The Akhenaten's reign: an egyptological delirium!

The Akhenaten's reign: an egyptological delirium! Abstract: The reign of Akhenaten is one of the most controversial of all Egyptian history since only about the co-regency with Amenhotep III there are more than 1200 books and academic articles that have been written. He has thus become the center of many other controversies: although he had only (six) daughters he would be the father of Tutankhamun (a boy!) despite the fact that the latter had clearly stated to be the son of Amenhotep III, although he had worshiped the sun under different shapes (Aten, Re, Amun) he would be the true father of monotheism that inspired the biblical myth of Moses as well as the Jewish god Adon "Lord", a plagiarism of Aton, although he was the sovereign pontiff of Egypt, a delegation of priests of Amun would have plotted a religious rebellion in order to remove the heretic worship of Aton, etc. All this doesn't seem seriousness. The only way of knowing the (historical) truth is to use a chronology anchored on absolute dates (coming from astronomy). Thus the precise dating of this period confirms historical testimonies: Amenhotep III (1383-1345) reigned 11 years beside his eldest son Amenhotep IV (1356-1340) and was the father of Tutankhamun (1336-1327) born in 1347 BCE.

The chronology1 of the reigns from Amenhotep III to Tutankhamun (Amarna period) is at present highly controversial (co-regencies are highlighted):

King: Amenhotep III Akhenaten Semenkhkare Neferneferuaten Tutankhamun highest date: 38 17 1 3 10

Carbon 14: 1397-1359 1359-1345 1345-1342 1345-1342 1342-1333 Dodson 1388-1348 1360-1343 1346-1343 1346-1343 1343-1333 [Gertoux] 1383-1345 1356-1340 1340-1338 1338-1336 1336-1327 Grimal 1390-1352 1352-1338 1338-1336 1338-1336 1336-1327 Helck 1379-1340 1340-1324 1324-1319 1324-1319 1319-1309 Hornung 1402-1364 1364-1347 1351-1348 1351-1348 1347-1338 Kitchen 1386-1349 1356-1340 1342-1340 1342-1340 1340-1331 Krauss 1390-1353 1353-1336 1336-1334 1334-1333? 1333-1323? Malek 1391-1353 1353-1337 1338-1336 1338-1336 1336-1327 Redford 1410-1372 1372-1355 1335-1335 1335-1335 1355-1346 Vandersleyen 1387-1348 1359-1342? 1341-1339? 1342-1341? 1339-1329 von Beckerath 1388-1350 1355-1337 1338-1335 1338-1335 1335-1325

The dating of Akhenaten's reign is highly fluctuating: 1372-1335 without co-regency with Amenhotep III for Redford, but 1340-1324 for Helck or 1360-1343 with 12 years of co-regency with Amenhotep III for Dodson. As the accuracy on dates is about +/- 15 years according to the Carbon 14 dating2, the year 1 of Amenhotep III has to be between 1412 and 1382 BCE and his reign lasted at least 37 years according to the highest date. The short period 1360-1330 BCE is one of the best documented about Canaan, Palestine and Egypt through the Amarna letters (almost 400), but paradoxically some parts remain controversial3 because of the following: ! Most protagonists are rarely mentioned by name but almost exclusively by their title

(king, mayor) or function (ruler, commissioner). ! The boundaries of some small countries (Amurru, Palestine) have been very volatile. ! Transcription of Egyptian names into Akkadian is often quite confusing4. For example

1 M. DESSOUDEIX – Chronique de l'Égypte ancienne Paris 2008 Éd. Actes Sud pp. 293-316. 2 C.B. RAMSEY, M.W. DEE, J.M. ROWLAND, T.F. G. HIGHAM, S.A. HARRIS, F. BROCK, A. QUILES, E.M. WILD, E.S. MARCUS, A.J. SHORTLAND - Radiocarbon - Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt in: Science Vol 328 (10 june 2010) pp. 1554-1557. 3 D. KAHN – One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward: The Relations between Amenhotep III and Tushratta, King of Mitanni in: Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature (Brill, 2011) pp. 136-152. 4 The land of Mitanni (Hittite) is called Meteni (Egyptian), !anigalbat (Assyrian), Aram-Naharaim (Hebrew), Naharina "[between the] rivers [Tigris and Euphrates]" (Babylonian), Neherine (Egyptian), Mesopotamia "between rivers" (Greek). The people of Mitanni are called !urri.

2 SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO AN ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY THROUGH SYNCHRONISMS DATED BY ASTRONOMY

(Egyptian / Akkadian): Thutmose III (Men"eperre / Mana"piya); Amenhotep III (Nebmaatre / Ni[b]muariya); Akhenaten (Nefer"eperure / Nap"uriya); Tutankhamun (Neb"eperure / Nib"ururiya); Semenkhkare (An""eperure / [Nip]!uriya)5.

! It is difficult to distinguish ethnic vs common names, but a link exists between them6. In Egyptian7: ‘Aperu "crew members/workmen", !asu "Bedouins", ‘A[l]amu "Asiatics"; in Babylonian: ‘Apiru "factious", !apiru SA.GAZ "nomads", !abiru "migrants", A"lamaiu "Arameans"; in Hebrew: ‘Ibrim "Hebrews/those of Eber", ‘eber means migrant! These terms often refer to people in the same place at the same time. In Middle Assyrian apâru/epêru means "put crown on the head8". In Amarna letters Apiru are compared to: a runaway dog (EA 67); mercenaries (EA 71); a rebel (EA 288); robbers (EA 318). In Akkadian !apirû/!abbâtu luSA.GAZ means "nomads/looters9".

! Canaanite mayors all accuse each other of treachery to the pharaoh (who are the liars?). ! There were several simultaneous wars: 1) Hatti against Mitanni (ally of Egypt) then

against Amurru (former ally of Egypt); 2) Apiru mercenaries (EA 195) around Amurru's area in the North and around Shechem's area in the South against Canaanite kings.

Canaan appears at this time as a sort of protectorate under the power of pharaohs. Each king, wren, or town mayor, must swear allegiance to the pharaoh and take into account the requirements of the latter who secured his power in the land by sending his representatives on the spot accompanied by a police escort of a few hundred archers. These letters reveal a generally peaceful international environment with the exception of two areas of conflict, one in the region around the land of Amurru and another in the area around the town of Shechem. Nearly one-quarter of the letters are from Rib-Hadda, the mayor of Byblos. The politics of Rib-Hadda's Byblos were dominated by the emergence of a major power in Amurru with ‘Abdi-A!irta and the aggression of "uppiluliuma I, King of Hatti. With Sumur captured and Byblos virtually besieged, Amenhotep IV was obliged to summon the ruler of Amurru, Aziru, to court, where he was detained for several months. Subsequently, however, Aziru stepped up the pressure on Byblos and switched his allegiance to the King of Hatti. The politics of Palestine, on the other hand, were dominated by local power-games in which Egypt intervened as little as possible. However, the raiding of Lab’ayu and his sons near Megiddo was one local irritation which grew into a thread to trade. Avoiding direct intervention, Amenhotep IV demanded that a group of Palestinian city-states put aside their own differences and co-operate in order to eliminate Lab’ayu (and protecting the trade routes with the minimum of direct intervention). As the backbone of history is chronology it is necessary to have first an accurate and precise dating of all historical ancient testimonies. Fortunately, Egyptian chronology has numerous synchronisms with other well-known chronologies (Assyrian, Babylonian, Hittite and Mitannian) also anchored on astronomical phenomena. To date precisely these synchronisms a relative chronology based on carbon-14 dating is required, then an improvement can be made combining known reigns' duration as well as accession dates. Finally, astronomical events described during some reigns, as the particularly long reign of Thutmose III for example, make it possible to obtain an absolute dating.

5 A. DODSON – Were Nefertiti & Tutankhamen Coregents? in: KMT a Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt n° 20:3 (2009) p. 48. 6 W.L. MORAN - Les lettres d'El Amarna in: LIPO n°13 Paris 1987 Éd. Cerf pp. 569, 604-605. 7 R.O. FAULKNER – A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian Oxford 2002, Ed. Griffith Institute pp. 38, 42, 261. 8 J. BLACK, A. GEORGE, N. POSTGATE -A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian Wiesbaden 2000, Ed. Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 19, 99. 9 R. LABAT, F. MALBRAN-LABAT -Manuel d'épigraphie akkadienne Paris 1999 Ed. Geuthner p. 87.

THE AKHENATEN'S REIGN: AN EGYPTOLOGICAL DELIRIUM 3

ABSOLUTE DATING OF THE EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY

If the dates obtained by 14C (calibrated by dendrochronology) are imprecise (+/- 15 years) they nevertheless allow setting a relative chronology over the period 1500-100010. Dates obtained both by 14C and astronomy (dates in bold) have been highlighted (the astronomical dating is given as an indication, because it will be calculated afterward):

17th Dynasty Reign according to 14C

Length of reign

Reign according to astronomical dating

gap

8 Taa Seqenenre - 11 years /1544-04/1533 9 Kamose - 2 years 11 months 05/1533-04/1530 18th Dynasty 1 Ahmose 1557-1532 25 years 4 months 04/1530-07/1505 +27 2 Amenhotep I 1532-1511 20 years 7 months 08/1505-02/1484 +27 3 Thutmose I 1511-1499 12 years 9 months 02/1484-11/1472 +27 4 Thutmose II 1499-1486 3 years 08/1472-07/1469 +27 [-Hatshepsut] 1480- [21 years 9 months] [08/1472-04/1450] +8 5 Thutmose III

/[Amenhotep II] 1486-1434 53 years 11 months

[2 years 4 months] [08/1472-03/1418] [11/1420-03/1418]

+14

6 Amenhotep II 1434-1407 25 years 10 months 04/1418-02/1392 +16 7 Thutmose IV 1407-1397 9 years 8 months 02/1392-10/1383 +15 8 Amenhotep III

/[Amenhotep IV] 1397-1359 1359-1345

37 years 10 months [11 years 5 months]

10/1383-07/1345 [03/1356-07/1345]

+14

Akhenaten 5 years 2 months 08/1345-10/1340 9 Semenkhkare 1345-1342 1 year 4 months 10/1340-02/1338 +5 10 -Ankhkheperure 2 years 1 months 02/1338-03/1336 11 Tutankhamun 1342-1333 9 years 8 months 03/1336-10/1327 +6 12 Aÿ 1333-1330 4 years 1 month 10/1327-11/1323 +6 13 Horemheb I [former regent]

Horemheb II [pharaoh] 1330-1302 14 years

13 years 2 months 11/1323-11/1309 12/1309-01/1295

+7

19th Dynasty 1 Ramses I 1302-1302 1 year 4 months 01/1295-05/1294 +7 2 Sety I 1302-1285 11 years 06/1294-06/1283 +8 3 Ramses II 1285-1219 67 years 2 months 06/1283-07/1216 +2 4 Merenptah 1219-1206 9 years 3 months 08/1216-10/1207 +3 5 Sethy II 1206- 5 years 11/1207-10/1202 -1 6 [Amenmes] 1209- [4 years] [04/1206-03/1202] +3 7 Siptah 1200-1194 6 years 11/1202-10/1196 -2 Siptah-Tausert / [Setnakht] 1194-1192 1 year 6 months 11/1196-04/1194 -2 20th Dynasty 1 Sethnakht 1192-1189 3 years 5 months 11/1196-03/1192 -4 2 Ramses III 1189-1158 31 years 1 months 04/1192-04/1161 -3 3 Ramses IV 1158-1152 6 years 8 months 05/1161-12/1155 -3 4 Ramses V 1152-1148 3 years 2 months 01/1154-02/1151 -2 5 Ramses VI 1148-1140 7 years 03/1151-02/1144 -3 6 Ramses VII 1140-1133 7 years 1 month 03/1144-03/1137 -4 7 Ramses VIII 1133-1130 3 months ? 04/1137-06/1137 -4 8 Ramses IX 1130-1112 18 years 4 months 07/1137-10/1119 -7 9 Ramses X 1112-1103 2 years 5 months 11/1119-03/1116 -7 10 Ramses XI 1103-1073 26 years 1 month ? 04/1116-04/1090 -13

The period of time (1490-1320) that goes from Thutmose III to Tutankhamun has six dates (in bold) anchored by astronomy. As the accuracy of Carbon 14 measurements is small it does not allow deciding between the reigns with or without co-regency. The first reign that will serve anchoring this period is the one of Thutmose III.

10 C.B. RAMSEY, M.W. DEE, J.M. ROWLAND, T.F. G. HIGHAM, S.A. HARRIS, F. BROCK, A. QUILES, E.M. WILD, E.S. MARCUS, A.J. SHORTLAND - Radiocarbon - Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt in: Science Vol 328 (10 june 2010) pp. 1554-1557. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/328/5985/1554/DC1/1


DETERMINING THUTMOSE III'S REIGN THROUGH ASTRONOMY

The reign of Thutmose III is based on the following chronological data: ! It is dated 1486-1434 by 14C to +/- 15 years. ! The date of accession is: year 1, I Shemu 4, and date of death is: year 54, III Peret 30

(length of his reign: 53 years 11 months)11. Years of reign are counted from the date of accession (I Shemu 4) and not from 1st Thoth (I Akhet 1). Moreover, Thutmose III began to reign independently, without Hatshepsut, presumably from year 22, II Peret 10, according to Armant Stela.

! The astronomical ceiling of Senenmut's tomb gives the position of several constellations and planets, known at this time. Some of them are easy to identify as the Big Dipper, Orion, Venus, Mars, Mercury, Saturn and Jupiter. This ceiling describes a right ascension of Jupiter between 73° and 95° where Mars is not visible, which could occur in the period from 1455 to 1505, only during the night on November 14, 1463 BCE (the III Akhet 23) according to astronomy12. Senenmut was a very important person under Hatshepsut, thus it is possible to find the year of the reign when the ceiling of his grave was designed. Senenmut received the prestigious title of "Grand Steward of Amun" probably around the 5th or the 7th year of Tuthmose III and also had the rare privilege for an individual to develop a royal tomb and to append his own grave. Ostraca of this tomb13 can set the year in which the ceiling was realized, because masonry and stone cutting started on IV Peret 2, year 7 of Thutmose III and spread out through year 9. As ostracon No. 80 states that the door of the chapel was opened on III Akhet 27, year 11, we can assume that the development work and decoration, such as the astronomical ceiling design (from the observation) were performed at the end of development work in year 9 or 10. According to Dorman14, Senenmut monuments and those of the vast complex of Deir el-Bahari were probably built in parallel. The posthumous disgraces of Senenmut and Queen Hatshepsut led to an hammering and a rewriting of their cartouches, which creates conflicting dates15. These two disgraces are unexplained since the mummy of Thutmose I was placed (in year 16) in the sarcophagus of Hatshepsut beside another which was built after his death16 (in year 22). However, the start date of the tomb is Year 7. As Senenmut's tomb is only a small part of the vast complex, 2 years of construction seem to be sufficient to complete the ceiling. The famous expedition to Punt, for example, which is represented on a retaining wall of the temple17, is dated year 9. Astronomical observation represented on the ceiling must therefore date this year 9 of Tuthmose III, which sets the accession of the pharaoh in 1472 (= 1463 + 9) BCE and his reign from 08/1472 to 03/1418, according to the accession date.

! Two lunar days 1 (psdntyw)18 respectively dated I Shemu 21 of year 23 (Urk.IV 657.2) and II Peret 30 of year 24 (Urk.IV 836.1-3), confirm the dating of Thutmose III's reign.

11 C. VANDERSLEYEN - L'Egypte et la vallée du Nil Tome 2 Paris 1995 Éd. Presses Universitaires de France pp. 271-318. 12 C. LEITZ – Le premier plafond astronomique dans la tombe de Senmout in: Les dossiers d'archéologie n°187 S (Novembre 1993) pp. 116,117. 13 W.C. HAYES – Ostraka and Name Stones from the Tomb of Sen-mut (TT71) at Thebes New York 1942 Ed. Arno Press pp. 7,21-23. 14 P.F. DORMAN – The Monuments of Senenmut. Problems in Historical Methodology New York Ed. Kegan Paul International pp. 66-109. 15 C. DESROCHES NOBLECOURT – La reine mystérieuse Hatshepsout Paris 2002 Éd. Pygmalion p. 58. 16 C. LALOUETTE – Thèbes ou la naissance d'un empire Paris 1995 Éd. Flammarion pp. 270-271. 17 C. GRAINDORGE – Deir El Bahari le temple de millions d'années in: Les dossiers d'archéologie n°187 S (11/1993) pp. 72-75. 18 K. SETHE – Urkunden der 18. Dynastie Leipzig 1907 Ed. J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung pp. IV 657, 807-809, 836.


According to astronomy these lunar days (psdntyw)19 dated 21/IX/23 and 30/VI/2420, coincided with full moons of May 7 in 1450 BCE and of February 16 in 1448 BCE.

On the lower part, one recognized 12 circles thanks to their names in hieroglyphs, they represent the 12 Egyptian months. In the centre of this panel, separating the 12 circles into two groups unequal, a long and narrow triangle symbolizes the meridian. On the tip of the meridian there is a small circle which is connected to the schematic drawing of a bull called Big Dipper by a hieroglyph inscribed on its body. The Egyptians believed that the 7

19 R.A. PARKER - The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III and Ramesses II in: Journal of Eastern Studies XVI (1957) pp. 39-43. 20 Thutmose III inaugurated a sanctuary 30/VI/24 he called Akh-menu "brilliant monument" (Urk. IV, 836:2-3).


main stars of this constellation embodied a bull or rather its thigh and that the star (!) at the tip of the meridian was Ursae majoris, the Big Dipper. If we extend the spear of falcon-headed god figured under the Big Dipper and the meridian, the two lines meet at the North Pole (90° declination), the meridian being itself on the equator (0° declination). The star in the small circle (! Ursae majoris) is precisely located at 68.2° (by measuring its distance from the equator and knowing that the total distance from the equator to the pole represents 90°). When a star is on the meridian, it holds the highest position (if it is a circumpolar star it is also its lowest position), one says that it culminates. The culmination played an important role among the Egyptians and the culmination of the star ! Ursae majoris was done on the night of March 18 to 19 at midnight with a declination of 68.2° at that time (which confirms that it is indeed the culmination of this star). Moreover, if one extends the spear backwards it leads on the month 8 (IV Peret) which began in mid-March at that time (around 1470 BCE), which confirms again the identification.

The vertical line in the middle represents the meridian, the floor line represents the equator (0°) and the ceiling line represents the pole (90°). By extending the inclined side of the meridian in the upper part, this line intersects the toes of Orion's left foot (equidistant from the left and right edges), that is to say Rigel (" Orionis). The line that crosses the Big Dipper and pointing to the pole is directed towards the month 8. The Egyptians identified Orion to Osiris and its main star Rigel ("foot" in Arabic) gave its name to the whole constellation, s3! meaning "Orion" as well as "Toes." The arrangement of 12 months in 3 groups of 4 can be used to date events because these 360 days (= 36 decanates of 10 days) are divided by the meridian into 3 equal parts of 120 days.

month 8 month 9 month 10 month 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

19 Mar. 29 Mar. 8 Apr. 18 Apr. 28 Apr. 8 May 18 mai 28 May 7 June 17 June 27 June 7 July month 12 month 1 month 2 month 3

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 17 Jul. 27 Jul. 6 Aug. 16 Aug. 26 Aug. 5 Sep. 15 Sep. 25 Sep. 5 Oct. 15 Oct. 25 Oct. 4 Nov.

month 4 month 5 month 6 month 7 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

14 Nov. 24 Nov. 4 Dec. 14 Dec. 24 Dec. 3 Jan. 13 Jan. 23 Jan. 2 Feb. 12 Feb. 22 Feb. 4 Mar.


If the boundary between the 2nd and the 3rd part is the night of March 18 to 19 (culmination of the star ! Ursae majoris), the one between the 3rd and the 1st is 120 days later, on the night of July 16 to 17 which corresponds to the heliacal rising of Sirius, the brightest star in the sky, and the Egyptian New Year celebration. That day, began the first season of the Egyptian year, and the Nile began to flood the Lower Egypt in mid-July. The boundary between the 1st and the 2nd part was located 120 days later, on the night of November 14 to 15. During that night unfolded another major astronomical event: the culmination of Rigel (" Orionis) at midnight (note: the full year, excluding the 5 days epagomenal, is divided into 36 decanates, each covering a period of 10 days). From the foregoing, it is possible to date astronomically the ceiling, because a heliacal rising of Sirius on July 17 is only possible at a latitude of 30° N, near Heliopolis. Similarly, the simultaneous passage on the meridian of Rigel (" Orionis) and star of the Big Dipper (! Ursae majoris) also gives a latitude of 30° N21. Because of the precession of the equinoxes, the value of the declination of the Big Dipper varied slightly from about 0.06' per year, which allows us to date22 the ceiling (under its precise value in the drawing) in 1460 to +/- 10 years, because the human eye can not separate an apparent angle of less than 1' (= 17x0,06', these 17 years are rounded to 20 years or +/- 10 years). In the upper part of the drawing of the southern sky, one recognizes the god Orion standing in a boat. On the left there is a woman standing too in a boat. It is Isis identified with the goddess Sothis. Following two falcon-headed gods with a star on their head. The hieroglyphs above them identify them as Jupiter and Saturn. At the extreme left is Venus that the Egyptians represented in the guise of a heron (bnw). Mercury is also present in the form of a small Sethian figure, above to the right of Venus. Mars, the last of five planets known in antiquity, is missing23. Its absence (empty boat) in a celestial map also neat is all the more remarkable that in all later cards and, without exception, even more schematic, Mars follows in a ship Jupiter and Saturn as 3rd falcon-headed god. The only possible conclusion is that Mars was not visible during the night represented in the tomb of Senenmut. Another detail makes it possible to calculate the year of astronomical ceiling. We note that near the figures of Orion and Jupiter there are small dots determining the exact position of the two stars. The line near Jupiter corresponds on the map to all points of the same longitude which have the same rise between 73° and 95°. However, among the 50 years between 1505 and 1455 (= 1480 +/- 25), there is only one24 in which Jupiter had a right ascension between 73° and 95°, on the night of November 14 to 15, and Mars was not visible: it is the year 1463 BCE. The previous result is surprising, because the Egyptian priests astronomers, usually very accurate in their representations, were particularly ill-advised to choose this year when Mars is absent (unique in Egyptian representations), or it is not so. Indeed, the observation of the shape and the position of Orion's constellations, Sirius and Venus explains the reason for their choice. If Rigel corresponds to Orion's toes with the 3 stars aligned in its

21 É. TISSOT – Etude de l'astronomie égyptienne et ses implications dans la symbolique astrale de la constellation d'Orion dans la religion égyptienne Lyon 1990 Mémoire de maîtrise : Histoire de l'art - Maison de l'Orient Université Lyon 2 (Mé - 12/1) pp. 112-114. 22 http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon 23 C. LEITZ – Remarks about the Appearance of Mars in the Tomb of Senenmut in Western Thebes in: Centaurus Vol. 44 (2002) pp. 140-142. 24 C. LEITZ – Le premier plafond astronomique dans la tombe de Senmout in: Les dossiers d'archéologie n°187 S (Novembre 1993) pp. 116-117.


belt, Sirius is located consequently on the level of Sothis' ankles which is at the same level of the head of the heron representing Venus. This heron, called Phoenix by the Greeks, inaugurates the beginning of the ceiling to the upper left and month 1 inaugurates the beginning of the ceiling to the bottom right. If the culmination of the Big Dipper can be dated November 14, 1463 BCE, this year began with the heliacal rising on Sirius July 16, 1464 BCE, at month 1. But on this day occurred an exceptional phenomenon which only happens every 103 years: the heliacal rising of Sirius, the brightest star in the sky, coincided with the heliacal setting of Venus, the brightest planet. This coincidence of dates inaugurated a new era called "Great year" or "Rebirth of the phoenix" by the Greeks. Astronomical observation represented on the ceiling makes it possible to date the year 9 of Thutmose III in 1463 BCE, which sets its accession in 1472 (= 1463 + 9). Those coincidences were calculated by van Oosterhout25 (astronomical dates *; Heliopolis: longitude 31°19', latitude 30°05'; Thebes longitude 32°39', latitude 25°42'):

Heliopolis (243 years) -1558* -1315* -1072* -829* -586* -343* -100* 143

+103 years -1455* -1202* -969* -726* -483* -240* 3 246 Thebes (243 years) -1542* -1299* -1056 -813 -570 -327 -84 159 +103 years -1439* -1196* -953* -710* -467* -224* 19 262

The dates in this table can be shifted +/- 8 years because of the pseudo period of 8 years. Astronomical simulation (see hereafter) enables to choose the best fit between the one in -1455* (1456 BCE) or the other one in -1463* (= -1455 - 8) which is better. These dates have played a special role, since some have been commemorated and those in bold have left a historical record. Other eras of the Phoenix were pictured26. This Greek word matches to the Egyptian expression rnpt "year" / "regeneration". The date of 143 commemorated by Antoninus Pius coincides with a double helical rising of Sirius and Venus (July 19, 143 CE). There were ones in -1299 by Sety I; -1196 by Tausert; -1056 by Psusennes I (whose name means the star that rises over the city [Thebes]); -343 by Nectanebo II and the one of -240 (?) on Harendotes' sarcophagus. Some historians such as Tacitus (Annals VI:28), cited these "eras of the Phoenix" without understanding the meaning. Coins of Antoninus Pius27 of year 2 (in 139 CE) and 6 (in 143 CE) of his reign are marked with the phoenix28 and the term #$%& "lifespan". Several dates can be obtained by astronomy software as: the heliacal rising of Sirius at Heliopolis on 16 July 1464 BCE29 (= -1463) coinciding with the heliacal rising of Venus (Jupiter and Mars have a right accession about 40°)30 and the 78° right ascension of Jupiter without Mars on 14 November 1463 BCE31 (an arcus visionis of around 9° means that Sirius and Venus may be seen 2° above the horizon). We can see from the following images that the Egyptian drawings of celestial maps were extremely accurate.

