The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt
Page 59
1. Neferhotep III, Karnak inscription, line 6.
2. Ibid.
3. Mentuhotepi, Karnak stela, line 10 (cf. Donald Redford, “Textual Sources,” p. 28, note 75).
4. Ibid., line 5.
5. Ibid., line 4.
6. Ka, funerary stela, lines 6–7.
7. Soped-her, funerary stela, line 9.
8. Rahotep, Coptos stela, line 3.
9. Intef V, Coptos stela, lines 5–7.
10. Sobeknakht, autobiographical inscription, opening lines.
11. Atu, scribal palette, lines 2–3.
12. Ibid., line 4.
13. Carnarvon Tablet no. 1, lines 3–4.
CHAPTER 10: ORDER REIMPOSED
The most detailed source for Kamose’s military activities against the Hyksos is his group of three stelae, set up at Ipetsut. For key editions, see Alan Gardiner, “The Defeat of the Hyksos by Kamose,” and Labib Habachi, The Second Stela of Kamose. Harry and Alexandrina Smith, “A Reconsideration of the Kamose Texts,” give a carefully argued interpretation of the sequence of events. Frédéric Colin, “Kamose et les Hyksos dans l’oasis de Djesdjes,” presents the evidence for Hyksos influence in the Bahariya Oasis during the Second Intermediate Period. The policy of Kamose and his immediate successors in Nubia is discussed by Dominique Valbelle, “Egyptians on the Middle Nile.”
A convenient translation of the autobiographical tomb inscription of Ahmose, son of Abana, is supplied by Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature (vol. 2, pp. 12–15). For this Ahmose’s career, and that of his near contemporary Ahmose-Pennekhbet, see Toby Wilkinson, Lives of the Ancient Egyptians (nos. 41 and 42). See also Wolfgang Helck, “Ahmose Pennechbet.” The most comprehensive treatment of King Ahmose’s battles is Claude Vandersleyen, Les guerres d’Amosis, and the relevant section in his book L’Égypte et la vallée du Nil. The significance of Sharuhen for the Hyksos is discussed by Eliezer Oren, “The ‘Kingdom of Sharuhen’ and the Hyksos Kingdom.” The early Eighteenth Dynasty’s policy of “defensive imperialism” has been expertly analyzed by J. J. Shirley, “The Beginning of the Empire.” For the monuments of Ahmose and Amenhotep I on Shaat Island, see Francis Geus, “Sai.” The insurgencies of Aata the Nubian and Tetian are referred to, briefly, in the autobiography of Ahmose, son of Abana. The tempest stela is published by Claude Vandersleyen, “Une tempête sous le règne d’Amosis” and “Deux nouveaux fragments,” with an English translation by Donald Redford, “Textual Sources for the Hyksos Period.” Some scholars have linked the natural disaster described on the tempest stela with the massive volcanic eruption on the Aegean island of Thera, known to have taken place at around the same time; see, for example, Karen Foster and Robert Ritner, “Texts, Storms, and the Thera Eruption.” Others, however—most recently Malcolm Wiener and James Allen, “Separate Lives”—have put forward a convincing rebuttal of this theory, interpreting the disaster as a “monsoon-generated Nile flood.” The flood hypothesis is followed here.
For Ahmose’s monuments at Abdju, see Stephen Harvey, “Monuments of Ahmose at Abydos” and “New Evidence at Abydos.” Joyce Tyldesley, Chronicle of the Queens of Egypt, discusses the role of Tetisheri and her monument at Abdju. The Ipetsut stela listing the dignities of Ahhotep and the donation stela installing Ahmose-Nefertari as god’s wife are both published by Andrea Klug, Königlichen Stelen. For golden flies as military decorations, see Susanne Petschel and Martin von Falck, Pharao siegt immer (catalogue nos. 77–80). Scholars dispute whether there were one or two king’s wives of the late Seventeenth or early Eighteenth Dynasty named Ahhotep. For the latter view, see, for example, Catharine Roehrig (ed.), Hatshepsut (p. 7). The first view, favored by Aidan Dodson and Dyan Hilton, The Complete Royal Families (pp. 125, 126, and 128), is followed here. There is similar disagreement about the attribution of the golden flies. Hence, while Ann Macy Roth, “Models of Authority,” states that the flies belonged to “Ahhotep I,” regarded as the wife of Seqenenra but not a direct ancestor of King Ahmose, William Stevenson Smith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt (pp. 220–221), implies that the flies were part of the burial equipment of King Ahmose’s mother. The simplest interpretation is that there was only one senior woman named Ahhotep (daughter of Senakhtenra, sister-wife of Seqenenra, and mother of Ahmose), to whom the golden flies, dagger, and axe belonged.
