1

Redating the Early 18th Dynasty By Ian Onvlee, 4 August 2013, Netherlands Introduction

This article is an excerpt from one of my upcoming book-series, concerning the redating of

ancient Egypt according to the best academic knowledge of today. In these series I debunk

the unsubstantiated claims of the currently popular Low Chronology since Albright. Apart

from traditional evidence, updated with the latest archaeological surveys and stratigraphy, I

also introduce completely new dating methods, allowing for all ancient Egyptian kings to be dated to the year exact, a feat which no Egyptologist has so far been able to perform on a

solid basis. In this introduction to the Early 18th Dynasty I will explain only what the reader

should minimally know about my methods and preliminary research in order to be able to

follow this article.

I discovered that the only dating system that works throughout the entire Pharaonic Era is the High Chronology. In the High Chronology all ancient Egyptian observations of Sothis,

i.e. the heliacal risings of the star Sirius, occurred at Memphis. There are no exceptions to

this rule. In contrast to the belief system of proponents of any lower chronology, the Sothis

was never observed at Thebes and never at Elephantine or Assuan either, since at least

3600 BC. Unlike in our modern society, Sothis was for ancient Egypt not just an object in the sky which could be observed anywhere in the world. Sothis (Egyptian Spdt) was a local

goddess of Memphis, like the goddesses Bubastis of Bubastis, Neith of Sais, Wadjet of Buto,

Nekhbeth of Nekheb, and others. None of these goddesses ever moved to elsewhere, a fact

completely ignored by the proponents of Sothis at Thebes or at Elephantine. These modern

theories are alien to Ancient Egypt. Sothis was as much religiously tied to Memphis as

YHWH to Jerusalem and Allah to Mecca, regardless of the location of the secular rulers. This is the basic rule of all religions, especially ancient ones. There is sufficient evidence that

Sothis was observed at Memphis, and none at Thebes or elsewhere. The district of Memphis

was regarded by all Egyptians as preserved for the gods and is the only place in Egypt where

the Sothis rose every 1461 Egyptian Years in accord with the Egyptian Civil Calendar.

The High Chronology is the only system which synchronizes with modern radiocarbon

dates, overwhelmingly confirming Sothis observations at Memphis and the High Chronology

of Mesopotamia as proposed by Hubbert according to the Venus-tablets. This complete

synchronism between the various independent disciplines throughout the Ancient World

debunks once and for all the Middle and Low Chronologies.

Once this became crystal clear to me, it made me discover two new dating methods. These

are

(1) The Apis Cycle System; and

(2) The Lunar Accession Dating (LAD) method.

Both methods integrate with the High Chronology without a single flaw or internal conflict.

The Lunar Accession Dating method confirms that every single Egyptian king of the Middle

and New kingdoms chose to accede during a lunation and allows for an amazing precision to

the day and year exact and even works for dating the kings of the Early and Old Kingdoms.

2

My methods and preliminary studies, which I won’t explain further here, have led me to

date the beginning of the 18th Dynasty, Year 1 of King Ahmosis I, to 1578 BC, and the

expulsion of the Hyksos to 1562 BC, Year 16 of Ahmosis I. King Amenhotep I reigns from

1457 BC as coregent of his father Ahmosis I for four years. His Year 9 dates to 1449 BC

according to the rising of Sothis at Memphis during a Full Moon. This is all you need to

know for now in order to be able to follow my arguments below.

For those who are not interested in an elaborate explanation of my arguments but only in

my conclusions, I will give a preview of the final results here, instead of at the end of the two

volumes covering the reassessment of the full 18th Dynasty:

Final Reconstruction of Dynasty 18

The following table shows my final, totally lunar based reconstruction of Dynasty 18.

18th Dynasty King Manetho’s kinglist Reign – Dates BC

1. Amosis I Nebpehtyre 1. Amos, Aahmes, Tethmosis, 25y4m 25 y. – 1578-1553

2. Amenhotep I Djeserkare 3. Amenophthis, Amenophis, 24y (20y7m) 25 y. – 1557-1532

3. Thuthmosis I Akheperkare 5. Misaphris, Mephres, 12y9m 13 y. – 1532-1519

4. Thuthmosis II Akheperenre 2. Chebros, Chebron, 13y 15 y. – 1519-1504

5. Hatshepsut Maakare 4. Amensis, Amersis, 21y9m (21y1m) 16 y. – 1500-1484

6. Thuthmosis III Menkheperure 6. Misphragmuthosis, 25y10m (20y10m) 54 y. – 1504-1450

7. Amenhotep II Akhererure 8. Amenophis, 30y10m 30 y. – 1453-1423

8. Thuthmosis IV Menkheperure 7. Tuthmosis, 9y8m 10 y. – 1423-1413

9. Amenhotep III Nubmaatre 9. Orus, 36y5m (28/38y) 38 y. – 1413-1376

10. Akhenaten Neferkheperure 10. Akhenkheres I, Akherres, 12y1m 17 y. – 1376-1360

11. Neferneferuaten Ankhkheperure 11. Rathotis, Rathos, 6y, 9y 9 y. – 1360-1351

12. Smenkhkare Ankhkheperure 12. Akhenkheres II, Khebres, 12y5m 3 y. – 1353-1350

13. Tutankhamun Nebkheperure 13. Akhenkheres III, Akherres II, 12y3m 11 y. – 1350-1339

14. Ay (Eje) Kheperkheperure 14. Harmais, Armesis, 4y1m 4 y. – 1339-1335

Total 246/243/240 years 243 years

Dating the Early 18th Dynasty

The Early 18th Dynasty of Egypt consists of eight kings covering a period in the Egyptian civil calendar of 164 years 11 months 22 days (from 27 June 1578 BC to 3 May 1413 BC). These

kings are: Ahmosis I, Amenhotep I, Thuthmosis I to III, Hatshepsut (a female), Amenhotep II and

Thuthmosis IV. The next six kings, forming the Late 18th Dynasty, are: Amenhotep III,

Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), Neferneferuaten (a female), Smenkhkare, Tutankhaten

(Tutankhamon) and Ay, covering a period of only 78 years until the accession of Horemheb as founder of Dynasty 19. The whole 18th Dynasty thus covers a period of 243 years, of which the

first 16 years were shared with the end part of the 15th Dynasty of the Hyksos in the Delta. I

chose for this division of the 18th Dynasty into two parts for practical reasons. The Late 18th

Dynasty from Amenhotep III onwards involves many different and even bigger problems to solve

than the Early 18th Dynasty. A similar division is proposed for most other Dynasties.

Two kings of the Early 18th Dynasty are known to have reigned jointly. These are Hatshepsut

and Thuthmosis III, so this leads to an average reign length of 23.5 years for the Early 18th

Dynasty. This is entirely consistent with the normal average of 23-25 years throughout the

3

Pharaonic Age, the Ancient Near East and modern society in general. Yet, during unstable times,

such as the Second Intermediate Period (the 13th Dynasty and the Hyksos Age), kings reigned

on average about 6 years or less. A similar situation occured in the Late 18th Dynasty, also

called the Amarna Age, when the average reign length was 13 years, or after Amenhotep III even

8 years. It is no wonder that the 19th Dynasty Egyptians regarded the Armana age as yet

another intermediate period which they simply deleted from the official royal records, except for Amenhotep III, as they also did with the First and Second Intermediate Periods.

For dating the kings of Dynasty 18, we have not much to go on other than what the surviving

monuments and other documents of the time tell us. There are no surviving Egyptian kinglists

describing the reign lengths and relationships of each and every king. But we do have the amazingly accurate work of the Egyptian priest Manetho. This priest wrote circa 286 BC in

Greek a complete chronology of the Pharaonic Age, based on now lost Egyptian temple archives.

Manetho’s own work has not survived. What we have now are fragments of copies ascribed to

Manetho, corrupted by mainly Christian Churchfathers like Eusebius, Syncellus and Africanus

and the Jewish apologist Flavius Josephus.

Despite the enormous number of difficulties presented by Manetho’s work, his history still

plays an important role in Egyptological studies. Much of the writing about Egyptian chronology

often attempts to either reconcile or disprove Manetho’s claims.

In fact, Manetho was a priest at the temple at Heliopolis, and tradition held that in this temple there was a depiction of a Tree of Life, containing the names of all the Egyptian kings on its

leaves. It is in any case clear that Manetho originally had a very accurate chronological history of

Egypt at his disposal and had translated it faithfully into Greek.

In respect to the 18th Dynasty, Josephus, who wrote circa 90 AD, is our oldest and least

corrupted source. He only listed the 18th and 19th Dynasty kings, apparently from a source which was already in part corrupted or a later copyist may have modified Josephus’ work. So let

us take a look at how the Early 18th Dynasty is to be reconstructed according to Josephus:

18th Dynasty historical Kings Manetho’s royal names Reign lengths as per Josephus

1. Ahmosis I Nebpehtyre 1. Amos, Aahmes 25 y. 4 m. (1. Tethmosis)

2. Amenhotep I Djeserkare 3. Amenophthis 20 y. 7 m. (3. Amenophis)

3. Thuthmosis I Akheperkare 5. Misaphris, Mephres 12 y. 9 m. (5. Mephres)

4. Thuthmosis II Akheperenre 2. Chebros, Chebron 13 y. (2. Chebron)

5. Hatshepsut Maatkare 4. Amensis, Amersis 21 y. 9 m. (4. Amesse)

6. Thuthmosis III Menkheperure 6. Misphragmuthosis 25 y. 10 m. (6. Mephrammuthosis)

7. Amenhotep II Akhererure 8. Amenophis 30 y. 10 m. (8. Amenophis)

8. Thuthmosis IV Menkheperure 7. Tuthmosis 9 y. 8 m. (7. Tuthmoses)

Total: 159 y. 9 m.

Josephus misses only 4-5 years of Thuthmosis III’s sole reign of 30-31 years after Hatshepsut.

These two kings happen to be the only ones of Dynasty 18 whose reign lengths are known for

certain to the year and day exact, together covering 53 Egyptian years 10 months 26 days.

Note also that the order, in which Josephus and others presented the kings, can be ascribed to Manetho having in front of him a separate Egyptian source, listing the first six kings in three

pairs, but read by him in the wrong direction. This separation is also obvious from the fact that

Africanus and Eusebius give a separate summation line after the 6th king (Misphragmuthosis

aka Thuthmosis III), although excluding for some odd reason this 6th king himself. Africanus

misses out on the reign length of Ahmosis I, and gives a summation line of 69 years, implying a reign length of 21 years for Amenophath or Amenoph (Amenhotep I), while actually giving him

24 years, implying that a summation line should be 72 years instead. But Eusebius misses out

on Amesse (Hatshepsut), giving Ahmosis a reign length of 25 years and a summation line of 71

years. Eusebius also mentions that these 71 years cover ”five kings, not six”, but in fact it covers

four of the kings, not five, as is also the case with Africanus’ summation. Josephus does not give

4

an intermediate summation. These differences between Josephus, Africanus and Eusebius, have

always haunted Egyptologists. The solution could be that Africanus had added up Josephus’

reign lengths of the second to fifth kings, totalling 68 years 1 month and leaving the reign length

of the first king open for discussion, while Eusebius added up the first four kings, totalling 71

years 8 months and leaving the reign of the fifth king open for discussion.

We don’t know why this confict arose. I propose it was because Josephus called Ahmosis I by

the name ”Tethmosis”, while the reign lengths of this ”Tethmosis” and ”Mephrammuthosis”

(Thuthmosis III) are respectively 25 years 4 months and 25 years 10 months, close enough to

suspect that Josephus may have confused the two kings, prompting Africanus and Eusebius to

stop right here and to disagree about which king to leave out of their respecive summation lines.

Josephus’ name Tethmosis for Ahmosis I is certainly out of place. This name likely referred

originally to one of the two 13th Dynasty kings Dudimose (Thom, Thum?) who remained at

Itjtawy since the Pre-Hyksos Canaanite demise at Avaris in 1767 BC and during the advent of

the Hyksos at Avaris in 1747 BC, and whom Josephus called Tutimaios or Thumaeus. The

reality of this Pre-Hyksos demise at Avaris was exposed during recent excavations at Avaris by Bietak, This event was most certainly confused by Josephus with the later Hyksos demise at

Avaris in 1562 BC, Year 16 of Ahmosis I, and transposed his ”Tutimaios” to ”Tethmosis”.

Josephus did this in my opinion because he originally believed that the biblical Exodus was a

pre-Hyksos event, and for good reasons. Both the Samaritan biblical chronology and the work of Artapanus of the 2nd century BC point to the exact same event in 1767 BC, while in ”Contra

Apion” Josephus himself also speaks of the ”real” biblical Exodus as occurring 393 years before

the end of Amenophis (IV)’s 13 years of hiding in the south, referring either to Akhenaten’s 12

years of public appearances at Thebes and Akhetaten (Amarna) from his Year 1 (1376/5 BC)

until he vanished into obliviation (1376/5-1365/4 BC), or to his 13 years of reigning at

Akhetaten since his Year 5 (1372/1 BC) until his death in 1360/59 BC. That gives us a window between 1769 and 1752 BC, and can only mean the time of the Pre-Hyksos demise. Since

Josephus knew only Akhenaten’s father Amenhotep III as Amenophis it follows that he was

referring to the ”real” Exodus as an event around 1769-1767 BC. The Turin Canon Egyptian

kinglist, the monuments of the 12th and 13th Dynasties, and Bietak’s excavations at Avaris fully

confirm unanimously the precise date of this demise to be 1767 BC. Josephus may later have changed his mind and settled on the Hyksos demise instead.

Josephus or his followers may next have confused ”Tethmosis” further with Thuthmosis I, who

purportedly chased the surviving Hyksos northwards along the Levantine coast to as far as

perhaps Biblos, apparently during his first year (1532 BC). Thus Josephus’ figure Tethmosis

already caused the confusion of a period of no less than 235 years, dropping from 1767 BC to 1532 BC. But now we get the sense that Africanus and Eusebius suggest with their intermediate

summation line a further confusion with Thuthmosis III. Perhaps they were basing themselves

on vague knowledge of Hatshepsut’s apparent claim of driving out the remnants of Hyksos

inhabitation resurging at Avaris, which she didn’t, and which didn’t happen until at least 14

years after the end of Dynasty 19, with the expulsion of the Syrian usurper Irsu and his Canaanite supporters, circa 1200 BC.

These confusing notions also have major implications for interpreting the Masoretic,

Samaritan and Septuagint versions of the Bible as far as dating the Exodus is concerned. And

indeed, Africanus mentions on the one hand that in the reign of Amos ”Moses went forth from

Egypt”, implying that the biblical Exodus took place during the Hyksos expulsion, but in the same breath he claims ”that in this reign Moses was still young”, which cannot be applied to an

80 or even 40-year old Moses ”going forth from Egypt” and implies a later proposed Exodus date

some time in the reign of Hatshepsut or at the latest at the beginning of Thuthmosis III’s sole

reign in 1483 BC. Eusebius clearly did not agree with Africanus and pictures the Exodus under

Moses to have occurred as late as during the reign of Cencheres (16 years; also known as Rathosis for 9 or 6 years), i.e. Neferneferure (1365/59-1353/0 BC), the successor of

Achencherses (12 years), i.e. Akhenaten, corresponding to the very claim Josephus attributed to

Manetho and was strongly opposed to in Contra Apion.

5

The next pair of kings after Thuthmosis III Manetho must have read from another table, again

starting in the wrong direction but this time following the remaining kings down to the end of

the 19th Dynasty in bostrophedon (i.e. bi-directional alternating) order.

Manetho’s names for kings Thuthmosis I-III and Hatshepsut are virtually beyond recognition.

Many competing explanations for possible Greek corruptions of Egyptian names have been proposed, based on real or imagined linguistic rules, but none are useful enough to pursue.

Our greatest problem is that we have multiple competing chronologies of the 18th Dynasty,

not in the last place due to the fact that we have no solid proof of the exact reign lengths of the

kings and only a handful of usually debatable synchronisms. Only Thuthmosis III’s reign length is uniquely known to the day exact, and all efforts of securing the Early 18th Dynasty are highly

dependent on dating just the two kings Amenhotep I and Thuthmosis II. But we also have a

secure synchronism of Thuthmosis III and his son Amenhotep II with Assyria, which works to

the year exact if the chronologies of both countries are dated according to the High Chronology.

To be able to date the kings relatively, we need to know their reign lengths, and if a joint reign occurred we also need to know the number of overlapping years. Luckily we have Manetho’s list

of 18th Dynasty kings, which greatly corroborates the highest attested year dates of most of the

kings. In fact, Manetho is the only kinglist with reign lengths for this period. All else comes from

contemporary archaeological finds and from deductions.

So let us now compare Manetho’s reign lengths with those proposed by modern Egyptologists

based on the highest attested and accepted regnal years:

Relative dating of the Early 18th Dynasty: 18th Dynasty King Manetho Highest attested Minimum accepted Maximum accepted

1. Amosis I 25 ys 4 ms (25 ys) 22 years 25 years 25 total years

2. Amenhotep I 20 ys 7 ms (21, 24 ys) 21 years 21 (- 4 joint) years 21 (+4 joint) years

3. Thuthmosis I 12 ys 9 ms (13 ys) 4 or 8/9 (11?) ys 11 years 13 years

4. Thuthmosis II 13 ys (13, 12 ys) 1 (18?) years 3 years 14 (18?) years

--. Subtotal (71 ys 8 ms) (71, 75 ys) (50, 55, 58..74 ys) (60, 56 ys) (73 ys) (77? ys)

5. Hatshepsut 21 ys 1 (9) ms (22 ys) (18 (20?) ys joint!) (20 years joint!) (22 years joint!)

6. Thuthmosis III 20 (25) ys 10 ms (26 ys) 54 years 54 years 54 years

7. Amenhotep II 30 ys 10 ms (31 ys) 26 (35?) (-3? joint) y 26 (-3? joint) ys 35? (-3? joint) ys

8. Thuthmosis IV 9 ys 8 ms (9 ys) 8 y 8 (2?) ys 9-10 (19-20?)

Totals: 153-164 ys 135?-171? ys 135?-148? ys 168?-186? Ys

Now how are we ever going to work with such a complete mess of uncertain data, other than

pick and choose as is usually done by Egyptologists? Many Egyptologists therefore simply revert to minimalism, also known as ”dead reckoning”. Others take a few anchor dates, and fill in the

rest by conjecture. It all remains pure guesswork. It became one of my goals to get rid of this

totally unstable dating system once and for all.

I discovered a consistent pattern, first vaguely in the Early and Old Kingdoms and later more

clearly in the 12th and 13th Dynasties and all the more clearly in the 18th, 19th and 20th Dynasties. It all boiled down to the notion that all Egyptian kings chose their accession date to

occur on a lunation, mostly a Full Moon and sometimes a No Moon, a First Visible Evening

Crescent or a pure Conjunction. I call this discovery the Lunar Dating (LAD) method. It is this

method which comes to the rescue! According to my analyses of known accession dates, the best

solution comes with the High Chronology, in contrast to all possible lower chonologies I have tested with or without coregencies. This discovery gives the following secured structure, covering

a round period of 165 Egyptian years:

6

Absolute dating of the early 18th Dynasty according to the LAD method: 18th Dynasty King Accession date Julian date Lunation reign length

1. Amosis I II Shemu 9 (inferred) 27 June 1578 BC First Visible 25 y. (21y 1m sole)

2. Amenhotep I III Shemu 9 27 July 1557 BC 18th day Visible 25 (21 sole) years

3. Thuthmosis I III Peret 21 29 March 1532 BC No Moon 13 years 6 months

4. Thuthmosis II II Akhet 8 14 October 1519 BC Full Moon 14 years 7 months

Subtotal combined 26975 days, in terms of Egyptian years, months and days: 73 y. 11 m. 0 d.

5. Hatshepsut (co-reigning with Thuthmosis III, and discussed later)

6. Thuthmosis III I Shemu 4 4 May 1504 BC Full Moon 54 y. (51y 6m sole)

7. Amenhotep II IV Akhet 1 19 November 1453 Conjunction 29 (26 sole) y. 2 m.

8. Thuthmosis IV ? (I Peret 30?) (11 January) 1423 (Full Moon) 10 years 3 months

Total combined 60212 days, in terms of Egyptian years, months and days: 164 y. 11 m. 22 d.

In this scheme it can be seen that the accession dates of Amosis I and Amenhotep I are still

highly influenced by the Semitic lunar calendar during the war with the Hyksos, which ended in

Egypt in 17 Amosis I, 1562 BC and lasted until the last Hyksos holdout at Sharuhen near Gaza

on the Palestine coast had been vanquished in 22 Ahmosis I, 1557 BC, the accession year of Amenhotep I. Amosis I and Amenhotep I also have their reign lengths in common. Their

relationship is highly symbolic for the Egyptian Osiris-Horus succession myth, emphasized in

Year 9 of Amenhotep I, signifying a new lunar beginning. Osiris too is supposed to have reigned

for 25 years as the mythical first mortal king of Egypt, and his son Horus ”the Avenger of his

Father” succeeded him after defeating the usurper, his ”uncle” Seth, the Hyksos god Suthekh. There is yet another reason for this dividing line: Amosis I and Amenhotep I still belonged to the

family line of the 17th Dynasty, so it is strange that Manetho made Amosis I start a new

Dynasty. In fact the next king, Thuthmosis I, started a new Dynasytic (family) line of kings and

should have begun Dynasty 18. How it is possible that Manetho made Amosis I begin the 18th

Dynasty, I will discuss in the section of dating Thuthmosis I.

