Intef III 8 2194–2186
II prt 21 seen at Thebes in
6.16 Mentuhotep II 51 2186–2135
Mentuhotep II’s first yr in 2186
6.17 Mentuhotep III 12 2135–2123
[6.18 lost] Mentuhotep IV 7 2123–2116
Total 143 yr + x mo
2116/2115–
Manetho: Dyn. 11. Ammenemes 16
2099
Total 160 yrs 2259–2099
Chapter 23. Establishing the 12th Dynasty 335
Chapter 23
Establishing the 12th Dynasty

In addition to the date of 2099 BCE for the accession of Amenemhet I and the
accession of his son Sesostris I in 2079 as discussed in chapter 22, chapters 11 to 13
undertook a study of 12th Dynasty feasts. These feasts were set on lunar days dated to
the civil calendar in the reigns of Sesostris III and Amenemhet III. A Sothic rising was
predicted for IV prt 16 in Sesostris III’s seventh year and it fell in 1980 at Illahun. This
was confirmed by new moon dates in Sesostris III’s sixth and eighth years, consistent
with further lunar dates in his reign and that of his son Amenemhet III.
Based on the previous study of Sothic and lunar dates, Sesostris III’s accession
took place in the year 1986 BCE, and his son, Amenemhet III, became his co-regent 19
years later in 1967. Therefore, the years of sole reign attributed to the 12th Dynasty
kings must be consistent with these accession dates. Between Sesostris I and Sesostris III
only Amenemhet II (Turin Canon section 6.22) and Sesostris II (section 6.23) remain to
be allocated regnal years and dates. These fixed dates are stated in Table 23.1, which
will also assist comprehension of repeated names and successive relationships involved.
Table 23.1: 12th Dynasty kings with Sothic & Lunar references.
Co-regent Years of Dates BCE
Kings Total reign Sothic and lunar dates
period sole reign (sole reign)
Amenemhet I 29 yr, 2 mo, 7d 9 yr, 2 mo, 7 d 20 2099–2079
Yr 5 Sothic rising on III
Sesostris I 45 yr, [x] mo 4 yr 42 2079–2037
prt 20 in 2079
Amenemhet II
Sesostris II
Yr 7 Sothic rising on IV
prt 16 in 1980;
Sesostris III 39 yr, [x] mo 20 yr 19 1986–1967
Lunar dates from years
5–18
Lunar dates from years
Amenemhet III 48 yr, [x] mo 1 yr 47 1967–1920
1–38
x = an uncertain number
Between Sesostris I and Sesostris III only Amenemhet II (Turin Canon section
6.22) and Sesostris II (section 6.23) remain to be allocated regnal years and dates.
Other References to 12th Dynasty Kings

In the Turin Canon, the kings’ names and regnal years are only partly preserved,
but are supplemented by the records from Manetho and contemporary sources. Unlike
the preceding 1st–8th Dynasties in Manetho, which do not correspond to the names and
years of the kings in the Turin Canon, Manetho’s 12th Dynasty kings are evidently the
same as listed in the Turin Canon (section 6.20–7.3), recognizable primarily by their
reign lengths. The Turin Canon starts the 12th Dynasty with a heading at section 6.19 of
which only “[Kings of] the residence of ’It –t3wy” (Itj-tawi) remains.1 The regnal years
1
originally included the months and days of the final year, but these survive only for a
new section in the canon (section 7) for the last two rulers, Amenemhet IV (section 7.1)
and (Queen) Sobeknefru (section 7.2), and in the summation (section 7.3).
The names now recognized by scholars for these kings are given in the first
column of Table 23.2. Sesostris is also known as Senwosret or similar. I have alluded to
a co-regency between Amenemhet I/Ammenemes and his son Sesostris I. Most
Egyptologists recognize that co-regencies were a feature of this dynasty.
Table 23.2: 12th Dynasty kings reported in Manetho and the Turin Canon
Recognized names Manetho’s Africanus, Turin Turin Canon’s Turin Canon
for the kings names Eusebius (Eus.) Canon names for the kings’ years
(prenomen and for the kings & the Armenian ref. kings
nomen) (Arm.) kings’
years
Sehetepibre
missing missing 6.20 [Sehet]p-ib-[re] [x]9
Amenemhet I
Kheperkare
Sesonchosis 46 6.21 [Kheper]-ka-[re] 45 +
Sesostris I
Nubkaure 1 or 10 + ;
Ammenemes 38 6.22 lost
Amenemhet II [30 +]
Khakheperre
Sesostris 48 6.23 lost 1[9] +
Sesostris II
Khakhaure Lachares
8 6.24 lost 30 +
Sesostris III (or Lamares)
Nimaatre Eus. &
Ameres 8 6.25 lost 40 +
Amenemhet III Arm. = 42
Maakherure yrs for the
Ammenemes 8 7.1 Maakherure 9 yr, 3 mo, 27 d
Amenemhet IV last 3
Sobekkare Scemiophris kings
4 7.2 Sobek]nef[ru]-re 3 yr, 10 mo, 24 d
Sobeknefru “his sister”
245 yrs,
Total 160 actual 7.3 Summation 213 yr, 1 mo, 17 d
182
Actual total 206 yr, 1 mo, 17 d
(incl. 30 for
Amenemhet II)
Regnal Years of the Kings of the 12th Dynasty

Discussion of the individual reigns for each king will determine the sole-reign
years and the co-regent years, taking into account the predetermined dates for Sesostris I,
Sesostris III, and Amenemhet III.
Amenemhet I (Sehetepibre)
The first king of the 12th Dynasty was Amenemhet I, mentioned in the Turin
Canon by his throne name Sehetepibre (section 6.20) who was probably the
Ammenemes who succeeded the 11th Dynasty before the beginning of the 12th Dynasty
referred to in Manetho, as noted in the previous chapter.
Amenemhet I is not mentioned by Manetho apart from saying that Sesostris I was
the son of Ammenemes. The earlier chronology demonstrated that the 16(+) years of
Ammenemes and the 20 sole-reign years of Amenemhet I were both necessary to fill the
period between Mentuhotep IV whose last year fell in 2116 BCE and Sesostris I whose
first year was 2079. Amenemhet I is given a damaged [x]9 years in the Turin Canon
(section 6.20) based on the trace of a hieratic nine. This indicates that Amenemhet I
reigned 29 years altogether and had a nine-year co-regency with his son, Sesostris I.
The Co-regency Debate Regarding Amenemhet I and Sesostris I

Earlier objections to the kings having co-regent years, argued by scholars such as
C. Obsomer, R.D. Delia, and W. Helck, have now been overcome by evidence
supporting co-regencies from various sources.2 Regarding a co-regency between
Amenemhet I and Sesostris I, the Cairo stela CG 20516 (also known as the stela of Intef
or Antef or In-yotef) records in its top two lines on its left side a Year 30 of Amenemhet
I and on its right side a Year 10 for Sesostris I.3 This is consistent with Amenemhet I
having a sole reign of 20 years and his death in his 10th co-regent year, giving to him 29
full regnal years.
The stela of Nesu-Montu or Nesmont also known as Louvre C1, has a damaged
dateline. Murnane translates: “Regnal year […]4 … under the Majesty of the Horus
‘Repeater of Births’… Amenemhet (I) … (and) the Horus ‘Living of Births’ …
Senwosret (I), living forever like Re.”4 From this inscription, it appears that a regnal year
of Amenemhet I ending in “four” corresponds to an undesignated year of Sesostris I.5 If
the damaged number is read as 24 and the length of Amenemhet I’s reign is 29 years
plus months and days as given by the Turin Canon, and the co-regency started in
Amenemhet I’s 20th year as inferred from the Cairo stela 20516, then Sesostris I is
already in his fourth or fifth year of co-regency with his father.
Karl Jansen-Winkeln points out that the stela gives one date for two kings, which
he sees as evidence for a co-regency.6 Jansen-Winkeln also cites a door lintel from
Heliopolis, which has four lines giving the throne and proper names of Amenemhet I and
Sesostris I on either side. Since door lintels are ascribed to living kings, it follows that
both kings must have been alive and, therefore, co-regents.7
A co-regency between Amenemhet I and Sesostris I is inferred from three graffiti
from rock inscriptions at Wadi el-Girgawi (Lower Nubia). One graffito, RILN 64,8 dates
to the 29th year of an unnamed king and the other two, RILN 59 and RILN 65 date to a
ninth year of a king also not named. Detlef Franke proposed that because these belonged
to three brothers who participated in a field campaign led by Sesostris I they refer to a
co-regency between Amenemhet I and Sesostris I due to the relative proximity of the
rocks and the regnal years given. The 29th year is now dated to Amenemhet I and the
ninth year to Sesostris I.9
“Control notes” of Sesostris I’s pyramid at el-Lisht indicate that the funerary
temple of Sesostris I was not begun before his tenth year. This infers that Amenemhet I’s
2
T. Schneider, “Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period,” Ancient Egyptian Chronology
(eds. E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D.A. Warburton; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006) 170-71.
3
W. Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Co-regencies (SAOC 40; Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago, 1977) published at http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/saoc40.pdf; idem, “In Defense of the Middle
Kingdom Double Dates,” BES 3 (1981) 76-77; Schneider, “Middle Kingdom,” 171. For objection see R.D.
Delia, “A New Look at some Old Dates: A Reexamintion of Twelfth Dynasty Double Dated Inscriptions,”
BES 1 (1979) 15-16; idem, “Doubts about Double Dates and Co-regencies,” BES 4 (1982) 55-56, photo of
stela taken by James Romano of The Brooklyn Museum, p. 69.
4
Murnane, “Defense of,” 81; see also idem, Ancient Egyptian Co-regencies, 2.
5
See, e.g., W.K. Simpson, “The Single-Dated Monuments of Sesostris I: An Aspect of the Institution of
Co-regency in the Twelfth Dynasty,” JNES 15 (1956),” 215; Murnane, “Defense of,” 80-81; Delia,
“Doubts About,” 61-62; K. Jansen-Winkeln, “Zu den Koregenzen der 12. Dynastie,” SAK 24 (1997) 123-
25.
6
Jansen-Winkeln, “Zu den Koregenzen,” 122-25.
7
Ibid., 125.
8
RILN = Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia.
9
D. Franke, “Zur Chronologie des Mittleren Reiches (12.-18. Dynastie) Teil 1: Die 12. Dynastie,”
Orientalia 57 (1988) 116, citing, Zb. Žába, The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia. Czechoslovak
Concession (Prag 1974). Delia objects to the co-regency on the grounds that the proximity of the rocks to
each other “does not prove their creation in the same year. Rock inscriptions made elsewhere at different
times were often placed side by side.” (“Doubts about Double Dates,” 62-64).
tomb had not yet been finished and that he was still alive, and shows that the two kings
were co-regents.10 Jimmy Dunn writes, “Egyptologists who believe Amenemhet I may
have waited until his twentieth year to make the move to his new city, base their
evidence on an inscription found on the foundation blocks of the pyramid’s mortuary
temple. It records Amenemhet’s royal jubilee, and also that year one of a new king had
elapsed, suggesting that the pyramid was started very late in the king’s reign.”11
A statue of the king in the Egyptian Museum (Cairo J. d’E. 60520) has a text on
its left side that refers to Amenemhet I and his “first occasion of the Sed Festival.”12 This
infers the king’s 30th year. It is reported in the Instructions of Amenemhet for his son
Sesostris that Amememhet I was assassinated in a conspiracy by his guards while
Sesostris I was campaigning in Libya. The Story of Sinuhe records Amenemhet I’s
ascent to the horizon (death) in Year 30, III 3ḫt 7.13 The date of his death indicates that
his accession 30 years previously began before III 3ḫt 7. If Sesostris I became co-regent
on I 3ḫt 1, as seems to have been the practice in the 12th Dynasty, then he reigned only
two months and seven days of his 30th year; thus a 29-year reign.
Gardiner noted a problem in the Berlin Leather Roll, which states that in the third
year of Sesostris I on III 3ḫt 8 Sesostris I discussed a plan with his counselors for the
building of a huge temple to the god Ḥarakhti in Heliopolis. The date comes on the day
after the third anniversary of the death of Amenemhet I.14 Gardiner notes that if Sesostris
I had a co-regency beginning in the 20th year of Amenemhet, then the third year after the
death of Amenemhet I ought to be designated the 13th year of Sesostris I.
The options to resolve this are: either there was no co-regency; or the number
should be 13 not 3; or Sesostris I is dating from the death of his father though having
been in a nine-year co-regency with him.
From the evidence for a co-regency, the first option can be dismissed, and an
emendation is not necessary if the last option is adopted.15 Amenemhet I should be
attributed 20 years as sole ruler, plus nine years, two months, and seven days as co-
regent with his son before he died. The nine co-regent years are attributed to Sesostris I
as the first years of his reign—the younger ruler taking over the main responsibilities
from the older king.16 Amenemhet I can be attributed the years 2099–2079 BCE.
Sesostris I (Kheperkare) (also known as Senusret I or Senwosret I)

The Turin Canon gives to Kheperkare (the throne name of Sesostris I) 45 years
(section 6.20). In fragment 20 of the Turin Canon, the positioning of the five digit
strokes of the 45 years, three on the top line and two on the bottom offset from the three
10
Schneider, “Middle Kingdom,” 171, citing, F. Arnold, The Control Notes and Team Marks (New York:
PMMA 23, 1991) 19ff, 30ff; Jansen-Winkeln, “Zu den Koregenzen,” 125-26.
11
“Amenemhet I, 1st King of the 12th Dynasty,” at
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenemhet1.htm
12
W.K. Simpson, “Studies in the Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty: I-II,” JARCE 2 (1963) 60; A.H. Gardiner,
Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961) 130-31.
13
Simpson, “Studies in the Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty,” 60.
14
A.H. Gardiner, “The Accession Day of Sesostris I,” JEA 32 (1946) 100. See also Murnane, Ancient
Egyptian Co-regencies, 3; W. Barta, “Thronbesteigung und Krönungsfeier als untershiedliche Zeugnisse
Königlicher Herrschaftsübernahme,” SAK 8 (1980) 35 and n. 15.
15
Jansen-Winkeln understands that Sesostris I’s third year was reckoned from the beginning of his sole
reign after the death of his father to make clear that he took responsibility for the new temple (“Zu den
Koregenzen,” 127-28). Note also that Sesostris III’s pyramid dates to a 39th year of the king, indicating
that the older king’s regnal years could be used to apply to his building projects. (See the section on
Sesostris III below).
16
Simpson, “The Single-Dated Monuments,” 214-19.
above, show that there was not a 46th year.17 Murnane writes, “A clear ‘forty-five years’
for Sesostris I is followed by the tips of two signs that formed part of the word for
‘month’ (pl. II. col. V). Sesostris I thus ruled a full forty-five regnal years plus a fraction,
and died in his forty-sixth year.”18 Manetho, in all three versions, attributes to Sesostris I
46 years, which is consistent with the 45 years plus months of the Turin Canon.19
The fifth year of Sesostris I is dated to 1075 BCE on the basis of a Sothic rising
date derived from a calendar in the Letters of Hekanakhte, which I discuss further in
chapter 24.
The stela of Wepawetō (Stela Leiden V 4) displays in one long cartouche in the
moulding at the top of the stela the names of Sesostris I on its right side and Amenemhet
II on its left. Below the panel, inscribed vertically, appear “Year 44” on the right, and
“Year two” on the left.20 This is thought by many scholars to indicate a co-regency.21 If
Amenemhet II became co-regent in Sesostris I’s 43rd year as suggested by the stela, he
reigned 42 years followed by a co-regency with Amenemhet II, which lasted about four
years till Sesostris I died in his 46th year. The four co-regent years are attributed to
Amenemhet II. Therefore, for the first nine years of his official reign, Sesostris I was co-
regent with his father, Amenemhet I.
After Amenemhet I died, Sesostris I reigned a further 33 years as the sole king
before Amenemhet II became his co-regent in his 43rd year. Sesostris I contributed a
reign of 42 years to the overall length of the 12th Dynasty, the years 2079–2037 BCE.
Amenemhet II (Nubkaure)
Manetho attributes to Amememhet II a reign of 38 years.22 The damaged
fragment of the Turin Canon (of which only one stroke remains) allows him a possible
10 years with a following digit number, and months and days now lost (section 6.22).
However, it is assumed that the original number could have had 30 years plus months
and days because of the figure given in Manetho, and the total regnal years given in the
summation requires these years to be included.
Annals from the reign of Amenemhet II describe his long reign involving
military campaigns, trading expeditions in the Mediterranean area and Mesopotamia,
donations to temples, lists of statues and buildings, and hunting activities,23 so it is quite
possible that he reigned 38 years.
A co-regency of Amenemhet II with his son Sesostris II appears to be indicated
in the inscription on the stela of Hapu from Elephantine. It records Hapu’s inspection of
the fortresses in Wawat (Nubia) in regnal year three of Sesostris II “corresponding to”
(ḫft) the regnal year 35 of Amenemhet II.24 This appears to indicate that a co-regency
began in Amenemhet II’s 33rd year, giving him 32 official years. If he reigned 38 years,
17
Gardiner, Turin Canon, pl. 2 col. 5, line 21.
18
Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Co-regencies, 5 n. 20.
19
Manetho, 66-71.
20
Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Co-regencies, 5; idem “Defense of,” 76-77. Delia opposes this as an
example of a co-regency, “New Look,” 16, 28 Figure 2; idem, “Doubts About,” 56-58.
21
J. von Beckerath, “Die Chronologie der XII. Dynastie und das Problem der Behandlung gleichzeitiger
Regierungen in der ägyptischen Überlieferung,” SAK 4 (1976) 45; idem, “Nochmals zur Chronologie der
XII. Dynastie,” Orientalia 64 (1995) 447; Murnane, “Defense of,” 77-80; Jansen-Winkeln, “Zu den
Koregenzen,” 117-18; Schneider, “ Middle Kingdom,” 172.
22
Manetho, 66-73.
23
From annals discovered at Mit Rahina (part of Memphis). J. Dunn, “Amenemhet II, 3rd King of the
12th Dynasty,” http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenemhet2.htm
24
Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Co-regencies, 7; idem, “Defense of,” 73-76; Delia, “New Look,” 17, 24-27;
idem, “Double Dates,” 58-59; Schneider, “Middle Kingdom,” 172.
Amememhet II and Sesostris II had a six year co-regency. Therefore, Amememhet II

reigned 32 sole-reign years, the years 2037–2005 BCE.
Sesostris II (Khakheperre)
Manetho’s three versions give Sesostris II 48 years.25 The Turin Canon has a ten-
sign plus three small strokes in a vertical line (section 6.23). Six further strokes are
assumed lost in two vertical lines giving to the king 19 years.26
Sesostris II was co-regent with Amenemhet II before the latter died in his 46th
year. Sesostris II was succeeded by his son, Sesostris III, whose reign began in 1986
known by the Sothic date in his seventh year in 1980 BCE. Therefore, Sesostris II’s
reign lasted 19 years from 2005 BCE to 1986 BCE, confirming the 19 years presumed to
have been originally indicated in the Turin Canon. The 19 years agrees with Frank
Yurco’s opinion that it would have taken Sesostris II 15–20 years to build his pyramid at
Illahun as well as his funerary temple and adjacent buildings. 27 The 48 years given to
Sesostris II by Manetho is evidently corrupt and may be a late emendation.
A year eight on a small red-sandstone stela found at an unused quarry at Toshka
in June 1933 and a year eight from stela Cairo JE59485 are Sesostris II’s highest dated
inscriptions.28 On the basis of these, Schneider emended the “19 years” of the Turin
Canon to give Sesostris II just eight of nine years,29 but the Sothic and lunar dates prove
that 19 years is correct.
A Co-regency between Sesostris II and Sesostris III

Chapter 11 went extensively into Sothic and Lunar Dates for Sesostris III. It
determined that Sesostris III’s sixth, seventh, and eighth years are dated to 1981, 1980,
and 1979 BCE respectively, which provide an anchor for the 12th Dynasty. The length
of Sesostris III’s reign is discussed below, but I first look at his accession in the year
1986 and the question of a co-regency with Sesostris II.
Some scholars point out that a scarab displaying the names of Sesostris II and
Sesostris III, and a dedication inscription showing them celebrating the resumption of
rituals, might imply a co-regency.30 The text from pBerlin 10055 recto records that
Sesostris II died on the fourth day of the fourth winter month, that is, IV prt 4.31 If
Sesostris III began to reign on the fourth or the fifth there would have been no co-
regency. But the earlier analysis of the feast days provided by the Illahun papyri for the
reigns of Sesostris III and Amenemhet III (chapters 11–13) demonstrate that there must
have been a co-regency between Sesostris II and Sesostris III because the regnal years
and Julian dates assigned to the feasts conflict with Sesostris III’s reign beginning on IV
prt 4 or 5.
For example, if Sesostris III’s accession was dated to IV prt 5 then each
successive regnal year would also have started on IV prt 5. Therefore, his tenth year
should have started on IV prt 5 in −1976. However, what I found was that a new phyle
25
Manetho, 66-73.
26
Gardiner, Royal Canon, pl. 2, col. 5, line 23 from fragment 67.
27
F. Yurco, “Black Athena: An Egyptological Review,” Black Athena Revisited (ed. M. Lefkowitz;
University of North Carolina Press, 1996) 69. For description of Sesostris II’s pyramid see M. Verner, The
Pyramids: The Mystery, Culture, and Science of Egypt’s Great Monuments (tr. Steve Rendall; New York:
Grove Press, 2001) 409-15.
28
M.C. Stone, “Reading the Highest Attested Regnal Year Date for Senwosret II: Stela Cairo JE 59485,”
GM 159 (1997) 91-99. Cited by Schneider, “Middle Kingdom,” 172 n. 24.
29
Schneider, “Middle Kingdom,” 172, 174.
30
“Senusret II,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senusret_II
31
J. von Beckerath, “Die Chronologie der XII. Dynastie,” 46.
began on the new moon of IV 3ḫt [30] in −1976 (equated to April 28 in 1977 BCE).32 In
other words, the tenth year had already started before IV prt 5, and indeed even before
IV 3ḫt 30.
This situation also applies to Sesostris III’s 11th year when a new moon prior to a
feast of Joy fell on I 3ḫt 21 in −1975 (January 19 in 1976 BCE). If the accession of
Sesostris III had been dated to IV prt 5, I 3ḫt 21 would still have been in his tenth year.
Furthermore, in Sesostris III’s 12th year a w3gy feast was held on II šmw 22 following a
new moon on II šmw 5. From I 3ḫt 21 in his 11th year down to II šmw 5 in his 12th year
there are about 22 months, which indicates that in about two months’ time another regnal
year was about to begin; that is, sometime after II šmw 5 and before I 3ḫt 21, and the
appropriate date would be at the beginning of the civil year on I 3ḫt 1.
I note below that Amenemhet III’s co-regency with his father, Sesostris III,
seems to have begun on I 3ḫt 1 perhaps based on the precedent that Sesostris III’s co-
regency with his father (Sesostris II) had also begun on I 3ḫt 1.33 Assuming the co-
regency of Sesostris II and Sesostris III did begin on I 3ḫt 1 of 1986 BCE, and the death
of Sesostris II occurred seven months and four days later ending the period of co-
regency, I allocate Sesostris II a full reign of 19 years, 7 months, and 4 days.
In this period of Egyptian history, the beginning of the Egyptian year on I 3ḫt 1
corresponds closely to the beginning of the Julian year on January 1. This can be
illustrated from Casperson’s table (Table 23.3) using the year of −1985 (1986 BCE) for
Sesostris III’s first year based on his seventh year in 1980, the year of the heliacal rising
of Sothis on IV prt 17.
Table 23.3: Sesostris III’s first regnal year in −1985 (new moon listing from −1985)
Illahun; Lat. 29.2, Long. 31.0; visibility coefficients: c1 = 11.5, c2 = 0.008
−1986 12 12 −1986 11 25 795 12 15 3 12:01 6:50 270 6:51 152 6:51 41
−1985 1 10 −1986 12 24 796 1 9 4 22:12 6:57 375 6:57 204 6:57 90
−1985 2 9 −1985 1 23 796 2 9 6 7:28 6:47 262 6:47 120 6:46 22
−1985 3 10 −1985 2 21 796 3 8 7 16:24 6:26 357 6:25 141 6:24 39
−1985 4 9 −1985 3 23 796 4 8 2 1:32 6:00 169 6:00 51 5:59 −28
−1985 5 8 −1985 4 21 796 5 7 3 11:31 5:36 226 5:35 73 5:34 −10
−1985 6 6 −1985 5 20 796 6 6 4 23:01 5:15 348 5:14 125 5:14 25
−1985 7 6 −1985 6 19 796 7 6 6 12:39 5:03 218 5:03 90 5:03 2
−1985 8 5 −1985 7 19 796 8 6 1 4:39 5:08 178 5:08 76 5:09 −12
−1985 9 3 −1985 8 17 796 9 5 2 22:28 5:26 260 5:27 158 5:28 64
−1985 10 3 −1985 9 16 796 10 5 4 16:43 5:52 236 5:53 140 5:54 45
−1985 11 2 −1985 10 16 796 11 5 6 9:49 6:20 218 6:20 120 6:21 20
−1985 12 2 −1985 11 15 796 12 5 1 0:45 6:44 194 6:44 92 6:45 −14
−1985 12 31 −1985 12 14 796 13 4 2 13:20 6:57 268 6:57 151 6:57 47
In 1986 BCE, the Egyptian New Year and the Julian calendar New Year began
only one day apart; I 3ḫt coincided with January 2. It so happened that a new moon fell
on IV prt 5 in −1985, equated with August 4, so IV prt 4, on which Sesostris II died
equates to August 3.
I now turn my attention to the length of Sesostris III’s reign.
32
The day date is reconstructed from the lunar table, but the month is certain.
33
Scholars understand that co-regencies take place on I 3ḫt 1. See, e.g., von Beckerath, “Die Chronologie
der XII. Dynastie,” 46; K. Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt During the Second Intermediate Period,
c.1800-1550 B.C. (Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies Publications 20; Copenhagen:
University of Copenhagen and Museum Tusculanum Press, 1997) 212 n. 728.
The Regnal Years of Sesostris III (Khakhaure) (also known as Senwosret III or
Senusret III)
The same text that recorded Sesostris II’s death on IV prt 4 (pBerlin 10055) also
records that “the date of certain deliveries pass from the 19th regnal-year of Senwosret
III, 4th month of Shemu, day 21, directly to the 1st regnal-year of Amenemhet III, 1st
month of Akhet, day 1 (or 2).”34 It appears from this that the last known date of Sesostris
III’s sole-reign was IV šmw 21, just nine days before I 3ḫt 1.
It is irrefutable that Sesostris III’s 19th year was followed immediately by
Amenemhet III’s first year demonstrated by the lunar tables that record Sesostris III’s
18th year when a w3gy feast was held on II šmw 17 in 1969 BCE (−1968) (see chapter
13) and Amenemhet III’s third year when a new priestly phyle began on III šmw 17 in
1965 (−1964) (see chapter 12), indicating Amenemhet III’s first year began in 1967
(−1966). This can be confirmed by a new moon from a w3gy feast of an unnamed king
that fell on II šmw 9. The lunar table identifies the date as coming from the first year of
Amenemhet III in 1967 BCE (−1966) (see chapter 13).
Ryholt notes that, “fragments of a crowning ritual of Amenemhet III … in the
presence of Senwosret III … was later copied by Hatshepsut … to legitimize herself (as
co-regent with Thutmose III) which would suggest that the original concerned a genuine
co-regency.”35 Ryholt also refers to “scarab and cylinder seals inscribed for both kings”
which may have been made to commemorate a co-regency.36 It is assumed that
Amenemhet III began to reign on I 3ḫt 1, New Year’s Day, when he became co-regent at
the beginning of Sesostris III’s 20th regnal year.
How long was Sesostris III’s reign, including his co-regency with Amenemhet
III? The Turin Canon gives to Sesostris III 30 + x years (section 6.24). In 1990, the
Egyptian Expedition of The Metropolitan Museum of Art led by Dieter Arnold found a
dated “control note” in débris from Sesostris III’s Dashur pyramid, which dated to a year
30 and the third month of summer, day 20 (III šmw 20).37
Josef Wegner notes the possible indication of a sed-festival on a lintel from the
Montu Temple at Medamud showing “Sesostris III seated in the double Sed pavilion,”
and an “almost identical lintel from Bubastis showing Amenemhat III in the Sed
pavilion.”38 The latter is more specific because it has the accompanying text, “sp tpy
ḥb-sd, ‘first occurrence of the Heb-Sed.’” Wegner also points out that D. Arnold found
“A number of relief fragments from the South Temple [which] derive from scenes
depicting Senwosret III celebrating the Sed-festival.”39 The “control note” and the sed-
festival references, indicate that Sesostris III reigned at least 30 years.
Furthermore, Wegner discussed at length the evidence for a co-regent reign of
Sesostris III (whom he calls Senwosret) with Amenemhet III, basing his main argument
34
Ryholt, Political Situation, 212 n. 728.
35
Ibid., 212 n. 728.
36
Ibid., 212 n. 728. Ryholt critized Detlef Franke’s assertion that Hatshepsut’s co-regency was “fictive” as
stated in Franke’s, “Zur Chronologie des Mittleren Reiches (12.-18. Dynastie); Teil 1: Die 12. Dynastie,”
Orientalia 57 (1988) 118. Karl Jansen-Winkeln concurs with Franke (“Zu den Koregenzen der 12.
Dynastie,” SAK 24 (1997) 120. A refutation of this “fictional co-regency” appears later in the context of
Hatshepsut’s reign (18th Dynasty).
37
F. Arnold, “New Evidence for the Length of the Reign of Senwosret III?” GM 129 (1992) 27-31.
“Control notes” are “dockets written during the transportation of limestone blocks” (p. 27).
38
J.W. Wegner, “The Nature and Chronology of the Senwosret III—Amenemhet III Regnal Succession:
Some Considerations Based on New Evidence from the Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III at Abydos,”
JNES 55 (1996) 263.
39
Wegner, “Nature and Chronology,” 263 and n. 38 citing D. Arnold and A. Oppenheim, “Reexcavating
the Pyramid Complex of Senwosret III at Dahshur,” KMT 6/2 (1995), 54-55.
on a hieratic administrative note discovered at Abydos by the 1994 Pennsylvania–Yale

Expedition.40 This “control note” is dated to a year 39 of an unnamed king, but identified
as belonging to Sesostris III because it was found in debris coming from his mortuary
temple, and can be placed late in his reign.41
The damaged regnal year entry in the Turin Canon of 39 years plus x months and
x days refers to his full reign. If we knew when Sesostris III died we could fill in those
extra months and days of his 40th year. But, as Wegner remarks, “The regnal figure of
‘30 + x’ years [of the Turin Canon] would exclude the possibility of a 41st regnal
year.”42
Based on the evidence of a total reign of 39 years plus x months and days,
Sesostris III must be attributed 19 sole-reign years and a 20-year co-regency with his
son, Amenemhet III.43 The 19 years provide the dates for his sole reign: 1986–1967
BCE.
Manetho’s list of the 12th Dynasty kings handed down through the writings of
Africanus gives only eight years to a certain Lachares or Lamares.44 This king is
identified by scholars as Sesostris III because he is fourth in the list and follows a
Sesostris, understood to refer to Sesostris II. The eight-year reign attributed to Sesostris
III is obviously incorrect, as is the 48 years attributed to Sesostris II. Similarity of names
may have led to errors in recording the regnal years of the kings, with Sesostris III,
Amenemhet III, and Amenemhet IV all (incorrectly) attributed eight years by Africanus.
Amenemhet III (Nimaatre)

The Turin Canon assigns Amenemhet III 40 + x years (section 6.25). Africanus
gives Amenemhet III the name of Ameres and attributes eight years to him.45 He is not
mentioned in Eusebius and the Armenian versions. Taking the two periods together
indicates a possible reign of 48 years, assuming 40 years has been dropped from
Africanus.
The previous discussion has determined that the first year of Amenemhet III
began on I 3ḫt 1 in 1967 when he became co-regent with his father, Sesostris III, and that
Amenemhet III was still king when his father died in his 39th regnal year in 1947. The
40 years of the Turin Canon (section 6.25) appears to be a rounding up of the king’s
years. Amenemhet III was co-regent with his father for 20 years. How much longer did
he reign? A first sed-festival for Amenemhet III is attested for his 30th regnal year as
was the custom in the 12th Dynasty.46 The lunar dates from the Illahun papyri account
for the first 38 years of Amenemhet III’s reign (see chapter 13).
Apart from the 48 years mentioned above, Amenemhet III’s highest known date
is a year 46, I 3ḫt 22, found on a papyrus at Illahun.47 A rock inscription at Konosso in
40
Ibid., 249-79.
41
Ibid., 251-61.
42
Ibid., 268.
43
Greenberg’s proposal that Sesostris III reigned 39 sole years is contradicted by the lunar evidence and
other arguments (Gary Greenberg, “Manetho’s Twelfth Dynasty and the Standard Chronology,” JSSEA 29
(2002, published in 2004).
44
Manetho, 69-73.
45
Manetho, 68-69.
46
A limestone stela of Nebipusenwosret, who served under both Sesostris III and Amenemhet III
mentions the latter’s sed-festival in its center register. See the stela online in the collection database search
of the British Museum; Wegner, “Nature and Chronology,” 264.
47
This is a badly torn and worn papyrus of account notes consisting of red and black lines on the recto and
refers to year 46 of Amenemhet III. See http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/lahun/uc32153.html
Nubia equates a damaged regnal year with a number, 46, 47, or 48 with year one of
Amenemhet IV.48
Further discussion shows that 47 years are required for Amenemhet III to bring
the total years for the dynasty to 233 years (the 213 years lacking 20 years), thus
Amenemhet III can be attributed one-year as co-regent with Amenemhet IV.49 He may
be attributed 47 full-reign years, the years 1967–1920 BCE.
Amenemhet IV (Maakherure)
The Turin Canon attributes to Amenemhet IV 9 years, 3 months, and 27 days
(section 7.1).50 Africanus attributes eight years to Ammenemes;51 but is not mentioned
by Eusebius or the Armenian version.
Amenemhet III seems to have had no male heir and chose a man of non-royal
parentage but of high rank to be his successor, now known as Amenemhet IV.52
Amenemhet IV’s highest known year is his ninth from a Sinai inscription (122) with a
possible 10th year in an Illahun papyri.53 Amenemhet IV’s reign of 9 years, 3 months,
and 27 days would date to 1920–1911 BCE. He was succeeded by his half-sister or aunt,
Sobeknofru.54 There is no proof of a co-regency between the two.55
Sobeknofru (Sobek-kare, also known as Sobekneferu or Neferusobek)

The Turin Canon gives Sobeknofru 3 years, 10 months, and 24 days (section 7.2),
which is consistent with Manetho’s four years, given only by Africanus.56
Sobeknofru was the last monarch of the 12th Dynasty and reputed to be Egypt’s
first known queen. Monuments more often associate her with Amenemhet III than with
Amenemhet IV. Ryholt notes that she never adopted the title of “Queen” or “King’s
sister,” but only that of “King’s daughter” intimating that she was the daughter of
Amenemhet III. She was married to Amenemhet IV who may have been her brother.57
Africanus calls her “Scemiophris” and describes her as the sister of Amenemhet IV.
Assuming the years for Amenemhet III and IV are as given above, Sobeknefru’s 3 years,
10 months, and 24 days date to the years 1911–1907 BCE.
Total Regnal Years for the 12th Dynasty Kings

The above analysis shows that the Turin Canon originally recorded the full reigns
of each king. Some of its damaged numbers can be restored quite plausibly with the
figures gained from other sources as shown in Table 23.4.
48
“Amenemhat III,” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenemhat_III
49
For further possible evidence of a co-regency, see Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Co-regencies, 13-20.
50
His name begins a new column where fragment 72 is better preserved than column 6 and fragments 20
and 76 for the preceding kings of the 12th Dynasty.
51
Manetho, 68-69. Ammenemes (Amenemhet IV) is preceded by two kings also given eight years by
Africanus showing likely corruption of the figures.
52
Ryholt recounts how Amenemhet IV came from a family that included a top official known as “the
Overseer of Fields Ankhew.” Amenemhet IV was apparently the uncle of Ankhew. Ankhew acted as a
temple scribe during the reign of Sesostris III, and then as a retainer to Amenemhet III when he was a
young prince. Thus, when Amenemhet IV came to the throne, Ankhew was already quite aged (Ryholt
estimates about 78 years), and presumably his uncle was older still, though this is not certain (Political
Situation, 211-12).
53
Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Co-regencies, 14-15; Schneider, “Middle Kingdom,” 173.
54
See “Amenemhat IV,” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenemhat_IV
55
Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Co-regencies, 20-23.
56
Manetho, 68-69.
57
Ryholt, Political Situation, 213, 294.
Table 23.4: Total regnal years of the 12th Dynasty kings

Total years from other
Turin Canon ref. Kings Turin Canon
sources
6.20 Amenemhet I [2]9 + [x] 29 yr, 2 mo, 7 d
6.21 Sesostris I 45 + [x] 46
6.22 Amenemhet II 30 + [x] 38
6.23 Sesostris II 19 + [x] 19 yr, 7 mo, 4 d
6.24 Sesostris III 30 + [x] 39
6.25 Amenemhet III 40 + [x] 48
7.1 Amenemhet IV 9 yr, 3 mo, 27 d 9 yr, 3 mo, 27 d
7.2 Sobeknofru 3 yr, 10 mo, 24 d 3 yr, 10 mo, 24 d
213 yr, 1 mo, 17 d
7.3 Summation total 233 yr, 0 mo, 2 d
(actually now 206 yrs)
The present numbers of the Turin Canon add up only to 206 years, not the
amended total of 233 years. Twenty of the 27 years may already have been lost from the
reign of Amenemhet I and another seven from one of the other kings. It is evident that a
discrepancy in the figures has arisen after the original total was recorded.
Manetho’s totals do not fare any better. The reign of Amenemhet with his 29
years is not included in the total, either because of damage to Manetho’s list or because
he was not considered part of the 12th Dynasty. Without his 29 years, the dynasty should
total about 204 years. The stated total for the dynasty given by Africanus is 160 years,
and 245 years given by Eusebius and the Armenian. Yet, their individual reign lengths
add up to just 182 years. The 22 years difference between 160 and 182 can be accounted
for because in Africanus the last three kings add up to only 20 years; whereas, in the two
other versions, they amount to 42 years as stated. The actual figures for the three kings
are 48 years for Amenemhet III; 9 years, 3 months, and 27 days for Amenemhet IV; and
3 years, 10 months, and 24 days for Sobeknofru—amounting to approximately 61 years.
The 42 years falls short by 19 years. Even adding 19 years to 182 to equal 201 years, the
three versions lack about three years. A total of 233 years to the dynasty falls short by 32
years. Reinstating Amenemhet I’s reign by 29 years still leaves a shortfall of about three
years. The discrepancy may be the 48 years for Sesostris II and 8 years to Sesostris III,
amounting to about 56 years. The correct figure for Sesostris II is 19 years, 7 months,
and 4 days; and for Sesostris III about 39 years—a difference of about two or three
years. Reinstating the correct years to Sesostris II and Sesostris III can make up the
shortfall to give 233 years to the dynasty.
Sole-reign Years
Reckoning on 233 years for the total reign provides the figure of 192 years, 2
months, and 21 days to the sole-reign years with the total co-regent periods amounting to
40 years, 9 months, and 11 days (see Table 23.5, following page).
Table 23.5: 12th Dynasty kings’ sole-reign and co-regency years

Co-regent Years of Dates BCE
Kings Total reign Sothic and lunar dates
period sole reign (sole reign)
9 yr, 2 mo,
Amenemhet I 29 yr, 2 mo, 7 d 20 2099–2079
7d
Yr 5 Sothic rising on III prt
Sesostris I 45 yr, [x] mo 4 yr 42 2079–2037
20 in 2079
Amenemhet II 38 yr, [x] mo 6 yr 32 2037–2005
Sesostris II 19 yr, 7 mo, 4 d 7 mo, 4 d 19 2005–1986
Yr 7 Sothic rising on IV prt
Sesostris III 39 yr, [x] mo 20 yr 19 1986–1967 16 in 1980;
Lunar dates from yrs 5–18
Amenemhet
48 yr, [x] mo 1 yr 47 1967–1920 Lunar dates from yrs 1–38
III
Amenemhet 9 yr, 3
9 yr, 3 mo, 27 d -- 1920–1911
IV mo, 27 d
3 yr, 10
Sobeknofru 3 yr, 10 mo, 24 d -- 1911–1907
mo, 24 d
232yrs + mths 40 yr, 9 mo, 192 yr, 2
Total 2099–1907
and d = 233 yrs 11 d mo, 21 d
Since the sole-reign years of the first six kings were the periods from I 3ḫt 1 at
their accession to their successor’s accession also on I 3ḫt 1, the sole-reign years consist
of only years and not additional months and days. However, because neither Amenemhet
IV nor Sobeknofru had a co-regency, months and days are allocated to their years.
Altogether, the 12th Dynasty lasted from 2099 BCE to 1907 BCE for a period of
approximately 233 years.
Before leaving the 12th Dynasty, I will comment in the next chapter on the
calendar of the Hekanakhte Letters that gives us the date for Sesostris I’s fifth regnal
year.
Chapter 24. Reading Hekanakhte’s Letters 347
Chapter 24
Reading Hekanakhte’s Letters

The famous Hekanakhte Letters derive from Sesostris I’s fifth regnal year in
2075 BCE and contain the names of several months associated with seasonal activities.
They allow the opportunity to determine whether the calendar used in the early 12th
Dynasty by Hekanakhte, a priest and landowner living at Thebes, was the calendar of
Upper Egypt or Lower Egypt. The letters also provide a date for a Sothic rising cited in
the previous chapter.
The Hekanakhte papyri were discovered at Thebes in 1921–1922 by an Egyptian
expedition from the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. The papers now form part
of the gallery’s permanent Egyptian collection. The Hekanakhte Letters were published
by T.G.H. James in 1962.1
The letters were found together, unopened, in an intact tomb belonging to a
certain Msh (Meseh), consisting “of five complete letters, four complete accounts, and
four or five fragments … Each of the complete documents was found folded; two were
tied with string and sealed with a lump of clay impressed with the same stamp. The
papyri are dated to the early Middle Kingdom—i.e. to about 2000 B.C.”2
James thought the materials probably come from the end of the 11th Dynasty.
Dorothea Arnold’s more recent analysis based on the type of pottery jars found with the
burial led her to conclude that Meseh should be dated to the early years of the reign of
Sesostris I, because the fragile nature of the papyri, found in pristine condition, could not
have lasted above ground from the time of the late 11th Dynasty, or the early years of the
reign of Amenemhet I. They must have been deposited in the tomb soon after they were
written.3
The letters were written by Hekanakhte and an associate, a lady called
Sitnebsekhtu (otherwise spelled Zat-Neb-sekhtu), apparently in Memphis, and assigned
to Hekanakhte’s courier, Za-Hathor, to be taken to people in different locations south of
Thebes. However, for reasons that can only be speculated (like robbery of other items
the courier carried), the letters never reached their destination and were discarded in the
tomb.4
1
T.G.H. James, The Hekanakhte Papers and other Early Middle Kingdom Documents (New York:
Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Egyptian Expedition, Volume 19, 1962).
2
M. Silver, “Review of James P. Allen, The Heqanakht Papyri (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art:
Yale University Press, 2002.” EH.Net Economic History Services (Nov. 9 2004);
http://eh.net/book_reviews/heqanakht-papyri
3
D. Arnold, “Amenemhet I and the Early Twelfth Dynasty at Thebes,” Metropolitan Museum Journal 26
(1991): 36-37. Includes photo of a letter from Hekanakhte to Herunefer, overseer of Lower Egypt (fig. 55),
and coffin of Meseh as found in his chamber; in 1921–1922 (fig. 56); A.J. Spalinger, “Calendrical
Evidence and Hekanakhte,” ZÅS 123 (1996) 86.
4
H. Goedicke, Studies in the Hekanakhte Papers, Baltimore, MD: Halgo (1984) 3-7.
Household Instructions in an Agricultural Setting

Hekanakhte identifies himself as a funerary priest, but the letters concern his
land-holding in the south.5 He describes his intention to stay in the north of Egypt during
šmw (Letter II, line 29). He gives directions to his household in the south (presumed to
be in the Theban area) for issuing rations during the time of scarcity before the harvest
could be gathered. Two regnal years are mentioned, years five and eight,6 but not the
name of the king concerned. The reference to year eight is about “advances due in the
future.” The letters are all written at approximately the same time,7 and indicate a fifth
regnal year.
Anthony Spalinger gives the following calendrical references from Hekanakte’s
Letters.8
(1) “Have him bring me 3 h3r [khar] of wheat together with whatever northern barley
you are able but (only) what is in excess of four [sic your?] food requirements until you
reach šmw” (Letter I, verso line 8).
(2) The phrase of Hekanakhte referring to this sojourn in the north: “I will spend šmw
here” (Letter II, line 29).
(3) “One shall begin to issue these rations about which I have written you on the 1st of
Ḫnt-hty-prty for the 1st of the month for/of m3wt” (Letter II, lines 31–32).
(4) “Regnal year 5, 2 smw day 9” (Letter V, line 1). This note occurs at the beginning [of
the account].
(5) “Regnal year 8” (Letter V, line 34).
(6) “What is with Sitnebsekhtu being the balance of the yarn on the first day of Šf-bdt”
(Letter VII, lines 9–11).
(7) “Nfr-sb3w begins with the rations in Rkḥ-…” (Letter VII, line 15).”
Which Months are Referred To?

What numerical month-position in the year do the references to ḫnt-hty-prty (in
Letter II), šf-bdt, and rkḥ-...(in Letter VII) refer to, and what is the month-name for the
date of “2 šmw day 9” (in Letter V)?
Spalinger’s analysis indicates to him that the household has to rely on rations
while waiting for the recently planted seed to produce their crops. According to (3)
above, a letter was written about the rations of the first day of ḫnt-hty-prty and they were
to be issued on the first of the month for/of m3wt. Unfortunately, no month of this name
is so far known, and the word m3wt occurs nowhere else; thus, its meaning is obscure.
According to Goedicke, it has some connection to agriculture, and he suggests it may be
the old name of the month Renenutet (later Pharmouthi), the eighth month of the year.9
(Goedicke means IV prt in the civil calendar as in the Greco–Roman calendar; that is,
the calendar of Lower Egypt). Spalinger is undecided about the interpretation of m3wt.10
On first analysis Spalinger assumes that ḫnt-hty-prty is the month of II šmw when
Hekanakhte wrote his letter, and that rations were to be distributed on the first day of the
next month, the month apparently named m3wt—taking up Goedicke’s suggestion that
m3wt was the name of a month.11 Spalinger asks, “What month does Hekanakhte refer
5
Ibid., 11-12.
6
Goedicke notes that the hieratic writing could be 8, but prefers to read the number as 6 because it does
away with the disjunction between 5 and 8, and makes for an interrelated group of accounts (Hekanakhte
Papers, 8, 93).
7
Ibid., 8.
8
Spalinger, “Calendrical Evidence,” 89-90.
9
Goedicke, Hekanakhte Papers, 30-31.
10
Spalinger, “Calendrical Evidence,” 92-93.
11
Ibid., 93.
to? Given that there are only two remaining, 3 and 4 šmw, and that the last month was
overtly named after the festival of wp rnpt, itself following on the first of Thoth in the
next year (I 3ḫt 1), I would suspect that 3 šmw (the old ‘Ipt-ḥmt) is the indication.”12 On
this understanding Spalinger tables a scenario in which II šmw, III šmw and IV šmw
equate to the Julian calendar months of 17 September to 28th November in the year 1939
BCE.13
But he is not happy with it. He writes:
I think that the reference to Ḫnt-hty-prty fits better with the next month of 3 šmw than the
following, since the 29th of October virtually concludes the basin drying-out phase as
well as the commencement of sowing. Further support for this can be seen in lines 4–5
of the same letter (No. II) where Hekanakhte informs his mother Ipi as well as Hetepet
that, owing to the inundation, ratios [sic rations] were established for his household. In
addition, if we take to heart the comment in line 29 of the same letter, then Hekanakhte
himself would plan to return to the south around the end of November or the beginning
of December … planning to be back at his homestead in mid-December, at a time when
the crops were growing into their maturity but still were quite short from being ripe for
reaping.14
Upper Egypt Calendar?

Spalinger’s preference for ḫnt-hty-prty being equated with III šmw and not II
šmw is important for the identification of the calendar used. If ḫnt-hty-prty is III šmw and
the seventh month of the civil year, then wp rnpt and not tḫy (Thoth) was the first month.
Our previous analysis led to the conclusion that wp rnpt was the first month of the
calendar of Upper Egypt and only became the last month along with the name Re
Horakhty after the merging of the calendars of Upper and Lower Egypt evident in the
18th–20th Dynasties.
Wp rnpt was still in first position as late as the early 18th Dynasty as shown in
the Ebers calendar papyrus from the reign of Amenhotep I. The use of a calendar
beginning with wp rnpt in the 12th Dynasty is demonstrated previously in the Illahun
papyri 10069, and in many other sources adduced in chapter 8 and tabled in Tables 8.2
and 8.3. In a calendar having wp rnpt as the first month rkḥ-wr and rkḥ-nds appear as the
seventh and eighth months of the year, or III and IV prt.
Since Hekanakhte was writing to his relatives and tenants in Upper Egypt, it is
not surprising that he would use the calendar of Upper Egypt. The calendar, of course,
was also used to date the heliacal rising of Sothis, the appearance of which after 70 days
of invisibility, heralded the new solar/agricultural year.
The first month of the solar/agricultural year appears to be the month of rkḥ wr.
The translation of Letter VII line 15 given by Spalinger reads, “Nfr-sbw [Nefer-sebau]
begins with the rations in rkḥ-,..”.15 To this Goedicke adds, “when the head of the river
had come down.” He interprets this to refer to the second rkḥ- month, rkḥ-nds, when the
water was “prevailing,”16 but Spalinger disagrees and understands the words to mean, “a
time during the lowest ebb of the river,”17 that is, the month of rkḥ-wr, when the
inundation was expected. Spalinger understood the end of the submersion period to
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid., 90.
16
Goedicke, Hekanakhte Papers, 104.
17
Spalinger, “Calendrical Evidence,” 94.
correspond to 10–30 October in the Gregorian calendar.18 In the Julian calendar it

coincides with November.
Assuming that Hekanakhte based his comments on a calendar that began with wp
rnpt, ḫnt-hty-prty would be III šmw—see column three of Table 24.1—when the letter
directing the distribution of rations was written. Column three relates the
solar/agricultural year to the heliacal rising of Sothis on III prt 20, the calendar of Upper
Egypt, assumed to begin with the month of wp rnpt.
Table 24.1: The Calendar Used by Hekanakhte
Months of civil year Corresponding to agricultural Months of solar/agricultural year beginning with
seasons heliacal rising of Sothis on III prt 20 at Thebes
corresponding to Julian months
wp rnpt 3ḫt = inundation III prt 20 (rkḥ wr) = July 13 to August 12
tḫy 3ḫt = inundation IV prt 20(rkḥ nds) = August/Sept.
mnḫt 3ḫt = inundation I šmw 20 (rnwt) = Sept./Oct.
ḥwt ḥr 3ḫt = inundation II šmw 20 (ḫnsw) = Oct./Nov.
k3 ḥr k3 Prt = sowing and planting III šmw 20 (ḫnt-hty-prty) = Nov./Dec.
Šf-bdt Prt = sowing and planting IV šmw 20(‘ipt-ḥmt) = Dec./Jan.
rkḥ wr Prt = sowing and planting I 3ḫt 20 (wp rnpt) = Jan./Feb.
rkḥ nds Prt = sowing and planting II 3ḫt 20 (tḫy) = Feb./March
Rnwt Šmw = harvesting III 3ḫt 20 (mnḫt) = March/April
ḫnsw Šmw = harvesting IV 3ḫt 20 (ḥwt ḥr) = April/May
ḫnt-hty-prty Šmw = harvesting I prt 20 (k3 ḥr k3) = May/June
‘ipt-ḥmt Šmw = harvesting II prt 20 (šf-bdt) = June/July
Letter VII refers to the preceding Letter V, headed “Year 5, 2nd month of šmw,
day 9,” which would then refer to II šmw, the last month of the inundation season
(compare column three with column two). It lists quantities of grains turned over to
Merisu, cattle to be transferred to Za-neb-niut, and feed for the bulls to be distributed to
his tenants, Za-Hathor, Merisu, and Za-neb-niut.19 In the calendar in Table 24.1 ḫnt-hty-
prty is the month of III smw (see column three), and corresponds to the beginning of the
season of sowing, that is prt, when the floods have receded, and when food was scarce
before the next harvest could be gathered. Goedicke indicates that the word m3wt “seems
connected with ‘the new fields’, i.e. the next agricultural year.”20
On that scenario, m3wt would be the last month (if that is its correct
interpretation) of the civil year and the second month of prt; that is, of the sowing and
planting season. If ḫnt-hty-prty is III smw, the month of šf-bdt referred to in Letter VII
lines 9–11 must refer to II prt. And rkḥ-... in Letter VII line 15 must refer to rkḥ wr; that
is, III prt, the first month of the solar/agricultural year. It was the month of the heliacal
rising.
Fifth Year of Sesostris I

The date for the heliacal rising of Sothis in the seventh year of Sesostris III has
earlier been shown to fall on IV prt 17 in 1980 BCE as observed at Illahun. A count can
be made backwards from the seventh year of Sesostris III in 1980 BCE, to the fifth year
of Sesostris I, to identify the month in the calendar of Upper Egypt that coincided with
the heliacal rising of Sothis, which month it applied to, and specifically whether the year
begins with III prt; that is, rkḥ wr.
Sesostris I reigned 42 years (plus nearly four as co-regent) from the years 2079–
2037 BCE making his fifth year, when the Hekanakhte Letters were written, fall in 2075
BCE.
18
Ibid., 90.
19
Goedicke, Hekanakhte Papers, 91.
20
Ibid., 30.
The time-span from the fifth year of Sesostris I in 2075 BCE to the seventh year
of Sesostris III in 1980 BCE amounts to 95 years, which is to 23¾ days in the Sothic
cycle (because Sothis takes four years to move one day). Reckoning 24 days before IV
prt 17 will yield III prt 23 when Sothis rose heliacally at Illahun.
Sothic Rising at Thebes

However, Hekanakhte, whose land holdings and relatives were located in the
south would have used the calendar relevant to the seasonal cycle of Upper Egypt. The
heliacal rising of Sothis is seen about three and a half days earlier at Thebes than at
Illahun in any given year. Therefore, in 2075 the Sothic rising at Thebes fell on III prt 20
or 21. According to the HELIAC program, Sothis rose heliacally on 11, 12, or 13 July
(jul.) in 2075 BCE (using an altitude of 3°). The chronology can be checked using
Casperson’s lunar table for the year −2074 (2075 BCE) assumed here to be Sesostris I’s
fifth year.
Table 24.2: Sesostris I’s fifth year −2074 (new moon listing from −2074)
−2074 6 30 −2074 6 13 707 6 8 1 11:15 5:12 204 5:12 100 5:12 21
−2074 7 30 −2074 7 13 707 7 8 3 3:42 5:13 179 5:13 89 5:14 3
−2074 8 30 −2074 8 11 707 8 7 4 20:42 5:27 253 5:27 160 5:28 67
The table uses the calendar of Lower Egypt, but converted to the table of Upper
Egypt numbered one month earlier, it shows that IV prt 8 (otherwise 7 8) corresponds to
30 July. III prt 20 would fall 18 days before IV prt 8, which corresponds to 13 July in
2075 BCE Thus, the date assigned to Sesostris I’s fifth year concurs with the proposed
date for the heliacal rising of Sothis seen at Thebes in 2075 BCE.
Important Deductions
Several important deductions result from this discussion. Firstly, Hekanakhte
used the calendar of Upper Egypt giving further evidence for its existence.
Secondly, it supports the proposal that Sesostris II (the grandson of Sesostris I)
reigned 19 years (plus 7 months and 4 days) as given by the Turin King-list, and concurs
with the Sothic rising on 13 July in 2075 BCE as given independently by the HELIAC
program.
Thirdly, Spalinger’s conclusion that the Hekanakhte Letters appear to infer that
the month of ḫnt-hty-prty was III šmw and not II šmw as in the calendar of Lower Egypt,
is borne out by the above analysis, but for the year 2075 BCE not 1939 BCE.
Fourthly, a calendar having the rising of Sothis on III prt 20 corresponds to the
beginning of a new solar or agricultural year in the month of rkḥ wr, when the inundation
of the Nile was soon to occur and already food had been harvested and rationed out
before the harvest would come in again in a further eight months’ time (see Table 24.1).
Hekanakhte said in his letter that he would stay in the north during šmw (Letter II, line
29). If he meant the four months of šmw, then according to the calendar this period
corresponds to the third to sixth months of the agricultural/solar year, being the last two
months of inundation and the first two months of sowing/planting. This indicates that
Hekanakhte is intending to be back at his estate in the south of Egypt in the month of wp
rnpt, the first month of the civil year, which may have been a significant time for him
either as a funerary priest21 or land owner. By wp rnpt, corresponding to III prt, the crops
21
Ibid., 8.
should have been about two months from the beginning of the harvest. The first month
of seasonal šmw or harvest coincided with the civil month of III 3ḫt, and four months
later harvesting would have finished in ‘ipt-ḥmt (Epiphi) or IV šmw, the last month of
the solar/agricultural year, (but equated with the month of II prt in the civil calendar,
known as the month of šf-bdt).
Fifthly, the reference to the lady Sitnebsekhtu concerning the payment for the
balance of the yarn on the first day of the month of šf-bdt (Letter VII, lines 9–11)
apparently refers, according to Goedicke, to the date when the account was established.22
Spalinger notes that the balance was drawn up on day 1 of šf-bdt.23 That account left one
month remaining before the next year began in rkḥ wr.
The analysis of the dated citations in the Hekanakhte Letters proposes that
Hekanakhte used the calendar of Upper Egypt with wp rnpt as its first month, but due to
the lag between the solar and civil calendar, the “first” month at the time of Sesostris I in
2075 BCE was rkḥ wr.
Likeness to the Ebers Calendar

The calendar derived from the Hekanakhte Letters has the same function as
proposed for the Ebers calendar. Both show a calendar beginning with the month of wp
rnpt and ending with ‘ipt-ḥmt. The remaining columns equate the months of the solar
year based on the date for the rising of Sothis with the civil calendar giving the
designations for the corresponding Egyptian seasons. Knowing when the seasons of
inundation, sowing, and harvest occurred in the year that was no longer in accord with
the months of the civil calendar would have been useful to the ancient Egyptians when
making domestic and agricultural transactions like those portrayed in these letters.
The discussion about the Hekanakhte Letters concludes the 12th Dynasty
chronology. It lasted approximately 192 years, from 2099 to 1907 BCE. The latter date
commences the Second Intermediate Period.
22
Ibid., 109.
23
Spalinger, “Calendrical Evidence,” 94.
Chapter 25. Reporting on the 13th–17th Dynasties 353
Chapter 25
Reporting on the 13th–17th Dynasties

The death of Sobeknofru ended the 12th Dynasty. The era known as the Second
Intermediate Period began, comprising the 13th–17th Dynasties. This period lacks the
abundance of inscriptions and documentation of the prior 12th Dynasty, and from the
18th Dynasty forwards into the New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Period.
The Boundaries of the Second Intermediate Period

The overall length of the Second Intermediate Period can be determined by the
time-span from the last date of the 12th Dynasty in 1907 BCE to the first date of the 18th
Dynasty. Previous and forthcoming discussion of lunar and Sothic dates determines that
the 18th Dynasty began in 1676 BCE. Therefore, the Second Intermediate Period
amounted to a period of 231 years. This is near to the general framework estimated by
Ryholt, which he says, “adds up to an absolute minimum of 234 years,” but he opts for a
“high” date of 253 years.1
Having a beginning to the 18th Dynasty in 1676 BCE established by Sothic
records, but with a paucity of firm data for the span of the Second Intermediate Period,
the discussion enters a period where no certainty exists except at its beginning and end.
The Turin List is a jigsaw with many pieces missing.
Turin Canon and Manetho Record Different Lineages

The Turin Canon and Manetho offer very divergent accounts for this period.
Furthermore, the monumental evidence does not validate Manetho’s dynastic record. To
quote W.A. Ward:
“It is impossible to equate the names preserved in the various recensions of Manetho
with these actually known from the monuments … It is clear that most of the names
preserved in this tradition are too corrupted to have any value … The present discussion
will therefore ignore Manetho as being unreliable.”2
A comparison of the Turin Canon record with Manetho’s record from Menes as
first king of the 1st Dynasty, down to Neferirkare as the last king of the 8th Dynasty
(that is, Turin Canon’s section 3.11–5.15), also rendered the opinion that the kings noted
by the Turin Canon were different from those noted by Manetho, both in their names and
their given regnal years. That is also the situation for the following section of the Turin
Canon at 5.18–6.10, supposedly the 9th and 10th Dynasties, for which Manetho has
given only the name of the first king of the 9th Dynasty, a certain Achthoes. Manetho
1
K. Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 1800–1550 B.C.
(Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies Publications 20; Copenhagen: University of
Copenhagen and Museum Tusculanum Press, 1997) 185.
2
W.A. Ward, “Royal-Name Scarabs,” Studies on Scarab Seals. Vol. II. Scarab Seals and their
Contribution to History in the Early Second Millennium BC (ed. O. Tufnell; Warminster: Aris and Philips,
1984) 162; cited by T. Schneider, “Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period,” Ancient
Egyptian Chronology (eds. E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D.A. Warburton; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006) 193.
gives to the 9th Dynasty, probably 109 years from a corrupt 409, and 185 years to the
10th Dynasty for a total of 294 years; whereas our analysis of the period ascertained that
the Turin Canon once recorded 175 years for 18 kings (section 6.10).
On the other hand, the Turin Canon at section 6.11–7.3 cites the same kings as
Manetho for the 11th and 12th Dynasties.
The difference between Manetho’s records for the 13th–17th Dynasties, and
those of the Turin Canon and the monuments, forces the conclusion that once again
Manetho is not recording the same dynasties or kings as the Turin Canon known from
the monuments. A summary of the years afforded to the respective dynasties by Manetho
appears below in Table 25.1.
Table 25.1: Manetho’s 13th–17th Dynasties
Ref No of kings Years
Dyn. 13 60 (of Diospolis, i.e. Thebes) 453
Dyn. 14 76 (of Xois) 184 (var. 484)
Dyn. 15 6 (“shepherd kings”) 284 (var. 250)
Dyn. 16 32 (“shepherd kings”) or 5 kings of Thebes 518 (var. 190)
Dyn. 17 4 (“shepherd kings”) 103 (var. includes Theban kings 151 yr)
Total 178 kings 1,214 years
Dyn. = Dynasty; var. = variant.
Manetho and Lower Egypt?

Obviously the number of kings and total years afforded the dynasties by Manetho
cannot be indicative of consecutive dynasties. Ryholt has a model in which the 13th and
14th Dynasties succeeded the 12th Dynasty to run concurrently. They, in turn, were
succeeded by the 15th and 16th Dynasties, with the 17th succeeding the 16th prior to the
collapse of the 15th Dynasty; thus the 15th Dynasty overlapped both the 16th and the
17th Dynasties before the beginning of the 18th Dynasty.3
Apart from the 13th Dynasty, which Manetho says was located in Thebes, the
14th–17th Dynasties are portrayed by Manetho as situated in the Delta or lower region of
Egypt. During most of the Second Intermediate Period, Egypt was ruled by Theban kings
in Upper Egypt and Hyksos kings in Lower Egypt—perhaps with the latter recorded by
Manetho. This is demonstrated when we come to discuss the 18th Dynasty given by
Manetho, which is at odds with the kings of the monumental records.
Turin Canon and Upper Egypt?

It appears that the Turin Canon agrees with monuments that record the ruling
kings of Upper Egypt. Observation of the preceding dynasties, confirmed by lunar and
solar dates, affirms that the Turin Canon provides a consecutive record of its kings. This
practice can be assumed to continue to the end of the list,4 though the end of the existing
papyrus has been cut away in antiquity.5
Ryholt gives a number of proposed summations and headings for the Turin
Canon linking them to Manetho’s dynasties.6 A heading for the 13th Dynasty following
the summation for the 12th Dynasty appears at section 7.4. Ryholt suggests that a
summation came at section 8.28(?). At this point, Ryholt’s column numbering becomes
the same as Gardiner’s. What would be column nine in Ryholt’s new numbering
(because of the insertion of a column between columns 1 and 2) reverts to column eight.
This makes for a long period between section 7.4 and section 8.28. Between the first
3
Ryholt, Political Situation, 5-6, table 1.
4
Idem, “The Turin King-List,” Ä und L 14 (2004) 137-38.
5
Ibid., 138, 140.
6
Ibid., 146 table 4.
section 7.4 (section 6.4 in Gardiner’s numbering) and the second section 7.4 there are 26
names.
For the 14th Dynasty, Ryholt does not propose a line for a heading but suggests
that a summation could have appeared around section 10.21. For the 15th Dynasty,
Ryholt proposes a heading at ca. section 10.22 and a summation and heading at ca.
section 10.29–10.30. The 16th Dynasty follows at ca. section 10.30 with a summation at
section 11.15. Ryholt positions an unidentified dynasty at section 11.16–11.31 (end of
papyrus),7 presumably representing the 17th Dynasty.
Of the summations, only that at section 10.21, assumed by Ryholt to be referring
to the 14th Dynasty, but referred to by Schneider as the 15th Dynasty,8 has preserved
part of its total: 100 + x years. In 1997, Ryholt had suggested 108 years as the reading,
but later changed his mind thinking it was possibly more like 140 years.9 Because of
lacunae, it is not clear whether this 100 + x years refers to the preceding seven kings (an
earlier summation being at section 10.13) with existing reign lengths for unknown kings
of three years (section 10.14), eight years plus three [months] (section 10.15), and 40
years plus (section 10.17), or whether it refers to more than one section.
It is clear that the period from section 7.4 (following the 12th Dynasty) to section
10.21 in the Turin Canon lasted considerably more than 100 years. A further seven kings
appear at section 10.23–10.29 with a summation at section 10.30 with names and regnal
years lost (except for two partial names: Zeket[…] at section 10.25 and Ar[…] at section
10.26). Another 15 entries follows at 11.1–11.15 (there are lines for only 14 kings), with
a summation of […]5 kings. These kings of the 16th Dynasty beginning in column 11
have a better preservation of names and regnal years than the preceding kings of the
13th–15th Dynasties. Schneider estimated that the 15 kings cover 75–100 years and the
17th Dynasty kings about 15 years.10 Ryholt estimated that the 17th Dynasty lasted about
31 years.11
The Turin Canon provides us with the information for Table 25.2 for the kings of
the 16th Dynasty and the first two kings of the 17th Dynasty, at which point the papyrus
has been cut off.
Table 25.2: Kings of the 16th Dynasty and the first two of the 17th Dynasty
Turin Canon ref. Known as King Turin Canon regnal years
11.1 Rahotep Sekhemrewahkhaw 3
11.2 Sobekemsaf I Sekhemrewadjkhaw 16
11.3 Sobekemsaf II Sekhemreshedtawy 1[…]
11.4 Mentuhotep VII Sewadjenre/Seankhenre 1[ ]
11.5 Nebiriaw I Sewadjenre? 29 (?)
11.6 Nebiriaw II lost
11.7 Semenenre lost
11.8 Seweserenre Bebiankh 12
11.9 Sekhemre Shedwaset lost
11.10 Intef/Inyotef VI Sekhemrewepmaat lost
11.11 Intef/Inyotef VII Nebkheperre lost
11.12 Intef VIII Sekhemre-Herhermaat lost
11.13 unknown lost lost
11.14 Rahotep Sekhemre-wahkhaw lost
11.15 summation [ ]5 kings
11.16 Weserenre
11.17 Senwosret IV Seneferibre
7
Ibid., 140, table 3.
8
Schneider, “Middle Kingdom,” 194.
9
Ryholt, Political Situation, 118 cited by Schneider, “Middle Kingdom,” 194 n. 126.
10
11
Ryholt, Political Situation, 203-204.
The 17th Dynasty

The 13th–17th Dynasties await further clarification.12 The conclusions of
Schneider and Ryholt would appear to be reconcilable with the 231 years proposed for
the 17th Dynasty in this chronology. Of course, the dates are different. Schneider writes:
“A conclusive judgment about the length of the SIP still needs further evidence.”13
Scholars continue to debate the order of the kings known to have reigned during
the 17th Dynasty (see Table 25.3). Ryholt and Aidan Dodson position Sobekemsaf II
Sekhemrewadjkhaw between Antef VIII Sekhemre-Heruhirmaat and Senakhtenre
Ahmose. But other scholars, such as Daniel Polz, prefer to place him after Sobekemsaf I
Sekhemreshedtawy, presumed to be his father.14 Using the latter position, the order and
regnal years of the kings is proposed, as tabled below, collated from recent writings as
noted.
Table 25.3 Partial list of 17th Dynasty kings—incomplete years
King Regnal years estimated approx. dates BCE
Rahotep Sekhemrewahkhaw 4 1707–1703
Sobekemsaf I Sekhemrewadjkhaw 7 1703–1696
Sobekemsaf II Sekhemreshedtawy 3 1696–1693
Intef VI Sekhemrewepmaat 2 1693–1691
Intef VII Nebkheperre 5 1691–1686
Intef VIII Sekhemre-Heruhirmaat 0 1686
Senakhtenre Ahmose 1 1686–1685
SeqenenreTao 4 1685–1681
Kamose 5 1681–1676
Total 31 years
Most scholars understand that Rahotep Sekhemrewahkhaw was the first king of
the 17th Dynasty. Ryholt attributes to him an estimated four regnal years.15 His name
appears in the Karnak King-list as no. 54. His predecessor is unknown, but Sobekemsaf I
Sekhemrewadjkhaw is thought to be his son. An inscription dates to his seventh regnal
year.16 Sobekemsaf I had a son named Sobekemsaf, and he is presumed to be
Sobekemsaf II Sekhemreshedtawy.
An inscription on a door jamb built by Intef Nebkheperre found on a 17th
Dynasty temple at Gebel Antef on the Luxor–Farshut road names a Sobekemsaf as his
father, presumed to be Prince Sobekemsaf, son and successor of Sobekemsaf I noted on
Cairo Statue CG 386; that is, Sobekemsaf II.17 Sobekemsaf II Sekhemreshedtawy is
attributed three years.18 He was the father of Intef VI Sekhemrewepmaat and Intef VII
Nebkheperre, his successors.19 Ryholt attributes them two years and five years,
respectively.20 Nebkheperre’s highest attested date is a year three on the Koptos stela,
but being one of the better attested kings of the 17th Dynasty, Ryholt credits him with
12
See Ryholt, Political Situation; Schneider, “Middle Kingdom,” 175-196, and works cited therein.
13
14
“Sobekemsaf I,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobekemsaf_I
15
Ryholt, Political Situation, 204.
16
Ibid., 174; Schneider, “Middle Kingdom,” 191.
17
“Sobekemsaf II,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobekemsaf_II
18
19
“Sobekemsaf II,” see “Sekhemre-Wepmaat Intef,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekhemre-
Wepmaat_Intef
20
five years.21 His building program and the completion of his tomb may indicate a much
longer reign.22
Nubkheperre was probably followed by a short-reigned king Intef VIII
Sekhemre-Heruhirmaat. He is clearly attested by his coffin (Louvre E 3020). Ryholt
suggested Sekhemre-Heruhirmaat had a short co-regency with his father but this is
disputed by other scholars. The modesty of his coffin leads scholars to think there was
no time to prepare a royal coffin for him so only a few months is attributed to his reign.23
A little attested king was previously thought to be known as Senakhtenre Siamun
or Tao. But hieroglyphic inscriptions published in 2012 of a “large 17th dynasty
limestone door built for a granary of a temple of Amun at Karnak which bears
Senakhtenre’s full royal name … shows that this ruler’s birth name or nomen was in fact
Ahmose not Tao.”24
Since Senakhtenre’s reign is not well attested, it is presumed to have been brief—
lasting not more than about a year.25 Senakhtenre’s successor was Seqenenre-Tao,
probably the son of Senakhtenre Ahmose and Queen Tetisheri. They were the parents of
Kamose, last king of the 17th Dynasty, and Ahmose, first king of the 18th Dynasty.
Seqenenre-Tao apparently died in battle with the Hyksos kings, judging from the axe
wounds to his head and dagger wounds to his neck found on his mummy discovered in
the Deir el-Bahri cache in 1881. He began the war that eventually saw the overthrow of
the Hyksos by his son, Ahmose.26
The last king of the 17th Dynasty was Kamose, the presumed son of Seqenenre
Tao and brother of Ahmose, founder of the 18th Dynasty. Kamose is known to have
campaigned against the Nubians prior to his third year, as recorded on the Second Stela
of Kamose. In his third year, he led a military campaign against the Hyksos, recounted
on the Carnarvon Tablet. A second expedition to the Nubians after his third year is
related in his year three Second Stela. This infers that Kamose may have reigned at least
five years.27
The previous account provides a line of succession of nine kings from Rahotep to
Kamose, and a minimum number of 31 regnal years. Having ascertained that the 18th
Dynasty began in 1676 BCE, these 31 years take Rahotep’s accession back to at least
1707 BCE (see Table 25.3).
Sothic Rising Date in the 17th Dynasty

There do not appear to be any known records of lunar dates associated with the
Second Intermediate Period, and only recently has a Sothic date been discovered. The
Theban Desert Road Survey in 1991 uncovered the ancient Alamat Tal Road between
Thebes and Gebel Tjauti where a rock was found that dates a heliacal rising of Sothis.
Now called the Gebel Tjauti Rock Inscription 11, it was published in 2002 by John C.
Darnell.28
21
Ibid., 204.
22
“Nubkheperre Intef,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubkheperre_Intef
23
“Sekhemre-Heruhirmaat Intef,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekhemre-Heruhirmaat_Intef
24
“Senakhtenre Ahmose,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senakhtenre_Ahmose The inscription was
published by the Centre Franco-Égyptien d’Étude des Temples de Karnak in March 2012.
25
“Senakhtenre Ahmose”.
26
“SeqenenreTao,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seqenenre_Tao
27
“Kamose,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamose
28
J.C. Darnell with the assistance of Deborah Darnell, Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian
Western Desert, Vol. 1: Gebel Tjauti Rock Inscriptions 1-45 and Wadi El-Ḥôl Rock Inscriptions 1-45
(Oriental Institute Publications 119; Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2002)
49-52. Viewed at http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/PUB/SRC/OIP/119/OIP119.html, 49-52.
The text reads, “Regnal year 11, second month of the Shemu season, day 20:
Observing the (heliacal) rising of Sothis.”29
The date is II šmw 20, in the 11th year of an unnamed king. Darnell notes, “This
is the only observation of the heliacal rising of Sothis/Sirius from ancient Egypt for
which one may say that the location of the point of observation, at least down to the
minutes, and the elevation, approximately 450 meters above sea level, are known.”30
He adds, “This is the only inscription on Gebel Tjauti to be dated with certainty
to the Seventeenth Dynasty, despite the Seventeenth Dynasty military road and twin
fortress towers near the Theban terminus of the road, and the abundance of
Seventeenth/early Eighteenth Dynasty pottery on the road.”31
The Julian date of II šmw 20 can be calculated on the basis of the Ebers calendar
date of the Sothic rising on III šmw 9 in Amenhotep I’s 9th year. As discussed
previously, the date in Amenhotep I’s reign fell in 1642, the first of four years that Sothis
rose on this date at Thebes. Reckoning back to II šmw 20 provides the year 1718 BCE
for the Sothic rising at Gebel Tjauti. This is only 11 years earlier than the estimated date
for Rahotep at the beginning of the 17th Dynasty. If this is indeed Rahotep’s 11th year,
then the dynasty began in 1729 BCE and lasted till 1676 BCE when the 18th Dynasty
began under Ahmose.
On the other hand, if the Sothic rising in the 11th year fell in a later king’s reign,
such as that of Intef VII Nebkheperre, one of the best attested kings, then the years of the
preceding kings may have begun much earlier, reaching back to an undetermined date.
Of the 231 years that are attributable to the time between the end of the 12th
Dynasty and the beginning of the 18th Dynasty (1907–1676 BCE), minimal years are
100 + x years at section 10.21 in the Turin Canon, and 53 years for the 17th Dynasty—
assuming Rahotep’s 11th year fell in 1718 BCE—leaving a remainder of 78 years to be
allocated.
The identity of the king whose 11th year dates the Sothic inscription and its
bearing on the allocation of reigns during the 17th Dynasty must await further
information and clarification.
29
Darnell, Theban Desert Road Survey, 49. The transliteration of the inscription is also provided.
30
Ibid., 51.
31
Ibid., 52.
Chapter 26. Reinstating the 18th Dynasty - Introduction 359
Chapter 26
Reinstating the 18th Dynasty - Introduction

The dates given by present scholars for the 18th Dynasty, and indeed for the
entire Egyptian chronology, are based on the initial assumption that the dates attributed
to the Assyrian King-list are correct and reliable before the solar eclipse of 763 BCE.
But, as I have sought to demonstrate in The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided
Kingdom, the dates are only corroborated after 763, notably by synchronisms with the
Babylonian kings and their king-list beginning from 747 BCE.1
The initial assumption that the Assyrian King-list is complete back to 910 BCE,
which scholars seem to accept without hesitation or need of verification, is directly
responsible for the dates that Egyptologists attribute to Egypt’s kings. The earliest
verifiable date comes with the accession of Psammetichus I at the beginning of the 26th
Dynasty in 664 BCE. Earlier than that, the dates are still open to debate.
To gain dates for the 18th Dynasty, most scholars work backwards from the
supposed date of Rehoboam of Judah’s fifth year falling in 925 BCE, based on the
Assyrian King-list dates for a synchronism between Ahab’s last year and Shalmaneser
III’s sixth year in 841. Rehoboam’s fifth year is synchronized with Shoshenq I’s 20th
year, which is recognized as the year when the biblical Shishak conquered Jerusalem and
carried off its treasures (1 Kgs 14:25–26; 2 Chr. 12:2–9).
Dating Ramesses II and Thutmose III

Thus Shoshenq’s accession and the beginning of the 22nd Dynasty are dated to
945 BCE. From this date, scholars seek a date in the 19th Dynasty for Ramesses II’s
52nd year when a ship’s log gives the date of II prt 27 as pśdntyw; that is, the first day of
the lunar month, when the thin lunar crescent is no longer visible before sunrise, the day
of the new moon. Attendant to this date is the earlier date, in the 18th Dynasty, of
Thutmose III’s accession year, determined by records of two new moon dates, one in his
23rd year and the other in his 24th year.
The 23rd year is a date recorded from the Battle of Megiddo on I šmw 20
(emended from I šmw 21) and the 24th year date is derived from a “stretching-of-the-
cord” ceremony, an act in laying the foundations of a temple, dated to II prt 30. Scholars
reckon on about 200 years between the accessions of Thutmose III and Ramesses II.
They then seek to date the new moons. As already noted, the dates for new moons tend
to recur in a cycle every 25 years. By assuming that the Assyrian chronology is reliable
for Rehoboam’s fifth year, a date in the 13th century is sought for Ramesses II’s lunar
date and in the 15th century for Thutmose III’s dates.
In the latter part of the 20th century, Egyptologists discussed at length the dates
that should be attributed to these kings.2 Dates of 1504 or 1490 BCE were proposed for
1
See pages 95-104; 155-178.
2
L.W. Casperson, “The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III,” JNES 45 (1986) 140-41. Casperson mentions W.C.
Hayes, E. Hornung, K.A. Kitchen, D.B. Redford, J. von Beckerath, W.J. Murnane, E. Wente, Wente and
van Siclen, and G. Lello.
Thutmose III, and 1304 and 1290 BCE for Ramesses II. But a new shift in thinking has
recently taken place.
Parker’s Proposals
In 1957, an article by Richard Parker was published in which he checked seven
possibilities for the new moon dates for Thutmose III and six for Ramesses II, in the 15th
and 13th centuries, respectively.3 For Thutmose III, he concluded that of three possible
pairs of dates giving accessions in 1515, 1490, and 1465 BCE for Thutmose III’s 23rd
and 24th years, the most probable pair was the accession date of 1490 with a pśdntyw
date on I šmw 20 on 11 May 1468 BCE, and II prt 29 on 20 February 1466 BCE. Parker
also noted a “less probable” accession date of 1479 BCE for the respective new moons
on 8 May 1457 and 17 February 1455 BCE. He notes that these dates are only possible if
the following month began in error. He said that for the 24th year pśdntyw date,
“Strangely enough, not one solution is exact”; thus, he had to use an incorrect date to
posit an accession date of 1490.4 He remarked that no recent historian had considered the
accession of Thutmose III to begin “as early as 1515 or as late as 1479 B.C.”5
For Ramesses II’s date of II prt 27 in the 52nd year, Parker did not find one date
that matched exactly, so of three possibilities (II prt 28 in 1253, II prt 26 in 1239, and II
prt 28 in 1228 BCE), he selected II prt 26 on 21 December 1239 BCE, giving Ramesses
II an accession in 1290 BCE. In order to find a date in the 13th century, Parker had again
to recourse to an inexact date. The reason he could not find an exact date for two of the
three pśdntyw dates was because he was relying on dates derived initially from the
Assyrian King-list, then transferred to the Hebrew kings, and again transferred to
Egyptian kings. That error led him to look in the wrong century.
Brinkman and Bierbrier

In 1970, an article by John Brinkman was published where he reassessed the
regnal years of the Kassite and Assyrian rulers and presented a table giving the
maximum and minimum variations possible for these kings prefaced by the statement,
“For the time being—for the sake of argument—one grants that the CAH (Cambridge
Ancient History) figures for the Assyrian monarchs are correct.”6
Of significance is his proposition that a Kassite ruler by the name of Meli-Shipak
could have his regnal years altered from the “standard” 1188–1174 to 1192–1178
maximum, and 1179–1165 minimum.7 He did warn that “Babylonian chronology … is
not a reliable standard against which to measure other chronologies of the late second
millennium.”8
Morris Bierbrier picked up on Brinkman’s adjusted dates for the Assyrian and
Babylonian rulers. In a book published in 1975, he explained that with adjustments to the
reigns of the eastern kings they could support a date as late as 1279 BCE for Ramesses
II. Also, by applying a minimum chronology to the Egyptian kings’ reigns, and a
generation count with only 25 years per generation, he could lower the date for
Ramesses II’s accession to 1279, though it could also accommodate 1290 BCE.9 In a
3
R.A. Parker, “The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III and Ramesses II,” JNES 16 (1957) 39-43.
4
Parker, “Lunar Dates,” 41, 42.
5
Ibid., 42.
6
J.A. Brinkman, “Notes on Mesopotamian History in the Thirteenth Century B.C.,” BiOr 27 (1970) 306.
7
Ibid., 306-07.
8
Ibid., 307.
9
M.L. Bierbrier, The Late New Kingdom in Egypt (c. 1300–664 B.C. (Warminster: Aris and Phillips,
1975) 109-13.
1978 article Bierbrier referred to the city of Emar and the date of Meli-Shipak, and its
consequences for the date of Ramesses II’s accession. The city of Emar was destroyed
by fire. In the aftermath was found a tablet dating to the second year of Meli-Shipak,
which on Brinkman’s calculations “could vary from 1191 to 1178 B.C.”10 Bierbrier
notes that Egyptian records recount how Hatti, Carchemish, and surrounding states were
invaded by Sea-People “whose forces reached Egypt no later than year 8 of Ramesses
III.”11
He associates these invaders with the destruction of Emar, which must then have
happened before year eight of Ramesses III, and ties this to the year two of Meli-
Shipak’s date coming after 1191 BCE. Having gained this date for year eight of
Ramesses III, Bierbrier reckons on a minimum of 101 years between Ramesses II and
year eight of Ramesses III (67 years Ramesses II, 10 Merenptah, 6 Seti II, 8 Siptah and
Twosret, 2 Setnakhte, and 8 Ramesses III). This provides a date of ca. 1292 BCE.
Bierbrier states that a 1290 accession date would be possible with the maximum
chronology or the previous standard date of 1178 BCE allowing slight additions, but not
with a later date for the invasion.12
Applying a 1304 BCE accession to Ramesses II would mean that the distance
between him and Ramesses III would have to be extended from 101 years to 113 and
only if the date of 1191 was used for Ramesses II (1191 + 113 years = 1304). But what is
most significant is Bierbrier’s last comment, “If the 1279 B.C. date is used for the
accession [of Ramesses II] then year 8 of Ramesses III would fall in 1178 B.C. exactly
or slightly later with the addition of a year or so.”13 From these results he concludes that
the 1304 date is most in doubt and he hopes for more definite conclusions from Syrian
excavations.14
Thus the idea gained ground that the date of 1279 BCE for Ramesses II’s
accession could in fact be possible, displacing the earlier dates of 1304 and 1290, and
consequently the dates 200 years earlier for Thutmose III’s accession in 1479 BCE. The
dates have been variously discussed by scholars such as Wente and van Siclen, Krauss,
Hornung,15 and others.
Casperson
Prior to 1986, Lee Casperson had noted that Parker’s dates for Thutmose III
(based on Neugebauer’s out-dated lunar tables) had not been re-examined, so he
recalculated them using Parker’s dates for the 15th century (noted above). Casperson’s
computer-generated tables for the new moons were published in 1986.16 He found that
the date of I šmw 20 (agreeing with the amendment from I šmw 21) was consistent with
Thutmose III’s 23rd year, and accession in 1504 BCE.17 For Thutmose III’s date in Year
24, the 1504 dates yielded a new moon on III prt 1, a day late, which, he says, can be
10
Idem, “The Date of the Destruction of Emar and Egyptian Chronology,” JEA 64 (1978) 136.
11
Ibid., 136.
12
Ibid., 136.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid., 136-37.
15
E. F. Wente and C. C. Van Siclen III, “A Chronology of the New Kingdom,” Studies in Honor of
George R. Hughes (eds. J. H. Johnson and E. F. Wente; SAOC 39; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, 1976) 224; R. Krauss, “Das Ende der Amarnazeit,” (HÄB 7; Hildesheim:
Gerstenberg, 1978) pt. 2, 166-203; E. Hornung “Chronologie in Bewegung,” Festschrift Elmar Edel (eds.
M. Görg and E. Pusch; Bamberg, 1979) 247-52.
16
Casperson, “Lunar Dates of Thutmose III,” 139-150.
17
Ibid., 146.
explained by assuming that the observers did not see the crescent the previous day.18 So
Casperson’s conclusion in 1986 was that the date of 1504 BCE for Thutmose III’s
accession was better than a date of 1490.19 The possibility of an accession in 1479 was
noted but not discussed.20
Casperson followed up his 1986 article with another in 1988 on the date of
Ramesses II’s new moon on II prt 27 in his 52nd year, again using Parker’s dates from
the 13th century.21 Like Parker, he found that not one of the five dates gave an exact
match. He found that the new moons giving an accession in 1304 fell on II prt 28, and II
prt 27 would have meant that the (theoretically) visible crescent was not seen. 22 In 1290
BCE, the new moon fell on II prt 26 indicating that the observer thought he saw a thin
crescent—when in fact it was not visible—and thought the new moon fell on the next
day on the 27th. For the 1279 BCE accession date, an observer would have marginally
missed seeing a visible crescent on the 27th when the actual day of first invisibility was
the 28th (or with different visibility criteria it might have even been invisible).
Thus, Casperson finds that the accession of Ramesses II in 1279 “is almost
consistent with the text.”23 The result of his recalculations giving a “best date” of 1279
BCE for Ramesses II’s accession implies a date 200 years earlier in 1479 for Thutmose
III’s accession. Because Casperson merely recalculated Parker’s dates of possible new
moons in the 13th and 15th centuries, the dates were still computed in the wrong period
of history.
High, Middle, or Low?

In 1987, a Colloquium on Absolute Chronology was held at the University of
Gothenburg on 20–22 August. It had as its title and theme, “High, Middle or Low?”
reflecting the fact that scholars had not come to a definitive conclusion as to which of the
paired dates for Thutmose III and Ramesses II should set the dates for the entire New
Kingdom, or whether the Sothic date in the ninth year of Amenhotep I associated with
the Ebers calendar should be dated to the high, medium, or low dates. In his opening
remarks, Erik Hornung stated:
In my paper I wanted to stress that all present chronology of the New Kingdom is based
entirely on dated contemporaneous material and on synchronisms with the Ancient Near
East. We have not to rely on king-lists like Manetho or the Turin Canon and we have not
to rely on astronomical computation for the famous Ebers’ datum or for lunar dates of
the new Kingdom. If you compare the results of Helck, Kitchen and myself there are
some minor differences but a general agreement, we all start the New Kingdom at about
the same time. Kitchen and I in 1539 and Helck a little later in 1530 with the end of the
24
Hyksos at 1515.
Hornung goes on to say, “I think it is now very clear that Ramesses II cannot
have started his reign before 1279 and Thutmosis III before 1479.”25 Thus the idea that
1479 and 1279 are the correct dates was becoming accepted by scholars. This is
18
Ibid., 148.
19
Ibid., 148, 150.
20
Ibid., 141.
21
L.W. Casperson, “The Lunar Date of Ramesses II,” JNES 47 (1988) 181-84.
22
Ibid., 183-84.
23
Ibid., 184.
24
E. Hornung, “E. Hornung’s paper,” High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on
Chronology held at the University of Gothenburg, 20th – 22nd August 1987 (Gothenburg: Paul Åströms
Förlag; Part 3, 1989) 34.
25
Ibid., 34-35.
reinforced by a paper written for the conference by Kitchen, who was absent, and
summarized by Bierbrier.26
Kitchen, after discussing the individual kings’ reigns for the 18th Dynasty,
allowing for small adjustments, concludes in his paper, “Thus 1479 BC is an excellent
match for 1279 BC, and should be the preferred date for Tuthmosis III, to match
Ramesses II in 1279 BC.” 27
In a supplementary paper written after the 1987 Gothenburg Colloquium, Kitchen
writes:
It is clear that virtual unanimity exists on setting the accession of Ramesses II at 1279
BC as a kind of New Kingdom baseline date … even so widely-agreed a consensus is no
guarantee of it being the truth …. Precisely two centuries earlier, the accession of
Tuthmosis III can reasonably be set at 1479 BC, on a combination of dead reckoning of
reigns and corresponding lunar dates. Into this framework, especially with Shoshenq I
close to 945–926 BC and Psamtek I from 664 BC, the rest of Egyptian chronology of the
New Kingdom and Late Period can readily be fitted with disputes over only minor
28
details.
The Egyptian Enigma Remains

From these quotes it is clear that the late dates for Thutmose III and Ramesses II
are becoming firmly entrenched in the minds of the Egyptologists, even though the
chronology for Assyria (let alone the ancient Near East) in this time period has never
been corroborated, but is trusted implicitly for synchronisms and dates. But with the
lowering of the dates for Thutmose III and Ramesses II, a new problem was discerned. If
Thutmose III’s accession was dated to 1479 BCE, then the earlier reign of Amenhotep I
had to be a “low” date also. This had repercussions for the Sothic rising date in the ninth
year of Amenhotep I, observed on III šmw 9.
Kitchen notes in his Gothenburg Colloquium paper that earlier scholars had
assumed that the Ebers date was observed at Memphis, but now the site of Thebes was
being regarded, not only because the Ebers papyrus was found there, but it was also the
capital of Ahmose—the founder of the 18th Dynasty—and of Amenhotep I. Scholars
thought this location would set the Sothic date in the ninth year of Amenhotep I at 1517
ending his 21st year in 1504 BCE. The 25 years between 1504 and 1479 could be closed
by attributing 12 or 13 years each to Thutmose I and II.29
Krauss, however, proposed Elephantine as the observation site for the Ebers
date.30 This would have the effect of lowering Amenhotep I’s reign by 11 years from
1517 to 1506. Kitchen noted this had “the chronic disadvantage of cramming the two
reigns of Tuthmosis I and II into the mere 14 years between 1493 and 1479 BC.”31
Nevertheless, jumping ahead to Kitchen’s chronology of the New Kingdom
published in 1996,32 and with an addendum in 2000,33 we find that he is attributing to
26
M.L. Bierbrier summarizing K.A. Kitchen’s “Supplementary Notes on ‘The Basics of Egyptian
Chronology’,” High, Middle or Low? pt. 3 (1989) 7, 152-59.
27
K.A. Kitchen, “The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age,” High, Middle or
Low? pt 1, (1987) 37-55.
28
Kitchen, “Supplementary Notes,” 158.
29
Kitchen, “Basics of Egyptian Chronology,” 42.
30
R. Krauss, Sothis- und Monddaten: Studien zur astronomischen und technischen Chronologie
Altägyptens (HÄB 20; Hildesheim; Gerstenberg, 1985) 109-10.
31
Kitchen, “Basics of Egyptian Chronology,” 42.
32
K.A. Kitchen, “The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, A Current Assessment,” Acta
Archaeologica 67 (1996) 1-13.
Amenhotep I an accession in 1515 BCE, which means Amenhotep’s ninth year falls in
1507. Thutmose I has a reign of 12 years followed by Thutmose II with three years
(relying on an emendation from Manetho who gives to a certain Chebron whom Kitchen
equates with Thutmose II, 13 years),34 thus giving Thutmose III an accession date of
1479 BCE.
This dating appears to infer that Kitchen has accepted Krauss’ argument that the
Ebers date was recorded at Elephantine, but referring to his dates of the 18th Dynasty he
now says, “These dates coincide quite closely with the supposed Sothic-rising datum of
Papyrus Ebers, but most opinion now disallows this document as real evidence of the
record of a specific rising of Sothis (references, cf. von Beckerath 1992a, 24, notes 8–
10.)”35
Amenhotep I Dated by the Sothic Cycle and the Calendar of Upper Egypt
Supposing the date for Amenhotep I’s ninth year fell in 1507/1506 on III šmw 9,
there would be 57 days to the end of the Sothic cycle; that is, 22 days (inclusive) from III
šmw 9–30, 30 days for IV šmw and five epagomenal days. Since the rising of Sothis falls
on the same day for four consecutive years before moving on to the next day, it will take
228 years to travel to the end of the cycle. Subtracting 228 years from 1507/1506 will
yield the year 1279/1278 BCE as the end of the cycle. The problem with this date is that
it has no corroboration from other sources. The goal of this research, expounded in
earlier chapters, has been to explain Egyptian calendar(s) and chronology, and chapter
10 determined that a new Sothic cycle began in Lower Egypt on I 3ḫt 1 in 1314. The
cycle of Upper Egypt began 100 years earlier in 1414 BCE. These provide assured
anchor points for Egyptian chronology, and working backwards, the date for Amenhotep
I’s ninth year in 1642.
Sothis Disallowed by Egyptian Scholars

The commonly accepted date of III šmw 9 in 1507/06 for Amenhotep I’s ninth
year is about 135 years too late. Scholars explain their dates for Thutmose III and
Ramesses II by disallowing the Sothic date, as acknowledged by Hornung and Kitchen
in the above-cited passages. Helck also had previously said at the Gothenburg
Colloquium that, “The papyrus Ebers does not give us a Sothis-date but only a hint at a
fact known to all. We are not allowed to use this entry for chronological calculations.”36
Furthermore, these scholars have no concept of two calendars for Egypt, with the Sothic
rising dates coming from a calendar of Upper Egypt dated a month ahead of the calendar
of Lower Egypt.
Extent and Importance of Astronomical Data

Egyptologists seek to reconstruct the chronology for the 18th and 19th Dynasties
proceeding from their dates obtained for Amenhotep I, Thutmose III, and Ramesses II.37
Many seem unaware of the extent of the astronomical data that can be applied to the
Egyptian chronology. For example, referring to the chronology of ancient Egypt as a
whole (1st–26th Dynasties) Kitchen wrote in 2000,
33
K.A. Kitchen, “Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt (Absolute Chronology I): The
Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a Current Assessment,” SCIEM II (2000) 39-52.
34
Ibid., 44, 48.
35
Ibid., 44. The reference to von Beckerath is: “Das Kalendarium des Papyrus Ebers und die Chronologie
des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches. Gegenwärtigen Stand der Frage,” Ä und L 3 (1992) 23-27.
36
Helck, “W. Helck’s Paper,” High, Middle or Low? Pt. 3, 41.
37
For further discussion see W.A. Ward, “The Present Status of Egyptian Chronology,” BASOR 288
(1992) 53-66.
Egyptian dates can sometimes then be refined in detail by use of synchronisms with
other ancient Near-Eastern states, especially Mesopotamia from ca. 1400 B.C. onwards
and occasionally (only occasionally) by use of a tiny handful of astronomical data (one
definite Sothic date in the 12th Dynasty; lunar dates with this; and one lunar date each in
the 18th and 19th Dynasties). Egyptian chronology overall is not based on these meagre
astronomical data—these merely help to limit the options in fine detail.38
Instead of “a tiny handful of astronomical data,” there is a wide range of lunar

and Sothic dates scattered from the 5th Dynasty to the 25th Dynasty, which anchor many
of the regnal years of the kings. Furthermore, the Ebers calendar that some Egyptologists
wished to disallow holds the key to the calendars and chronology of ancient Egypt.
38
Kitchen, “Regnal and Genealogical Data,” 39. Emphasis his.
Chapter 27. Reinstating the 18th Dynasty – Ahmose to Hatshepsut 367
Chapter 27
Reinstating the 18th Dynasty - Ahmose to Hatshepsut

The 18th Dynasty began the long period now known as the New Kingdom, which
continues to the end of the 20th Dynasty. The inception of the 18th Dynasty is attributed
to a native Egyptian, Ahmose (Tethmosis or Amosis as he was called by Manetho), who
led a revolt against the Hyksos overlords and banished them from the Delta.
The succession of rulers of the 18th Dynasty is fairly well established, though
two transitions require special attention. Firstly, that of (Queen) Hatshepsut, who ruled
after the death of Thutmose II and before the accession of her nephew Thutmose III; and
secondly, the identification of the successor of Akhenaten.
Scholars recognize the succession of rulers of the 18th Dynasty as shown in
Table 27.1. Lunar and Sothic anchor points are listed.
Table 27.1: 18th Dynasty succession of rulers
Regnal
Ruler years*
Dates BCE Lunar or Sothic anchor points
Ahmose None known
Sothic heliacal. rising at Thebes: Yr 9 III šmw 9
Amenhotep I
1642
Thutmose I None known
Thutmose II None known
Yr 15 of Hatshepsut = Thut. III’s 2nd year in
1589/1588: Hatshepsut’s accession as co-regent fell
in 1588, though Thut. III began to reign in 1590.
Hatshepsut
Yr 2 Thut. III: Amun feast II prt 29 on 3rd day
after new moon II prt 27 in 1588 celebrates
Hatshepsut’s co-regency with Thut. III
Yr 2 new moon II prt 27; II prt 29 was 3rd day of
Amun feast celebrating Hatshepsut’s co-regency.
Yr 23 new moon I šmw 20 (Megiddo) 1568.
Thutmose III Yr 24 new moon II prt 30 “stretching of the cord”
10th day Amun feast, 1566.
[Yr 33] Sothic helical rising at Elephantine III šmw
28, 1558
Yr 19 new moon III šmw [8] 1517; feast
Amenhotep II
preparations
Thutmose IV None known
Amenhotep III None known
Yr 5 new moon IV prt 13 1459 boundary stela.
Akhenaten
Probable “stretching of the cord” ceremony
Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten None known
Tutankhamun None known
Ay None known
New Sothic cycle commenced at Thebes on I 3ḫt 1
Horemheb
in 1414
* = most months approximate.
The extent of controversy on the 18th Dynasty dictates that the discussion be
broken into several chapters.
Heliacal Risings of Sothis and Moon Phases

The starting date of the 18th Dynasty is determined by the year of the heliacal
rising of Sothis on III šmw 9 in Amenhotep I’s ninth year. One reckons back 288 years
(the distance elapsed between III šmw 9 and the fifth epagomenal) before 1414 BCE.
This gives the date of 1642 BCE for Amenhotep I’s ninth year as observed at Thebes
(see Table 10.9 on page 168).
The date of 1642 BCE conforms to the dates previously discussed for the 12th
Dynasty and the Sothic rising in Sesostris III’s seventh year, on IV prt 17 in 1980 BCE
observed at Illahun. From this starting date, the two new moon dates in the 23rd and 24th
years of Thutmose III can be checked for their concurrence with Amenhotep I’s Sothic
date. Having gained fixed dates for Amenhotep I and Thutmose III, we proceed with the
help of documented regnal years, including other lunar dates, to establish the reigns of
the kings of the dynasty.
Throughout these chapters, Casperson’s lunar tables are placed with each king to
whom they relate. Lunar tables are not usually relevant to accession dates, which
immediately follow the date of death of the previous king. But the tables often feature in
later references in the narrative, especially in the controversies that have arisen around
the confusion and improvisations arising from flawed dates of currently accepted
Egyptian chronology. My reconstructed chronology must necessarily engage with these
controversies to confirm its validity. As previously, new moon dates are verified by
Casperson tables,1 and Sothic dates are confirmed by the HELIAC program.2 Casperson
tables also display the dates of the calendar or Lower Egypt with their Julian-dated
equivalents.
Differentiating Calendars for Upper and Lower Egypt

Recapping earlier observations, ancient Egypt had two calendars, one in Upper
Egypt and one in Lower Egypt with the concurrent months identified one month later in
the north (Lower Egypt) than in the south (Upper Egypt). Thus, II 3ḫt in the calendar of
Upper Egypt is the same time period as I 3ḫt in the calendar of Lower Egypt.
Consequently, the heliacal rising of Sothis observed in Upper Egypt was recorded using
the calendar of that region, which extended as far north as Illahun. The difference
between the Sothic cycles observed from Thebes and Memphis amounts to 100 years and
is demonstrated when the Sothic cycle dated to the calendar of Upper Egypt ended in
1414 BCE, and when the new Sothic cycle in the calendar of Lower Egypt (at Memphis)
ended in 1314 BCE. This 100-year difference—the time between the end of the Sothic
cycle in southern Upper Egypt and the northern Lower Egypt—straddles the 18th and
19th Dynasties.
Data for accession dates and length-of-reigns for the New Kingdom (18th–20th
Dynasties) have been conveniently collected together by Erik Hornung and discussed
briefly in his recent chapter, “The New Kingdom” in Ancient Egyptian Chronology3 to
which I make frequent reference. The regnal years from Ahmose to Thutmose III is the
first period to consider.
1
Explanation of Casperson Tables appear in chap. 5, pp. 81–83 and chap. 10, p. 166.
2
J-P. Lacroix, “Heliacal rising of Sirius in Thebes,”
http://www.ancientcartography.net/LEVERheliaqueAN.html For more information about this program see
also Maria G. Firneis and Monika Rode-Paunzen, “Progress-Report on Egyptian Astrochronology,”
Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean (eds. M. Bietak and H. Hunger;
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschafteten Band 29; Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschafteten, 2003) 47-85.
3
E. Hornung, “The New Kingdom,” Ancient Egyptian Chronology (eds. E. Hornung, R. Krauss, and D.A.
Warburton; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006) 197-217.
Manetho and Monumental evidence

