Second Draft 3/16/18 Siptah and Tawosret―Children of an Usurper? Marianne Luban © This informal paper is another in a series attempting to raise consciousness as to why DNA testing of the royal mummies is vital to furthering our understanding of ancient Egyptian history. For example, the relationship of the rulers during the final years of Dynasty 19 to one another has been in question for decades. That begins with the successors of King Merneptah, whom we know to have been a son of Ramesses II. Since we believe we have the mummies of persons considered to have occupied the throne after him⸺Seti II, Siptah, and possibly even Queen Tawosret⸺the first task is to verify their identities. The only method of doing so is to compare them to the securely identified earlier members of the dynasty, primarily Ramesses II.1 In this manner it may be possible to determine if the later 19th Dynasty kings were all his descendants or at least part of his extended family. A legend arising out of Egypt and set down by historians who wrote in Greek is that of a pharaoh named Sethos whose brother, Harmaeus, seized his throne while Sethos went to war. The latter was able to reclaim his kingship and to banish his sibling from the land. As a result, Sethos was known as “Aegyptus” and Harmaeus as “Danaus”. It was said that Harmaeus settled in Argos in the eastern Peloponnese, Greece. Another king of Egypt, whom the classic writers called 1 Since there was a small margin of doubt as to the identity of the mummy of Merneptah when it was first discovered in KV 35, the DNA of the mummy of the father of Merneptah should be involved for confirmation. 1 “Proteus” and who flourished around the time of the Trojan War, was the son of Aegyptus. All things considered, these two pharaohs probably represent Seti II and Setnakht, viewed as the founder of the 20th Dynasty. Proteus, according to the legend, had a wife named Gorgophone, who was one of the fifty daughters of Danaus, the rival of his father. Therefore, as suggested by the legend, Dynasty 20 should have actually been a continuum of the previous one. Even though the mummy of Setnakht appears to be lacking, we do have the remains of his male descendants for comparison. In fact, both the autosomal and y-DNA [passed on from father to son in an unbroken chain] of Ramesses III of Dynasty 20 are already known. Statue of Amunmessu usurped by Seti II As far as Egyptology is concerned, there was, indeed, a pharaoh who lived close to the era of the Trojan War whose place was temporarily taken by another— 2 and that was Userkheperure Seti II. This last was probably the same as Prince Seti- merneptah A, the son of King Merneptah of Dynasty 19. The ancient historian Sextus Julius Africanus has a “Ramesses” following a pharaoh “Ammenephthes” [Merneptah] to whom it appears he had assigned 60 years—but that is very likely an error or miswriting for the number 6. This may be the man “Sethos...also called Ramesses after his grandfather Ra[m]pses”, mentioned in a tale told by Manetho [repeated byFlavius Josephus] who is clearly a son of Merneptah. He is followed by an “Ammenemnes” with 5 years of reign, who is very probably Amunmessu. King Merneptah had a Viceroy of Kush serving in his administration named Messuy. It is believed by some, including myself, that this Messuy is the same man as Amunmessu, who seems to have been a successor of Merneptah as ruler of Egypt. How he was able to achieve this is not at all clear, yet there are other indicators that Seti did become king for a time prior to an usurpation by Amunmessu, this unusual sequence of events likely being at the heart of the fable. Work on the tomb of Userkheperure [KV 15] seems to have ceased in his Year 2.2 I hold the theory that Messuy derived his claim to kingship [at least in his own mind] through his mother, Takhat, who is attested as one of the very numerous daughters of Ramesses II on an ostracon in the Louvre. This lady has been supposed to have been the same as the Takhat who was a wife of Seti II, but that is not necessarily the case. If it was so, then Amunmessu would have been a son of Seti II and the latter would have married his own aunt. However, for this supplanter, Amunmessu, to have been both the son of the crown prince of King Merneptah and the Viceroy of Nubia of his grandfather does not seem very likely. It is my belief that Messuy was the nephew of Merneptah, the son of his sister, given a great position in the time-honored Egyptian tradition of nepotism. On a statue originally belonging to King Amunmessu/Messuy, this Takhat is included with the titles of “king's daughter” and “king's mother”. It is not until later, when the second Seti was able to reclaim his birthright and to recycle this monument [among others of Amunmessu] that the lady was styled “king's wife” there in a recarving. Takhat was not an uncommon name and one such lady can have been a wife of Seti II, perhaps married to him before he became a pharaoh and since deceased. Since Amunmessu and a future king, Siptah, were both not accepted as lawful rulers by the 20th Dynasty, it may well be that Siptah was the son of Amunmessu. Autosomal DNA could rule out or confirm Siptah as having been a child of Merneptah's old age, which is yet another possibility. Amunmessu probably, instead of being banished to the Peloponnese, simply 2 Dodson. 