As we can see from the two tables above, the greatest source of debate is the reign length of

Thuthmosis II, since we have on the one hand only his Year 1 attested from the monuments,

plus a highly dubious stray Year date of 18, while Manetho says his reign length is 12- 13 years,

and I claim it to be 15 years. How are people supposed to believe any of this if it doesn’t lead to a

convincing consensus?

Interlude of Manethoan Disorder

Manetho’s evidently wrong order of the first six kings of Dynasty 18 is certainly a source of

debate. However, a sound and systematic explanation can be given for this disorder. Manetho

must have had before him a table of three rows and two columns, meant to be read column by

column but read row by row as Manetho seems to have done:

First column Second Column

Manetho’s order Correct order Manetho’s order Correct order

1. Amosis/Tethmosis 1. Amosis I 2. Chebron 4. Thuthmosis II

3. Amenophis 2. Amenhotep I 4. Ame[n]sse 5. Hatshepsut

5. Mephres 3. Thuthmosis I 6. Mephra[g]muthosis 6. Thuthmosis III

Precisely hereafter both Africanus and Eusebius enter a separate summation line with a subtotal of

respectively 69 and 71 years, excluding for some odd reason Misphragmuthosis (Thuthmos III) himself. This is a unique discovery, and although well-known to Egyptologists, it is hardly ever stressed by anyone

7

who studies the problems of Manetho’s king list. In fact, I never saw anyone trying to find out how Manetho also came to disorder the remaining kings of the 18th Dynasty and the following Dynasty 19, which may have occurred in a similar systematic way. So I reassessed Manetho’s 18th and 19th Dynasties in order to

discover such a possible systematic deviation from Manetho’s source(s). It turns out that the order of Manetho’s fourth group of two kings is swapped:

First column Second Column

Manetho’s order Correct order Manetho’s order Correct order

7. Thuthmosis 8. Thuthmosis IV 8. Amenophis 7. Amenhotep II

Then the order alternates:

9. Orus 9. Amenhotep III 10. Akenkheres I (dau!) 10. Akenaten (male!)

In which a royal daughter-brother pair is copied onto the wrong pair, due to the thrice used name

Akenkheres, a probable coorruption of these kings’s new capital city name Akhetaten since Akhenaten:

12. Akenkheres II (11.) 12. Smenkhkare (bro!) 11. Rathotis (12. bro!) 11. Neferneferuaten (dau!)

Correctly alternating direction further:

13. Akenkheres III 13. Tutankhamun 14. Harmais 14. Ay

This is where the 18th Dynasty should end. However, confusion with the Early 19th Dynasty crept into

Manetho’s work, perhaps not even due to himself but due to his commentators and perhaps due to the way the Early 19th Dynasty kings tried to rewrite the late 18th Dynasty after Amenhotep III, in order to eliminate from history the whole Amarna (Akhetaten) era of five kings from Akhenaten to and including king Ay. And indeed, hereafter the confusion becomes more obvious, in which Manetho mistakenly switches over to the opposite alternating order:

15. Ramesses 16. Ramesses I 16. Harmesse Miamun 15. Horemheb

Next he also conflates both Horemheb and Seti I with Ramesses II in the next row and column

respectively:

18/1. Sethos 17. Seti I 18/2. Ramesses 18. Ramesses II

As a consequence of this conflation he conflates Seti I with Seti II in the next row as well as Merenptah

with Amenmesse in the following row:

18/4. Ramesses 20. Seti II 17/3. Amenophthes 19. Merenptah

8

By doing so, he eventually ends up equating Siptah with his wife Tawosret, clearly not knowing whether Tawosret was a man or a woman or even had a separate reign after Siptah’s death, so he gave Tawosret’s name a male ending in the form of Thuoris, which of course can only refer to Siptah as the husband of Tawosret. The sole reign of Tawosret after the death of Siptah at the end of Dynasty 19 and the following interregnum with Irsu is thus left out of the record by Manetho:

17/5. Ammenemnes 21. Amenmesse 18/6. Thuoris (male) 22. Siptah & Tawosret (female)

In summary I count eleven rows of kings in Manetho's hypothetical source tables for Dynasties 18 (3 + 4

rows) and 19 (4 rows). I conjecture that a twelfth row containing Tawosret followed by Irsu (read from right to left) is likely missing:

20/8. ? (Osarseph?) 24. Irsu (Interregnum) 19/7. Thuoris (female) 23. Tawosret (female)

The reason why the first six kings formed a separate group may have been that these six kings

were still very much entangled in the aftermath of the Hyksos Age. There were still people, apparently Asiatics, living at Avaris until Amenhotep II took the throne in 1453 BC, three years

before the death of his father Thuthmosis III. This then may have marked the end of an

historical chapter, from which Manetho took his knowledge of these six kings. His next source

thus began with Amenhotep II, but was compiled in a different way, without Manetho having

noticed the directional change.

Apparently Manetho’s source gave the fourth row of kings in reverse order, while Manetho was

still reading in his already chosen fixed direction. The next row of kings is the same as on the

monuments, but hereafter Manetho misplaces the genders of the 10th and 11th kings

Akhenkheres (I) and Rathotis as daughter and brother, which should be respecively the 11th

and 12th kings of the monuments, namely Neferneferuaten (female) and her male namesake and later coregent Smenkhkare, thus Manetho’s kings Akenkheres (II) and Rathotis. This suggests

that Manetho’s source of the last eight kings of Dynasty 18 followed a pattern of alternating

reading directions, known as boustrophedon. This word comes from the Greek βους (bous) "ox" +

στρεφειν (strefein) "to turn", because it resembles the path an ox makes when plowing a field,

turning at the end of each row to return in the opposite direction.

An unanounced switch from one-directional writing to boustrophedon or bi-directional writing

is bound to lead to reading mistakes. Manetho mistook Akenkheres I for Akenkheres II but still

misread the daughter-brother pair in the wrong order, so perhaps his source also had some

hieroglyphic faces in the wrong direction. But curiously enough only Manetho’s Jewish

commentator Josephus and his Christian copiïst Theophilus display the daughter-brother pair associated with Neferuaten and Smenkhkare, the two successors of Akhenaten in this order.

Africanus and Eusebius do not mention the gender at all.

In the following chapter I deliberately left out any discussions about dating the first two kings

Amosis I and Amenhotep I, as they are very much tied up with the immensely complex issue of

the Hyksos Expulsion as well as the Sothis date of Year 9 of Amenhotep I, calling for a separate work. Therefore, I justify my beginning with Thuthmosis I as being the real founder of a new

family line dominating the 18th Dynasty since the last surviving Hyksos in the Levant had been

scattered and vanquished by this king in Year 1, 1532 BC, giving way to a whole new story.

9

The Family of Thuthmosis I-III

Biography of Ahmose Pen-nekhbet

The biography of Ahmose Pen-nekhbet is often used as a tool to date the Early 18th Dynasty

kings.

Ahmose Pen-nekhbet was an ancient Egyptian official who started his career under Ahmosis I

and served all the Pharaohs until Thuthmose III. His autobiographical inscriptions are important

for the understanding of the history of the early New Kingdom, though less detailed than those

of his contemporary Ahmose, son of Ebana. Ahmose Pen Nekhbet came from the city of Nekhbet

and was buried there in El Kab tomb 3. In his tomb he mentions his wife Ipu and his brother (?)

Khaemwaset. His wife Ipu may be identical with the royal nurse of Thuthmosis III who was also called Ipu (testified only once on an offering table from Abydos, today in the museum of Cairo,

CG 23034; see Roehrig, 1990) and who had been the mother of Queen Satiah (Zat-Jah, SatJah),

the Great Royal Wife of Thuthmosis III, testified at least until regnal year 5 Thuthmosis III (see

Helck, W., ZÄS 121, 1994), that is 1500 BC.

Under Ahmosis I he fought in Northern Canaan; then he followed Amenhotep I to Nubia,

accompanied Thuthmosis I to Naharin, and campaigned with Thuthmosis II in Sinai. He held

many offices. He was a hereditary prince, count, wearer of the royal seal, chief treasurer, herald

[of his Lord, ....]. His autobiography ends with the assertion that he had been the tutor of

Neferure, daughter of Hatshepsut.

Today, three monuments are assigned to Ahmose Pen-nekhbet:

- The tomb No. 2 at Elkab, together with his brother Khaemwaset;

- A basis of a statue, now shown in the Louvre (Catalogue-No. 49);

- The statue "Mr. Finley" now in the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh (Catalogue-No. 1948.486).

To a large extent the genealogical data given in his tomb are still unpublished (after

Vandersleyen (quoted after Graefe, 1981).

Interestingly Ahmose does not call Thuthmosis III as king, yet he mentions his throne name Menkheperre, so he must have died before partway Year 5, when Thuthmosis III was

not yet made coregent of Hatshepsut and was indeed known as Menkheperre! He also

mentions Hatshepsut as Maatkare, apparently already since before the death of Thuthmosis

II.

Examination of the well-preserved mummy suggests that Ahmose Pen-nekhbet was about 35

years old when he died, but that does not tally with his suggested career of nearly 60 years. If he

began his career at say 15 years of age, one might guess he must have died at the age of nearly

75 years instead. Some see this as evidence that warrants shortening of a few reigns by 10 years

or more. However, the estimated ages of mummies are usually at least 20 percent too young.

The mummy could have easily suggested an age 50 years or more instead. Thus the biography and mummy of Ahmose proves to be of no use for fixing the chronology of the six kings he

served.

10

Dating Thuthmosis I

Thutmose I claimed that he campaigned as far as the Euphrates region, unlike any Pharaoh

before him, even before his Nubian campaign in Year 2. After his Nubian campaign in Year 2 he again went deep into Syria and reached Naharin. However, his claimed first campaign to the

Euphrates is not mentioned by any of the autobiographies of his officers, while both his

campaign into Nubia and the subsequent campaign to Naharin are both mentioned in the

autobiographies.

There is also no mention of such a campaign during Amenhotep I, when Thuthmosis I was still

an army general. It is even calculated that Thuthmosis I could not have had enough time in his

first year to have campaigned first to the Euphrates, set up a stele there, as he claimed, then

return to Egypt and immediately campaign in Year 2 to beyond the 3rd Cataract in Nubia.

Therefore, it has been concluded that Thuthmosis I was not telling the truth.

However, it is possible that Thuthmosis I recalled a campaign as an army general with Amosis

I into Syria and boasted that it was his first campaign as king. He may have been a general since

the days of Amenhotep I, after the Expulsion of the Hyksos and their defeat at Sharuhen under

Amosis I, followed by another defeat under Amosis I at Zahi (Djahi), so perhaps Amosis I chased

after the Hyksos northwards along the coast all the way into Mesopotamia until he reached the Euphrates. We know that Amosis I defeated the Hyksos at Sharuhen in his Year 22. If he

defeated them also at Zahi, further north, in Phoenician country, in his Year 23, he may have

reached the Euphrates perhaps the following year, Year 24, set up a stele and returned to Egypt

just prior to his death in Year 26. All those years Amenhotep I sat on the throne as his coregent,

so that in the mean time in Egypt things would have been well taken care of.

After driving the Hyksos out of Egypt, Amosis I campaigned into Nubia to re-secure the

southern border of Egypt. Here, he established a new civil administration at Buhen, probably

initially headed by a Viceroy named Djehuty. It may well be that Djehuty, or his son, was

Djehuti-mes or Thuthmosis I who became a general. Apparently, while Amosis I was in Nubia,

former Hyksos allies again attempted a few uprisings in the north, led by an arch enemy of Kamose named Teti-en. After Amosis I's campaigns into Nubia, he once again returned to

Palestine and besieged Sharuhen for three years until his 22nd year in power and thereafter he

may have fought his way as far as the Euphrates, according to the information on a stela of

Tuthmosis I. After having served also King Amenhotep I, Thuthmosis I had been made king, and

from that time on he was credited by his officials his own campaign into Nubia, followed by a

new campaign into Syria, but not his campaign as a general alongside king Amosis I, who was rightfully credited his campaign into Syria.

Thus it is possible to say that Thuthmosis I as a general had served Amosis I since Year 18,

possibly first as viceroy at Buhen in Nubia, then after Year 23 as a general for a few years, until

he became king himself after the death of Amenhotep I. His carreer then may have lasted for 30 years, from 1562 to 1532 BC. If he started off at the age of 15 and reigned as king for 13 years,

he may have died at the earliest at the age of 58 years. This corresponds quite well with the age

of about 50 years given by the examination of his mummy. So we only need to blame

Thuthmosis I to have credited his campaign into Syria as a general under Amosis I at most 23

years earlier to his own Year 1, which simply reveals that he was boasting to have done

something he did on behalf of his king Amosis I, without actually lying.

After Thutmose I, in the first year of his government, had undertaken his campaign by water

against Nubia and Kush, and had fixed the boundaries of his empire to the south, and had

returned laden with a rich booty to his home in Egypt, it seemed to him that the favourable

moment had arrived to send forward his experienced troops to the east, to attack in their own homes the ancient hereditary enemies of the country, the hated inhabitants of Western Asia. The

great war of vengeance against Asia now began, which for nearly 500 years was carried on by

succeeding Pharaohs with almost uninterrupted good fortune. Before we follow the wars of King

11

Thutmose I, it appears fitting carefully to survey the theatre of the coining important campaigns,

and to become acquainted with the peoples and cities whose names from this time forward will

constantly come under our notice.

Thuthmosis I is furthermore credited to have decorated the bark shrine of Amenhotep I, either

before or after Amenhotep I’s death.

It is even possible that Thuthmosis I was first made coregent of Amenhotep I. From the

perspective of my lunar accession dating method, this may have occurred in 1536 BC, in Year

21 of Amenhotep I, four years before he became sole ruler, during a Full Moon (on 30 March

1536 BC). Thus he may have actually reigned for 17 years, but solely for only 13 years:

The accession date of III Peret 21 of Thuthmosis I is certain (Urk. IV 81, 4). His highest known

year date is either Year 4 on a naos from Gizeh (Urk. IV, 91,9), which is most certain, or Year

8/9 on a block from Karnak (A. Mariette, Karnak, Leipzig, 1875, pl. 32.f), with doubtful

attribution (see Wente & Van Siclen, ‘Chronology’, 225-226, and R. Krauss, Ä & L 3, 1992, 86-

87 with fig. 3). It has been proposed that the ‘11 years’ of Nebwawy (Urk. IV 208, 16) also refer to this king, although D. B. Redford (JNES 25, 1966, 118-119) prefers to assign them to

Thuthmosis II.

Another option is that Thuthmosis I followed Amenhotep I in his campaign into Nubia in Year

8. If he had already been made coregent of Amenhotep I by that time, his accession could have occurred in Year 7 of Amenhotep I, during another Full Moon on 3 April 1550, three months

before the onset of Amenhotep I’s Year 8. In that case Thuthmosis I could have campaigned as

king jointly with king Amenhotep I into Nubia for three months in his Year 2 from 2 April 1549

BC until (before) 19 July 1549 BC when it was still Year 8 of Amenhotep I. If this is only a

coincidence, it would be quite extraordinary. So assuming that this was the case, Thuthmosis I

already had been coregent for 18 years, from 1550 to 1532 BC, and therefore reigned in total for 31 years, of which 13 years solely. This is possible and wouldn’t change the chronology anyhow,

but could explain a few things.

For instance, it may explain the existence of a dubious Year 18 document, which can’t be

placed otherwise. On the other hand it would upset all the current theories about Thuthmosis I’s reign length following the death of Amenhotep I, since there would be not only quite a few gaps

in the attestation of Year dates for this king but also no higher Year dates after Year 18 to assign

to Thuthmosis I after Amenhotep I. On the other hand this problem is also seen with his son

Thuthmosis II, of whom we have no higher Year date attested than Year 1. And yet the debate

still goes on whether he must have ruled for 1-3 or 13-15 years. So it should not be such a

problem if this was also the case with Thuthmosis I:

Resulting hypothesis:

? Year 2 Thuthmosis I : 2 April 1549 BC < 2 April 1548 BC Year 8 Amenhotep I : 20 July 1550 BC < 19 July 1549 BC

? Joint campaign to Nubia : 2 April 1549 BC – 19 July 1549 BC

Both kings could therefore have campaigned jointly for three months into Nubia, in Year 2 of

Thuthmosis I and Year 8 of Amenhotep I, from 2 April until 19 July 1549 BC. These possibilities

are of course only suggestions to be considered. It doesn’t affect the chronology, but may solve a

few problems. The idea of a joint campaign may not find much acceptance, since the officials who wrote about the campaigns of Amenhotep I and Thuthmosis I in their autobiographic tombs

do not mention them as a joint campaign. So this idea is not substantiated by anything, but it

remains an interesting idea. Otherwise Thuthmosis I indeed campaigned into Nubia in his 2nd

Year after the death of Amenhotep I, which would be in 1531/0 BC in my chronology.

An interesting point is that if the biblical Moses was born, or perhaps 3 months old, in 1532

BC, Year 1 of Thuthmosis I, he could have become 80 in 1553 BC, Year 1 of Amenhotep II,

during which the Exodus would have occurred according to the Masoretic 480 years before the

Temple building of Solomon in 973 BC. On the other hand, if he was born 40 years later, in

12

1492 BC, the Exodus would have occurred in 1413 BC, Year 1 of Amenhotep III, 440 years

before the Temple building according to the Septuagint, but which could just as well be the year

of the Conquest. This discrepancy between the Masoretic and the Septuagint can explain all the

more how the flight of Moses to Midian could just as well have been meant to be an Exodus of

confused with it, especially when we are confronted with a continuous series of 40-years period

from the birth of Moses down to the death of Solomon, which is clearly an artificial sequence. The 80 years from Thuthmosis I to Amenhotep II as well as the 80 years of Moses in Egypt (and

Midian) could also have been seen as symbolic for the story of the 80 years of contending of

Horus and Seth.

In short, we have hardly any evidence to fill in the reign of Thuthmosis I with any certainty beyond his probable Year 11 after Amenhotep I, and may therefore just as well accept Manetho’s

13 years, which is neatly corroborated by the Lunar Accession Dating method and is therefore

more secure than anything else we know about this king. So I stick to dating Thuthmosis I from

1532 to 1519 BC, which may or may not be extended by coregency with Amenhotep I from either

1536 BC or even 1550 BC.

Dating Thuthmosis II

Following Gardiner, Redford accepts the Egyptian calendar date II Akhet 8 (JNES 25, 1966,

117) as the accession date of Thuthmosis II. However, Beckerath (‘Chronologie’, NR, 117)

assumes that it took place in the month III or IV Akhet, based on the months assigned to

Thuthmosis I (Mephres) by Josephus. This is of course pure speculation. Josephus could be

slightly in error. His 12 years 9 months could just as well have been 13 years 6 months, i.e. 12

years and twice 9 months, based on the death of Amenhotep I in the month I/II Peret according to Josephus’ regnal period of 20 years 7 months for Amenhotep I, leading up to the death of

Thuthmosis II in II/III Akhet, closer to the date II Akhet 8. So like Gardiner and Redfort I accept

the latter date for the accession of Thuthmosis II as reasonably secure.

Some scholars state that the only certain date in Year 1 of Thuthmosis II is II Akhet 9 (Aswan: Urk IV 137,9), but this is an error. In the text "Inscription of Tuthmosis II, recording a rebellion

in Nubia" the correct date is still always transliterated and translated as II Akhet 8 (see Mark-

Jan Nederhof, “Nubian Rebellion, recorded by inscription of Thuthmosis II”, http://www.cs.st-

andrews.ac.uk/~mjn/egyptian/texts/corpus/pdf/NubianRebellionTuthmosisII.pdf, last

modified 2009-06-08, following the transcription of A. De Buck, “Egyptian Readingbook”, Ares

Publishers, Chicago, Illinois, 1948, pp. 47-48; and following the transliteration of R. Hannig, “Grosses Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch: die Sprache der Pharaonen (2800-950 v. Chr.)”,

Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1995; for older published translations, see J.H. Breasted, “Ancient

Records of Egypt”, Volume II, The University of Chicago Press, 1906, pp. 48-50, §§ 119-122; and

K. Sethe, “Urkunden der 18. Dynastie”, übersetzt, Volume I (1906), Hinrichs, Leipzig, 1914,

number 55, pp. 67-69, transcription on pp. 137-141; see also R.O. Faulkner, “A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian”, Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1962).

A short reign for Thuthmosis II is thought to be supported by:

1. The small number of scarabs,

2. Gaps in the succession of officials, e.g. the stewards of Karnak, and 3. The lack of a mortuary temple (signaled by L. Gabolde, ‘La chronologie du règne de

Thoutmosis II’, SAK 14, 1987, 61-81).

However, Beckerath (SAK 17, 1990, 65-74; Chronologie NR, 121), W. Barta (JEOL 26, 1980,

33-34) and Wente & Van Siclen (‘Chronologie’, 226-227) have argued for a 13-year reign on the bases of:

1. The age of his children at the end of the reign,

2. The Ebers date, and

13

3. The Sed-festival of Hatshepsut, which is capable of different interpretation.

Up till now the pros and cons have been equal. But to the arguments of Beckerath and Wente

& Van Siclen I add:

4. The distance in time between the two Sothis dates of Amenhotep I and Thuthmosis III, which advocates a longer time between the two kings, regardless whether the Sothis star

(Sirius) is observed rising at Memphis or elsewhere, suggesting a 15-year reign of

Thuthmosis II after Thuthmosis I.