Apart from Ahmose, Manetho’s names for the 18th Dynasty kings and their
regnal years do not correspond well with those found on the monuments. For example,
Manetho lists a Chebron as the successor of Ahmose, where inscriptions attest his
successor was Amenhotep I whose residence was at Thebes, not in Lower Egypt where
Ahmose resided. I will discuss Manetho’s dynastic lists for the 18th and 19th Dynasties
in chapter 32 after I have reconstructed the chronology for this period from other data.
Ahmose
Ahmose was the first ruler of the 18th Dynasty. Succeeding his brother Kamose,
the last ruler of the 17th Dynasty, Ahmose laid siege in his 11th year to the Hyksos
foreigners living in Avaris, whose rule comprised the short 15th Dynasty (contemporary
with the final years of the much longer 17th Dynasty).4 The Hyksos king, Khamudy,
surrendered and was banished with his subjects to Palestine.5
Ahmose’s accession date is not known.6 However, Ryholt notes, “The accession
date of Ahmose can, incidentally, be shown to fall outside the period III Shemu 1 to I
Akhet 25, since Pap. Rhind covers Ahmoses’s 11th regnal-year from an unspecified day
in II Shemu until I Akhet 25.”7 Therefore, Ahmoses’s accession took place within the
period I 3ḫt 26 to II šmw 30.
Ahmose’s highest known regnal year is his 22nd, which is found on an
inscription in the Tura quarries.8 According to Manetho, the man who expelled the
foreigners from Egypt was a Tethmosis who ruled for 25 years and 4 months.9 The
identification of Ahmose with Tethmosis seems certain; thus, the 25 years and 4 months
given to him by Manetho is adopted here. Ahmose’s accession year can be derived from
his son, Amenhotep I’s accession year, in whose ninth year the “going up of Sothis” fell
on III šmw 9 as recorded on the Ebers papyrus. Previous discussion dated the Sothic
rising to the year 1642 BCE, which yields a date on or before III šmw 9 in 1651 BCE for
Amenhotep I’s accession, and which concurs with the period noted by Ryholt.
As III šmw 9 comes from the calendar of Upper Egypt, its equivalence in the
calendar of Lower Egypt is II šmw 9 (running concurrently). As noted in the next
section, Amenhotep I’s accession seems to have occurred on III šmw 11, which would
have been dated in the calendar of Lower Egypt (thus II šmw 11) by which regnal years
and lunar dates were recorded.
Projecting back 25 years and 4 months from III šmw 11 in the calendar of Lower
Egypt in 1651 BCE yields the date of 1676 and the months of II-III prt for Ahmose’s
accession depending on the length of his last four months (see Table 27.2).
4
K. Ryholt attributes 32 years to the 17th Dynasty and 108-109 years for the 15th Dynasty as preserved on
the Turin King-list in his The Political Situation in Egypt During the Second Intermediate Period,
c.1800-1550 B.C. (Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies Publications 20; Copenhagen:
University of Copenhagen and Museum Tusculanum Press, 1997) 189-90, 201, 203.
5
H. Goedicke, “The End of the Hyksos in Egypt,” Egyptological Studies in Honor of Richard A. Parker
Presented on the Occasion of his 78th birthday December 10, 1983 (ed. L.H. Lesko; Hanover, NH:
Published for Brown University by University Press of New England, 1986) 37-47; Ryholt, Political
Situation, 5-6, 186-90; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 198.
6
Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 198.
7
8
D.B. Redford, “On the Chronology of the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty,” JNES 25 (1966) 114; idem,
History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1967) 48-49;
9
Manetho, 100-1, 108-9.
Table 27.2: Ahmose’s accession and the beginning of the New Kingdom in −1675
−1675 3 3 −1675 2 17 1106 5 19 3 3:26 6:25 219 6:25 94 6:24 14
10
Ahmose’s accession took place about II–III prt in −1675
−1675 4 1 −1675 3 18 1106 6 18 4 11:40 6:04 294 6:03 134 6:03 50
−1675 4 30 −1675 4 16 1106 7 17 5 20:16 5:43 379 5:42 174 5:41 79
Validation for this date will be considered later when discussing the length of the
dynasty. On the above dates, Ahmose reigned from 1676 BCE to 1651 BCE.
Amenhotep I
Amenhotep I was the third son of Ahmose. His mother was Queen Ahmose
Nefretari.11 Two older brothers, Ahmose-ankh and Ahmose Sapair predeceased him
sometime between his father’s 17th and 25th (final) year,12 so Amenhotep may have
been quite young when he became king.13
The dates for Amenhotep I’s reign derive from paired dates for two festivals
related to Amenhotep’s accession.14 The first pair of dates are on a Turin papyrus with
the date III šmw 11 on an ostracon in the British Museum bearing a date of III šmw 13.
The noun used for the festival celebration is ḫcy-nsw which, Redford says, “consistently
designates accession.” Redford writes, “This festival clearly lasted several days, the
eleventh and thirteenth being included; but whether the anniversary began or concluded
the festival is unknown. All that can be said is that the accession of Amenhotpe I took
place toward the middle of the eleventh month.”15
Another pair of dates appear on two Cairo ostraca (No. 25725) dated to I 3ḫt 29
and I 3ḫt 30 (No. 25726). Redford translates Cairo 25276 as “‘Year 6, first month of
akhet, last day; on this day king Amenhotpe appeared and greeted the gang (i.e. the
necropolis workmen).’ In other words, this is merely a festal appearance of the cult
image, and has nothing to do, at least insofar as the present wording signifies, with the
kings’ accession day or ‘Krönungsfest’.”16
F.J. Schmitz connected the first pair of dates, III šmw 11–13, with the accession
feast of Amenhotep I, proposing that on the dates of I 3ḫt 29 and 30 Amenhotep I
showed himself to the people for the first time about 80 days after his accession, with his
coronation falling approximately on IV šmw 20.17 Winfried Barta agreed that the earlier
dates referred to Amenhotep I’s accession and notes that between the dates of III šmw
11–13 and the end of I 3ḫt there are approximately 80 days that may indicate the funeral
10
Comments within Casperson’s tables are mine.
11
This long-held belief has been supported by DNA testing (“Secrets of the Ancient World Revealed
Through DNA: A lecture presented to the ESS [Egyptian Study Society] by Dr. Scott Woodward,
Professor of Microbiology, Brigham Young University, 20 April 2001,” summarized by J. Greenfield in
The Ostracon 12 [2001] 23).
12
A. Dodson and D. Hilton, The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt (London: Thames and
Hudson, 2004) 126. Cited in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_I
13
J. Dunn, “Amenhotep I, the Second King of Egypt’s 18th Dynasty,”
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep1.htm
14
Redford, “Chronology,” 115-16.
15
Ibid., 116. Amenhotpe is a variant spelling of Amenhotep.
16
Ibid., 115-16.
17
F-J. Schmitz, “Amenophis I,” (HÄB 6; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1978) 26-29, 33.
period for Ahmose, followed by the coronation celebrations on I 3ḫt 29 and 30.18 On this
understanding, the dates in year six (Cairo ostracon No. 25276) would then be
anniversary celebrations of the coronation, but, as Redford notes, the text does not
suggest this. At most, it appears that the first pair of dates are associated with the king’s
accession, the celebration of which included the dates III šmw 11–13. The second pair of
dates coming from Amenhotep I’s sixth year on I 3ḫt 29 and 30 do not indicate an
anniversary of the king’s coronation, so probably report a notable appearance of the king
to the workmen in his sixth year for an uncertain occasion of festivity.
Amenhotep I’s Ninth Year

The Ebers papyrus calendar notes a heliacal rising on III šmw 9 in Amenhotep I’s
ninth year, discussed in chapter 9. This date infers the beginning of the solar/agricultural
year, and the months thereafter are dated from “day 9” in the calendar. These months
correspond to the calendar of Upper Egypt shown in the first column of the Ebers
papyrus starting with wp rnpt.
At the beginning of the Sothic cycle commencing ca. 2874–2870 BCE at Thebes,
the month of wp rnpt began on the day of the heliacal rising of Sothis (on I 3ḫt 1), but by
the ninth year of Amenhotep I this had progressed through the calendar of Upper Egypt
to the point where the rising of Sothis coincided with III šmw 9, where III šmw 9 began
the new solar/agricultural year coincident with the first month of Inundation.
Casperson’s lunar table is repeated below in Table 27.3.
Table 27.3: Amenhotep I’s 9th/10th years in −1641 (new moon listing for −1641)
−1641 6 13 −1641 5 30 1140 9 9 7 22:36 5:17 277 5:16 162 5:16 81
The heliacal rising of Sothis occurs on III šmw 9 in the calendar of Upper Egypt = II šmw 9 in the calendar of
Lower Egypt
−1641 7 13 −1641 6 29 1140 10 9 2 13:59 5:11 229 5:11 136 5:11 50
Amenhotep I’s 10th year begins on or before III šmw 11–13
−1641 8 12 −1641 7 29 1140 11 9 4 5:55 5:19 199 5:20 104 5:20 8
−1641 9 10 −1641 8 27 1140 12 8 5 21:43 5:38 267 5:38 169 5:39 68
III šmw 9 in the calendar of Upper Egypt, which is used for the recording of
Sothic risings, corresponds to II šmw 9 in the calendar of Lower Egypt as shown by the
fact that II šmw 9 equates to 13 July in the Julian year of −1641 (1642 BCE), the time of
the heliacal rising at Thebes as confirmed by the HELIAC program. The heliacal rising
of Sothis on III šmw 9 was coincidentally also the date of a new moon, no doubt a
significant occurrence for the ancient Egyptians.
The assumed proximity of Amenhotep I’s accession dates including III šmw 11–
13 and the heliacal rising of Sothis on III šmw 9 has led some scholars to posit that III
šmw 9 of the Ebers calendar was actually the anniversary of Amenhotep I’s accession.19
This notion cannot be upheld since the Sothic rising dates and accession dates are taken
from different calendars, and III šmw 9 in the calendar of Upper Egypt equates to II šmw
9 in the calendar of Lower Egypt. These months ran concurrently, so what was the
beginning of the ninth year in one calendar was the same month with a month’s
difference in the numbering in the other calendar.
18
W. Barta, “Thronbesteigung und Krönungsfeier als Unterschiedliche Zeugnisse Königlicher
Herrschaftsübernahme,” SAK 8 (1980) 43-45.
19
Also discussed in chap. 9.
The festival dates for the accession of Amenhotep I include III šmw 11–13, dates
that are presumed to come from the calendar of Lower Egypt. The equivalent in the
calendar of Upper Egypt is IV šmw 11–13. Therefore, in Amenhotep I’s ninth year, the
date of III šmw 9 for the heliacal rising of Sothis comes about one month before his 10th
year begins, which, in the calendar of Lower Egypt, is before or on III šmw 11–13. So
the heliacal rising of Sothis on III šmw 9 was not the anniversary of Amenhotep I’s
accession, which fell a month later. The only thing that could alter this is if both dates
were taken from the calendar of Upper Egypt but there is no precedent for recording
accession dates by the calendar of Upper Egypt in the 18th Dynasty.
Table 27.4 displays the period of Amenhotep I’s accession assuming the
accession festival dates of III šmw 11–13 based on the calendar of Lower Egypt. The
second pair of dates, I 3ḫt 29 and I 3ḫt 30 in Amenhotep’s sixth year, reports a notable
appearance of the king to the workmen on an occasion of festivity, but also cannot be
associated with celebrating his accession.
Table 27.4: Amenhotep I’s first and second years (new moon listing from −1650 to
−1649)
−1650 7 22 −1650 7 8 1131 10 16 7 18:27 5:12 252 5:12 131 5:12 36
Amenhotep I’s accession on or before III šmw 11
−1650 8 21 −1650 8 7 1131 11 16 2 10:06 5:24 216 5:25 114 5:26 16
−1650 9 20 −1650 9 6 1131 12 16 4 1:12 5:45 187 5:46 85 5:47 −20
Amenhotep I’s second year begins
−1649 8 10 −1649 7 27 1132 11 5 6 11:27 5:18 212 5:19 112 5:19 21
−1649 9 9 −1649 8 26 1132 12 5 1 5:10 5:37 188 5:38 94 5:38 0
−1649 10 8 −1649 9 24 1132 13 4 2 22:34 5:59 264 6:00 168 6:01 70
−1649 11 7 −1649 10 24 1133 1 29 4 14:28 6:22 246 6:23 145 6:24 40
−1649 12 7 −1649 11 23 1133 2 29 6 4:23 6:41 217 6:42 110 6:42 0
Amenhotep I’s 21st Year

Amenhotep I’s highest known regnal year is inferred in a passage in the
autobiography of an astronomer/magician, Amenemhet, from Theban tomb C. 2,
indicating that Amenemhet served under Amenhotep I for 21 years.20 He had already
served under Ahmose, and it has been suggested that Amenemhet also served under
Thutmose I, which would limit Amenhotep I’s reign to 21 years.21
Jubilee festival decorations found on a large limestone gateway at Karnak
attributed to the reign of Amenhotep I22 are presumed to be anticipatory of him
celebrating 30 regnal years, though Wente and van Siclen suggest that Amenhotep I was
co-regent with his father Ahmose for six years—hence a jubilee festival took place in the
reign of Amenhotep I on account of his father’s 30-year reign.23 Co-regencies in the New
Kingdom are not the norm, with Hatshepsut’s co-regency with Thutmose III an
exception. But even if there were a co-regency, it still leaves Amenhotep I with a sole
20
Redford, “Chronology,” 114. See also, F.-J. Schmitz, Amenophis I (HÄB 6; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg,
1978) 27-30; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 199.
21
Redford, “Chronology,” 115.
22
Dunn, “Amenhotep I.”
23
Wente and van Siclen, “A Chronology of the New Kingdom,” Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes,
January 12, 1977 (SAOC 39; Chicago IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1976) 225. G.
Vittmann also suggests a co-regency, “Was there a c-regency of Ahmose with Amenophis I?” JEA 60
(1974) 250-51 cited by Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 199.
reign of nearly 21 years24 with an accession about III šmw 11 in 1651 and his death on
III prt 20 in 1630 BCE.
Amenhotep’s Final Year and Thutmose I’s Accession

Thutmose I succeeded Amenhotep I on III prt 21 according to an inscription on a
stela from Turo at Wady Halfa,25 which is understood by scholars to be the day after
Amenhotep I died.26 With his 10th year beginning in 1642 BCE, Amenhotep’s death on
III prt 20 in his 21st year would fall in 1630 BCE, sometime after III šmw 11, giving him
about eight to nine months in his final year. As can be seen in Casperson’s table below
(Table 27.5), III šmw 11 occurs on 11 August in −1630 and III prt 21 falls on 23 April in
−1629.
Table 27.5: Amenhotep I’s 21st year and Thutmose I’s accession in −1630/1629
−1630 7 11 −1630 6 27 1151 10 10 7 5:42 5:11 208 5:11 85 5:11 −9
Amenhotep I’s 21st year begins on III šmw 11
−1630 8 9 −1630 7 26 1151 11 9 1 19:37 5:18 271 5:19 154 5:19 55
−1630 9 8 −1630 8 25 1151 12 9 3 12:28 5:36 220 5:37 123 5:38 29
−1630 10 8 −1630 9 24 1152 1 4 5 7:17 5:59 195 6:00 101 6:01 6
−1630 11 7 −1630 10 24 1152 2 4 7 2:29 6:23 180 6:23 85 6:24 −11
−1630 12 6 −1630 11 22 1152 3 3 1 20:35 6:41 258 6:42 163 6:42 67
−1629 1 5 −1630 12 22 1152 4 3 3 12:27 6:49 236 6:49 130 6:49 32
−1629 2 4 −1629 1 21 1152 5 3 5 1:31 6:42 184 6:41 71 6:41 −23
−1629 3 5 −1629 2 19 1152 6 2 6 11:46 6:24 268 6:23 99 6:23 0
Amenhotep I dies on III prt 20 and Thutmose I accedes on III prt 21
−1629 4 3 −1629 3 20 1152 7 1 7 19:48 6:03 483 6:02 134 6:01 18
−1629 5 3 −1629 4 19 1152 8 1 2 2:33 5:41 195 5:40 44 5:39 −44
Relevance to Thera Eruption in 1645 ± Seven Years

The SCIEM conference held in 2000 aimed to finalize the Julian dates for the
chronology of the 2nd millennium BCE.27 Referring to the publication of the
contributors’ papers, Manfred Bietak wrote in 2003, “This congress volume contains
some new scientific research contributions that lend strong support to a high Aegean
chronology with a pivotal date for the eruption of the volcano of Thera in ca. 1645 ± 7
BC.”28
After considering the scientific evidence, Bietak says:
The consequence, in terms of relative chronology is that the archaeological material
suggests from many different viewpoints, that the eruption of Thera cannot be
synchronized with the period around the beginning of the Hyksos Period in Egypt or
with the early MB IIB in Palestine. All the evidence strongly suggests that this event
happened sometime in the early 18th Dynasty, most probably before the reign of
Thutmose III.
24
I do not consider Manetho’s lists of the 18th and 19th Dynasties to be the 18th and 19th Dynasties
known from the monuments; thus, the attribution of 20 years and 7 months to an Amenophis following a
Chebron following Ahmose, does not refer to the reign of Amenhotep I. Coincidentally, they reigned about
the same length of time. For discussion of Manetho’s 18th and 19th Dynasties see chap. 32.
25
Redford, “Chronology,” 115-16.
26
Wente and van Siclen, “Chronology of the New Kingdom,” 225.
27
U. Luft, “Priorities in Absolute Chronology,” SCIEM II (2003) 199.
28
M. Bietak, “Science versus Archaeology: Problems and Consequences of High Aegean Chronology,”
SCIEM II (2003) 23, 25.
Bietak continues:
If the 1645 ± 7 BC particles from the Greenland ice core were securely and repeatedly
identifiable then any attempt to harmonise the divergent chronologies cannot be a
unilateral uplift of the Aegean chronology. The only alternative left must also be to raise
the beginning of the New Kingdom by between 100 to 150 years. The network of
Egyptian chronology and its synchronisms with Near Eastern, particularly Assyrian
chronology makes this, at least for the time being somewhat difficult to accept.29
The same sentiments are expressed by Otto Cichocki et al. concerning the new
date gained by scientific methods. They write:
The absolute chronological dates are gained by calculating the known length of
regencies and taking the reported and recalculated Sothic dates as fixed points. The
traditional one-sided picture of the Egyptian part of the link producing the absolute dates
for Aegean and other neighbouring sequences seemed to change when the Santorini
eruption was dated with scientific methods. Unfortunately, this new, very early date
(17th century BC) seemed to make the sequences drift apart. It appears to be quite
impossible to squeeze an additional 150 years out of the traditional sequence of time
based on the regencies of Egyptian kings. Scholars who were used to chronological
discrepancies of 20 to 30 years suddenly saw themselves confronted with a completely
new, utterly irritating situation.30
Similar comments can be found elsewhere. Scholars assume that the Assyrian
chronology is correct, and that synchronisms between Egypt and Assyria must rely on
the Assyrian dates gained from the Assyrian King-list on the premise that it is complete
for all the years it appears to cover. However, as I have repeatedly asserted, the
reliability of the King-list before the solar eclipse of 763 BCE has never been
corroborated.
The authors cited above identify 150 years as the critical discrepancy.
Conventional chronologies date the beginning of the divided kingdom to 931 BCE; I
date mine to 981 BCE, which identifies 50 years. A further 100 years has been lost from
the Egyptian chronology by not recognizing that Egypt had 100 years between the two
Sothic cycles dated from 1414 (Thebes) and 1314 (Memphis). This 100 years is fully
covered by the last kings of the 18th Dynasty, and the first five kings of the 19th
Dynasty, as we shall see. At the beginning of the (Theban) 18th dynasty, Egyptian
chronology has lost 136 years, with 1676 BCE down-dated to 1540 BCE.
What has been dubbed “impossible to squeeze” is not at all impossible. The years
1645 ± 7 BCE (1652–1638) given for the eruption of Thera include the last two years of
the reign of Ahmose (1652 and 1651 BCE) and the remainder fall in the reign of
Amenhotep I—after the Hyksos period and before Hatshepsut and Thutmose III—as
scholars presently maintain. The extra “150 years” needed from the historical
chronology is provided herewith.
Thutmose I
Until recently, it was thought that Amenhotep I had no surviving sons at the time
of his death and that Thutmose I came from a collateral branch of the royal family.
Recent DNA testing has led to the conclusion, “Thutmosis shares a particular allele with
Amenhotep I; conventional wisdom says they were not father and son but DNA evidence
29
Ibid., 30.
30
O. Cichocki et al., “The Synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second
Millennium BC: Natural Science Dating Attempts,” Tools for Constructing Chronologies (eds. C.E. Buck
and A.R. Millard; London: Springer, 2004) 84.
implies they were.” Thutmose I was probably a son of Amenhotep I and his non-royal
wife Senseneb.31
Thutmose I came to the throne on III prt 21, equated with April 23 in −1629 (see
Table 27.5). A broken sandstone block found at Karnak inscribed in raised relief having
the cartouche of Thutmose I records both a regnal year eight and nine,32 the year nine is
understood by scholars to be Thutmose I’s highest year.33 Assuming that Thutmose I
reigned nine years, this would put the end of his reign in 1622/1621 BCE. He was
succeeded by Thutmose II, who came to the throne on II 3ḫt 8, thus Thutmose I died the
previous day. See Casperson’s table below (Table 27.6). With his ninth year having
begun on III prt 21, this would give to Thutmose I a ninth year of nearly seven months.
Table 27.6 shows how long Thutmose I reigned into his ninth year before Thutmose II
succeeded him.
Table 27.6: Thutmose I’s ninth year and Thutmose II’s accession in −1621 (new
−1621 3 6 −1621 2 20 1160 6 5 3 19:12 6:23 449 6:23 150 6:22 48
Thutmose I’s 9th year begins on III prt 21
−1621 4 5 −1621 3 22 1160 7 5 5 2:52 6:01 215 6:01 90 6:00 14
−1621 5 4 −1621 4 20 1160 8 4 6 10:05 5:40 288 5:39 132 5:39 46
−1621 6 2 −1621 5 19 1160 9 3 7 17:54 5:22 348 5:21 174 5:21 75
−1621 7 2 −1621 6 18 1160 10 3 2 3:31 5:11 216 5:11 108 5:11 11
−1621 7 31 −1621 7 17 1160 11 2 3 15:55 5:14 259 5:15 151 5:15 49
−1621 8 30 −1621 8 16 1160 12 2 5 7:28 5:30 204 5:31 105 5:31 7
−1621 9 29 −1621 9 15 1160 13 2 7 1:38 5:52 173 5:53 77 5:54 −18
−1621 10 28 −1621 10 14 1161 1 26 1 20:59 6:15 250 6:16 153 6:16 56
Thutmose II’s accession on II 3ḫt 8
−1621 11 27 −1621 11 13 1161 2 26 3 15:54 6:36 235 6:37 128 6:37 28
−1621 12 27 −1621 12 13 1161 3 26 5 8:60 6:48 205 6:49 91 6:49 −4
Early ideas that the mummy of Thutmose I was of a 30-year-old man who had
been killed by an arrow to the chest34 were dispelled by Gaston Maspero (1846–1916) in
favor of an unlabeled mummy #5283, of a man about 50 years old. Maspero had noticed
31
A. Bart, “Thutmosis I,”
http://euler.slu.edu/~bart/egyptianhtml/kings%20and%20Queens/Tuthmosis-I.html
32
E. Hornung, Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Geschichte des Neuen Reiches (ÄA 11; Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1964) 32; Redford, “Chronology,” 116; Wente and van Siclen, “Chronology of the New
Kingdom,” 225; R. Krauss, “Das Kalendarium des papyrus Ebers und seine chronologische
Verwertbarkeit,” Ä und L 3 (1992) 86-87 photo (fig. 3); J. von Beckerath, Chronologie des Pharaonischen
Ägypten, Die Zeitbestimmung der ägyptischen Geschichte von der Vorzeit bis 332 v. Chr. (Mainz: von
Zabern, 1997) 120.
33
Earlier ideas that the stela was not reliable because the block was found in a portion of the Karnak
sanctuary in proximity to an inscription belonging to Thutmose III, and the cartouche appears in
conjunction with an ished tree’s leaves, which are supposed to have been inscribed by the gods at the
beginning of a king’s reign (Redford, “Chronology,” 116 n. 25, citing L. Borchardt, Die Mittel zur
zeitlicheen Festlegung von Punkten der ägyptischen Geschichte [Cairo, 1935] 79; Wente and van Siclen,
“Chronology of the New Kingdom,” 225-26), have long since been rebutted by W.F. Edgerton, “Critical
Notes: On the Chronology of the Early 18th Dynasty (Amenhotep I to Thutmose III,” AJSL 53, 1937) 189
n. 4, cited by Redford, “Chronology,” 116, n. 25.
34
L. Anderson, “Mummy Awakens New Era in Egypt,” Chicago Tribune (July 14, 2007); cited in
“Thutmose I,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thutmose_I
that the mummy had a strong familial resemblance to Thutmose II and III, 35 an opinion
supported by subsequent examination of the embalming techniques used on the mummy,
placing it after the reign of Ahmose I.36 The age of the mummy gives ample time for
Thutmose I’s nine year reign.
Thutmose II
Thutmose II was the son of Thutmose I and a minor wife Mutnofret. He married
his half-sister Hatshepsut. He ascended the throne on II 3ḫt 8 according to a stela found
between Aswan and Philae.37 Redford translates from the stela, “Lo, his majesty
appeared on the dais when the living captives which this army had brought were dragged
in.” He assumes it refers to Thutmose II’s accession on II 3ḫt 8.38
Thutmose II’s only certain date is said to be II 3ḫt 9 of his first year.39 The day
eight or nine might have been his accession date. This equates to 9 or 10 November in
1622 BCE.
A regnal year 18 has been attributed to Thutmose II, once seen on a monument
(now lost) by Georges Daressy, published in 1900.40 The name of the king was not clear.
Some scholars do not accept that Thutmose II could have reigned 18 years based on the
number of years they allocate to the period between Amenhotep I and Thutmose III. This
conclusion may be tied to identifying his years with Mephres 12/13 years, and Chebron
13 years (which scholars often reduce to three) of Manetho’s king-list.41 In 1987, L.
Gabolde compared the number of scarabs found by Bertrand Jaeger: for Thutmose II
(65), Thutmose I (241), and Hatshepsut (463). He concluded that Thutmose I reigned 11
years and Thutmose II for three full years, assuming that the number of scarabs produced
was much the same in each year of reign. Gabolde assigns the 18 years to Amenhotep
II.42 Others assign the 18 years to Hatshepsut.43 Neither of these proposals is accepted
here.
Thutmose II and Hatshepsut

If Thutmose II reigned about 18 years from 9 November (II 3ḫt 8) in 1622 BCE,
his death would have occurred about 1604/1603. Thutmose III, heir of Thutmose II, was
still a young child when his father died. His step-sister/aunt became regent, so her years
35
G. Maspero, History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria (Vol. 4 of 12; Project Gutenberg
EBook #17324).
36
G. Elliot Smith, The Royal Mummies (repr. London: Duckworth, 2000) 25-28.
37
38
Ibid.
39
40
G. Daressy, “La chapelle d’Uazmès,” Annuales du Service des Antiquités de l'Égypte 1 (1900) 99. It is
used by A. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961) 180. See comment
by R. Krauss, Sothis- und Monddaten: Studien zur astronomische und technischen Chronologie
Altägyptens (HÄB 20; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1985) 119-20.
41
W.F. Edgerton, The Thutmosid Succession (SAOC 8; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933)
41-42; Redford, “Chronology,” 117-19; Wente and Van Siclen, “Chronology of the New Kingdom,” 226;
Krauss, Sothis– und Monddaten, 119-21; W. Helck, “Erneut das angebliche Sothis-Datum des Pap. Ebers
und die Chronologie der 18. Dynastie,” SAK 15 (1988) 182; K.A. Kitchen, “Regnal and Genealogical
Data,” SCIEM II (2003), 44; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 200-201.
42
L. Gabolde, “La Chronologie du règne de Thoutmosis II, ses conséquences sur la datation des momies
royales et leurs répercutions sur l’histoire du développement de la Vallée des Rois,” SAK 14 (1987) 61–81;
cited by Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 200.
43
J. von Beckerath, “Nochmals zur Regierung Tuthmosis’ II,” SAK 17 (1990) 66; cf. Krauss, “Das
Kalendarium des papyrus Ebers,” 86 n. 3, cited by Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 200; also Kitchen, “Regnal
and Genealogical Data,” 44.
need to be included between the end of Thutmose II’s reign and the beginning of
Thutmose III’s.
To pre-empt the following discussion about the years of Thutmose III’s reign, I
conclude that he began to reign in 1590 BCE, 200 years before Ramesses II in 1390. The
accession of Thutmose III is dated to I šmw 4, which equates to 25 May (Julian
calendar). Between the death of Thutmose II in 1604/1603 and the accession of
Thutmose III in 1590 are 13–14 years. These can be credited to Hatshepsut in her role as
supervisor for the young Thutmose III before he became king.
Hatshepsut was the daughter of Thutmose I and Queen Ahmose, and half-sister to
Thutmose II, whose mother was a minor wife, Mutnofret. Thutmose II married
Hatshepsut and they had a daughter, Neferure. Thutmose II also had a son by another
wife, Iset, who became the famous Thutmose III. Thutmose II predeceased Hatshepsut.
Records from Hatshepsut claim that her father, Thutmose I, had designated her to be his
heir,44 but it was Thutmose II who succeeded Thutmose I.
Casperson’s New Moon Listing (Table 27.7) shows the length of Thutmose II’s
reign into his 18th year.
Table 27.7: Thutmose II’s 18th year and Hatshepsut’s assumption as Regent in
−1603 (new moon listing from −1604 to mid −1603)
−1604 10 20 −1604 10 6 1178 1 23 1 10:07 6:09 207 6:10 111 6:11 15
Thutmose II’s 18th year begins II 3ḫt 8 −1604
−1604 11 19 −1604 11 5 1178 2 23 3 3:51 6:32 188 6:32 85 6:33 −18
−1604 12 18 −1604 12 4 1178 3 22 4 19:13 6:46 285 6:47 149 6:47 37
−1603 1 17 −1603 1 3 1178 4 22 6 7:60 6:48 225 6:48 84 6:47 −15
−1603 2 15 −1603 2 1 1178 5 21 7 18:29 6:35 382 6:35 133 6:34 31
−1603 3 17 −1603 3 3 1178 6 21 2 3:07 6:15 201 6:14 74 6:13 −2
−1603 4 15 −1603 4 1 1178 7 20 3 10:31 5:53 295 5:53 121 5:52 37
−1603 5 14 −1603 4 30 1178 8 19 4 17:31 5:33 391 5:32 170 5:32 71
Thutmose II dies I šmw 3. Hatshepsut accedes on I šmw 4
−1603 6 13 −1603 5 30 1178 9 19 6 1:13 5:16 216 5:16 105 5:16 12
−1603 7 12 −1603 6 28 1178 10 18 7 10:49 5:11 257 5:11 141 5:11 39
Thus it is quite credible that Thutmose I reigned nine years followed by

Thutmose II with 18 years. These 27 years fill the period between Amenhotep I’s death
on III prt 21 in 1630 BCE and Thutmose II’s death in 1604 BCE on I šmw 3 as dated by
Redford.45
Hatshepsut and Thutmose III

Hatshepsut succeeded her husband, Thutmose II, and assumed the role of regent
on I šmw 4, in the stead of the child Thutmose III46—a position she held for 14 years.
Hatshepsut commemorated her 30th year sed-festival in the 16th year of Thutmose III,
which fell in 1574: 14 years as regent following the death of Thutmose II, and 16 years
as co-regent during the reign of Thutmose III.
44
W.J. Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Co-regencies (SAOC 40; Chicago IL: Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, 1977) 32.
45
46
Ibid., 32.
The changeover from the 15th to 16th year of Thutmose III occurred sometime
between the beginning of the building of Hatshepsut’s two obelisks on II prt 1 in
Thutmose III’s 15th year and their completion on IV šmw 30 in his 16th year.47 I šmw 3
fits within these dates. Since I šmw 4 is the accession date of Thutmose III, it is
reasonable to suppose that it comes on the day after the anniversary of his father’s death,
the same day as Hatshepsut’s—her accession having taken place 14 years earlier.
Thutmose III had one year’s rule before Hatshepsut was crowned co-regent in his second
year, thus his 16th year and her 30th year began on the same day.
Thutmose III’s accession date

Wente discussed the age at which Thutmose III became king. 48 Since he
ascended the throne in Hatshepsut’s 15th year—and allowing for Thutmose III to be no
less than two years old when his father died—Thutmose III must have been at least 17
years of age. The lunar and Sothic dates, which we discuss below, establish Thutmose
III’s 23rd, 24th, and 33rd years, and yield him an accession date of 1590 BCE.
Thutmose III became king on I šmw 4 according to an inscription on the seventh
pylon at Karnak.49 In Casperson’s table (Table 27.8) I šmw 18 equates to 9 June;
therefore, I šmw 4 being 14 days earlier equates to 26 May (Julian calendar).
Table 27.8: Thutmose III’s accession and Hatshepsut’s co-regency −1589 and −1587
−1589 5 10 −1589 4 26 1192 8 18 3 19:17 5:36 224 5:35 94 5:34 22
Thutmose III’s accession fell on I šmw 4
−1589 6 9 −1589 5 26 1192 9 18 5 10:22 5:18 189 5:18 91 5:17 18
−1589 7 9 −1589 6 25 1192 10 18 7 0:37 5:11 171 5:11 81 5:11 −3
−1589 8 7 −1589 7 24 1192 11 17 1 13:43 5:17 245 5:18 146 5:18 47
−1589 9 6 −1589 8 23 1192 12 17 3 1:48 5:35 208 5:36 99 5:36 −14
−1589 10 5 −1589 9 21 1193 1 11 4 13:17 5:57 272 5:58 156 5:58 38
−1589 11 4 −1589 10 21 1193 2 11 6 0:30 6:20 215 6:21 94 6:22 −29
−1589 12 3 −1589 11 19 1193 3 10 7 11:32 6:40 273 6:40 146 6:41 22
−1588 1 1 −1589 12 18 1193 4 9 1 22:19 6:49 377 6:49 192 6:49 60
−1588 1 31 −1588 1 17 1193 5 9 3 8:57 6:43 250 6:43 84 6:43 −19
−1588 2 29 −1588 2 15 1193 6 8 4 19:51 6:27 372 6:26 112 6:25 11
−1588 3 30 −1588 3 16 1193 7 8 6 7:37 6:05 165 6:04 48 6:04 −20
−1588 4 28 −1588 4 14 1193 8 7 7 20:44 5:44 273 5:43 106 5:42 30
Thutmose III’s second year begins on I šmw 4
−1588 5 28 −1588 5 14 1193 9 7 2 11:11 5:24 193 5:23 93 5:23 24
−1588 6 27 −1588 6 13 1193 10 7 4 2:32 5:12 170 5:12 85 5:12 9
−1588 7 26 −1588 7 12 1193 11 6 5 18:09 5:13 246 5:13 152 5:14 63
−1588 8 25 −1588 8 11 1193 12 6 7 9:32 5:27 219 5:28 123 5:29 24
−1588 9 24 −1588 9 10 1194 1 1 2 0:21 5:49 188 5:50 83 5:50 −23
−1588 10 23 −1588 10 9 1194 1 30 3 14:15 6:12 258 6:12 149 6:13 38
−1588 11 22 −1588 11 8 1194 2 30 5 2:55 6:34 215 6:34 98 6:35 −21
−1588 12 21 −1588 12 7 1194 3 29 6 14:07 6:47 296 6:48 148 6:48 22
−1587 1 20 −1587 1 6 1194 4 29 1 0:02 6:47 195 6:47 51 6:46 −55
−1587 2 18 −1587 2 4 1194 5 28 2 9:09 6:33 266 6:33 76 6:32 −20
Hatshepsut is crowned co-regent on II prt 29 in Thutmose III’s second regnal year in −1587. This was held on the
third day after the new moon of the Amun feast
−1587 3 19 −1587 3 5 1194 6 27 3 18:12 6:13 409 6:13 112 6:12 16
−1587 4 18 −1587 4 4 1194 7 27 5 3:58 5:51 171 5:50 60 5:50 −8
47
Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Co-regencies, 38.
48
E.F. Wente, “Age at Death of Pharaohs of the New Kingdom, Determined from Historical Sources,” An
X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (eds. J.E. Harris and E.F. Wente; Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press, 1980) 246-47.
49
Hatshepsut as Co-regent
Hatshepsut took on the role of a king after the death of Thutmose II while
Thutmose III was growing to maturity.50 The accession of Thutmose III in 1590 BCE
and his 16th year equated with her sed-festival in 1574, and indicates that Thutmose II
died in 1604 BCE at which time Hatsheptsut began to count her regnal years. In his
study of Amun feasts and their connection with lunar days in the middle of the civil year,
Spalinger cites a Karnak inscription that synchronizes an Amun feast with the
proclamation of Hatshepsut as co-regent with Thutmose III: “Regnal year two, second
month of prt, day twenty-nine, third festival of Amun corresponding to (ḫft) the Litanies
of Sekhmet, the second day.”51
Redford makes this event more explicit, commenting that this inscription records,
“In Thutmose III’s second regnal year, on the twenty-ninth day of the sixth month,
Amun confronted Hatshepsut in public, proclaimed her king of the two lands, and had
her crowned.”52 Hatshepsut copied the text of the crowning ritual of Amenemhet III for
her own coronation, thus proclaiming her legitimacy as regent.53
Amun Festival Dates Concur

Hatshepsut was crowned as co-regent on II prt 29 dated to the third Amun
festival in Thutmose III’s second year. We have previously noted two other Amun feasts
in the reign of Thutmose II, both connected to the day of a new moon. In his 24th regnal
year, a new moon was observed on the 10th day of the feast on II prt 30, and a feast of
Amun dated to I 3ḫt 1 in his 33rd regnal year was also the day of a new moon.
We might expect then that in the Amun festival of Thutmose III’s second regnal
year there was a new moon on or near to the date of II prt 29. Since Thutmose III’s
accession took place on I šmw 4, the date of II prt 29 falls late in his second regnal year.
Casperson’s table (Table 27.8) for Thutmose III’s first and second years show that the
date of II prt 27 is the day of a new moon in the year −1587 (20 March 1588 BCE),
which is within the second year of Thutmose III—his third year beginning a little more
than one month later. Coming three days after the new moon date, the “third festival of
Amun” suggests the third day of the feast.54 From this we learn that Hatshepsut became
co-regent to Thutmose III in his second year in 1588 BCE on II prt 27, which equates to
19 March.
The coincidence of the Karnak inscription that synchronizes the Amun feast with
the proclamation of Hatshepsut as co-regent with Thutmose III, demonstrated by
Casperson’s New Moon listing for 1588, adds further corroboration to the chronology
herein presented.
50
See for example, W.C. Hayes, “Egypt: Internal Affairs from Tuthmosis I to the Death of Amenophis
III,” CAH 2/1 (1973) 317-18.
51
A.J. Spalinger, “Egyptian Festival Dating and the Moon,” Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics
in the Ancient Near East (eds. J.M. Steele and A. Imhausen; Alter Orient und Altes Testament; Münster:
Ugarit, 2002) 395.
52
Redford, History and Chronology, 54.
53
As Ryholt points out (Political Situation, 212 n. 728) the use of Amenemhet III’s coronation ritual by
Hatshepsut suggests that the co-regency between Sesostris III and Amenemhet III was genuine, and
disproves D. Franke’s argument that Hatshepsut’s co-regency was ‘fictive’ (“Zur Chronologie des
Mittleren Reiches [12-18 Dynastie] Teil 1: Die 12 Dynastie, ” Orientalia 57 [1988] 119).
54
This answers Spalinger’s question whether a lunar day was involved (“Egyptian Festival Dating,” 395).
For the evidence of the co-regency, see Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Co-regencies, 31-44.
Joint Sed-festival Concurs

A joint sed-festival celebrated by Hatshepsut and Thutmose III is well
documented.55 Hatshepsut had two immense obelisks built to commemorate her 30th
regnal year in honor of her deceased father, taking about seven months from II prt 1 in
Thutmose III’s 15th year to IV šmw 30 in his 16th year, as stated on one of the
obelisks.56 From this inscription, scholars understand that Thutmose III’s 16th year was
Hatshepsut’s 30th year. As commented on previously, this year equates to 1574 BCE.
Thirty years earlier Hatshepsut’s first year can be dated to 1604 BCE.
Senmut’s Memorials and Calendar

During Hatshepsut’s reign, her chief steward was Sen[en]mut. He was the chief
architect of Hatshepsut’s building projects at Deir el-Bahri—his masterpiece being
Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple complex. It was on his initiative that Hatshepsut had the
two huge obelisks constructed celebrating her 30th year of reign. 57 One of the obelisks
still stands at the entrance to the Temple at Karnak. The other collapsed centuries ago. 58
Senmut’s death is attributed to sometime before or in Thutmose III’s 19th year.59 Senmut
had two tombs built for himself. One was begun in Hatshepsut’s seventh year in the
Tombs of the Nobles (TT71). The second was built at Deir el-Bahri (TT353) near to
Hatshepsut’s own mortuary complex.60 We noted earlier that it held the earliest surviving
pictorial record of the calendar of Lower Egypt (known as the civil calendar today).
Death of Hatshepsut
Hatshepsut disappears from surviving records in Thutmose III’s 22nd regnal
year. The day Hatshepsut died is well understood to be recorded on the Armant stela,
which gives year 22 and II prt 10 as its opening date.61 Reckoning from Thutmose III’s
accession in 1590 BCE, the 22nd year would be 1568, because, as we see in chapter 28,
Thutmose III’s 23rd year began on I šmw 4 also in 1568 BCE. It appears that Hatshepsut
had been ailing, and in the face of her impending death, the king of Kadesh took the
opportunity to advance his army to Meggido where the army of Thutmose III effected a
great defeat over the Syrians.62 This is dated to I šmw 20 or 21 and is discussed in the
following chapter.
A mummy discovered in 1903 lying on the floor of Tomb 60, in the Valley of the
Kings, beside a coffin that held the mummy of Hatshepsut’s wet-nurse (named on the
coffin) was thought also to be a nurse. However, in 2007, a CT scan of a wooden
funerary box bearing the name of Hatshepsut revealed a molar tooth that fitted exactly
into the jaw socket of the mummy on the floor. DNA samples, the royal positioning of
the left arm and clenched fist across the body, and other clues, led Zahi Hawass,
Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Cairo and his colleagues to
55
E.P. Uphill, “A Joint Sed-festival of Thutmose III and Queen Hatshepsut,” JNES 20 (1961) 248-51. See
also Hayes, “Egypt: Internal Affairs,” 330-32; Wente and Van Siclen, “Chronology of the New Kingdom,”
220.
56
Hayes, “Egypt: Internal Affairs,” 331-32; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 201 citing Urk. IV 367, 3-5.
57
Hayes, “Egypt: Internal Affairs,” 330-31; “Senenmut,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senenmut
58
“Senenmut,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senenmut
59
Hayes, “Egypt: Internal Affairs,” 318.
60
“Senenmut,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senenmut
61
D.B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1992) 156 and n. 135.
62
Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 156-58.
positively identify the mummy as that of Hatshepsut. The mummy was of an obese
woman who seems to have suffered from diabetes and probably died of bone cancer.63
Hatshepsut and the Satet Temple at Elephantine

In 1985, an article by R.A. Wells discussed the Satet Temple at Elephantine,
which he examined in 1984. In the time of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, it had been
reconstructed in place of earlier temples built on the same site. 64 Using a conventional
chronology, Wells dated the temple to about 1450 BCE. He noted that the temple “faced
the rising star Sirius, the namesake of the goddess. The temple was oriented, however, to
midwinter sunrise for calendrical purposes.”
Wells’ chronology doesn’t allow for the 100 years between the end of the Sothic
cycle in 1414 BCE observed at Thebes and the beginning of the Sothic cycle in 1314
BCE observed at Memphis. The temple should be dated to the years of the co-regency of
Hatshepsut and Thutmose III from 1588 to 1569 BCE; therefore, approximately 130
years earlier than the 1450 date. A re-calculation would provide a more accurate
assessment of the orientation of the Satet Temple to both the heliacal rising of Sothis and
the sun’s path at sunrise, leading to a better understanding of the temple’s purpose.
Table 27.9 shows the reigns of the 18th Dynasty that have been considered so far.
Table 27.9: 18th Dynasty: Ahmose to Hatshepsut with regnal years and dates
Ruler Regnal years* Dates BCE Lunar or Sothic anchor points
Ahmose 25 yr, 4 mo 1676–1651 None known
Sothic heliacal rising at Thebes: Yr 9 III šmw
Amenhotep I 20 yr, 9 mo 1651–1630
9 1642
Thutmose I 8 yr, 7 mo 1630–1622 None known
Thutmose II 17 yr, 7 mo 1622–1604 None known
1589/1588. Hatshepsut’s accession as co-
regent fell in 1588, though Thut. III began to
1604–1590 sole reign;
Hatshepsut 14 + 22 = 36 yr reign in 1590.
1590–1568 (co-regency)
Yr 2 Thut. III: Amun feast II prt 29 on 3rd day
after new moon on II prt 27 in 1588 celebrates
63
“Tooth may have Solved Mummy Mystery,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/world/middleeast/27mummy.html
64
R.A. Wells, “Sothis and the Satet Temple on Elephantine: A Direct Connection,” SAK 12 (1985)
255-302.
Chapter 28. Reinstating the 18th Dynasty - Thutmose III and Amenhotep II 383
Chapter 28
Reinstating the 18th Dynasty - Thutmose III and Amenhotep II

Having discussed the 18th Dynasty reigns of Ahmose to Hatshepsut (the shaded
portion of Table 28.1) in chapter 27, this chapter considers the reigns of two kings:
Thutmose III and Amenhotep II in conjunction with the anchor points available from
inscriptional evidence.
Table 28.1: 18th Dynasty: Ahmose to Amenhotep II
Sothic heliacal rising at Thebes: Yr 9 III šmw 9
1642
1589/1588: Hatshepsut’s accession as co-regent
1604–1590 (sole fell in 1588, though Thut. III began to reign in
Hatshepsut 14 + 22 = 36 yr reign); 1590–1568 1590.
(co-regency) Yr 2 Thut. III: Amun feast II prt 29 on 3rd day
after new moon II on II prt 27 in 1588 celebrates
Yr 2 new moon II prt 27; II prt 29 was 3rd day of
Amun feast celebrating Hatshepsut’s co-regency.
Thutmose III Yr 24 new moon II prt 30 “stretching of the cord”
10th day Amun feast, 1566.
[Yr 33] Sothic heliacal rising at Elephantine III
šmw 28, 1558
Amenhotep II
preparations
New moon and Sothic data assist in establishing the regnal years of Thutmose III.
His accession and the early part of his reign were reported in the previous chapter. The
Sothic rising fixes Thutmose III’s reign securely, and will be treated first. The difference
between the prevailing dating assumptions of other Egyptologists for this period, and
those presented in this book, must be borne in mind.
A Festival to Celebrate the Rising of Sothis in Thutmose III’s 33rd year

A hieroglyphic inscription on a rock found on the island of Elephantine recorded
that in the third month of summer, on day 28, a festival to the rising of Sothis was held.1
Neither the king’s name nor the regnal year is given. The date is III šmw 28, somewhat
after the heliacal rising dated to III šmw 9 in Amenhotep I’s ninth year observed at
Thebes. The inscription at Elephantine refers to a successor.
Since Thebes at 25.7 degrees latitude is nearly 2 degrees north of Elephantine
(24° lat.), the corresponding date for the rising on III šmw 28 at Elephantine would have
1
R.D. Long, “A Re-examination of the Sothic Chronology of Egypt,” Orientalia 43 (1974) 263, 268; A.J.
Spalinger, “Sothis and ‘Official’ Calendar Texts,” VA 10 (1995) 178.
been two days later; that is, on III šmw 30 at Thebes. I previously determined that the
heliacal rising of Sothis at Thebes fell on III šmw 9 in 1642 BCE. It would take another
21 days, or 84 years in the Sothic cycle, for the heliacal rising at Thebes to occur on III
šmw 30. Eighty-four years after 1642 places the date at 1558 BCE.
Casperson’s lunar table Table 28.2 represents the calendar of Lower Egypt.
(comments within Casperson tables are mine).
Table 28.2: Thutmose III’s 33rd year and the date of a Sothic rising on III šmw 30
at Thebes (new moon listing from −1557)
−1557 6 15 −1557 6 1 1224 10 2 2 8:44 5:16 287 5:15 98 5:15 −13
Sothic rising on III šmw 30 at Thebes (calendar of Upper Egypt) on 13 July in Thutmose III’s 33rd year in −1557
−1557 7 14 −1557 6 30 1224 11 1 3 15:46 5:11 367 5:11 161 5:11 33
A feast of Amun included wp rnpt on I 3ḫt 1 in −1557 (on 13 August)
−1557 8 13 −1557 7 30 1224 12 1 5 0:13 5:20 216 5:21 87 5:21 −29
−1557 9 11 −1557 8 28 1224 12 30 6 10:55 5:39 259 5:39 139 5:40 25
. The date of II šmw 30 converts to III šmw 30 for the calendar of Upper Egypt,
by which heliacal risings at Thebes were recorded. Thus 14 July corresponds to IV šmw
1, and the heliacal rising of Sothis was seen the previous day on III šmw 30 equating to
13 July at Thebes, and III šmw 28, 10 or 11 July, at Elephantine. These dates are
consistent with the HELIAC program, which gives dates for the 14th or 15th at Thebes
using an altitude of 3 degrees for Sirius (Sothis), and the 12th or 13th at Elephantine,
using an altitude of 2 degrees. Though the regnal year of Thutmose III of the heliacal
rising on the Elephantine inscription is not stated, his 33rd year appears on a tablet found
at el-Bersheh, which seems to allude to a heliacal rising of Sothis.
Tablet at el-Bersheh Affirms Thutmose III’s 33rd year

Flinders Petrie, an esteemed Egyptologist, wrote, “A tablet at el-Bersheh (now
destroyed) was dated in the 33rd year of Tahutmes III … on the 2nd day of Mesore,
which is only three days after the feast day on the 28th of Epiphi. And in this tablet the
beginning of a million of Sirius cycles is wished for the king….”2
Petrie alludes to this inscription again with reference to Thutmose III’s 33rd year:
“Tablet at el-Bersheh, 2nd Mesore. Sed festival, 28th Epiphi.”3 Also referring to
Thutmose III’s reign, Petrie wrote, “At el-Bersheh a tablet was carved on the rock, dated
in [the] 33rd year, on the 2nd of Mesore, wishing the king millions of the Sed festivals,
that great feast of 30 years having taken place two or three days before the dating of the
stele.”4 Petrie includes this date, Epiphi 28, in a list of Sothic risings, dated to the 33rd
year of Thutmose III.5 When Petrie refers to Epiphi he means the 11th month in the
calendar of Lower Egypt (known to him as the civil calendar) and Mesore to him is the
12th month. III šmw and IV šmw are a month earlier in the calendar of Upper Egypt,
aligned with II šmw and III šmw, respectively.
Petrie confused sed-festival dates with dates for the heliacal rising of Sothis as
can be seen from the following. He wrote, “The mentions of the Sed festival, at the close
of each of the 28 or 30 year periods, when Sirius rose a week later in the calendar (owing
2
W.M.F. Petrie, A History of Egypt during the XVIIth and XVIIIth Dynasties (London: Methuen, 1896)
Vol. 2, 31.
3
Ibid., 102.
4
Ibid., 128.
5
Ibid., 32.
to the month names shifting earlier), show us equal intervals which are most important to
regulate the chronology”6 (emphasis added). Clearly, Petrie mistakes a sed-festival, held
after 30 regnal years, with the rising of Sothis, which, after 28 years, moves a week
through the civil calendar. Thus, in the passages cited concerning el-Bersheh, Petrie does
not distinguish between a sed-festival date and a Sothic rising date. He dates the sed-
festival to the same date as the heliacal rising of Sothis observed at Elephantine. And
four days later the date of IV šmw 2 is referred to, wishing millions of Sirius cycles,
which suggests a connection with a date of a Sothic cycle—though it may be nothing
more than a wish for the king’s longevity.
The heliacal rising of Sothis was seen on III šmw 28 at Elephantine (lat. 24°) on
July 11, and would have been seen about two days later at Thebes (lat. 25.7°) on the 30th
of III šmw on 13 July. The rising would have been noted one or two days later at
el-Bersheh (located just north of Amarna with a latitude of 27.6°), therefore about IV
šmw 1–2 on 14–15 July. The HELIAC program confirms a Sothic rising at el-Bersheh on
the 13 or 14 July using an altitude of 3 degrees for the star.
From this muddled account, and our knowledge that a Sothic rising occurred at
Elephantine on III šmw 28, we conclude that a heliacal rising was seen at el-Bersheh on
approximately IV šmw 2. This was recorded for Thutmose III’s 33rd year. Therefore, the
prior Sothic rising at Elephantine must also have been in Thutmose III’s 33rd year. This
eliminates a 30-year sed-festival from consideration. It seems that in this particular year,
1558, the Epiphi feast was held only four days before the heliacal rising of Sirius was
seen at el-Bersheh on IV šmw 2.
Lunar Dates in the Reign of Thutmose III

Two lunar dates in Thutmose III’s reign have been discussed at length by
scholars. While the specific years that scholars are discussing are misplaced by over a
century, the fact that lunar cycles repeat themselves every 25 years permits us to discuss
their interpretation of several texts involving new moons, and then to compare the
accuracy of the dates that have been fixed by reference to the Sothic cycle.
Battle of Meggido
The first new moon date comes from Thutmose’s Campaign Annals reporting a
day of battle at Megiddo between Thutmose III’s army and the Syrian army led by the
king of Kadesh.7 The text notes the day of the new moon as being I šmw 21 in the 23rd
year of Thutmose III. In 1942, Faulkner emended this date to the 20th year since it
appears that the preceding day was the 19th.8 With a few exceptions,9 most scholars
agree with the emendation—which is validated by the new moon appearing on I šmw 20
in −1567 shown in Table 28.3 below.
6
Ibid., 31.
7
Text in English may be found in R.O. Faulkner, “The Battle of Megiddo,” JEA 28 (1942) 3-4; J.A.
Wilson (tr.), “The Asiatic Campaigns of Thut-mose III,” ANET, 234-38.
8
Faulkner, “Battle of Megiddo,” 3, 4 and 11 n. hh.
9
E.F. Wente argues that the date refers to the order for the stretching-of-the-cord for the new sanctuary,
not the date of the new moon (“Thutmose III’s Accession and the Beginning of the New Kingdom,” JNES
Vol. 34 No. 4 [1975] 265-67). He is followed by Helck (“Discussion” in High, Middle or Low? Acts of an
International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th – 22nd
August 1987 [P. Ǻström (ed.) Gothenburg: Part 3, 1989] 41-42). See also B.M. Bryan, The Reign of
Thutmose IV (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991) 14-19.
Stretching-of-the-Cord in Thutmose III’s 24th Year

A second new moon date fell on II prt 30 in the 24th year of Thutmose III’s reign
according to an inscription found on a building at Karnak, which referred to a new moon
at the time of the “stretching-of-the-cord” an act in founding a temple or building.
Spalinger cites the inscription for the second date. “My majesty commanded the
preparation of stretching-of-the-cord while waiting for the day of the new moon
(psdntyw) in order to stretch the cord around this monument in regnal year 24 II prt 30,
the day of the festival, (namely) the tenth day of Amun in Karnak.”10
Spalinger points out that Thutmose III commanded the preparations for the
“stretching-of-the-cord” while he was waiting for the day of the new moon.11 The
question is whether the new moon fell on II prt 30, or the next day, the beginning of the
civil month of III prt.12
The new moon date for the Battle of Megiddo in Thutmose III’s 23rd year is 10
years earlier than the date of 1558 BCE, which was previously fixed by the Sothic date
for his 33rd year, so the date of 1568 BCE (−1567) is proposed for his 23rd year (the
new moon during the Battle of Megiddo).The year 1566 BCE is proposed for his 24th
year (the new moon relating to the stretching-of-the-cord) because there are 22 months
between the dates. Casperson has calculated the new moon dates for these years (Table
28.3).
Table 28.3: Thutmose III’s 23rd and 24th years −1567 and −1565 (new moon listing
from −1567 to −1565)
−1567 5 7 −1567 4 23 1214 8 21 7 1:38 5:37 211 5:37 89 5:36 9
Thutmose III’s 23rd year starts on I šmw 4; the new moon falls on I šmw 20
−1567 6 5 −1567 5 22 1214 9 20 1 8:26 5:20 277 5:19 133 5:19 39
−1567 7 4 −1567 6 20 1214 10 19 2 16:07 5:11 316 5:11 176 5:11 69
−1567 8 3 −1567 7 20 1214 11 19 4 1:54 5:16 214 5:16 104 5:17 −5
−1567 9 1 −1567 8 18 1214 12 18 5 14:43 5:32 256 5:33 148 5:33 42
−1567 10 1 −1567 9 17 1214 1 13 7 6:54 5:54 203 5:55 103 5:56 4
An Opet feast dates to II 3ḫt 15 of Thutmose III’s 23rd year, three days after new moon on the 12th
−1567 10 31 −1567 10 17 1215 2 13 2 1:40 6:18 172 6:19 75 6:19 −21
−1567 11 29 −1567 11 15 1215 3 12 3 21:26 6:38 252 6:38 147 6:39 48
−1567 12 29 −1567 12 15 1215 4 12 5 16:24 6:49 230 6:49 111 6:49 16
−1567 1 28 −1566 1 14 1215 5 12 7 9:12 6:44 183 6:44 70 6:44 −11
−1566 2 26 −1566 2 12 1215 6 11 1 23:08 6:28 331 6:28 131 6:27 42
−1566 3 28 −1566 3 14 1215 7 11 3 10:08 6:07 224 6:06 96 6:05 23
−1566 4 26 −1566 4 12 1215 8 10 4 18:40 5:45 374 5:45 157 5:44 65
Thutmose III’s 24th year starts on I šmw 4
−1566 5 26 −1566 5 12 1215 9 10 6 1:39 5:25 223 5:25 105 5:24 16
−1566 6 24 −1566 6 10 1215 10 9 7 8:18 5:13 278 5:13 144 5:12 37
−1566 7 23 −1566 7 9 1215 11 8 1 15:48 5:12 311 5:13 180 5:13 62
−1566 8 22 −1566 8 8 1215 12 8 3 1:10 5:25 217 5:26 98 5:27 −19
−1566 9 20 −1566 9 6 1216 1 2 4 13:06 5:46 258 5:46 145 5:47 33
−1566 10 20 −1566 10 6 1216 2 2 6 3:47 6:09 200 6:10 93 6:11 −12
−1566 11 18 −1566 11 4 1216 3 1 7 20:57 6:31 266 6:31 157 6:32 53
−1566 12 18 −1566 12 4 1216 4 1 2 15:44 6:46 230 6:47 114 6:47 18
−1565 1 17 −1565 1 3 1216 5 1 4 10:49 6:48 184 6:48 78 6:47 −2
−1565 2 16 −1565 2 2 1216 6 1 6 4:35 6:35 145 6:34 59 6:34 −7
10
in the Ancient Near East (eds. J.M. Steele and A. Imhausen; Alter Orient und Altes Testament; Münster:
Ugarit, 2002) 389.
11
Ibid., 389.
12
Ibid., 389-90.
A new moon falls on II prt 30 in Thutmose III’s 24th year

−1565 3 17 −1565 3 3 1216 6 30 7 19:42 6:15 254 6:14 122 6:14 50
−1565 4 16 −1565 4 2 1216 7 30 2 7:45 5:53 204 5:52 103 5:51 34
Table 28.3 based on a Thebes observation site shows that a new moon fell on I
šmw 20 in -1567 (1568 BCE). The Megiddo location where the battle was held makes no
difference to the day of the new moon, being only nine minutes later, as seen below in
Table 28.4.
Table 28.4: New moon date at Megiddo in Thutmose III’s 23rd year −1567 (new
Megiddo; Lat. 32.0, Long. 35.0; visibility coefficients: c1 = 11.5, c2 = 0.008
−1567 5 7 −1567 4 23 1214 8 21 7 1:48 5:31 201 5:30 83 5:29 13
−1567 6 5 −1567 5 22 1214 9 20 1 8:35 5:08 282 5:07 129 5:06 43
−1567 7 4 −1567 6 20 1214 10 19 2 16:17 4:56 334 4:56 174 4:56 71
The new moon dated to I šmw 20 and not I šmw 21 as given in the text, appears
to vindicate the amendment proposed by Faulkner and approved by other scholars. It
also vindicates the dating of the years of these events proposed in this chronology.
Therefore, the lunar date of I šmw 20 in Thutmose III’s 23rd year in 1568 BCE comes, as
expected, 10 years before the 33rd year Sothic rising date.
The second new moon date referring to the “stretching-of-the-cord” fell on II prt
30 in −1565 (1566 BCE) in Thutmose III’s 24th year and is in exact agreement with the
Egyptian date.
A Third New Moon Date in Thutmose III’s Reign

Another lunar date also applies to Thutmose III’s reign. In the “stretching-of-the-
cord” text, cited above, the date of II prt 30 was described as a new moon day and fell on
the 10th day of Amun. This infers that other Amun feasts also included the day of a new
moon. In connection with the Amun feast, Spalinger notes that the same text that
recorded the heliacal rising of Sothis at Elephantine on III šmw 28 is also “explicitly
connected to I 3ḫt 1 with respect to a feast of Amun.”13
The regnal year of Thutmose III of the above-mentioned Amun feast on I 3ḫt 1 is
not stated, but coming from the same text as for the heliacal rising of Sothis on III šmw
28, now established as his 33rd year, suggests it was the same year. The III šmw 28 date
was recorded by the calendar of Upper Egypt, and because the calendar of Upper Egypt
began with the month of wp rnpt, the wp rnpt in the above context also refers to I 3ḫt 1
in that calendar.
Looking for a new moon on I 3ḫt 1 in the year 1558 BCE, I refer to Casperson’s
previous table (Table 28.2) for Thutmose III’s 33rd year which uses the calendar of
Lower Egypt. IV šmw 1 is I 3ḫt 1 in the calendar of Upper Egypt. The new moon
occurred the previous day on IV šmw 30. This confirms that I 3ḫt 1 was connected to a
feast of Amun in the 33rd year of Thutmose III. However, in the “stretching-of-the-cord
13
A.J. Spalinger, “The Canopus Stela,” Three Studies on Egyptian Feasts and their Chronological
Implications (Baltimore, MD: Halgo, 1992) 46, citing Urk. IV 824.9. This was covered earlier when
discussing the meaning of wp rnpt and Richard Parker’s assumed equivalence of wp rnpt with prt Spdt (the
“going up of Sothis”). See also, idem, “Egyptian Festival Dating,” 391 n. 71 where Spalinger connects I
3ḫt 1 to the “first feast of Amun” after Thutmose III’s Megiddo campaign in his 23rd year. The above
context, however, dates the feast to the 33rd year of Thutmose III.
feast” the new moon fell on II prt 30, which is equated with the 10th day of the Amun
feast.
Opet Festivals in Thutmose III’s 23rd and 47th Years

Krauss refers to an Opet feast celebrated on II 3ḫt 14 ± 1 day in the 23rd year of
Thutmose III.14 Spalinger notes that in the time of Thutmose III an Amun feast coincided
with Opet and the latter began on day 15 of II 3ḫt, but later moved to II 3ḫt 19.15 Krauss
attributes the date of II 3ḫt 19 to the 47th year of Thutmose III.16 The feast apparently
lasted 11 days.17 Early in the reign of Ramesses II the festival of Opet had moved to II
3ḫt 19 and lasted to III 3ḫt 12. Both dates were associated with the moon.18
According to the earlier table (Table 28.3) of Thutmose III’s 23rd and 24th years
−1567 to −1565 (inclusive), in Thutmose III’s 23rd year the new moon fell on II 3ḫt 12,
three days before the given date of the Opet feast, with conjunction on the 13th.
According to Table 28.5, in Thutmose III’s 47th year in −1542, the new moon fell on the
day of conjunction on II 3ḫt 13. The given date for the Opet feast then fell six days later.
Thus the Opet dates in the 23rd and 47th years of Thutmose III refer back to a date of II
3ḫt 12 or 13.
Table 28.5: Thutmose III’s 47th year in −1542 (new moon listing for −1542)
−1542 9 25 −1542 9 11 1240 1 13 4 14:31 5:50 227 5:50 129 5:51 33
−1542 10 25 −1542 10 11 1240 2 13 6 9:27 6:13 206 6:14 108 6:15 12
−1542 11 24 −1542 11 10 1240 3 13 1 3:27 6:35 185 6:35 87 6:36 −11
The two Opet feasts falling respectively on almost the same new moon date 25
years apart further confirms the chronology. The dates accord with the accession of
Thutmose III in 1590 BCE.
Dating the Death of Thutmose III: III prt 30 or IV 3ḫt 1?

Thutmose III ascended the throne on I šmw 4. Spanning the years 1590–1537,
depending on his date of death, Thutmose III either reigned 53 years, 10 months, and 26
days, or 53 years, 6 months, and 26 days.19
Thutmose III was succeeded by his son Amenhotep II who appears to have been
about 18 years old when he became king.20 A new moon date and a possible co-regency
between Thutmose III and Amenhotep II is a prominent topic of discussion among
scholars. The co-regency speculation involves three main points.21
14
Krauss, Sothis-und Monddaten. Studien zur astronomischen und technischen Chronologie Altägyptens
(HÅB 20; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1985) 153 n. 2, citing Lepsius Denkmaler III 30 b.5.
15
Spalinger, “Egyptian Festival Dating,” 390.
16
Krauss, Sothis-und Monddaten, 153 n. 2.
17
Ibid., 152, 153 n. 2; Spalinger, “Egyptian Festival Dating,” 393 n. 85.
18
19
D.B. Redford, “On the Chronology of the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty,” JNES 25 (1966) 119.
20
Idem, “The Co-regency of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II,” JEA 51 (1965) 117; P. Der Manuelian,
Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II (HÄB 26; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1987) 43.
21
For the co-regency discussion see Redford, “Co-regency of Tuthmosis III,” 107-22; R.A. Parker, “Once
Again the Co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II,” Studies in Honor of John A. Wilson, September
12, 1969 (SAOC 35; Chicago IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1969) 75-82; W.
Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Co-regencies (SAOC 40; Chicago, Illinois IL: Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, 1977) 44-57; P. Der Manuelian, Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II, 19-42.
1. The accession day of Amenhotep II has two dates.

2. References to a first victorious campaign occur in different years.
3. Several stelae depicting both kings together may indicate that Amenhotep II and
Thutmose III were co-regents.22
Death of Thutmose III on III prt 30 Questioned by Other Evidence

According to a statement on the tomb of Amenemhab, an official in the reign of
Thutmose III, the king reigned into his 54th year dying on the last day of III prt, that is,
III prt 30.23 The tomb biography of Amenemheb, official to Thutmose III, says:
Now the king [i.e. Tuthmosis III] completed his period of many good years in valor, in
[po]wer and in justification, beginning with regnal year one down to regnal year fifty-
four, III Proyet, last day, under the [Majesty of] King Menkheperrē, the triumphant. He
went up to heaven, joining the solar disk, and the god’s limbs were commingled with the
one who made him. And at first light, when the morrow had come, (then) the sun was
24
risen, the sky was bright, and King Okheprurē, the son of Rē [Amenophis II] , given
life, was established on the throne of his father. He alighted on the serekh, he received
lordship.25
Commenting on the above text, Alan Gardiner writes, “The well-known

biography of Amenemhab ... places the death of Tuthmosis III in his 54th year on the last
day of the 7th month, and affirms that Amenophis II, his son and successor, was already
established on the throne the next morning.”26 This places his accession on IV prt 1.
However, Gardiner also cites a stela from Semnah, which starts with the words “Year 23,
4th month of the Inundation season, day 1, day of the Festival of the King’s Arising.”27
This is a reference to Amenhotep II’s 23rd regnal year beginning on IV 3ḫt 1 (not IV prt
1), which implies his accession upon Thutmose III’s death on the same date. Gardiner
supplies the line in hieroglyphs, so there is no doubt that the inundation season is
meant.28 Furthermore, the British Museum papyrus 10056 also gives the date of IV 1,
that is IV 3ḫt 1, for the accession of Amenhotep II, and shows that on that date Thutmose
III ceased to reign and Amenhotep II commenced his reign (verso 3, 6),29 almost
conclusively indicating that Amenhotep II’s reign was dated from IV 3ḫt 1.
If his reign had started on IV prt 1, four months later, the regnal year would not
have changed on IV 3ḫt 1. The suggestion was made, by Rainer Stadelmann to William
Murnane, that if the writing of prt in the tomb of Amenemhab was a mistake for 3ḫt
there would be “no room for a co-regency.”30
As the inscription itself gives no suggestion that Amenhotep II had come to the
throne as co-regent four months before his father’s death, the idea of a scribal mistake is
feasible, and leaves the date IV prt 1 suspect.
22
Redford, “Co-regency of Tuthmosis III,” 115.
23
E. Hornung, “New Kingdom,” Ancient Egyptian Chronology (eds. E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D.A.
Warburton; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006) 201 citing Urk. IV 895, 16-17.
24
Amenophis is an alternative version of Amenhotep.
25
Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Co-regencies, 51, citing Urk IV 895-96.
26
A H. Gardiner, “Regnal Years and Civil Calendar in Pharaonic Egypt,” JEA 31 (1945) 27.
27
Ibid., 27.
28
Ibid.
29
Redford, “Co-regency of Tuthmosis III,” 110, 121.
30
Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Co-regencies, 44 n. 56. It is commonplace for errors to be made in the
course of writing.
Victorious Campaigns?
The presence or absence of these four months is noted by many scholars who
now reckon on 2 years and 4 months co-regency between Thutmose III and Amenhotep
II as they try to juggle their dates into their artificially truncated chronology. Entering the
discussion are references to “victorious campaigns.” A “first victorious campaign in
Year three” on III prt 15 in the Amada and Elephantine stelae are understood to refer to
the same campaign against Takhsy in northern Syria. On the other hand, on the Memphis
stela a year seven campaign to central and northern Syria on I ŝmw 25, and a year nine
campaign to Palestine on III 3ḫt 25 are called the “first and second victorious
campaigns.” These last two campaigns also appear on the Karnak stela but without
dates.31 If Amenhotep II had a first campaign in year three, how then could he have also
had a first campaign in year seven and a second campaign in year nine?
A plausible explanation can be suggested for the two “first victorious
campaigns.” If no co-regency existed, then year three, year seven, and year nine must all
refer to Amenhotep II’s reign after the death of his father. The “first victorious
campaign” of year seven on the Memphis stela may simply be indicating that this
campaign preceded the second campaign of year nine that was also victorious. The year
three campaign of the Amada and Elephantine stelae, also described as a “first victorious
campaign” having been carried out some four years previously, was a separate event and
not connected chronologically to the Memphis stela when it described the year seven as
its “first victorious campaign.”
A different solution was proposed by William Murnane in 1977. He claimed that
the Amada stela’s year three did not apply to the campaign, but to the improvements to
Thutmose III’s Karnak temple authorized by Amenhotep II in his third year,32 which
were then carried out but not recorded until after the “first victorious campaign” of the
seventh year to Takshy had been expedited, claiming that “Amenhotep II’s alleged ‘first
campaign’ prior to his seventh year vanishes.”33
This idea has been refuted on the grounds that there is no mention of Takhsy on
the Memphis and Karnak stelae, and furthermore, there is not enough time between III
šmw 6 when Amenhotep II was in the plain of Sharon at the end of his Syrian campaign
mentioned on the Memphis Stela, and the III šmw 15 date of the Syrian campaign at
Takhsy (thought to be near Kadesh) mentioned on the Memphis stela.34 Redford writes,
“It is scarcely possible that southern Palestine and the Sinai desert could have been
traversed in nine days.”35 If the Memphis stela was referring to the Takhsy campaign of
the seventh year, it makes no mention of Thutmose III. His absence is then explained by
the hypothesis that Thutmose III had died before the end of the campaign, and that the
engravers then credited the entire campaign to Amenhotep II.36
Depictions
Seeking further evidence for a co-regency between Thutmose III and Amenhotep
II, Redford discusses eight possible depictions showing the two kings together.37 He
concludes:
31
32
Murnane dates the campaign to III šmw 15, whereas Redford dates the Year 7 campaign to I šmw 25.
33
34
35
Ibid., 119.
36
Ibid., 121; Parker, Once Again the Co-regency, 80; A.F. Rainey, “Amenhotep II’s Campaign to Takhsi,”
JARCE 10 (1973) 71.
37
Redford, “Co-regency of Tuthmosis III,” 115-18.
The sobering fact is that no single, universal conclusion can be drawn mechanically
merely from the graphic representation of two kings or their names side by side. Indeed,
the very piece of evidence most relied on by proponents of the co-regency, viz. the
c
Amada gate inscription, seems to be weakest of all; for the pylon itself, which of all
parts of the temple would seem to have been the one certain joint undertaking of father
and son, is specifically claimed by Amenophis II as his own work.”38
But in a later work Murnane states, “Neither Amenophis II nor any of his
subjects refers directly to the co-regency in the surviving monuments.”39 Then he notes
that there is, “a passage in the tomb biography of Amenemhab that seems not merely to
omit mention of a co-regency but actually to deny that one existed.”40 This is the passage
cited above recording the death of Thutmose III on III prt [sic] 30, and that on the next
day Amenhotep was established on his father’s throne. Murnane asks, “Why if there was
a co-regency should the situation have been described in this way?”
New Moon in Amenhotep II’s 19th Year

Another way to determine whether Thutmose III’s reign had a co-regency with
Amenhotep II concerns the accession date and length of Amenhotep II’s reign.
Amenhotep II has a new moon attributed to his 19th year, which gives a fixed point for
his reign. Richard Parker attempted to look for a new moon in order to date Amenhotep
II’s reign, by which he could anchor his chronology, and he consulted a papyrus known
as P Leningrad (Petersburg) 1116A.41
The papyrus deals with accounts and preparation of grain, palm dates, and drink
offerings for feasts. The surviving part consists of the bottom half of what was once a
large papyrus; the upper half is now lost. Between each column about 14 lines on
average are missing. The first date preserved is that of II šmw 10 in line 18 followed in
line 19 by the words “from the grain of Year 18.”42 Parker and other scholars understand
from this that the grain was being distributed in the 19th year of the king.43
To understand the discussion we need to note where relevant lines occur in the
text. Line 192 refers to: “III šmw 6, from [the] lower north[ern granary] of the House of
the Adorer (the Queen).” Three more lines follow at which point the papyrus breaks off
for about 14 lines of lacuna. Psdntyw is first mentioned in the second line after the
lacuna where it is unfortunately numbered line 197 as if this section was continuous with
the preceding (it should be line 206). Offerings for the feast are mentioned in lines 197 to
202 where psdntyw is specifically named in lines 197, 198, 201, and 202. The following
lines are unclear due to lacuna, but there is no further mention of psdntyw, which
suggests that in lines 203–207, which continue to refer to offerings from the storehouse,
a new feast is being introduced. Line 205 has a broken date of […ŝ]mw 10, followed in
line 206 with a reference to good bread, and in line 207 a further reference to good bread
for the sixth lunar day.44 It seems unlikely that III šmw 6 in line 192 (before the lacuna)
was followed by III šmw 10 in line 205, which, with the lacuna is actually line 215. It
seems more likely that the date was IV šmw 10, and that “good bread” was given out for
a subsequent feast on the sixth lunar day, which is well-known to be a day of celebration.
Therefore, the sixth lunar day had to fall after IV šmw 10, with the preceding feast
38
Ibid., 117.
39
40
Ibid., 51.
41
Redford, “Co-regency of Tuthmosis III,” 107-10.
42
Parker, “Once Again the Co-regency,” 76.
43
Ibid., 76-77, 82.
44
Ibid., 78.
encompassing psdntyw only a few days before. If Thutmose III died in 1537 BCE,
Amenhotep II’s 19th year—when the grain was distributed—would have fallen in 1517
BCE. What date does the new moon fall on in this year? See Casperson’s table (Table
28.6).
Table 28.6 New moon in Amenhotep’s 19th year falls before III šmw 10 and IV
šmw 10 (new moon listing from −1517 to −1516)
−1517 11 18 −1517 11 4 1265 3 13 5 0:23 6:31 204 6:31 91 6:32 −25
Amenhotep II’s 19th year begins on IV 3ḫt 1 or IV prt 1
−1517 12 17 −1517 12 3 1265 4 12 6 12:11 6:46 270 6:46 148 6:47 32
−1516 1 15 −1516 1 1 1265 5 11 7 22:45 6:48 390 6:48 196 6:48 69
−1516 2 14 −1516 1 31 1265 6 11 2 8:11 6:36 260 6:35 90 6:35 −15
−1516 3 14 −1516 2 29 1265 7 10 3 16:53 6:16 390 6:16 111 6:15 4
−1516 4 13 −1516 3 30 1265 8 10 5 1:39 5:54 151 5:53 30 5:53 −46
−1516 5 12 −1516 4 28 1265 9 9 6 11:29 5:34 230 5:33 75 5:32 −6
−1516 6 10 −1516 5 27 1265 10 8 7 23:17 5:17 343 5:17 145 5:16 49
New moon dates fall before III šmw 10 and IV šmw 10
−1516 7 10 −1516 6 26 1265 11 8 2 13:26 5:11 228 5:11 119 5:11 33
−1516 8 9 −1516 7 26 1265 12 8 4 5:41 5:19 191 5:19 99 5:20 9
−1516 9 7 −1516 8 24 1266 1 2 5 23:11 5:37 260 5:37 167 5:38 73
In −1516 a new moon fell on III šmw 8 and on IV šmw 7, thus agreeing with the
inference from the above text that by IV šmw 10 psdntyw had passed. It seems that on IV
šmw 10 (line 205) preparations for a feast on the sixth lunar day (IV šmw 13) were being
made. Table 28.6 shows that new moon dates proposed by the text of papyrus Leningrad
(Petersburg) 1116A in Amenhotep II’s 19th year affirm the death of Thutmose III and
the accession of Amenhotep II in 1536 BCE. The importance of this conclusion is that
there was no two-year co-regency, as the dates are in agreement with each other. Where,
then, did the idea of a two-year co-regency come from?
Parker’s Ideas of Co-regency

In 1969, when Parker wrote that he sought to date Amenhotep’s 19th year to a new
moon date that allowed three or four days for the brewing of beer and the making of
bread45 before the first lunar day (psdntyw) feast was held. Parker put the issuance of
grain before III šmw 10, but does not say that the new moon was also before III šmw 10.
Believing that Amenhotep II’s reign should be dated to the 15th century, Parker
constructed a list of new moon dates for II and III šmw over a 50-year period (that is two
25-year lunar cycles) from 1452 to 1428 and from 1427 to 1403.
He found that in 1420 BCE, a new moon fell on III šmw 10, thus about four days
after the date of III šmw 6 (line 192). Thus he assumed that the damaged date was III
šmw 10 not IV šmw 10, and that it was connected with III šmw 6, some 30 lines earlier.
Assigning Thutmose III an accession date of 1490 BCE, Parker dated Amenhotep II’s
first year to 1439/1438 BCE.46 However, this did not agree with Thutmose III’s year of
death, reckoned to have fallen in 1436 BCE. Thus Parker proposed that 1439/1438 BCE
was Amenhotep II’s first of a co-regency of two years and four months (the four months
being the difference between IV 3ḫt 1 and IV prt 1) before Thutmose III died, and 1420
was his 17th year, not 19th, after the death of his father.
45
Ibid., 79.
46
Ibid., 80.
Without the co-regency theory, Thutmose III’s accession would date in Parker’s
scheme to 1493 BCE, which is inadmissible because of the new moon dates that fell in
his 23rd and 24th years on precise dates in 1468 and 1466 in the 25-year lunar cycle. A
subsequent suggestion by Jürgen von Beckerath that 1417 BCE might be considered as
the day of the new moon on III šmw 8 in year 20 was rejected by Parker on the grounds
that, “Grain allotments for the feast were made no earlier than III šmw 6 and included in
these was grain for the drink-supply. I submit that this is really too little time for the total
beer-making process.”47 Of course, the dates of Parker and his contemporaries are all
widely discrepant of the actual dates being established within this chronology.
Co-regency Refuted by Inscriptions

The first issue is whether there had been a four-month co-regency between
Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. The four months’ “overlap” from IV 3ḫt 1 to IV prt 1 is
refuted by at least two inscriptions noted previously: the stela from Semnah giving the
date of IV 3ḫt 1, and the British Museum papyrus 10056, which shows that the regnal
date changed on IV 3ḫt 1. The date of III prt 30 in Amenemheb’s description of the
transition between Thutmose III and Amenhotep II is presumed to be a scribal mistake
for III 3ḫt 30, the date Thutmose III died. With the new moon date on IV šmw 7, in 1517,
and Amenhotep II’s accession on IV 3ḫt 1, his 19th year actually started the previous
year in 1518 BCE on 6 December, as shown by the equation IV 3ḫt 12 = 17 December
(Julian calendar) in Casperson’s Table 28.6.
Reckoning back 18 years from IV 3ḫt 1 in 1518 BCE on 6 December (when
Amenhotep II’s 19th year began) gives his accession date on 10 December in 1536
(−1535), as can be reckoned from Casperson’s table here (Table 28.7).
Table 28.7: Thutmose III’s 54th year begins in −1536 and Amenhotep II’s
Accession in −1535 (new moon listing from −1536 to −1535)
−1536 4 24 −1536 4 10 1245 8 16 5 7:53 5:46 139 5:45 39 5:45 −28
Thutmose III’s 54th year begins on I šmw 4
−1536 5 23 −1536 5 9 1245 9 15 6 22:43 5:27 267 5:26 106 5:25 21
−1536 6 22 −1536 6 8 1245 10 15 1 13:03 5:13 214 5:13 96 5:13 12
−1536 7 22 −1536 7 8 1245 11 15 3 2:40 5:12 184 5:13 82 5:13 −11
−1536 8 20 −1536 8 6 1245 12 14 4 15:20 5:25 259 5:25 152 5:26 47
−1536 9 19 −1536 9 5 1246 1 9 6 3:02 5:45 216 5:46 105 5:47 −11
−1536 10 18 −1536 10 4 1246 2 8 7 14:03 6:08 281 6:09 164 6:10 42
−1536 11 17 −1536 11 3 1246 3 8 2 0:46 6:30 222 6:31 100 6:32 −24
−1536 12 16 −1536 12 2 1246 4 7 3 11:33 6:46 276 6:46 150 6:47 31
−1535 1 14 −1536 12 31 1246 5 6 4 22:32 6:48 372 6:48 190 6:48 68
−1535 2 13 −1535 1 30 1246 6 6 6 9:47 6:36 241 6:36 91 6:35 −6
−1535 3 14 −1535 2 28 1246 7 5 7 21:26 6:17 350 6:16 117 6:15 17
Amenhotep II’s accession falls on IV prt 1
−1535 4 13 −1535 3 30 1246 8 5 2 9:52 5:54 172 5:54 49 5:53 −23
−1535 5 12 −1535 4 28 1246 9 4 3 23:28 5:34 297 5:33 108 5:32 23
Thutmose III’s reign began on IV šmw 1 in 1590 BCE and without a four-month
co-regency with Amenhotep II, lasted until III prt 30 in 1536 (−1535), being 53 years, 10
months, and 27 days, as the biography of Amenemheb stated.
47
Ibid., 82.
Length of Amenhotep II’s Reign

The highest known year for Amenhotep II’s reign is a year 26 found on a wine
jar docket in the king’s mortuary temple, and accepted by scholars as the length of
Amenhotep II’s reign.48 It is assumed that the wine was put there at the time of the
king’s interment as the bottles were porous and the wine would have soon leaked out.49
Amenhotep II’s mummy was discovered in its original sarcophagus by Victor
Loret in 1898 in the King’s Valley at Thebes. He appeared to be 35–45 years old, which
agrees with his age of accession if at 18, and a reign of 26 years, making him about 44
years when he died.50 His age at death rebuts the suggestion made by Wente and van
Siclen that Amenhotep II reigned 34 years, which would make him 52 years at death. His
longer reign was promoted on the idea that Amenhotep II celebrated a 30-year jubilee.51
The mention of the jubilee has no year attached and most scholars have discounted that it
attests to a 30-year reign.52 Amenhotep II can be attributed 26 years, reigning from 1536
to 1510 BCE. See Table 28.8 which shows the part of the 18th Dynasty so far discussed.
Table 28.8: 18th Dynasty: Ahmose to Amenhotep II with regnal years and dates
Sothic heliacal rising at Thebes: Yr 9 III šmw 9
1642
Yr 15 Thut. III’s 2nd year: Hatshepsut’s
1604–1590 (sole accession as co-regent in 1588, though Thut.
Hatshepsut 14 + 22 = 36 yr reign); 1590–1568 III began to reign in 1590. Amun feast II prt
(co-regency) 29 on 3rd day after new moon II prt 27 in
1588.
Yr 2 new moon II prt 27; II prt 29 was 3rd day
of Amun feast on Hatshepsut’s co-regency
celebration.
Thutmose III 53 yr, 6 mo, 26d 1590–1536
Yr 24 new moon II prt 30 “stretching-of-the-
cord” 10th day Amun feast, 1566.
[Yr 33] Sothic heliacal rising at Elephantine III
šmw 28, 1558
Amenhotep II 25 yr, 9 mo 1536–1510
preparations
48
Redford, “Co-regency of Tuthmosis III,” 110; idem, “Chronology,” 119-20; E.F. Wente and C.C. Van
Siclen III, “A Chronology of the New Kingdom,” Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes (eds. J.H.
Johnson and E.F. Wente; SAOC 39; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1976) 228.
49
50
Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 203 referring. to An X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies. (eds. J.E. Harris
and E.F. Wente; Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980) 202.
51
Wente and van Siclen, “Chronology of the New Kingdom,” 228; see also Der Manuelian, Studies in the
Reign of Amenophis II, 42-44.
52
Der Manuelian, Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II, 43.
Chapter 29
Reinstating the 18th Dynasty - Thutmose IV to Tutankhamun

This chapter deals with the 18th Dynasty rulers in the unshaded area shown in
Table 29.1. The virtual absence of anchor points places more reliance on inscriptional
and circumstantial evidence, which has considerable complexity.
Table 29.1: 18th Dynasty: Ahmose to Tutankhamun

Rulers Regnal years* Dates BCE Lunar or Sothic anchor points
Sothic heliacal rising at Thebes: Yr 9 III šmw
9 1642
Yr 15 Thut. III’s 2nd year: Hatshepsut’s
1604–1590
accession as co-regent in 1588, though Thut.
(sole reign);
Hatshepsut 14 + 22 = 36 yr III began to reign in 1590. Amun feast II prt
1590–1568
29 on 3rd day after new moon II prt 27 in
(co-regency)
1588
Yr 2 new moon II prt 27; II prt 29 was 3rd day
of Amun feast on Hatshepsut’s co-regency
celebration.
Thutmose III 53 yr, 6 mo, 26 d 1590–1536
Yr 24 new moon II prt 30 “stretching-of-the-
cord” 10th day Amun feast, 1566.
[Yr 33] Sothic heliacal rising at Elephantine
III šmw 28, 1558
preparations
Thutmose IV None known
Amenhotep III None known
Akhenaten
Probable “stretching-of-the-cord” ceremony
Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten None known
Amenhotep II was succeeded by Thutmose IV, his second son. The accession date
is not known, but his earliest date on a sphinx stela in year one is III 3ḫt 19,1 so
Amenhotep II must have died before that date in 1510 BCE. Egyptologist Betsy Bryan
comments, “The number of year dates from the reign of Thutmose IV is small but evenly
divided over eight years.” 2 Three documents date to year one, one to year four, possibly
one to year five, one to year six, two to year seven, and one to year eight.3 The latter is
1
Warburton; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006) 203.
2
B.M. Bryan, The Reign of Thutmose IV (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991)
5.
3
Ibid., 5.
inscribed on a Konosso rock stela recording his Nubian campaign.4 Bryan comments,
“Year 8 occurs at Konosso, where it commences a description of the king’s personal
involvement in a military skirmish on the Eastern desert.”5
The second paragraph of Barbara Cumming’s translation starts, “Regnal year 9,
month 3 of winter, day 2. Now his Majesty was in the Southern City in the area of
Karnak….”6 Note, however, that the regnal year nine might be a recent misprint as the
writing of the date is the same as on the hand-copies of the inscription for year eight. The
date cannot be checked because the Konosso inscription has been under water for
decades.7
Wente and van Siclen opposed the eight to nine regnal years for Thutmose IV
and instead proposed a long reign of 33 years (1419–1386 BCE) because Thutmose IV
seemed to have celebrated one if not two jubilees.8 Bryan investigated the length of
Thutmose IV’s reign taking into account year dates, anatomical evidence, astronomical
data, jubilee festivals, careers of officials serving during several reigns, and
chronological indicators mentioned in inscriptions on monuments. She found that the
jubilee evidence was ambiguous and could not be used as a 30-year chronological
indicator,9 concluding “the chronological evidence for Thutmose IV’s reign, taken as a
whole, weighs in favor of a short reign.”10
A Gap of 35 Years Before an Obelisk for Thutmose III is Finished

An inscription on the unfinished Lateran obelisk originally commissioned by
Thutmose III notes that the obelisk was abandoned in the temple workshops for 35 years
until Thutmose IV restored it.11 Neither the year of Thutmose III nor Thutmose IV is
stated.12 The 35 years has to be reckoned from some specific point, and the death of
Thutmose III seems applicable when presumably the obelisk’s construction was
discontinued. That suggests 1536 BCE as the date of Thutmose III’s death. His successor
was Amenhotep II, whose reign of 26 years (without a co-regency) would end in 1510
BCE. The complement (to make 35 years) would be composed of Thutmose IV’s nine
year reign ending in 1501 BCE. Since Thutmose III is not known to have reigned much
longer than eight years, it is possible that the 35-year period was reckoned upon his
death in his ninth year, denoting a specific point in time marking the reigns of both
Thutmose III and his grandson Thutmose IV.
The fact that 35 years spans the time from the death of Thutmose III in 1536
down to the ninth year of Thutmose IV in 1501 seems too remarkable to be merely a
4
D.B. Redford, “On the Chronology of the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty,” JNES 25 (1966) 120. Cyril
Aldred reports that Thutmose IV “ruled for little more than 9 years” in “The Second Jubilee of Amenophis
II,” ZÄS 94 (1967) 2; B. Cumming, Egyptian Historical Records of the Later Eighteenth Dynasty
(Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1984) 251.
5
Bryan, Reign of Thutmose IV, 6.
6
Cumming, Egyptian Historical Records, 251.
7
Personal communication from Betsy Bryan, 16/02/10.
8
E.F. Wente and C.C. Van Siclen III, “A Chronology of the New Kingdom,” Studies in Honor of George
R. Hughes (eds. J.H. Johnson and E.F. Wente; SAOC 39; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, 1976) 218, 227-30; E.F. Wente, “Age at Death of Pharaohs of the New Kingdom, Determined
from Historical Sources,” An X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (eds. J.E. Harris and E.F. Wente; Chicago
and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980) 252-54.
9
Bryan, Reign of Thutmose IV, 23, 25.
10
Ibid., 4-25; quote p. 25.
11
The Lateran obelisk at 45.70 m including the base “is the tallest obelisk in Rome and the largest
standing obelisk in the world, weighing over 230 tons.” See “Lateran Palace” at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Palace
12
See also, Bryan, Reign of Thutmose IV, 24-25.
coincidence. It speaks of a 26 year reign by Amenhotep II followed by a reign of

Thutmose IV ending in his ninth year. An absence of inscriptional evidence for
Thutmose IV beyond his year eight to year nine, when many of the preceding years are
attested, also makes a long reign dubious—as acknowledged by scholars.
Supporting the indications that Thutmose IV had a ninth regnal year is the reign
length of his successor, Amenhotep III, of 38 years, which is dated by the new moon that
fell in Akhenaten’s fifth year. Later discussion locates the new moon in the year 1459
BCE with Akhenaten’s first year in 1463 and accession on I prt 1-8.
Amenhotep III’s regnal years begin on II šmw 1, which means a final year of
about eight months. Attributing him 38 years as assigned by scholars will date his
accession to 1501 BCE, which gives Thutmose IV a ninth year. Accepting a full ninth
year would give him an accession date of no earlier than II šmw 2 (otherwise he would
start a tenth year). Therefore, his accession must fall between II šmw 2 and his earliest
known date of III 3ḫt 19. A mid-point of I 3ḫt 1 is adopted for Table 29.2.
Table 29.2: Amenhotep II’s 26th year and Thutmose IV’s accession in −1509 (new
−1510 11 29 −1510 11 15 1272 3 26 4 17:14 6:38 322 6:38 174 6:39 44
Amenhotep II’s 26th year begins on IV 3ḫt 1
−1510 12 29 −1510 12 15 1272 4 26 6 4:30 6:49 226 6:49 83 6:49 −25
−1509 1 27 −1509 1 13 1272 5 25 7 16:39 6:45 308 6:44 123 6:44 25
−1509 2 26 −1509 2 12 1272 6 25 2 5:46 6:28 177 6:28 73 6:27 5
−1509 3 27 −1509 3 13 1272 7 24 3 19:41 6:07 267 6:07 128 6:06 56
−1509 4 26 −1509 4 12 1272 8 24 5 10:07 5:45 199 5:44 107 5:44 43
−1509 5 26 −1509 5 12 1272 9 24 7 0:53 5:25 167 5:25 87 5:24 17
−1509 6 24 −1509 6 10 1272 10 23 1 15:46 5:13 238 5:12 139 5:12 55
−1509 7 24 −1509 7 10 1272 11 23 3 6:28 5:13 202 5:13 106 5:13 10
−1509 8 22 −1509 8 8 1272 12 22 4 20:34 5:25 270 5:26 168 5:27 64
Accession date for Thutmose IV fell no earlier than II šmw 2 and before III 3ḫt 19. I 3ḫt 1 adopted provisionally
here
−1509 9 21 −1509 9 7 1273 1 17 6 9:40 5:46 236 5:47 128 5:48 17
−1509 10 20 −1509 10 6 1273 2 16 7 21:41 6:09 309 6:10 194 6:11 76
Thutmose IV’s mummy, found in the cache reburied in Amenhotep II’s tomb,
shows signs of a man very ill before death and in the age range of 20–30 years, again
indicating a short reign. He was succeeded by Amenhotep III on II šmw 1. Presumably
Thutmose IV died the previous day on I šmw 30. See Casperson’s table below (Table
29.3).
Table 29.3: Thutmose IV’s ninth year and Amenhotep III’s accession −1500 (new
−1500 4 16 −1500 4 3 1281 8 17 7 6:10 5:52 148 5:51 45 5:50 −27
−1500 5 15 −1500 5 2 1281 9 16 1 20:39 5:31 248 5:31 96 5:30 11
Thutmose IV dies on I šmw 30 and Amenhotep III accedes on II šmw 1
−1500 6 14 −1500 6 1 1281 10 16 3 11:32 5:16 191 5:15 76 5:15 −5
Adopting an accession of I 3ḫt 1 for Thutmose IV’s accession gives him a ninth
year of about six months, but it could have been two months earlier or later.
Amenhotep III
Amenhotep III was one of many sons of Thutmose IV.13 His accession day is
identified by the date of his jubilees.14 Charles van Siclen understood Amenhotep III’s
regnal year numbers to advance a year on the dates assigned to his jubilees in his
29th/30th, 33rd/34th, and 37th/38th years.15 That the accession day fell on II šmw 1 can
be deduced from van Siclen’s observations.
Of 27 references to the third jubilee on jar labels from the Malkata palace, 25 date
to year 37 and the remaining two to year 38, but without day-dates. However, from the
chapel of Amenhotep, son of Hapu, an inscription states that the first jubilee ended in
year 30 on III šmw 2. Other attestations for the year 30 are II šmw 1 (temple of Soleb), II
šmw 7 (temple of Khonsu at Karnak), II šmw 27 (tomb of Kheruef: Theban tomb 192),
III šmw with the day lost (another scene on the tomb of Kheruef). Since the last day for
the first jubilee was III šmw 2, van Siclen assumes that the same day can be deduced for
the third jubilee, thus the latter has to be day one or two also.
If year 30 (and by analogy year 38) includes the dates II šmw 1 to III šmw 2, the
29th and 37th years must have ended prior to these dates. Van Siclen refers back to “a
relief in the temple of Soleb, which shows that the opening of a jubilee of Amenhotep III
took place on VIII, 26 [IV prt 26], beginning with the ritual of ‘illuminating the
baldachin.’ This rite lasted until IX, I [III šmw 1], and since there is no year evident
between the two dates, they are in the same year.”16 Van Siclen relates this unspecified
jubilee to the second relief from the Soleb temple, which does refer to the first jubilee in
year 30 on II šmw 1. His assumption is that the opening of the jubilee on IV šmw 26 and
its ending on I šmw 1 took place at the end of the 29th year, and that a regnal year
change occurred between I šmw 2 and II šmw 1, the first of the jubilee inscriptions dated
to year 30.
Within this period, van Siclen observes only one scene and it refers to the
“appearance in the temple” on X, 1, [II šmw 1], and “this scene can only correspond to
the accession day and regnal year change.”17 He points out that the word “to appear”
(ḫcy) in the text “is strongly connected with the act of accession” and that the scene is
paralleled by one in Osorkon II’s festival hall at Bubastis (22nd Dynasty). 18 He adds,
“Until the discovery of some date earlier than X, 1 in the festival, but later than IX, 2,
this date must remain the accession day of Amenhotep III.”19
Thus Amenhotep III’s accession can be dated to II šmw 1 in 1501 BCE with his
38th year beginning on that date in 1464 and ending some date after III šmw 1 either in
1464 or 1463. This year can be refined further when Akhenaten’s fifth regnal year, and
thereby his accession year, has been established.
Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV)

Amenhotep IV was the younger son of Amenhotep III and his chief Queen Tiye;
his older brother Crown Prince Thutmose having predeceased him. Amenhotep IV is
famous (or infamous) for rejecting the god Amun in favor of worshiping the god Aten.
He changed his name to Akhenaten and moved his residence from Thebes to an area of
13
Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign (eds. D. O’Connor and E.H. Cline; Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1988) 9-10.
14
C. Aldred, “The Beginning of the el-Amarna Period,” JEA 45 (1959) 31.
15
C.C. van Siclen, “The Accession Date of Amenhotep III and the Jubilee,” JNES 32 (1973) 292-93.
16
Ibid., 291.
17
Ibid., 294.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.
the Nile approximately 2 degrees north of Thebes, which he called Akhetaten, now
known as el-Amarna, a site of great archaeological interest. The “Amarna” period lasted
59 years (1463–1404 BCE) to the end of the reign of Horemheb (and the 18th Dynasty).
Akhenaten’s principal wife was Nefertiti whose beautiful bust is displayed by the
Altes Museum of Berlin. Akhenaten and his children appear to have suffered from a
congenital deformity particularly characterized by elongated facial features.
Akhenaten’s Fifth Regnal Year

In his fifth regnal year, Akhenaten began the foundations of a temple to the sun-
god Aten at Akhetaten/Amarna. In a 1987 article, Ronald Wells sought to date
Akhenaten’s reign from the date of IV prt 13 given on three boundary stelae known as
M, X, and K, recording the special offering to Aten by Akhenaten. Wells proposed that,
“The Amarna M, X, K boundary stelae date, IV prt 13, Year 5, very likely coincides
with the day the sun rose directly out of the Wadi Abu Hasah El-Bahri, seen as a
prominent concavity in the eastern horizon from the axis of the small sun temple
(Ḥwt-ỉtn) at Akhet-Aten.”20 Wells develops this theme in his article dating the
occurrence to the 14th century BCE and to the years 1353–1350 BCE with preference
for 1351, making 1355 Akhenaten’s first regnal year.21
Rolf Krauss responded to Wells in 1988 asserting that foundation ceremonies are
held on the night of a new moon, and that, since the boundary stelae are recording a
special offering to the Aten, a first lunar day should be sought for the date. He proposed
that the temple foundation fell in the years 1357–1342 and that a first lunar day fell on
IV prt 14 in 1348 giving Akhenaten an accession in 1353.22 Casperson’s table (Table
29.4) shows that a new moon did fall on IV prt 14 in 1348 BCE which is −1347, but this
is a day later than the recorded date, IV prt 13, and of course Krauss was looking in the
wrong century, with his date being 101 years too late.
Table 29.4: Krauss’s incorrect attribution of Akhenaten’s fifth year (new moon
−1347 2 5 −1347 1 24 1434 7 15 2 13:33 6:43 313 6:43 108 6:42 −2
−1347 3 6 −1347 2 22 1434 8 14 3 21:60 6:23 689 6:23 143 6:22 20
−1347 4 5 −1347 3 24 1434 9 14 5 5:35 5:59 207 5:58 48 5:58 −30
Wells responded tartly to Krauss in 1989, pointing out that errors attributed to
him were the result of Krauss’ misunderstanding, and his errors of computation. Wells
rejected the idea that the IV prt 13 date referred to a new moon.23 He writes, “A clear
distinction must be made between the ‘Stretching-of-the-Cord’ ceremony given for the
founding of individual temples and the offerings made by Akhenaten on IV prt 13, Years
5 and 6, described in the First and Second proclamations.”24
Thus Wells separates the laying of the temple foundations from the offerings
made to the Aten, the latter on the stated date. He goes on:
20
R.A. Wells, “The Amarna M, X, K Boundary Stelae Date: A Modern Calendar Equivalent,” SAK 4
(1987) 313.
21
Ibid., 332-33.
22
R. Krauss, “Drei Korrekturen und eine Ergänzung zu Ronald A. Wells ‘Amarna Calendar Equivalent’”
GM 103 (1988) 44.
23
R.A. Wells, “On Chronology in Egyptology,” GM 108 (1989) 87-96.
24
Ibid., 87.
The former involved the goddess Seshat and a king stretching a cord between them with
the king’s gaze directed toward some astronomical event near the horizon in a ceremony
with possible lunar or at least nocturnal overtones. Egyptological consensus may now
hold that this ‘Stretching-of-the-Cord’ ceremony took place on psdntw-night but that has
little relation either to what the Amarna boundary stelae texts relate or to the known
history of the Amarna Period.25
He continues,
The Second Proclamation begins on the anniversary of the first: ‘Year 6, IV prt 13 …On
that day one was in Akhet-Aten … making a great offering … on the day of laying out
26
Akhet-Aten for the living Aten…’
And he goes on to say,

In neither proclamation is there any reference whatsoever to a ‘Stretching-of-the-Cord’
ceremony at night on the first day of the lunar month following the great offering to the
Aten on IV prt 13.27
On the other hand, he notes,

The boundary stelae texts indisputably link the morning offering of Akhenaten with IV
prt 13 … on this morning the sun rose out of the Wadi Abu Hasah El Bahri towards
which the original altar in the Ḥwt-ỉtn is directed.28
Following Wells’ response to Krauss’ critique, Wells admitted some errors and
amended his original date of IV prt 13 1351 BCE,29 to IV prt 13 1355 BCE.30 But, as
Casperson’s charts show (Table 29.5), the new moon fell nowhere near the proposed
dates. Neither option applies to a new moon date.
Table 29.5: New moons in IV prt 1351 and 1355 BCE were not on IV prt 13 (new
moon listings from −1350 and −1354)
−1350 2 8 −1350 1 27 1431 7 17 1 9:19 6:42 217 6:41 92 6:41 4
−1350 3 9 −1350 2 25 1431 8 16 2 23:36 6:21 313 6:20 123 6:20 30
−1350 4 8 −1350 3 27 1431 9 16 4 14:19 5:57 184 5:56 61 5:55 −11
−1354 2 23 −1354 2 11 1427 8 1 4 4:17 6:32 200 6:31 99 6:30 19

−1354 3 24 −1354 3 12 1427 8 30 5 14:37 6:09 294 6:08 133 6:08 42
−1354 4 22 −1354 4 10 1427 9 29 6 22:56 5:46 491 5:45 177 5:44 59
Examining the Fifth Year of Akhenaten around 1459 BCE

Previous dates for Amenhotep III’s reign of 37–38 years were tentatively set at
1501–1464/1463 BCE, leading me to look about five years later during the reign of his
son Akhenaten, approximately 1460/1459 BCE, to see if a new moon fell on or near to
IV prt 13.
In Casperson’s table for 1459 BCE (−1458) (Table 29.6) a new moon fell exactly
25
Ibid., 87.
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid., 87; similarly on p. 88.
28
Ibid.
29
Idem, “Amarna M, X, K Boundary Stelae,” 330.
30
Idem, “On Chronology in Egyptology,” 90.
on IV prt 13 (conjunction 8 14) thus agreeing with the boundary stelae date. (Other dates
are highlighted for later reference). Its application to the “Stretching-of-the-Cord”
ceremony known to be held on the day of a new moon, when foundations of temples
were laid, is obvious—even if the actual wording is not used in the text from Amarna.
Table 29.6: New moon in Akhenaten’s fifth year in 1459 BCE (new moon listing
from −1458).
Amarna; Lat. 27.6, Long. 30.9; visibility coefficients: c1 = 11.5, c2 = 0.008
−1458 1 4 −1459 12 22 1323 5 15 6 2:20 6:53 159 6:53 57 6:53 −32
−1458 2 2 −1458 1 20 1323 6 14 7 20:23 6:46 239 6:45 99 6:44 12
−1458 3 4 −1458 2 19 1323 7 14 2 13:28 6:26 164 6:25 53 6:24 −15
−1458 4 3 −1458 3 21 1323 8 14 4 4:50 6:02 115 6:01 31 6:00 −27
−1458 5 2 −1458 4 19 1323 9 13 5 18:06 5:39 240 5:38 95 5:37 23
−1458 6 1 −1458 5 19 1323 10 13 7 5:19 5:18 188 5:18 83 5:17 8
−1458 6 30 −1458 6 17 1323 11 12 1 14:50 5:07 288 5:07 151 5:07 54
−1458 7 29 −1458 7 16 1323 12 11 2 23:25 5:10 346 5:11 212 5:11 100
−1458 8 28 −1458 8 15 1324 1 6 4 7:59 5:27 262 5:28 143 5:28 20
Akhenaten’s Accession Date

Having established that Akhenaten’s fifth year fell in 1459 BCE, we can now
determine his first regnal year and accession date, and ascertain the length of his father’s
(Amenhotep III) final year, apparently his 38th. Redford proposed that a renewing of an
oath on the frontier stela of Akhenaten in year eight on I prt 8, may have coincided with
the anniversary of his accession.31
In 1976, William Murnane concluded that a sequence of dates on the boundary
stelae of Akhenaten puts his accession between I prt 1 and I prt 8,32 in agreement with
Redford. Some five years before 1459 BCE brings Akhenaten’s accession to 1463 BCE
(−1462), and according to Casperson’s table below (Table 29.7), IV 3ḫt 29 equates to 20
December. I prt 1 will equate to 22 December in −1463 (1464 BCE).
Table 29.7: Amenhotep III’s 38th year begins in 1464 BCE and Akhenaten’s
accession is in 1463 BCE (new moon listings −1463 to −1462)
−1463 5 26 −1463 5 13 1318 10 6 2 12:48 5:22 231 5:21 77 5:20 −9
Amenhotep III’s 38th year begins on II šmw 1
−1463 6 25 −1463 6 12 1318 11 6 4 1:33 5:08 152 5:08 47 5:08 −33
−1463 7 24 −1463 7 11 1318 12 5 5 16:42 5:09 243 5:09 125 5:09 33
−1463 8 23 −1463 8 10 1318 13 5 7 9:54 5:24 205 5:24 109 5:25 17
−1463 9 22 −1463 9 9 1319 1 30 2 3:56 5:47 183 5:48 90 5:48 −6
−1463 10 21 −1463 10 8 1319 2 29 3 21:18 6:12 261 6:12 165 6:13 67
−1463 11 20 −1463 11 7 1319 3 29 5 12:59 6:35 242 6:36 141 6:37 38
−1463 12 20 −1463 12 7 1319 4 29 7 2:35 6:51 208 6:52 101 6:52 −5
Akhenaten’s accession falls on I prt 8
−1462 1 18 −1462 1 5 1319 5 28 1 14:09 6:52 289 6:51 147 6:51 40
−1462 2 16 −1462 2 3 1319 6 27 2 23:53 6:37 495 6:37 190 6:36 63
31
Ibid., 121-22.
32
W. Murnane, “On the Accession Date of Akhenaton,” Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes. January
12, 1977 (eds. J.H. Johnson and E.F. Wente; SAOC 39; Chicago IL: Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, 1976) 163-7; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 206.
Amenhotep III’s 38th year extends from II šmw 1 to I prt 8 in 1464 BCE,
approximately seven months. Projecting back 38 years sets his first year in 1501 BCE.
Was Akhenaten Co-regent with Amenhotep III?

