On the Chronology of the Twenty-First Dynasty

Abstract

THE divergent results of several recent attempts1 at elucidating the chronology of the Twenty-first Dynasty indicate that there is still confusion in our understanding of the period. Disagreement exists concerning the order of the Tanite rulers and also concerning the sequence of the Theban high priests. That the dating of events following the Renaissance period was in terms of the regnal years of the Tanite kings has been maintained by most of these studies. Certain of the Theban high priests (Herihor, Painutem I, and Menkheperre) expressed claims to kingship, but it has usually been assumed that Theban documents of their reigns were almost exclusively dated according to the regnal years of their Tanite contemporaries.2 With regard to the sequence of the Tanite pharaohs, it is the position of Nepherkheres that is problematical.3 That his reign was contiguous with that of Psusennes I is indicated by the juxtaposed cartouches of the two kings on a set of bow finials found in the Tanite tomb of Psusennes I,4 and that he had an independent reign is suggested by the four years assigned to him by Manetho 5 and strongly indicated by the fact that one of the persons in the Twenty-second Dynasty Berlin genealogical table of Memphite priests is actually placed in the reign of Nepherkheres.6 The problem that must be resolved is whether we should accept the Manethonian tradition, according to which Nepherkheres was the successor of Psusennes I, or give greater credence to the Berlin genealogical table giving the reverse order. Since this latter document was drawn up only one dynasty later than the Twenty-first, it would be most reasonable to accept it as giving the correct sequence, as Cerny has argued. The historical value of the Berlin table has been