5. The association of the Sothis date of Thuthmosis III with his First and Second Jubilee.

6. The lunar accession dating method which argues for a reign of more precisely 15 years, thus making the arguments for a longer reign all the more secure.

7. The role Hatshepsut claims to have had before and after the death of Thuthmosis II, usually’

minimized due to the assumption that she was just telling lies in order to gain her power.

Dating Thuthmosis III

Two lunar dates are available from the time of Thuthmosis III in which the Moon was invisible

(Bryan, Betsy. The Reign of Thutmose IV. p.14. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,

1991). The first date fell in the month I Shemu (9th month Pakhon) on day 21, in year 23,

during the battle of Megiddo; the second date fell in the month II Peret (6th month Mekhir) on

day 30, in year 24. The difference between the two dates therefore was 649 (= 284 + 365) days,

or precisely 22 lunar months. In combination with the Sothis date of Year 9 of Amenhotep I there is only one perfect match: the first lunar date I Shemu 21 fell on 16 May 1482 BC during a

Conjunction, and the second lunar date II Peret 30 fell on 23 February 1480 BC on No Moon

Day (i.e, the first morning invisibility of the old lunar crescent called psdntyw), so that the New

Moon (Conjunction) occurred correctly on the next day as implied by the accompanying text.

This means that Thuthmosis III’s regnal years began each year between II Peret 30 (about 23

February) and I Shemu 21 (about 16 May), around the beginning of Spring and the rising of

Capella and the Pleiades, a constellation which seems to have been favoured by the Egyptian

kings since the days of the earliest Dynastic kings Narmer and Aha. The day of Thuthmosis III's

accession is indeed known to be with absolute certainty I Shemu 4 (Urk IV 180, 15-16), which is

thus during a Full Moon on Julian date Saturday 4 May 1504 BC. Only one other recorded date of Thuthmosis III corresponds to a lunation, although not stated as such. It is the date Year 2,

month 10 (II Shemu), day 7, which turns out to be a No Moon Day (Psdntyw) on 6 June 1503

BC. It may be just a coincidence.

The length of Thuthmosis III's reign is also known to the day exact thanks to information found in the tomb of the court official Amenemheb (Redford, Donald B: “The Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 25, No 2, p.119; University of

Chicago Press, 1966). Amenemheb records Thuthmosis III's death to his master's fifty-fourth regnal year (Breasted, James Henry. Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. II, p. 234; University of

Chicago Press, Chicago, 1906), on the thirtieth day of the third month of Peret (Murnane, William J.: “Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, p.44; The Oriental Institute of the University of

Chicago, 1977), which in this chronology would be 18 March 1450 BC. Hence, Thuthmosis III

had ruled for 53 (Egyptian) years, 10 months (of 30 days each), and 26 days, and died just one month and four days shy of the start of his 54th regnal year (Peter Der Manuelian: “Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II”; Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge (HÄB) Verlag: 1987, p.20).

A Sed-festival was celebrated during Thutmosis III’s reign and it has once been assumed that

it coincided with an event mentioned on an Elephantine fragment from a temple festival calendar

stating that the Spdt or Sothis rose heliacally on III Shemu 28, that is, the 28th day of the eleventh month Epiphi. The Sothis date in this fragment is thought to belong to the reign of

14

Thutmosis III, but this assumption has never been proven. As observed from Memphis, the

Sothis star Sirius rose heliacally on III Shemu 28 at the earliest on 21 July 1479 BC and at the

latest on 18 July 1466 BC. This complies nicely with the fact that a first Sed-festival was

normally held in the 30th year of a king’s reign. If Thutmosis III acceded in 1504 BC and held

his Sed-festival on the same day as the heliacal rising of the Sothis, this would have occurred on

20 July in 1475 BC, thus perfectly within the limits of an observation of the Sothis at Memphis. The problem with this assumption is that the above mentioned inscription does not mention a

Sed-festival, nor does it mention the name of Thutmosis III or even a regnal year, which makes it

problematic to use as evidence. Here is the relevant portion:

”Epiphi, day 28, the day of the festival of the rising of Sothis.”

Epiphi is the month III Shemu. Unless it can be proven that the fragment belongs to one of the

temples built by Thutmosis III himself and even better, that it was a temple associated with his

Sed-fesatival, a statement like this is generally regarded useless, because it may easily be

describing a heliacal rising of Sothis that occurred long before the birth of Thutmosis III or long

after his death.

Since we know that the Sothis rises a day later in the Egyptian calendar every 4 years, we

should expect the rising of the Sothis on III Shemu 28 to occur 19 x 4 = 76 years after it had

risen on III Shemu 9 in Year 9 of Amenhotep I. Since we have already settled on 19 July 1549

BC as the rising of the Sothis in Year 9 of Amenhotep I, this calls for dating the Sothis rising on III Shemu 28 in at least around 19 July 1473 BC, which falls in Thuthmosis III’s Year 32. We

don’t know exactly in which group of four years the Egyptians generally would have observed the

Sothis rising on the same day, but we do know that it cannot be more than three years earlier or

later than 1473 BC. Thus III Shemu 28 simply must fall within the range of 1476-1470 BC, thus

between Years 29 and 35 of Thuthmosis III, if he is to be dated to 1504 BC. Thus, although we

have no archaeological (phisical) evidence that the fragment belongs to one of the temples built by Thuthmosis III, we definitely do have the astronomical evidence that it can only be a Sothis

date belonging to Thuthmosis III around his First Jubilee Year 30 or his Second Jubilee, which

is commonly thought should be Year 33. Therefore it must have come from one of his temples,

and most likely a Temple dedicated to his First Jubilee Year 30 or perhaps his Second Jubilee in

Year 33 at the latest.

There is indeed no way we can lengthen the distance by 14 years or shorten the distance by 11

years and still expect the Sothis to be rising on III Shemu 28 in respect to the Sothis rising on III

Shemu 9 on 19 July 1549 BC. In addition the Sothis date III Shemu 28 on 19 July 1473 BC,

also happens to be a day of Full Moon, exactly like the Sothis date III Shemu 9 on 19 July 1549

BC in Year 9 of Amenhotep I, which may indicate a deliberate choice of Thuthmosis III to specifically record this Sothis date as perhaps honoring the celebration of Amenhotep I’s Sothis

rising on the same day of the natural solar year! This may also serve as evidence that the

Egyptians were well aware of the true solar year, despite their wandering calendar, as well as

that the Sothis observations in both cases were done at Memphis and not at Thebes. Both

Amenhotep I and Thuthmosis III therefore were probably more interested in the combination of the Full Moon and the rising of the Sothis at Memphis. Also of considerable importance must

have been the fact that Year 9 of Amenhotep I would have been his father Amosis I’s first Jubilee

in Year 30 if he had still lived, while in the case of Thuthmosis III the Sothis probably also rose

on III Shemu 28 in 1475 BC (on 20 July), during his First Jubilee in Year 30. Thus the event of a

First Jubilee or a would-be-Jubilee, would certainly have heightened the interest in the rising of

the Sothis in both cases, and an additional reason to even record it.

In any case, the fragment does mention the celebration of the rising of Sothis on the specified

day, and assuming it to be correct that Thutmosis III celebrated his festival Sed-festival as usual

in his 30th year, and assuming it to be correct that he acceded in 1504 BC, it can only have

occurred on 20 July 1475 BC. The next Sed-festivals would likely have been held every three or four years hereafter, as was also the case with the later kings Amenhotep III, Akhenaten and

Ramesses II. So either the first or at most the second Sed-festival of Thuthmosis III could have

been associated with the Sothis rising, but not his third or later Sed-festival.

15

On the other hand, if the Sothis rising on III Shemu 28 was observed at Thebes, one of the

later Sed-festivals could have been referred to between 17 July 1465 BC and 14 July 1451 BC,

but since Thuthmosis III died in his 54th regnal year on III Peret 30, in that case 18 March 1450

BC, any lower date would be out of the question. The most likely suitable date would then be

either 16 July 1461-1458 BC or 15 July 1457-1454 BC, between Year 44 through 51, which

could be regarded his 5th through 7th Sed-festivals, if Sirius rose correctly an hour before sunrise on III Shemu 28 at Thebes. If we had fixed the Sothis rising in Year 9 of Amenhotep I to

a 14 year later date according to its observation at Thebes, the ideal year would be Year 46 of

Thuthmosis III, and its possible occurrence on III Shemu 28 would be tightened to between

Years 43 and 49 (1462-1456 BC).

All in all, the whole set of lunar and Memphite Sothis dates, from Amosis I down to the end of

the 20th Dynasty combined, reaffirmed and refined by my lunar accession dating method, thus

makes it prefectly clear that Year 1 of Thuthmosis III most certainly fell in 1504 BC. This was

the preferred date before the 1960s and is still preferred by the Cambridge Ancient History. I

originally had set out to disprove this conviction, but can only fully agree since I found no fault

in it and no suitable alternative.

The First and Second Sed-Festivals of Thuthmosis III

Long after I had completed my research on Thuthmosis III, I was pleasantly surprised to find

full confirmation of my work from Egyptological giants like Breasted, Sethe and Donald Redford:

James Breasted, in his paper on the obelisks of Thutmose III, stated that a Year 30 sed-festival

or jubilee of Thuthmosis III could be inferred on the basis of the mention of one in Year 33 of that king.

The London obelisk of the king states it was erected, with a companion one (now in New York

City), on the occasion of Thuthmosis III having celebrated his third (according to Breasted, but Wallis Budge read fourth) jubilee. Although a year date for the erection of these obelisks is not visible, it has been inferred from the text that Thutmose III celebrated heb seds in years 30-33. Yet

the only actual mention of a jubilee during those three years comes from the inscription of Sennefer at el-Bershe, now lost but included in Sethe's Urkunden IV, below:

16

This text says: “Year 33, fourth month of the season of Shemu, day 12, the beginning of millions

of jubilees, very many, [inscribed?] by Thoth, himself, in his writing upon the noble Ished-tree, etc.”

Thus the el-Bershe inscription states that the many wished-for jubilees began in Year 33. Since

Thuthmosis III Menkheperre's accession date was in the first month of Shemu, the celebration occurred three more months into his 33rd year.

This is absolutely perfect. The recorded Sothis date on III Shemu 28, when placed in Year 33

Thuthmosis III, i.e. on Julian date 19 July 1472 BC as observed at Memphis, is only 14 days

ahead of the recorded Sed-festival on IV Shemu 12 in Year 33, i.e. on the Julian date 2 August

1472 BC. Not only does this connect the Sed-festival of Thuthmosis III and the rising of Sothis

as observed at Memphis, it also verifies beyond a doubt that Year 9 Amenhotep I is 1549 BC as observed at Memphis. The same is true for Year 30 Thuthmosis III (the two Julian dates being

respectively 20 July and 3 August in 1475 BC. Despite the trivial guesses of Breasted and Budge

concerning the number of Sed-Festivals, the most natural and correct conclusion is that the two

occasions were the First and Second Sed-Festivals of Thuthmosis III.

I should emphasize that the dates of the Sed-Festivals, although called ”Jubilees” do not need to correspond to the anniversary of the king’s accession or even to each other. The reasoning

behind the Sed-Festivals is still a mystery. Some attempts have been made to solve this mystery,

but so far to no avail. They may have also been associated with the Apis worship, or at least

originally”, but I have not been able to find a single clue in this respect. During the Early and

Old Kingdoms the sed-festivals were namely associated with a ritual called ”the Running of Apis”, although apparently already a separate festival in those days. According to my hypothesis

1474 BC would have been a year of ritual Apis sacrifice in order to let the soul of Ptah

reincarnate in a new Apis calf, which would have naturally been paraded during a sed-Festival,

hence ”the Running of Apis”. Interestingly the year 1474 BC is precisely 90 years after the start

17

of the New Kingdom Apis cycle in 1564 BC according to my Apis hypothesis, a period which

corresponds to five Apis lives, or three periods of 30 years. There are precisely four such periods

within each Apis cycle possible. The next occasion of correspondence would be yet another 90

years later, in 1384 BC, which indeed happens to be the first Jubilee of Amenhotep III in his

year 30! Following this pattern through, the third occasion would be in 1294 BC, which in my

system correctly corresponds to an Apis death in Year 16 of Ramesses II, although not a Jubilee Year. However, although the next Apis death was scheduled to occur 18 years later, in Year 34 of

Ramesses II, the death of this Apis was forcedly recorded to have occured instead in Year 30 of

Ramesses II, 1280 BC, thus four years too early! The fourth occasion would be in 1204 BC, but

we alas know nothing about that year as it falls within the period of an interregnum between the

19th and 20th Dynasty, before the next cycle would restart in 1198 BC. Even more interesting is my observation that the 30th Year of Amenhotep I would also have coincided with a sacrificial

Apis year, even though we have no written records of this event. And while we are at it, it would

seem that Hatshepsut’s sed-festival in Year 16 of Thuthmosis III seems curiously similar to the

occasion in Year 16 of Ramesses II, but this time it must have been forcedly delayed by 4 years,

just like the occasion in Year 30 of Ramesses II. This focus on a Year 16 may have something to

do with the first Apis of the cycle, apparently installed by Ahmosis I during his rebuilding of the Ptah Temple at Memphis:

1564 BC – New Kingdom Apis cycle begins = Year 15 of Ahmosis I.

1528 BC – 3rd Apis year = Year 30 of Amenhotep I, after 36 years. 1498 BC – 4 years delayed 5th Apis year = Hatshepsut’s sed-festival, year 16 of Thuthmosis III, forced! 1474 BC – 6th Apis year = Year 31 or late Year 30 of Thuthmosis III, after 2 x 90 years 1384 BC – 11th Apis year = Year 30 of Amenhotep III, after 3 x 90 years 1294 BC – 16th Apis year = Year 16 of Ramesses II, after 4 x 90 years 1280 BC – 4 years premature 17th Apis year = Year 30 of Ramesses II, forced!

1204 BC – 21st Apis year = ? (Falls within the interregnum, of which we know nothing)

1198 BC – the 2nd New Kingdom Apis cycle begins

I will explain a bit more about my Apis hypothesis hereafter.

Lower Chronologies for all the wrong reasons

Since the 1960s the balance had turned over to a 25 years later dating. Accordingly the first

lunar date was placed on 9 May 1457 BC, during a conjunction, and the second lunar date on

17 February 1455 BC, on No Moon Day. This in turn places the accession of Thuthmosis III in

1479 BC, which is currently the most commonly cited year date for Thuthmosis III. This date

conforms only to a Low Chronology of Egypt, and is the lowest accepted date in conventional Egyptology, still based on the observation of the Sothis but now at Elephantine. The highest

accepted year date, 1504 BC, conforms solely to the High Chronology, based on the observation

of the Sothis at Memphis, and to which the CAH and most other Egyptologists still firmly hold

on for a number of well-argued reasons to which now my own strong arguments have been

added.

There are several problems with dating Thuthmosis III’s Year 1 to as late as 1479 BC. For one

thing, it requires the Sothis to be observed at a much more southernly location than Memphis or

even Thebes, for which we have no evidence at all. At Elephantine at the southern extreem of

Egypt, Sirius rose on III Shemu 28 at the earliest on 16 July 1458 BC and at the latest on 12

June 1444 BC. Thus a rising of Sirius at Elephantine on 14 July 1450 BC in Year 30 of Thuthmosis III is proposed in this Low Chronology. However, if the Sothis was observed from

anywhere other than Memphis during the 18th Dynasty, it would have been Thebes, the capital

of the 18th Dynasty, not Elephantine. At Thebes the Sothis date 14 July 1450 BC would be the

lowest extreme for Year 30 of Thuthmosis III, which is not credible. To mend this problem it has

been assumed that Thuthmosis III celebrated his Jubilee earlier in his reign, perhaps in that case jointly with Hatshepsut. There are contemporary examples of earlier Jubilees. Hatshepsut

18

herself celebrated her first jubilee in Year 16, and Akhenaten celebrated his in Year 3. But I do

not recommend building a chronology on such shaky speculation and conjecture, unless other

evidence adds up to its probability. We do not know when Thuthmosis III celebrated his first

Sed-festival, but it is highly improbable that he did it any differently than his predecessors and

successors, or that he would have done it while his aunt was still the king.

For these and other reasons some Egyptologists found it more credible to date Thuthmosis III’s

accession slightly higher, on 1 May 1490 BC, which also happens to be a Full Moon, with

Dynasty 18 starting in 1560 BC. His first lunar date on I Shemu 21 in Year 23 would then be 12

May 1468 BC during a conjunction; the second lunar date on II Peret 30 in Year 24 would be 20

February 1466 BC, but alas during a conjunction not a No Moon which should be the case. The proponents neverthelees believe in this date, because then Sirius would rise nicely at Thebes on

III Shemu 28 at the earliest on 17 July 1465 BC and at the latest on 14 July 1451 BC, and thus

in Year 30 of Thuthmosis III on 16 July 1461 BC, correctly an hour before sunrise at Thebes.

This is reasonably credible, but only if we would be forced to accept Sothis dating at Thebes,

against which I have already strongly argued. Those who wish to date Thuthmosis III later than

1479 BC are forced to abandon Sothis dating altogether, and they openly do just that. I do not recommend ignoring Sothis dates; so in my system, dating Thuthmosis III later than 1490 BC is

already out of the question.

The Egyptologist Edward Wente wrote an article in favor of Thuthmosis III’s accession in 1504

BC (Edward F. Wente, ’Thutmose III’s Accession and the Beginning of the New Kingdom’, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol 34, No. 4, Oct.

1975, pp. 265-272, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/544149). He reminds us that Donald B.

Redford had argued that Thuthmosis III’s accession may have occurred in 1504 BC rather than

in 1490 BC (Donald B. Redford: ’New Light on the Asiatic Campaigning of Horemheb’, BASOR

211, 1973, 49; see also William J. Murnane: ’Once Again the Dates of Tuthmosis III and

Amenhotep II’, JANES 3, 1970-1971, 1-7). His exhortation for us to consider 1504 BC as Thuthmosis III’s accession is justified, especially in view of the significant contribution of

Wolfgang Helck regarding the date of the Battle of Megiddo, which was fought in Thuthmosis III’s

Year 23 (’Das Datum der Schlacht von Megiddo’, MDIK 28, 1972, 101-102). Helck discovered

that the battle actually took place on the unemended date of I Shemu 21, as stated in the

Annals of Thuthmosis III (Urk. IV, 657, line 2). Those who favored 1490 BC as Thuthmosis III’s accession had been led by Raymond O. Faulkner’s emendation of the original date I Shemu 21

(our first lunar date of Thuthmosis III) to I Shemu 20 (Richard A. Parker: ’The Lunar Dates of

Thutmose III and Ramesses II’, JNES 16, 1957, 39-42), but Helck has now convincingly

demonstrated that no such emendation of the text is required.

Similarly, it had been concluded that with regard to the second lunar date in Year 24 II Peret 30, being the day of the tenth day feast of Amon in Karnak (Urk. IV, 835-836), there was no

possible solution that would permit Thuthmosis III’s accession in 1504 BC (Parker: ’Lunar Dates

of Thutmose III’, pp. 41-42; 10). Wente showed that a slightly different reading of the text places

the lunar date in its correct perspective, in favor of Thuthmosis III’s accession in 1504 BC. The

formal lunar date was that on which Thuthmosis III ordered preparations for the stretching of the cord, which it was planned, would subsequently be performed on the day of the new moon.

Thus ’the stretching of the cord’ occurred on the day before New Moon, on No Moon Day, and

not, as the text had previously been read, on the day of New Moon itself (Wente, ibid., 266).

Helck had shown that during the Ramesside period the decade weekends (the tenth, twentieth

and thirtieth of each month) were occasions for the appearance of the deified King Amenhotep

and that at such times oracular decisions were made by the god in the workmen’s village at Deir el-Medinah (Helck: ’Feiertage und Arbeitstage in der Ramessidenzeit’, JESHO 7, 1964, 160-162).

Such periodic epiphanies of the god from within his sanctuary permitted oracular consultations

that could not otherwise have been made while the god was at rest within his shrine (See Černý:

’Egyptian Oracles’, pp. 35-48, for the mechanics involved in Egyptian oracles).

If the New Moon fell on III peret 1 in Year 24 of Thuthmosis III, we again have an exact

solution favoring either 1504 BC or 1479 BC for Thuthmosis III’s accession, whereas 1490 BC is

of the type that Parker would characterize as impossible and requires not only Faulkner’s

emendation of the first lunar date but also a forced reading of the text regarding the second

19

lunar date. Thus exact solutions of the two lunar dates from both Years 23 and 24 of

Thuthmosis III fit only the 1504 BC and 1479 BC accession dates if we accept Helck’s correct

interpretation of the (unemended) date of the Battle of Megiddo in Year 23 and understand the

date given in the Year 24 text as being that of the day before New Moon, rather than that of the

New Moon itself.

