Abstract
The aim of the article is to reconsider the question of the co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II in the light of recent research casting into doubt the existence of this institution in the Middle Kingdom. The author re-examines the sources cited in favour of the co-regency, showing that the co-regency hypothesis generates more problems than it allegedly solves. Instead of searching for one simple solution for all seemingly insurmountable problems raised up by the available evidence, the author proposes to explain each problem individually. As a result, it seems that questions such as the alleged double coronation date of Amenhotep II, the problem of his two ‘first victorious campaigns’, or the presence of the images of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II in the temple of Amada can be satisfactorily explained without any necessity to maintain that both pharaohs ever ruled together, even for a brief period of time.
The hypothesis concerning the existence of the institution of the co-regency was first formulated in the nineteenth century, independently by Emmanuel de Rougé 1 and Carl Richard Lepsius, 2 based on the analysis of a rock-cut stela dating to the Twelfth Dynasty found at Konosso in Nubia. 3 The monument was thought to be dated to the third regnal year of Senwosret II corresponding to the 36th regnal year of Amenemhat II. 4 The discovery of the so-called ‘double dates’ also on other Twelfth Dynasty monuments seemed to corroborate the co-regency hypothesis. According to the classical interpretation, the aging king, feeling overwhelmed by his royal duties, appointed one of his sons in the course of his reign to be his co-regent. He was therefore crowned already in his father’s lifetime and continued to rule with his senior partner until the death of the latter. The aim of the institution of the co-regency was, on the one hand, to properly prepare the junior king for his sole rule, and, on the other hand, to drive away all possible doubts concerning the royal succession. 5 It is thus not surprising that such a hypothesis, presenting ancient Egyptian kings as the most responsible and farseeing monarchs of the ancient world, was very well received and was soon universally accepted among the Egyptologists. 6
Although some scholars tried to seek out evidence for the co-regencies already in the Old Kingdom period, 7 it is Amenemhat I of the Twelfth Dynasty who is generally believed to have founded the institution of the co-regency by appointing his son Senwosret I in his 20th regnal year. The co-regency of both kings is thought to have lasted until the death of Amenemhat I in his 30th regnal year, which would make it the longest of all known Middle Kingdom co-regencies. The system of the joint rule of the king with his son is also considered to have been practised until the end of the Twelfth Dynasty and, after having been restored after the crisis of the Second Intermediate Period, for the whole New Kingdom period, although with some minor changes regarding its precise functioning. 8
New Kingdom co-regencies are generally believed to have lasted no more than a couple of years. The longest of all was undoubtedly the co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, although the scholars have observed that it does not follow the traditional model of the joint rule in many respects. 9 As for the co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II, it is considered to be one of the best documented joint reigns in the early New Kingdom, although it was extremely brief. According to the classical interpretation, in the final years of Thutmose III’s reign he feared that his death might cause the reappearance of the situation from the beginning of his rule – when his stepmother and aunt Hatshepsut ruled at first as a regent in his name, but later on as his co-regent. Therefore, he decided to solve all possible succession problems by appointing his son Amenhotep II to be his co-regent. 10 Some scholars have even suggested that it was Amenhotep II who persuaded his father to inaugurate the action directed against the royal status of Hatshepsut. 11
More recent research has shown, however, that the classical interpretation should be treated with caution, as the existence of many of the long accepted Middle Kingdom co-regencies can be seriously cast into doubt. 12 If there was no co-regency in the Middle Kingdom, and, in consequence, there was no tradition of the joint rule in ancient Egypt prior to the reign of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, then perhaps we should reinvestigate also the New Kingdom co-regencies. As I have mentioned, the co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III considerably differs from other alleged co-regencies, but in the light of recent research we have to ask ourselves the following question: Is it so exceptional because Hatshepsut modified the traditional institution or is it rather because it was the first joint rule in ancient Egyptian history?