3 died in Egypt. On the other hand, even though Amunmessu had begun a tomb in the Valley of the Kings [KV 10], no mummy can be identified as being his and his fate is unknown. The tomb of Amunmessu underwent a terrible desecration. That he was king of Thebes is obvious but how far north his power extended is not so certain. Where his kinsman, Seti, was located during the years of rule of Amunmessu is a mystery. Some hold that he was king at the same time as Amunmessu in a distant area of Egypt. It is also possible that the legend is correct in maintaining that “Sethos” had gone off to war at sea or on land. Being absent for several years, this king may have been detained in the manner of King Richard the Lionheart of England, who was imprisoned by a foe in Austria from 1192 – 1194 CE, as the result of a crusade. During this time his brother, John, revolted and took his place as monarch. A student of world history soon realizes that the dramas played out by royal persons are always the same few, no matter where or when. Oddly, the Egyptian king who either lost or had to share his heritage likely lived circa 1194 BCE! Siptah, depicted in his tomb KV47 Regardless, I think a case can be made that both Amunmessu and Seti were not as rich in children as the tales regarding Aegyptus and Danaeus indicate. 3 Perhaps all that remained to Amunmessu were a small lame son and a daughter who was older than her brother. 3 Aegyptus purportedly had fifty sons and Danaeus fifty daughters. The latter married the sons and killed all but one. 4  In that event, the name of the boy's sister was Tawosret⸺and she has been considered a king's daughter,4 but Merneptah has been suggested for the father. Egyptologists of bygone years believed Tawosret was the wife of Siptah and that the latter reigned before Seti II. Since King Ramesses-siptah had a Viceroy of Kush named Seti, it was thought this man became Userkheperure Seti II in due course. The consensus these days is that Siptah was a successor of Seti II and not vice versa. But why would Queen Tawosret, as the widow of Seti, have become a regent for a boy who was the son of an illegal king, her late husband's rival, if she was no kin to Siptah? Why would this lad have been considered for the succession at all, given that his father was most certainly Amunmessu? Had Siptah been the son of Seti II by any of his wives, he would have been considered a rightful heir by future kings of Egypt—but he was not. Therefore, I think it quite reasonable to conclude that Tawosret's connection to Siptah went back farther than the one to Seti and that she had a vested interest in promoting his kingship over that of anyone else in the land. Since she assumed the pharaonic titles in her own right following the death of Siptah, why did she not merely do the same upon the demise of Seti II? The motive of Queen Tawosret probably lay in that her husband did have a son [or sons] by other wives, 5 but they were of no consequence to her—or she might have become the regent for one of them, instead, or simply retired to the harem. Having no son of her own⸺and a powerful male backer⸺Tawosret would naturally look to her closest male blood relative―Siptah. Assuming that Siptah was the son of Amunmessu, one could look to autosomal DNA, which addresses the relationships of both males and females to one another. If Amunmessu's mother was the daughter of Ramesses the Great, that lady would have had 50% of that pharaoh's autosomal DNA⸺but none of his yDNA or mitochondrial DNA, as men only pass on their yDNA to their sons and cannot transmit their mitochondrial DNA at all. That is transmitted only by females. In his turn, Amunmessu would share a quarter of the autosomal alleles of the second Ramesses. That would have left Siptah with only an eighth of his alleles in common with the famous pharaoh⸺but enough to identify him as a descendant or at least a relative and the strength of such kinship is measured in centimorgans.6 However, if the mummy of Siptah could be determined to be more closely related to another, something could be concluded there. 4 But without actually being styled as such. 5 A “House of the Royal Children” is attested from the reign of Seti II. 6 Modern persons who get their DNA tested are able to obtain lists of distant cousins in many locations from the testing company. Parents and their children share roughtly 3,500 centimorgans of DNAand a grandparent and grandchild about 1,800. 