Additional support for either 1504 BC or 1479 BC as possible accession dates for Thuthmosis

III can be found in Parker’s contribution on the coregency of Thuthmosis III and Amenhotep II,

which he determined was two and one-third years in length (Parker: ’Once Again the Coregency

of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II’, in ’Studies in Honor of John A. Wilson, SAOC no. 35,

Chicago, 1969, pp. 75-82; see also Murnane: ’Once Again the Dates for Tuthmosis III’, pp. 4-5, with some miscalculations). Since Parker was primarly concerned with the duration of the

coregency and not with the date of Thuthmosis III’s accession, Parker had assumed wrongly

1490 BC to be the correct date for the senior partner’s accession.

I also discovered further compelling arguments against any lower dating schemes, related to

the chronology of the 12th to 17th Dynasties and the 19th to 20th Dynasties, but I must reserve these for a later discussion. For now it suffices to say that I do not accept the abandonment of

Sothis dating and that I only accept Sothis risings as observed at Memphis, independently

confirmed by my lunar accession dating method, with Thuthmosis III’s accession on I Shemu 4,

dated to 4 May 1504, during a Full Moon, and with the beginning of Dynasty 18 dated to 27

June 1578 BC, which is my proposed accession date of Amosis I during the First Visible New Moon in the evening of II Shemu Day 9, falling 6 years before Year 1 of the Hyksos king

Khamudi and therefore during the Hyksos age, when Egypt was still firmly under control of the

5th Hyksos king Apepi (III).

But even during the Hyksos war, the goddess Sothis remained undisturbed at Memphis, and

so too did the Apis cult of the Ptah priests remain at Memphis, albeit at a low profile. The first thing the Theban king Ahmosis I therefore did once Memphis was wrested from the Hyksos, was

rebuild the Ptah Temple, implicitly confirming that not even the Apis cult of the Ptah priests had

been moved to Thebes at any time, especially since Thebes had already since the 11th Dynasty

its own royal bull, called Bukkhis, supposedly ”the brother” of Apis at Memphis and Mnevis at

Heliopolis, none of which had been moved to any other location.

20

Hatshepsut and Thuthmosis III

The story of Hatshepsut and her co-regent Thuthmosis III warrants a treatment in a separate

chapter. Hatshepsut has been the target of many speculations, not only because she was a

powerful woman on the throne of Egypt but also because her intentions towards her co-regent

Thuthmosis III is still not understood. A third reason is that many Bible-believers have been targeting her as the biblical Daughter of Pharaoh who raised Moses as a child. This romantic

idea still prevails as literalists continue to take the Masoretic biblical data as proof that Moses

lived in her days, despite all the evidence to the contrary. These and many other speculations

have colored our view of Hatshepsut severely, and we must take care not to believe everything

that has once been conjectured about her.

Dating Queen Hatshepsut

Upon the death of Thuthmosis II, his infant son Thuthmosis III born to a lesser wife Isis,

became king at a very young age. His age at accession is unknown but some accept he may have

been ten years old at most. Thuthmosis III’s stepmother Hatshepsut, daughter of Thuthmosis I

and half brother and principle wife of her husband Thuthmosis II, ruled initially as his regent-

guardian. Sometime between Years 2 and 7, probably in Year 5 of Thuthmosis III she proclaimed

herself ’King’ and made Thuthmosis III her coregent.

The basic data for this period are given by a dedication inscription at the temple of Semna in

Nubia dated to Year 2 and the burial offerings found in the tomb of the parents of Senenmut

dated to Year 7. Thus Hatshepsut and Thuthmosis III reigned together, and their joint regnal

years were counted as those of Thuthmosis III. Hatshepsut died on II Peret 10, near the end of

Year 20 of Thuthmosis III (thus before the start of Year 21). Although Hatshepsut was the ruling queen during Thuthmosis III’s first 20 years of reign, nothing shows that either of them was

subservient to the other. There is also nothing that proves that Thuthmosis III was the king who

defaced Hatshepsut’s images and name in the later days of his reign. Although nothing is

entirely impossible, it is hardly reasonable to suggest that Thuthmosis III would first campaign

17 times abroad and at old age would suddenly decide to think back nearly 45 years and start hating his long dead aunt, let alone acting on such an impuls with uncontrolled verocity.

Thuthmosis III’s later coregent and successor Amenhotep II is suspected to have had more

reasons to demolish the role of Hatshepsut and other royal women to support his right to rule.

Evidence suggests that Amenhotep II, perhaps with his father or with his father’s consent,

carried out a program to destroy the memory of Hatshepsut (Van Siclen, 1984, 53). The royal announcement of Amenhotep II’s coregency with Thuthmosis III on Amenhotep II’s Sphinx stela

may have been the signal that the dishonoring of Hatshepsut’s line was necessary and legitimate

(David O’Connor and Eric H. Cline, ’Amenhotep III: Perspectives on His Reign’).

Even the pylon Hatshepsut built at Karnak, creating a new southern doorway to the great precinct, Amenhotep II erased and redecorated with his own image smiting the enemies of Egypt.

Here too, before the remodeled pylon face, he erected a large granite stela carved with the

’annals’ of his expeditions to Syria in years 7 and 9 of his reign (B. Porter and R. Moss,

’Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings’, Vol.

2, 1927, 2nd ed. 1960, p. 177; Urk. IV pp. 1310-1316). Amenhotep II also departed from the

tradition to give royal women certain important titles. The eradication of Hatshepsut and her daughter Neferure thus can be ascribed readily to Amenhotep II, whose mother seems to have

21

come from a different family group which also claimed titles in the Amun female hierarchy.

Some years before the death of Hatshepsut the people of Syria and Palestine revolted against

their Egyptian ruler. After her death Thuthmosis III declared himself sole ruler and undertook

from his Years 22 to 42 (1483-1463 BC) nearly every year devastating campaigns in Palestine

and Syria, after these people had already been revolting for some years against Egypt during Hatshepsut.

Manetho calls Hatshepsut by the name of Amensis, Amesse or Amersis and gives her a reign of

22 or according to Josephus 21 years 9 months, or according to the Early Christian Theophilus,

Bishop of Antioch (second half of the 2nd century AD), 21 years 1 month, thus only two years more than the nearly 20 years the monuments provide for. Manetho calls Thuthmosis III by the

name Misphragmuthosis and gives him only 26 years or according to Josephus 25 years 10

months, or according to Theophilus 20 years 10 months. The monuments however give

Thuthmosis III 53 years 10 months. It is also interesting to note that these two reigns are the

only two in which Theophilus deviates from Josephus, probably because they were already

known to have coreigned and have been hotly debated over. Despite these differences, there is no doubt about the identity of Manetho’s kings nor about the order of the kings as mentioned on

the monuments and in all known autobiographical tombs of officials whose career cover multiple

kings.

Manetho lived in the north of Egypt and had the northern accent - which survived into Coptic, which has three dialects. For the northern Egyptians /x/ became /S/ or "sh". That's why Mn-

xpr-ra, the prenomen of Thutmose III, became "Misphres" or even "Mephres" and

Mephra[g]muthosis. Because Manetho wrote in Greek and, since a Greek can't say "sh" and the

letter certainly isn't in the Greek alphabet, he had to change it to /s/. The name "Ame[n]sse" for

Hatshepsut is actually a corruption of "Hmt nsw" or "Royal Lady", pronounced "Hime insi".

Manetho gives Thuthmosis III’s son and successor Amenhotep II a reign of 31 years, or 30

years 10 months, and the next king Thuthmosis IV 9 or 10 years, or 9 years 8 months, until his

successor Amenhotep III. The astronomical data which places Amenhotep III in 1413 BC suggest

that Amenhotep II started to reign in 1453 BC. This corresponds to the evidence that Amenhotep

II became coruler of his father during his last years. Thuthmosis III’s sole rule would then have been about 31 years, contra Manetho’s 26 or 21 years for this king. I will return to this issue

later, when I discuss both Amenhotep II’s and Thuthmosis IV’s reign lengths.

Now the question is: how many years were there between the accession of Hatshepsut’s father

Thuthmosis I and her own reign? The minimalists accept it to be at most 14 years, based on the

highest attested year dates of Thuthmosis I and II combined, adding up to no more than 10-12 or at most 13 years. The maximalists accept a distance of at least 25-28 years or at most 31

years, since Manetho’s records give the two kings respectively 13 years (Chebron) and 12 years 9

months, totalling 25 years 9 months, or about 26 years. A stray but problematic Year 18 for

Thuthmosis II may also suggest a longer period, but currently this Year 18 is given to

Hatshepsut who certainly ruled for more than 18 years.

So why can’t we just accept the minumum of 14 years and be done with it? One problem is the

rising of Sirius. Independent of the problem of geographic location or of reign lengths, the

difference in time between the rising of Sirius in Year 9 of Amenhotep I and the rising of Sirius in

one of the Years 30-33 to at most 50 of Thuthmosis III should naturally be 76 ± 3 years,

assuming that the rising of Sothis was always observed in the same traditionaql manner, following the same basic rules to retrieve the correct dates. Since Amenhotep I reigned for

another 17 years after his year 9, we can calculate the possible distance between Year 1 of his

successor Thuthmosis I and Year 1 of Thuthmosis III, depending on which of Thuthmosis III’s

Jubilees would have been most likely involved in the rising of the Sothis on III Shemu 28.

If Year 30 ± 3 was Thuthmosis III’s first Jubilee during the Sothis rising, then Thuthmosis I

and II must have covered 76 minus 17 minus 29 = 30 ± 3 years. If the Sothis rose in Thuthmosis

III’s Year 38 ± 3 during one of his later Jubilees, then Thuthmosis I and II can only have covered

22 ± 3 years. Manetho gives these two kings a total of 26 years, halfway between my proposed

22

range of 30-22 ± 3 years, according to the Sothis rising in respectively Year 30 ± 3 and Year 38 ±

3 of Thuthmosis III. My preliminary astronomical survey of lunatations on the accessions dates

of the kings, from Amosis I to Amenhotep II, however, supports only either 32, 28 or 14 years to

cover Thuthmosis I and II combined. The distance of 28 years matches Manetho’s 26 years best,

and suggests that the Sothis likely rose between Years 30 and 34, or 32 ± 3 of Thuthmosis III.

But the distance of 14 years resembles the currently preferred minimum of 14 years, which would therefore suggest that his Sothis record dates to Year 46 ± 3 of Thuthmosis III instead,

only 8 ± 3 years before his death. That is possible, but it does not explain the association of this

Sothis date with the Sed-festivals of Thuthmosis III in Years 30 and 33, which would only work if

Thuthmosis I and II indeed covered a period of precisely 28 (= 13 + 15) years.

How do we get past this ambiguity? What more evidence do we need to make a final choice?

Mummies can talk

One piece of evidence, which may help limit the reign lengths of Thuthmosis I and II, is the

identification of the mummy believed to be of Hatshepsut. The theory is that the unidentified

female mummy in tomb KV60 might be Hatshepsut. Conclusive evidence includes the

possession of a molar with one root that fits the mummy’s jaw; the row of teeth in the jaw had a missing tooth which had only one root as well. The molar was found inside a small wooden box

inscribed with Hatshepsut’s name and cartouche.

The CT scan performed by Hawass revealed that this tooth had been removed from the

mummy’s mouth: it fits exactly into the corresponding empty socket in the mummy’s jawbone

(Wilford, John Noble, 27 June 2007: “Tooth May Have Solved Mummy Mystery”, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/world/middleeast/27mummy.html; ”Tooth

Clinches Identification of Egyptian Queen”, Reuters June 27, 2007:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL2776273020070627; ”The Search for

Hatshepsut and the Discovery of Her Mummy by Dr. Zahi Hawass, June 2007”,

http://www.guardians.net/hawass/hatshepsut/search_for_hatshepsut.htm). Further evidence supporting this identification includes the results of a DNA comparison with the mummy of

Ahmose Nefertari, Hatshepsut’s great-grandmother and the matriarch of the 18th Dynasty

(Wilford, John Noble, 27 June 2007: “Tooth May Have Solved Mummy Mystery”, New York

Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/world/middleeast/27mummy.html; Chip Brown,

"The King Herself," National Geographic, April 2009, p. 107).

The CT scans of the mummy believed to be Hatshepsut suggest she was about fifty years old

when she died from a ruptured abscess after removal of a tooth. Although this was the cause, it

is quite possible she would not have lived much longer; there are signs in the mummy of

metastatic bone cancer, as well as possible liver cancer and diabetes mellitus. Since we know

that estimations of the age of ancient mummies are usually far too low (see Peter J. Brand & Louise Cooper, ’Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in

Memory of William J. Murnane’, p. 116), we can safely take the 50 years as a minimum.

Accordingly Hatshepsut would have been born to Thuthmosis I between at least about 26 to 30

years before her accession to the throne.

Again the average distance in time between the accession of Thuthmosis I and that of Hatshepsut would be most likely circa 28-32 years. Since Hatshepsut married her half-brother

Thuthmosis II upon his accession, she would have been between circa 15 to perhaps 19 years

old by then, which is credible. Shortening the reign length of Thuthmosis II to only one, two or

even three or four years would only be possible if we assume that Thuthmosis I fathered

Hatshepsut long before he ascended the throne, and similarily if Thuthmosis II and Hatshepsut would have begotten their only known child, their daughter Neferure even longer before he too

ascended the throne.

23

Thus the proponents of the short reign of Thuthmosis II are ready to accept that Hatshepsut

may have been born already during the reign of Amenhotep I. Desroches Noblecourt (2002)

indeed accepts that Hatshepsut was already born in regnal year 12 of Amenhotep I. This

assumption I do not find necessary. There is not a single trace of evidence for such an assertion.

It is much easier to accept the greater probability that Thuthmosis II reigned for at least 13 years

as given by Manetho, or more likely 15 years according to my lunar Accession dating method.

The problem here is that the respective ages of the children of Thuthmosis I are not known.

Thuthmosis II may have been "adult" when he ascended, and his eldest son Amunmose then

may have been at least 15 in year 4 (as a general). So Amunmose may have been born at least

10 years prior to Thuthmosis II’s ascension (mother unknown). Wadjmose, son of the king's daughter Mutneferet, was definitely an infant during the reign. Both princes had the same non-

royal "tutor", so Amunmose was probably not much older than the minimum estimate here.

Hatshepsut was born of Ahmose, Thuthmosis I's sister, and is not demonstrably considerably

younger than her brother, and if named for the reigning king she was at least 21 on the

accession of Thuthmosis I. In that case there is no reason to put Hatshepsut’s birth at a date

after Thuthmosis I's accession.

Perhaps more convincing evidence for a reign of 13-15 years for Thuthmosis II is the Jubilee of

Hatshepsut in year 16. If she counted the 30th year from her succession to Thuthmosis I or

even from some imaginary co-regency with him, this would suggest a gap of 29/30 minus 15 or

14-15 years between Hatshepsut's hypothetical "Year 1" and the point at which she started to count for her Jubilee.

If I knew more about the estimate of "50" years for the age of her mummy and the basis for it, I

could form a more reasonable opinion as to whether this was likely to be as "low" an estimate as

earlier ones based on X-ray (and if I remember correctly, the X-ray estimate was "about 40"

years, so I think the "50" years estimate already takes this factor into account). We should be suspicious, because a good many of these estimates seem to be based on pre-existing opinions

as to the age and career of the individual. Ages for Hatshepsut have been given as low as 35

(based on her being a mere teenager when Thuthmosis II died) up to low/mid-fifties (based on

similar chronological reconstructions to the one I propose, plus her being born before

Thuthmosis I's accession). Therefore, the current data are insufficient to determine the difference between circa 3 years and circa 13 years for Thuthmosis II.

Older scholars prefer a 13-year reign length for Thuthmosis II, as per Manetho, while newer

scholars prefer a shorter 3-4 year reign for this king, according to his highest known Year date,

due to the minimal amount of scarabs and monuments attested under this king. However, it

remains possible to estimate when Thuthmosis II's reign would have begun by means of the heliacal rise of Sothis in Amenhotep I's reign, which would give him a reign of 15 ± 3 years from

1519 BC to 1504 BC, although the uncertainties about how to interpret the rise of the Sothis

and uncertainties about the reign length of Thuthmosis I also permits a slightly later or earlier

date by a number of years.

A short reign of Thuthmosis II is argued for as follows. The architect and governmental official

Ineni, who according to Breasted was already aged by the start of Thutmose II's reign, lived

through this ruler's entire reign into that of Hatshepsut (Breasted, James Henry. Ancient

Records of Egypt, Vol. II p. 47. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1906; see also Peter

Dorman: ‘The monuments of Senenmut: problems in historical methodology’, Chapter 2, p. 38;

http://books.google.nl/books?id=1tk9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=ineni+hatshepsut&source=bl&ots=ySY9z6zZYo&sig=U1xq4ER4peu6gYv86LisLKULAyc&hl=nl&ei=m7OpTp2RAo6eOp

D_1AY&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CHcQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=ineni

%20hatshepsut&f=false).

In his autobiographical tomb Ineni gives several events for Amenhotep I (some lost), seven for Thuthmosis I (including the king's death); three for Thuthmosis II (including accession and

death), followed by one for Thuthmosis III and one for Hatshepsut. He mentions Hatshepsut as

‘God’s Wife’ during her life as the wife of Thuthmosis II, but never Hatshepsut as king, nor does

he mention Thuthmosis III as king. His emphasis on the female regent (Hatshepsut) is just as

24

striking as the utter disregard of the male dynastic heir (Thuthmosis III). One is left with the

impression that Ineni survived the death of Thuthmosis II at least long enough to have received

many favors at the hands of Hatshepsut before she became king. He eventually died during the

reign of Hatshepsut (Peter Dorman, ibid., p. 38).

Certainly the interval between the death of Thuthmosis II and the accession of Hatshepsut as king, was of sufficient duration that Ineni was able to provide space for his biography on the

walls of his tomb, as well as for its drafting and execution; and he probably died before the

queen took on the insignia of kingship, since her name remained unaltered (Peter Dorman, ibid.,

p. 38). This would place his death in the years 1-4 of Hatshepsut and Thuthmosis III at the

latest. However, Ineni’s account does not pose a chronological problem for both Thuthmosis I and II to have had long reigns. The number of events Ineni describes per king cannot serve as

evidence for the reign lengths of the named kings, since a king’s reign does not depend on the

number of assignments he gives any of his officials. Depending on the age and Year of reign of

Amenhotep I Ineni started to serve and the exact year of Hatshepsut as regent when he died, his

career could have ranged between 29 and 57 years, so he could have easily died at a good old

age of say 45-72, with Thuthmosis II having a reign length of 15 years and Thuthmosis I a reign length of 13 years. If he was already of old age at the beginning of Thuthmosis II, then 57 is old

enough to be regarded as of old age, at least for most people in those days, so that he could

indeed have started his career at age 15 and died at the age of 72.

Another argument used for a short reign of Thuthmosis II is the autobiographical tomb inscription of Ahmose-pen-Nekhbet at Elkab (PM V, Oxford, 1937, pp. 176-177; see Peter

Dorman, ibid. pp. 37-38; see also http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ahmose-pen-

nekhbet.htm). Ahmose-pen-Nekhbet began his career in the army. He gives one campaign under

Ahmosis I, namely at Zahi (Djahi) in Northern Canaan after the sack of the Hyksos stronghold

Sharuhen in Year 22 of Ahmosis I, two under Amenhotep I, two under Thuthmosis I, one under

Thuthmosis II, before he honorably retired and became the tutor of Neferure, the eldest daughter of Hatshepsut as the Great Wife, when Neferure was still at mother’s breast, thus early in the

reign of Thuthmosis II. Strikingly, Ahmose mentions only Hatshepsut’s praenomen (throne

name) Maatkara in conjunction with her two titles ‘God’s Wife’ and ‘Great King’s Wife’, yet the

inscription apparently underwent no revision.

This unusual combination may indicate that the text was composed at a time very close to her

coronation which seems to have occurred in Year 5; furthermore, the exclusion of Hatshepsut’s

name from the list of kings down to Menkheperre (Menkheperure), the throne name of

Thuthmosis III during the first five years of Thuthmosis III, when Hatshepsut was still only a

regent – and from the accompanying mention of the ‘favors of their majesties’ – as well as its

separate treatment in a codicil at the end suggests at the very least an ambivalent attitude toward the new coregent, Thuthmosis III (Peter Dorman, ibid., pp. 37-38), in Year 5, when

Thuthmosis changed his throne name into Menkheperkara for the next 16 years. We can

conclude from these notions that Ahmose-pen-Nekhbet died within the first four years of

Hatshepsut as regent (not a “King”) and Thuthmosis III as coregent under his throne name

Menkheperre (Menkheperure).

Here too, I see no problem at all for both Thuthmosis I and II to have had long reign lengths

adding up to 28 years. Again, the number of recorded events per king cannot serve as evidence

for the reign lengths of the mentioned kings. The career of Ahmose-pen-Nekhbet until his death

is certainly not so long that a reduction in the maximum period of 4~1 + 21 + 13 + 15 + 1~4 =

54~51 to 57~54 years from his campaign at Zahi or Djahi in Canaan during one of the last four years of Ahmosis I, during the coregency with Amenhotep I, down to one of the first four years of

the coregency of Hatshepsut and Thuthmosis III, should be considered desirable. Such long

careers are no exception. If he started to serve Ahmosis I at the age of 15, he could easily have

died at a good old age of 66~72 years or at most 74~78 years, similar to Ineni. In my chronology

I can therefore safely accept Ahmose’s career of 51~57 years, without the need to shorten any king’s reign length prior to Thuthmosis III.

