Customer Reviews

The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 1100-650 B.C. (Book & Supplement) (Egyptology)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Having read Kenneth Kitchen's 1986 2nd edition book on the Third Intermediate Period in Egypt(TIPE), I can attest to its excellent scholarship and clear prose. Kitchen was the first scholar to prove that a period of coregency existed between Pseusennes I and Amenenope in 1972. He also convincingly demonstrated that Karnak Quay Text No.13 equated Year 28 of Osorkon III with Year 5 of his son Takelot III, rather than Year 28 of Osorkon II to Year 5 of Takelot II, as scholars previously assumed. The author notes that Shebitku was most likely the Egyptian king who fought the Assyrians during the Battle of Eltekh in 701 BC. Kitchen's work is by far the standard treatment for this complex era. The author supports many of his arguments with an excellent use of various intricate genealogical, textual and chronological evidence which few readers can readily get access to. However, several remarks should be made on Kitchen's seminal work here.

Point #1: I must point out that an updated 3rd edition 1996 issue of this book has been released. In this latest publication, Kitchen accepts Karl Jansen-Winkeln's evidence in VA 3(1987) that Takelot I, rather than Takelot II, was the king Hedjkheperre Takelot who is attested by a Year 9 stela from Bubastis and the Owner of a Royal Tomb at Tanis. Evidently, both king Takelots shared the same prenomen: Hedjkheperre Setepenre; the main difference between the two Pharaohs is that Takelot II used the epithet Si-Ese to affiliate himself with Thebes. Jansen-Winkeln in VA 3(1987) published several inscriptions found written on this king's tomb walls which conclusively prove that Osorkon II buried his father, Takelot I, here. The presence of grave goods which named the known parents of Takelot I--namely a Gold Bracelet and Alabaster Jar of Osorkon I and an Ushabti figure of Queen Tashedkhons--in this partially disturbed burial also suggested that the Tomb belonged to this king. Kitchen accepts Aidan Dodson's evidence--in GM 137(1993)--for a king Hedjkheperre Sheshonq ('IV') who intervened between Sheshonq III and Pami. (Kitchen, TIPE 1996, pp.xxvi) Kitchen now ascribes Sheshonq III and the new Sheshonq 'IV' a reign of 39 Years and 13 Years respectively. The original Sheshonq IV in his 1972 and 1986 books has been renamed Sheshonq VI because he was a Theban, rather than a Tanite, king.

Pami's Highest Year Date is now his Year 7, as an Annal Document from Heliopolis--which records this ruler's Annual donations to the locals Gods of this city--attests. (Source: BIFAO 98 article) As an Aside, Takelot III's Highest Year date is now his Year 13, rather than his Year 7. It was found on a newly unearthed stela from the Dakhla Oasis by American excavators and published in JEOL 39(2005). In addition, Year 14 of Takelot III is most likely attested in Papyrus Berlin 3048 which F. Payraudeau, in a GM 198 (2004) article, argued belongs to this ruler rather than Takelot II on palaeographic and geneaological grounds. This would mean that Takelot III ruled Upper Egypt for a minimum of 14 Years.

Point #2: Professor Kitchen believes that Harsiese A was a High Priest of Amun before he became a king at Thebes around Takelot I or Osorkon II's reign. However, Karl Jansen-Winkeln, in a JEA 81(1995), pp.129-149 article, has demonstrated that all the Monuments of the first Harsiese show this individual to be only an Ordinary PRIEST OF AMUN--never a High Priest--albeit the son of the High Priest Sheshonq C (and thus the grandson of Osorkon I) before he became king. In response, Kitchen maintains that Harsiese A was a High Priest of Amun because he wishes to limit Osorkon II's reign to only 25 years. Kitchen does, however, accept Jansen-Winkeln's evidence that the inscriptions on the funerary lid of [..du], Harsiese A's son, show that [...du] was not a High Priest of Amun as previously thought. (Kitchen, TIPE 1996, pp. xxv)] Jansen-Winkeln also establishes in his JEA paper that it was rather the second Harsiese, Harsiese B, who became High Priest. Harsiese B served as the High Priest of Amun in the final years of Osorkon II's reign as statue CGC 42225 shows and survived into Sheshonq III's and Pedubast I's reign, as several Nile Level Texts from their reigns show. Altogether, Harsiese B was in office at Thebes for at least than 28 Years (3 Years under Osorkon II; 7-8 Years under Sheshonq III and a minimum of 18-19 Years under Pedubast I.) He is last attested in Year 19 of Pedubast I as Nile Level Text NLT #27 shows.