25 G.W. VAN OOSTERHOUT – Sirius, Venus and the Egyptian Calendar in: Discussions in Egyptology 27 (1993) pp. 83-96. 26 O. NEUGEBAUER, R.A. PARKER – Egyptian Astronomical Texts London 1969 Ed. Brown University Press pp. 6-11, plates 3, 9, 16, 25, 28. 27 H. MATTINGLY – The Roman Imperial Coinage Vol. III Antoninus Pius to Commodus London 1962 Ed. Spink and Son Ltd pp. 1-7, 168-169. 28 R. VAN DEN BROEK – The Myth of the Phoenix Leiden 1972 Ed. E.J. Brill pp. 66-73, 103-109, 428-433. 29 Year = -1463; arcus visionis = 8°6; longitude = 31°19' North; latitude = 30°05' East; http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php 30 Universal Time = -1463-07-16 2:15 (= Local Time 5:05), Azimuth 90° (E); Field of view 90°; latitude = 30°05' North; longitude = 31°19' East; http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon 31 Universal Time = -1462-11-14 20:00 (= Local Time 00:10), Azimuth 90° (E); Field of view 90°; latitude = 30°05' North; longitude = 31°19' East; http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon


Celestial Map of heliacal risings of Venus and Sirius July 16, 1464 BCE

Venus Jupiter Mars Sirius

The star on the head of the phoenix represents the heliacal setting of Venus coinciding with the heliacal rising of Sirius, located in the ankles of Sothis (associated with Isis representing Venus), Rigel being located in the toes of Orion. The year 1 of Thutmose III starting in 1472 BCE, the year 23 had to begin on April 21, 1450 BCE (I Shemu 4). The date I Shemu 21 year 23 (21/IX/23) of Thutmose III corresponds to May 8, 1450 BCE and the 30 II Peret, year 24 (30/VI/24), corresponds to February 15, 1448 BCE. These two dates coincide with full moons (such coincidences reproduce only every 25 years). Thutmose chose this specific lunar day to attack Megiddo (21/IX/23) because he considered it as an auspicious day of shining full moon (the word psdntyw "lunar day 1" actually means "shining ones"). He explains: Now that illuminates the moon, that encircles the solar disk when it shines, that surround Geb and Nut, he placed them in the circle


of his arms. His Majesty stands at the entrance to the earth, ready to defeat the Asiatics32. Reign of Thutmose III dated according to the lunar cycle of 25 years:

AKHET PERET SHEMU year I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV 5 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug.

Thutmose III 1472 1 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 1471 2 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 1470 3 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 1469 4 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 1468 5 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 1467 6 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 1466 7 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 1465 8 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1464 9 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 1463 10 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 1462 11 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28 1461 12 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 1460 13 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 1459 14 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 1458 15 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 1457 16 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 1456 17 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 1455 18 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 1454 19 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1453 20 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 1452 21 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 1451 22 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30 1450 23 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 1449 24 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 1448 25 23 3 2 2 1 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 27 1447 26 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 1446 27 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6

Lunar dates recorded in the Egyptian (civil) calendar Sothic rising or setting matching lunar dates Heliacal risings of Sirius and Venus on July 16, 1464 BCE Right ascension of Jupiter 80° without Mars on November 14, 1463 BCE

The beginning of works in Senenmut's tomb is dated IV Peret 2, year 7 of Thutmose III (full moon of March 24, 1465 BCE) and the door of the chapel was opened on III Akhet 27, year 11 (November 1462). Two other Sothic dates appear during the reign of Thutmose III, but regnal years are not known33, likely after the II Peret 10 of Thutmose III's year 22 without Hatshepsut. The Elephantine Stone, from the temple of Khnum that Thutmose made built, mentions a Sothic rising dated III Shemu 28 and the Buto Stela contains a Sothic setting dated immediately before the I Shemu 30 (penultimate line).

Sothic rising (III Shemu 28) Sothic setting (I Shemu 30)

32 C. LALOUETTE – Thèbes. La naissance d'un empire Paris 1995 Éd. Flammarion pp. 276-279, 371-372). 33 A.S. VON BOMHARD - Le calendrier Égyptien. Une œuvre d'éternité London 1999 Ed. Periplus pp. 41-44.


It is indeed a setting, not a Sothic rising, for the following reason: between III Shemu 28 and I Shemu 29, the 61 days between these two Sothic dates would correspond to a difference of 244 years (= 4x61), which is impossible for the same king. In addition, the hieroglyph representing the "rising" actually means "leave" (two legs walking surmounted by a horizontal bar "bolt") and not "arrive", confirming the representation (very rare) of a Sothic setting which occurs 61 days before the rising. Between the Sothic setting dated I Shemu 29 and the Sothic rising dated III Shemu 28 there is a period of invisibility of 61 days and not 70 days. This difference could be explained by the fact that this period decreased about 1.5 day for 1° latitude southward, which implies 67 days in Buto (latitude 31.1°) and 59 days in Thebes (latitude 25.7°). This period of invisibility is different from Egyptian texts which always indicate 70 days. This discrepancy with astronomy illustrates the role of religious Egyptian astronomy. Indeed, at this time34, the period of invisibility of Sirius is about 65 days at the latitude of Buto, 63 days at the latitude of Memphis. Even assuming good observing conditions (arcus visionis of 8° for Sothic rising and 6.5° for Sothic setting) there is a period of 67 days at the latitude of Buto and not 70 days as Egyptian texts indicate. This period of 70 days covered in fact a symbolic period of 7 decans35, Egyptian year being covered by 36 decans, or 360 days (= 12x30). The date of 28 Shemu III belongs to the effective reign of Thutmose, after his 22 years of co-regency with Hatshepsut. In addition, the Palestine campaign which occured from years 23 to 25 is mentioned in Buto Stela: It is a brave king who, in the melee, made great slaughters among Asiatic coalitions. He is the one that makes rulers of Retenu's land, in their entirety, to be required to provide their tribute36. Sothic dates appearing on Buto Stela and on Elephantine Stone are likely dating to year 25. According to astronomy (arcus visionis of 8.5° and latitude 25.7° at Thebes), this Sothic rising is dated around July 12 (to -1500). The III Shemu 28 coincides with July 12 on the period 1448-1445. The heliacal rising of Sirius dated July 12, 1448 BCE (year 25) coincides with a full moon, which has no doubt been a remarkable event (the lunar cycle of 25 years begins in 1471 BCE at the 1st Thoth coinciding with the 1st lunar day psdntyw, full moon of August 26, 1471 BCE). In addition, a previous full moon of I Shemu 29 (15 May 1448), coincides this time with the Sothic setting mentioned in Buto Stela. These exceptional coincidences with full moon may explain why these two Sothic dates were mentioned on inscriptions. Dated lunar days in the Egyptian calendar allow obtaining absolute dates in Egyptian chronology and, for example, to fix precisely the reigns of Thutmose III and Ramses II. These days are of the type "year x, month y, day z which is a lunar day 1 [psdntyw]" and are almost linked to that day 1, because the other lunar days (6, 15, 18, 29) dated in the calendar are exceptional. Synchronisms dated by astronomy show that the Egyptian lunar month began on the full moon (until the beginning of the Ptolemaic era)37. The Egyptian lunar calendar was used to fix religious observances associated with the moon, hence the importance of day 1 starting the cycle, but has rarely been used to date events since the civil calendar was planned for this purpose. Double lunar dates such as "month X, days Y [lunar] corresponding to year x, month y, day z [civil]" are rare38, but they allow demonstrating that the Egyptian lunar calendar began with an intercalary month (which explains its difficult use

34 M.F. INGHAM – The Lenght of the Sothic Cycle in: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 55 (1969) pp. 36-40. J. CONMAN – It's About Time: Ancient Egyptian Cosmology in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur Band 31 (2003) pp. 42-47. 35 A.S. VON BOMHARD – Le livre du ciel. De l'observation astronomique à la mythologie in: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 150 (2007) Ed. Uitgeverij Peeters pp. 202-205. 36 A.S. VON BOMHARD - Le calendrier Égyptien. Une œuvre d'éternité London 1999 Ed. Periplus pp. 41-44. 37 Greek astronomers used a lunar calendar beginning on the new moon. 38 Papyrus Rylands inv. 666 (dated 180 BCE), papyrus Louvre 7848 (dated 558 BCE), papyrus Ebers (dated around 1500 BCE).


for dating). Thanks to these double lunar dates, it is possible dating year 12 of Amasis in 558 BCE and 9 year of Amenhotep I in 1496 BCE. Reigns prior Thutmose III can be reconstructed by combining the length of reigns with accession dates39. These data are insufficient to reconstruct the chronology, but the information provided by Manetho40, transmitted by Josephus (Against Apion I:93-98), which seem fairly reliable over this period, can complete this table:

Pharaoh Accession date Highest date Duration (min.) Manetho Reign duration Taa Seqenenre ? 11 II Shemu 10 years - 10 years x m. Kamose II Shemu 3 III Shemu 10 2 years - 3 years Ahmose 22 21 years 25 years 4 m. 25 years 4 m. Amenhotep I III/IV Shemu ? 21 20 years 20 years 7 m. 20 years 7 m. Thutmose I III Peret 21 11 ? 10 years 12 years 9 m. 12 years 9 m. Thutmose II 1 II Akhet 8 1 year 13 years 3 years [Hatshepsut] [coregency] 20 III Peret 2 [20 years] [21 years 9 m.] [21 years 9 m.] Thutmose III I Shemu 4 54 III Peret 30 53 years 11 m. - 53 years 11 m.

Durations of reign are obtained by matching the highest dates of the reign with accession dates. The 13 years attributed to Thutmose II by Manetho result either from a miscalculation in the subtraction of co-regencies, or a scribal error "/ 3 years" being read "13 years." The length of the reign of Thutmose II can be checked by listing the number of scarabs assigned to each pharaoh41 and assuming a normal statistical distribution (constant average production rate):

Pharaoh Reign duration Number of scarabs Average per year Thutmose I 12 years 9 months 241 / 290 18,9 / 22,7 Thutmose II [3 years] 65 / 90 [20] / [30]42 Hatshepsut 21 years 9 months 463 / ---- 21,3 / ---- Thutmose III 08/1472-03/1418 Thutmose IV 9 years 8 months ---- / 374 ---- / 38,7

Assuming an annual average of 20/30, we obtain a reign of about 3 years (= 65/20 or 90/30) for Thutmose II, not 13 years. A second way to check the approximate length of this reign comes from the biography of Ahmose Pen-Nekhbet who claims to have reached a good old age after serving several pharaohs from Ahmose until the death of Hatshepsut, or 82 years (25 + 20 + 12 + 3 + 22). If he had started at the age of 18, he would have reached 100 years (110 years old with 13 years of reign). Even if the co-regency between Hatshepsut and Thutmose III is well documented since Thutmose III ruled with her until year 22 (then he ruled alone), it is more complicated than it seems. The date of accession being I Shemu 4 and his death being dated III Peret 30 year 54, that implies a total duration of 53 years and 11 months, including 32 years for the reign alone (subtracting his co-regency with Hatshepsut). However, Josephus seems making two mistakes: forgetting the reign of Thutmose III and giving a wrong sonship, because Hatshepsut was the daughter of Thutmose I, not Amenhotep I. This could be due to a misinterpretation of the reign of Hatshepsut, because the queen dated her reign in the name of her son Thutmose III in continuity of the reign of her husband Thutmose II. Thutmose III argues, for example,

39 E. HORNUNG – The New Kingdom in: Ancient Egyptian Chronology. Leiden 2006 Ed. Brill pp. 198-201. J. VON BECKERATH – Chronologie des pharaonischen ägypten 1997 Ed. Verlag Philipp von Zabern pp. 201,202. 40 W.G. WADDELL - Manetho Massachusetts 1956 Ed. Harvard University Press pp. 101-119. 41 L. GABOLDE – La chronologie du règne de Thoutmosis II in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur Band 14 (1987) pp. 61-81. 42 [20] = [18,9 + 21,3]/2 ; [30] = [22,7 + 38,7]/2.


having ruled alongside his father Thutmose II43 (in fact Hatshepsut). In addition, she celebrated in the year 16 of Thutmose III a jubilee commemorating the 30 years of reign of her father Thutmose I (who reigned 12 years and 9 months), which proves that her reign began (in fact Thutmose III's reign) in year 1 of Thutmose II44. This way of proceeding is classical, as shown in the case of the female pharaoh Tausert who pursued the reign of Siptah, her husband, after his death. Hatshepsut claimed, when her husband died, having received a right to the regency from her father Thutmose I, who would also ordered the two obelisks of year 16 (Urk. IV, 358). Therefore, she dated her years of reign in the name of Thutmose III but in continuation of the reign of her ex-husband Thutmose II, which led to believe a co-regency between these two pharaohs45. Indeed, her commemoration of a jubilee in year 16 for the 30-year reign of his father Thutmose I proves that she began her reign (actually that of Thutmose III) in year 1 of Thutmose II, because the 30 years include the combination of 13 years of Thutmose I, the 3 years of Thutmose II and the first 13 years of his actual reign. In fact, the 30 years of this jubilee are shorter than those of a traditional jubilee, because it actually covers the reigns of three successive pharaohs. Two of these years of reign are shorter because they are counted from Pharaoh's accession to the accession of next Pharaoh (starting at death of previous Pharaoh). Some Egyptologists consider this jubilee (sed festival celebrated after 30 years of reign) is fanciful, but this assumption is illogical, because the Pharaohs were guarantor of ceremonial and they would not changed it without compelling (and explained) reason. In addition, we find that adding the successive reigns of Thutmose I (13 years) and the first 16 years of Thutmose III we obtain 29 years (= 13 + 16) necessary to celebrate a jubilee. Hatshepsut's reign begins not in year 1 but in year 4 as she continued the reign of her husband. Stelas dated from Thutmose III (under the regency of his aunt Hatshepsut) are from year 4 to year 20. Furthermore, this ambiguity in the reign of Thutmose III has sometimes been interpreted as a co-regency46 between Hatshepsut and Thutmose I or between Thutmose II and Thutmose I, but the most logical explanation is to accept a regency on her nephew Thutmose III in the name of her husband Thutmose II. This scenario would explain the confusion of Manetho. Hatshepsut who ruled in Thutmose's name, could be considered as the daughter of Amenhotep I, Thutmose I's predecessor, and the 30-year rule in her name could be mixed with the 32 years of Thutmose III. Tutor of Hatshepsut, Ahmose Pen-Nekhbet, did not consider her as a pharaoh since after her death he did not mention her on the list of pharaohs he had served: Ahmose, Amenhotep I, Thutmose I, Thutmose II and Tuthmose III. Ineni stating that after the death of Thutmose II: Thutmose III reigned through Hatshepsut47. Using durations from Manetho for the reigns of Amenhotep I and Thutmose I (reigned 12 years 5 months, died around Egyptian month XI) and that obtained from the frequency of scarabs for Thutmose II (3 years), it is possible to reconstruct a chronology of the reign of Amenhotep I. The reign of Thutmose III pursuing Thutmose II's reign (through the proxy of Hatshepsut) his accession's date of I Shemu 4 does not match that of

43 C. LALOUETTE – Thèbes ou la naissance d'un empire Paris 1986 Éd. Fayard pp. 201-203, 257-260. 44 E. WENTE, C. VAN SICLEN - Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 39 (Chicago, 1977) pp. 220,221. 45 L. GABOLDE – La chronologie du règne de Thoutmosis II in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur Band 14 (1987) pp. 61-81. M. GABOLDE – Les portraits d'une reine pharaon in: Akhénaton et l'époque amarnienne, Éd. Khéops et centre d'égyptologie (2005) pp. 261-286. 46 W.J. MURNANE - Ancient Egyptian Coregencies in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 40 (Chicago, 1977) pp. 35-39,115-117,230. 47 C. DESROCHES NOBLECOURT – La reine mystérieuse Hatshepsout Paris 2002 Éd. Pygmalion pp. 408-411.


Thutmose II, which prevents calculating the month of accession in 1472 BCE, probably around month XI (as the construction of two obelisks lasted 7 months, from 15/VI/15 to 30/XII/16, the accession must be just before month XII).

year Pharaoh 1487 19/20 Amenhotep I

1486 20/21

1485 21/ 1 /1

1484 1/2 1/2 Thutmose I accession date III Peret 21 (17 February 1484) 1483 2/3 2/3 1482 3/4 3/4 1481 4/5 4/5 1480 5/6 5/6 1479 6/7 6/7 1478 7/8 7/8 1477 8/9 8/9 1476 9/10 9/10 1475 10/11 10/11 1474 11/12 11/12 1473 12/13 12/13 1472 13/ 1 13/14 1471 1/2 14/15 Thutmose II, accession date [-]/XI/13 (September 1472) 1470 2/3 15/16

1469 3/(1) 3/4 16/17 Death of Thutmose II dated around [-]/XI/3 (July 1469) 1468 4 4/5 17/18 Hatshepsut extends the reign of her husband on behalf of 1467 5 5/6 18/19 Thutmose III 1466 6 6/7 19/20 1465 7 7/8 20/21 Senenmut's tomb began on 2/VIII/7 (full moon dated 23/March/1465) 1464 8 8/9 21/22 Great Year began on 16-July-1464 (heliacal risings of Sirius and Venus) 1463 9 9/10 22/23 astronomical ceiling of the tomb of Senenmut. Culmination of 1462 10 10/11 23/24 the Big Dipper, in the absence of Mars (14-November-1463). 1461 11 11/12 24/25 1460 12 12/13 25/26 1459 13 13/14 26/27 1458 14 14/15 27/28 construction of two obelisks ordered by Thutmose I (!) 1457 15 15/16 28/29 from 15/VI/15 (02-February-1457) to 30/XII/16 (16-August-1457) 1456 16 16/17 29/30 year 30 of Jubilee began at the end of year 16 (le 18-July-1456) 1455 17 17/18 1454 18 18/19 1453 19 19/20 1452 20 20/21 1451 21 21/22 Hatshepsut died on 10/VI/22 (27-January-1451) 1450 22 22/23 year 22 of Thutmose III began on I Shemu 4, 4/IX/22 (21-April-1450) 1449 23/24 lunar days psdntyw dated 21/IX/23 (full moon dated 07-May-1450) 1448 24/25 and 30/VI/24 (full moon dated 16-February-1448), Sothic rising dated 1447 25/26 28/XI/[25] (full moon dated 12-July-1448) 1446 26/27

The dating of Thutmose III's reign by several astronomical phenomena (officially 08/1472-04/1418 but actually 08/1469-04/1418) allows to anchor the chronological beginning of the 18th Dynasty. The helical rising of Sirius during the 11-year reign of Sety I, dated I Akhet 1, year 448 fixes the end of the 18th Dynasty. This astronomical event fixes his accession around 1294 BCE +/- 449. It is indeed a Sothic rising because the astronomical

48 K. SETHE - Sethos I und die Erneuerung der Hundssternperiode in: Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 66 (1931) pp. 1-7. 49 At Thebes (Longitude 32°39' Latitude 25°42') with an arcus visionis of 8.7 the Sothiac rising is dated 12 July on the period 1370-600 (see http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php ) and I Akhet 1 = 12 July only for 4 years 1293-1290 (see http://www.chronosynchro.net/wordpress/convertisseur )


ceiling of Sety I actually started by a Sothic rising and according to his Cenotaph: All these stars begin on 1st Akhet when Sirius appears50. These two reigns dated by astronomy are used for anchoring the chronology of the 18th dynasty from Manetho (via Josephus):

18th Dynasty Name (Manetho via Josephus) Reign duration anchor dates Ahmose Tethmôsis 25 years 4 months Amenhotep I Amenophis 20 years 7 months Thutmose I Mephres 12 years 9 months Thutmose II Chebron 13 years Hatshepsut Amessis, daughter of Amenophis 21 years 9 months Thutmose III [co-regency?] - 08/1472-03/1418 Amenhotep II Mephragmouthôsis 25 years 10 months Thutmose IV Thoutmosis 9 years 8 months Amenhotep III Amenophis 30 years 10 months Amenhotep IV Akhenaten

[co-regency?] Orus

36 years 5 months

Semenkhkare - Ankhkheperure Akencheris, daughter of Orus 12 years 1 month Tutankhamun Rhathotis, brother of Akencheris 9 years Aÿ Harmais 4 years 1 month Horemheb Akencheres I

Akencheres II 12 years 5 months 12 years 3 months

19th Dynasty Ramses I Ramesses 1 year 4 months 01/1295-05/1294 Sety I [-]51 to Sethos, 59 years 06/1294-06/1283

The next step consists to verify Manetho's data through highest regnal dates combined with dates of accession and death. As Thutmose III died on III Peret 30 Year 54 (10 March 1418), the accession of Amenhotep II, his successor, should have dated on IV Peret 1. However it is dated IV Akhet 1, implying a gap of 4 months. Some authors consider that one of these dates is wrong but the chronology of the Asiatic campaigns of Amenhotep II, as his first campaign dated year 3 can only be explained if there is a co-regency of 2 years and 4 months at the end of the reign of Thutmose III52. During this co-regency Amenhotep II built the temple of Amada in Nubia whose decoration shares harmoniously between Thutmose III —depicted in the lower registers scenes— and Amenhotep II —featured in the upper registers. This co-regency53 is confirmed by a lunar date found in a papyrus (Leningrad 1116A) which mentions a grain delivery dated III Shemu 6 Year 19 of Amenhotep II for an offering of beer matching the 1st lunar day psdntyw54. According to Egyptian papyri, beer could be produced in 3 or 4 days and storage could not exceed 15 days for conservation reasons (if it was meant to be consumed, not offered in sacrifice). These technical considerations set the date of psdntyw day between 10 and 25 of III Shemu. In fact, since the grain offering was for worship, a beer storage for

50 O. NEUGEBAUER, R.A. PARKER – Egyptian Astronomical Texts I London 1960 Ed. Brown University Press pp. 44, 54 (Text T2 plate 47). K. SETHE - Sethos I und die Erneuerung der Hundssternperiode in: Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 66 (1931) pp. 1-7. 51 A word is missing, maybe the name "Orus". 52 W.J. MURNANE - Ancient Egyptian Coregencies in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 40 (Chicago, 1977) pp. 44-57. P. DER MANUELIAN – Studies in the reign of Amenophis II in: Hidesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 26 (1987) pp. 19-40. P. DER MANUELIAN – The End of the Reign and the Accession of Amenhotep II in: Thutmose III A New Biography Ed. The University of Michigan Press (2005) pp. 414-429. 53 N. GRIMAL - Histoire de l'Égypte ancienne Paris 1988 Éd. Fayard p. 279. P. VERNUS, J. YOYOTTE - Dictionnaire des pharaons Paris 1998 Éd. Noésis p. 19. 54 J.G. READ – Chronological Placements for Thutmose II, Amenhotep II, Ramesses II in: Discussions in Egyptology 36 (1996) p. 105.


several days after the brewing was not necessary. The sequence had to be the following: recording the grain stock on 6 of III Shemu, then brewing of beer from 7 to 10 and offering on 11 (psdntyw day is therefore dated III Shemu 11 Year 19). Thus the co-regency of Amenhotep II which began 2 years and 4 months before the death of Thutmose III (10 March 1418), the IV Akhet 1 corresponds to 11 November in 1420 BCE, so the reign of 25 years and 10 months is the duration without the co-regency. The date of III Shemu 11 Year 19 of Amenhotep II matches the full moon of June 15, 1402 BCE (lunar cycles of 25 years begin at I Akhet 1 at the full moon of 13 August 1421 BCE and 7 August 1396 BCE. One can also note that the co-regency of Amenhotep II started from a new lunar cycle of 25 years). The next two reigns, those of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III, do not present difficulty (no co-regency) and can be placed after that of Amenhotep II.

