Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt

I. INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1

Establishing Chronology in Pharaonic Egypt and the Ancient Near East: Interlocking Textual Sources Relating to c. 1600–664 BC

K. A. Kitchen

1. Introductory

In any attempt to establish a viable chronology for ancient Egypt during the late second and early first millennia BC, it is absolutely essential to make full use of the data both from Egypt and from her Near-Eastern contemporaries – Egyptian data on their own are not sufficient to produce a sound and detailed chronology for pharaonic Egypt, c. 1600–664 BC. Before c. 1600, there is – still – a wealth of data reaching back to c. 3000 BC; but, at certain junctures, unsolved cruxes leave us with breaks in continuity, leading to approximations only, for the earlier epochs. To provide a firm foundation, and to avoid turning this paper into a book-length study, it must suffice us here to stay within the basic epoch (c. 1600–664) before which any earlier series of dates must in any case be located.

2. Basis for the early 1st millennium

Starting from Alexander III (‘Great’) of Macedon as a base-line (in Egypt, 332–323 BC/in Mesopotamia, 330–323 BC), we can move back in both lands to earlier fixed dates. The Achaemenid Persian empire took over Egypt from the 26th Dynasty in 525 BC, which line had ruled since 664 BC, before which Taharqa of the 25th Dynasty had ruled 26 years during 690–664 BC, taking good Egyptian dates back to 690. In the east, the Persians took over Babylon and its realms in 539 BC, from the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty founded in 626 BC. Both in Egypt and Mesopotamia, we have not only such compilations as Manetho for Egypt, and the Ptolemaic Canon for both Mesopotamia and Persia, but also regnal year-dates of kings in Egypt and the considerable series of dates-of-accession (from first-hand economic documents in cuneiform) of kings dominating Mesopotamia from 626 BC (Nabopolassar) down to 146 BC under the Seleucid Alexander Balas.¹ Before the accession of Taharqa in 690 in Egypt, its ‘25th Dynasty’ was founded by Shabako (716–702 BC) when he took over Egypt in his 2nd year (715), to be followed in due course by Shebitku (702–690),² precursor to Taharqa.

Returning to Mesopotamia, exact dates go far back beyond 626 to 910 BC, thanks to the preservation of a continuous sequence of annual eponym-officers (as maintained by the Assyrian state) during the years corresponding to 910–648 BC, as guaranteed by recognition of the solar eclipse of 763 BC in the eponymy of Bur-Saggilê in the reign of Assur-dan III.³ From 747 BC down to the Seleucid period, we also have a series of year-by-year Neo- and Late- Babylonian chronicles through some six centuries, with gaps for which the relevant tablets have not yet been recovered.⁴ So, dating for most of the 1st millennium BC is well-assured in Mesopotamia.

In Egypt, there are sound reasons to affirm good regnal dates within quite close limits for the period 945–715 BC, as covered by the continuous line of Libyan-origin kings that make up the 22nd Dynasty. Their sequence is: Shoshenq I (21 yrs), Osorkon I (32 to 35 yrs),⁵ Takelot I (15 yrs), Osorkon II (30 yrs. min.), Takelot II (25 yrs.), Shoshenq III (39 yrs.), Shoshenq IV (13 yrs), Pimay (6 yrs), Shoshenq V (37 yrs), and Osorkon IV (14 or 15 yrs), a potential total of some 231 years, with possible plusses for Osorkons I, II and IV, and of possible minuses if Takelot II had coregencies with either his predecessor, successor or both.⁶