Point #3: Since the publication of Kitchen's 1986 and 1996 TIPE books, a brand new Egypt-Near Eastern synchronsym has been discovered for the Nubian Dynasty. Grant Frame, in a Vol. 68(1999) Orientalia paper, has established that it was Shebitku, rather than Shabaka, who extradited Iamanni to Sargon II(721-705 BC) of Assyria. This fact is revealed in the Tang-i Var inscription of Sargon II which is datable to 706 BC. Since Sargon II explicitly identifies Shebitku as the "King of the Land of Melunha," this strongly implies that Shebitku was already on the throne by 706 BC and vindicates Kitchen's long held view that Shebitku was the King of Egypt during the Battle of Eltekh in 701 BC. Dan'el Kahn, in an Orientalia 70, pp.1-18(2001) paper, has proposed a new Nubian Chronology based on this evidence and dates PIYE at 752-721 BC, SHABAKA at 721-707/706 BC and SHEBITKU at 707/706-690 BC. This more recent chronology has been accepted by several scholars including K. Jansen-Winkeln, R. Krauss and Aidan Dodson--the latter in a JEA 88(2002) paper on the God's Wife of Amun.

Point #4: In Kitchen's TIPE books, the author resolutely refuses to credit a reign of more than 25 Years to Osorkon II. This is based on Kitchen's belief that Osorkon II survived his son Prince Sheshonq D, for only a short while after the Burial of an Apis Bull in his Year 23. It is well known, however, that Osorkon II was predeceased by all 3 of his sons and that 2 of them--Sheshonq D and the High Priest Nimlot C at Thebes--reached maturity and bore at least one child in their own lifetimes. This alone suggests that Osorkon II enjoyed a considerably longer reign of between perhaps 30 to 40 Years. The fact that the High Priest Takelot F, son of Nimlot C, actually succeeded his father in office and served as the High Priest of Amun late under the reign of his own grandfather--Osorkon II--as the inscribed Walls of Temple J at Karnak prove, also points to this conclusion. (Aston, JEA 75(1989), p.147)

There is circumstantial evidence to show that Osorkon II survived into his 30th Year at the very least. The damaged Heb Sed inscription at the Great Hall of Bubastis could equally well be read as Year 30 of this king as Edward Wente pointed out long ago in his JNES 35(1976) review of Kitchen's 1972 TIPE book--not just Year 22 as Kitchen had assumed. Moreover, there is compelling evidence which proves Osorkon II was alive in his 29th Year. Nile Level Text(NLT #14) is explicitly dated to Year 29 of an Usimare Setepenamun. Superficially, this king could be either Osorkon II or III since both used this Prenomen. However, NLT #13 states that Year 28 of Usimare Osorkon Si-Ese(ie. Osorkon III) equals Year 5 of his son, Takelot III. In the following year, however, NLT #4 is dated solely to Year 6 of Takelot III, while Osorkon III is omitted altogether. This can only mean that Osorkon III must have died before the Arrival of the Nile Floods at Thebes in his 29th Year. Accordingly, the Year 29 date for Usimare Setepenamun can only belong to Osorkon II. Gerard Broekman's recent analysis of the Karnak Quay Texts on pages 174-178 of his JEA 88(2002) article also dated NLT #14 to Osorkon II on epigraphic grounds. Consequently, one should more plausibly read the damaged Jubilee inscription of Osorkon II as Year 30, rather than Year 22, as Wente noted.