Year AKHET PERET SHEMU I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV 5 Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun Jul.

Thutmose III 1422 51 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 1421 52 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6

Amenhotep II 1420 53 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 1419 54 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 1418 3 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 1417 4 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 1416 5 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 1415 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1414 7 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 1413 8 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 1412 9 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28 1411 10 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 1410 11 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 1409 12 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 1408 13 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 1407 14 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 1406 15 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 1405 16 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 1404 17 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1403 18 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 1402 19 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 1401 20 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30 1400 21 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 1399 22 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 1398 23 23 3 2 2 1 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 27 1397 24 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 1396 25 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 1395 26 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 1394 27 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 1393 28 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3

Thutmose IV 1392 1 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 1391 2 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 1390 3 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1389 4 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20

Lunar dates recorded III Shemu 11 in the Egyptian (civil) calendar

As Thutmose III died in March 1418 BCE, Amenhotep III's death must be in April 1345 = 1418 - (37 years 10 months) - (9 years 8 months) - (25 years 10 months). The missing reign of Semenkhkare can be reconstituted through the 6 rings made during his reign, compared to the 18 issued during the 4 years and 1 month of Ay's reign,


implying a period of 1 year and 4 months (= 4 years x 6/18)55. The Josephus' remark: Akencheris, daughter of Orus [Akhenaten], reigned [1]2 years and 1 month, shows that he was well informed56 because Semenkhkare appears married with Merytaton (who was indeed a daughter of Akhenaten, her name is transcribed Mayati in Akkadian) in the tomb of Meryre and this queen reigned 2 years 1 month after the death of her husband under the name of [Semenkhkare]-Ankhkheperure. One notes however that several reigns have some ten too much and the duration of reigns with co-regencies is systematically wrong. Horemheb's reign is oddly divided into two parts, but Horemheb is indeed referred to his birth name (Ar-ma-a in Akkadian) in the annals of Mursili II until his year 10 (1322-1312), instead his coronation name (Djoser-kheperu[setepen]re), as it is usually the case for pharaohs in title. This anomaly shows that this Pharaoh initially reigned as a former representative of Pharaoh before being a full-fledged Pharaoh. The reigns indicated by Manetho are reliable except for periods of co-regencies (highlighted in orange).

Pharao Accession date Highest date Duration (min.) Manetho Reign duration 18th Dynasty Ahmose 22 21 years 25 years 4 m. 25 years 4 m. Amenhotep I III/IV Shemu? 21 20 years 20 years 7 m. 20 years 7 m. Thutmose I III Peret 21 11 ? 10 years 12 years 9 m. 12 years 9 m. Thutmose II 1 II Akhet 8 1 year [1]3 years 3 years Hatshepsut co-regency 20 III Peret 2 20 years 21 years 9 m. 21 years 9 m. Thutmose III I Shemu 4 54 III Peret 30 53 years 11 m. [co-regency?] 53 years 11 m. Amenhotep II IV Akhet 1 ? 26 25 years 25 years 10 m. 25 years 10 m. Thutmose IV 8 III Peret 2 7 years 9 years 8 m. 9 years 8 m. Amenhotep III II/III Shemu ? 38 III Shemu 1 37 years 10 m. 30 years 10 m. 37 years 10 m. Amenhotep IV Akhenaten

I Peret 1-8 ?

17 II Akhet 16 years 7 m. 36 years 5 m. [co-regency?]

16 years 7 m.

Semenkhkare 1 1 year - 1 year 4 m. Ankhkheperure 3 III Akhet 10 2 years [1]2 years 1 m. 2 years 1 m. Tutankhamun 10 9 years 9 years 9 years Aÿ 4 IV Akhet 1 3 years 4 years 1 m. 4 years 1 m. Horemheb 27 I Shemu 9 27 years 12 years 5 m.

12 years 3 m. 27 years 2 m.

19th Dynasty Ramses I III Peret ? 2 II Peret 20 1 year 4 m. 1 year 4 m. 1 year 4 m. Sety I III Shemu 24 ? 11 IV Shemu 13 11 years 11 years

The durations of the two reigns: 37 years 10 months for Amenhotep III and 16 years 7 months of Amenhotep IV are admitted, only the 11-year co-regency of Akhenaten with his father is disputed. Elements that support the co-regency are as follows57: ! The transactions between Mesy and the shepherd Nebmehy (Berlin Papyrus 9784) dated

III Shemu 20, year 27 of Amenhotep III then [?] Peret 27, year 2 of Amenhotep IV (not Akhenaten) implies a co-regency of 11 years between the two transactions separated of 1 year (without co-regency it would have been 12 years of silence).

! The mention of a sed feast in the year 30 of Amenhotep III, as reported by Amenhotep IV during his 3rd year58, confirms the 11-year co-regency. Those59 who refuse this co-regency are obliged to say that this sed festival commemorating 30 years of reign,

55 M. GABOLDE - D'Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon Lyon 1998 Éd. Institut d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquité p. 220. 56 G. GREENBERG – Manetho. A Study in Egyptian Chronology Pennsylvania 2004, Marco Polo Monographs 8 pp. 78-86. 57 P.F. DORMAN – The Long Coregency Revisited: Architectural and Iconographic Conundra in the Tomb of Kheruef in: Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane 2006 The University of Memphis. 58 L.E. BAILEY – Amenhotep III and Akhenaten : an Examination of the Coregency Issues Chicago 2000 E. University of Chicago pp. 14,26-28,38. 59 M. GABOLDE - D'Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon Lyon 1998 Éd. Institut d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquité pp. 26-28.


mentioned by Amenhotep IV, would have been anachronistic. This Pharaoh would used the festival only in order to proclaim his "divine" quality and would have violated the ancestral ritual of commemorations, which is very unlikely.

! Amenhotep IV in front of Amenhotep III (stela Berlin 20716), recognizable through their headdress, is represented in the process of serving a beverage to his father60 (below).

Amenhotep III

Change of name:

Amun is pleased (Amenhotep III's son)

26 27 28 29 30 34 37 38

Amenhotep IV Jubilee Jubilee (of year 33) Jubilee (of year 36)

1 2 3 7 10 11

Re-Horakhty (...) who is Aten Re (...) who comes back as Aten (birth of Tutankhamun) 1

12 17/1

Akhenaten

1 6

Life of Aten (transfer to Akhetaten)

2 7

2 3

Semenkhkare -Ankhkheperure

[7] [8]

(brother of Akhenaten) (wife of Semenkhkare)

8 9

1 Tutankhamun (younger brother of Akhenaten) 10

! Among the dated jar-labels from the 8th to the 38th regnal years of Amenhotep III there are seven dated year 28 including five examples dated year 1 [of Amenhotep IV]61.

! In the year 12 of Amenhotep IV, Tiy (wife of Amenhotep III) moved to Akhetaten62. ! Changes of name (Aten instead of Amun) in the titular of Amenhotep IV at the years 3

and 9 of his reign should be linked to the jubilees of year 30 and 36 of Amenhotep III63. ! Tutankhamun says clearly to be a son of Amenhotep III and, as he died at the age of 20

+/- 2 years (according to the state of his mummy), his statement can only be true if there was a co-regency of at least 11 years. Without co-regency, Amenhotep III's death is separated from Tutankhamun by 30 years (= 17+3+10) and he could not be his son because he died when he was 20 as confirmed by his coronation chair made for a 10 years old child. With the co-regency, the gap of 19 years (= 6+3+10) is in agreement with his birth to the end of Amenhotep III's reign in 1347 (= 1327 + 20). Thus the successor of Akhenaten was first Semenkhkare (his brother) then Tutankhamun (his younger brother) 3 years later. There is a paradox for those who refuse the co-regency and Gabolde agrees: then why, if Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten, would have he hidden it in this way his real ancestry to proclaim, on occasion, he was the «son» of Amenhotep III? (...) The legitimacy of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten has never been questioned under Tutankhamun and continuity was maintained during his reign in the traditional pattern: a son succeeded his father. To assume that Tutankhamun would have denied his "father" Akhenaten, who had only 6 girls!, for religious reasons is unprecedented and leads to an absurdity: Admittedly, it is paradoxical to consider that Tutankhamun may seemingly, in the same spirit, honor his father and deny him all at once and there is no obvious explanation for this contradiction64. The obvious explanation exists: as he claimed Tutankhamun was the son of Amenhotep III. In addition if Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten why Semenkhkare succeeded his brother Akhetaten instead of his own son? Once again, there is a new anomaly!

60 C. DESROCHES-NOBLECOURT - Toutankhamon Paris 1965 Éd.Hachette pp. 110-111. 61 W.C. HAYES - Inscriptions from the Palace of Amenhotep III in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 10:1 (Jan. 1951), pp. 35-56. 62 N. GRIMAL - Histoire de l'Égypte ancienne Paris 1988 Éd. Fayard pp. 301-302. 63 J. GOHARY – Akhenaten's Sed-Festival at Karnak London 1992 Ed. Kegan Paul International pp. 29-33. 64 M. GABOLDE - D'Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon Lyon 1998 Éd. Institut d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquité p. 293.


The 11-year co-regency between the two pharaohs is therefore well established. Amenhotep IV probably expected the death of Amenhotep III for transferring the whole court in the new city (Akhetaten) and to favor the promoting of Aten's worship (Toutankhaton, later Tutankhamun, will choose again the ancient Amun's worship). The receipt of foreign tributes at Amarna is dated IV Peret 8 Year 12 of Amenhotep IV65. This celebration inaugurated in fact Aten's worship in Amarna. The date was well chosen because it was a few days before the solar beam appearing the IV Peret 13. The numerous jars of wine excavated in the city dated years 1-4 as well as the boundary stelae dated years 5 and 6 seem to refer to Akhenaten's reign officially appearing at the 12th year of Amenhotep IV, which was the 1st year of Akhenaten (stelae of year 8 are posthumous and contemporary of Semenkhkare)66. Inasmuch Akhenaton stated in the stela year 5 that the situation is worse in his time than the one of Amenhotep III, it was not the Amenohotep IV's year 5 but Akhenaten's year 5 because he would not have spoken in such terms of the reign of Amenohotep III if he was still alive and shared power with him. Semenkhkare being Akhenaten's successor, the jars dating year 1 just after year 17 should be attributed to him rather than Akhenaten67. Despite evidence of the co-regency between Amenhotep III and his son Amenhotep IV the reconstitution without co-regency is favored by most egyptologists of the 32nd Dynasty (those affected by pharaonic megalomania). However chronological synchronisms, as well as calculation by astronomy of the dates of Akhenaten's death in October 1340 BCE and of Tutankhamen in October 1327 BCE68, confirm the 11-year co-regency.

King Reign duration Ahmose 25 years 4 months 04/1530-07/1505 Amenhotep I 20 years 7 months 08/1505-02/1484 Thutmose I 12 years 5 months 03/1484-07/1472 Thutmose II 3 years 08/1472-07/1469 Thutmose III 53 years 11 months 08/1472-03/1418 [Thutmose III/Amenhotep II] [ 2 years 4 months] [11/1420-03/1418] Amenhotep II 25 years 10 months 04/1418-02/1392 Thutmose IV 9 years 8 months 02/1392-10/1383 Amenhotep III 37 years 10 months 10/1383-07/1345 [Amenhotep III/Amenhotep IV] [11 years 5 months] [03/1356-07/1345] Akhenaten 5 years 2 months 08/1345-10/1340 Semenkhkare 1 year 4 months 10/1340-02/1338 -Ankhkheperure 2 years 1 month 02/1338-03/1336 Tutankhamun 9 years 8 months 03/1336-10/1327 Aÿ 4 years 1 month 10/1327-11/1323 Horemheb I [former regent] Horemheb II [pharaoh]

14 years 13 years 2 months

11/1323-11/1309 12/1309-01/1295

Ramses I 1 year 4 months 01/1295-05/1294 Sety I 11 years 06/1294-06/1283

Total: 124 years 04/1418-05/1294 Between Thutmose III's death on March 10, 1418 BCE and the beginning of Sety I's reign in June 1294 BCE there are 124 years (= 1418 - 1294), a difference that exactly

65 M. GABOLDE - D'Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon Lyon 1998 Éd. Institut d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquité pp. 281-283. 66 F.J. GILES – The Amarna Age: Egypt 2001 Ed. Aris & Phillips pp. 43-45. 67 W.J. MURNANE - Ancient Egyptian Coregencies in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 40 (Chicago, 1977) pp. 215-225. 68 The month of Akhenaten's death must be around October because a label on a jar dated year 17 (partially erased and changed to 1) refers to honey and honey harvesting in Egypt, in the valley, was carried out in September (P.T. NICHOLSON, I. SHAW – Ancient Materials and Technology, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 410-411). In addition, Suppiluliuma I was informed of Tutankhamun's death at the end of his campaign which ended before the onset of winter (November).


matches the sum of reigns: 124 years (= 25 years 10 months of Amenhotep II + 9 years 8 months of Thutmose IV + 37 years 10 months of Amenhotep III + 5 years 2 months of Akhenaten + 1 year 4 month of Semenkhkare + 2 years 1 month of Ankhkheperure + 9 years 8 months of Tutankhamun + 4 years 1 month of Ay + 27 years 2 months of Horemheb + 1 year 4 month of Ramses I) provided the 11 years of co-regency between Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV are not counted. To dispute this coincidence, egyptologists of the 32nd Dynasty assume that the reign of Horemheb lasted only 16 years (or 14!) instead of 27. This assumption defies common sense. Even if the duration of Horemheb's reign is controversial because of the low number of dated inscriptions between years 14-27 (which is not unusual), only years 1-4, 6-9, and 12 - 14 are attested in his grave (unfinished!)69, this reign is dated from 1330 to 1302 BCE by carbon-14 implying a reign of about 28 years. Kitchen also observed70 that Horemheb's extensive building projects at Karnak supported the theory of a long reign for this Pharaoh and stressed that "a good number of the undated 'late 18th Dynasty' private monuments that are in both Egypt and the world's Museums must, in fact, belong to his reign. There are only two dated inscriptions after the year 14: a decree on a section of wall dated year [2]571 and a graffito on a fragment of a statue dated year 27. The ink graffito reads: Year 27, I Shemu 9, the day72 on which Horemheb, who loves Amun and hates his enemies, entered the temple for this event. The use of Horemheb's name and the addition of a long "Meryamun" (Beloved of Amun) epithet in the graffito suggests a living, eulogised king rather than a long deceased one73. If the reading of the year [2]5 is only the most likely74 (figure above), that of 27 year is indisputable and requires a period of reign of at least 26 years. A second element supports the period of 27 years. Mes' inscription75 describes a complaint during the year 18 of Ramses II about a land inherited from the time of Horemheb, which is finally judged and dated in the year 59 of Horemheb. The only plausible explanation for this unusual year 59 is to assume that the 58-year reign posthumously attributed to Horemheb correspond to 27 years 2 months of Horemheb's actual reign + 1 year 4 months of Ramses I's reign + 11 years of Sety I's reign + 18 years from the beginning of Ramses II's reign. The reign of Horemheb was extended posthumously because the year 28 is followed by years 1-2 of Ramses I (years 29-30 of Horemheb) then by years 1-11 of Seti I (years 31-41 of Horemheb) and finally with years 1-18 of Ramses II (42-59 years of Horemheb). Sety I's reign lasted 11 years (actually 11 years and a few days) as shown in the autobiography of the priest Bakenkhons76.

69 J. VAN DIJK – New Evidence of the Length of the Reign of Horemheb in: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt vol. 44 (2008) pp. 193-200. 70 K.A. KITCHEN – The Basis of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age in: "High, Middle or Low? Acts of International Colloquim on Absolute Chronology held at the University of Gothenburg 20-22 August 1987" Ed. Paul Aström Volume 1 pp. 37-55. 71 Petrie Collection (UC 14391),the part where appeared the year [2]5 has been chipped and is now illegible. 72 This date I Shemu 9 Year 27 corresponds to March 18 in 1296 BCE and coincides with a 1st lunar crescent. 73 D. REDFORD in: JNES 25 (1966), p. 123; in BASOR 211 (1973) No. 37 footnote. 74 R. HARI – Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet ou la fin d'une dynastie Genève 1964 Imprimerie La Sirène. Thèse n°179 fig. 82, 84. 75 A.H. GARDINER – The Inscription of Mes Leipzig 1905 in: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens 4:3. 76 Bakenkhonsu states that he spent 4 years as an excellent youngster, 11 years as a youth, as a trainee stable-master for king Men[maat]re (Sety I), wab priest of Amun for 4 years, god's father of Amun for 12 years, third pries of Amun for 15 years, second priest of Amun for 12 (E. FLOOD – Biographical Texts from Ramessid Egypt Atlanta 2007 Ed. Society of Biblical Literature p. 41). The 11 years of Sety I are all represented, except 10, which confirms the 11 years reign (E. HORNUNG -The New Kingdom in: Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Leiden 2006) Ed. Brill pp. 210-211).


Hari, in his thesis about Horemheb, note that the usual explanations about this pharaoh are romanticized and baseless. After reviewing overall enrollments and representations, he concluded that transitions between pharaohs were based solely on the "principle of legitimacy." General Horemheb had been appointed as "representative of the Pharaoh" by Tutankhamun, but not as co-regent, and after the death of Tutankhamun, Ay was his legitimate successor. Ay having no children when he died, Horemheb remained only the representative of a dead pharaoh. To extend his function of representing the Pharaoh, Queen Mutnodjmet, divine Ay's daughter, got married Horemheb (as did in the past Queen Hatshepsut, daughter of Thutmose I, with his half-brother Thutmose II). Thus Horemheb reigned about 14 years as a "representative (idenu) of Pharaoh" and after the death of the queen he was enthroned as Pharaoh and started a "new reign" of about 13 years (year 1 succeeding year 14). In his "Decree of Coronation" Horemheb reminds that he had been designated as "representative" by King (unnamed) and it was in this way that: he ruled the country for a period of many years [more than 10 years] before eventually be designated as "king" by the "eldest son of Horus" ("son of Horus" meant the king in title, ie Mutnodjmet's husband?). Manetho has rightly separated the reign of Horemheb into two roughly equal parts (14 years as a representative of pharaoh, then 13 years as pharaoh, or 27 years in total and hence the oddity of the reckoning).

DATING THE TUTANKHAMUN'S DEATH IN 1327 BCE

Tutankhamun died the year Hittite king "uppiluliuma I conquered the Mitannian kingdom of Carchemish. This victory took place 5 years before "uppiluliuma I's death, who died during his 6th year of war. Mur!ili II, youngest son of "uppiluliuma, succeeded his father after the brief reign of Arnuwanda II the eldest son. "uppiluliuma learned of the death of Pharaoh during his 1st year of war77 which lasted 6 years and that ended with his own death78. The presence of the brief reign of Arnuwanda II, whose duration is not specified, complicates this chronology, but luckily the account of "uppiluliuma's deeds states that the king died with the plague, as well as his son Arnuwanda, transmitted by some Egyptian captives he had deported into Hittite country. This detail allows a dating because plague epidemics in Europe have shown that the average mortality rate was about 30% of the total population and 60 to 100% of the population was infected, thus the weakest were quickly killed and the plague in a given location therefore lasted on average 6-9 months. One can deduce from this epidemiological observation that Arnuwanda II could reign only 6 months (max) during the accession year of Mur!ili II. In his annals, the king mentions the death of his father and older brother during his accession, therefore all these events occurred during a single campaign between April and November in 1322 BCE79. Mur!ili II's reign can be dated precisely80 because at the beginning of his 10th year there was "a solar omen81" (total eclipse on the Hittite capital !attu!a). During this period 1330-1310 BCE there was only one total solar eclipse on Hittite territory, that of 24 June 1312 BCE82. The eclipse of -1307* (1308 BCE) April 13, can not be accepted because it

77 J.B. PRITCHARD - Ancient Near Eastern Texts Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press p. 319. 78 K.A. KITCHEN – Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs Liverpool 1962 Ed. Liverpool University Press pp. 3-5,22,23. 79 T. BRYCE – The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford 2005 Ed. Oxford University Press pp. 154-220. 80 E. WENTE, C. VAN SICLEN - Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 39 (Chicago, 1976) p. 249. 81 I. SINGER – Hittite Prayers Atlanta 2002 Ed. Society of Biblical Litterature pp. 75,77. P.J. HUBER -The Solar Omen of Mursili II in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 121 (2001) pp. 640-644. 82 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE-1399--1300.html


was an annular eclipse 95% of magnitude, which means that it was not noticed by a casual observer, because eclipses of a magnitude less than 98 % go unnoticed. In addition, the trajectory of this eclipse did not pass on the Hittite territory. The eclipse of 1312, which occurred shortly after the beginning of the year, as the text of the omen suggests, is the only one to fulfill two key criteria: it was total (magnitude 102%) and its path passed near Hattu!a, the Hittite capital. Given the year 10 of Mursili II is dated 1312, that means its accession has to be dated between April 1322 and March 1321. Thus Tutankhamun's death took place in 1327 BCE, 5 years before the brief reign of Arnuwanda II83 and the accession of Mursili II dated 1322/1321. Trajectories of eclipses between 1320 and 1300 (below)84, only the one of -1311 (1312 BCE) June 24 matches the two key criteria.

Tutankhamun's death in 1327 BCE can be deduced from the following (Egyptian, Mitannian and Hittite) synchronisms: ! Amenhotep III died in April 1345 BCE in the 38th year of his reign. ! Tu!ratta wrote 7 letters85 to Amenhotep III (EA 17 to 26) then 3 letters to Amenhotep

IV (EA 27 to 29). He relates in his first letter (EA 17) his accession to the throne after the murder of his brother Arta!uwara, then the following year the attack of Hittite king ["uppiluliuma] that he managed to repel. EA 23 letter (BM 29793) is dated IV Peret 1 Year 36 and 27 EA letter is dated I Peret [5] Year [1]2 of Amenhotep IV. Correspondence with Amenhotep III was intense because the EA 20 letter stated that the following letter will be sent 6 months later, involving a total period of 4 or 5 years between his first and last letter. Correspondence with Amenhotep IV was more relaxed since the last letter written to Amenhotep IV (EA 29) states "my messengers for 4 years", involving a period of at least 4 years between his first and last letter.