The foreign relations of the 22nd Dynasty at its beginning and end help to secure good dates for its accession and demise. Thus, as ‘Shishak’, Shoshenq I appears in the early Hebrew sources as invading Palestine in the 5th year of Rehoboam king of Judah, while pursuing his protégé Jeroboam king of Israel (whom he had in effect set up, to break up the former unity of the realm of Solomon who had died in 931/930 BC).⁷ This synchronism can be combined with Egyptian data to set limits for the date of the accession of Shoshenq I. The 5th year of Rehoboam (on the autumn/autumn calendar of Judah) encompassed 926/925 BC. As ancient Near-Eastern kings commonly went to war in spring/summer, to seize their foes’ harvests,⁸ Shoshenq’s campaign can thus be set in that phase of 925 BC. At some time following his victorious return to Egypt, he launched a massive programme of temple-building-works in Egypt’s three major centres: at Thebes above all (as a sop to its innately hostile hierarchy), plus Heliopolis and Memphis. At the start of his 20 years’ reign (so far) he already had two adult sons, mature enough for the younger (Iuput) to be put in charge of both a hostile Thebes and the governorship of all Upper Egypt. So, by the time of his Levant campaign, he would already have reached his 50s; thus, the execution of propagandistically immense works at Thebes (and while he still lived) was an urgent necessity. Thus the decree of Year 21 for quarrying at Silisila⁹ cannot long have followed his victory abroad, especially if loot from Jerusalem (or anywhere else) had enhanced his resources. This is why the campaign is best dated to the summer of his Year 20 (and certainly not earlier than Year 19). Once home in the autumn of 925, he could then plan his great building-projects, and set in motion the quarrying of stone, and during that winter (925–924) hasten deliveries to Thebes and beyond, and get the works started. One may thus date the stela (of 2nd Shomu <1>, Year 21) to around December/January of 925/924 BC; and his accession, consequently, to 945 BC, or 944 at the very latest. At his death in an incomplete *Year 22, the Theban works were well-begun – but manifestly unfinished: the great colonnades were left in the rough (with neither texts nor décor), the planned pylon left unbuilt, and even (it seems) his figure in the vast triumph-scene was perhaps hastily finished-off in plaster for final painting. Thus, it is unwise in the extreme to lower the starting-date of the 22nd Dynasty more than a year below 945 BC, on extant evidence.¹⁰ Which is close enough for most purposes.

Some 80 years or so later, we have a now-fragmentary presentation vessel of Osorkon II that was dug up in the excavations at Samaria. In 853 BC, most of the petty kings of the Levant banded together to oppose the invasion by Shalmaneser III of Assyria, leading to a non-victory for both sides at the battle of Qarqar; among his opponents, Shalmaneser includes mention of a contingent of 1000 troops from Egypt (Musri), an identification supported by the depiction and mention of African animals as tribute on his ‘black obelisk’. Thus, this Musri should be accepted as Egypt in these cases, and not some imaginary shadow-land elsewhere.¹¹ Chronologically, if the Samaria vessel is a trace of an Egypto-Israelite alliance on the eve of Qarqar (854/853 BC), then we have an implicit synchronism for Osorkon II, agreeing with a rough date for him of c. 875–845 BC (on our figures of our list of 22nd Dynasty regnal figures given above) albeit not needfully precise to a year.

Much more useful is the little batch of links for Osorkon IV who ends this Dynasty. In his own 2nd year, in 715 BC, Shabako definitively swept through Egypt, removing all other would-be kings (in practice, Osorkon IV of the 22nd Dynasty. Iuput II of the 23rd Dynasty, Bakenranef of the 24th Dynasty and any other local pretenders). So, Osorkon IV did not reign after that date. But before it, we do have other clear correlations. First, he was undoubtedly the trembling kinglet (U)shilkanni (for ‘ silkon’ < ‘Osorkon’) who presented Sargon II with 12 large horses as a ‘sweetener’ to stay away, in 716 BC,¹² just a year before Shabako did for him. Second, he was equally clearly the ‘So, king of Egypt’ appealed-to by Hoshea, last king of Israel, in 726/725 BC (2 Kings 17:4). The abbreviation to ‘So’ or ‘Sa’ is now known to be commonplace in Egypt around this epoch, as in proper names like Tentsa for *Tent-Osorkon, as Yoyotte long since pointed out,¹³ while such drastic abbreviations are well-known in various other cases, such as Sesse for Ramesses, Mose for Amenmessu, Shosh for Shoshenq (especially on scarabs), and innumerable abbreviations of non-royal names in the New Kingdom. And even earlier, Piye from Nubia encountered our Osorkon (IV) as from Bubastis, during his own epic campaign through Egypt. Piye certainly reigned 24 years and (with near certainty) 30 years, and in fact up to 32 or even 34 years, setting his invasion of Egypt at c. 730/729 or 728/727 BC. On these dates, we would then have a reign of (maximally) 15 or (minimally) 13 years, for Osorkon IV. Thus, all the intervening kings of the 22nd Dynasty from Osorkon I to Shoshenq V inclusive will have reigned within c. 924–730 BC, allowing about 194 years for: Osorkon I (32 years minimum), Takelot I (15), Osorkon II (32), Takelot II (± 20, and ± 4 for co-regencies), Shoshenq III (39), Shoshenq IV (13), Pimay (6), and Shoshenq V (37).¹⁴