In 1959, Cyril Aldred proposed that Akhenaten had a co-regency for about 11
years with his father, Amenhotep III, on the basis of allusions to three sed-festivals held
in his reign, with “coronation tribute” being given to him in his 12th year.33 This is now
discounted by scholars, including Aldred himself, who comments, “No inscription
referring to a Sed-festival during the reign of Akhenaten gives a specific date for any of
those events.”34
An End-date for the 18th Dynasty

An inscription written during the reign of Ramesses II validates the 59th year of
Horemheb’s life35 and encompasses the time from the beginning of the reign of
Akhenaten to the end of the reign of Horemheb some 59 years later, concluding the 18th
Dynasty in 1405/1404 BCE as we shall see.36 This supports the beginning of
Akhenaten’s reign in 1464/1463 BCE without recourse to a co-regency. As will be seen
below, the reign of Akhenaten of nearly 18 years fits squarely in this time period,
whereas a co-regency with his father of up to 12 years would affect the 59 years to the
end of the dynasty. Akhenaten’s reign of 17 years plus months can be dated to
1464/1463–1447 BCE, leaving approximately 42 years for the remainder of the period.
Akhenaten’s Mummy Identified

In 2010, it was announced that DNA testing of a mummy in tomb KV 55 clearly
identified it as Akhenaten.37 Previous CT scans had incorrectly put the mummy’s age
around 25 years old, ruling out Akhenaten—thought to be 35 years old at death. New
study of the bones showed the mummy to be a man in the age-range of 35–40 years.
Previous belief that the mummy was Smenkhare, Akhenaten’s son-in-law, was mistaken.
Akhenaten’s Length of Reign

The highest regnal year for Akhenaten is his 17th, coming from two wine jar
labels, one of which was found in his burial complex at Amarna. James Allen notes that
the jar was originally labeled “Regnal Year 17: honey [ … ]” but this was erased and the
label “Regnal Year 1: w[ine … ]” added under it.38 The sealing of the jars was dated to II
3ḫt 17, thus he died sometime after this date and before his 18th year began on I prt 8.39
Successor to Aknenaten
The only known regnal date applicable to the period immediately after
Akhenaten’s reign is a year three on III 3ḫt 10, belonging to a certain Ankhkheprure
Neferneferuaten. No specific event is attached to this year in the text, but it cannot be too
far removed from his accession day since it falls between the above dates for the death of
33
C. Aldred, “The Beginning of the el-cAmārna Period,” JEA 45 (1959) 24-33. See also, E.F. Campbell,
“The Amarna Letters and the Amarna Period,” Biblical Archaeologist 23 (1960) 6-10.
34
Aldred, “Beginning,” 28.
35
“Horemheb,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horemheb
36
See further in chap. 30, pp. 415417.
37
“Akhenaten,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten
38
J.P. Allen alludes to this as docket 279 from Amarna in “Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re,” GM 141 (1994)
13; idem, “The Amarna Succession,” Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and
History in Memory of William J. Murnane, (University of Memphis, 2007).
39
Akhenaten. By accepting this date, a reign of 16 years and 11 months can be assigned to
Akhenaten. Casperson’s table below (Table 29.8) demonstrates this.
Table 29.8: Akhenaten’s 17th year in −1447/1446 (new moon listing from −1447 to
−1446)
−1447 11 23 −1447 11 10 1335 4 6 7 8:24 6:38 252 6:38 134 6:39 17
Akhenaten’s 17th year begins on I prt 1–8
−1447 12 22 −1447 12 9 1335 5 5 1 18:58 6:52 329 6:52 189 6:52 75
−1446 1 21 −1446 1 8 1335 6 5 3 4:60 6:51 242 6:50 118 6:50 18
−1446 2 19 −1446 2 6 1335 7 4 4 15:01 6:35 318 6:34 147 6:34 50
−1446 3 21 −1446 3 8 1335 8 4 6 1:34 6:12 179 6:11 69 6:11 −11
−1446 4 19 −1446 4 6 1335 9 3 7 13:04 5:49 233 5:48 91 5:47 8
−1446 5 19 −1446 5 6 1335 10 3 2 1:46 5:26 137 5:26 37 5:25 −37
−1446 6 17 −1446 6 4 1335 11 2 3 15:48 5:11 228 5:10 95 5:10 7
−1446 7 17 −1446 7 4 1335 12 2 5 7:10 5:07 185 5:07 77 5:08 −11
−1446 8 15 −1446 8 2 1335 13 1 6 23:33 5:19 276 5:19 162 5:20 64
−1446 9 14 −1446 9 1 1336 1 26 1 16:10 5:40 241 5:41 140 5:42 42
Akhenaten died sometime between II 3ḫt 17 and I prt 1–8. Neferneferuaten may have begun to reign in III 3ḫt
−1446 10 14 −1446 10 1 1336 2 26 3 7:58 6:05 215 6:06 113 6:07 9
−1446 11 12 −1446 10 30 1336 3 25 4 22:06 6:29 291 6:30 185 6:31 78
−1446 12 12 −1446 11 29 1336 4 25 6 10:21 6:48 255 6:49 142 6:49 33
However, the period following Akhenaten is confused, giving rise to a range of

speculation. I proceed on the assumption that Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten was
Akhenaten’s successor—an assumption shared by many scholars—and reserve the
discussion of other speculation to a discourse at the end of the chapter.
Evidence for the Reign of Akhenaten’s Successor

As noted above, the sealing of the wine jars in Akhenaten’s tomb were dated to II
3ḫt 17, and he died before the 18th anniversary of his accession which, as noted earlier,
was probably on I prt 1 but no later than I prt 8.40 The accession of Akhenaten’s
successor is between these dates in the year 1447 BCE. The evidence suggests that
Smenkhkare, also known as Neferneferuaten, reigned for two full years and part of a
third year as shown in Table 29.9.
Table 29.9: 18th Dynasty: Regnal Years of Thutmose IV to Smenkhkare
Regnal
Rulers Dates BCE Lunar or Sothic anchor points
years*
Thutmose IV 8 yr, 7 mo 1510–1501 None known
Amenhotep III 37 yr, 8 mo 1501–1464/1463 None known
Akhenaten 16 yr, 11 mo 1464/1463–1447
Probable “stretching-of-the-cord” ceremony
Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten 2 yr, 4 mo 1447–1444 None known
Smenkhkare
It has been traditionally understood that Akhenaten’s successor was named
Ankhkheprure Smenkhkare Djeserkheperu; Smenkhkare for short. He is depicted on a
relief from the tomb of a certain Meryre II showing a roughly painted scene of a king
40
and queen. The text reads, “King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Ankhkheprure, Son of Re,
Smenkhkare, Holy-of-Manifestations [=Djeserkheperu] given life forever continually.”41
This is accompanied by the words “Chief King’s Wife Meritaten.”42 Thus the
king depicted is Smenkhkare and the queen is Meritaten,43 the eldest daughter of
Akhenaten and Nefertiti, and the text implies that Smenkhkare and Meritaten are
husband and wife. Smenkhkare and Meritaten are also said to be linked by two blocks
from Memphis, their supposed figures preserved now only in drawings. 44 But the
identity of the couple is disputed.45
The cartouches of Smenkhkare follow those of Akhenaten’s on a calcite jar found
in the tomb of Tutankhamun, both partially erased.46 A wine jar label and six royal seals
bear the name of Ankhkheprure Smenkhkare Djeserkheperu.47 The wine jar label
mentions a year one from “the house of Smenkhkare.”48 Smenkhkare is reputed to have
celebrated his coronation by adding a huge brick hall to the Great Palace at Amarna with
no less than 544 square columns in its main room.49 Smenkhkare’s lineage is not known,
but as Meritaten’s husband he must have had an acceptable pedigree as required for a
man who was to become king of Egypt. One theory suggests that Smenkhkare was the
son of Akhenaten by his lesser wife, Kiye.50
Marc Gabolde cites Hittite archives (known as The Deeds of Suppiluliuma) found
at Boghaz Koy in Turkey, stating that a widow of a King of Egypt asked King
Suppiluliuma for a son to become her husband. Gabolde proposes that Meritaten was the
widow of Akhenaten, and the Hittite prince was Zannanza who was eventually sent to
Egypt, but according to Hittite correspondence was murdered by the Egyptians after
arrival.
Gabolde presumes that Zannanza/Smenkhkare had time for a coronation as he
points out, “Smenkhkare is not presented under a coronation name and a birth name in
his two cartouches, but under two coronation names. The explanation for this curious
fact seems to me clear: both royal names were composed on the occasion of his
coronation. He therefore must have had another name beforehand.”51
Gabolde’s observation reinforces the status of Smenkhkare as crowned king of
Egypt, but not his identification as the foreign Hittite prince who was then murdered,
because Smenkhkare is associated with both Akhenaten and Meritaten. The Hittite
41
M. Lorenz, “Smenkhkare Djeserkheperu Ankhkheprure” http://www.heptune.com/smenkhka.html,
citing W.J. Murnane, Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt (Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature,
1995).
42
Allen, “Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re,” 8.
43
Idem, “Amarna Succession,” 2.
44
Ibid., 5, n. 14.
45
Jaromir Malek, “The ‘co-regency relief’ of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare from Memphis,” Studies in
Honor of William Kelly Simpson (Vol. 2; ed. Peter Der Manuelian; Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1996)
553-59.
46
Allen, “Amarna Succession,” 2, and see n. 4. Fig. 1 shows, “Inscription on Jar 405 from the Tomb of
Tutankhamun.”
47
“Smenkhkare,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smenkhkare
48
Ibid.
49
J. Dunn, “Smenkhkare, an Obscure Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty,”
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/smenkhkare.htm
50
Ibid.
51
M. Gabolde, “The End of the Amarna Period,”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/amarna_01.shtml, based on Marc Gabolde, From
Akhenaten to Tutankhamun (D'Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon collection of the Institute of Archaeology and
History of Antiquity, Université Lumière Lyon II, Boccard, 1998).
prince theory has also been associated with Ankhesenpaaten, third daughter of
Akhenaten and Nefertiti, who supposedly sought another husband after Tutankhamun
died,52 but she married Ay, her husband’s former commander.53 Now that the mummy of
tomb KV55 has been identified as Akhenaten and not Smenkhkare as formerly thought,
Smenkhkare lacks a known burial site and mummy.
Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten?
A second king from the same time period as Smenkhkare is known from several
inscriptions. A text on the Theban tomb TT 139, belonging to a certain Pairy (various
spellings), mentions a King Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten.54 The first section of the text
reads:
Regnal year 3, third month of Inundation, day 10. The King of Upper and Lower Egypt,
Lord of the Two Lands Ankhkheprure Beloved of Aten, the son of Re Neferneferuaten
Beloved of Waenre [i.e. Akhenaten]. Giving worship to Amun, kissing the ground to
Wenennefer by the lay priest, scribe of divine offerings of Amun in the mansion of
Ankhkheprure in Thebes, Pawah, born to Yotefseneb.55
No coronation texts are attributed to this king, but reference to his regnal year
three, and the date III 3ḫt 10, confirms his reign. Year three is his highest known date.
Akhenaten’s 17th year started on I prt 1 and he died after II 3ḫt 17, and before his 18th
year; indicating that Akhenaten’s 17th year exceeded nine months. As previously noted,
III 3ḫt 10 comes within these dates. Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten’s third regnal year
started either before or on III 3ḫt 10. The reference might indicate the third anniversary
of his accession date. At least it cannot be far removed from it, since the accession had to
start sometime between II 3ḫt 17 and I prt 1. Adopting III 3ḫt 10 as an approximate date
for Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten’s accession, he would have begun to reign in early
September (Julian calendar) in 1447 BCE. See Casperson’s previous lunar table (Table
29.8).
Supporting Ankhkheprure as Akhenaten’s successor are jar labels of successive
wine vintages. Hornung writes:
Up to year 13 of Akhenaten the chief vintners held the title ḥrj k3mw. The title ḥrj b3ḥ is
attested from year 13 through 17 and its use continued in year 1 and 2 of King
Ankhkheprure. The last vintage that is documented at Amarna dates to a regnal year 1; in
that year the vintner’s title ḥrj k3mw was reintroduced and continued to be used as wine
jar labels in the tomb of Tutankhamun.56
And,
A regnal year 3 is also attested at Amarna in the labels on vessels for various
commodities. Year 3 continues year 1 and 2 of King Ankhkheprure as labels of year 2
and 3 belonging to a single delivery of olive oil prove.”57
52
See D.B. Redford, “New Light on the Asiatic Campaigning of Ḥoremheb,” BASOR 211 (1973) 48-49;
W. Helck, “Zur Chronologiediskussion über das Neue Reich,” Ä und L 3 (1992) 66-67.
53
“Smenkhkare,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smenkhkare,” citing W. McMurray, “Towards an Absolute
Chronology for Ancient Egypt,” www.egyptologyforum.org/EMP/ACAE1.pdf
54
Neferneferuaten has been translated “Perfect One of the Aten’s Perfection”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neferneferuaten) or “The Aten is radiant of radiance” (N. Reeves, The
Complete Tutankhamun: The King, The Tomb, the Royal Treasure [London: Thames and Hudson; 1990]
22).
55
N. Reeves, Akhenaten: Egypt’s Heretic King, (London: Thames & Hudson, 2005) 163.
56
57
Ibid., 208.
Thus there is a continuous sequence from Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten’s year

one through to year three. A fourth year is not attested. Concerning the length of this
third year, Hornung records that the wine jar labels of years one to two indicate an
average vintage of 50–60 bottles but only three labels come from year three, before they
are dated to a year one.58 This suggests that regnal year three was brief, and the
accession of the next king may have occurred soon after year three began—but sometime
after III 3ḫt 10, probably late in 1445 BCE (−1444).
Another reference to King Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten—this time in
association with Meritaten—was found on two boxes from the tomb of Tutankhamun.59
One of the inscriptions reads, “King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands,
Ankhkheprure Beloved of Neferkepherure, [= Akhenaten] Son of Re, Lord of Crowns,
Neferneferuaten Beloved of Waenre.”
The names of Akhenaten are given alongside the text and the words, “King’s
Chief Wife Meritaten, may she live forever.” 60
Meritaten Mystery
In the tomb of Meryre II, noted earlier, Meritaten appears as the queen and wife
of Smenkhkare, whereas in the above text she is associated both with Akhenaten and
Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten. It is also understood by most scholars that Meritaten
was married to Akhenaten after her mother, Nefertiti, died, and thus became
Akhenaten’s wife and queen, and that she married Smenkhkare later. The implication in
the above text seems to be that Meritaten is the wife of Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten
the incumbent king.
There is no room in the chronology demonstrated by the jar labels for Smenkhare
to have preceded Neferneferuaten. Neferneferuaten’s accession sometime before III 3ḫt
10 fits in with the time that Akhenaten died, a month or two before completing his 17th
year of reign. Yet Smenkhkare was crowned king. It compels the conclusion that
Smenkhkare changed his name to Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten after he became king.
Unfortunately, the jar labels only refer to the king as Ankhkheprure, which is the
prenomen for both Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten. But the text of TT 139 gives him a
year three, his full name, Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten, and a regnal year number.
So it is not clear in which year he changed his name. Ken Kitchen wrote in 1985:
The one certainty about Smenkhkare’s use of royal style is that his nomen was
Smenkhkare (often with the added epithet Djoser-khepru) in his Year 1, but had been
changed to (or had the alternative) Neferneferuaten, with the epithets “beloved of
Neferkheprure,” “beloved of Wanre” or just “ruler” (ḥḳ3), in year 3, as is very clearly
61
set out on the evidence by Krauss, pp. 92-94.
Allen notes that “The new king [Smenkhkare] took both Nefer-neferu-aton’s
throne name (without its reference to Akhenaton) and Merit-aton as Chief Queen.”62 The
acceptance of a name change for Smenkhkare to Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten enables
58
Ibid.
59
60
Lorenz “Smenkhkare Djeserkheperu Ankhkheprure,” citing Murnane, Texts from the Amarna Period;
Allen, “Amarna Succession,” 2 and fig. 2 inscription from Box 1k on p. 4.
61
K.A. Kitchen, “Review of R. Krauss, Das Ende der Amarnazeit—Beiträge zur Geschichte und
Chronologie des Neuen Reiches (HÄB 7; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1978, repr. 1981)” JEA 71 (1985) 44.
62
them to be seen as the same person. Apparently, not a single fragment of a [u]shabti
figure has been found bearing the name of Smenkhkare.63
Vintage Evidence
The most compelling argument that there was no king between Akhenaten and
Smenkhkare/Ankhkheprure, or between Smenkhkare/Ankhkheprure and Tutankhamun,
comes from the combined evidence of the jar labels from the reigns of Akhenaten,
Ankhkheprure, and Tutankhamun. Hornung says,
Wine jar labels from Amarna attest sixteen successive wine vintages during the
occupation of the site, 13 corresponding to years 5 through 17 of Akhenaten, whereas 3
vintages correspond to regnal years of his successors. The vintage of Akhenaten’s year 4
occurred in the year before the foundation of the city; wine of year 4 was consumed at
the site before the vintage of year 5 became available. Thus altogether seventeen
successive vintages are attested at Amarna. Up to year 13 of Akhenaten the chief vinters
held the title ḥrj k3mw. The title ḫrj b3ḥ is attested from year 13 through 17 and its use
continued in year 1 and 2 of King Ankhkheprure. The last vintage that is documented at
Amarna dates to regnal year 1; in that year the vinter’s title ḥrj k3mw is reintroduced and
continued to be used as wine jar labels in the tomb of Tutankhamun show.64
There is no interruption to the numbering of the succession recognized by the

other evidence. The jar labels concur with the text of TT 139 giving a year three to
Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten, otherwise Smenkhkare. This is his highest year as
shown by the jar labels. Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten is herewith attributed two years
plus months into his third year, with his reign beginning at the earliest on II 3ḫt 17 and
before I prt 1–8 (when Akhenaten’s 18th year would have begun had he lived).
As noted above the date of III 3ḫt 10 is adopted as a possible accession date for
Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten, which equates to 28 October in 1447 BCE. He died
sometime after the date of III 3ḫt 10 in his third year (which corresponds to 27 October
according to Casperson’s table [Table 29.10]).
Because the accession date of Tutankhamun is not known, Neferneferuaten’s
third year can only be surmised as being short due to the scarcity of wine jar labels
attributed to that year. Therefore, approximate dates for the reign of
Smenkhkare/Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten are assumed.
Table 29.10: Death of Akhenaten and accession of Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten in
−1446; death of Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten and accession of Tutankhamun in
−1443 (new moon listing from −1446 to −1445 and −1444 to −1443)
−1446 10 14 −1446 10 1 1336 2 26 3 7:58 6:05 215 6:06 113 6:07 9
Death of Akhenaten. Accession of Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten on or before III 3ḫt 10
−1446 11 12 −1446 10 30 1336 3 25 4 22:06 6:29 291 6:30 185 6:31 78
−1446 12 12 −1446 11 29 1336 4 25 6 10:21 6:48 255 6:49 142 6:49 33
Second year −1445/−1444
−1444 10 21 −1444 9 8 1338 2 4 4 11:16 5:46 214 5:47 118 5:48 24
Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten’s 3rd year starts on or before III 3ḫt 10
−1444 10 21 −1444 10 8 1338 3 4 6 6:23 6:12 192 6:13 99 6:14 4
−1444 11 20 −1444 11 7 1338 4 4 1 1:35 6:36 177 6:36 84 6:37 −11
−1444 12 19 −1444 12 6 1338 5 3 2 19:24 6:51 256 6:51 156 6:52 62
Attributing a short 3rd year to Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten locates Tutankhamun’s accession in II prt
−1443 1 18 −1443 1 5 1338 6 3 4 10:46 6:51 226 6:51 114 6:51 20
63
P. Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs: The Reign by Reign Record of the Rulers and Dynasties of
Ancient Egypt (London: Thames and Hudson, 1994, 2006) 127.
64
Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 207. See also Allen, “Amarna Succession,” 5 and n. 14.
−1443 2 16 −1443 2 3 1338 7 2 5 23:09 6:37 370 6:36 159 6:36 50

−1443 3 18 −1443 3 5 1338 8 2 7 8:45 6:14 232 6:14 72 6:13 −18
The above dates have been compiled in conjunction with the regnal years for the
remaining kings of the 18th Dynasty (Table 29.11) discussed in the next chapter.
Table 29.11: 18th Dynasty: Regnal Years of Thutmose IV to Horemheb with regnal
years and dates
Regnal
Rulers Dates BCE Lunar or Sothic anchor points
years*
Amenhotep III 37 yr, 8mo 1501–1464/1463 None known
Akhenaten 16 yr, 11 mo 1464/1463–1447
Probable “stretching-of-the-cord” ceremony.
Tutankhamun 8 yr, 11 mo 1444–1435 None known
Ay 4 yr, 4 mo 1435–1431 None known
New Sothic cycle commenced at Thebes on I
Horemheb 27 yr 1431–1404
3ḫt 1 in 1414
271 yr, 3 1676 − 1404 =
Total
mo, 26 d 272 yrs
Discourse: Akhenaten’s Successor

Queen Ankhetkheprure Neferneferuaten?
The TT 139 text, and the funerary boxes, have “desired/beloved/chosen” written
65
as mr. But it was noticed that the prenomen could be written in the feminine; that is,
Ankhetkheprure spelt with a “t,” and the following epithet “beloved” also spelt with a
“t”; that is, mrt, and the wording of the second epithet changed.
Aidan Dodson and Dyan Hilton reported James Allen’s comments at the April
2004 meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, “Examination[s] of palimpsest
inscriptions of Neferneferuaten on objects reused in Tutankhamun’s tomb (on a pectoral
and on the canopic coffinettes) have shown conclusively that one [sic] the former used
the epithet 3h-n-h.s, ‘effective for her husband’.” 66
Nicholas Reeves points out that, “The form without the feminine t (if, indeed,
this t is a strictly grammatical ending) is non-specific as to gender rather than purely
masculine.”67 So, according to Reeves, either form of the name and epithets could be
used for a woman. Referring to the name Ankhkhetprure, Kitchen noted, “It is surely a
clumsy calque on an original Ankh-khepru-re—not the other way around! …
syntactically, the t is uncalled-for, except to feminise clumsily a pre-existing
prenomen.”68
Another indication of a female Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten comes from the
fragmentary so-called “Co-regency Stela” found at Amarna. Allen, writing in 1994,
65
Allen, “Amarna Succession,” 1. According to Allen’s analysis of the usage of various cartouched names
of Akhenaten’s successors, there are only two groups into which the feminine version falls. There is a
single instance on a seal of mrt nfr ḫprw-rc (“Beloved of Neferkheperre” i.e. Akhenaten). Of the other
version cnht- ḫprw-rc mrt wc-n-rc (“Ankhetkheprure Beloved of Waenre”—also Akhenaten) he notes, “The
feminine form (B) appears only by itself, in a number of seal-impressions” (Allen, “Nefertiti and
Smenkh-ka-re,” 9, 10, quote p. 10).
66
A. Dodson & D. Hilton, The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt: A Genealogical Sourcebook of
the Pharaohs (London: Thames & Hudson, 2004) 285.
67
N. Reeves, “Review of R. Krauss, Das Ende der Amarnazeit (HÄB, 1978, repr. 1981),” Orientalistische
Literaturzeitung, vol. 78, no. 6 (1983), cols. 546-48.
68
Kitchen, “Review of R. Krauss, Das Ende der Amarnazeit,” 43-44.
noted that the stela preserves a large figure followed by a smaller (half-size or smaller)
figure, and the cartouches of Akhenaten followed by those of “Ankhkheprure Chosen of
Waenre” and “Neferneferuaten Chosen of Akhenaten.” Allen goes on to note that a
second set of cartouches incised on top of a two-columned inscription identifies “the
woman” as “King’s bodily daughter, his chosen, Ankhesenpaaten.”69
More recently, the stela is described as having three central figures, proposed as
those of Akhenaten, Nefertiti, and Meritaten. At some stage, Nefertiti’s single cartouche
was chiseled out and replaced by Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten’s dual cartouche, and
Meritaten’s name replaced by her sister, Ankhesenpaaten.
The female figure of Nefertiti, replaced by Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten
(though apparently without the feminine t), gives further weight to the proposal that
Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten was female.
Obviously, if Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten was female, then she could not be
Smenkhkare! This led scholars to wonder if all the references to Ankhkheprure
Neferneferuaten were applicable to a female king. For example, Aidan Dodson retracted
his previous view that Smenkhkare and Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten were one and the
same on learning that the name referred to a female.70 Some scholars have applied the
regnal year three on TT 139 to a female Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten, thus separating
Smenkhkare from Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten.
However, Hornung wrote in 2006, “It is now certain that not only a man
Ankhkheprure, but also a woman Ankhetkheprure ruled between Akhenaten and
Tutcankhamun.” He identifies the male as Smenkhkare, but the identity of the female
“remains problematic.” 71
If Hornung is correct, then another king has to be inserted into the chronology.
This is why he suggests that the year one on the wine jar label (noted above) might refer
to Queen Ankhetkheprure or to Tutankhamun72 and that the regnal year three on the TT
139 graffito date “seems to belong to the king, but the queen is not excluded.”73
Assuming that there was a female Ankhkhe(t)prure Neferneferuaten, who might
she have been? Did she ever attain the status of co-regent or “King” having regnal years
credited to her? Candidates for this person are: Nefertiti, Kiya, Neferneferuaten Tasherit,
and Meritaten. Each possibility is briefly considered.
Nefertiti?
Nefertiti has Neferneferuaten as her prenomen, thus named Neferneferuaten-
Nefertiti, and could conceivably have been known as Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten.
While it has been proposed that Nefertiti might have been co-regent with Akhenaten for
up to year three of the TT 139 text, or that she outlived Akhenaten and reigned as king
for several years, suggested by a depiction of her as an aged woman, it now seems that
Nefertiti predeceased Akhenaten.
The two are depicted in the tomb of Meryre with their six daughters in the second
month of Akhenaten’s 12th year, after which Nefertiti is not heard of again.74 She may
have died in Akhenaten’s year 14 when dockets for delivery of wine from her estate
cease.75
69
70
Dodson and Hilton, Complete Royal Families, 285; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 207.
71
72
Ibid., 207.
73
Ibid.
74
Allen, “Amarna Succession,” 1, 13.
75
J. Dunn, “Queen Nefertiti,” http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/nefertiti.htm
If Nefertiti predeceased Akhenaten she cannot have been credited with regnal
years as king. The shabti figures associated with Nefertiti’s death refer to her only as
Akhenaten’s “Chief wife,” etc., indicating that she never attained the status of pharaoh.76
On the “Co-regency stela” her name was excised and replaced with that of
Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten, and Meritaten’s name replaced with Ankhesenpaaten.
Since Meritaten is not the same person as Ankhesenpaaten, analogy suggests that
Nefertiti was not Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten but someone who replaced her.
Kiya?
Kiya was a lesser, though important, wife of Akhenaten, whose lineage is
unknown. It is plausible that she had a family connection to Akhenaten, but it has also
been suggested that she may have been a Mitannian princess, Tadukhepa, daughter of
Tushratta,77 though it is unproven. Kiya’s last dateable event is a wine docket bearing
her name from the vintage of Akhenaten’s regnal year 11, but some scholars credit her
with further years before Akhenaten died. Akhenaten’s gilded wooden coffin found in
Tomb KV55, was said to have belonged to Kiye,78 but Allen now proposes that it was
intended for Akhenaten after he had been moved from his original burial in the Royal
Tomb at Amarna.79 Having “disappeared” in Akhenaten’s reign, Kiya can be eliminated
as Ankhkhetprure Neferneferuaten.
Neferneferuaten Tasherit?
Neferneferuaten Tasherit (“Junior”), fourth daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti,
has been proposed by Allen. He notes that, “Insofar as can be determined, the primary
element in the nomen of a pharaoh always corresponds to the name he (or she) bore
before coming to the throne … the evidence for this tradition argues that the co-regent
bore the name Neferneferuaten before her coronation … she must have been …
Neferneferuaten Jr.” 80
However, in order to be promoted to pharaoh she would have to pre-empt her two
older sisters, Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten (Meketaten, second daughter of Akhenaten
and Nefertiti, having already died at about 13–14 years old, possibly while giving birth).
Allen writes that Akhenaten’s motive for this “can only be the subject of speculation.”81
Kitchen notes that, “During these later years [of Akhenaten] Neferneferuaten Junior
appears once with the title royal wife, but the implications of this must remain
uncertain.”82 It is not known whether she predeceased Akhenaten, but this is quite
possible. Akhenaten and Nefertiti both died young, possibly victims of a plague, and
since little is known about Neferneferuaten Tasherit, she may have died young too. Apart
from her name there is nothing to connect her with Ankhkhe(t)prure Neferneferuaten.
Meritaten?
The only other candidate for Ankhe(t)kheprure Neferneferuaten is Meritaten,
eldest daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. It is presumed by many scholars that after
Nefertiti died, Meritaten became Akhenaten’s wife and took on her mother’s role as
76
Allen, “Amarna Succession,” 14 and n. 59.
77
W.J. Murnane, Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt (Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the
Ancient World 5; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 9, 90-93, 210-11. Cited from “Kiya,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiya; Gabolde, “End of the Amarna Period.”
78
Gabolde, “End of the Amarna Period.”
79
Allen, “Amarna Succession,” 6.
80
81
Ibid., 15.
82
Reeves, “Review of Das Ende der Amarnazeit,” 44.
“King’s Chief wife.” Allen notes that, “Egyptian women usually married at thirteen.”83
He writes, “In the most likely sequence of events, Meritaten Jr. was born in
[Akhenaten’s] Regnal Year 13 or 14, Meketaten died in childbirth in Regnal Year 15,
and Ankhesenpaaten Jr. was born in Regnal Year 15 or 16.”84
It is possible that Meritaten Jr. was born to Akhenaten after the demise of
Nefertiti (regnal years 12–14), when Meritaten may have been 13 or 14 years of age or
somewhat older. However, Allen proposes that a scene on Wall A of Room gamma of
the Royal Tomb at Amarna depicts Akhenaten and Nefertiti mourning the body of
Meketaten after childbirth; the father of the baby is assumed to be Akhenaten,85 in which
case Akhenaten was having children by his own daughters before Nefertiti died. But
there is a question whether the baby was Meketaten’s or Nefertiti’s, and whether
Meketaten died in childbirth.86
If Nefertiti was still alive when Meritaten, Meketaten, and Ankhesenpaaten gave
birth to daughters sired by Akhenaten, then it was some time after this that Nefertiti died
and Meritaten became “Chief Wife” to Akhenaten. Presumably, after he died she
married Smenkhkare. Allen notes, “He [Smenkhkare] and Meritaten are not attested as
husband and wife before he became king.”87 Smenkhkare’s marriage to Meritaten would
have secured for him his succession to the throne, and by these names they are recorded
on the tomb of Meryre II.
It is speculated that after becoming king, Smenkhkare changed his name to
Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten, and Meritaten changed her name to Ankhkhetprure
Neferneferuaten.
The chiseling out of Nefertiti’s name and replacement with that of Ankhkheprure
Neferneferuaten on the “Co-regency Stela” indicates Meritaten’s name change—
assuming she was Ankhkhetprure Neferneferuaten—after Smenkhkare’s accession. Her
name Meritaten on her original figure was then replaced with that of her sister
Ankhesenpaaten.88 Ankhesenpaaten later became the “Chief wife” of Tutankhamun, and
after his death, the wife of his successor, Ay.
There is no indication that Meritaten ever attained the status of co-regent or sole-
ruler with regnal years of her own, and assuming that she is identical with
Ankhetkheprure Neferneferuaten, the reused objects in Tutankhamun’s tomb with the
name Neferneferuaten and epithet “effective for her husband” must be hers, and do not
indicate that she held the position of a pharaoh.89
When the throne became vacant—assuming the demise or disappearance of both
Smenkhkare and Meritaten—it was not Ankhesenpaaten who became pharaoh, but
Tutankhamun, her much younger half-brother, even though he was only about 9–10
years old. Obviously, male members of the family took precedence over females in the
line of succession, and there is no reason to believe that Ankhkhetprure Neferneferuaten
(Meritaten) became the ruler after Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten (Smenkhkare) died—
assuming she had survived him—and before Tutankhamun became king.
83
84
Ibid., 14.
85
Ibid., 11.
86
Gabolde, “End of the Amarna Period.”
87
88
Ibid., 15. Neferneferuaten is also associated with Ankhesenpaaten on a block from Hermopolis where
the latter is described as “King’s Daughter” (Allen, “Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re,” 11).
89
Dodson and Hilton, Complete Royal Families, 285.
Chapter 30. Reinstating the 18th Dynasty - Tutankhamun to Horemheb 413
Chapter 30
Reinstating the 18th Dynasty - Tutankhamun to Horemheb

DNA tests confirmed in February 2010 that Tutankhamun was the son of
Akhenaten and Akhenaten’s full-sister, the “Younger Lady,” whose mummy was found
in tomb KV35YL. The lady is yet to be identified, though some have argued that she is
Nefertiti,1 while others dispute this.2 Kiya is still in contention.3 Some suggest that
Tutankhamun’s mother was Nebetah or Beketaten—Akhenaten’s sisters—both of whom
were daughters of Amenhotep III and Tiye.4 Marc Gabolde has proposed that the baby
normally associated with the death of Meketaten in childbirth mentioned earlier was
actually born to Nefertiti and presumably her son, Tutankhamun.5 Until it can be
ascertained who is the mummy of KV35YL, the identity of Tutankhamun’s mother
remains unresolved.
Tutankhamun was about six years old when Akhenaten died, and he became king
at the age of about nine years. He was known as Tutankhaten until his third regnal year
when he changed his name to Tutankhamun demonstrating a desire to return to the
traditional gods worshipped by his predecessors at Thebes. He abandoned the city of
Akhetaten, moved the capital back to Thebes, and reinstated the priesthood.
1
Joann Fletcher, The Search for Nefertiti: The True Story of an Amazing Discovery (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 2004).
2
For example, M. Ross, “Where’s Nefertiti?” http://www.archaeology.org/online/reviews/nefertiti; Z.
Hawass, cited by J. Dunn in “Queen Nefertiti,” http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/nefertiti.htm; K.
Weeks and P. Locavara, cited in “Nefertiti,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nefertiti
3
“Nefertiti,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nefertiti
4
Tiye is known as the Elder Lady, mother of the Younger Lady, both found in tomb KV35 (Hawass,
“Ancestry and Pathology,” 638-47); “The Younger Lady (mummy),”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Younger_Lady_%28mummy%29
5
M. Gabolde writes, “In one chamber of the Royal Tomb, just outside the room devoted to the funeral
vigil for Akhenaten’s second daughter, Meketaten, a small child is depicted in the arms of a wet-nurse …
It has long been believed that Meketaten died in childbirth and that this infant was hers. However, she was
only about nine years old at the time of her death and her sarcophagus proves that she was scarcely taller
than one metre. What remains of the inscription referring to the child reads: ‘(1) […] born of (2)
Neferneferua[ten] Nefertiti, who lives now and forever more’. ((1) and (2) indicate two columns; […]
indicates missing text.)” Gabolde suggests that the child is a son of Nefertiti, presumably Tutankhamun.
(Gabolde, “End of the Amarna Period,” http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/amarna_01.shtml,
based on Marc Gabolde, From Akhenaten to Tutankhamun [D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon collection of
the Institute of Archaeology and History of Antiquity, Université Lumière Lyon II, Boccard, 1998]). But
J.P. Allen points out that the supposed coffin could have been Meketaten’s canopic chest, in which case
she could have been taller than one metre (“The Amarna Succession,” Causing His Name to Live: Studies
in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane, [University of Memphis, 2007], 11
and n. 43, and Fig. 6 on p. 12). Furthermore, Meketaten would have been older than nine years when she
could first have had a baby, probably after she was 13 in about Akhenaten’s regnal year 12 (Allen,
“Amarna Succession,” 13). Moreover, the wording of the surviving text does not include the name of the
person born to Nefertiti, and there is said to be only room for the titulary of a child not grandchild (Allen,
“Amarna Succession,” 11). Perhaps it was Meketaten.
The length of his reign is indicated by the years 4, 5, 9, and 10 found on wine jar
dockets from his tomb.6 It is said that the year 10 label could belong to Akhenaten.7 Year
nine attests that he reigned at least into his ninth year.8 Assuming a reign of two years
plus several months for Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten beginning in the latter part of
1447, Tutankhamun’s accession can be dated to early 1444 BCE and after 9 or 10 years
his death is set in 1435/1434 BCE.
Examination of Tutankhamun’s mummy suggests that he was about 18 years old
when he died.9 Krauss reports that botanical remains indicate that Tutankhamun was
buried in the months of March/April, so 70 days earlier his death would have taken place
in January.10 Casperson’s table (Table 30.1) shows that in −1434 (1435 BCE) January
fell in I prt to II prt. This gives Tutankhamun nearly nine full regnal years. A possible
tenth year, which could have been his or Akhenaten’s, is to be assigned to Akhenaten
because of the chronology associated with the reigns of the following two kings: Ay and
Horemheb. So Tutankhamun’s death at the end of his ninth year in −1434 is probably not
far from the actual.
Table 30.1: Tutankhamun’s ninth year and Ay’s accession in −1434 (new moon
listing from −1435 to −1434
−1435 12 10 −1435 11 27 1347 4 26 4 14:60 6:44 231 6:44 119 6:45 20
Tutankhamun appears to have died in January. Ay succeeded him in I or II prt
−1434 1 9 −1435 12 27 1347 5 26 6 7:40 6:49 193 6:49 80 6:49 −8
−1434 2 7 −1434 1 25 1347 6 25 7 21:29 6:39 325 6:39 142 6:38 49
−1434 3 9 −1434 2 24 1347 7 25 2 8:18 6:20 227 6:19 101 6:19 25
Tutankhamun is, of course, the famous boy-king whose magnificent mummy

with its gold-headed mask was discovered in tomb KV62 by Howard Carter in 1922. The
cause of Tutankhamun’s death has been widely speculated over the years, but in 2005, a
CT scan showed he had a badly broken leg; in 2010, DNA samples showed the presence
of malaria; and in 2012, Dr Hutan Ashrafian asserted that temporal lobe epilepsy caused
the fatal fall that broke Tutankhamun’s leg.11 His wife was his older sister,
Ankhesenpaaten, who was probably the mother of two fetuses found in his tomb.12
Tutankhamun had no surviving offspring, thus the lineage of Akhenaten came to an end.
The throne passed to Ay, who had served as Grand Vizier to Tutankhamun.
6
7
Ibid., 208.
8
D.B. Redford, “On the Chronology of the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty,” JNES 25 (1966) 122; P.
Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs: The Reign by Reign Record of the Rulers and Dynasties of Ancient
Egypt (London: Thames and Hudson, 1994, 2006) 131.
9
F. Filce Leek, The Human Remains from the Tomb of Tutankhamun (Oxford, Griffith Institute, 1972)
cited by Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 208.
10
R. Krauss, “Nochmals die Bestattungszeit Tutanchamuns,” SAK 23 (1996) 227-54 cited by Hornung,
“New Kingdom,” 208.
11
“Tutankhamun,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun
12
DNA analysis, published in February 2010, confirmed they were the biological children of
Tutankhamun, and their mother—possibly a badly preserved female mummy (“KV21A”) discovered in
tomb KV21 (Z. Hawass et al., “Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family,” JAMA 303,
[638-647] cited in “Tutankhamun,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun), which might be
Ankhesenpaaten or with a name change, Ankhesenamun (“KV 63,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KV63).
See also, N. Reeves, The Complete Tutankhamun (London: Thames and Hudson, 1990) 123-24.
Ay and Horemheb
Ay may have had some familial links to the royal family. Some scholars propose
that Ay’s father was Yuya, a senior military officer during the reign of Amenhotep III,
and that he may have been the father of Tiye, Amenhotep III’s chief queen. 13 Another
notion is that “He [Ay] and his wife Tey were the parents of Akhenaten’s chief wife,
Nefertiti, and that another of their daughters, Mutnedjmet, was the wife and queen of
Horemheb, Ay’s successor.”14
After Tutankhamun died, Ay married Ankhesenpaaten, probably his
granddaughter, giving him a greater claim to the throne than his rival, commander-in-
chief, Horemheb, who was known as “Deputy of the Two Lands,” and apparently
designated as the heir-apparent by Tutankhamun. Ay consolidated his right to the throne
by burying Tutankhamun.15
Ay’s accession after the death of Tutankhamun would have occurred sometime in
the period of I prt to II prt in 1435 (-1434) as proposed above, based on botanical
remains in his tomb. Ay’s highest known regnal year is his year four, dated to IV 3ḫt 1,
found on a stela of Nakhtmin (Berlin 2074).16
In reference to Tutankhamun’s accession and displayed in Table 29.10 (pp. 409-
10), January of 1444 BCE equates to I-II prt, and nine years later IV 3ḫt 1 in 1436
equates to 14 November coming at the end of Ay’s fourth year. As discussed below, his
successor, Horemheb, appears to have had a change of regnal years between IV prt 28
and I šmw 13 (15 days) indicating that in this time period Ay died, giving him a reign of
four years and five months, as shown below. These dates for Ay exclude Tutankhamun
having a 10th regnal year because Horemheb’s accession has to date from 1431 BCE
(−1430) (see Table 30.2), which I explain further below.
Table 30.2: Ay’s fifth year and Horemheb’s accession in −1429 (new moon listing
from −1430 to −1429)
−1431 10 27 −1431 10 14 1351 3 13 7 12:00 6:15 282 6:16 152 6:17 28
−1431 11 25 −1431 11 12 1351 4 12 1 23:39 6:36 344 6:36 202 6:37 81
Ay’s 5th year starts in January in I or II prt
−1431 12 25 −1431 12 12 1351 5 12 3 12:29 6:48 260 6:48 135 6:49 34
−1430 1 24 −1430 1 11 1351 6 12 5 2:16 6:45 188 6:45 91 6:45 10
−1430 2 22 −1430 2 9 1351 7 11 6 16:51 6:30 257 6:30 139 6:29 62
Horemheb’s accession dates from IV prt 28 to I šmw 13 in April
−1430 3 24 −1430 3 11 1351 8 11 1 8:06 6:09 193 6:08 102 6:07 33
−1430 4 22 −1430 4 9 1351 9 10 2 23:40 5:47 279 5:47 146 5:46 65
−1430 5 22 −1430 5 9 1351 10 10 4 14:53 5:27 218 5:26 108 5:26 26
Ay’s reign can be dated from 1435 to 1431 BCE.
Horemheb
Ay’s own choice of a successor was a military officer, Nakhtmin, but it was
Horemheb who succeeded Ay. After Horemheb became king, he sought to destroy the
memory of Ay by desecrating his monuments with their cartouches, including his
sarcophagus. But Ay is known because a lid belonging to his sarcophagus was found
13
“Ay,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ay
14
Ibid.
15
Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs, 136-37.
16
Redford, “Chronology,” 122; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 207 citing Urk. IV 2110,13; “Ay”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ay
under debri in tomb KV63 in 1972 by Otto Schaden, a US Egyptologist, and bore the
cartouche of Ay. Traces of Ay’s cartouche in plaster have also been found on the lintel
of the tomb of Amenia, Horemheb’s first wife.17 Horemheb’s second wife, Mutnedjmet,
probably the sister of Nefertiti, appears to have died in childbirth in Horemheb’s regnal
year 13 judging by the date on the wine jar docket found in her burial chamber, and the
skeleton found mixed with the skeleton of a newborn child.18
Year 13 and year 14 on wine jar labels from Horemheb’s estate are his highest
clearly-attested year dates.19 However, a year 27 has been attributed to him by most
scholars. On the shoulder of a now fragmented statue from Horemheb’s mortuary temple
at Karnak was found an anonymous hieratic graffito. It reads “Regnal Year 27, first
month of shomu day 9; the day on which Horemheb l.p.h., who loves Amun and hates
his enemies entered.”20 The graffito mentions either “the appearance of the king himself
or a royal cult statue representing the king, for a religious feast.” 21 Views differ as to
whether the text refers to a living or dead Horemheb, or whether the date might refer to
Ramesses III who reigned 32 years.
Another inscription, from Ostraca IFAO 1254, published by Jac Janssen in
22
1984, records that an unknown workman at Deir el-Medinah was absent from work
from a year 26 III prt 11 to year 27 II 3ḫt 12, before the text breaks off. The ostraca
shows that there was a regnal year change between IV prt 28 and I šmw 13 (15 days)
from year 26 to year 27. Though the king’s name is not given, the year 27 coincides with
the year 27 on the mortuary temple; thus, it is likely that the ostraca refers to the reign of
Horemheb.
Scholarly opinion now sets the accession of Horemheb in the time frame of IV
prt 28 to I šmw 13, and these dates indicate that Ay reigned four years and about three
months. The date of year 27 and I šmw 9 on the graffito of Horemheb’s mortuary temple
is understood by some scholars to refer to Horemheb’s burial date rather than the date of
his death,23 but as Wente and van Siclen point out, a burial date coming 70 days after
death would be dated to the successor of the deceased king, 24 and on this basis the date
of the 27th year must refer either to Horemheb’s day of death, a visit of the living
Horemheb, or an appearance of his cult statue to the temple in his 27th year.
The Mes Inscription and 59 Years

The inscription of Mes from Sakkara refers to a court decision in year 59 of
Horemheb. Kitchen points out that the year number cannot be a mistake because of the
large number of court trials and legal setbacks documented before the Mes family won
17
W.R. Johnson, JNES 56 (1997) 116, review of G.T. Martin, The Hidden Tombs of Memphis: New
Discoveries from the Time of Tutankhamun and Ramesses the Great (London: Thames and Hudson, 1991)
93.
18
Ibid., 116. J. Tyldesley writes that Horemheb is not known to have had any children by Amenia
(Chronicle of the Queens of Egypt [Thames and Hudson, 2006] 140); “Horemheb,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horemheb
19
Johnson, Review of Hidden Tombs, 116.
20
Redford, “Chronology,” 123. (He attributes the statue to the mortuary temple of Ay, now attributed to
Horemheb). E. Wente and C. van Siclen, “A Chronology of the New Kingdom,” Studies in Honor of
George R. Hughes (SAOC 39; Chicago IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1967) 231-32.
21
“Horemheb,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horemheb
22
J. Janssen, “A Curious Error,” BIFAO 84 (1984) 303-06.
23
24
back its land.25 Since Horemheb himself cannot be credited with 59 years, scholars
understand that the years refer to the time from the accession of Akhenaten through the
reigns of his successors down to Horemheb’s death and the end of the dynasty.26
Akhenaten’s accession took place at the end of December in 1464 BCE. If Horemheb
acceded in 1431, his 27th year would fall in 1405–1404. If he was buried on I šmw 9 his
death would have occurred some 70 days earlier, around the end of II prt or early
February in 1404 BCE. If he died on I šmw 9, this would equate to mid-April in 1404.
Scholars are not decided on this issue.27 Either date covers a period of 59 years, from the
end of December in 1464 to February/April 1404, which concurs with the Mes
inscription. The latter date is selected here to represent Horemheb’s death in 1404 BCE
on I šmw 9 with a reign of nearly 27 full years. His 28th year would have begun a few
days later on I šmw 13 (Table 30.3).28
Table 30.3 The 27th year of Horemheb and the 1st year of Ramesses I in −1403
−1404 12 26 −1404 12 13 1378 5 20 3 18:57 6:49 314 6:49 169 6:49 50
Horemheb died at end of II prt or I šmw 9 and was succeeded by Ramesses I
−1403 1 25 −1403 1 12 1378 6 20 5 7:34 6:45 216 6:45 80 6:44 −18
−1403 2 23 −1403 2 10 1378 7 19 6 20:49 6:29 311 6:29 110 6:28 13
−1403 3 25 −1403 3 12 1378 8 19 1 10:50 6:08 166 6:07 49 6:06 −20
The death of Horemheb brings to an end the 18th Dynasty. He was buried in an
unfinished tomb known as KV 57 at Thebes. Since he had no offspring, he had appointed
one of his high officials, Paramesse, to succeed him. He would become known as
Ramesses I, grandfather of the famed Ramesses II.
End of Sothic Cycle at Thebes 1414 BCE

Significant to the reign of Horemheb is the end/beginning of a Sothic cycle
viewed from Thebes in 1414, which fell in Horemheb’s 18th year. I have previously
discussed the Sothic cycles—how Sothis rose heliacally on I 3ḫt 1 at the beginning of a
new cycle as viewed from the latitude where the observer was located. A heliacal rising
observed at Thebes on I 3ḫt 1 will be seen at Memphis about five days later, on I 3ḫt 5
(Thebes) in that same year. Since the heliacal rising of Sothis stays on the same date for
four consecutive years, the heliacal rising of Sothis will not be seen at Thebes on I 3ḫt 5
for another 20 years.
However, because Memphis was using the calendar of Lower Egypt, with month-
names running concurrently, but numbered one month behind the calendar of Upper
Egypt, Memphis would have been 120 years behind the Sothic cycle seen from Thebes,
25
K.A. Kitchen, “The Basis of Egyptian Chronology in relation to the Bronze Age,” Vol. 1, High, Middle
or Low?: Acts of an International Colloquium on absolute chronology held at the University of
Gothenburg 20–22 August 1987, (ed. P. Aström, 1987) 37-55; “Horemheb,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horemheb
26
Redford, “Chronology,” 124; J.R. Harris, “How Long Was the Reign of Horemheb?” JEA 54 (1968) 95-
99.
27
28
Dockets with a year 28 and 30 found at el-Amarna without the name of the king have also been
attributed to Horemheb by Redford (“Chronology,” 124) but these have been contested by Harris (“Reign
of Horemheb,” 95-96). They do not fit into the 59 years of the Mes inscription judging by the above
chronology.
except for the fact that for every latitude going north the heliacal rising occurred one day
later, thus further through the calendar.
The difference between the start of the cycle at Thebes and Memphis was 100
years. The cycle at Thebes began, as we noted earlier, on I 3ḫt 1 in 2874 BCE and after
1460 years ended in 1414 BCE when a new Sothic cycle would have commenced as seen
from Thebes.
Casperson’s table (Table 30.4) can again be used to demonstrate that a Sothic
cycle ended on the day after the last epagomenal day (coincidentally a new moon day),
represented as 12 6 in the calendar of Lower Egypt, which has to be converted to the
calendar of Upper Egypt, a month earlier, on 13 6 (that is, one month further through the
calendar). Since there is no 13 6 (a sixth epagomenal day) the sixth day will be I 3ḫt 1 on
13 July, the date for the commencement of the new Sothic cycle seen from Thebes.
Table 30.4: End of the Sothic cycle at Thebes in 1414 BCE or −1413 (new moon
−1413 6 13 −1413 5 31 1368 11 6 5 17:16 5:16 262 5:16 139 5:15 45
−1413 7 13 −1413 6 30 1368 12 6 7 4:34 5:11 208 5:11 93 5:11 −12
−1413 8 11 −1413 7 29 1368 13 5 1 14:45 5:20 279 5:20 155 5:21 37
Another 100 years later, the Sothic cycle at Memphis will recommence in 1314,
when the Era of Memphis begins with the new observation site at Memphis using its
later-running calendar of Lower Egypt. This date and calendar can be demonstrated also
by Casperson’s table (Table 30.5).
Table 30.5: Beginning of new Sothic cycle at Memphis in 1314 BCE or −1313 (new
−1313 6 17 −1313 6 5 1468 12 5 1 9:47 5:05 186 5:05 70 5:05 −6
−1313 7 17 −1313 7 5 1468 13 5 3 1:11 5:02 156 5:02 63 5:02 −18
−1313 8 15 −1313 8 3 1468 1 29 4 18:01 5:15 240 5:16 140 5:16 51
This table already represents the calendar of Lower Egypt and since Memphis
used the calendar of Lower Egypt there is no need for conversion. The last epagomenal
day represented by 13 5 fell on 17 July, so the following day, 18 July equates to I 3ḫt 1
and the beginning of the new Sothic cycle observed from Memphis. The HELIAC
program supplies the dates of 16, 17, or 18 July in the Julian calendar for the heliacal
rising of Sothis in 1314 BCE.29 This is demonstrated from the HELIAC program data
(morning) shown in Figure 30.1.
29
See http://www.ancientcartography.net/heliacJAVA.html.
Figure 30.1: HELIAC program data from the Julian calendar.
As indicated, this Sothic cycle starts in Lower Egypt 100 years after the Sothic
cycle seen from Thebes. Since the calendar of Upper Egypt was becoming obsolete—
used primarily for the recording of the rising of Sothis over Upper Egypt—and with the
civil influence of Lower Egypt increasing throughout the land, the end and beginning of
the Sothic cycle in Lower Egypt superseded the Upper Egyptian recording of the passage
of Sothis through the heavens. Theon, the Alexandrian mathematician writing in 380 CE,
identified the changeover in his use of the phrase “the Era of Menophres (Memphis),”
apparently in common usage, to note a change in the recording of long periods of time.
Based on the foregoing discussion the reigns of 18th Dynasty rulers are reinstated
as shown in Table 30.6.
Table 30.6: 18th Dynasty: Ahmose to Horemheb with regnal years and dates
Sothic heliacal rising at Thebes: Yr 9
III šmw 9 1642
Yr 15 Thut. III’s 2nd year: Hatshept’s
1604–1590 (sole accession as co-regent in 1588, though
Hatshepsut 14 + 22 = 36 yr reign); 1590–1568 Thut. III began to reign in 1590.
(co-regency) Amun feast II prt 29 on 3rd day after
new moon II prt 27 in 1588
Yr 2 new moon II prt 27; II prt 29 was
3rd day of Amun feast on
Hatshepsut’s co-regency celebration.
Yr 23 new moon I šmw 20 (Megiddo)
1568.
Thutmose III 53 yr, 6 mo, 26 d 1590–1536
Yr 24 new moon II prt 30 “stretching-
of-the-cord” 10th day Amun feast,
1566.
[Yr 33] Sothic heliacal rising at
Elephantine III šmw 28, 1558
Yr 19 new moon III šmw [8] 1517;
feast preparations
Amenhotep III 37 yr, 8 mo 1501–1464/1463 None known
Yr 5 new moon IV prt 13 1459
Akhenaten 16 yr, 11 mo 1464/1463–1447 boundary stela. Probable “stretching-
of-the-cord” ceremony
Tutankhamun 8 yr, 11 mo 1444–1435 (Jan.) None known
Ay 4 yr, 4 mo 1435–1431 None known
New Sothic cycle commenced at
Horemheb 27 yr 1431–1404
Thebes on I 3ḫt 1 in 1414
Total 271 yr, 3 mo, 26 d 1676–1404 = 272 yr
* = most months approximate; Jan. = January.
Latter dates with less corroborating data than for the earlier reigns can be
checked from years assigned to the Lateran obelisk and the Mes inscription. An
inscription on the Lateran obelisk noted that it was abandoned for 35 years from the
reign of Thutmose III until it was restored in the reign of Thutmose IV (with the reign of
Amenhotep II intervening). This period appears to be taken from the year, possibly day,
of Thutmose III’s death in 1536 BCE on III 3ḫt 30 (6 December). Thirty-five years later,
the date fell in 1502. The last year of Thutmose IV ends on I šmw 30 (29 May) in 1501
BCE, so the 35 years is complete before Thutmose IV died about five months later.
Twenty-five years and nine months allocated to Amenhotep II, followed by the eight
years and seven months of Thutmose IV, concur with the 35 years of the Lateran obelisk.
The 59 years of the Mes inscription, understood to refer to the “Amarna” period
from the reign of Akhenaten to the end of the reign of Horemheb, dates from 1463 to
1404 BCE.
Chapter 31. Redating the 19th Dynasty 421
Chapter 31
Redating the 19th Dynasty

The 18th Dynasty came to an end with Horemheb’s death in his 27th regnal year,
which was dated at the end of II prt or after I šmw 9 in 1404 BCE. The kings of the 19th
Dynasty with the known lunar or Sothic anchor points are shown in Table 31.1.
Table 31.1: 19th Dynasty kings
Ruler Regnal Dates Lunar or Sothic anchor points

years* BCE
Ramesses I None known
Seti I None known
Yr 34 Feast of Ptah full moon on IV šmw 25 in 1356;
Ramesses II Yr 41 Heliacal rising of Sothis I 3ḫt 22 in 1349;
Yr 52 new moon II prt 27 in ship’s log, 1338
Yr [4] Heliacal rising of Sothis on I 3ḫt 29 at Thebes in 1321 (calendar of
Merenptah
Upper Egypt)
Amenmesses 1314 New Sothic cycle commences at Memphis on I 3ḫt 1
Yr 2 Epiphi feast days on IV šmw 1–2 with new moon on IV šmw 2 in
1311;
Seti II
Yr 6 Beautiful Feast of the Valley, river crossing on II šmw 25 with new
moon on II šmw 20
Siptah Yr 6 DB feast, full moon on III šmw 8 in 1299
Twosre “Yr 7” DB feast, full moon on II šmw 28 in 1298
* = most months approximate; DB = Deir el-Bahari.
Horemheb died childless and appointed Paramesse (or Paramessu) his vizier. He
was an aged man of high military standing, who had both a son and a grandson, to
succeed him. Paramesse came from the region of Avaris, east of the Nile Delta, the area
occupied by the Hyksos before their expulsion by Ahmose at the beginning of the 18th
Dynasty. Paramesse is now known as Ramesses I, the grandfather of the famous
Ramesses II.1 While there are no lunar or Sothic dates preserved that allow the specific
dating of Ramesses I and his son Seti I, the accession of Ramesses II can be dated by a
new moon that was observed on II prt 27 of Ramesses II’s 52nd year.
Time-frame for the Reigns of Ramesses I and Seti I

As noted earlier, and repeated below, Casperson’s tables provide the exact date
for the new moon on II prt 27 of Ramesses II’s 52nd year in 1338 equivalent to 17
January, giving an accession in 1390 BCE. Therefore, from the beginning of Ramesses
I’s reign in 1404 to the accession of Ramesses II in 1390, there are just 14 years to
distribute between Ramesses I and Seti I.
Ramesses I would have become king in 1404 BCE when Horemheb died.
Ramesses I’s only certain date is II prt 20 in his second year found on stela Louvre C 57
from Buhen (Wadi Halfa) where he gives orders from Memphis for the provision of
1
P. Tyson, “The Mummy who would be King: Who was Rameses I?”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mummy/rameses.html
endowments for the temple of Ptah within the fortress at Buhen.2 On the other hand, Seti
I has numerous attestations for years 1–11, with only year 10 unaccounted for, and no
year 12.3 The remaining three years can then be applied to Ramesses I.
Seti I’s Accession indicates the end of Ramesses I’s Reign

Of several suggestions for the accession date of Seti I, Wolfgang Helck proposed
III šmw 24 based on the date of a water-borne processional festival celebrated by Seti I
(from O. Gardiner 11), which appears to refer to activities celebrating the anniversary of
an accession.4 Murnane analyzed palace accounts at Memphis and identified a period of
III šmw 18 to IV šmw 17 when the accession might have occurred, favoring the festival
date of IV šmw 2.5 Redford used pRollin 1889 to suggest IV šmw 23 as the accession
date or between II šmw 30 and I 3ḫt 2.6 Scholars now cite III šmw 24 as the accession
date, though this is not certain.7 This date, or one near it, gains support from the
accession date of Ramesses II, which is understood to be III šmw 27 8 and equates to 28
June in 1390 BCE. If Seti I’s accession date was III šmw 24, and he died on III šmw 26,
this would take him two days into his 12th year,9 and would credit him with a reign of 11
full years. Alternatively, an accession on IV šmw 2 ends his reign just five days before
the full 11 years.
The highest attested date for the reign of Seti I is IV šmw 12 or 13 of year 11
found on a fragmentary stela from Gebel Barkal.10 This date has to precede III šmw 27
when Ramesses II began to reign. Therefore, Seti I’s 11th year started on or before IV
šmw 12/13, which gives us another indication of the date for his accession—sometime in
III or IV šmw.
On this evidence, Ramesses I had a third and final year of about three months.
The situation can be demonstrated by Casperson’s table (Table 31.2).
2
R.O. Faulkner, “Egypt: From the Inception of the Nineteenth Dynasty to the Death of Ramesses III,”
CAH 2/2 (1975) 217; K. A. Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II, King of
Egypt (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1982) 19; P.J. Brand, The Monuments of Seti I: Epigraphic Art
Historical and Historical Analysis (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1998) 338, viewed at
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/tape17/PQDD_0009/NQ35116.pdf; “Ramesses I.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses I; E. Hornung, “The New Kingdom,” Ancient Egyptian Chronology
(eds. E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D.A. Warburton; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006) 210.
3
4
KRI VI 249, 7; W. Helck, “Chronologische Kleinigkeiten,” CdÉ 41 (1966) 233-34; see Brand,
“Monuments of Seti I,” 339-340; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 210.
5
W.J. Murnane, “The Accession Date of Sethos I,” Serapis 3 (1975-76) 23 cited by Hornung, “New
Kingdom,” 210; Brand, “Monuments of Seti I,” 339.
6
D.B. Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books (SSEA Publication 4; Ontario, Canada:
Benben, 1986) 113 n. 46; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 210.
7
J. von Beckerath, Chronologie des Ägyptischen Pharaonischen (Mainz: von Zabern, 1997) 190; Brand,
“Monuments of Seti I,” 339-340; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 210.
8
W. Helck, “Erneut das Angebliche Sothis-Datum des pap. Ebers und die Chronologie der 18. Dynastie,”
SAK 18 (1988) 150 and n. 1; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 210-11.
9
Noted in “Seti I,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seti_I
10
Table 31.2: Ramesses I’s final year (his third) and Seti I’s accession in −1401 (new
−1401 5 31 −1401 5 18 1380 10 26 7 12:13 5:22 237 5:21 116 5:21 38
If Ramesses I’s accession took place in II prt or in I šmw of −1403, his third year comprised at least 3–4 months
because the accession of Seti I started on or before IV šmw 13, possibly III šmw 24 or IV šmw 2 in −1401
−1401 6 30 −1401 6 17 1380 11 26 2 1:15 5:11 180 5:11 90 5:11 8
−1401 7 29 −1401 7 16 1380 12 25 3 16:19 5:14 241 5:15 147 5:15 56
Therefore, from the death of Horemheb and the accession of Ramesses I in II prt
or I šmw of 1404 BCE to Seti I’s accession, I speculate that Ramesses I had a reign of
perhaps two years and three months in the period 1404–1401 BCE. The difficulty of
dealing with partial years without precise data must be acknowledged.
The mummy of Ramesses I was transported up the Nile to Thebes and was
placed in an unfinished coffin in tomb KV 16. When the tomb was discovered in 1817
by Giovanni Belzoni, the mummy was missing. Its whereabouts was unknown until a
mummy, on display in Canada in the Niagara Falls Museum from about 1860, was sold
to Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1999. Various computed tomography scans
and x-rays, and the family resemblance, led to its probable identification as the mummy
of Ramesses I. It was returned to the Cairo Museum on 24 October 2003.11
The 11 years that have been attributed to Seti I on the basis of his regnal year
attestations, are supported by other evidence from his reign. Ramesses II “was able to
complete the two obelisks and four seated colossi from Luxor within the first years of his
reign.”12 Then the Aswan quarries were opened in his ninth year, and he ordered the
production of many obelisks and colossi. Yet, when he died, most of these were not
complete, suggesting that he did not reign long past his 10th year.
The changeover from Seti I’s reign to Ramesses II’s accession in 1390 BCE can
be demonstrated from Casperson’s table (Table 31.3) in which III šmw 27 falls 11 days
after the new moon on 11 16, thus the accession date equates to 28 June in −1389 (1390
BCE).
Table 31.3: Seti I’s 11th year in −1390 and Ramesses II’s accession −1389 (new
−1390 6 28 −1390 6 16 1391 11 27 7 5:01 5:12 242 5:12 85 5:11 −24
Seti I’s 11th year started on or before IV šmw 13, possibly III šmw 24 or IV šmw 2
−1390 7 27 −1390 7 15 1391 12 26 1 14:04 5:14 298 5:14 144 5:14 27
−1390 8 26 −1390 8 14 1392 1 21 3 1:58 5:29 200 5:29 88 5:30 −18
−1390 9 24 −1390 9 12 1392 2 20 4 17:11 5:50 252 5:50 148 5:51 47
−1390 10 24 −1390 10 12 1392 3 20 6 11:16 6:13 214 6:14 117 6:15 22
−1390 11 23 −1390 11 11 1392 4 20 1 6:51 6:35 193 6:35 101 6:36 9
−1390 12 23 −1390 12 11 1392 5 20 3 2:12 6:48 177 6:48 89 6:48 1
−1389 1 21 −1389 1 9 1392 6 19 4 19:48 6:46 258 6:46 151 6:46 64
−1389 2 20 −1389 2 8 1392 7 19 6 10:42 6:32 218 6:31 106 6:30 21
−1389 3 21 −1389 3 9 1392 8 18 7 22:33 6:11 355 6:10 149 6:10 46
11
“Ramesses I,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_I; “The Once & Future Pharaoh,” Odyssey,
Adventures in Archaeology, 2004, http://www.odysseyadventures.ca/articles/ramesses/ramesses-text.htm;
“U.S. Museum to Return Ramses I Mummy to Egypt,”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0430_030430_royalmummy.html
12
P.J. Brand, “The ‘Lost’ Obelisks and Colossi of Seti I,” JARCE 34 (1997) 101-14, idem, Brand,
“Monuments of Seti I,” 347.
−1389 4 20 −1389 4 8 1392 9 18 2 7:43 5:49 221 5:48 73 5:47 −18

−1389 5 19 −1389 5 7 1392 10 17 3 15:01 5:29 359 5:28 116 5:28 5
The accession of Ramesses II dates to III šmw 27 in −1389
−1389 6 17 −1389 6 5 1392 11 16 4 21:39 5:14 541 5:14 184 5:14 45
−1389 7 17 −1389 7 5 1392 12 16 6 4:49 5:11 253 5:12 101 5:12 -14
Ramesses II
Seti I was succeeded by his son Ramesses II, a man presumed to be about 25
years old. He was to become the most famous and long-lived pharaoh of all time, known
as “Ramesses the Great.” Once enthroned, he transferred his residence from Thebes to
the Delta region of Egypt—the home of his grandfather, Ramesses I, where he built the
grand city of Pi-Ramesses, now identified by archaeologists as the city of Ramses
mentioned in the Bible, built by Israelite slaves (Exod 1:11). Its foundations now lie
under several feet of farmland. Ramesses’ building works extended from the Delta in the
north to Nubia in the far south on a scale no other king had ever wrought. His
monuments, statues, and buildings are found all over Egypt.13
His favorite queen was Nefertari, and another, Istnofret. He had at least eight
wives—his seventh and eighth being Hittite princesses.14 He is thought to have sired
over 110 children; 48–55 sons and 40–53 daughters.15. In his 30th year, he celebrated his
first sed-festival at Pi-Ramesses, and thereafter every three to four years until his death.16
Finally, he died aged about 90 years old, and was buried in tomb KV7 in the Valley of
the Kings.
In the 15th year of Smendes (first king of the 21st Dynasty), Ramesses II’s
mummy was moved to the tomb of his father Seti I, according to a docket found on his
coffin in 1881 where it had subsequently been deposited in the great cache of royal
mummies at Deir el-Bahari. In 1976 his mummy was flown to Paris for a great
exhibition and to be treated for deterioration.17 It now resides in Cairo’s Egyptian
Museum. A huge complex of over 150 underground corridors and chambers was built in
the Valley of the Kings to entomb the mummies of some of Ramesses’ many sons,
which was rediscovered in 1988 by Kent Weeks, head of the Theban Mapping Project. It
was announced in 1995 and found to be the largest tomb in the Valley.18
A specific text giving Ramesses II’s date of accession is not known, but the date
has been discussed by various scholars and the consensus is that he became king on III
šmw 27.19
There are several dates synchronized to new moons in Ramesses II’s reign. I start
with the most famous, which will set the Julian dates for the lesser-known Egyptian
lunar dates.
13
P.A. Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs: The Reign-by-Reign Record of the Rulers and Dynasties of
Ancient Egypt (London: Thames and Hudson, 1994, 2006) 153-55. For a short history of Ramesses II, see
e.g. “Ramesses II,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II
14
Ibid., 148-49.
15
A. Dodson and D. Hilton, The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt (London: Thames and
Hudson, 2004) 166. See J. Dunn, “The Sons (and Daughters) of Ramesses II,”
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ramesses2ssons.htm
16
Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant, 178-82.
17
Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs, 155.
18
M.D. Lemonick, “Secrets of the Lost Tomb,” Time 21 (May 29, 1995) 44-50.
19
S. el-Sabban, Temple Festival Calendars of Ancient Egypt (Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and
Oriental Studies; Liverpool University Press, 2000) 84. Also: D.B. Redford, “The Earliest Years of
Ramesses II, and the Building of the Ramesside Court at Luxor,” JEA 57 (1971) 110 and n. 2; Kitchen,
Pharaoh Triumphant, 43-44; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 211.
New Moon Date in Ramesses II’s 52nd Year

Possibly the most well-known new moon date in Egyptian history is that from the
reign of Ramesses II, dated on a ship’s log at Pi-Ramesses occurring on II prt 27 of his
52nd year.20 Casperson’s article, published in 1988,21 demonstrated the facts shown in
Table 31.4.
Table 31.4: Ramesses II dates tested by Casperson
Accession year (BCE) His 52nd year New Moon date on his 52nd year
1304 −1252 (1253 BCE) II prt 28
1301 −1249 (1250 BCE) II prt 25
1290 −1238 (1239 BCE) II prt 26
1276 −1224 (1225 BCE) II prt 26
None of these dates fall on II prt 27. The current consensus (Table 31.5) places
Ramesses II’s accession in 1279 based on a date of II prt 28 in −1227 (1228 BCE), but
the date of the new moon is incorrect by a day, with a table supplied by Casperson
(Table 31.6).
Table 31.5: Ramesses II current consensus
1279 −1227 (1228 BCE) II prt 28
Table 31.6: Scholars’ new Moon date on II prt 28 in Ramesses II’s 52nd year in
Heliopolis; Lat. 30.1, Long. 31.3; visibility coefficients: c1 = 11.5, c2 = 0.008
−1227 11 20 −1227 11 9 1555 5 28 6 19:00 6:41 336 6:41 181 6:42 56
The new moon falls on II prt 28 not II prt 27
−1227 12 20 −1227 12 9 1555 6 28 1 6:40 6:57 237 6:58 107 6:58 5
−1226 1 18 −1226 1 7 1555 7 27 2 19:00 6:57 325 6:56 155 6:56 62
To reconcile the dates, scholars assume that a marginally visible crescent was
missed the previous day by the Egyptian observer, thus giving the new moon date one
day too early.22 On the other hand, Casperson supplied me with a table for an accession
in 1390. As shown in Table 31.7, it gives the exact new moon date of II prt 27 for the
year −1337 (1338 BCE).
Table 31.7: Tetley’s reconstructed chronology for Ramesses II
1390 BCE −1337 (1338 BCE) II prt 27
The new moon fell the day before conjunction on II prt 28. No mistakes need to
be assumed to match the new moon date to this year (Table 31.8).
20
The text is found on the verso of Papyrus Leiden I 350; J.D. Schmidt, Ramesses II: A Chronological
Structure of His Reign (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), 2; R.A. Parker,
“The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III and Ramesses II,” JNES 16 (1957) 42-43; R. Krauss, “Lunar Dates,”
AEC (2006) 414.
21
L.W. Casperson, “The Lunar Date of Ramesses II,” JNES 47 (1988) 183.
22
Casperson, “Lunar Dates,” 184; see e.g., L.E. Doggett and B.E. Schaefer, “Lunar Crescent Visibility,”
Icarus 107 (1994) 388-403.
Table 31.8: Ramesses II’s 52nd year; new moon on II prt 27 in −1337 (new moon
Tanis; Lat. 31.0, Long. 31.8; visibility coefficients: c1 = 11.5, c2 = 0.008
−1338 12 18 −1338 12 6 1444 5 28 7 10:48 6:59 212 6:59 110 6:59 23
The new moon falls on II prt 27 as given on the ship’s log
−1337 1 17 −1337 1 5 1444 6 28 2 1:41 6:59 179 6:59 86 6:59 7
−1337 2 15 −1337 2 3 1444 7 27 3 13:24 6:43 274 6:42 136 6:42 55
Scholars currently propose the date of 1279 BCE as Ramesses II’s most likely
accession year. And, because they reckon (correctly) on 200 years between the accession
of Thutmose III and Ramesses II, they give Thutmose III an (incorrect) accession in
1479. However, further dates can be attributed to the reign of Ramesses II with an
accession date of 1390 BCE.
Medinet Habu Calendar Dates

A number of festival dates are attributed to the reign of Ramesses III (not II) in
the surviving portion of the Medinet Habu calendar, but unfortunately the regnal years
are not given.23 After the heading and festival date, each list gives an annotation of all
the offerings. List 19 is headed, “Coronation Festival of the King,” which applies to
Ramesses III and his accession dated to I šmw 26, which appears to fall on a feast of
Amun.24 However, not all lists belong to the reign of Ramesses III.
Lists 59–67: Feasts in the Reign of Ramesses II, Not Ramesses III
I focus attention on Lists 59–67 in order to discuss List 63, which has a feast
dated to a new moon—the name and date of the festival being in doubt.25
List 59 is the “Festival of the Navigation of Anubis” and is dated to II prt 1. List
60 is attributed to a “Feast of Lifting up the Sky.” These are held in the second month of
winter, II prt. The first day on II prt 29, the second on II prt 30, and the third on III prt 1.
These days are paralleled by List 61, the “Feast of Entering the Sky,” but held in the
third month of winter. The first day was held on III prt 29, the second on III prt 30, and
the third on IV prt 1. List 62 is the “Feast of Chewing Onions for Bast” held on IV prt 4.
In List 63, a festival has an unclear name but has been assigned [So]k[ar] and
attributed to IV prt 1.26 The record of the feast says, “It is the new moon which brings it;
offerings for Amon-Re with his ennead in this day of festival.”27 The day of the new
moon is uncertain because the sequential order should give a date after IV prt 4, not on
IV prt 1. Spalinger notes, “There is no evidence, however, for any Sokar feast at this
time in the civil year. I suspect that the original day is inaccurate. Day one in IV prt does
not fit the order of the calendar.”28
The feast of List 63 must then date from some day after IV prt 4 and before the
next listed feast, on List 64, which refers to “The Festival of Renenutet” held on I šmw 1.
The correct numerical order is maintained by List 65, which refers to “The Feast of
23
24
El-Sabban, Temple Festival Calendars, 84.
25
Ibid., 125.
26
Ibid.; A.J. Spalinger, “Egyptian Festival Dating and the Moon,” Under One Sky: Astronomy and
Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (eds. J.M. Steele and A. Imhausen; Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 297; Münster: Ugarit, 2002) 392-93.
27
El-Sabban, Temple Festival Calendars, 123-25.
28
Spalinger, “Egyptian Festival Dating,” 393 n. 81.
Clothing Anubis,” held on I šmw 10.29 List 63 is applied to the fourth month of winter,
which, in the calendar of Upper Egypt, is known as rkḥ nds and translated as “little
burning.” The “k” noted in the feast name can thus stand for rkḥ of rkḥ nds. The day date
is faulty but needs to come after the fourth day of IV prt in List 62. The partial number
includes the number 1, so the date may be 11 onwards, depending on how many digits
have been lost. We can solve the year of the new moon in List 63 by dating a new moon
in List 66.
List 66 applies to “The Processional Festival of Min” dated to I šmw 11. It reads,
“The day of Min’s procession to the terrace when the new moon is in the morning;
offerings for Amon and the portable image of Wosermatre Meriamon, in this day.”30
This is followed by List 67 called “The Processional Feast of Amon.” It reads,
“First month of summer, the new moon’s festival of Amon-Re, in his first festival of the
1st month of summer, when this god goes out on the 4th occasion of the new moon’s
festival; offerings for Amon-Re, lord of the thrones of both lands, chief of Karnak
temple with his Ennead [nine deities] in this day of festival.” 31
If the Min procession was on I šmw 11, then the first day of the lunar month fell
on the 12th (List 66), and the fourth lunar day on the 15th (List 67).
According to Casperson’s tables there is no new moon date on I šmw 11 or 12 in
the reign of Ramesses III. The closest date is in his 23rd year when conjunction fell on I
šmw 11, indicating a new moon the previous day on the 10th, whereas the new moon
following the feast of Min ought to have fallen on the 12th. On the other hand, Ramesses
II has dates for a new moon on I šmw 12 in his sixth year in 1384 BCE, I šmw 13 in his
31st year in 1358, and I šmw 12 in his 56th year in 1334.32
Parker points out that, “It is well known that Ramses III’s calendar is a copy of
Ramses II’s.”33 Spalinger supports Parker’s observation. Referring to the feast of Min,
which occurred on the day before psdntyw at the end of the ninth month of the civil year,
Spalinger writes: “In the reign of Ramesses II it must have been on day 11 of I šmw, and
also very early in the king’s reign that the days before psdntyw occurred.”34 In this case,
the early date for the sixth year of Ramesses II in 1384 BCE would be the probable date
assuming that Ramesses III had his name substituted for that of Ramesses II when the
copying was done from the original text.
See Casperson’s table showing the 12th day of I ŝmw, remembering the feast was
held one day before the new moon (Table 31.9).
Table 31.9: Feast of Min on I ŝmw 11 in Ramesses II’s sixth year in −1383 (new
−1383 2 13 −1383 2 1 1398 7 14 7 5:50 6:36 233 6:35 64 6:34 −34
−1383 3 14 −1383 3 2 1398 8 13 1 14:13 6:16 355 6:15 94 6:14 −2
−1383 4 12 −1383 3 31 1398 9 12 2 22:42 5:54 606 5:54 143 5:53 36
−1383 5 12 −1383 4 30 1398 10 12 4 8:05 5:33 217 5:32 87 5:32 11
29
El-Sabban, Temple Festival Calendars, 126-27.
30
Ibid., 127-28; R.A. Parker, The Calendars of Ancient Egypt (SAOC 26; Chicago IL: Chicago: Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, 1950) 40 §204; Spalinger, “Egyptian Festival Dating,” 385.
31
El-Sabban, Temple Festival Calendars, 128-29; Spalinger, “Egyptian Festival Dating,” 292.
32
As seen in Casperson’s tables for these dates; the latter is not supplied here.
33
Parker, Calendars, 40 §204.
34
If the feast of Min (List 66) can be dated to Ramesses II’s sixth year, then the
prior Lists 63–65 may also refer to Ramesses II’s reign. List 64 refers to the “Festival of
Renenutet” held on I šmw 1, and List 65 refers to the “Feast of Clothing Anubis” held on
I šmw 10. These also appear to be referring to the same year as that of the feast of Min
referring to day 11 for the day prior to the new moon. It infers that List 63 also refers to
the same year, the sixth year of Ramesses II. If so, we should find a date in IV prt that
has a new moon with a number 1 in it. In Table 31.9, we see that a new moon fell on IV
prt 12, from which we may assume that the original figure had one 10-sign and two
digits.
From this analysis, we can attribute List 63 to the feast of rkḥ nds, held in the
fourth month of prt on day 12 when it “is the new moon which brings it in” and assign it
to the sixth year of Ramesses II, the same year for the feast of Min in List 66.
List 67, the last feast listed, is called the “Processional Feast of Amun.” It was
held in I šmw, in the new moon’s festival” when the god goes out on the fourth occasion
of the new moon’s festival.” This is assumed to be a reference to the fourth day after the
new moon on I šmw 12 following the feast of Min (List 66), therefore, on the 16th day of
the month, also in Ramesses II’s sixth year.
Further Feast Days

Ramesses II has two holiday dates ascribed to his reign. A visitor’s graffito on a
pyramid at Saqqara is dated to the 34th year of Ramesses II on IV šmw 24 with the
words “day of the feast of Ptah-south-of-his-wall.”35 This is presumed to refer to a feast
day on a public holiday.36 L. Borchardt earlier suggested this might be the day of a full
moon.37 Taking up his suggestion, we apply Casperson’s full moon table (Table 31.10)
to the date of Ramesses II’s 34th year in 1356 BCE (−1355).
Table 31.10: Feast of Ptah on IV šmw 24 in Ramesses II’s 34th year in −1355 (full
Thebes; Lat. 25.7, Long. 32.6
−1355 6 16 −1355 6 4 1426 11 24 4 21:04 5:14 18:14
−1355 7 16 −1355 7 4 1426 12 24 6 9:24 5:12 18:12
−1355 8 14 −1355 8 2 1426 1 18 7 20:37 5:23 18:23
DoW = day of week.
A full moon fell on IV šmw 24 in −1355 (1356 BCE), which upholds Borchardt’s
suggestion and concurs with my proposed dates for Ramesses II’s reign.
A second visitor’s graffito, also found at Saqqara, records two officials from
Memphis, a treasury-scribe and a vizier’s scribe, enjoying a stroll on II prt 25 in the 47th
year of Ramesses II. A holiday date is suggested because these officials are not at work.
Some think it might also be a full moon date, as was the previous date. 38 Casperson’s
table (Table 31.11) gives the date for Ramesses 47th year in −1341 (1342 BCE).
35
Schmidt, Ramesses II, 45.
36
R. Krauss, “Lunar Days, Lunar Months, and the Question of the ‘Civil-Based’ Lunar Calendar,” AEC
(2006), 418, citing G. Jéquier, Deux pyramides du Moyen Empire. Fouilles à Saqqarah (Cairo, 1933)
13-15; A.J. Peden, The Graffiti of Pharaonic Egypt: Scope and Roles of Informal Writings (c. 3100-332
B.C.)(PÄ 17; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 98-99.
37
Krauss, “Lunar Dates,” 418 n. 83, citing L. Borchardt, ZÄS 70 (1934) 97-98, 100 n. 9.
38
Krauss, “Lunar Dates,” 418.
Table 31.11: Ramesses II’s 47th year in −1341 (full moon listing from −1342 to
−1341)
−1342 12 17 −1342 12 5 1440 5 26 1 14:31 6:47 17:47
−1341 1 16 −1341 1 4 1440 6 26 3 6:56 6:47 17:47
−1341 2 14 −1341 2 2 1440 7 25 4 20:24 6:34 17:34
DoW = day of week.
The full moon day on the graffito is a day later than indicated by the table. No
claim is made that the graffito writer thought it was a full moon, or whether the stroll of
the Memphite officials merely coincided with the day before the full moon. So the full
moon date is immaterial to elucidate the reference. From these somewhat speculative
lunar dates, we come to a Sothic date.
Sothic Date in Ramesses II’s 41st Year

Petrie refers to a heliacal rising of Sothis on the 22nd day of Thoth in the 41st
year of Ramesses II. He references his source to a stela in the temple of Amenhotep III at
El Kab.39 The temple is located about 80 km south of Thebes on the eastern bank of the
Nile. By “Thoth” Petrie means the first month in the civil calendar, assuming a single
calendar for both Upper and Lower Egypt. Thoth was the first month in the calendar of
Lower Egypt and the second month in the calendar of Upper Egypt. He understood
Thoth to be the first month of inundation, the date being I 3ḫt 22. Probably the month
name was not given, but originally designated as “1st month of inundation” or 3ḫt (as we
find in other contexts).
Ramesses II’s 41st year is 1349 BCE in my chronology. According to
Casperson’s table (Table 31.12) the date of 12 23, that is, IV šmw 23, converts to I 3ḫt
23 in the calendar of Upper Egypt by which Sothic cycles from Thebes were dated. I 3ḫt
22, being the day before I 3ḫt 23, equates to 12 July. This agrees with the HELIAC
program, which gives the Sothic rising on 11 or 12 July in 1349 BCE at Thebes.
Table 31.12: Ramesses II’s 41st year; heliacal rising of Sothis at Thebes on I 3ḫt 22
in −1348 (new moon listing for −1348)
−1348 6 13 −1348 6 1 1433 11 23 3 13:58 5:16 236 5:15 108 5:15 25
−1348 7 13 −1348 7 1 1433 12 23 5 4:32 5:11 184 5:11 90 5:11 6
−1348 8 11 −1348 7 30 1434 1 17 6 20:53 5:20 252 5:21 158 5:21 67
Petrie was able to state the date of a heliacal rising in Ramesses II’s 41st year
(which he incorrectly gave as 1234!) inferring that he had seen an attestation to that
effect.
The Year of Ramesses II’s Death

Ramesses II is credited with a reign of 66 years and 2 months as recorded by
Josephus passed down from Manetho.40 A tax docket found at Gurob gives Ramesses
II’s highest known date of I 3ḫt 18 in his 67th year, followed closely by a year one dated
39
W.M.F. Petrie, A History of Egypt during the XVIIth and XVIIIth Dynasties (London: Methuen, 1896)
Vol. 2, 32.
40
F. Josephus, Contra Apionem, Fragment. 50, i, 97 in Manetho 101, 102.
to either II 3ḫt 19 or, because it is badly damaged, I 3ḫt 19.41 However, the reign of
Merenptah, Ramesses’ son and successor, is proposed to have begun between I 3ḫt 19
and II 3ḫt 13 seen in Cairo ostracon CG 25504,42 which rules out the damaged date of II
3ḫt 19.
Ramesses II’s accession set on 28 June 1390 BCE, and his death 66 years and 2
months later, brings his death to the year 1323 BCE (−1322), between the dates of I 3ḫt
19 and II 3ḫt 3–13, approximately early August to beginning of September (Table
31.13).
Table 31.13: Death of Ramesses II and accession of Merenptah in −1323 (new moon
listing for −1323)
−1323 7 7 −1323 6 25 1458 12 23 2 13:25 5:11 227 5:11 131 5:11 43
Ramesses II died and Merenptah succeeded him between I 3ḫt 19 and II 3ḫt 13
−1323 8 6 −1323 7 25 1459 1 18 4 4:24 5:18 194 5:18 96 5:19 −3
−1323 9 4 −1323 8 23 1459 2 17 5 18:39 5:35 263 5:36 160 5:37 56
−1323 10 4 −1323 9 22 1459 3 17 7 7:48 5:58 230 5:59 120 6:00 7
Ramesses II and the Hittite Kings

In his early years, Ramesses II fought with the king of Hatti, Mutawallis, and
later Hattusilis III, over the Hittite-held city of Kadesh on the Orontes in Northern Syria.
The Hittites, on the other hand, sought to drive further south into Egyptian-held territory.
With the growing menace of Assyria, in Ramesses II’s 21st year, he and Hattusilis III
concluded a peace treaty promising non-aggression and support.43 According to my
chronology, the treaty dates to 1369 BCE not the conventional 1259. The Assyrian and
Hittite chronologies have to be adjusted and updated to bring them into alignment with
Egypt and Israel.44
Estimated Period of Ramesses II’s Death and Merenptah’s Accession

Scholars understand that Ramesses II’s first 12 sons predeceased him because his
successor was his 13th son, Merenptah or Merneptah, son of Ramesses’ wife Istnofret.
Merenptah was probably aged in his 60s when his long-lived father died.
The Cairo ostracon CG 25504 gives Merenptah’s accession as sometime from I
3ḫt 19 to II 3ḫt 13. On the basis of a Theban graffito giving the date of II 3ḫt 2 year one
of Merenptah, the date has been narrowed down by Peden to II 3ḫt 3–13, on the
assumption that the transmission of the news took several days to reach Thebes.45
According to Kitchen, based on two inscriptions from Medinet Habu and Deir el-Bahari,
the regnal years changed between I 3ḫt 29 and III 3ḫt 1,46 within which the previous
dates fall.
Ramesses II’s 67th year began on III šmw 27 = 11 June in 1324 BCE (−1323),
which, if his death and Merenptah’s accession fell around II 3ḫt 3–13, allows him
another two months as his length of reign indicates. Any of the dates proposed above
41
From Gurob Fragment L in A.H. Gardiner, Ramesside Administrative Documents (London: Oxford
University Press, 1948) 12-14; Schmidt, Ramesses II, 64, 95 nn. 419-420; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 211.
42
43
Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs, 150-53.
44
Hattusilis III was also contemporary with Kadashman-Turgu, King of Karduniash (Babylon).
45
A.J. Peden, “A Note on the Accession Date of Merenptah,” GM 140 (1994) 69.
46
KRI IV 26 (9 A, B) cited by J. von Beckerath, “Nochmals das Thronbesteigungsdatum Merenptahs,”
GM 191 (2002) 5.
coming after I 3ḫt 29 and before II 3ḫt 7 qualify for Merenptah’s accession, and it seems
probable that the interval of II 3ḫt 3–13 proposed above by scholars would include the
actual date. Consequently, the accession of Merenptah implies that Ramesses II did not
die until sometime in II 3ḫt 3–13 of his 67th regnal year giving him a reign of 66 years
and 2 months, the years 1390–1324 BCE.
Kitchen notes a West-Theban graffito No. 862, which dates a great inundation of
the Nile to III 3ḫt 3 in Merenptah’s first regnal year.47 In Casperson’s table above (Table
31.13), Merenptah’s first year begins approximately mid-August in −1323. The date of
the inundation corresponds to 20 September, approximately two months after the
heliacal rising of Sothis on 18 July, and in the middle of the season of 3ḫt, thus
appropriately dated in the chronology.
Heliacal Rising of Sothis in 2nd Year of Merenptah?

