Piankhy

"In 1862 a victory stele of the Kushite ruler Piankhy was unearthed during excavations of Gebel Barkal, near the fourth cataract of the Nile. The text records in 159 lines covering all four sides of the stela the conquest of Egypt by the Kushite king about c. 734 B.C., Piankhy's 20th regnal year. The text is one of the most elaborated texts in Egyptian language describing Egyptian siege warfare and pitched battles.

In his 20th regnal year Piankhy was in control of Upper Egypt with an army stationed there. Nimlot, the King of Hermopolis (Middle Egypt), had been subjugated to Piankhy. Meanwhile, in the Western Delta, Tefnakht, the great chief of the Me(shwesh), extended his conquests Eastward, subjugating the Central and Eastern Delta , subsequently he threatened the Kingdom of Heracleopolis. When Nimlot, the ruler of Hermopolis, defected and subjugated himself voluntarily to Tefnakht, Piankhy decided to intervene in Egypt. Immediately he ordered his army commanders which were stationed in Egypt, to harass the districts of Hermopolis, blockade its capital, cut it off from food supplies, and prevent the movement of large groups of people until the main body of the army could get organized and retaliate. In the meantime Piankhy recruited a considerable army and sent it to Egypt as reinforcement to the troops who were already acting there.

This article will deal mainly with Piankhy's orders to this army and their execution. From the nature of these orders it is possible to deduce that:
1. The Kushite fighting methods fit the social structure of an organized kingdom.
2. A comparison of Piankhy's orders with their (partial) execution in the field hints to the authenticity of the orders."

This thesis examines the representation of each king in three key texts from the Kushite Twenty-Fifth Dynasty of Egypt. The depiction of the king upon public monuments was an essential feature of the propaganda of kingship throughout ancient Egyptian history. However, the recognition of why and how representations of the king were considered propagandistic has been somewhat neglected.

This paper analyses the “Triumphal Stela” of Piye (representing the beginning of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty), Stela Kawa IV of Taharqa (illustrating the mid-point of this Kushite rule), and the “Dream Stela” of Tanutamani (delineating the end of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty). Many scholars have analysed these stelae, and their historical and socio-political frameworks. However, this thesis examines how elements of language within these documents (including iconography and rhetoric) functioned as royal propaganda in response to their historical contexts. This complements previous studies by analysing fundamental aspects of how and why these stelae are considered propagandistic.

One of the unresolved problems of Kushite studies
is the succession pattern in the 25th
Kushite dynasty ruling in Egypt and their descendents, the rulers of the Kingdom of Napata. It is the purpose of this
paper to address this problem anew. In the following
paragraphs I will forward a review of the prevailing
theories of succession in Kush. Then, I will argue that
the succession pattern in Kush was patrilineal accor-
ding to the right of primogeniture, i.e. the kingship
passed from father to the eldest surviving son based
on Egyptian religious beliefs and was not different
from the practice in the Ancient Near East.

G. Frame recently republished a rock inscription and relief of Sargon II, discovered in the Tang-i Var Pass in Iran and originally published in Farsī in 1968. The text mentions the rebellion of Iamani, king of Ashdod, against Sargon in the year 712 BC and his flight to the king of Kush. According to the inscription, king Shabatka (=Shebitku) extradited Iamani to Sargon before the year 706 BC. In this article I shall attempt to rule out any assumed co-regency between Shabaka and Shabatka and the proposed division of the Egyptian and Kushite kingdoms between Shabaka and Shabatka, respectively. I date Shabaka’s reign to 721-707/6 BC and Shabatka’s reign to 707/6-690 BC The historical implications of this chronology regarding foreign relations between Egypt and Kush during the years 716, 720, 726 and 734-732 BC will then be surveyed here.

ABSTRACT: This lecture covers the historical background to the Kushite (Napatan) and Saite periods of Ancient Egypt's late Third Intermediate Period through early "Late Period" (Dyns.25-26), starting with a reign by reign overview of the early Kushite rulers (e.g., Piye), and then (a). Shabako, (b). Shabitqu, (c). Taharqa, and (d). Tanwetamani; the lecture proceeds next by covering the Saite period rulers, (a). Psamtik I, (b). Necho II, (c). Psamtik II, (d). Apries, (e). Amasis (Ahmose II), and (f). Psamtik III.  The end of this lecture contains new sections with selected sources on Dynasties 25-26 (Kushite/Napatan & Saite periods), including sources for the next lecture on other aspects of this period, and is subdivided into (1) selected translations of texts from Kushite – Saite periods, (2) selected studies spanning both Kushite-Saite periods (and beyond), (3) selected studies mainly on the Kushite period (and before), (4) selected studies mainly on the Saite period (and after), and (5) selected sources on the Assyrians & Neo-Babylonians –regarding Egypt. UPDATED: April 2021, adding new slides, text, editing, and formatting.