Finally for this epoch, the 21st Dynasty. Here, most things are simpler, if we stick to the real essentials. In Manetho, seven kings are named: Smendes, Psusennes (I), Neferkheres; Amenophthis, Osochor, Psinakhes; and another Psusennes (II).

This equates extremely well with the kings known from original sources: (Ne) subanebdjed (I), attested up to an attributable Year 25 (cf. Manetho, 26 years); one Neferkare Amenemnisu, no definitive dates [unless Years 1–5 of the Banishment Stela are his], but ephemeral (cf. Manetho, Neferkheres, 4 years; but placed after next); Psusennes I, Years 48, 49 (cf. Manetho, 46 years [var., 41]); Amenemope, Year 5 and possibly Year 10 (cf. Manetho, 9 years; Osorkon the Elder, Year 2 (cf. Manetho, 6 years [var., 9]); Siamun, Year 17 (cf. Manetho, Psinaches, 9 years); and Psusennes II, probably Years 5 and 13 (cf. Manetho, 14 years [var. 35 *<15 years]). In terms of the original regnal figures just given, we have: 25 + 5 + 49 + 5/10 + 2 + 17 + 13 = 121 or 116 years; Manetho reports 130 years’ total, but his Africanus figures only total 114 years; the Eusebian variants subtract 5 years from Psusennes I, and add 21 years for Psusennes II, end additional balance = 16 years. Added to the Africanus 114 years, 114 + 16 = the standard Manethonic 130 yrs.

To reach a real chronology, one must sift the total data. Smendes I’s Year 25 clearly supports Manethonic (M) 26; the years 1–5 of the Banishment Stela might be adduced to support a Manethonic 4-year reign [5th year incomplete] for Amenemnisu; Psusennes at 46 years (M) but Years 48, 49 in original data may – as others have suggested – imply a 48-year reign (Psusennes dying in Year 49), including a 2-year coregency with his successor. Amenemope’s known Year 9 (and possibly 10) agree well with Manetho; so, if a co-regency be allowed, Amenemope may either be allowed a total of 11 years, 2 as co-regent and 9 solo, or merely 9 total, 7 solo. Osochor may be allowed his M 6 years, only 4 above the epigraphic Year 2 date. On placement, the 9-year rule of Psinaches has to correspond with Siamun, known up to a 17th year; again, one may (as often suggested) amend Manetho to 19 years here. Finally, the probable Year 13 of Psusennes II agrees well with 14 years that could thus be accorded to him; the 35 is best taken as an error for *15 (by compounding with an otiose 20).

If we take the minimum series (Smendes 26, + Neferkare Amenemnisu 4, + Psusennes I 46 [& 2 CR] + Amenemope 9 [including 2 as coregent], + Osorkon the Elder 6 + Siamun 19, + Psusennes II, basic 14 [mean of 13 and 15 opposites], then the 21st Dynasty total would be 124 years, giving – when added to 945 BC for start of the 22nd Dynasty – a starting-date of 1069 BC for the 21st Dynasty, as is commonly used. (If one prefers a nice round figure like 1070, then of course, one could simply allow a full *15 years (< 35) for Psusennes II, and adjust the intervening reigns back to Smendes to fit. It matters little!) Thus, the end of the New Kingdom (the 18th, 19th, and 20th Dynasties) and start of the post-New-Kingdom epoch for Egypt occurs close to 1069 BC (or 1070 if preferred).