One argument is that Thuthmosis II is poorly attested in the monumental record. However, in

this king’s case a clear count of monuments from his rule, which is normally the principal tool

25

for estimating a king's reign when dated documents are not available, is nearly impossible

because Hatshepsut usurped most of his monuments, and Thuthmosis III in turn re-inscribed

Thuthmosis II's name indiscriminately over other monuments (Grimal, Nicolas: “A History of

Ancient Egypt”, pp. 216, Librairie Arthéme Fayard, 1988). On the other hand, apart from several

surviving blocks of buildings erected by the king at Semna, Kumma and Elephantine,

Thuthmosis II's only known major monument consists of a limestone gateway at Karnak that once lay at the front of the Fourth Pylon's forecourt. Even this monument was not completed in

Thuthmosis II's reign but in the reign of his son Thuthmosis III, which thus seems to hint at "the

nearly ephemeral nature of Thuthmosis II's reign." (Betsy Bryan, pp.235-236). The gateway was

later dismantled and its building blocks incorporated into the foundation of the Third Pylon by

Amenhotep III (Betsy Bryan, p.236).

There is a stronger argument for a short reign. In 1987, Luc Gabolde published an important

study which statistically compared the number of surviving scarabs found under Thuthmosis I,

Thuthmosis II and Hatshepsut (Gabolde, Luc (1987). "La Chronologie du règne de Thoutmosis II,

ses conséquences sur la datation des momies royales et leurs répercutions sur l'histoire du

développement de la Vallée des Rois", SAK 14: 61–87). While monuments can be usurped, scarabs are so small and comparatively insignificant that altering their names would be

impractical and without profit; hence, they provide a far better insight into this period. Gabolde

highlighted, in his analysis, the consistently small number of surviving scarabs known for

Thuthmosis II compared to Thuthmosis I and Hatshepsut respectively; for instance, Flinders

Petrie's older study of scarab seals noted 86 seals for Thuthmosis I, 19 seals for Thuthmosis II and 149 for Hatshepsut, while more recent studies by Jaeger estimated a total of 241 seals for

Thuthmosis I, 463 seals for Hatshepsut and only 65 seals for Thuthmosis II (Gabolde, op. cit.,

pp. 67~68). Hence, unless there were an abnormally low number of scarabs produced under

Thuthmosis II, this would indicate that the king's reign was rather short-lived. On this basis,

Gabolde estimated Thuthmosis I and II's reigns to be approximately 11 and 3 full years

respectively, which implies that he started off by assuming 20 years for Hatshepsut. Yet, this too is not regarded conclusive evidence. If he had started off with 14~16 years for Hatshepsut, his

results would have been 8~9 for Thuthmosis I and 2~3 for Thuthmosis II, which would have

brought him even closer to the highest attested Year dates of these kings.

There are many kings who are poorly attested but still must have had long reigns. A good example is Senwosret II of Dynasty 12. Consequently, the reign length of Thuthmosis II has been

a much debated subject among Egyptologists with little consensus given the small number of

surviving documents for his reign. Also, if Hatshepsut indeed reigned since the death of her

father Thuthmosis I, as she claimed, alongside her husband Thuthmosis II, as she had claimed,

then surely a number of her scarabs would have belonged to the time of Thuthmosis II. It would

explain why the officials Ineni and Ahmose-pen-Nekhbet emphasize their relationship with Hatshepsut instead of Thuthmosis II. It would seem that Thuthmosis II played only a secondary

part and derived his kingship from his wife Hatshepsut. It may even be possible that he already

had died prematurely after a reign of 1~5 years so that Hatshepsut was already given the

regency over the newborn Thuthmosis III before proclaiming him king at the age of 10~12 years.

This would more easily explain Hatshepsut’s claims and the fact that she already wielded so much power after the death of Thuthmosis II and long before she was proclaimed King. We

simply don’t know what had happened between the death of Thuthmosis II and the eventual

accession of the boy King Thuthmosis III.

There are still numerous arguments for a long reign of Thuthmosis II, traditionally given as 13

or 14 years, and in my system as 15 years. Although Ineni's autobiography can be interpreted to say that Thuthmosis II reigned only for a short time, it also calls Thuthmosis II a "hawk in the

nest," indicating that he was perhaps a child when he assumed the throne (Breasted, James

Henry: “Ancient Records of Egypt”, Vol. II p. 47, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1906).

Since he lived long enough to father two children – his daughter Neferure with Hatshepsut and

son Thuthmosis III with his concubine Isis - this suggests that he may have had a longer reign of 13 years, or more likely 15 years, in order to reach adulthood and start a family with

Hatshepsut being not much older or younger than himself.

The German Egyptologist, J. Von Beckerath, uses this line of argument to support the case of

26

a 13-year reign for Thutmose II (J. Von Beckerath, Chronologie des Pharaonischen Ägypten,

MÄS 46, Philip von Zabern, Mainz: 1997). Alan Gardiner noted that at one point, a monument

had been identified by Georges Daressy in 1900 (G. Daressy, ASAE 1, 1900, 90, 20) which was

dated to Thuthmosis II's 18th year, although the precise location of the monument itself has not

been identified (Gardiner, Alan: “Egypt of the Pharaohs”, p. 180 Oxford University Press, 1964).

This inscription is now usually attributed to Hatshepsut, who certainly did have an 18th year. Von Beckerath observes that a Year 18 date appears in a fragmentary inscription of an Egyptian

official and notes that the date likely refers to Hatshepsut's praenomen Maatkare, which had

been altered from Aakheperenre Thuthmosis II, with the reference to the deceased Thuthmosis II

being removed (Beckerath, Chronologie, p.121). And the remarks of Ahmose Pen-nekhbet seem

to indicate that Hatshepsut had this praenomen already during the reign of Thuthmosis II, yet another reason to accept her claims as having reigned side by side with Thuthmosis II.

There is also the curious fact that Hatshepsut celebrated a Sed-festival (or Jubilee) in Year 16

of her reign, which is usually not celebrated before a 30th year of reign. Since she did not reach

a 30th year and claimed to have already been appointed coruler by her father, it has been

suggested that the thirty years were counted either from the start of the reign of her father Thuthmosis I, whom she highly honored, or during her husband and brother Thuthmosis II,

whom she greatly disliked. The former solution calls for giving Thuthmosis I a reign of 13 years

and Thuthmosis II a reign of only 1 year, the minimalistic view. The latter solution calls for

giving Thuthmosis II a reign of at least 14 years. Von Beckerath believes it occurred 30 years

after the death of Thuthmosis I, her father, who was the main source of her claim to power. This would create a gap of 14-15 years (= 29-30 minus 15 years to Year 16) where Thuthmosis II's

reign would fit in between Hatshepsut and Thuthmosis I's rule (J. Von Beckerath, Chronologie

des Pharaonischen Ägypten, MÄS 46, Philip von Zabern, Mainz: 1997, p.121).

Some inscriptions suggest that Hatshepsut tried to portray herself as direct successor to

Thothmosis I, making her appear to be coruler with Thuthmosis II. Although there doesn’t appear to be any significant evidence that she did in fact so serve, there is no sufficient evidence

that she had been lying either, especially since there were plenty of people around her who knew

all about what had really happened or not during the reign of Thuthmosis II. Since the Lunar

Accession Dating method gives the same possible reign lengths as Beckerath’s theory of

Hatshepsut’s Jubilee, a method which is much more consistent throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th Dynasty, we do not need to speculate on this issue anymore. Therefore my prefered

solution is that Thuthmosis II reigned for 15 years. Hatshepsut then could easily have rightfully

claimed to have become her husband’s coruler in Year 1, before II Akhet 8 (14 October 1518 BC)

of his Year 2, so that her idealogical Year 30 was indeed celebrated in Year 16 of Thuthmosis III,

between I Shemu 4 (30 April) and II Akhet 8 (6 October) in 1489 BC. Her accession as coruler in

Year 1 of Thuthmosis II would then have been between 8 May and 14 October 1518 BC.

In establishing Hatshepsut’s own reign length, we have a few pieces of evidence referring to

regnal years of Thuthmosis III. As regent and coregent from the beginning of Thuthmosis III’s

reign, her rule can be considered to have lasted until her 20th-22nd year. It is quite common to

use Year 22 as her last year, counted from Year 1 of Thuthmosis III, which seems to be in excess by two years, even to the point as to give her also the same accession date I Shemu 4. This last

cannot be correct, although her regnal years do seem to have been counted as those of

Thuthmosis III, even when she was not yet proclaimed king. We should note that Hatshepsut, in

her supposedly fictional account of her coronation by Thuthmosis I, says that her father chose

the date I Akhet 1 as her coronation day as the most auspicious for a peaceful reign. Therefore,

she may still have celebrated her own anniversary, despite the year count being that of Thuthmosis III and his anniversary being celebrated on I Shemu 4.

Hatshepsut, while speaking of her (fictitious?) corronation by her father, Thuthmosis I, said that ”he [Thuthmosis I] knew the virtue of an accession on New Year’s Day” (Urk IV.261; cf. P.

262, 7-8; cf. However D.B. Redford, ”On the Chronology of the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty”,

JNES 25, 1966, 119-120; idem, ”The Coregency of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II”, JEA 51, 1965, 107-122; idem, ’History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt’, Toronto, 1967, pp. 3-27). Murnane says: ”all that can fairly be drawn from this passage is the ellegant deceit of beginning the regnal and civil years simultaneously.” However, this may not be true.

27

Hatshepsut says nothing about the lunar calendar in this regard. Both dates I Shemu 4 and I

Akhet 1 fit the scenario of her being already coruler of her husband Thuthmosis II in Year 1,

between I Shemu 4 and II Akhet 8. But in 1518 BC they do not fall during a lunation, which

thus bolsters the general opinion that her claim was invented after the death of her husband

and that she celebrated her Sed-festival in Year 16 only to enforce her claim. Nevertheless, her claim seems to validate the Lunar Accession Dating method, in that according to her

Thuthmosis II acceded 15 years before Thuthmosis III, which made her decide to celebrate her

Sed-festival in Year 16 of Thuthmosis III as being posthumusly Year 30 of Thuthmosis II. Thus,

we have here a similar situation as with Ahmosis I, whose Year 30 seems to have been

celebrated posthumously in Year 9 of Amenhotep I, making this a more important event combining a Sed-Festival with a Sothis-Festival. The apparent need to reflect something similar

as Year 9 of Amenhotep I is also seen in my survey of Thuthmosis III’s own Jubilee in Year 30

connected with the Sothis rising as it did in Year 9 of Amenhotep I. This may indeed explain why

Hatshepsut in some scenes are shown connected with the long dead king Amenhotep I.

We at least know that Hatshepsut took full pharaonic titles not later than ’year 7, IV Peret 2’. Some earthernware vessels found in the tomb of the parents of Senenmut, Ramose and

Hatnefret, both buried in Year 7, carried the date ’Year 7, II Peret 8’ and another one the seal of

the ’God’s Wife Hatshepsut’ together with the label ’Year 7, Satuwina’. Two other jugs carried the

seals of the ’Good Goddess Maatkarre’, Since Maatkarre is the throne name (Prenomen) of

Hatshepsut, this title means that Hatshepsut had already mounted the throne. However, these two jugs carry no date. In 1920 Norman de Garis Davies discovered in the forecourt of

Senenmut’s own tomb (TT71) an ostracon which referred to ’Commencement of the work in this

tomb’ in ’Year 7, IV Peret 2’. The king, to whose reign this date is referring, is not mentioned.

Since Senenmut served Hatshepsut, testified until Year 16, it is inferred that the ostracon

referred to Hatshepsut as king. This ostracon must have been buried during the work on tomb

TT71 when the entrance to the tomb of the parents was filled up with earth. Therefore, Year 7, IV Peret 2, is the last possible date on which things could have been put inside the tomb. The

jug from the tomb of the parents of Senenmut showing the title of the ’Good Goddess Maatkare’

thus testifies that Hatshepsut had already been crowned king before this date.

It is further well-documented that Amenemnekhu has been the ’Viceroy of Kush’; possibly another but destroyed inscription dated to regnal year 20 also refers to him. El-Sabbahy (GM

129, 1992) accepts the uncertain reading of the inscription on one block statue (British

Museum, London, EA 1131) dated into the reign of Hatshepsut and mentioning also Thuthmosis

III, that Inebni had also served as ’King’s son of Kush’ and arranged Inebni as ’Viceroy of Kush’

after Amenemnekhu and before Nehi served as Viceroy of Kush after the death of Hetshepsut

and starting with Year 23 of Thuthmosis III.

User-amun was appointed to the office of a Vizier in year 5, I Akhet 1, as the ’staff of the old

(man)’ for his father Ahmose Amethu (i.e. to support his old father who has held this office

before). The installation of User-amun to the office of the Vizier is described on the one hand in

his tomb TT131, on the other hand also on a papyrus fragment which is today in the Turin Museum. The comparison of the texts proves that both describe the same event (W. Helck, ’Die

Berufung des Wesirs Wsr’, Ägyptologische Studien, No. 29, 1955). In contrast to the tomb the

papyrus fragment, however, contains a date for this event, i.e. ’Year 5, I Akhet 1’! In both texts

the appointment into the office occurred under the reign of Thuthmosis III. According to these

two sources Hatshepsut mounted the throne in or before ’Year 5, I Akhet 1’. However, Dorman

(1988) and others point to the fact that the text in the tomb TT131 is to be judged as a retrospective description of the event. User-amun deceased between years 28 and 32, thus, at a

time, when Thuthmosis III had already governed alone for several years and possibly the

persecution of Hatshepsut had already started. The inscriptions in the tomb already could have

taken into account the political changes after the death of Hatshepsut.

The administrative document, Papyrus Turin 1878, surely is not a retrospective description of

the event and also was not the base for the inscriptions in tomb TT131. Also a later censorship

of the document by which the name of Hatshepsut was replaced by that of Thuthmosis, appears

improbable. Nevertheless, also regarding this document there are certain doubts. Dorman (1988)

28

points out that the paleography of the papyrus fragment is that of the early 18th Dynasty but

fits into the 19th Dynasty. Furthermore, another fragment of the same papyrus, not published

yet, seems to contain a part of the Hymn to the Nile, a text the existence of which so far could

not be testified earlier than the 19th Dynasty. Therefore, one must assume that the Papyrus

Turin 1878 which contains the appointment of User-amun to Vizier is a copy in the Ramessid

writing style of the 19th Dynasty, but that does not inevitably mean that the original text had been changed.

Berlandini-Grenier has suggested that several titles of Senenmut on the Sheikh Labib statue

are indicative of Senenmut’s functions at Hatshepsut’s coronation, and Helck has discussed the title r-p’t íry hdj n Gb in the light of possible Jubilee participation. Senenmut’s function as djb3 W3djty m íns occurs on the Sheikh Labib statue in conjunction with the title sm3ty Hr, a title

that is ubiquitous at representations of the Jubilee. Therefore, despite Berlandini-Grenier’s

suggeston that the Sheikh Labib statue may have been intended to commemorate Senenmut’s

role in Hatshepsut’s accession, one cannot exclude the consideration of her Sed-festival as well.

Vandersleyen has already recognized the difficulties of distinguishing the ceremonies of

coronation and Jubilee purely on the basis of private titles (Vandersleyen, CdE 43: 253) and

without descriptions or portrayals of the former, the uncertainties will endure. Helck produced a list of office-holders of the title r-p’t íry hdj n Gb and its variations (Helck, ’Orientalia 19’: 426-

427), and indeed most of them seem to fall into the reigns of kings who ruled for more than

thirty years. Thus these documents may point to a late accession of Hatshepsut between ’Year 5,

I Akhet 1’ (appointment of User-amun to Vizier) and ’Year 7, IV Peret 2’ (commencement of the

work in tomb TT71).

Helck translated a badly eroded inscription on a stela found in a small mud-brick chapel,

north of Karnak and west of the enclosure wall of the Temple of Month, recorded by L.A.

Christophe (in ’Karnak-North III’, Le Caire, 1951; quoted after W. Helck, ’Die Opferstiftung des

Senenmut’, ZÄS 85, 1960). The stela describes Senenmut donating several fields to the Temple

of Amun at Karnak and the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari, and also donates to both the workshops of the Temple of Amun and the Temple of Djeser djeseru a male and female servants

each. The text dates to Year 4 of Thuthmosis III, I Shemu 16, and shows an intact cartouche of

Hatshepsut’s throne name Maatkarre, in connection to the servant donated to the workshop,

established by her for her ’father’ Amun in Djeser djeseru. Senenmut mentions his tomb twice,

which therefore must also have already been under construction. Naturally, this stela is

consulted by all (among others Schott, Helck, Meyer) as proof of an early accession of Hatshepsut. Dorman (1988) argues against this with the restoration of the stela, already

mentioned by Christophe and Helck. In his opinion the absence of the original border of the

stela makes it most likely that the stela was already that damaged in antiquity, that the present

text, which contains the date had to be recarved completely in Ramessid times.

On the other hand, the part of the text in which the cartouche of Hatshepsut is shown and in

which Senenmut reports about his tomb seems to prove that at least the work on the tomb must

have started. However due to the finds in the tomb of his parents – directly located below TT71 –

this cannot have been the case before Year 7, II Peret 8 (of course one can assume that the tomb

mentioned is not TT353). Dorman insists that the reference to his tomb by Senenmut ’dates’ the

text and the stela rather into regnal year 8 of Hatshepsut and/or Thuthmosis III. According to Dorman the recorded date (year 4) on the donation stela of Senenmut is more than doubtful.

Monuments show twice a change in the throne name of Thuthmosis III. At the beginning of his

reign he carried the throne name Menkheperre. During the time of the coregency, i.e. after the

accession of Hatshepsut, he used the throne name Menkheperkare. After the death of Hatshepsut he changed back again to his old throne name Menkheperre. Meyer (1980) points

out that, since Hatshepsut obviously had a special relationship to the ’Ka’ – as also shown by

the use of it in her titles, the first change to Menkheperkare was probably connected with her

accession and the demotion of the legal ruler, Thuthmosis III, to the rank of a coruler. According

to the investigation of Brovarski (JEA 62, 1976; quoted after Meyer) the name Menkheperre is

testified for the years 1-5 and afterwards again starting with year 21, whereas the name Menkheperkare is testified for the years 5 to 20. Once again this points to Year 5 of Thuthmosis

III for her accession, possibly indeed on I Akhet 1. This also suggests that Hatshepsut did not

29

reign for 22 but only 20 years.

Now in view of the Lunar Accession Dating method we have the following interesting possible

accession dates for Hatshepsut within the range of Years 2-7 of Tuthmosis III:

I Akhet 1 Year 2 : 3 September 1503 BC – No Moon/Conjunction I Akhet 1 Year 5 : 2 September 1500 BC – First Visible

I Shemu 4 Year 5 : 3 May 1500 BC – No Moon

Although only one of these dates can be right, we do seem to have a nice fit corresponding to

the monumental evidence. Year 5 of Hatshepsut is well-presented, especially with I Akhet 1 as her accession date in Year 5. Year 2 seems to mark her original plan to rule but is testified only

in one inscription in Nubia without a civil date. Our choice must be year 5 of Thuthmosis III,

and Hatshepsut’s true accession date is then indeed I Akhet 1, during a First Visible, which

befits her unprecedented role as ’a First’, like Amosis I. I Shemu 4 as her accession date is

already ruled out since Year 5 still testifies of Thuthmosis III’s use of his first throne name

Menkheperre while also of his second throne name Menkheperkare.

Thus Year 5 of Thuthmosis III began with Hatshepsut still being a regent. This also rules out

Year 2. The change of Thuthmosis III’s throne name back to Menkheperre in his Year 21

signifies that Hatshepsut must have died just prior to the anniversary of his Year 21 on I Shemu

4. Her death date II Peret 10 then means that she died on 4 February 1484 BC, 2 months 24 days before Year 21. So Hatshepsut reigned for 19 years 9 months 11 days, if reckoned from

Thuthmosis III’s accession on I Shemu 4 1504 BC, instead of the 21 years 9 months Manetho

gives to her according to Josephus or the 21 years 1 month according to Theophilus. If Manetho

accidently reckoned her reign length of 20 years from Year 5 of Thuthmosis III, then Thuthmosis

III’s 31 years of sole reign shortens to 27 years which may explain Manetho’s 26 years for this

king. However, her true reign length as king, starting on I Akhet 1 in Year 5 of Thuthmosis III, should be reckoned as 15 years 5 months and 9 days.

A problem arises with two dated objects, originally associated with Thuthmosis IV. One is

dated to a Year 19 and another to a Year 20. Neither has been accepted as dating to the reign of Thuthmosis IV (Bryan, Betsy: “The Reign of Thutmose IV”, p. 6, The Johns Hopkins University

Press, Baltimore, 1991). The reading of the king in these dates are today accepted as referring to the praenomen or throne name (nisu-bity name, or Praenomen) of Thuthmosis III – Menkheperre

- and not Menkhepe[ru]re Thuthmosis IV. However, this flies in the face of the above observation

that Thuthmosis III’s throne name Menkheperre is only testified in his years 1 to 5 and from

year 21 onwards, while Years 5 to 20 testify only of his throne name Menkheperkare not

Menkheperre. Should we then assume that Thuthmosis III used both throne names in Years 19 and 20 for some unexplained reason, or are the Egyptologists in this case simply mistaken and

did those two stray dates indeed belong to Thuthmosis IV? We shall return to this problem when

discussing the reign length of Thuthmosis IV.