Point #5: Kitchen believes that Sheshonq II was the High Priest of Amun Sheshonq C, son of Osorkon I and Queen Maatkare, who served as his father's junior coregent but died before assuming the throne for himself. The author bases his view of a coregency on the discovery of bandages on the Ramesseum Mummy of Nakhtefmut which bears the inscription 'Year 33 Second Heb Sed' and 'Year 3 [Blank]' respectively. (p.308) Since Nakhtefmut wore a bracellet inscribed with Osorkon's prenomen--Sekhemkheperre--the Year 33 bandage can only belong to Osorkon I's reign. Kitchen's basic premise, however, that Year 33 of Osorkon I equals Year 3 of Sheshonq II is undermined by the fact that the dated inscriptions are on two completely separate bandages. The burial practices of the Temple Priests in this period, argues against such an interpretation. For instance, the Mummy of the Third Prophet of Amun, Djedptahiufankh bears separate bandages dating to Years 5, 6 and 11 of Sheshonq I or an interval of 6 Years while the Mummy of Khonsmaakheru in Hamburg contains bandages dating to Years 11, 12 and 23 of Osorkon I for a spread of 12 Years in their use. (H. Altenmuller, Alt-Agypten 30[2000]) Therefore, it seems probable that the Temple Priests simply reused whatever old or recycled bandages which they could procure for the mummification process regardless of the year when they were made. This means that the Year 3 bandage likely came from the reign of Osorkon I's successor and that no coregency occured in the first place.

The author's contention that Sheshonq II was the High Priest Sheshonq C who predeceased his father Osorkon I is weakened by the fact that not a single object from Sheshonq II's intact royal burial named Osorkon I. This is an IMPROBABLE situation if Osorkon I had to bury his son, as Kitchen's Chronology requires since Osorkon would surely have included heirlooms or jewellry mentioning himself and/or his wife Queen Maatkare in the burial. Other Tanite kings such as Takelot I and Amenemope retained grave goods naming their parents in their own tombs. However, the only other ruler mentioned in Sheshonq II's intact burial was Sheshonq I. (TIPE, pp.117-118) Since Sheshonq II employed a distinctive royal prenomen--Heqakheperre--on his funerary goods (cartonnage, pectorals, silver coffin, etc) and had a rich burial, he likely enjoyed a brief independent reign of c.2-3 Years at Tanis. This is the interpretation that J. Von Beckerath--who places Sheshonq II in the interval between Takelot I and Osorkon II--follows in his well regarded 1997 book, Chronologie des Pharaonischen Agypten.

Point #6: Finally, Kitchen's view that Takelot II succeeded Osorkon II is contradicted by the total abscence of references or monuments to Takelot II which contained his distinctive Si-Ese epithet in Lower Egypt. This is a strange situation for a king whose Highest date was his 25th Year, according to a donation stela from Thebes. In contrast, other Tanite Pharaohs such as Osorkon II, Sheshonq III and even the short-lived Pami are reasonably well attested in towns and cities throughout Lower Egypt. Most Egyptologists today including J. Von Beckerath in his aforementioned 1997 book, Karl Jansen-Winkeln in JEA 81(1995), Aidan Dodson in GM 137(1993), G. Broekman in GM 205(2005) pp.21-35 and M.A. Leahy accept the theory--first outlined by David Aston in a famous JEA 75(1989), pp.139-153 paper--that Sheshonq III, rather than Takelot II, succeeded Osorkon II at Tanis. Aston argued that Year 25 of Takelot II was equivalent to Year 22 of Sheshonq III based upon evidence from Osorkon B's Chronicle document. Takelot II, hence, ruled a separate kingdom in Upper Egypt concurrently with Sheshonq III who ruled Memphis and Lower Egypt since all of Takelot's monuments and those of his son--the well-known Crown Prince Osorkon B--are found only in Upper Egypt.

Other than these points, I wholeheartedly recommend Kitchen's excellent book to the lay reader. His book is a thoroughly balanced, rational, and well supported discussion of this rich and complex era of Egypt's long and distinguished history. It is required reading for this period which explains why it rests on the library shelves of virtually every major University in the world.

When I read Kenneth Kitchen's book "On the Reliability of the Old Testament", I was impressed by the depth and breadth of his knowledge and his very careful analysis of the available data on the Old Testament which relies heavily on his knowledge of the Third Intermediate Period of Ancient Egypt. The archaeological data for this period is often sparse and ambiguous, and not very well covered by other scholars. Many of the books I have read about Egypt quote his research on this subject and tend to use it as a basic reference to the political history of Egypt during this period. Since there is considerable difference of opinion between scholars about the sequence of events and persons during the greater part of this period, what better place to start than with his book on this subject.