3. Moving back into the late 2nd millennium

Egyptian basics for the 18th, 19th and 20th Dynasties

Here, first, we will gather just the essential Egyptian ‘nuts and bolts’ that are the nucleus for this period, without reference to the bracketing that links with the contemporary Near East MUST necessarily impose. Then, the state of the latter can be ascertained, the cross-links with Egypt be established, – and finally, such adjustments to the Egyptian minimal dating as may prove necessary can be made, hopefully to provide us with an essential working chronological framework from soon after 1600 BC down to 664 BC, from our textual sources, that will be a fit tool to compare with the findings of the radiocarbon commission – and, hopefully, leading to a happy chronological marriage twixt the two disciplines! But business first.¹⁵

Regnally, the 18th Dynasty comprises: Ahmose I, 25 years; Amenhotep I, 21 years; Thutmose I, 12 years (8 attested); Thutmose II, 13 or only 3 years (1 attested); Thutmose III, 54 years (including the 21 years of Queen Hatshepsut); Amenhotep II, 26 years (1 year overlap with Thutmose III); Thutmose IV, 9/10 years; Amenhotep III, 38 years; Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), 16 years; Smenkhkare, 2 years; Tutankhamun, 9 years; Ay, 3 or 4 years; Horemheb, 28 years.¹⁶ The maximum total, 257 years, unless Thutmose II is only 3 years, and Ay only 3 years = reduced total (by 11) of 246 years. The improbable reduction of Horemheb by 14 years would give an absolute minimum of 232 years.

In turn, the 19th Dynasty comprises: Ramesses I (1 full year); Sety I, 11 years attested; Ramesses II, 66 years; Merenptah, 9 years; Amenmessu, 3 years; Sety II, 6 years; Siptah plus Tausret, 8 years. Total, 104 years. The supposed inclusion of Amenmessu’s reign within that of Sety II has now to be abandoned, as the known 3 ¾ years of Amenmessu will not fit inside the 2 ¼ years’ ‘gap’ around Year 3 of Sety II.¹⁷

Finally, the 20th Dynasty comprises: Sethnakht, 3 years (a Year 4 is now known); Ramesses III, 31 years; Ramesses IV, 6 years; Ramesses V, 4 years; Ramesses VI 7 years minimum; Ramesses VII, 7 years minimum.; Ramesses VIII, 1 year. (so far); Ramesses IX, 18 years. minimum; Ramesses X, 3 years, possibly 7; Ramesses XI (incl. whm-mswt era), 29 years. This gives us a minimum total of some 109 years overall. If Ramesses VI and VII had completed their respective 8th years, and Ramesses IX his 19th, then the total would reach 112 years – and up to 114, if Ramesses VIII be allowed 2 more years. A disputed Year 8 possibly for Ramesses X would add 4 more years (not favoured by most), up to 116/118 years. So, a range of 109 to 118 at extremes.

In theory, therefore, on minimum totals, before 1069, the 20th Dynasty at 109 years would date minimally to c. 1178–1069 BC. On that basis, minimal figures for the 19th Dynasty (104 years) would set it at c. 1282–1178 BC (Ramesses II at 1270–1204). In turn, best minimal figures for the 18th Dynasty (3 years each for Thutmose II and Ay, but still 28 for Horemheb) would cover 1282 + 246 = 1528–1282 BC (if 13 years for Thutmose II and 4 for Ay be allowed, then the 18th Dynasty would be a basic 257 years, during 1539–1282 BC). In contrast, the 14 years-for-Horemheb theory would reduce the dates running from 1528ff. down to 1514–1282 for the 18th Dynasty.

But mere theory in splendid isolation, as we shall now see, risks being unmasked as pure self-delusion, if vital correlations from independent Near-Eastern data are not put into practice. ‘The Egyptian Chronology’ (to cite a well-meaning but unfortunate phrase…) simply does not exist before 664 or at best 690 BC, as the variety of recent treatments shows to the full.¹⁸

4. The late 2nd millennium contd.

Mesopotamian basics, c. 1400–900 BC: Assyria first.

Therefore, we now turn again to the Near East, and especially Mesopotamia (but not exclusively) for the late 2nd millennium, for which rich resources are available, beginning with the Middle-Assyrian kingdom, within the 14th to 10th centuries. To keep things concise, we tabulate the essential data as follows, embodying: (1) modern sequence number, (2) reign-length (from the king-list and allied data), (3) dates pre-910 based on the attested reign-lengths, (4) the kings’ names, (5) known data on the eponyms’ sequence (by reign), and (5) personal/monumental attestations of kings as main-line rulers [not as rivals thereto!] at Assur and elsewhere.