Jean Vercoutter, “Les Haou-nebout,” is the unsurpassed discussion of the problematic term “Hau-nebut.” For the Minoan-inspired burial equipment of Ahhotep, see, among other publications, W. Stevenson Smith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt (pp. 220–221). The dagger blade is decorated with the motif of a lion chasing a calf in a rocky landscape, while the axe bears a crested griffin; both objects are inlaid using the niello technique, foreign to Egypt. The Hutwaret frescoes and their implications are discussed in detail by their excavator, Manfred Bietak, in “The Center of Hyksos Rule”; by Manfred Bietak and Nannó Marinatos, “The Minoan Paintings of Avaris”; and by various contributors to Vivian Davies and Louise Schofield (eds.), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant. Most recently, the frescoes have been dated by Manfred Bietak, “Egypt and the Aegean,” to the reign of Hatshepsut, rather than earlier in the Eighteenth Dynasty. Bietak seems to base this new dating largely on the circumstantial evidence, namely that “it is during the joint reign of Thutmose III and Hatshepsut … that delegations of Keftiu [inhabitants of Crete] are first represented” in Egyptian tombs. However, the strong Minoan connections displayed in the grave goods of Ahmose’s mother, Ahhotep, argue for an earlier alliance between the Egyptian royal family and the Minoans, and hence for an earlier dating of the Minoan frescoes at Hutwaret. The archaeological evidence from the palace complex at Hutwaret, notably the pottery, would support a date earlier in the Eighteenth Dynasty than the reign of Hatshepsut (Manfred Bietak, “Egypt and the Aegean,” p. 79). The heir, Prince Ahmose, whose birth may have prompted Ahmose-Nefertari’s rise to prominence, would not, in fact, succeed to the throne—he predeceased his father, and it was therefore a younger son, Amenhotep (I), who became the next king. For the office of god’s wife of Amun, see Michel Gitton, Les divines épouses de la 18e dynastie.
For a readable and authoritative description of living conditions in New Kingdom Thebes, T.G.H. James, Pharaoh’s People (Chapter 8), remains the most convenient source. The monuments of Amenhotep I at Ipetsut are discussed by Gun Björkman, Kings at Karnak, and reconstructed by Catherine Graindorge and Philippe Martinez, “Karnak avant Karnak.” More than eight hundred blocks and five hundred fragments survive from Amenhotep I’s temple, dismantled and reused in later royal constructions. Sadly, nothing remains of the buildings themselves, except for his alabaster chapel, painstakingly reconstructed in the Karnak Open Air Museum. For the king’s other building projects in and around Thebes, see Franz-Jürgen Schmitz, Amenophis I, and Betsy Bryan, “The 18th Dynasty Before the Amarna Period.” Very little is known about the early history of Deir el-Medina, but for a summary, see Frank Yurco, “Deir el-Medina.” Aidan Dodson, “The Lost Tomb of Amenhotep I,” discusses the mystery of the tomb’s whereabouts and the most likely candidates for the king’s final resting place.
1. Carnarvon Tablet no. 1, line 4.
2. Ibid., lines 10–11.
3. Ibid., lines 14–15.
4. Kamose, victory stela from Thebes, lines 19–24.
5. Ibid., lines 10–11.
6. Ibid., lines 13–14.
7. Ibid., lines 8–9.
8. Ahmose, son of Abana, tomb inscription, lines 13–14.
9. Ahmose, Karnak stela, line 13.
10. Ahmose, son of Abana, tomb inscription, line 23.
11. Ahmose, Tempest stela, line 21.
12. Ahmose, Tetisheri stela, lines 13–14.
13. Ahmose, Karnak stela, lines 24–27.
14. Ahmose, Tura limestone quarry inscription, lines 5–6.
CHAPTER 11: PUSHING THE BOUNDARIES
The obscure family background of Thutmose I is discussed by Aidan Dodson a
nd Dyan Hilton, The Complete Royal Families, p. 128. The background to the beginning of Thutmose I’s reign is discussed by Claude Vandersleyen, L’Égypte et la vallée du Nil (pp. 247–248). The best recent synopsis of his Nubian campaign is Vivian Davies, “Egypt and Nubia: Conflict with the Kingdom of Kush,” together with Vivian Davies and Renée Friedman, Egypt, pp. 129–131. The Hagar el-Merwa inscriptions were published in an early study by A. J. Arkell, “Varia Sudanica,” and have been the subject of a recent reappraisal by Vivian Davies, “Kurgus 2000,” “Kurgus 2002,” and “The Rock Inscriptions at Kurgus.”