Hatshepsut’s Jubilee in Year 16 occurred during a perfect lunar conjunction on the

anniversary of her accession date 1 Akhet 1 (30 August 1489 BC). This makes it likely that she celebrated her anniversary in Year 16 as a special Jubilee, posthumously in Year 30 of her

alleged coregency with her late husband Thuthmosis II, in near imitation of Amenhotep I’s Year

9 anniversary, posthumously in Year 30 of his late father Ahmosis I during a perfect Full Moon

on III Shemu 9 in 1549 BC. Thus the beauty of my Lunar Accession Dating method is that the

various attempts to explain Hatshepsut’s reign and her claims all neatly fall into place.

For more evidence in support of this conclusion, consider also the southern exterior face of

Amenhotep I’s bark shrine that was decorated by Thutmose I. Hatshepsut had this very shrine

represented in scenes in her own bark shrine (Chapelle Rouge). Here the Queen is shown

performing ritual coronation rites before Amenhotep’s shrine! This is from page 36 of Elizabeth Blyth’s book ‘Karnak: evolution of a temple’ (2006): “An interesting point to note is that Amenhotep [I]’s [bark] shrine is represented in both name and image on Hatshepsut’s Chapelle Rouge (her bark-sanctuary) where the queen (as Pharaoh) is shown performing ritual acts before Amenhotep [I]’s shrine.”

30

This is clearly a relationship statement on the part of Hatshepsut, and it had something to do

with her “genuine” coronation. Why did she feel it necessary to associate herself and the time of

her “genuine” coronation with Amenhotep I? It seems because Hatshepsut attempted to facilitate

her right to the throne by being able to boast that her coronation occurred during a unique

stellar constellation which everybody would have recognized as an approval of the gods as did the celebration of Amenhotep I’s accession c.q. coronation on III Shemu 9 in his Year 9. And

Thuthmosis III too seems to have attempted to reach such a goal in relation to Amenhotep I’s

Year 9, but neither he nor Hatshepsut were able to recreate the unique situation in Year 9 of

Amenhotep I.

So here I submit an overview of the four highly related events during Amenhotep I, Hatshepsut

and Thuthmosis III.

Four highly related year dates of the 18th Dynasty according to the LAD method: 18th Dynasty King Anniversary Julian date Lunation occasion

Amenhotep I, Yr 9 III Shemu 9 19 July 1549 BC Full Moon Sothis-Festival & Anniversary

Amenhotep I, Yr 30 III Shemu 9 14 July 1528 BC Evening First 1st Sed-Festival (likely) & Anniversary (? & Apis-Festival)

Hatshepsut, Yr 16 I Akhet 1 30 August 1489 BC Conjunction 1st Sed-Festival & Anniversary (? & forced Apis-Festival)

Thuthmosis III, Yr 33 I Shemu 4 26 April 1472 Evening First 2nd Sed-Festival & Sothis-Festival (? 2 years after Apis yr)

A joint sed-festival of Thuthmosis III and Queen Hatshepsut

E.P. Uphill wrote an article which can be accessed of the Journal of Near Eastern Studies (Vol

20, No. 4, October 1961, page 248 ff., JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/pss/543914) entitled ”A

Joiint Sed-Festival of Thutmose III and Queen Hatshepsut”. I cite here only the preview: ’The reliefs in the funerary temple of Queen Hatshepsut at Deir el Bahri provide many references

to her Sed-festival, but some of these pose a problem, for they seem to be without parallel in similar scenes depicting Sed-festivals celebrated by other Pharaohs. The problem arises from the fact that in some of the scenes Thutmose III appears as a king taking part in the festival, although he seems to have played a subsidiary role in the ceremony.

The scenes showing the birth of Hatshepsut and her coronation are all well known and need little comment, the purpose of this article being to examine briefly those scenes showing the extraordinary spectacle of two kings taking part in the same ceremonies.

The northwest hall of offerings in the temple, (1) contains a scene showing Hatshepsut offering a loaf to Amûn (shown here in ithyphalic form). The scene next to this (2) is similar in subject, and shows king Menkheperrĕ‛, wearing the uraeus, offering a table of offerings to Amūn, who is here shown seated. On the left of the scene behind Amūn there is a dj[e]d mdw formula: ”(I) give to thee the celebrating of millions of Sed-festivals on the throne of Horus and that thou direct all the living like Rē‛ for ever.” This reference to the awarding of Sed-festivals is quite specific, not just a mere wish, and is applied to Thutmose in this case and not to Hatshepsut. Again in another scene in which Thutmose is shown burning incense before Amūn, (3) he appears as king Menkheperrĕ‛ wearing the atef crown, while he holds an ankh sign in his hand. This scene also appears to be an

31

unaltered one. It is known from other Sed-festival scenes that the king gave large presents of food and other

offerings to the gods, in return for the benefits that he hoped to receive at the Sed-festival. He also burnt incense before the gods who were assembled for the festival. (4)

In the shrine of Anubis at Deir el Bahri, Hatshepsut is shown making offerings to both Amūn and Anubis, and being rewarded with very many Sed-festivals in return. (5) Similarly another scene (6) shows King Menkheperrĕ‛ offering two vases to the god Sokar and receiving the same reward. [hieroglyphs here].

The strongest evidence for a joint Sed-festival comes, however, from the north colonnade of the middle terrace, where the birth and coronation of the Queen are depicted. The pillars of this colonnade are decorated with scenes, two of which (7) show Amūn embracing Thutmose III, who is here called Menkheperkarĕ! The young king wears both the double crown of Egypt and the red crown of Lower Egypt. He holds a group of ankh signs in his right hand and a mace and another ankh sign in his left hand, while the inscription carved below the scene states...

Referrences given by Uphill: (1) Naville, The Temple of Deir el Bahari, Vol. I, Pl. 20. (2) Ibid., Pl. 21.

(3) Ibid., Pl. 23. (4) See Von Bissing and Kees, Das Re‛-Heiligtum des Konigs Ne-woser-re, Band OO, Pl. 9;

Naville, Festival Hall of Osorkon II, Pls. 7-8 and especially Pl. 4 bis. (5) Naville, Deir el Bahari, Vol II, Pls. 36-37. (6) Ibid., Pl. 40. (7) Naville, op. Cit., Vol III, Pl. 65.’

As mentioned before, the investigation of Brovarski (JEA 62, 1976; quoted after Meyer) and

others show that the name Menkheperkare is testified only in the years 5 to 20 of Thutmosis III instead of Menkheperre. Since Hatshepsut was dead hereafter, the only time Thutmosis III could

have celebrated a Sed-festival jointly with Hatshepsut and with his prenomen Menkheperre

would be during his first 4 years. Thus it may be possible that Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III

had celebrated a joint Sed-festival in his Year 2, 1503 BC, which would be Hatshepsut’s Year 16

of her claimed coregency with her husband Thuthmosis II. This is thus a totally new take on the Jubilee theory concerning Hatshepsut. Such an early Jubilee (Sed-festival) is later paralleled by

Akhenaten’s earliest Sed-festival in Year 3, or according to some in Year 2. Otherwise, the only

other time Thutmoses III could have celebrated a Sed-festival jointly with Hatshepsut, but this

time only with his prenomen Menkheperkare, would be during one of the years 5-20. This then

suggests that it was already a second or later joint Jubilee, and therefore most likely celebrated

in his year 16, 1489 BC, which then would have been Hatshepsut’s Year 30 of her claimed coregency with Thuthmosis II. Following this it would be most likely that Thutmosis III finally

celebrated his own first Jubilee as sole ruler in Year 30, 1475 BC with his original prenomen

Menkheperre, after the death of Hatshepsut. Once again this points to Year 5 of Thuthmosis III

for Hatshepsut’s accession, most likely on I Akhet 1. This also again suggests that Hatshepsut

did not reign for 22 but only 20 years.

Hatshepsut’s daughter Neferure as Heir-apparent?

In her blogpost "Neferura, Heir Apparent" at http://thetimetravelerreststop.blogspot.com/

Marianne Luban, in October 2011, mentions Stuart Tyler and his Hatshepsut Projects at the

website http://styler78hatshepsutproject.blogspot.com/2011_09_01_archive.html. Tyler had

located a long-lost portrait of princess Neferure’ from Deir el-Bahri (or more correctly Djeser

Djeseru) mentioned by K.A. Kitchen in the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 49, December 1963, pp. 38-40. Tyler quotes:

"I have visited Deir el-Bahri and was able to place the pencil- rubbing of the Dundee head in the

32

gap in the south wall of the Sanctuary. It fitted exactly. The provenance of this relief is thus placed beyond all doubt. My thanks are due to Dr. L. Dabrowski and Eng. W. Kolataj of the Polish

expedition working at Deir el-Bahri for their practical help on the spot".

The fragment portraying Neferure in relief rests in an obscure Scottish museum, Seeing this

portrait made Marianne Luban believe that, at the time of the building of Hatshepsut's mortuary

complex, circa Year 7, Thuthmosis III was already supposed to be out of the picture. Luban concluded that he really had lost his throne to Hatshepsut's ambitions. If he was coregent since

Year 5, Neferure would have been displayed as a mere princess and not with the diadem and

sidelock of an heir apparent. Ramesside Era princes wear a nearly identical diadem and

sidelock.

There are no portraits of Thuthmosis III himself as a prince. William Petty, in a couple of

articles, points out that there are no unambiguous inscriptions of Thuthmosis III between his

Year 5 and Year 13. Where was he and what was he doing? Sometime after Year 13, Hatshepsut

seems to have changed her mind and Thuthmosis III began to appear with her on monuments

albeit in a secondary position. Then, in her Year 21, Hatshepsut, herself, becomes absent from

the record. In the light of Neferure’s portrait Luban agrees with Petty that Thuthmosis III found it convenient to continue the last regnal date of Hatshepsut. Luban suggests that he had

actually been deposed, not merely eclipsed, and was not expected to ever resume his kingship

during a certain period in which Neferure was heir-apparent.

Neferure was the daughter and only known child of Thuthmosis II and Hatshepsut. Thuthmosis III was born to a secondary wife or concubine of her husband and half-brother

(Aidan Dodson & Dyan Hilton: The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. Thames &

Hudson, 2004, ISBN 0-500-05128-3, pp. 130-141). Neferure was already born early in the

reign of Thutmose II, when Ahmose-pen-Nekhbet became her tutor, so she must have been a

few years older than Thuthmosis III, which also adds to the likelihood of a longer reign of

Thuthmosis II. In Karnak she is depicted with Thutmose II and Hatshepsut (O'Connor, David and Cline, Eric H. Thutmose III: A New Biography University of Michigan Press. 2006, pp. 50,

54, 78, 96, 97, 279, 297, 300, ISBN 978-04721146721). Later in Thuthmosis II’s reign

33

Senenmut became her tutor.

After her mother's accession to the Egyptian throne, Neferure had an unusually prominent

role in the court, exceeding the normal role played by a royal princess to the pharaoh. As

Hatshepsut took on the role of pharaoh, so Neferure took on a queenly role in public life

(Tyldesley, Joyce: “Chronicle of the Queens of Egypt”, p.98 Thames & Hudson, 2006, ISBN 0-500-05145-3). Many depictions of her in these roles exist. Neferure served in high offices in

the government and the religious administration of Ancient Egypt, so she must have already

become an adult by this time. Since Hatshepsut was king since at least Year 5 of Thuthmosis

III, this alone proves that Thuthmosis II had a long reign of at least ten years. If Thuthmosis

II himself had to grow up to manhood first, in order to be able to father his children, fifteen years would definitely be needed.

There is no concrete evidence that Neferure outlived her mother into Thuthmosis III's sole

reign. It is possible that Neferure died sometime during the reign of her mother. She is

mentioned in Senenmut's first tomb, which he had built in Regnal Year 7. Neferure is also

depicted with Senenmut on a Year 11 stela in Serabit el-Khadim, but is completely absent from Senenmut's second tomb, which dates to Year 16 of Hatshepsut (Tyldesley, Joyce:

“Chronicle of the Queens of Egypt”, p. 98, Thames & Hudson, 2006. ISBN 0-500-05145-3). A

tomb was constructed for her, which was found by archeologist Howard Carter. Located atop

a sheer cliff, it was found to be mostly empty. It was noted that the tomb had been used,

however, since traces of ochre and yellow paints could be defined. The archaeologists who inspected the tomb were certain that Neferure had not outlived her mother, Hatshepsut

(Aidan Dodson & Dyan Hilton: The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. Thames &

Hudson, 2004, ISBN 0-500-05128-3, pp. 130-141). She therefore may have died young, or

else she may have married Thutmose III, but we have no archaeological evidence for the

latter. In any case, her disappearance seems to coincide with the first public appearance of

Thuthmosis III in Year 13, possibly confirming Luban’s suggestion.

William Petty's paper "Redating the Reign of Hatshepsut" (Vol. 12, No 2, published in Autumn

2001 in Ostracon, the journal of the Egyptian Study Society), can be found at

http://www.egyptstudy.org/ostracon/vol12_2.pdf. There he gives an account of the items dated

to the years of Thutmose III and Hatshepsut, finding a gap of seven or eight years for the former between Year 5 and Year 13, which may be exactly the time in which Neferure rose to

prominence and became heir-apparant, before dying unexpectedly. Petty’s paper was published

in more or less the same form in Kmt Magazine, concerning the "missing" regnal years of

Thuthmosis III from the record. For Luban, the neglected fragment from the Deir el Bahari

temple, portraying Neferure, clinches Petty's analysis, even though Kitchen did write a paper

about the fragment in the 1960's.

In his paper, William Petty emphasizes that Hatshepsut claimed that her father Thuthmosis I

had made her his direct successor, and that her husband Thuthmosis II played a secondary role

as king. To her it would have not made sense to start counting her regnal years with those of

Thuthmosis III after the death of her husband. An examination of the monumental records reveals that at some point the reigns of Hatshepsut and Thuthmosis III had become artificially

synchronized. The first unambiguous appearance of joint dating of the two kings appears to be a

stela at Serabit el-Khadim, dated to Year 16 of Maatkare (Hatshepsut) and Menkheperkare

(Thuthmosis III in Years 5-20). But there is no evidence of such synchronization of their reigns

prior to Year 13. The assumption that their reigns were synchronized prior to this is simply an

extrapolation from Year 13 all the way back to Year 1 (William Petty, ibid. p. 6). Although not unreasonable by itself, such an extrapolation is not supported by the monumental evidence and

in at least one case appears to be inconsistent with it.

Thus, William Petty proposes a new hypothesis concerning the first 16 years of Hatshepsut’s

reign. When Thuthmosis III came to the Throne, Hatshepsut took on the role of regent but dated her reign from the death of her father. Thus the two kings coreigned, each with their own Year

count. However, from the very beginning of Hatshepsut’s rule after Year 2 of Thuthmosis III,

Thuthmosis III took on an ever decreasing role behind Hatshepsut and within a few years his

regnal dating was dropped entirely and only the dating of Maatkare, the “senior” pharaoh, was

34

observed from his Year 5 onward. As Thuthmosis III grew older, he gained more prominence and

his responsibilities increased, so that in due time it became appropriate to again date certain

events to his reign. So far so good, but I disagree with Petty’s conclusion that from that point

onward Hatshepsut’s regnal year count was applied to the rule of Tuthmosis III, so that her

regnal dates were used when referring to Hatshepsut and/or Tuthmosis III, even after he

became sole ruler. There is no reason whatsoever to assume such a thing.

William Petty located 16 dated inscriptions of both Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III covering the

first 16 years of their reigns in support of his hypothesis (William Petty, ibid. p. 6 ff.). None of

these inscription contradict his hypothese. However, only one inscription, the donation stela of

Senenmut, seems to support it. The stela is dated to Year 4 or possibly Year 3 or the reign of Thuthmosis. But inscribed on the left side of the stela one finds the phrase ”King of Upper and

Lower Egypt, Maatkare”. ”Djeser-djeseru”, Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple, and Senenmut’s tomb

are referenced on both the face and the side. The implication is that Hatshepsut was already

king in Year 4 of Thuthmosis III. The problem is that neither Djeser-djeseru nor Senenmut’s

tomb was begun until around Year 7 of Hatshepsut. This apparent contradiction caused some to

claim that the date was changed. The inscription did undergo substantial erasure and recarving, either in the 18th or 19th Dynasty, but there is no evidence that the date had been changed. It

is also possible that the stela was created in or years after Year 7 of Hatshepsut, referring back

to Year 4 of Thuthmosis III. But Petty argues that this single inscription means that Year 7 of

Hatshepsut was Year 3 or 4 of Thuthmosis III, and that therefore Thuthmosis II likely reigned for

only 3 to 5 years. This is at odds with Neferure being an adult in high offices at the court by Year 7 of Hatshepsut. It would also mean that Thuthmosis III did not reign for 54 years but for 50

years only, which nobody would accept on such a flimsy basis, although it may suit those who

see Thuthmosis III’s sole reign to be 26 years, conform Manetho, rather four years longer.

So Petty’s new hypothesis does not work. What does work is Luban’s suggestion that the

’missing’ years between Year 5 and Year 13 of Thuthmosis III may have belonged to Neferure as heir-apparent. By Year 5 of Thuthmosis III Neferure could have been at least 15 years of age, but

only if Thuthmosis II had a long reign of say 15 years. And since Neferure was the only child of

Hatshepsut with Thuthmosis II, at her unexpected death Hatshepsut was obliged to restore

Thuthmosis III’s position as co-regent. And whatever regnal dating system Hatshepsut may have

followed for herself, Thutmosis III’s regnal Year count had started at the death of his father and did not change at all.

Additional dating evidence

Evidence for dating the 18th Dynasty in the absolute timeline is scarse but not totally absent.

Apart from Sothis dates and lunar dates, we also have radiocarbon evidence to aid us in finding

the most likely scenario, but it is not enough to be conclusive. In my system, I use another piece

of evidence to help me decide, although tentatively for now. This evidence is the Apis cycle, a period of 366 years, consisting of 20 Apises living for 18 years each plus 6 years. This is new to

current Egyptology, just as new as the Lunar Accession Dating method necessarily is. I have

thought of the possibility that this Apis cycle was perhaps based on the lunar cycle of 18

Egyptian years, but it is not so. It is a cycle of natural solilunar years, most likely connected to

the recurrence of the Full Moon near the Spring equinox and during the risings of the Pleiad

stars in the constellation of the Bull, associated with the cow goddess Hathor, the mother of Apis, and the (near) simultaneous rising of the nearby star Capella in Aurigae, a royal star,

associated with the god Ptah of Memphis, the father of Apis.

The Apis cycle is still only a hypothesis, but already proves to corroborate the astronomical

and other pieces of evidence concerning the chronology of Pharaonic Egypt. According to this hypothesis, which I established independently from Early Kingdom information, the New

Kingdom Apis cycle of 366 years began in 1564 BC, namely on 8 April, during the Morning Full

Moon following the spring equinox, and which also is (not just by coincidence) Jewish Pascha on

14 Nisan that evening. From this point onwards an Apis bull is expected to be sacrificed and

35

buried every 18 years until the next cycle of 366 years commences after only 6 years. The next

new cycle commenced in 1198 BC, thereafter in 832 BC, 466 BC, 100 BC and finally 267 AD,

when the tradition of the Apis is already long broken due to Christianity. Although I am certain

of these absolute dates, which I call Apis Years for convenience, I have not yet been able to prove

beyond a doubt that the beginning of the New Kingdom cycle was not for instance 18 or 36 years

later, solely due to debatable chronological issues in those area’s where the transitions should take place. It has at least been observed by many Egyptologists before me that Apises succeeded

each other about every 18 years, but some exceptions have also been observed, in which an Apis

succeeded after 26 years instead, and in one other case after 24 years, which may be due to a

misdated Apis or to a transition from one cycle into the next (18 + 6 = 24 years). Due to

uncertainties in the chronology, which are still unresolved, it cannot yet be established whether the period of 18 years was precise and consistent enough to speak of an unequivocally proven

fact, but the overall pattern of Apises so far does suggest its existence as a fact.

Although I am certain that the New Kingdom Apis cycle did not begin before 1564 BC, there is

a connection with the Old Kingdom Apis cycle of also 366 years which started in 3622 BC,

namely on 21 April, during a Morning Full Moon, this time at the exact spring equinox, and which again was also Jewish Pascha on 14 Nisan. This cycle seems to have ended in 1792,

exactly 228 years or 12 Meton cycles of 19 years before the New Kingdom Apis beginning,

constituting the Second Intermediate Period. It is not yet clear what role the Hyksos kings played

in the renewal of the Apis cycle. During the Late Hyksos Age they were in control of the Memphis

district, but as far as we know, none of these foreign kings associated himself with the Apis bull or with the Ptah temple at Memphis, where the Apis still lived in his own palace even during the

Hyksos Age. A few years before Ahmosis I came to the throne at Thebes, his brother Kamosis

had already retaken control over Memphis, while the Hyksos withdrew to their capital Avaris in

the Eastern Delta. It is possible that at this time the first new Apis was born to be sacrificed 18

years later. Shortly before the expulsion of the Hyksos from Avaris Amosis I had begun to

rebuild the Ptah temple at Memphis, which always housed the Apis bull. The Hyksos eventually fled since 1562 BC to their last stronghold Sharuhen in Palestine, near Gaza, at the eastern

frontier of Egypt, which Ahmosis I sieged for three years until it fell in 1557 BC.