Table 1.1: Kings of Assyria.

Subject to minor caveats, this list provides a clear, reliable sequence of kings of Assyria who in hard fact did rule in direct succession as shown here. Assur was the highly-traditional point-of-origin of the Assyrian realm, and centre-point of its kingship. The real chronology of Assyria (beginning already in Old-Assyrian times, by the 19th century BC) was vested in the unbroken succession of years each named after an individual (including the reigning king) who held office as name-person for that year (thus, ‘eponym’), and continued down to 612 BC, on the eve of the final extinction of that kingdom (609/608 BC).

As our list shows, virtually every single king is known from activity in Assur (and often elsewhere), or from traces of their eponym-lists, or both, as well as in a series of ‘cross-references’ in documents that synchronised sets of kings of Assyria and Babylon as contemporaries in their respective reigns. Exceptions are virtually zero, and in no case chronologically significant. The Assyrians subsumed Assur-dan I’s would-be successors (Nos. 84–85) as a merely ephemeral pair, to be included under his official timespan; hence, we can do no different, unless fresh data prove otherwise. Going back earlier, to No. 80, rude letters to Assur-nirari III as de facto king of Assyria by his Babylonian contemporary in fact guarantee his role in that office. At that time, Assur-nirari III’s contemporary as Governor of Hanigalbat, one Ili-ipaddu,²¹ was also at times given the honorary title of ‘King’ of Hanigalbat, to satisfy local sentiment – Hanigalbat was the last version of the former great kingdom of Mitanni, its eastern half that first was backed (under Artatama II and Suttarna III) by Assyria (against the Hittites); but its later rulers then resisted Assyria until conquered by the latter. Such local honorary ‘kingships’ for key governors of local stock are known in later times also, and served local political purposes likewise.

Thus, despite the efforts of some chronologers to shorten Near-Eastern chronology artificially by denigrating the Assyrian king-list, and attempting to pull kings out of it at random to suit their reductionist ends, the basic list and datings listed above for Assyria stand firm, and cannot be tampered with in any such arbitrary fashion. The only serious point-at-issue is whether Ninurta-apil-Ekur reigned for 13 years (as in our oldest version [Nassouhi copy] of the Assyrian king-list) or only 3 years (as in the later version, in the SDAS/Khorsabad copies).²² Hence we give dates on both options here, for convenience.

5. The late 2nd millennium contd.

Mesopotamian basics, c. 1400–900 BC: Babylonia next

Thus, given the close political interrelationships between Assyria and Babylonia, and the links of both with Egypt in the 14th and 13th centuries, we need here to measure the Babylonian input, specifically for the Kassite period, second half (c. 1400–c. 1157 BC).²³ The link with Egypt is first visible in the Amarna letters, with Kadashman-Enlil I and Burnaburiash II, and then not again until Kadashman-Turgu in the 13th century (cf. below, for these). The Babylonian king-lists are badly damaged and incomplete, preserving some reign-lengths but many are lost; however, we do have both a Synchronistic King List (SKL)²⁴ and a Synchronistic History²⁵ (plus ‘Chronicle P’²⁶) equating the reigns of ostensibly mutually contemporary kings of Assyria and Babylon – which helps to anchor such known Babylonian reigns as we do have. But first, we tabulate the Babylonian (Kassite) kings for our period (Nos. 19–36 of that Dynasty) with their lengths of reign as discernible so far:²⁷

Table 1.2: Babylonian (Kassite) Kings for our period.

Next, we need to link up the Babylonian series with the Assyrian dates, with (in theory) two options corresponding to the two options for Assyrian dates, deriving from the alternate reign-lengths of 13 or 3 years for Ninurta-apil-Ekur, and subject to comparison with the long series of recorded synchronisms of kings of Assyria and Babylonia at this epoch. Here we turn to one particular episode that permits a close synchronism of the two series, namely the very close overlap between the reigns of kings Assur-uballit I of Assyria (36 years) and Burnaburiash II of Babylon (27 years).