The second option seems much more likely. It should be stressed that the very idea of co-regency is not very compatible with what we know about the ancient Egyptian ideology of kingship in which the ruling king, as a living incarnation of the god Horus on earth, succeeds his deceased predecessors (identified with Osiris). 13 In such case, however, there is no place for two Horuses ruling at the same time. 14
Moreover, the research of Robert Delia and Claude Obsomer has shown that the co-regency hypothesis was based on wrong assumptions. 15 I have already suggested that it was the occurrence of the so-called ‘double dates’ that induced the scholars to propose the existence of the institution of the co-regency in ancient Egypt. The facts that the ‘double dates’ occur exclusively on private monuments dated to the Twelfth Dynasty (there is no royal ‘double date’ nor a New Kingdom ‘double date’ 16 ) as well as the extremely small number of such dates (three in total 17 ) cast serious doubts on traditional interpretation of these data. Moreover, Delia’s and Obsomer’s analyses proved that the ‘double dates’ not only are not ‘double’ (as they refer to two different events which happened in the reigns of two subsequent monarchs and not to one and the same year as previously interpreted 18 ) but also, in one case, are not a date at all (as it refers to the lifespan or, more likely, a period of activity of the royal official 19 ). Most of the other documents habitually evoked in the discussion on the Middle Kingdom co-regencies usually contain no more than a juxtaposition of the names or depictions of two rulers. Using such data as an argument in favour of a co-regency of the monarchs in question leads to a kind of circular reasoning in which the juxtaposition of the names of two kings proves that they ruled as co-regents, because we know that there was an institution of the co-regency in ancient Egypt, hence the ‘double dates’. But if the alleged ‘double dates’ do not actually exist, are we still allowed to claim that such juxtapositions prove that particular monarchs ruled as co-regents?
In the light of the preceding remarks it seems necessary to reinvestigate the question of the existence of the co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. Although some scholars have suggested that based on the available data one cannot convincingly argue that both monarchs ever ruled together, 20 this general idea was never fully developed into a serious study. We should therefore re-analyse the sources evoked in the discussion of the co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II, without assuming the existence of a traditional institution of the co-regency dating back to the Middle Kingdom. If Hatshepsut and Thutmose III’s joint rule was indeed the first example of this way of exercising kingship in ancient Egyptian history, then perhaps the Egyptians living in the reigns of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II considered it to be an exception rather than a general rule of how the things should work.
Beginning with the papyrus documents, P. Hermitage 1116B is often evoked by the advocates of the co-regency hypothesis as one of the sources that are believed to prove that Thutmose III and Amenhotep II indeed reigned together. Although the papyrus is generally dated to the reign of Amenhotep II, 21 it mentions twice his father Thutmose III, as among various products registered in the document are ‘a hand-scale of the House of (Men-kheper-Ra)| – may he live, may he prosper, may he be healthy! – together with the bark of the king – may he live, may he prosper, may he be healthy!’, 22 as well as ‘the ebony of […] for the artisans of the House of (Men-kheper-Ra)| – may he live, may he prosper, may he be healthy!’. 23 The occurrence of the traditional formula ʿnḫ.w wḏȝ.w snb.w (‘may he live, may he prosper, may he be healthy!’) which follows the royal name was often interpreted as an indication that Thutmose III must have still been alive, when the papyrus was written down in the early years of Amenhotep II’s reign. 24 Therefore, both kings must have ruled jointly for some time.