Petrie refers to a date for a heliacal rising of Sothis on Thoth 29 (I 3ḫt 29) in the
second year of Merenptah, which he references to Medinet Habu.48
Ramesses II’s 41st year with the heliacal rising on I 3ḫt 22 concurs with
Ramesses II’s 52nd year dating a new moon on II prt 27 to 1338 BCE. However, there is
a discrepancy in the date of the heliacal rising of Sothis in 1349 and I 3ḫt 29 in the
second year of Merenptah in 1323, there being 26 years between them when from I 3ḫt
22 to I 3ḫt 29 there are actually 28 years through which Sothis has to move. On the
above dates, Merenptah’s second year fell in 1323, whereas I 3ḫt 29 dates to 1321. It
seems that the date of I 3ḫt 29 applies to Merenptah’s fourth year not his second, and the
reason for the apparently correct dates in the reign of Ramesses II and the apparently
incorrect year referenced by Petrie is unresolved.
The accession of Merenptah upon the death of Ramesses II was 1324 BCE. It is
reported that the highest attested date for Merenptah is IV šmw 9 of his ninth year.49 Two
dates from a year 10 found on Theban graffiti dated to II 3ḫt 7 and 13 announcing the
inundation are usually assigned to Merenptah.50 These years indicate his death was either
in 1316 or 1315. The date of IV šmw 9 must come toward the end of a regnal year if
Merenptah ascended early in II 3ḫt. Considering the following chronology—in which
Seti II has a lunar date in his second year in −1310 (1311 BCE) giving him an accession
in 1312, and the need to fit in another king between Merenptah and Seti II, namely
Amenmesses, who is known to have reigned into his third year—the indications are that
Merenptah reigned into his 10th year provided that Amenmesses’ third year consisted of
only a few months. The two inundation dates from year 10 would follow soon after the
beginning of his 10th year, and would correctly fall in July after the heliacal rising of
Sothis. Otherwise, Merenptah’s highest date is presumed to be IV 3ḫt 7 in year 10
mentioned on pSallier I, 3, 4.51 News of Merenptah’s death reached Deir el-Medina on
the 16th day of a month of prt, the number not being legible.52
The date for Merenptah’s death can probably be narrowed down to III prt 16
because Amenmesse’s accession has been set between I šmw 27 and III šmw 18.53 Since
I šmw 27 comes 70 days after III prt 16 (and 70 days is the normal period of embalming)
47
Kitchen, TIP, xlv.
48
Petrie, History of Egypt Vol. 2, 32.
49
From O. Gardiner 197 in KRI IV 159, 5 cited by Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 212.
50
51
R.A. Caminos, Late-Egyptian Miscellanies (London: Oxford University Press, 1954) 79 cited by
52
53
Ibid., 213, citing O. Cairo CG 25783 and 25784: KRI 227, 6.
it appears to refer to the burial day of Merenptah. The day of his death, III prt 16,
equates to 29 January 1314 BCE.
Sothic Cycle Begins in 1314 BCE

Chapter 11 discussed the date of a Sothic cycle beginning at Memphis in 1314
BCE on I 3ḫt, which equates to 18 July. This now appears to have fallen in the first year
of Amenmesses, understood here to be the successor of Merenptah. In conventional
chronologies, Merenptah was followed by Amenmesses, though scholars are now
considering whether his reign of about three to four years was subsumed under that of
Seti II.
Israel Stela
Merenptah’s reign is famous for the mention of “Israel” in the so-called Israel
Stela (also known as the Merneptah Stela) recording the exploits of Merenptah (variant
spelling) and his army in the Levant in his fifth year, dated to III šmw 3. This date falls
on 15 June 1319 BCE. This is said to be the only mention of Israel in Egyptian records.
The reference to “Israel” in the stela will receive comment in the next chapter.
Merenptah Not the Pharaoh of the Exodus

Many past scholars have proposed that Merenptah was the biblical “Pharaoh of
the Exodus” who drowned in the Red Sea when pursuing the escaping Israelites. After
Merenptah’s mummy was found in the tomb of Amenhotep II (KV 35) along with 15
other mummies in 1898, this identification lapsed.54 For the “Pharaoh of the Exodus” see
the next chapter.
Amenmesse(s)
In the traditional view, Amenmesses is a son of Merenptah and a lesser queen,
Takhat.55 Scholars who hold/held this view propose that at the time of Merenptah’s death
the intended heir, Seti-Merenptah, was absent and Amenmesses seized the opportunity to
become king, and reigned for four years. Amenmesses was then succeeded by the
rightful heir, Seti-Merenptah, now known as Seti II. The reasons for thinking that
Amenmesses succeeded Merenptah are given by Wente and van Siclen who agree with
Helk, against Černý, that Cairo ostracon 25516 reflects a transition from Seti II to
Siptah,56 and not Amenmesses to Siptah, indicating that Amenmesses preceded Seti II.
They point out from recto lines 3–4 that there is an “absence of dates for the
consumption of lamps after I prt 18 and before I prt 23.”
These dates coincide with the time during which workmen at Deir el-Medina did
no work beginning with the announcement of Seti II’s death on I prt 19 (Cairo ostracon
25515, verso, cols. ii–iii).57 Noted on the ostracon are the two chief workmen, Hay and
Paneb, from the left and right gangs, respectively, who, Wente and van Siclen say, only
filled this position during the reign of Seti II and not of Amenmesse.58 Therefore, the
order of transition is Merenptah, Amenmesses, Seti II, Siptah.59
A second view proposed more recently by some scholars (notably Krauss and
Dodson), is that after the death of Merenptah, Seti II and Amenmesses fought for the
54
55
V.G. Callender, “Queen Tausret and the End of Dynasty 19,” SAK 32 (2004) 83.
56
E.F. Wente and C.C. Van Siclen, “A Chronology of the New Kingdom,” Studies in Honor of George R.
Hughes (SAOC 39; Chicago IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1976) 236.
57
Ibid.
58
Ibid.
59
This is the order given by Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 212-13.
crown of Egypt. This is inferred from monumental evidence that in years two to four of
his reign Seti was in control of Upper Egypt and Nubia. 60 But years three to four of
Seti’s reign are not documented, while in these years Amenmesses is attested in Upper
Egypt on several ostraca. Seti is thought to be absent,61 giving the impression that
Amenmesse was reigning as king.
It is also suggested that during this time Amenmesse vandalized Seti II’s tomb in
the Valley of the Kings. According to Papyrus Salt 124, in Amenmesse’s reign, he, or
one of his officials, “Msy,” killed a chief workman Neferhotep. Yet, according to
Ostraca MMA 14.6.217, Neferhotep is still listed as being in office in the work register,
which also records the accession of Seti II to the throne—a work register that was later
used to record the absence of workers in Seti II’s reign.62
According to Hornung, citing Černý, “the foreman Neferhotep was absent from
work after the accession of Sety II.”63 The theory is that Amenmesses or his agent killed
Neferhotep in the reign of Seti II and therefore the reigns of the two rival kings
overlapped.64 Some scholars suggest that the rivals were situated in different areas—Seti
II in Lower Egypt and Amenmesses in Upper Egypt.65
According to theory, during his fourth year, Amenmesses was defeated by Seti II,
the legitimate heir, who then set up a campaign to destroy any memory of Amenmesse,
by erasing scenes and texts from his tomb KV 10,66 and also those of Khaemter, a former
Viceroy of Kush who was Amenmesse’s Vizier.67 This pattern of destruction is said to
best explain the rival kingships of Amenmesses and Seti II.68
Amenmesses’ Third Year Recorded on Ostraca

Various ostraca from a single year are attributed by some scholars to the reign of
Amenmesses.69
IV prt 10–19 have been omitted in an ostracon, possibly due to a work-free
period;70
I šmw 8 when most of the gang were working;71
I šmw 18 when most “royal artisans” were working;72
60
Krauss, “Untersuchungen zu König Amenmesse (1. Teil)” SAK 4 (1976) 161-99; idem,
“Untersuchungen zu König Amenmesse (2. Teil)” SAK 5 (1977) 131-74; idem, “Untersuchungen zu König
Amenmesse: Nachtrage” SAK 24 (1997) 161-84; A. Dodson, “Messuy, Amada and Amenmesse,” JARCE
34 (1997) 41-48.
61
62
Jac J. Janssen, “Amenmesse and After: The Chronology of the Late Nineteenth Dynasty Ostraca,”
Village Varia. Ten Studies on the History and Administration of Deir el-Medina (Egyptologische Utigaven
11; Leiden: NINO, 1997) 104, cited in “Seti II,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seti_II
63
J. Černý and A.H. Gardiner, Hieratic Ostraca (Oxford, 1957) 64,1,1; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 212.
64
“Seti II,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seti_II
65
Callender, “Queen Tausret,” 82; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 213.
66
A. Dodson, “The Tomb of King Amenmesse: Some Observations,” DE 2 (1985) 7-11; idem, “Death
after Death in the Valley of the Kings,” Death and Taxes in the Ancient Near East (ed. S.E. Orel;
Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1992) 53-59; O. Schaden, “Amenmesse Project Report,” NARCE 163 (1993) 1-9.
67
Janssen, “Amenmesse and After,” 99-109, cited in “Seti II,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seti_II
68
“Amenmesse,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenmesse
69
KRI IV (1982) 220-221; W. Helck, Die datierten und datierbaren Ostraka, Papyri und Graffiti von Deir
el‑Medineh (Bearbeitet von Adelheid Schlott; ÄA 63; Weisbaden, 2002) 116-17, cited by H. Jauhiainen,
“Do not Celebrate Your Feast Without Your Neighbours”: A study of References to Feasts and Festival in
Non-Literary Documents from Ramesside Period Deir el-Medina (Publications of the Institute for Asian
and African Studies 10; Helsinki: Helsinki University Print, 2009) 211 n. 6.
70
O. Cairo CG 25780, 3; Jauhiainen, “Do not Celebrate,” 211 and n. 5.
71
O. Dem 389; Jauhiainen, “Do not Celebrate,” 216 and n. 6.
III šmw 1 when men were absent from their work;73

III šmw 16 when most men were working.74
If correctly attributed to Amenmesses, these notations indicate that his year three
began before IV prt 10 and ended after III šmw 16. Since Merenptah’s day of death is
thought to be III prt 16, the dates above occurred early on in Amenmesses’ year three.
Amenmesses’ death soon after III šmw 16 would allow Seti II’s accession in III or IV
šmw, and his second year to include the Epiphi feast date of IV šmw 1–2.
However, a conflict occurs in starting Seti II’s reign after the middle of II šmw
because a Beautiful Feast of the Valley dated to II šmw 25 is attributed to his sixth year.
It can only come in his sixth year if he begins to reign before II šmw 25. If not, the
Valley Feast date has to be attributed to his year five. Since the date for his sixth year
seems to have more to commend it, as I show below, it seems probable that the dates in
III šmw attributed to Amenmesses should rather be assigned to Seti II. On this proviso,
Amenmesses can be attributed two years and about four months before Seti II became
king; thus the first three of the ostraca references listed above apply to Amenmesses,
while those in III šmw apply to Seti II.
Seti II
The next lunar anchor date after Merenptah’s death on III prt 16 in his 10th year
in 1315 BCE comes in the reign of Seti II who has an Epiphi feast dated to IV šmw 1–2
in his second year, as I noted earlier.75 Epiphi feasts started in the latter half of III šmw—
inscriptions often citing III šmw 28 or 29—and extended into IV šmw.76 The date of IV
šmw 2 applies to 1311 BCE (−1310) (Table 31.14).
Table 31.14: Seti II’s second year in −1310 (new moon listing for −1310)
−1310 5 15 −1310 5 3 1471 11 3 7 21:06 5:31 599 5:30 161 5:30 44
−1310 6 14 −1310 6 2 1471 12 3 2 4:02 5:15 237 5:15 96 5:15 1
−1310 7 13 −1310 7 1 1471 13 2 3 11:49 5:11 287 5:11 149 5:11 41
The lunar date for Seti II indicates that three years came between him and
Merenptah, and resolves the identity of Merenptah’s successor: Amenmesses not Seti
II.77 According to Wente and van Siclen, the highest date for Amenmesses is year four,
III šmw 29,78 but more recently this date has been attributed to the unnamed “rival king,”
this being his last and only known date for that year.79
The question that remains is whether Amenmesses died before Seti II came to the
throne or whether he was the “rival king” who sought to overthrow Seti II even after the
latter became king. Seti II also has a year six during the Beautiful Feast of the Valley.
Referring to the Valley Feast, Jauhiainen writes, “Amon crossed the river back to the
72
O. Cairo CG 25782 verso 6-8; Jauhiainen, “Do not Celebrate,” 213 and nn. 11-13.
73
O. Cairo CG 25783 recto 27-29; Jauhiainen, “Do not Celebrate,” 217 and nn. 5 and 6.
74
O. Cairo CG 25883, verso 23-27; Jauhiainen, “Do not Celebrate,” 219 and n. 4.
75
R. Krauss, Sothis- und Monddaten, Studien zur astronomischen und technischen Chronologie
Altägyptens (HÄB 20; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1985) 151.
76
Jauhiainen, “Do not Celebrate,” 155-57.
77
Contrary to Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 212-13.
78
79
O. Cairo CG 25784, 15; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 213.
east side on II šmw 25, as stated in O. Cairo CG 25538.”80 The feast is known to be
associated with the new moon.81 Year two of Seti II’s reign fell in the year 1311 BCE
(−1310), so his sixth year would have been in 1307 BCE (−1306). In that year the date of
the new moon fell on II šmw 20 as seen in Casperson’s table below (Table 31.15). The
crossing of the river took place five days after the first day of the lunar month.
Table 31.15: Seti II’s sixth year in −1306 (new moon listing for −1306)
−1306 4 2 −1306 3 21 1475 9 21 4 6:60 6:02 155 6:01 70 6:00 12
−1306 5 1 −1306 4 19 1475 10 20 5 22:29 5:40 263 5:40 136 5:39 65
−1306 5 31 −1306 5 19 1475 11 20 7 13:14 5:21 220 5:21 124 5:20 52
Seti II’s death was reported on I prt 19 and was attributed to his year six.82
However, the next documented feast date is a year six in the reign of Siptah, which, as
we shall see, occurred in the year 1299 BCE (−1298). Therefore, between the year six of
Seti II in 1307 BCE and the sixth year of Siptah in 1299 BCE, there are about eight
years. Since six of these are taken up with the reign of Siptah, the previous two must
belong to Seti II, thus giving to him an eighth year. Seti II died sometime prior to the
report of his death on I prt 19, so his death came about approximately in the first half of I
prt in 1305 BCE.
Therefore, Seti II reigned seven years and about nine months, from 1312 to 1305
BCE. The record of his death in his sixth year, when it should be the eighth, must
founder on some sort of error, either in the ostracon or in its transcription.
Siptah
Siptah’s origins are uncertain.83 Siptah was about 10 years old when he became
king—judging from his mummy, which is presumed to be of a 16-year-old, about 1.6
meters in height. His left foot, at some stage, had been deformed, probably from
poliomyelitis.84 His mummy was found in KV 35 in 1898 where it had been moved from
KV 47.85
Siptah’s royal duties were undertaken by Twosre, widowed queen of Seti II,
assisted by a high-ranking official, the Chancellor Bay, who had risen to power in the
reign of Seti II. He was honored by Seti II by having a private tomb (KV 13) ordered for
him,86 but Bay fell into disrepute in the reign of Siptah, and in his fifth regnal year in III
šmw 27 Siptah had him executed.87
An unprovenanced listing attributes to Siptah a Beautiful Feast of the Valley on
II šmw 25 in his year four.88 With Seti II’s death and Siptah’s accession in I prt in 1305
(in December) with most of the year being in 1304, Siptah’s year four falls in 1301 BCE.
80
Jauhiainen, “Do not Celebrate,” 151.
81
Krauss, Sothis- und Monddaten, 152; Jauhiainen, “Do not Celebrate,” 39.
82
O. Cairo CG 25515; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 212-13.
83
For more about Siptah, see “Siptah.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siptah
84
G. Callendar, “The Cripple, the Queen and the Man from the North,” Kmt 17 (2006) 87, 52.
85
J. Dunn, “King Siptah and his Tomb in the Valley of the Kings,” at
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/siptah.htm
86
87
V.G. Callender, “Queen Tausret and the End of Dynasty 19,” SAK 32, (2004) 90; Hornung, “New
Kingdom,” 213.
88
Jauhiainen, “Do not Celebrate,” 39.
However, in 1301 there was no new moon on II šmw 25. But in the year 1302 BCE
(−1301) a new moon fell on II šmw 26 as shown in Casperson’s table (Table 31.16). This
date indicates that the applicable year fell in Siptah’s year three, not four.
Table 31.16: Siptah’s third year in −1301 (new moon listing for −1301)
−1301 4 7 −1301 3 26 1480 9 27 1 14:07 5:58 312 5:57 149 5:56 58
−1301 5 6 −1301 4 24 1480 10 26 2 21:26 5:37 450 5:36 193 5:36 79
−1301 6 5 −1301 5 24 1480 11 26 4 4:17 5:19 244 5:19 103 5:18 −3
The given date of II šmw 25 is one day before the new moon, but almost certainly
is associated with the Feast of the Valley. This feast, attributed to Siptah’s third year,
concurs with the aforementioned Deir el-Bahari (DB) feast falling in his sixth year in
1299 BCE.
Siptah’s DB feast (no. 9) dates to III šmw 9 of his sixth year. Four DB dates are
characterized by the refrain, “Amun rests in the funerary temple of …” (name of king).89
With his third year dated to −1301, Siptah’s sixth year dates to −1298. But in this year
the new moon fell on III šmw 23, and, therefore, is not applicable (Table 31.17).
Table 31.17: Siptah’s sixth year in −1298 (new moon listing for −1298)
−1298 5 3 −1298 4 22 1483 10 24 3 16:60 5:39 226 5:38 104 5:37 22
−1298 6 2 −1298 5 22 1483 11 24 5 6:12 5:20 176 5:20 65 5:19 −20
−1298 7 1 −1298 6 20 1483 12 23 6 17:34 5:11 287 5:11 135 5:11 27
However, the date of III šmw 9 is one day after a full moon that fell on III šmw 8
in −1298 as Casperson’s table below shows (Table 31.18). Since DB feasts could last
over several days with the visit of Amun and the procession to the temple, the day after
the full moon would have been a day of festivity.
Table 31.18: Siptah’s sixth year in −1298 (full moon listing for −1298)
−1298 4 18 −1298 4 7 1483 10 9 2 12:60 5:48 18:48
−1298 5 17 −1298 5 6 1483 11 8 3 20:35 5:28 18:28
−1298 6 16 −1298 6 5 1483 12 8 5 5:05 5:14 18:14
DoW = day of week.
Siptah was the penultimate king of the 19th Dynasty. His sixth year, seen on a
graffito at Buhen, appears to have been his last. This gives to Siptah a reign of about five
years and nine months, 1305–1299 BCE.
Other scholars propose that he died between II 3ḫt 9 and 12, and was buried on
IV 3ḫt 22 of his year seven.90
89
Krauss, “Lunar Dates,” 415, 416.
90
Twosre
Siptah was succeeded by Twosre. Her years of reign were counted as a
continuation of Siptah’s. Twosre’s first year is dated to a DB feast (no. 3) in “year 7” on
II šmw 28,91 thus the next year after Seti II’s death in his seventh year, −1297 (Table
31.19).
Table 31.19: Siptah’s “seventh year” = Twosre’s first year in −1297 (full moon
listing for −1297)
−1297 4 8 −1297 3 28 1484 9 29 7 6:13 5:56 18:56
−1297 5 7 −1297 4 26 1484 10 28 1 13:17 5:35 18:35
−1297 6 5 −1297 5 25 1484 11 27 2 19:58 5:18 18:18
DoW = day of week.
The fact that these DB dates apply to full moons and not new moons is endorsed
by two subsequent DB dates that also apply to full moons: DB 6 for Ramesses VI and
DB 10 for Ramesses VII of the 20th Dynasty.92
After Siptah died, Twosre adopted the full titles of a pharaoh and extended the
tomb (KV 14) for herself that had been started in the second year of Seti II on I prt 8.93
Twosre’s date of death is uncertain. On O. Cairo 25293 there is a year eight and a date of
IV [prt] x, or I šmw [y] or IV [šmw x] or IV šmw [y].94 From these it seems that
Twosre’s death occurred in IV šmw of her “8th” year, which would have ended her reign
in 1297 BCE (−1296). It allows Twosre a reign of about one year and ten months after
the death of Siptah. IV šmw 1 equates to 8 June 1297 BCE. Twosre’s death brings the
19th Dynasty to an end as there were no heirs to fill the vacant throne. Political turmoil
provided the opportunity for a commoner, Sethnachte, to take control and commence a
new dynasty. The dates of the 19th Dynasty rulers are shown in Table 31.20.
Table 31.20: 19th Dynasty from Ramesses I to Twosre with regnal years and dates
Ramesses I 2 yr, 3 mo 1404–1401 None known
Seti I 11 yr 1401–1390 None known
Yr 34 Feast of Ptah full moon on IV šmw 25 in 1356;
Ramesses II 66 yr, 3 mo 1390–1324 Yr 41 Heliacal rising of Sothis I 3ḫt 22 in 1349;
Yr 52 new moon II prt 27 in ship’s log, 1338
Yr [4] Heliacal rising of Sothis on I 3ḫt 29 at Thebes in 1321
Merenptah 9 yr, 6 mo 1324–1314
(calendar of Upper Egypt)
Amenmesses 2 yr, 4 mo 1314–1312 1314 New Sothic cycle commences at Memphis on I 3ḫt 1
Yr 2 Epiphi feast days on IV šmw 1–2 with new moon on IV šmw 2
in 1311;
Seti II 7 yr, 9 mo 1312–1305
Yr 6 Beautiful Feast of the Valley, river crossing on II šmw 25 with
new moon on II šmw 20
Siptah 5 yr, 9 mo 1305–1299 Yr 6 DB feast, full moon on III šmw 8 in 1299
Twosre 1 yr, 10 mo 1299–1297 “Yr 7” DB feast, full moon on II šmw 28 in 1298
1404–1297
Total 107 yr, 7 mo
= 107 yr
91
Ibid., 213-4; Krauss, “Lunar Dates,” 415, 416.
92
Krauss assumed that the DB feasts were new moon dates on the analogy of DB 31 being a Feast of the
Valley date, the only one so described (Krauss, “Lunar Dates,” 416).
93
Callender, “Queen Tausret,” 93, 96, 99. See also, M. Andrews, “The Tomb of Tausert and Setnakhte,”
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tst.htm
94
Krauss, “Lunar Dates,” 415, citing J. von Beckerath, Chronologie des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches (HÄB
39; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1994) 74-76.
Twosre’s final date of 1297 BCE is the starting date for the 20th Dynasty in this
chronology.
Chapter 32. Correlating Egypt and Israel, Manetho and Moses 439
Chapter 32
Correlating Egypt and Israel, Manetho and Moses

Before continuing with the chronology of the 20th Dynasty I now correlate the
18th and 19th Dynasties known from the monuments with the dynastic lists of Manetho,
also termed the 18th and 19th Dynasties. However, the two “versions” are very different
in the names of the kings and the years attributed to their reigns. Manetho’s version
appears to reflect kingly lines from the delta region, whereas the monuments portray
records of the kings of Upper and Lower Egypt centered at Thebes and associated
locations.
As in previous dynastic lists, the versions of Manetho (Africanus, Eusebius, and
the Armenian) for the 18th and 19th dynasties have been subjected to errors of
transmission, especially in the years attributed to various kings. However, these records
are more complete than for subsequent dynasties that give only partial lists of names and
regnal years. (From the 20th Dynasty onwards, Manetho’s listings record the same
dynasties as those of the contemporary sources; that is, the kings of Upper and Lower
Egypt.)
Despite the variations of the individual versions for Manetho’s 18th Dynasty it is
possible to produce the “probable length” of reign for each king. Manetho’s lists for the
18th and 19th Dynasties also lead into a discussion of the correlation of Israel and Egypt
centered in the time that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt during the reigns of
Ramesses II and his successors, and the exploits of Moses and the exodus from Egypt.
My table of the 18th and 19th Dynasties (Table 32.1) are repeated here and
should be compared with those of Manetho (Table 32.2) that follow.
Table 32.1: Rulers of the 18th and 19th Dynasties
Ruler Regnal years* Years rounded Date BCE
18th Dynasty
Ahmose 25 yr, 4 mo 25 (April) 1676–1651
Amenhotep I 20 yr, 9 mo 21 1651–1630
Thutmose I 8 yr, 7 mo 9 1630–1622
Thutmose II 17 yr, 7 mo 18 1622–1604
Hatshepsut 14 yr, [+ 22 with Thutmose III] 14 [+ 22] 1604–1590 [to 1568]
Thutmose III 53 yr, 6 mo 26 d 53 1590–1537
Amenhotep II 25 yr, 9 mo 26 1537–1510
Thutmose IV 8 yr, 7 mo 9 1510–1501
Amenhotep III 37 yr, 8 mo 38 1501–1464
Akhenaten 16 yr, 11 mo 17 1464–1447
Smenkhkare/Neferferuaten 2 yr, 4 mo 2 1447–1444
Tutankhamun 8 yr, 11 mo 9 1444–1435
Ay 4 yr, 4 mo 4 1435–1431
Horemheb 27 yr 27 1431–1404 (January)
Total 271 yr, 3 mo, 26 d 272 272 yr
19th Dynasty
Ramesses I 3 yr, 3 mo 3 1404–1401
Seti I 11 yr 11 1401–1390
Ramesses II 66 yr, 2 mo 66 1390–1324
Merenptah 9 yr, 6 mo 10 1324–1314
Amenmesse 2 yr, 4 mo 2 1314–1312

Seti II 7 yr, 9 mo 7 1312–1305
Siptah 5 yr, 9 mo 6 1305–1299
Twosre 1 yr, 10 mo 2 1299–1297
Total 107 yr, 7 mo 107 1404–1297 = 107 yr
Table 32.2: Manetho’s 18th Dynasty list

Josephus & Eusebius & the Book of
Ruler Africanus Probable length*
Theophilus Armenian Sothis
Tethmosis/Amosis 25 yr, 4 mo absent 25 yr 26 yr 25 yr, 4 mo
Chebron 13 yr 13 yr 13 yr 13 yr 13 yr
Amenophis 20 yr, 7 mo 24 or 21 yr 21 yr 15 yr 20 yr, 7 mo
Jos. 21 yr, 9 mo
Amesses (f) 22 yr absent 11 yr 21 yr, 9 mo
Th. 21 yr, 1 mo
Mephres 12 yr, 9 mo 13 yr 12 yr 13 yr 12 yr, 9 mo
Jos. 25 yr, 10 mo
Mephramou-thosis 26 yr 26 yr 16 yr 25 yr, 10 mo
Th. 20 yr, 10 mo
Thmosis 9 yr, 8 mo 9 yr 9 yr 39 yr 9 yr, 8 mo
Amenophis 30 yr, 10 mo 31 yr 31 yr 34 yr 30 yr, 10 mo
Eus. 36 or 38 yr
Orus 36 yr, 5 mo 37 yr 48 yr 36 yr, 5 mo
Arm. 28 yr
Eus. 12 yr 12 yr, 1 mo or 32 yr, 1
Acencheres (f) 12 yr, 1 mo 32 yr 25 yr
Arm. absent mo?
Eus. 39 yr 9 yr, or 29 yr, or 39 yr?
Rathotis 9 yr 6 yr 29 yr
Arm. absent
Acencheres I 12 yr, 5 mo 12 yr 16 yr 25 yr 12 yr, 5 mo
Acencheres II 12 yr, 3 mo 12 yr 8 yr 8 or 30 yr 12 yr, 3 mo
[Cherres] absent absent 15 yr absent Nil
Harmais 4 yr, 1 mo 5 yr 5 yr 9 yr 4 yr, 1 mo
Ramesses 1 yr, 4 mo 1 yr absent absent 1 yr, 4 mo
Harmesses 66 yr, 2 mo absent absent 68 yr 66 yr, 2 mo
Miamun
Amenophis 19 yr, 6 mo 19 yr 40 yr 8 yr 19 yr, 6 mo, or 40 yr?
* = most months approximate; Arm. = the Armenian; Eus. = Eusebius; f = female.
Noting the rulers’ names and regnal years in the comparative tables, only two
entries are the same. The first is Ahmose otherwise Tethmosis/Amosis in Manetho’s
rendering, who is given 25 years and 4 months by Josephus and Theophilus, rounded up
or down in the other versions, and agreeing with the 25-plus years from the Egyptian
inscriptions.
The second is Ramesses [II], otherwise Harmesses Miamun as he is named by
Josephus and Theophilus, who is given 66 years and 2 months by them in accord with
contemporary Egyptian records for Ramesses II.
Manetho’s Versions in General Agreement with Each Other

All the other names and regnal years allocated in Manetho’s table are different
from the previous list of kings, but the Manetho rounded versions show that they come
from the same original record. This is further demonstrated by their general adherence to
the numbers given by Josephus and Theophilus. Although the numbers in the Book of
Sothis have obviously suffered in transmission more than in the other versions, even they
can be seen to have once had a common source. Apart from a few apparent errors,
Manetho’s versions still give an astonishing amount of concordance considering that
numerous copies would have been made over centuries of transmission.
Apart from the two kings mentioned above, the other names and regnal years
show no similarity to the names that scholars recognize from the monuments as
comprising the kings of the 18th Dynasty based at Thebes. In spite of this, scholars have
sought to identify Manetho’s kings with those known from Thebes, but their results are
far from convincing. It takes implausible emendations to make even a few of the names
represent a king from the Theban 18th Dynasty.
Different Traditions and Rulers

The explanation for the two different lists is probably found in their differing
provenance. Manetho’s 18th Dynasty and the Theban 18th Dynasty both began with
Ahmose as their first king. Ahmose banished the Hyksos kings from the Delta area near
Avaris, but his son, Amenhotep I, resided in Thebes. His successors began a new line of
kings who lived at Thebes, and later at Amarna, before returning to Thebes. Since
Ahmose’s successor, Amenhotep I, with 20 years and 9 months, cannot be the same
person as Chebron with 13 years in Manetho’s 18th Dynasty list, the assumption is that
they were different people, presumably both sons and successors of Ahmose. Chebron
succeeded Ahmose in the Delta region.
After many disparate reigns in both lists, Ramesses II moved the royal residence
from Thebes back to the Delta, building his new city Pi-Ramesses over the ruins of the
previous Hyksos capital, Avaris, which is now known as Tell el-Daba.
Presumably, Ramesses II appears in Manetho’s list because he succeeded or
usurped a previous king, who appears as a man named Ramesses, and is possibly a
relative. The other surviving records of the 19th Dynasty indicate that Ramesses II’s
father was Seti I, and his grandfather was Ramesses I—the latter being the first king at
Thebes after the 18th Dynasty ended with the reign of Horemheb, who had no relatives
to succeed him.
Ramesses I may have come from the north at the behest of Horemheb, and it was
to the north that Ramesses II returned to set up his new capital.
Multiple Witnesses to Manetho’s Chronology

Josephus records the 18th Dynasty with mostly the same names as given by
Manetho’s copyists, but states it lasted 393 years,1 whereas Africanus gives it 263 years,
and Eusebius and the Armenian give it 348 years. It is obvious, however, that some
names have been omitted. The years can be plausibly recovered from the figures given
by Josephus and Theophilus with only two reigns of obviously corrupted figures, those
of Acencheres (f) followed by those of Rathotis.
From the variants for Acencheres (f) the 32 years given by Africanus can be seen
as the probably original number of regnal years from what is now the 12 years and 1
month given by Josephus and Theophilus, and 12 years given by Eusebius and the
Armenian version. Presumably, the 1 month can add to the 32 years.
From the variants for Rathotis, the 9 years of Josephus and Theophilus, the 39
years of Eusebius, and the 29 years of the Book of Sothis indicate a rounded figure
ending in 9. If all the kings’ years are totaled, they require the 29 years given in the Book
of Sothis.
Although the Book of Sothis is notoriously corrupted, that does not exclude the
possibility of it containing a correct number not given by the other variants. By including
the 32 years and 1 month reign of Acencheres (f), and the 29 years as the probable length
of the reign of Rathotis, the “probable length” column in the table does add up to 393
years.
1
F. Josephus, Contra Apionem Fr. 50, §230; Fr. 54 §231, in W.G. Waddell, Manetho (London: William
Heinemann, 1940) 107, 121.
The One-Year-Four-Month mystery

A problem arises if the years down to the reign of Ramesses II’s accession (in the
Josephus, Theophilus, and “probable length” columns of Table 32.2) are added up. They
amount to 287 years and 4 months. Subtracting this period from the beginning of the
dynasty, assumed to be in 1676 BCE when Ahmose began to reign, Harmesses Miamun,
whom we assume to equate to Ramesses II, must have begun to reign in 1388 BCE. By
the records from the Theban 18th Dynasty, he began to reign in 1390 BCE. This date is
established on lunar and Sothic data.
It seems that Harmesses Miamun began his reign one year and four months after
the accession of Ramesses II. So how can they be the one and the same person, as we
assume them to be? One can argue that the Harmesses Miamun in Manetho’s list is not
the same as Ramesses II, but it is not credible that two kings of similar name could have
ruled in the Delta at the same time, both reigning 66 years and 2 months. How then to
explain the excess of one year and four months for the reign of Ramesses II? None of the
reigns seem to suggest an alternative whereby one or other might be reduced singly or in
combination for the amount of the excess.
There remains a possibility that the reign of Ramesses preceding Harmesses
Miamun mentioned by Josephus and Theophilus and given one year and four months has
been included erroneously. It may be significant that Eusebius and the Armenian, and the
Book of Sothis, do not mention this man. If this Ramesses is excluded or at least seen as
a co-regent with Ramesses II, then the latter’s accession will have fallen in 1390 BCE,
where it falls in the Theban 18th Dynasty.
Updating the reign of Harmesses Miamun to 1390 BCE means that the one year
and four months needed to make up the 393 years for the dynasty must now fall after the
reign of Harmais. If authentic, it seems to have been inserted into the wrong place.
Harmesses Miamun, like Ramesses II, accounts for 66 years and 2 months. Amenophis’s
variants of 19 years and 6 months, and a rounded 40 years, suggests 39 years and 6
months can be allocated to him, leaving one year and four months to make up the 393
years. Who filled this space? Was it the aforementioned Ramesses or someone else?
Ramesses II was succeeded by his 13th son, Merenptah, in 1324 BCE, who
reigned approximately nine years and six months. He cannot be the Amenophis who, on
the above suggestion, reigned 39 years and 6 months. Amenophis was the 14th son of
Ramesses II. Amenhotep is the Egyptian rendering for the later Greek Amenophis,
significantly the next son after Merenptah.2
A web page gives the names of 50 of the sons of Ramesses II in hieroglyphs
accompanied with brief notes. In 13th position is Merenptah, and after him in 14th
position is Amenhotep. The comment below reads, “Amun is pleased. Shown running
and presenting prisoners after battle of Qadesh to his father in a scene in Luxor.”3 There
is, then, evidence for the existence of Amenhotep, a son of Ramesses II. His older
brother, Merenptah, had his capital in Memphis and ruled as King of Upper and Lower
Egypt. We can surmise—based on Manetho’s list for the 18th Dynasty kings—that
Amenhotep/Amenophis ruled and had his residence in the Delta. On the above dates,
Amenophis would have occupied the years 1324 to mid-1285 BCE. The name of his
successor is not preserved in Manetho’s dynastic list.
However, it is possible that the Ramesses given one year and four months now
misplaced before Harmesses Miamun, is the missing name. It seems significant that he is
attributed one year and four months the exact period required for the reign of the
successor of Amenophis. Maybe he was a son of Amenophis, or another son of
2
W.M.F. Petrie, A History of Egypt (London; 1924) Vol. 3, 37; referenced to L.D. iii, 168.
3
D. Sitek,“Sons of Ramesses II,” http://www.narmer.pl/dyn/sren.htm
Ramesses II. The 15th son was Itamun, buried in Tomb 5 in the Valley of the Kings. 4 If
the body of the king who drowned in the Red Sea was not recovered, Amenophis’
successor could not have been Itamun.
The inclusion of a king who reigned one year and four months will bring the end
of Manetho’s 18th Dynasty to the year 1283 BCE. The Theban 18th Dynasty ended in
1297 (reign of Twosre) 14 years before that of Manetho’s 18th Dynasty.

Following the 18th Dynasty lists from Manetho, a long portion of subsequent
events from Josephus’s Contra Apionem ensues. It begins by recounting that after the
393 years there were two brothers named Sethos and Hermaeus, who took the names of
Aegyptus and Danaus. “Sethos drove out Hermaeus and reigned for 59 years; then
Rampses, the elder of his sons, for 66 years.”5 Josephus accepts this statement from
Manetho, but then tells how Manetho interpolates legends about a fictitious Amenophis,
which Josephus then sets about disclaiming as unhistorical.6 Following this lengthy
discourse, Manetho’s records for the 19th Dynasty are supplied from Africanus,
Eusebius, and the Armenian versions.
Table 32.3 provides the names and variants arising from the following
discussion, with the proposed originals in the last column.
Table 32.3: Manetho’s 19th Dynasty
King Josephus Africanus Eusebius Armenian Proposed original
Sethos 59 51 55 55 55
Rampses 66 61 (66) 66 66 66
Ammenephthes -- 20 40 8 10
Ramesses -- 60 absent absent --
Ammenemnes -- 5 26 26 26
Thuoris -- 7 7 7 7
Stated total -- 209 194 194
Actual total -- 204 (209) 194 162 164
The stated totals compared with the actual totals show a difference of 40 years
for Eusebius and 32 for the Armenian. With the number of variants, the length of
Manetho’s 19th Dynasty is not clear.
Manetho and Contemporary Egyptian Sources Cover the Same Period

What appears here is that the total number of years from Manetho’s 18th and
19th Dynasties cover the same number of years as the 18th, 19th, and 20th Dynasties
known from contemporary sources. Manetho’s 18th Dynasty amounts to 393 years and
the 19th Dynasty amounts to 164 “proposed original” years, totaling 557 years. For the
18th Dynasty, the monumental evidence yields 271 years and 3 months; for the 19th
Dynasty, 107 years and 7 months; and for the 20th Dynasty, 175 years. This totals 553
years and 10 months. The time between the end of Manetho’s 18th Dynasty in 1283 and
the end of the 20th Dynasty in 1122—common to both Manetho and the monuments—is
161 years. The 393 years and the 161 years yields 554 years, which is the same number
given for the same period by the monuments.
The “proposed original” number of 164 years can be reduced to 161 years by the
deletion of 3 years. It may be suggested that the original figure for Ammenephthes may
have been 8 not 10 years. The Greek letters for 40 (М) and 8 (Н) are not dissimilar. A
further year could be removed from another reign, perhaps from Ammenemnes, giving
4
Ibid., 3-4; N.D. Lemonick, “Secrets of the Lost Tomb,” Time, May 29, 1995, No. 21, 48.
5
Manetho, 121.
6
Ibid., 121-147.
to him 25 years, not 26. (Africanus gives 5 years; the original may have been 25). The
subtractions would give to Manetho’s 19th Dynasty a total of 161 years, thus Manetho
and the monuments both cover the same 554 year period, 1676–1122 BCE.
Concurrent Dynasties
The point of this discussion is to demonstrate that the total number of years from
Manetho’s 18th and 19th Dynasties cover the same number of years as the 18th, 19th,
and 20th Dynasties known from contemporary sources as mentioned in the above
section.
The Theban 18th Dynasty began in 1676 BCE, followed by the 19th Dynasty in
1404, and the 20th Dynasty in 1297, ending in 1122 BCE. These years run concurrently
with Manetho’s 18th Dynasty also beginning in 1676, and his 19th Dynasty beginning in
1283 and ending in 1119 when the 21st Dynasty begins. This means that Manetho’s 19th
Dynasty in Lower Egypt runs mostly concurrently with the Theban-based 20th Dynasty
in Upper Egypt. Their reigns are aligned in Table 32.4 below.
Table 32.4: Manetho’s concurrent dynasties
Manetho’s 18th & 19th Dynasties: Delta 18th, 19th, & 20th Dynasties: Upper Egypt
Ruler Probable Dates BCE Ruler Proposed Dates BCE
length length
Tethmosis/
25 yr, 4 mo 1676–1651 Ahmose 25 yr, 4 mo 1676–1651
Amosis
Chebron 13 yr 1651–1638 Amenhotep I 20 yr, 9 mo 1651–1630
Amenophis 20 yr, 7 mo 1638–1617 Thutmose I 8 yr, 7 mo 1630–1622
Amesses (f) 21 yr, 9 mo 1617–1595 Thutmose II 17 yr, 7 mo 1622–1604
Mephres 12 yr, 9 mo 1595–1582 Hatshepsut (f) 14 yr, (+22) 1604–1590
Mephramou-Thosis 25 yr, 10 mo 1582–1556 Thutmose III 53 yr, 6 mo 26d 1590–1537
Thmosis 9 yr, 8 mo 1556–1546 Amenhotep II 25 yr, 9 mo 1537–1510
Amenophis 30 yr, 10 mo 1546–1515 Thutmose IV 8 yr, 7 mo 1510–1501
Orus 36 yr, 5 mo 1515–1479 Amenhotep III 37 yr, 8 mo 1501–1464
Acencheres (f) 32 yr, 1 mo 1479–1447 Akhenaten 16 yr, 11 mo 1464–1447
Smenkhkare/
Rathotis 29 yr, 0 mo 1447–1418 2 yr, 4 mo 1447–1444
Neferneferuaten
Acencheres I 12 yr, 5 mo 1418–1406 Tutankhamun 8 yr, 11 mo 1444–1435
Acencheres II 12 yr, 3 mo 1406–1394 Ay 4 yr, 4 mo 1435–1431
[Cherres] Nil Horemheb 27 yr, 0 mo? 1431–1404
Harmais 4 yr, 1 mo 1394–1390 Ramesses I 3 yr, 3 mo 1404–1401
[Ramesses] [1 yr, 4 mo] Seti I 11 yr, 1401–1390
Harmesses Miamun 66 yr, 2 mo 1390–1324 Ramesses II 66 yr, 2 mo 1390–1324
Amenophis 39 yr, 6 mo 1324–1285 Merenptah 9 yr, 6 mo 1324–1314
[Unidentified king] [1 yr, 4 mo] 1285–1283 Amenmesse 2 yr, 4 mo 1314–1310
Sethos 55 yr, 1283–1228 Seti II 7 yr, 9 mo 1310–1305
Rampses 66 yr, 1228–1162 Siptah 5 yr, 9 mo 1305–1299
Ammenephthes 8 1162–1152 Twosret (f) 1 yr, 10 mo 1299–1297
[Ramesses?] -- -- Setnakht 3 yr, 11 mo 1297–1293
Ammenemnes 25 1152–1126 Ramesses III 31 yr, 1 mo, 19d 1293–1262
Thuoris 7 1126–1119 Ramesses IV 6 yr, 5 mo 1262–1256
Ramesses V 3 yr, 2 mo 1256–1252
Ramesses VI 8 yr, 2 mo 1252–1244
Ramesses VII 11 yr, 5 mo 1244–1233
Ramesses VIII 23 yr 1233–1210
Ramesses IX 18 yr, 4 mo 1210–1192
Ramesses X 39 yr, 6 mo 1192–1152
Ramesses XI 29 yr, 6 mo 1152–1122
Total 554 years 1676–1122 554 years 1676–1122
f = female.
It is surely obvious that the 18th and 19th Dynasty kings listed by Manetho have
no resemblance in names or regnal years to the 18th, 19th, and 20th Dynasty kings
known from the Egyptian monuments, apart from the initial Ahmose in 1676 and
Ramesses II. In 1390, Ramesses II ascended the throne in Thebes but changed his
residence to the Delta, succeeding or ousting the king who ruled there. Thus, Ramesses
II appears in the Theban 19th Dynasty as well as Manetho’s 18th Dynasty.
The significance of Manetho’s 18th and 19th Dynasties is that they provide a
continuity of kings who ruled in the Delta, which is different from those who ruled from
Thebes. Manetho includes Ramesses II who reigned 66 years and 2 months. His
successor Amenophis/Amenhotep reigned 39 years and 6 months. He was followed by a
period of 1 year and 4 months before the end of the dynasty, in which no king has been
identified. This series offers a scenario for correlating the events of the initial chapters of
the Book of Exodus in the Old Testament of the Bible.7
Correlation with Israel

The 13th century BCE is the general timeframe in which many biblical scholars
place the so-called exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt, and their emergence in their
ancestral home of Canaan or Israel. Archaeologists have noted the evidence of a new
settlement of people at this time, which is associated with the Israelites’ arrival.
Prior to their departure, the Israelites served as slaves to an unnamed Egyptian
king who forced them to build the cities of Pithom and Rameses (Exod 1:11). The city of
Rameses has now been identified with Tell el-Daba—the residence of Ramesses II in the
eastern Delta. It is generally recognized that the Israelites were slaves in the reign of
Ramesses II, but it has not been so clear in whose reign the Israelites departed, and who
was the Egyptian king reported to have drowned in the Red Sea with his army while
attempting to stop the Israelite escape. The facts as related in Exodus, do not seem to be
in accord with what is known of Ramesses II’s successors of the 19th (Theban) Dynasty.
The Israelite Background

Special attention to this part of Israelite history occupies the first few chapters of
Exodus. Further references are found elsewhere in the Bible. During this time a Hebrew
(Israelite) couple named Amram and Jochebed had a third child who was named Moses.
Moses
The Egyptian king, presumed to be Ramesses II, had ordered that all male
Hebrew babies be killed to minimize their prolific increase. Moses was hidden and at
three months of age (Exod 2:2) Jochebed placed Moses in a waterproof bassinet in the
river, and set his older sister Miriam to observe. Moses also had a three-year-old brother,
Aaron. One of pharaoh’s daughters found Moses as his basket floated in the river and
took him back to the palace. Miriam arranged with pharaoh’s daughter for the infant’s
mother to nurse him, and Moses was brought up in the Egyptian king’s household with
all the advantages of knowledge and wealth.
Moses became aware that he was not Egyptian but Hebrew. When aged 40, he
killed an Egyptian who was beating up a Hebrew. This incident became known and his
identity was disclosed, so he fled for his life into the desert of Midian. He married and
had two sons (see Exod 2:11–22, 18:1–4; Acts 7:23–29).
Around 40 years on, when Moses was aged about 80, he believed that God spoke
to him from a strange flaming bush that did not burn up, and told him to return to Egypt
and deliver his Hebrew people. The king from whom he had earlier fled was now dead.
Moses returned to Egypt, but the new king did not want to release the slaves.
After a series of plagues, the Israelites were at first released by Pharaoh, but he soon
7
Exodus is the second book of the Old Testament, which is also variously termed the Hebrew Bible or the
First Testament.
changed his mind and pursued them. The Israelites escaped across the Red Sea, in a
manner they regarded as miraculous, by an interruption of the flow of water. Pharaoh
and his army also sought to cross, but were overcome by the returning waters.
The people of Israel endured 40 years of adventure and adversity in the deserts of
Sinai. Moses brought them to the brink of “the Promised Land,” and died at the age of
120.
Chronological Connections
Bearing the chronological data in mind, we may discern that Ramesses II was the
Egyptian king in whose reign Moses was born. The time between Moses’s 40th and 80th
years assume the continuous reign of a king who had a personal warrant out for Moses
but died shortly before Moses returned to Egypt. Upon his return, Moses initiated new
palace negotiations to lead the Hebrews back to their homeland of promise.
Amenophis (1324–1285 BCE) and the King with No Name

The king from whom Moses fled clearly had a long tenure, approaching 40
years—the period between the flight of Moses and his return. This king was not
Ramesses II, because he did not reign nearly 80 years, but a successor. We have seen
that the successor of Ramesses II is identified as his 13th son, Merenptah, who returned
the capital to Thebes from the Delta region in a period of turbulence and battles at home
and abroad. Meanwhile, Manetho’s 18th Dynasty reports events in the Delta region and
supplies the name of King Amenophis, or Amenhotep, 14th son of Ramesses II and next
male sibling to Merenptah. Presumably the brothers had a regnal arrangement intended
to perpetuate their father’s power in both parts of Egypt.
According to Manetho, Amenophis reigned 39 years and 6 months. His reign fits
in with the biblical data; he died shortly before Moses turned 80. It was under his
successor, after 10 plagues, which could have occurred over a period of a year or so, that
the Israelites finally left Egypt. The pursuing Egyptian king and his army drowned in the
Red Sea, a landmark event notable in Israel’s historical tradition.8
This king fills the period of the one year and four months after the reign of
Amenophis and before the end of the 393-year period attributed by Manetho to the 18th
Dynasty. He is the “pharaoh of the Exodus.”
That would place this king as the final king of that dynasty with Manetho’s 19th
Dynasty beginning in 1283 BCE. The year 1283 synchronizes with Moses’ 80th year.
Therefore, his 40th year fell in 1323 BCE, in agreement with Ramesses II’s death the
previous year in 1324. Moses fled from his successor, Amenophis, who reigned 39½
years and died in 1285 BCE. Over a year later, under Amenophis’s successor, Moses and
the Israelites escaped Egypt in the year 1283 BCE.
The Key Chronological Conjunction between Egypt and Israel

Forty years further on, a new generation led by two octogenarians—Joshua and
Caleb—entered Canaan in 1243. This is the 13th century date that scholars have been
seeking as the time of the influx of people into Canaan, which is associated with the
arrival of the Israelites from Egypt.
The conquest of the land occupied by the Canaanites, and the settlement of the 12
tribes of Israel is known as the Judges period. The length of this period can be reckoned
because it comes before the period known as the United Kingdom of which there were
three kings, Saul, David, and Solomon, each of whom are attributed reigns of 40 years.
Their dates are reckoned from the beginning of the subsequent Divided Kingdom,
8
E.g. Psalm 136:13–15.
elucidated in my Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom. The Divided

Kingdom began under Rehoboam. In Rehoboam’s fifth year in 977 B.C.E. Shoshenq I
plundered Jerusalem in his 20th year. As indicated in the Preface and throughout this
book, encounter is the key synchronism by which the chronologies of Egypt and Israel
are linked and established.
All the reigns for the preceding Egyptian kings back to the beginning of the 18th
Dynasty in 1676 have been accounted for and dated, and the remaining period down to
the end of the 25th Dynasty in 664 BCE occupies the remaining chapters, and includes
the details of Shoshenq I’s reign (22nd Dynasty discussed in chapters 36-37) within that
matrix of dates based on inscriptional and astronomical evidence.
The Israel or Merneptah Stela

The Israel or Merneptah stela found at Thebes in 1896 by Flinders Petrie, records
that, in his fifth year, Merenptah (variant spelling) made a campaign to Canaan. It reports
his defeat of Ashkelon, Gezer, Yanoam, and Israel—unique in Egyptian references to
Israel: “Israel is laid waste, his seed is not.” Much discussion has centered on how
“Israel” is written in the stela, especially with its determinative used for nomadic tribes
without a city-state. Suffice it to say here, in previous (and erroneous) chronologies
Merenptah’s campaign is dated ca. 1209 BCE, which puts it in the time of the Judges,
sometime after Israel was back in its homeland. How, then, could Israel be described as
being “laid waste”?
However, the correct chronology presented here places Merenptah, successor to
Ramesses II, in the years 1324–1314, with his fifth year falling in 1319. At this time,
Amenophis, Merenptah’s brother, was ruling over the Israelites in the Delta of Egypt,
Ramesses II having died only five years previously. Whatever may be the meaning of
“Israel is laid waste, his seed is not,” the chronology makes it quite clear that the
Israelites were not living in Canaan in 1319. The original family under Jacob had arrived
in Egypt in 1498, over 180 years earlier. It would be another 35 years after Merenptah’s
fifth year before they left Egypt at the time of the Exodus, and another 40 years in the
desert of Sinai before they arrived in Canaan at the beginning of the so-called Judges
period. The stela places Merenptah’s campaign to Canaan in the fifth year of his reign,
and the chronology places it in its proper context in 1319 during the time the Israelites
were enslaved under Amenophis in the Delta.
Dates for Israel

In the reconstructed chronology the United Kingdom kings are afforded the
following dates: Saul, 40 years, 1101–1061 BCE; David, 40 years, 1061–1021 BCE;
Solomon, 40 years, 1021–981 BCE. Between the beginning of occupation in Canaan in
1243 and the accession of Saul as the first king in 1101, there were 142 years. Early
scholars formerly thought that the events in the Book of Judges were consecutive, but it
is now generally understood that many of the events of this pioneering period were
contemporaneous, with the periods assigned to each of the regional heroes (or judges)
having regional application. The individual periods assigned to the judges are not meant
to be added to yield a total. Furthermore, the genealogies (which cover the Judges
period) of the descendants of Levi, involving the priests and Levites, and the descendants
of Judah, who became the kings of Judah, do not allow for a period much longer than the
142 years. The 142 years is confirmed by the Egyptian chronology, which does not allow
for any longer or shorter time-period, and runs concurrently with the greater part of the
20th Dynasty, Ramesses VII to Ramesses XI (1244–1122 BCE), and Manetho’s 19th
Dynasty of Sethos to Thuoris (1283–1122 BCE).
Dates for Abraham’s Family Connections with Egypt

Since Moses was 80 at the time of the exodus in 1283, he must have been born in
1363. This equates with the 27th year of Ramesses II. Proceeding backwards to
Abraham’s period, we can fill in the relevant dates for the Hebrew chronology with
Abraham being the acknowledged forefather of the nation of Israel. However, it is easier
to understand this in a descending period of years, therefore, the dates are given
beginning with Abraham.
Abraham was born in Ur of the Chaldees (Gen 11:31) in 1788 BCE. The family
moved to Haran, and at the age of 75 Abraham and his family entered Canaan (Gen
12:4) in 1713. His son, Isaac, was born when Abraham was 100 years old (Gen 21:5) in
1688. Isaac’s twin sons, Jacob and Esau, were born when Isaac was 60 (Gen 25:26) in
1628. Jacob had 12 sons from 4 different women. His 11th son, Joseph, was 17 years old
(Gen 37:2) when his brothers sold him to the Midianites who took him to Egypt (Gen
37:28) and sold him to Potiphar—a chief servant and “captain of the guard” to the
pharaoh (Gen 37:36, 39:1).
Joseph arose to become the pharaoh’s next-in-command (Gen 41:41–44, 45:8).
When famine overcame Canaan, Jacob and his family, numbering about 70 people,
departed their land and sought food in Egypt (Gen 45:26–46:27). Joseph was aged about
40 years old9 and Jacob was 130 years old (Gen 47:9) when they were reunited. They
were settlers in Canaan for 215 years between 1713 and 1498 before the family relocated
to Egypt.
The family settled in “the land of Goshen,” which was “the land of Rameses”
(Gen 47:11) in the eastern Delta region but synonymous with “the land of Egypt” (Gen
47:4, 27). Jacob died at the age of 147 years (Gen 47:28). Since Jacob was born in 1628
and was 130 years old when he entered Egypt, the date of relocation was 1498 BCE.
Their 215 “settler” years in Canaan is known as the Patriarchal Period. Another
period of 215 years immediately followed, which is known as the Egyptian Sojourn. The
king under whom Joseph worked—who had welcomed his family to Egypt in 1498—
according to Manetho’s list at this time, is King Orus. He reigned for 36 years and 5
months, from 1515 to 1479 BCE.
After Jacob’s family had settled in Goshen, the famine became so severe that
they paid for their food by selling their cattle and herds, and when that had all gone they
sold their land and themselves to become slaves of pharaoh (Gen 47:13–26). Time
passed and the Israelites multiplied (Exod 1:7). Then “there arose a new king over Egypt
who did not know Joseph” (Exod 1:8). He forced the Israelites to build the cities of
Pithom and Rameses (Exod 1:12). The king was Ramesses II who ascended the throne
over all of Egypt in 1390. Moses was born in 1363, 135 years into the 215-year period of
the sojourn. That period ended in 1283 when Moses negotiated with the successor to
Amenophis to return to Canaan, their former homeland. The Exodus account of Egypt’s
defeat (Exodus 14–15) speaks of complete and utter decimation of Pharaoh and his
forces.
The correlation of the Egyptian and Hebrew chronology shows definitively that
the date of 1297, accepted by some for Ramesses II is actually 93 years too late. It
cannot be reconciled with the Israelites emergence in Canaan in the 13th century,
because, as shown by the aforementioned data, from the accession of Ramesses II in
1390 to the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan in 1243 BCE there were 147 years. If
9
Joseph was 30 years old at the beginning of the seven years of plenty (Gen 41:46). His brothers came to
him at the end of the second year of famine (Gen 45:6, 11), then returned to Canaan and brought Jacob and
the family back to Egypt while the famine still prevailed (Gen 46). Thus, Joseph was about 40 years old.
147 years are subtracted from 1297, the entrance occurs in 1150, far too late for
archaeologists to date the arrival of a new influx of people into the region.
Curiously, 1 Kings 6:1 indicates that there were 480 years from the time that the
Israelites came out of the land of Egypt to the time that the foundations of the temple
were laid in Solomon’s fourth year, which was 1018. But 480 years before, in 1498
BCE, Jacob and his family entered Egypt. The Hebrew text uses the words “from the
land of Mizraim” (Egypt) ‫ מארץ־מצרים‬where “from” is simply ‫מ‬. Alternatively, “entered”
is ‫ב‬, thus ‫בארץ‬.10 Obviously, the two Hebrew letters appear similar and a mistake in
copying was presumably made; for some unknown reason it was allowed to remain in
subsequent texts. Unfortunately, it had consequences for the chronology.
The error in 1 Kings 6:1 has been compounded by Exodus 12:40 as given in the
Hebrew text, which states that the people of Israel had lived in Egypt 430 years. The
Greek text, however, attributes the 430 years to the time that the Israelites lived in Egypt
and in Canaan. Thus, as noted above, there were 215 years from Abraham’s entrance to
Canaan in 1713 BCE until Jacob and his family entered Egypt in 1498. Another 215
years later, the exodus from Egypt occurred in 1283 BCE. The Greek text is correct and
the Hebrew text has omitted the fact that the 430 years included the Patriarchal Period;
that is, the “and in Canaan” period.
Genesis 15:12–16 refers to a dream given to Abraham in which his descendants
would be slaves in a foreign land and oppressed for 400 years. Then Abraham’s
descendants would come back in the fourth generation. While the 400 years does seem to
refer to the period of enslavement, it is not specific as to where the oppression might
have started. The mention of the “fourth generation” can only apply to a period of 215
years and not 430. Because the Israelites lived long lives, the four generations stretched
across the 215 years. The four generations were Levi (the son of Jacob), then Kohath,
Amram, and Moses (1 Chr 6:1–3). The three generations preceding Moses had died by
the time of the exodus.11 The presence of the fourth generation at the exodus (and often
also the fifth and sometimes the sixth) is also found in other tribes whose descendants
are mentioned (1 Chr 2:1–7:40).
The building of Solomon’s temple began in 1018, which is only 36 years before
the beginning of the Divided Kingdom under Rehoboam of Judah and Jeroboam of Israel
in 981. Five years later, in 977, Shoshenq I attacked Jerusalem in Rehoboam’s fifth year.
I make a few ancillary comments to the synchronization of Egypt with Israel.
Firstly, in the reign of David (1061–1021 BCE), his army had decimated a
population of Edomites, some of whom escaped and fled to Egypt. Among them was a
child named Hadad. A king of Egypt gave sanctuary to the Edomites. When Hadad had
grown up, the pharaoh gave him the sister of his own wife, Queen Tahpenes, to be his
bride (1 Kgs 11:14–25). This happened before David’s death in 1021. The king of Egypt
must have been Siamun who reigned 1030–1011 BCE. This assumes that the king in
mind belonged to the 21st Dynasty and resided at Tanis.
Secondly, Osorkon II of the 22nd dynasty visited Ahab of Israel, which is
evidenced by a bowl found at Samaria. Osorkon II reigned at least 30 years, from
approximately 902 to 872—the latter date being correct.12 Ahab’s dates include this
period, being 919–897 BCE.
10
Hebrew is written from right to left.
11
Levi lived 137 years (Exod 6:16), Kohath lived 133 years (Num 26:59), Amram 137 years (Exod 6:20),
which, even with the next generation being born when the father was well mature, still means they died
before the exodus in 1283.
12
It is the last date of the first division of the 22nd Dynasty dated to 782, and Osorkon II was its last king.
Thirdly, the Egyptian king “So” of 2 Kings 17:4 from whom Hoshea of Israel
(727–719/718) sought help—because the king of Assyria, Shalmaneser IV (726–721)
was exacting tribute—was Osorkon IV (741–730). He was the last king of the 22nd
Dynasty.
The Hebrew and the Egyptian chronologies synchronize perfectly once
Rehoboam’s fifth year is corrected from 925 to 977 BCE. The correlation of the Hebrew
and Egyptian chronology proves that the Assyrian Eponym Canon is not reliable before
763 BCE (and more specifically before 786). I have already demonstrated in The
Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom that Rehoboam’s accession as king
of Judah took place in 981 BCE. Now this date is reinforced by the Egyptian chronology
that synchronizes Shoshenq I’s 20th year with Rehoboam’s fifth year in 977, as the
subsequent chapters will substantiate.
Chapter 33. Positioning the 20th Dynasty 451
Chapter 33
Positioning the 20th Dynasty

The 20th Dynasty and remaining dynasties to the 25th are significantly informed
by the chronological information attributed to Manetho in its several versions. In the
case of the 20th Dynasty, the larger “totals” in the Manetho versions offer greater
consistency with other evidence than dates currently being presented by some
Egyptologists. Ancient historians were much closer to the events and inscriptional
evidence than we are, and their writings were intentionally preserved.
Book Three of Manetho begins with the 20th Dynasty. Unfortunately, the record
now handed down is very brief, but following dynasties have better coverage. No
individual reign lengths are cited. The Africanus version of Manetho states that, “The
Twentieth Dynasty consisted of twelve kings of Diospolis who reigned for 135 years.”
The Eusebius and the Armenian versions diverge in giving the dynasty 178 and 172
years, respectively.1 Evidence of textual corruption in the numbers is seen, and the
number of kings was 10 (not 12) according to the monuments beginning with Setnakhte
and followed by Ramesses III–XI.
The dynasty has lunar dates recorded for specific regnal years of six kings as
shown in Table 33.1, plus other references. Combined with records of the length of
kings’ reigns, including those from The Book of Sothis, the records provide a total of 175
years.
Table 33.1: 20th Dynasty kings
King Regnal years Dates Lunar anchor points
Setnakhte None known
Yr 22, DB 31 Feast of the Valley on I šmw 22,
Ramesses III
new moon on I šmw 21 in 1271
Ramesses IV None known
Ramesses V None known
Ramesses VI Yr 3, DB 6 feast, full moon II šmw 20 in 1250
Ramesses VII Yr 7, DB 10 feast, full moon III šmw 9 in 1238
Yr 17, feast of Mut, new moon on I prt 30 in
Ramesses VIII
1217
Ramesses IX None known
Ramesses X Yr 3 Amun feast, IV šmw 2 in 1189
Ramesses XI Yr 25, Amun feast, III šmw 28, in 1127
DB = Deir el-Bahari.
I shall now discuss the evidence that identifies the lunar anchor points within the
regnal years of the associated kings and the dates and lengths of their reigns, proceeding
from the anchor points of the 19th Dynasty established in chapter 31 and the conclusion
of Twosre’s reign in 1297 BCE.
1
Manetho (trans. W.G. Waddell; Loeb Classical Library 350; London: William Heinemann and
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940) 152-155.
Kitchen dates the 20th Dynasty kings from Setnakhte’s reign beginning in 1186
BCE to Ramesses XI’s reign ending in 1070 BCE2 giving a dynasty of about 116 years,
which is quite reduced from Manetho’s numbers. Hornung writes that, “Only Africanus’
total [135 years] could be correct, provided it follows directly on the sum down to
Merneptah and so includes the last rulers of Dyn. 19. The actual length of the various
reigns is both certain and precise, thanks to an abundance of dated documents.”3 For
suggestions of any lengthening of the reign, he says, “There is simply no space
available.”4 But of course he assumes an inaccurate and truncated “space.”
Because of the lack of “space,” three of the large numbers in The Book of Sothis
have been shortened by scholars. The Book of Sothis appears as Appendix IV in
Manetho. Amongst a garbled and diverse listing of kings, five Ramesses are listed,
numbered 20–24.5 Scholars have identified these as in the right-hand column in Table
33.2, below, with changes to their regnal years as they felt appropriate; thus, Ramesses
VIII’s 23 years is reduced to 1 or 2; Ramesses X’s 39 years to 9, and Ramesses XI’s
years from 29 to 9.
Table 33.2: Alignment and modified regnal years in comparison with The Book of
Sothis
No. The Book of Sothis Identified with
20 Usimare 31 yr Ramesses III 31 yr
21 Ramessescos 23 yr Ramesses VIII 1–2 yr
22 Ramessesameno 19 yr Ramesses IX 19 yr
23 Ramesse Iubasse 39 yr Ramesses X 9 yr
24 Ramesse 29 yr Ramesses XI 20 yr
Setnakhte and Ramesses III (Usermaatre Meryamun)

Setnakhte was a commoner who rose to power at the end of the 19th Dynasty
amidst political unrest. He may have been related to the royal family. 6 The Great Harris
Papyrus describes how Setnakhte slew the rebels and established himself as ruler of the
Two Lands.7
Earlier it was thought that he reigned just two years, his regnal year two and the
date of II šmw 10 being attested on a stela from Elephantine. But a third regnal year was
found on Inscription 271 from Mt Sinai,8 and following that, in 2008 a newly discovered
and well-preserved quartz stela was unearthed from the avenue of ram-headed sphinxes
that once connected the temples of Luxor and Karnak. The top half of the stela depicts a
crowned Setnakhte bowing before Amun, and the bottom part features Bakenkhunsu, the
High Priest of Amun, in his robes.
According to Mansour Borayek, Luxor Antiquities Director, the stela was carved
2
K.A. Kitchen, “Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt (Absolute Chronology I): The Historical
Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a Current Assessment,” SCIEM II (2000) 49.
3
4
5
Manetho, 237.
6
“Setnakhte,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setnakhte
7
J.H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. 4 (1906) 198-99 cited in “Setnakhte,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setnakhte
8
J. von Beckerath, Chronologie des Pharaonischen Ägypten, (1997) 201-02; “Setnakhte,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setnakhte; J. Dunn, “Setnakhte, The First King of Egypt’s 20th Dynasty,”
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/setnakhte.htm
for Bakenkhunsu in the fourth year of Setnakhte’s reign.9 The year four is explicitly
stated.10 The last known date of Twosre is year eight III prt 5, so an accession date of
Sethnakhte on II šmw 10 follows about three months later and may be the actual date.
Assigning Setnakhte nearly four years matches with the accession date for Ramesses III.
Our discussion below assigns Ramesses III’s first year to 1293, which gives to Setnakhte
a reign of about 3 years and 11 months. See Casperson’s table below (Table 33.3).
Table 33.3: Twosre’s “Eighth” year and Setnakhte’s accession in −1296;
Setnakhte’s fourth year and Ramesses III’s accession in −1292 (new moon listing
from −1297 and −1292)
−1297 12 14 −1297 12 3 1485 6 4 5 23:14 6:45 346 6:46 213 6:46 95
Twosre’s last known date in Year eight is III prt 5
−1296 1 13 −1296 1 2 1485 7 4 7 9:46 6:48 269 6:48 139 6:48 33
−1296 2 11 −1296 1 31 1485 8 3 1 20:40 6:37 363 6:36 173 6:36 65
Setnakhte’s possible accession date is II šmw 10
−1296 4 10 −1296 3 30 1485 10 2 4 20:42 5:55 299 5:54 117 5:54 25
−1296 5 10 −1296 4 29 1485 11 2 6 10:05 5:34 178 5:33 61 5:32 −17
Four years later:
−1292 2 28 −1292 2 17 1489 8 21 2 3:55 6:26 160 6:25 43 6:25 −39
Sethnakhte dies in fourth year and Ramesses III accedes on I šmw 26
−1292 3 28 −1292 3 17 1489 9 20 3 13:47 6:05 274 6:04 80 6:03 −10
−1292 4 26 −1292 4 15 1489 10 19 4 21:40 5:43 583 5:43 141 5:42 27
Ramesses III (Usermaatre Meryamun)

Ramesses III was the son of Setnakhte and Queen Tiy-merenese. His accession is
dated to I šmw 26 in the Medinet Habu calendar.11 All but the first year of Ramesses III
are documented.12 Krauss notes that a Deir el-Bahri (DB) graffito (DB31) dating to II
šmw 22 was written during a Feast of the Valley in the reign of an unidentified king’s
22nd year. He proposed the reigns of Ramesses II, III, or XI.13According to the Medinet
Habu Calendar, List three, the Festival of the Valley took place in II šmw and “It is the
new moon, which brings it in.”14 Since the Feast of the Valley is dated to a new moon,
the search can be narrowed down. In the reign of Ramesses III, a new moon fell on II
šmw 21 in −1270 (1271 BCE), which is 22 years after his accession in 1293. See
Casperson’s table (Table 33.4).
Table 33.4: Ramesses III’s 22nd year in −1270 (new moon listing for −1270)
−1270 3 25 −1270 3 14 1511 9 22 6 5:38 6:07 148 6:07 52 6:06 −10
−1270 4 23 −1270 4 12 1511 10 21 7 20:09 5:46 250 5:45 113 5:44 43
−1270 5 23 −1270 5 12 1511 11 21 2 11:11 5:26 197 5:25 104 5:25 37
9
N. El-Aref, “Dynasty Revealed,” Al Ahram Weekly, Issue 827, 11-17 January 2007,
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/827/hr1.htm; “Setnakhte,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setnakhte
10
“Setnakhte,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setnakhte
11
S. el-Sabban, Temple Festival Calendars of Ancient Egypt (Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and
Oriental Studies; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000) 84; Hornung “New Kingdom,” 215.
12
13
R. Krauss, “Lunar Dates,” AEC, 416-17.
14
El-Sabban, Temple Festival Calendars, 67. DB 10 documents a feast in III šmw 9, Year 7, attributable
to Ramesses VII (see Table 33.10 below); Krauss, “Lunar Dates,” 416-17.
The graffito with the date of II šmw 22 was presumably written on the second day
of the feast. The convergence of Ramesses III’s 22nd year with the date falling as
expected in the Feast of the Valley in 1271 identifies Ramesses III as the king to whom
the date belongs. It further confirms the accuracy of this reconstructed chronology.
Previously, we noted feasts at DB in the reigns of Siptah and Twosre in the 19th
Dynasty (penultimate and final rulers) both occurring on a full moon. However, this feast
at DB early in the 20th Dynasty in the reign of Ramesses III occurs on a new moon, and
appears to be the only feast at DB that is clearly designated as a Feast of the Valley.
After a long and turbulent career fighting enemies, and construction on a massive
scale, Ramesses III died on III šmw 14 in his 32nd year, most likely by assassination,
giving him a reign of 31 years, 1 month, and 19 days.15 From the evidence that his 22nd
year was 1271 BCE, we can assume that he reigned from 1293–1262.
Ramesses IV (Heqamaatre)
Ramesses IV was the fifth son of Ramesses III, his four older brothers
predeceasing him.16 His accession is attested on III šmw 15,17 word having reached the
workers at Deir el-Medina the next day.18 According to O. Chicago 12073 there were 18
years between year 17 of Ramesses III and year three of Ramesses IV.19 With Ramesses
III’s 17th year in 1276 and his death, and the accession of Ramesses IV in 1262 BCE,
the third year of Ramesses IV would have fallen in 1260/1259, being 18 years after
Ramesses III’s 17th year, and thus in agreement with O. Chicago 12073.
Ramesses IV reigned into his seventh year, with a date of III 3ḫt 23 attested;20 his
highest known date. The Turin Indictment Papyrus indicates that he died before the
harvest of his seventh year,21 which would bring his year of death to about 1256. Any
time “before the harvest” when Ramesses IV died could come after III 3ḫt 23 and before
the first harvest month of I šmw. The time of death may be defined more closely by
ascertaining the accession date of his successor, Ramesses V.
Ramesses V (Usermaatre Sekhepenre) and RamessesVI (Nebmaatre Meryamun)

Scholars have calculated Ramesses V’s accession date to have fallen variously on
IV prt 1, III prt 29, between IV prt 29 to I šmw 7, and in I prt.22 The latter date is von
Beckerath’s recalculation from his previously given IV prt 1 date, and according to
Hornung “supported by Demarée’s new interpretation of P. Turin 2044.”23 The great
Wilbour papyrus dates to year four of his reign.24 Dates of II šmw 25 to IV šmw 17 of a
year four without a king’s name have been attributed to him.25
15
E.F. Wente and C.C. Van Siclen III, “A Chronology of the New Kingdom,” Studies in Honor of George
R. Hughes (eds. J.H. Johnson and E.F. Wente; SAOC 39; Chicago IL: Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago, 1976) 235; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 215.
16
“Ramesses IV,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_IV
17
From O. Deir el-Medina 44, cited by Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 215.
18
From O. Deir el-Medina 39 and P. Turin 1949 +1946, cited by Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 215.
19
Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 215, citing S. Allam, Hieratische Ostraka und papyri aus der
Ramessidenzeit (Tubingen: Allam, 1973) No. 40, 73-76.
20
O. Deir el-Medina 207: KRI VI, 49, cited by Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 215; Wente and van Siclen,
“Chronology of the New Kingdom,” 237.
21
RAD 80, 8-9, cited by Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 215.
22
23
Ibid., 215. Demarée’s “new interpretation” is not referenced.
24
A.H. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs (London: Oxford University Press, 1961) 296; “Ramesses V,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_V
25
O. Cairo CG 25247; cited by Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 215.
The actual length of Ramesses V’s reign has to be calculated in conjunction with
the next fixed point, that of Ramesses VI’s year three when a Deir el-Bahri text attributes
the date of Amun resting in his funerary temple to II šmw 20. If Ramesses V reigned into
his fourth year, there are approximately seven years between the end of Ramesses IV’s
reign in 1256 and year three of Ramesses VI, which would date to about 1250. The
question now is whether this DB feast is that of a new or full moon. Casperson provides
the following table (Table 33.5), which shows that a full moon fell on II šmw 20 in
−1249 (1250 BCE).
Table 33.5: Ramesses VI’s year three full moon date on II šmw 20 in −1249 (full
−1249 3 18 −1249 3 7 1532 9 20 4 16:29 6:11 17:11
−1249 4 17 −1249 4 6 1532 10 20 6 8:22 5:49 18:49
−1249 5 16 −1249 5 5 1532 11 19 7 22:57 5:29 18:29
DoW = day of week.
The accession of Ramesses VI is confined between I prt 28 and II prt 11, and
narrowed to II prt 8 by Janssen.26 With Ramesses VI’s third year anchored to −1249
(1250 BCE), his first year began on or about II prt 8 in −1251 (1252 BCE). The seventh
year of Ramesses IV ends sometime after III 3ḫt 23, and before the start of his next year
on III šmw 15 in 1256. Sometime within this year of 1256, Ramesses V became king.
His reign probably ended on II prt 7 with Ramesses VI’s accession the following day in
1252.
On these dates, it becomes evident that the seventh year of Ramesses IV and the
fourth year of Ramesses V must have amounted to less than a year each if the reigns are
to fit in the available space. Consequently, the accession of Ramesses V is set before I
prt as suggested by von Beckerath’s recalculation supported by Demarée.27
Ramesses IV was alive on III 3ḫt 23 of his seventh year, but died before I prt 1.
He must have died either in the latter part of III 3ḫt or sometime in IV 3ḫt. Assuming a
date in IV 3ḫt, his death occurred in 1256 when Ramesses V succeeded him. See
Casperson’s table (Table 33.6).
Table 33.6: Ramesses IV’s Seventh year and Ramesses V’s Accession in −1255 (new
−1255 4 8 −1255 3 28 1526 10 10 4 15:08 5:57 207 5:56 68 5:55 −8
Ramesses IV’s seventh year began on III šmw 15
−1255 5 8 −1255 4 27 1526 11 10 6 2:18 5:35 145 5:34 41 5:34 −31
−1255 6 6 −1255 5 26 1526 12 9 7 11:40 5:18 262 5:18 108 5:17 16
−1255 7 5 −1255 6 24 1527 1 3 1 19:58 5:11 361 5:11 182 5:11 69
−1255 8 4 −1255 7 24 1527 2 3 3 3:59 5:17 239 5:18 119 5:18 2
−1255 9 2 −1255 8 22 1527 3 2 4 12:28 5:34 284 5:35 163 5:36 40
Ramesses IV dies late in III 3ḫt or some day in IV 3ḫt; Ramesses V begins to reign
−1255 10 1 −1255 9 20 1527 4 1 5 22:13 5:56 331 5:57 208 5:58 85
−1255 10 31 −1255 10 20 1527 5 1 7 9:56 6:19 255 6:20 136 6:21 20
26
Jacques J. Janssen, Village Varia: Ten Studies on the History and Administration of Deir-el-Medina
(EU 11; Leiden: NINO, 1997) 131-38; cited by Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 215.
27
Between the accession of Ramesses V in late III 3ḫt or some day in IV 3ḫt of
−1255 and the accession of Ramesses VI on II prt 8 in −1252, there are just three years
and approximately two months. See Casperson’s table (Table 33.7).
Table 33.7: Ramesses V’s fourth year and Ramesses VI’s accession in −1252 (new
−1252 9 29 −1252 9 18 1530 3 30 7 4:35 5:55 210 5:55 103 5:56 −6
Ramesses V’s fourth year begins in late III 3ḫt or IV 3ḫt
−1252 10 28 −1252 10 17 1530 4 29 1 17:41 6:17 279 6:18 168 6:19 54
−1252 11 27 −1252 11 16 1530 5 29 3 5:33 6:38 234 6:38 109 6:39 −13
Ramesses VI’s accession fell on II prt 8
−1252 12 26 −1252 12 15 1530 6 28 4 16:13 6:49 334 6:49 155 6:49 26
−1251 1 25 −1251 1 14 1530 7 28 6 2:03 6:45 205 6:44 55 6:44 −44
According to the foregoing analysis, the allocation of the year four (to an
unnamed king with dates of II šmw 25 to IV šmw 17) reported in the Wilbour papyrus
cannot belong to Ramesses V. To extend his fourth year would mean that the DB date of
the full moon on II šmw 20 in Ramesses VI’s year three would no longer fall in his third
year but in his second. Therefore, the year four dates of II šmw 25 to IV šmw 17 must
belong to the reign of another king.
Summary of Years of Ramesses IV and Ramesses V

The above analysis provides Ramesses IV with a reign of six years and five
months from 1262 to 1256 BCE. He was buried in tomb KV 2, but in 1898 his mummy
was found by Victor Loret in the cache of KV 35 tomb belonging to Amenhotep II. 28 His
mummy showed a man estimated at about 50 years of age (CG 61041).29
Ramesses V (Usermare Sekhepenre) was the son of Ramesses IV and his chief
wife and queen, Tentopet. He came to the throne in late III 3ḫt or IV 3ḫt in 1256, and his
fourth year, consisting of only about two months, ended probably in II prt 7 with
Ramesses VI acceding on II prt 8 in 1252, based on his full moon date in year three in
1250.
Ramesses V was put in a temporary tomb while his successor, Ramesses VI,
dealt with Libyan invaders, and was not buried in his tomb KV 9 until II 3ḫt 1 of
Ramesses VI’s year two.30 His tomb was subsequently usurped by Ramesses VI. His
mummy was also found in the tomb of Amenhotep II in 1898. Ramesses V died from
smallpox when he was about 30 years of age judging by the condition of his skin.31
Ramesses VI (Nebmaatre Meryamun)

Ramesses VI was the son of Ramesses III (not Ramesses V). As noted above by
Jacques Janssen, his accession is set at II prt 8. The year would be 1252 BCE (−1251).
His year three date of II šmw 20 in DB 32, the date of a full moon, is aligned with April
17 in 1250 BCE (−1249; see Table 33.5). A year seven is recorded on the Turin papyrus
1907 + 1908 when it states that there were 11 full years from year five of Ramesses VI
28
“Ramesses IV,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_IV
29
30
A.J. Peden, The Reign of Ramesses IV (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1994) 21.
31
J.E. Harris and K.R. Weeks, X-raying the Pharaohs (London: Scribner, 1973) 166-67; cited by
to year seven of Ramesses VII.32 A reconstruction of Turin papyrus 1907+1908 by

Raphael Ventura has determined that Ramesses VI reigned eight full years and two
months into his ninth year.33 With his ninth year beginning on II prt 8 in 1245, his reign
will have ended two months later, probably sometime in IV prt (January/February) 1244
BCE (−1243; see Table 33.8).
Table 33.8: Ramesses VI’s ninth year and Ramesses VII’s accession in −1244/1243
−1244 10 30 −1244 10 19 1538 5 3 6 1:54 6:19 220 6:20 98 6:20 −23
Ramesses VI’s 9th year begins on II prt 8
−1244 11 28 −1244 11 17 1538 6 2 7 12:55 6:38 283 6:39 154 6:40 35
−1244 12 27 −1244 12 16 1538 7 1 1 23:43 6:49 377 6:49 208 6:49 91
Two months later Ramesses VII begins to reign in IV prt
−1243 1 26 −1243 1 15 1538 8 1 3 10:27 6:44 269 6:44 137 6:43 42
−1243 2 24 −1243 2 13 1538 8 30 4 21:32 6:28 364 6:27 176 6:27 79
−1243 3 26 −1243 3 15 1538 9 30 6 9:33 6:06 224 6:05 108 6:05 29
The mummy of Ramesses VI found in Tomb KV 35 in 1989 had been attacked

with an axe leaving his head and torso in several pieces.34
Ramesses VII (Usermaatre Meryamun Setepenre)

Ramesses VII was the son of Ramesses VI. His accession must date to III or IV
prt 1244 on the evidence above that Ramesses VI reigned two months into his ninth
year, having begun on II prt 8. Various suggestions by Egyptologists for the accession
date mostly fall in these two months with von Beckerath recently proposing III prt 30.35
In Table 33.8, the last day of II prt begins a lunar month (8 30) and III prt begins the
next day.
Full Moon Date Is Applicable to Ramesses VII Not Ramesses III

Krauss lists a DB date (DB 10) for III šmw 9 for either the seventh year of
Ramesses III or the seventh year of Ramesses VII.36
The years for Ramesses III’s reign have been established above on the evidence
of the regnal and lunar data attached to his and associated reigns. The seventh year of
Ramesses III starts on I šmw 26 in 1287 (−1286), so if the date of III šmw 9 belongs to
Ramesses III’s reign, it should fall soon after. However, it cannot be the correct date
because in this year (−1286) the full moon falls on III šmw 29 as shown in Table 33.9.
32
R. Ventura, “More Chronological Evidence from Turin Papyrus Cat. 1907+1908,” JNES 42 (1983)
271-72; cited in “Ramesses VII,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_VII
33
Ventura “More Chronological Evidence” 271-77 cited in “Ramesses VI,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_VI See also, L. Bell, “Only One High Priest Ramessesnakht and
the Second Prophet Nesamun His Younger Son,” Serapis 6 (1980) 16, cited by Ventura.
34
P. Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs (London: Thames and Hudson, 1994) 168.
35
Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 216, citing J. von Beckerath in GM 188 (2002) 17.
36
Krauss, “Lunar Dates,” 415-17.
Table 33.9: Full moon date in III šmw in −1286 (full moon listing from −1286)
−1286 5 6 −1286 4 25 1495 10 30 7 3:08 5:35 18:35
−1286 6 4 −1286 5 24 1495 11 29 1 12:11 5:18 18:18
−1286 7 3 −1286 6 22 1495 12 28 2 20:12 5:11 18:11
DoW = day of week.
The date of −1286 cannot be allocated to a new moon date as it would need to
fall 15–16 days before or after III šmw 29, which would not fall on III šmw 9. There is a
full moon on III šmw 10 in Ramesses III’s sixth year, but this year is not admissible as it
would upset the dates of the regnal years already discussed.
However, the date does apply in the reign of Ramesses VII. As Casperson’s
Table 33.10 shows, there was a full moon on III šmw 9 in −1237 which corresponds to
Ramesses VII’s seventh year, his first year having started in −1243. (1244 BCE). The
evidence of the full moon date falling on Ramesses VII’s seventh year on III šmw 9 in
−1237 demonstrates that the date belongs to his reign and not that of Ramesses III.
Table 33.10: Ramesses VII’s seventh year in −1237 (full moon listing for −1237)
−1237 4 4 −1237 3 24 1544 10 10 1 12:09 5:58 18:58
−1237 5 3 −1237 4 22 1544 11 9 2 20:50 5:37 18:37
−1237 6 2 −1237 5 22 1544 12 9 4 7:01 5:19 18:19
DoW = day of week.
Dates for Reigns of Ramesses VII and VIII

In addition to the year seven noted in Turin papyrus 1907 + 1908, a seventh year
is also known from O. Strasbourg H 48, dated to II šmw 16.37 However, this is not the
full length of Ramesses VII’s reign, which must be considered together with the length
of the reign of Ramesses VIII. In The Book of Sothis, Ramesses VIII is attributed 23
years, but conventional chronologies have shortened this figure to one or two years at the
most.38
The length of Ramesses VII’s reign can be calculated by a new moon date in his
17th year. Alan Gardiner and Richard Parker, in their contrary views about the Egyptian
calendar, referred to the Periplous of Mut falling on I prt 30 in an unnamed king’s 17th
regnal year, which Gardiner attributed to Ramesses IX.39 Parker said it was the only
dated example of this feast, and that it was insignificant unless it was held on a lunar
day, such as that of a full moon.40
Gardiner noted that part of a diary of the Necropolis (pTurin 68, col. 3, 1) dates
from the 13th year of an unnamed king, but was identified as belonging to Ramesses IX
from similar contents in pChabas-Lieblein. The latter papyrus mentions the vizier
Ḫc-m-w3st who is also cited on a related papyrus dating from a year 17 written in the
same handwriting.41 So it seemed that the 17th year belonged to Ramesses IX. But the
identification is incorrect. As the following discussion shows, it belonged to Ramesses
VIII.
37
J. Janssen, “A Twentieth-Dynasty Account Papyrus,” JEA 52 (1966) 91 n. 2.
38
“Ramesses VIII,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_VIII
39
A.H. Gardiner, “Mesore as First Month of the Egyptian Year,” ZÄS 43 (1906) 140.
40
R.A. Parker, “Problem of the Month-Names: A Reply,” Rd'É II (1957) 102-03.
41
Gardiner, “Mesore as First Month,” 138 n. 4; 140.
Ramesses VIII (Sethherkhepshef Meryamun)

According to Kitchen, Ramesses VIII was the son of Ramesses VI and brother to
Ramesses VII,42 though other Egyptologists place him as the last surviving son of
Ramesses III.43 He is the most obscure king of the dynasty. In Table 33.11, Casperson
provides the new moon table for Ramesses VIII’s 17th year falling in −1216 (1217 BCE)
with the date of I prt 30, thus revealing the significance of the feast of Mut date.
Table 33.11: Ramesses VIII’s 17th year in −1216: Feast of Mut (new moon listing
from −1216)
−1216 10 20 −1216 10 9 1566 4 30 3 21:24 6:11 278 6:12 175 6:13 69
−1216 11 19 −1216 11 8 1566 5 30 5 11:14 6:33 246 6:34 134 6:34 20
−1216 12 18 −1216 12 7 1566 6 29 6 23:18 6:47 348 6:47 195 6:48 68
Ramesses VIII’s 17th year falling in −1216 (1217 BCE), with only another six
weeks to run in the Julian year, indicates his probable accession in 1233 BCE, which has
been attributed to a date of I 3ḫt 13.44 His successor’s accession is dated to sometime
between I 3ḫt 18 and I 3ḫt 21 indicating the date for the death of Ramesses VIII.45
Ramesses VII’s seventh year falling in −1237 (1238 BCE) indicates that between
1238 (beginning in III prt 30—his assumed accession day) and 1233 in I 3ḫt 13, there
were five years and about five months on the above dates, which gives Ramesses VII a
reign of 11 years and about 5 months, 1244–1233.
Ramesses VIII’s first year fell in 1233, so his 23rd year will have fallen in 1211
BCE, and, if including further months, into his 24th year in 1210.
Ramesses IX (Neferkare Setepenre)

Ramesses IX is said to be the son of Ramesses III,46 but this is dubious given the
approximately 80 years between their accessions. Hornung estimates that the reign of
Ramesses IX began between I 3ḫt 18–21,47 as does von Beckerath who concludes that
the accession of Ramesses IX was “probably” dated to I 3ḫt 21, or at least on or after I
3ḫt 18.48
Ramesses IX is given 19 years by The Book of Sothis. This is validated by the
Turin Papyrus 2075 + 2056 + 2096 in which the recto and verso is written in two
columns referring to fish deliveries. The verso refers to the second regnal year of
Ramesses X. On the recto, following on from the 19th year of an unnamed king, are the
dates IV 3ḫt 9, 14, 24, 29, I prt 13, year 1, I prt 30. The last date belongs to the reign of
Ramesses X, so the preceding king with 19 years must be Ramesses IX.49
Also, on the verso of the papyrus is a corresponding year 19 with the last date
being unclear, but apparently I prt 26, followed by a year one and the date I prt 27, II prt
42
K.A. Kitchen, “The Twentieth Dynasty Revisited,” JEA 68 (1982) 123.
43
N. Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992) 288-89.
44
45
Ibid., 216.
46
“Ramesses IX,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_IX
47
Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 216, citing Botti, JEA 14 (1928) 48-51.
48
J. von Beckerath, “Drei Thronbesteigungsdaten der XX. Dynastie” GM 79 (1984) 7-8; see also citations
by Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 216.
49
Von Beckerath, “Drei Thronbesteigungsdaten,” 8-9.
2, etc., which infers that I prt 27 is the accession date of Ramesses X,50 and that
Ramesses IX died on I prt 26. Assuming an accession year of 1210 for Ramesses IX—
allowing Ramesses VIII 23 years plus months of a 24th year—the death of Ramesses IX
would have occurred after 19 years in 1191/1190 depending on the length of his last
year. This can be determined by an Amun feast held in the third year of Ramesses X’s
reign.
Ramesses X (Amonhirkhepeshef)
Ramesses IX is proposed as the father of Ramesses X, but it is not confirmed.51
His accession, as noted above, fell on I prt 27 in 1210 BCE. Years one and two of the
reign of Ramesses X are attested by Papyrus Turin 1932 + 1939.52 The Amun feast held
in the third year of Ramesses X’s reign included IV šmw 2, which is documented in a
diary of workmen from Deir el-Medina where it appears that the workmen were work-
free on IV šmw 1–2 because of a feast, which is understood to be that of Epiphi.53
However, the feast of Epiphi, (’ipip)54 is also attested as including III šmw 28 in
an oracle inscription from the reign of Ramesses XI when the god Amen-Re appeared to
the people.55 The two dates, III šmw 28 and IV šmw 2, seem intimately connected with
the feast of Epiphi. However, P. Turin Cat. 1898 + 1926 + 1037 + 2094 recto V, 18–19
infers that the work-free period in the third year of Ramesses X had commenced already
by III šmw 19, and the men continued to be work-free after the feast (recto V, 7–23), and
on IV šmw 3 crossed the river to Thebes, and on IV šmw 10 were still searching for
rations (recto V, 19–20; VI, 1).56 In List 67 of Medinet Habu feasts, the “Processional
Feast of Amun” fell in the first month of summer at a new moon’s festival. Amun-Re
went out on the “fourth occasion,” inferring the fourth day of the feast.57 It may be
similar in the feast of Epiphi held in III–IV šmw. And we find a new moon on IV šmw 4
in the year −1188 (1189 BCE; see Table 33.12).
Table 33.12: New moon in the third year of Ramesses X (new moon listing for
−1188)
−1188 4 16 −1188 4 5 1593 11 5 5 18:58 5:50 403 5:49 169 5:49 62
−1188 5 16 −1188 5 5 1593 12 5 7 3:41 5:29 208 5:29 83 5:28 −9
−1188 6 14 −1188 6 3 1593 13 4 1 13:53 5:15 267 5:14 121 5:14 19
50
See on length of reign of Ramesses IX: J. Černý, A Community of Workmen at Thebes in the Ramesside
Period (Institute Français D’Archaéologie Orientale du Caire, 1973) 234-35; Wente and Van Siclen,
“Chronology of the New Kingdom” 235 and n. 11; von Beckerath, “Drei Thronbesteigungsdaten,” 7-9.
51
“Ramesses X,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_X
52
53
Gardiner, “Mesore as First Month,” 137-38; idem, “A. H. Gardiner, “The Problem of the Month-
Names,” Rd’É 10 (1955) 11; Wente and van Siclen, “Chronology of the New Kingdom,” 261; H.
Jauhiainen, “Do not Celebrate Your Feast Without Your Neighbours” : A study of References to Feasts
and Festival in Non-Literary Documents from Ramesside Period Deir el-Medina (Publications of the
Institute for Asian and African Studies 10; Helsinki: Helsinki University Print, 2009) 155. This date is now
referenced to P. Turin Cat. 1898 + 1926 + 1937 + 2094.
54
Also the name for the hippopotamus god Ipet or Ipy.
55
Gardiner, “Problem of Month-Names, 12; Jauhiainen, “Do not Celebrate,” 153, n. 11.
56
Jauhiainen, “Do not Celebrate,” 155 n. 10.
57
in the Ancient Near East (eds. J.M. Steele and A. Imhausen; Alter Orient und Altes Testament 297;
Münster: Ugarit, 2002) 392-93, 395.
The new moon coming two days after the mention of the feast when the
workmen did no work implies that this is the new moon of the Epiphi feast in Ramesses
X’s third year in −1188 (1189 BCE) equated with 15 May. His accession anniversary fell
on I prt 27, which equates to 11 November in −1189. Two years earlier, his accession
fell on I prt 27,58 in −1191, which equates to 10 November in 1192 BCE.
Confirming Ramesses IX’s Length of Reign

By locating Ramesses X’s accession as above, we may confirm that Ramesses
IX’s 19th year ended in I prt 26 in 1192 BCE. With his accession being after I 3ḫt 18,
possibly I 3ḫt 21, he reigned approximately four months into his 19th year. And by
fixing Ramesses VIII’s 17th year in 1217 (Feast of Mut) and his 23rd year in 1210,
which was the accession year of Ramesses IX, we can confirm that the latter reigned 18
years and 4 months. P. Turin 1932 + 1939 concurs in giving Ramesses IX 18 years and 4
months.59 The 19 years given him in The Book of Sothis has been rounded up.
Casperson’s table (Table 33.13) shows the dates for the two accessions.
Table 33.13: Ramesses IX’s 18th anniversary year and Ramesses X’s accession in
−1191 5 20 −1191 5 9 1590 12 8 7 0:38 5:27 164 5:26 82 5:26 9
Ramesses IX’s 18th accession anniversary on I 3ḫt 18–21
−1191 6 18 −1191 6 7 1591 1 2 1 15:04 5:14 236 5:13 132 5:13 44
−1191 7 18 −1191 7 7 1591 2 2 3 4:37 5:12 197 5:12 94 5:12 −5
−1191 8 16 −1191 8 5 1591 3 1 4 17:04 5:24 267 5:24 157 5:25 48
−1191 9 15 −1191 9 4 1591 4 1 6 4:30 5:44 223 5:45 109 5:46 −9
−1191 10 14 −1191 10 3 1591 4 30 7 15:21 6:07 290 6:07 169 6:08 46
Ramesses X’s accession on I prt 27
−1191 11 13 −1191 11 2 1591 5 30 2 2:03 6:29 227 6:30 97 6:30 −27
−1191 12 12 −1191 12 1 1591 6 29 3 12:56 6:45 297 6:45 145 6:46 25
With little known about the reign of Ramesses X, most Egyptologists give him
just three regnal years.60 Morris Bierbrier suggests that an unnamed king’s year eight in
Theban graffito 1 860a refers to Ramesses X, and might indicate he had a reign of nine
years.61 Parker’s attempt on astronomical grounds to give him nine years62 has been
discarded by scholars.63 However, in The Book of Sothis, Ramesses X is attributed 39
years (no. 23).64 Acceding in 1191, a reign of 39 years would bring the final year of
Ramesses X to 1152 BCE. Consideration of Ramesses X’s length of reign depends upon
fixing the reign of the final king, Ramesses XI, and the full length of the 20th Dynasty,
and ultimately how the proposed length of 175 years fits into the absolute chronology. In
consideration of those matters, I conclude that the 175 years allocated in The Book of
Sothis can be sustained and that its attribution of 39 years to Ramesses X is also
58
59
Wente and van Siclen, “Chronology New Kingdom” 235, 261; Hornung, “New Kingdom,” 216.
60
E.g. R. Krauss, “Sothis- und Monddaten, Studien zur astronomischen und technischen Chronologie
Altägyptens,” (HÄB 20; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1985) 41, 154. Kitchen formerly suggested nine years
taking 30 from 39, (TIP, 23 n. 90), but later gave him 3 years “Regnal and Genealogical Data,” SCIEM II
(2000), 42.
61
M.L. Bierbrier, “The Length of the Reign of Ramesses X,” JEA 61 (1975) 251.
62
Parker, “Length of Reign of Ramses X,” Rd’É 11 (1957) 163-64.
63
64
Manetho, 237.
correct—conclusions the reader will also test in the scrutiny of this chapter and the
proposed chronology as a whole.
Ramesses XI (Menmaatre Setepenptah)

Ramesses XI is presumed to be the son of Ramesses X. The earliest surviving
date in the reign of Ramesses XI, is, “Year 1, 3rd month of Summer, day 20, under the
Majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Ramesses (XI),” noted on the Adoption
papyrus.65 This same date appears again on the same papyrus but in a later section66
where it is seen as evidence of Ramesses XI’s accession date. Examined by Klaus
Ohlhafer, he notes that the date of III šmw 19 appears to end one section of consecutive
datings in pTurin 1888, a necropolis day book, and then continues with a year 18 and the
date of IV šmw with a partially destroyed number read as 14, 18, or 24. 67 Analysis of
other documents led him to the conclusion that the accession of Ramesses XI took place
on III šmw 20.68
Thus Ramesses X died on III šmw 19 in 1152 BCE, having reigned from I prt 27
in 1191 BCE, giving him a reign of 39 years and about 6 months.
Oracle Inscription from Karnak

Previous mention was made of an oracle inscription from Karnak. It has been
translated as follows, “Year 7, Renewal of Births, third month of Summer, day 28, under
the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Menmacrēc-setapenamūn, etc., the
day of the appearance of this august god Amen-Rēc, king of the gods [at ti]me of
morning in his beautiful festival of ’Ipt-ḥmt·s.”69
The reference to the “Renewal of Births” in year seven equates to Ramesses XI’s
25th year. There is no mention of a new or full moon in the text, but in connection with
the Epiphi feast in the reign of Ramesses X the date recorded was IV šmw 2 when the
new moon fell on IV šmw 4. In the 25th year of the reign of Smendes, Ramesses XI’s
successor in the 21st Dynasty, there is also the mention of the date of III šmw 29 in
connection with the feast of Epiphi. If Ramesses XI’s first year began in −1151, his 25th
year began in −1126 (1127 BCE). Casperson provides the details in Table 33.14.
Table 33.14: Ramesses XI’s 25th year (new moon listing for −1126)
−1126 3 23 −1126 3 12 1655 10 26 2 10:15 6:08 283 6:07 80 6:06 −17
−1126 4 21 −1126 4 10 1655 11 25 3 17:58 5:46 445 5:46 114 5:45 7
−1126 5 21 −1126 5 10 1655 12 25 5 2:21 5:26 176 5:26 47 5:25 −34
Table 33.14 shows that a new moon fell on III šmw 25, being four days before
the appearance of the god Amun-Re at the feast of Epiphi; whereas, in the Amun feast
celebrated in the third year of Ramesses X, the new moon fell on IV šmw 2 after the
god’s first appearance. It is possible that the date of III šmw 28 refers to the re-entry of
65
Spalinger, “Egyptian Festival Dating,” citing KRI VI 735, 10-12. See also citations by Hornung, “New
Kingdom,” 217; “Adoption Papyrus,” http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/adoption_papyrus.htm
66
pAshmolean Mus. 1945.96 = KRI VI, 735-38.
67
K. Ohlhafer, “Zum Thronbesteigungsdatum Ramses’ XI. und zur Abfolge der Grabräuberpapyri aus
Jahr 1 und 2 wḥm-mswt,” GM 135 (1993) 59.
68
Ibid., 59-72.
69
Gardiner, “Problem of Month-Names,” 12, citing F. Nims, “An Oracle Dated in the ‘Repeating of
Births’,” JNES 7 (1948) 157-62, pl. 8. The hieroglyphic text is also given.
Amun four days after the new moon when he slept in the temple and received offerings.
This is analogous to the Medinet Habu List 67, the Processional Feast of Amun in I šmw,
when Amun went out on the “4th occasion of the new moon’s festival.”70 The feast of
Epiphi took place in the latter days of III šmw and proceeded into IV šmw when
workmen did not have to work, and this may be the case here too.
The timing of the appearance of Amun-Re on III šmw 28 at the Epiphi feast with
a preceding new moon on III šmw 25 in Ramesses XI’s 25th year seems to be too
“coincidental” for the Epiphi feast not to have taken place over the days of III šmw 23–
28 and possibly before and after these days. Therefore, it seems acceptable to connect
the Epiphi date of III šmw 28 of the Karnak oracle inscription with the new moon of III
šmw 25 in Ramesses XI’s 25th year in −1126 (1127 BCE).
The Renaissance—Final Years of Ramesses XI’s Reign

Ramesses XI’s final 11 regnal years were known as the “Renaissance period” or
wḥm-mswt the “Renewing/Repeating of Births.” The high priest of Amun, Herihor, dated
his first year as high priest to the 19th year of Ramesses XI. Six years later, he was
followed by Piankh for the remaining four or five years before the 21st Dynasty began
under King Smendes who is attested as governor from the 23rd year of Ramesses XI.71
Kitchen concludes, “Ramesses XI and the Era died in his 30th and its 12th year, after 28
(and 11) full years of reign.”72
The Book of Sothis gives to Ramesses XI 29 years,73 which brings his last year to
the date of 1122 BCE. He was succeeded by Smendes, the first ruler of the 21st Dynasty.
No accession date is known for Smendes, so we do not know the exact length of
Ramesses XI’s 29th year. His 29th year began on his accession date of III šmw 20, which
equates to April 15 in −1121 (1122 BCE), so Ramesses XI died and Smendes became
king sometime after that date in his final year. A further six months is required for the
total years and months to be afforded to the 20th Dynasty. Some, if not all of these, may
be attributed to Ramesses XI.
The 20th Dynasty began in 1297 BCE under Setnakhte and ended in 1122 BCE
under Ramesses XI, having traversed 175 years. The version of Africanus is usually
considered the more reliable of Manetho’s copies. But its 135 years is incorrect. The
original must have been 175 years; curiously, midway between the 178 is attested by
Eusebius (178) and by the Armenian (172)—who both affirm more than 170 years. The
175 years will be found to be consistent with the 21st Dynasty’s 124 years beginning in
1122 BCE with the reign of Smendes. This analysis justifies the allocation of 39 years to
Ramesses X, which is also based on The Book of Sothis. The scattered lunar data
matching the dates and Julian years given in Casperson’s tables demonstrates the validity
of the chronology.74 Table 33.15 on the following page sets out the dates and lengths of
reign of the 20th Dynasty kings.
70
El-Sabban, Temple Festival Calendars, 129.
71
Kitchen, TIP, 17-23.
72
Ibid., 23.
73
Manetho, 237.
74
For generation-counting for the 20th Dynasty, vastly at odds with what is demonstrated above, one may
consult M.L. Bierbrier, The Late New Kingdom in Egypt (1300-664 BC): A Genealogical and
Chronological Investigation (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1975) 19-44. Bierbrier is criticized by David
Henige, “Generation-counting and Late New Kingdom Chronology,” JEA 67 (1981) 183.
Table 33.15: 20th Dynasty kings with regnal years and dates
King Regnal years* Dates BCE Lunar anchor points
Setnakhte 3 yr, 11 mo 1297–1293 None known
Yr 22, DB 31 Feast of the Valley on I šmw
Ramesses III 31 yr, 1 mo, 19 d 1293–1262
22, new moon on I šmw 21 in 1271
Ramesses IV 6 yr, 5 mo 1262–1256 None known
Ramesses V 3 yr, 2 mo 1256–1252 None known
Yr 3, DB 6 feast, full moon II šmw 20 in
Ramesses VI 8 yr, 2 mo 1252–1244
1250
Yr 7, DB 10 feast, full moon III šmw 9 in
Ramesses VII 11 yr, 5 mo 1244–1233
1238
Yr 17, feast of Mut, new moon on I prt 30 in
Ramesses VIII 23 yr 1233–1210
1217
Ramesses IX 18 yr, 4 mo 1210–1192 None known
Ramesses X 39 yr, 6 mo 1192–1152 Yr 3 Amun feast, IV šmw 2 in 1189
Ramesses XI 29 yr, 6 mo 1152–1122 Yr 25, Amun feast, III šmw 28, in 1127
Total 175 yr, 0 mo, 19 d 1297–1122 = 175 yr
Chapter 34. Revising the 21st Dynasty Once More 465
Chapter 34
Revising the 21st Dynasty Once More

The Third Intermediate Period comprises the 21st Dynasty to the 26th Dynasty.
The period is not as well documented with chronological data as the New Kingdom. It
has only about a dozen lunar dates that can be used for dating the kings. Kitchen has
revised his chronology of the period several times. Others continue revisionary efforts. I
offer a further revision in keeping with the principles and periods of my chronology,
anchored to lunar data in the inscriptions.
For the 21st Dynasty, the lack of chronological data from elsewhere is somewhat
offset by Manetho, who, via his copyists has transmitted the names and regnal years of
seven kings located at Tanis in Lower Egypt. The change of residence to Lower Egypt
gave opportunity for the High Priests at Thebes to exert considerable influence. They
effectively governed Middle and Upper Egypt, with some even having their names in
cartouches and given the title of king. For example, Pinudjem I proclaimed himself
“king” of Upper Egypt during the 15th–16th year of King Smendes of Lower Egypt.1
However, according to Kitchen,2 in rebuttal of Jansen-Winkeln,3 they are not known to
have appropriated regnal years for themselves, as these were always attributed to the
kings at Tanis who had nominal rule over the whole of Egypt.4
Events were dated by the regnal years of the kings at Tanis recorded by Manetho.
The records of the concurrently serving High Priests based at Thebes confirm the general
length of the dynasty and in some cases assist in clarifying the chronology, such as the
Karnak Priestly Annals. Manetho’s dynastic list for the 21st Dynasty kings is as follows:
1. Smendes, 26 years
2. Psusennes [I], 46 years Africanus; 41 years Eusebius and the Armenian
3. Nephercheres, 4 years
4. Amenophthis, 9 years
5. Osorchor 6 years
6. Psinaches 9 years
7. Psusennes [II] 14 years Africanus; 35 years Eusebius and the Armenian5
The versions all give the total as 130 years even though the reigns amount to only
114 years (giving Psusennes I 46 years and Psusennes II 14). Scholars usually emend
1
K.A. Kitchen, TIP, 258-59, 262 §§216, 219.
2
Ibid., xvii-xviii §L.
3
K. Jansen-Winkeln, “Das Ende des Neuen Reiches,” ZÄS 119 (1992) 22-37; and subsequent to Kitchen’s
rebuttal, in “Dynasty 21,” Ancient Egyptian Chronology (eds. E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D. A. Warburton;
Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006) 229-31.
4
A year 48 attributed to the High Priest Menkheperre, which is without precedent as a regnal year for a
pontiff, is better explained as the 48th year of Psusennes I in whose reign he officiated and in whose year
48 he probably died. See Kitchen, TIP, xvii-xviii §M; 36 §32 n. 152, 77 §62, 271 §228, 415 §377.
5
These are found in Manetho (trans. W.G. Waddell; Loeb Classical Library 350; London: William
Heinemann Ltd. and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940) 154-57.
Psinaches’ 9 years to 19 years by identifying him with Siamun from inscriptions, and
attribute 124 years to the dynasty.
Identifying the Kings

The identification of several of these kings has been discussed by Egyptologists
over the years. They have ascertained that Manetho’s Nephercheres is the same as
Amenemnisu known from the monuments, Nephercheres being his prenomen.
Amenophthis is otherwise known as Amenemope.
Osorchor was previously not attested, but in 1963, Eric Young identified him as
the Akheperre Setepenre from an inscription, differentiating him from Akheperre
Setepenamun, the prenomen of Psusennes I.6
Osorchor, or Orsorkon, is often called Osorchor the Elder to differentiate him
from Osorkons I–V of the 22nd Dynasty, who were all enumerated before Osorchor of
the 21st Dynasty was identified.
Psinaches is a name unknown from the monuments, but he is understood by
scholars to be the same as Siamun who does appear in inscriptions. Siamun is attested as
having reigned at least 17 years, so it is assumed that the 9 years of Psinaches in
Manetho should be amended to 19 years, supposing that an iota (ι = 10) has been
dropped from the number in the Greek text.7 There are two kings with the name of
Psusennes, dubbed Psusennes I and II.
The Period of the 21st Dynasty

In 2000, Karl Jansen-Winkeln listed the attested regnal years for the seven
kings.8 In the same year, Kitchen’s revised chronology of the dynasty was published.9
These are shown in Table 34.1.
Table 34.1: 21st Dynasty published in 2000 by Jansen-Winkeln and by Kitchen
Jansen-Winkeln Kitchen
King Attested years Deduced years Dates BCE
1. Smendes 25 26 1070–1044
2. Nephercheres/Amenemnisu 0 4 1044–1040
3. Psusennes [I] 49 48 1040–992
4. Amenemope 9 9 (2 CR) 994–985
5. Osorchor 2 6 985–979
6. Siamun 17 19 979–960
7 Psusennes [II] 13 15 960–945
Total 115 127 (125)
CR = co-regent.
The number of the attested years does not necessarily reflect the final number of
years the kings reigned. Kitchen’s chronology has used the four years for Amenemnisu
and six years for Osorchor as given by Manetho, and amended the 9 years to 19 for
Siamun/Psinaches. Kitchen finishes the dynasty with the year 945 BCE, which is
perceived to be the first year of Shoshenq I on the basis that his 20th year equated with
Rehoboam of Judah’s fifth year in 925 BCE, as derived by Edwin Thiele, discussed
earlier in chapter 2. I asserted the date of 977 BCE as Rehoboam’s fifth year in my The
6
E. Young, “Some Notes on the Chronology and Genealogy of the Twenty-First Dynasty,” JARCE 2
(1963) 100.
7
Kitchen, TIP, 12 §9.
8
Jansen-Winkeln, “Dynasty 21,” 227.
9
K.A. Kitchen, “Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt (Absolute Chronology I): The Historical
Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a Current Assessment,” SCIEM II (2000) 50. The dates are all one year
earlier than those tabled as “Preferred Dates” in TIP, 465.
Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom10 by establishing the chronology of

the kings of Israel and Judah. The incentive and focus of this present work is to establish
Shoshenq I’s 20th year in the chronology of Egyptian kings.
My dates proposed for the 12th Dynasty, and all the reigns of the 18th–20th
Dynasties, are buttressed by the agreement of lunar and Sothic dates in the Julian
calendar, assisted by Casperson’s lunar tables. I have shown in the previous chapter that
the 20th Dynasty ended in 1122 BCE. The beginning of the 22nd Dynasty under
Shoshenq I is 998/997 BCE—a base date for the synchronism between Shoshenq I’s
20th year and Rehoboam’s fifth in 977 BCE. The 21st Dynasty covers 124 years, as
shown in Table 34.2.
Table 34.2: 21st Dynasty Tanite kings
King Regnal Dates reigned Lunar anchor points
Yrs
Smendes 1122 to ? Yr 25, Epiphi feast, III šmw 28 in 1097
Amenemnisu
Yr 4, Amun feast, new moon I 3ḫt 1 in 1092
Nephercheres
Psusennes I None known
Amenemope
None known
Amenophthis
Osorchor the
Yr 2, induction of Nespaneferhor on new moon I šmw 20 in 1032.
Elder
Siamun
Yr 17, induction of Hori on new moon I šmw 4 in 1011 (Jan. 1).
Psinaches
Yr 3, induction of Nesankhefenmaat, 2 days after new moon I šmw 13
in 1009;
Yr 13, induction of a priest on new moon III prt 10 +[x] = 14th in
Psusennes II ? to 998/997
999;
(Sync. Yr 19 Psu. II + Yr 5 Shoshenq I in 994; Yr 5 Shoshenq I, wrš
feast IV prt 25–5 days after new moon on IV prt 20 in 994)
Total 124 1122–998/997
I now determine the regnal years of the individual kings. Because of the scarcity
of information and the absence of accession dates, the length of each king’s reign must
be considered approximate, though the new moons attached to regnal years provide
anchors for five of the seven reigns.
Smendes (Hedjkheperre Setepenre)

In the Renaissance period at the end of the 20th Dynasty, a man named
Nesbanebdjed, now known as Smendes, rose to power to become governor of Tanis.11
His wife, Tentamun, was a daughter of Ramesses XI.12 Smendes is featured in the
“Report of Wenamun” dated to year five of the wḥm-mswt (Renaissance era), which
equates to the 23rd year of Ramesses XI in 1127 BCE. Having buried Ramesses XI in
his 29th regnal year, Smendes became king and began a new dynasty with its capital at
Tanis. There was intermarriage between the branches of the families at Tanis and
Thebes. However, tensions and rivalries were ever-present.
By the time of Smendes’s 25th regnal year, rebellion had broken out at Thebes.
The Banishment Stela of Menkheperre records how the king dealt with this revolt. The
name of the king is not given, but most scholars conclude that it refers to the reign of
Smendes. After Smendes’s death, Amenemnisu assumed the throne. From dates
mentioned on this stela, the reigns of these two kings may be dated.
10
M.C. Tetley, The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
2005).
11
Idem, TIP, 8 §5.
12
Ibid., 49 §42.
Banishment Stela: Epiphi Feast on III šmw 29 in Year 25