! "uppiluliuma I congratulated Semenkhkare (!ureya) when he ascended Egypt's throne (EA 41), then mentions the murder of Tu!ratta in a letter to Semenkhkare (EA 43).

! "uppiluliuma died in 1322, as well as his son Arnuwanda II, during the 6th and final year of the war. The deeds of "uppiluliuma mention a period of 20 years between this Hurrian war of 6 years and the Syrian war of 1 year (KUB 19:9 I). The preparation of the Syrian war covered a period of 3 or 4 years after the first unsuccessful attack against Tu!ratta at the beginning of his reign (KBo I:1).

83 W.L. MORAN - Les lettres d'El Amarna in: LIPO n°13 Paris 1987 Éd. Cerf pp. 55 note 137. 84 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEatlas/SEatlas-2/SEatlas-1319.GIF 85 W.L. MORAN - Les lettres d'El Amarna in: LIPO n°13 Paris 1987 Éd. Cerf pp. 48, 110-190.


Astronomical dating EGYPT MITANNI HATTI Amenhotep III !utarna II Tut!aliya III 1357 27 P. Berlin 9784

1356 28 Amenhotep IV Arta"umara 1355 29 2 1354 30 3 Tu"ratta

1353 31 4 [1] !uppiluliuma I

first letters 1352 32 (EA 254) 5 [2] 1st attack 1351 33 [6] EA 17, EA 18 1 2 1350 34 [7] EA 19, EA 20 2 3 1349 35 8 EA 21, EA 22 3 4 1348 36 (EA 75) 9 EA 23, EA 24 4 ‘1-year War’ 1347 37 (EA 106) [10] EA 25 5 6/1 1346 38 [11] EA 26 2 1345 Akhenaten 12 (EA 116) EA 27 1 3 1344 [2] [13] 2 4 1343 [3] 14 EA 28 3 5 1342 [4] [15] 4 6

3 March 1341 5 16 EA 29 7 3 March 1340 6 17 8 1339 [-] Semenkhkare [15] 9 (EA 41) 14 May 1338 *8* 2 (EA 43) 10

1337 Ankhkheperure 11 last letters 1336 Tutankhamun (EA 9) 24 12

1335 2 25 13 1334 3 26 14 1333 4 (Burna-Buria" II) 27 15 1332 5 (Kurigalzu II) 1 16 1331 6 2 17 1330 7 18 1329 8 19 1328 9 CARCHEMISH 20 1327 10 0 ‘6-year War’ 1326 Ay !arri-Ku"u! 1 2 1325 2 2 3 1324 3 3 4 1323 4 4 5 1322 Horemheb 5 Arnuwanda II 1321 2 6 Mur"ili II 1320 3 7 2 1319 4 8 3 1318 5 9 4 1317 6 10 5 1316 7 11 6 1315 8 12 7 1314 9 13 8 1313 10 14 9

24 June 1312 11 15 10 1311 12 16 11

1310 13 !a!urunuwa 1 12

1309 Mutnodjmet died 14 2 13

1308 [15] 1 3 14

"uppiluliuma and his son Arnuwanda II died in 1322 BCE. The 1st year of the Hurrian 6-year war goes back in 1327 BCE, year of Tutankhamun's death. The Syrian 1-year war against Amurru is dated 1348 BCE and "uppiluliuma's attack against Tu!ratta in 1352 BCE. Tu!ratta likely to have begun to reign 1 year before the attack and died86 during

86 J. FREU, M. MAZOYER – Les débuts du nouvel empire hittite. Les Hittites et leur histoire Paris 2007 Éd. L'Harmattan p. 271.


the brief reign of Semenkhkare (c. 1338 BCE). Akhenaten's death in 1340 BCE (year 6 of his reign = year 17 of Amenhotep IV) and EA 9 letter that Burna-Burias II (1360-1333) sent to Tutankhamun, shortly after his accession, has coincided with the beginning of his reign in 1336 BCE (3 years before Burna-Burias II's death in 1333 BCE). The letter EA 17 written just after the attack by Suppiluliuma (1353-1322), which was repelled by Tu!ratta (1354-1339), must be dated 1351, which means dating the letter EA 23 in 1348, a year which actually coincides with year 36 of Amenhotep III. Another synchronism again confirms this date87. The correspondence from the mayor of Byblos attests that Tu!ratta and the Hurrians led a vigorous counterattack during the months that followed the Hittite raid (mentioned in EA 75), before their entering into Amurru and their advance towards Byblos (EA 85:51-55). Amurru was plundered (EA 86:8-12) and despite Abdi-A!irta was sick (EA 95:41-42) he negotiated with Tu!ratta (EA 90:19-20). The latter recognized that Amurru, too large for him, was a "possession" of Pharaoh (EA 95:27-31). The information with numbers (as 1, 2 or 3 years) allow us to date these events in the year 35 and 36 of Amenhotep III (1349-1348), which coincided with the marriage between him and Taduhepa, Tu!ratta's daughter (EA 22-23-24). The letter EA 27 must be dated in 1345 BCE and corresponds therefore to Year 12 of Amenhotep IV since the latter died in 1340 BCE in his 17th year of reign. The contents of this letter supports this conclusion. Indeed, the demand for Tu!ratta may be explained only if Amenhotep III, Amenhotep IV's father, had died recently (a few months at most)88, in addition, the preparation of a wide celebration kimru, with sending of gifts, corresponds to foreign tributes that were received on year 12 the IV Peret 8. Letter EA 27 has a hieratic inscription: [year 1]2 I Peret [5 ..] (opposite figure, shaded areas are reconstructions) [year 1]2 I Peret [5 [year]2 I Peret [5

The reading "year 2" would imply a co-regency of only 1 year because 2 years, not 1, follow year 38 of Amenhotep III. Furthermore the reading "year 12" is preferable to "year 2" for the following reason: the sign that appears before the "2" may be a remnant of the sign "10" and not the sign "year" because among the 99 hieratic inscriptions found at El-Amarna only two (No. 27, 37) may correspond to the reconstitution "year 2". This exceptional and therefore abnormal reading, used for a reconstitution that would be also abnormal, eliminates this choice. In addition, the Egyptian scribe who wrote the letters EA 23 and EA 2789 wrote "year 36" (EA 23, opposite figure) with the usual hieroglyph ô and not •. Anyway as the letter EA 27 is dated in 1345 BCE this year matches exactly the year 12 of Amenhotep IV.

87 J. FREU – La chronologie du règne de Suppiluliuma in: Silva Anatolica. Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko (Warsaw 2002) pp. 87-107. 88 W.L. MORAN - Les lettres d'El Amarna in: LIPO n°13 Paris 1987 Éd. Cerf pp. 53,171-176. 89 L. WATERMAN – Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire Vol. 4 Ann Arbor 1936 Ed. University of Michigan Press plate 4 n°11.


DATING THE AMENHOTEP IV'S DEATH IN 1340 BCE

Synchronisms imply dating Amenhotep IV's death in 1340 BCE and Semenkhkare's death around 1338 BCE. The reconstitution of the interregnum between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun is controversial because of the many changes in titulars (not to mention usurpations). The simplest explanation is to admit that since Akhenaten had no son, Semenkhkare his brother had to succeed him for a short reign of about 1 year and 4 months. On Semenkhkare's death, Merytaton90 his widow continued the reign of her husband for 2 years 1 month under the name Ankhkheperure, a female name which was then masculinized91 (similar case with queen Tausert, wife of Seti II who continued the reign of Siptah after his death, likewise Hatshepsut, wife of Thutmose II, who continued the reign of her deceased husband on behalf of his nephew Thutmose III). Amenhotep IV died after 17 years of reign, in year 6 of Akhetaten, this data being understood as: "year 6 of the city of Akhenaten," the new town understood as merged to the new pharaoh. This city has also lasted 6 years of Akhenaten's reign without his co-regency (= 17 - 11). This reign can be dated through an indication from a temple dedicated to the solar cult which he built (small temple of Aton) in El-Amarna to celebrate the rise of Aton, the god representing disk of the sun (temples of the ancient Egyptian civilization were frequently astronomically orientated)92. This temple is directed precisely toward a notch in the mountains93 visible on the horizon (azimuth 103°)94. In the photograph (right below) the axis of the temple is oriented in the direction of the notch (hidden by a column) on the horizon.

The name of the new capital built by Akhenaten, called Akhetaten (3ht-'itn) "where the sun disk rises [Aten's horizon]" which was represented by the hieroglyph exactly imitating the sun appearing in the notch of the mountain in Amarna. The temple in the city was inaugurated on IV Peret 13 in Year 5 of Akhenaten and commemorated in Year 6 at the same date95. The fact that the temple is oriented exactly in line with the Royal Wadi96 suggests that Akhenaten chose to inaugurate the city, the precise day when the sun rose97 in the notch of the mountain, illuminating the temple as a laser beam. The simulation of

90 C. ALDRED – Akhenaton roi d'Égypte Paris 1988 Éd. Seuil, pp. 160-161, 284-296. 91 J.-L. BOVOT – La tombe KV 55 un imbroglio archéologique M. GABOLDE – Pour qui fut confectionné le mobilier funéraire de Toutânkhamon in: Akhénaton et l'époque amarnienne, Éd. Khéops et centre d'égyptologie (2005) pp. 183-224, 273-286. 92 M. SHALTOUT, J.A. BELMONTE, M. FEKRI - On the orientation of ancient Egyptian temples: in: Journal for the History of Astronomy XXXVIII (2007) pp. 313-333. 93 M. GABOLDE – Amarna : la ville du soleil in: Les grands secrets de l'archéologie n°9 septembre-octobre 2008 pp. 24-31. 94 http://earth.google.fr/ 95 W.J. MURNANE - The "First Occasion of the Discovery" of Akhet-Aton in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 14 (1987) pp. 239-246. 96 D.P. SILVERMAN, J.W. WEGNER, J.H. WEGNER – Akhenaten and Tutankhamun Revolution and Restoration Philadelphia 2006 Ed. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology pp. 43-55. 97 L. GABOLDE – Mise au point sur l’orientation du temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak en direction du lever du soleil au solstice d’hiver in: Cahier de Karnak 13 (Presses du Conseil Suprême des Antiquités de l’Égypte, 2010), pp. 243-256.


sunrise observed at that location98 (14th century BCE) indicates that it appeared to 4:38 UT in the notch of the mountain (which apparent diameter is 0.9°, the one of the sun is 0.5°) only two days in the year: 3/4 March and 5/6 November, as the apparent path of the sun drift of about 0.4° per day at the horizon (0° altitude) to go back and forth between the two extreme positions reached at solstices on 1st January and 5 July (spring equinox was on 2 April99 at that time). This implies that the equation: IV Peret 13 = 3 March100 [day of solar illumination in the temple] was satisfied only for 4 years, from 1341 to 1338 BCE. As the commemoration of IV Peret 13 stopped at the 6th year of Akhenaten (no 7th year), one can assume that it was the last year of his reign (matching the 17th year from his co-regency). The posthumous stela of year 8 has been completed in the last year of the 4-year cycle, in 1338 BCE. His father Amenhotep III died on April 1345 BCE during the year 38 of his reign. Letter EA 106 was written 5 years after the beginning of the war (1352 BCE) and EA 116 after Akhenaten sat on the throne.

period: 2005 CE 1345-1342 1341-1338 1337-1334

Crossing the azimuth of 102.7° 18 February 3 March 3 March 3 March IV Peret 13 (in Julian calendar) [18 November] 4 March 3 March 2 March

Spring equinox 20 March 2 April 2 April 2 April

This coincidence of 3 March occurs today (2005) on February 18 [azimuth 102.7° at horizon 0°]101, the apparent path of the sun moving towards the summer solstice, on July 5. The Egyptian calendar of 365 days drifted 1 day every 4 years compared to the true solar year of 365.24 days [causing a shift of about 0.1° per year]. All dates allow a reconstitution month by month of the transition between Amenhotep III and Tutankhamun:

98 R.A. WELLS - The Amarna M,X,K Boundary Stelae Date: A Modern Calendar Equivalent in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 14 (1987) pp. 313-333. 99 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/temps/saisons.php 100 The other possibility IV Peret 13 = 5 November has no solution in the 14th century BCE. 101 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/ephemerides/phenomenes/rts/index.php


1 VI Amenhotep III

2 VII 36

Amenhotep IV

3 VIII *** Letter EA 23 from Tu!ratta to Amenhotep III dated 1/VIII/36

4 IX 5 X 6 XI 7 XII 8 I 9 II

10 III Jar-label dated Sed festival year 37 see JNES 10:1 (1951) p. 36 11 IV

1347

12 V 1 VI 2 VII

[10]

3 VIII 4 IX 5 X 6 XI 7 XII 8 I 9 II

37

10 III 11 IV

1346

12 V 1 VI 2 VII

[11]

3 VIII 4 IX 5 X 6 XI Labels from Molkata ending on 1/XI/38 7 XII

38

Death of Amenhotep III 8 I Akhenaten [Amenhotep IV]

9 II Transfer into Akhetaten 10 III 11 IV

12

1345

12 V *** Letter EA 27 from Tu!ratta to Amenhotep IV dated [5]/V/12

1 VI Tribute scenes in the tomb of Meryre and Huya dated 8/VI/12 2 VII

[1]

Reception of foreign tributes on 8/VIII/12

3 VIII (Beginning of the year on 13/VIII) 4 IX 5 X 6 XI 7 XII 8 I 9 II

10 III 11 IV

1344

12 V 1 VI 2 VII

[2] [13]

3 VIII 4 IX 5 X 6 XI 7 XII 8 I 9 II

10 III 11 IV

1343

12 V 1 VI Graffito at Saqqara dated 2?/VI/14 2 VII

[3] 14

3 VIII 4 IX 5 X 6 XI 7 XII 8 I 9 II Jar-label dated [II]/15 see JNES 10:2 (1951) p. 99

10 III 11 IV

1342

12 V

[4] 15


1 VI 2 VII

3 VIII Sunrise at azimuth 103° dated 13/VIII/5 (3 March 1341 BCE) 4 IX Temple's inauguration, stela of year 5 in Akhetaten

5 X 6 XI 7 XII 8 I 9 II

10 III Hieratic text dated 15/III/16 of Amenhotep IV stating: "Great King's 11 IV Wife, his beloved, mistress of the two lands, Neferneferuaten Nefertiti"

1341

12 V 1 VI 2 VII

5 16

3 VIII Sunrise at azimuth 103° dated 13/VIII/6 (3 March 1340 BCE) 4 IX stela of year 6 in Akhetaten

5 X 6 XI 7 XII 8 I 9 II

6 17

Last label of wine jar dated II/17. Death of Akhenaten

10 III Semenkhkare (reigned 1 year 4 months) 11 IV

1340

12 V 1 VI 2 VII

3 VIII (no stela Year 7 of Akhenaten) letter EA 41 from "uppiluliuma to 4 IX Semenkhkare congratulating him to be king 5 X 6 XI 7 XII 8 I 9 II

1

Letter EA 43 from "uppiluliuma to Semenkhkare who mentions the 10 III murder of Tu!ratta 11 IV

1339

12 V 1 VI

2

Death of Semenkhkare, his wife continues his reign 2 VII

[7]

[Semenkhkare] Ankhkeperure (reigned 2 years 1 month) 3 VIII Posthumous stela of the year 8 of Akhenaten in Akhetaten 4 IX

5 X

8

*** Total solar eclipse upon Akhetaten on May 14, 1338 BCE 6 XI Ankhkeperure wrote to "uppiluliuma wrote asking him one of his 7 XII son (Zannanza) as husband (Deeds of !uppiluliuma frag. 28 III:11-15) 8 I 9 II

10 III 11 IV

1338

12 V 1 VI

2 VII 3 VIII 4 IX 5 X 6 XI 7 XII 8 I Graffito dated 1/III/3 of Ankhkeperure mentioning a solar eclipse

9 II

3

10 III 1 11 IV 2

1337

12 V 3 1 VI

4 2 VII 5 3 VIII Tutankhamun

4 IX 5 X 6 XI 7 XII

1

8 I *** Letter EA 9 from Burna-Buria! II to Tutankhamun in order to renew 9 II an alliance with him (Burna-Buria! II died 3 years later in 1333 BCE).

10 III

1336

11 IV


Many synchronisms and the 4 absolute dates fixed by astronomy guarantee an exact chronology for this period. However, many egyptologists reject it on the grounds that the co-regency between Amenhotep III and his son Amenhotep IV is impossible because according to them, pharaohs never share their power. Such a dogma is of course contrary to historical data and mainly reflects their own conception of power. The succession of reigns between Amenhotep III and Tutankhamun, based on the synchronism and the dates calculated by astronomy, can be reconstructed as follows102: towards the end of his reign in the year 27 (1356 BCE), Amenhotep III established his son Amenhotep IV as co-regent (as already done before Thutmose III with his son Amenhotep II). Amenhotep III died after 38 years of reign (1345 BCE), thus Amenhotep IV began a new reign under the name Akhenaten in his new city of Akhetaten (Amarna). Horemheb also began a new reign after the death of Queen Mutnodjmet in the year 14 of his reign (1309 BCE). Akhenaten died after 6 years of reign (1340 BCE), or 17 years from his co-regency, and as he had no son his brother Semenkhare succeeded him (as had happened before with Kamose, Seqenenre Taa's brother, who succeeded him after his death and the death of Crown Prince Ahmose Sapaïr). Semenkhkare died (1338 BCE) after a reign of 1 year and 4 months (the plague which was becoming endemic in this part of Egypt could explain why the mortality was so high at that time). His widow Merytaton then reigned 2 years and 1 month on behalf of her husband (as Hatshepsut had done after her husband's death), first under the feminine name Ankh[et]kheperure then under Ankhkheperure the same name but in the masculine (after a possible marriage with Zannanza a Hittite prince, "uppiluliuma's son, possibly murdered by General Ay, who later became Pharaoh). Other possible explanations to solve this Hittite imbroglio do not fundamentally alter the chronological frame of various reigns. The precision transmitted by Josephus "Akencheris, daughter of Orus [Akhenaten], reigned [1]2 years and 1 month" proves accurate because Semenkhkare appears married to Merytaton, a daughter of Akhenaten, on an anonymous stela (Aegyptisches Berlin museum 15000). As he also appears on another stela under an effeminate shape accompanied by Akhenaton, this has led some to believe a possible co-regency. Similarly, Akhenaten and Nefertiti are sometimes depicted on stelae as two partner kings (Berlin 17813, Cairo JE 59294). The deeds of "uppiluliuma (28 III:11-15) tell that after Akhenaten's death the craven widow of Semenkhkare (written [Nip]!ururiya in cuneiform) asked a son to "uppiluliuma for becoming a Pharaoh in Egypt. The total solar eclipse of 14 May 1338 BCE upon the city of Akhenaten (Akhetaten), cited in allusion on the Amun's priest graffito103 dated III Akhet 10, Year 3 of Ankhkheperure104 (1st August 1337 BCE), and which was understood as a terrible omen against the Pharaoh, could explain easily the strange behaviour of the queen to get a king on the throne of Egypt and also the change to sun worship from the time (Amun replacing Aten). This imbroglio also explains the difficulty that Manetho encountered, or a precursor thereof, to extract a precise duration of these reigns. Finally, Ankhkheperure died after 2 years and 1 month of reign (in 1336 BCE), and having no heir the last son of Amenhotep III, the young Tutankhamun aged 10, became a new pharaoh. The reconstruction of the succession of reigns is possible only through the use of a precise chronology, for the same reason, the succession of the numerous events, that occurred during the co-regency of Amenhotep IV with his father Amenhotep III, may only be reconstructed from this chronology. "uppiluliuma's 1-year war (April 1347 BCE) against

102 M. GABOLDE - Les portraits d'une reine pharaon in: Akhénaton et l'époque amarnienne, Éd. Khéops et centre d'égyptologie (2005) pp. 261-286. 103 « As you [Amon-Re] made me see the darkness which are yours to give, make it for me light so I can see you ». 104 W.J. MURNANE – Texts from the Amarna Period Atlanta 1995 Ed. Society of Biblical Literature pp. 207-208.


the powerful kingdom of Mitanni ruled by Tu!ratta (1353-1339), an ally of Egypt, to the end of the reign of Amenhotep III, triggered a profound destabilization of the entire Middle East, especially in Canaan. Thus Abdi-A!irta (1370-1347) the king of Amurru, a former ally of Egypt, took advantage of the disorder to conquer several small kingdoms in the north of Canaan which were vassals of Egypt. Similarly, Labayu, the powerful mayor of Shechem, conducted a series of raids against the other Canaanite mayors in his region. It is worth noting that Barak, an Israelite judge, took this opportunity to get rid of the authority exerted by Jabin II (1366-1346), the great king of Hazor, through Sisera (1370-1345) an army chief Phoenician ruler (Judges 4:1-25) of U!natu. Key areas of conflict105 during the Amarna period:

The term ‘Apiru (factious) is used with a slightly different meaning to the north and south. For example, Biryawaza, the mayor of Kumidu (in the north), wrote to the Egyptian king: I am indeed, together with my troops and chariots, together with my brothers [soldiers from Kumidu],

105 B. MANLEY – Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypte London 1996 Ed. Penguin Books pp. 80-81.


my ‘Apiru [Canaanite mercenaries from Amurru] and my Suteans [Syrian mercenaries from Mitanni], at the disposition of the archers [Egyptian soldiers], wheresoever the king [of Egypt], my lord, shall order (me to go) (EA 195). These mercenaries were involved in police operations and not in a war because of the numbers involved106. Thus Rib-Hadda, the mayor of Byblos wrote: What is ‘Abdi-A"irta [king of Amurru], servant and dog, that he takes the land of the king himself? What is his auxiliary forces that it is strong? Through the ‘Apiru his auxiliary force is strong! So send me 50 pairs of horses and 200 infantry that I may resist him in !igata until the coming forth of the archers (EA 71). The ‘Apiru of ‘Abdi-A!irta (King of Amurru) were factious from Amurru and the ‘Apiru of Lab‘ayu, the mayor of Shechem, were factious from the area around Shechem: Message of Biridiya [Mayor of Megiddo] (...) The two sons of Lab‘ayu have indeed gave the money to the ‘Apiru and to the Suteans in order to wage war against me (EA 246). The term !apiru/‘Apiru was also used to designate the inhabitants of Palestine107, a country that was at peace! For example, ‘Abdi-!eba, the mayor of Jerusalem, wrote: What have I done to the king, my lord'? They denounce me: (I am slandered) before the king, my lord: ‘Abdi-"eba has rebelled against the king, his lord. Seeing that, as far as I am concerned, neither my father nor my mother put me in this place, but the strong arm of the king brought me into my father's house, why should I of all people commit a crime against the king, my lord? As truly as the king, my lord, lives, I say to the commissioner of the king, my lord: Why do you love the ‘Apiru but hate the mayors? Accordingly, I am slandered before the king, my lord. Because I say: Lost are the lands of the king, my lord, accordingly I am slandered before the king, my lord. May the king, my lord, know that (though) the king, my lord, stationed a garrison (here) [Now], O king, my lord, [there is n]o garrison, [and so] may the king provide for his land. May the king provide for his land! All the lands of the king, my lord, have deserted. Ili-Milku [mayor of Gezer] has caused the loss of all the land of the king, and so may the king, my lord, provide for his land. For my part, I say: I would go in to the king, my lord, and visit the king, my lord, but the war against me is severe, and so I am not able to go in to the king, my lord. And may it seem good in the sight of the king, [and] may he send a garrison so I may go in and visit the king, my lord. In truth, the king, my lord, lives: whenever the commissioners have come out, I would say (to them): Lost are the lands of the king, but they did not listen to me. Lost are all the mayors; there is not a mayor remaining to the king, my lord. May the king turn his attention to the archers so that archers of the king, my lord, come forth. The king has no lands. (That) ‘Apiru [Ili-Milku] has plundered all the lands of the king. If there are archers this year, the lands of the king, my lord, will remain. But if there are no archers, lost are the lands of the king, my lord (EA 286). Consider] the entire affair. [Milkilu and Tagi brou]ght [troop]s into [Keilah] against me. [Consider] the deed that they did [to your servant] (...) May the king know (that) all the lands are [at] peace (with one another), but I am at war. May the king provide for his land. Consider the lands of Gezer, Askelon, and Lachish. They have given them food, oil, and any other requirement. So may the king provide for archers and send the archers against men that commit crimes against the king, my lord. If this year there are archers, then the lands and the mayors will belong to the king, my lord. But if there are no archers, then the king will have neither lands nor mayors. Consider Jerusalem! This neither my father nor my mother gave to me. The strong hand: (arm) [of the king] gave it to me. Consider the deed! This is the deed of Milkilu [ruler of Gezer] and the deed of the sons of Lab‘ayu [rulers of Shechem], who have given the land of the king (to) the ‘Apiru. Consider, O king, my lord! I am in the right! With regard to the Ka"ites (Kushites?), may the king make inquiry of the commissioners. Though the house is well fortified, they attempted a very serious crime. They took their tools, and I bad to seek shelter by a support for the roof. A[nd so i]f he is going to send [troop]s into [Jerusalem], let them come with [a garrison for] (regular) service. May the king provide for them; [all] of the land might be in dire straits on their account. May the king inquire about the[m. Let there be] much food, much oil, much clothing, until Pauru, the commissioner of the king, comes up to Jerusalem. Gone is Addaya together with the garrison of soldiers [that] the king