This interpretation does not seem accurate. In this particular case the ʿnḫ.w wḏȝ.w snb.w-formula does not refer to the king Men-kheper-Ra (Thutmose III) himself, but to the House of (Men-kheper-Ra)|, 25 so to his temple of millions of years 26 or one of the royal domains in Western Thebes. Furthermore, even if the formula had indeed referred to the pharaoh himself it would not have proved anything, as the very occurrence of the ʿnḫ.w wḏȝ.w snb.w-formula following the royal name does not necessarily indicate that the king in question is alive. It can be illustrated in the best way by the papyri concerning the great tomb robberies dating to the final part of the Twentieth Dynasty. 27 For example, on the Abbott Papyrus we find the following statement: ‘If you are exulting over the place, where you have been, that it was inspected and that you have found it intact, yet (the tomb of) <the king> (Sekhem-Ra-shed-Tawy)|, son of Ra (Sobekemsaf)| – may he live, may he prosper, may he be healthy! – together with (Nebukha<s>)| – may she live, may she prosper, may she be healthy! – his royal wife, has been violated!’. 28 In this case the ʿnḫ.w wḏȝ.w snb.w-formula was applied to the names of Sobekemsaf II and his wife Nebukhas of the Seventeenth Dynasty who had been dead for a couple of centuries at the time when the Abbott Papyrus was written down in the 16th regnal year of Ramesses IX. Therefore P. Hermitage 1116B cannot be used as an undisputable proof for the co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. 29
While discussing the papyrus documents relating to the question of the alleged joint reign of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II, P. BM EA 10056 is sometimes evoked. The document generally dated to the early Eighteenth Dynasty concerns the royal shipyards in Peru-nefer in Lower Egypt. 30 It was Vladimir Golénischeff, the editor of the Hermitage papyri, who was the first scholar to suggest that the papyrus in question might be linked to the discussion on the co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. His interpretation of the evidence that can be extracted from the papyri is, however, rather complicated. According to Golénischeff, the P. Hermitage 1116B, as previously mentioned, indicates that Thutmose III was still alive, when his son Amenhotep II was crowned to be king. On the other hand, another of the Hermitage papyri, P. Hermitage 1116A, dated to the same period as 1116B based on the palaeography of the hieratic signs, mentions an official called Aa-kheperu-er-neheh. 31 His name is most likely a corrupted version of the name Aa-kheperu-Ra-neheh. In that case it is quite obvious that such a name, incorporating the throne name of Amenhotep II, could not have been given to anyone prior to Amenhotep II’s coronation. Therefore, Aa-kheperu-er-neheh’s name indicates that ‘regnal year 18’, also mentioned in P. Hermitage 1116A, 32 refers to Amenhotep II. And so, if P. Hermitage 1116A dates from Amenhotep II’s 18th regnal year and P. Hermitage 1116B can be dated to the same period, then the co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II must have lasted for almost two decades, which means that Thutmose III must have appointed his son to be his fellow ruler at quite an early phase of his own reign. This is where Golénischeff brings up the P. BM EA 10056, which, according to him, proves that Amenhotep II was a mature man long before the end of his father’s reign, as the document in question mentions a royal son and a sem-priest Amenhotep, 33 which is most likely to be identified with the future Amenhotep II. 34
Golénischeff’s interpretation is not only complex and difficult to follow, but, most importantly, it is based on many doubtful and uncertain assumptions. First of all, it has been already mentioned that there is no reason to believe that the ʿnḫ.w wḏȝ.w snb.w-formula from the P. Hermitage 1116B indeed indicated that the king was actually alive at the moment of the composition of the document. Even if both Hermitage papyri can be dated to exactly the same date (which is also far from being definitively proven), there is no proof whatsoever that Thutmose III was still alive in the 18th regnal year of his son. Moreover, such a long co-regency is not accepted even by the scholars who share the opinion that Thutmose III and Amenhotep II indeed reigned together for some time. Second, the exact dating of the P. BM EA 10056 is in itself a matter of controversy, as it contains a lacuna in the place where a date occurs. Stephen R. K. Glanville, the editor of the papyrus, claimed that the original date should be restored as ‘regnal year 30’. 