5th—8th cousins may share as little as 6 centimorgans. 5  Tawosret is first attested as Great Royal Wife from a Year 2 inscription, that perhaps belonging to the reign of Seti II, when the cutting of a tomb is ordered for her. A problem with this is that, when Userkheperure reclaimed Thebes in his Year 5, the expunging of the interim reign of Amunmessu was not long in coming. The usurper's statues and reliefs were claimed by King Seti as his own by the alteration of cartouches—but the victor of the throne wars did not change the name of Amunmessu's mother, Takhat, to that of Tawosret. All that was done was to alter the title of “king's mother” to “king's wife”. A curious omission of a queen who was deemed important enough to merit a tomb in the Valley of the Kings. If Amunmessu had revolted in the Year 2 of Seti and four more years had passed, the latter's time was nearly up as Year 6 was his last. But, even though four years are claimed by Amunmessu, none but 3 and 4 are seen in the Deir el Medina 7 records. That could indicate Amunmessu, having appropriated the first two years of Seti, was, in reality, only in control of Thebes for two more until the return of the son of Merneptah [if he really is] in his own Year 5. Seti, not having had access to Thebes or its royal necropolis whether in or out of Egypt during the reign of Amunmessu, had also run out of time as monarch of the entire land to complete his tomb, KV 15. The beautifully carved reliefs in the first passage, whose cartouches had been erased by Amunmessu, were never continued. Perhaps Seti was already ailing because death soon arrived and KV15 was hurriedly made presentable with the addition of some rather crude paintings. KV 14, the tomb of Queen Tawosret, was also unfinished and none of the decoration seems to have taken place until the reign of Siptah, as a Year 1 graffito was found above the entrance, announcing the burial of Userkheperure Seti, presumably in KV15. However, in a scene in the first corridor, showing Siptah making a maat-offering to the goddess, Isis, [cartouches changed to those of Seti II] the alteration plaster has mostly fallen away to reveal the name “Akhenre- setepenre, Merneptah-siptah”, supposedly not attested until that king's Year 3! Either the decoration of KV14 progressed with snail-like leisure or there is some error of interpretation. What is accepted as being the mummy of Seti II was discovered in KV 35, the tomb of Amunhotep II of Dynasty 18, in 1898 by Victor Loret. Dr. Grafton Elliot Smith, who examined the royal mummies in the very early 20 th Century, found that this Seti did not much resemble the other 19 th Dynasty rulers in his facial features or stature but rather those of Dynasty 18. The doubts about the correct identification of the mummy can probably be allayed by DNA testing. Examination shows the male to have been on the young side, but perhaps not too 7 Village of the necropolis workers. 6  Tawosret young to fit to the history of Userkheperure Seti. Professor Smith thought he could possibly be “middle-aged”. If Seti had been the eldest or one of the elder sons of King Merneptah, who died an old man, he should certainly have reached his middle years before his own end. It was with the discovery of a certain ostracon that reported the passing of Seti II on the 19th day of I Prt in his Year 6 that scholars began to become convinced that Siptah only followed that pharaoh. The scribe who wrote “Year 1” after the other date did not name the new king, perhaps was not sure who that would be, but three months later the tomb of Sekhaenre Ramesses-siptah was begun. Regardless, nowhere is “Ramesses-siptah” attested for more than “Year 1” 8 and so it would seem that Siptah became dissatisfied with his style and changed both his nomen and prenomen. This would appear an odd and certainly unprecedented move on the part of a pharaoh. There soon arose a king “Akhenre- setepenre, Merneptah-siptah” and Egyptologists have not found sufficient grounds to suspect this was anyone but the same individual. However, there remains a possibility that there was more than one male successor of Seti II. [see addendum] Siptah had found a powerful ally, the chancellor of the realm, Bay. In fact, during the reign of the youth, the figure of Bay is portrayed as being on a scale 8 Dodson. 