106 For example: Zitana [a Hittite General] has come and there are 90,000 infantrymen that have come with him (EA 170). 107 In addition, several cities bear the same name as Rehob (Joshua 19:28-30), Aphek (Joshua 12:18; 13:4; 19:30; 1Kings 20:26), etc.


provided. May the king know (that) Addaya said to me: Behold, he has dismissed me. Do not abandon it, [and] send this [year] a garrison, and send right here the commissioner of the king. I sent [as gift]s to the king, my lord, [x] prisoners, 5000 [... and ...]8 porters for the caravans of the k[ing, my lord], but they have been taken in the countryside of Aijalon. May the king, my lord, know (that) I am unable to send a caravan to the king, my lord. For your information! As the king has placed his name in Jerusalem forever, he cannot abandon it —the land of Jerusalem. Say to the scribe of the king, my lord: Message of ‘Abdi-"eba, your servant. I fall at (your) feet. I am your servant. Present eloquent words to the king, my lord: I am a soldier of the king. I am always yours. And please make the Ka"ites responsible for the evil deed. I was almost killed by the Ka"ites in my own house. May the king [make an inquiry] in their regard. [May the kin]g, my lord, [provide] for them (EA 287). It is, therefore, impious what they have done to me. Behold, I am not a mayor; I am a soldier of the king, my lord. Behold, I am a friend of the king and a tribute-bearer of the king. It was neither my father nor my mother, but the strong arm of the king chat placed me in the house of [my] father (...) May the king give thought to his land; the land of the king is lost. All of it has attacked me, I am at war as far as the land of !eru (Seir) and as far as Ginti-kirmil (Gath of Carmel). All the mayors are at peace, but I am at war. I am treated like an ‘Apiru, and I do not visit the king, my lord, since I am at war. I am situated like a ship in the midst of the sea. The strong hand (arm) of the king took the land of Na"rima (Mitanni) and the land of Kasi (Kush), but now the ‘Apiru have taken the very cities of the king. Not a single mayor remains to the king, my lord; all are lost. Behold, Turbazu was slain in the city gate of Silu. The king did nothing. Behold, servants who were joined to the ‘Apiru smote Zimredda of Lachish, and Yapti"-Hadda was slain in the city gate of Silu. The king did nothing. Why has he not called them to account? May the king provide for his land and may he see to it that archers [come ou]t to his land. If there are no archers this year, all the lands of the king, my lord, are lost. They have not reported to the king that the lands of the king, my lord, are lost and all the mayors lost. If there are no archers this year, may the king send a commissioner to fetch me, me along with my brothers, and then we will die near the king, our lord (EA 288). Milkilu does not break away from the sons of Lab‘ayu and from the sons of Arsawa, as they desire the land of the king for themselves. As for a mayor who does such a deed, why does the king not call him to account? Such was the deed that Milkilu and Tagi did: they took Rubutu. And now as for Jerusalem, if this land belongs to the king, why is it (not) of concern to the king like Gaza ("azattu)? Gath of Carmel (Ginti-kirmil) belongs to Tagi, and men of Gath (Gimti) are the garrison in Beth-Shean (Bitsani). Are we to act like Lab‘ayu when he was giving the land of Shechem (Sakmu) to the "apiru? Milkilu has written to Tagi and the sons [of Lab‘ayu]: Be the both of you a protection. Grant all their demands to the men of Keilah, and let us isolate Jerusalem. Addaya has taken the garrison that you sent in the charge of Haya, the son of Miyare; he has stationed it in his own house in Gaza and has sent 20 men to Egypt. May the king, my lord, know (that) no garrison of the king is with me. Accordingly, as truly as the king lives, his irpi-official, Pu’uru, has left me and is in Gaza. (May the king call this to mind when he arrives) and so may the king send 50 men as a garrison to protect the land. The entire land of the king has deser[ted] (EA 289). Here is the deed against the land that Milkilu and !uardatu did: against the land of the king, my lord, they hired troops from Gezer, troops from Gath, and troops from Keilah. They seized Rubutu. The land of the king deserted to the "apiru. And now, besides this, a town belonging to Jerusalem, Bit-dNIN.URTA108 by name, a city of the king, has gone over to the side of the men of Keilah. May the king give heed to ‘Abdi-"eba, your servant, and send archers to restore the land of the king to the king. If there are no archers, the land of the king will desert to the "apiru. This deed against the land was at the order of Milki[lu and a]t the order of Suardatu, [together w]ith Gath (EA 290). Letters of ‘Abdi-!eba, the mayor of Jerusalem, describe a situation similar to that of Rib-Hadda, the mayor of Byblos, however, the areas involved are very different as well the leaders of insurrection. Thus, northern Canaan was annexed by ‘Abdi-A!irta (its former mayors had to pay him tribute), the king of Amurru, thanks to his ‘Apiru, most were

108 The name means "House of Ninurta [Assyrian god of war]", maybe a translation of Kiriath-Baal "City of Baal" (Joshua 15:9,60).


Amorite factious, and northern Palestine was racketed by Lab‘ayu (then his sons afterwards), the mayor of Shechem, thanks to his ‘Apiru, most were Canaanite factious, however the south of Palestine was a country into !apiru's hands (Hebrews). Moreover, the war in northern Canaan is quite dramatic because many Canaanite mayors were killed whereas the war in the north of Palestine looks more like an insurgency accompanied by racketeering. Rib-Hadda, the king of Byblos, wrote: Why have you been negligent, not speaking to the king, your lord, so that you may come out together with archers and fall upon the land of Amurru? If they hear of archers coming out, they will abandon their cities and desert. Do not you yourself know that the land of Amurru follows the stronger party? Look, they are not now being friendly to ‘Abdi-A"irta. What will he do to them? [And so] they are longing day and night for the coming out of the archers, and (they say), "Let us join them!" All the mayors long for this to be done to ‘Abdi-A"irta, since he sent a message to the men of Ammiya, "Kill your lord and join the ‘Apiru. Accordingly, the mayors say, "He will do the same thing to us, and all the lands will be joined to the ‘Apiru (EA 73). The war, however, of the ‘Apiru against me is severe. (Our) sons and daughters and the furnishings of the houses are gone, since they have been sold [in] the land of Yarimuta for our provisions to keep us alive. For the lack of a cultivator, my field is like a woman without a husband. I have written repeatedly to the palace because of the illness afflicting me, [but there is no one] who has looked at the words that [keep arr]iving. [May the king] give heed [to] the words of [his] servant. [...] The ‘Apiru killed Ad[una, the king] of Arkite, but there was no one who said anything to ‘Abdi-A"irta, and so they go on taking (territory for themselves). Miya, the ruler of Ara"ni, seized Ardata, and just now the men of Ammiya have killed their lord. I am afraid. May the king be informed that the king of Hatti has seized all the countries that were vassals of the king of Mittani. Behold, [he] is king of Nahrima [and] the land of the Great Kings, [and] ‘Abdi-A"irta, [the servant] and dog, is tak[ing the land of the king] (EA 75). May the king, my lord, know that the war of ‘Abdi-A"irta against me is severe. He wants to take [for himself] the two cities that have remained to me. Moreover, what is ‘Abdi-A"irta, the dog, that he strives to take all the cities of the king, the Sun, for himself? Is he the king of Mittani, or the king of Ka""u (Babylonia), that he strives to take the land of the king for himself? He has just gathered together all the ‘Apiru against Sigata [and] Ampi, and he himself has taken these two cities. I said: There is no place where men can enter against him. He has seized (...) [so] send me [a garris]on of 400 men a[nd x pairs of horses (...) out to inspect [the coun]try, and yet now that the land of the king and Sumur, your garrison-city, have been joined to the ‘Apiru, you have done nothing. Send a large force of archers that it may drive out the king's enemies and all lands be joined to the king (EA 76). Be informed that since Amanappa reached me, all the ‘Apiru have at the urging of ‘Abdi-A"irta turned against me. May my lord heed the words of his servant. Send me a garrison to guard the city of the king until the archers come out. If there are no archers, then all lands will be joined to the ‘Apiru. Listen! Since Bit-Arha was seized [at] the urging of ‘Abdi-A"irta, they have as a result been striving to take over Byblos and Batruna, and thus all lands would be joined to the ‘Apiru. There are two towns that remain to me, and they want to take them from the king. May my lord send a garrison to his two towns until the archers come out, and may something be given to me for their food. I have nothing at all. Like a bird in a trap (cage), so am I in Byblos. Moreover, if [the kin]g is unable to save me from his enemies, [then al]l lands will be joined to ‘Abdi-A"irta. [What is h]e, the dog, that [he ta]kes the lands of the king for himself? (EA 79). Repeatedly to you: The war is against Ardat, against Irqat, and against [..., an]d Ammiy[a and Sigat]a, loyal cities of the king, [but the king], my lord, [has done nothing]. Moreover, what is [he, ‘Abdi-A"irta, the servant (and) dog, that he has acted as he pleased in the lands of my lord, [and yet] the king, my lord, has done nothing for [his] servant? Moreover, I sent my messenger (each time) that he took my cities and moved up against me. Now he has taken Batruna, and he has moved up against me. Behold the city! He has ... the entrance of the gate of Byblos. How long has he not moved from the gate, and so we are unable to go out into the countryside. Moreover, look, he strives to seize Byblos! And [... and] may the king, my lord, give heed t[o the words of] his servant, and [may] he hasten [with] all speed chariots and


[troops] that they may gu[ard the city of the king], my lord, and [... until] the arrival of the king, [my] lord. For my part, I will not neglect the word of [my] lord. But i[f the k]ing, my lord, does [not give heed] to the words of [his] ser[vant], then Byblos will be joined to him, and all the lands of the king, as far as Egypt, will be joined to the ‘Apiru. Moreover, should my lord not have word brought to his servant by tablet, with all speed, then ... the city to him and I will request a town from him to stay in, and so I will stay alive (EA 88). There was war against the[m, but] a garrison [of the king] was with them. There were provisions from the king at their disposal. [Though the war against me] is severe. I have no [provisions from the king or gar]ri[son of the king]. Wh[at shall I] do? As for the mayors, they are the ones who strike our city. They are like dogs, and there is no one who wants to serve them. What am I, who live among ‘Apiru, to do? If now there are no provisions from the king for me, my peasantry is going to fight (against me). All lands are at war against me. If the desire of the king is to guard his city and his servant, send a garrison to guard the city. I will guard it while I am alive. When I die, who is going to guard it? (EA 130). The ‘Apiru to ‘Abdi-A!irta (King of Amurru) service are different from those associated with Lab‘ayu (Mayor of Shechem). Amurru109 was an unreliable kingdom vassal of Egypt and its king led a secession war through Amorite factious on a large scale (north of Canaan). Shechem was an unreliable town vassal of Egypt and its mayor led an small insurgency around the town through some raids by Canaanite mercenaries. Two areas were little affected by these conflicts: the kingdom of Hazor in central Canaan and southern Palestine inhabited by people called Hapiru "Hebrews". The equivalence Hapiru = Hebrews is complicated by the mix of people in Palestine and the fact that many cities conquered by Joshua became in time back again Canaanite (partially or fully). For example: And the sons of Israel dwelt in among the Canaanites, the Hittites and the Amorites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites. And they proceeded to take their daughters as wives for themselves, and their own daughters they gave to their sons, and they took up serving their gods (Judges 3:5-6). As for the Jebusites who were dwelling in Jerusalem110, the sons of Judah were not able to drive them away; and the Jebusites continue dwelling with the sons of Judah in Jerusalem down to this day (Joshua 15:63). And they did not drive away the Canaanites who were dwelling in Gezer, and the Canaanites continue dwelling in among Ephraim down to this day and came to be subject to slavish forced labor (Joshua 16:10). And Manasseh did not take possession of Beth-Shean and its dependent towns and Taanach and its dependent towns and the inhabitants of Dor and its dependent towns and the inhabitants of Ibleam and its dependent towns and the inhabitants of Megiddo and its dependent towns, but the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in this land. And it came about that Israel grew strong and proceeded to set the Canaanites to forced labor, and they did not drive them out completely. Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites who were dwelling in Gezer, but the Canaanites continued to dwell in among them in Gezer. Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron and the inhabitants of Nahalol, but the Canaanites continued to dwell in among them and came to be subject to forced labor. Asher did not drive out the inhabitants of Akko and the inhabitants of Sidon and Ahlab and Achzib and Helbah and Aphik and Rehob. And the Asherites continued to dwell in among the Canaanites inhabiting the land, because they did not drive them out. Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and the inhabitants of Beth-anath, but they continued to dwell in among the Canaanites inhabiting the land; and the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became theirs for forced labor. And the Amorites kept pressing the sons of Dan into the mountainous region, for they did not allow them to come down into the low plain. So the Amorites persisted in dwelling in Mount Heres and in Aijalon and Shaalbim. But the hand of the house of Joseph got to be so heavy that they were forced into task work. And the territory of the Amorites was from the ascent of

109 The Amurru is mentioned in the Mari letters (to -1700) as southern neighbor of Qatna's kingdom. It was perhaps a federation of several cities, the most important seems to have been Hazor. The Damascus region (Apu country) may have belonged to this group. After 1340 BCE, the Amurru (which the capital is not known) becomes a vassal kingdom of Hatti. 110 The execration texts (c. 1950 BCE) report the name [U]rusalimum "City of Salem" in accordance with the biblical text (Genesis 14:18; Hebrews 7:1) placing the name at the time of Abraham (c. 1950 BCE). The name Yebus (Judges 19:10) which means "trample" is not attested but Mari texts (c. 1800 BCE) experiencing Amorite anthroponym Yabusi'um. A Amorite clan "those of Yabusi" would therefore have been settled in Jerusalem (E. LIPINSKI Itineraria Phoenicia in: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 127 (2004) Peeters p. 502).


Akrabbim, from Sela upward (Judges 1:27-36). Several Hebrew cities became again Canaanite a little while later: In time Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal went to Shechem to the brothers of his mother and began speaking to them and to all the family of the house of his mother’s father, saying: Speak, please, in the hearing of all the landowners of Shechem: Which is better for you, for seventy men, all the sons of Jerubbaal, to rule over you or for one man to rule over you? And you must remember that your bone and your flesh I am. So the brothers of his mother began speaking all these words about him in the hearing of all the landowners of Shechem so that their heart inclined toward Abimelech, for they said: He is our own brother. Then they gave him seventy pieces of silver from the house of Baal-berith, and with them Abimelech proceeded to hire idle and insolent men, that they might accompany him. After that he went to the house of his father at Ophrah and killed his brothers, the sons of Jerubbaal, seventy men, upon one stone, but Jotham the youngest son of Jerubbaal was left over, because he had hid. Subsequently all the landowners of Shechem and all the house of Millo gathered together and went and made Abimelech reign as king [ruler], close by the big tree, the pillar that was in Shechem (Judges 9:1-6). The area inhabited by the Hapiru in Palestine was substantially the same as Shasu's country described by Egyptians texts. This area of Palestine seems escaping the rulership of Egypt, since the Commissioner of Sumur was responsible only for the land of Amurru (from Byblos to the south of Ugarit and inward up to Orontes). The Commissioner of Kumidu administered Apu country (around Damascus), a territory from Kadesh, in southern Syria, to Hazor in the north of Palestine, and from Damascus area to the northern Transjordan. Finally, the Commissioner of Gaza controlled Palestine, except Shasu's countries, and a part of the Phoenician coast, probably up to Beirut111. The events described in the Amarna letters are consistent with those of the biblical text. Palestine is occupied by the Hebrews (Hapiru, not ‘Apiru), the south is at peace with its neighbors and is slightly administered (not ruled, by the judge Ehud) and north of the country is oppressed (and racketed) by the powerful king of Hazor via his general: Sisera. It is therefore essential to determine the role and chronology of the king of Hazor (Jabin II). Amazingly, that case arise a huge problem because although he is the most powerful king of Canaan (he is the only one to bear the title of king) he appears not to intervene in conflicts, in addition, he disappears for no apparent reason at the time of the ‘Apiru's war and is replaced by a mayor and not by a king. Even stranger, the mayor of Hazor is accused to be passed to the enemy (‘Apiru): I write to the king, my lord, because every day the king of Sidon has captured a palace attendant of mine. May the king give attention to his servant, and may he charge his commissioner to give Usu to his servant for water, for fetching wood, for straw, for clay. Since he has acted hostilely, has he not violated the oath? There is not another palace attendant. The one who raids the land of the king is the king of Sidon. The king of Hazor has abandoned his house and has aligned himself with the ‘Apiru. May the king be concerned about the palace attendants. These are treacherous fellows. He has taken over the land of the king for the ‘Apiru. May the king ask his commissioner, who a familiar with Canaan (EA 148). Message of the king of Hazor. I fall at the feet of my lord. Look, I have the cities of the king, my lord, under guard until my lord reaches [me]. And when I heard these words of yours and of the coming forth of the Sun to me, I rejoiced accordingly. I pondered (the news), and my jubilation came forth. There was peace, and the gods themselves looked (favorably) on me. And I have indeed prepared everything until the arrival of the king, [my] lord. Look, whenever [Han]i, your messenger, arrives, the heart rejoices exceedingly (EA 227). The following letters refer only to the "ruler of Hazor" not king: Message of ‘Abdi-Tir"i, the ruler of Hazor, your servant. I fall at the feet of the king, my lord, 7 times and 7 times (at the feet of the king, my lord). As I am the loyal servant of the king, my lord, I am indeed guarding Hazor together with its villages for the king, my lord. May the king, my lord, recall whatever has been done against Hazor, your city, and against your servant (EA 228). Message of Ayyab,

111 W.L. MORAN - Les lettres d'El Amarna in: LIPO n°13 Paris 1987 Éd. Cerf pp. 34-35.


your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord 7 times and 7 times. I am the servant of the king, my lord, the dirt at his feet. I have heard what the king, my lord, wrote to me through Atahmaya. Truly, I have guarded very carefully [the citie]s of the king, my lord. Moreover, note that it is the ruler of Hazor who has taken 3 cities from me. From the time I heard and verified this, there has been waging of war against him. Truly, may the king, my lord, take cognizance, and may the king, my lord, give thought to his servant (EA 364). Some scholars to explain the "absence" of the powerful king of Hazor during this period assume he was in the orbit and protection of the king of Mitanni112. This explanation is not possible for two reasons: "uppiluliuma I did not hesitate to attack Mitanni despite its power and Amarna letters indicate that the king of Hazor: has abandoned his house and has aligned himself with the ‘Apiru. This last sentence is unexplained, except by the Bible King of Hazor's death coincides with the appointment of Barak, a Hebrew judge who fought Jabin II, the king of Hazor, killed at that time (Judges 4:1-24). Although Jabin is presented as king of Canaan, in fact it was Sisera who controlled the north of Palestine. The title "king of Canaan" was honorary (using a former title "king" in a honorific way was a current Eastern practice), it was already used at the time of the conquest of Joshua as it is specified about Jabin I: Jabin king of Hazor heard about this (...) Joshua then turned back and captured Hazor, putting its king to the sword. Hazor in olden days was the capital of all these kingdoms (Joshua 11:1,10). Jabin II's death early in the conflict explains his "absence" among Amarna letters. This king ruled Palestine not because of numerical superiority but thanks to his weapons (Judges 4:3; 5:8). At that time a garrison of 400 men and pairs of horses was enough to control a whole territory (letter EA 76). Thus, after the disappearance of his "900 iron chariots," the kingdom of Hazor did not played any major role in the region. The role of Sisera as prince of the army of Jabin II is paramount (Psalms 83:9), as it is then the only one to be quoted (1Samuel 12:9). The Hebrew word sar "prince/leader" is used instead of rosh "head/chief" (1Samuel 15:17). This character must be important because it is mentioned in a treaty of alliance between two kings of the region113: As from today, Niqmaddu, king of Ugarit, and Aziru, king of the Amurru, did between them (an agreement) by oath (...) If bunchs of Hapiru make raids in my country Aziru will fight against my enemy with chariots and soldiers. If there are troubles in my country Aziru will come to my rescue <with> his chariots and his troops. On the other hand, Sisaruwa (si-sa-ru-wa) is a subject of the king and the city of U"natu is his residence. If Sisaruwa behaves as an enemy to the king, Aziru will fight against Sisaruwa with his chariots and his troops. According to the biblical text, Sisera (Sisara in the LXX) is dead just before the end of the rulership of Jabin II over Israel, whereas this treaty must be concluded to this date, and therefore early in the reigns of Niqmaddu III and Aziru. Former area of the king of Hazor

112 A. ZARZECKI-PELEG, R. BONFIL – Hazor –A Syrian City-State in Mitanni's Orbit? in: Ugarit-Forschungen 43 (2011) pp. 537-567. 113 S. LACKENBACHER – Textes akkadiens d'Ugarit in: LIPO n° 20 (2002) Éd. Cerf pp. 64-65, 180-181.


therefore came under the control of ‘Apiru (in fact Hapiru). According to the text of Judges 4:24-25, Jabin II, initially at peace with the Hebrews was defeated gradually. Despite the crucial role of the Hapiru in Palestine114, the Amarna letters never mention their ruler, which could be explained by the fact that Barak was only a judge or a counsellor. The role of the king of Hazor (Jabin II) at this particular time (ca. 1350 BCE), and that of Sisera as well, confirms the biblical story in a striking way: ! Jabin was the sole ruler in Canaan who had the title of king (instead of mayor). ! The king of Hazor died at the beginning of Apiru's war (ca. 1350 BCE). ! The land of the king of Hazor was given to the Hapiru (Hebrews) afterwards. ! The substitute of the king of Hazor, who no longer has the title of king, complained of

what happened to his city before. ! Sisera, chief of U!natu, was a powerful ruler. ! The name Sisera (Zi-za-ru-wa / Si-sa-ru-wa in Babylonian, which meaning is unclear115) is

unique in the whole Bible and also in the whole onomastic corpus116. ! Sisera died at the beginning of ‘Apiru's war (ca. 1350 BCE). ! Haroshet-ha-Goiim was the residence of Sisera (Judges 4:13, Jerusalem Bible), but this

famous locality remains unknown up till now! This name means "Wooded place (1Samuel 23:15) of nations"; "Wooded place in Lebanon (Ezekiel 31:3)"; "Forest of Lebanon (1Kings 7:2)". The city of U!natu was the residence of Sisera and was indeed situated in Lebanon between Ugarit and Amurru117.