35 The fact that the papyrus mentions a royal son and a sem-priest Amenhotep (which he also identified with the future Amenhotep II) led him to the conclusion that the date refers to the reign of Thutmose III. This has been cast into doubt by Donald B. Redford, who argued that the date should not only be restored rather as ‘regnal year 20’, but also that it refers to Amenhotep II and not to Thutmose III. In that case the royal son and sem-priest Amenhotep is not the future king Amenhotep II, but rather the latter’s son, whom Redford identifies with the so-called ‘Prince B’, who appears on a stela found at Giza in the vicinity of the Great Sphinx. 36 For a long time Redford’s interpretation has been universally accepted by other scholars. 37 Recently, however, it has been challenged by Stéphane Pasquali, according to whom the P. BM EA 10056 should rather be dated to the final years of Thutmose III, or, more precisely, to his regnal year 52, in which case the king’s son Amenhotep is once again no-one other than Amenhotep II. 38 In the most recent study of the papyrus, based on the re-collating of the original document, Roman Gundacker argues that the original date should be restored as ‘regnal year 51’ of Thutmose III, reaffirming the identification of king’s son Amenhotep with the future Amenhotep II. 39
Despite the uncertainty concerning the exact date of the papyrus, it does not seem to be linked with the co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II at all. For if the papyrus dates from the reign of Thutmose III, the only thing it proves is that Amenhotep II was a sem-priest (but not a king) in his father’s 30th, 51st, or 52nd regnal year. 40 But if the papyrus should be dated rather to the reign of Amenhotep II, it also does not concern the alleged co-regency of both kings, because in that case it would not mention Thutmose III at all.
Another argument, which is very often evoked in the discussion on the alleged co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II, is the lack of correspondence between the dates of Thutmose III’s death and his successor’s coronation. The latter took place in IV akhet 1 as we are informed by the stela of King’s Son of Kush, Usersatjet.
41
As for the date of Thutmose III’s death, it is known from the often cited passage of the self-presentation of Amenemheb: Now, the king has fulfilled his lifetime in numerous and beautiful years in courage and [po]wer as the true of voice, since regnal year 1 until regnal year 54, 3rd month of the peret-season, the last day under [the Majesty of] the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt (Men-kheper-Ra)|, true of voice. He mounted to the sky and united with the sun-disc, the divine members being melted with the one who had created him. When the earth brightened up in the early morning, it happened that the sun-disc shone and the sky was bright for the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt (Aa-kheperu-Ra)|, son of Ra ([Amenhotep-netjer-heqa-Waset])|, given life, was established on the throne of his father.
42
If Thutmose III passed away in III peret 30, then Amenhotep II’s coronation should have taken place the very next day, namely IV peret 1, and not IV akhet 1. According to the adherents of the co-regency hypothesis, this lack of correspondence between the dates of Amenhotep II’s coronation and his father’s death proves that both monarchs ruled jointly for some time. 43
The scholars who accept the co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II fail, however, to explain, how it is possible that Amenemheb’s self-presentation clearly indicates that Amenhotep II’s coronation took place after his father’s demise if Amenhotep II was indeed appointed to be a co-ruler already in his father’s lifetime. 44 But if both pharaohs never actually ruled together, then how can we explain the lack of correspondence between the dates in question? The similarity between IV peret 1 and IV akhet 1 induced some scholars to suggest that one of the sources contains an erroneous date. Nevertheless, it is not sure, however, if it is Usersatjet’s IV akhet 1 45 or Amenemheb’s IV peret 1 46 that was the actual date of Amenhotep II’s coronation. Such an interpretation does not seem very convincing as there is no need to imply that one of the sources contains an error. 47 In fact, the whole lack of correspondence between the dates in question seems to be rather illusory. It seems that there was a clear distinction between taking over the power by a new king (which we should call the ‘accession’ of a ruler) and his coronation. The accession of a king takes place at the very moment of his predecessor’s demise, but the official coronation could be postponed for a later time for various reasons, as it was a complicated ceremony of crucial ideological and religious importance, so its proper preparation surely demanded time. 48 The same is true for modern European monarchies, where the official coronation of the new ruler is organised some time after the effective taking over of power, effectuated immediately after his or her predecessor’s demise. 