In this article it is my intention to show that
coregencies contradict the principals of the strongly
Egyptian influenced Kushite religion and are used
only in rare cases to stabilize the Kingdom like in
the twelfth Dynasty. Then, I will review the evidence
(or lack of it) concerning coregencies during the
Kushite rule over Kush and Egypt from the reign
of Piankhy in Egypt in 734 BC until the expulsion
of the Kushites from Egypt under Tanutamun in
656 BC. I will deal with the solution of a divided
rule over the kingdom of Egypt and Kush, which
was suggested by Redford and adopted by many
scholars elsewhere.

Fake Term "Nubian" – Why?

To clarify that the non-Egyptian antiquities of the Egyptian South and the Sudanese North cannot be called Nubian, I initiated a series of articles, presenting the historical interaction among the Hamitic – Kushitic Egyptians, the Kushitic Ethiopians (ancestors to today´s Arabic-speaking Sudanese, Oromos, Sidamas, and other Eastern African Kushites), and the Medjay – Nubians, who are ancestors to the modern Nubians.

The latter may now well be the quasi-exclusive inhabitants of a vast part of the territory of Upper Egypt (Kemet) and of North Sudan (Kush - Ethiopia), namely south of Luxor to Wadi Halfa and thence further to Debba, but in the Antiquity, their ancestors were only a minority among the Egyptians and the Kushites (Ethiopians) who inhabited the said territory (and the rest of Egypt and North Sudan).

More importantly, the Ancient Nubians never formed a state of their own in the pre-Christian times. So, the royal monuments, temples, palaces, military camps and outposts, administrative buildings and private homes that have been unearthed in the land where today's Nubians live were not built by their ancestors and consequently, they are not their own historical heritage, but mainly the heritage of today's Egyptians, Arabic speaking Sudanese, Oromos, Sidamas and eventually other, minor, Kushitic nations.

Today's Nubians therefore cannot be considered as either the only or the primary heir to either the Egyptian Past or the Kushitic / Ethiopian Antiquity, History, monuments, and Heritage. In other words, the Egyptian temple of Isis at Philae cannot be characterized as a Nubian temple, and the Kushitic / Ethiopian temple of Amun of Napata (in today´s Karima, North Sudan) cannot be labeled "Nubian temple"; the latter is valid for even one more reason, namely that there is no Nubian population living there today as well.

The term "Nubian" cannot be given to the kings of Kerma, Napata and Meroe – the three most important capitals of Pre-Christian Kush / Ethiopia – because these kings were not Nubians but Kushites / Ethiopians. Considering both, the ethnic and the linguistic levels, the Nubians were as different from the Egyptians and the Sudanese Kushites / Ethiopians as the Ancient Greeks from the Ancient Babylonians.

The fake term "Nubian" has been introduced in order to effectively detach the Arabic-speaking Sudanese from the search for their identity, prevent them from properly assessing their tremendous historical heritage, further engulf them into the Pan-Arabist fallacy, and definitely disconnect them from their brethren, namely the tyrannized Oromos, Sidamas, and the other subjugated Kushitic nations. These Kushitic nations have been comprised within the non-Kushitic, non-African, Semitic colonial state of the racist Amhara and Tigray Abyssinians, who are totally unrelated to the Oromos, the Sidamas, and the other subjugated Kushitic nations of Abyssinia. 

For the above reason, the Amhara and Tigray Abyssinians are absolutely irrelevant of the historical name of Ethiopia, which belongs only to he Arabic-speaking Sudanese, the Oromos, the Sidamas, and the other subjugated Kushitic nations of Abyssinia. The criminal colonial state of Abyssinia has to be forced - by any means - not to use the fair name of Ethiopia anymore in the future.
First published in AfroArticles, Buzzle and American Chronicle on 24th March 2010
Republished in the portal of the Oromo Parliamentarians:
https://www.oromoparliamentarians.org/English/Facts%20about%20Oromo/Kushatic%20_%20Oromo%20Nation%20Part%20VI.htm

Due to the lack of firm evidence from which a precise historical narrative for the Late New Kingdom Period may be satisfactorily reconstructed many events within this period continue to attract some degree of controversy in modern scholarly discussion, not least of these the matter of the succession of the senior Theban officials, Piankh and Herihor, each of whom held office as the first servant of Amun under the last of the Ramesside rulers, Ramesses XI. In recent years proposals have veered from the more usual argument as to whether Piankh followed Herihor or vice-versa, and a further possibility has been suggested: that the role of first servant of Amun was held by Piankh during the period of Herihor’s kingship. However, it seems that, in making such claims, there has been a tendency to either dismiss or undervalue the nature of the extant evidence relating to the protagonists in question This short study will therefore offer some alternative interpretation of the pertinent material.