We learn that Assur-uballit married-off a daughter to Burnaburiash II, who bore two sons to the latter, namely Karahardash and Kurigalzu ‘the younger’ (later, Kurigalzu II). In due course, Burnaburiash II died, and Karahardash succeeded him. The new king was old enough to wage a full military campaign (against the Suteans), and to institute a series of public works, namely the digging of wells and the building of fortresses. Conceivably, needing up to a year’s activity. Then, the Kassite populace rebelled, the young king was murdered, and a purely Kassite usurper, Nazi-bugash, enthroned in his place. Enraged at the death of his grandson Karahardash, the veteran Assyrian king Assur-uballit marched his troops into Babylonia, disposed of the would-be usurper, and installed his younger grandson Kurigalzu (II) instead, who in due course reigned for up to 25 years.²⁸ Thus, in Babylonia, we have most likely a time-sequence of 27 years of Burnaburiuash II + 1 year for the brief but active reign of Karakhardash, his murder, the usurpation by Nazi-bugash, and invasion by Assur-uballit, eliminating Nazi-bugash and installing Kurigalzu II; total, 28 years between the accessions of Burnaburiash II and Kurigalzu II.

But when? Here, we may invoke ancient usage; Assur-uballit was surely already a reigning king when he sent his daughter to marry in Babylon; a mere crown-prince would have no authority to do this. Nor is it likely that he sent her to a king in Babylon to be married to his heir rather than to the reigning Babylonian king himself. So, both Assur-uballit and Burnaburiash would both have been reigning kings when the match was enacted. Three possible dates can be offered for the 28-year sequence set out in the preceding paragraph. A minimum date (option C): namely, that Assur-uballit I crushed the murderers of his elder grandson, eliminated Nazibugash, and installed Kurigalzu II all within his 36th and final year, shortly before his own decease. On that basis, from our §4 Table above, the year 1329–28 (or, alternatively, 1319–18) would have witnessed (at latest) the death of Burnaburiash II, an almost one-year reign by Karahardash, and the brief irruption by Nazi-bugash, and Assur-uballit’s final campaign before his own decease. In which case, the 27-year reign of Burnaburiash II would at latest have run during 1356–1329 (or, 1346–1319), and the reign and aftermath of Karahardash, 1329–28 (or, 1319/18), plus 25 years of Kurigalzu II during 1329–1304 (or, 1319–1294).

Or, we can have, in contrast a maximum date (option A): namely, that soon after the new (young?) king Burnaburiash II’s accession in Babylon, his neighbour Assur-uballit (also a new ruler, already ‘veteran’ of a full year’s reign?) saw his chance of extending his power and influence by befriending his new neighbour, and giving him a daughter in marriage who (within a year or so) bore him one grandson – putative heir to the Babylonian throne! – and later a second. So, from about Assur-uballit’s Year 1 (at earliest?), 1363, the accession and ensuing 27 years of Burnaburiash II would have run during c. 1363–1336 (or, 1353–1326), the year of two kings (Karahardash and Nuzibugash) in 1336/35 (or, 1326/25), and the reign of Kurigalzu II the ensuing 25 years, 1336–1311 (or, 1326–1301).

Or, to complete our series (option B), we might more realistically assign the dealings with Burnaburiash II to a ‘middle zone’ within Assur-uballit’s 36-year reign; one may begin the 27 years of Burnaburiash II at around, for example, the 6th year of Assur-uballit, and run the Babylonian’s 27 years through to the latter’s Year 33, equating the years 1–27 of the latter with Years 6–33 of the Assyrian king, – with 5 years’ space at the start, and 4 at the end, of the latter’s reign, and giving a much smaller margin-of-error than the 9 years (too much?) on the maximal and minimal options. The Years 6 and 33 of Assur-uballit I = Years 1 and 27 of Burnaburiash II fall maximally in 1358 (or, 1348) and 1331 (or, 1321); the year of Karahardash and turmoil would then be 1358/57 (or, 1348/47), with Kurigalzu II ruling thenceforth 25 years, 1358–1333 (or, 1348–1323) BC.

Thus, on any of options A, B, C, one may then proceed to calculate the fall of the Kassite Dynasty’s remaining 204 years from the accession of Kurigalzu II to its end with the death of Enlil-nadi-ahi. Of our options A, B, C, on both high and low Assyrian dates, we tabulate the final choice of options as follows:

Table 1.3: Based on reign of Assur-uballit I, c. 1364–28 (High) or c. 1354–18 (Low); three options for Burnaburiash II of Babylon.