49 Although the details of the ancient Egyptian coronation ceremony are scarcely attested in the available documentation, there is enough evidence to assume that the official coronation was often postponed in order to combine it with the celebration of an important religious feast. Such a situation most likely occurred in the early years of Thutmose III, when the coronation of the young ruler was intentionally postponed by Hatshepsut in order to join it with the celebration of the Feast of the First Month of the Shemu-Season (identified with the Beautiful Feast of the Valley 50 ) and, as a consequence, to reinforce the legitimacy of the baby-king. 51 According to the Deir el-Bahari inscriptions, Hatshepsut’s own coronation took place on the New Year’s Feast of I akhet 1, 52 even if the reliability of this statement is often called into question by modern scholars. 53 Later on, king Horemheb also combined his coronation with the celebration of yet another Theban festival, namely the Opet Feast. 54 It is usually assumed that the new ruler, being of non-royal origin, wished to present himself as chosen by Amun-Ra himself, but perhaps what Horemheb actually did was not to legitimise his kingship by inventing something new, but quite the contrary – he acted according to a long-existing tradition to reinforce his claim to the throne. Moreover, it seems that in the Ramesside Period both royal coronation and the sed-festivals were celebrated at the date corresponding to the feast of Nehebkau. 55 Thus, it seems that in the case of Amenhotep II the official coronation was also intentionally postponed in order to combine it with the Feast of Hathor, 56 celebrated in Thebes, in order to add divine authority to the new king. 57 Therefore, there is no contradiction between the testimonies of Amenemheb and Usersatjet, as the first one speaks of Thutmose III’s death and his son’s accession, while the latter gives us the exact date of Amenhotep II’s official coronation.
It was also suggested that the co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II finds its reflection on the latter’s Great Sphinx Stela. The text indicates that ‘now, indeed, His Majesty has appeared as king (ḫʿ.n ḥm.f m nswt) being a beautiful adolescent, who acquired physical maturity, at the age of 18 years’. 58 Another passage of the same text adds: ‘After this His Majesty was caused to appear as king (sḫʿ.w ḥm.f m nswt) and the Great Uraeus found her place upon his forehead’. 59 In the first case the royal appearance is designated by the word ḫʿj, while in the latter the text employs its causative form sḫʿj, which induced some scholars to conclude that the text actually describes two separate events. In such case, the first royal appearance of Amenhotep II would have been identical to his appointment to be Thutmose III’s co-regent, while the other with taking over the power as a sole ruler. 60 Such interpretation is, however, not at all convincing. Despite using different (but originating from the same stem) verbal forms, there is nothing in the text itself that would suggest that it speaks of two separate coronations of the ruler. Moreover, it seems that the causative form sḫʿj was employed in order to emphasise the leading role of Amun-Ra in choosing Amenhotep II to be the king of Egypt as can be deduced from another passage of the same text: ‘He himself (i.e. Amun-Ra – F.T.) has caused him to appear as king (sḫʿ.n.f sw m nswt) on his throne of the living’. 61 One should not therefore try to see in it any allusion to the co-regency with Thutmose III. 62
Yet another argument in favour of the co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II is related to the so-called problem of Amenhotep II’s first victorious campaign in Syria. Twin stelae found in the temple of Amada in Nubia
63
and in the temple of Khnum at Elephantine,
64
the former being dated to ‘regnal year 3, 3rd month of the shemu- season, day 5’
65
of Amenhotep II, describe this king’s activities in both sanctuaries in the following way: Now, it was His Majesty, who completed th[is] temple, [which] his father, the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt (Men-kheper-Ra)|, [had] constructed for his fathers, all the gods. It was built of stone as a work of eternity, the walls surrounding it being of mudbricks, its doors being of cedar wood from the top of the Terraces, and its portals of the granite stone so that the great name of his father, son of Ra (Thutmose)| be in this temple forever and ever.