Ahmosis I defeated the Hyksos army and destroyed Sharuhen in about Year 22. According to

an inscription at Tura dated to Year 22 of Ahmosis I (Quarry Inauguration, translated by Kurt Sethe, ‘Urkunden der 18. Dynastie’, Band I, pp. 13f., J.C. Hinrich, Leipzig, 1914; see

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/quarry_inauguration.htm) he used white limestone

to build a temple to Ptah and the southern harem of Amun, but did not finish either project

(Grimal, Nicolas: ‘A History of Ancient Egypt’, p. 200, Librairie Arthéme Fayard, 1988). The stone

was dragged by cattle which Asiatics brought from the land of the Phoenicians. This suggests

the cattle were imported from Palestine after the final defeat of the Hyksos.

Despite the lack of evidence of an Apis birth or burial during Ahmoses I, the Ptah temple must

have already housed the Apis, whose worship is the sole reason for rebuilding it, and it was

common practice to sacrifice a bull as a foundation ritual of a new Temple and to bury the

remains under the base of the building, as it was also done by the first Pharaoh Menes at the foundation of city of Memphis and its first Temple of Ptah. So I take it that a first new Apis

sacrifice occurred during the rebuilding of the Ptah temple at Memphis sometime between Years

14 and 18, as a foundation sacrifice of the new Ptah temple, in imitation of the first Apis

sacrifice by the first king Menes at the foundation of Memphis and its Temple of Ptah, thus

initiating the New Kingdom Apis cycle. According to the Apis cycle hypothesis this could only

have taken place in 1564 BC. This means that Ahmosis I acceded between 1581 and 1577 BC. Breasted’s date 1580 BC falls within this range but has no specific basis other than the

conjectured reign lengths of the kings. The date 1575 BC, currently accepted by the Cambridge

Ancient History, and more recently downdated to 1570 BC, was based on Parker’s tentative

Sothis date for Year 9 of Amenhotep I and some speculative opinions. It has no specific basis

either. It’s all pure conjecture. My astronomical survey of lunations suggests a more precise beginning in 1578 BC, so that the New Kingdom Apis cycle began in Year 15 of Ahmosis I.

If for some odd reason Ahmosis I should be dated later, I would opt for one of the Years 14-18

of Ahmosis I to fall 18 years later, in 1546 BC, the next Apis Year in the Apis cycle. Year 1

36

should then be between 1563 and 1559 BC. This corresponds with an alternative scenario of

lunations on accession dates, with Dynasty 18 starting in 1560 BC. It is then possible to retain

the accession date of Thuthmosis III, accept the minimum reign length of 1 year for Thuthmosis

II, assume Hatshepsut to be fathered before Thuthmosis I came to the throne, and assume

Sothis dates as observed at Thebes, nicely reducing the long career of Ahmose-pen-Nekhbet. But

if Thuthmosis III is also to be downdated accordingly, his first lunar date on I Shemu 21 in Year 23 would be 12 May 1468 BC during conjunction; the second lunar date on II Peret 30 in Year

24 is 20 February 1466 BC during conjunction, thus placing the king’s accession on 1 May

1490 BC, during Full Moon. Sirius would then rise at Thebes on III Shemu 28 at the earliest on

17 July 1465 BC and at the latest on 14 July 1451 BC, and thus in Year 30 of Thuthmosis III on

16 July 1461 BC. But we would then be back to square one with a lengthy reign of Thuthmosis II, unless Amenhotep I’s total reign length is 25 years, conform Africanus’s suggested number of

24 years. The Apis cycle would then still start in 1564 BC, directly after the Hyksos lost control

over Memphis. I could find this scenario acceptable, were it not for the many chronological

problems that arise from it.

In case Ahmosis I should be dated even later for some weird reason, I would opt for one of the Years 14-18 of Ahmosis I to fall another 18 years later, in 1528 BC, the next Apis Year in the

Apis cycle. This places Year 1 of Ahmosis I in 1542 BC. The first lunar date on I Shemu 21 in

Year 23 of Thuthmosis III could then be 6 May 1443 BC at first Evening Visibility; the second

lunar date on II Peret 30 in Year 24 would then be 14 February 1441 BC during Conjunction,

thus placing the king’s accession on 24 April 1465 BC, the day after Full Moon. However, in that case all Sothis dates would have to be abandoned, for which I see no grounds. Amenhotep I’s

accession date in Year 9 would be 10 July 1513 BC, a day before Full Moon, and the lunations

on accession dates would be rendered meaningless. It would place the beginning of the Apis

cycle in 1528 BC, or at the earliest in 1546 BC after the Hyksos lost control over Memphis, an

epoch I do not think is feasable. The first lunar date of Thuthmosis III could also be placed in 9

May 1457 BC during New Moon, the second one in 17 February 1455 BC during No Moon. This places the accession of Thuthmosis III on 27 April 1477 BC, during the sixth day of lunar

visibility. One can then use Manetho’s reign lengths, except that Thuthmosis II’s reign length

can be shortened to 2-6 years in the non-coregency scenario of Ahmosis I and Amenhotep I, or

to 6-10 years in the coregent scenario. The result is not consistent with Manetho, nor with the

Sothis dates nor with the lunation theory nor with the Apis hypothesis. In fact all of these lower dating schemes create more problems than they solve. I will return to these low dating schemes,

since I need to demonstrate why they are utterly wrong.

The main reason why I cannot date Dynasty 18 earlier than 1581 BC or later than 1577 BC is

its connection with the Second Intermediate Period and the 12th Dynasty. I will reserve these

additional strong arguments for the discussion on the 11th to 17th Dynasties.

So here I end my discussion of Hatshepsut’s reign and complete the chronology of the first six

kings of Dynasty 18 as follows

Absolute dating of the early 18th Dynasty according to the LAD method: 18th Dynasty King Accession date Julian date Lunation reign length

1. Amosis I II Shemu 9 (inferred) 27 June 1578 BC First Visible 25 y. (21y 1m sole)

2. Amenhotep I III Shemu 9 27 July 1557 BC 18th day Visible 25 (21 sole) years

3. Thuthmosis I III Peret 21 29 March 1532 BC No Moon 13 years 6 months

4. Thuthmosis II II Akhet 8 14 October 1519 BC Full Moon 14 years 7 months

Subtotal combined: 26975 days, in terms of Egyptian years, months and days: 73 y. 11 m. 0 d.

5. Hatshepsut I Akhet 1 2 September 1500 BC First Visible -- (16 years)

6. Thuthmosis III I Shemu 4 4 May 1504 BC Full Moon 54 y. (51y 6m sole)

7. Amenhotep II IV Akhet 1 19 November 1453 Conjunction 29 (26 sole) y. 2 m.

8. Thuthmosis IV ? (I Peret 30?) (11 January) 1423 (Full Moon) 10 years 3 months

Total combined: 60212 days, in terms of Egyptian years, months and days: 164 y. 11 m. 22 d.

37

First evaluation

Since Thuthmosis III is the most solidly dated king in the Early 18th Dynasty, we can now

calculate the reign lengths of the first six kings of this Dynasty with certainty as follows:

18th Dynasty King Scheme 1 ? Reign length Scheme 2 !! Reign length

1. Amosis I 1578-1553 BC 25 years 1578-1553 BC 25 years

2. Amenhotep I 1557-1536 BC 21 years (4 joint) 1557-1532 BC 25 years (4 joint)

3. Tuthmosis I 1536-1523 BC 13 years 1532-1519 BC 13 years

4. Thuthmosis II 1523-1504 BC 19 years 1519-1504 BC 15 years

5. Thuthmosis III 1504-1450 BC 54 years 1504-1450 BC 54 years

6. Hatshepsut 1504-1484 BC 21 years (4 regent) 1504-1484 BC 21 years (4 regent)

Scheme 2 above will eventually be the one to end up as part of my final reconstruction of

Dynasty 18. Both schemes 1 and 2 support a coregency of Amosis I and Amenhotep I, which enhances the meaning of the Sothis rising on III Shemu 9 in Year 9 of Amenhotep I at Memphis.

Scheme 1 supports a possible shorter reign of 21 years of Amenhotep I together with a possible

long reign of 19 years of Thuthmosis II. However, I find Scheme 2 most applicable, since the

reign lengths of Amenhotep I and Thuthmosis II are herein closest to Manetho’s scheme. Nothing

else differs from scheme 1 though.

An 18 years later dating is equally strong but supports observation of the Sothis at Thebes,

which I do not accept as feasable. Yet I show it here anyway, since this idea currently has many

supporters in Egyptology:

18th Dynasty King Scheme 3 ? Reign length Scheme 4 !? Reign length

1. Amosis I 1560-1535 BC 25 years 1560-1535 BC 25 years

2. Amenhotep I 1539-1518 BC 21 years (4 joint) 1539-1518 BC 21 years (4 joint)

3. Tuthmosis I 1518-1505 BC 13 years 1518-1505 BC 13 years

4. Thuthmosis II 1505-1490 BC 15 year 1505-1504 BC 1 year

5. Thuthmosis III 1490-1436 BC 54 years 1504-1451 BC 54 years

6. Hatshepsut 1490-1470 BC 21 years (4 regent) 1504-1484 BC 21 years (4 regent)

Of these latter two schemes, I find Scheme 4 the most applicable as it retains the High

Chronology dating of Thutmosis III, while reducing the distance to Amosis I acceptably and still

in general accord with Manetho, except for the reign length of Thuthmosis II; the problems of

this scenario however come from other arguments, while I also pertinently do not accept Sothis

observation at Thebes.

38

Amenhotep II and Thuthmosis IV

Dating Amenhotep II

Amenhotep II came to the throne on the first day of the fourth month of Akhet, but his father

Thuthmosis III died on the thirtieth day of the third month of Peret (Peter Der Manuelian: “Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II”, p.21, Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 26,

Gerstenbeg Verlag, Hildesheim, 1987). If an Egyptian crown prince was proclaimed king but did

not take the throne on the day after his father's death, it was supposed to mean that he served

as the junior coregent during his father's reign. My Lunar Accession Dating method falsifies this

assumption and shows that the successor simply waited until the very next lunation came

about, which always occurred less than half a month after the death of his predecessor. However, in the above case we are obliged to accept a coregency, since Amenhotep II’s accession

comes at least about four months prior to Thuthmosis III’s death.

A coregency with Thuthmosis III and Amenhotep II is believed to have lasted for two years and

four months, according to the astronomical calculations by Parker (Charles C. Van Siclen, "Amenhotep II," The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Ed. Donald Redford, Vol. 1, p. 71,

Oxford University Press, 2001). Others believe that it could have lasted up to six years or more,

but that does not agree well with other pieces of evidence concerning the chronology of the 18th

Dynasty kings. One hypothesis claims for Amenhotep II a fantastic co-regency of twenty-five

years or more (O.A. Toffteen, ‘Ancient Chronology’, Researches in Biblical Archaeology 1, Chicago

1907, 196. Rebuttal by H.R. Hall in PSBA 34, 1912, 107; Borchardt, Mittel, 81 f.; most recently E. Knudsen, Acta Orientalia 23, 1958-1959, 111 f.), and some of the arguments for this are even

quite convincing. In ‘The Coregency of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II’, Donald B. Redford

explains and attempts to refute these arguments (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3855623). I shall

not go into this issue, but it is good to keep it in mind if needed.

Amenhotep II assumed power at the age of 18, according to an inscription from his great Sphinx stela:

"Now his Majesty appeared as king as a fine youth after he had become 'well

developed', and had completed eighteen years in his strength and bravery." (Urk. IV.

1279.8-10)

Amenhotep II's coronation can be dated without much difficulty because of a number of lunar

dates in the reign of his father, Thuthmosis III. These sightings limit the date of Thuthmosis III's accession to 1504 BC (Edward F. Wente, “Thutmose III's Accession and the Beginning of the New Kingdom”, p. 267, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, The University of Chicago Press, 1975).

Thuthmosis III died after 54 years of reign, when Amenhotep II would have already acceded to

the throne. Amenhotep II's coregency with his father would then move his accession at least two years and four months earlier, thus dating his accession to at least 1453 BC. The current

opinion is that his reign length is indicated by a wine jar inscribed with the king's praenomen

found in Amenhotep II's funerary temple at Thebes; it is dated to this king's highest known date

- his Year 26 - and lists the name of the pharaoh's vintner, Panehsy (Peter Der Manuelian: “Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II”, pp. 42-43, Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 26,

Gerstenbeg Verlag, Hildesheim, 1987). Mortuary temples were generally not stocked until the king died or was near death; therefore, Amenhotep II could not have lived much later beyond his

26th year (Redford, JNES Chronology, p.119).

There are alternative theories which attempt to assign Amenhotep II a reign of up to 35 years,

39

the absolute maximum length he could have reigned (Charles C. Van Siclen. "Amenhotep II," The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Ed. Donald Redford, Vol. 1, p. 71, Oxford University Press,

2001). There are problems which cannot be resolved facing these theories (Peter Der Manuelian: “Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II”, p. 43, Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 26,

Gerstenbeg Verlag, Hildesheim, 1987). In particular, this would mean Amenhotep II died when

he was 52, but an X-ray analysis of his mummy has shown him to have been about 40 when he died (Peter Der Manuelian: “Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II”, p. 44, Hildesheimer

Ägyptologische Beiträge 26, Gerstenbeg Verlag, Hildesheim, 1987). Accordingly, Amenhotep II is usually given a reign of 26 years (Shaw, Ian; and Nicholson, Paul: “The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt”, p. 28, The British Museum Press, 1995). However, the X-ray estimates actually

produced an estimate of 40-45, not just 40, and if we allow the 10-20 percent error factor in X-

ray estimates observed elsewhere this actually produces a range of 44-45 years. In other words

the X-ray does not exclude either the lowest possible age (18 + 26) or the highest (19 + 35).

The methods used to estimate the age of an ancient mummy is not watertight. They seem to

estimate the ages slightly too low and have lately come under heavy attack, especially regarding

the mummies of the Amarna Age. So we can safely take these estimates as minimum ages.

It is also important to note that Amenhotep III’s astronomical dating in 1413 BC (see hereafter) corroborates Manetho’s reign lengths of 31 years for Amenhotep II and 10 years for Thuthmosis

IV, thus dating Amenhotep II to 1454 BC. So we are not at all yet in the position to accept Year

26 as Amenhotep II’s final regnal year on the basis only of a single wine jar stock in a mortuary

temple and an age estimation. Especially since it is known that well-to-do Egyptians thought it

prudent to prepare for their burial long before they would actually die (William J. Murnane:

‘Ancient Egyptian Coregencies’, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No. 8, Chicago, Illinois, 1977, p. 18). Amenhotep II may have been

a sick man already expecting to die soon in his regnal Year 26, but not necessarily dead yet.

Furthermore, it is also possible that Manetho’s reign lengths have been transposed, that is

that Thuthmosis III should have been given 30 years 10 months and Amenhotep II 25 years 10 months. This is quite possible, given the transpositions of both names and reign lengths in the

preceding list. In that case Hatshepsut and Thuthmosis III add up to 52 years 7 months in

Josephus’s version of Manetho, thus limiting the coregency period with Amenhotep II to only 1

year 4 months. Since Manetho is mistaken by 2 years regarding Hatshepsut’s reign length the

coregency with Amenhotep II may still have lasted two years longer as correctly calculated by

Parker.

Amenhotep II had an inscription indicating that he might have celebrated a Sed-festival,

suggesting he may have indeed reached a Year 30. But there is some question as to whether

Sed-festivals almost always occurred in Year 30. Not all did. At one time, Year 23 was thought to

be Amenhotep II’s highest year mark, but the discovery of the above mentioned wine jar from his Year 26 resulted in the wide acceptance of Year 26 as the minimum length of his reign. Wente

and Van Siclen cited some indirect evidence suggesting a Year 34. Kitchen amended the

argument, acknowledging only that inscriptions provide for a 34-year interval between the death

of Thuthmosis III and some point during the reign of Thuthmosis IV. And while there is some

evidence of coregency with Thuthmosis III, Aldred has also argued for a coregency with his

successor, Thuthmosis IV.

At this point I would like to add that Amenhotep II’s Year 34 would have been a scheduled

Apis Year in 1420 BC according to my Apis Cycle hypothesis. A Sed-Festival in the king’s Year

30, or 1424 BC may therefore have been regarded a valid reason to force a four years earlier

ritual death of the current Apis bull. Yet, we have no records of any Apis deaths prior to Amenhotep III.

A stela from Amenhotep II’s final years highlights his openly contemptuous attitude towards non-Egyptians. The document, which dates to "Year 23 IV Akhet [day] 1, the day of the festival"

of Amenhotep II's accession to power, is a copy of a personal letter which the king composed

himself to Usersatet, his viceroy of Kush (Nubia) (Urk IV, 1343:10). In it, Amenhotep II reminded Usersatet of their military exploits together in Syria and proceeds to criticise the way this official

40

conducted his office as Viceroy (Hornung, p.291).

Since Amenhotep II did not accede to the throne upon the death of Thuthmosis III, let me test

if his anniversary date in Year 23, month IV Akhet, day 1, was possibly chosen to occur during a

lunation. If his accession to the throne occurred between 1460 and 1453 BC (inclusive), we

should look for a Year 23 anniversary date between 1438 and 1431 BC. We have the following interesting options:

Accession date Lunation Year 23 anniversary Lunation 21 November 1460 BC Full Moon 16 November 1438 BC 1 day before Full Moon

20 November 1457 BC Day 17 of Visibility 15 November 1435 BC Full Moon

19 November 1453 BC New Moon 14 November 1431 BC Last Visible Moon

There seems to be a close link between the accession date in 1460 BC and the Year 23

anniversary date in 1438 BC, in which in both cases a Full Moon is involved. As we saw earlier,

it seems that Full Moon was the ideal condition for an accession, thus symbolizing maturity and

full capacity. I was therefore at first tempted to date Amenhotep II’s accession to 1460 BC, 10

years before the death of his father. The conventional view favours 1454 BC, contrary to Parker’s astronomical observations. The astronomical dating of Amenhotep III’s first year in 1413 BC (see

next) als seems to favour 1454 BC, but only if Amenhotep II ruled for 31 years and Thuthmosis

IV for 10 years flat. But if the year 1460 BC is correct, we would have to raise the reign length of

either Amenhotep II or his successor Thuthmosis IV or both by as many years as needed to fill

the gap.

On the other hand, Amenhotep II is recorded to have campaigned in Year 7 into Syria as his

first Syrian campaign. An inscription of year 3 speaks of a Syrian campaign already completed

(year 2 or year 3 or both). Yet the inscription of year 7, also of a campaign into Syria, is called

the "first victorious campaign". This calls for an explanation. One explanation is that Year 7 was

Amenhotep II’s first year of sole reign, which suggests that Thuthmosis III may have been dead by the time of the campaigning season of Year 7 of Amenhotep II, 6 years and about 4 or 5

months after his accession. The idea stems from the fact that Thuthmosis III reigned for 53

years and 11 months, while Josephus’ version of Manetho gives the reigns of Hatshepsut and

Thuthmosis III as 21 years 9 months and 25 years and 10 months, totalling 47 years and 7

months. So there remains 6 years and 4 months until the death of Thuthmosis III which would then be the period of co-regency with Amenhotep II. If this is true, then Thuthmosis II would

have died just prior to the campaigning season of Year 7 of Amenhotep II.

So from this viewpoint it is just as tempting to opt for 1457 BC as Amenhotep II’s first year.

However, there is no objective reason to attach Thuthmosis III’s death directly to the year of this

campaign. The campaign record makes it only likely that Thuthmosis III died in one of the years 3 to 7 of Amenhotep II rather than 2 or 11. If so, then 1460 BC as accession year of Amenhotep

II already fails the test. This leaves us with only 1457 BC or 1453 BC, the latter being most

attractive since it occurred during a lunation, New Moon, which also conforms perfectly to

Parker’s astronomical calculations, suggesting that the coregency lasted for two years and four

months and that Thuthmosis III died in Year 3 of Amenhotep II. With this overwhelming confirmation by Parker I have no other option than to fully accept that the accession date IV

Akhet 1 of Amenhotep II occurred during the New Moon on 19 November 1453 BC

If we follow Manetho in this discussion and give Amenhotep II a reign length of 30 years 10

months, then Thuthmosis IV must be dated to sometime between 1426 and 1422 BC, around

September, month II Akhet in this case, and Amenhotep III would have to be dated 9 years 8 months later, to sometime between 1416 and 1412 BC, around May, month II Shemu in this

case. This would place Amenhotep II’s accession in November in either 1457 or 1453 BC. But we

already know that Manetho is not that accurate. He miscalculated Hatshepsut’s reign length by

2 years, so a coregency of 8 years 4 months for Amenhotep II may be just as likely; and if

Manetho’s reign lengths for Thuthmosis III and Amenhotep II were indeed transposed, it remains an option to give Amenhotep II a coregency period of either 1 year 4 months or 3 years 4

months, by giving Thuthmosis III a sole reign of 30 years 10 months and Amenhotep II a reign of

25 years 10 months. Both these methods, however, render a lunar accession date for

41

Amenhotep II invalid. Accession during a non-lunation seems a poor choice for any king, while

the Lunar Accession Dating method already strongly suggests that every single king of the 18th

Dynasty preferred to accede during a lunation, even if not a junior coregent as in the case of

Thuthmosis III.