! After Sisera's death his kingdom (U!natu)118 was annexed to that of Siyannu119. The chronology of the Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians and Hittite kings is anchored at less than 1 year over the period 1360-1330 BCE. Numerous synchronisms are then used to fix the chronology of other kings with nearly the same precision of +/- 2 years (the period of Akhenaten's co-regency of is highlighted):

KING OF ASSYRIA reign KING OF BABYLON reign KING OF EGYPT reign Erîba-Adad I 1385-1358 Kada!man-Enlil I 1375-1360 Amenhotep III 1383-1345 A!!ur-uballi" I 1358 - Burna-Buria! II 1360 - Akhenaten 1356-1340 Semenkhkare 1340-1338 -Ankhkheperure 1338-1336 -1333 Tutankhamun 1336 - Kurigalzu II 1333 - -1327 -1323 Aÿ 1327-1323 Enlil-nêrârî 1323-1313 -1308 Horemheb 1323-1295

KING OF HATTI reign KING OF UGARIT reign KING OF MITANNI reign Tut#aliya III 1370 - Ammi!tamru II 1360 - "utarna II 1373-1355 -1353 Arta!umara 1355-1353 "uppiluliuma I 1353 - -1347 Tu!ratta 1353 - Niqmaddu III 1347 - -1339 Artatama II 1339-1325 -1322 "utarna III 1339-1325 Arnuwanda II -1322 -1315 "attiwaza 1325 - Mur!ili II 1322-1295 Ar#albu 1315-1313 -1300

114 Y. AHARONI – The Land of the Bible Philadelphia 1979, Ed. The Westminster Press pp. 220-225. 115 Sîsrâ (Ezra 2:53) means perhaps "a field of battle" in Syriac (sirsarthâ) or "fading flower of wind" (Isaiah 28:4) in Hebrew (#i#â rûa$). 116 R. DE VAUX – Histoire ancienne d'Israël. La période des juges Paris 1987 Éd. Gabalda pp. 102-103. 117 J.-M. MICHAUD – La Bible et l'héritage d'Ougarit Sherbrooke 2005 Éd. C.G.C. PP. 82-84. 118 G. BECKMAN – Hittite Diplomatic Texts Atlanta 1999 Ed. Society of Biblical Literature pp. 175-176. 119 F. MALBRANT-LABAT –Siyannu, U!natu et Ugarit in: De la Tablilla a la Inteligencia Artificial (Instituto de Estudios Islamicos y del Oriente Proximo, 2003) pp. 67-75.


KING OF CARKEMISH reign KING OF AMURRU reign KING OF SIYANNU reign (vassal of Hatti) Abdi-A!irta 1370-1347 Abdi-!ebat 1370-1345 ? Aziru 1347 - Abdi-Anati 1345-1325 "arri-Ku!u# 1325-1310 -1314 ["arri-Ku!u#?] 1325-1313

RULER OF HAZOR reign RULER OF USNATU rule N. PALESTINE RULER rule ? ? (Ehud) 1386-1366 King [Jabin] (EA 227) 1370-1345 Sisera (RS 19.68) 1370-1345 Jabin II 1366-1346 Mayor Abdi-Tir!i 1345-1325 Abdi-Anati 1345-1325 Barak 1346-1306

The letter EA 75 allows dating the ‘Apiru's war, it reads120: [May] the king, my lord, know that Byblos, the maidserva[nt of the king] from ancient times, is safe and sound. The war, however, of the ‘Apiru against me is severe (...) The ‘Apiru killed Ad[una, the king] of Arkite, but there was no one who said anything to ‘Abdi-A"irta, and so they go on taking (territory for themselves) (...) May the king be informed that the king Hatti has seized all the countries that were vassal of the king of Mittani. Behold, [he] is king of Na"rima [and] the land of the Great Kings, [and] ‘Abdi-A"irta, [the servant] and dog, is tak[ing the land of the king]. Send archers. This war in Canaan, which occurred just before Amenhotep III's death (EA 116), dated 1345 BCE, matches the war dated 1347 BCE121 led in Syria by "uppiluliuma I. It reads: May the king, my lord, know that the war [again]st us is very severe. As to its being told to you, "Sumur belongs to the king," may the king know that there was an attack on our garrison, and the sons of ‘Abdi-A"irta seized it. And so there has been no one to carry word to the king. But give thought to the fact that I am your loyal servant, and whatever I hear I write to [my] lord. Moreover, give thought to Sumur. It is like a bird in a trap (cage): [The war] is very severe, and the messengers that [came] from the palace were unable to get [in]to Sumur. It was by night that I got them in. And here is how Yapa"-Hadda [mayor of Beirut] is not just in my regard: when my man arrived, he bound him. May what is due to me [be gi]ven; it is very much. Now as the king is going to send the royal commissioners, may the king tell them to decide between us. If the king gives (the property) to his servant, well and good! Or, on the other hand, let the king take everything for himself. Moreover, all my towns have been joined to the ‘Apiru, and all of them [are extremely hostile] to me, for [Yapa"-Hadda keeps devising] evil upon evil against me. They have nothing, having paid ransom money, some twice, some three times. May the king heed the words of his loyal servant and give provisions to his servant and his maidservant, Byblos. Moreover, it would please me were I with you and so at peace. Look, Aziru and Yapa"-Hadda have made an agreement against me, and I am unable [to d]o anything. Their actions [are hosti]le to me. Accordingly, my situation is extremely grave. Moreover, note that we have been loyal servants of the king from ancient times. Moreover, note that I am your loyal servant, but I have nothing but distress. Note this matter. Note that I am the dirt at your feet, O king! Note: did not your father come out and visit (his) lands and his mayors? And now the gods and the Sun and the Lady of Byblos have granted that you be seated on the throne of your father's house (to rule) your land. Who are they, the sons of ‘Abdi-A"irta, that they have taken the lands of the king for themselves? The king of Mittani? The king of Ka""u (Babylonia)? The king of Hatti? May the king send archers (and) Yanhamu along with [the prefec]ts from the land of Yarimuta. The commissioner from Kumidu (EA 116). Paralleling synchronisms implies dating the war of ‘Apiru just after the "1-year war" in Syria led by "uppiluliuma I (c. April 1347 BCE). Following the weakening of the Mitanni, a powerful ally of Egypt, the Amorites took the opportunity to attack the small kingdoms in northern Canaan, which were vassals of Egypt, and the Israelites defeated the powerful kingdom of Hazor, an ally of Egypt. For the Egyptians these two regions were full of ‘apiru "factious". Although the Egyptians had never had to deal with shasu "Bedouins

120 W.L. MORAN –The Amarna Letters London 2002 Ed. The Johns Hopkins University Press pp. 145-146. 121 T.R. BRYCE – Some observations on the Chronology of "uppiluliuma's Reign in: Anatolian Studies XXXIX (1989) pp. 19-30.


in Palestine (Israelites)" since their coming out of Egypt (1533 BCE), their victory against Hazor showed that they were a powerful people, potentially dangerous. In the tomb of Anen (TT120), brother-in-law of Amenhotep III, Shasu people is pictured as one of the nine traditional enemies of Egypt on par with the Babylonians (Shinar) or Nubians (Kush).

From right to left: 1) S-n-g-3-r Shinar land; 2) K" Kush land (Nubia); 3) N-h-r-ÿ-n Naharin people; 4) ’r-m Arame; 5) K-f-[ti-w] Keftiu (Philistia); 6) ’Iwnti-Sty Tentdewellers of Nubia; 7) T$nw Tehenu land (Libya); 8) [Mn]tyw nw Stt Bedouins of Sinai; 9) !3-sw Shasu.

year [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] 4 I 5 II 6 III 7 IV

8 V 9 VI

35

10 VII 11 VIII

-1348

12 IX

1 X 2 XI

9 [A] Amenhotep III King of Egypt [B] Amenhotep IV King of Egypt [C] A""ur-uballit I King of Assyria [D] !uppiluliuma I King of Hatti [E] Tu"ratta King of Mitanni [F] Jabin II ruler of Israel, [G] King of Hazor

3 XII

36

5 12 19

4 I

10

*** 5 II

20 ***

6 III 7 IV

8 V 9 VI

***

10 VII 11 VIII

-1347

12 IX

1 X

2 XI

10

3 XII

13

0

Letter EA 23 (year 36 of Amenhotep III) Letter EA 75 (war in Syria led by King of Hatti, war of ‘Apiru being in progress) [F] Baraq Judge of Israel [G] Abdi-Tir"i Mayor of Hazor

4 I

11 6

5 II 6 III 7 IV

8 V

9 VI

37

10 VII 11 VIII

-1346

12 IX

1 X

2 XI

11

3 XII

14 1

4 I

12 7

5 II 6 III 7 IV

38

15

8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII

12

***

***

-1345

12 IX

1 X

2 XI

[1]

*** ***

3 XII

***

2

[A] Akhenaten, [B] Amenhotep IV King of Egypt Letter EA 26 Amenhotep III is dead Letter EA 27 dated December year [1]2 of Amenhotep IV

Reception of foreign tributes dated February year 12

4 I

13 8

5 II

-1344

6 III

[2] 13

14 9

16 3

The aggression of "uppiluliuma I in Syria caused a chain reaction which destabilized all the region, from the north with the big kingdoms of Mitanni (ally of Egypt) and Amurru


(unreliable vassal of Egypt), to the south with the numerous small kingdoms of Canaan (vassals of Egypt) and Palestine (troubled area). The period of destabilization was intense but short (1447-1445 BCE) since most of the Amarna letters concern this short period. The parallel of the main protagonists in time and space, illuminates the sequence of events:

Land City Ruler (king or mayor) Title 1355 BCE 1345 BCE 1335 BCE Hatti "uppiluliuma I King Mitanni Tu!ratta King Ugarit Ammi!tamru II Niqmaddu III King U!natu (Lebanon) Sisera (Sisaruwa) (Abdi-Anati) Ruler Siyannu (Lebanon) ‘Abdi-!ebat Abdi-Anati King Amurru (Lebanon) ‘Abdi-A!irta Aziru King Canaan (Syria) Qatna Akizzi Mayor Kadesh (Qid!u) Aitukama Mayor Arkite (Irqata) Aduna ? Mayor Lapana (entering Hamath) Tiwati Mayor Byblos (Gubla) Rib-Hadda Ili-Rapi" Mayor Beirut (Biruta) Yapa"-Hadda Ammunira Mayor Kumidu (Kamid el-Loz) Biryawaza Mayor (Phoenicia) Sidon (#iduna) Zimredda Mayor Tyre (#urru) Abi-Milku Mayor Hazor (Ha$ura) [Jabin II] King Abdi-Tir!i Mayor Akko (Akka) Satatna Mayor Ashtaroth (A!tartu) Ayyab Mayor Hannaton (!innatuna) [?] Mayor? Palestine (Israel) Megiddo (Magidda) Biridiya Mayor Pella (Pi"ilu) Mut-Ba"li Mayor Shechem (Sakmu) Lab’ayu Lab’ayu's sons Mayor Gezer (Gazru) Adda-danu/ Milkilu Yapa"u Mayor Jerusalem (Urusalim) ‘Abdi-!eba Mayor Keilah (Qiltu) "uwardata ‘Abdi-A!tarti Mayor Lachish (Laki!a) "ipti-Ba‘la/ Zimredda Yabni-ilu Mayor Egypt Amenhotep III Akhenaten King

The first purpose of wars was to annex a country for further payments of tribute. Rulers who refused to comply were ransomed in order to get a booty and sometimes killed. The great kingdoms of that time received tributes paid by their vassals (once a year) and gave them in exchange a police protection. For example two letters, from Burna-Buria! II to Tutankhamun (Nib"ureriya), show that the protection of the king of Egypt was defective in Canaan and consequently the Canaanite mayors sought changing to ally with other kings: Now, my merchants who were on their way with A"u-rabu, were detained in Canaan for business matters. After A"u-tabu went on to my brother, in "innatuna [Joshua 19:14] of Canaan, !um-Adda, the son of Balumme, and !utatna, the son of !aratum of Akka, having sent their men, killed my merchants and rook away their money. I send [...] to you posthaste. Inquire [from him so] he can inform you. Canaan is your country, and [its] kings [are your servants]. In your country I have been despoiled. Bring [them] to account and make compensation for the money that they took away. Put to death the men who put my servants [to] death, and so avenge their blood. And if you do not put these men to death, they are going to kill again, be it a caravan of mine or your own messengers, and so messengers between us will thereby be cut off. And if they try to deny this to you, !um-Adda, having blocked the passage of one man of mine, retained him in his company, and another man, having been forced into service by !utatna of Akka, is still serving him. These men should be brought to you so you can investigate, inquire [whether they are] dead, and thus become informed (EA 8). In the time of Kurigalzu, my ancestor, all the Canaanites, wrote here to him, saying: Come to the border of the country so we can revolt and be allied with you. My ancestor sent


them this (reply), saying: Forget about being allied with me. If you become enemies of the king of Egypt, and are allied with anyone else, will I not then come and plunder you? How can there be an alliance with me? For the sake of your ancestor my ancestor did not listen to them. Now, as for my Assyrian vassals, I was not the one who sent them to you. Why on their own authority have they come to your country? If you love me, they will conduct no business whatsoever. Send them off to me empty-handed (EA 9). Historical context explains the strategic role of Syria which was a hub in international trade at that time. Since Amenhotep II (1420-1392) the Egyptians were going to control the great trade route to Mesopotamia through alliances with the Mitanni122. Dynastic marriages between Thutmose IV (1392-1383) and Artatama I (1390-1373) will seal definitely the alliance between Egypt and Mitanni (EA 29:16). Thus the entire Mediterranean coast (from Philistia to Phoenicia) was controlled by Egyptians, as far Byblos and the north west of Syria (kingdom of Carchemish) was under the control of the Hittites. This balance will be broken after the attack north of Hatti by Kaska (EA 31:26-27). Tudhaliya III (1370-1353) embarked on the monumental task of winning back his kingdom from the enemy forces which had occupied his land which laid the foundations in the campaigns of reconquest123. When Tudhaliya III died his son "uppiluliuma continued this reconquest eastward annexing the Syrian part of Mitanni124: Nu"asse (EA 51) and Qatna (EA 55). Tu!ratta managed to stop the attacks (EA 17:30-35) and Ammi!tamru II (1360-1347), the king of Ugarit, wrote to Amenhotep III (1383-1345) because he feared being annexed by "uppiluliuma I (EA 45). This first attack, the "Syrian War of 1 Year" in 1352 BCE, was the starting point of the voluminous correspondence found in El-Amarna. The correspondence of the southern vassals has certain clear sequences and correlations. One point of reference is the figure of Lab’ayu, mayor of Shechem (EA 252-254), who clearly belongs to the earliest level of this correspondence125. As the hieratic dockect on EA 254 is dated year 3[2 Amenhotep III], this letter written in 1352/1351 BCE matches exactly at the time of the war in Syria: I [Lab’ayu] have obeyed the orders that the king wrote to me. Who am I that the king should lose his land on account of me? The fact is that I am a loyal servant of the king! I am not a rebel and I am not delinquent in duty. I have not held back my payments of tribute; I have not held back anything requested by my commissioner. He denounces me unjustly, but the king, my lord, does not examine my (alleged) act of rebellion. Moreover, my act of rebellion is this: when I entered Gezer, I kept on saying: Everything of mine the king takes, but where is what belongs to Milkilu? I know the actions of Milkilu against me! Moreover, the king wrote for my son. I did not know that my son was consorting with the ‘Apiru. I herewith hand him over to Addaya [the commissioner]. Moreover, how, if the king wrote for my wife, how could I hold her back? How, if the king wrote to me: Put a bronze dagger into your heart and die, how could I not execute the order of the king? (EA 254). Obviously Lab’ayu took the intervention by "uppiluliuma to loot some Canaanite cities in his area and encourage them to secede. This local insurgency should be considered minor because at that time the Egyptians divided their partners in order of importance126, first row (temple of Soleb): Ugarit, Kadesh, Cyprus, Hatti and Naharina (Mitanni); ranked second: Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, Carchemish and Assyria. So, the mayors of Canaan, vassals of Egypt, came in third which explains the non-intervention of Egyptians. However the consequences of the Syrian War of 1 year in 1347 BCE were much more serious.

122 J. FREU – Histoire du Mitanni Paris 2003 Éd. L'Harmattan pp. 72-90. 123 T. BRYCE – The Kingdom of the Hittites Oxford 2005 Ed. Oxford University Press pp. 144-153. 124 J. FREU – Histoire politique du royaume d'Ugarit Paris 2006 Éd. L'Harmattan pp. 36-49. 125 W.L. MORAN – The Amarna Letters London 1992 nEd. The Johns Hopkins University Press pp. XXXIV-XXXIX. 126 J. ELAYI – Histoire de la Phénicie Paris 2013 Éd. Perrin pp. 76-92.


‘Abdi-A!irta, the king of Amurru, who did not receive any support of Amenhotep III, preferred cooperating with "uppiluliuma and paid him in ransoming the Canaanite kings of his area. As did Lab‘ayu earlier, the war of "uppiluliuma encouraged him to loot some Canaanite cities in his area and encourage them to secede. In a very pragmatic way, Amenhotep III refused to engage in an uncertain and costly war against the Hittite empire and merely managed some police operations against ‘Abdi-A!irta and Lab’ayu and finally made them executed around 1346 BCE. Despite these Egyptian retaliation, Aziru, the son of ‘Abdi-A!irta, continued the policy of his father who was forced to pact with the Hittites. When Akhenaten succeeded Amenhotep III, he was mainly concerned with his new capital Akhetaten, which may explain why the police operations in Syria ceased. In conclusion the term ‘Apiru refers only to factious like some Amorites in north and Canaanites in south but never to the Hebrews in Palestine, an area which seems to have played no role in all the conflicts. However, the term !apiru is also used to designate the inhabitants of Palestine (Hebrews/ Canaanites), a country that was at peace, by ‘Abdi-!eba, the mayor of Jerusalem, who explained that he lived among them. In fact the area not mentioned in the Amarna letters corresponds to Israelites settlement (Joshua 12:1-24):


If the letters of Canaanite mayors are silent on the situation in Palestine (this region did not depend on any Egyptian Commissioner), the Egyptian texts and their topographical lists confirm the existence of a vast area inhabited by the Shasu (Bedouins). The (big) cities conquered by Joshua appearing in the Amarna letters are those which remained occupied by the Canaanites, but the cities (which existence has been confirmed by archaeology)127 which became entirely Israelites like: Hebron (el-Khalil), Arad (Tell Arad), Aroer (Khirbet Arair), Beer-sheba (Tell Sheba), Dan (Tell el-Qadi), Debir (Khirbet er-Rabud), Adullam (Khirbet esh-Sheikh Madhkur), Libnah (Tell Burna), Shiloh (Khirbet Seilum), Tirzah (Tell el-Farah), etc., are never mentioned in these letters. The marauding Habiru of Late Bronze Age Canaan, generally designating seditious/ factious at this time, have often been described in both social and linguistic terms as the precursors to the earliest Hebrews, but the pastoral-nomadic Shasu, another social group from the east, provides a more fitting background for Israel's origins128. Egyptians knew well the area of Syria-Palestine which they called Retenu until Thutmose III (1469-1418), then from Amenhotep II129 (1420-1392): Upper Retenu (Palestine) and Lower Retenu130 (Syria). From Thutmose II (1472-1469) appears the new term "Land of Shasu" instead of "Upper Retenu" which will be later exclusively used in the numerous topographical lists written under Amenhotep III131 (1383-1345). A list of toponyms enumerates for example: Pella-foreign land (p-$-r "3st), Shasu-foreign land ("3-sw-w "3st), Qatna (qd-d-ÿ-n-3), Gezer (q-3-d-3-r). However, Shasu's name refers to both the country and the people of Palestine. For example a list of four toponyms reads: Land of Shasu after Maat (t3 "3-sw-w s3 m-’-ti-i); Land of Shasu those of Yehua (t3 "3-sw-w y-h-w3 w); Land of Shasu showing respect to Bel (t3 "3-sw t-w-r-ÿ b-l); Bait house of Anat (b-3-i-ti h ‘-[n-t]). It is noteworthy that in his treaty132 with Duppi-Te!ub (1312-1280), King of Amurru, are mentioned "the Hapiri gods" by Mur!ili II (1322-1295), King of Hatti. If Palestine has played no role in the events at that time, the kingdom of Hazor was a notable exception, in full accordance with the biblical account. This venerable kingdom of Canaan was stuck between Mitanni to northeast, Amurru to northwest and Palestine to the south. Depending on synchronisms, we know133 that at the time of Artatama I (1390-1373) the Mitannian power has increased tax burden on its vassals. In these circumstances, the fact that the king of Hazor had wanted to increase his resources by partnering with Sisera, another ruler (near to Amurru) in the same situation, in order to loot Palestine, a defenseless country (Judges 5:8), is quite likely. In addition, the fact that Judge Barak decided to attack the powerful kingdom of Hazor (archaeology confirms that Hazor was one of the most powerful city-state during the 14th century BCE)134 and its Army General (Sisera) at the very moment when the Hittite empire triggered its formidable attack against the Mitanni and its Syrian kingdoms, his choice proved to be providential. Indeed, the military disorganization throughout all the region of Canaan (under Egyptian control) allowed the Hebrews to prevail easily over their mighty oppressors. God, who has the sense of humor, even chose a woman (Judges 4:9,22) to realize this stunning victory.

127 A. NEGEV, S. GIBSON – Dictionnaire archéologique de la Bible Paris 2006 Ed. The Jerusalem Publishing House Ltd. pp. 30-31, 242-245, 282-285. 128 A. RAINEY – Shasu or Habiru : Who Were the Earky Israelites ? in: Biblical Archaeological Society n°34 (2008) pp. 51-55. 129 J. SIMONS – Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia Leiden 1937 Ed. E.J. Brill pp. 123-124, 130, 210. 130 Upper Retenu (r-t-nw $-r-t); Lower Retenu (r-t-nw h-r-t). 131 R. GIVEON - Les bédouins Shosou des documents égyptiens Leiden 1971 Ed. E.J. Brill pp. 9-10, 17-33. 132 J.B. PRITCHARD - Ancient Near Eastern Texts Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press pp. 203-206. 133 J. FREU – Histoire du Mitanni Paris 2003 Éd. L'Harmattan pp. 83-84. 134 A. NEGEV, S. GIBSON – Dictionnaire archéologique de la Bible Paris 2006 Ed. The Jerusalem Publishing House Ltd. pp. 21, 54, 64, 86-87, 148-150, 255-257, 319, 524-525, 564.


The Israel Stela, dated III Shemu 3 year 5 of Merenptah (20 April 1211 BCE), is the oldest known inscription mentioning the people "Israel", it relates the following events (line 27): [All] Princes are prostrate, saying: “Shalam (Peace)”. Not one lifts up his head among the Nine Bows. Now that Tehenu (Libya) has come to ruin, Hatti is pacified; The Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe: Askelon has been overcome; Gezer has been captured; Yenoam is made non-existent. Israel is laid waste; his offsprings are no longer; Hurru (Khor) is become a widow because of Egypt. All lands combined, they are at peace; Whoever roams about gets subdued by the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Merenptah135. Merenptah after having devastated Libya (first goal of his expedition) was delighted that Israel, mentioned as a people and not as a country, was laid waste and has no more any offsprings, that is to say any rulers. The pictogram of the word "seed" is composed of 3 grains so that the one of the inscription has only 1 and means "offspring/ posterity136" (only this latter sense fits the context).