Thus, one may in turn give three high/low dates for the end of the Kassite Dynasty, as follows:

Table 1.4: High/low dates for the end of the Kassite Dynasty.

Or, a maximum range of c. 1157–1152, or 1147–1142 BC overall, for the end of Kassite rule.

An important point to be made here is that this result is a calculation made wholly independently of any calculation based on any figures for the post-Kasssite dynasties from the beginning of the 2nd Dynasty of Isin until the accession of Nabopolassar in 626 BC. The two overall options, just 10 years apart (thanks to the 13-/3-year options on the Assyrian Ninurta-apil-Ekur) show a narrow band of only 5 years’ margin in each case (1157/52; 1147/42). The higher option is almost identical in result with the calculations based on the data for the 1st-millennium dynasties; the lower overall option here may indeed be too low, unless an overlap of up to a decade with the last Kassite kings and the new Isin dynasty were allowed for. This may be deemed unlikely. Our old estimate c. 1157/52 may be about right after all! Regardless of whether there was (a) an interval (with or without Elamite intervention) between the fall of the Kassites and assumption of rule in Babylon by the 2nd Isin dynasty; or (b) the latter followed directly upon the fall of the former around 1157/52 BC; or (c) the founder of the new Isin line was already claiming rule within Babylonia before the last Kassite reign had finally come to an end.

The last test for the Near-Eastern side of our quest is to verify the dates here for Assyria and Babylon against the reported synchronisms in our cuneiform documents. The latter (the Synchronistic King List and Synchronistic Chronicle) are not free of error, but hitherto, their data have been correlatable with the received chronologies; ours, too, must necessarily pass this test, before – at last – we finally come back to Egypt, to attempt at last to integrate Egypt and the East into one viable overall scheme, so far as the written sources are concerned.

Mesopotamian integration, c. 1400–1100 BC.

Here, we tabulate as concisely as possible the two sets of kings, dates and links.

Table 1.5: Comparing the two sets of kings.

As will be clear from the foregoing table, people, links and regnal years all seem to form a consistent whole, with good correlations virtually throughout. The options for the end of the Kassite kings (1162 or -10, and 1153 or -10) cover all possibilities – the highest would leave a brief time-space for any Elamite intervention; the middle dates are close to a direct succession from the last Kassite to a grasping new chief; the lowest would allow of a theoretical overlap of the last Kassite kinglets in Babylon losing the country at large to the new Isin leaders. It would difficult in the present review to offer any final solution (and probably premature, in the state of the documentation). Going back all the way to Burnaburiash II and Assur-uballit I, and the triple-option link-up proposed for them, one is justified in remarking that – so far – it stands up to such tests as the scrutiny of their successors currently allows.

It is now time, at last, to return to Egypt, and to compare notes between our Egyptian minimal dates, wholly theoretical as they are for anything before c. 1070 BC (cf. §3, above).

6. The late 2nd millennium contd.

Possibilities for Near-East-integrated Egyptian dating, c. 1400–1100 BC

Here, we finally bring two worlds into harmony or collision (!) so far as the purely historical sources are concerned. The vital links between Egypt and Mesopotamia during this epoch were those attested in the famous Amarna correspondence, late in the reign of Amenhotep III, throughout those of Amenhotep IV [Akhenaten] and the ephemeral Smenkhkare, and finally in the first year or two of Tutankhamun.

After Kadashman-Enlil I’s letters (E[l] A[marna] 1–5) to Amenhotep III, we have his successor Burnaburiash II writing successively to Amenhotep III (EA 6), then much more to Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten (EA 7–8, 10–11, 14), and once to Tutankhamun (EA 9). Assuming only a last year or two with the aged Amenhotep III, then we have a 16-year reign of Akhenaten, probably 2 years of Smenkhkare [not represented], then only an initial year or two of Tutankhamun before he and the court moved back to Memphis, Egypt’s normal administrative capital. In other words, a correspondence that lasted about 20 of Burnaburiash’s 27 years as king. The turmoil after his death, of