The Old Kingdom Choosing between Sais and Tanis Mayor Eyuf

Maps Menu Encyclopedia Hebrew Lexicon Dictionary

The Chronological Impact of the Nile Delta Dynasties based on the paper by Sir Flinders Petrie `Tanis'

Time Table of the Persian Pekidas

Petrie at Tanis San Before the Empire - or before the 18th Dynasty A Shortened Account of the Names of Old Kingdom Kings at Tanis

1. Merira-Pepi

Two blocks were found bearing his inscriptions.

2. Amenemhet I - If downloaded, all images expand to readable size

The dull brick-red granite colossus of this king broken in 3 pieces. The greater part of the lower inscriptions were hammered out by Merenptah I leaving only a small strip of old titles in the middle. Merenptah's own, barren, repetitious name was hammered in `in the rudest style'.[See red dot]

3. Usertesen

The statue of this king is of black granite `of the highest possible finish and brilliance'. The cartouche of Merenptah was hammered in on the shoulder and his inscription on the back though in a better style than that used on Amenemhet I.

4. Amenemhet II

A colossus in black granite which was attributed by Petrie to this king. Merenptah appropriated the back and lower part of the throne and has hacked in a monstrous cartouche on the chest of the torso.

5. Usertesen II

A colossus of yellow quartzite sandstone of very fine grain, and free from sand-holes and pebbles. The chest remains and only two small fragments of the throne. A portion of his cartouche `Ra-kha-a...' remained.

6. Usertesen III

A part of an architrave of pinkish granite was found. Also found was a seated colossus of fine grey granite which Petrie attributed as most likely to this king. Merenptah hammered out the name of the original owner and added an inscription on the top of the base (8B).

7. A red granite obelisk judged to be of the 12th Dynasty

This obelisk was appropriated by Ramses II who added his names overwriting original inscriptions.

8. Hyksos stone work

Hyksos monuments are distinguished from native Egyptian work by a different type of face. They are all executed in black or dark grey granite.

9. No 18th Dynasty remains were found

The fact that Petrie could find no 18th Dynasty remains at Tanis ought to pose the question `why?'. If the 19th Dynasty followed immediately the 18th that presents a puzzle in our opinion. While Tanis definitely existed as a capital city throughout the 18th dynasty period, their kings chose Memphis and Upper Egypt as their domicile. In our revised view the lack of 18th dynasty remains could make more sense considering the spacing in time between these two lines of rulers. After all, the 19th Dynasty kings have no relational links to their supposed 18th Dynasty predecessors.

10. The 22nd Dynasty Evidence at Tanis Sheshonk III

Describing the Temple of San and stone fragments found all throughout the area, fragments with no inscriptive clues as to their provenance, Petrie theorizes: "The entrance to the temple was from the west, the side on which the river flows at about ½ mile distance; and it does not appear that the course of the river has changed, at least since Roman times, judging by the position of the mounds. As far as 430 feet in front of the pylon I found a rough pavement of small blocks of stone, 5 feet below the present surface, or about 16 feet above low Nile level. 100 feet nearer the temple the pavement was again found; and at 100 feet nearer still, or about 230 feet in front of the pylon, the pavement was found once more with remains of two red granite colossi of Ramessu II. On the south side of the axis lies one statue, broken off at the knees from which it is 11 feet long, in a standing position, holding a long staff at the right side, much like the usual statues of Ramessu's son Merenptah: while on the north side is a block of the base of a figure, and a leg lying near it proves that there must have been a second statue in this position. It does not seem likely that Sheshonk III, in his rebuilding of the place, would have re-erected a pair of colossi of Ramessu, and still less likely that they would be set out in this position, so far in front of the pylon ... At about 38 feet in front of the pylon is the foundation of a limestone wall; this is a structure now destroyed. It may be either the foundation of the pylon of Ramessu, or some work in front of the pylon of Sheshonk, or the foundation for one of the colossi of Ramessu; on the whole it seems most likely to be a fragment of the pylon of Ramessu, the more so as two limestone slabs near it are of that period. There is no other trace visible that can be attributed to what we may be sure was a great piece of work, the pylon by Ramses II before the great temple; though we can guess its magnificence by comparing the granite colossi which stood before it, with those of the Theban pylons. These colossi when perfect were monoliths 22 feet high, representing the king standing in the conventional attitude. They doubtless were placed in front of the pylon of Ramessu, and were set up again in slightly different position before the pylon of Sheshonk. What causes led to the entire removal of the pylon of Ramessu II we cannot now say; certain it is that, except the few blocks of limestone mentioned above, there does not remain a fragment of the work, as the very foundation stones of the present pylon are the ruins of far different works of Ramessu, utilized by Sheshonk III. Most probably the first pylon was built of limestone; and during the troubled times between the fall of Ramessides and the rise of the Bubastites it had been destroyed for the sake of building materials, and removed to other places." [Petrie, `Tanis', p. 12, 13]