Although the text of Merenptah is suggesting an intervention in Palestine, historical context shows that this Pharaoh led only two campaigns (in years 4 and 5 of his reign), first of all in order to stop the Libyan invasion137, and parallel some police operations to quell a Nubian insurgency and few rebel cities in the south of Canaan. Several clues prove that Merenptah did not go into Palestine: only few cities in southern Canaan (Askelon, Gezer) are mentioned; the name Palestine (Upper Retenu) does not appear in the stela of Israel; the pharaoh was delighted that Israel was laid waste but he never said he had caused it which he would certainly done if that had been the case because of his bragging. When Merenptah said: The Canaan has been plundered, he just meant: “Gaza area” has been plundered138. The phrase "Israel is devastated, his descendants are no longer" is bewildering and raises three questions: 1) Is this description taken from real events or is it propaganda? 2) Why the term "Israel" is it used instead of the usual "Palestine (Upper Retenu)"? 3) Why the cause of the devastation of Israel is not indicated? The campaign in southern Palestine had to be real for the following reasons: it is well dated and localized, in addition, there is a very realistic representation of the "taking" of Ashkelon on a wall in Karnak139. However, although Seti describe it as an overwhelming victory, it was in fact a police operation (and not a battle) to conduct an eviction, because men (and also some women!) are unarmed and were pleading Egyptian soldiers to be spared (without fighting). At that time the inhabitants of Ashkelon should be mainly Philistines. According to the biblical text (Judges 1:1-19), the Israelites had invaded the cities of Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron with (in 1463 BCE), but could not conquer them because of the iron tanks of Philistines, these cities therefore remained under Philistine command. The Amarna letters show that their mayors were vassals of Egypt. Widya (Indo-Aryan name), for example, the mayor of Askelon, constantly reminds in his letters140 his allegiance to King Amenhotep IV. As the Egyptian letters are addressed only to the mayors of Canaan who were their vassals, the land of Israel does not appear (but only in an indirect way).

135 W.K. SIMPSON – The Literature of Ancient Egypt Cairo 2005 Ed. Yale University Press pp. 356-360. 136 R.O. FAULKNER – A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian Oxford 2002, Ed. Griffith Institute p. 91. 137 C. VANDERSLEYEN - L'Egypte et la vallée du Nil Tome 2 Paris 1995 Éd. Presses Universitaires de France pp. 559-574. 138 H.J. KATZENSTEIN -Gaza in the Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 102:1 (1982) pp. 111-113. 139 A. MAZAR – Archaeology of the Land of the Bible New York 1990 Ed. Doubleday p. 235. 140 W.L. MORAN – Les lettres d'El-Amarna in: Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 13 (Cerf 1987) pp. 543-547.


Hori's satirical letter (Papyrus Anastasi I)141 confirms important points: the region of Canaan was reduced to the area around Gaza at that time142; the land of Israel had no contact with Egypt except with the tribe of Asher to the East of the city of Akko which was inhabited by the fearsome Shasu led by the famous Chief Qazardi143. This letter is dated during Sety II's reign (1207-1202) by Gardiner on paleographic grounds, in addition, the accurate topography given by Hori of the pass in a region which has been identified at el-Ahwat's area corresponds to a short-lived site dating between 1220-1160 BCE144 and the virtual campaign in Syria he described is inspired from those of Sety I (same cities) and Menerptah (same enemies: Libyans associated with Sherden belonging to Sea Peoples)145. Hori describes a dangerous area infested with Shasu which fits accurately to the tribe of Asher (Joshua 17:7-11; 19:24-31): Thou hast not gone to the land of Hatti, thou hast not seen the land of Upi (Damascus area). Khedem (Lebanon?), thou knowest [not] its nature, nor Yegdy either. What is it like, the Simyra of Sessi (nickname of Ramses II) —life, prosperity, health!? On which side of it is the city of Aleppo? (19:1) What is its stream like ? Thou hast not gone forth to Kadesh [on Orontes] and Tubikhi. Thou hast not gone to the region of the Shasu with the bowmen of the army. Thou hast [not] trodden the road to the Magur, where the sky is darkened by day and it is overgrown with cypresses and oaks and cedars which reach the heavens. Lions are more numerous than leopards or bears, (and it is) surrounded by Shasu on (every) side of it. Thou hast not climbed the mountain of Shawe146, barefoot, thy hands laid upon [thy bow] (...) Thou awakest, (20:1) for it is the hour of starting in the sickly night. Thou art alone for the harnessing; no brother comes for a brother. The sneak-thieves have entered into [the] camp, the horse is untied, the ... has been lost in the night, and thy clothes have been stolen. Thy groom awoke in the night, saw what he had done, and took what was left. He has entered among those who are wicked, he has mingled with the Shasu tribes, and he has made himself into the likeness of an Asiatic (aamu). The foe had come to raid furtively and found thee inert. When thou awakest, thou findest no trace of them, and they have carried off thy property. (Thus) thou art become a fully equipped mahir, as thou fillest thy ear (...) Pray, teach me about the appearance of Qiyen, let me know Rehob, explain Beth-Shan and Tirqa-EL. The stream of (23:1) Jordan, how is it crossed? Let me know the way to pass Megiddo, which is above it. Thou art a mahir, experienced in deeds of heroism. A mahir such as thou art should be found (able) to stride at the head of an army! O maryanu, forward to shoot! Behold, the ambuscade is in a ravine 2000 cubits deep, filled with boulders and pebbles. Thou makest a detour, as thou graspest the bow. Thou makest a feint to thy left, that thou mightest make the chiefs to see, (but) their eyes are good and thy hand falters. "Abpaata kamô‘ ir, mahir ne‘am!" (Thus) thou makest a name for every mahir, officers of Egypt! Thy name becomes like (that of) Qazardi, the Chief of Asher, when the bear found him in the balsam tree. The narrow valley is dangerous with the Shasu, hidden under the bushes. Some of them are of 4 or 5 cubits (from) their noses to the heel, and fierce of face. Their hearts are not mild, and they do not listen to wheedling. Thou art alone; there is no messenger with thee, no army host behind thee. Qazardi147, the "famous Chief of Asher", is unknown but could look like Gideon who gathered an army

141 J.B. PRITCHARD - Ancient Near Eastern Texts Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press pp. 475-477. 142 It reads: (27:1) [let me relate to] thee the [foreign countries] of the end of the land of the Canaan. Thou answerest me neither good nor evil; thou returnest me no report. Come, let [me] tell thee many things as far as the Fortress of the "Ways [of Horus]". I begin for thee with the "Dwelling of Sessi —life, prosperity, health!" Thou hast not trodden it at all. Thou hast not eaten the fish of ... ; thou hast not bathed in it. Pray, let me recall to thee Husayin —where is its fortress ? Come now to the region of Uto of Sessi —life, prosperity, health!— in his stronghold of User-maat-Re —life, prosperity, health!— and Seba-El, and Ibsaqab (under Seti I). Let me tell thee the nature of Aiyanin. Thou knowest not its rules. Nekhes and Hebret, thou hast not seen them since thy birth. O mahir, where are they ? Raphia —what is its wall like? How many iters ("10 km") march is it as far as Gaza? Answer quickly! Make me a report, that I may call thee mahir and boast to others of thy name maryanu —so shall I speak to them. 143 Y. AHARONI – The Land of the Bible Philadelphia 1979, Ed. The Westminster Press pp. 180-185. 144 S. BAR, D. KAHN, J.J. SHIRLEY – Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature Leiden 2011 Ed. Brill pp. 348-350. 145 It reads: O alert scribe, understanding of heart, who is not ignorant at all, (17:3) torch in the darkness at the head of the troops — and it gives light to them! Thou art sent on an mission to Djahy (Phoenicia) at the head of the victorious army, to crush those rebels called Ne[h]arin. The bowmen of the army which is before thee amount to 1900; the Sherden 520, the Qehek 1600, the Meshwesh [100?], and the Negroes 880; total 5000 in all, not counting their officers. 146 The Shawe (Saua) referred to by Tiglath-Pileser III as a mountain bordering on Mount Lebanon region. 147 The name Qazardi, written q-3-d-3-ÿ-r-d-ÿ-y and pronounced Qadjaildiye, could be Hebrew ('(')*+ ? "Short is my hand").


drawn from several tribes which were dwelling in Asher's area (Judges 6:33-40). Gideon's exploits (in 1299 BCE) had to be famous since Sanchuniation, a Phoenician writer, knew them. It is noteworthy that Hori's satirical letter was copied with a lot of variations and many proper names have been distorted148.

In conclusion, the whole chronological synchronisms between all the Canaanite kingdoms confirms the death of Amenhotep III in 1345 BCE and the death of Akhenaten in 1340 BCE. As noted previously, several events dated by astronomy had already given the same results, in addition, the declaration of Tutankhamun claiming that Amenhotep III was his father is only possible with a 11-year co-regency between Amenhotep IV and Amenhotep III. Instead of admitting this authentic co-regency, some Egyptologists have

148 C. TANTAOUI – La lettre satirique d'Hori, le papyrus Anastasi I et les textes parallèles, Volume II Paris 1987 Thèse de doctorat en égyptologie Paris 3, pp 272-408.


preferred imagining some fanciful co-regencies. For example, they assumed that Nefertiti would have been co-regent with Akhenaten before being banished around the year 14. This fanciful scenario was definitely undermined by a hieratic inscription found in 2010, which reads: Day 15 of III Akhet, year 16 of Amenhotep IV (...) Great King's Wife, his beloved, mistress of the two lands, Neferneferuaten Nefertiti149. Yet despite all these arguments: scientific, historical and logical, the co-regency between the two kings is denied and even ridiculed.

WHY THE CO-REGENCY OF AKHENATEN IS SO VILIFIED?

For example Dimitri Laboury, senior research fellow in History of Art and Archaeology of Pharaonic Egypt at the University of Liege, wrote in his deep study about Akhenaten: Before discussing the rise and the commencement of the reign of prince Amenhotep (subject of the next chapter), it is necessary to polish off —even briefly— an issue that has long divided Egyptology: that of the co-regency between Amenhotep III and his son Amenhotep IV. The theory that the two sovereigns would for a time ruled jointly, unleashed, it is true, the passions of the last century, but has lived and today is primarily the history of the discipline, even if it still has very few followers today. Insofar as it has recently been the subject of a particularly detailed analysis —and sometimes quite technical— by Marc Gabolde, who showed the complete absence of probative evidence in its favour, I will only mention here two types of arguments that lead to recognize in this case, in vogue long ago, an Egyptological fiction150. In clear, only a few simple-minded still believe in this Egyptological fiction, which was an old delirious passion. As I don't like to be considered as a simple-minded (and probably you as well) I am going to demonstrate the absurdity of such dogmatic claims. What is this particularly detailed and sometimes quite technical analysis? The answer is quite simple: First you need, from proofs rigorously exact, to draw conclusions rigorously false, eg, there was no co-regency between Amenhotep IV and Amenhotep III since the latter was dead so there was no co-regency between Akhenaten and Amenhotep III; second, you have to make no chronological analysis and use no absolute date, even if the chronology is the backbone of history, eg, as each Egyptologist has his own chronology it proves that this science is not reliable; and at last, you must systematically refute all historical evidence, eg, when the inscriptions of Amenhotep IV mention jubilees commemorating reigns of 30 and 36/37 years, these ones must be anachronistic, arguing they lie if they are unanswerable, eg, when Tutankhamun claims to be the son of Amenhotep III, it is a lie (because he dares to contradict Gabolde —life, prosperity, health). Marc Gabolde explains his "bold method" in his study about Akhenaten: The proposal that seemed, at the outset, the most likely explanation for the [previous] monument is therefore the one that should be rejected (...) I have assumed that a text found in the Hittite capital was reporting statements perhaps deliberately deceptive from the Queen of Egypt (...) This attitude requires sometimes using more imaginative explanations from documents. And he concludes: Speculation on the subject is necessarily a part of the method (...) the efforts to align the elements of a relative chronology and dates that appear here and there are often desperate151. Chronology and historical testimonies being fully rejected (both foundations of history!) Egyptologists rely on science for resolving the controversy over the co-regency. For example, the great Egyptologist Zahi Hawass chairman of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities —life, prosperity, health— and a great friend and minister of President Hosni Mubarak —life, health, force— was able to prove, thanks to 14 carbon measurements and analysis of DNA, that Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten. The study, published February 17,

149 A. VAN DER PERRE – Nefertiti's last documented reference (for now) in: In the Light of Amarna (Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussamlung 2012) pp. 195-197. 150 D. LABOURY - Akhénaton Paris 2010 Éd. Pygmalion p. 87. 151 M. GABOLDE - D'Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon Lyon 1998 Éd. Institut d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquité pp. 5-6, 278-280.


2010 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (vol 303:7, pp. 638-647), concluded that Tutankhamun's father was the pharaoh Akhenaten, that his parents were brother and sister, and that two mummified foetuses found in Tutankhamun's tomb were probably his stillborn daughters —conclusions that have since become received wisdom. But many geneticists complain that the team used inappropriate analysis techniques. Far from being definitive, the study is "not seen as rigorous or convincing", says Eline Lorenzen of the Center for GeoGenetics at the Natural History Museum in Copenhagen, Denmark. "Many of us in the DNA community are surprised that this has been published." The doggedness of some Egyptologists to want proving against all logic, and despite numerous historical and chronological evidence, the absence of co-regency between Amenhotep IV and Amenhotep III, defies common sense. Why is it so crucial for them to defend such an absurdity? In fact, they explain clearly their motive and the goal of the propagation of their teaching (which is the very essence of a religious propaganda!). For example Dimitri Laboury —life, prosperity, health— wrote: In one of his most brilliant contribution of historical reconstruction, Eduard Meyer in 1904 shown that some reminiscences of Akhenaten had actually survived in the Egyptian oral tradition and resurfaced after nearly a millennium of latency. He showed that a rather fantastic story about Jews and lepers kept in Aïgyptiaka of Manetho could only refer to Akhenaten and his monotheistic revolution. And, as Assmann insists, even if the theory of Meyer was criticized, adjusted and completed, it nonetheless remains perfectly convincing and today is unanimously accepted, at least in its outline. The story in question, quoted Manetho by Josephus in his Against Apion (I:228-252), can be summarized as follows: a pharaoh named Amenophis, who wanted to see the gods, summoned his namesake; son of Paapis, the royal advisor then suggested to clean Egypt of its lepers, what the king did in penning them in careers "east of the Nile, in order they work apart from the rest of the Egyptians." But the lepers finally revolted and took as chief a priest of the sun named Osarsiph who wrote new laws which were "totally opposite to the Egyptian customs." This Osarsiph then associated to foreign invaders (similar to Hyksos of the Second Intermediate Period) and, pushing the king of Egypt and his followers into Nubia, he reigned over the Nile for 13 years of terror, or, with his "polluted" Egyptians and his foreigners, he plundered the temples, mutilated the divine image and made roast the sacred animals. An end was put to this reign of horror by the expelling of lepers and their foreign allies, and their leader who had taken the name of Moses. The Jewish historian protests of course against such slanders uttered about his people by his pairs of Egypt, Manetho and Apion. It is absolutely clear that this is a legend that accumulates confuses and distorts a whole series of events more or less real and disjoint of Egyptian history, but we can not fail to be struck as was Eduard Meyer, by the points that evoke a memory —albeit altered— from the Atenist episode: the time after the reign of Amenhotep III, the irreligious attitude and contrary to the rites of the Egyptians, the cult of the sun, the persecution of temples and godly images, and even the intense activity in quarries, are a reminiscent from Akhenaten's reign. I will not go further here in the comparison between the two stories, one of Akhenaten and that of Osarsiph alias Moses, the future leader of the Jewish people, but rather I would refer the reader to the magisterial study that proposes J. Assmann in his now famous Moses the Egyptian. What interests me most here is that traumatic and repressed memories of Akhenaten, as qualifies J. Assmann, built probably on some form of true feeling vis-a-vis of the Atonism at the very time of the "perfect child of Aten", but nevertheless largely built by the post-amarnian ideology (as soon as Tutankhamun's reign), this collective memory and culturally determined of the Atenist Pharaoh, therefore, will experience a very large spread clearly in the literary world of the ancient Mediterranean. Indeed, the legend of which Manetho echoes down to us through Josephus is also mentioned in various forms and variations, by authors as read during the Greco-Roman antiquity as Hecataeus of Abdera, Lysimachus, Chaeremon (Egyptian priest who was the tutor of Emperor Nero), Appian, Strabo, Tacitus and many others, replacing some leprosy by a plague (!)152.

152 D. LABOURY - Akhénaton Paris 2010 Éd. Pygmalion pp. 362-364.


Jan Assmann, a German Egyptologist with many awards as Max Planck Award for Research, Honorary Doctorate in Theology from the Theology Faculty, Munster, Soc.Sc.D. (honoris causa), Yale University, PhD (honoris causa), Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Alfried Krupp Prize for Scholarship and son on —life, prosperity, health—, is known beyond Egyptology circles for his interpretation of the origins of monotheism, which he considers as a break from earlier cosmotheism, first with Atenism and later with the Exodus from Egypt of the Israelites. He wrote153 in his "Moses the Egyptian": Let us call the distinction between true and false in religion the "Mosaic distinction" became tradition ascribes it to Moses. We cannot be sure that Moses ever lived because there are no traces of his earthly existence outside the tradition. But we can be sure that he was not the first to draw the distinction. There was a precursor in the person of an Egyptian king who called himself Akhenaten and instituted a monotheistic religion in the fourteenth century B.C.E. His religion, however, spawned no tradition but was forgotten immediately after his death. Moses is a figure of memory but not of history, while Akhenaten is a figure of history but not of memory. Since memory is all that counts in the sphere of cultural distinctions and constructions, we are justified in speaking not of Akhenaten's distinction but of the Mosaic distinction. The space severed or cloven by this distinction is the space of Western monotheism. It is this constructed mental or cultural space that has been inhabited by Europeans for nearly two millennia (...) Whereas the Jews depicted idolatry as a land of mental aberration, of madness, the Egyptians associated iconoclasm with the idea of a highly contagious and bodily disfiguring epidemic. The language of illness continues to typify the debate on the Mosaic distinction down to the days of Sigmund Freud. In the following chapter, I try to show that this story about the lepers originally referred not to Moses, but to Akhenaten, who was the first to establish a monotheistic counter-religion and to draw the distinction between true and false. But after his death, his religion was abolished, and his name fell into complete oblivion. The traumatic memories of his revolution were encrypted and dislocated; eventually, they came to be fixed on the Jews (...) Unlike Moses, Akhenaten, Pharaoh Amenophis IV, was a figure exclusively of history and not of memory. Shortly after his death, his name was erased from the king-lists, his monuments were dismantled, his inscriptions and representations were destroyed, and almost every trace of his existence was obliterated. For centuries no one knew of his extraordinary revolution. Until his rediscovery in the nineteenth century, there was virtually no memory of Akhenaten. Moses represents the reverse case. No traces have ever been found of his historical existence. He grew and developed only as a figure of memory, absorbing and embodying all traditions that pertained to legislation, liberation, and monotheism. Immediately after the first publication of the rediscovered inscriptions of Akhenaten it was realized that he had done something very similar to what memory had ascribed to Moses: he had abolished the cults and idols of Egyptian polytheism and established a purely monotheistic worship of a new god of light, whom he called "Aton." In his Berlin dissertation, De hymnis in Solem sub Rege Amenophide IV. Redactis (1894), the young American scholar James Henry Breasted demonstrated the importance of Akhenaten's monotheistic revolution for the interpretation of Biblical monotheism. Arthur Weigall, another Egyptologist with a less solid philological background, established the parallel between Egyptian and Biblical monotheism or between Akhenaten and Moses even more closely. Was Psalm 104 not a Hebrew translation of Akhenaten's hymn? Were not the Egyptian "Aton" and the Hebrew "Adonai" the same name? When Sigmund Freud embarked on his "historical novel" about Moses and monotheism, he followed these lines and made Moses an Atonist, close to the throne but not identical with the king himself. This identification did not fail to be made by several other authors working in a field which could be characterized as "science fiction" applied to the past instead of the future (...) One could perhaps go even further back in history to the seventeenth century B.C.E., when the Hyksos, a population of Palestinian invaders, settled in the eastern delta and went out to rule Egypt for more than a hundred years. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus saw the ancestors of Israel in these foreign rulers of Egypt. But there was certainly no religious conflict between the Hyksos and the Egyptians. The Hyksos

153 J. ASSMANN – Moses the Egyptian : the memory of Egypt in western monotheism Harward 1998 Ed. First Harvard University Press pp. 1-2, 5, 23-24, 151-152, 169, 255.


were neither monotheists nor iconoclasts. On the contrary, their remaining monuments show them in conformity with the religious obligations of traditional Egyptian pharaohs, whose role they assumed in the same way as did later foreign rulers of Egypt such as the Persians, the Macedonians, and the Romans. They adhered to the cult of Baal ["my Lord"], who was a familiar figure for the Egyptians, and they did not try to convert the Egyptians to the cult of their god. The whole concept of conversion seems absurd in the context of polytheistic religions. No —if we look for the first outbreak of a purely religious conflict in the historical records, we find something very different (...) Only now does he seem to realize that Moses' being an Egyptian could have something to do with "Ikhnaton" and his monotheistic revolution. This could be explained if Freud had learned about these events only after completing his historical studies. But Freud knew about Akhenaten as early as 1912, when he suggested this subject to Karl Abraham and published Abraham's important article on Akhenaten in the first volume of his newly founded journal, Imago. In this article, Abraham drew a portrait of Akhenaten and his religion which closely anticipates the one that Freud himself would postulate. But Freud never mentions Abraham in the book. Is it possible that Freud was devising his "historischen Roman" as a serialized novel, breaking off at the point of highest suspense so that he could continue in the following issue? Did he consciously postpone the obvious conclusion that Moses, if he was an Egyptian, must have been an Atenist, saving it for another article? I do not think so. The remembrance of Akhenaten and the discovery that Moses was an Atenist must have struck him like a revelation between the first and second issues of Imago, volume 23 (1937). (...) Therefore, two things remain for an Egyptologist to do. He should complement Freud's passing and superficial remarks on Akhenaten's religious revolution with a close reading of at least the most important text and discuss the contributions Egyptology can make concerning the counter-religious character of that monotheism. Second, he should assist Cudworth in his quest for any pre-Trismegistick" testimonies of Egyptian theology (...) There is much to be said in support of Freud's description of monotheism as a "religion of the father." This seems to apply to Atenism. What Freud did not know, because Breasted and Weigall did not mention it, was that the name of Akhenaten's god ("Yati") sounded very much like the Egyptian word for "my father ("yat-i") and that the text constantly play on this assonance. The god even bears the royal title "my father.' Akhenaten enacted his monotheism as a coregency between himself and the sun god, who acted as a senior partner in this theocracy. Akhenaten's Aton religion was very much a father-religion, except that the concept of fatherhood was related exclusively to the king, not to the people or to humankind at large. The previous verbose explanations can be summed up as follows: Moses is a figure of memory but not of history, while Akhenaten is a figure of history but not of memory according to Freudian's theories; until his rediscovery in the 19th century, there was virtually no memory of Akhenaten; Moses represents the reverse case; No traces have ever been found of his historical existence; The Hyksos were not monotheists because they only worshipped Baal ["my Lord"]; Two things remain for an Egyptologist to do: discuss the contributions Egyptology can make concerning the counter-religious character of Akhenaten's monotheism and find any testimonies about this Egyptian theology; Akhenaten enacted his monotheism as a co-regency between himself and the sun god. Although these Egyptologists like to present themselves as enlightened minds, their comments on Akhenaten and Moses are only a deplorable false propaganda. How to believe that the co-regency of Akhenaten with his father can only be a co-regency with God the Father. This is not science, but a mystic delirium that reaches many egyptologists. For example Dr Rolf Krauss, a renowned German Egyptologist who worked as a researcher at the Berlin Museum of Prehistory and Early History and as a lecturer at Humboldt University —life, prosperity, health— explained in his book "The Moses Mystery154" why Akhenaten was never monotheistic because throughout his reign many other gods continued to be worshiped as Re-Harakhty, Osiris, Ptah, Thoth, the goddess

154 R. KRAUSS – Moïse le pharaon Monaco 2005 Éd. du Rocher pp. 57-84 141-157.


Hathor, the four sons Horus, etc., in addition, Akhenaten's monotheism had nothing to do with the monotheism of Moses given that the biblical god is depicted as the creator of the sun whose the worshiping was forbidden. Where the story takes a comic turn, is when one discovers that Rolf Krauss has finally found the historical truth about Moses, it was actually the pharaoh Amenesse who reigned from 1206 to 1203 BCE (new egyptological delirium). Although Egyptologists are divided about points of detail regarding Akhenaten and Moses they agree with the following points: Akhenaten, although he is not the inventor of monotheism is nevertheless the inspirer and he owes nothing to his predecessors (therefore there was no co-regency). The story of Moses is a biblical myth and there is no link to be made between the Hyksos and the Hebrews. For example, it reads: ! It is absurd on the one hand, taking the biblical text for a historical document, on the other hand

reversing the importance of protagonists: Israel is mentioned only once on a stela of Merneptah while the word Egypt is used 680 times in the Bible (...) The references to Egypt in the Bible are mainly used to feed the internal history of the Hebrews, giving a vague backdrop for some episodes, and are unrelated with current history teaches155. Christiane Desroches Noblecourt (1913-2011), Egyptologist, Emeritus Chief Curator of Egyptian Antiquities (Louvre) and former professor of archeology at the Ecole du Louvre.