The text of the Banishment Stela is similar to the Epiphi feast in the 25th year of
the reign of Ramesses XI on III šmw 28 (previously discussed in chapter 33), which is
mentioned in the Karnak oracle inscription. Line 1 of the Banishment Stela of
Menkheperre reads in part, “Year 25, third month of the third season, day 29,
corresponding to the feast of Amon-Re, king of the gods at his [beautiful] feast [of
Epiphi…].”13
The text continues in line 4, referring to year 25, dated to I 3ḫt 4 or 5,14 when
Amun summons Menkheperre to Thebes. In line 7, Menkheperre arrives at Thebes, and,
in line 8, Amun appears in a procession and establishes Menkheperre on the throne of his
father as High Priest and Commander-in-Chief of the armies of Upper and Lower Egypt.
Menkheperre put down opposition led by an unnamed foe and banished the leaders to the
western oases.15
Referring back to line 1, the name of the feast is broken away, but Epiphi has
been assumed by scholars since the feast fell in the third month of šmw. I noted in
chapter 33, in the reign of Ramesses X, that the Epiphi feast included the day IV šmw 2,
and in the reign of Ramesses XI the date of III šmw 28. Here, in the reign of Smendes,
the date is III šmw 29, and the feast would have continued into IV šmw. The dates were
associated with a new moon at the beginning of IV šmw. Consequently, we would expect
to find in Smendes’s 25th year a new moon near the beginning of IV šmw. If Smendes’s
first year was 1122 BCE, his 25th year would fall in 1097 or 1096 BCE. Casperson’s
table (Table 34.3) shows that a new moon fell on IV šmw 2 in −1096 (1097 BCE), three
days after the date recorded for the feast.
Table 34.3: Smendes’s 25th year in −1096 (new moon listing for −1096)
−1096 3 21 −1096 3 11 1685 11 2 3 19:27 6:11 270 6:10 141 6:09 69
Epiphi feast date falls on III šmw 29; new moon on IV šmw 2
−1096 4 20 −1096 4 10 1685 12 2 5 7:22 5:43 207 5:42 102 5:41 29
−1096 5 19 −1096 5 9 1685 13 1 6 17:06 5:19 314 5:18 144 5:17 48
Showing that the reported Epiphi feast occurred in 1097, Smendes’s 25th year,
the table confirms that Smendes’s reign began in 1122 BCE, thus also the final year for
the end of the reign of Ramesses XI and the 20th Dynasty.
Amenemnisu\Nephercheres (Neferkare)
The existence of Nephercheres, referred to by Manetho, was not attested until
two gold bow-caps were found in the tomb of Psusennes [I] with twin cartouches of
13
Altägyptens (HÄB 20; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1985) 151; A.J. Spalinger, in “Egyptian Festival Dating
and the Moon,” Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (eds. J.M. Steele
and A. Imhausen; Alter Orient und Altes Testament; Münster: Ugarit, 2002) 393, has given the regnal year
as 23 when it should be 25. The “5” is usually written as five vertical strokes but in lines 1 and 4 are
written as a short horizontal stroke adjoining the top right of a vertical stroke; J. von Beckerath, “Die
‘Stele der Verbannten’ im Museum des Louvre,” Rd’É 20 (1968) 10.
14
Von Beckerath, “Die ‘Stele der Verbannten’,” 9, 33.
15
Kitchen, TIP, 260 §217; José Lull, “Beginning and End of the High Priest of Amun Menkheperre,” The
Libyan Period in Egypt: Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st–24th Dynasties: Proceedings of a
Conference at Leiden University, 25–27 October 2007 (eds. G.P.F. Broekman, R.J. Demarée, O.E. Kaper;
Leiden: NINO, 2009) 241-43.
Psusennes’ name and that of another King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Neferkare, having
the prenomen of Amenemnisu.16
Manetho places Nephercheres as the third king of the 21st Dynasty at Tanis, and
assigns him four years. However, the Berlin genealogical table puts him as the successor
of Smendes.17 In 1994, von Beckerath argued that a year 49 followed by a year four
found on a mummy bandage from Deir el-Bahri (Papyrus Brooklyn 16.205) should be
assigned to Psusennes I and Amenemope, and not, as previously, to Shoshenq III and
Pimay (Pami) of the 22nd Dynasty. The grounds stated were that “it is unlikely that
private persons from Upper Egypt [would] refer to this late year of Shoshenq III.”18
The association of the bandage with Psusennes I and Amenemope was confirmed
by the discovery of a hitherto unknown Shoshenq IV who reigned about 12–13 years
after the 39th year of Shoshenq III.19 The 49 years could not have belonged to Shoshenq
III and are attributed instead to Psusennes I with the year four to Amenemope. Thus,
Amenemnisu must have preceded Psusennes I since he did not come between Psusennes
I and Amenemope.
Line 7 of the above-mentioned Banishment Stela continues into line 8. The end
of line 8 is broken away and unfortunately so, because it contained a regnal year. Von
Beckerath is of the opinion that there could only be enough space for a small number,
and suggests one to five.20 If this is so it must refer to the reign of Smendes’s successor,
and Kitchen comments, “This low regnal figure would, perforce, belong to a successor
of Smendes I—and preferably to a date as soon as possible after his 25th year. This
consideration would favour Amenemnisu rather than Psusennes I, as the king in whose
reign the final oracle was given and the stela erected.”21
Line 9, which follows the missing regnal year in line 8, was translated by Henry
Breasted, as rendered here, but it is unfortunate that Breasted fails to indicate that a
regnal year is missing at the beginning of this section:
[Now after] the fourth month of the third season, on the fifth day of the (feast), “Birth of
Isis”, corresponding to the feast of Amon at the New Year, the majesty of this august
god, lord of gods, Amon-Re, king of gods, appeared (in procession), came to the great
halls of the house of Amon, and rested before the [enclosure wall] of Amon. The High
Priest of Amon-Re, king of gods, commander in chief of the army, Menkheperre,
22
triumphant, went to him and praised him exceedingly, exceedingly, many times…
From this we see that in the reign of Smendes’s successor, understood to be

Amenemnisu, an Amun feast had its fifth day on New Year’s day, I 3ḫt 1. The feast must
have started on the second epagomenal in the reign of Amenemnisu for the fifth day to
fall on New Year’s Day.
Manetho credits Smendes with a reign of 26 years; thus, we would expect
another year between Smendes 25th year and the accession of Amenemnisu. With
Smendes’ 25th year dated to −1096, his last and Amenemnius’ first year will have fallen
16
Ibid., 69 §56.
17
E. F. Wente, “On the Chronology of the Twenty-First Dynasty,” JNES 26 (1967) 155-56.
18
J. von Beckerath, “Zur Datierung des papyrus Brooklyn 16.205,” GM 140 (1994) 15-17.
19
Kitchen, TIP, xxvi. See further under 22nd Dynasty.
20
Von Beckerath, “Die ‘Stele der Verbannten’,” 17, 8d and 33, n. 2.
21
Kitchen, TIP, 261 §218 n. 103, 15 §12.
22
“Stela of the Banishment of Menkheperre,” http://www.specialtyinterests.net/maunier.html citing J.
Breasted, Records Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian
Conquest (1907) Vol. IV; von Beckerath, “Die ‘Stele der Verbannten’,” 9-14; Kitchen, TIP, 260-61
§§217-18. The result of Menkheperre’s praise of Amun was that he found favor with Amun and obtained
his permission for the return of the exiles.
on −1095. Four years later, Amenemnisu’s fourth year would have fallen in −1091 (see
Table 34.4). Thus, the amnesty referred to on the Banishment Stela occurred in one of
the years −1095 to −1091.
Table 34.4: Amenemnisu’s fourth year in −1091 (new moon listing for −1091)
−1091 4 24 −1091 4 14 1690 12 7 1 10:16 5:40 238 5:39 67 5:38 −17
In Amenemnisu’s fourth year, a new moon fell on the fifth day of the Amun feast on I 3ḫt 1
−1091 5 23 −1091 5 13 1691 1 1 2 19:45 5:16 366 5:15 110 5:15 11
−1091 6 22 −1091 6 12 1691 2 1 4 7:03 5:00 190 5:00 65 5:00 −19
Casperson’s table for −1091 (Table 34.4) shows that a new moon fell on I 3ḫt 1
at the beginning of a new 25-year lunar cycle, indicating that the feast began on the
second epagomenal day. The missing regnal year number in line 8 of the Banishment
Stela can be restored to year four and to the reign of Amenemnisu.23 His first year can be
confirmed as 1096 BCE—the 26th and final year of his predecessor, Smendes.
Apart from the identification of Amenemnisu as the king who followed Smendes
and in whose fourth year the High Priest Menkheperre was able to bring back exiles
banished to the western oasis, very little is known about Amenemnisu.24 The four years
given to him (i.e. Nephercheres) by Manetho is the only other indication of his reign.
Psusennes I and Amenemope (Amenophthis in Manetho)

Psusennes I’s mother was Henuttawy, the daughter of Ramesses XI and
Tentamun. His father was the High Priest Pinudjem I. His wife, Mutnedjmet, was likely
his full sister.25 Amenemope was the son of Psusennes I and Mutnedjmet.26
Psusennes I has no known accession date. As noted above, a year 49 followed by
a year four on Papyrus Brooklyn 16.205 previously assigned to Shoshenq III and Pimay
are now assigned by scholars to the reigns of Psusennes I and Amenemope.
Amenemope’s highest attested year, according to Jansen-Winkeln is his fifth with a year
10 that might be his or Siamun’s (penultimate king of the 21st Dynasty).27
Manetho’s numbers
Africanus gives Psusennes I a reign of 46 years while Eusebius and the Armenian
attribute him 41 years. The possibility of a co-regency between Psusennes I and
Amenemope has been suggested by Kitchen on the basis of a fragment of a mummy
bandage found at Deir el-Bahri. Kitchen states, “Daressy read: ‘King of Upper & Lower
Egypt, Amenemope: Regnal Year 49’.”28 However, Kitchen renders the bandage in
keeping with the wording on other bandages to be understood as “part of a now
23
Jansen-Winkeln proposed that the High Priests may have had their own regnal year dating system and
that the missing date in the Banishment Stela is the first year of the High Priest Menkheperre who granted
an amnesty on New Year’s Day to mark the transition from his father, Pinudjem, to himself as High Priest
(“Dynasty 21,” 229-31 and n. 73). Kitchen rebuts this, pointing out that there is no evidence that any but
actual kings ever used regnal datings, and even the possible exception of the year 48 of Menkheperre on a
linen bandage in all likelihood dates from Psusennes I’s 48th year (TIP, xvii, 420 §387:46). See also, Lull,
“Beginning and End of the High Priest of Amun Menkheperre,” 245-46.
24
Kitchen, TIP, 69-71 §56, 261 §218.
25
Ibid., 49 §42, 264 §221.
26
P. Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs (London: Thames and Hudson, 1994) 178.
27
Jansen-Winkeln, “Dynasty 21,” 227, citing Kitchen, TIP, 421 §388:55.
28
incomplete legend: ‘[Year x of] King Amenemope; Year 49 [of King Psusennes I]’, or
the like.”29
Kitchen suggests the following as the original text: “‘[Year 3 of] King
Amenemope; Year 49 [of King Psusennes I]; linen made by the high priest of Amun,
Smendes II son of Menkheperre for his lord Amun].’” He continues, “This scheme
would fit exactly the known structure of bandage-epigraphs.”30 On Kitchen’s
understanding, the bandage implies that the 49th year of Psusennes I, the year of his
death, was the third year of the reign of Amenemope. However, this is a different
reading from that given by Daressy whom Kitchen quotes. In the 12th Dynasty, we noted
that the period of co-regency is attributed to the incumbent, not the older king, which is
the opposite of what Kitchen is suggesting.
In this papyrus, Papyrus Brooklyn 16.205, year 49 followed by a year four may
indicate the fourth year of Amenemope’s sole reign, coming four years after the death of
Psusennes I. Amenemope is given nine years by Manetho.
Following the four years for Amenemnisu, we come to Psusennes I with either 49
sole-reign years or 46 years followed by a three-year co-regency with Amenemope
(assuming such a co-regency occurred), and then Amenemope with nine sole years, and
Osochor’s second year, for a total of approximately 59 years or 56 years. These
parameters guide the further investigation.
Osochor (the Elder) and Siamun (Psinaches in Manetho)

Amenemope apparently died childless31 and was succeeded by Osochor, as
named by Manetho. Manetho’s Osochor is often called “Osorkon the Elder,” to
differentiate him from the Osorkons known from the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties, to avoid
having to renumber them and create confusion.32 His relationship to Amenemope is
unattested. Manetho gives to Osochor a reign of six years coming between Amenophthis
(Amenemope) and Psinanaches (understood to be Siamun). His existence was unattested
until 1963 when Eric Young proposed that a king named Akheperre Setepenre was
different from the king Akheperre Setapenamun, that is, Psusennes I, with whom the
former name had been associated.
High Priest Inductions

Young had noticed that in the Karnak Priestly Annals, fragment 3B, lines 1–3,
mentions the induction of Nespaneferhor in the reign of Akheperre Setepenre in year two
on I šmw 20.33 And the same fragment, in lines 3–5, records that in year 17 of Siamun,
Hori, the son of Nespaneferhor, was inducted on I šmw 1[?] with part of the day-number
missing.34 Young noted that the induction of father and son must be a generation apart,
about 20–30 years, with both being young men at the time because they were inducted
into office at the beginning of their respective careers.35
That the two inducted high priests were father and son shows that Akheperre
Setepenre must have preceded Siamun and could not have been Psusennes I with the
prenomen Akheperre Setapenamun who would have reigned much earlier.
29
Ibid., 29 §25.
30
Ibid., 33 §29; see also 29 §25, 411-16 §§ 371-77, 531 §432.
31
Ibid., 574 §505.
32
Ibid., 573 §505.
33
Young, “Some Notes on the Chronology,” 99-101; Kitchen, TIP, 422 §388:56.
34
Ibid., 100; see also Kitchen, TIP, 423 §390:83.
35
Ibid.
Young identified the Akheperre Setepenre of lines 1–3 with Manetho’s Osochor,
and the Siamun in lines 3–5 with Manetho’s Psinaches.36 The identification of Akheperre
Setepenre as Manetho’s Osorchor was confirmed by Jean Yoyotte in 1976–1977. He
noted that a Libyan king by the name of Osorkon was the son of Shoshenq A and a Lady
Metenweshket who was given the title “King’s Mother” in a genealogical document.
Since no other King Osorkon had a mother known as Metenweshket, her son was
identified as Manetho’s Osochor. Metenweshket was also the grandmother of Shoshenq
I, first king of the 22nd Dynasty, for his father was her son Nimlot A, “Great Chief of the
Meshwesh.”37
Also referring to year 17 from the reign of Siamun is a date found on a graffito at
Abydos where the day date is 10 +[x],38 showing that the day was numbered from 11 to
19. However, there is no indication what this date was referring to, so it need not be a
lunar date.
Krauss notes that the induction dates of Nespaneferhor and his son, Hori, are in I
šmw indicating a Tepi Shemu feast day, that is, a feast day on or near the first day of the
lunar month falling in the civil month of I šmw.39 I šmw 20 in the second year of
Osorchor should be followed a generation later in the 17th year of Siamun with a date
also I šmw and an early day-date.
For Osochor’s second year, we may look for a new moon falling on or near I šmw
20 about 56 or 59 years after the date of Amenemnisu’s fourth year in 1092, thus in
1036/35 or 1033/32 depending on the length of final years. Taking the period from
−1035 to −1030 into account, I see that a new moon did not fall on 1035, but it did occur
on I šmw 20 equated to 22 January in −1031 (1032 BCE) as Casperson’s Table 34.5
shows.
Table 34.5: Years for locating I šmw 20 in years −1035 to −1030 for induction of
Nespaneferhor (new moon listing from −1035 to −1030)
−1035 1 7 −1035 12 28 1746 9 4 6 16:06 7:01 232 7:01 133 7:01 51
−1035 2 6 −1035 1 27 1746 10 4 1 8:49 6:48 195 6:47 94 6:46 16
−1034 1 26 −1034 1 16 1747 9 23 5 10:46 6:55 190 6:54 93 6:53 17

−1034 2 25 −1034 2 15 1747 10 23 7 4:19 6:33 139 6:32 50 6:31 −19
−1033 1 15 −1033 1 5 1748 9 12 2 10:35 6:59 202 6:59 97 6:59 13

−1033 2 14 −1033 2 4 1748 10 12 4 4:35 6:42 138 6:41 47 6:41 −23
−1032 1 4 −1033 12 25 1749 9 1 6 15:29 7:01 271 7:01 133 7:01 30

−1032 2 3 −1032 1 24 1749 10 1 1 6:25 6:50 171 6:49 59 6:49 −21
−1031 1 22 −1031 1 12 1750 9 20 5 14:60 6:56 299 6:56 113 6:55 8

−1031 2 21 −1031 2 11 1750 10 20 7 3:07 6:36 141 6:35 29 6:34 −44
−1030 1 12 −1030 1 2 1751 9 10 3 5:19 7:00 232 7:00 77 7:00 −30

−1030 2 10 −1030 1 31 1751 10 9 4 15:10 6:45 348 6:44 95 6:43 −6
36
Ibid., 101.
37
J. Yoyotte, “Osorkon fils de Mehytouskhé: Un pharaon oublié?”Bulletin de las Société française
d’egyptologie, 77-78 (1976-77) 39-54 cited in “Osorkon the Elder,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osorkon_the_Elder
38
Young, “Some Notes on the Chronology,” 99-101; Kitchen, TIP, 423 §390:83-84.
39
R. Krauss, “Lunar Dates,” AEC, 412-43. He references this to Kruchten, Annales, 45-48.
Coming on the first lunar day, the date satisfies Krauss’s criterion for a Tepi
Shemu feast day. This date falls in January 1032, Osochor’s second year, so his
accession year can be dated to 1034/1033 BCE. Thus, there were 58–59 years from the
fourth year of Amenemnisu in 1092 to 1034/1033 and 49 years to be distributed to
Psusennes I followed by 9 years for the reign of Amenemope with probably months to be
added to the rounded down figures.
The dates prove that Psusennes I and Amenemope did not have a three-year co-
regency (or any co-regency) and that the Papyrus Brooklyn 16.205, having a year 49
followed by a year four, was indicating the sole reign years of Psusennes I after which it
recorded a year four in the reign of Amenemope.
Kitchen’s rendering of the bandage fragment as “[Year 3 of] King Amenemope;
Year 49 [of King Psusennes I]” on which the idea of the co-regency gained acceptance,
is unwarranted.40
Siamun
As noted above, Hori, son of Nespaneferhor, was inducted on I šmw 1[?] in
Siamun’s 17th year.41 The day date is uncertain. If Osorchor reigned six years as given
by Manetho, dying ca. 1028 BCE, Siamun’s 17th year fell ca. 1011 (−1010). Casperson
provides Table 34.6, showing that a new moon fell on I šmw 4, which could be the date
that is now damaged in the text.
Table 34.6: Siamun’s 17th year in −1010 (new moon listing from −1011 to −1010)
−1011 12 3 −1011 11 23 1771 8 5 2 3:22 6:42 184 6:42 80 6:43 −22
−1010 1 1 −1011 12 22 1771 9 4 3 18:28 6:49 282 6:49 138 6:49 28
−1010 1 31 −1010 1 21 1771 10 4 5 6:42 6:41 208 6:41 65 6:40 −29
Since this date equates to 1 January, Siamun’s 17th year must have started in
−1011 (unless I šmw 4 was also his accession date). Because Osochor is attributed six
regnal years by Manetho and his second year fell in −1031,42 it agrees with Siamun’s
17th year in −1010 (1011 BCE).
Scholars have invariably attributed to Siamun a reign of 19 years based on the 9
years given by Manetho, understood to have dropped 10 years from his reign, since his
17th year is known. However, there is no attestation for Siamun having reigned 19 years.
The following reconstruction of the regnal years of his successor, Psusennes II, having
two lunar dates for the inductions of two priests, as well as dates for his successor,
Shoshenq I, show unequivocally that Siamun reigned only 17 years.
Siamun and Solomon Dates

Various scholars have identified Siamun as the king of Egypt who captured the
Canaanite city of Gezer, slew its inhabitants, and gave it as dowry to King Solomon of
Judah for his daughter’s marriage (1 Kgs 9:16). Obviously, if Siamun is the unnamed
pharaoh mentioned, he must have been contemporary with Solomon.
40
See Kitchen’s comment referenced in footnote 30 above.
41
Kitchen, TIP, 423 §390:83.
42
Young has proposed that a year 14 in a fragment of the Karnak Priestly Annals also belonged to
Osorchor, so he must have reigned longer than six years (“Some Notes on the Chronology,” 101).
However, Kitchen has resolved this by noting that the section in which the number 14 is found refers to a
new section of the annals (No. 33 line 2) and refers to the reign of Siamun (TIP, 11 §7, 423 §390:81).
In my Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom, Solomon’s son,

Rehoboam, began to reign in 981, and his father began to reign 40 years earlier (1 Kgs
11:42), from 1021 to 981. The reigns of Siamun and Solomon were contemporaneous for
the years 1021–1011 showing that Siamun was the king of Egypt who gave his daughter
to Solomon as his wife. Significantly, it shows that the histories of Egypt and
Judah/Israel are in accord both with the chronology presented in The Reconstructed
Chronology of the Divided Kingdom and The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian
Kings. Following Solomon’s death, the divided kingdom period began with separate
kings in Judah and Israel in 981 BCE.
Psusennes II or Pasenbakenniut (Titkheperure/Tyetkheperre Setepenre)

The name Psusennes II is now giving way to Pasenbakenniut. Psusennes II was
the son of Pinudjem II, a High Priest of Amun, who was grandson to Psusennes I (via
Menkheperre and Istemkeb C). That made Psusennes II the great-grandson of Psusennes
I.
This lineage gave Psusennes II a greater claim to the throne than his
contemporary, Shoshenq [I], who was a nephew of Osorchor the Elder.43 Shoshenq’s
father, Nimlot, and his brother, Osorchor the Elder, were both sons of the Lady
Mehtenweskhet (“King’s mother”) inferred from now lost inscriptions from the Temple
of Khons at Karnak.44
Psusennes II succeeded Siamun. Psusennes II is identified as
Titkheperure/Tyetkheperre Setepenre, given along with his titles as High Priest of
Amun-Re-Sonter and Army Leader Psusennes Meriamun on a graffito found in the
Temple of Abydos.45 His name, without further titles, is also found on an Abydene
potsherd from Umm el-Ga’ab. Following an oracle of Amun at Thebes, a graffito was
written to commemorate the occasion of the visit of “The Great chief of the Ma;” that is,
the future Shoshenq I, and King Psusennes II for “the inauguration of the statue-cult of
Shoshenq’s father Nimlot.” 46 That this king could bear the titles of both King and High
Priest “is indicated by a cane-top of the former Saurma collection.”47 This king is also
known as Hor-Psusennes because of the element in his nomen: Hor-Pasebakhaenniut.48
Psusennes II is given 14 years by Africanus, and 35 years by Eusebius and the
Armenian version (thought to be in error for 15 years). Psusennes II has no known
accession date. However, we can narrow it down by applying other dated information to
his reign.
Karnak Priestly Annals Regarding Psusennes II and a High Priest Induction

In 2008, Frédéric Payraudeau published a recently discovered fragment of the
Karnak Priestly Annals.49 It has been designated as Block Karnak 94, CL 2149, and
records that a priest named Nesankhefenmaat was inducted into the chapel of Amun-Re
in Karnak on I šmw 13 in year 11 (or possibly year three) of a king Psusennes. This
Psusennes can be identified with Psusennes II because the preceding line of the text
records the induction of Nesamun, Nesankhefenmaat’s father, into the same priesthood
43
Kitchen, TIP, xxi-xxii.
44
Ibid., 534-35 §437.
45
A. Dodson, “Psusennes II,” Rd’É 38 (1987) 49-51.
46
Kitchen, TIP, xxi.
47
Ibid., xxi.
48
Dodson, “Psusennes II,” 49 n. 2.
49
F. Payraudeau, De nouvelles annals sacerdotales de Siamon, psousennès II et osorkon Ier.,” BIFAO 108
(2008) 294; cited in “Psusennes II,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psusennes_II
in the reign of Siamun (no date given). Then in the succeeding line, Hor, the son of
Nesankhefenmaat (distinguished from earlier HP Hori, son of Nespaneferhor) was
similarly inducted on II 3ḫt 14 in year two or three of a king whose name is damaged but
attributed to Oso[r]k[on] I.50
It is notable that three generations of priests cover the reigns of the four kings:
Siamun, Psusennes II, Shoshenq I, and Osorkon I. Shoshenq I is not mentioned as having
a priest inducted in his reign. According to Dodson, if a priest took up office in the end
years of the reign of Psusennes II, he could encompass the 21-year reign of Shoshenq I
and die or resign early in the reign of Osorkon I.51 This would mean that Hor’s induction
took place more than a generation after his father’s. Dodson says that the name of the
king is “almost certainly to be read as Osorkon,” and, “that the latter two kings are
Pasebkhanut II and Osorkon I is difficult to doubt.”52
But the length of Shoshenq I’s reign is controversial (which I discuss extensively
in chapter 36), some scholars attributing to him a much longer reign than 21 years, which
would make the priestly service of Hor quite long.
In addition to the dates given above for Psusennes II and Osorkon I, another
Karnak Priestly Annals’ fragment, 3B line 6, refers to an induction in a year 13 III prt
10+[x], which comes after Siamun (mentioned in line 3) and most likely refers to the
reign of Psusennes II.53
Inductions Held on a New Moon

Previously, I noted that the dates of the Karnak Priestly Annals that were
attributed to the induction of two priests fell on the new moon: Nespaneferhor in the
reign of Osorchor and his son Hori in the reign of Siamun. Krauss followed Vernus and
Kruchten in asserting that inductions in the month of I šmw took place at a feast lasting
five days from lunar day one.54 Therefore, the above two dates of inductions in the reign
of Psusennes II may also apply to new moons: year 11 (or possibly 3)55 on I šmw 13, and
year 13 on III prt 10+[x].
I have already dated Hori’s earlier induction in Siamun’s 17th year to the date of
−1010 (1011 BCE). See Table 34.6. If it is conjectured that Siamun reigned 19 years, I
would expect that Psusennes II’s 11th year would fall about −998 or −997 (see Table
34.7). What are the implications?
Table 34.7: Psusennes II’s 11th or 13th year −998? (new moon listing from −998 to
−997)
−998 10 10 −998 10 1 1784 6 14 6 18:41 6:04 309 6:05 188 6:06 66
−998 11 9 −998 10 31 1784 7 14 1 5:60 6:27 238 6:28 121 6:28 3
−998 12 8 −998 11 29 1784 8 13 2 18:58 6:44 289 6:44 175 6:45 67
−997 1 7 −998 12 29 1784 9 13 4 9:47 6:49 227 6:49 119 6:48 25
−997 2 6 −997 1 28 1784 10 13 6 2:06 6:38 163 6:38 67 6:37 −14
50
Frederic Payraudeau, “De nouvelles annals sacerdotales de Siamon, psousennès II et osorkon Ier.,”
BIFAO 108 (2008) 294; cited in A. Dodson, “The Transition Between the 21st and 22nd Dynasties
Revisited,” Libyan Period, 103; see “Psusennes II,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psusennes_II
51
Dodson, “Transition,” 103.
52
Ibid., 103. Psusennes II is now known also as Pasebkhanut II.
53
Kitchen, TIP, 423 §391:86; see also 284 §238 and n. 240, 13 §10.
54
Krauss, “Lunar Dates,” 408-9.
55
Cited by Dodson, “Transition,” 103, whereas this alternative regnal year is not cited in “Psusennes II,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psusennes_II
Table 34.7 shows a new moon falling in 997 (7 January in the Julian calendar and
29 December 998 in the Gregorian calendar) being I šmw 13 (9 13) by Egyptian
reckoning, which might support a reference to Psusennes II’s 11th year. However, if the
induction is that of a king, then it must be noted that the year 997 BCE is postulated
throughout this book as the date of commencement of the reign of Shoshenq I (with 977
BCE being his 20th year). Nevertheless, there is another date for the 13th year of
Psusennes II, based on other considerations, which I now explain.
Psusennes II’s 13th Year is 998 BCE

The Karnak Priestly Annals gives a date of III prt 10 + [x] in year 13 of a king
who came after Siamun, therefore Psusennes II or possibly Shoshenq I. 56 A year 13 of
Psusennes II dating from Siamun’s 17th year in −1010 places the High Priest’s induction
date ca. −998/−997. Casperson’s Table 34.7 shows that a new moon fell on III prt 14 (7
14) in −998, which could be the original date for the induction, of which now only the
ten-sign is legible. This date agrees with his 14th year being Psusennes’ last before
Shoshenq I’s reign began in −997. However, the 11th year date of I šmw 13 cannot also
fall in −998! For this date there was an alternative of the year three for Psusennes II so
we turn to that now. Again giving to Siamun 17 years, Psusennes II’s third regnal year
should apply to the year −1009 or −1008 (see Table 34.8).
Table 34.8: Psusennes II’s third year in −1009 to −1008 (new moon listing at turn of
the year −1009 to −1008)
−1009 12 10 −1009 11 30 1773 8 12 4 23:39 6:45 268 6:45 151 6:45 50
−1008 1 9 −1009 12 30 1773 9 12 6 18:51 6:49 237 6:48 109 6:48 18
−1008 2 8 −1008 1 29 1773 10 12 1 12:28 6:37 186 6:37 74 6:36 0
The new moon fell on I šmw 12, so the date of I šmw 13 was the next day, and
applicable to a feast coming within five days of a new moon. It is also possible that the
induction of Nesankhefenmaat was thought (by the Egyptians taking part) to have
occurred on the new moon—as with the previous dates noted above—which it may have
done since Table 34.8 shows, with the 109 visibility, that the moon would not have been
far from being invisible.
The 17th year of Siamun includes the date of I šmw 4 (induction of Hori, son of
Nespaneferhor), which equates to 1 January in 1011 BCE, and the third year of
Psusennes II includes the date of I šmw 13 (induction of Nesankhefenmaat, son of
Nesamun), which equates to 9 January in 1009 BCE. These dates are separated by two
years and eight days which indicates that the changeover of regnal years fell between I
šmw 4 and I šmw 13 when Siamun died and Psusennes II ascended the throne.
By assigning the induction of Nesankhefenmaat to year three of Psusennes II
instead of year 11 of −997 (998 BCE), the problem of having year 11 in the same year as
year 13 no longer pertains.57 These dates and a confirming one in year five of Shoshenq I
that fell in −992 makes it certain that Siamun reigned only 17 years, not 19.
The question arises why Manetho attributed nine years to Siamun (called
Psinaches) if he reigned 17 years. I suggest that nine seen in hieroglyphs as nine vertical
56
Kitchen, TIP, 423 §391:86.
57
The assertion that the first conclusive date for king Psusennes II is revealed on the Block Karnak 94, CL
2149 for Year 11 and the date of I šmw 13 is incorrect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psusennes_II) as it
rightly applies to year 3, and the date of 10 January, 1009 BCE.
strokes was originally a ten-sign followed by seven strokes. The two uprights of the
ten-sign without the top, which joins them, were counted as two strokes. Thus, 17 was
seen as 9 (or some other combination incorporating a ten-sign and seven strokes). See
Figure 34.1.
| ∩ original becomes | | |
| | | original becomes | | |
| | | original becomes | | |
Figure 34.1: Possible explanation of discrepant numbering
Similarly, the year 11 or year three attributed to Psusennes II from Block Karnak
94, CL 2149, apparently unclear, is seen now to be year three. This suggests that three
vertical strokes were thought to be one ten-sign plus two vertical strokes originally
joined at the top to give the number 11, thus | | | was read as | ∩. The same type of
damage may be attributed to Osorkon I of the 22nd Dynasty, where his 30th year jubilee,
which would have been engraved as three ten-signs ∩∩∩, has been read as 22: | | ∩∩
(other examples are cited in chapter 36).
A Co-regency between Psusennes II and Shoshenq I

Discussion has centered on whether Psusennes II is the same as a Psusennes III
who was a High Priest of Amun, and after the death of his father Pinudjem II, succeeded
him into office in the 10th year of Siamun.58 The High Priest Psusennes is associated
with a year five (or four) and a year 12 on bandage-epigraphs from Theban mummies.59
Kitchen attributes the year 12 to Siamun, and the year five to Psusennes II.60 This
presents the problem of a High Priest having a regnal year, which is unprecedented. (The
year 48 of the high priest Menkheperre almost certainly refers to the regnal years of
Psusennes I). See footnote 23 on this.
Most scholars accept the view that Psusennes II is the same as the High Priest
Psusennes III who was inducted in Siamun’s 10th year. On the death of Siamun he then
combined the offices of High Priest at Thebes and King at Tanis reigning over the whole
realm as indicated by the graffito from Abydos, which was mentioned earlier.61
Kitchen explains the year five on the mummy bandage fragment referring to the
Psusennes as the High Priest of Amun as the title by which the Thebans knew him while
at the same time being in his fifth regnal year as king at Tanis. 62 Kitchen quoted from
Karnak Priestly Annal fragment four, “Regnal Year 2, 3rd month of Akhet, day 17, of
the Great Chief of the Mā, Shoshe(n)q justified,” and mentioned a throw-stick
determinative-sign added to his name as for an alien, and no cartouches or pharaonic
titles.63 Apparently the Thebans did not initially recognize Shoshenq I as the new ruler,
“But from Year 5 onwards, even reluctant Thebes acknowledged him officially as full
pharaoh.”64
Dodson doubted this attribution, and in 2009 suggested that there may have been
a co-regency between Psusennes II and Shoshenq I.65 Referring to the same Karnak
58
59
Dodson, “Transition,” 104-8.
60
Kitchen, TIP, xix.
61
See p. 476.
62
Ibid., xxii.
63
Ibid., 288 §242.
64
Ibid., 288 §242.
65
In 1987 Dodson suggested that Psusennes II may have been High Priest and “shadow-king” of
Shoshenq I, with the latter being the direct successor of Siamun (“Psusennes II,” Rd’É 38 [1987] 49-54).
Priestly Annal Fragment 4b, he proposes that Shoshenq I would be insulted by the use of
his “Chief of the Ma” title if he was a sole-reign pharaoh and suggests that it may have
been, “an exceptional recognition of an exceptional status within another’s reign” and
that toward the end of his reign Psusennes II granted Shoshenq I “control over an area
that included Thebes.”66
How might this year five on the bandage following a year 12 assigned to Siamun
be explained? Is there any stronger evidence for a co-regency between Psusennes II and
Shoshenq I?
Concerning the chronology, we note that Psusennes II’s 13th year fell in 999
BCE as provided by the priestly induction dates in his third and 13th years. Manetho, via
Africanus, attributes 14 years to Psusennes II, which ends his reign in 998 or 997 BCE
and thus the date for the accession year of Shoshenq I.
Kitchen assigns Shoshenq I’s 20th regnal year to the fifth year of Rehoboam of
Judah when Shoshenq I (biblical Shishak) invaded Israel and Judah as noted in 1 Kgs
14:25–26 and 2 Chr 12:2–5. As determined in my The Reconstructed Chronology of the
Divided Kingdom, Rehoboam’s fifth year was in 977,67 so 20 years earlier Shoshenq I’s
accession would have fallen in 997 BCE. This date points to Psusennes II having 14
regnal years.
Court Dispute Dated to 19th Year of a King Psusennes

The Larger Dakhla Stela records a court dispute over ownership of land and
water rights involving a well in the Dakhla Oasis belonging to Tewhunet, the mother of
the claimant, Nysu-Bastet. The land-register is dated to the 19th year of a Pharaoh
Psusennes without identifying whether this was Psusennes I or II. 68
Most Egyptologists identify him as Psusennes II because Psusennes I’s reign,
some 80 years earlier, was thought to be too early to be applicable.69 A certain
Wayheset, a son of a Chief of the Mā, was sent by Shoshenq I to restore order.70 The
same stela also records a weresh (wrš) feast and procession of the god Seth dated to IV
prt 25 in the fifth year of Shoshenq I. This date can be used to determine Shoshenq I’s
fifth year.
Krauss notes that, “According to other attestations, wrš designates the lunar
month and/or a lunar day, possibly day 1.”71 Thus, he finds it feasible to identify an
appropriate year near to a new moon day for the date of the procession. (In his
chronology Krauss dates Shoshenq I’s fifth year to 943 BCE at the latest” (emphasis his)
but only 5 December in 939 BCE matches IV prt 25 making his first year “in November
943 BC at the latest, and at the earliest in December 944 BC.” 72
In 2006, Kitchen denied a co-regency between Psusennes II and Shoshenq I on the grounds that because
the Thebans used Shoshenq I’s regnal year 2 it meant Psusennes II had died and, therefore, they could not
date by Psusennes II (“The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology – A Reconsideration,” Ä
und L 16 (2006) 302).
66
Dodson, “Transition,” 108.
67
M.C. Tetley, The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
2005) 178-84.
68
A.H. Gardiner, “The Large Dakhla Stela,” JEA 19 (1930) 19-30, cited by Jansen-Winkeln, “Dynasty
21,” 230.
69
Kitchen (TIP, 290 §247) believes that this refers to Psusennes I.
70
Ibid., 290 §247.
71
Krauss, “Lunar Dates,” 411. See sources of wrš feasts cited in pp. 411-12 and nn. 53-58.
72
Ibid., 412. This is in conflict with Thiele’s chronology, which places Rehoboam of Judah’s 5th year in
925 BCE, thus the 20th year of Shoshenq I in 945 BCE. This discrepancy causes problems to chronologists
working with commonly assumed dates.
According to our chronology, Psusennes II’s 14th year fell in 997 so his 19th
year fell on 994/993 BCE. If Shoshenq I’s first year was in 997, Shoshenq I’s fifth year
will also have fallen in 993/992 BCE.
Casperson’s table below (Table 34.9) shows that the wrš date of IV prt 25 fell
five days after the new moon on IV prt 20 in −993 (19 December 19 in 994 BCE). In an
Amun feast, it was typical for Amun to appear in a procession four or five days after the
new moon, and this appears to be enacted here also with the god Seth.73 The date of IV
prt 25 falling in Shoshenq I’s fifth year, which equates to Psusennes II’s 19th year,
would add credence to Psusennes II’s 14th year and Shoshenq I’s first year falling in 997
BCE, assuming a co-regency.
Table 34.9: Shoshenq I’s fifth year weresh feast in −993 (new moon listing from
−992 to −992)
−993 11 14 −993 11 5 1789 7 20 5 17:47 6:38 236 6:39 139 6:40 43
−993 12 14 −993 12 5 1789 8 20 7 11:43 6:58 215 6:58 105 6:58 6
−992 1 13 −992 1 4 1789 9 20 2 2:49 7:00 162 7:00 47 6:59 −42
Most Egyptologists have assumed that the land-title mentioned in the Larger
Dakhla stela went back several years to Psusennes II’s 19th year before Shoshenq I’s
reign began. Krauss has assumed that because Psusennes II reigned longer than 14 years,
his reign should be emended from 14 years to 24 years.74 However, the above
chronology demonstrates that the Larger Dakhla stela is recording regnal years for two
kings in the same year both dated to −993. The two dates coming from the same
document and the same year indicate some sort of a co-regency between Psusennes II
and Shoshenq I.
The circumstances prevailing at the end of the 21st Dynasty make this co-
regency quite feasible. Apparently, Psusennes II did not have a son to succeed him, and
his intended successor was Shoshenq I who was already his Army Commander and who
himself had claims to the throne through his father Nimlot A who was the brother of
Osorchor “the Elder,” grandsons of the Lady Mehtenweskhet who was “King’s
Mother.”75
As in most other co-regencies, the younger partner counted his regnal years from
the time he was appointed co-regent,76 thereby giving Psusennes a reign of 14 years.
73
Kitchen did not want to move Shoshenq I’s date of 945 BCE down to 943 BCE on the basis of Krauss’s
dates for the weresh festival, because this would make 945 BCE become Shoshenq I’s 18th year and not
20 years before Rehoboam’s fifth year in the (assumed) date of 925 BCE supplied by Thiele (MNHK).
Kitchen wrote, “There is no evidence whatsoever that the weresh-feast date of the god Seth on the Dakhleh
stela was a lunar feast (no mention of pesdjentyu, etc.) rather than an ordinary calendar-feast; hence it
should not arbitrarily be so treated, and this imaginary lunar occurrence can be deleted, leaving us with the
normal 945 date” (K.A. Kitchen, “The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: An Overview of Fact and
Fiction,” The Libyan Period in Egypt: Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st–24th Dynasties:
Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25-27 October 2007 [eds. G.P.F. Broekman, R.J.
Demarée, and O.E. Kaper; Leiden: NINO, 2009] 167; also see p. 196). The evidence above shows that the
weresh feast fell five days after a new moon date and was probably timed by it. This discounts Kitchen’s
assertion that it had no lunar connection.
74
R. Krauss, “Das wrš-Datum aus Jahr 5 von Shoshenq [I],” DE 62 (2005) 43-48.
75
Kitchen, TIP, 535 §437, from Yoyotte, “Osorkon fils,” 39–54.
76
The Nile Level Text 13 equates year 28 of Osorkon III with year 5 of his son Takeloth III. In this
instance, Osorkon III seems to be credited with his 28 years, with the 5-year co-regency attributed to him,
not to his son. See the discussion of Takeloth III’s length of reign in chap. 38.
Since his fifth year would have been the 19th year of Psusennes II, and the year in which
the latter died, Shoshenq I would then have assumed full kingly responsibilities as sole
ruler, and have been acknowledged as king by the Thebans. In his second year, when
Shoshenq I was referred to as “Chief of the Ma,” Psusennes II was still alive and it may
be this that caused Shoshenq I to be described with the lesser title.
Referring back to the year five mummy bandage found with Psusennes II’s name
as High Priest of Amun, it is possible to see the year five as belonging to Shoshenq I’s
fifth year when Psusennes II died and was buried, giving to him his earlier title as High
Priest of Amun by which he was known at Thebes.77
The 14-year sole reign of Psusennes II can be dated from 1011 to 997 BCE, with
another five years as co-regent with Shoshenq I to the year 992. The accession of
Shoshenq I to the throne in 997 brought the 21st Dynasty to an end, ushering in the 22nd
Dynasty.
The 21st Dynasty Tanite kings

The kings of the 21st Dynasty with their regnal years and dates provided by the
preceding discussion are shown in Table 34.10.
Table 34.10: Tanite kings of the 21st Dynasty with regnal years and dates
King Regnal Dates reigned Lunar anchor points
years BCE
Smendes 26 1122–1096 Yr 25, Epiphi feast, III šmw 28 in 1097
Amenemnisu
4 1096–1092 Yr 4, Amun feast, new moon I 3ḫt 1 in 1092
Nephercheres
Psusennes I 49 1092–1043 None known
Amenemope
9 1043–1034 None known
Amenophthis
Osorchor the Yr 2, induction of Nespaneferhor on new moon I šmw 20 in
6 1034–1028
Elder 1032
Siamun Yr 17, induction of Hori on new moon I šmw 4 in 1011 (1
17 1028–1011
Psinaches January)
Yr 3, induction of Nesankhefenmaat, 2 days after new moon I
šmw 13 in 1009;
Yr 13, induction of a priest on new moon III prt 10 +[x] = 14th
14 (+ 5 CR) 1011–998/997
Psusennes II in 999;
= 19 (CR to 992)
(Sync. Yr 19 Psu. II + Yr 5 Shoshenq I in 994; Yr 5 Shoshenq I,
wrš feast IV prt 25—5 days after new moon on IV prt 20 in
994)
Total 124 1122–998/997
CR = co-regent.
The table shows that the 21st Dynasty lasted 124 years from 1122 to 998/997
BCE. Psusennes I had a co-regency with Amenemope for three years, thus Manetho via
Africanus gives Psusennes I 46 years78 and Amenemope 9 years. The lunar dates reveal
that Siamun reigned only 17 years—not the 19 usually attributed to him. Psusennes II
reigned 14 years with another 5 years as co-regent with Shoshenq I. The synchronism
from the Large Dakhla stela giving the 19th year of Psusennes II and the fifth year of
Shoshenq I, in conjunction with the lunar dates, proves conclusively that Psusennes II
and Shoshenq I had a five-year co-regency. Fourteen sole-reign years are credited to
Psusennes II, and the five years of the co-regency are attributed to the reign of Shoshenq
I.
77
Kitchen, TIP, xxi.
78
The 41 years given to him by Eusebius and the Armenian is presumably the result of error in
transmission.
The number of years given here for the 21st Dynasty and the individual reigns do
not differ by more than a few years from the 124 or 125 given by other chronologies.
The main difference is their allocation to Siamun of 19 years instead of 17 years. The
dates, of course, are different.
Not discussed above are the service periods for the pontiffs of Thebes. These are
not noted by Manetho. Their years of service do not alter the chronology of the kings,
and have been discussed by other scholars.79
79
See Kitchen, TIP, 10-23, 77-81; idem, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 191, 198; J. von Beckerath,
Chronologie des Pharaonischen Ägypten: Die Zeitbestimmung der ägyptischen Geschichte von der Vozeit
bus 332 v. Chr. (Mainz: von Zabern, 1997) 99-102; Jansen-Winkeln, “Dynasty 21” 218-33.
Chapter 35. Looking at Other Reconstructions of the 22nd to 25th Dynasties 483
Chapter 35
Looking at Other Reconstructions of the 22nd to 25th Dynasties

To anticipate the closing words, this chapter illustrates the fluidity of opinion and
method in this period of Egyptian chronology, which, with the use of current methods,
will surely continue (even in the period since this chapter was penned).
While reporting a high degree of variance and speculation amongst scholars
interested in this dynastic period, it also discusses, in some detail, items of recent
evidence that contribute to the presentation of my final chapters of the Egyptian
Chronology.
This chapter represents a contrast to my approach which identifies firm anchor
points and reconstructs the chronology from documented evidence in the 22nd to 25th
Dynasties. This chapter offers readers the opportunity to judge which methodology gives
greater confidence for establishing an Egyptian chronology, one that will stand—despite
the currents of changing opinion.
The chronology of the 22nd Dynasty may be established by taking into account
the chronologies of the 23rd, 24th, and 25th Dynasties—these being concurrent with its
latter period. A conclusion can only be proposed when all the relevant chronological data
for each of the dynasties has been examined, and kings’ reigns and dates aligned.
Dynasties 21–25 are known collectively as the Third Intermediate Period.
Sources
1. Manetho copied the dynastic lists of the 22nd to 25th Dynasties, which
now exist in copies by Africanus (ca. 220 CE), Eusebius (early 4th century CE) and the
latter’s Armenian version. The latter two now preserve only a portion of the original, but
are still a significant help. Though suffering obvious corruption, the version of Africanus
retains more information about the kings and the length of the 22nd Dynasty than those
of Eusebius and the Armenian.
2. Inscriptional records that state unequivocally the actual length of the
king’s reign are lacking in the 22nd Dynasty. Only the highest known year may be at our
disposal, which may not be the king’s actual regnal year at death. Synchronisms, tying
one king’s specifically dated regnal year to another, are very helpful. A few examples are
discussed below.
3. A Heb Sed (royal jubilee) feast indicates the monarch reigned 30 years,
and every three or four years thereafter.
4. Genealogies may determine the line of royal succession, but not all the
kings’ lineages, or even parents, are known. Kings with similar personal names, such as
Shoshenq or Osorkon, can be distinguished by their prenomen, such as Hedjkheperre or
Usimare. The nomen epithet, Si-Bast, is associated with kings of Lower Egypt from the
time of Osorkon II of the 22nd Dynasty, while the epithet, Si-Ese, at least from the time
of Osorkon III, is associated with kings of the 23rd Dynasty, though not without
exception.1
5. Particularly valuable for the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties are the records of
Nile inundations inscribed on the Karnak Quay wall, which are known as Nile Level
Texts.
6. The annals of the priests at Karnak have information relating to the
priesthood, in both formal records and graffiti, for the period of the 22nd to 25th
Dynasties.
7. The Serapeum Stelae record Apis bull installations and burials giving the
regnal years of kings and/or the bull’s lifespan.
8. The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon pertains to the reigns of Takeloth and
Shoshenq III, and Prince Osorkon High Priest of Amun (HPA). The HPAs were
powerful clerics of one of the most revered gods in ancient Egypt. They were responsible
for the administration of daily rites in the god’s honor and virtual owners of enormous
tracts of land throughout Egypt (particularly in Upper Egypt near Thebes). For much of
the Third Intermediate Period the High Priests ruled most of Upper Egypt as military
theocrats. Not reckoned as a Dynasty per se, these priests nevertheless governed
southern Egypt during much of the Third Intermediate Period.
9. Also important for establishing the kings’ reigns are new moons dated to
the Egyptian civil calendar, which are tied to specific regnal years. Several dates derive
from festivals in the reigns of Shoshenq I, Takeloth II, and Shoshenq III of the 22nd
Dynasty. Two dates of new moons relate to Pedubast I of the offshoot 23rd Dynasty, and
to Shebitku of the 25th Dynasty. The conversion of an Egyptian civil year date (I 3ht 1 to
IV šmw 30) to a Julian date can anchor a king’s reign when his specific regnal year is
known.
One new moon date by itself is not conclusive since dates varying by only one
day may occur in a cycle of 25 years making the accuracy of the particular lunar date
questionable. When new moon dates come from several reigns, and each matches the
date and regnal year given for each king, they provide a much more reliable framework
on which to reconstruct the chronology. Discussion about the calendars of Egypt during
this period, and tables for new moons, assume a calendar having Thoth (I 3ḫt) as the first
month of the year.
To aid in the discussion, the commonly assumed sequence of kings adopted by
Kitchen and other Egyptologists for the four dynasties is given below in Table 35.1, 2
with the approximate position when each dynasty started in relation to the others.
Table 35.1: Succession of kings for the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 25th Dynasties, based
on Kitchen’s model in 2006
22nd Dynasty 23rd Dynasty 24th Dynasty 25th Dynasty
Shoshenq I
Osorkon I
Shoshenq II (co-regency)
Takeloth I
Osorkon II
(Harsiese A, south)
Takeloth II
Shoshenq III Pedubast I
Shoshenq VI
1
Shoshenq III and Pedubast I use this epithet at least once, but they usually use the epithet Si-Bast,
according to B. Muhs, “Partisan Royal Epithets in the Late Third Intermediate Period and the Dynastic
Affiliations of Pedubast I and Iuput II,” JEA 84 (1998) 221-22.
2
K.A. Kitchen, “The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology—A Reconsideration,” Ä und L
16 (2006) 308.
Shoshenq IV Osorkon III

Pimay
Shoshenq V Takeloth III
Rudamun Piye/Piankhy
Osorkon IV Shoshenq VIa Tefnakht
Iuput II Bocchoris Shabako
Shebitku/Shabataka
Taharqa
Recent proposals that differ from this traditional sequence receive comment
below. Traditionally, Dynasty 22 is thought to have started ca. 945 BCE, lasting some
230 years; Dynasty 23 some 200 years; Dynasty 24 some 12 years; and the 25th (from
the reign of Piye/Pianky) some 83 years to the end of Taharqa’s reign in 664 BCE. My
methods in succeeding chapters produce different dates and timeframes.
Noting Known Synchronisms

A synchronism between the fifth year of Pedubast I (the first king of the 23rd
Dynasty) and the 12th year of Shoshenq III (seventh king of the 22nd Dynasty) on Nile
Level Text No. 24, provides an alignment that must have the same date in both
dynasties. In turn, the 23rd Dynasty needs to be dated with the additional help of the
25th Dynasty. A synchronism between the 12th regnal year of Piye/Piankhy of the 25th
Dynasty is tied to the 19th year of an unnamed king of the 23rd Dynasty (Wadi Gasus
inscription). Furthermore, according to Piye’s Victory stela, dated to the first day of
Piye’s 21st year, it appears he invaded Egypt from Nubia in his 20th year, and caused the
submission of Middle and Lower Egyptian kings/kinglets. These include Osorkon of
Bubastis, understood by most scholars to be Osorkon IV, the last king of the 22nd
Dynasty, and Iuput II of Leontopolis. Thus Piye’s 12th year must have the same date as
the 19th year of an unnamed king of the 23rd Dynasty, and his 20th year must coincide
with the submission of Osorkon [IV], Iuput II, and other kings of Middle and Lower
Egypt.
Tied to the dates of the 25th Dynasty are those of the 24th Dynasty. After Piye’s
invasion of Egypt in his 20th year, he returned to Nubia. In his absence, Tefnakht, a
former chief of the Delta who had eventually submitted to Piye, took upon himself royal
titles and founded the 24th Dynasty in Saïs. This dynasty consisted of only two kings:
Tefnakht and his successor, Bocchoris, otherwise known as Bakenranef. Bocchoris was
reputedly burnt alive in his sixth year by Piye’s successor, Shabako, in the latter’s
second year. An Apis bull that died in Shabako’s second year was embalmed and then
buried in Bocchoris’s burial chamber before the vault was closed,3 giving the
synchronism that Shabako’s second year coincides with the sixth year of Bocchoris.
Another certainty is that Shebitku (Shabataka), Shabako’s successor, must have
been alive in 706 BCE when he extradited Iamani back to Sargon II of Assyria in the
latter’s 16th year in 706 (Tang-i Var inscription).
These are all significant synchronisms and reign lengths of these kings, which
must all concur with each other. Only when all these pieces of the puzzle fit, and the
additional items of chronological information complete the picture, may we be confident
of a credible chronology.
The Kitchen and “Birmingham School” Dispute

When Kitchen revised his 1973 edition of TIP in 1986 with a supplement, the
majority of scholars, at least in the English-speaking world, accepted his understanding
3
Ibid, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC), (3rd edition, 1986, Warminster: Aris &
Phillips Ltd.) 141-42 §114 and n. 247.
and order of Egyptian dynastic succession and chronology. Since then, various scholars
have challenged his tenets, such as the “New Chronologists” who seek to reduce the
overall conventional chronology by 200–250 years (David Rohl, Peter James, et al.). The
viewpoint of these scholars is not commented on here due to the vast difference in
interpretation of data and time periods proposed for the reconstructed chronology.
Another group of scholars (the “Birmingham School”) led by Anthony Leahy and
David Aston, has suggested changes to the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties as previously
reconstructed by Kitchen. Each of these viewpoints purport to use the dynastic lists
handed down from Manetho.
The main points of disagreement affecting the chronology of the 22nd to 25th
Dynasties in recent years, between Kitchen on the one hand and Aston on the other, are
summarized below. Aston’s view is generally supported by scholars such as Jürgen von
Beckerath, Karl Jansen-Winkeln, Aidan Dodson, and in part, Gerard Broekman.4
As an introductory overview, one may compare the conventional chronology
(Kitchen’s) tabled above, and the Leahy/Aston chronology tabled below (Table 35.2).
The main difference is that Takeloth II has been taken out of the 22nd Dynasty between
Osorkon II and Shoshenq III and made the first king of a hypothetical Theban 23rd
Dynasty, preceding Pedubast I listed by Manetho as first king of a Tanite dynasty.
This Tanite dynasty is then appended to the 22nd Dynasty (where Pedubast I
becomes Pedubast II, Osorkon III becomes Osorkon IV, followed by the enigmatic
Psammus and Zet). The Theban 23rd Dynasty is then provided with the names of a
reconstructed 23rd Tanite Dynasty including the names of Pedubast [I] and Osorkon [III]
as given by Manetho, but omitting Psammus and Zet.
Table 35.2: Leahy/Aston succession of Tanite? Kings for the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and
25th Dynasties
22nd Dynasty Theban 23rd Dynasty 24th Dynasty 25th Dynasty
Shoshenq I
Osorkon I
Shoshenq II
Takeloth I
Osorkon II Takeloth II
Shoshenq IV Shoshenq VI
Pimay Osorkon III
Pedubast II Rudamun
Osorkon IV Peftjauawybast Tefnakht Piye/Piankhy
Psammus Bocchoris Shabako
Zet Shebitku/Shabataka
Taharqa
Kitchen proposes the following concepts, which continue to be challenged.5

1. Takeloth II was sixth king of the 22nd Dynasty as given by Manetho, based in
Lower Egypt. He was succeeded by Shoshenq III.
2. Prince Osorkon, son of Takeloth II was High Priest of Amun in his father’s reign
and that of Shoshenq III, but never became king.
4
G.P.F. Broekman, “Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II; Another View on the Chronology of the Mid
22nd Dynasty,” Ä und L 16 (2006) 245.
5
See, e.g., Kitchen, TIP, xxii-xxv §§W-X, xxvi-xxxiv §§Z-FF; idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,”
296-301; idem, “The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: An Overview of Fact & Fiction,” The Libyan
Period in Egypt: Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st-24th Dynasties: Proceedings of a
Conference at Leiden University, 25-27 October 2007 (eds. G.P.F. Broekman, R.J. Demarée, and O.E.
Kaper; Leiden: NINO, 2009) 168-71 §§16-23.
3. The last king of the 22nd Dynasty was Osorkon IV.

4. The 23rd Dynasty was founded by Pedubast I in the eighth year of the reign of
Shoshenq III, and located in Lower Egypt.
5. The last king of the 23rd Dynasty was Iuput II.
Aston et al. challenge these assumptions by asserting:6

1. Takeloth II was not a king of the 22nd Dynasty but founder of another 23rd
Dynasty (different from the one given by Manetho). Its second king was Pedubast I.
Takeloth II and Pedubast I led rival factions and their reigns overlapped. This 23rd
Dynasty was probably based in Upper Egypt at Thebes, not in Lower Egypt.
2. Prince Osorkon, son of Takeloth II of the 22nd Dynasty, after being High Priest
of Amun, became Osorkon III of the 23rd Dynasty.
3. The last king of the 22nd Dynasty was Shoshenq V.
4. Manetho’s 23rd Dynasty kings Pedubast and Osorkon are assumed to be
Pedubast II and Osorkon IV.
5. The last king of the 23rd Dynasty was not Iuput II who lived in the Delta.
Instead, Peftjauawybast of Middle Egypt is proposed by Aston, while a Shoshenq VII is
proposed by Broekman.
Spencer
A short article by P.A. Spencer and A.J. Spencer appeared in 19867 and
introduced the perceived problems of locating a 23rd Dynasty in Lower Egypt where the
22nd Dynasty had its residence. The authors note that the monuments of the 23rd
Dynasty kings are concentrated in Upper Egypt and are lacking in Lower Egypt with the
exception of Iuput II, who is known from Piye’s Victory stela to have lived in Ta-Remu
(Leontopolis) in the Delta. There is no evidence, they say, that Iuput II had any
connection with the 23rd Dynasty. Therefore, they write, “There is no justification, as
yet, to assume that the kings of the Twenty-third Dynasty had a Delta centre, at
Leontopolis or anywhere else.”8
Further on, they state: “The evidence available at present strongly suggests a
division between the Twenty-second Dynasty territory in the eastern Delta and the
Twenty-third Dynasty domain in Upper Egypt, with a boundary a little north of
Heracleopolis. The residence of the Twenty-third Dynasty kings has yet to be identified,
but Thebes is a strong possibility.”9
6
A. Leahy, “Appendix: The Twenty-third Dynasty,” Libya and Egypt c. 1300-750 B.C. (ed. A. Leahy;
London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1990) 177-200; D.A. Aston, “Takeloth II - A King of the
‘Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty’?” JEA 75 (1989) 139-53; idem, “Takeloth II, A King of the
Herakleopolitan/Theban Twenty-third Dynasty Revisited: The Chronology of Dynasties 22 and 23,”
Libyan Period, 1-25; G.P.F. Broekman, “The Reign of Takeloth II, a Controversial Matter,” GM 205
(2005) 21-35; idem, “Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II; Another View on the Chronology of the Mid
22nd Dynasty,” Ä und L 16 (2006) 245-56; J. von Beckerath, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Libyerzeit,”
GM 144 (1995) 7-13 and GM 147 (1995) 9-13; K. Jansen-Winkeln, “Historische Probleme der 3.
Zwischenzeit,” JEA 81 (1995) 138-45; idem, “The Chronology of the Third Intermediate Period: Dyns.
22-24,” Ancient Egyptian Chronology (eds. E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D.A. Warburton; Leiden and Boston:
Brill, 2006) 247-52.
7
P.A. and J.A. Spencer, “Notes on Late Libyan Egypt,” JEA 72 (1986) 198-201.
8
Ibid., 200.
9
Ibid., 201.
Leahy
In 1989, Leahy presented arguments building on the former views of Klaus
Baer,10 and K.H. Priese,11 that the 23rd Dynasty as given by Manetho was not a
collateral line founded by Pedubast I in the eighth year of Shoshenq III of the 22nd
Dynasty (based on Nile Level Text 24), but was a continuation of the 22nd Dynasty. 12
Manetho names four kings to the 23rd Dynasty in the version of Africanus: Pedubast,
Osorkon, Psammus, and Zet. Leahy seeks to identify this Pedubast with a Sehetipibenre
Pedubast who is conventionally identified with Pedubast II of the 7th century BCE, and
places him after Shoshenq V in the 22nd Dynasty. Leahy then identifies the Osorkon
with Osorkon IV as successor of Pedubast II, but usually regarded as Osorkon III—
second king of the Tanite 23rd Dynasty. (Compare with Table 35.2).
Leahy then describes Psammus as “an ephemeral successor of Osorkon IV,” and
Zet “should be regarded as an ‘irrelevant interpolation’.”13 By placing Manetho’s Tanite
23rd Dynasty after the 22nd, Leahy clears the way for a Theban 23rd Dynasty to be
contemporary with the latter part of the 22nd Dynasty. Leahy then assigns to a
hypothetical Theban 23rd Dynasty the kings that Manetho assigned to the 23rd Tanite
Dynasty; that is, Pedubast I and Osorkon III followed by Psammus and Zet. This is the
same list that Leahy has already used for the continuation of the 22nd Dynasty by
attributing to Pedubast and Osorkon a different identity.
Leahy and Kitchen both have Pedubast I, Shoshenq IV (now known as Shoshenq
VI), Osorkon III, Takeloth III, and Rudamun for their respective 23rd Dynasties, but
Kitchen has Iuput II for its last king, while Leahy sees Iuput II as a Delta king and does
not assign him to his Theban 23rd Dynasty,14 thus agreeing with the suggestion of P.A.
and J.A. Spencer, as noted above.15
Aston
More support for Leahy came from David Aston’s 1989 article presenting his
argument for an Upper Egyptian 23rd Dynasty. The main point of Aston’s article is the
removal of Takeloth II from the 22nd Dynasty to become the founder of a 23rd Theban
dynasty. Aston does not explain why Manetho would put Takeloth II in the 22nd
Dynasty if he did not belong there, or why Pedubast would be identified as the first king
of the 23rd Dynasty if he were preceded by Takeloth II.
Ignoring Manetho’s testimony, Aston argues that family relationships indicate
that Takeloth II should be dated about 25 years later than the dates Kitchen gives him:
from ca. 850–825 BCE down to ca. 825–800 BCE.16 In order to down-date Takeloth II,
Aston takes Takeloth out of the 22nd Dynasty to head a “Theban” 23rd Dynasty and
makes Pedubast I, the leader of another supposed faction, appear in Takeloth II’s 11th
year to become the second king of the dynasty. Pedubast’s accession is dated to
Shoshenq III’s eighth year (from Nile Level Text [NLT] 24 equating Shoshenq III’s 12th
year [22nd Dynasty] with Pedubast’s fifth) in 827 BCE. Pedubast I, allocated 25 years,
dies about 10 years after Takeloth II.
10
K. Baer, “The Libyan and Nubian Kings of Egypt: Notes on the Chronologies of Dynasties XXII to
XXVI,” JNES 32 (1973) 4-25.
11
K.H. Priese, “Der Beginn der kuschitischen Herschaft in Agypten,” ZÄS 98 (1970) 16-32.
12
Leahy, “Appendix: The Twenty-third Dynasty,” 177-200.
13
Ibid., 189.
14
Ibid., 185-86.
15
Spencer and Spencer, “Notes on Late Libyan Egypt,” 198-201.
16
Aston, “Takeloth II…Theban Dynasty,” 142-43.
Aston next places Iuput I as king with his accession in Pedubast I’s 15th year
(from NLT 26 with year 2 equated with Pedubast’s year 16) and the successor of the
rival reign of Takeloth II, but with an unknown number of years.17 Aston identifies
Shoshenq Meriamun with year four on a roof slab of the Khons Temple at Karnak, with
Shoshenq IV (now VI),18 whom he suggests as a possible successor of Pedubast I but,
nevertheless, leaves him out of the dynasty. Aston continues the dynasty with Osorkon
III, Takeloth III, Rudamun (with an unsubstantiated 19 years to make him king of the
Wadi Gasus inscription),19 and a king Iny.
This Iny Si-ese Meryamun is attested with a year five on a roof slab of the
Temple of Khons near that of Shoshenq IV/VI’s. Presuming him to be a Theban king
because of the epithet Si-ese, Aston includes him in the 23rd Dynasty with five sole-
reign years.20
For the final king, Aston replaces Kitchen’s Iuput II with Peftjauawybast, son-in-
law of Rudamun (married to his daughter, Irbastwedjanefu B). Peftjauawybast was king
of Heracleopolis (Middle Egypt) at the time of Piye’s invasion, and assumed to be a
better candidate for a Theban king than Iuput II, king of Leontopolis of the Delta.
Aston and Taylor

In 1990, Aston and Taylor explain Peftjauawybast’s inclusion as king on the
premise that, “Since Thebes was already under the control of Piye by ca. 728 B.C.E. the
Theban 23rd Dynasty probably shifted its base from Thebes to Heracleopolis sometime
before that date,”21 that is, before Piye’s invasion in his 20th year.
Peftjauawybast’s loyalty to Piye in the invasion, and the adoption of Piye’s
daughter, Amenirdis, by Rudamun’s sister Shepenwepet I in Piye’s 12th year, as on the
Wadi Gasus inscription, gives reason for them to think that Peftjauawybast was the last
king of the 23rd Dynasty who, with his forebears, held “influential positions at Thebes
under the Kushites.”22 In this scenario, a hypothetical Theban 23rd Dynasty appears to
be given further legitimacy by the proposal that toward the end of the dynasty it moved
its base from Thebes to Heracleopolis, an assumption made in order to include
Peftjauawybast, not Iuput II, as the last king of the dynasty.
The chronology, as given by Aston for the 23rd Dynasty, is shown in Table
35.3,23 where Pedubast I’s fifth year, equated with Shoshenq III’s 12th year as on NLT
No. 24, is calculated by Aston to be the dates 823 or 818 BCE.24 This provides the date
for Takeloth II’s accession in ca. 838/833 BCE.25
Table 35.3: Aston’s chronology for the 23rd Theban Dynasty
King Dates BCE Years reigned
Takeloth II ca. 838/33–812/807 26
Pedubast I ca. 827/22–802/797 25 with overlap
Iuput I ca. 812/807–? Not known
17
See on Iuputy below, p. 27, given 12 years as his highest attested.
18
Aston, “Takeloth II…Theban Dynasty,” 151-53. Aston does not agree with Leahy who regards
Shoshenq VI as a phantom, (Leahy, “Appendix: The Twenty-third Dynasty,” 183).
19
Ibid., 153.
20
Ibid., 152-53.
21
D.A. Aston and J.H. Taylor, “The Family of Takeloth III and the ‘Theban’ Twenty-third Dynasty,”
Libya and Egypt c. 1300-750BC, 147.
22
Ibid., 147.
23
Aston, “Takeloth II…Theban Dynasty,” 150-151 and 153.
24
Ibid., table p. 148.
25
These dates were subsequently updated by 2006, as seen in Broekman, “Once Again the Reign of
Takeloth II,” 246.
Osorkon III ca. 796/791–768/763 28

Takeloth III ca. 773/768–766/761 7
Rudamun ca.766/761–747/742 19
Iny ca. 747/742–742/737 5
Peftjauawybast ca. 742/737–732/727 10
Ramifications of the Aston and Taylor proposals

The removal of Takeloth II from his traditional place in the 22nd Dynasty to a so-
far hypothetical 23rd ‘Theban’ Dynasty has ramifications.
1. Osorkon II is now succeeded by Shoshenq III not Takeloth II.
2. The “gap” in the chronology left by Takeloth’s removal had to be filled,
so Aston assigns another 15–20 years to the preceding reign of Osorkon II in addition to
the 30 or so already allocated to him, to give him 40–45 years.26 Kitchen, at this time,
gave only 24–25 to Osorkon II. Aston gives six arguments for a longer reign than
Kitchen allows. These are based, for example, on the number of generations of the
“Fourth Prophets of Amun,” the family tree of the High Priests of Ptah at Memphis, the
large number of High Priests of Amun, and indications that Osorkon II outlived his three
known adult sons.27 None of these arguments is decisive in giving Osorkon II a reign of
40–45 years, though a reign of 30-plus years is quite feasible.
3. Takeloth II’s son, crown prince Osorkon whose tenure as HPA is
recorded in The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon as beginning in Takeloth II’s 11th year, is
also reported as serving down to the 29th year of Shoshenq III, with a reappearance in
Shoshenq’s 39th (and last) year.28
However, in the surviving portions of the list there is a gap in the Chronicle’s
tabulation of Prince Osorkon’s benefactions between the 24th year of Takeloth II
(column 7) and the 22nd year of Shoshenq III (column 12). Aston proposes that the “gap
of over twenty years between Prince Osorkon’s two periods of activity,” 29 is not actually
a gap but indicates that, “Shoshenq III acceded to the throne in Tanis, at the earliest, only
three years after Takeloth II became King in the south. (That is, Year 22 of Sheshonq
immediately following Takeloth’s highest known year date of 25.)”30 So apart from the
first three years of Takeloth II’s reign, the two kings were contemporary for the length of
Takeloth II’s (presumed) 25-year reign.
Consequently, Aston must propose that Prince Osorkon/Osorkon B’s years as
HPA were numbered first by Takeloth II’s reign of the 23rd Dynasty for years 11–24,
then when his father died, by Shoshenq III’s reign of the 22nd Dynasty for years 22–39.
Aston calls this “a matter of administrative convenience.”31 If, as Kitchen has always
proposed, Takeloth II had instead been succeeded by Shoshenq III, all of Osorkon B’s
years as HPA would have been numbered by the two consecutive 22nd Dynasty kings,
which is more feasible.
4. The supposed 22 years concurrent in the reigns of Takeloth II and
Shoshenq III, with Prince Osorkon becoming HPA in Takeloth II’s 11th year (which is
Shoshenq III’s eighth year), means that for Prince Osorkon’s first 15 years as HPA both
kings were reigning concurrently, then from the 23rd to 39th year of Shoshenq III,
26
Aston, “Takeloth II…Theban Dynasty,” 148.
27
Ibid., 145-48.
28
Ricardo A. Caminos, The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1958)
124, 128.
29
30
Ibid., 143.
31
Ibid., 150.
Osorkon officiated for another 16 years (see Table 35.4). Osorkon’s tenure of office as
HPA amounts to just 31 years (8th to 39th years of Shoshenq III).
5. The presumed concurrency of the two kings, Takeloth II and Shoshenq
III, suggests two main scenarios to Aston. One: Takeloth II can be seen as a rival of
Pedubast I for control of Thebes. Nile Level Text No. 24 equates Shoshenq III’s year 12
with Pedubast I’s year five, so Pedubast became king of the 23rd Dynasty in Shoshenq
III’s eighth year. According to Aston’s chronology this is also Takeloth II’s 11th year.
He sees this as significant because the Chronicle records a rebellion in Takeloth II’s 11th
year. Aston proposes that Pedubast, “in proclaiming himself king in opposition to
Takeloth II, fomented the Theban rebellion that Osorkon B set out to conquer.”32 The
rivalry is presumed to have continued until Takeloth II died. Aston does not produce any
inscriptional evidence to support such a scenario, where, instead of having one Theban
(or Upper Egyptian) 23rd Dynasty, there are two rival factions. The situation is
represented in Table 35.4.33
Table 35.4: Aston’s correlation of Takeloth II, Shoshenq III, Pedubast I, and Prince
Osorkon as High Priest of Amun (HPA)
23rd Dynasty Rival 23rd Dynasty 22nd Dynasty
Takeloth II
1
2 Shoshenq III
3 1
4 2
5 3
6 4
8 5
9 6
Pedubast I 10 7
1 11 (Osorkon HPA) 8 (Osorkon HPA)
2 12 9
3 13 10
4 14 11
5 15 12
6 16 13
7 17 14
8 18 15
9 19 16
10 20 17
11 21 18
12 22 19
13 23 20
14 24 21
15 25 22
16 Iuput I’s second year? 23
17 ? 24
18 ? 25
19 ? 26
20 ? 27
21 ? 28
22 ? 29
23 ? 30
24 31
25 32
Shoshenq VI 33
1 34
2 35
3 36
32
Ibid., 149.
33
Compiled from Broekman, “Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II,” 251.
4 37
5 38
6 39
Osorkon III 1 Shoshenq IV 1
2 2
6. The second scenario posited by the concurrent rule of the three kings, and
the supposed shortening of (Prince) Osorkon B’s tenure as HPA, is the assumption that
Prince Osorkon became Osorkon III of the 23rd Dynasty. In the 39th year of Shoshenq
III, Prince Osorkon and his brother General Bakenptah of Heracleopolis claimed that
they had overthrown all who had fought against them.34
This has been interpreted to mean that they overthrew and killed the king of
Thebes, at that time Shoshenq VI. This 39th year is also seen as the last year of
Shoshenq III’s reign (deduced from NLTs) after which Prince Osorkon is heard of no
more.
Consequently, two new kings ascended the throne of the 22nd and 23rd
Dynasties, respectively, within a short span of time. The new king of the 23rd Dynasty to
succeed Shoshenq VI was an Osorkon who had also been an HPA, as recorded on a
donation stela at Tehna.35
Aston brings up the old idea that Osorkon III was none other than Prince
Osorkon. Prince Osorkon’s supposed tenure of office as High Priest amounting to 31
years means that if he became HPA at an age of about 20, in the 11th year of Takeloth II,
after 31 years he would be only 51 years old. However, Osorkon III, as king of the 23rd
Dynasty reigned 28–29 years, so on Aston’s chronology, Prince Osorkon died at about
80.
In Kitchen’s chronology, in which Takeloth II’s 25 years and Shoshenq III’s 39
years are consecutive, the figures for Prince Osorkon are: 20 + 15 (11th to 25th year of
Takeloth II) + 39 (Shoshenq III’s reign) = 74 + 28/29 (Osorkon III’s reign) = 102/103
years. Aston’s age for Osorkon III at demise is plausible, whereas Kitchen’s is less
likely. In the latter instance, Prince Osorkon cannot have become Osorkon III and
reigned a further 28 years, so they must be two different people. The religio–political
situation at the time, as proposed by Kitchen, in which the Thebans hated Prince
Osorkon, and would not have accepted him as king after the (assumed) murder of
Shoshenq VI, also makes the identification of the two being one person highly dubious.
7. Aston supposes that Prince Osorkon became Osorkon III, which makes
Takeloth II the father of Osorkon III, and the grandfather of Takeloth III and Rudamun.
In an analysis of the above, and supposing that Takeloth II reigned 25 years, he would
have died in the 22/23rd regnal year of Shoshenq III whom Prince Osorkon was serving
as HPA (22nd Dynasty). Prince Osorkon did not succeed his father, as might be
expected. Instead Iuput I is suggested as Takeloth II’s successor in the Theban 23rd
Dynasty. Prince Osorkon remained loyal HPA committed to the 22nd Dynasty until the
39th year of Shoshenq III’s reign.
If Prince Osorkon had pretensions to the throne of the 23rd Dynasty he did not
act on them before his father died, nor when Pedubast I of the supposed rival faction
died 10 years later, succeeded by Shoshenq VI. (Broekman, in 2005, identified from his
analysis of NLT No. 25 a Usimare Meriamun Shoshenq with a year six.36 He rearranged
34
Caminos, Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, 180.
35
Aston, “Takeloth II…Theban Dynasty,” 150 citing Leahy, “Appendix: The Twenty-third Dynasty,”
192.
36
G.P.F. Broekman,“The Nile Level Records of the Twenty-second and Twenty-third Dynasties in
Karnak: A Reconsideration of their Chronological Order,” JEA 88 (2002) 173, 174.
Aston’s 1989 chronology to insert Shoshenq VI between Pedubast I and Osorkon III).37
Thus Pedubast I, with a supposed co-regent (Iuput I) and Shoshenq VI intervene with
their rival faction between the death of Takeloth II and before his supposed son Osorkon
III. Only when Shoshenq VI died, about six or seven years later, possibly at the
instigation of Shoshenq III and Prince Osorkon, and perpetrated by the latter’s brother
and army general Bakenptah, did Prince Osorkon supposedly claim the throne of the
Theban 23rd Dynasty as successor and king of the rival faction, when he could have
been, with a little patience, the successor of Shoshenq III who had already had a long
reign, and to whose dynasty he belonged.
Even if Prince Osorkon and Bakenptah were responsible for the death of
Shoshenq VI, it does not imply or seem reasonable that Prince Osorkon planned to
succeed him, as Kitchen later points out. In Kitchen’s chronology, Takeloth II is
followed by Shoshenq III, possibly a brother, both men having Prince Osorkon as HPA.
In Shoshenq III’s 39th year, after bragging about defeating their enemies at
Thebes, Shoshenq III dies and Prince Osorkon is heard of no more. The throne of the
23rd Dynasty is filled by a former HPA, Osorkon, to become Osorkon III. Was there a
counter attack from the 23rd Dynasty headed by the new king Osorkon III, in which
Shoshenq III and Prince Osorkon were both killed? Shoshenq III was succeeded by
Shoshenq IV.
The above ramifications are some of the results of taking Takeloth II out of the
22nd Dynasty.
Rohl and Dodson—“New King Shoshenq IV”

A completely different contribution to the chronology of the period was first
suggested in 1985 by David Rohl, 38 and elaborated by Aidan Dodson in 1993,39 in
which they identify the “new” king, Shoshenq IV. His full name, Hedjkheperre
Setepenre Shoshenq Meryamun Si-Bast Netjerheqaon, inscribed on a canopic jar, was
found in the tomb of Shoshenq III.40 A donation stela of a chief of the Libu, Niumataped,
was dated to the 10th year of the reign of Hedjkheperre Shoshenq, seen to be the same
person as the Niumataped who was in office in the eighth year of Shoshenq V on another
stela.41
Thus a new Shoshenq, successor to Shoshenq III, has been accepted by most
scholars as Shoshenq IV and the previous Shoshenq IV of the 23rd Dynasty is now the
aforementioned Shoshenq VI. Shoshenq IV is now generally attributed 13 years of the
52 years formerly assigned just to Shoshenq III, leaving the latter with 39 years—this
being his highest known regnal year found on NLT No. 22.
Dodson’s compilation of the 22nd Dynasty includes Shoshenq IV as successor of
Shoshenq III, but he follows Aston’s chronology in deleting Takeloth II. He also inserts
Sehetipibenre Pedubast (II) between Shoshenq V and Osorkon IV,42 as do Leahy and
Aston.
37
Idem, “Reign of Takeloth II,” tables pp. 25, 35.
38
In Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Workshop 6:2 (1985); Chronology and Catastrophism Workshop
1986: 1, 17-18 n. 2, cited by A. Dodson in “A New King Shoshenq, Confirmed?” GM 137 (1993) 53 n. 5.
39
Dodson, “New King Shoshenq?” 53-58.
40
Ibid., 54; idem, The Canopic Equipment of the Kings of Egypt, (London and New York: Kegan Paul,
1994) 93.
41
Idem, “New King Shoshenq?” 53-58.
42
Ibid., 58.
Jansen-Winkeln—Osorkon’s Father is Takeloth I

In another area, Karl Jansen-Winkeln made a significant contribution in 1987 in
identifying Osorkon II’s father as Hedjkheperre Setepenre Takeloth Meriamun; that is,
Takeloth I,43 whose prenomen was previously assigned to Takeloth II, Osorkon II’s son.
They are now differentiated by the nomen epithet “Si-Ese” attached to the name of
Takeloth II and possibly by a variant spelling of the name.44 The epithet “God, Ruler of
Thebes” (ntr-hq3-W3st) added to his throne name has led some scholars to view this as
an added argument for Takeloth II heading a Theban 23rd Dynasty.45
Jansen-Winkeln’s article in 1995 supported Aston’s chronology in accepting two
rival factions in the 23rd Dynasty, one led by Takeloth II and the other by Pedubast I,
each with their own High Priests.46
Von Beckerath
In 1995, Jürgen von Beckerath also gave his support to Aston’s chronology in
removing Takeloth II from the 22nd Dynasty. He then identifies the “Takelothis,” named
by Manetho via Africanus, as the sixth king of the dynasty as Takeloth I with 13 years.
Manetho’s “Takelothis” was previously regarded as Takeloth II, although most scholars
assumed him to have 25 regnal years. The “three other kings” that Africanus refers to
between Osorkon (No. 3) and Takeloth (No. 6) are then interpreted by von Beckerath to
mean that three kings come between Osorkon I and Takeloth I, not, as previously,
between Osorkon I and Takeloth II. Takeloth II is no longer viewed in this dynasty. Von
Beckerath also follows Leahy’s lead in adding, after the end of the 22nd Dynasty,
Pedubast II and Osorkon IV as 23rd Dynasty kings, with Iuput II as their
contemporary.47
Kitchen’s Response
The discussion continued with Kitchen responding to the above changes to
traditional understandings. In his 1996 edition of TIP, he added a preface to the 1986
book. Kitchen agrees with the insertion of the new Shoshenq IV after Shoshenq III as
proposed first by Rohl, and then Dodson.48
However, Kitchen completely rejected the idea that Takeloth II should be
removed out of the 22nd Dynasty to head a Theban 23rd Dynasty. 49 Nor did he accept
the extension of Osorkon II’s reign by 15–20 years, asserting that 24 years was ample
time to accommodate the High Priests known to have officiated during Osorkon II’s
reign.50
Kitchen describes as “wildly improbable” the insertion of a Sehetepibenre
Pedubast into the 22nd Dynasty, pointing out that this prenomen is not used by 22nd
Dynasty kings, but by kings of the 7th century BCE.51 He recognizes Manetho’s
43
K. Jansen-Winkeln, “Thronname und Begräbnis Takeloths I” VA 3 (1987) 253-58. See also Kitchen,
TIP, xxii-xxiii.
44
Ibid., 257; Kitchen, TIP, xxiii.
45
46
Jansen-Winkeln, “Historische,” 129-149.
47
Von Beckerath, “Beiträge,” 7-8.
48
Kitchen, TIP, xxv-xxvi.
49
Ibid., xxiv, xxxii.
50
Ibid., xxv.
51
Ibid., xxvii; xxxi-xxxii. See also idem, “Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt (Absolute
Chronology I) The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a Current Assessment,” SCIEM II (2000), 40.
Pedubast as Usimare Pedubast, founder of the 23rd Tanite Dynasty, though he says its
capital was not Tanis—its actual location remains “a matter for investigation.”52
He disdains the idea that Prince Osorkon became Osorkon III. He points out that
the Thebans had rebelled and Osorkon and his brother Bakenptah had overthrown “all
who had fought against them” in Shoshenq III’s 39th year, and would never have
forgiven and accepted “the murderous old rogue” as their king.53
Muhs on Epithets
A short article by Brian Muhs, in 1998, expanded on the use of the epithets “son
of Isis” and “son of Bastet.”54 He notes, firstly, that kings of the Third Intermediate
Period, having identical cartouche names, can be distinguished from each other by their
different epithets, as, for example, Hedjkheperre Setepenre Meryamun Takeloth without
the epithet referring to Takeloth I, and with the epithet “son of Isis” referring to Takeloth
II, and Usimare Setepenamun Meryamun Osorkon “son of Bastet” referring to Osorkon
II, and with the epithet “son of Isis” referring to Osorkon III. These distinctions, using
the epithets, seem to be deliberate.55
Secondly, Muhs notes:
According to the reconstruction of the Twenty-second and Twenty-third Dynasties
proposed by several scholars, the epithet ‘son of Isis’ was used primarily by kings of the
Theban Twenty-third Dynasty, namely Takeloth II, Osorkon III, Takeloth III and Iny,
whose monuments and authority were concentrated in Upper Egypt, while the epithet
“son of Bastet” was used primarily by kings of the later Twenty-second Dynasty, namely
Osorkon II, Sheshonq III, Pami and Sheshonq V, whose monuments and authority were
concentrated in Lower Egypt.
Furthermore, Muhs states: “Correlations between the epithets, the dynasties and
the primary deities of their hometowns given by Manetho … suggest that the
reconstruction … proposed by Baer, Spencer and Spencer, Aston, Leahy and Taylor …
is substantially more correct than Kitchen’s reconstruction.”56 He writes:
Pedubast I used the epithet “son of Bastet” four times … and “son of Isis” just once on
Karnak Nile Level Text 24 [suggesting] the possibility that Pedubast I was somehow
57
related to the Twenty-second Dynasty, [and that] Iuput II used the epithet “son of
Bastet” three times … which suggests the possibility that Iuput II was also somehow
related to the Twenty-second Dynasty, perhaps even as the immediate successor of
Shoshenq V.
The main objection to placing Iuput II in the Twenty-second Dynasty is that the Piankhy
stela locates him in Taanu and Taremu, the latter being perhaps Tell el-Muqdam,
whereas the sites most closely connected with the Twenty-second Dynasty were Tanis
and Bubastis.58
On the other hand, Iuput II is noted as having a year 21 credited to him by king
Smendes of Mendes on a donation stela, and that he submitted to Piye in his invasion of
Egypt as on Piye’s Victory stela, suggesting to Muhs a possible 22nd Dynasty
52
Ibid., xxviii-xxix.
53
Ibid., xxxi.
54
B. Muhs, “Partisan Royal Epithets in the late Third Intermediate Period and the Dynastic Affiliations of
Pedubast I and Iuput II,” JEA 84 (1998) 221.
55
Ibid.
56
Ibid.
57
Ibid., 222.
58
Ibid., 223.
affiliation.59 From this we note that Takeloth II is associated with the Theban 23rd
Dynasty not only on the proposal of the scholars named above, but also because he has
the epithet “son of Isis”; whereas, 22nd Dynasty kings usually used the epithet “son of
Bastet.” However, Muhs points out some exceptions to what seems to be the normal
practice.60
Jansen-Winklen on Bickel et al. Regarding Pimay

A discovery of a different kind published in 1998 by Susanne Bickel, Marc
Gabolde, and Pierre Tallet, 61 concerns the regnal years of Pimay or Pami successor to
Shoshenq IV of the 22nd Dynasty. (It is not clear whether Pimay is the same person as
Pami.) Inscribed on a reused stone wall block at Heliopolis, recording donations made
yearly by Pami to various gods, a year seven can be clearly seen and a brief year eight is
possible in the erased section.62 In 2006, Jansen-Winkeln writes, “For this king Pami, the
years 2, 4, 5, and 6 are documented; from the structure of the text on his ‘annals’ in
Heliopolis, the presence of the years 3 and 7 can be deduced … However the assumption
of a mere 6–7 years is not really certain.”63
Previously, the highest known regnal year for Pimay was year six of a votive
64
stela. Therefore, one year, if not two or more, can be credited to Pimay/Pami’s reign.
Frame and Redford on Shabataka/Shebitku

A contention arose from an article by Grant Frame published in 1999,65 along
with another by Donald. B. Redford,66 concerning the Assyrian inscription found at
Tang-i Var in Iran, which says that Shabataka (that is, Shebitku) king or ruler of Melluha
(Nubia) extradited Iamani of Ashdod back to Sargon in the latter’s 16th year, dateable to
706 BCE. Six years earlier, in 712, Iamani had rebelled against Assyrian forces and
sought refuge with Shabako in Nubia. But, when Shabako died, Shebitku sought to
appease the Assyrians and sent Iamani back to Sargon. Sargon subsequently died in
battle in the following year in 705 BCE.67
Until 1999, most scholars dated Shebitku’s accession from 702 to 690, but the
new inscription raises Shebitku’s accession by four years, and consequently those for the
preceding reigns of Shabako and Piye, affecting the synchronization of other reigns in
the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th Dynasties.
Kitchen responded to this situation in 2000 as an Addendum68 to a paper
previously published in 1996.69 He refuted Shebitku’s accession in 706 BCE, claiming
59
Ibid.
60
Ibid., 222.
61
S. Bickel, M. Gabolde, Pierre Tallet, “Des annals héliopolitaines de la troisième périod Intermédiaire,”
BIFAO 98 (1998) 31-56.
62
See “Pami,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pami
63
Jansen-Winkeln, “Third Intermediate Period,” 245.
64
65
G. Frame, “The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var,” Orientalia 68 (1999) 31-57.
66
D.B. Redford, “A Note on the Chronology of Dynasty 25 and the Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i
Var,” Orientalia 68 (1999) 58-60. See also D. Kahn, “The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var and the
Chronology of Dynasty 25,” Orientalia 70 (2001) 1-18.
67
D. Kahn, “Taharqa, King of Kush and the Assyrians,” JSSEA 31 (2004) 109 [109-128].
68
Kitchen, “Regnal and Genealogical Data,” SCIEM II (2000) 50-51.
69
Idem, “The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a Current Assessment,” Acta Archaeologica 67
(1996): 1-13. This article was largely a response to a final chapter entitled “Appendix 1: Egyptian
Chronology” in Sturt W. Manning’s book, A Test of Time – The Volcano of Thera and the Chronology and
History of the Aegean and East Mediterranean in the Mid Second Millennium BC (Oxford: Oxbow Books,
that the Assyrian word sharru referred to one who was ruler of Nubia and not king of
Egypt at the time. Therefore, Shebitku was Shabako’s de facto viceroy.
Alternatively, he conceded that if the correct date was 706 BCE, the four extra
years could be accommodated by subtracting a year from, for example, Takeloth I and
Osorkon I, and two years from Osorkon IV.70 But he preferred the first option, and
reiterated these arguments in 2002, and again in 2006, 2007, and 2009.71
Broekman on Nile Level Texts, “Si-Ese,” and “King X”

The chronology of the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties received new impetus with the
publication of Gerard Broekman’s article in 2002 analyzing the NLTs at Karnak.72 He
observed that the NLTs Nos. 16–21 form a chronological unit and name the High Priest
(where legible) but do not give the king’s name (as on other NLTs), only his regnal year
at the time of the recorded flood level. Broekman suggests that these texts belong to
Takeloth I, and possibly his predecessor Shoshenq II who are otherwise not represented
among the texts.73 The implications for chronology are discussed below.
Perhaps Broekman’s main contribution concerns NLTs Nos. 3 and 45. He
proposed that the king’s name on NLT No. 3 could be read as Hedjkheperre Setepenre
Shoshenq Si-Ese Meriamun.74 Hitherto, this name had been attributed to Shoshenq I, but
that was now untenable because of the orthography of the word hcpj (Hapi) used for “the
Nile Flood” which Broekman demonstrated applied only to kings reigning after
Shoshenq III. Also, the nomen epithet “Si-Ese” (“son of Isis”) was usually associated
with kings of the 23rd Dynasty, not the 22nd. NLT No. 3 seemed to indicate a “new”
king Shoshenq. This text showed a year five. Next to it is NLT No. 45, which Broekman
observes has the same structure as No. 3 but with the name of the king illegible;
however, it had a year number that could be 17, 18, or 25.
Broekman suggested that NLT 45 may also have named the same king as that of
text No 3, the new Shoshenq, and been inscribed sometime after because of its position
on the left side of No. 3 (writing being done from right to left). Furthermore, a king with
regnal years 17, 18, or 25 could not fit into the 22nd Dynasty, but could be placed at the
end of the 23rd Dynasty where a 19th year of an unnamed king coincided with Piye’s
12th year as recorded on the Wadi Gasus inscription in which Shepenupet I, daughter of
Osorkon III, adopted Piye’s sister Amenirdis as God’s wife of Amun.75
If the king of the “19th year” reigned another eight years to his 27th year, then he
would be the king of the 23rd Dynasty who was reigning in Piye’s 20th year when the
latter invaded Egypt and brought its kings into submission. The high year numbers of
NLT No. 45 make the “owner,” dubbed “King X,” a distinct possibility as the last king
of the 23rd Dynasty. In Kitchen’s chronology, the last king of the 23rd Dynasty is
presumed to be Iuput II, and in Aston’s chronology, Peftjauawybast, kings of Lower and
Middle Egypt, respectively, who submitted to Piye. Broekman follows Aston’s
1999) 367-413. Manning sought to raise the dates of the Egyptian Chronology, but was opposed by
Kitchen.
70
Idem, “Regnal and Genealogical Data,” 50-51.
71
Idem, “Ancient Egyptian Chronology for Aegeanists,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 2
(2002) 6; idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 294; idem, “Egyptian and Related Chronologies—Look, no
Sciences, No Pots!” in SCIEM II (2007) 166 §6; idem, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 162-64 §§4-8.
72
Broekman, “Nile Level Records,” 163-78.
73
Ibid., 164, 168-69, 170, 173.
74
Ibid., 169, 176-78.
75
Kitchen, TIP, 359-60 §321.
chronology in assigning Takeloth II to the 23rd Theban Dynasty, thus making Shoshenq
III the successor of Osorkon II.76
Jaquet-Gordon on Iuputy (Iuput I)

A volume published by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago in
2003, authored by Helen Jacquet-Gordon, is dedicated to the graffiti on the roof slabs of
the Khonsu Temple at Karnak.77 Of interest are three hieratic inscriptions (Graffiti Nos.
244 and 245A-B) engraved by the same person over a period of three years. On the
earliest inscription, No. 244, the name of a king Iuputy is written without title and not
surrounded by a cartouche, but presumed to be Iuput I. He is given a “Year nine, third
month of summer.”78 In the second inscription, No. 245A, the king is given a “Year nine,
second month of summer, day two,” indicating this inscription was incised a month
earlier than the one above. In the third inscription “Year 12” is the highest attested. The
last two inscriptions do not give the king’s name but Jacquet-Gordon is confident that
they refer also to Iuput I.79 If these do indeed belong to Iuput I, they add to our sparse
knowledge, for he is otherwise only known from NLT No. 26 in which his year two
equates with Pedubast (I’s) year 16, these connecting to Shoshenq III’s 23rd regnal year.
Payraudeau, Kaper, and Demarée on Takelot III

In another area, in 2004, Frederic Payraudeau argued from four lines of evidence
from the Papyrus Berlin 3048 that a year 14 referring to Takelot Si-Ese Meryamun
should be applied to Takelot III not II to whom it had been previously attributed.80
Until then only a year seven for Takeloth III was known from a graffito on the
roof of the Temple of Khons.81 In 2005, Olaf Kaper and Robert Demarée published a
report of a discovery made by U.S. excavators from the University of Columbia in
February of that year.82 They recorded that a stela from the ruins of a temple in the
western part of the Dakhla Oasis recorded a year 13 of a king’s reign. It is now
conclusively identified as belonging to Takeloth III. In 2008, Payraudeau accepted the
evidence of the 13 years for Takeloth III and attributed the 14 years to Takeloth II.83 The
assigning of 13 years to Takeloth III means that chronologies formerly giving him seven
years have to be changed.
Perdu on Tefnakht II
A paper published in 2004, written by Olivier Perdu,84 argues that Shepsesre
Tefnakht attested on an Athens Donation stela with a year eight and identified by
Kitchen as Tefnakht [I] who submitted to Piye in the latter’s 20th year, 85 should instead
76
Broekman, “Nile Level Records,” 175.
77
H. Jacquet-Gordon, The Graffiti on the Khonsu Temple Roof at Karnak: A Manfestation of Personal
Piety (The Temple of Khonsu, Vol. 3; Oriental Institute Publications Vol. 123; Chicago, IL: Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, 2003).
78
Ibid., 84.
79
Ibid., 85.
80
Frédéric Payraudeau, “Le règne de Takélot III et les débuts de la domination Koushite,” GM 198 (2004)
79-90.
81
Kitchen, TIP, 357 §319; 534 §437.
82
O. Kaper and R. Demarée, “A Donation Stela in the Name of Takeloth III from Amheida, Dakhleh
Oasis,” JEOL 39 (2005) 19-37. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takelot_III
83
F. Payraudeau, “Takeloth III: Considerations on Old and New Documents,” Libyan Period, 291-96.
84
O. Perdu, “La Chefferie de Sébennytos de Piankhy à Psammétique Ier,” Rd'É 55 (2004) 95-111 cited at
“Tefnakht,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefnakht
85
Kitchen, TIP, 139-43 §§112-114; see also 145-47 §§117-18.
be identified with Tefnakht II. Perdu notes that a recently discovered stela from the
second year of Necho I of the 26th Dynasty is similar in style, text, and format with the
Athens stela, demonstrating that Shepsesre Tefnakht was contemporary with Necho I,
and therefore could not be Tefnakht I, founder of the 24th Dynasty.
Purdu’s identification had previously been made by Klaus Baer agreeing with
86
Priese that Shepsesre Tefnakht must be Tefnakht II, whom he identifies as the son of
Bocchoris, and with Manetho’s Stephinates of the 26th Saïs Dynasty, where he is given a
reign of seven years.87
Kahn Contends
This identification is contrary to that previously made by D. Kahn in 1999 when
he noted that of the two stelae mentioning Shepsesre Tefnakht, the first—the Athens
stela—states that Shepsesre Tefnakht donated land in the vicinity of Saïs. But the
other—in the Michaïlides collection—reports that he donated land in the eastern Delta,
about nine kilometres northeast of Bubastis. Kahn says this indicates an expansion from
Saïs in the west to the eastern borders of Egypt without a withdrawal of the Kushites.88
Therefore, he says, the Kushites and the Saïtic rule could not “fit together into the
same time period” and Shepsesre Tefnakht ought to be identified with Tefnakht I, not
Tefnakht II. Furthermore, other scholars note that the epigraphic style of the stelae and
temple wall reliefs of Tefnakht are in use in the early 25th Nubian Dynasty, and in
Tefnakht I’s “Chief of the Ma” donation stela of Shoshenq V’s year 38, and therefore,
Shepsesre Tefnakht could refer to Tefnakht I.89 If the Athens stela with year eight
belongs to Tefnakht I, the regnal years of Stephinates/Tefnakht II are not now attested.
Broekman Favors Aston

In 2005, Broekman elaborated on the different chronologies of Kitchen and
Aston, finding in favor of Aston.90 The decisive factor for him seems to be that because
Aston has removed Takeloth II (with his presumed 25 years) from the 22nd Dynasty
there is now space to accommodate a long reign for Osorkon II (Usimare Setapenamun).
Broekman has demonstrated that the Year 29 on NLT No. 14 belongs to Osorkon
II, particularly because the orthography used for the “Nile Flood” epithet hcpj indicates a
king who reigned before Shoshenq III. Broekman adjusts Osorkon II’s reign of 40–45
years given by Aston, to 34 years.91 The lack of any NLT attributable to Takeloth II’s
presumed reign of 25 years, and the presumed gap in The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon
between the year 25 of Takeloth II followed by year 22 of Shoshenq III (what looks like
a gap of 22 years between them) can be resolved, writes Broekman, by telescoping the
years of Takeloth II and Shoshenq III together.92
On the other hand, Kitchen identifies Usimare Setapenamun on NLT No. 14 as
Osorkon III, not II, because he can give only 24 years to the latter, having retained
Takeloth II’s (supposed) 25 years in the 22nd Dynasty.93 His chronology cannot
accommodate another six years beyond what he has already assigned to its other kings.
Kitchen’s and Aston’s chronologies of the 22nd Dynasty begin in 945 BCE with
86
Priese, “Beginn der kuschitischen Herrschaft,” 19-21.
87
Baer, “Libyan and Nubian Kings, 23-24.
88
D. Kahn, “Did Tefnakhte I Rule as King?” GM 173 (1999) 123-25.
89
“Tefnakht II,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefnakht_II
90
Broekman, “Reign of Takeloth II,” 21-35.
91
Ibid., 25.
92
Ibid., 30.
93
Kitchen, TIP, xxv; Broekman, “Reign of Takeloth II,” 31.
Shoshenq I’s accession, and end with Osorkon IV’s last year: 715/713 BCE in Kitchen’s
chronology, and 720/715 BCE in Aston’s.94 Thus, both cover approximately the same
time-span. Broekman prefers Aston’s chronology, which overlaps the reigns of Takeloth
II and Pedubast I and gives space for a longer reign to Osorkon II.
Broekman on Shoshenq VII

Another article by Broekman, published in 2005, aimed “to find out how closely
his [Shoshenq VII’s] chronological position might be determined”; 95 that is, within the
23rd Dynasty. Broekman’s upper limit for Shoshenq VII is the end of the reign of
Osorkon III. His lower limit takes into account the synchronism between King X’s 19th
year and Piye’s 12th year as noted on the Wadi Gasus inscription when Piye’s sister,
Amenirdis, was adopted.
After the adoption, and the death of King X, datelines were always written in the
name of Piye. Therefore, Broekman proposes that, “The Wadi Gasus king X was the
very last Upper Egyptian king to be mentioned in official Theban documents. Shoshenq
VII then either must be identical with that king or he should be inserted between
Takeloth III and King X.”96 Broekman discusses the identification of King X from
among four candidates: Rudamun, Shoshenq VII, Peftjauawybast (Peftiauawibast), and
Nimlot.97 He eliminates Rudamun, and Nimlot, and Aston’s Peftjauawybast in favor of
his own candidate, Shoshenq VII.98 Shoshenq VII, that is, Hedjkheperre Setepenre
Shoshenq Si-Ese Meriamun on NLT No. 3, was assigned the numbering VIa at the
Libyan Period conference held in Leiden in 2007.99
Support for Shoshenq VII