7  Akhenre Merneptah-Siptah in KV14 with that of his sovereign⸺and that of Tawosret the same size as Bay. In a relief at Deir el Bahri, Bay presumes to address the pharaoh with the words, “I placed my eye upon you when you were alone...I protected all your people...” It is possible that Seti II had a son by Queen Takhat or yet another wife as, at some future point, the figure of the power-broker, Bay, was erased in a relief where he stood behind that king and one of a Prince Seti-merneptah B was substituted. Regardless, it is Siptah who was elevated to the kingship, having been promoted by Bay and Tawosret. Probably, the lad was no older than ten. To repeat, why would Tawosret have endorsed Siptah if he was not a relative of hers? Why choose to ally herself with him, if he were nothing more than the son of her late husband's arch- 8 rival? One must also wonder why Bay, who had been in his office since the time of Userkheperure Seti, would want to back Siptah and claim to “place him upon the throne of his father”. Did Bay want a puppet king whom he could manipulate due to his young age―or did the chancellor have some special admiration for Tawosret, the boy's sister? Was this lady possessed of some extraordinary beauty and charm that she rose to the top, like cream, no matter what man held the power?9 In his Year 5 a rather ungrateful pharaoh, Siptah, is reported to have slain “the great enemy, Bay”, but nothing happened to Tawosret. She is as prominent as ever and could reasonably have been the driving force behind the downfall of Bay. In fact, the lady is still there to take over the kingship upon the death of Siptah, which followed closely upon that of Chancellor Bay in his Year 6. It is quite likely that a female successor was expected to annex the regnal years of the man who came before her, so Tawosret appropriated either the years of Seti II or Siptah, there not being much difference in length between them. No wife is attested for Siptah and one must assume he had no son. He was still in his teens when he died. The decoration within the tomb of Merneptah-siptah [KV 47] is of a high quality but his cartouches seem to have been both erased and restored with paint, something not easily explained—unless they had first contained the names of Sekhaenre Ramesses-siptah. Can Setnakht have been the son of King Userkheperure Seti as the legend appears to claim? If the mummy found in KV 35 is that of Seti, this would be unlikely. Even if that ruler had died in early middle age and was, say, thirty-nine, how could he have a grandson who was already old enough to reign by himself after the brief period of Setnakht? Only four years for the latter have been found so far. It was formerly thought that Setnakht took over the tomb of Tawosret, whose reign he toppled, but research by Hartwig Altenmüller indicates that nothing happened to the tomb of the lady [KV 14] until after the death of Setnakht. Is it possible that this man, too, had married Tawosret? Altenmüller believes that Setnakht was excavating his own tomb, KV 11, which was not ready when he died unexpectedly, and therefore his successor, Ramesses III, decided to inter him in the tomb of Tawosret, the decoration being altered for Setnakht at that time. The name of the mother of this Ramesses was Tiye-merenese and research by the present author suggests that this was a deliberate choice in honor of a long-dead 9 An alternative scenario is that Siptah's mother had been a daughter or relative of Bay, who was foreign-born, and that Tawosret had no choice but to become a female regent for Siptah. I do not favor this scenario, although it's possible. If Bay had been the grandfather of King Siptah, he would not likely have been murdered by his own grandson. 9 Queen Tiye to whose mother, Thuya, the family was somehow related.10 In fact, Tawosret may have lain in KV 14 for quite some time following her own death until her tomb was entered. A certain Prince Amunherkhepeshef, was buried in the queenly sarcophagus of Tawosret, in the tomb dug for Chancellor Bay, KV13. It can have happened that the mummy of Tawosret was left in KV 14, however, with Setnakht [fate of mummy unknown] and her remains were collected with those of other royals and deposited in KV 35 when it became a mummy cache. A mummy is as stiff as a plank of wood and can even be propped up against a wall once it loses its containers. She may be Unknown Woman D, whose mummified corpse was found lying there in the lid of a wooden coffin that had belonged to Setnakht. It is becoming increasingly obvious that those in charge of the two royal caches, TT 320 and KV 35, did not include any mummies except those of pharaohs and their wives and children. Comparing the DNA of this lady, Unknown Woman D, and that of Siptah, also found in KV 35, might reveal something to add to the body of knowledge of the final years of Dynasty 19 and, of course, a DNA test for the putative mummy of Seti II is essential. Assuming that the mummies in question are those of Siptah [not much reason to doubt that identity, at present] and Tawosret⸺they are likely to share an average of about 50% of their autosomal alleles if they are siblings and had the same parents. Bibliography: Dodson, Aidan, “Poisoned Legacy: the Fall of the Nineteenth Egyptian Dynasty”, [Cairo, 2010] Altenmüller, Hartwig, [several papers in various journals over some years] Romer, John, “Ancient