66
In order to commemorate these events, Amenhotep II commanded both stelae to be erected, which is described in their texts in the following manner: Then His Majesty caused this stela to be erected in order to establish it in this temple in the place of the station of the Lord – may he live, may he prosper, may he be healthy! – carving on it the great name of the Lord of the Two Lands, the son of Ra ([Amenhotep-netjer-heqa-Waset])| in the House of his fathers, the gods, after His Majesty returned from the Upper Retenu, having overthrown all his opponents and broadening the border of the Blackland during his first victorious campaign.
67
On the other hand, however, a stela from Memphis, 68 dated to ‘regnal year 7, 1st month of the shemu-season, day 25’ 69 of Amenhotep II indicates that ‘His Majesty proceeded to Retenu for his first victorious campaign in order to broaden his frontiers, in order to give something [to] the one being on his water. 70 His face was strong as Bastet and as Seth in his moment of rage’. 71 Later on, in ‘regnal year 9, 3rd month of the akhet-season, day 25, His Majesty proceeded to Retenu for his second victorious campaign to the town of Ipeq’. 72
That way we have here two first victorious campaigns: one that was supposed to have taken place in regnal year 3 of Amenhotep II (as attested by the Amada and Elephantine stelae), and another in his regnal year 7 (as attested by the Memphis and Karnak stelae) followed by a second victorious campaign in regnal year 9. But this leaves the question as to why the king decided to recount his victorious campaigns in regnal year 7, ignoring the previous one from regnal year 3. According to the advocates of the co-regency hypothesis, it was because the first ‘first victorious campaign’ was carried on when Amenhotep II ruled together with his father, Thutmose III (most likely in the final years of the senior king), while the second ‘first victorious campaign’ was led by Amenhotep II after the senior king’s demise. Therefore, having assumed the sole rulership in Egypt, Amenhotep II decided to recount his victorious campaigns in order to emphasise that now he was the only pharaoh. 73
Such an interpretation, however, seems not only unconvincing, but also quite illogical. If Amenhotep II had indeed been crowned in Thutmose III’s lifetime, then he would have been a legitimate ruler and that means that his military campaign, led and organised by himself, would have been his own and not his father’s victory. There is thus no reason to believe that Amenhotep II ever felt a need to recount his victorious campaigns after his father’s death. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by Michel Defossez such a strange system of counting royal campaigns would pose a serious problem for the potential readers of the stelae as there is absolutely nothing in the texts themselves that could clarify if the inscriptions speak of Amenhotep II’s own victorious campaign or the one conducted already in his father’s lifetime. 74 How should the problem of the two first victorious campaigns be solved?
It seems that in fact the whole problem is fictitious for it is based on an inaccurate analysis of the sources. Apparently, the date borne by the Amada and Elephantine stelae does not refer to the military campaign of Amenhotep II, or even to the moment of the erection of both monuments, but to the decision concerning the perfection of the temples in which they were found, which is actually the main topic of both inscriptions. That means that what Amenhotep II did in his regnal year 3, was to announce his decision to complete the Amada and Elephantine temples, but it is certain that the works lasted for some time. In the meantime, the king led his army for his first Syrian campaign, which took place in regnal year 7, as attested by the Memphis and Karnak stelae. The works in the temples were completed after the king returned from Syria, and this is when the Amada and Elephantine stelae were erected to commemorate this event. They bear, however, the date of regnal year 3, because this is the date of announcing the royal decision regarding the commencement of the works in the temples. Therefore, the first victorious campaign of Amenhotep II actually took place in his regnal year 7, which was followed by another one in regnal year 9. 75 That means that there were only two and not three Syrian campaigns of Amenhotep II, but none of them can prove the existence of a co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. 76