All in all we are thus better off with an accession of Amenhotep II during the New Moon on 19 November 1453 BC, with a joint reign with his father lasting for 2 years 4 months, exactly as

Parker had calculated on totally independent other grounds. Thuthmosis III then died in Year 3

of Amenhotep II, most likely just after or while the latter was on campaign in Syria in either Year

2 or Year 3. Even this scenario is not completely fool-proof, since we do not know the exact date

of either campaigns, but at least it does not violate any known evidence either, and it still corresponds to Manetho’s numbers as well. With Hatshepsut reigning 19 years 9 months not 21

years 9 months, Thuthmosis III’s sole rule can now be counted as 31 years 10 months instead of

Manetho’s transposed 30 years and 10 months. This leaves Amenhotep II to reign solely for 25

years 10 months, from November 1450 BC (the year in which his father dies) to September 1424

BC. All ends meet perfectly, when using the lunar dating method, except that Thuthmosis IV

must then have reigned 10 years 8 months instead of 9 years 8 months as per Manetho.

On page 267 in his article ‘Thuthmosis III’s Accession and the Beginning of the New Kingdom’

(Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 34, No. 4,

October 1975, pp. 265-272, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/544149), Wente made an

interesting point in favour of the accession on 19 November 1453 BC for Amenhotep II. Since Parker was primarily concerned with the duration of the coregency of Amenhotep II and not with

the date of Thuthmosis III’s accession, he had wrongly assumed 1490 BC to be the correct date

for the senior partner’s accession. According to Parker’s reconstruction of the fragmentary

Papyrus Leningrad 1116A, it appears that grain for the sixth day lunar feast was issued five or

six days before the feast, whereas grain for the equally important new moon feast was issued

either only four days at most (since the pap has lacunae) before actual conjunction or at the most five days before a new moon by error declared one day late.

Although by calculation the new moon in this scheme of Parker actually occurred on III

Shemu 10, 9 June 18, 1420 BC, this provides a very restricted span of time for preparation of

bread and beer for the new moon feast. Consequently, day 11 is also considered a possibility, new moon day erroneously being declared one day too late. One might feel somewhat happier if

the time allowed for the preparation of bread and beer for the new moon feast were not so

restricted. But that was only the situation in Parker’s calculations based on the year 1490 BC

instead of 1504 BC. It turns out that in 1434 BC and 1409 BC a lunar month began on day 12,

thus providing the desired extra day for the preparation of bread and beer for the new moon

feast. While still allowing for a coregency of 2 years and 4 months starting in 1453 BC or 1428 BC, this solution fits the accession of Thuthmosis III in 1504 or 1479 BC. Once again, we see

that a precise rendering of the data provided by the monuments consistently leads to the same

conclusions. We have here yet another piece of evidence that the low chronology with

Thuthmosis III dated to 1490 BC fails the test miserably and that the year 1504 BC is the only

correct one. Even more importantly we have once again confirmed my hypotheses that every king of Dynasty 18 without exception acceded to the throne during a lunation. This is why I

deliberately tried to disprove my own hypothesis with the case of Amenhotep II’s accession date,

which other scholars will certainly try to do after me, but without success.

Dating Thuthmosis IV

Dating Thuthmosis IV is slightly more difficult to do because he is several generations removed

from the astronomical dates which are usually used to calculate Egyptian chronologies, and the debate over the proper interpretation of these observances has not been settled. Thuthmosis IV's

grandfather Thuthmosis III almost certainly acceded to the throne in 1504 BC, based upon the

two lunar observances during his reign. After his rule for nearly 54 years, Amenhotep II,

Thuthmosis IV's father, took the throne and ruled for at least 26 years after him, but has been

42

assigned up to at most 34-35 years in some chronological reconstructions (Wente, E.F.; and Van

Siclen, C.: "A Chronology of the New Kingdom," SAOC 39). Beckerath assigned Thuthmosis IV a

2-year coregency with his successor, Amenhotep III, but I have not seen any evidence to that

effect yet.

Amenhotep III’s astronomically based reign in 1413 BC may come to the rescue here (see hereafter). Since Thuthmosis IV’s last attested year is 8, Manetho’s reign length of 9 years, or 9

years and 8 months, rounded off to 10 years, is usually accepted for this pharaoh. So counting

backwards from Amenhotep III, we can date Thuthmosis IV fairly certain to at least 1422 or

more likely 1423 BC.

Thus the reign of Thuthmosis IV is problematic. His son Amenhotep III was supposedly under

the age of puberty upon accession, but at least 13 years old, and his father Amenhotep II was at

least 44, perhaps 52 years old at death. Thuthmosis IV was not the eldest son or designated

heir, and so must have been adult upon accession in order to effect a seizure of power. His own

mummy has been variously estimated at ages ranging from 30 to 40+. There is then enough play

in these data to support a reign of 9 years 8 months as per Manetho or one as much as a decade longer, circa 20 years.

Of all of Thuthmosis IV's dated monuments, three are dated to his first regnal year, one to his

fourth, possibly one to his fifth, one to his sixth, two to his seventh, and one to his eighth Year (Bryan, Betsy: “The Reign of Thutmose IV”, p. 6, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,

1991). Two possible other dated objects, one dated to a Year 19 and another to a Year 20, have been suggested as belonging to him as well, but neither have been accepted as dating to his reign (Bryan, Betsy, “The Reign of Thutmose IV”, p. 6, The Johns Hopkins University Press,

Baltimore, 1991). The reading of the king in these dates are today accepted as referring to the

praenomen of Thuthmosis III – Menkheperre - and not to Menkhepe[ru]re Thuthmosis IV.

However, we have already encountered these two dates as even more problematic in the reign of

Thuthmosis III. So if the Egyptologists are wrong and the two dates do belong to Thuthmosis IV then Manetho’s 9 or 10 years may have to be regarded an error for 19 or 20. This problem

cannot be resolved right now. Due to the absence of higher dates for Thutmose IV after his Year

8 as found on the Konosso stela (BAR II, 823-829), Manetho's figures here are usually accepted.

Most scholars ascribe him a 10 year reign, within a small margin of error, because our

knowledge of this reign is so scanty. My Lunar Accession Dating method leads to the exact same conclusion, which is phenomenal.

There is only one recorded civil date known for Thuthmosis IV. It is the Konosso inscription

dated to Year 8, II Peret 2. It is a First Visible on 10 January 1416 BC, perfectly compatible with

a possible accession of Thuthmosis IV between probably II Akhet (September) in 1424 BC and II

Peret 2 on 12 January 1423 BC, just the day after Full Moon. I therefore pick this date as his likely accession date until proven otherwise. His accession date remains unknown, but this is

the only lead I have so far. The Lunar Accession Dating method thus suggests a reign length of

10 years 4-8 months, if Amenhotep III acceded in May 1413 BC, contrary to Manetho’s 9 years 8

months. I offer the following solution in (Egyptian) years and months, which shows that

Manetho still corresponds to the evidence so far collected:

Part I

King Reign From BC Josephus Lun.Acc. Difference Ahmosis I Sole II Shemu 9 (27 Jun) 1578 25y04m 21y01m -00y03m

Amenhotep I Joint III Shemu 9 (21 Jul) 1557 04y00m?

Sole III Shemu 9 (?) (20 Jul?) 1553 **) 20y07m 20y04m? -00y03m

Thuthmosis I Sole III Peret 21 (29 Mar) 1532 12y09m 13y06m +00y09m

Thuthmosis II Sole II Akhet 8 (14 Oct) 1519 13y00m 14y07m +01y07m

Total 71y08m 73y06m +01y10m

**) This is due to a theory of mine, which can be overridden if the death of Ahmosis I occurred either 3 months earlier or 3

months later. My theory takes the middle road, since we know nothing about the death of Ahmosis I.

43

Part II

King Reign From BC Josephus Lun.Acc. Difference Thuthmosis III Regency I Shemu 4 (4 May) 1504 21y09m 04y04m -02y00m

Hatshepsut & Thuthmosis III

Joint I Akhet 1 (2 Sep) 1500 15y05m

Thuthmosis III Sole II Peret 10 (5 Feb) 1484 30y10m 31y10m +01y00m

Amenhotep II Joint IV Akhet 1 (19 Nov) 1453 +2y04m *) +2y04m +00y00m

Sole III Peret 30 (18 Mar) 1450 25y10m 26y10m +01y00m

Thuthmosis IV Sole ? II Peret 2 (12 Jan) 1423 09y08m 10y4m +00y08m

Subtotal including the extra +2y04m of Amenhotep II’s Joint reign 90y05m 91y01 +00y08m

Subtotal excluding the extra +2y04m of Amenhotep II’s Joint reign 88y01m 88y09m +00y08m

Amenhotep III Sole !!? I Shemu 26 (3 May) 1413 36y05m 37y10m +01y05m

Death III Peret (February) 1375 - - -

Total including the extra +2y04m of Amenhotep II’s Joint reign 126y10m 128y11m +02y01m

Total excluding the extra +2y04m of Amenhotep II’s Joint reign 124y06m 126y07m +02y01m

*) This is added to Josephus by me, to make the comparison with my chronology work

Part III

King Reign Start from BC Josephus Lun.Acc. Difference Akhenaten Sole I Peret 8 (7 Dec) 1376 12y01m 11y01 -01y

Last seen! II Peret 8 (3 Jan) 1364 - - -

Akhenaten, hiatus 14 years until Tutankhamun

04y *) 04y +04y ±

Neferneferuaten 1360/59 10 years 09y00m 07y -02y ±

Smenkhkare 1353/52 12y05m 03y -09y05m ±

Tutankhamun 1350/49 12y03m 11y -01y ±

Ay II III Peret (22?) (10 Feb?) 1339 04y01m 04y01m +00y00m

Horemheb I Shemu 9 (?) (28 Mar?) 1335 - 13y06m +13y06m

Ramesses I II Peret 20 (?) (5 Jan?) 1322 01y04m 01y05m +00y01m

Subtotal including the extra +4y of Akhenaten’s hiatus 55y02m 55y01m -00y01m

Subtotal excluding the extra +4y of Akhenaten’s hiatus 51y02m 51y01m -00y01m

Seti I III Shemu 24 (7 Jun) 1320 - 11y00m +11y00m

Ship’s Log No Moon Y52 II Peret 27 (3 Jan) Year 52 = 1313

Era Sethos/Horemheb Y56 II Peret 8~27 (14-12-1310~2-1-1309) - - -

Ramesses II III Shemu 27 (7 Jun) 1309 66y02m 66y02m +00y00m

Era Sethos/Horemheb Y59 II Peret 8~27 (13-12-1307~1-1-1306)

Merenptah II Akhet 13 (11 Aug) 1243 19y06m 09y04m -10y02m

Seti II III Peret 3 (27 Dec) 1234 10y00m 05y10m -04y02m

Total including the extra +4y of Akhenaten’s hiatus 150y10m 147y05m -03y05m

Total excluding the extra +4y of Akhenaten’s hiatus 146y10m 143y05m -03y05m

*) This is added to Josephus by me, to make the comparison with my chronology work

We can see that the differences are amazingly small, which confirms the validity of Manetho as

well as my Lunar accession dating method and the monumental data combined, especially in

the High Chronology.

My solution Manetho Hatshepsut, reign from I Shemu 4 (4 May) in 1504 BC 19 years 9 months, 21 years 9 months

Thuthmosis III, sole reign from II Peret 10 (4 Feb) in 1484 BC 31 years 10 months 30 years 10 months - Amenhotep II, joint reign from IV Akhet 1 (19 Nov) in 1453 BC + 2 years 4 months + 2 years 4 months

Amenhotep II, sole reign from III Peret 30 (18 Mar) in 1450 BC 26 years 10 months 25 years 10 months Thuthmosis IV, reign from II Peret 2 (10 January) in 1423 BC 10 years 4 months 9 years 8 months Subtotal: 91 years 1 month 90 years 5 months (88 years 9 months) (88 years 1 month) Amenhotep III, reign from I Shemu 26 in 1413 BC 37 years 10 months, 36 years 5 months Amenhotep III dies? III Peret (February) in 1375 BC.

Total: 128 years 11 months 126 years 10 months (126 years 7 months) (124 years 6 months)

44

Difference: 2 years 1 month

The accession date of Amenhotep III is still a bit uncertain. If Manetho’s numbers are taken at

face value, Amenhotep III seems to accede in the month I Akhet around day 4 on 14 September

1414 BC. However, this does not coincide with Van Siclen’s observation that the accession date

of Amenhotep III must fall after IV Peret 26 and before or on III Shemu 2, based on observations of Amenhotep III’s three Jubilees. Van Siclen opted for an accession of Amenhotep III in the

beginning of II Shemu, but it could still be some days earlier or later. In my solution Amenhotep

III seems to accede most likely in the month II Shemu around day 4, 11 May 1413 BC, which

coincides nicely with Van Siclen’s observation. But from the Lunar Accession Dating point of

view one can then more likely argue for either the lunar Conjunction on I Shemu 26 or the Full Moon on II Shemu 11 on 18 May 1413 BC, corroborating Van Siclen’s suggestion. These dates

also fit nicely with Donald Redford’s argument, on the basis of three monuments concerning the

Nubian campaign, that the accession day of Amenhotep III must fall between the month I

Shemu and the month II Akhet day 23 (?) in the following year of the civil calendar (D. B.

Redford, ’On the Chronology of the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty’, JNES 25, 1966, 120-121).

Donald Redford himself speculated on III Shemu 2 as the accession date. However, Redford’s limits have been challenged.

Thuthmosis IV's rule is significant because he was the New Kingdom pharaoh who established

peaceful relations with Mitanni and married a Mitanian princess to seal this new alliance.

Thuthmosis IV's role in initiating contact with Egypt's former rival, Mitanni, is documented by Amarna letter EA 29, composed decades later by Tushratta, a Mittanian king who ruled during

the reign of Akhenaten, Thutmose IV's grandson. Tushratta states to Akhenaten that:

“When [Menkheperure], the father of Nimmureya (i.e. Amenhotep III) wrote to Artatama, my grandfather, he asked for the daughter of my grandfather, the sister of my father. He wrote 5, 6 times, but he did not give her. When he wrote my grandfather 7 times, then only under such pressure, did he give her”. (EA 29) William L. Moran:

“The Amarna Letters”, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992, p. 93

Second evaluation

Evaluating these studies, we may now add Amenhotep II and Thuthmosis IV to our chronology

as follows:

18th Dynasty King Scheme 1 ? Reign length Scheme 2 !! Reign length

1. Amosis I 1578-1553 BC 25 (21) years 1578-1553 BC 25 (21) years

2. Amenhotep I 1557-1536 BC 21 years (4 joint) 1557-1532 BC 25 years (4 joint)

3. Tuthmosis I 1536-1523 BC 13 years 1532-1519 BC 13 years

4. Thuthmosis II 1523-1504 BC 19 years 1519-1504 BC 15 years

5. Thuthmosis III 1504-1450 BC 54 years 1504-1450 BC 54 years

6. Hatshepsut 1504-1484 BC 21 years (4 regent) 1504-1484 BC 21 years (4 regent)

7. Amenhotep II 1453-1423 BC 30 years 1453-1423 BC 30 years

8. Thuthmosis IV 1423-1413 BC 10 years 1423-1413 BC 10 years

The above two schemes support a coregency between Amosis I and Amenhotep I, emphasizing

the symbolic meaning of the Sothis rising on III Shemu 9 in Year 9 of Amenhotep I, and the

observation of the Sothis at Memphis. I find Scheme 2 most applicable, since it is closest to Manetho’s scheme and needs no special pleading concerning the reign length of either

Amenhotep I or Thuthmosis II as would be the case with scheme I. Scheme 2 can also be fully

argued for with the greatest certainty and will therefore eventually end up as part of my final

reconstruction of the 18th Dynasty.

45

If we compare the numbers of scheme 2 with those of Manetho and the highest attested year

marks, we can see that we are most likely on the right track with the lunation dating method:

18th Dynasty King Scheme 2 !! Reign length Manetho Attested

1. Amosis I 1578-1553 BC 25 (21) years 25 years (25 ys 4 ms) 22

2. Amenhotep I 1557-1532 BC 25 (21) years 21 (24) years (20 ys 7 ms) 21

3. Tuthmosis I 1532-1519 BC 13 years 13 years 4, 9?, 11?

4. Thuthmosis II 1519-1504 BC 15 years 13 years (12 ys 9 ms) 1, 2?

Sub total 74 years 72 (75) years (71 ys. 8 ms)

5. Thuthmosis III 1504-1450 BC 54 (sole 32) *) 26 years (25 ys 10 ms) 54

6. Hatshepsut 1504-1484 BC 21 years 22 years (21 ys 9 ms) 18, 20?

7. Amenhotep II 1453-1423 BC 30 (sole 27) 31 years (30 ys 10 ms) 26

8. Thuthmosis IV 1423-1413 BC 10 years 9 years (9 ys 8 ms) 8 *) If the 22 years of Hatshepsut is counted from her accession on I Akhet 1, six months into Year 5 of Thuthmosis III, during a First Evening Visible Crescent on 2 September 1500 BC. hen follows the sole reign of Thuthmosis III, counted as 25 years and 10 months from the death of Hatshepsut, in accord with Manetho’s reign length for Thuthmosis III. However, the 22 years were not reckoned in years of Hatshepsut but of those of Thuthmosis III. They terminated 4 to 6

years earlier. Thuthmosis III’s sole reign was then actually 29 to 31 years 10 months.

An 18 years later dating is equally strong and supports observation of the Sothis at Thebes.

The problems in this scenario come from other arguments, while I pertinently do not accept

Sothis observations at Thebes:

18th Dynasty King Scheme 3 ? Reign length Scheme 4 !! Reign length

1. Amosis I 1560-1535 BC 25 (21) years 1560-1535 BC 25 (21) years

2. Amenhotep I 1539-1518 BC 21 years (4 joint) 1539-1518 BC 21 years (4 joint)

3. Tuthmosis I 1518-1505 BC 13 years 1518-1505 BC 13 years

4. Thuthmosis II 1505-1490 BC 15 year 1505-1504 BC 1 year

5. Thuthmosis III 1490-1436 BC 54 years 1504-1450 BC 54 years

6. Hatshepsut 1490-1470 BC 21 years (4 regent) 1504-1484 BC 21 years (4 regent)

7. Amenhotep II 1442-1416 BC 26 years 1453-1423 BC 30 years

8. Thuthmosis IV 1416-1406 BC 10 years 1423-1413 BC 10 years

In scheme 3 the tables are turned. Thuthmosis IV’s reign length depends on Amenhotep III’s

accession date falling during a lunation. Amenhotep II’s accession date then falls on 17

November 1442 BC during conjunction. This gives Amenhotep II conveniently a reign of 26 years and Thuthmosis IV a reign of 10 years, as currently expected. But even in this case I would still

prefer Scheme 4, because I do not recommend a later dating of Amenhotep III for reasons

explained hereafter.

As an aside, it seems to me that the unexplained demise of Thuthmosis II in Year 1, 1519 BC,

may well have been food for the Masoretic Bible dating of the Exodus, given that Thuthmosis III undertook his conquests in the Levant since 1483 BC for 20 years on a nearly yearly basis,

apparently mimiced by Joshua’s conquests. If the Masoretic jubilee count began in 1407 BC

after a conquest of 6 years, and Joshua’s life span of 110 years is also correct, we end up dating

Joshua’s birth at the latest in 1517 BC, and we know from the first census in year 2 of the

Exodus that Joshua could not have been born earlier than in Year 3 of the Exodus, when only

his grandfather was among the men of 20 years and older. This means that the Exodus could not have occurred later than 1519 BC, i.e. the singularly known Year 1 of Thuthmosis II.

Hatshepsut as the wife and widow of Thuthmosis II therefore may have been rightfully looked

upon as Pharaoh’s daughter who raised Moses as a son, as she in fact had raised Thuthmosis III

as a son. She herself was born to Thuthmosis I as early as perhaps about 1533/2 BC, 80+ years

46

before the usually accepted Exodus date, coincidently the age ascribed to Moses during this

event. Apparently then, Moses’ flight from Egypt to Midian at the age of about 40 could have

been a preliminary Exodus circa 1493-1483 BC, just prior to the conquests of Thuthmosis III

aka Joshua, about 40 years after the births of Hatshepsut, Thuthmosis II and apparently Moses.

And these three births may also have become food for the story of the three siblings Miriam,

Aaron and Moses, born within the same period to a certain Amram and his aunt Jochebeth and who thus became the leaders of the Exodus either 40 or 80 years later:

1532+ BC - Births of Hatshepsut, Thuthmosis II, and ?Moses – Miriam, Aaron and ?Moses

1492+ BC - Preliminary Exodus: flight to Midian by Moses, followed by the conquests of the

Levant by both Hatshepsut and Thuthmosis III. 1452+ BC - Final Exodus following the accession of Amenhotep II in 1453 BC and death of

Thuthmosis III in 1450 BC.

Of course this is all pure speculation, especially since there is not a single scrap of evidence for

an Israelite Exodus and conquest as described in the Masoretic Bible anytime from 1519-1440

BC onwards, or any other time during the 18th and 19th Dynasty for that matter, but these connections are at least interesting from a mythological point of view.