Lives” [New York, 1984] “Tausret: Forgotten Queen and Pharaoh of Egypt” [New York, 2012] R. Wilkinson, ed. ADDENDUM of 2/18/17: The Inscriptions 10 See Luban “DNA and the Harem Plot” parts I and II at Academia.edu. 10  Ostracon with announcement [Met Museum] In his book, “Ancient Lives”, John Romer thought that the following text referred to the burial of Amunmessu: “Year 1, II Akhet, Day 10, the day of the mooring of Pharaoh at the southern city, where he spent days eleven and twelve. He came to the West [meaning his burial] on day thirteen...” However, it is hardly likely that the notation could refer to the death of Amunmessu, as Romer believed—nor even that of King Merneptah who, according to Manetho, left this life in the sixth month. The wording makes it plain that the dead pharaoh was brought to Thebes on the river from somewhere else. Normally, the 19th Dynasty kings resided in the northland. If Seti II was the true successor of Merneptah, then I find it very strange that his enemy, Amunmessu, would have been afforded a kingly burial by Seti. The next inscription from the royal necropolis, according to Romer, begins “Year 1, I Peret, Day 16” but Aidan Dodson renders it as “Year 1, III Peret, Day 16.” The rest is “...the scribe, Paser, came with the good news, saying 'Userkheperure [Seti II] has arisen as ruler'...” In fact, the reading might be “II Peret”, the month of the death of Merneptah according to Manetho.11 The tomb of Seti II saw construction under the necropolis gang foreman, Neferhotep. It is probably quite true that work on KV15 ceased by Year 2 because 11 Manetho calls him “Amenophis”. 11 Neferhotep's reprobate adopted son, Paneb, made so bold as to remove stone from that sepulcher for his own purposes, probably assuming that Seti would require it no longer due to having been deposed. In fact, a papyrus claims that Neferhotep had been “killed by the enemy”. Was the old foreman a victim of a coup d'etat? Paneb, his successor, was even accused of lounging around in KV15, sitting and drinking on the king's stone sarcophagus after the dead man had been placed inside it. He was also said to have stolen various items from among the funerary goods of the pharaoh. Later on, Paneb realized he had been rashly mistaken in his actions, as he was brought to trial for them. Then comes the ostracon that says “Year 6, II Shomu, Day 16...the Chief Medjai, Nakhtmin, came saying “The falcon has flown to heaven, namely Seti, and another has arisen in his place.'” This is per Romer. Dodson gives this date as “Year 6, I Peret, Day 19...” The tomb of Seti II may have stood open for quite awhile, but above KV 14, the tomb of Tawosret, was scrawled the graffito, “Year 1, III Peret, day of the burial of Userkheperure.” This may be viewed as additional proof that the final resting place of Tawosret already existed in some state of progress when her husband died. Also, according to Aidan Dodson, IV Peret, Day 21 was the date of the beginning of the tomb of Sekhaenre-setepenre, Ramesses-siptah. As mentioned previously, it is possible that Seti II was succeeded by a relative who was not the same person as Akhenre Merneptah-siptah, whose attestations do not begin until Year 3. Although we would be faced with a forgotten pharaoh, two different successors of Userkheperure Seti II actually makes more sense than one changing both his names for no discernable reason. In “Year 1, IV Akhet, Day 23” of Ramesses-siptah there is a sick-leave list pertaining to the cemetery workers at Deir el Medina—and this Ramesses is attested nowhere else beyond Year 1. As far as true filial piety was concerned, there seems to have been none on the part of any of these kings when it came to usurping inscriptions. Amunmessu “set his name over that of Merneptah”, Siptah “inserted his own name over that of Amunmessu” [Breasted] and Seti II evidently appears to have re-carved from Merneptah on occasion, as well. [Dodson] Also, a certain Prince Seti-merneptah B was substituted for the erased Bay in a scene where the chancellor followed Seti II. It is unclear whose son he was but it is unlikely that this substitution can have been made prior to the demise of Bay. It happened that a Prince Seti-merneptah signed his name on two places on a nineteen-sheet manuscript, now known as the Papyrus d'Orbiney [British Museum]. Probably, he was the owner of the book. This consists of a long story, “The Tale of the Two Brothers”, written by a man who was a librarian of the royal 12 palace, named Innana. A reason that the king's son might have approved of this tale—besides the fact that it is most entertaining—is that a pharaoh's elder brother was designated his successor. This was a most unusual state of affairs, especially since the brothers involved had been mere peasants in the first place. A rather treacherous female is introduced into the narrative, one who had