The decoration of the Amada temple is also often evoked as an argument in favour of the co-regency hypothesis. Throughout the temple Thutmose III and Amenhotep II were consequently represented jointly in all of the temple rooms. The decoration must have thus been executed all at one time, because otherwise some rooms would have been decorated by the images of Thutmose III alone and others by his son’s. 77 But if both kings appear in all rooms together, that means that the artists followed a consequent plan so that the images of both rulers must have been present in the temple decoration from the very beginning. Therefore, the Amada temple decoration is an undisputable proof for the co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. 78
However, the advocates of the co-regency hypothesis fail to explain why both rulers are represented together exclusively in the Amada temple. The brevity of the alleged co-regency cannot be an argument, because similar representations should have appeared also in other royal monuments, or their execution should have at least been started, if both rulers had actually reigned together. So why do we find it only in a provincial temple at Amada, in the far south? A careful examination of the Amada temple decoration might give us an answer to this question. It reveals also some details of crucial importance that are generally neglected by the scholars in the discussion on the mutual relations between Thutmose III and Amenhotep II in the Amada temple. Every time that both rulers are represented only by their titularies, Amenhotep II’s names are always placed on the left side, while Thutmose III’s names are always on the right side. 79 That way the hieroglyphs forming Amenhotep II’s name are always facing right, while the signs within Thutmose III’s name are always oriented towards the left. The same exact situation is attested in the shrine no. 30 at Gebel es-Silsila 80 (fig. 1), which is often evoked in the discussion on the co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II as well. 81 Interestingly, if we compare it to the analogous monuments dating to the co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, it appears that Thutmose III’s titulary from the Amada temple and the Gebel es-Silsila shrine is situated in exactly the same place as it used to be in Hatshepsut’s times, while Amenhotep II’s titulary is placed where Hatshepsut’s names used to be. 82 It results from the fact that a right-orientation was a natural one for the ancient Egyptians, and therefore more important figures were usually represented on the left side of a given scene, so that they might be facing right, while the lesser figures were usually placed on the right side, facing left. 83 That way placing Thutmose III’s names on the right side during the co-regency with Hatshepsut was supposed to underline, although in an extremely subtle way, his inferior position with respect to his stepmother and aunt who was therefore represented as a kind of primus inter pares. 84 The same can be observed in the decoration of the Amada temple and Gebel es-Silsila shrine; in this case it is Amenhotep’s II titulary that is facing right in order to subtly mark his superior position with respect to Thutmose III.
Entrance to the shrine no. 30 at Gebel es-Silsilah (after Caminos and James, Gebel es-Silsilah I, pl. 73).
Amenhotep II’s primary role was stressed in a no less subtle manner in instances when we find both rulers’ images on the walls of the Amada temple (figs 2–3). No matter which of the rulers precedes his fellow in particular scenes, there is a consequent distribution of the divine birds flying above the kings. Therefore, Amenhotep II is always protected by the goddess Nekhbet of Upper Egypt, while Thutmose III is guarded by the goddess Wadjet of Lower Egypt. 85
Thutmose III and Amenhotep II making offerings to Amun. Temple of Amada, room R, west wall (after Aly, et al., Le temple d’Amada IV, R 6–10).
Amenhotep II and Thutmose III making offerings to Amun and Ra. Temple of Amada, room P, west wall (after Aly, et al., Le temple d’Amada IV, P 6–10).