Further support for Shoshenq VII is found in connection with an Iny Si-Ese
Meriamun, mentioned in a graffito (No. 146 previously No. 11) on a roof slab of the
Khons temple with a fifth regnal year and the date of II ŝmw 10. This graffito was carved
by a certain Djedioh B. On a nearby slab is a graffito (No. 145, previously No. 10) of a
Djedioh A, the presumed grandfather of Djedioh B, which mentions a Shoshenq
Meriamun with a fourth regnal year and the date II ŝmw 26.100 Usually identified with
Shoshenq VI, Broekman identifies this king with Shoshenq VII, because he positions
Djedioh B contemporary with the Piye’s reign in the latter part of the 23rd Dynasty and
not two generations earlier in the times of Djedioh A and Shoshenq VI.101
This position for Shoshenq VII reinforces Broekman’s proposal that the
Shoshenq named on NLT No. 3 and the king with the illegible name on NLT No. 45
with years 17, 18, or 25 refer to Shoshenq VII, making it probable that the unnamed king
of the Wadi Gasus inscription with the 19th year refers to Shoshenq VII also.102
Broekman’s chronology (following Aston’s) gives to Shoshenq VII 19–24 years
and the dates 759–741/735 BCE, indicating that Shoshenq VII’s 19th year, equated with
Piye’s 12th year, fell in 741 BCE. In Broekman’s adjustment of Kitchen’s chronology
94
This is according to Broekman’s representation of Aston’s chronology (“Reign of Takeloth II,” table p.
25).
95
G.P.F. Broekman, “The Chronological Position of King Shoshenq Mentioned in Nile Level Record No.
3 on the Quay Wall of the Great Temple of Amun at Karnak,” SAK 33 (2005) 75-89. Quote from p. 76.
96
Ibid., 79.
97
Ibid., 81-83.
98
Ibid., 82, 88.
99
O. Kaper, “The Libyan Period in Egypt” EA 32 (2008) 38-39.
100
Broekman, “Chronological Position,” 83; Jacquet-Gordon, Graffiti on the Khonsu Temple, 55.
101
Ibid., 83-84.
102
Ibid., 86-89.
(approved by Kitchen) he positions Shoshenq VII between Rudamun and Iuput II (its last
king), with the 19 years for Shoshenq VII’s reign falling in 755-736, thus the latter date
is Piye’s 12th year.
In order to insert Shoshenq VII’s 19 years into Kitchen’s chronology, Iuput II’s
previously given 34–39 years (754–720/715 BCE) is reduced to 21 years (736–715
BCE).103 Consequently, Piye’s invasion of Egypt in his 20th year falls in 728, which
equates with Iuput II’s eighth year.104 Iuput II reigns a further 13 years till 715, giving
him 21 years, his highest attested.105
SCIEM 2005
Papers from Kitchen106 and Broekman107 were presented in absentia at the
SCIEM 2005 Egypt and Time Workshop held from 30 June to 2 July in Vienna, and
published in 2006. The first part of Broekman’s paper consists of extracts from his 2005
article, “The Reign of Takeloth II, a Controversial Matter,” commented on above. The
second part is a response to Kitchen’s article presented at the workshop, starting from
Kitchen’s §10108 where Kitchen sought to show again why his scheme of chronology is
fully satisfactory, and on the other hand, making concessions to his chronology to
provide an alternative.
The following are some of the more relevant points pertinent to our discussion
from these papers.
Dead-reckoning
Kitchen continues to dead-reckon the years of the 22nd Dynasty kings,
incorporating the dates afforded to the Assyrian Eponym Canon for the reign of
Shalmaneser III of Assyria to gain dates for Ahab of Judah and Jehu of Israel to supply a
date of 945 BCE for the beginning of the 22nd Dynasty. 109 This date is also used by
Broekman in his representation of Aston’s chronology.110
Gaps Assumed
Broekman assumes there is a “gap” in the NLTs where they should have recorded
the reign of Takeloth II had he reigned the (assumed) 25 years. Kitchen points out that
there are 22 years not recorded between year six and year 28 of Osorkon III, and a 26-
year gap between year nine of Taharqa and year 10 of Psamtek I (26th Dynasty), and a
26-year gap between year six of Shoshenq I and year 12 of Osorkon I.111 (This last
example assumes a reign of 21 years for Shoshenq I. Had he reigned longer, then the
“gap” would be extended by the corresponding amount.)
Are Prince Osorkon and King Osorkon III the Same Person?
Kitchen retains Takeloth II with 25 years in the 22nd Dynasty between Osorkon
II and Shoshenq III and reiterates previous arguments against identifying Prince Osorkon
with Osorkon III. His main points are: (i) the 71-year age required for Prince Osorkon in
103
Kitchen, “Regnal and Genealogical data,” table p. 50.
104
Broekman, “Chronological Position,” table p. 88.
105
106
Idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 293-308.
107
Broekman, “Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II,” 245-56.
108
§10 indicates Kitchen’s 1996 Preface to his Second Edition of TIP.
109
Kitchen, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 295-96.
110
Broekman, “Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II,” table p. 246.
111
Kitchen, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 298-99.
the 39th year of Shoshenq III is not unrealistic; (ii) Prince Osorkon’s long-standing
enmity with the 23rd Dynasty precludes him being accepted as king of the 23rd Dynasty;
(iii) evidence is lacking that Takeloth II was buried at Thebes; and (iv) Kitchen’s own
belief that the epithet Si-ese proves nothing about the location of kings before the reign
of Osorkon III and onwards, nor about the location of Takeloth II who had this epithet.112
Broekman counters by continuing to maintain that the 23rd Dynasty had two
rival branches: one founded by Takeloth II, and the other by Pedubast I—and it was only
the latter branch that Prince Osorkon shunned, not the Takelothid branch.113
Furthermore, he maintains the civil war was not between Osorkon and the Thebans, but
between Prince Osorkon and Harsiese B (HPA), with the Thebans playing only an
inferior part. In this scenario, nothing prohibits “identifying Prince Osorkon with king
Osorkon III, all the more as the mother of each of them is named Ka(ro)mama.” 114
Generation Jumping
In 2005, Broekman argued that Kitchen’s chronology required a large number of
individuals who lived to a very old age to cover the span of time required. Broekman
says, “We have generation jumps occurring contemporaneously in three different
families … too many to be credible.”115 But in Aston’s chronology, generations of
people of average ages are all that are required to cover the span of time, which to
Broekman was “much more realistic.”116
Kitchen responded, in 2006, that the children of siblings may marry at very
different ages and have children born many years apart, especially those of large
families. Thinking that the whole idea of a “generation jump” is “somehow abnormal” is
itself a major conceptual error.117
Pedubast II
Kitchen maintains that the title/style of Sehetepibenre Pedubast [II] does not
belong in the later 22nd Dynasty between Shoshenq V and Osorkon IV (where
Leahy/Aston/Broekman put him), but it belongs to Pedubast II the ruler of Tanis in the
late 7th century BCE. He challenges Aston’s proposal that Pedubast II be given 10 years
followed by Osorkon IV with 20 years, because the Apis bull, which was inducted in the
37th year of Shoshenq V and died in the fifth or sixth year of Bakenranef/Bocchoris in
715, would have lived from 745 to 715—a span of over 30 years. “No way!!” says
Kitchen.118
Kitchen’s Options A and B

Kitchen updated his previous chronologies of the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties given
in 1986119 and 2000,120 to provide two options, A and B, for each dynasty (see Tables
35.5 and 35.6).121
112
Ibid., 298.
113
Broekman, “Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II,” 249.
114
Ibid.
115
Idem, “Reign of Takeloth II,” 27.
116
Ibid.
117
Kitchen, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 299.
118
Ibid.
119
Kitchen, TIP, table p. 467.
120
Idem, “Regnal and Genealogical Data,” table p. 50.
121
Idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 308. For a fuller presentation see tables on pp. 304-07.
Table 35.5: Kitchen’s revised chronology for the 22nd Dynasty (2006): Options A &
B
King Option A Option B
Years reigned Dates BCE Years reigned Dates BCE
Shoshenq I 21 945–924 21 945–924
Osorkon I 34 924–890 34 924–890
(Shoshenq II c/r) (2?) (c. 892/891) (2?) (c. 892/891)
Takeloth I 13 890–877 13 890–877
Osorkon II 25* 877–852 30*
Harsiese A – (c. 865) -- (c. 865)
Takeloth II 25 852–827 25 847–822
Shoshenq III (part c/r in Option B) 39 827–788 39 829–790
Shoshenq IV 10* 788–778 12* 790–778
Pimay 6 778–772 6 778–772
Shoshenq V 37 772–735 37 772–735
Osorkon IV 20 735–715 20 735–715
*= changes between the options; c/r = co-regency.
Table 35.6: Kitchen’s revised chronology for the 23rd Dynasty (2006): Options A &
B
King Option A Option B
Years reigned Dates BCE Years reigned Dates BCE
Pedubast I 25 820–795 25 822–797
(Iuput I, c/r) (2?) (c. 806/805) (2?) (c. 808/807)
Shoshenq VI 6 795–789 6 797–791
Osorkon III 28 789–761 28 791–763
Takeloth III, part c/r 7 766–759 7 768–761
Rudamun 3+* 759–756 5 761–756
As in Option B As in Option A
Shoshenq VII 20 756–736 20 756–736
Iuput II 21 736–715 21 736–715
*= changes between the options; c/r = co-regency.
The changes to the chronology were necessary for two basic reasons: (i) the
update of Osorkon II’s 25 years in Option A to 30 years in Option B; and (ii) the
inclusion of Shoshenq VII as second-to-last king of the 23rd Dynasty in both options.
These also necessitated further changes to the reigns and dates of other kings.
In reconstructing his chronology Kitchen had to keep several things in mind:
(1) the commencement of the 22nd Dynasty in 945 BCE;
(2) the synchronism between Shoshenq III’s 12th year and Pedubast I’s fifth year
(NLT No. 24) equating Shoshenq III’s eighth year with Pedubast I’s first;
(3) an Apis bull that was installed in the 28th year of Shoshenq III died in the
second year of Pimay after 26 years, indicating a reign of 39/40 years for
Shoshenq III and 12/13 for his successor, Shoshenq IV, with another bull
installed in the 37th year of Shoshenq V, which died in the fifth year of
Bocchoris (24th Dynasty) and buried in his sixth year, equated with the second
year of Shabako of the 25th Dynasty;
(4) the 12th year of Piye of the 25th Dynasty had to equate with the 19th year of
a king of the 23rd Dynasty, now identified as Shoshenq VII, fixing this sequence
of rulers; and finally,
(5) the 22nd Dynasty was understood to end in 715 BCE with the final
appearance of Osorkon IV the previous year, 716 BCE, when he ([U]shilkanni of
Assyrian records) had paid tribute to Sargon II, understood to be the second year
of Shabako’s reconquest of Egypt (first as king of Egypt).
Making this a difficult exercise was the constraint of only 230 years between the
fixed points of 945 and 715 BCE in the 22nd Dynasty, and that from the fifth year of
Shoshenq III the 23rd Dynasty had the same number of years down to its assumed end
also in 715 BCE, which was also the last year of the 24th Dynasty. Therefore, the
chronologies of the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 25th Dynasties are inter-related and have to be
correlated to concur with each other.
In the 23rd Dynasty, Shoshenq VII had to be inserted between Rudamun and
Iuput II, as the latter is understood by Kitchen to be the last king of the Dynasty.
Shoshenq VII’s insertion was possible by splitting the 34/39 year reign of Iuput II to give
him only 21 years, his highest attested.122 Iuput II’s reign started in 736 and ended in 715
BCE to coincide with the end of the 22nd Dynasty date of Osorkon IV’s last year on the
assumption that this was Shabako’s first year as king of Egypt and the second year since
his accession in Nubia.123
The 19th year of Shoshenq VII’s prior reign had to be the same year as Piye’s
12th year (Wadi Gasus inscription) attributed to either 738 or 737 BCE by Kitchen from
his reconstruction of the 25th Dynasty. Therefore, Shoshenq VII’s 19th year is dated to
738/737 BCE, and his 20th year and Iuput II’s first year is the following year in 736
BCE.124 Shoshenq VII’s accession year is then 756, two years earlier than what used to
be the accession year for Iuput II when attributed 34/39 years beginning in 754 BCE.
In Option A, the preceding kings from Pedubast I down to Rudamun have the
same years attributed to them as in 2000, but with the insertion of Shoshenq VII,
Pedubast I’s reign is now updated with his reign beginning two years earlier, 820 instead
of the former 818 BCE. This means that in the 22nd Dynasty, Shoshenq III’s first year
has to be updated two years, (so that his eighth equals Pedubast’s first)—therefore, from
825 to 827—affecting dates before and after it. In 2000, Kitchen gave 15 years to
Osorkon IV (730–715) but with the updating of Shoshenq III, and the last year of
Shoshenq V in 735 BCE, he gave Osorkon IV 20 years (735–715),125 thus an increase of
five years.
Between the accession of Shoshenq III in 827 BCE and the final year of Osorkon
IV in 715, there are 112 years, made up of Shoshenq III 39, Shoshenq IV 10, Pimay 6,
Shoshenq V 37, and Osorkon IV 20. As Kitchen has previously noted in TIP, “We know
from the records of the Apis-burials at Memphis that 52 years elapsed from the accession
of Shoshenq III to that of Pimay.”126 An Apis bull that was installed in year 28 of
Shoshenq III was buried 26 years later in the second year of Pimay as recorded on the
Serapeum stela.127
These 26 years depend on Shoshenq III having a 39 or 40-year reign followed by
Shoshenq IV having 12 or 13 years. Shoshenq III’s highest attested year is his 39th on
NLT No. 22 and further analysis demonstrates that 39 and 13 are the correct number of
regnal years for each. In Option A, the 28th year of Shoshenq III is either 800/799 BCE
and the second year of Pimay is 778/777, showing, at most, 23 years, not 26 years. Three
of Shoshenq IV’s 13 years have been deleted leaving him with only 10, because the
increase of 5 years to the reign of Osorkon IV has to be offset elsewhere in the dynasty,
and 3 have been omitted here. The remaining 2 excess years have been deleted in the
122
Smendes V, son of Harnakht B of Mendes, dates to year 21 of Iuput II (Kitchen, TIP, 580 §519).
123
Kitchen, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 293, 297, 299.
124
The one-year difference comes from the variation in Kitchen’s tables shown in his Excursus I and
Excursus II (“Strengths and Weaknesses,” tables 307, 308).
125
Kitchen, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 294-95, 299, 301, tables 307, 308.
126
Idem, TIP, xxvi §Y.
127
Ibid., 102 §82, 193 §155 and n. 22; idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 294.
dynasty by reducing (rounding down) Osorkon I’s 35 years to 34, and Takeloth I’s 15
years to 13—the latter offset 1 year by the addition of an extra year to the reign of
Osorkon II, from 24 years (in 2000) to 25 years. Thus, the updating of 2 years in the
22nd Dynasty, along with the increase of 5 years to the reign of Osorkon IV, has caused
problems in containing the extra years in the 22nd Dynasty and reconciling it with the
23rd Dynasty.
In Option B, Kitchen concedes that Broekman’s analysis of NLT No. 14 with a
year 29 and version two for “the Nile flood” could refer to Osorkon II. Furthermore, the
relief inscription giving Osorkon II a jubilee in his 22nd year, is now seen by Kitchen as
a slip in transcribing from the hieratic numbers where a third “ten-sign” was damaged
and now seen as two vertical strokes.128 Thus, in Option B, Kitchen attributes 30 years to
Osorkon II, assuming he “probably died in his 31st year,” 129 updated from his 25th year
in Option A (24 years in 2000130), causing an increase of 5 years to Osorkon II’s reign
from a previous 24 years in 2000 and 25 years in Option A.
Option B also has the addition of the 5 years to the reign of Osorkon IV. In this
presentation, Shoshenq IV is given 12 years not 10 years (as in Option A), which updates
Shoshenq III’s accession to the year 829 BCE so that his fifth and Pedubast I’s first year
are in 822—the latter being 2 years earlier than in Option A. So there are 7 years more in
Option B than in Option A, and there is 1 year—not 3—omitted in Shoshenq IV’s reign.
The kings preceding Osorkon II have the same years and dates in Option B as in
Option A, which means that all the years for the dynasty between 945 and 730 BCE are
accounted for. Consequently, Kitchen attributes an unattested co-regency/overlap of
seven years to Takeloth II and Shoshenq III starting in Takeloth II’s 19th year (of an
assumed 25 years) falling in 829/828 BCE. He proposes that Pedubast I “used his role at
this funeral [Takeloth II’s] to claim to succeed him alongside Shoshenq III. The latter
may not have approved; hence Pedubast moved out of Tanis, and set up court elsewhere
(probably at Leontopolis).”131
However, Kitchen needs to explain why Shoshenq III would have become full
co-regent in Takeloth II’s 19th year. He appeals to the political situation of the time, in
which in year 15 of Takeloth II, “a cataclysm of revolt … burst upon the land ... the
years 15–19 probably saw the Thebans in danger of taking over the entire Nile valley
south of Memphis.”132 He proposes that Shoshenq took control of the armed forces,
stopped the opposition, negotiated peace, and assumed full co-regency with Takeloth II
for nearly eight years until the latter died.133 The overlap of Shoshenq III with Takeloth
II also allows a reduction in the age of Prince Osorkon in the 39th year of Shoshenq III,
after which he is not heard of again, so that instead of dying at about the age of 71, he
dies about 62/66 years old instead, which is considered to be more realistic.134
128
Idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 301. This suggestion was made by E.F. Wente in 1976 in a review
of Kitchen’s 1st edition of TIP in 1973. See review of The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650
B.C.), in JNES 35 (1976) 278.
129
Ibid., 301.
130
Idem, “Regnal and Genealogical Data,” 50.
131
Idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 300.
132
Ibid., 301.
133
Ibid. The actual overlap is 7 years not 8; 8 is mentioned because Takeloth II is attributed 26 years
(table p. 305) whereas elsewhere Kitchen gives to him only 25 years. The 26th year of Takeloth may then
be equated with the eighth year of Shoshenq III and the first year of Pedubast I, making the accession of
Pedubast on the death of Takeloth II appear feasible.
134
Ibid., 301, 297-98.
Broekman Responds Contradicting Kitchen

Broekman’s response is to compare Aston’s chronology of the 22nd Dynasty
with Kitchen’s new revised chronology. Broekman notes that in Option B Shoshenq II
becomes co-regent in Takeloth II’s 18th or 19th year, which means that Takeloth II’s
25th and final year concurs with Shoshenq III’s eighth year when Pedubast I founded the
23rd Dynasty.135 According to NLT No. 26, Pedubast I’s 16th year was Iuput I’s second
year, giving the following equation: Shoshenq III’s 22nd = Pedubast I’s 15th = Iuput I’s
first as co-regent. In Kitchen’s chronology, Broekman can find no explanation for Iuput I
becoming co-regent in Pedubast’s 15th year.136 On the other hand, using Aston’s
chronology, Broekman notes that Iuput I’s first year equates with the 15th year of
Pedubast I corresponding to the 25th (and presumed final) year of Takeloth II’s reign.
Therefore, it seems that upon the death of Takeloth II, Iuput I became his successor,
who, in Aston’s chronology, is presumed to have headed a faction in competition with
one led by Pedubast for supremacy of the 23rd Dynasty.
The correlation of the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties as proposed by Broekman from
Aston’s chronology, previously given in 2005,137 and updated in 2006,138 is shown in
Table 35.7 and Table 35.8, and can be compared with Kitchen’s above (Tables 35.5 and
35.6).
Table 35.7: Aston’s Chronology for the 22nd Dynasty as supplied by Broekman
King Years reigned Dates BCE
Shoshenq I 21 945–924
Osorkon I 35 924–889
Takeloth I 15 889–874
Osorkon II 34 874–840
Shoshenq III 39 840–801
Shoshenq IV 13 801–788
Pimay 6 788–782
Shoshenq V 37 782–745
Pedubast II 10 745–735
Osorkon IV 15–19 735–720/715
Table 35.8: Aston’s Chronology for the Theban 23rd Dynasty as supplied by
Broekman
King Years reigned Dates BCE
Takeloth II 25 843–818
Pedubast I 25 832–807
Iuput I --? 817–?
Shoshenq VI 6 807–801
Osorkon III 28 801–773
Takeloth III 7 778–771
Rudamun 12 771–759
Shoshenq VII 18–24 759–741/735
While no known inscription indicates that Takeloth II was alive during the reign
of Pedubast I or that of Shoshenq III, Broekman weaves this scenario into The Chronicle
of Prince Osorkon, supposing that it was Iuput I’s acceptance by both Prince Osorkon
and his adversaries as a candidate to succeed Takeloth II that led to a temporary
reconciliation of both parties and the return of Prince Osorkon as HPA to Thebes.139
135
Broekman, “Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II,” table p. 252.
136
Ibid., 251.
137
Idem, “The Reign of Takeloth II,” 25, 35.
138
Idem, “Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II,” 246, 251.
139
Broekman, “Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II,” 253.
Based on Aston’s chronology and his interpretation of it, Broekman writes:

The historical developments outlined above, from the death of Takeloth II until the end
of the reign of Shoshenq III, start from a realistic explanation for Iuput I succeeding
Takelot II, and are perfectly in accord with the monumental evidence, notably the
sequence of events recorded in the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon and the political
situation reflected in it … The accession of Takeloth II preceding the death of Osorkon II
by three years can perfectly be explained, as well as Pedubast I taking royal style in
Takeloth II’s 11th year … This chronological reconstruction … is grounded purely on a
historical basis, real political situations and realistic circumstances, as advocated by
140
Kitchen, without anything contradicting it.
None of Broekman’s speculations are credible if Kitchen’s insistence is correct

that there was no Theban 23rd Dynasty.
Takeloth III’s 14th year

Not commented on by Kitchen or Broekman but seen in their tables, is the
attribution of just seven years to Takeloth III: five as co-regent with his father Osorkon
III, and two sole-reign years.141 This does not take into account the findings of a year 13
of Takeloth III seen in 2005 by the excavation team from the Colombia University at the
Dakhla Oasis, published by Kaper and Demarée, noted above. Thus, all of Kitchen’s
efforts to reconcile the 22nd Dynasty with the 23rd Dynasty after the inclusion of
Shoshenq VII, in which he gives only two full-reign years to Takeloth III, founders on
the omission of the extra years now attributable to Takeloth III.
Pimay’s Seven or Eight Years

Kitchen and Broekman also fail to comment on the year seven and possible year
eight of Pimay/Pami on the reused block from Heliopolis, known since its publication in
1998 and noted above. Both scholars continue to give Pimay just six years.142
Shebitku Extradites Iamani in 706 BCE

The Tang-i Var inscription relates that Shebitku of Melluha (Nubia) extradited
Iamani of Ashdod back to Sargon II, a date that scholars set from Assyrian records at
706 BCE.
But Kitchen still insists, in 2006, that Shebitku’s reign started in 702 and not 706.
He says Shebitku was ruler of Kush not Egypt because sharru was the term for a Kushite
ruler, not for a king of Egypt. So, in 706, Shebitku was Shabako’s deputy, or ruler of
Kush. Kitchen supports this by pointing out that the vast territory of Kush (or Nubia) and
Egypt required a king plus his deputy to oversee the domain.143 Kitchen now provides
Shebitku with 13 years as ruler of Kush as the deputy of Shabako, before becoming king
himself of Egypt in 702 BCE. Table 35.9 also shows that while Shebitku ruled as king
over Egypt, Taharqa was ruler in Kush, before becoming king of Egypt in 690. There is a
precedent in this, in that Taharqa was summoned by his brother, Shebitku, to join the
Egyptian and Nubian armies to fight Assyria in Palestine in 701, when Taharqa could not
yet have been king of Egypt. Taharqa is cited in 2 Kgs 19:9 as if he is the head of the
Ethiopian army.
140
Ibid., 254.
141
Kitchen, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 306, 308; Broekman, “Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II,”
245.
142
Ibid., 306, 308; Broekman, “Once Again the Reign of Takeloth II,” 246.
143
Ibid., 293-94. Capitalization his.
In Table 35.9 Kitchen gives the chronology for the 25th Dynasty kings from Piye
to Taharqa in Egypt, attributing prior reigns to Shebitku and Taharqa in Kush/Nubia.144
Table 35.9: 25th Nubian Dynasty according to Kitchen (2006)
Dates BCE Rulers in (N) Egypt Years reigned Adjoint rulers in Kush
749–716 Pi(ank)y (Kush & Thebaid) 33
716–702 Shabako (715ff. in Egypt) 14 Shebitku (715–702)
702–690 Shebitku 12 Taharqa
690–664 Taharqa 26 (X, then Tantamani? x/y to 664)
Kitchen reckons that Shabako came north in 715 BCE just after Osorkon IV (the
“Shilkanni” of Assyrian records) had sent gifts to Sargon II of Assyria in 716. He
equates 716 with Piye’s last year and 715 with Osorkon IV’s final year. 145 Since
Shabako has a regnal year 15 attributed to him on the British Museum cube statue 24429
of a certain Ity,146 Shabako’s reign, if assumed to be just over 14 years, would begin in
716 and end in 702 when Shebitku’s would begin.
In Kitchen’s chronology, it is impossible for Shebitku to be ruling as king of
Egypt in 706.147 On the other hand, as noted above, Frame and Kahn date Shebitku as
king of Egypt in 706 with a 16-year reign ending in 690. If Shabako had 14–15 prior
years, then his accession ought to have been in 721/720 at the end of Piye’s reign. There
are two ways to interpret the Tangi-i Var inscription, depending on whether one
recognizes Shebitku as king of Egypt, or only of Nubia, in 706 BCE.
Length of the 24th Dynasty?

Also tied up in the dating of Piye, Shabako, and Shebitku, is the length of the
24th Dynasty. In 2006, Kitchen gives the following table for the 24th Dynasty kings,
Tefnakht and Bakenranef/Bocchoris (see Table 35.10).148
Table 35.10: 24th Dynasty kings, Tefnakht and Bakenranef/Bocchoris, according to
Kitchen
Dates BCE 24th Saïte Dynasty Years reigned
728–720 Tefnakht 8
720–715 Bakenranef/Bocchoris 5
Based on the information from Piye’s Victory stela, it is generally understood

that the 24th Dynasty was founded by Tefnakht after Piye (Piankhy) returned to Kush in
his 20th year. In Kitchen’s chronology, Piye’s 20th year invasion of Egypt occurred ca.
730–728 BCE.149 Using the year 728 as the presumed year when Tefnakht’s assumes
kingship over the 24th Dynasty, and giving him eight years, Kitchen ends Tefnakht’s
reign in 720. Then Bocchoris begins to reign.
Six years later, Shabako, in his second year, killed Bocchoris, dated to 715 BCE,
when Shabako became king of Egypt.150 In this scenario, Kitchen assigns the eight years
on the Athens stela of a Shepsesre Tefnakht to Tefnakht I, but that has now been
challenged by Perdu as belonging to Tefnakht II not Tefnakht I, noted above. If Perdu is
correct, Tefnakht I’s regnal years are not attested.
144
Ibid., 308.
145
Idem, TIP, 143-44 §115.
146
Ibid., 153 §125.
147
Idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 293-94; 308.
148
Ibid., table on 308.
149
Ibid., 294, table on 308.
150
Ibid., table p. 308.
This has consequences for the chronology of the 24th and 25th Dynasties, which
are particularly crucial in dating Shabako and Shebitku, and their correlation with the
22nd and 23rd Dynasties. However, Kitchen continues to give Tefnakht I eight years in
2006. Broekman’s 2006 article does not extend to a discussion of the 24th Dynasty
kings.
Ancient Egyptian Chronology

In 2006, Ancient Egyptian Chronology appeared with chapters written by various
Egyptologists and other specialists in related fields.151 As with other Egyptian
chronologies, the reliability of the Assyrian Eponym Canon is assumed and Shoshenq I’s
accession is dated to ca. 945 BCE by most scholars on the basis of dead-reckoning.
However, Krauss has amended the date by claiming that a weresh (wrš) feast designating
a lunar month and/or a lunar day, possibly day one, falls within the first five days of a
lunar month. Thus, he seeks a lunar match for the date of IV prt 25 for the fifth year of
Shoshenq I and finds it has to fall in 939 giving an accession date of 943 BCE.152
Furthermore, Krauss and Warburton write:
The traditional date of 945 BC for Shoshenq I’s accession rests on a combination of
Biblical and Egyptological information. There is, however, no basis for the projected
Biblical dates, as no contemporary archaeological or epigraphical evidence provides any
support for the generation counts in the Old Testament.153
Thus they seek to down-date the 945 BCE date. But their arguments are just as
applicable to an up-date for the commencement of the 22nd Dynasty. They wish to
follow Aston’s chronology in assuming parallel dynasties under Takeloth II (Theban)
and Shoshenq III (Memphite). They understand that lunar dates for the first month of
Shomu yield dates of 845 for Shoshenq II, 841 for Shoshenq III, and 834 for Pedubast I.
The chronology of the rival Theban 23rd Dynasty under Pedubast I (supposedly an
enemy to Takeloth II and Iuput I as the presumed successor of Takeloth II) 154 remains
open, as does the Lower Egyptian 23rd Dynasty, assumed to follow the 22nd Dynasty.155
In another area, Jansen-Winkeln omits reference to the year 13 referring to
Takeloth III, found by the team from the University of Columbia on a stela from a
temple in the Dakhla Oasis. Jansen-Winkeln also writes: “It is highly probable that the
Nile level record no. 45 does not belong to Shoshenq VII … there does not remain any
time for a year 17/19/25 of a sovereign in Thebes before the Nubians after Osorkon
III”156 (emphasis his).
He attributes only the year five of NLT No. 3 to Shoshenq VII.157 Rejecting
Kitchen’s explanation that Shebitku was a viceroy of Shabako when Iamani was
extradited back to Sargon II, Jansen-Winkeln dates Shebitku’s accession to no later than
706 BCE. He dates Shabako’s prior 14- to 15-year reign to 722–721 with 720 as the
latest date, and his second year, and Bocchoris’s sixth, is placed ca. 720 (721–719).158
He finds the reign of Piye uncertain, especially the date for his campaign into Egypt in
151
Ancient Egyptian Chronology (eds. E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D.A. Warburton; Leiden and Boston: Brill,
2006); abbreviated as AEC.
152
Krauss, “Lunar Dates,” AEC, 411-12; idem, “Das wrŝ-datum aus jahr 5 von Shoshenq [I],” DE 62
(2005) 43-48.
153
Krauss and Warburton, “Conclusions,” AEC, 474.
154
Jansen-Winkeln, “Third Intermediate Period,” 248-49.
155
Krauss and Warburton, “Conclusions,” 473.
156
Jansen-Winkeln, “Third Intermediate Period,” 255 n. 147.
157
Ibid., 255, 256.
158
Ibid., 258-61.
his 20th year, compounded by the year eight recorded on the Athens stela for a
Tefnakhte Shepsesre, whom he prefers to identify with Tefnakht I not Tefnakht II. He
sets Piye’s campaign to between 734 and 726 BCE and his accession ca. 753–745
BCE.159 In conclusion, he asserts, referring to the Third Intermediate Period as a whole,
“The highest known dates for these kings does not leave significant gaps. The general
framework of the chronology of this age is certain.”160
Notwithstanding the last comment, the complexities of the above discussion
show there are real problems in knowing the chronology of the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and
25th Dynasties. Generally, the problems can be attributed to the fact that there are few
certain reigns for the kings. “Dead-reckoning” from the highest known regnal years has
led to a minimum chronology, so that when extra years are found the collective reigns of
the 22nd Dynasty cannot fit between the dates of 945 and 715 BCE—the latter date
being also assigned to the end of the 23rd and 24th Dynasties.
If the 22nd Dynasty was longer, Osorkon II could be assigned 30 or more years
and Takeloth II’s regnal years could also be contained within the 22nd Dynasty (contrary
to Aston) without having to be overlapped with Shoshenq III (Kitchen, Option B). In the
23rd Dynasty, Takeloth III could be assigned 13 sole-reign years and not five co-regent
years with his father, Osorkon III, followed by two sole-reign years. Shoshenq VII’s
possible years 17, 18, or 25 on NLT No. 45 would not be excluded due to lack of space
to accommodate his reign. The same applies to other kings whose reigns have not yet
been discussed. Those mentioned above have received the most attention in recent times.
This chapter has described the fluidity of opinion and the methods employed
within the assumed dating constraints of this period of Egyptian chronology. My
approach in chapters 36 to 39 will be to identify firm anchor points and to reconstruct the
chronology from documented evidence in the 22nd to 25th Dynasties enlightened by the
fact that the 22nd Dynasty commenced with Shoshenq I in 998/997 BCE, not 945 BCE,
as demonstrated in preceding chapters.
159
Ibid., 262-63.
160
Ibid., 264.
Chapter 36. Framing the 22nd Dynasty 511
Chapter 36
Framing the 22nd Dynasty

This chapter and the next are devoted to the 22nd Dynasty. This chapter reflects
Manetho’s framework; the following chapter completes the reconstruction.
Shoshenq I is the first 22nd Dynasty king. He began his reign with a five-year co-
regency with Psusennes II. The Dynasty has distinctives that aid its construction.
Manetho’s records for the 22nd Dynasty have suffered damage and loss in transmission,
so only 3 of its 11 kings (9 according to Manetho) are named. Nevertheless, the
information it contains is a valuable aid to chronology.1 Nile Level Texts found on the
quay wall of the temple of Amun at Karnak record the maximum height of the Nile in
various kings’ regnal years. The analyses of these texts help define the length of some
rulers’ reigns. Lunar dates taken from records of inductions of priests at Amun festivals,
and the enthronement of two Apis bulls also assist. Lunar dates from the 23rd and 25th
Dynasties and important synchronisms between the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 25th Dynasties
anchor the reigns of eight kings. The invasion of the Nubian king, Piye, in his 20th year,
causing the submission of Egypt’s kings and “kinglets,” brought the 22nd, 23rd, and
24th Dynasties virtually to an end.
In earlier years, Heqakheperre Shoshenq was known as Shoshenq II, and
Hedjkheperrre Shoshenq Siese was known as Shoshenq VII. The numbering of
Shoshenq IIb, Shoshenq IIc, and Shoshenq VIa does not imply acceptance of their
existence by all scholars.
Kings of the 22nd Dynasty

The order of the kings of the 22nd Dynasty, as recognized by most scholars at the
present time, are shown in Table 36.1 (early period) and Table 36.2 (later period).
Because Manetho has totals for the early and later periods, a line in the table for this
framework figure is provided. In keeping with my method, lunar anchor periods or year
periods are noted.
Table 36.1: Early period of 22nd Dynasty kings with anchor points
Regnal Dates
King Lunar anchor points or year periods BCE
years reigned
Yr 2, Shoshenq I “justified” at feast III 3ḫt 14; new moon III 3ḫt 13 in 996.
Shoshenq I
Yr 5, weresh feast IV prt 25; new moon IV prt 20 in 994
Yr 1 bequests beginning on I šmw 7 is new moon in 957 (and lasting 3 yrs 3
Osorkon I mths and 16 days till Yr 4 on IV šmw 25).
Yr 3 induction of Hor, II 3ḫt 14; new moon II 3ḫt 11, 954
Shoshenq IIa NLT 16 appears to give him 5 yrs
Takeloth I Serapeum stela with 14 yrs and NLT 18 with 13 or 14 yrs is probably his
125 years (emended from Manetho’s subtotal [1]25 ends in 872, last year of
Osorkon II
Osorkon II’s reign
Manetho Total
NLT = Nile Level Texts.
1
These are found in Manetho (trans. W.G. Waddell; Loeb Classical Library 350; London: William
Heinemann Ltd. and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940).
Table 36.2: Later period of 22nd Dynasty kings with anchor points
Regnal Dates
years reigned
Starts to reign 125 years after 997.
Takeloth II
11th yr, Amun feast new moon on I šmw 11 in 860
Yr 28 installation of Apis bull in Yr 28 on II 3ḫt 1 date of full moon in 810.
This Apis bull died after 26 years in the second yr of Pimay in 784.
Shoshenq III
Yr 39 Amun feast on I šmw 26 on third day after new moon on I šmw 24 in
800
Shoshenq IV None known. A Yr 10 attested
In second yr, 785/784, Apis bull died that was installed 26 years earlier in
Pami or Pimay
28th yr of Shoshenq III in 810
Shoshenq V Yr 12 installation of Apis bull on IV prt 4 full moon date in 769
Present at Leontopolis at invasion of Egypt in Piye’s 20th year in 730. End of
Osorkon IV dynasty in 730 is 142 years from Takeloth’s accession in 872, and 267 years
from beginning of dynasty in 998/997
Manetho Total
The previous chapter canvassed the various opinions and problems with this list.
Some year periods were taken into account, but not all. Relevant lunar anchor points
have not figured to the extent they should have in the discussion of most Egyptologists in
recent decades. Our procedure will encompass all available evidence.
“New” Kings Named Shoshenq

Several “new” kings with the name Shoshenq have been identified, besides those
already well known, raising questions where they might fit into the chronology. An
international conference held in Leiden in 2007 to discuss the “Libyan Period” agreed
upon a temporary numbering system for these kings who are distinguishable by their
prenomens.
Table 36.3: Numbering of 22nd Dynasty kings according to prenomens
Prenomen Identifying King number
Hedjkheperre Shoshenq Shoshenq I
Heqakheperre Shoshenq Shoshenq IIa
Tutkheperre Shoshenq Shoshenq IIb
Maakheperre Shoshenq Shoshenq IIc
Usermaatre Shoshenq Sibast Shoshenq III
Hedjkheperrre Shoshenq Sibast Shoshenq IV
Aakheperre Shoshenq Shoshenq V
Table 36.4: King names from 23rd Dynasty (or the so-called “Upper Egyptian
collateral line”)
Prenomen Identifying King number
Usermaatre Meryamun Shoshenq Shoshenq VI
Hedjkheperrre Shoshenq Siese Shoshenq VIa2
Manetho’s Lists of the 22nd Dynasty Kings

Africanus attributes nine kings to the 22nd Dynasty, whereas Eusebius and the
Armenian give only the three names found in all three lists.3 They are set out in Table
36.5.4
2
O. Kaper, “The Libyan Period in Egypt,” EA 32 (2008) 38-39. The proceedings were published in The
Libyan Period in Egypt: Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st-24th Dynasties: Proceedings of a
Kaper; Leiden: NINO, 2009).
3
Manetho, 158-61.
Table 36.5: The nine kings of Bubastus in the 22nd Dynasty (fragment 60 [from
Syncellus] according to Africanus)
Number Kings and no. of years reigned
1 Sesônchis, for 21 yr
2 Osorthôn, for 15 yr
3, 4, 5 Three other kings, for 25 [29] yr
6 Takelôthis, for 13 yr
7, 8, 9 Three other kings, for 42 yr
Total: 120 yr
Table 36.6 shows the two versions of 22nd Dynasty kings from Eusebius
(fragment 61a [from Syncellus] and the Armenian (the latter fragment 61b).
Table 36.6: The three kings of Bubastus in the 22nd Dynasty (via Syncellus:
according to Eusebius [fragment 61a], and the Armenian [fragment 61b])
Number Kings and no. of years reigned
1 Sesônchôsis, for 21 yr
2 Osorthôn, for 15 yr
3 Takelôthis, for 13 yr
Total: 49 yr
The two shorter versions have deleted the two references to “three other kings”
for kings three, four, and five; and seven, eight, and nine. The totals, 120 and 49 years,
respectively, are secondary additions gained from adding up the numbers. Presumably,
the original list once recorded all the kings’ names and their regnal years. Africanus has
the best preserved copy.
The first two kings, Sesônchis and Osorthôn, are recognizable as Shoshenq I and
Osorkon I. Then the list appears to indicate that kings three, four, and five reigned
collectively for 25 [29] years.5 Then king no. 6, Takelothis, is identified as Takeloth II,
followed by kings seven, eight, and nine, who apparently reigned collectively for 42
years.
Referring to this list in 1986, Kitchen wrote, “The surviving text of Manetho’s
Epitome very quickly passes from closest accuracy [in the 21st Dynasty] into a state of
corruption and over-abbreviation. The one indisputable datum is the first given: 21 years
for Shoshenq I, directly comparable with the Year 21 of his Silsila stela ordering the
works at Karnak that were never finished.”6
Kitchen then presents a table comparing the kings and reigns he assigns to the
22nd Dynasty, and gives his interpretation of Manetho’s figures. He suggests that the
total for the first “three other kings” could be emended from 29 to 49 years and the
second entry of “three other kings for 42 years” is “totally corrupt, because the
irreducible minimum is 95 years.”7 He asserts, “It is clear that (except for Shoshenq I)
the surviving text of Manetho does not begin to do justice to the 22nd Dynasty as it is
now known to us.” 8
4
The Book of Sothis is found in Manetho. It also gives the three kings. See further explanation later in this
chapter, pp. 523ff..
5
The [29] has been inserted to bring the total to the stated 120 years, which otherwise amounts to only 116
years.
6
K.A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC), (3rd edition, 1986, Warminster:
Aris & Phillips Ltd.) 450 §418.
7
Ibid., 450 §418.
8
Ibid.
“Three Other Kings” Convey Regnal Data

Allowing for transmission error, the numbers can be explained quite plausibly,
and provide very important data in the establishment of the chronology for the 22nd
Dynasty. It becomes obvious that Manetho’s twice given “three other kings” for a total
of 25 and 42 years, respectively, are insufficient to represent the regnal years for kings
three to five and seven to nine. For example, in TIP, Kitchen assigned 24–25 years to
Osorkon II,9 and his reign takes up the 25 years assigned to the “three other kings,”
leaving no years available for kings three and four. This indicates that the numbers as
they are now, are too low. They must have been greater once. If the two numbers are
added they amount to 67 years.
According to our analysis, the 22nd Dynasty began in 997 BCE. Kitchen, in
2006, proposed the dates 730–728 for Piye’s 20th year invasion of Egypt.10 If the
dynasty ended in 730, there were 267 years to the 22nd Dynasty, which gives us a clue
as to the correct numbers for the twice-stated “three other kings.”
These have wrongly been interpreted to refer to just the kings whose names and
regnal years have not been preserved, when originally the years must have referred to
sub-totals for two halves of the dynasty. The emended subtotals provided for the 22nd
Dynasty indicates it was divided into two periods; its first lasting for [1]25 years and its
second for [1]42 years, giving 267 years and the dates 997–872 BCE and 872–730 BCE,
respectively.
Manetho regarded the first king of the second period as a Takelothis, who can be
identified with Takeloth II, son and successor of Osorkon II, the latter recognized as the
last king of the first period. The disruption to the dynasty at about the time of the reigns
of Osorkon II and Takeloth II is supported by the politico–religious situation known to
have arisen between the ruling family in Tanis in the north, and the priests of Amun at
Thebes in the south, as related in The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon.11
Referring to fragmentation during the 22nd Dynasty, Kitchen wrote in 1996:
The first real crack appears when Harsiese obtains a shadow-kingship at Thebes under
Osorkon II. Theban disenchantment grew apace under the regime of Takeloth II and
Prince Osorkon, leading first to the emergence of rival Theban-based high priests.
Shoshenq III proved unable to retain a unified monarchy. A probable sibling Pedubast I
split off; founding what Manetho calls the 23rd Dynasty.12
The 23rd Dynasty coexisted with the 22nd Dynasty until they both came to an
end with the invasion of the 25th Dynasty king, Piye, ca. 730 BCE. Manetho’s numbers
for the 22nd Dynasty can be credibly understood when the correct figures of 125 years
and 142 years are reinstated, giving 267 years to the dynasty
Nile Level Texts

During the 22nd to 26th Dynasties, the height of the Nile flood was recorded at
Thebes in various years of most of the kings’ reigns. These records, known as the Nile
Level Texts, were engraved on the quay wall of the temple of Amun at Karnak covering
a distance of about eight meters. The majority of the texts give the name of the king and
his regnal year, though one group of texts omits the king and gives the name of the High
Priest instead. Sometimes the name of another concurrently reigning king of another
9
Ibid., 108 §87; idem, “The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology – A Reconsideration,” Ä
und L 16 (2006) 297-300.
10
Idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 294, 296, 297, 301.
11
See Ricardo A. Caminos, The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum,
1958) 172-80.
12
Kitchen, TIP (3rd ed.), xxxii-xxxiii.
dynasty is given, providing an important synchronism. A few times, the name of the
king’s mother, as well as various other items of information, are added. Some kings have
more than one text.
The texts of the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties number from 1 to 29 and from 43 to 45,
and are to the left of the engravings for the 25th and 26th Dynasties numbering from 30
to 42 inscribed on the right-hand section of the wall. The latter are more extensive in
their details.
The Nile Level Texts were published briefly by Georges Legrain in 1896, giving
a diagram of their positioning on the quay wall and a commentary on the texts.13 Many
of the texts were damaged and in various stages of illegibility, especially Nos. 15 and 44,
which are known only from Legrain’s publication, but their place on the quay wall is not
recorded.14
In 1953, Jürgen von Beckerath visited the quay and re-collated the texts. He
discovered that Legrain’s arrangements of the texts were not numbered in their historical
order.15 Von Beckerath gives a commentary on the texts and a hieroglyphic
representation of each.16
In 2002, Gerard Broekman provided a full analysis of the texts of the 22nd and
23rd Dynasties, including their position on the quay wall, their orthography, their
structure, a commentary on the individual texts focusing on the chronological issues, a
presentation of the hieroglyphic inscriptions arranged in groups, and his conclusions.17
He noted that consecutive numbers do not necessarily indicate chronological
continuity, nor does proximity, though there is a general recognition that texts belonging
to one king may have been loosely grouped together, with the texts of later kings
sometimes coming between them. It is not known why the Nile Level Texts were
engraved in some years and not others.18
Two Versions of “Nile Flood”

A particularly important point concerns the orthography. As Broekman explains,
the structure of the Nile Level Texts show two different versions for the words p3 hcpj
“the Nile flood” appearing at the beginning of each text.19 Version One has three
alternative hieroglyphic renderings for the word hcpj, distinct from Version Two written
only one way. Broekman concluded that texts having Version One belong to kings who
reigned before the 39th year of Shoshenq III, at which time the texts change from
Version One to Version Two.20 The only exception is Text No. 5 giving year three of
13
J. von Beckerath, “The Nile Level Records at Karnak and their Importance for the History of the Libyan
Period (Dynasties XXII and XXIII),” JARCE 5 (1966) 43-55; G. Legrain, “Textes graves sur le quai de
Karnak,” ZÄS 34 (1896) 111-21.
14
G.P.F. Broekman, “The Nile Level Records of the Twenty-Second and Twenty-Third Dynasties in
Karnak: A Reconsideration of their Chronological Order,” JEA 88 (2002) 163, 174. Von Beckerath could
not find Nos. 15 and 44 on the quay wall, but he found traces of inscriptions that he could not identify
(“Nile Level Records,” 43 n. 9).
15
Von Beckerath, “Nile Level Records,” 43.
16
Ibid., 49-55.
17
18
Ibid., 181.
19
Ibid., 166.
20
Kitchen says the difference in spellings of Hapi “may be the product of varying scribes, rather than
chronological fashions; hence they are not definitive proof without other evidence” (“Strengths and
Weaknesses,” 299).
Osorkon III, rendered in Version One.21 He suggests that this can probably be accounted
for by the transitional nature of the orthography at this time.22
The kings named and represented by Version One are Shoshenq I (No. 1),
Osorkon I (No. 2) and Osorkon II (Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14). Also reigning before
Shoshenq III were Shoshenq IIa, (questionable Shoshenq IIb and IIc), Takeloth I and
Takeloth II, but these kings’ names do not appear. However, there are some texts that do
not name the king but do give the name of the High Priest, while some texts are illegible,
and these kings may have been represented by these texts.
Broekman notes that from the time of Osorkon II the kings’ names became more
complex with the optional addition of Si Ese to the names of the kings of Upper Egypt,
which was subsequently extended to add the epithet Netjerheqawast (God, ruler of
Thebes), whereas kings of Lower Egypt added Si-Bast and the epithet Netjerheqaon
(God, ruler of Heliopolis).
Broekman regards Si Ese and Si-Bast as indicative of dynastic affiliation when
the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties coexisted, and the epithets also indicating the additional
“place of origin of the objects on which they occur.”23 These distinctions are used by
Broekman in seeking to identify kings who used the same prenomen and nomen. While
Broekman favors the idea of a Theban 23rd Dynasty using the epithet Si-Ese, Kitchen
argues that the epithet does not indicate that there was a 23rd Dynasty headed by
Takeloth II residing at Thebes.24 In 2009, Kitchen asserted that “Son of Isis” was used
for new rulers in Leontopolis, and that it corresponded to the “Si-Bast” epithets used by
their “cousins” in Bubastis and Tanis, arguing again that the epithet did not indicate a
Theban 23rd Dynasty.25 This difference of view affects the subsequent analysis of the
Nile Level Texts.
A schematic diagram of the position of the texts on the quay wall is provided
below (Figure 36.1) as presented by Broekman. The approximate length of the texts is
indicated by the distances between the square brackets. The different writings of the
numbers indicate the several groups in which the texts are clustered in Broekman’s
paper:26
21
Broekman notes Nile Level Text No. 3 with Version Two, previously thought to belong to Shoshenq I,
but now that the significance of Version Two has been observed, combined with other criteria, he now
attributes this text to Shoshenq II (“Nile Level Records,” 164, 167, 169, 174-78). See further discussion
below.
22
Ibid., 167.
23
Ibid., 168.
24
In 2006, Kitchen argued that, “The epithet Si-Ese (even as studied by Muhs) proves absolutely nothing
about the location of kings or dynasties,” noting that it can belong to kings of both the 22nd and 23rd
Dynasties. (Emphasis his). (“Strengths and Weaknesses,” 298). The reference to Muhs is: Brian Muhs,
“Partisan Royal Epithets in the late Third Intermediate Period and the Dynastic Affiliations of Pedubast I
and Iuput II,” JEA 84 (1998) 220-23.
25
Kitchen, “The Third Intermediate Period: An Overview of Fact & Fiction,” in G.P.F. Broekman, R.J.
Demarée, O.E. Kaper (ed.), The Libyan Period in Egypt: Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st-24th
Dynasties: Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25-27 October 2007 (Leiden: Nederlands
Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten (2009), 176; see also 199.
26
Figure 36.1: Distribution of the Nile Level Texts.
KEY:
(Between rounded brackets): the earliest texts;
Bold: the sons of Osorkon I;
Italics: the texts of Osorkon II;
Underlined: the time of Shoshenq III and The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon;
Bold, underlined: the texts of Osorkon III and his son Takeloth III;
Italics, underlined: the remaining texts.
Table 36.7 and Table 36.8 give a summary of the information provided by
Broekman,27 and is arranged in a chronological format within the 22nd and 23rd
Dynasties to give greater clarity to some issues discussed below.
Table 36.7: Nile Level Text (NLT) data for the 22nd Dynasty, according to
Broekman
Order and No. Version of
Regnal
identification of King named of hapi “Nile HP/other comment
year
kings NLT Flood”
Hedjkheperre Setepenre 1 & 2 have identical structure;
1. Shoshenq I Shoshenq Meryamun = 1 6 1 2 cartouches, prenomen &
Shoshenq I nomen shown
Sekhemkheperre Setepenre
2. Osorkon I Osorkon Meryamun = 2 12 1 See above
Osorkon I
Name not given. [Reign of
3. Shoshenq IIa 16 5 1 HP Iuwelot, son of Osorkon [I]
Shoshenq II?]
HP not legible, wish for eternal
Name not given. [Reign of Not
20 life added to the name of King
Shoshenq II or Takeloth I?] legible
Osorkon
Name not given. [Reign of Not
21 Not legible HP not legible
Shoshenq II or Takeloth I?] legible
Name not given. [Reign of HP Smendes III, son of
4. Takeloth I 17 8 1
Takeloth I?] Osorkon
Name not given. [Probably HP Smendes III, son of
18 13 or 14 1
reign of Takeloth I] Osorkon
Name not given. [Reign of Not HP Smendes III, son of
19 1
Takeloth I?] legible Osorkon
27
Ibid., 163-78.
Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12 are one unit; 2

5. Osorkon II Osorkon II 8 12 1 cartouches, prenomen &
nomen shown
Possibly correcting Nile level
Osorkon II 9 12 1
of No. 8
Osorkon II 11 21 1 As above
Osorkon II 12 22 1 As above
First use of prenomen Usimare
Usimare Setapenamun =
14 29 1 Setapenamun; only one
Osorkon II
cartouche
Not 2 cartouches; nothing legible.
Unknown 15 Not legible
legible Short text
[Takeloth II’s reign coming
between Osorkon II and
Shoshenq III not
6. [Takeloth II] [?]
represented by NLTs unless
on now illegible texts, e.g.
No. 15]
7. Shoshenq III Shoshenq III 23 6 1 HP Harsiese B
Shq. 12 /
Shoshenq III / Pedubast [I] 24 1 HP Harsiese B
Ped. 5
Shoshenq [III] 22 39 2 HP Osorkon (Prince Osorkon)
HP = High Priest; Ped. = Pedubast; Shq. = Shoshenq.
Table 36.8: Nile Level Texts (NLT) data for the 23rd Dynasty, according to
Broekman
Order and No. Version of
Regnal
identification of King named of hapi “Nile HP/other comment
year
kings NLT Flood”
Ped. 16
1. Pedubast Pedubast [I] / Iuput [I] 26 1 2 kings, no HP named
= Iu. 2
Pedubast [I] 28 Ped. 18 1 HP Harsiese B
Pedubast [I] 27 Ped. 19 1 HP Harsiese B
Shoshenq [III] / Pedubast
29 Ped. 23 1 HP Takeloth
[I]
Usimare Meryamun
Not A HP’s name illegible. Text
2. Shoshenq VI Shoshenq Meryamun = 44 Not legible
legible most closely resembles No. 25
Shoshenq VI
Usimare Meryamun
Shoshenq Meryamun = 25 6 1 HP Takeloth
Shoshenq VI
Osorkon’s mother in cartouche.
Usimare Setapenamun “Whose mother is the Chief
3. Osorkon III Osorkon Meri amun Si-Ese 5 3 1 Queen […]”28 Wish for eternal
= Osorkon III life follows name of king
Osorkon
Nos. 6 & 7 have same structure,
and “Whose mother was the
Usimare Osorkon [III] (no
6 5 2 Chief Queen Kamama
epithet)
Meryt-mut.”29 Is in cartouche.
Similar structure to No. 5
Usimare Osorkon [III] (no
7 6 2 See No. 6
epithet)
Osorkon Si-Ese Osk’s
Netjerheqawast (god, ruler Year 28 5-year co-regency indicated by
4. Takeloth III 13 2
of Thebes) and Takeloth = Tak’s synchronism
Si-Ese Netjerheqawasat Year 5
Takeloth Meryamun Si-Ese
4 6 2 “Whose mother is Tentsai”30
= Takeloth III
Usimare Meryamun 10 5, 6, 13 2 One cartouche; same structure
28
29
Ibid., 93 §74.
30
Ibid., 95 §76.
= Takeloth III? or 14 as Nos. 4 & 43

5. Rudamun Meryamun 43 3 2 1 cartouche; 1 nomen
Hedjkheperre Setepenre
Shoshenq Si-Ese Two cartouches, prenomen &
6. Shoshenq
Meryamun 3 5 2 nomen; same structure as No.
VIIa
= Shoshenq VIIa 45
[SAK 33, p. 75–76]
Meryamun (in nomen 17, 18 Same structure as No. 3, but no
45 2
cartouche): Shoshenq VII? or 25 part of prenomen is legible
HP = High Priest; Iu = Iuput; Osk = Osorkon; Ped = Pedubast; Tak = Takeloth.
22nd Dynasty Kings

Manetho identifies the 22nd Dynasty rulers as kings of Bubastus (Bubastis).
These Delta kings were of Libyan descent, said to be descendants of people captured by
Ramesses II and III.31 The genealogy of a Memphite priest named Pasenhor found on a
stela from the Serapeum, lists the following sequence of kings: Shoshenq I, Osorkon I,
Takelot I, and Osorkon II,32 which helps to confirm the order of these kings of the early
period known from other sources, though it does not include Shoshenq IIa.
Shoshenq I (Hedjkheperre Setepenre Shoshenq Meryamun)

Shoshenq I was discussed in chapter 34 relative to the reign of Psusennes II.
Shoshenq I’s father was Nimlot [A], brother to Osorkon the Elder, third-to-last king of
the 21st Dynasty, and his mother was Tentshepeh [A].33 Shoshenq’s wife, Karomama,
bore him his first son, Osorkon (to become Osorkon I).34 Osorkon married Psusennes II’s
daughter, Maätkare.35
Psusennes II had no heir, so Shoshenq I, after a five-year co-regency, succeeded
him to become the first king of the 22nd Dynasty. The Larger Dakhla Stela dates a land-
register dispute to the 19th year of Psusennes II as well as a weresh festival date on IV
prt 25 in the fifth year of Shoshenq I, referred to earlier. These both date to the year 994,
so Shoshenq I’s first year dates to 997 BCE (see the fuller explanation in chapter 34
pages 477–480, and note the explanation of dates below the following table).
Shoshenq I’s second regnal year also has a date in the Karnak Priestly Annals
fragment No. 4, noted in the previous reference in chapter 34, which begins a paragraph
with the notation: “Regnal Year 2, 3rd month of Akhet, day 17, of the Great chief of the
Mā, Shoshe(n)q, justified’.”36 The date of III 3ḫt 13 in Shoshenq I’s second regnal year
coincides with a new moon day, seen in Casperson’s Table 36.9 for the year −995 (996
BCE). The date of III 3ḫt 14 falling on the day of conjunction is likely to be the day that
the Egyptians recognized as the first day of the lunar month. (It is not unusual for the
Egyptian date to fall on the day of conjunction rather than on the previous day of the new
moon—as determined by the computer computations).
31
Ibid., 244-45 §206, 285 §239.
32
Ibid., 105-106 §85, Table 19 p. 488; Jansen-Winkeln, “Third Intermediate Period,” in Ancient Egyptian
Chronology (eds. E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D.A. Warburton; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006) 236-37.
33
For family connections see Kitchen, TIP, 111-16 §90.
34
Ibid., 541 §445.
35
Ibid., 60-61 §49.
36
Ibid., 288 §242.
Table 36.9: Shoshenq I’s second year −995 (new moon listing for −995)
−995 6 11 −995 6 2 1787 2 14 1 9:27 5:04 175 5:04 73 5:03 4
−995 7 11 −995 7 2 1787 3 14 3 1:07 4:59 158 4:59 70 4:59 −7
−995 8 9 −995 7 31 1787 4 13 4 17:11 5:11 240 5:11 143 5:12 55
−995 9 8 −995 8 30 1787 5 13 6 8:47 5:35 215 5:36 119 5:37 21
Available information makes no mention of a new moon on III 3ḫt 17, but as an
auspicious occasion for Shoshenq I when he was “justified,” it would be appropriate for
a feast falling over five days to include the day of a new moon. It is consistent with the
date of III prt 10 + x for the 13th year of Psusennes II on November 8 in −998, and the
weresh feast date in Shoshenq I’s fifth year on IV prt 25 in −993, which equates to 19
December, falling five days after a new moon on the 20th.37
Since Shoshenq I’s second year date fell in 996, his first year had to begin
sometime before III 3ḫt 17, which equates to 14 July in 997 BCE. However, the
beginning of his fifth year includes the weresh feast date on IV prt 25 or 19 December in
−993 (994 BCE) placing his first year in −997/996 (998/997 BCE).
The dating data means that the accession of Shoshenq I took place before IV prt
25, the latter equating to 20 December in 998 BCE. I return to this when discussing the
accession of Osorkon I, below, where it seems that Shoshenq I’s co-regency started
fairly late in the year 998 BCE, possibly on the anniversary of Psusennes II’s own
accession. With Shoshenq I’s accession occurring late in 998 BCE, and most of his first
year falling in 997, the 125 years of the early period of the 22nd Dynasty (the [1]25
years of Manetho) must have ended in 872 BCE.
The following 142 years for the later period would have ended in 730 BCE, a
date associated with the invasion of the Nubian king, Piye, in his 20th year, when the
Egyptian kings submitted to him. Therefore, the dates for Shoshenq I’s first five years as
co-regent with Psusennes II are established for the beginning of the 22nd Dynasty.
The Length of Shoshenq I’s Reign

Shoshenq I has the distinction of being the first king to have a Nile flood height
recorded in his reign on the Karnak temple quay wall, but it refers only to his regnal year
six so of no help in determining his reign length. His tomb has never been found, nor his
mummy, so his age at death cannot be estimated.
Manetho’s list of the 22nd Dynasty has a Sesonch(os)is with a reign of 21 years
as its first king, understood to be Shoshenq I. Kitchen equates Shoshenq I’s plundering
of Jerusalem’s temple and palace in his 20th regnal year with Rehoboam of Judah’s fifth
year (1 Kgs 14:25–26; 2 Chr 12:1–12). This synchronism is proven correct.
Returning to Egypt in his 21st year, Shoshenq celebrated his victory by
commissioning imposing works at Karnak, especially his great triumphal relief. 38 It is
engraved on the outer wall of a gateway known as the Bubastite Portal, in the south-east
corner of Shoshenq I’s enclosure at Karnak.39 It has a list of 50 cities of Judah and Israel
including Megiddo,40 but Jerusalem is not mentioned in its extant part. Jerusalem might
37
Kitchen dismisses this date as having any reference to a new moon (“Overview of Fact & Fiction,”
167). See Casperson’s Table 34.9, ch. 34. p. 479.
38
Kitchen, TIP, 75-76 §60, 301-02 §260.
39
I.E.S. Edwards, “Egypt from the Twenty-Second Dynasty to the Twenty-Fourth Dynasty,” CAH, 545.
40
T.P. Harrison, “The Battleground,” BAR 29/6 (2003) 30.
have been named in the original text in the badly damaged Row IV. Or, because
Jerusalem was not conquered it was not included in the list.41
The campaign is further attested by a scene at El-Hiba,42 another stela at
Karnak,43 and a stela from Megiddo.44 Referring to Manetho’s list of 22nd Dynasty
kings, Kitchen writes, “The one indisputable datum is the first given: 21 years for
Shoshenq I, directly comparable with the Year 21 of his Silsila stela ordering the works
at Karnak that were never finished.”45 Since the length of Shoshenq I’s reign is
disputed,46 none of the kings have indisputable regnal years! How long Shoshenq I
reigned after his return from Judah and Israel in his 20th year remains to be known.
Kitchen & Wente Dispute

Kitchen writes:
Late in Year 21 … work began in the sandstone quarries at Gebel Silsila … at Karnak,
before Pylon II of the great temple of Amun, a vast court with later colonnades was duly
built … along the south face of Pylon II, was engraven the huge formal triumph-scene of
the king smiting his Palestinian foes before Amun … Above all this, a long rhetorical
text … vaunted the king’s prowess in appropriately traditional terms—but Amun also
compliments Shoshenq on his great building project … Next to this famed scene and list
… the great gateway now known as the “Bubastite Gate” was built … engraved in large-
scale and highly competent work … no pharaoh had wrought in Karnak on this vast scale
for almost four centuries. Then, suddenly, Shoshenq died. His works were left practically
all unfinished, his wishes for jubilee-festivals unfulfilled, and all his grandiose schemes
died with him.”47
Kitchen’s announcement of Shoshenq’s sudden death was challenged. In

reviewing the 1973 edition of TIP in 1976, Edward Wente questioned the 21 years as the
length of Shoshenq I’s reign on the basis of the works at Karnak. He writes,
If one examines the masonry of the Bubastite court, he finds that it is all well dressed
with the exception of stones just adjacent to the existing first pylon. Similarly the west
wall of the repository temple of Sethos II, just behind the first pylon, shows very rough
masonry. Such coarse masonry in the court and on the repository temple is certainly not
the original masonry, and consequently one is not justified in concluding that Shoshenq I
48
left the construction of the court incomplete.
Wente suggests that a first pylon collapsed due to poor foundations and that it is
the replacement pylon with its rough masonry that is unfinished.49 But Kitchen re-
affirmed the incomplete state of Shoshenq I’s buildings in a 2001 article. He says:
The great triumph-scene was the only part to be completed (or nearly so, depending on
one’s interpretation of its kingly figure); the Bubastite Gate was completely built, but
41
Kitchen, TIP, 298 §255 n. 298; idem, “Ancient Egyptian Chronology for Aegeanists” in MAA Vol. 2,
No. 2 (2002) 7-8.
42 .
Ibid., 302 §260; idem, “Ancient Egyptian,” 7.
43 ,
Idem, “Ancient Egyptian,” 7.
44
Idem, TIP, 299 §257 and nn. 302, 303; idem, “Ancient Egyptian,” 7.
45
Ibid., 450 §418, cf. 73-76 §§58-60, 301-02 §260. Kitchen also writes, “... there is no reason to believe
that he [Shoshenq I] reigned beyond his incomplete 22nd year” (73 §58).
46
E.F. Wente in a review of Kitchen’s 1st edition of The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650
B.C.) in JNES 35 (1976) 276-77.
47
Kitchen, TIP, 301-02 §260. See also, Edwards, CAH III/I (1982), 544-45.
48
Wente, “Review of TIP,” 277.
49
Ibid., 277.
only slightly decorated and inscribed; the long colonnades of the court were merely built
in the rough, and (at the king’s death) left rough and never completed.50
Jubilee Evidence
The length of Shoshenq I’s reign was also questioned by Wente due to the Gebel
es-Silsileh inscription (no. 100) which, in addition to the record that the quarrying for
Shoshenq I’s buildings at Karnak began in Shoshenq I’s 21st year, it also has an
inscription that indicates that the Karnak court was built to celebrate a jubilee.
On the west pilaster of the Bubastite portal, an inscription reads, “sp tpy whm
hb-sd,” which Wente translates as, “First occasion and repetition of the jubilee”51
(emphasis added). Wente continues: “Earlier instances of this expression, as distinct
from sp tpy (n) hb-sd, ‘First occasion of the jubilee,’ indicate that a king had already
celebrated one jubilee and was about to celebrate his second” (emphasis added). Kitchen
translates the words similarly as: “first occasion of repeating the jubilee-festival” to
which he adds the remainder, “may there be made for him many more, like Rē forever.”
The phrase is also repeated on the architrave.52 Kitchen wrote, in 1986, that this formula
“does not indicate a second jubilee—in contrast to the proper and well-authenticated
formula, whm hbw sd; rather it is merely an anticipatory formula, without any historical
value,”53 so disagreeing with Wente’s interpretation.
But, reinforcing his argument, Wente referred to the priest Nakhtefmut’s mummy
found at the Ramesseum having a bandage with a year 33 and another bandage having a
year three. He says that these should be attributed to Shoshenq I rather than Osorkon I.
He writes, “Since a reference to a second jubilee of Shoshenq I is found on the Bubastite
portal and since The Book of Sothis gives him a reign of thirty-four years, might not one
assign the Year 33 bandage on Nakhtefmut’s mummy to Shoshenq I and the Year 3
bandage to Osorkon I?”54
Wente then suggests that the year three bandage might indicate a co-regency
between Shoshenq I and Osorkon I and that it “might explain the scenes of Osorkon I on
a pilaster of the Bubastite portal that complement those of Shoshenq I. Beneath Osorkon
I’s scenes one reads [whm] hbw-[s]d, ‘Repetition of jubilees’.”
Wente interprets the lack of space to account for what he assumes is an aberrant
formula because of the absence, he says, of “either sp tpy alone or sp tpy whm which on
monuments regularly introduce the formulas designating the first and second jubilees
respectively.” He suspects that “it is merely a wish that he [Osorkon I] may celebrate
many jubilees after the manner of his father and co-regent”.55 Wente attributes to
Osorkon I a reign of 12 years, because a year 12 is the highest attested for him,56 and
assigns 34 years to the reign of Shoshenq I.57
Kitchen, responded in 1986:
Furthermore, the tag [whm] hbw-[s]d apparently applied to Osorkon I ... is the known
specific formula that is actually used for real second jubilees! This is so for Amenophis
III and especially Ramesses II.58 ... As a first jubilee would fall in Year 30, and a second
50
K.A. Kitchen, “The Shoshenqs of Egypt and Palestine,” JSOT 93 (2001) 8.
51
52
Kitchen, TIP, 302 §260 n. 322.
53
Ibid., 544 §451.
54
Wente, “Review of TIP,” 277. The 34 years given in The Book of Sothis is found in Manetho, 246-47.
55
Ibid., 277.
56
A reference to year 12 found on Nile Level Text 2.
57
58
jubilee in Year 33 or 34, this would imply a minimal reign of 32/33 years for Osorkon I,
exactly in accord with the Year 33 bandage, with Manetho’s 35 years (emended from
erroneous 15), and with a group of other indications for a relatively long reign of
Osorkon I.59
Nakhtefmut’s mummy with the bandage having the “Year 33 Second Heb Sed”
inscription, also had a bracelet that bore the prenomen Sekhemkheperre, by which one
assumes that the year 33 refers to Osorkon I, and not to Shoshenq I whose prenomen is
Hedjkheperre. Thus it is almost certain that Osorkon I reigned for at least 33 years.
However, scholars have recently pointed out that the year three on the separate
bandage may have been re-used (as was the practice) and have no bearing on any co-
regency with his successor.60
The allocation of the year 33 on the bandage to Osorkon I, does not, however,
mean that the reference to the second jubilee on the Bubastite portal cannot refer to a
reign of Shoshenq I of at least 33/34 years, as the bandage and the portal have no
connection with each other. Indeed, my chronology shows that Shoshenq had a jubilee
and its repetition attested by the Bubastite portal, and so did Osorkon I attested by the
bandage. This is a possibility that neither Kitchen’s nor Wente’s incorrectly shortened
chronology would have suggested to them.
The Book of Sothis,61 referred to above by Wente, gives a list of 86 ancient
Egyptian kings in a very confused order with many kings missing and others
unidentifiable from those named in Manetho’s lists. Manetho also includes dynasties for
which no specific names or years of kings are now recorded.
Names preceding No. 60 in The Book of Sothis have some similarities to those of
earlier dynasties, especially Manetho’s 18th, 19th, and 20th Dynasties. Wente has
suggested that Shoshenq I might be the king Susakeim who was given 34 years. He is
listed as No. 62.
The Book of Sothis

In the list from The Book of Sothis below, Nos. 59, 60, and 61 are listed as the
second, third, and fourth kings of the first Dynasty by Eusebius and the Armenian with
names and regnal years as shown in Figure 36.2, although Africanus gives them
alternative years: Athothis 57 years, Kenkenes 31 years, and Uenephes 23 years. These
are preceded by Menes the first king in Manetho’s 1st Dynasty.
59
Ibid., 544 §451, see 110-11 §89.
60
“Sheshonk II,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheshonk_II
61
Found at the end of Manetho’s Aegyptiaca translated by Waddell. (1940).
Figure 36.2: List of kings in The Book of Sothis.
But in The Book of Sothis, Athothis is preceded by a Thuoris, probably indicating

a juncture between the 58 names that precede Athothis, Athothis himself, and the kings
that succeed him. In Manetho’s lists, the fifth king is not Susakeim, but a king called
Usaphaidos or Usaphais with 20 years. This could be a badly transmitted name of the
same man, both having a common “usa.” Has an “S” dropped out from the name in the
latter two? However, Susakeim is given 34 years not 20 years. If Susakeim is not to be
identified as belonging to the 1st Dynasty, might he then belong to the next set of kings
as listed in The Book of Sothis beginning with No. 63: Psuenus?
The right-hand dynastic allocations have been added. Analysing the list, it may
be seen that Nos. 63–67 refer to some of the kings of the 21st Dynasty, Nos. 68–70 to the
23rd Dynasty, Nos. 71–73 to the 22nd Dynasty (where Concharis may be seen as
Shoshenq phonetically spelled backwards), No. 74 to the 24th Dynasty, Nos. 75–77 to
the 25th Dynasty, and Nos. 78–86 to the 26th Dynasty. A possible explanation for the
order of the dynasties might be that they were written down from a list with two columns
across the page, and then copied down vertically from the first column (say 21st and
23rd Dynasties) before returning to the top to copy down the second column (say 22nd
and 24th Dynasties). Then the 25th and 26th Dynasties were copied onto another page.
Since these are the last two dynasties given, whether they were across the page or down
the page, they would have been copied consecutively.
Nothing to Identify Susakeim with Shoshenq

While these kings do not represent all the kings of the dynasties, their names
allow them to be attributed to a dynasty. If Susakeim was another name for Shoshenq I
he is not expected to be placed before the name of Psusennes who was the second king
of the 21st Dynasty, but in position No. 71, as the first king of the 22nd Dynasty, a
position now occupied by Concharis, who appears as Shoshenq I spelt backwards
(phonetically).
This identification is supported by the fact that he is given the same 21 years as
“Sesonchis/Sesonchosis” of the 22nd Dynasty by Manetho and followed by Osorthon
(Osorkon) with 15 years, and Tacalophis (Takeloth) with 13 years. In a chronological
order, the 22nd Dynasty kings, Nos. 71–73, should have been placed between the 21st
and 23rd Dynasty kings, Nos. 63–67. But this would still not place Susakeim next to the
other 22nd Dynasty kings. The added note, “This king brought up Libyans, Ethiopians,
and Trôglodytes before Jerusalem,”62 appears to be referring to 2 Chr 12:3, which speaks
of Shoshenq (Shishak) bringing with him from Egypt to Jerusalem “Libyans, Sukkiim
and Ethiopians.”63
However, this is almost certainly a secondary addition as are various other
annotations found in Manetho’s lists and one that has been transmitted to The Book of
Sothis.64 There is nothing to identify Susakeim with Shoshenq I of the 22nd Dynasty.
Equating these two kings or their 34 regnal years is highly dubious.
The accession of Shoshenq I’s son and successor, Osorkon I, must be anchored
before the length of Shoshenq I’s reign can be finally determined.
Osorkon I (Sekhemkheperre Setepenre Osorkon Meryamun)

Osorthon, the second king of Manetho’s list, is there attributed 15 regnal years.
He is identified by scholars as Osorkon I, eldest son of Shoshenq I and his wife
Karomama, as indicated on the Serapeum stela of the Memphite priest Pasenhor B.65 The
stela notes Tashedkhons as the mother of Takeloth I, but Osorkon I’s principal wife,
Maätkare, is not mentioned, nor is her assumed son, Shoshenq IIa.
Osorkon I’s highest known regnal year is year 12 on Nile Level Text No. 2
(situated to the left of Shoshenq I’s Nile Level Text). Kitchen discusses four lines of
evidence for a reign for Osorkon I longer than 12 or 15 years.
Firstly, Kitchen assigns the 33 years noted on the bandage of the priest
Nakhtefmut to Osorkon I because the mummy also has braces with a menat-tab with the
name of Osorkon Sekhemkheperre on it. Kitchen writes, “This Year 33 suggests a
minimum reign of 32 years and that Manetho’s figure should indeed be taken as a
corruption of 15 from 35 years.”66
62
Ibid., 246-47.
63
For the equivalences in Egyptian see Kitchen, TIP, 295 §253 and nn. 290, 291, 292.
64
Note No. 74 in Manetho’s list (Fig. 36.2), “in his reign a lamb spoke”! Manetho, 165, 167. That is not to
imply that all annotations are not original. No. 75 recording that Bocchoris was burnt alive by Sabacon
(Shabako) may be historical.
65
Kitchen, TIP, 106 §85, 292 §249.
66
Ibid., 110 §89; see Wente, “Review of TIP,” 277.
Secondly, Kitchen notes that Iuwelot, son of Osorkon I, and brother to Shoshenq
IIa, was but a youth in year 10 of Osorkon’s reign, but had become a High Priest, army
commander, and governor of southern Upper Egypt in year five of Takelot I’s reign.
Therefore, Iuwelot would more likely have been appointed to this responsible position
when he was 40 rather than 20, indicating a longer reign for Osorkon I than Manetho’s
15 years.
Thirdly, the bandage of year three on the mummy of Nakhtefmut along with the
bandage of year 33 led Kitchen to suggest a three-year co-regency of Osorkon I and
Shoshenq IIa. On the assumption that Shoshenq IIa was only co-regent and predeceased
his assumed father Osorkon I aged in his 50s—judging from the apparent age of his
mummy67—Kitchen surmises that, “Osorkon I died aged about 70 or more,”68 suggesting
a longer not a shorter reign for Osorkon I.
Finally, Kitchen argues that the series of Third and Fourth prophets of Amun, “is
only easily accommodated within a long reign of Osorkon I, and would border on the
unrealistic if crammed into a 15-year reign for that king.”69 So Kitchen argues for
attributing to Shoshenq I 21 regnal years and to Osorkon I 35 years emended from
Manetho’s 15 years. But Wente wanted to attribute [whm] hbw-[s]d, the “repetition of
jubilees” formula under a scene of Osorkon I on a pillar of the Bubastite portal, to an
anticipatory formula, because there was no room for the full formula used for first and
second jubilees. He sees this as aberrant, and attributes it to a co-regency between
Shoshenq I and Osorkon I with the latter hoping to celebrate “many jubilees after the
manner of his father and co-regent who was celebrating his second jubilee.”70
But Kitchen writes, “The tag [wḥm] ḥbw sd apparently applied to Osorkon I … is
the known specific formula that is actually used for real second jubilees!”71 Yet Kitchen
can attribute the formula for Shoshenq I, sp tpy whm hb-sd “First occasion and repetition
of the jubilee” as an anticipatory wish, having “no independent historical value,” and
says it does not indicate a second jubilee!72 This is patently contradictory.
It seems that the words alone cannot resolve whether these are celebratory or
anticipatory wishes. The interpretation depends on the bias and assumptions of the
individual. Kitchen wanted to assign only 21 years to Shoshenq I and 35 years to
Osorkon I, whereas Wente wanted to assign 34 years to Shoshenq I and only 12 years to
Osorkon I.
Neither scholar can attribute a jubilee to both kings because this would put
Shoshenq’s accession before the date of 945 BCE (Kitchen) and 948 BCE (Wente)73 and
destroy the synchronism with Rehoboam’s fifth year, which they date to 925 BCE and
928 BCE, respectively. Yet, that is a consequence of their incorrectly perceived term of
the early period of the 22nd Dynasty and their erroneous date of Rehoboam’s fifth year,
which is properly dated to 977 BCE.
Kitchen’s arguments for a long reign of Osorkon I of 35 years is 20 years longer
than the 15 years given him by Manetho, intimating that the latter number is damaged.
Egyptian numerals are usually written in two rows in a single line of writing and are read
from right to left.
67
D.E. Derry, “Notes on the Remains of Shashanq,” ASAÉ 39 (1939) 549-51.
68
69
Ibid., 111 §89.
70
71 .
72
Ibid., 544 §451.
73
Applying this practice, 15 and 35 would appear in hieroglyphics as shown in

Figure 36.3.
∩ ∩∩∩
||||| |||||
Figure 36.3: Hieroglyphics of 15 and 35.
If the two ten-signs (arches) on the right are broken away, miscopied, or so
damaged as to be illegible, the number 15 remains. This may have happened to the
number for Osorkon I’s regnal years as seen by Manetho when recording the dynastic
lists from their original display.
If Osorkon I’s years can be increased by 20 as claimed by Kitchen, then cannot
Shoshenq I’s years be increased also to accommodate the arguments for a longer reign
than 21 years put forward by Wente? Supposing that Shoshenq I’s regnal years were also
deficient by two ten-signs, the number would originally have been written as 41 (see
Figure 36.4).
∩∩
| ∩∩
Figure 36.4: Hieroglyphics of 41 using two additional ten-signs.
When the two ten-signs were lost, only | ∩∩ would remain: the number 21.
Manetho’s list provides one other example of regnal years: the 13 attributed to Takeloth
II, first ruler of the later period of the 22nd Dynasty. Kitchen assigned 25 years to
Takeloth II, his Year 24 noted in The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon.74 But using the same
application as above, it cannot be seen how 25 could become 13 by eliminating two
ten-signs, but it could become 13 if the original number was 33 (see Figure 36.5).
∩∩
|||∩
Figure 36.5: Hieroglyphics of 33.
Thus, 33 could have become | | | ∩ (13). From the examples of Osorkon I and
Takeloth II who could be demonstrated to have reigned past 15 and 13 years,
respectively, the same may be applied to Shoshenq I.
Reinstating two ten-signs to Shoshenq I would give him 41 regnal years, a quite
plausible total. Kitchen noted that “Late in Year 21 … work began in the sandstone
quarries at Gebel Silsila,” and that “no pharaoh had wrought in Karnak on this vast scale
for almost four centuries.” However, he presumes that Shoshenq I died the following
year.75 Is it not far more credible that the vast amount of construction took place over
some 20 years (when it hadn’t been achieved in the previous 400 years) than to think it
all took place in less than a year? From the above discussion it is feasible to attribute 35
regnal years to Osorkon I, but confirmation is needed.
Priestly Inductions at New Moon

The recently discovered Block Karnak 94, CL 2149 mentions the date of I šmw
13 either in year 11 or year three of Psusennes II. The favored date is year three, because
it exactly matches the date of a new moon on that date for the induction of the priest
Nesankhefenmaat.
On the same block is a date for the second and third year of a king whose name is
damaged but identified as Osorkon I. It refers to an induction of Hor, the son of
74
75
See n. 47 above. See also, idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 296.
Nesankhefenmaat, into the priesthood on II 3ḫt 14. Other similar inductions, already
mentioned, fall within five days of a new moon, which implies that this date also comes
within five days of a lunar Day One. If Shoshenq I reigned 41 years from 997/996 BCE,
his reign would end and Osorkon I’s begin ca. 958/957 BCE (depending on the length of
Shoshenq I’s final year), and his third year ca. 955/954 BCE (−954/−953). Casperson
provides Table 36.10 for −953.
Table 36.10: Osorkon I’s third year −953 (new moon listing for −953)
−953 4 29 −953 4 20 1829 1 11 3 18:56 5:40 238 5:39 121 5:39 52
−953 5 29 −953 5 20 1829 2 11 5 8:10 5:21 204 5:21 110 5:20 35
−953 6 27 −953 6 18 1829 3 10 6 19:29 5:11 288 5:11 171 5:11 78
In −953 (954 BCE) there was a new moon on II 3ḫt 11. That date infers that the
induction of Hor took place three days later, at the end of Osorkon I’s third year. If it had
been at the beginning, his first year would have begun in the year 956 BCE, which
would create a gap of about one year between the end of the 41st year of Shoshenq I
ending in 958 or 957 BCE (again depending on the length of his final year). A date of I–
IV prt in Shoshenq I’s first year is about as early as it could be, while keeping IV prt 25
in his fifth year.
Dates Correlated for Psusennes II, Shoshenq, and Osorkon I

Psusennes II’s 14th year cannot end earlier than III prt 10–19 because his 13th
year included those dates for the induction of Nesankhefenmaat. Psusennes II’s 14th
year, if beginning soon after III prt 10–19, would begin his 15th year at about the same
time as Shoshenq I’s first year, which has to begin before IV prt 25. Therefore, the
accession of Shoshenq I is close to the end of Psusennes II’s 14th year, and one can
speculate that Shoshenq I began his co-regency on the accession date of Psusennes II
about the beginning of IV prt.
Osorkon I’s Accession in 957 BCE and Shoshenq I’s Length of Reign
Returning to the reign of Osorkon I, the very latest date for his third year would
be II 3ḫt 14, the date of the induction of Hor, after which his fourth year would begin on
II 3ḫt 15. Therefore, his accession could not be earlier than II 3ḫt 15 just over three
years previously in 957 BCE. Our foregoing analysis indicates that the accession of
Shoshenq I likely took place in IV prt before day 25 the latter equating to 20 December
in 998 BCE. Most of Shoshenq I’s first year occurred over 997, and his 20th year in 977
was the same as Rehoboam of Judah’s fifth year.
Shoshenq I’s 41st year would have ended in III or IV prt, but his reign did not
end until Osorkon I’s accession after III 3ḫt 14, thus Shoshenq I reigned about six
months of his 42nd year. This would round down to 41 years.76 Beginning to reign
possibly in the latter half of III prt down to sometime before IV prt 25, would equate to
mid-November to late December. Shoshenq I may be assigned the years 998/997 to 957
BCE.
Corroboration of Osorkon I’s Accession Year from Bubastis

The accession year of Osorkon I is further confirmed by a list of his donations at
76
The various 21st and 34th years proposed by scholars for Shoshenq I’s reign do not accommodate a date
of II 3ḫt 14 being near a new moon date on the above timeframe.
Bubastis. Redford, seeking to illustrate that regnal years were counted from a king’s
accession date and not from the beginning of the year in the New Kingdom, writes:
This text reviews the list of royal bequests “which H. M. gave to all the temples and
shrines of the gods in Upper and Lower Egypt from regnal year 1, first month <of
shomu> day 9 [sic]77 to regnal year 1, fourth month of <shomu>, day 25, making 3
years, 3 months and 16 days.”78
These bequests were made up of “handsome gifts of gold and silver vessels and
furnishings upon the temples of the major deities of Egypt” as reported by Kitchen. 79 Of
particular interest here is the date I šmw 9 for his first year. This year fell in −957
according to our date for Osorkon I’s third year in 954 BCE. Table 36.11 provides
Casperson’s lunar table for the year −956.
Table 36.11: Osorkon I’s first year −956 (new moon listing from −956 to −955)
−956 11 24 −956 11 15 1826 8 10 6 9:32 6:37 202 6:38 104 6:38 9
−956 12 24 −956 12 15 1826 9 10 1 5:27 6:49 172 6:49 72 6:49 −19
−955 1 22 −955 1 13 1826 10 9 2 23:60 6:45 276 6:44 127 6:44 31
In −956, the new moon fell on I šmw 9, precisely the date given for the start of
the bestowal of the precious gifts, probably indicating that it was the beginning of an
Amun Tepi Shomu feast, and the bestowal went on for 3 years, 3 months, and 16 days—a
magnificent start to Osorkon I’s reign!
Presumably, the date was chosen because it was the beginning of a lunar month,
or the day of the new moon. As noted, the date falls after II 3ḫt 15 of the year −956,
possibly about seven months into his first regnal year. The coincidence of this date
falling on −956 (957 BCE) determined to be Osorkon I’s first year after Shoshenq I’s
reign of 41 years lends further credence to the length of the latter’s reign.
Osorkon Reigned 35 Years

Earlier evidence has supported the fact that Osorkon I achieved a 30-year reign
marked by a Jubilee, and also the 3 or 4 more years that are recognized by a repetition of
the Jubilee. It is almost certain that Osorkon I reigned for at least 33 years, and my
chronology proposes the number as 35 years.
One might object that the priestly office of Hor’s father, Nesankhefenmaat,
beginning in the third (not 11th) year of the reign of Psusennes II in 1008 would extend
his incumbency down to 954 BCE, or an unlikely lengthy period of 54 years.
Nesankhefenmaat might have been quite young when inducted. That may be borne out
by the pontificate of his father, Nesamun, who was inducted into office in the reign of
Siamun (Block Karnak 94, CL 2149). In the Karnak Priestly Annals, the father of
Nesankhefenmaat is named as Hori. If Nesamun is the same person as Hori, then his
induction took place in Siamun’s 17th year in 1012. Preceding Hori’s/Nesamun’s
induction his father, Nespaneferhor, was inducted in year two of Osorchor the Elder in
1035. From these dates we learn that Nespaneferhor officiated from 1035 to 1012 BCE
77
Redford points out that the copy reads “7,” citing H. Gauthier, Le Livre des rois III (Cairo, 1914) 325
and n. 1. See the following footnote.
78
D.B. Redford, “Sais and the Kushite Invasions of the Eighth Century B.C.,” JARCE 22 (1985) 5. See
also Kitchen, TIP, 303 §262 and n. 326.
79
for 23 years, Hori/Nesamun from 1012 to 1008 BCE for 4 years, and Nesankhefenmaat
from 1008 to 954 BCE for 54 years.
The very short pontificate of Hori/Nesamun compared with the preceding 24
years and the succeeding 54 years indicates that two generations cover the latter two
pontificates. The short pontificate of Hori/Nesamun is offset by the long one of
Nesankhefenmaat implying that the latter must have taken over the duties when he was
relatively young. Attributing to Nesankhefenmaat a pontificate of 54 years is not a real
problem.
Shoshenq I’s reign contributed 41 years to the first division of the 22nd Dynasty,
from 998/997 to 957 BCE, leaving 84 of the 125 years to be distributed to the remaining
kings. Of these, Osorkon I can be attributed 35 years, 957–922 BCE, leaving 49–50
years down to the date of 872 BCE.
Shoshenq IIa (Heqakheperre Setepenre Shoshenq Meryamun)

Shoshenq IIa is not mentioned in Manetho’s list of the 22nd Dynasty kings, nor is
he named on the Pasenhor stela genealogy. However, he is generally identified as the
first of the “three other kings” referred to by Africanus. Yet issues of his identity have
been controversial, and due to recency, are reported, unfortunately, at some length.
At Tanis in 1939, Pierre Montet discovered, in the antechamber of the tomb of
Psusennes I—the only unviolated tomb of the 21st Dynasty—the mummy of a Shoshenq
Heqakheperre in a silver coffin with a falcon’s head. Examination by Douglas Derry of
the Cairo Museum’s Anatomy Department in 1939 showed evidence of rootlets in the
leg bones of the mummy having penetrated through the damaged end of the coffin,
suggesting that it had been moved from a waterlogged original burial site, and reburied
in Psusennes I’s tomb.
The king had a severe head injury indicating that he died of massive infection. He
was judged to be in his 50s at death.80 As evidence of the coffin’s reburial, Dodson
confirmed that the coffin had suffered damage through “rough handling in antiquity.”81
In the funerary equipment were jewelry and priceless pectorals, including one of
Shoshenq I before he became king, that is, “The great Chief of the Ma, Chief of Chiefs,
Shoshenq,” and a couple of bracelets naming Shoshenq I as king. But the tomb did not
have any object naming Osorkon I.82 Some scholars consider this strange if Shoshenq II
was the son of Osorkon I. So some suggest that he may have been the son of Shoshenq
I.83 That would make him a brother or half-brother to Osorkon I. Kitchen identified this
Shoshenq Heqakheperre as the High Priest of Amun (HPA), Shoshenq C, son of
Osorkon I and his wife Maätkare B, the daughter of Psusennes II.84 In this case,
Shoshenq Heqakheperre would have been the half-brother of Takeloth I who was also
the son of Osorkon I—by his second wife, Tashedkhons.
Kitchen notes that Shoshenq C used a cartouche while still High Priest, indicating
expectations to the throne.85 From the inscription on the rear of the statue of the god Bes,
he says it was dedicated by the High Priest Harsiese to his father High Priest Shoshenq
C. Kitchen notes that Harsiese merely called himself “son of the pontiff and army-chief,”
and Kitchen uses this designation to support his claim that Shoshenq Hekakheperre (IIa)
80
Derry, “Notes on the Remains,” 549-51.
81
A. Dodson, The Canopic Equipment Of The Kings Of Egypt (London: Kegan Paul, 1994) 89.
82
Kitchen, TIP, 117-8 §93.
83
J. Dunn, “Sheshonq II and the Treasure trove of his Burial,”
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/sheshonqii.htm
84
Kitchen, TIP, 117-20 §§93-4, 195 §157, 306 §265, 545 §452.
85
Ibid., 119 §94, 307 §265.
was only a co-regent with his father;86 whereas, if his father had been king, he would
have called himself the son of the king.87 (Harsiese, the High Priest of Amun, is
identified as Harsiese B to distinguish him from Takeloth I’s son, known as Harsiese A,
who later became king of Thebes, while Osorkon II reigned in Tanis.)
Kitchen also sides with the views of several earlier scholars (Montet, Driorton,
and Vandier) in assuming that Shoshenq II predeceased his father,88 and therefore could
only have been co-regent, never sole-reign king.89 He also claims that had Shoshenq II
ruled as sole-reign king he would not have been succeeded by Takeloth I, his half-
brother, but by his son Harsiese.90 Kitchen continued to maintain this position in 2009.
Broekman gave cogent reasons in 2000 and 2001 why Shoshenq Heqakheperre
should be identified with the HPA Shoshenq C, son of Osorkon and Maätkare B91 (thus
agreeing with Kitchen). For example, Shoshenq’s unique prenomen, Heqakheperre, is
based on the model of kings using original names at the beginning of the 22nd Dynasty,
and not after the reign of Takeloth I when previously used names were adopted.92
Furthermore, in the funeral equipment of Shoshenq Heqakheperre were found items such
as bracelets and a pectoral belonging to Shoshenq I and none that could be dated later.93
Broekman observes that Shoshenq II, as son of Osorkon I of the 22nd Dynasty
and Maätkare, his mother, of the 21st Dynasty, was in a strong position to succeed his
father as king, the female line being considered very important. Broekman writes,
“Especially during the 21st dynasty the high ranking ladies played a significant role and
the maternal line greatly influenced the succession in the leading positions.”94 He had no
need to trace his descent back a further generation to Psusenness II to prove his claim to
kingship.95
Significantly, in 2001, Broekman pointed out that seven inscriptions describe the
HPA Shoshenq C as the son of King Osorkon I. Three of them include the name of the
mother of HPA Shoshenq, Maätkare. Two of them name her as daughter of king
Psusennes II.96 It would be extremely unusual for a Shoshenq and a Maätkare to have
86
In 1975, Helen Jacquet-Gordon questioned Kitchen’s attribution of Shoshenq II as the king portrayed on
the Bes statue as the co-regent of Osorkon I, because she noted that the 1st prophet (High Priest) Harsiese
could only have officiated either while his father was co-regent or after he had died since they couldn’t
both be 1st prophet at the same time. Since he did not call his father king in the Bes statue, only 1st
prophet, she said it indicated Shoshenq held no pretensions to the throne and could not have become King
Heqakheperre Shoshenq (H. Jacquet-Gordon, “Review of K.A. Kitchen’s ‘The Third Intermediate Period
in Egypt(1100-650 BC)’,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 32 [1975] 359). But, in 1995, Karl Jansen-Winkeln
showed that Jacquet-Gordon had misread the Bes inscription, pointing out that it refers to the HPA
Shoshenq and his son the prophet of Amun, Harsiese (“Historische Probleme der 3. Zwischenheit,” JEA
81 [1995] 130, 132). Since the inscription appears to have been dedicated while Shoshenq was High Priest,
Shoshenq HPA could have become king later (G.P.F. Broekman, “Shoshenq Maäkheperre and Shoshenq
Heqakheperre,” GM 176 [2000] 39).
87
88
Ibid., 119 §94, n. 170.
89
Idem, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 165.
90
Idem, TIP, 119-20 §94.
91
Broekman, “Shoshenq Maäkheperre,” 39-46; idem, “Once More Shoshenq Heqakheperre,” GM 181
(2001) 27-37.
92
Ibid., 40; idem, “Once More Shoshenq,” 29.
93
Idem, “Once More Shoshenq,” 29.
94
Ibid., 29.
95
Idem, “Shoshenq Maäkheperre and Shoshenq Heqakheperre,” 39-46; idem, “Once More Shoshenq,”
28-29.
96
Idem, “Once More Shoshenq,” 28.
two sons called Shoshenq, so the conclusion is that HPA Shoshenq C is Shoshenq
Heqakheperre (Shoshenq II).
Broekman’s analysis of shabtis attributable to Shoshenq Heqakheperre compared
with others buried in tombs at Tanis, indicate Shoshenq Heqakheperre lived in the early
part of the 22nd Dynasty, not in the latter part (noted above). Shoshenq Heqakheperre’s
silver coffin was found reburied in the tomb of Psusennes I (NRT III) 97 on a platform in
the vestibule with mummies and funerary equipment of two other coffins that had
decayed except for their bronze parts, suggesting that the mummies were of royal
blood.98
Yoyotte had identified them as Siamun on the left of Shoshenq Heqakheperre,
and Psusennes II on the right.99 Unlike tombs of the 18th to 20th Dynasties made only
for one king, the tombs of the 21st Dynasty were family tombs. 100 In the reburial of
Shoshenq II he was placed with four kings of the 21st Dynasty: Psusennes I,
Amenemope, Siamun (whose descent is uncertain),101 and Psusennes II; all of Psusennes
I’s dynastic successors except Osorkor the Elder, who may have been buried in a new
cemetery.102
Shoshenq Heqakheperre’s reburial in a family tomb resembles the mummies
buried later in the family tomb of Osorkon II at Tanis (NRT I), in which also were laid to
rest Takeloth I (Osorkon II’s father), and Osorkon II’s son, Harnakht HPA. Dodson
suggests that the 21st and 22nd Dynasty kings down to Takeloth I had previously been in
a new cemetery—location unknown—and that Osorkon II, perhaps to save them from
groundwater problems, had them removed to Tanis, where he kept Shoshenq II with his
21st Dynasty predecessors, and his (Osorkon II’s) own family of the 22nd Dynasty not
connected to the 21st Dynasty, in his own family tomb.103
Shoshenq II’s reburial with 21st Dynasty kings reinforces his claim to the throne
through his presumed mother Maätkare, and also through his presumed father Osorkon I,
and also as grandson of Shoshenq I. Thus Shoshenq II’s burial in the anteroom of
Psusennes I’s tomb is consistent with him being the HPA, son of Osorkon I and
Maätkare, daughter of Psusennes II.
Broekman concludes that Shoshenq Heqakheperre succeeded Osorkon I, his
father. After the deep wound to his head from which he appears to have died, Shoshenq
II was succeeded by Takeloth I, his (presumed) half-brother, son of Osorkon I by his
lesser wife, Tashedkhons. This conclusion accords with Kitchen’s position.
Maäkheperre Setepenre Shoshenq Meryamun

Scholars’ discussions about the identity of Shoshenq Heqakheperre did not rest
with Kitchen’s identity of him as the HPA Shoshenq C, son of Osorkon I and Maätkare,
but also involved the identity of a king whose name was mentioned on an inscription on
the back of the Cairo statue CG 42192. The statue had earlier been used by Thutmose III.
97
The Royal Tombs at Tanis are designated as NRT-I to VII. The discoveries were reported in a series of
volumes entitled La nécropole royale de Tanis by Jean Pierre Marie Montet. Volume 1 was published in
1947.
98
Cited by Broekman, “Once More Shoshenq,” 34, from J. Yoyotte, Tanis, L’or des pharaons (Paris:
AFAA, 1987) 48.
99
Broekman, “Once More Shoshenq,” 34.
100
Ibid., 31-32.
101
Ibid., 33, 34.
102
Ibid., 34; citing Dodson, “Some Notes Concerning the Royal Tombs at Tanis,” Cd’É 63/126 (1988)
229.
103
Ibid., 33; Dodson, “Some Notes,” 231.
It speaks of a king who was begotten by a king of Upper and Lower Egypt,
named Tyetkheperre Setepenre Hor-Pasbakhaenniut Meryamun; that is, Psusennes II.
Broekman translates:
… (a work made by the lord of) the strength, lord of accomplishing benefactions (?),
whom Amon himself had chosen, Maäkheperre Setepenre, son of Re from his own flesh,
beloved by him, lord of Appearances Shoshenq Meryamun, which his majesty made as a
monument for his father Amun (?) (after having renewed) its name on the one who has
begotten him, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, lord of the two lands, lord of the
ritual, Tyetkheperre Setepenre, the son of Re, lord of appearances Hor-Pasebakhaenniut
Meryamun, to whom may be given all live [sic], stability and dominion and all health,
104
forever like Re (?).
This inscription makes clear that Maäkheperre laid claim to the throne by being
chosen by Amun and begotten of Psusennes II. Prior to 1990, this Shoshenq had been
identified as Shoshenq I, but then Malte Römer pointed out that the king named is
Shoshenq Maäkheperre spelt with a Maä feather, not Shoshenq Hedjkheperre (Shoshenq
I) written with a Hedj, white crown sign, which for him eliminated Shoshenq I—more so
because he was not a son of Psusennes II.105
Römer concluded that Heqakheperre found in the tomb of Psusennes II was the
same as Maäkheperre of the Cairo statue CG 42192, though he had to assume that there
had been an error in the writing of the name Maäkheperre and Heqakheperre (the latter
having a heqa scepter sign).106 Subsequently, however, because it was thought
improbable that the names had been incorrectly inscribed, especially unlikely on the
tomb of a king, various scholars concluded that Shoshenq Heqakheperre and Shoshenq
Maäkheperre were different individuals, and a new king Shoshenq Maäkheperre should
be recognized. His father was assumed to be the HPA Shoshenq C son of Osorkon I and
Maätkare B,107 having Psusennes II as his maternal grandfather.
This identification meant that Shoshenq Heqakheperre could not also be the son
of Osorkon I and Maätkare B as Kitchen had proposed, as it would mean that the couple
had two sons both named Shoshenq, which was improbable. The fact that no items
belonging to Osorkon I had been found in the tomb of Shoshenq Heqakheperre (who was
assumed to have predeceased and been buried by his father—according to Kitchen’s
assertion that Shoshenq II was co-regent with Osorkon I), was cited as evidence that
Hekakheperre was not the son of Osorkon I,108 but possibly the son of Shoshenq I since
near his tomb was found a pectoral of the great chief of the Ma, Shoshenq A, before he
became king, as well as a bracelet naming Shoshenq after he became king. Since kings
were often buried with objects belonging to their parents, it is proposed by some scholars
(e.g. Jansen-Winkeln109) that Shoshenq Hekakheperre was a son of Shoshenq I. This
identification meant a position had to be found for him in the early 22nd Dynasty where
his unique prenomen Heqakheperre indicated he belonged, because after Takeloth I there
was no originality in throne names.110
104
Idem, “Shoshenq Maäkheperre,” 39.
105
M. Römer, “Varia zu Psusennes II und zur 21. Dynastie,” GM 114 (1990) 96.
106
Ibid., 96; cited by Broekman, “Shoshenq Maäkheperre,” 39-40.
107
J. von Beckerath, “Zur Rückeninschrift der Statuette Kairo CG 42192,” Orientalia 63 (1994) 84-87. In
a postscript, he notes the possibility of Shoshenq Heqakheperre and Shoshenq Maäkheperre being different
kings; Jansen-Winkeln, “Historische,” 145-48; N. Dautzenberg, “Bemerkungen zu Schoschenq II.,
Takeloth II. und Pedubastis II,” GM 144 (1995) 21-22.
108
“Sheshonk II,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshenq_II
109
Jansen-Winkeln, “Third Intermediate Period,” 237.
110
Dautzenberg, “Bemerkungen,” 21-22.
Jürgen von Beckerath suggested that if Maäkheperre is not the same as

Heqakheperre, then Heqakheperre might be the son of Takeloth I having a short reign
before that of Osorkon II.111 Scholars who don’t identify Shoshenq Heqakheperre as
being the son of HPA Shoshenq C, and son of Osorkon I, place him two generations later
as a person whose lineage and right to the throne is unknown.
Dodson’s view that Shoshenq II’s hawk-headed coffin (Cairo JE 72154) was
similar to the hawk-headed coffin lid of the granite tomb of Harsiese (JE 60137) from
Medinet Habu, which was made for Ramesses II’s sister Henmutmire,112 has been cited
as evidence that Shoshenq II and Harsiese A were contemporaries.
Unfortunately, no burial item of Osorkon I has been discovered113 by which to
compare them. Items of Shoshenq I found in Shoshenq Heqakheperre’s tomb were then
explained as heirlooms and not suggestive of an immediate filial link.114 But Broekman
believes that if Shoshenq Heqakheperre had been contemporary with Osorkon II, then
objects belonging to kings later than Shoshenq I would have been found in his tomb.115
The identity of Shoshenq Maäkheperre was newly explained by Broekman in
2000 when he proposed that Shoshenq Maäkheperre could be the actual son of
Psusennes II as he claimed on the Cairo Statue CG 42192 in order to boost his right as
heir to the throne.116 Broekman notes that the name Shoshenq occurs in the 21st Dynasty
among the ancestors of Psusennes II or his wife.117 Shoshenq Maäkheperre could claim
his descent from his great-grandparents, Shoshenq A and his wife Mehtenweskhet, his
grandfather Osorkon the Elder, and his father, Psusennes II.118
Shoshenq Heqakheperre, on the other hand, could claim his descent from
Shoshenq A and Mehtenweskhet his great-great-grandparents, his great-grandfather
Nimlot A, his grandfather Shoshenq B (Shoshenq I), and his father Osorkon I. 119 If
Heqakheperre is Shoshenq II, son of Osorkon I and Maätkare, and succeeded his father,
where and when did Shoshenq Maäkheperre, presumed son of Psusennes II, have his
reign, since Psusennes was succeeded by Shoshenq I?
Broekman notes from the Karnak Priestly Annals fragment 4, that Shoshenq I
was not yet recognized as king in Thebes in his second regnal year, being called only
“Great Chief of the Ma.”120 Broekman proposes that it is probable that Shoshenq
Maäkheperre’s “claim to kingship was supported in Thebes.”121
However, as discussed above, there was a five-year co-regency between
Psusennes II and Shoshenq I indicating the absence of a son to succeed Psusennes II, so
Broekman’s idea can be set aside. That leaves us with a Maäkheperre Shoshenq of no
111
Von Beckerath, “Zur Rückeninschrift der Statuette kairo CG 42192,” Orientalia 63 (1994) 87; idem,
“Beiträge zur Geschichte der Libyerzeit,” GM 144 (1995) 8-9; idem, Chronologie des Pharaonischen
Ägypten: Die Zeitbestimmung der ägyptischen Geschichte von der Vozeit bus 332 v. Chr. (Mainz: von
Zabern, 1997) 98.
112
Dodson, Canopic Equipment, 88 and n. 68, 92.
113
Ibid., 89.
114
“Sheshonk II,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshenq_II
115
Broekman, “Shoshenq Maäkheperre,” 40.
116
Ibid., 40-43.
117 .
Ibid., 41.
118
Ibid., 41-44.
119
Ibid., 43-44.
120
Ibid., 42-43.
121
Ibid., 42.
known origin. The Cairo statue CG 42192 is the sole attestation of a king with this
name.122 However, he is not the only newly discovered “Shoshenq.”
Tutkheperre Meryamun Shoshenq

In 2004, Eva Lange suggested the possibility of another hitherto unidentified
king with the name of Tutkheperre Shoshenq.123 She referred to a damaged lintel
fragment from the Great Temple of Bubastis discovered in 1994 by an expedition from
the University of Potsdam. The fragment, found in the western part of the central
courtyard (classification H/3.9), shows the topmost part of a king’s titular, which appears
to have originally been six columns, but with only five now remaining. Column three
contains the prenomen Tutkheperre (twt hpr rcw) in vertical writing and to its right in
column four, clearly the nomen Shoshenq.
Dodson, who referred to this inscription in 2002, thought that the Tutkheperre
referred to is Psusennes II who had this prenomen, and the “Shoshenq” was his
successor, Shoshenq I.124 But Lange points out that the spelling of the tjt (Tut) in
Psusennes II’s prenomen is different from the twt spelling in the lintel. Ascribing them to
the one king is problematical. But she acknowledges that the twt spelling is used in the
prenomen of Psusennes II on the Cairo Statue CG 42192 from Karnak.125
Assuming that the two cartouches belong to the one person, she points out that
none of the Shoshenqs I–V has the prenomen Tutkheperre. As added evidence for a new
king Tutkheperre Shoshenq, she notes an inscription first published by E. Amelinéau in
1897–1898.126 The inscription was on a fragment of a receptacle from Abydos and had
two incompletely preserved cartouches one beginning with the prenomen Tutkheper[re]
and in the other the lower part of the damaged name […]amun; that is, Meryamun.
In 1995, M.A. Bonheme examined the ostraca, now in the Louvre Museum, and
read the same Tutkheperre [Meri]amun written in black ink. He adds that the ostraca had
been discovered near the 1st Dynasty tomb of Osiris at Abydos among votive deposits of
varying dates beginning with the New Kingdom (18th Dynasty). It was assumed that the
writer had mistakenly inscribed the chick symbol for Tut (twt) instead of the red crown
sign for Hedj as for Hedjkheperre Shoshenq; that is, Shoshenq I.127
When Yoyotte examined the original fragment, he read in the lower part of the
damaged cartouche the nomen “Shoshenq,” thus giving the reading Tutkheperre
Meryamun Shoshenq.128 Lange emphasizes that these cartouches belong to only one
king. She refers also to two cartouches having a prenomen and nomen of a Shoshenq,
which were found earlier on a receptacle from Abydos by E. Naville, published in
1891.129 Lange suggests that these might also have referred to Tutkheperre Shoshenq.
She notes the scarcity of attestation. On the advice of K. Jansen-Winkeln, she suggests
that Tutkheperre Shoshenq reigned in the first half of the 22nd Dynasty.130
122
Kitchen, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 172.
123
E. Lange, “Ein neuer König Schoschenk in Bubastis,” GM 203 (2004) 65-71.
124
Ibid., 65 citing A. Dodson, “Die Dauer der Dritten Zwischenzeit–III, ” Biblische Archäologie am
Scheideweg? (eds. P. van der Veen and U. Zerbst; Darmstadt: Hänssler, 2002) 77.
125
Ibid., 68; see also, von Beckerath, “ZurRückeninschrift der Statuette Kairo CG 42192,” Orientalia 63
(1994) 84-87; K. Jansen-Winkeln, “Historische,” 147.
126
Ibid., 69 citing E. Amelinéau, Les nouvelles fouilles d’Abydos (II), 1897-1898, 147.
127
M.A. Bonheme, “Les Chechanquides: Qui, Combien?,” BSFE 134 (1995) 53-54. See “Tutkheperre
Shoshenq,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutkheperre_Shoshenq
128
Lange, “Ein neuer König Schoschenk,” 69.
129
Ibid., 68-69 citing E. Naville, Bubastis (1887-1889), (Egypt Exploration Fund vol. 8, London: 1891)
46.
130
Ibid., 71.
In 2009, Kitchen proposed that Maatkheperre was the name used by Shoshenq I
in order “to adopt a titular style acceptable to the latently hostile Theban authorities, very
soon after his accession.”131 Kitchen appeals to the fact that Shoshenq I was still just
“Great Chief of the Ma” in his year two. Kitchen has not recognized that Psusennes II
had a co-regency with Shoshenq I in the last five years of his reign, which could account
for the use of his old designation. However, according to Kitchen, the name
Maatkheperre did not impress the Thebans so Shoshenq I changed his name from
Maatkheperre to Tyetkheper(u)re, the prenomen of Psusennes II, to make himself “a
direct reincarnation.”132 However, this gambit also failed, so Shoshenq I adopted the
prenomen Hedjkheperre, that of Smendes, the founder of the 21st Dynasty—the dynasty
he was replacing.133
Thus, Shoshenq IIb and IIc are none other than Shoshenq I with prenomens he
used in the early years of his reign to “win hearts and influence people.” Kitchen says
that Shoshenq I is not known by his prenomen Hedjkheperre before his fifth year.134
The elimination of Tutkheperre Shoshenq IIb and Maakheperre Shoshenq IIc just
leaves Hedjkheperre Shoshenq I and his probable grandson, Heqakheperre Shoshenq IIa
as kings with the name of Shoshenq in the early period of the 22nd Dynasty.
Shoshenq IIa’s Length of Reign

In the Nile Level Texts, just above the earliest texts, those of Shoshenq I (No. 1
with year 6) and Osorkon I (No. 2 with year 12), is a text (No. 16) with just the name of
the High Priest Iuwelot and “son of the king, the lord of the two lands (nb t3wy)
Osorkon” with a year 5.135
Since Iuwelot was a youth in year 10 of his father, Osorkon I, he must have been
HPA in the reign of his successor, either Shoshenq IIa or Takeloth I. 136 The position of
No. 16 close to Nos. 1 and 2 is appropriate for the son and grandson of the previous two,
whose texts were the first to be engraved on the quay wall.
Most scholars seem agreed that this text belongs to Shoshenq IIa, in which case it
is possible to attribute to him a reign at least into his fifth year in our chronology.
Kitchen regards Shoshenq IIa as a co-regent with Osorkon I, reasoning that if Shoshenq
IIa had been sole king, his descendants—and not those of his brother Takeloth I—would
have succeeded to the throne.
Kitchen gives Shoshenq IIa ca. two years, and the dates of ca. 892–890 BCE
subsumed under Osorkon I’s reign dated to 924–889 BCE.137 It is necessary for Kitchen
to make Shoshenq IIa a co-regent because there are no available years to give him a
place as a sole-reign king in his chronology with an upper limit of 945 BCE for the
accession of Shoshenq I. The fact that Shoshenq IIa is not mentioned in the Pasenhor
genealogy can be explained by the fact that the genealogy passed down from Shoshenq
I’s daughter-in-law, Tashedkhons, the daughter of Psusennes II married to Osorkon I,
and the mother of Takeloth I, and on to Osorkon II, most likely continued with Takeloth
II and the kings of the 22nd Dynasty.138 On the other hand, Shoshenq IIa was the son of
Maätkare, Osorkon I’s first wife, and his son Harsiese was only a local king of Thebes
131
132
Ibid.
133
Ibid.
134
Ibid.
135
Broekman, “Nile Level records,” 164, 166, 169, 170.
136
Ibid., 170, 173.
137
138
Recorded by Kitchen himself, TIP, 106-07, §§85-86.
and did not continue the dynastic line. Just because he is not mentioned on the stela is no
reason to assume that Shoshenq IIa cannot have had regnal years of his own. The year
five attributed to him on the Nile Level Text presumes a fifth year.
Giving Osorkon I a reign of 35 years dates him to 957–922 BCE, and Shoshenq
IIa with a provisional reign of five years will give him the dates 922–917 BCE. Thus, to
the end of the first period of the 22nd Dynasty in 872 BCE, there are no more than 45
years to accommodate the remaining kings.
Takeloth I (Hedjkheperre Setepenre Takeloth Meryamun)

Takeloth I was the son of Osorkon I and his lesser wife Queen Tashedkhons,139
presumed half-brother to Shoshenq IIa. He is identified here as the second of Manetho’s
“three other kings” in the early period of the 22nd Dynasty.140
In 1939, Pierre Montet discovered in the tomb of Osorkon II, the burial of a king
whose coffin was inscribed with two cartouches: Hedjkheperre Setepenre and Takeloth
Meryamun, as well as other items bearing the name of Takeloth Meryamun. Knowing
this to be the name of Takeloth II, the coffin was presumed by Montet and other scholars
to be that of Takeloth II, son of Osorkon II. When Kitchen discussed Takeloth I in his
1973 and 1986 editions of TIP, Takeloth’s prenomen was not known, so distinguishing
Takeloth I from Takeloth II was then difficult.141
However, in 1987, Karl Jansen-Winkeln was able to demonstrate that
Hedjkheperre Setepenre Takeloth Meryamun was the name of Takeloth I; whereas the
name of Takeloth II had the additional nomen epithet “Si-Ese” (son of Isis).142 Jansen-
Winkeln reported that on the east wall of Room III near the burial of Osorkon II and
Takeloth is a scene of the two kings. On the left is a king with two cartouches above him
identifying him as Usimare Setapenamun Osorkon Meryamun, that is Osorkon II, and
the text “a son, furbishing the one who created him.”143 On the right, separated by four
columns of text appear an Osiris figure (god of the dead) and an Udjo (or Wedjet) figure
(raised cobra as protector of the pharaoh).
Jansen-Winkeln identified the Osiris figure as the deceased Takeloth I. The text
between the figures, using Kitchen’s translation, reads:
[Made?]” by the King of the South and North Egypt, Lord of Both Lands, Usimare
Setepenamun, Son of Re, Lord of Crowns, Osorkon II Meryamun, [to furbish?] the
Osiris King (2) Takeloth Meryamun, in his Mansion which is [an abo]de of the Sun-disc:
“I have caused him to rest in this Mansion, in the vicinity of (3) “Hidden-of-Name” (=
Amun), according to the doing by a son of benefactions for his father, [to] furbish the
one who made his fortune(?), in conformity with what Horus-Son-of-Isis commanded (4)
144
for his father Wennufer. How pleasant (it is) in my heart, for the Lord of the Gods!
The scene shows Osorkon II clearly honouring his father at his reburial in his
(Osorkon II’s) own tomb. So the nearby coffin belonging to Hedjkheperre Setepenre
139 ,
Kitchen TIP, 95 §76, 106 §85.
140
Scholars who follow David Aston’s chronology delete Takeloth II from the 22nd Dynasty, where he is
in sixth place in Manetho’s list, and then assume that Manetho’s sixth king, Takelothis, is Takeloth I, not
II. See D. Aston, “Takeloth II: A King of the Theban 23rd Dynasty?” JEA 75 (1989) 139-53. This means
they seek to identify “three other kings” between Osorkon I and Takeloth I; whereas Manetho indicates
“three other kings” after Osorkon I and before “Takelothis”; that is, Takeloth II. This is why in some
Wikipedia websites Takeloth I is designated and not Takeloth II.
141
Kitchen, TIP, 95-96 §76.
142
K. Jansen-Winkeln, “Thronname und Begräbnis Takeloths I,” VA 3 (1987) 253-58.
143
Kitchen, TIP (1996), xxii.
144
Ibid., xxii. Emphasis his.
Takeloth Meryamun in Osorkon II’s tomb could only belong to Takeloth I.145
Further evidence that it really was the coffin of Takeloth I and not Takeloth II
came from the discovery of a shabti in the tomb of Tashedkhons, Takeloth I’s mother,
and a heart scarab of “Takeloth Meriamum” without the epithet “Si-ese.”146 Jansen-
Winkeln also observes that Takeloth I’s name is spelled with a vertical t sign; whereas
Takeloth II or Takeloth III (of the 23rd Dynasty) is spelt with a small loaf t sign and the
rope-tether sign, which, when combined with other evidence, distinguishes Takeloth I
from Takeloth II and III.147
Based on this new evidence, Kitchen (in 1996) assigned to Takeloth I items that
had previously been attributed to Takeloth II: “a donation stela of Year 9 (from
Bubastis), another from Berlin (also from Bubastis) and a fragment in the former Grant
collection.”148
Concerning the length of Takeloth I’s reign Jansen-Winkeln writes:
A block, presumably from the Serapeum, bears the names of Takelot I and the HP of
Memphis, Merenptah; Mariette noted that this was found together with a stela from a
Year 14. This might be a stela in Alexandria dated to a Year 14 (without a royal name),
and originally came from the Serapeum, as the inscription suggests.149
He comments that if an Apis bull was buried in the 14th year of Takeloth and its
successor was the bull buried in the 23rd year of Osorkon II, the year 14 would have to
come near the end of Takeloth I’s reign,150 since the longest known age for an Apis bull
is 26 years.
Thus more than 3 years could be attributed to the 14 years known, if the year 14
from the stela found at the Serapeum indeed refers to the reign of Takeloth I. On this
evidence the longest that can be attributed to Takeloth I is a reign of 16–17 years, since it
is unlikely that another Apis bull could have come between Takeloth I and Osorkon II as
the shortest length known for an Apis bull’s life is 12 years.151
The length of Takeloth I’s reign and those of his predecessor, Shoshenq IIa, and
his successor, Osorkon II, have to be considered together because they must fit the years
that remain for the early period of the 22nd Dynasty.
Nile Level Texts for Takeloth I?