The book focuses on the 20th through 26th Dynasties of Ancient Egypt, and is a detailed analysis of the available archaeological data for this period, which is then used to put some order into the sequence of the Pharaohs, High Priests, and other eminent families and persons during this period. The first edition of this book was published in 1972, and further revised in 1986. The current edition of the book which was published in 1996, includes a lengthy preface which deals directly with the various controversies which have erupted since the book was first published. It is therefore not exactly light reading.

The 1995 Preface, which is 33 pages long, includes Professor Kitchen's notes on the discussions of a number of major issues which challenge his interpretations. If the reader's knowledge of this period is weak, then this may be a difficult section to read, but it is worth reading it first in order to get some indication of what these issues are, and to get some idea of the position of those scholars who disagree with him. The book is in six parts, in the first three of which the author reviews the available archaeological data, analyses the various hypotheses which have been proposed, and puts forward his own conclusions as to the most likely interpretation of the data. These comprise:

Part I The Chronology of the 21st Dynasty. The five chapters in this section cover the basic sequences of Kings and High Priests of Amon, the lengths of reigns and Pontificates at both ends of the Dynasty, the middle years of the Dynasty, family relationships, and the author's summary and conclusions about the Dates, Reigns, and Pontificates of this dynasty.

Part II The Chronology of the 22nd to 25th Dynasties comprises six chapters, the first three dealing with the Kings involved in the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties, the next with the 24th and early 26th Dynasty, the fifth dealing with the Nubian rulers of the 25th Dynasty, and the final chapter summarizing the author's conclusions about the dates for these dynasties.

Part III The Chronology of the Officials of the Realm is in three chapters dealing with those who officiated at Memphis, Thebes, and Heracleopolis.

In Part IV The Outline Historical Survey, the author draws upon his conclusions from Parts I-III to develop an overview of the whole period from 1100 - 650 BC from the fall of the Ramessides of the 20th Dynasty to the triumph of the early 26th Saite Dynasty which under Psammetichus I reunited the whole of Egypt in 650BC.

Part V The Excursuses. These provide a detailed description and interpretation of the key sources which the author refers to in this work, and include the bandage epigraphs in the 21st Dynasty, the Palestine campaign of Shoshenq I, and the date for Manetho for the 21st to 25th Dynasties.

Part VI The Tables. The 24 tables in this section cover the Dates of the Kings, a Ready Reckoner for Contemporaneus Reigns, Royal Geneaologies, Chief Dignitaries of the Realm, and Near Eastern Rulers of the contemporary Near East.

In addition, the author provides a large bibliography, a lengthy index, and copious notes on the archaeological data he is analyzing. I found the tables to be important reference material for the discussion, with those in the Ready Reckoning section to be most helpful in understanding the difficulties in aligning the overlapping reigns of the kings of 22nd to 24th Dynasties. The final section, the Supplement, was written for the 2nd edition in 1986, and deals with new data which was not included in the analysis and conclusion in Parts I to VI.

This is a very difficult book to read, as the 1995 Preface assumes a level of knowledge which makes it difficult to understand the issues at hand unless the reader has expert knowledge of the period. In my case, this is a considerably higher level of prior knowledge than I possessed, so it would have been helpful to provide a summary overview and the basic issues within the preface. Notwithstanding this, I did get some glimmer of understanding of the issues as I ploughed through it before going on to the major sections of the book. The inclusion of the Supplement as a separate section is also a distraction, but I can see it would have been a major undertaking to incorporate it into the appropriate sections.

So after completing the first reading of the book, I realized that it was necessary to reread it again from beginning to end, and to pay considerably more attention to the analysis and interpretation of the archaeological data discussed in Parts I - III. Having done so, I now have a much greater understanding of the events of this period which, as the author clearly demonstrates, is a period of slow decentralization and disintegration of the Egyptian state which led inexorably to the establishment of the 25th Nubian Dynasty in Egypt, its expulsion with the advent of the Assyrian power in the Middle East, and finally the reunion of Egypt under the 26th Saite Dynasty.

Although Professor Kitchen is frequently dismissive and scornful of the people who have challenged his interpretations, I have no hesitation in recommending this book to readers who really want to understand the Third Intermediate Period, and the problems of interpreting the surviving sparse and ambiguous data of Egypt before its final conquest by the Persians in 525BC.