Contemporary evidence for the Asiatic campaign of Thutmose I is extremely scarce but is conveniently summarized by John Darnell and Colleen Manassa, Tut-ankhamun’s Armies, pp. 139–141. An important source is a brief reference in the autobiographical tomb inscription of Ahmose, son of Abana (Kurt Sethe, Urkunden IV, p. 9, lines 8–10). Undated inscriptions from Ipetsut may record aspects of Thutmose I’s Asiatic conquests. See Donald Redford, “A Gate Inscription from Karnak.” For the kingdom of Mittani, see Gernot Wilhelm, “The Kingdom of Mitanni,” and Michael Astour, “Mitanni,” plus the references therein. Betsy Bryan, “The Egyptian Perspective on Mittani,” charts relations between the two kingdoms during the Eighteenth Dynasty.
The brief reign of Thutmose II has been studied most carefully by Luc Gabolde, “La chronologie du règne de Thoutmosis II.”
For the regency of Hatshepsut and her progressive self-elevation from god’s wife to regent to king, see many of the contributions in Catharine Roehrig (ed.), Hatshepsut, especially Ann Macy Roth, “Models of Authority,” and Peter Dorman, “Hatshepsut: Princess to Queen to Co-Ruler.” Peter Dorman, “The Early Reign of Thutmose III,” presents a novel explanation for the co-regency. The precipitating factor that led Hatshepsut to declare herself king is unclear. If not the death of Thutmose III’s mother, Isis, the death of Hatshepsut’s own mother, Ahmose, may have been the spur. If Queen Ahmose was seen as the last link with the early Eighteenth Dynasty royal family, her demise may have forced Hatshepsut’s hand, effectively forcing her to claim the kingship in order to defend the legitimacy of her rule.
The tension between male and female personae apparent in Hatshepsut’s statuary and inscriptions is discussed by Ann Macy Roth, “Models of Authority,” and Cathleen Keller, “The Statuary of Hatshepsut.” For Hatshepsut’s building works, especially at Ipetsut, see Cathleen Keller, “The Joint Reign of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III” and “The Royal Court.” A more popular account of Hatshepsut’s regency and reign is Joyce Tyldesley, Hatchepsut: The Female Pharaoh, while John Ray, Reflections of Osiris (pp. 40–59), provides a lively and provocative account.
The temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri is the subject of numerous publications. Among the best recent treatments are Dieter Arnold, “Djeser-djeseru,” and Ann Macy Roth, “Hatshepsut’s Mortuary Temple.” Dorothea Arnold, “The Destruction of the Statues of Hatshepsut,” gives an idea of the sumptuous decoration of the temple during Hatshepsut’s co-regency. Senenmut’s career has been analyzed in detail by Peter Dorman, The Monuments of Senenmut and “The Royal Steward, Senenmut”; also useful are Catharine Roehrig, “Senenmut,” and Cathleen Keller, “The Statuary of Senenmut.”
The most comprehensive recent study of the reign of Thutmose III is Eric Cline and David O’Connor (eds.), Thutmose III: A New Biography. Two excellent and detailed studies of the Battle of Megiddo, the king’s other Asiatic campaigns, and their impact in the Near East are Donald Redford, The Wars in Syria and Palestine, and its summary, “The Northern Wars of Thutmose III.” These are supplemented by Claude Vandersleyen, L’Égypt et la vallée du Nil (pp. 295–306), and James Allen, “After Hatshepsut: The Military Campaigns of Thutmose III.” The strategic location of Megiddo is explained in Michael Roaf, Cultural Atlas (p. 133). The political background to the Megiddo campaign is discussed by William Murnane, “Rhetorical History?,” while Christine Lilyquist, “Egypt and the Near East,” enumerates the booty captured by the Egyptian forces after their victory. For the growing importance of foreigners in Egypt in the middle Eighteenth Dynasty, see Diamantis Panagiotopoulos, “Foreigners in Egypt.” The tomb and treasure of the three foreign concubines of Thutmose III have been published in extenso by Christine Lilyquist, The Tomb of Three Foreign Wives. The burial of the three princesses may date to early in Thutmose III’s sole reign, although many of the objects in the tomb were gifts from the king to the three women during his co-regency with Hatshepsut. The women must therefore have made the journey to Egypt before the Battle of Megiddo, trailblazers for a phenomenon that would later become a feature of the Egyptian royal court.
The foundation of Pnubs and Thutmose III’s policy in Nubia is discussed by Vivian Davies, “Egypt and Nubia: Conflict with the Kingdom of Kush.”