The Nile Level Texts, which comprise the chronological unit of Nos. 16–21,
show a name (where legible) of a High Priest, and a regnal year of an unnamed king who
is a son of Osorkon I. Since Shoshenq IIa and Takeloth I were sons of Osorkon I, it is
plausible that Takeloth I may be represented in Nile Level Texts 16–21.
Already noted is No. 16 with a year five attributed to Shoshenq IIa. No. 20 is
situated above No. 16, and No. 21 engraved below and to the left of Nos. 1 and 2
belonging to Shoshenq I and Osorkon I—the grandfather and father, respectively.
Unfortunately, Nos. 20 and 21 are illegible as to the name of the High Priest or the
king’s regnal year. Nos. 17, 18, and 19 occupy the central lower levels, with No. 19
being the lowest of all the texts.
145
Jansen-Winkeln, “Thronname,” 253-58; Kitchen, TIP, xxii.
146
147
148
Kitchen, TIP, xxiii; see 2nd ed. 327 n. 463.
149
Jansen-Winkeln, “Third Intermediate Period,” 239. He says that Mariette’s remarks are “rather
doubtful,” n. 48.
150 .
Ibid., 239 n. 51; see Kitchen, TIP, 489 table 20.
151
The Apis bull that died in the second year of Shabako had a successor that died in his 14th year, so
aged about 12 years (Kitchen, TIP, 156 §(iii).
These latter three have the name of the High Priest Smendes, presumed to be a
younger brother of High Priest Iuwelot, indicating that the latter three are later than No.
16. Of these, No. 17 has a year eight, and No. 18 a year 13 or 14. In No. 19 the year is
illegible, but the space for the number in the sketches is less than that for Nos. 17 and 18
and could indicate a number less than eight.152 Because of the other evidence for a year
14 for Takeloth I, one is inclined to attribute No. 18 with its 13 or 14 years to Takeloth I.
The Year eight on No. 17 could then refer to an earlier flood level in his reign, and
possibly an even earlier one on No. 19.
That leaves Nos. 20 and 21 without any obvious king to whom they might
belong. No. 20 is unusual in adding a wish for eternal life to the name of King Osorkon.
Text No. 21 does not have this addition. In the chronological unit of Nos. 16–21, Nos.
17, 18, and 19 are notably written the same; whereas in the legible portion of Nos. 20
and 21, in the part that remains after the damaged first half, the first few hieroglyphs in
both texts resemble each other but are different from the hieroglyphs appearing in the
same place in Nos. 17, 18, and 19—but are the same as No. 16 to which they are closer
on the quay wall.153
This suggests that they too might be assigned to Shoshenq IIa, in which case he
would have three texts representing him. If his year five on Nile Level Text No. 16 is his
highest regnal year, then the other two texts, if referring to him, must represent earlier
years. It is peculiar that a king reigning only five years should have three texts assigned
to him, but then the rationale for engraving flood heights in various years on the quay
wall is not known.
The length of Osorkon II’s reign has a bearing on whether Shoshenq IIa reigned
five years, and whether Takeloth I reigned 14 years. Provisionally, assigned a reign of 14
years, Takeloth I’s dates would be 917–903 BCE.
Osorkon II (Usimare Setepenamun Osorkon Meryamun)

Osorkon II is not named by Manetho, but understood here to be the last of the
“three other kings” that follow Osorkon I; that is, the fifth and last king of the early
period of the 22nd Dynasty. Osorkon II was successor and son of Takeloth I and Queen
Kapes.154 The highest known regnal year for Osorkon II comes from Nile Level Text No.
14, which refers to a year 29 of a king Usimare Setepenamun.155
According to Broekman, the orthography of the text uses Version One of hcpj
(Nile flood) indicating a king who reigned prior to Shoshenq III’s 39th year when the
Second Version of hcpj is first attested (Nile Level Text No. 22). This limits the choice to
Osorkon II and Shoshenq III who both used the prenomen Usimare Setepenamun.
Broekman thinks it could refer to Shoshenq III but notes that it is not in the
expected position between texts Nos. 27 and 29 of Pedubast I’s 19th and 23rd years (of
the concurrent 23rd Dynasty), equated with Shoshenq III’s 26th and 30th years,
respectively. He also thinks that if it had belonged to Shoshenq III, his name together
with that of Prince Osorkon as High Priest, would be expected. Broekman then writes,
“It is probable that Osorkon II is the king mentioned in text No. 14, because he was the
152
Von Beckerath, “Nile Level Records,” 51 pl. III; Broekman, “Nile Level Records,” 171.
153
Ibid., 50-51; Broekman, “Nile Level Records,” 171.
154
Kitchen, TIP, 312-13, 326.
155
Broekman, “Nile Level Records,” 174-75. Osorkon II also has Nile Level Texts Nos. 8 and 9 both with
year 12 (one above the other with the upper one No. 9 presumed to be of a higher flood level after the
previous level had been recorded), and No. 11 with year 21 and No. 12 with year 22.
first king of the Twenty-second Dynasty to use this prenomen; no further indication was
needed to distinguish him from preceding kings.”156
Nile Level Text No. 14 refers to a year 29. There is no reason to suppose it was a
final year. Other evidence shows a 30-year royal jubilee, or Heb Sed festival, when the
regnal powers of kings were renewed. Among his major building works at Tanis and
later at Bubastis, Osorkon II constructed for himself a sed-festival hall,157 normally
indicative of an upcoming 30th year. An inscription from Bubastis appears to record a
jubilee celebration in Osorkon II’s 22nd year. The relevant part of the inscription is
translated as:
Year 22, fourth month of the first season (occurred) the appearance of the king in the
temple of Amon, which is in the jubilee-hall, resting on the portable throne; and the
assumption of the protection of the two Lands by the king, the protection of the sacred
women of the house of Amon, and the protection of all the women of his city … Lo, his
majesty sought great benefactions for his father, Amon-Re, when he (Amon) decreed the
first jubilee for his son, who rests upon his throne, that he might decree for him a great
multitude (of jubilees) in Thebes, mistress of the Nine Bows.158
However, scholars have long noted that the inscription is almost identical to one
written for the first Heb Sed festival of Amenhotep III. Anthony Spalinger writes: “A
well-known inscription from Bubastis dealing with his [Osorkon II’s] heb-sed (or
Jubilee) festival is actually a copy of an earlier text of Amenhotep III.” 159 This
inscription is dated, though, to Amenhotep III’s year 30, on day one of the 10th month
(II šmw 1).160
José M. Galan translates the pertinent text:
Year 30, second month of Shemu. Appearing [in] Amun’s temple, which is in the
precinct of the sed-festival sitting on the southern litter and starting the protection (hw)
of the two Lands, by the King. (Consisting of) the protection (hw) of the musicians and
singers of Amun, and the protection (hw) of every woman of the town … Now his
majesty is seeking a great deal of magnificence] for his father Amun-Re, as he proclaims
the first sed-festival of his son, who is sitting on his throne, [and as he announces for him
very many (sed-festivals) in Thebes, mistress of the Nine Bows.161
The similarity of the two texts, and the fact that Heb Sed festivals are celebrated
in the 30th year of a king162 suggests to Edward Wente, “A mistake that could easily
have been made especially if the upper part of the final ten-sign were damaged,” or “that
the Year 22 is an error of the modern copyist.”163 I earlier reported Kitchen’s 2006
proposal of two alternative chronologies for the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties. In Option A,
he continued to give Osorkon II 25 years as he had given him in 2000.164 In Option B, he
156
Ibid., 174-75.
157
Kitchen, TIP, 317-19 §§276-80.
158
Original Historical Documents–Jubilee Inscriptions at
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/jubilee_inscriptions.html; see too C.C. van Siclen, “The Accession date
of Amenhotep III and the Jubilee,” JNES 32 (1973) 296-97; Kitchen, TIP, 320-21 §279.
159
A.J. Spalinger, “Egypt, History of (Dyn. 21-26),” ABD, 357. See also van Siclen, “The Accession
date,” 296.
160
The translation and commentary comparing the texts is found in Van Siclen III, “The Accession date,”
296-98; see also J.M. Galan, “The Ancient Egyptian Sed-Festival and Exemption from Corvee,” JNES 59
(2000) 255-56.
161
Galan, “Ancient Egyptian Sed-Festival,” 255-56.
162
P.F. O’Mara, “Dating the Sed Festival: Was there only a Single Model?” GM 136 (1993) 57.
163
164
Kitchen, “Regnal and Genealogical Data,” 50.
joined other scholars in attributing Nile Level Text No. 14 to Osorkon II with its 29
years, and on the recognition that he celebrated a 30-year jubilee, assigned him 30 years,
dying in his 31st year.165
Like Wente and others before him, the mistake would be that three “ten-signs”
(∩∩∩) were misread as two “ten” signs with the third “ten” sign damaged at the top so
that it read like two vertical strokes, thus seen as 22. In order to accommodate the extra
five years now assigned to Osorkon II, Kitchen overlaps Takeloth II and Shoshenq III by
seven years, and subtracts the excess two years from the reign of Shoshenq IV to give
him 10 years not 12.166 Kitchen cannot fit the 30-year reign of Osorkon II into the
limited years of his chronology without the overlap theory. In 2009, Kitchen gives
Osorkon II 22 years minimum and 30/32 years maximum.167
Further possible support for Osorkon II celebrating a 30-year jubilee comes from
a small stela published by von Beckerath in 1996. It reads, “Regnal Year 22 under the
majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Usermaatre Setapenamun (i.e., Osorkon
II), son of Re, the appearance of the beloved Osorkon Meryamun in the presence of the
deities Osiris, Horus and Isis.”168
Von Beckerath maintains that because this stela from Osorkon II’s 22nd year
does not mention a Heb Sed festival,169 it implies that Osorkon II did not celebrate a
jubilee in this year, for if he had, it would almost certainly have been mentioned.
Recognition of Regnal Years

Assuming that Osorkon II celebrated a 30-year jubilee, and his reign ended in
872 BCE (end of the early period of the 22nd Dynasty), his first year cannot be later than
902. Previously, we gave Takeloth I at least 14 years and the provisional dates of 917–
903 BCE, apparently just one year between Takeloth I and Osorkon II, suggesting that
Osorkon II had 31 years from 903 to 872 BCE. Recognizing that Shoshenq I had 41
years, Osorkon I 35 years, Shoshenq II 5 years, Takeloth I 14 years, and Osorkon II 31
years, this totals 126 years, or taking rounding-up into full years into account, 125 years
for the first division of the 22nd Dynasty. There are no known lunar dates for the last
three kings that might have anchored any of their reigns. To eliminate the extra year, I
have assigned to Shoshenq IIA 4½ years and to Takeloth I 13½ years, leaving Osorkon
II with the 31 years of 903–872 BCE.
Synchronism of Osorkon II with Shalmaneser III of Assyria and Ahab of Israel

Kitchen and other scholars identify Osorkon II as the unnamed “king of Musri,”
meaning Egypt, who allied himself with the kings of Hamath, Damascus, and Israel to
fight the troops of Shalmaneser III of Assyria at the Battle of Qarqar when Ahab was
king of Israel.170 This identification is consistent with the discovery in Ahab’s palace of a
large alabaster vase, a presentation vessel, which had traces of Osorkon II’s cartouche on
it.171 If Osorkon II was the unnamed king of Egypt, one of his regnal years must
synchronize with the sixth year of Shalmaneser III when the battle of Qarqar was fought.
His actual regnal year is not recorded. In my chronology in the Reconstructed
165
166
Ibid., 301; see Excurses I and II and Options A and B on pp. 304-08.
167
168
J. von Beckerath, “The Angebliche Jubiläums-Stele Osorkons II,” GM 154 (1996) 20.
169
Ibid., 22.
170
Kitchen, TIP, 325 §285; D.B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1992) 340.
171
Ibid., 284; idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 296; Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, 339-40.
Chronology of the Divided Kingdom, Shalmaneser’s sixth year dates to 897 BCE—being
also Ahab of Israel’s last year.172 Thus Osorkon II’s accession, dating no earlier than
903, is consistent with his identification as the king of Egypt participating in the Battle
of Qarqar in 897 BCE.
Osorkon II and Harsiese

Said to be the last great pharaoh of the 22nd Dynasty, Osorkon II had at least one
rival claimant to the throne in the person of Harsiese, the son of Shoshenq IIa. 173 The
relationship of Shoshenq IIa to Harsiese is confirmed by the Bes statue inscription, noted
earlier, which refers to Shoshenq, first prophet, as son of Osorkon, king of the Two
Lands, and his son Harsiese, prophet of Amun. Broekman notes that the inscription was
engraved while Shoshenq was still HPA, so that Harsiese could have become HPA after
the inscription was carved.174. Kitchen considers that a HPA Harsiese on the Karnak
statue Cairo Cat. 42225 referring to a Nebneteru who bears the cartouches of Osorkon II
to be Harsiese A.175
When Shoshenq II died the throne went to Takeloth, Shoshenq’s half-brother and
not to his son Harsiese. It is proposed by various scholars that after the death of Takeloth
I and the accession of Osorkon II in Tanis, Harsiese A aspired to the throne and
competed with Osorkon II for recognition as an independent king at Thebes. That
Osorkon II and Harsiese were contemporaries is noted by Kitchen, “established by the
statue of Nakhtefmut from Karnak (Cairo Cat. 42208) bearing the full titulary of
Osorkon II, but given by favor of king Harsiese.”176
Kitchen, on the other hand, views Harsiese as being appointed High Priest by
Osorkon II, who himself had been High Priest before becoming king, continuing a
father-to-son succession of priests (Osorkon I to Shoshenq C to Harsiese A), a breach of
principle, eventually leading to long-lasting civil war between the royal line and the
priestly line.
Harsiese was not content with being High Priest but took upon himself full royal
titulary, adopting the prenomen Hedjkheperre Setepenamun, and acted as king in
Thebes.177 It is speculated that the conflict with Harsiese A as ruler of Thebes and
Osorkon II as King of Upper and Lower Egypt was not resolved until Osorkon II’s 12th
regnal year when the Nile Level Texts recommence naming the kings starting with
Osorkon II’s year 12 in Nos. eight and nine (both texts), by which time it is thought that
Harsiese A had died.
Harsiese’s coffin was found at Medinet Habu in the trough of a granite coffin
made for Henmutmire, the sister of Ramesses II. It has a hawk-headed lid in a style
similar to that of his presumed father Shoshenq II, and also that of Osorkon II.178
Harsiese’s skull shows a hole had been bored, possibly due to a surgical procedure,
which he apparently survived as evidenced by new growth, but which may have
ultimately led to his death.179
172 .
Tetley, Divided Kingdom, 166-68, 182, 184.
173
Jansen-Winkeln, however, says that Harsiese was never HPA or the son of HPA (Shoshenq II); this
identification being based on a wrong reading [of the Bes statue], (“Historische,” 129-32). He prefers to
view Shoshenq II as the son of Shoshenq I. (“Third Intermediate Period,” 236-37).
174
Broekman, “Shoshenq Maäkheperre,” 39.
175
Kitchen, TIP, 108 §87, 315 §274.
176
Ibid., 108 §87.
177
Ibid., 314-17 §§272-75.
178
Dodson, Canopic Equipment, 88-89 and n. 68. Dodson also reports that nothing is known of the burial
of Osorkon I (p. 89).
179
J. Dunn, “Osorkon II, of Egypt’s 22nd Dynasty,” http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/osorkon2.htm
A son, whose name is mostly lost except for the remaining letters …di/c… is
presumed to have been inducted High Priest of Amun by his father.180 Some scholars
speculate that this refers to the later king Pedubast I, founder of the 23rd Dynasty.
Harsiese’s reign does not contribute to the chronology of the 22nd Dynasty
because his reign was confined to Thebes, but it does give background to the politico–
religious situation at the time of Osorkon II’s reign and conjures up possible reasons why
Manetho felt it appropriate to divide the dynasty at the junction of the reigns of Osorkon
II and Takeloth II.
Conclusion
Manetho divided the 22nd Dynasty into two divisions, each with a subtotal (now
corrupt). The early period comprised five kings collectively reigning 125 years:
Shoshenq I 41 years, Osorkon I 35 years, Shoshenq IIa ca. 5 years, Takeloth I ca. 14
years, and Osorkon II ca. 31 years. The inscriptional references to Tutkheperre Shoshenq
(IIb), and Maakheperre Shoshenq (IIc) are probably early designations for Shoshenq I
before being known as Hedjkheperre Shoshenq, and therefore they did not exist as
separate identities with any regnal years or parts thereof. The lack of any significant
space for them in the chronology also points in this direction. Table 36.12 can be
proposed for the kings of the early period of the 22nd Dynasty with anchor points from
written and lunar records.
Table 36.12: The early period of 22nd Dynasty kings with regnal years and dates
Regnal Dates reigned
years BCE
Yr 2, Shoshenq I “justified” at feast III 3ḫt 14; new moon III
Shoshenq I 41 998/997–957 3ḫt 13 in 996.
Yr 1 bequests beginning on I šmw 7 is new moon in 957 (and
Osorkon I 35 957–922 lasting 3 yrs 3 mths and 16 days till Yr 4 on IV šmw 25).
Shoshenq IIa 4½ 922–917 Nile Level Text 16 appears to give him 5 yrs.
Serapeum stela with 14 yrs, and Nile Level Text 18 with 13
Takeloth I 13½ 917–903
or 14 yrs is probably his
125 years (emended from Manetho’s subtotal [1]25 ends in
872, last year of Osorkon II’s reign
Manetho Total 125 yrs 998/997–872
By comparison, Kitchen’s chronology starts the 22nd Dynasty with the year 945
BCE being 43 years after the actual date. He followed Edwin Thiele’s invention for
Rehoboam of Judah’s fifth year in 925 using hypothetical dating systems and the
Assyrian Eponym Canon. These errors remove 52 years from the chronology of the 22nd
Dynasty at its inception. The effect is felt not only in the 22nd Dynasty but down to the
end of the 25th Dynasty. Kitchen appears unaware that lunar data can be applied to this
dynasty in the reigns of Shoshenq I and Osorkon I. He has not considered the damaged
subtotals that Manetho provides via Africanus, which has suggested that the length of the
early period of the 22nd dynasty was 125 years. Consequently, Kitchen has to press the
known years of a minimal chronology into the years available within his own construct,
giving 21 years to Shoshenq I, not realizing that he reigned 41 years. To Osorkon I he
correctly gives 35 years, to Shoshenq IIa only 2 co-regent years (therefore, none to the
length of the dynasty), to Takeloth I 15 years (not attested, but possible) and to Osorkon
II 32/34 years. In all, he gives 103–105 years to the early period: 945–ca. 840 BCE. 181
180
181
Idem, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” table on p. 202. However, on p. 165 he writes, “For our regnally-
significant kings, we have exclusively (so far) Shoshenq I (21 years), Osorkon I (33/35 years), Takeloth I
The latter date, 840, is now 32 years lower than it should be at 872 BCE. This impacts on
his attempt to date the later period of the 22nd Dynasty.
(13/15 years) and Osorkon II minimally 22 years, more probably (corrected jubilee-date?) just over 30/32
years. Minimal total, 97 years, maximal total 103 years.”
Chapter 37. Finishing the 22nd Dynasty 545
Chapter 37
Finishing the 22nd Dynasty

The previous chapter considered Manetho’s framework for his account of the
22nd Dynasty, located at Bubastis in Lower Egypt. It established the first section of
Manetho’s two-part structure. This chapter finishes his chronological presentation
consisting of Takelothis and a vague reference to “three other kings” as it was known to
him. Table 37.1 presents the framework of the later period, with lunar anchor points and
year periods, which form the structure for discussion for finishing Manetho’s 22nd
Dynasty.
Table 37.1: The later period of 22nd Dynasty kings
years BCE
Takeloth II
Yr 28 installation of Apis bull in Yr 28 on II 3ḫt 1 date of full
moon in 810. This Apis bull died after 26 years in the second
Shoshenq III yr of Pimay in 784.
Yr 39 Amun feast on I šmw 26 on third day after new moon
on I šmw 24 in 800
Shoshenq IV None known. A Yr 10 attested
In second yr, 785/784, Apis bull died that was installed 26
Pami
years earlier in 28th yr of Shoshenq III in 810
Yr 12 installation of Apis bull on IV prt 4 full moon date in
Shoshenq V
769
Present at Leontopolis at invasion of Egypt in Piye’s 20th
year in 730. End of dynasty in 730 is 142 years from
Osorkon IV
Takeloth’s accession in 872, and 267 years from beginning of
dynasty in 998/997
Manetho Total 142 yrs
Takeloth II (Hedjkheperre Setepenre Takelot Si-ese Meryamun)

The name of Takelothis begins the latter part of Manetho’s list in the version of
Africanus, where he is the sixth king (following two named and three unnamed kings)
and is assigned 13 years.1 Scholars have traditionally recognized Takelothis as Takeloth
II, successor to Osorkon II, but since the publication of an article by David Aston in
1989 the position of Takeloth II in the 22nd Dynasty has been hotly debated.
Aston Removed Takeloth II from the 22nd Dynasty

Aston proposed that Takeloth II was not a king of the 22nd Dynasty, but of a
23rd Dynasty located at Thebes in Upper Egypt.2 He updated this in 2009 to a
Herakleopolitan/Theban 23rd Dynasty.3 This view is supported by Aidan Dodson,
1
See Table 36.5 in the previous chapter.
2
D.A. Aston, “Takeloth II - A King of the ‘Theban’ Twenty-Third Dynasty?” JEA 75 (1989) 139-53.
3
Idem, “Takeloth II: A King of the Herakelopolitan/Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty Revisited: The
Chronology of Dynasties 22 and 23,” The Libyan Period in Egypt: Historical and Cultural Studies into the
Jürgen von Beckerath, Karl Jansen-Winkeln, Rolf Krauss, and Gerard Broekman.4
Kenneth Kitchen, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed Takeloth’s removal from
the Lower Egyptian 22nd Dynasty where Manetho places him.5 The debate illustrates the
problems of the artificially shortened chronology by which both sides are constrained.
Some material from chapter 35 is necessarily amplified here, preliminary to proposing
the sequence of kings, and establishing the dates and lengths of reign by the available
chronological evidence, including lunar anchor points and year periods.
Kitchen’s Viewpoint
Kitchen proposes that Takeloth II was a son, possibly third son of Osorkon II,
with his two older brothers Shoshenq D and Nimlot C, predeceasing him.6 It is certain,
however, that Takeloth II married Karomama (or Karomat D), daughter of Nimlot C
(and, therefore, his niece), and they became parents of Crown Prince Osorkon, who
became High Priest of Amun (Osorkon B).7 According to The Chronicle of Prince
Osorkon, Osorkon B officiated from the 11th regnal year of Takeloth II down to the 29th
year of Shoshenq III, with a re-appearance in the 39th year.8 Since Osorkon B’s
benefactions are dated to both kings, it seems that Shoshenq III succeeded Takeloth II in
the same dynasty. Otherwise Osorkon B, unprecedently, would be dated to kings of two
different dynasties. The sequence of generations in the major genealogies sets Takeloth
II after Osorkon II and before Osorkon III of the 23rd Dynasty.9
Aston’s Reasoning
Aston believes that the family relationships of Takeloth II show that he lived
about 25 years later than Kitchen allows,10 thus down-dating him from 850–825 to 825–
800 BCE.11 To place Takeloth II in this timeframe, Aston overlaps Takeloth II’s reign
with that of Shoshenq III. He appeals to The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, which
recounts the history of this period.12
List of Benefactions in The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon

The Chronicle lists regnal years for the benefactions of Osorkon B in terms of the
reigns of Takeloth II (Osorkon B’s father) and Shoshenq III (his brother). Caminos refers
to a tabulation of “surviving portions of the summary of Osorkon’s benefactions” with
Table 37.2. He comments that, “The dates in which the above occur show with a degree
21st-24th Dynasties: Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25-27 October 2007 (eds. G.P.F.
Broekman, R.J. Demarée, and O.E. Kaper; Leiden: NINO, 2009) 1-28.
4
Aston, “Takeloth II ... Revisited,” Libyan Period, 2 nn. 11-15.
5
K.A. Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, xxiii-iv; idem, “The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: An
Overview of Fact & Fiction,” Libyan Period, 168-71.
6
Idem, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 168-69.
7
Ricardo A. Caminos, The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum 1958)
15; Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 106-07 §86; idem, “The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian
Chronology – A Reconsideration,” Ä und L 16 (2006) 295; idem, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 168.
8
Caminos, Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, 1-2, 173, 180.
9
Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 214 §180, 220 §184; idem, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 169.
10
Aston, “Takeloth II,” 139-53; idem, “Takeloth II ... Revisited,” 1-28; K. Jansen-Winkeln, “The
Chronology of the Third Intermediate Period: Dyn. 22-24,” Ancient Egyptian Chronology (eds. E.
Hornung, R. Krauss, D.A. Warburton; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006) 240-43.
11
In 2009, Aston readjusted the length of the generation to make it longer, therefore, allowing a slightly
higher date for Takeloth II (“Takeloth II...Revisited,” 1).
12
See n. 7 above.
of probability amounting almost to certainty that year 24 in col. 7 (date-row 2) is

Takelothis II’s while dates 3 to 8 all belong to Shoshenq’s reign.”13
Table 37.2: The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon—regnal years for the benefactions of
Osorkon B
Row Column Regnal years
1 6–7 Year 11 of Takelothis II to year 28 of Shoshenq III
2 7 Year 24, fourth month
3 12 Year 22 to year 28
4 12 Year 23
5 16 Year 24
6 17 Year 25
7 17 Year 22 (?) to year 28
8 22 Year 2914
While on the surface the list appears sequential as understood by Caminos, Aston
thought he’d found an overlap because the 24th year of Takeloth II (row 2) is followed
by the 22nd year of Shoshenq III (row 3).
Traditionally, it is understood that a gap occurs in the account between columns 7
and 12 (rows 2 and 3), which presumably held information now missing. Aston has
interpreted it to infer that year 24 of Takeloth II was closely followed by year 22 of
Shoshenq III, implying that Takeloth II began to reign just three years before Shoshenq
III,15 that is, in the third-to-last year of Osorkon II’s reign.
To Aston’s mind, Takeloth II and Shoshenq III could not both belong to the 22nd
Dynasty. In 1989, he proposed that Takeloth II was misplaced by Manetho and ruled
over a different dynasty. He observed that there was little evidence of Takeloth II in
Lower Egypt, so his residence in Upper Egypt at Thebes seemed plausible.16 As
confirmation that Takeloth II should be associated with Thebes, he pointed out that
Takeloth II is the only Third Intermediate Period king to have the epithet ntr-ḥq3-W3st
(“God, Ruler of Thebes”) added to his name.17 However, Broekman notes that the
epithet Si-Ese Netjerheqawaset occurs not only with Takeloth II as observed by Aston,
but also with the names of Osorkon III and Takeloth III with Year 28 and Year 5
respectively (a co-regency) on Nile Level Text No. 13.18 These kings are traditionally
associated with the 23rd Tanite Dynasty located in Lower Egypt, but the epithet Si-ese is
presumed by Aston to suggest a Theban location. In 2009, Aston added Herakleopolis to
Takeloth II’s place of residency.
A mummy of a Takeloth was discovered in the anteroom of Osorkon II’s tomb at
Tanis.19 It was previously assigned to Takeloth I, but has now been reassigned by
Jansen-Winkeln to Takeloth II since a scene in Osorkon II’s tomb shows him honoring
his father, which can only be Takeloth I with an accompanying text that includes the
names of Osorkon II and Takeloth as his son.20 Having the same prenomens, the two
13
14
Ibid., 128.
15
Aston, “Takeloth II,” 143.
16
This idea was also proposed by Anthony Leahy in 1990 in “Abydos in the Libyan Period,” Libya and
Egypt c. 1300-750 BC (ed. A. Leahy, London: SOAS, 1990), and promoted again in the same book by D.
A. Aston and J.H. Taylor, “The Family of Takeloth III and the ‘Theban’ Twenty-Third Dynasty,” 131-54.
17
18
G.P.F. Broekman, “The Nile Level Records of the Twenty-second and Twenty-third Dynasties in
Karnak: A Reconsideration of their Chronological Order,” JEA 88 (2002) 169.
19
Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 332.
20
K. Jansen-Winkeln, “Thronname und Begräbnis Takeloths I,” VA 3 (1987) 253-58; Kitchen, Third
Intermediate Period, xxii-xxiii.
Takeloths are differentiated by the nomen epithet Si-Ese attached to the name of
Takeloth II.
Filling the Gap

Having removed Takeloth II from the 22nd Dynasty, Aston fills what has now
become a “gap” between Osorkon II and Shoshenq III in Kitchen’s chronology. 21 Like
Kitchen, he allows Takeloth II only 25 regnal years. After discussion, Aston concluded,
in 1989, that Osorkon II should be attributed a further 15–20 years (up from 22) and
gave him 39–44 years.22 In 2009, he reduced this amount to around 28–30 years,
bringing Osorkon II’s reign up slightly to a date earlier than ca. 874–835/830 BCE.23
Having made Takeloth II and Shoshenq III contemporary, Aston then has to
account for the fact that Nile Level Text No. 24 equates year eight of Shoshenq III with
year five of Pedubast [I]. Pedubast [I] is the first king of Manetho’s 23rd Dynasty
located at Tanis and is credited with 25 regnal years. Thus Aston has three contemporary
kings to explain: year one of Pedubast I = year eight of Shoshenq III = year 11 of
Takeloth II.24
Discussing the Rebellion Scenario

To repeat chapter 35, Aston describes a rebellion in Takeloth II’s 11th year at
Thebes, and Prince Osorkon (Osorkon B) sailed forth to bring it under control. This
coincides with the year Pedubast I became king, so Aston removes Pedubast’s identity as
a Tanite king and makes him out to be a king of Thebes and in opposition to Takeloth II
who is assumed also to be in Thebes. Pedubast is held responsible for fomenting the
opposition that Prince Osorkon (Osorkon B) went to quell.25
In Shoshenq III’s 39th year, Osorkon B and his brother Bakenptah, head of the
army, “Overthrew everyone who had fought against them.”26 Since Takeloth II and
Pedubast I are not still alive, who was the enemy? Aston considers Iuput [I] named on
Nile Level Text No. 26 whose second year coincides with Pedubast’s 16th,27 and then
opts for a fairly recently identified king, a Usermaatre Meryamun Shoshenq, now known
as Shoshenq VI (previously IV).28 Shoshenq VI’s death (year six) coincides closely with
the 39th year of Shoshenq III, and allows the presumption that Shoshenq VI was “the
enemy.”29
Curiously, the victors, Shoshenq III and Osorkon B, are never heard of again.
Aston inclines to the view that Prince Osorkon (B) became Osorkon III, and took up the
position of the defeated Shoshenq VI to be king in the 23rd Theban/Herakleopolitan
Dynasty.30 This means that Osorkon B did not succeed Shoshenq III in the 22nd Dynasty
by whom his benefactions had been dated, but transferred his allegiance to the 23rd
Dynasty that he and Bakenptah had just overcome. Certainly, it was not Osorkon B who
succeeded Shoshenq III, but a recently identified king, Shoshenq IV. However, the
21
22
Ibid., 148.
23
Ibid., 148; idem, “Takeloth II ... Revisited,” 1.
24
Aston, “Takeloth II,” 148-49.
25
Ibid., 149.
26
Ibid., 150-51.
27
It is now known that Iuput I reigned at least 12 years. See H. Jacquet-Gordon, The Graffiti on the
Khonsu Temple Roof at Karnak: A Manifestation of Personal Piety (The Temple of Khonsu vol. 3;
Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of University of Chicago, 2003) 84-85.
28
29
Ibid., 152.
30
Idem, “Takeloth II ... Revisited,” 20.
reason for Shoshenq IV’s accession is not known, which means Osorkon B could have
died at the same time as Shoshenq III soon after their victory—unless Osorkon B
became Osorkon III.
Because Aston has assumed that the reigns of Takeloth II and Shoshenq III
overlap for about 22 years, the pontificate of Osorkon B does not include these 22 years.
This allows Osorkon B to be of an appropriate age for him to take on the kingship under
the name of Osorkon III allowing him the reign of 28 years attributed to him.
Following Osorkon III, Aston adds the kings Takeloth III and Rudamun to the
Herakleopolitan/Theban 23rd Dynasty, who are traditionally assigned to the 23rd Tanite
dynasty. Then he attaches to the end of the dynasty, a little known Iny Si-ese Meriamun
whose year four was found scratched onto the roof of the temple of Montu at Karnak,31
and then Peftjauawybast, son-in-law of Rudamun, otherwise known from Piye’s Victory
Stela of his year 20 invasion of Egypt where the former is king of Herakleopolis.32
All of this leaves three kings who must be appropriately located. They are
Pedubast I whose year five equates with Shoshenq III’s 12th year on Nile Level Text No.
24; Iuput I whose year two equates with Pedubast I’s year 16 on Nile Level Text No. 26
(which equates with Shoshenq III’s 23rd year); and Shoshenq VI whom Osorkon B (=
Osorkon III) is supposed to have replaced.
Pedubast I and Shoshenq VI are traditionally attributed to Manetho’s 23rd Tanite
Dynasty with no regnal years assigned to Iuput I. But Aston allocates them to the 23rd
Dynasty as “Theban Rebel Kings” who reigned prior to Osorkon III.33
Aston Rearranges the Lists of Kings

In order to place Osorkon IV, who is mentioned as king of Leontopolis in Piye’s
Victory Stela, Aston reverses the positions of Manetho’s first two listed kings of the
23rd Dynasty: Pedubast I and Osorkon III. (Between them, unlisted by Manetho but
recognized by scholars, is the reign of Shoshenq VI, which Aston now ignores.) He then
appropriates Osorkon III’s [2]8-year reign to Osorkon IV whom he places after
Shoshenq V at the end of the 22nd Dynasty. (He gives to Osorkon IV the date preferred
by Krauss of 747/744–716 and to Shoshenq V the dates of ca. 783/780–747/744 BCE).34
Aston then identifies a Pedubastis, the first king of Manetho’s 23rd Dynasty,
traditionally identified with Pedubast I Si-Bast,35 with Pedubast II (Sehetepib(en)re).
Pedubast Sehetepib(en)re’s provenance is uncertain but Kitchen places him in the late
25th or early 26th Dynasty.36 Aston gives Pedubast II 22 or 23 of the 25 years Manetho
gives Pedubast I, and the dates ca. 716/715–694/693 BCE. They are the last two kings of
the 23rd Dynasty as understood by Aston. Aston follows these with five ephemeral kings
who supposedly ruled under the authority of the 25th Dynasty kings.37
Aston has used Manetho’s 23rd Tanite Dynasty kings, Pedubast I with 25 years
and Osorkon III with [2]8 years, twice. The first time Pedubast I is in Thebes
contemporary with Takeloth II and Shoshenq III [and Iuput I?] (and Osorkon is
presumed to be Osorkon B who became Osorkon III). The second time, Aston inverts the
31
Idem, “Takeloth II,” 152, citing, H. Jacquet-Gordon, Hommages à la mémoire de Serge Sauneron, I
(Cairo, 1979) 169-74.
32
Ibid., 153.
33
Idem, “Takeloth II ... Revisited,” 25.
34
Ibid., 22-23. Krauss’ dates for Takeloth II’s first year are 845 or 834.
35
Usimare Setapenamun Pedubast Meryamun Si-Bast/Si-Ese is traditionally recognized as the founder of
the 23rd Tanite Dynasty, see Kitchen, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 173.
36
Kitchen, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 173 and n. 33.
37
Aston, “Takeloth II ... Revisited,” 22-23.
order and name number so that Osorkon III becomes Osorkon IV and precedes Pedubast
I who becomes Pedubast II. All this is a result of taking Takeloth II out of his original
position as the sixth king of the 22nd Dynasty where Manetho placed him! Kitchen
vehemently opposes Aston’s proposal.38
Kitchen Refutes Aston’s Proposal for the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties
Kitchen holds to the traditional view that Takeloth II was king in the second half
of the 22nd Dynasty, succeeding Osorkon II and preceding Shoshenq III. Kitchen
responds to Aston’s main tenets. Concerning family relationships, Kitchen protests that
having relatives at Thebes does not infer that Takeloth II lived there, nor is there any
trace of his burial at Thebes, and nothing has been discovered to prove he resided there.39
Furthermore, Kitchen points out that the title “God, Ruler of Thebes,” is used also of
Shoshenq V at Tanis (22nd Dynasty) and means nothing as to the location of Takeloth II
or the 23rd Dynasty.40 He explains that the epithet Si-Ese “Son of Isis” refers to the god
living in the East Delta used by kings of the 23rd Dynasty and used as an alternative to
“Son of Bast” referring to the god Bast worshiped in the vicinity of Bubastis and
Leontopolis by the coexisting 22nd Dynasty kings.41 He says the epithets are not
equivalent to the north and south of Egypt.42 Pedubast I’s use of both epithets is
explained because he was the offspring of the Tanite/Bubastite 22nd Dynasty, and began
his own dynasty at Ta-remu (Leontopolis) in Isis country, not far away.43
The Identity of Osorkon III

The other reason to discuss Aston’s and Kitchen’s chronology is to identify
Osorkon III of the 23rd Dynasty (located in the north or the south). Noted above, Aston’s
chronology allows the possibility that Osorkon B (Prince Osorkon, son of Takeloth II)
became king of the 23rd Theban Dynasty after he and his brother Bakenptah overcame
“the enemy” understood to be Shoshenq VI, in Shoshenq III’s 39th year. Subsequent to
Aston’s proposal that Takeloth had been taken out of the 22nd Dynasty, and that
Osorkon B might have become Osorkon III of the 23rd Dynasty, Kitchen was greatly
opposed to the idea, but in 2007, at the Leiden Conference, he conceded the possibility
that Osorkon B might have become Osorkon III.44
Kitchen’s Two Options for Osorkon II’s Length of Reign

One point of contention between Aston’s and Kitchen’s chronologies has been
the length of Osorkon II’s reign. As noted above, Aston wanted to give him from 28 to
30 years. In 1996, Kitchen credited Osorkon II with 24 years,45 but in 2006 he
recognized the possibility that Osorkon’s jubilee figure of 22 could be a damaged 30. He
gave two revised chronologies, option A and B. In option A he assigned Osorkon II 25
years, but reduced Shoshenq IV’s reign from 13 years to 10, thus eliminating the extra
three years for Osorkon II’s reign. In option B, he gave Osorkon II 30 years, but made
Shoshenq III co-regent with Takeloth II for seven years, and the excess two years he
38
Kitchen, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 173-74; previously idem, Third Intermediate Period,
xxiii-xxxiv.
39
Idem, Third Intermediate Period, xxiv. Emphasis his.
40
Ibid., xxiv. Emphasis his; idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 298.
41
Idem, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 175-76 §33.
42
Ibid., 175 §32.
43
Ibid., 176; also earlier in “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 298.
44
45
Idem, Third Intermediate Period, xxv.
attributed to Shoshenq IV, thus eliminating the five extra years he had given to Osorkon
II.46
Kitchen’s 2009 Option

In 2009, Kitchen assigned Osorkon II 30/32 years based on indications that he
celebrated a 30-year jubilee.47 Kitchen then had to delete the excess years from
somewhere else because he had to keep Shoshenq I’s first year in 945 BCE. So he
overlapped the end of Osorkon II’s reign (874–ca. 840) with Takeloth II’s first three
years (reigned 843–818), then he overlaps the last seven years of Takeloth II’s reign
(825–818) with the first seven years of Shoshenq III’s reign (825–786) thus reducing
Takeloth’s (assumed) sole reign from 25/24 years to 14 years.48
Kitchen’s explanation for this is that some good reason must account for the fact
that Pedubast I split off from Shoshenq III in the latter’s fifth year. He proposes that the
rebellion that started in Takeloth’s 15th year caused Shoshenq III to become king in
Takeloth’s 18th year, and seven years later in Shoshenq’s year eight Takeloth II died,
and then Shoshenq III and Pedubast I jointly buried him, thus legitimating Pedubast I as
king of a new dynasty, the 23rd.49
The Nile Level Text No. 24 stating that year five of Pedubast I was the year 12 of
an unnamed king, could only refer to Shoshenq III, but Kitchen has made Shoshenq III
king seven years earlier, making his “year 12” actually his 18th year.50 This scenario is
proposed because Kitchen’s chronology does not have room for the regnal years he
requires for the dates he gives to the 22nd Dynasty; that is, his 945–715 BCE.
Kitchen’s chronology keeps Takeloth II in the 22nd Dynasty where Manetho
undoubtedly places him, and seeks to do justice to Manetho’s records (even though he
does not recognize the significance of the [1]24 years and [1]42 years for the early and
later periods). But his chronology suffers the same handicap as Aston’s in attributing the
date of ca. 945 BCE to the first year of Shoshenq I, thus causing him to claim co-
regencies to accommodate excess years.
Moreover, both Kitchen and Aston assume that the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties end
at about the date of 716/715 when Shilkanni—otherwise Osorkon IV—(the same as “So”
in 2 Kgs 17:4) submitted to the Assyrian king Sargon II. They don’t realize that
Manetho’s 267 years for the 22nd Dynasty conclude in the year 730 BCE, which can be
the only date for the Nubian invasion of Egypt led by Piye in his 20th year when the
kings of the Delta submitted to him.
The order of kings proposed for the second half of the 22nd Dynasty are shown
in Table 37.3.
Table 37.3: Proposed order of kings in the later 22nd Dynasty
1 Takeloth II
2 Shoshenq III
3 Shoshenq IV
4 Pami
5 Shoshenq V
6 Osorkon IV
Determining the Actual Reign-lengths of Takeloth II and His Successors

The previous discussion of the Aston and Kitchen chronologies shows the
46
47
Idem, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 165, 169.
48
Ibid., 182, 202.
49
Ibid., 179, 182; see also idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 300.
50
Idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 301; idem, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 182.
speculation that has arisen from an absence of certainty, incorrect terminal dates, and
neglect of astronomical evidence. The next section will consider lunar evidence at some
length, and include dates pertaining to Tepi Shemu feasts, and the induction of Apis
Bulls in the reigns of Takeloth II and his successor, Shoshenq III. These lunar dates
relate to specific years of their reigns, and provide anchor points that establish their
chronological positioning.
Chapter 36 determined that the first part of the 22nd Dynasty covered the 125-
year period from 998/997 to 872 BCE. Osorkon died, and the first year of Takeloth II’s
reign was 872/871 BCE.
Lunar Dates for Tepi Shemu Feasts and the Induction of Apis Bulls
If Takeloth II’s first year was 872–871, his 11th year dates to 861/860 BCE.
Referring to Takeloth II’s year 11, Kitchen notes that when Prince Osorkon arrived in
Thebes he presented “handsome offerings to Amun … Having outwardly crushed
opposition by main force, Osorkon made new appointments and issued no less than six
new decrees …”51 According to Caminos this took place at the feast of Nehebkau on I
prt 1.52 Kitchen continues: “Four months later, at a festival on 1st Shomu Day 11, a
priest Hori successfully petitioned Prince Osorkon to obtain his father’s place in temple
services, when the prince was again in Thebes.”53
Krauss thinks that the wording justifies the assumption that this is an Amun feast
or what is referred to as a Tepi Shemu feast (first month of šmw). He reckons that Amun
feasts were held on the first to fifth days of the lunar month in the (civil) month of I šmw
and not, as Kitchen says, on I ŝmw 1–5 (civil).54
Tepi Shemu Feast in Takeloth II’s 11th Year

By my chronology, Takeloth II’s 11th year was 861/860 BCE, that is,
−860/−859. A new moon in −859 fell exactly on I šmw 11, as seen in Casperson’s table
here (Table 37.4).
Table 37.4: Takeloth II’s 11th year −859 (new moon listing for −859)
−859 11 2 −859 10 25 1923 8 12 7 11:10 6:23 213 6:24 113 6:24 15
−859 12 2 −859 11 24 1923 9 12 2 6:39 6:42 185 6:42 82 6:43 −13
−858 1 1 −859 12 24 1923 10 12 4 1:57 6:49 148 6:49 49 6:49 −34
Two lunar dates in the reign of Pedubast I in the 23rd Dynasty and two dates in
the reign of Shoshenq III in the 22nd Dynasty provide further confirmation that the 11th
year of Takeloth II fell in −859. These dates will demonstrate that Manetho’s allocation
of 13 years’ reign to Takeloth II cannot be correct, and that, as I noted previously, a year
24 is attested in The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon,55 and a year 25 referring to the King
Takeloth together with Osorkon is noted on an endowment stela of the princess Karama.
51
Idem, Third Intermediate Period, 331 §292 and n. 486 referencing “Block with graffito of year 11, from
Akh-nemu temple, Karnak (now Louvre E. 3336)”; idem, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 181.
52
53
Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 331 §292 and n. 486.
54
Altägyptens (HÄB 20; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1985) 166, citing Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period,
170 §137.
55
Two bandage fragments (Brussels E. 7047b, c) have a Year 24 referring to a

Nespa(u)re and a Nesamun, and a year 26 with just Nesamun. Nespare is shown in the
Neseramun genealogy as being contemporary with Takeloth II.56 Thus the year 26 must
belong to Takeloth II.
Are 33 Years for Takeloth II Correct?

Previously, I proposed that the number of regnal years for Takeloth II in
Manetho’s list was originally 33, having had two ten-signs eliminated (as proposed also
for Shoshenq I and Osorkon I), leaving the number 13. To demonstrate the validity of 33
years for Takeloth II’s reign, I refer to the reigns of Shoshenq III and Pedubast I. The
latter split off from Shoshenq III in the latter’s fifth year to form a new dynasty,
understood to be the 23rd Dynasty (of Tanis as described by Manetho).
Two new moon dates in the reign of Pedubast I, plus a full moon and a new
moon in the reign of Shoshenq III, anchor their reigns and provide the length for
Takeloth II’s prior reign. Furthermore, Nile Level Texts indicate that Shoshenq III and
Pedubast I were contemporaries.
Nile Level Text No. 24 equates the 12th year of Shoshenq III (Usimare
Setapenamun/re Shoshenq Si-Bast/Si-Ese) with Pedubast I’s fifth year. Pedubast I began
his dynasty in Shoshenq III’s eighth year. This Pedubast is understood to be Usimare
Setapenamun Pedubast Si-Bast/Si-Ese Meryamun and not Sehetepibre Pedubast, whose
provenance is uncertain, but who probably lived at the time of the late 25th or 26th
Dynasty.57 If Takeloth II reigned 33 years from the latter part of 872 BCE (the date for
the beginning of the later period of the 22nd Dynasty) Shoshenq III’s accession can be
dated to 839. His 12th year and Pedubast I’s fifth year will then be 828/827, with the
latter’s accession in 832/831 BCE.
Tepi Shemu Feasts in Pedubast I’s Seventh, Eighth, and 14th years
Pedubast I has two new moon dates, in his seventh and eighth years, respectively,
ca. 826 and 824 BCE (−825 and −823). These are Tepi Shemu dates noted on the
Medinet Habu calendar at Karnak, which record the inductions of priests during an
Amun feast, the celebrations lasting five days.58 According to Krauss, based on MHC
1451ff., the feast began on lunar Day one and ended on lunar Day five (see Table
37.5).59
Table 37.5: Pedubast I’s seventh and eighth years in −825 and −823 (new moon
−825 10 18 −825 10 10 1957 8 5 6 13:43 6:11 219 6:12 125 6:13 30
Pedubast I’s seventh year I šmw date
−825 11 17 −825 11 9 1957 9 5 1 8:51 6:33 201 6:34 104 6:34 7
−825 12 17 −825 12 9 1957 10 5 3 2:09 6:47 175 6:47 68 6:48 −33
−824 1 15 −824 1 7 1957 11 4 4 16:36 6:47 276 6:47 118 6:46 12
−824 2 14 −824 2 6 1957 12 4 6 4:12 6:33 180 6:32 48 6:32 −37
−824 3 14 −824 3 6 1957 13 3 7 13:34 6:13 311 6:12 92 6:11 2
−824 4 12 −824 4 4 1958 1 27 1 21:25 5:51 618 5:50 154 5:49 45
56
Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 107 §86 and n. 115; 202 §166.
57
Ibid., 98 §78; idem, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 173-74 n. 33.
58
Krauss, Sothis- und Monddaten, 166; idem, “Lunar Dates,” AEC (2006), 409-11; Broekman, “Takeloth
III and the End of the 23rd Dynasty,” Libyan Period, 91-92; see also Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period
338 §298.
59
Krauss, “Lunar Dates,” 409.
−824 5 12 −824 5 4 1958 2 27 3 4:33 5:30 233 5:29 94 5:29 9

−824 6 10 −824 6 2 1958 3 26 4 11:47 5:15 299 5:15 144 5:15 46
−824 7 9 −824 7 1 1958 4 25 5 20:06 5:11 328 5:11 190 5:12 83
−824 8 8 −824 7 31 1958 5 25 7 6:37 5:21 230 5:22 122 5:22 15
−824 9 6 −824 8 29 1958 6 24 1 20:14 5:40 274 5:40 168 5:41 64
−824 10 6 −824 9 28 1958 7 24 3 13:12 6:02 225 6:03 126 6:04 29
−824 11 5 −824 10 28 1958 8 24 5 8:34 6:25 197 6:26 101 6:27 6
−824 12 5 −824 11 27 1958 9 24 7 4:26 6:43 174 6:44 74 6:44 −21
−823 1 3 −824 12 26 1958 10 23 1 22:50 6:49 276 6:49 136 6:49 35
−823 2 2 −823 1 25 1958 11 23 3 14:38 6:39 225 6:39 85 6:38 −1
−823 3 4 −823 2 24 1958 12 23 5 3:31 6:20 152 6:19 47 6:19 −23
−823 4 2 −823 3 25 1959 1 17 6 13:44 5:59 274 5:58 103 5:57 23
−823 5 1 −823 4 23 1959 2 16 7 21:51 5:37 483 5:37 174 5:36 70
Pedubast I’s eighth year III 3ḫt 16 date
−823 5 31 −823 5 23 1959 3 16 2 4:42 5:20 247 5:19 116 5:19 23
−823 6 29 −823 6 21 1959 4 15 3 11:23 5:11 296 5:11 159 5:11 50
Kitchen notes that the Karnak Priestly Annal fragment No. 1 line 1 records that in
year seven of Pedubast (which was year 14 of Shoshenq III), Pediamonet, a lesser son of
the king Pedubast I, was “justified into the places of Mut and Khons,” that is, “into
priestly service for Amun’s fellow deities in Thebes.”60 The date for Pedubast I’s
seventh year is given as I šmw [1] by both Krauss and Kitchen, indicating some
uncertainty in the day-date.
In Table 37.5 the new moon falls on I šmw 5 in the year −825, which means that
the feast should have fallen on days five to nine. Neither the preceding nor following
year gives a date on these days. It is possible then that the uncertain date should be
emended from I šmw [1] to a day in I šmw 5–9. This would assume that additional
vertical strokes were once written but are now lost.
In year eight, there was the induction of another Pediamonet (fragment No. 2 of
the Karnak Priestly Annals) “of long lineage into the ranks of the bearers of Amun’s
processional images.”61 Also in year eight on I šmw 19, “the much-betitled vizier
Pentyef-ankh, son of a former vizier Hori” was also inducted. Kitchen then adds, “The
events of Year 14 (Shoshenq III, Year 21; 805 B.C.) are lost.”62 This is from “Annals
fragment 5, line 4 (2nd horizontal line) the Year 14, 1st Shomu, [1].”63
These two latter dates are curious. In the eighth year of Pedubast I, the first lunar
day falls on I šmw 23, so the 19th falls five days before the given date and is not
applicable. But in year 14, the new moon falls on I šmw 19—the date attributed to year
eight! (See Casperson’s Table 37.6, below.) If the date for the 14th year is I šmw 19, the
date for the eighth year fell on I šmw 23 (as in Table 37.5, above), giving the dates for
the induction of the second Pediamonet and said to be also for the vizier Pentyef-ankh. It
seems, however, that the inscription actually attributed Pentyef-ankh’s induction to the
14th year on I šmw 19, the events of which are said to be lost.
60
Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 337-38 §298.
61
Ibid., 337-38 §298.
62
Ibid.
63
Ibid., 337-38 §298 n. 526.
Table 37.6: Pedubast I’s 14th year −818 (new moon listing from −818)
−818 10 31 −818 10 23 1964 8 20 7 0:28 6:21 194 6:22 81 6:23 −30
−818 11 29 −818 11 21 1964 9 19 1 13:17 6:40 271 6:41 142 6:41 28
−818 12 29 −818 12 21 1964 10 19 3 0:47 6:49 205 6:49 85 6:49 −19
Apparently the year 14 date of I šmw 19 is incorrectly attributed to Pedubast’s

year eight, with the year 14 date only being partially preserved as I šmw [1] being
Pedubast I’s 14th year in 819 BCE (−818), which equates to Shoshenq III’s 20th year.
Tepi Shemu Feast in Shoshenq III’s 39th Year

Krauss notes that Shoshenq III also has the date of another Tepi Shemu feast on I
šmw 26 in his year 39.64 In this year the aged prince Osorkon had his younger brother,
Bakenptah, appointed as General of Herakleopolis and Army Leader. Kitchen writes,
“In that year, Prince Osorkon in his old posts ‘was within Thebes, celebrating the festival
of Amun, in one accord with his brother, the General (etc.) Bakenptah, all […] resting/at
peace in […]. Then they overthrew everyone who fought against them. On this day,
induction of the vizier (etc.), Har[sies]e (E), [son of x and Ta-]hent-Ese, into the great,
noble, festal shrine of Amun (etc.). He said…’ (inaugural address).”65
Although Kitchen does not note the dates for the Amun festival, it is obviously
the same event to which Krauss gives the date of I šmw 26. Spalinger also refers to a
feast of Amun at Karnak in the reign of Shoshenq III but without giving a regnal year.
He writes, “The date [of the Amun feast] is I šmw 26 and the event took place in the
temple … Kruchten wisely concluded that in [sic] was in the first month of the third and
final season that the so-called ‘introduction’ of new prophets of Karnak occurred. The
key date of inscription seven (and others) proves that once more this is the Amun feast of
List 67 in Medinet Habu (set on the new moon day).”66 Shoshenq III’s 39th year should
have started ca. 800 BCE. Casperson provides Table 37.7 for −799.
Table 37.7: Shoshenq III’s 39th Year in −799 (new moon listing for −799)
−799 10 30 −799 10 22 1983 8 24 2 15:37 6:21 237 6:22 135 6:22 35
New moon III ŝmw 24
−799 11 29 −799 11 21 1983 9 24 4 8:31 6:40 212 6:41 106 6:41 7
−799 12 28 −799 12 20 1983 10 23 5 23:09 6:49 318 6:49 176 6:49 73
−798 1 27 −798 1 19 1983 11 23 7 11:03 6:53 259 6:52 124 6:52 41
−798 2 25 −798 2 17 1983 12 22 1 20:37 6:31 443 6:30 178 6:30 80
−798 3 27 −798 3 19 1984 1 17 3 4:36 6:04 242 6:03 108 6:02 28
−798 4 25 −798 4 17 1984 2 16 4 11:57 5:37 323 5:36 134 5:35 40
New moon III 3ḫt 15
−798 5 24 −798 5 16 1984 3 15 5 19:36 5:14 420 5:13 167 5:13 55
−798 6 23 −798 6 15 1984 4 15 7 4:27 5:00 216 4:59 84 4:59 −15
−798 7 22 −798 7 14 1984 5 14 1 15:16 5:02 275 5:03 135 5:03 26
64
Krauss, Sothis- und Monddaten, 166.
65
Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 340 §300.
66
Münster: Ugarit, 2002) 393 cited from J-M. Kruchten, Les annales des pr tres de Karnak (XXI- IIImes
dynasties) et autres textes contemporains relatifs à l initiation des pr tres d'Amon, 1989 242-44.
Table 37.7 shows a new moon on I šmw 24 in –799, therefore, I šmw 26 fell on
the third day of the feast thereby coming within the five-day period. It would seem likely
that the same was also true for the inductions in the reign of Pedubast I, and therefore,
the above dates should be emended as proposed. That is, the date for the Amun feast
inductions in Pedubast’s seventh year fell on a day in I šmw 5–9 in −825; in his eighth
year on a day in I šmw 24–28 in −824; and in his 14th year on I šmw 19 in −818.
Spalinger continues, “Another inscription belonging to the same series of priestly
records [the Karnak Priestly Annals] is set on day seventeen of the third civil month.”67
He understands that this came after the Opet feast, which ended on III 3ḫt 15 in the 19th
Dynasty.68 The regnal year is not noted. Assuming that the date in Shoshenq III’s reign
also refers to the induction of priests on or near to the new moon occurring on III 3ḫt 15,
in Shoshenq III’s reign of 39 years it is possible for the date to occur twice since it recurs
every 25 years. In −798 (as above) it fell on III 3ḫt 15 in Shoshenq III’s 39th year. In
−823, 25 years earlier, the new moon fell on III 3ḫt 16 (see Table 37.5 on pages
553-554) which equates to Shoshenq III’s 15th year and Pedubast I’s eighth. This
confirms that the date for the Tepi Shomu feast given for I šmw 19 for Pedubast I’s
eighth year is actually the date for the feast in Pedubast I’s 14th year in −818. The III 3ḫt
15 date refers to Shoshenq III’s 39th year, falling as it does, exactly on the date of the
new moon, thus providing a regnal year for the Karnak Priestly Annals’ date. With the
Tepi Shomu date on I šmw 24 in −799 and the Karnak Priestly Annals’ date in Shoshenq
III’s 39th year on III 3ḫt 15 in −798 (799 BCE), Shoshenq III’s 39th year is confirmed
for the years 800/799 BCE.
Apis Bull Installed in Shoshenq III’s 28th Year

Krauss, on investigating dates given for the enthronement of Apis bulls,
concluded that they were installed on the 15th lunar day ± three days. According to stela
CSSM 22, an Apis bull was enthroned at Memphis in the 28th year of Shoshenq III on II
3ḫt 1.69 By my chronology, this event should date to 810 BCE (−809; see Table 37.8).
Table 37.8: Shoshenq III’s year 28 in −809 (full moon listing for −809)
Memphis; Lat. 29.9, Long. 31.2
−809 3 14 −809 3 6 1973 1 1 4 17:13 6:14 17:14
−809 4 13 −809 4 5 1973 2 1 6 4:07 5:47 18:47
−809 5 12 −809 5 4 1973 2 30 7 12:48 5:23 18:23
DoW = day of week.
The table shows that a full moon did occur on II 3ḫt 1 in −809 (810 BCE), thus
agreeing with the date for the enthronement of the Apis bull in Shoshenq III’s 28th year.
The above lunar dates are consistent with each other for the reigns of Takeloth II,
Pedubast I, and Shoshenq III, based initially on the proposition that Takeloth II reigned
33 years. They confirm that his length of reign is 33 years and not the 25 given him by
Kitchen (which he reduces to 15 years by using co-regencies: three years with Osorkon
II and seven years with Shoshenq III).70
67
68
Ibid.
69
R. Krauss, “Die Mahler-Borchardtsche These über die Apis-Inthronisationen bei Vollmond,” Acta
Prehistorica et Archaeologica (39, 2007) 347-48.
70
Takeloth II’s Reign Length

Takeloth II’s reign was 33 years, dating from 872/871 to 839 BCE. Shoshenq III
succeeded Takeloth II in 839. Pedubast I split off from the 22nd Dynasty in Shoshenq
III’s eighth year in 832/831 and began the 23rd Dynasty.
Manetho’s 13 Years for Takeloth II

The 13 years now given by Manetho’s copyists were presumably transcribed
from a damaged number 33, the original writing of which is shown in Figure 37.1
∩∩
|||∩
Figure 37.1: The original number 33 from Manetho’s list (damaged).
The omission of two of the ten-signs, whether on the top row or from the right
side, leaves one ten-sign plus three vertical strokes and the number 13. As noted
previously, this same circumstance appears to have reduced Shoshenq I’s 41-year reign
to 21 years, and Osorkon I’s reign of 35 years to 15 years.
Nile Level Texts for Takeloth II?

The Nile Level Texts discussed by Broekman in 2002 do not include any texts
that represent the reign of Takeloth II.71 In his article of 2009, Broekman considered a
suggestion by Karl Jansen-Winkeln that Nile Level Text 3 might belong to Takeloth II.72
Broekman had previously and tentatively assigned Nile Level Text 3 to a new king,
Hedjkheperre Setepenre Shoshenq Siese Meryamun, based on the name Shoshenq in its
orthographic Version Two for ḥcpj (“Nile Flood”) and its position on the wall.73
That identification was re-evaluated by Broekman in 2005, taking into account
that a Wadi Gasus graffito mentioned the 19th year of an unnamed king equated with the
12th year of another king understood to be Piye of the Nubian 25th Egyptian Dynasty,
who, in his 20th year, invaded Egypt and caused submission of its kings and kinglets.
Broekman’s conclusion then was that the king of Nile Level Text No. 45 was Shoshenq
VII (now VIa) and probably the king of the Wadi Gasus inscription.74
However, this identification has been reconsidered because the name Shoshenq is
not now discernible and Jansen-Winkeln wonders whether the Version Two could be
better understood as a variant of Version One as used once only in Nile Level Text 25
dated to year six of Shoshenq VI (name not given in the text). Broekman, weighing the
evidence again, considers that it more likely refers to the new king Shoshenq, tentatively
given the designation Shoshenq VIa.75
The conclusion is that Takeloth II is not the king of Nile Level Texts Nos. 3 and
45. The absence of a Nile Level Text for Takeloth II is somewhat surprising because in
the first division of the 22nd Dynasty all but the “ephemeral” kings (and these are
probably Shoshenq I with different prenomens) have at least one text that can be
attributed to them, and Takeloth II’s immediate successors, Shoshenq III and Pedubast I,
have several between them.
If Takeloth II had a text it would no doubt have had the First Version of “Nile
Flood” since the style changed with Shoshenq III’s 39th year on Nile Level Text No. 22.
71
Broekman, “Nile Level Records,” 163-78.
72
Idem, “Takeloth III and the End of the 23rd Dynasty,” 97-99 and n. 39.
73
Idem, “Nile Level Records,” 169, 176.
74
Idem, “The Chronological Position of King Shoshenq Mentioned in Nile Level Record No. 3 on the
Quay Wall of the Great Temple of Amun at Karnak,” SAK 33 (2005) 75-89.
75
Idem, “Nile Level Records,” 98-99.
If Takeloth II was represented it may have been by the illegible texts 15 and 44. If not,
his text(s) did not exist, or are no longer legible. It is not known what circumstances or
rationale prompted the engraving of one flood height in any one year—some being quite
close and others being distantly removed in time.
Shoshenq III and Shoshenq IV Reigned Between 839 and 787/786 BCE
Beginning to reign in 839 BCE, Shoshenq III’s last attested regnal year is his
39th in the year 800. The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon records the benefactions of Prince
Osorkon (High Priest of Amun: Osorkon B) from Takeloth II’s 11th year to Shoshenq
III’s 29th, with another mention of Osorkon in Shoshenq III’s 39th year, inferring that
Shoshenq III succeeded Takeloth II. 76 Shoshenq III’s parents are not known—though
Kitchen plausibly presumes him to be a son of Takeloth II.
It was formerly thought that Shoshenq III reigned 52–53 years, reckoned from
the records of Apis bulls buried at the Serapeum. One such bull buried in the second year
of king Pimay (now identified as Pami), had 26 years earlier been inducted in the 28th
year of Shoshenq III.77 If no king came between Shoshenq III and Pami, Pami would
have ascended the throne 25 years after year 28 of Shoshenq III,78 indicating that
Shoshenq III reigned 52 years. However, another king, now known as Shoshenq IV, has
recently been assigned approximately 12 years on the basis of a new proposal that there
were two kings named Hedjkheperre Setepenre Shoshenq Meryamun, one being
Shoshenq I, and the other a much later king, now recognized as Shoshenq IV. 79 The
previous Shoshenq IV of the 23rd Dynasty is now renumbered as Shoshenq VI.
Shoshenq IV (Hedjkheperre Setepenre Shoshenq Meryamun)

The existence of Shoshenq IV is inferred from a donation stela of a chief of the
Libu, Niumateped. The stela was dated to the 10th year of the reign of a Hedjkheperre
Shoshenq, and on another stela, a Niumateped, also a chief of the Libu, was in office in
the eighth year of Shoshenq V, suggesting the two references referred to the one
Niumateped.
In the tomb of Shoshenq III at Tanis, a second uninscribed sarcophagus was
found. In the debris, a canopic jar with the full name of Hedjkheperre Setepenre
Shoshenq Meryamun Si-Bast Netjerheqaon was also discovered.80 The use of the nomen
epithet Netjerheqaon (god, ruler of Heliopolis), on the jar was never used by kings
before Shoshenq III,81 so could not refer to Shoshenq I or IIa. This evidence supports the
proposal that there was a second Hedjkheperre Shoshenq in whose reign Niumataped
dated his stela to the king’s 10th year.
Niumateped’s title first appears in year 31 of Shoshenq III,82 equating to 809.
Along with other evidence, Dodson, Kitchen, and most other scholars, now view
Shoshenq IV as the successor to Shoshenq III.83 Like Shoshenq III, his parentage is
76
77
Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period (2nd ed.), 102, 489 table 20.
78
Ibid., 102-03; see 348-49, 350; see. Klaus Baer, "The Libyan and Nubian Kings of Egypt: Notes on the
Chronologies of Dynasties XXII to XXVI," JNES 32 (1973) 7.
79
See D. Rohl in A. Dodson’s ftnts in “A new King Shoshenq confirmed?” GM 137 (193) 53-58; Kitchen,
Third Intermediate Period, xxv-xxvi.
80
A. Dodson in “A New King Shoshenq, Confirmed?” GM 137 (1993) 54; idem, The Canopic Equipment
of the Kings of Egypt, (London and New York: Kegan Paul, 1994) 93.
81
Ibid., 55.
82
Ibid., 53 and n. 7.
83
Ibid., esp. 57; Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, xxvi; Jansen-Winkeln, “Third Intermediate Period,”
244.
unknown. The highest attested regnal year for Shoshenq III is his 39th year (Nile Level
Text 22). Therefore, assigning him 39 years and his successor, Shoshenq IV, 13 years,
fills the 52 years from Shoshenq III’s death to Pami’s accession. This accords with the
Apis bull’s 26-year lifespan from the 28th year of Shoshenq III to the second year of
Pami, from 810–784 BCE.84 Shoshenq III’s reign may be dated 839/838–800/799 BCE,
and Shoshenq IV can be attributed 13 years from 800/799–787 BCE.
Pedubast I’s Tanite 23rd Dynasty

As noted above, Pedubast I formed an offshoot dynasty in Shoshenq III’s eighth
year, designated by Manetho as the 23rd Dynasty. The two dynasties, 22nd and 23rd, co-
existed from this point on until their termination by submission to the 25th Dynasty
kings, firstly to Piye (formerly known as Pinakhy), and then to Shabako.
Pimay/Pami/Pamiu (Usimare Setapenamun Pimay Meryamun Si-Bast)

Shoshenq IV’s successor is variously spelled as Pimay, Pami, or Pamiu. Some
scholars identify him as the third son of Shoshenq III, though some say he was a
different man, Pami, whose parentage is unknown. A year 11 Serapeum stela cites Pami
as the father of Shoshenq V.85 Shoshenq IV’s successor will be called Pami here.
Year six of Pami on a votive stela in the Louvre was formerly the highest known
for Pami.86 However, in 1998, a paper was published of a reused block from a doorway
at Heliopolis, which preserves a section chronicling Pami’s donations to local gods. A
seventh regnal year is clearly visible for Pami, and in the following erased section “a
brief 8th Year” is possible before the end of the damaged block. 87 If Pami reigned seven
years, his dates are 787/786–780 BCE, with his second year in 785/784.88
Shoshenq V (Aakheperre Setepenre Shoshenq Meryamun Si-Bast Netjerherqaon)

The Apis bull installed in year two of Pami died in year 11 of Shoshenq V.
Pimay’s second year is 785/784 and Shoshenq V’s 11th is 770 BCE, indicating that the
bull lived ca. 14 years, which is within a normal life span.89
Another bull was installed in Shoshenq V’s year 12 on IV prt 4 according to
Stela CSSM 3190 regarded to be a date within three days of a full moon. On the above
dates, Shoshenq V’s 12th year should be ca. 769 BCE (−768). Casperson provides a full
moon table in Table 37.9.
Table 37.9: Apis bull installed in Shoshenq V’s 12th year −768 (full moon listing for
−768)
−768 9 3 −768 8 26 2014 7 5 5 2:58 5:35 18:35
−768 10 2 −768 9 24 2014 8 4 6 21:24 6:01 17:01
−768 11 1 −768 10 24 2014 9 4 1 15:46 6:29 17:29
DoW = day of week.
84
Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 102-03, see 348-50; and see K. Baer, "Libyan and Nubian Kings,” 7.
85
“Pami,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pami
86
Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 103.
87
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pami citing S. Bickel, M. Gabolde, P. Talbot, “Heliopolitan Annals from
the Third Intermediate Period,” BIFAO 98 (1998) 31-56.
88
“Pami,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pami
89
Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 156 §126 (iii); idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 294, table 306.
90
Krauss, “Die Mahler-Borchardtsche These,” 345 table 5.
A full moon fell on IV prt 4 confirming Shoshenq V’s 12th year in 769 BCE. It
also supports the proposal that the installation of the Apis bull fell on or around the time
of a full moon. This bull died in Shoshenq V’s 37th year in 744/743, having lived 25–26
years. So Shoshenq V reigned at least 37 years.91 Another year is possible. A record
from a donation stela at Buto mentions the prince Tefnakht (of Saïs) and a year 38 of a
king of Upper and Lower Egypt whose name is left blank. In all probability, this is
Shoshenq V as identified by Kitchen who assigns him 37 or 38 years as his highest
year.92 If Shoshenq V began to reign in 780 and reigned into his 38th year (not being a
complete year) his years would be 780–743 BCE.
Osorkon IV (Aakheperre Setepenamun Osorkon Meryamun)

An Osorkon of Bubastus, known in Egyptian records only from the Victory Stela
of Piye of the 25th Nubian Dynasty, is assumed to have been the successor of Shoshenq
V. The fact that Shoshenq V is not mentioned on the stela dated to I 3ḫt 1 of Piye’s Year
21 and records his invasion of Egypt in his 20th year93 infers that Shoshenq V had died.
After the death of Shoshenq V in 743 only 13 years remain before the dynasty came to
an end in 730 BCE. These 13 years can be allocated to Osorkon IV. However, he did not
die at this time.
According to Piye’s Victory Stela, Osorkon and other kings of the Delta, such as
Iuput II of Leontopolis, Peftjauawybast of Herakleopolis, and Nimlot of Hermopolis,
submitted to Piye, so that Piye became king over all of Egypt. 94 These kings were not
killed. They were allowed to retain their royal position while at the same time under the
control of Piye, and then his successor, his brother Shabako.
Osorkon IV is also the most probable candidate for the king “So” of Egypt to
whom Hoshea of Israel appealed for help to avoid subservience and paying tribute to
Shalmaneser V, king of Assyria. Hosea was subsequently imprisoned in Samaria in 722
BCE before the death of Shalmaneser V that same year.
Correlating Osorkon IV, Hoshea of Israel, and Sargon of Assyria

Sargon II’s first three regnal years, 722/721–719 BCE, correspond to Hoshea’s
seventh to ninth years.95 This period can be extended by an Assyrian record that tells
how Osorkon IV (Shilkanni) presented 12 great horses to Sargon II when the latter had
arrived near the border of Egypt at the fort of Sile, an action that appears to have avoided
an attack by the Assyrian army. From Assyrian records, this campaign can be dated to
716 BCE. Thus, Osorkon IV was alive during the years of Sargon’s first three years and
Hoshea’s seventh to ninth years.96
The End of the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties

Following Osorkon’s tribute of horses to Sargon, he is not heard of again.
Kitchen assumes Osorkon IV died about 715 BCE.97 Kitchen uses 715 as the end of the
22nd Dynasty, thereby including an extra 15 years into it after 730, which helps him
91
Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 104 §84; Baer, “Libyan and Nubian Kings,” 10.
92
Ibid., 104-05, 138-39; idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 307-08 see tables; idem, “Overview of Fact &
Fiction,” 166.
93
The Victory stela of Piankhy/Piye is a large granite slab found in 1862 in the ruins of the temple of
Amun at the foot of Gebel Barkal, in Napata, the capital of Nubia.
94
B. Yare, “The Victory Stele of Piankhy,” http://www.yare.org/essays/pianky.htm
95
Tetley, Divided Kingdom, 157-60.
96
Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 376. The report is from a prism fragment from Nineveh.
97
Ibid., 376 §336; H. Tadmor, “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study,”
JCS 12 (1958) 78.
offset the shortening of his chronology. This is an important point to observe because it
explains how most scholars now view the end of the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties. But
Manetho attributes the date of 730 BCE to the end of Dynasty 22—and with it implicitly
the end of the 23rd Dynasty too, as we shall elaborate in the next chapter.
If Shoshenq V reigned no longer than into his 38th year, his death and Osorkon
IV’s accession took place in 743 BCE, so that by 730 Osorkon IV has reigned ca. 13
years. Since he was still alive in 716 BCE when he “gave” Sargon II the 12 great horses,
he survived at least another 14 years. But it is the 13 years Osorkon IV reigned prior to
the invasion of Piye that are credited to the 22nd Dynasty, not the additional 14 or more
years after it.
In Kitchen’s 2009 chronology, Shoshenq V’s death is dated to the year 730
98
BCE, and Osorkon IV begins to reign in 730, two years before Kitchen’s date for
Piye’s invasion in 728. Kitchen extends the dynasty down to 715 BCE believing that that
is where it ended.
Incorrect Chronology from an Erroneous Starting Date

All the dates Kitchen gives for the 22nd Dynasty are incorrect because instead of
starting it at 998/997 BCE for Shoshenq I’s first year, he has it start at 945 BCE reliant
on Thiele’s faulty date of 925 for Rehoboam of Judah’s fifth year, 20 years after the
accession of Shoshenq I.
For ease of reference, in Table 37.10 I repeat the table of years for the early
period of the 22nd Dynasty that was shown in chapter 36, and then provide the table for
this later period in Table 37.11, with their important anchor points. Both the early and
later periods of the chronology are confirmed by the synchronisms of lunar dates attested
in the inscriptional data and the astronomical data presented in the tables provided.
Table 37.10: The early period of 22nd Dynasty kings with regnal years and dates
years BCE
Yr 2, Shoshenq I “justified” at feast III 3ḫt 14; new moon III 3ḫt 13 in
Shoshenq I 41 998/997–957 996.
Yr 1 bequests beginning on I šmw 7 is new moon in 957 (and lasting 3
Osorkon I 35 957–922 yrs 3 mths and 16 days till Yr 4 on IV šmw 25).
Shoshenq IIa 4½ 922–917 Nile Level Text 16 appears to give him 5 yrs.
Serapeum stela with 14 yrs, and Nile Level Text 18 with 13 or 14 yrs is
Takeloth I 13½ 917–903
probably his
125 years (emended from Manetho’s subtotal [1]25 ends in 872, last
year of Osorkon II’s reign
Manetho
125 yrs 998/997–872
Total
Table 37.11: The later period of 22nd Dynasty kings with regnal years and dates
years BCE
Takeloth II 33 872–839/838
Yr 28 installation of Apis bull in Yr 28 on II 3ḫt 1 date of full moon in
839/838– 810. This Apis bull died after 26 years in the second yr of Pimay in 784.
Shoshenq III 39
800/799 Yr 39 Amun feast on I šmw 26 on third day after new moon on I šmw 24
in 800
800/799–
Shoshenq IV 13 None known. A Yr 10 attested
787/786
98
Kitchen, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 202 see table. Kitchen’s earlier chronologies differ somewhat
depending on assumed co-regencies and reign-lengths.
In second yr, 785/784, Apis bull died that was installed 26 years earlier
Pami 7 787/786–780
in 28th yr of Shoshenq III in 810
Shoshenq V 37 780–743 Yr 12 installation of Apis bull on IV prt 4 full moon date in 769
743–730 to end
Present at Leontopolis at invasion of Egypt in Piye’s 20th year in 730.
of dynasty then
Osorkon IV 13 End of dynasty in 730 is 142 years from Takeloth’s accession in 872,
governed to
and 267 years from beginning of dynasty in 998/997
ca. 716/715
Manetho
142 yrs 872-730
Total
Total 267 yrs Early and later periods combined
The later division of the 22nd Dynasty, starting with Takeloth II, was concurrent
with the 23rd Dynasty starting with the reign of Pedubast in the eighth year of Shoshenq
III in 832 BCE The focus now shifts to the kings who, according to Manetho, reigned
from Tanis—a city in the north-eastern region of the Delta.
Chapter 38. Restoring the 23rd Dynasty 563
Chapter 38
Restoring the 23rd Dynasty

The formation of the new city of Tanis was likely due to the silting up of the Nile
branch that ran by Pi-Ramesses, forcing people to seek an alternative riverside location.
Tanis was a brand new city and served as a parallel religious center to Thebes, becoming
known as the Thebes of Lower Egypt. The kings at Tanis saw themselves as the
legitimate successors of the throne of Upper and Lower Egypt.
Here the 23rd Dynasty is understood as the 23rd Tanite Dynasty based on data
handed down from Manetho. Transcription or transmission discrepancies are obvious,
but some data may be reconstructed. The placement of Takeloth II, and the identification
of Orsokon III in the 23rd Dynasty, including Pedubast, occupied much of the previous
chapter. Manetho’s versions report the following for the 23rd Dynasty:
DYNASTY XXIII
Fr. 62 (from Syncellus). ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS.
The Twenty-third Dynasty consisted of four kings of Tanis.
1. Petubatês, for 40 years: in his reign the Olympic festival was first celebrated.
2. Osorchô, for 8 years: the Egyptians call him Heracles.
3. Psammûs, for 10 years.
4. Zêt for 31 years (34).
Total, 89 years.
Fr. 63 (a) (from Syncellus). ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS.
The Twenty-third Dynasty consisted of three kings of Tanis.
1. Petubastis, for 25 years.
2. Osorthôn, for 9 years: the Egyptians called him Hêracles.
3. Psammûs, for 10 years.
Total, 44 years.
(b) ARMENIAN VERSION OF EUSEBIUS.
The Twenty-third Dynasty consisted of three kings of Tanis.
1. Petubastis, for 25 years.
2. Osorthon, whom the Egyptians named Hercules: for 9 years.
3. Psammus, for 10 years.
Total, 44 years.
In The Book of Sothis, the following kings and reigns are supplied,1 discussed earlier
regarding the length of Shoshenq I’s reign.
68. Petubastês, 44 years.
69. Osorthôn, 9 years.
70. Psammus, 10 years.
For comparative purposes, Table 38.1 presents the above data.
1
Manetho, (trans. W.G. Waddell; Loeb Classical Library 350; London: William Heinemann Ltd. and
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940) 247.
Table 38.1: Manetho’s versions of 23rd Dynasty kings of Tanis

Africanus Eusebius/Armenian The Book of Sothis
Kings
no. of years no. of years no. of years
1. Petubates/Petubastis2 40 25 44
2. Osorcho/Osorthon 8 9 9
3. Psammus 10 10 10
4. Zet 31 (not given) (not given)
Total 89 44 (not given)
Also, for ease of reference, the chart of contemporary dynasties displayed in

chapter 35 is reproduced below (Table 38.2) to show connections between the dynasties
that affect chronological positioning.
Table 38.2: Traditional succession of kings for the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 25th
Dynasties, based on Kitchen’s model in 2006
22nd Dynasty 23rd Dynasty 24th Dynasty 25th Dynasty
Shoshenq I
Osorkon I
Shoshenq II (co-regency)
Takeloth I
Osorkon II
(Harsiese A, south)
Takeloth II
Shoshenq VI
Shoshenq IV Osorkon III
Pimay
Rudamun Piye/Piankhy
Osorkon IV Shoshenq VIa Tefnakht
Iuput II Bocchoris Shabako
Shebitku/Shabataka
Taharqa
Manetho locates the 23rd Dynasty at Tanis (although this is disputed), becoming
known as the Thebes of Lower Egypt. It should be noted that the 23rd Dynasty kings are
recorded in the Nile Level Texts at Thebes, which appears to indicate their recognized
status in the Thebes of Upper Egypt.
Table 38.2 does not represent all the kings identified by Kitchen as belonging to
the Tanite 23rd Dynasty. He provides the following Table 38.3.3
2
Africanus adds to the record for Petubates (Pedubast I) “in his reign the Olympic festival was first
celebrated” (Manetho, 161). The date is usually fixed at 776–775 BCE, but this kind of annotation is
usually secondary and not reliable.
3
K.A. Kitchen, “The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: An Overview of Fact & Fiction,” The Libyan
Period in Egypt: Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st-24th Dynasties: Proceedings of a
Kaper; Leiden: NINO, 2009) 202.
Table 38.3: 23rd Dynasty of Tanis according to Kitchen

Date BCE King Regnal years
818–793 Pedubast I, Si-Bast>Si-Ese, Usimare Setepenamun 25
804–792 Iuput I, <……..> 12 (11 CR)
792–786 Shoshenq VI Meriamun, Usimare Meriamun 6
786–758 Osorkon III Si-Ese, Usimare Setepenamun(re) 28
763–744 Takeloth III Si-Ese, Usimare Setepenamun 19 (5 CR)
744–741 Rudamun Meriamun, Usimare Setepenamun ca. 3?
741–736 Shoshenq VII (VIa) Si-Ese, Hedjkheperre Setepenre 5
736–715 Iuput II (Si-Bast), Usimare Setepenamun/re 21
818–715 Total 103
CR = co-regency.
In approaching this chapter, I am indebted to the work of Gerardus Broekman on

the Nile Level Texts and his commentary.4 I endeavor to place this data and his
observations into the wider chronological narrative of this period, and propose the list of
kings, as shown in Table 38.4, based on various chronological anchor points.
Table 38.4: 23rd Dynasty kings with anchor points
Regnal Dates
King Anchor points BCE
years reigned
Began to reign in Yr 8 of Shoshenq III (NLT 24 Shoshenq III’s
Yr 12 = Pedubast I’s Yr 5).
Pedubast I Yr 7 induction on I šmw [1] = I šmw 5 new moon in 826.
Yr 14 induction on I šmw 19 new moon; (incorrectly attributed to
Yr 8) in 819
Iuput I NLT 26 Yr 16 = Yr 2 Iuput I
Shoshenq VI Khons roof date?
Osorkon III NLT 13 yr 28 = Yr 5 Takeloth III (5 yrs attributed to Osorkon III)
Takeloth III None known
Rudamun None known
Shoshenq VIa Yr 19 = Yr 12 of Piye of 25th Dynasty in 738
Iuput II Present at Leontopolis in Piye’s 20th yr invasion in 730
NLT = Nile Level Text.
Pedubast I
Only Pedubast I and Osorkon III in Kitchen’s line-up are identifiable as the
Pedubast and Osorcho/Osorthon of Manetho’s list. Pedubast I founded a dynasty in
Tanis according to Manetho. This accords with the fragmentation of the country with the
warring factions of the kings of Lower Egypt and the Theban high priests at the end of
the 22nd Dynasty and beginning of the 23rd Dynasty.
The 23rd Dynasty began as an offshoot of the Bubastite/Tanite 22nd Dynasty
under Pedubast I in Shoshenq III’s eighth year. The synchronism comes from Nile Level
Text No. 24 in which year five of Pedubast I is year 12 of an unnamed king. On the basis
of its orthography and structure, the year 12 must refer to Shoshenq III.5 The High Priest
during the concurrent reigns was Harsiese B, named on Nile Level Text No. 23 in
Shoshenq III’s year six, on Nile Level Text No. 24 (as given), Nile Level Text No. 28 in
Pedubast’s year 18 (= Shoshenq III’s 25th year), and Nile Level Text No. 27 in
Pedubast’s year 19 (= Shoshenq III’s year 26). In Pedubast’s 23rd year, the High Priest
has changed to a Takeloth (Takeloth E) who is last heard of in year six of Shoshenq VI,
successor to Pedubast I.6
4
G. Broekman, “The Nile Level Records of the Twenty-second and Twenty-third Dynasties in Karnak: A
Reconsideration of Their Chronological Order,” JEA 88 (2002) 163–78.
5
Ibid., 173.
6
Concerning the regnal years for Pedubast I seen in the versions of Manetho,
Africanus credits him with 40 years, Eusebius/Armenian with 25 years, and The Book of
Sothis with 44 years. The excessive 40/44 years is probably explained by the numbers
given to Osorkon [III], the next name on Manetho’s list. Osorkon has eight years in
Africanus and nine years in the other versions. However, in Nile Level Text No. 13
Osorkon III (Usimare Setepenamun Osorkon Meryamun Si-ese), has a year 28 together
with Takeloth III with a year five. This indicates a co-regency between father and son.
Therefore, Osorkon III reigned at least 28 years, and the eight or nine given him in
Manetho must have lost the “20.”
Pedubast Attributed a Reign of 25 Years

Pedubast is given an extra 20 years by Africanus and The Book of Sothis, not
given by Eusebius and the Armenian. We may conclude that an extra 20 years has been
attributed incorrectly to Pedubast, which should be returned to Osorkon III. Various
scholars attribute 25 years to Pedubast I and 28–29 years to Osorkon III.
My previous chapter asserted Shoshenq III’s accession in 839 BCE, since the
new moon date in his 39th year fell on 29 November, with the possibility that more of
his accession year occupied 838 than 839. On the same basis, his eighth year and
Pedubast I’s first year may be dated to 832/831.
I also pointed to three Tepi Shomu/Amun festival dates for the inductions of
priests recorded on Pedubast I’s 7th, 8th, and 14th years,7 and stated that the seventh
year-date of I šmw [1], coming five days before the new moon on the fifth, seemed to be
deficient—it should fall within five days after the new moon—and the eighth year-date
coming on I šmw 19 seemed to be a mistake because the date of the new moon was the
23rd. On the other hand, I šmw 19 was the date for the new moon induction in the 14th
year as shown in Casperson’s table.8 Since Shoshenq III’s Tepi Shomu date on I šmw 26
fell within five days of the new moon on I šmw 23 in his 39th year, the 7th, 8th, and 14th
years of Pedubast I are assigned to the years 826, 825, and 819 BCE, with the feasts all
falling in November.
The transfer of 20 years from Osorkon III to Pedubast I must have taken place
after the list for the 23rd Dynasty had lost its full complement of names, because
between Pedubast I and Osorkon III there were two other kings, now only known from
recovered inscriptions: Iuput I and Shoshenq VI.
Iuput I: Co-regency with Pedubast?

Nile Level Text No. 26 has Pedubast I with a year 16 and an Iuput with a year
two (= Shoshenq III’s year 23 in 816/815 BCE). The High Priest of Amun (HPA) is not
mentioned. Scholars designate this Iuput as Iuput I. Jacquet-Gordon identifies this person
as the Iuput(y) mentioned in a hieratic inscription on a block on the Temple roof of
Khons at Karnak, known as Inscription 244.9 It is the uppermost of three inscriptions
grouped together, and the only one that mentions his name.
He has no titles and his name is not in a cartouche, but the inscription has a date:
“Year 9, third month of summer (during the reign of) Iuputy.”10 It is barely two lines,
including the name of the maker and his lineage. The lowest and oldest of the three
inscriptions, 245A, appears above footprints flanked by a leg of beef and dates to a
7
See chap. pp. 553ff.
8
See Table 37.6, p. 555.
9
H. Jacquet-Gordon, The Graffiti on the Khonsu Temple Roof at Karnak: A Manifestation of Personal
Piety (The Temple of Khonsu, Vol. 3; Oriental Institute Publications Vol. 123; Chicago, IL: Oriental
Institute of University of Chicago, 2003) 84-85, pl. 93, graffiti Nos. 244-245A/B.
10
Ibid., 84.
“Year nine and second month of summer, day 2.” Warnings follow if any should destroy
the graffito.
Between 244 and 245A, another inscription, 245B, is inserted, dated to a year 12
but without month or day. The inscriptions are each accompanied by the name of the
“proprietor” of the graffito, a certain “Khonsu-hat-neter-neb, son of Hori, son of
Khonsu-hat-neter-neb”, and extended in 244 to include a “son of Nes Khonsu, [son of]
Nakht <ef>-Mut(?).”11
Iuput(y), however, is given no lineage. His year 12 is his highest known regnal
year. Assuming him to be the king mentioned in Nile Level Text No. 26, the nature of
the regnal relationship between Upper Egypt’s Pedubast I (of Thebes where the Nile
Level Texts were recorded) and Lower Egypt’s Iuput I at Tanis remains unclear.
The only other King Iuput known is one with the prenomen Usimare
Setepenamun/re who resided in Leontopolis at the time of Piye’s invasion of Egypt and
consequently is associated with the end of the 23rd Tanite Dynasty. Being some 80–90
years after Pedubast I, the second Iuput is dubbed Iuput II. He may have been a grandson
or great-grandson of the former.
Iuput I Allocated One Year of Sole Reign

In any case, it appears that Iuput I reigned simultaneously with Pedubast I, and
was possibly his son. Iuput’s first year coincided with Pedubast’s 15th, and the latter
reigned 25 years. If Iuput I reigned 12 years, as indicated by the Khonsu Temple Roof
graffiti No. 245B, and Pedubast I died in Iuput I’s 11th year, that allows Iuput I one year
of sole reign, though this is not indicated on the Khonsu temple inscriptions. Tentatively,
Iuput I may be allocated 807/806 BCE.
Shoshenq VI (Usermare Meriamun Shoshenq Meriamun)

A Usermare Meriamun Shoshenq Meriamun with a year six and the name of a
High Priest Takeloth, is engraved on Nile Level Text No. 25.12 This High Priest
Takeloth, now known as Takeloth E,13 is also mentioned in Nile Level Text No. 29 in
Pedubast I’s year 23.
The name, Usermare Meriamun Shoshenq Meriamun makes this Shoshenq
distinct from others with the Shoshenq name and is now known as Shoshenq VI. He is
understood by most scholars to be the immediate successor at Thebes of Pedubast I. Year
six of Nile Level Text No. 25 is his highest known year.
A Six-year Reign Ending in 800 BCE

Shoshenq VI’s first year equates to Shoshenq III’s 33rd year in 805, so if the
former reigned only six years, he died in 800 equating to the 39th year of Shoshenq III.
The assumption that Shoshenq VI was “the enemy” whom Osorkon B and his brother
Bakenptah “overthrew” in Shoshenq III’s 39th year, makes Shoshenq VI’s death in 800
explicable. On the other hand, it is not certain that he was “the enemy” or that he was
killed by the army of Bakenptah and Osorkon B.
Osorkon III
Osorkon III succeeded Shoshenq VI. Curiously, as Broekman points out, Version
One of hcpj (“Nile Flood”) is last found on Nile Level Text No. 5 giving an Osorkon a
11
Ibid., 85, 84.
12
13
year three. This is Osorkon III not Osorkon II. 14 The first instance of the Second Version
of hcpj is found on Nile Level Text 22 giving the name of Shoshenq III with his year 39
together with Osorkon B as HPA. If the change from Version One to Version Two is
indicative of the order of kings, then the death of Shoshenq VI and the third year of
Osorkon III, preceded the 39th year of Shoshenq III (22nd Dynasty).
Broekman suggests that there was a time of transition when Version One (of the
Nile Level Text epigraphy) was being replaced by Version Two. In fact, he says Version
Two was used before Version One.15 From the 39th year of Shoshenq III the remaining
kings of the 22nd Dynasty are not represented on any Nile Level Text as far as can be
determined. The engravings of the Nile Level Texts continue with kings of the 23rd
Dynasty all using the Second Version of hcpj, with the exception of Osorkon III.
Identity Difficulties: Was Osorkon B Also Osorkon III?