captured the heart of the ruling king. However, this same woman had once been the wife of the younger of the two brothers, who got her with child even after he had been turned into a Persea tree—while she was a wife of the pharaoh. The wicked queen had the tree chopped down [knowing full well it was her first husband, Bata] but a sliver from him flew into her mouth, from which she became pregnant. The child was a boy and the king of Egypt, believing it to be his own, decreed that the future of the lad was to become Viceroy of Kush. After that he became crown prince. Viceroy Seti praising the cartouches of Akhenre Merneptah-Siptah However, the prince is really Bata, having taken on human form again in a re- birth. He eventually speaks out against the queen and she receives her judgment. The story ends with Bata reigning for thirty years and appointing his elder brother, Anubis, as his heir. Yet it is strange that even this most imaginative author, Innana, should have had the pharaoh insisting that his so-called son 13 become the Viceroy of Nubia and not crown prince directly. Does this reflect some actual historic circumstance of the period? After all, there were two viceroys who served within a few years of one another who have been suspected by Egyptologists of becoming kings—more recently Messuy [temp. Merneptah] evolving into Amunmessu the pharaoh and, much earlier in the 20 th Century, the viceroy, Seti, becoming Seti II—a scenario now rejected. However, the Seti who was created viceroy in Year 1 of the pharaoh called Ramesses-siptah may have still played a role in the succession. During the twilight years of Dynasty 19, there were two men named Seti- merneptah, the first being the son of King Merneptah and presumed to have ended up as Seti II. The other, Seti-merneptah B, came after the kingship of Seti II and was the one whose figure was substituted for Chancellor Bay, who had been depicted behind that pharaoh. Therefore, the second one can have been the man who put his name on the Papyrus d'Orbiney. If so, was he yet another contender for the throne? Another aspect of the “Tale of the Two Brothers” was a rather cynical one, asserting that a king of Egypt [either totally fictitious or based on someone who could be recognized] had been captivated by the beauty of a devious female, who could not really be trusted because she was not possessed of the best character. Even though she had been fashioned by the gods, a metaphor for a female “who was more beautiful in body than any woman in the whole land”, her heart was far from pure. In fact, the seven Hathors predicted for her from the start that “She will die by the knife.” Although this queen presented her husband with a son, the child had not really been begotten by the pharaoh. He was a chip off the old block [or tree], alright, but not of the proper royal stock, although Innana did not go so far as to actually put a queen in the position of being an adulteress. A sliver of wood doing the job was a truly magnificent literary ploy. Regardless, no matter what sort of woman had borne him, this child was really a righteous man, Bata, reincarnated and accepted by the ruler of Egypt as his own son. A king appointing an elder brother to be his heir must imply several things in real life. One must be that the older son had been by-passed initially due to the influence of the mother of the younger son over the polygamous king—or that this mother had power in her own right. [Either that or the mother of the older son had no status at all and had never been a true queen but merely a lowly concubine.] The second was that the younger brother or half-brother had no son of his own. The third and not least aspect of the tale makes it plain that, no matter what had passed between them, the elder brother did not blame the younger for any of it and 14 loved him regardless—and vice versa. But at least justice would be done in the end. The elder brother would succeed by decree of the younger. This lack of bitterness between brothers as set down by Innana can have had a special significance, too. As delightful a story “The Tale of the Two Brothers” is with its various ingenious twists, it definitely concludes far from where it began in the field of an ordinary farmer—in the house of the king with the royal succession involved. And so we must arrive at yet another scenario, that being that the Viceroy of Kush, Seti, was an actual king's son, who acted as representative for his own brother, [or at least cousin] King Ramesses-siptah, in the southern lands. This could have been a potentially dangerous situation for the pharaoh on account of the viceroy being able to form an army of Nubians but, if this scenario has any validity, we do not know how it would have ended except that this same Seti is still attested in the reign of Akhenre Merneptah-siptah—whether that be the same king as