! As the history of unclean ones is devoid of any historical basis it is difficult to agree with Manetho and Josephus that the forcibly expelling from Avaris by Pharaoh and his congeners is the same event as the liberation of the Hebrews pulled out by Moses with God's help ... The gross invention of Egyptian scribes, worthy of the trash, can not remain in the folder of historians of Bible times (...) The apologetical travesty imagined by Josephus is not better than the libelous travesty of the Egyptian priest156. Jean Yoyotte (1927-2009), Egyptologist, he was Chairholder of Egyptology at the Collège de France and director of studies at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes.

! In general, no serious archaeologist believes today that the events described in the Book of Joshua have any accurate historical basis. Archaeological surveys in the early 1990s, in particular, showed that the Israelite culture emerged in the central hills of the country, in continuity with the Canaanite culture of the previous period157. Pierre de Miroschedji, archaeologist, director of research at CNRS.

! The departure from Egypt, known as the Exodus, is an essential vicissitude of this story [Exodus 13:14] (...) We almost forget one fundamental fact: nothing in the present state of Egyptian literature, more or less contemporary with these events, confirms this story, or even alluded, only fleetingly, to one of the episodes where some characters are mentioned. Nothing!158 Alain Zivie, Egyptologist, Director of Research at CNRS.

! Most historians take the biblical text of the conquest of Canaan for a pious legend, a reinterpretation of ideological and theological origins of Israel (...) These cities are, according to the Bible, heavily fortified. But archaeological excavations reveal otherwise. So today, excavations of Canaanite cities and reading of tablets from Tell el-Amarna showed that the victories of Joshua took place only on paper. To conclude'll go to these archaeologists: “There has been no mass exodus from Egypt. Canaan was not conquered by violence159.” Richard Lebeau, Egyptologist, historian of religions in the ancient Near East.

! Modern archeology has shown that the concept of archives kept in Jerusalem with writings of the tenth century, is an absurdity based on a biblical witness and not on factual evidence. Bible stories would rank therefore among national mythologies, and would have no more historical foundation that Homeric saga

155 C. DESROCHES NOBLECOURT - Symboles de l'Égypte Paris 2004 Éd. Desclée de Brouwer pp. 125-126. 156 J. YOYOTTE – En Égypte, le faux mystère des dynasties hyksos in: Le monde de la Bible n°146 (novembre 2002) pp. 44-45. 157 P. DE MIROSCHEDJI – Les archéologues réécrivent la Bible in: La Recherche n°391 (novembre 2005) p. 32. 158 A. ZIVIE – Les Hébreux en Egypte: réalités et fantasmes in: Historia n°698 (février 2005) p. 59. 159 R. LEBEAU – La Terre promise était acquise in: Historia n°698 (février 2005) pp. 64, 65. – L'Exode une fiction théologique in: Histoire Antique n°41 (février 2009) p. 79.


of Ulysses, or that of Aeneas, founder of Rome, sung by Virgil160. Israel Finkelstein, Israeli archaeologist, Director of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, author of the famous book The Bible Unearthed.

! How should ultimately consider the source that is the biblical text to serve as a gateway for talking about people of the Bible? (...) There are so many layers of myths, they should not be taken for historical narratives. The Exodus, episode presented in history books of college as a real historic event, provides a good illustration. According to the Bible (...) this is the long journey of the Hebrews from Egypt and Canaan which is called the Exodus. However, it is highly unlikely that such an event ever took place. The first reason to doubt results from the considerable chronological gap between the time of writing from books that mention it and the supposed date of the event, clearly located in a mythical past. The second reason is the absence of any explicit data in the biblical text to place Exodus in the time and to follow it in space, so the name of the Pharaoh is not given. The third reason is the silence of the Egyptian sources. A final argument is the absence of any reference to the Exodus in the oldest strata of the Bible161. Christian Robin, Director of the Laboratory of ancient Semitic Studies (Collège de France Paris IV Sorbonne), member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.

! The biblical writers and editors had some genuine sources, but they did not hesitate to manipulate them. They did this not only with exaggerations and embellishments, but also with additions and even outright inventions, in order to make the stories serve their own ideological agenda. In this regard, they were like most ancient historians. Nevertheless, they still need not be regarded as charlatans, even though their view of history was naive. They, too, thought that they were telling the operative truth — that is, they were simply writing well-intentioned propaganda. This may be called “historicized myth,” and that is how much of modem, liberal, critical scholarship regards the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, even propaganda and myth, like caricature, must necessarily contain some objective truths, lest they be completely unbelievable and thus ineffective (...) Rather than attempt to defend the factual historicity of the Exodus traditions, I suggest that we must understand the Exodus story precisely as a myth, specifically as a “metaphor for liberation”. William G. Dever, American archaeologist (University of Arizona), specialist and defender (sic) of the history of biblical Israel162.

! Stories and history (...) It would be absurd requesting the rigor that would use a modern historian (...), although we can not specify the contours in the mythical garment that has been given, in accordance with the mentality of the time and the environment (...) For the date of the Exodus, we can not rely on chronological indications of 1 K 6:1 and Jg 11:26, which are secondary and derived from artificial computations (...) Certainly neither the apostles nor other evangelical preachers and storytellers have tried to make « history » in the technical sense of the word, their purpose was less profane and more theological. Jerusalem Bible (Paris 1986 Ed. Cerf pp. 27, 1410), which is the official Bible of the Catholic world.

An objective reader should note that most reasons put forward by these prestigious scholars are ideological, not based on any verifiable factual data: absurd, no serious archaeologist believes; worthy of the garbage, fundamental fact: nothing, pious legend, there was no mass exodus from Egypt; nonsense based on a biblical witness; very type of myth, history does not support the amazing and miraculous story of Exodus, etc. Some of these scholars, in order to prove their claims, quote the work of the archaeologist Finkelstein explaining163, but his critics against the Pentateuch are all based on an absence of evidence that would be evidence of the absence.

160 I. FINKELSTEIN – Le grand roi? Rien qu'un potentat local in: Historia n°698 (février 2005) p. 73. I. FINKELSTEIN, N.A. SILBERMAN - La Bible dévoilée Paris 2002 Éd. Bayard pp. 51-53. 161 C. ROBIN – Les peuples de la Bible quelle(s) lecture(s) ? in: Les Cahiers de Science&Vie n°89 (octobre 2005) pp. 6-8. 162 W.G. DEVER – Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Grand Rapids 2003 Ed. Eerdmans Publishing pp. 226,233. 163 I. FINKELSTEIN, N.A. SILBERMAN -The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Isreal and the Origin of Sacred Texts New York 2001 Ed. The Free Press pp. 36-38.


According to history and chronology (the backbone of history), all the previous claims are manifestly false, because the inventor of monotheism was Apopi164 (1613-1573), the last pharaoh of the XVth dynasty. Furthermore, Egyptologists suppose that: The Hyksos dynasty (XV) reigned a hundred years in Egypt, succumbing only after a struggle that was very difficult for Egyptian nationalist Pharaohs, whom at least one of them was killed (Seqenenre Taa). Kamose began the liberation war, but it is Ahmose who definitively eradicated the Hyksos domination by taking Avaris and Sharuhen165. Claude Vandersleyen166, despite offering a fictionalized version of the ‘liberation war of the Hyksos’, notes that: The New Kingdom began in a strange silence of the sources. What happened there after the 3rd year of Kamose? (...) It is curious that the most important event in the history of Egypt during an entire millennium, the annihilation of the population of the Hyksos, was ignored in the inscriptions of King Ahmose dealing with something quite different: a storm that destroyed the cemetery of Thebes, his concern about the perpetuation of his grandmother, Queen Teti-Sheri, some gifts offered to the temple of Amun at Karnak, the wise government of his mother, Queen Ahhotep, etc.., but not the main conquest of his reign. Concerning the chronology he acknowledges that: All these calculations lead us well before Ramses II, and specifically in the 16th century. No doubt the reliability of these chronologies is unproven, but they are spaced apart —whereas they exist— because they contradict the low dating of the Exodus that is not based on any document (...) and should we push back the Exodus to the 16th century? (...) It was noted that all proposed solutions to the problems of the Exodus are speculative and ignore infrequent figures preserved in the Bible and Manetho. But the date given by Manetho — that the Exodus took place under Ahmose — is the only one truly accurate (...) In short, whatever the objections of exegetes today, we must not reject a priori to study the problem of Exodus in connection with the expulsion of the Hyksos. Jan Assmann167, also believing in the ‘liberation war of the Hyksos’, notes however that: All the extra-Biblical versions agree that the aliens, or impure ones, are driven out of Egypt. In the Bible, the Hebrews are retained in Egypt against their will and they are allowed to emigrate only after divine interventions in the form of the plagues. But even in this version the account of the emigration contains elements of expulsion. Of course, it would be most instructive to confront these different versions with what could constitute historical evidence, but there is almost no such evidence. The only historical evidence which is both archaeologically provable and semantically comparable with the content of theses different versions of the expulsion/emigration story is the sojourn of the Hyksos in Egypt. If we apply the same question asked previously about the Amarna experience to the Hyksos tradition and if we remain on the lookout for what might have become of the memories that must have been shared by the expelled tribes about their stay in, and domination of Egypt, we find ourselves again referred to the Exodus tradition. I completely agree with Flavius Josephus and Donald B. Redford, who has held in various publications that the Hyksos' sojourn in, and withdrawal from, Egypt was all that happened in terms of historical fact. For those seeking historical truth, it is quite easy to verify that the Hebrews have stayed in Egypt from 1730 to 1500 BCE, known as Hyksos, then they came into Canaan after their 40 years of exodus in the Sinai and were called Shasu "Bedouins" by Egyptians (see: Dating the War of the Hyksos). As Moses' name does not appear in any Egyptian document and the pharaoh of the Exodus is not named in the Bible, archaeologists conclude that this major event can not be identified. This conclusion is staggering for two reasons: 1) Manetho clearly states that Moses "Water's son" used his baptismal name only after his entering Palestine, prior he was called Osarsiph (Aauserre-Apopi) and 2) the biblical text provides many details which can be easily identified in Egyptian records, as:

164 O. GOLDWASSER – King Apophis and the Emergence of Monotheism in: Timelines Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak Vol. I (2006) pp. 129-133, 331-354. 165 J. YOYOTTE – Dictionnaire des pharaons Paris 1998 Éd. Noésis p. 85. 166 C. VANDERSLEYEN - L'Egypte et la vallée du Nil Tome 2 Paris 1995 Éd. Presses Universitaires de France p. 190, 193, 213, 232-237. 167 J. ASSMANN – The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism Cambridge 1997 Ed. Harvard University Press pp. 40-41.


According to the biblical account According to Egyptian accounts A Hebrew baby "very pretty (yepepiah)" is adopted by Pharaoh's daughter who gave him the Egyptian nickname Musa. This young Hebrew is established as prince in Egypt for 40 years from 1613 to 1573 BCE.

A Semitic king named Apopi reigned 4[0] years in Egypt (Turin Canon) from 1613 to 1573 BCE. He was the last king (Aauserre) of the XVth dynasty and was the only Hyksos receiving the title "Pharaoh" (nesu bity).

After spending 40 years in Midian, that former Egyptian ruler came back to Egypt and met an anonymous Pharaoh to inform him the departure of the Hebrews in Palestine and the death of all the firstborn at the time of the Passover including his eldest son, who was crown prince.

About 40 years later the former pharaoh Apopi met Seqenenre Taa the last pharaoh of the XVIIth dynasty and gave him an unspecified disturbing message. The eldest son of Seqenenre Taa, Ahmose Sapaïr, who was crown prince died in a dramatic and unexplained way shortly before his father.

One month after the Passover the anonymous Pharaoh tried catching up the Hebrews with his chariots of war to force them returning into Egypt, but he died in the Red Sea with his whole army, May 10, 1533 BCE during a solar eclipse.

After their massive departure into Palestine the Hyksos disappeared Egypt definitively. Pharaoh Seqenenre Taa died in dramatic and unclear circumstances (May 1533 BCE). The state of his mummy proves that his body received severe injuries and remained abandoned for several days before being mummified.

The Hebrews began their stay in Sinai and tried to enter by force in Canaan but were repulsed by the Amalekites. Then they will spend 40 years in the Sinai desert before returning permanently in Canaan.

Prince Kamose (1533-1530), Seqenenre Taa's brother, assured interim of authority and threatened attack the former pharaoh Apopi, new prince of Retenu (Palestine). In the stela of the Tempest he also blames him for all the disasters that come to fall upon Egypt which caused many deaths.

At the end of 40 years of exodus, in 1493 BCE, Moses wrote the Pentateuch under his "given name" Mu!a (Egyptian mw-s3). and caught a glimpse of the promised land, near Jericho, before dying. The following year the Hebrews began the conquest of Canaan burning three major cities: Jericho, Ai, and Hazor.

According to C14, the cities of Jericho, Ai, and Hazor were burned around 1500 BCE. Hazor being the capital of Canaan at that time the only ones able to defeat her were the Hyksos (the Egyptians did not come in this region). Then the Shasu suddenly appear in Palestine, mentioned for the first time under Thutmose I (1484-1472).

The Hebrews settled gradually in Canaan and expelled only partly the Canaanites. The period of the Judges begins with Joshua (1493-1463) who defeated around 30 Canaanite Kings (Joshua 12:24).

Queen Hatshepsut says (1463 BCE): I restored what have been devastated, I levied the foremost draft since Asiatics were in the region of Avaris of Lower Egypt. Resident aliens among them were disregarding the assigned tasks. They ruled without Re‘ (...) I have banished the abomination of the gods, the earth removed their footprints! (Speos Artemidos).

Most Egyptologists refute these "coincidences" on the grounds that both biblical accounts and Egyptian narratives, draw on common myths! They claim that the Egyptians were known as being fantasists in their narratives as well as the Israelites and the Shasu were nomad tribes who were integrated inside small Canaanite kingdoms, vassals of Egypt and consequently "Israel" did not exist at that time because this name is not found. These Egyptologists are alchemists who transmute history into myth and myth into history.


The state of the mummy of Seqenenre, especially his head indicating serious injury, is eloquent (opposite picture), this pharaoh died, aged 30 to 40 years, in a very violent manner and it took quite a long time before his mummification. Although this event was exceptional the Egyptians are absolutely silent about this death, but it is not the case of Egyptologists who explain that Seqenenre was probably slaughtered by at least two Hyksos soldiers by the means of their axes (some Egyptologists even specify that they were used from down to up). These explanations are ridiculous because the Egyptians would have left decompose the corpse of their pharaoh before its mummifying, what would have been a blasphemy. Moreover, as the ribs and vertebrae are fractured and dislocated168, Seqenenre had to be attacked by two "Terminators"! The stela169 of Kamose's year 3 (1531 BCE) reads: How do I should recognize, my victory, with a prince in Avaris and another in Kush, I who have been enthroned in company with an Asiatic and a Nubian? Each has his part in this Egypt (...) he (Apopi) holds Asiatic country (Delta) and we hold Egypt (...) I ransacked your place of residence, I cut your trees after having put your wives in (my) slipway and I took possession of carriages. I have not left a board from the 300 ships (made) of fresh pine which were full of gold, lapis lazuli, silver, turquoise, bronze axes without number, excluding oil moringa, incense, honey, wood-ituren, wood-sesenedjem, wood-sepen, all precious woods and all beautiful imports from Retenu. I have taken everything, I have nothing left, Avaris is doomed to penury, the Asiatic perished (...) I'll show Apopi time of the weakness, he the prince of Retenu to weak arms, who devises in his heart heroic acts without occurring in his favour (...) I found there the written retranscrition of the words from the ruler of Avaris: « Aauserre, the son of Ra, Apopi, send greetings to (my) son, Ruler of Kush. Why did you set up as ruler without letting me know? According to Pharaoh Kamose, the Asiatics (Hebrews) who were in the Delta at that time have followed Apopi, the leader of Avaris (Hyksos' capital) and last former pharaoh of the XVth Hyksos dynasty (40 years earlier), who had became ruler of Retenu (Palestine). This departure was made under dramatic conditions, because in the “stela of the storm” or “Tempest Stela170” dated year 1 (in 1530 BCE), Pharaoh Ahmose explains: [Then] the gods [made] the sky come in a storm of r[ain, with dark]ness in the western region and the sky beclouded without [stop, loud]er than [the sound of] the subjects, strong[er than ..., howling(?)] on the hills more than the sound of the cavern in Elephantine. Then every house and every habitation they reached [perished and those in them died, their corpses] floating on the water like skiffs of papyrus, (even) in the doorway and the private apartments (of the palace), for a period of up to [...] days, while no torch could give light over the Two Lands. Then His Incarnation said: How much greater is this than the impressive manifestation of the great god, than the plans of the gods! (...) Then His Incarnation commanded to make firm the temples that had fallen to ruin in this entire land: to make functional the monuments of the gods, to erect their enclosure walls, to put the sacred things in the special room. to hide the secret places, to cause the processional images that were fallen to the ground to enter their shrines, to set up the braziers, to erect the altars and fix their offering-loaves, to double the income of office-holders — to put the land like its original situation. Archaeologists estimate that this stela describes a mythological battle whose interpretation escapes us! All these (artificial) controversies allow Egyptologists to publish numerous articles and books that hold the audience spellbound. It is not by chance that the bust of Nefertiti has become the godly icon of Egyptology. Nefertiti had been established high priestess of the solar disk alongside Akhenaten her husband. This new religion was a bold syncretism of Egyptian polytheism and Hebrew monotheism but Akhenaten did not succeed to spread

168 A.-P. LECA – Les momies Paris 1976 Éd. Librairie Hachette pp. 147-148. 169 L. HABACHI – The Second Stela of Kamose and his Struggle against the Hyksos Ruler and his Capital Glückstadt 1972 Ed. Verlag J.J. Augustin pp. 31-67. 170 M. WIENER, J.P. ALLEN Separate Lives: The Ahmose Tempest Stela and the Theran Eruption in: Near Eastern Studies 57 (1998) 1 pp. 1-28.


it (however Hitler wanted to make Nefertiti a symbol of the Aryan woman)171. The origin of the bust of Nefertiti is well known. The famous Nefertiti Bust, now in Berlin, is a "fake" made in 1912 by Ludwig Borchardt for his testing of polychromy. It is easy to see that this is a fake172: the left eye of the queen is empty and has never been realized, its absence, which constitutes a contempt of the Queen, is inexplicable; the shoulders of the Bust are cut vertically, according to a use that does not meet the canons of Pharaonic sculpture, but reflects those of the early 20th century173; the famous and aesthetically pleasing headdress of Nefertiti was used to symbolize the solar disk, however, if we compare the inclination of the headdress shown on reliefs and frescoes (below), one sees that it is slanted rearwardly not forwardly and consequently the disk (sun) is not visible!

Stierlin claims that Borchardt may have created the bust to test ancient pigments and that when the bust was admired by the Prussian prince, Johann Georg, Borchardt pretended it was genuine to avoid offending the prince. Egyptian authorities dismissed Stierlin's theory and Dr. Zahi Hawass, the former Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities —life, prosperity, health— said "Stierlin is not a historian. He is delirious." Although Stierlin had argued "Egyptians cut shoulders horizontally" and Nefertiti had vertical shoulders, Hawass said that the new style seen in the Nefertiti Bust is part of the changes introduced by Akhenaten (without reason!), the husband of Nefertiti. Hawass also claimed that the sculptor Thutmose had created the eye, but it was later destroyed (without reason!, one wonders who is delirious?). For most Egyptologists, Akhenaten had a co-regency with the sun god itself that would have inspired the biblical myth of Moses as well as the Jewish god Adon "Lord", a plagiarism of Aton. If the word m3‘t "truth" (almost never used by Egyptologists unlike the Egyptians) still makes sense, these (theological) claims are really delusional.

171 Through the ambassador to Egypt, Eberhard von Stohrer, Hitler informed the Egyptian government (in 1930) that he was an ardent fan of Nefertiti: I know this famous bust and the fuehrer wrote: I have viewed it and marvelled at it many times. Nefertiti continually delights me. The bust is a unique masterpiece, a precious adornment, a true treasure! Hitler said Nefertiti had a place in his dreams of rebuilding Berlin and renaming it Germania. 172 H. STIERLIN – Le buste de Néfertiti. Une imposture de l'égyptologie? Gollion (CH) 2009 Éd. Infolio pp. 123-126. 173 Like the busts exposure in hairdressing salons


ADDENDA

Truth triumphs (sometimes). Ironically when a consensus finally appeared among Egyptologists, regarding the lack of co-regency between Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, an archaeological discovery put everything upside down174. In February of 2014, Egyptian Ministry for Antiquities announced what it called conclusive evidence that Akhenaten shared power with his father for at least 8 years, based on the evidence coming from the tomb of Vizier Amenhotep-Huy who was a Vizier of Ancient Egypt during the reign of Amenhotep III. Besides being Amenhotep III's Vizier, Amenhotep-Huy was also director of Upper and Lower Egypt and overseer of all the works of the King in Upper and Lower Egypt. The Luxor tomb of Vizier Amenhotep-Huy provide conclusive evidence that Amenhotep III shared power with Akhenaten for at least 8 years in the waning days of the elder’s reign175. The inscriptions were carved onto architectural remains, collapsed walls and columns, in tomb N°28 in the El Asasif area of Luxor. Some of the inscriptions depict scenes of father and son together in the same space as one follows the other. There are also cartouches —the prenomen (throne name) and nomen (birth name) of a pharaoh surrounded by a protective oval— of both pharaohs next to each other (see pictures below). Traditionally, viziers’ tombs always bear the cartouche of the pharaoh they served under. As if that weren’t bonanza enough, the inscriptions date to a very specific time: the first Heb-Sed of Amenhotep III. The Heb-Sed was a feast like a royal jubilee celebrated by a pharaoh 30 years into his reign and then every 3 years after that. As Amenhotep III ruled for 38 years that means father and son were co-regents for at least 8 years. Pharaoh Amenhotep III Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten)

imn $tp hq3 w3s.t m3‘.t r‘ imn $tp hq3 w3s.t ‘3 m ‘$‘ f nfr "pr.w r‘ w‘ n r‘ This amazing discovery must normally change soon chronology of the Pharaohs and beliefs about Amenhotep III and IV176, however, it is feared that Egyptologists continue to defend their delusional interpretations which are always highly prized public.

174 http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2014/02/06/pharaoh-power-sharing-unearthed-egypt/ http://www.archaiologia.gr/en/blog/2014/02/07/new-evidence-on-the-amenhotep-iii-and-amenhotep-iv-co-regency/ 175 http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/29044 176 http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/new-egypt-discovery-amenhotep-akhenaten-029384

Documents

The Akhenaten's reign: an egyptological delirium!