Comments on the above quotation The remains of a `temple' were found by Petrie, consequently he concludes there must have been a pylon fronting it whose sole remains were two otherwise non-descript limestone slabs and smaller fragments. Overall this passage presents more conjecture than fact. Continuing the account of Petrie we read ... "The present pylon, as I have said, was entirely built by Sheshonk III; and the account of the sculptures will be given further on in chronological order (in the second memoir), but we may note here its construction. It appears to have been built largely out of the fragments of the colossus of Ramessu, supplemented with various other blocks appropriated from the earlier buildings, such as an architrave, a sandstone obelisk, and a large historical stele. The heap of fallen blocks lies so much to the southern side, that during some weeks I was cutting through the ponderous ruins so as to ascertain their nature. All the blocks I found to lie on the surface of the ground, or what was the surface in early Arab times, and beneath them is a bed of accumulated mud and dust, derived from the disintegration of the great wall, such as has also covered nearly all the temple area. No outer sides of the walls of the pylon are to be found, and hence the present granite walls of the passage were either backed with limestone, or else they cased over the ends of the mud-brick enclosure wall of the temple. In either case it was the destruction of the backing of the granite, by plunderers or by weather, that exposed the granite faces of the passage to ruin; and it was probably as late as Arab times that the wall finally fell into their present dilapidation. The pavement of the pylon, which stretches out about 27 feet in front of it, is composed of earlier blocks, including pieces of the great granite colossus, propped up with the stones of Ramessu II; thus the whole of the Ramesside pylon must have been stripped away before Sheshonk III. The present pavement is 23 feet above low Nile, or 7 feet above the limestone pavement nearer the river. [Ibid., p. 14] Comments: While it is possible that Sheshonk III built at Tanis, Petrie does not provide a single solid proof that he in fact did. All that remained of it in situ is the structure shown plus a jumble of construction rocks in the area. `It appeared' to Petrie that Sheshonk III used blocks from Ramses monuments. What if he didn't? Appearances are not enough to come to chronological conclusions at Tanis. There was no inscriptional evidence. In the following part Petrie discusses the material we address in Petrie at Tanis at this website. Again, there is no unfalsifiable evidence that Sheshonk III was the ruler who was responsible for constructions in this city following the time of Ramses II. Similarly the other rulers, i.e. Tirhaka, Si-Amon and Pesubkhenu (Psusannis), also left no incontrovertible clue that they ruled before Ramses II, which they didn't in revised view. Of Tirhaka Petrie wrote, "Seti II also did some work, as one block bears his names; and Taharka added one large stela, and apparently a second inscription on a cut-up column of Ramses II." [Ibid., p. 16] Caged in terms of `apparently' such remarks give no solidity to conventional chronology. Next Petrie talks about a block of sandstone or quartzite. "The block of sandstone or quartzite is important, as it seems to show two rebuildings after Ramessu II. The quality of the stone is that used by Ramessu, and not like that of the 12th Dynasty, and the style of a figure on it is Ramesside; but after it had served its original purpose this stone was placed as a threshold, much worn, and deeply grooved by a sliding body, probably a door running on metal bosses; after that it was re-used again for building purposes, as is shown by a scrap of mortar in a hollow of the stone. The use of this block for a threshold we may attribute to Siamen, but the later use of it in building most probably is due to Pisebkhanu, as there is no trace of the twenty-second dynasty in the temple itself." [Ibid.] In the temple of Ramessu itself no trace of the 22nd Dynasty was found. That statement serves our chronology well but we must examine what else Petrie observed at Tanis in the way of chronological helpful or detrimental evidence, taking care to evaluate how decisive his statements are, or if they are just vague may be's or assumptions. Three paragraphs later Petrie wrote, "... we must therefore attribute this second rebuilding more probably to Pisebkhanu, rather then to the pylon builder, Sheshonk III, whose name is not found on any other remains here." [Ibid., p. 17] Some of the questions we may pose to get a handle on the problems of the sequence between the 19th and 22nd Dynasties 1. Is there inscriptional evidence that Sheshonk came after Ramessu? 2. Were complete cartouches of Sheshonk III found or just fragmentary remains? 3. Did Sheshonk also usurp inscriptional evidence of Merenptah? 4. Which parts in Petrie's account are guesses without reasons given, which have some reasons stated i.e. stone types and/or colors of stones used. 5. Ramessu II also used many blocks of his royal predecessors. When Petrie attributes blocks to Sheshonk using Ramessu blocks, how can we be sure they were not from even earlier constructions? 6. When Petrie says, Sheshonk III used stone from the colossi of Ramessu, how can we be sure such a statement is correct? After all he used no scientific procedure in making such statements. 7. Could the red granite utilized by Sheshonk also have come from 12th Dynasty colossi? 8. Limestone was quarried by the felahin for agricultural uses. What reasonable proof do we have that `the few limestone fragments of the pylon of Ramessu' were in situ objects? Could they have been dragged to the location Petrie found them in by the felahin? 9. Still to come - The evidence at Bubastis Summary After all is said and done the evidence for Sheshonk III ruling after Ramses II is wanting. It seems to solely rest on assumptions along the dictates of conventional chronology of which Petrie was an ardent defender. The Phillipp Brussaud/David Rohl Conflict The apparent results of more recent excavations at Tanis led by the French archaeologist Phillipp Brussaud caused him to take issue with the chronology of those who place Psusennes after Osorken, i.e. the 21st Dynasty after the 22nd Dynasty. Brussaud points to a stone bearing the identification of Psusennes underneath a structure of Osorken. In his reply, David Rohl points out that the archaeological layers are not always neat as in the layers of a cake. On a slope later constructions can certainly end up on a lower level then older structures above them. To illustrate: Remains of constructions of Osorken (A) above ground (B) before excavations began, underneath Osorken's structure a stone of Psusennes (C) was found which according to Rohl was placed there because Osorken's structure was adjacent to sloping ground (D). The higher modern ground level is easily understandable fill from wind blown sand over long periods of time.

Crawl out of this tomb Submenu