The coincidence of Shoshenq VI’s death occurring in the 39th year of Shoshenq
III, and the absence of any later mention of Shoshenq III, Osorkon B, and Bakenptah,16
has led to speculation that Shoshenq VI’s successor was Osorkon B, known as Osorkon
III. But, as Kitchen has pointed out, the 23rd Dynasty people would hardly be likely to
welcome as king their foe of the rival 22nd Dynasty who had just killed their king!17 On
the other hand, Osorkon B, heir to the 22nd Dynasty throne, did not succeed his father.
Instead, another Shoshenq (IV) came to the throne. In 2008, Kitchen reconsidered his
position, and found certain points of similarity as well as difference between the two
Osorkons. As well as the coincidence of the timing, he notes that a Japanese excavation
at Tihna (Akoris) in Upper Egypt in 198218 found a stela of Osorkon III giving his full
titulary, “‘High Priest of Amen-Re, King of the Gods’ immediately in front of his first
cartouche and its accompanying titles.”19
This would be applicable to Osorkon B who was the only Osorkon known to
have been a High Priest of Amun at Thebes.20 The genealogies also provide that “Prince
Osorkon B is (i) son of a king [Takeloth II] by (ii) a queen-mother Karomat/ma (D), and
(iii) has a daughter Shepenupet by a lady Tent[….].”21
Kitchen goes on to say that, “The insatiable desire to merge Osorkon B and
Osorkon III has been a driving-force for some, to crush down the internal chronology of
the mid-22nd Dynasty specifically to obtain a valid lifespan/career for the merged
Osorkon(s).”22 He then points out that even with his chronology it is possible to have
Prince Osorkon B reign 28 full years. Table 38.5 compares the years Kitchen gives to the
kings thus far in the 23rd Dynasty, and the years assessed above in my chronology.
14
15
Ibid., 166.
16
17
Ibid., xxxi; idem, “The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology – A Reconsideration,” Ä und
L 16 (2006) 297-98; idem, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 183.
18
Kodaigaku Kyōkai and Heian Hakubutsukan, Preliminary Report, Second Season of the Excavations at
the Site of Akoris in Egypt (Kyoto: Paleological Association of Japan, 1983) 13-14, 28, 31.
19
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
Table 38.5: Assumed Lifespan for Osorkon B if he is also Osorkon III

Kitchen’s chronology My Proposed chronology
Age of Osorkon B at Induction 20 Age of Osorkon B at Induction 20
Under Takeloth II Yrs 11–25 14 Under Takeloth II Yrs 11–33 22
Under Shoshenq III hypothetical 7-
Under Shoshenq III no co-
year co-regency between Takeloth II 31 39
regency
and Shoshenq III; yrs 8–38
Subtotal 45 = 65 Subtotal 61 = 81
As Osorkon III 28 = 93 As Osorkon III 28 = 109
Before 5-year co-regency = 88 Before 5-year co-regency = 104
Kitchen attributes only 25 years to Takeloth II, when the proposal here is that an
original 33 years became 13 in Manetho’s list by the omission of two ten-signs as
proposed also for Shoshenq I and Osorkon I. As well as the deficit of eight years in
Takeloth II’s reign, Kitchen proposes a hypothetical co-regency for the last seven years
of Takeloth II’s 25 year reign with the first seven years of Shoshenq III’s reign. He
actually deletes eight years—because Shoshenq III is attributed 39 years—but Kitchen
reckons him with only 38 full years.23 However, as pointed out above, the Amun feast
dated to III 3ḫt 17 fell in the year 799 BCE, and if attributable to Shoshenq III as
Spalinger assumes,24 then it has to be either at the end of his 39th year or even in his
40th year because an earlier Amun feast on I šmw 26 (about six months earlier) in his
39th year fell in 800 BCE (−799). See Casperson’s Table 37.7 in chapter 37.
It appears that Kitchen has deleted not seven but eight years from the reign of
Shoshenq III. This hypothetical co-regency is proposed because Kitchen has to eliminate
some years in order to fit the reigns into his timeframe of 818–715 for the 23rd Dynasty.
Noting that men lived into their 80s or 90s he concludes, “So, it is perfectly possible for
the two Osorkons to have been the same man—but we do not as yet have final clinching
proof.”25
Kitchen’s reckoning gives Osorkon B/Osorkon III 93 years. My chronology
would require 109 years when he died, assuming that he became priest at age 20. But, it
would be quite possible that Osorkon B/Osorkon III was older than this when inducted,
so even older at death. I conclude they were separate individuals.
Osorkon B and Osorkon III are Separate Individuals

Prince Osorkon B did not succeed Shoshenq VI on the throne of the 23rd
Dynasty. Whether Shoshenq III, Osorkon B, and Bakenptah were responsible for
Shoshenq VI’s death, and whether the “disappearance” of these men so soon after the
death of Shoshenq VI indicates that the three were victims of a reprisal, remains entirely
unresolved.
As determined above, Shoshenq VI’s successor was Osorkon III, but not the
same man as Osorkon B. Osorkon III was also an HPA before or after his accession,
possibly at Thebes.26
Osorkon III’s Attributed Length of Reign of 28 years

Osorkon III is to be identified with Manetho’s Osorcho/Osorthon, where he is
given a reign of only eight or nine years, although others attribute 28 years to him. This
23
Ibid., 185.
24
Münster: Ugarit, 2002) 394.
25
26
Ibid., 184.
is because the 40 years given to Pedubast I by Africanus, and the 44 years given to him
by The Book of Sothis, are presumed to be 20 years in excess, having been appropriated
from the reign of Osorkon in the row beneath. Eusebius and the Armenian versions give
Pedubast I only 25 years, thus indicating the excess of 20 years in the other records. A
reign of 28 years for Osorkon III is supported by Nile Level Text No. 13, which gives to
Osorkon Si-Ese Netjerheqawast (god, ruler of Thebes) a year 28 and to Takeloth Si-Ese
Netjerheqawast a year five.27
This confirms that Osorkon III reigned at least 28 years, and the eight or nine
years given by Africanus/Eusebius and the Armenian can be emended to 28 or 29
years.28 Furthermore, Nile Level Text No. 4 dates solely to Takeloth III’s year six
without mention of Osorkon III which seems to indicate that Osorkon III did not fulfil a
29th year. Therefore, Osorkon III is credited with 28 years. Kitchen comments that the
High Priest Takeloth (E) who officiated during the last few years of Pedubast I’s reign
and the following six years of Shoshenq VI’s reign, mentioned on Nile Level Texts Nos.
29 and 25, also “disappeared” at the same time as Shoshenq VI together with the
assumed victors, Shoshenq III, Osorkon B, and Bakenptah.29
A Takeloth G succeeded Takeloth F, the son of Osorkon III, who was to become
Takeloth III.30 This Takeloth G is the Takeloth in Nile Level Text No. 13 whose year
five was year 28 of Osorkon III, indicating a co-regency between father and son.
Apart from the 39th year of Shoshenq III (discussed previously), Osorkon III is
the first king to have Version Two of hcpi applied to his Nile Level Texts. The remaining
Nile Level Texts all have Version Two, which means they all came after Osorkon III.
Only five Nile Level Texts remain (apart from those of the 25th and 26th Dynasties) and
these are all attributed to kings of the 23rd Dynasty with the possible exception of a king
Hedjkheperre Setepenre, on Nile Level Text No. 3, tentatively attributed to the successor
of Shoshenq III, namely Shoshenq IV, and therefore, of the 22nd Dynasty.
The reign of Osorkon III can be dated 800–772. He, rather than his son, is
credited with the co-regent years (see below). From the end of Osorkon III’s reign in 772
BCE to the year 730 when the 22nd Dynasty ended with the invasion of Piye, and thus
also the end of the 23rd Dynasty, there are 42 years. Therefore, the remaining kings need
to fill these 42 years, and some are represented by the remaining Nile Level Texts.
Takeloth III (Usimare Setapenamun Takeloth Meryamun Si-Ese)

Takeloth III is distinguished from Takeloth I and II by his prenomen, Usimare,
whereas Takeloth I and II use Hedjkheperre.31 Takeloth succeeded his father after he had
been co-regent with him for five years as indicated by Nile Level Text No. 13. Nile
Level Text No. 4 credits him with a year six without mention of Osorkon III. It seems his
father had died by then.
Manetho’s copyists all name a certain Psammus after Osorkon [III], attributing
10 years to him. A king by this name is not known from contemporary sources. The only
other king mentioned by Manetho (only noted by Africanus), is a certain Zet who is
attributed 31 years. His identification has been problematic, and various scholars have
27
28
Osorkon III also has Nile Level Text No. 5 giving him his full name of Usimare Setapenamun Osorkon
Meriamun Si-Ese with a year three and Version One of hcpj discussed above, Nile Level Text No. 6 with
year five and Version Two of hcpj, and Nile Level Text No. 7 with year six and Version Two also of hcpj.
29
30
Ibid., 180.
31
suggested the reference might indicate “a query”; that is, the years of the remaining
kings.
The 10 years of Psammus and the 31 years of Zet amount to 41 years, which is
interesting in light of the fact that only 42 are needed to complete the dynasty to the year
730. Since Takeloth III is known to have been a son of Osorkon III and king of the 23rd
Dynasty, the question arises whether Psammus could have been Takeloth III?
Until 2004, only a year seven of Takeloth III was known from a graffito on the
roof of the Temple of Khonsu at Karnak. In 2004, Frederic Payraudeau argued from
Papyrus Berlin 3048 that a year 14 referring to Takelot Si-Ese Meryamun, actually
referred to Takelot III, not Takelot II, to whom it had been previously attributed. 32
However, by 2008 he had changed his mind.33 He reappraised the genealogical links,
which were not too secure. A fourth prophet of Amun Harsiese was noted as a witness in
Nile Level Text No. 17 and assumed him to be the same as the fourth prophet Harsiese
known from the reign of Takeloth II. Furthermore, he writes, “It is probably more secure
to allocate the year dates in the papyrus (years 13, 16, 23, and even 26) to Takeloth II
and not to Takeloth III, even if some questions remain unsolved.”34 He notes that a year
26 is not known for Takeloth II and could refer to another reign,35 but as we have
determined in chapter 37, Takeloth II reigned 33 years, so a year 26 for him is not a
problem.
In February 2005, US excavators from the University of Columbia unearthed a
stela from the ruins of a temple in the western part of the Dakhla Oasis. Written in
hieratic, it recorded a year 13 of a king’s reign. Originally thought to belong to Harsiese
A, on further examination, it has been definitively identified as belonging to Takeloth
III. Published by Dr. Olaf Kaper and Robert Demarée in 2005, the following is an
excerpt:
The stela belongs to a group of finds documenting the temple of the God Thoth … [in
the western part of the dakhla Oasis] … during the Third Intermediate period. One block
of temple decoration was found in the name of king Petubastis (I), and the stela under
discussion was set up in the temple to which this block belonged. The stela’s principal
text has five lines, in which the date of the stela is given as Year 13 of Takeloth III (c.
740 BCE), as well as the name of the god Thoth of SA-wHAt, the local deity. The stela
records a land donation to the temple on the part of the local governor, chief of a Libyan
tribe, and it concludes with a list of eleven priests who are beneficiaries of this donation
32
F. Payraudeau, “Le règne de Takélot III et les débuts de la domination Koushite,” GM 198 (2004)
79-90. Briefly, the four arguments were: (1) The document is written in abnormal Hieratic, the earliest in
this style of writing dating to the 21st and 22nd years of Piye’s reign of the 25th Dynasty, therefore, not
applicable to the much earlier reign of Takeloth II; (2) The document records a marriage contract
witnessed by Vizier Hor and two Royal Treasurers: Bakenamun and Djedmontuiufankh. According to
Payraudeau in the period from Osorkon II to Osorkon III only one treasurer from one family served in this
office, having three direct descendants, allowing no opportunity for a treasurer of another family to
intervene at the time of Takeloth II. Therefore, Djedmontuiufankh must have served under Takeloth III,
for whom no other Royal Treasurers are known; (3) The Vizier Hor, who witnessed the marriage contract
referred to in Papyrus Berlin 3048, appears to be the same person as the father of Vizier Nebneteru
mentioned in several Nubian and Saite era genealogical documents (Herman De Meulenaere, “La Vizir
Nebneterou,” BIFAO 86 (1986) 143-49). Since Hor would have served as Vizier shortly before Piye’s
reign, this places Hor at the time of Takeloth III not II; (4) The genealogy of the above-mentioned
Djedmontuiufankh, son of an Aafenmut, is given on this papyrus. Though there are two Aafenmuts listed
the first was buried under Osorkon I and was a “scribe of the Treasury”, indicating the lineage to which
Djedmontuiufankh was descended. Therefore, Djedmontuiufankh was the son of the second Aafenmut,
and the Royal Treasurer associated with the Year 14 of Takeloth on Papyrus Berlin 3048.
33
F. Payraudeau, “Takeloth III: Considerations on Old and New Documents,” Libyan Period, 291-302.
34
Ibid., 294.
35
Ibid., 294 n. 15.
… Another donation stela erected by the same governor is known from the temple of
Seth in Mut (Dakhleh).36
This donation stela was found at Amheida, and is linked to the Smaller Dakhleh
Stela because the supervision of the donation was undertaken by the Chief of the
Shamin, Nesdjehuty, mentioned in both texts.37 The smaller Dakhleh Stela dates to year
23 of King Piye of the 25th Nubian Dynasty, therefore the only Takeloth to which both
these stelae could refer is Takeloth III, since Takeloth II had long since died. The highest
known year, therefore, for Takeloth III, is his year 13.
The remaining Nile Level Texts not yet identified with a king are those written
above Nile Level Text No. 4 referring to Takeloth III with six years, located on the right-
hand side of the quay wall. They have Version Two of hcpy.38 Briefly, pending further
comment, at the far right side is No. 10, a Usimaatre […] with a year 5, 6, 13, or 14. To
its right is No. 43 with a Meriamun […] with year three. (To its right is No. 14, that of
Osorkon II with 29 years.) To the right of No. 14 is No. 3 referring to a Hedjkheperre
Setepenre […] with a year five, and to its right, without any names legible but with a
structure the same as No. 3, is Nile Level Text No. 45 with a year, 17, 18, or 25.
The only remaining kings of the 23rd Dynasty to whom these Nile Level Texts
might be attributed are: Takeloth III, Rudamun (Takeloth III’s half-brother, a son of
Osorkon III) to whom scholars assign only a short reign; a possible Shoshenq VIa
thought to be the same king on No. 3 and No. 45, in which case he could have 17, 18, or
25 years; and an Iuput II who was present at Piye’s invasion of Egypt and is credited
with a reign of 21 years.
It is possible to see, in Nile Level Text No. 10, a further reference to Takeloth III,
in which he could be assigned a reign of 13 or 14 years. Only year 13 is known from
contemporary sources. Manetho’s Psammus, given a year 10, could be a deficient year
13 with only the “ten” remaining so Psammus could be Takeloth III.
Rudamun (Usimare Setapenamun Rudamun Meryamun)

Rudamun, a son of Osorkon III, succeeded his half-brother Takeloth III. No
contemporary source gives the length of his reign, though Nile Level Text No. 43 with a
year three might be his. Rudamun’s daughter, Irbastudjnefu, married Peftjauawybast,
who was ruler of Herakleopolis at the time of Piye’s invasion in 730 BCE.
Manetho does not mention Rudamun, and the king succeeding Psammus,
mentioned only by Africanus, is an otherwise unknown Zet, who is attributed a reign of
31 years. If these 31 years are understood to be the remaining number of years assigned
to the dynasty by kings not now mentioned, we can venture to suggest that three of these
years should be appropriated to Rudamun, leaving 28 years.
Shoshenq VIa and the Wadi Gasus Graffito

Crucial to the identification of the next king of the 23rd Dynasty is a graffito
found at Wadi Gasus near the Red Sea. The style of writing identifies it as belonging to
the early 25th Dynasty, and in particular to the reign of Piye. It reads: “Year 12 [—]
Adoratrix of the God Amenirdis (I) and ‘Year 19 [—] God’s Wife, Shepenupet (I).”39
36
O. Kaper and R. Demarée, “A Donation Stela in the Name of Takeloth III from Amheida, Dakleh
Oasis,” JEOL 39 (2005) 19-37. Excerpt from “Takelot III,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takelot_III
37
Payraudeau, “Takeloth III: Considerations,” 295.
38
Also on this level is Nile Level Text No. 14, which has been identified as belonging to Osorkon II, with
29 years in Version One.
39
Kitchen, TIP, 359-60 §321.
From this, most scholars understand that Piye installed his sister (or half-sister),
Amenirdis, as God’s wife elect at Thebes, and had her adopted by Osorkon III’s
daughter, Shepenupet I.40 The year 12 is understood to refer to Piye’s reign, but the king
with the year 19 is unidentified, but presumed to be of the 23rd Dynasty because of the
mention of Shenenupet, half-sister to Takeloth III and Rudamun. The 12th year of Piye
can be dated because in his 20th year he led the invasion of Egypt bringing the 22nd and
23rd Dynasties to an end in 730 BCE.41
Eight years earlier, Piye’s 12th year fell in 738 BCE. This has to correspond to
the 19th year of a king of the 23rd dynasty. If Takeloth reigned 13 years from 772 to
759, followed by Rudamun for two or three years, 759–758/757, the 19th year of
Rudamun’s successor would fall in 738 BCE, thus synchronizing with the 12th year of
Piye in accord with the Wadi Gasus graffito.
A Hitherto Unknown King Named Shoshenq

The identity of the king who reigned at least 19 years, 12 of which were
concurrent with Piye, has long been debated. However, Broekman asserted in 2002 that
the name of the king of Nile Level Text No. 3 could be read as Hedjkheperre Setepenre
Shoshenq Si-Ese Meriamun. The inclusion of the epithet Si-Ese distinguished him from
Shoshenq IV, because his nomen included Si-Bast. Broekman discusses other difficulties
in identifying this king as Shoshenq IV and concluded that Nile Level Text No. 3
belonged to a hitherto unknown king.42 The similarity of the structure of No. 3 with No.
45 to its left, which suggests that it was written after No. 3—Egyptian being written from
right to left—led Broekman to suggest that it also should be attributed to this
Shoshenq.43 This Shoshenq is now known as VIa following the Leiden Conference in
2007.
However, in 2009, Payraudeau contested the identity of the king on Nile Level
Texts Nos. 3 and 45 as being a king Shoshenq because he was otherwise unattested. He
pointed out that even Rudamun with a short reign was frequently attested, that the word
Shoshenq was not legible, and that Version Two of ḥcpy, which was already partly
destroyed when observed by von Beckerath, could be a progressive form.44
In 2007, Jansen-Winkeln had suggested to Broekman that Version Two could be
a variant of Version One used elsewhere only once with No. 25 referring to Shoshenq VI
(predecessor of Osorkon III).45
Payraudeau says that if Shoshenq VIa did exist, his reign would have to have
been short, no more than the five years of Nile Level Text No. 3. He prefers instead to
attribute the texts to Takeloth II.46 But von Beckerath had earlier pointed out and
affirmed to Broekman that “the space after the st-sign would be too small for the name
tkrtj (Takelot).”47 Furthermore, the identification of the name in No. 3 relies more on the
40
Ibid.
41
The year 730 is 267 years from the beginning of the 22nd Dynasty in 998/997, given as subtotals of
[1]25 and [1]42 years, respectively, by Manetho via Africanus. See previous chapter.
42
43
Ibid., 177, 178; idem, “The Chronological Position of King Shoshenq Mentioned in Nile Level Record
No. 3 on the Quay Wall of the Great Temple of Amun at Karnak,” SAK 33 (2005) 87.
44
45
Broekman, “Takeloth III and the End of the 23rd Dynasty,” Libyan Period, 98.
46
47
occurrence of Version Two rather than on the name, as Kitchen had pointed out to
Broekman in a private letter.48
With the first occurrence of Version Two appearing with the year 39 of Shoshenq
III together with the name of the High Priest, Osorkon (B), and then from Osorkon III’s
year five onwards,49 if Nile Level Text Nos. 3 and 45 belonged to Takeloth II, his
earliest year, his fifth, would date in this chronology to 868 BCE, and Shoshenq III’s
39th to 800 BCE. That makes an interval of 68 years before Version Two is used again!
In Broekman’s chronology, he claims a space of 37 years elapsed (based on
Aston’s chronology?) during which seven Nile Level Texts were inscribed with Version
One. He thinks, “This is very unlikely.”50 It is even more unlikely with an interval of 68
years! Broekman has conceded that, “We have to accept that only the prenomen
Hedjkheperre Setepenre and the occurrence of the epithet Son of Isis in the nomen-
cartouche are indisputable.”51
He accepts that the options for Nile Level Text No. 3 are Takeloth II or a new
king Shoshenq. However, Takeloth II can be virtually excluded on the above arguments.
Attribution to Takeloth II would remove from the Nile Level Texts the existence of a
king whose reign can fill the years between Rudamun and Iuput II and whose 19th regnal
year coincides with Piye’s 12th year in accordance with the important Wadi Gasus
graffito synchronism. This synchronism implicitly supports the identification of a “new”
king, whether named Shoshenq or not, but for clarity we continue to refer to him as
Shoshenq VIa.
Shoshenq VIa
The highest year on Nile Level Texts Nos. 3 and 45 is the possible year 25 on
No. 45. Von Beckerath shows the number as a ten-sign followed by shading (damaged
area) with five vertical strokes beneath. It could be 17 or 18 years with the addition of
two or three vertical strokes, or with the addition of another ten-sign, becomes 25.52
Attributing 25 years to Shoshenq VIa with his 19th year synchronized with Piye’s 12th
year in 738/737 will give him the dates 756–731. There is no mention of Shoshenq VIa
as a king in the Delta at the time of Piye’s invasion in 730, which would seem to indicate
that Shoshenq VIa had already died.
Three of the kings who submitted to Piye were Osorkon [IV] of the 22nd
Dynasty, Iuput [II] of Leontopolis, and Peftjauawybast of Herakleopolis. Iuput II is
identified on several monuments from Lower Egypt with the name Usimare
Setapenamun/re Iuput II (Si-Bast). Therefore, Iuput II could not have been the king of
Nile Level Texts Nos. 3 and 45 (assuming they belong to the same king), because that
king has the prenomen Hedjkheperre, said to be clearly legible on No. 3. Iuput II is
understood to be Shoshenq VIa’s successor.
Shoshenq VIa’s 25 years fills the time period between Rudamun and Iuput in
compliance with the Wadi Gasus graffito synchronism, and allows Iuput to have begun
to reign before the invasion of Piye in 730 when he submitted to Piye as recorded in the
Victory Stela. Shoshenq VIa is the only king who could fill this slot with the required
number of years. From this we understand that in Piye’s year 12 in 738 he installed his
sister Amenirdis as God’s wife at Thebes who was adopted by Osorkon III’s daughter
48
Idem, “Takeloth III,” 97.
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid., 98.
51
Ibid.
52
Von Beckerath, “The Nile Level Records at Karnak and their Importance for the History of the Libyan
Period (Dynasties XXII and XXIII)” JARCE 5 (1966) 55; Broekman, “Nile Level Records,” 172.
Shepenupet I. The latter must have been born sometime before 772 when Osorkon III
died, which means that she had to have been at least 34 and most likely older when she
adopted Amenirdis.
In the past, some scholars have assigned the Wadi Gasus graffito to Takeloth III
and even to Rudamun, supposing that the latter had a long reign, and not being aware of
the proposed “new king” of Nile Level Texts 3 and 45. In the belief that the Wadi Gasus
graffito was wrongly attributed to Takeloth III, in 2006 Claus Jurman proposed that the
Wadi Gasus graffito did not refer to Shepenpet I and Amenirdis I, but to a later
Amenirdis I in year 12 of Shabako (Piye’s successor) and to a Shepenupet II in year 19
of Taharqa. He cited palaeographic and other evidence from Karnak 53 and noted that the
graffito and year date formulas were written in two different handwriting styles
suggesting that they were not composed at the same time.
I will show later that Shabako’s year 12 dates to 708 BCE and Taharqa’s year 19
to 671 BCE, involving a separation of 37 years between the two kings of the same
dynasty, which in itself requires an explanation as to what the graffito was intended to
convey by placing them in apposition on the one stela.
It is correct that Takeloth III reigned too early to be the king of the Wadi Gasus
graffito, but there is no need to transfer the Wadi Gasus graffito inscription to the reigns
of Shabako and Taharqa since the year 12 of Piye synchronizes with year 19 of
Shoshenq VIa in 738/737 BCE. Thus, in this year, Piye’s sister Amenirdis I was adopted
as God’s wife of Amun at Thebes by Shepenupet I, the daughter of Osorkon III, and it
was recorded on the Wadi Gasus graffito, whether or not the graffiti were both written
by the same hand at the same time.
The existence of Shoshenq VIa is made almost certain by the Wadi Gasus
synchronism in conjunction with Nile Level Texts 3 and 45.54 An incorrect chronology
has led Kitchen to dispense with the Wadi Gasus inscription identification of year 12
with Piye and his sister Amenirdis I, and year 19 with Osorkon III’s daughter
Shenpenupet I.55 He assigns to Shoshenq VIa only five years when the true period of his
reign is 25 years.56
Candidates for Shoshenq Meriamun of the Temple of Montu Grafitti

Kitchen, however, follows Broekman in proposing another attestation of
Shoshenq VIa.57 The information has been provided by Helen Jacquet-Gordon.58A
graffito, No. 145 (Broekman’s No. 10), scratched onto the roof of the Temple of Montu
at Karnak has a year four of a Shoshenq Meriamun. It was written by a wab priest,
Djedioh A, whose grandson of the same name, identified as Djedioh B, is inscribed on
graffito No. 146 (Broekman’s No. 11), just east of No. 145, along with a year five and
the date of III šmw 10 referring to a king Iny Si-Ese Meriamun.
Graffito No. 147, just west of graffito No. 145, refers to a year two and a third
month with name lost, and someone’s father with the name of Khonsu. Kitchen suggests
that this Khonsu is the son of Djedioh A and the father of Djedioh B.59 Also near Nos.
53
C. Jurman, “Die Namen des Rudjamun in der Kapelle des Osiris-Hekadjet. Bemerkungen der 3.
Zwischenzeit un dem Wadi Gasus-Graffito,” GM 210 (2006) 69-91.
54
Kitchen, “Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 175. Note that Kitchen wrongly attributes Nile Level Text No.
13 to Shoshenq VIa when he really meant Nile Level Text No. 3.
55
Ibid., 177.
56
Ibid., 175, 177, 189, 198.
57
Ibid., 175.
58
Jacquet-Gordon, Graffiti on the Khonsu Temple Roof, 5-56.
59
145 and 146 is graffito No. 148 (Broekman’s No. 19) on the same roof slab, which
mentions a certain Irethoreru (Iret-Hor-eru), son of a Djedioh, carved in hieroglyphic—
not hieratic—writing, which would date it to the 24th or 25th Dynasty or later, the
hieroglyphics being characteristic of the 26th Dynasty, as well as the name Irethoreru.60
If Irethoreru is the son of Djedioh B it places Djedioh B and Iny in the 25th
Dynasty. Broekman suggests that Iny reigned shortly before Shabako conquered Egypt
when there was a revolt against Piye’s overlordship, and the slaughter by Shabako of
those “who had rebelled against him in both south and north and in every foreign land”
commemorated on a scarab.61
Broekman, following Yoyotte, links this to Louvre stela C.100, which has the
partial erasure of both a figure of a king, Iny with the prenomen Menkheperre, and that
of his daughter Mutirdis. The king’s name appears in the columns three times and in
each case has been erased leaving only two reed signs ending in y, which suggests that
this stela belongs to Iny.62 According to Kitchen the style of the stela is consistent with
the early 25th Dynasty.63 This “damnation memoriae” was not a usual practice of the
Libyan dynasties but could be attributed to the 25th Dynasty.64
Kitchen defines this more closely by identifying Iny as the successor of Nimlot D
and his successor Thutemhat, in Hermopolis. As Nimlot D was present at Piye’s
invasion, it places Iny after Nimlot and Thutemhat. Kitchen proposes that Shabako
destroyed Iny’s presence at Thebes and perhaps at Hermopolis before sweeping north
and conquering other “petty royalties” in Lower Egypt.65
If Iny was the contemporary of Djedioh B as stated on graffito No. 146, the
question remains as to when Djedioh A lived. Who was the king Shoshenq Meriamun on
graffito No. 145 in whose reign the graffito was written at the time of Djedioh A?
Shoshenq III as a contender for the “Shoshenq Meriamun” is ruled out by
Broekman because it would place Iny in the reign of Osorkon III. 66 Since Shoshenq III
reigned in the chronology I have established from 839 to 800 BCE, the distance between
grandfather Djedioh A and grandson Djedioh B—assuming Iny reigned in his locality ca.
720 when Shabako began to reign67—makes it very unlikely that Shoshenq III is the
Shoshenq Meriamun of graffito No. 145.
If Shoshenq VI’s reign is dated to 806–800 (as here) at which time Djedioh A
was alive, and the graffito referring to Djedioh B and Iny inscribed sometime ca. 720
BCE, some 80 years ensued. This may seem a long time between grandfather and
grandson, but it is not improbable since two generations can span more than 80 years.68
A son of Djedioh A could have been born near to, or after, the death of Shoshenq VI ca.
790, and his son some 30 years later (ca. 760 BCE), thus Djedioh B could have been
contemporary of Iny, and be aged not much more than 40 years when the graffito was
carved in the reign of Piye or Shabako.
60
Jacquet-Gordon, Graffiti on the Khonsu Temple Roof, 56.
61
Broekman, “Chronological Position,” 84-85; cited from Kitchen, TIP, 379 §340.
62
J. Yoyotte, “Pharaoh Iny, un Roi mystèrieux du VIIIe siècle avant J.-C.” in CRIPEL 11 (1989) 113-131;
Broekman, “Chronological Position,” 84-85.
63
64
Broekman, “Chronological Position,” 84-85.
65
66
Broekman, “Chronological Position,” 84.
67
Kitchen’s date of Shabako’s accession in 716 (“Overview of Fact & Fiction,” 189) is four years too late
as we shall discuss presently.
68
As known from personal experience!
Therefore, Djedioh B’s grandfather, two generations earlier than Iny, could have
been a contemporary of Shoshenq VI, identifying him with Shoshenq Meriamun on
graffito No. 145. It is worth recalling that Iuput I who preceded Shoshenq VI has been
identified as Iuputy of Khons Temple roof graffito Nos. 244 and 245A–B.69 His 12 years
(11 as co-regent with Pedubast I) spanned the years 818–806 BCE. With Iny being dated
to ca. 720, the 23rd Dynasty is covered by the graffiti.
Another Candidate: Shoshenq VIa

The only other candidate for Shoshenq Meriamun of Khons roof graffito No. 145
is Shoshenq VIa. Presumably this king reigned when an adult and he reigned 25 years
(757–732), which could make him over 45–50 when he died. It is quite possible that he
had a grandson when he died, and that the grandson would have been an adult by the
time of the Piye/Shabako changeover in 720 BCE, and contemporary with Djedioh B
and King Iny.
Therefore, Shoshenq VIa, living at the time of the early 25th dynasty, might be a
more likely candidate for the Shoshenq Meriamun of graffito No. 145 than Shoshenq VI.
However, the latter cannot be ruled out. It is not certain that the Shoshenq
Meriamun of graffiti No. 145 is a further attestation of Shoshenq VIa. What is certain is
that year 19 of Shoshenq VIa coincides with year 12 of Piye in my chronology, in
accordance with the Wadi Gasus inscription. No other king’s reign is applicable. The
existence of this king with a year 19, and up to a year 25, is attested; even if his name
Shoshenq cannot be confirmed.
Iuput II (Usimare Sepepenamun/re Iuput Si-Bast)

Iuput II is mainly known from the Victory Stela of Piye as ruler or king of
Leontopolis who submitted to Piye in the latter’s invasion of Egypt in his 20th year in
730 BCE. Kitchen assigns Pedubast I, the founder of the 23rd Dynasty, to Leontopolis
(Ta-Remu), which had strong Bubastide connections to the 22nd Dynasty. Kitchen says
Iuput II first had the epithet Si-Bast at Memphis; but after moving to Ta-Remu changed
it to Si-Ese.70 The fact that Iuput II is placed at Leontopolis, and no mention is made of
Shoshenq VIa alive at the time of Piye’s invasion recorded in the Victory stela, leads
Kitchen and others to identify Iuput II as the last king of the 23rd Dynasty.
A stela from Mendes (a city in the central Delta area) featuring Smendes the son
of Harnakht bears Iuput’s name without his prenomen and attributes to him a year 21.71
Shoshenq VIa’s 25 years’ reign is dated in my chronology to 757–732 BCE and
indicates that Iuput II reigned about two years as king of the 23rd Dynasty before Piye
invaded Egypt. Iuput II was not killed by Piye’s army. Piye allowed him to remain as
local governor of Leontopolis.72 Assuming Iuput reigned 21 years and not longer, his last
year would date to 711 when apparently Smendes too was alive.
Kitchen’s chronology runs into problems when he works downwards from his
date for Pedubast I’s accession in 818 (taken from the Nile Level Text No. 24 giving a
year 12 of Shoshenq III synchronized with a year five of Pedubast [I]), and upwards
from 715 when he believes the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties came to an end—rather than at
the time of Piye’s invasion in 730 BCE. By selecting 715 as the end of the two dynasties
69
Jacquet-Gordon, Graffiti on the Khonsu Temple Roof, 84-85.
70
71
Idem, TIP, xxx; 542 §446 referencing J. Chappaz, Genava (Geneva: Musée d’art et d’histoire, 1982)
71-81.
72
“Victory Stela of Piye.” http://www.yare.org/essays/pianky.htm
he actually allocates an extra 15 years that were not included in Manetho’s reckoning
(that is 267 years for the 22nd Dynasty spanning 997–730 BCE).
By assigning Iuput II’s 21 years to 736–715, only 5 years are allowed for
Shoshenq VIa because the combined years of Pedubast 1 (25 years), Iuput I (1 sole year),
Shoshenq VI (6 years), Osorkon III (28 years), Takeloth III (14 years sole reign, should
be 13), and Rudamun (3 years), amount to 77 years, giving Rudamun the years 744–741
BCE. So between 741 and 736 there are only 5 years. Kitchen relies on Nile Level Text
No. 3 with a year five and its attribution to Hedjkheperre Setepenre [Shoshenq VIa]
without also attributing Nile Level Text No. 45 with its 17, 18, or 25 years to this same
king as Broekman had earlier proposed.
This king is, therefore, not assigned any years in Kitchen’s chronology.
Seventeen years is the least number of years this king reigned. And, because he cannot
accommodate Shoshenq VIa’s 25 years reign, Kitchen cannot identify Shoshenq VIa as
the king of the Wadi Gasus inscription. So he dispenses with it—as noted above.
Remainder of Nile Level Texts

Resulting from the above discussion, it is possible to assign Nile Level Text No.
10 with a year 13 to Takeloth III, No. 43 with a year three to Rudamun, and No. 3 with
year five and No. 45 with year 25 both to Shoshenq VIa.
The only king of the 23rd Dynasty not so far represented on at least one Nile
Level Text is Iuput II. (Iuput I shares Nile Level Text No. 26 with Pedubast I.) However,
there is a possibility that Iuput II is represented in Nile Level Text No. 44, which is very
badly damaged. Broekman assigned it to Shoshenq VI because its structure was most
similar to Nile Level Text No. 25 attributed to that king, and he suggested that the six
strokes legible following a damaged area could have had two more strokes, thus six plus
two equals eight.73 However, the chronology, as discussed above, indicates that six years
is all that can be assigned to Shoshenq VI, and he already has a year six on Nile Level
Text No. 25. (The king is not named but the presence of High Priest Takeloth has led to
the identification of it as belonging to Shoshenq VI.)
Broekman said that the traces of the prenomen seem to read Usermaatre
Meriamun or Usermaatre Setepenamun. The version of hcpy is not legible. While the
position of this text on the wall was not recorded by Legrain and not seen since, it is said
that Legrain numbered the texts in what he thought was their chronological order (which
was inaccurate). It therefore seems that a No. 44 would appear chronologically near to
No. 43, which is now proposed as that representing Rudamun, and No. 45 representing
Shoshenq VIa, both of which are Iuput’s immediate predecessors. Furthermore, Iuput
II’s prenomen is Usimaatre (alternatively Usimare or Usermare) Setepenamun/re. It may
be possible, therefore, to attribute the six strokes on Nile Level Text No. 44 to Iuput II
for six years, with the possibility of a higher number, which includes at least six digits,
such as seven to nine, and with a ten-sign, 16–19. It is not known if Iuput II reigned
longer than 21 years.
If No. 44 is assigned to Iuput II, then all the kings of the 23rd Dynasty are
represented on the Nile River quay texts. The only other text noted by Legrain and not
seen since, is that of No. 15 about which Broekman says, “is too badly damaged to yield
any useful information.”74 About the only clue then to the king’s identity is its
numbering given by Legrain according to his understanding of the chronology. The only
king remaining of the 22nd Dynasty who does not have a Nile Level Text attributed to
73
74
Ibid.
him, but comes before Shoshenq III, who is the last to be attributed a Version One of
hcpy, is Takeloth II. He, of course, comes immediately after Osorkon II.
The fact that both of the badly damaged texts of Nos. 44 and 15 are associated
with the section of the quay wall where Nos. 43, 45, and 14 (together with Nos. 3 and
10) are found at the same level on the right-hand side, suggests that Nos. 44 and 15 may
have once been seen in this area, though they have now eroded away. Perhaps
significantly, Osorkon II’s Nile Level Text with his year 29 is No. 14! So it would be
appropriate for Takeloth II’s Nile Level Text to be given the number 15!
Nile Level Text No. 14, referring to Osorkon II with a year 29 (873 BCE) was
engraved more than 110 years before those adjacent to it. It is positioned on the quay
wall between No. 43 (Rudamun’s Nile Level Text dating to 759–757) and No. 3
(Shoshenq VIa’s Nile Level Text, with No. 45 to its left, dating to 757–732), which were
after Osorkon II died and Takeloth II began to reign in 872. Therefore, a Nile Level Text
No. 15 could belong to a king who reigned after Osorkon II and be reasonably attributed
to Takeloth II. The almost illegible state of the text might indicate an earlier king,
especially as those on the lower part of the wall were subject to more erosion caused by
flooding over the centuries. Von Beckerath wrote, “There are still traces of other
inscriptions on the quay wall which I could not identify.”75 Maybe some of these
belonged to Takeloth II.
Legrain’s numbering of the texts does not follow the now known chronological
sequence, but even so it is instructive to see how he numbered them. After correctly
assigning No. 1 and No. 2 to Shoshenq I and Osorkon I, respectively, he applies No. 3 to
the row we have been discussing, which is somewhat removed and to the right of Nos. 1
and 2. This suggests that Legrain thought that the king’s prenomen, Hedjkheperre
Setepenre (nomen not legible), indicated Takeloth I, whom he would have thought had
succeeded Osorkon I of Nile Level Text No. 2, since the existence of King Shoshenq IIa
who was the immediate successor of Osorkon I is a relatively recent discovery. (His Nile
Level Text texts appear above and below Nos. 1 and 2.)
No. 4, below and to the right of No. 3, is now known to belong to Takeloth III,
but Legrain may have understood it also to belong to Takeloth I. Thereafter, the Nos. 5–
14 are all attributed to an Osorkon, whereas chronologically, Nile Level Texts Nos. 8, 9,
11, 12, 14, belong to Osorkon II, and Nos. 5, 6, 7, to Osorkon III, with No. 13 to
Osorkon III and Takeloth III (co-regents).
Then Legrain places Nos. 16–21 together, which refer to the sons of an Osorkon;
whereas, it now appears that 16, 20, and 21 probably refer to the reign of Shoshenq II,
and 17, 18, and 19 to Takeloth I. Nos. 22–28 all refer to the time period of Shoshenq III,
and Pedubast I (although No. 22, which refers to the 39th and last year of Shoshenq III,
is the first numbered). That just leaves Legrain with Nos. 15, 43, 44, and 45, with 15 and
44 unplaced, and 43, 44, and 45 numbered in his compilation as kings of the 25th and
26th Dynasties,76 presumably because he did not know to whom or where they belonged.
But, as discussed above, they seem to be the last three kings of the 23rd Dynasty:
Rudamun, Shoshenq VIa, and Iuput II.
Reconciliation with Manetho’s 23rd Dynasty

Having established the chronology as above, it is now possible to make
suggestions about the names of the kings and regnal years handed down by Manetho via
Africanus for the 23rd Dynasty. They may be compared with my proposed chronology in
the right-hand column in Table 38.6.
75
Von Beckerath, “Nile Level Records,” 43 n. 9.
76
Reproduced by von Beckerath, “Nile Level Records,” 55.
Table 38.6: Comparison of Manetho and the proposed chronology for the 23rd
Dynasty
Manetho; The Book of Proposed regnal Dates BCE (sole-reign
Kings
Sothis (BoS) years years)
Pedubast I 40/25; BoS 44 25 832/831–807
Iuput I Omitted 1 sole, 11 co-regent 807–806
Shoshenq VI Omitted 6 806–800
Osorkon III 8/9; BoS 9 28 800–772
Psammus/Takeloth III 10; BoS 10 13 772–759
Rudamun Omitted 2–3 759–758/757
Zet/Shoshenq VIb 31 25 758/757–732
2 prior to 730, 19
Iuput II Omitted 732–730 to 709
after invasion
Total 89/94 132 132 yr
As previously explained, the 40 years given to Pedubast I by Africanus (and the

44 by The Book of Sothis) seem to include 20 years appropriated from the reign of
Osorkon III who should be attributed 28 or 29 years, not 8 or 9.77 Pedubast then needs
five extra years in Africanus to bring his total to 25 years given him by
Eusebius/Armenian. The 44 from The Book of Sothis, possibly indicates an original 24
attributed to him, thus 24–25 years, rounded to 25 years as above. Nile Level Text No.
29 gives Pedubast I 23 years, just two short of the 25 years. Six years are required for the
reign of Shoshenq VI not given by Manetho’s copyists, but indicated by Nile Level Text
No. 25. Osorkon III’s 8 or 9 years are to be emended to 28 as given on Nile Level Text
No. 13.
If Psammus is equated with Takeloth III, then three more years should be added
to his 10-year reign to give him the 13 years attested on the donation stela from the
Dakhla Oasis. The five years of Takeloth III’s co-regency with his father is attributed to
Osorkon III’s regnal years. Rudamun, attested as a king of the 23rd Dynasty, is not
mentioned by Manetho, but a two- to three-year reign can be attributed to him between
the end of Takeloth III’s reign and the accession of Shoshenq VII in 757 BCE, as
previously discussed on the basis of Nile Level Text No. 43 with a year three.
Zet?
An otherwise unknown Zet, mentioned only by Africanus, is given 31 years.
Thirty of these 31 years can be accounted for by recognizing 3 for Rudamun, 25 for
Shoshenq VIa and 2 for Iuput II before Piye’s invasion. The extra year is probably to be
divided among Shoshenq VIa and Iuput II as the 19th year of Shoshenq VIa fell in the
12th year of Piye in 738 BCE. The only years not represented by Manetho’s versions are
the six years of Shoshenq VI, and the two years of Iuput II. Eight years represent the
difference between the total of 94 for Manetho’s versions and the 102 of this chronology.
The 23rd Dynasty may be allocated the years 832–730 BCE.
This chronology makes sense of the numbers in Manetho’s 23rd Dynasty, which
has been a complete enigma to Egyptologists. One of the reasons is that the actual length
of the dynasty was not known due to the dates imposed on it by its synchronization of
Pedubast I’s first year with an incorrect date of 818 BCE for Shoshenq III’s eighth year.
Furthermore, the 13 years now credited to Takeloth III has only been known
since 2005. The 23rd Dynasty is synchronized to the 22nd Dynasty by Pedubast’s first
77
It is possible that just as the 20 years has been brought up a line to the reign of Pedubast from that of
Osorkon III in Manetho’s list via Africanus, that the notation after the name of Osorkon, “in his reign the
Olympic festival was first celebrated” was originally attached to the name of Osorkon. Since the first
Olympic festival is dated conventionally to the year 776 BCE, this applies to Osorkon III’s reign (800–772
BCE) not Pedubast I’s.
year equated with Shoshenq III’s eighth year in 832/831 BCE and both ending in 730
BCE at the time of Piye’s invasion of Egypt in his 20th year.
If the 22nd Dynasty is given the starting date of 945 BCE for the accession of
Shoshenq I, a date applied to it from Thiele’s incorrect Hebrew chronology based on the
Assyrian Eponym Canon, which is 52 years too low, then the dates used by Kitchen to
give him the dates for the 23rd Dynasty will correspondingly also be too low, although
by the time of Pedubast I’s accession the number has been reduced to 14 years difference
(Kitchen’s 818 instead of 832 BCE). The date of 945 has no corroboration, although
Kitchen thought his “dead reckoning” was supported by Thiele’s date for Rehoboam’s
fifth year/Shoshenq I’s 20th year in 925 BCE. The entire reconstruction of the 22nd to
25th Dynasties suffers from the imposition of Shoshenq I’s accession date of 945 instead
of the correct 997 BCE, making the chronology too short to accommodate the kings’
regnal years. This is seen above in the years given to Osorkon IV when he is dated to
730–715 by Kitchen, when Osorkon IV should be dated to 741–730 BCE as the last king
of the 22nd Dynasty and then as governor under Piye and Shabako. Osorkon IV
eventually came up against the Assyrian king Sargon in 716/715 BCE to whom he gave
12 horses as tribute. After that, Osorkon IV is not heard of again.
Table 38.7 gives the chronology of the 23rd Dynasty as discussed above.
Table 38.7: The 23rd Dynasty with regnal years and dates
King Regnal years Dates reigned BCE Anchor points BCE
Began to reign in Yr 8 of Shoshenq III (NLT 24
Shq III’s Yr 12 = Pedubast I’s Yr 5).
Yr 7 induction on I šmw [1] = I šmw 5 new moon in
Pedubast I 25 832/831–807
826.
Yr 14 induction on I šmw 19 new moon;
(incorrectly attributed to Yr 8) in 819.
12 yrs (11
Iuput I co-regent with 807–806 NLT 26 Yr 16 = Yr 2 Iuput I
Pedubast I)
Shoshenq VI 6 yrs 806–800 Khons roof date?
NLT 13 yr 28 = Yr 5 Takeloth III (5 yrs attributed
Osorkon III 28 800–772
to Osorkon III)
Takeloth III 13 772–759 None known
Rudamun 3 759–758/757 None known
Shoshenq VIa 25 758/757–732 Yr 19 = Yr 12 of Piye of 25th Dynasty in 738
732–730 (+ 19 after Present at Leontopolis in Piye’s 20th yr invasion in
Iuput II 2 to 730 + more
invasion) 730
Total 102 yrs 832–730
NLT = Nile Level Text.
Chapter 39
Finalizing the 24th and 25th Dynasties

During the final years of Shoshenq V, and continuing through the reign of
Osorkon IV (22nd Dynasty), Egypt fragmented. A local chief of the western Delta
(known as the Māshwash/Meshwesh), Tefnakht of Saïs, extended his boundary and
sought the loyalty of other local chiefs. In Piye’s 19th year, Tefnakht sailed south up the
Nile with a large army and besieged Herakleopolis, ruled by Peftjauawybast, who had
married the daughter of Rudamun (sixth king of the 23rd Dynasty).
The Victory Stela of Piye, dated to his 21st year, records how Piye responded to a
call for help from loyal Nubian commanders who were being attacked by Tefnakht’s vast
army. Piye ordered the local chiefs to fight, and deployed his own army to go to their
aid. The army proceeded to Thebes, Hermopolis, and Herakleopolis, slaughtering troops
and capturing ships on the way. At Herakleopolis, Piye’s troops challenged Tefnakht’s
army, which included King Namart of Hermopolis, King Iuput (Iuput II), Shoshenq of
Busiris, Djedamenefankh of Mendes and his son, commander of Hermopolis Parva,
Prince Bakennefi and his son Nesnaisu of Hesbu, and King Osorkon [IV] of Bubastis.
When Piye heard that a remnant of the opposing army had escaped, he was enraged and
vowed that he himself would go north after the celebrations of the New Year had taken
place. He said,
I will offer to my father, Amon, at his beautiful feast, when he makes his beautiful
appearance of the New Year, that he may send me forth in peace, to behold Amun at the
beautiful Feast of Opet, that I may bring his image forth in procession to Luxor at his
beautiful feast … and that I may bring him in procession to his house, resting upon his
throne, on the “Day of Bringing in the God” in the third month of the first season,
second day; that I may make the Northland taste the taste of my fingers.1
The Victory stela was dated to I 3ḫt 1 of Piye’s 21st regnal year; therefore, the
preceding events occurred in his 19th and 20th years, with Piye celebrating a New Year
between the first and second phases of the invasion. Piye personally took command of
the second phase after he celebrated the New Year at his city of Gebel Barkal in Nubia.
Then he and his army went north to Thebes, to celebrate the re-entrance of Amun in the
Opet festival on III 3ḫt 2 near the end of the feast.2
The date of the re-entrance given in advance of the feast seems set to fall at a
specific time, and, as noted previously, Amun’s re-entrance in his Amun festival fell
several days after the new moon. Casperson provides Table 39.1 for the years −730 and
−729 (731 and 730 BCE). Piye’s accession date is not known.
1
“The Victory Stela of King Piankhy (747–716 BC),”
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/piyevictorystela.html
2
Münster: Ugarit, 2002) 392.
Table 39.1: Piye’s 19th and 20th years in −730 and −729 (new moon listing from
−730 to −729)
Piye’s 19th regnal year (accession date unknown)
−730 1 25 −730 1 17 2051 12 8 6 1:01 6:43 177 6:43 44 6:42 −47
Piye celebrated New Year at Gebel Barkal in Nubia
−730 2 23 −730 2 15 2052 1 2 7 12:50 6:26 246 6:25 81 6:25 −1
−730 3 25 −730 3 17 2052 2 2 2 1:40 6:04 136 6:03 47 6:03 −15
Amun’s re-entrance on III 3ḫt 2 after the new moon on III 3ḫt 1
−730 4 23 −730 4 15 2052 3 1 3 15:33 5:43 225 5:42 106 5:41 37
−730 5 23 −730 5 15 2052 4 1 5 6:10 5:23 180 5:23 94 5:22 26
−730 6 21 −730 6 13 2052 4 30 6 21:07 5:12 262 5:12 158 5:12 76
−730 7 21 −730 7 13 2052 5 30 1 12:07 5:14 224 5:14 132 5:14 41
−730 8 20 −730 8 12 2052 6 30 3 2:55 5:28 192 5:29 94 5:29 −7
−730 9 18 −730 9 10 2052 7 29 4 17:09 5:49 259 5:49 156 5:50 51
−730 10 18 −730 10 10 2052 8 29 6 6:27 6:12 223 6:13 113 6:13 0
−730 11 16 −730 11 8 2052 9 28 7 18:33 6:33 298 6:34 175 6:34 54
−730 12 16 −730 12 8 2052 10 28 2 5:32 6:47 244 6:47 98 6:48 −24
Piye’s 20th regnal year includes part of the year of −729
−729 1 14 −729 1 6 2052 11 27 3 15:44 6:47 369 6:47 135 6:46 14
−729 2 13 −729 2 5 2052 12 27 5 1:36 6:33 183 6:32 51 6:32 −32
−729 3 14 −729 3 6 2053 1 21 6 11:33 6:13 263 6:12 95 6:11 16
−729 4 12 −729 4 4 2053 2 20 7 22:01 5:51 390 5:50 151 5:49 62
−729 5 12 −729 5 4 2053 3 20 2 9:24 5:30 220 5:29 112 5:29 39
−729 6 10 −729 6 2 2053 4 19 3 22:10 5:15 292 5:15 168 5:15 82
In the year −730 (731 BCE) a new moon fell on III 3ḫt 1, a day before Amun’s
re-entrance. This date can be attributed to Piye’s 19th year since during the following
year, −729 (730 BCE), his regnal year changed to his 20th year (though the date is
unknown), being the year prior to the writing of the Victory Stela in his 21st year.
The second phase of the campaign led by Piye defeated the alliance of northern
Egyptian rulers. Narmart fled to Hermopolis Magna, which was then besieged by Piye’s
troops. Sometime later, Namart surrendered and paid tribute to Piye. Peftjauawybast of
Herakleopolis also paid Piye tribute, praising him, for it was Piye’s troops who defeated
Tefnakht’s hold on his city. Subsequently, the cities of el-Lahun, Meidum, and el-Lisht
submitted. Memphis resisted, reinforced by 8,000 of Tefnakht’s troops. But Piye’s army
captured all the ships in the harbor and then using the ships’ masts and rigging scaled the
city wall. Iuput II and two Libyan chiefs surrendered to Piye and paid tribute. Further
north, at Heliopolis, Osorkon IV also surrendered, as did Nimlot of Hermopolis.
Tefnakht fled to an island in the Delta but sent a letter of submission to Piye. After Piye
had final control of Egypt, Namart was invited into the palace because he was clean and
did not eat fish, while Peftjauawybast, Iuput II, and Osorkon IV had to remain outside.
Having successfully conquered all of Egypt, Piye sailed south to Thebes and returned to
Napata, and apparently never again set foot in Egypt. Thus it was that the 22nd and 23rd
Dynasties ended in the year 730 BCE.
Tefnakht Establishes the 24th Saïte Dynasty

Sometime after the departure of Piye, Tefnakht set himself up again as king of
the western Delta founding what is now known as the 24th Saïte Dynasty. Saïs was an
ancient Egyptian town on the Canopic branch of the western Nile Delta.
24th Saïte Dynasty

Manetho gives the following information for the 24th Dynasty.
Fr. 64 (from Syncellus) ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS
The Twenty-fourth Dynasty.
Bocchôris of Sais, for six years: in his reign a lamb spoke … 990 years.
Fr. 65(a) (from Syncellus) ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS.

The Twenty-fourth Dynasty.
Bocchôris of Sais, for 44 years: in his reign a lamb spoke. Total, 44 years.
The Armenian version of Eusebius gives the same details for the 24th Dynasty as
Eusebius (above) except it omits the “Total, 44 years.” The Book of Sothis, No. 74, has:
“Bocchôris, 44 years. This king made laws for the Egyptians: in his time report has it
that a lamb spoke.”
The record is deficient in failing to mention Tefnakht. Only the name of
Bocchoris (with variant spellings) appears in Manetho as king of the 24th Dynasty,
though the dynasty is known to have had two kings. Bocchoris is the Greek rendering of
Bakenranef. In Africanus, Bocchoris is attributed six years, not given in
Eusebius/Armenian. The Book of Sothis assigns Bocchoris 44 years, which is transferred
from the total of 44 years for the dynasty given in Eusebius/Armenian. On the other
hand, the years totaled separately for the 23rd, 24th, and 25th Dynasties are all given 44
years by Eusebius/Armenian, so no reliability can be attached to this number. Table 39.2
outlines the 24th Dynasty anchor points.
Table 39.2: 24th Dynasty Anchor Points
King Years Dates Anchor points BCE
Athens Stela yr 8
Tefnakht’s Donation Stela: began to reign in western Delta in Shoshenq.
Tefnakht V’s 38th yr in 743. Submitted temporarily to Piye in 730.
After Piye’s departure in 730 Tefnakht regained position as king of Saïs
ca. 729
Bocchoris/
In Shabaka’s 2nd yr in 719/718 he killed Bocchoris
Bakenranef
To Whom Does the Athens Stela Refer?

Until 2004, it was thought by most scholars that Tefnakht reigned eight years
because the Athens stela dates to a year eight of a King Shepses Re Tefnakht.3 However,
some dissenting voices propose that the stela belongs to Stephinates of the 26th Saïte
Dynasty.4 To whom then does the eight years refer? In 2004, Olivier Perdu argued that
the Athens stela was similar in style, text, and format to one discovered from the second
year of Necho I’s reign of the 26th Saïte Dynasty, and therefore Shepsesre Tefnakht
could not be the same as Tefnakht of the 24th Dynasty, but was a contemporary of
Necho I.5
Perdu asserted that Shepsesre Tefnakht was Stephinates, or Manetho’s
Stephinathis of the 26th Saïte Dynasty. Manetho lists the first four kings of the 26th
Dynasty as Ammeris for 12 years, Stephinathis for seven years, Nechepsos (an unknown
3
K.A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 BC), (Warminster: Aris and Phillips,
1973, 1986, 1996) 139 §112, 372 §332; D. Kahn, “Did Tefnakht I Rule as King?” GM 173 (1999) 123-25.
4
K. Baer, “The Libyan and Nubian Kings of Egypt: Notes on the Chronology of Dynasties XXII to
XXVI,” JNES 32 (1973) 24.
5
O. Perdu, “La Chefferie de Sébennytos de Piankhy àPsammétique Ier,” Rd’É 55 (2004) 95-111;
“Tefnakht II,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefnakht_II
Nekauba) for six years, and Nechao (Necho I) for eight years.6 These kings reigned
contemporaneously with the last two kings of the 25th Nubian Dynasty: Shebitku ruling
16 years (discussed below), and Taharqa ruling 26 years.
Taharqa’s last year and Necho I’s last year both ended in 664 BCE when Assyria
sacked both Thebes and Memphis and installed Psammetichus I as first king of the 26th
Dynasty. The year 664 BCE is regarded as the first secure date in Egyptian history.
Working backwards, the 21 combined years of Stephinates, Nekau, and Necho I set
Stephinates first year in 685. This is five years after Taharqa began to reign in 690; thus,
Stephinates was contemporary with Taharqa from 685 to 678 BCE.
However, Perdu’s epigraphic evidence has not convinced all Egyptologists that
Stephinates should be identified with Shepsere Tefnakht. His criteria of a tripartite wig,
slender figure of the king, and the positioning of the head of the falcon-headed god in
stelae and temple wall reliefs has already appeared in the early 25th Dynasty, and
according to Perdu himself, as Kahn noted, is “similar in style to the stela of Tefnakht,
chief of the Meshwesh.”7 Kahn concluded, “The elements which Perdu used for dating
the stelae of King Shepses-Re to the end of the 25th dynasty already appear in the days
of Piankhy and Shabaka (and even earlier), contemporaries of the postulated reign of
Tefnakht I.”8 This appears to undermine any positive identification of Stephinates with
Shepsere Tefnakht. The eight years of the Athens stela may then belong to Tefnakht, a
contemporary of Piye.
Earliest Attestation of Tefnakht

Tefnakht’s earliest known attestation is year 36 of Shoshenq V on the Abemayor
stela. He is named there as “Great Chief of the Mā, Army Leader, and claimed to be
great Chief of the Libu.”9 In Shoshenq V’s 37th year, an Ank-Hor still claimed this title,
thus indicating that Tefnakht was probably challenging him for the leadership. In
Shoshenq V’s 38th year, Tefnakht’s donation stela claims he is “Great Chief of the
Entire Land” and attributes him religious titles indicating he controlled the western half
of the Delta.10 Kahn notes a donation stela held in the Michailides collection that
mentions “a donation of land by Shepses-Re Tefnakht in the vicinity of Saïs.”11 In 1999,
Kahn, citing Yoyotte,12 places the field in the far eastern area of the Delta, about nine
km north-east of Bubastis. Kahn points out that the Nubian occupation in land so far east
of Saïs would have prevented Shepsesre Tefnakht donating land in that vicinity if he
were Stephinates of the 26th Dynasty, and he reasons that Shepsesre Tefnakht must be
Tefnakht I not II.13
Perdu questioned Yoyotte’s identification of the site of the donated land,
proposing that it could have had a western location. Kahn, in 2009, conceded the
possibility.14 However, he goes on to note that the crowning of Tefnakht II and the
6
Africanus omits Ammeris given in Eusebius/Armenian/Book of Sothis as its first king.
7
D. Kahn, “The Transition from Libyan to Nubian Rule in Egypt: Revisiting the Reign of Tefnakht,” The
Libyan Period in Egypt: Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st-24th Dynasties: Proceedings of a
Kaper; Leiden: NINO, 2009) 142; “Tefnakht II,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefnakht_II
8
Ibid., 143.
9
Kitchen, TIP, 362 §324; see also Kahn, “Did Tefnakht I Rule as King?” 123.
10
Ibid., 362 §324, 355 §316.
11
Kahn, “Did Tefnakht I Rule as King?” 123.
12
J. Yoyotte, “Notes et documents pour server a l’histoire de Tanis,” Kêmi 21 (1971) 37-40 cited by Kahn,
“Revisiting the Reign of Tefnakht,” 143.
13
Kahn, “Did Tefnakht I Rule as King?” 124-25.
14
Ibid., 143.
establishment of a new 26th Saïte Dynasty (not alluding to Ammeris as the possible first
king) was not likely while Taharqa was ruling in the Delta.15 Kahn concludes that
Shepsesre Tefnakht is Tefnakht I to whom he attributes the eight years of the Athens
Stela.16
How Should the Eight Years of the Athens Stela be Applied?

I agree with Kahn that Shepsesre Tefnakht is Tefnakht I of the 24th Saïte
Dynasty. The issue of identifying Shepsesre Tefnakht as Tefnakht I has been clouded by
incorrect dates attached to his reign, and those of the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties, by
scholars who assign him only a couple of years before Piye’s invasion, and only five or
six years thereafter. For example, Kitchen wrote that Tefnakht counted his years by
Shoshenq V as witnessed by the year 38 in Tefnakht’s donation stela before Shoshenq V
was replaced by Osorkon IV shortly before the invasion of Piye. Kitchen says that
Tefnakht “only adopted royal titles after that campaign” and there was no reason to
back-date his years before the invasion.17 In 2009, Kitchen gave to Shoshenq V the years
767–730 and to Osorkon IV 730–715, and to Tefnakht I the years 728–721 BCE. These
dates do not show the true picture concerning the length of Tefnakht’s reign nor when he
reigned.
Tefnakht I’s First Year is 743 BCE

Tefnakht’s donation stela places him in the 38th year of Shoshenq V. This year
dates to 743 BCE, confirmed by Shoshenq V’s year 12 Apis bull enthronement date of
IV prt 4 occurring in 769 BCE as discussed in the previous chapter. Eight years earlier,
the date would be 750, the first year of Piye’s reign, since his 20th year is dated to 730.
The eight years of the Athens stela applies to the period that Tefnakht was the adversary
of Piye and challenging Ank-Hor for control of the western Delta (Abemayor stela).
Apparently gaining control of the western Delta in 743 BCE contemporary with
the first year of Osorkon IV of the 22nd Dynasty (in Bubastis), Tefnakht would have
been in his 14th year in Piye’s 20th year invasion. (See the correlation shown in Table
39.11 at the end of this chapter). Osorkon IV, and Iuput II (of Leontopolis, last king of
the 23rd Dynasty) submitted to Piye followed by Tefnakht for a while, but after Piye’s
departure Tefnakht reigned as king of the 24th Dynasty until Bocchoris/Bakenranef
succeeded him.
End of Tefhakht’s Reign Located by Correlated Information

The end of Tefhakht’s reign and the accession of Bocchoris can be determined by
correlating certain events.
Bocchoris was killed by Shabaka/o (Piye’s successor) in Shabaka’s second year
in 719 BCE. Various Apis bull burial stelae indicate that a bull died in Bocchoris’ fifth
year on II šmw 29 and the interment of the bull after 70 days took place in Bocchoris’
year six on I 3ḫt 6.18 Therefore, Bocchoris reigned at least into his sixth year, with his
sixth year beginning between the two dates.
The Apis bull’s burial is identified with the burial in the second year of
Shabaka’s reign. Kitchen writes, “The wall-inscription of Shabaka’s Year 2 was in the
same chamber as the Apis burial of Year 6 of Bakenranef.”19 This provides the equation
15
Ibid., 143-47.
16
Ibid., 148.
17
Kitchen, TIP, xxxv (emphasis his).
18
Kahn, “Revisiting the Reign of Tefnakht,” 141.
19
Kitchen, TIP, 141-42 §114 n. 247.
that the second year of Shabaka was the sixth regnal year of Bocchoris (discussed further
below). Shabaka’s second year was 719, so five or six years earlier, Bocchoris’ reign
must have commenced in 725/724 BCE. This provides the end date of Tefnakht I’s
reign. Altogether, Tefnakht can be assigned 26–27 years from the first year of Piye’s
reign in 750 till he died in 724 BCE, which equates to Piye’s 26th year.
Formerly identified as having come from a line of Chiefs of the Mā and Libu
tribes, a stela published in 2000 by P.R. Del Francia claims Tefnakht was the son of a
Gemnefsutkapu and the grandson of Basa, a priest of Amun near Saïs, and if so,
Tefnakht came from a family of priests.20
Bocchoris/Wahkare Bakenranef
Tefnakht I was succeeded by his probable son Bocchoris, who, as noted above,
reigned from ca. 724 to 719 BCE, 719 being the second year of Shabaka. It is not known
when in his sixth year Bocchoris died, but the six years given him by Manetho probably
indicates that he reigned at least five and a half years, with his 6th possibly extending
into 718 but still in Shabaka’s 2nd year (719/718).
Bocchoris’ resistance against the Nubian king Shabaka, brother and successor of
Piye, in the siege of Saïs, resulted in Bocchoris being burned alive, as recorded by
Manetho. Year two of Shabaka indicates the year of the death of Bocchoris. Shabaka’s
year two can be further established from the date for an Amun feast in Shebitku’s third
year (see further on pages 590ff. below). Shebitku was the son of Piye, a brother of
Shabaka and the latter’s successor.
Summary of 24th Dynasty

The 24th Saïte Dynasty can be shown in Table 39.3.
Table 39.3: 24th Saïte Dynasty with Regnal Years and Dates
King Regnal Years Date BCE Anchor points BCE
Athens Stela yr 8
Tefnakht’s Donation Stela: began to reign in western Delta
As adversary
in Shoshenq. V’s 38th yr in 743. Submitted temporarily to
Tefnakht of Piye: 7 + 750–743–730–724
Piye in 730.
14 + 5 = 26
After Piye’s departure in 730, Tefnakht regained position as
king of Saïs ca. 729
Bocchoris/
6 724–719/718 In Shabaka’s 2nd yr in 719/718 he killed Bocchoris
Bakenranef
32 750 – 719/718
25th Nubian Dynasty

Manetho gives the following information for the 25th Dynasty.
Fr. 66 (from Syncellus). ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS
The Twenty-fifth Dynasty consisted of three Ethiopian kings.
1. Sabacôn, who, taking Bochchôris captive, burned him alive, and reigned for eight
years.
2. Sebichôs, his son, for 14 years.
3. Tarcus, for 18 years.
Total, 40 years.
Fr. 67 (a) (from Syncellus). ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS
20
P.R. Del Francia, “Di una statuette dedicate ad Amon-Ra dal grande capo dei Ma Tefnakht nel Museo
Egizio di Firenze,” Atti del V Convegno Nazionale di Egittologia e Papirologia, Firenze, 10-12 dicembre
1999 (ed. S. Russo; Firenze: Istituto Papirologico, 2000) 63-112, 76-82 cited by “Tefnakhte,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefnakht
The Twenty-fifth Dynasty consisted of three Ethiopian kings.

1. Sabacôn, who, taking Bochchôris captive, burned him alive, and reigned for 12 years.
2. Sebichôs, his son, for 12 years.
3. Taracus, for 20 years.
Total, 44 years.
The Armenian version of Eusebius and The Book of Sothis (Nos. 75, 76, and 77)
give the same details for the 25th Dynasty as Eusebius. For comparative purposes Table
39.4 is provided.
Table 39.4: Manetho’s 25th Dynasty
Eusebius/Armenian
King Africanus
& The Book of Sothis
1. Sabacon (Shabaka) 8 yr 12 yr
2. Sebichos (Shebitku) 14 yr 12 yr
3. Tarcus (Taharqa) 18 yr 20 yr
Total 40 yr 44 yr
Manetho’s versions and The Book of Sothis give only the names of three
Nubian/Kushite kings of the 25th Dynasty, and variants in the regnal years reigned. The
kings are identifiable as Shabaka, Shebitku, and Taharqa. Scholars usually attribute to
the dynasty three preceding kings: Alara, Kashta, and Piye; though Alara and Kashta
were Nubian kings, and Piye spent only one year in Egypt during his invasion.
There is an obvious discrepancy between Africanus and the other versions for all
three kings. Africanus, who is usually more reliable, differs also from the regnal years
assigned by recent scholars. For example, Kitchen gives to Shabaka 14–15 years, to
Shebitku 12–13 years, and to Taharqa 26–27 years.21
The earliest date that can now be established for the 25th Dynasty is Piye’s
accession, because his 12th year is synchronized with the 19th year of the unnamed king
on the Wadi Gasus graffito. Previous discussion identified this king as Shoshenq VIa,
and his 19th year/Piye’s 12th dates to 738 BCE because the end of the 22nd and 23rd
Dynasties occurred in Piye’s 20th year in 730 BCE.
Piye’s 20th Year is 730 BCE; His Accession is 750 BCE

The date of 730 is 267 years from the beginning of the 22nd Dynasty under
Shoshenq I in 997 BCE. This must be compared to Manetho’s subtotals of 25 (emended
to 125) and 42 (emended to 142) years, respectively. Anchor points that establish lunar
dates throughout the 22nd Dynasty corroborate the time span. Thus Piye’s accession year
is 20 years before 730, in 750 BCE.
Piye’s Length of Reign

Evidence for a 30th regnal year for Piye comes from a damaged year on a
bandage scrap from Western Thebes (BM No. 6640), thought to be a year 30, and refers
to a Sneferre Piye.22 A scene depicting Piye celebrating a Heb sed-festival carved on the
Great Temple at Gebel Barkal near Napata also suggests he reigned 30 years.23 Table
39.5 shows Piye’s length of reign, and is completed later in this chapter.
21
K.A. Kitchen, “The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology–A Reconsideration,” Ä und L
16 (2006) table p. 307.
22
Idem, TIP, 152 §123 n. 292, 370 §330 n. 732, 559 §473.
23
“Piye,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piye
Table 39.5: 25th Dynasty (from the reign of Piye)

King No. of years Dates BCE
Piye 30 750–720
Shabaka
Shebitku
Taharqa
The length of Piye’s reign can also be determined by taking into account that the
Apis bull that died in Bocchoris’ fifth year, and was buried early in his sixth year, is the
same bull attributed to year two of Shabaka in the latter’s wall inscription. As discussed
above, the proposed date is 719 BCE. Thus Piye died the previous year in 720, giving to
him a reign of 30 years.
Shabaka: Working Backwards from Shebitku

Piye’s date of death can be further confirmed by dating Shebitku’s third year for
which there is a feast dated to a new moon. Thus we work backwards from Shebitku’s
third year to confirm the length of Shabaka’s and Piye’s reigns. On the British Museum
cube statue (BM 24429) a man named Ity is clearly dated to year 15, 11th day of the
month Payni (II šmw 11) of Shabaka.24 So Shabaka reigned at least 15 years, which is up
from Africanus’ 8 years and the other versions giving 12 years.
If Piye reigned for 30 years down to 720 BCE and Shabaka reigned 15 years, his
15th year will have fallen ca. 705 and Shebitku’s third year ca. 703.
Shebitku’s Accession Year

The accession year for Shebitku can be established by dating a new moon that
fell in a feast of Amun in Shebitku’s third year, noted by Krauss. Krauss refers to this as
a Tepi Shemu feast; that is, occurring in I šmw .25
Kitchen refers to the date from Nile Level Text No. 33 from which he translates:
Year 3, x month of Shomu, Day 5, under the majesty of … (titles) … Shebitku, beloved
of Amen-re, Lord of the Throne(s) of the Two Lands, […]. Now, His Majesty appeared
in the Temple of Amun, (when) he (= Amun) granted to him that he should appear with
the two serpent-goddesses/to the Two Lands, like Horus on the throne of Re. His father
26
Amun the great has accorded him an exceedingly great inundation …
The month of the feast is illegible. This Nile Level Text, giving a year three for
Shebitku, is the only regnal year we have from his reign. Kitchen notes that the
“appearing” can refer to any “public appearance” of a king. He writes, “In the 3rd year of
Shebitku, this feast evidently coincided with the inundation – and with a visit to Amun
of Karnak (on his feast-days) by the king in person …”27 The visit of Shebitku to Thebes
clearly coincided with an Amun feast, and if a Tepi Shemu feast, can be dated to the
month of I šmw. The date refers to the king arriving at the temple on ? šmw 5, so we
would expect a new moon date following within five days of that date when Amun
himself entered. Casperson provides Table 39.6 for the year −703 (704 BCE).
24
Kitchen, TIP, 153-54 §125.
25
Altägyptens (HÄB 20; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1985) 166-67.
26
27
Ibid., 170-71 §137.
Table 39.6: Shebitku’s third year Amun feast in −703 (new moon listing from −703)
−703 9 19 −703 9 11 2079 8 7 4 21:51 5:50 272 5:51 169 5:51 67
New moon falls on I šmw 7
−703 9 19 −703 9 11 2079 8 7 4 21:51 5:50 272 5:51 169 5:51 67
−703 10 19 −703 10 11 2079 9 7 6 12:32 6:13 241 6:14 135 6:15 29
−703 11 18 −703 11 10 2079 10 7 1 1:49 6:34 205 6:35 95 6:36 −17
The table shows that a new moon occurred on I šmw 7 in −703 (704 BCE) on
October 19, indicating that a new moon fell on the second day after the given date of ?
šmw 5; that is, I šmw 5. The new moon date in Shebitku’s third year in 704 indicates his
accession in 706.
Shebitku’s Reign and Tang-i Var Inscription

Until the end of the 20th century, scholars thought that Shebitku reigned 12 years
(given by Eusebius), and he was assigned dates ca. 702–690 BCE.28 New evidence from
the Tang-i Var inscription indicates that Shebitku must have been king of Nubia by 706
BCE.
Tang-i Var has 50 lines of text, much of it damaged, inscribed in a cliff face in
Iran depicting an Assyrian monarch. It was found by the Archaeological Service of Iran
in 1968, but was made accessible to English readers only in 1999 by Grant Frame.29
Frame notes that the relief gives an account of an Assyrian campaign against Karalla in
the Zagros mountains, which the Assyrian Eponym Canon dates to Sargon II’s 16th
regnal year in 706, his penultimate year.30 The relevant text for our study, lines 19–21, is
translated by Frame from photographs provided him by Dr. F. Vallett taken in 1971.31
He translates:32
19) I plundered the city of Ashdod. Iamani, its king, feared [my weapons] and … He fled
to the region of the land of Meluhha and lived (there) stealthfully (literally; like a thief).
20) Sapataku’, (Shebitku) king of the land of Meluhha, heard of the mig[ht] of the gods
Aššur, Nabû (and) Marduk which I had [demonstrated] over all lands, …
21) He put [Iamani] in manacles and handcuffs … he had him brought captive into my
presence.33
The Assyrian Display Inscription, lines 90–112, also relates how Iamani of
Ashdod had fled from Sargon II and sought refuge with an unnamed Nubian king, and
subsequently Iamani was extradited back to Sargon. It is supplemented by the Display
Inscription from Room IV, line 14, both describing how the king of Meluhha (i.e. Nubia)
had been overwhelmed by the gods of Assyria and caused Iamani to be placed in iron
handcuffs and his feet shackled and sent back to Sargon.34 Both Display Inscriptions date
to Sargon’s 15th year, 707–706, but don’t mention the king of Nubia by name. This
information is now provided by the Tangi-i Var inscription that names Shebitku as the
28
Idem, “Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt (Absolute Chronology I): The Historical
Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a Current Assessment,” SCIEM II (2000) 50.
29
G. Frame, “The Inscription of Sargon II at Tangi-i Var,” Orientalia 68 (1999) 31-57.
30
Ibid., 48-52.
31
Ibid., 31-35.
32
Ibid., 40.
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid., 52-53.
king of Nubia who extradited Iamani back to Sargon. The date is further confirmed by
the mention of the Assyrian expedition to Karalla in its text, which agrees with the
Assyrian Eponym Canon record of a campaign to Karalla undertaken by Sargon’s army
in 706 BCE, though he himself seems not to have been present.35
Allowing time for the carving of the relief after the campaign, and the
inauguration of Sargon’s new capital Dūr Ŝarrukīn on the sixth day of the second month
of 706 before Sargon’s death the following year in 705 in the summer month of Abu,
places Iamani’s extradition in 706 BCE. This agrees with the date of the display
inscriptions that the extradition of Iamani took place in Sargon’s 15th year; therefore, in
706. Named on the Tangi-i Var inscription as the king who sent Iamani back to Sargon,
Shebitku must have already been king of Nubia in 706.36 The combined evidence of the
Amun festival date and the Tang-i Var inscription, confirm Shebitku’s first year as 706.
When Frame published the Tang-i Var inscription, he relied on the annals of
Sargon to date Shebitku’s accession, which had to occur before Sargon died in 705,
without reference to the Amun festival new moon date for Shebitku’s third year.
Nevertheless, the 706 BCE date was four years earlier than 702, which scholars
had previously reckoned for Shebitku’s accession. Commenting on the implications for
the Tangi-i Var inscription in 1999 (the same year Frame published the stela), Donald
Redford placed Shebitku’s accession before the death of Sargon II in 705.37 He said that
the highest attested year for Shabaka (Shebitku’s predecessor) is his 15th year found on
the cube statue (BM 24429). Thus if Shebitku’s first year is 706, then 15 years earlier
Shabaka’s first year must be no later than 720, and his conquest of Egypt was in his
second year in 719.38 As noted above, this date coincides with Bocchoris’ sixth year, and
his death at the hands of Shabaka.
Shabaka’s Years?
However, Redford found a “major difficulty” because in the decade preceding
713/712 BCE, neither the Assyrian nor biblical records mention a Kushite king ruling
over Egypt, which meant that Shabaka’s first year fell in 713 or later, and his 15th year
in 699. This, of course, dates him in years proposed for Shebitku’s reign starting in 706.
Redford did not propose a co-regency but a “bifurcation in the government” in which
Shabaka took control of Egypt, and by his eighth year had assigned Nubia to Shebitku.39
Responding to this suggestion in 2001, Dan’el Kahn said that in the years of the
proposed divided administration (eighth to 15th years of Shabaka), it would be
inconceivable that the two rulers, both operating out of Thebes, would date by two
different dating systems—equating the second year of Shebitku to the tenth year of
Shabaka.40 Kitchen’s response in 2000 to Frame’s article was to argue that Shebitku was
not king in 706, but a de facto viceroy in Nubia on his brother’s behalf while Shabaka
reigned from Memphis.41 Alternatively, he suggested a revised chronology in which the
four extra years that are required to accommodate the new dates for Shebitku could be
absorbed in the “slack” of the 22nd Dynasty before the 24th/25th Dynasties began, while
35
Ibid., 51.
36
Ibid., 54.
37
D.B. Redford, “A Note on the Chronology of Dynasty 25 and the Inscription of Sargon II at Tangi-i
Var,” Orientalia 68 (1999) 58-60.
38
Ibid., 59.
39
Ibid., 60.
40
D. Kahn, “The Inscription of Sargon II at Tangi-i Var and the Chronology of Dynasty 25,” Orientalia
70 (2001) 6.
41
Kitchen, “Regnal and Genealogical Data,” 50.
keeping the commencement date for the 22nd Dynasty at 945 BCE. In his revision,
Kitchen accordingly dates Shoshenq V’s reign from 769 to 732 (up from 767–730) and
dates Osorkon IV’s reign 732–716, giving him an extra year with a start two years earlier
(up from 730–715). He writes, “All perfectly feasible, but the first solution eliminates
the need for any adjustment at all.”42 However, in the synchronization of the 22nd with
the 23rd Dynasty, Kitchen did not address the problem of the reign of Takeloth III of the
23rd Dynasty, giving to him only two sole-reign years and five co-regent years of the 13
sole-reign years he is now known to have reigned.
Kitchen’s dates for the 23rd Dynasty are not able to absorb these extra 12 years
or even 10 when starting with the date of 818 BCE. So, regardless of whether he absorbs
the extra four years in the 22nd Dynasty to allow Shebitku’s reign to start in 706, he still
has a problem with the years of the 23rd Dynasty. If given the extra 11(?) years required
for Takeloth III, the synchronism between Pedubast I’s first year and Shoshenq III’s
eighth year will be pushed up 11 years, consequently putting the dates of the 22nd
Dynasty beyond the imposed limit of 945 BCE.
Kahn’s 2001 article ruled out a co-regency between Shabako (Shabaka) and
Shebitku (Shabatka), and the postulated division of Egypt and Nubia under Shabaka and
Shebitku, respectively. Then, based on the Tangi-i Var inscription, Kahn dates
Shebitku’s accession to no later than 707/706 BCE. He dates Shabaka’s accession to 721
giving him 15 years.43 Thus Shabaka’s second year, when he re-conquered Egypt, is 720
BCE, which Kahn proposes as the sixth and last year of Bocchoris of the 24th Dynasty,
bringing that dynasty to an end.44
Kahn also proposes that Piye ascended the throne of Nubia in 753 and died in
722/721 BCE, giving him a reign of 33 years.45 In 2006, Kahn wrote another article in
which he reviewed evidence, or lack of it, for co-regencies in the 25th Dynasty.46 He
concluded that some scholars “like Kitchen, Hoffmeier and von Beckerath accepted a co-
regency in order not to change their former [chronology] … Thus, according to the cited
facts at hand, there is no objective evidence for a co-regency between Shabaka and
Shebitku.”
Kitchen Protests
In 2009, Kitchen again argued that Shebitku was not king in 706 BCE. For
example, he writes:
Because Sargon II seeks the repatriation of Yamani of Ashdod from Shebitku
(“Shapataka” in a text, not an event!) dated in 706 BC, it has been glibly and very
superficially assumed that Shebitku was reigning as pharaoh in Egypt in 706. This is 4
years before 702, so Shabaka in turn has to be set 4 years earlier also (say, 720/719–706
BC) and likewise Piye and all else in turn … Unfortunately, this view is superficial,
misleading and contradicted by the overall evidence.47
He goes on to list his main arguments, which are briefly excerpted here.
42
Ibid., 51.
43
Kahn, “Tangi-i Var and the Chronology of Dynasty 25: Redford, “Note on the Chronology of Dynasty
25,” 8.
44
Ibid., 10-11.
45
Ibid., 13, 18.
46
D. Kahn, “Was there a Co-regency in the 25th Dynasty?” The Ancient Sudan. Releases of the Sudan
Archaeological Society of Berlin e V (MittSAG) 17 (2006) 9-17.
47
K.A. Kitchen, “The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: An Overview of Fact and Fiction,” The Libyan
Period in Egypt: Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st ‑24th Dynasties: Proceedings of a
Conference at Leiden University, 25‑27 October 2007 (eds. G.P.F. Broekman, R.J. Demarée, and O.E.
Kaper; Leiden: NINO, 2009) 162.
(i) In 716 BC, Sargon found the Delta dynasts still in control in Egypt … In 716,
Shabaka had not yet swept through Egypt, ridding it of the claims of Bakenranef in
Memphis and of the other four petty rulers in Delta and Nile Valley alike.48
(ii) Shebitku is not termed king of Egypt in the text of Tang-i-Var—but ruler of
“Meluhha”, i.e. Nubia/Kush, NOT Egypt (which would have been Musri); this is
precisely analogous with the biblical terminology for Taharqa as ‘king of Kush’ (again,
NOT Egypt, (Misraim in Hebrew) in 701).49
(iii) The year 706 was almost certainly NOT the date on which Sargon demanded the
extradition of Yamani from the Nile valley. It is only the date of the Tang-i-Var
inscription, a fact widely overlooked. It has been forgotten by some that the entire
textual evidence for the reign of Sargon II of Assyria very clearly places Yamani’s flight
by ship in 712 (Tadmor) or 711 (Fuchs); the date at which the Assyrians actually
requested him back from the Nile Valley is another matter. To delay that request to 707,
by an interval of 4 or 5 years … is surely, wildly excessive … the demand from Sargon
II to the regime on the Nile would have been smartly passed up to his Nubian deputy
Shebitku by Shabaka … in 711/710 at latest, most likely.50
Kitchen concludes:
Thus, we can forget any idea (i) that Sargon’s demand from Shebitku [via Shabaka] ever
happened as late as 706 BC, or that (ii) 4 years can be arbitrarily added to Shebitku’s
reign in Egypt, simply on a failure to deal properly with the overall Assyrian sources for
the wars of Sargon II (from Tang-i-Var or any other source) … It has no direct bearing
on Egyptian royal chronology during the 25th Dynasty.51
Kitchen’s Chronology Awry

Kitchen’s misunderstanding of when the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties ended is
obvious from his vehement denial that Shebitku was king of Egypt in 706 BCE. Because
his chronology is too short to have the dynasties terminating in 730–728 when he dates
Piye’s invasion, he is led to believe that it took place in 716/715 when Osorkon IV, as
last king of the 22nd Dynasty, paid tribute to Sargon II by giving him 12 great horses.
Thus Kitchen ends the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th Dynasties all in 715! Kitchen’s last date for
Piye is in 716, because Bakenranef died in Shabaka’s second year, thus in 715. This is
four years later than his actual second year in 719, not at the supposed end of the
dynasty in 715. Since Shabaka has at least 15 regnal years known, Kitchen places
Shebitku’s accession 14 years later in 702 BCE.
Kitchen’s incorrect chronology makes him adamant that Shebitku could not have
been king of Egypt in 706 BCE, and gives the reasons above for making his reign begin
four years later. Kitchen does not realize that in 730 the kings and minor rulers of Egypt
had all submitted to Piye. Osorkon IV, Iuput II, and Tefnakht resumed rule over their
realms in the Delta. Thus when Sargon II threatened the Delta in 716 BCE, it was
Osorkon IV who was still nominally in control of Bubastis, and Osorkon IV who paid
tribute to Sargon. In 2009, Kitchen makes no mention of the Amun feast date in
Shebitku’s third year, although Krauss had mentioned in 1985 that a Tepi Shemu feast
fell on the first to fifth lunar month day.52 By using Casperon’s Table 39.7, we can check
Kitchen’s dates to see if, in 700 BCE (−699)—or one year either side—there was a new
moon on or soon after I šmw 5.
48
Ibid.
49
Ibid., 163.
50
Ibid. Kitchen’s emphasis.
51
Ibid., 163-64.
52
Krauss, Sothis- und Monddaten, 166. He corrected Kitchen’s (mis)understanding that it fell in the first
five days of I šmw (166 n. 2).
Table 39.7: Amun Feast in Shebitku’s third year: Kitchen’s proposal (new moon
listing from −700 to −698
−700 10 15 −700 10 8 2082 9 4 6 12:45 6:10 223 6:11 126 6:12 28
−699 11 3 −699 10 27 2083 9 23 5 8:17 6:24 216 6:25 114 6:26 13
−698 10 23 −698 10 16 2084 9 12 2 15:25 6:16 278 6:17 162 6:17 46

In −699 (700 BCE) the new moon fell on I šmw 23; therefore, not near the date of
the feast on day five. In the previous year, −700, the new moon fell on I šmw 4, coming a
day before the feast indicated on day five. For Amun feasts, the day of the new moon
comes within five days after the beginning of the feast date, not before it. In the year
−698 the new moon fell on I šmw 12, and is not within the five days from the beginning
of the feast, since the latest date the feast could have started on is the fifth.
Neither the date of 700 BCE, which Kitchen proposes as the third year of
Shebitku, nor the year either side of this date, are applicable to the Amun feast date of I
šmw 5. The lunar data do not support Kitchen’s assertion that Shabaka ruled from 702
BCE. Instead, the lunar date shown earlier in Table 39.6 demonstrates that the year 704
is the third year of Shebitku. The year 706 is his first year as Frame and other scholars
have asserted.
End of Shebitku’s Reign and Taharqa’s Succession

The full length of Shebitku’s reign is not attested from any known inscriptions.
However, Taharqa succeeded him in 690 BCE, so Shebitku must have reigned from 706
to 690, some 15–16 years. Manetho, via Africanus, gives him 14 years, and
Eusebius/Armenian and The Book of Sothis 12 years, perhaps indicating damage or
transmission error.
Shebitku’s accession in 706 and Piye’s death in 720 indicate that Shabaka
reigned from 720 to 706 BCE, or 14+ years, which corroborates the year 15 on the
British Museum cube statue (BM 24429) earlier cited.
Taharqa
Taharqa was the son of Piye and younger brother of Shebitku whom he
succeeded. In 701, in the 24th year of Hezekiah of Judah,53 when Taharqa was 20 years
old and not yet king, he led the army of his brother Shebitku into Palestine.54 The
Assyrians were ravaging the land, including Lachish and Libnah and intent on razing
Jerusalem. By the biblical account, when the Assyrians, led by Shalmaneser V, heard
that the Egyptian army led by Taharqa was on its way to fight them in aid of the king of
Judah, they told Hezekiah not to rely on the might of Egypt. But Hezekiah prayed to God
and that night the Assyrian army was struck down with a great slaughter. Shalmaneser
departed to Assyria, and Jerusalem was saved (2 Kgs 18:13–19:36; 2 Chr 32:1–22). Only
nine years later did Taharqa became king of Egypt in 690 BCE.
According to Assyrian records, Sennacherib reigned 25 years. He died in 680/679
and was succeeded by Esarhaddon who reigned 12 years down to 668 BCE. Esarhaddon
53
2 Kgs 18:13 and Isa 36:1 give the 14th year of Hezekiah, but should be emended to the 24th, since
Hezekiah’s first year began in the third year of Hoshea of Israel (2 Kgs 18:1) and this was in 724 BCE. See
Tetley, Divided Kingdom, 152-55, 161-63, 183, 186.
54
Tetley, Divided Kingdom, 155 and n. 13.
led campaigns against Taharqa in 677, 673, and 671, when he captured and sacked
Memphis, and Taharqa fled south to Nubia.
In 672 BCE, Esarhaddon appointed Necho I as king of the 26th Saïte Dynasty,
succeeding an unknown Nekau who reigned eight years according to Manetho.
Esarhaddon died en route to Egypt and his son Ashurbanipal succeeded him.
Ashurbanipal defeated Taharqa who fled to Nubia and later died there in 664 BCE after a
reign of 26 years.
Tarharqa’s Reign
The 26-year reign of Taharqa can be confirmed by the record of an Apis bull
born in Taharqa’s 26th year in 664 BCE. It was installed in Memphis on IV prt 9.
Previously, an Apis bull died at the end of the fifth year of Bocchoris in 719 and was
followed by another that lived until the 14th year of Shabaka in 707—a mere 12 years.
Its successor lived to the fourth year of Taharqa in 687/686 or about 20 years.55
As discerned by Krauss, installations of Apis bulls occurred on a full moon ±
three days so we can check this with a table supplied by Casperson (Table 39.8) for the
year −663 (664 BCE).
Table 39.8: Taharqa’s 26th year in −663 (full moon listing for −663)
−663 8 14 −663 8 7 2119 7 11 4 1:40 5:19 18:19
−663 9 12 −663 9 5 2119 8 10 5 17:60 5:43 18:43
−663 10 12 −663 10 5 2119 9 10 7 9:21 6:11 17:11
DoW = day of week.
According to Table 39.8, the full moon fell on IV prt 10, the day after the given
date, which is within the three-day margin adduced by Krauss for the installation of an
Apis bull. It eventually died on IV šmw 20 in year 20 of Psammetichus I, having a
lifespan of 21 years.56
Another example of an Apis bull enthronement on a full moon ± three days in the
same century was that which occurred on III 3ḫt 12 in the 54th year of Psammetichus I
of the 26th Saïte Dynasty. The latter was Taharqa’s successor in Lower Egypt, while his
son Tantamani or Tanutamun ruled in the south, and was last king of the 25th Nubian
Dynasty.57 The installation of the Apis bull dates to the year 611 BCE (−610). See
Casperson’s Table 39.9, below.
Table 39.9: Psammetichus I’s 54th year in −610 (full moon listing from −610)
−610 3 3 −610 2 24 2172 2 10 4 17:22 6:22 17:22
−610 4 2 −610 3 26 2172 3 10 6 4:44 5:55 18:55
−610 5 1 −610 4 24 2172 4 9 7 17:17 5:30 18:30
DoW = day of week.
The full moon fell on III 3ḫt 10, two days before the given date of III 3ḫt 12 for
the installation of an Apis bull, within Krauss’ estimation of ± 3 days of a full moon.
55
Kitchen, TIP, 156 §126 (iii), 489 table 20; idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses,” 294.
56
R. Krauss, “Die Mahler-Borchardtsche These über die Apis-Inthronisationen bei Vollmond,” Acta
Prehistorica et Archaeologica, 39 (2007) 343.
57
Ibid., 172-73 §§138-39.
Summary of Reigns
Psammetichus I’s 54th year in 611 confirms that 54 years earlier his accession and the
death of his predecessor, Taharqa, took place in 664 BCE. Twenty-six years earlier again
Taharqa’s accession occurred in 690, which gives the terminal date for Shebitku. Since
Shebitku began to reign in 706 (third year dated by a new moon in 704 BCE), his death
in 690 provides him with a reign of 16 years. Taharqa’s 20 years, given in Manetho’s
versions (except Africanus), may be seen as a corruption from 26 years to 20 in the
Greek, where the “6” has been omitted. Eighteen from 26 in Africanus is difficult to
explain in the Greek, but could be accounted for in faulty transmission from an original
Egyptian text. An original 26 years written as in the hieroglyphic script could be seen as
18 years if the second ten-sign (reading right to left) had the top damaged and its two
vertical strokes understood as two separate strokes, thus read as 18. Compare the 26 on
the left with 18 on the right in Figure 39.1:
∩∩ ||∩
|||||| ||||||
Figure 39.1: Hieroglyphic script for the numbers 26 and 18.
Or there may be some other explanation. The foregoing discussion results in the
following regnal years and dates for the 25th Dynasty kings from Piye to Taharqa.
Table 39.10: 25th Dynasty (from Piye to Taharqa)
King No. of years Dates BCE
Piye 30 750–720
Shabaka 14 720–706
Shebitku 16 706–690
Taharqa 26 690–664
The chronology proposed for the 25th Dynasty from 750 to 713 BCE is
correlated with the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th Dynasties in Table 39.11 on the following page.
Table 39.11: Correlation of 25th Dynasty with 22nd, 23rd and 24th Dynasties, 750–
706 BCE
Date
25th Dynasty 22nd Dynasty 23rd Dynasty 24th Dynasty
BCE
= Tefnakht (8 years
750 1st Piye = 21st Shoshenq V = 7th Shoshenq VIa
prior to 743)
749
748
747
746
745
744
38th Shoshenq V
743 = 8th Tefnakht
/1st Osorkon IV
742
741
740
739
12th [Piye] =19th [Shq. VIa]
738
(Wadi Gasus graffito) (Wadi Gasus graffito)
737
736
735
734
733
732 25th Shoshenq VIa
731 1st Iuput II
20th Piye—invasion = 13th Osorkon IV—submits = 2rd Iuput II—submits = 21st Tefnakht
730
of Egypt to Piye; end of Dynasty 22 to Piye; end Dynasty 23 submits to Piye
729 Tefnakhte re-emerges
728
727
726
725
Hoshea of Israel appeals to 6th of Tefnakht since
“So” for help against invasion/1st
724
Shalmaneser V of Assyria Bocchoris
(2 Kgs 18:4) (Bakenranef)
723
722
721
Piye’s 30th/Shabaka’s 5th Bocchoris—Apis
720
1st bull dies
2nd Shabaka, 6th Bocchoris—killed
719 reconquest of Egypt; by Shabaka; end 24th
kills Bocchoris Dynasty
718
717
“27th” Osorkon IV—gives
716 horses as tribute to Sargon II;
last citation
715
714
713
“21st” Iuput II; last
712 9th Shabaka
citation
711
710
709
708
707
15th Shabaka/1st
Shebitku. Iamani of
706
Ashdod sent back to
Sargon II by Shebitku
The above correlation, based on the preceding discussion, gives a different

picture of the time period from 750 to 706 BCE than the one currently understood by
most scholars.58
Piye’s invasion of Egypt brought the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties to an end, being
267 years from the inception of the 22nd Dynasty on the accession of Shoshenq I in
(December) 998/997 BCE. This agrees with Manetho’s damaged subtotals for the 22nd
Dynasty of [1]25 years and [1]42 years for each division.
Conclusion
This work aimed to demonstrate that the year 977 BCE was the fifth regnal year
of Rehoboam of Judah synchronized with the 20th year of Shoshenq I of the 22nd
Egyptian Dynasty, and not the oft-quoted date of 925 BCE. Showing that the Egyptian
and Hebrew chronologies come together in the year 978/977 BCE has been the research
incentive for this compilation, which eventually turned out to be much broader than
initially contemplated.
A comprehensive examination of Egyptian calendars, and Sothic and lunar data,
provided information for the early stages of discussion. The early dynasties (1st–6th)
were composed largely from data of the Turin Canon, the Royal Annals, other king-lists
and lunar dates from the Abusir archives, especially the w3gy date in the reign of
Neferefre (5th Dynasty).
The early records of Manetho proposed a different dynastic affiliation from that
of the other sources. However, the later dynastic chronology (11th–12th Dynasties, and
20th–25th Dynasties) utilized Manetho’s records combined with many inscriptional texts
from stelae, papyri, and other sources, especially those providing Sothic or lunar dates.
The Sothic date from the seventh year of Sesostris III, together with new moon dates
from his reign and those of his son, Amenemhet III, provide dates for the 12th Dynasty.
The Ebers calendar, prescribing a Sothic date in the ninth year of Amenhotep I of the
18th Dynasty, is possibly the most valuable record in reconstructing the entire Egyptian
chronology, yet it has been “disallowed” by some scholars.
Manetho’s lists of his 18th Dynasty with its Delta provenance (different from that
of the monuments) are significant. They provide a correlation with the biblical period
including Ramesses II, his son Amenophis, and the Israelite enslavement and exodus
from Egypt under Moses. The chronology of 22nd–25th Dynasties supplies the years
from Shoshenq I in 998/997 BCE to the end of the reign of Taharqa in 664, which is the
secure starting point for ancient Egyptian history. Every year is accounted for in this
time period. It cannot be truncated to begin ca. 945 BCE.
The 2,725 years from Menes (the first king of the 1st Dynasty who began to rule
in 3389 BCE), through to Taharqa (the last king of the 25th Dynasty, whose rule ended
in 664 BCE) have been accounted for, even though the individual regnal years of the
kings of the First and Second Intermediate Periods are mostly unknown.
The length of the 22nd Dynasty, of 267 years (997–730 BCE) is matched year for
year with the dual chronologies of the kings of Israel and Judah as described in my The
Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom, which is based on the earliest extant
Greek and Hebrew texts of the biblical Books of 1 and 2 Kings. With three lines of
textual evidence in mutual agreement (the synchronized Judah/Israel pair in the divided
kingdom, and now the Egyptian line independently verified from multiple sources), the
conclusion can no longer be avoided that the Assyrian Eponym Canon, on which other
58
L. Depuydt’s attempt at a minimal chronology for the 25th Dynasty in “The Date of Piye’s Egyptian
Campaign and the Chronology of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty,” JEA 79 (1993) 269-74, even lower than
Kitchen’s proposal, is soundly criticized by Kitchen in TIP pp. xxxix-xli.
scholars have based their dates for the kings of Israel and Judah, and consequently
Egypt, is deficient in the number of years prior to the solar eclipse in 763 BCE.
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom has already suggested
where the years have been lost, composed of two periods of similar length; 22 years
from the reign of Shamshi-Adad V, and 21 years from the reign of Ashur-nirari III,
interspersed with years from the reign of Ashur-nirari III. When these 43 years are
reinstated into the eponyms of the years for these kings, the Assyrian Eponym Canon
reconciles with the years that are provided by the chronologies of Judah and Israel; and
now also, of Egypt. The Egyptian chronology as demonstrated above, vindicates the
assumed reliability of the Hebrew chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah as it was
written in its original record and transferred to the Books of 1 and 2 Kings. Present dates
given by scholars for the kings of Israel and Judah, Egypt, Assyria, and the entire ancient
Near East need to be revised (and updated) to revert to their true position in history.
ISBN 978-0-473-29463-2 www.egyptchronology.comm

The Reconstructed Chronology of The Egyptian Kings M. Christine Tetley

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Reconstructed Chronology of The Egyptian Kings M. Christine Tetley

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Reconstructed Chronology

of the Egyptian Kings

The Ebers Calendar is probably the most valuable chronological tool

ISBN 978-0-473-29463-2 www.egyptchronology.comm

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© B.W. Tetley, 2014

Ch. 1. Introduction to Problems with the Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt 1

Ch. 34. Revising the 21st Dynasty Once More 465

M. Christine Tetley, Th.D,

Barry Tetley - [email protected]

Table Description Page

Table 6.3: Translation of Cairo Calendar 86637, verso XIV 94

in −1831 to −1828 (new moon listing from −1831 to −1828)

Table 14.2: New moon dates in −2749 203

Table 22.1: Kings of the 11th Dynasty 330

−1500 (new moon listing from −1500)

3ḫt 22 in −1348 (new moon listing for −1348)

induction of Nespaneferhor (new moon listing from −1035 to

Note on Casperson Tables.

Figure Description Page

Figure 19.4: The Cairo 5 fragment. 270

CFEETK Centre Franco-Égyptien d'Étude des Temples de Karnak

RAD Ramesside Administrative Documents (ed. A. H. Gardiner; Griffith

The introductory chapter, “Problems with the Historical Chronology of

Chapter Two reprises the author’s findings in her Reconstructed Chronology of

In Chapters Three to Seven, Dr Tetley explains the importance to ancient

In Chapter Ten, Tetley finally offers her explanation to resolve previously

In Chapter 14, “Securing Neferefre’s W3gy Feast Date”, the previous

Chapter 15 introduces the fragmentary data that comprise early Egyptian

Chapter 18 introduces the Royal Annals. The Cairo 1 fragment is displayed.

Chapter 19. The fragmented chronological information about each successive

Chapter 24. As a delightful diversion, Hekanakhte’s parcel of previously

Chapter 25 reports of Dynasties 13 to 17, about which little can be

Chapter 32 addresses the discrepancies between Manetho’s chronology (in

Chapter 35 looks at other attempts to reconstruct the chronology of Dynasties 22

Working with Egyptian King-lists

Counting Regnal Years

so-called king-lists … recorded on the walls of tombs and temples,… papyri,… or

Royal Annals or Old Kingdom Annals

Toby Wilkinson, whose account of the annals was published in 2000,

The South Saqqara Stone

Figure 15.4: The South Saqqara Stone.

The Turin Canon

Figure 15.5: A portion of the Turin Canon.

In 1825, the French Egyptologist, Jean-François Champollion, attempted to

The Abydos King-list (AbKL)

Figure 15.6: A drawing by Peter Lundström of a reconstructed Abydos King-list.

Figure 15.7: Saqqara King-list as seen in 1864 by A. Mariette.

Figure 15.8: Karnak King-list as reconstructed by Peter Lundström.

Papyrus Westcar (pBerlin 3033)

Figure 15.9: Westcar papyrus.

Divisions of the Turin Canon and the AbKL

3.18 Semsem 72 7 Semsu Semerkhet

Turin Canon 3.11–4.26 Compared with the 1st–5th Dynasties of Manetho

Sneferu’s successor, who is alternatively known as Cheops. Therefore, Cheops/Khufu

Manetho Lists a Different Line of Kings

Order of Discussion Considering Neferefre’s Anchor Date of 2750 BCE

Recasting the 5th and 6th Dynasties

1. 1st lunar day IV ŝmw 17 in 8th yr (rnpt zp 4) in 2700

I begin with Neferefre whose reign has been discussed in chapter 14 in

A Lunar Date and a Regnal Year Assigned to Djedkare

Another Lunar Date

II šmw 18 can be assigned to Djedkare’s eighth year in 2700 BCE. Biennial