Ramesses-siptah or not. By Year 6 of Akhenre, viceroy Seti had been replaced by another. It was Akhenre Merneptah-siptah who supposedly got rid of Bay in his Year 5. Was that the year, then, that this Siptah, now five years older, appointed Prince Seti-merneptah as his successor and another man, Hori, as the Viceroy of Kush in his place? Certainly, the king could easily have ordered that Seti-merneptah B be put in the place of Bay in a relief or reliefs—where he was then shown with King Seti II, who had already been pharaoh and was deceased. But then it would appear that Seti-merneptah B was the man who never became king [except perhaps eventually as King Setnakht] because Tawosret was the successor of Akhenre Merneptah-siptah, even without the help of Bay. The question also remains, since KV 14, the tomb of Queen Tawosret, was not decorated until Year 1 of a certain Siptah and his cartouches were original to the decoration—who ordered those of Seti II to be put in place of them? Was it Tawosret when she became pharaoh—or someone of Dynasty 20? Another reference to this period can be found in what is known as the Great Harris Papyrus, temp. Ramesses IV. It describes a bleak time or times prior to the advent of King Setnakht. “The land of Egypt was abandoned to turmoil. Every man did as he saw fit; there was no one in authority. Many years even before that, the land of Egypt had belonged to grandees who were local rulers. They slew one another regardless of whom. Another time after that it happened, during some empty years, that Irsu, a Syrian, was lord. He caused the whole land to serve him. One united himself with his companions to destroy everything. They treated the gods like the ordinary people; no offerings were placed in the sanctuaries of the 15 temples. Then the gods showed their favor again, permitting the land its order according to its proper regulation. They established their son of their flesh as the Ruler, l.p.h., of the entire land at their great dwelling-place..” This was Setnakht, who “...was as Khepri-Seth when enraged. He organized the whole country. There were rebels [but] he slew the evil-hearted ones who were in Tameri.12 He purified the mighty chair of Egypt. He was the Ruler, l.p.h. on the throne of Atum...” It would appear that the narrative of the papyrus could refer, when it came to unrest in the land, all the way back to the Second Intermediate Period, the time of the Hyksos. But it seems to become more contemporary with mention of the one called “Irsu”, a name that essentially means “self-made”. Since Irsu was pointed out as being a Syrian, scholars have mostly equated him with Chancellor Bay, who is thought to have been of foreign extraction. Not only that, but this same man had sufficient power to claim to have been a king-maker. Not only did this Irsu cause people to defer to him, he and his followers evidently created considerable havoc. This seems suspiciously like the “Tale of the Polluted Ones” of Manetho, where a certain priest of Heliopolis he called Osarseph [believing him to be the same as Moses] had Asiatic allies who “...treated the people so impiously and savagely that the domination of the Shepherds [Hyksos] seemed like a golden age to those who witnessed the present enormities. For not only did they set towns and villages on fire, pillaging the temples and mutilating the images of the gods without restraint, but they also made a practice of using the sanctuaries as kitchens to roast the sacred animals which the people worshipped; and they would compel the priests and prophets to sacrifice and butcher the beasts, afterwards casting the men forth naked.” So the true identity of Irsu remains open to conjecture. The above impieties do not strike one as the likely activities of the Royal Chancellor, Bay, already set in power by King Seti II, himself, only to be brought down by yet another pharaoh. Basically, the definition of a chancellor is someone who is at the head of the government. [Also, Bay's formal or Egyptian name was “Ramesses-khaemneteru”, which means “Ramesses appearing among the gods”, in honor of the late Ramesses II.] It makes a good deal of sense that Seti II had appointed him in charge of the land in his absence⸺although he would not have been a relative of the pharaoh but a mere official. However, that would not have prevented another man from claiming the kingship. Somewhere in all of these legends, rumors, and hints at insurrection the true saga of the last years of Dynasty 19 is encoded. For now, we must turn away from 12 Another name for Egypt. 16 archaeology to microbiology for assistance. If the DNA of the mummy who was labelled as Siptah is compared to that of the mummy who was simply labelled “Seti”, a clue to their actual relationship, if any, can probably be obtained. As matters stand, it is the only means by which any of this can begin to be sorted out. 17