1. Ahmose, son of Abana, tomb inscription, line 30.
2. Thutmose I, Tombos victory inscription, lines 7–8.
3. Ibid., lines 11–12.
4. Thutmose I, Abydos stela, line 21.
5. Ahmose, son of Abana, tomb inscription, line 36.
6. Ibid., line 37.
7. Ineni, tomb inscription, lines 16–17.
8. Hatshepsut, Karnak obelisk inscription, line 15.
9. Ibid., lines 8–32.
10. Senenmut, Karnak statue inscription, line 26.
11. Thutmose III, Megiddo inscription from Karnak, line 8.
12. Ibid., line 84.
13. Ibid., line 86.
14. Ibid., line 94.
15. Thutmose III, obelisk inscription, left side.
16. Ibid., right side.
CHAPTER 12: KING AND COUNTRY
The structure of the administration in the Eighteenth Dynasty is discussed by Peter Der Manuelian, Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II, and Betsy Bryan, “Administration in the Reign of Thutmose III.”
Evidence for the career of Menkheperraseneb can be found in the texts and reliefs from his tomb—see James Breasted, Ancient Records, vol. 2, pp. 772–776, and Norman and Nina de Garis Davies, The Tomb of Menkheperraseneb, respectively. Toby Wilkinson, Lives of the Ancient Egyptians (no. 46), offers a useful summary.
At least two earlier generations of Rekhmira’s family had held the vizierate. His grandfather Ahmose had been vizier under Hatshepsut, his uncle Useramun during the co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III. Rekhmira’s responsibilities as vizier are described in the texts from his tomb, published by James Breasted, Ancient Records, vol. 2, pp. 663–762, with analysis and discussion by G.P.F. van den Boorn, The Duties of the Vizier. Convenient digests include Peter Dorman, “Rekhmire,” and Toby Wilkinson, Lives of the Ancient Egyptians (no. 47).
Primary material relating to Sennefer and his brother has been published by Ricardo Caminos, “Papyrus Berlin 10463”; Howard Carter, “Report upon the Tomb of Sen-nefer”; and Philippe Virey, “La tombe des vignes.” For summaries, see William Kelly Simpson, “Sennefer,” and Toby Wilkinson, Lives of the Ancient Egyptians (no. 51).
Qenamun’s tomb was published by Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of Ken-Amun; his career is reconstructed by Toby Wilkinson, Lives of the Ancient Egyptians (no. 49).
Rosalind and Jac. Janssen, Growing Up in Ancient Egypt, offer a reliable picture of education in ancient Egypt, while Joann Fletcher, Egypt’s Sun King, pp. 24–27, deals specifically with the education of a prince.
Amenhotep II’s sporting prowess, and other aspects of his reign, are discussed at length by Peter Der Manuelian, Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II. His mummy is that of an exceptionally tall and strongly built man. For his campaigns in the Near East, see Betsy Bryan, “The 18th Dynasty Before the Amarna Period,” and Bill Manley, The Penguin Historical Atlas, pp. 72–73. The growing importance of the sun cult and solar symbolism during the reigns of Amenhotep II and Thutmose IV are analyzed in detail by Betsy Bryan in “Antecedents to Amenhotep III,” The Reign of Thutmose IV, and “Thutmose IV.”
1. Rekhmira, biographical inscription, line 3.
3. Sennefer, tomb inscription, burial chamber (section C.4: Urkunden IV, p. 1426, line 18).
4. Ibid., sarcophagus chamber (section B.6–7: Urkunden IV, p. 1427, line 8).
5. Sennefer, letter (translation by Ricardo Caminos, “Papyrus Berlin 10463”).
6. Qenamun, tomb inscription (scene of the young Amenhotep II on his nurse’s lap: Urkunden IV, p. 1395, line 14).
7. Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of Ken-Amun, pp. 10–16. The translations are typical of the 1930s milieu in which Davies was working, but they are no less appropriate to the hierarchical and sycophantic world of ancient Egypt.
8. Qenamun, tomb inscription (scene of the young Amenhotep II on his nurse’s lap: Urkunden IV, p. 1395, line 15).
9. Satire of the Trades, section 2e.
10. Ibid., sections 21h–i, 22a,e.
11. Miscellanies (quoted in Rosalind and Jac. Janssen, Growing Up in Ancient Egypt, Chapter 6).
12. Min, tomb inscription, archery scene, lines 8–9.
13. Amenhotep II, Great Sphinx stela, line 11.
14. Amenhotep II, Medamud inscription, line 2.
15. Amenhotep II, Great Sphinx stela, line 19.