ABSTRACT: This lecture covers the Third Intermediate Period (essentially Dyns.21-24), beginning with a brief summary overview on the main trends of this period, and then proceeding with the background, domestic works, international relations (where pertinent), and tombs and burials of the rulers of Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069-945 BCE),
Smendes, Amenemnisu, Psusennes I, Amenemope, Osorkon the Elder, Siamun, and Psusennes II. The same approach continues for the rulers of Dynasty 22 (ca. 945 – 715 BCE,), namely Sheshonq I, Osorkon I, Sheshonq II, Takelot I, Osorkon II, Takelot II, Sheshonq III, Pimay, Sheshonq V, and Osorkon IV. During later rulers' reigns, reference is made to the emerging Dynasty 23 (Leontopolis) and later Dynasty 24, plus a detailed account of the campaign of Piye ("Piankhy"). This lecture concludes with coverage of other aspects of Dynasties 21-24, including cult temples, royal burials, and private burials during the Third Intermediate Period (Dyns.21-24).  UPDATED: Some new formatting, edited text, new slides and text, etc., April 2021.

When Piankhy’s messengers came to Tefnakht, he presented them with silver and gold, clothing and all precious stones. As Padiese before him, he found it difficult to let go of the horses that he promised Piankhy. It is not stated if Tefnakht finally presented his horses to Piankhy, but Piankhy would probably have recorded such a tribute from Tefnakht as his biggest success, considering his interest in horses and his wish to show that he subdued his fiercest opponent and the whole of Egypt. Failing to mention such a tribute is another clue to the supposition that Tefnakht was not entirely defeated but only suffered a setback. According to various scholars Piankhy’s concern in the fate of the horses is described for their importance in Kushite warfare, their economical value, and in order to stress Piankhy’s traditional image of Pharaoh as a horse-lover. According to the Piankhy Stela, almost every ruler of Egypt at that period had a special fondness for his own horses and found it difficult to give them away as tribute. It seems to me that an additional reason should be given for Piankhy’s emphasis on the tribute of horses: Apart from Peftjauwybast, ruler of Heracleopolis, who brought Piankhy the best horses of the stable out of his free will (l. 71), all the rulers of Egypt tried to evade presenting their horses as tribute to Piankhy. The success of collecting this tribute of horses from every tax-evading ruler, considering the huge effort that was invested, was surely something that the authors of the stela had to mention.

Publication of a glassy faience statuette fragment from Memphis which imitates the style of the Old Kingdom ("archaism") and which is inscribed for one king "Usermaatre". Following a discussion of the possible candidates who may be identified with this king it is considered that he may be the "northern" Late Libyan ruler Osorkon (IV) Usermaatre.

Archaising relief images of this lesser known ruler which are stylistically harking back to the early OK were found in Tanis in 2009. These reliefs confirm that Osorkon IV's throne name was indeed "Usermaatre".

Im Fokus dieses Artikels steht die Siegesstele des kuschitischen Königs Piankhi und konzentriert sich darauf, wie Nimlot, Herrscher der ägyptischen Stadt Hermopolis, dargestellt und geschlechtsspezifisch beschrieben wird. Die Analyse zeigt, dass Piankhi den idealen Mann verkörpert (stark, ehrlich, tapfer und wohlwollend), während Nimlot den gescheit- erten Mann verkörpert (schwach, falsch, feige und korrupt). Die gescheiterte Männlichkeit von Nimlot drückt sich teilweise durch Feminisierung aus, wobei Nimlot mit einer Frau verglichen wird.

The Piankhy Victory Stela contains several anomalies that have caused interpretive problems for Egyptologists. These difficulties stem from the assumption, inspired by the Egyptian appearance of their monuments, that the early 25 th Dynasty kings were attempting to rule in the same way as traditional Egyptian kings. This paper argues that by utilizing the segmentary state model as an interpretive framework, a concept derived from African anthropology that has already been shown to have much utility for the study of later periods of Sudanese history, many of these apparent contradictions can be resolved. DOI:10.2458/azu_jaei_v07i2_howley

The Piankhy Victory Stela contains several anomalies that have caused interpretive problems for Egyptologists. These difficulties stem from the assumption, inspired by the Egyptian appearance of their monuments, that the early 25th Dynasty kings were attempting to rule in the same way as traditional Egyptian kings. This paper argues that by utilizing the segmentary state model as an interpretive framework, a concept derived from African anthropology that has already been shown to have much utility for the study of later periods of Sudanese history, many of these apparent contradictions can be resolved.