Southern direction was generally considered by the ancient Egyptians to be more important than the northern one. 86 Therefore, the southern part of the country was always mentioned first in the official titles (for instance the pharaoh is a king of the Upper and Lower Egypt, nswt bjt.j, 87 while his wife is a Lady of the South and the North, nb.t šmʿ.w mḥ.w 88 ), during the coronation ritual the king was crowned first with the White Crown of the Upper Egypt, and only then with the Red Crown of the Lower Egypt. 89 Deities associated with the south always precede the ones associated with the north, which can be illustrated by the spelling of the introductory title of the nb.tj-name, where Nekhbet’s vulture precedes the Wadjet’s cobra. 90 That way the association of Amenhotep II with the southern direction, while Thutmose III was linked to the northern direction in the Amada temple, is just another subtle way to emphasise Amenhotep II’s primary role with respect to his father. 91 At first glance, such an exposition of Amenhotep II’s primacy over Thutmose III might seem awkward. For if both rulers had indeed ruled together at the moment of the execution of the Amada temple reliefs, one should rather expect that it would have been Thutmose III, as a senior king, not only older and reigning for a longer time, but being also a great warrior and temple builder, who should be represented in the temple as the more important of the two monarchs. There is only one possible explanation: Amenhotep II is represented as a superior king because at the time when the temple decoration was executed he was the only ruling king, while Thutmose III is represented as a secondary king, because he was dead. 92 His presence in the temple decoration is caused in part by the fact that it was actually him who started the construction of the Amada temple, which was later completed by his son. 93 It seems that Thutmose III appears here as an ancestral protector and supporter of Amenhotep II, 94 which is perfectly compliant with what we know about the role of the New Kingdom temples erected in Nubia in the Egyptian ideology of kingship. 95 Moreover, Thutmose III was particularly venerated in Nubia, sometimes appearing there as an incarnation of the god Thoth. 96 This explains not only the very presence of Thutmose III in the Amada temple, but also the fact why both kings appear jointly exclusively in this temple 97 – it is the ideological significance of the Amada temple that made it possible to refer to the ruling king’s predecessor in such an open and thorough manner, which would not be acceptable in other sanctuaries of Egypt.
Thutmose III and Amenhotep II occasionally also appear together outside of the temple context, namely in the decoration of some of the private tombs 98 (fig. 4). Their mutual relation is, however, quite different from the one that we know from the Amada temple and Gebel es-Silsila shrine as it seems that it is Thutmose III who was represented as the pre-eminent king in the private tombs. 99 But, it should be stressed, that it does not contradict the preceding remarks concerning the Amada temple. The primacy of Thutmose III in the decoration of the private tombs seems to result from the fact that most of the officials in question started their careers or were promoted to more significant functions during his reign. As they kept their offices beyond Thutmose III’s demise, it is logical that the new king, Amenhotep II is also present in the decoration of their tombs. Therefore, neither the decoration of the Amada temple and Gebel es-Silsila shrine, nor the decoration of the private tombs can be used as an argument in favour of the existence of a co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. In both instances, the presence of both kings is determined by different factors and reflects different ideological purposes.
Thutmose III and Amenhotep II receiving offerings from Neferrenpet (TT 43, after Helck, MDAIK 17, 103, fig. 3).
Other sources usually evoked in the discussion of the alleged co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II consist of a collection of more or less complex monuments (like stelae or scarabs; fig. 5), which bear the names and/or images of both kings. 100 As mentioned earlier, such material cannot be used as evidence for a co-regency, especially in the light of what has been said about other monuments, which, at least at first glance, might seem more unequivocal. The very presence of the names and/or images of two rulers, especially if one of them directly succeeded the other, occurs quite often in Egyptian sources, but it is not enough to prove the existence of a co-regency of the particular kings. 101
Scarab inscribed with the names of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. British Museum BM EA 29233 (after B. Jaeger, Essai de classification et datation des scarabées Menkhéperrê (OBO SA 2; Fribourg, 1982), 182, no. 514).
Among these sources, there is one that deserves particular attention, namely the stela of Henutneferet 102 (fig. 6). In the upper part of the monument we see both Thutmose III and Amenhotep II seated and facing each other. Both pharaohs wear the ḫprš-crown and hold the ḥoȝ-sceptre. Above them there is also a winged sun-disc. Thutmose III’s image was situated on the left side, so he is facing right, being thus a more important figure in this scene. Between the kings there is also an offering-table, which, based on the orientation of the products put on it, belongs to Thutmose III; he is therefore the addressee of all the offerings presented on the offering-table. Although the titularies of both monarchs are followed by the traditional epithet ‘given life, like Ra, forever’ (dj ʿnḫ mj rʿ ḏt), 103 Thutmose III must have been dead by the time the stela was executed. It can be deduced not only from the fact that he is the addressee of the offerings, but, most of all, from the fact that the offering formula inscribed in two horizontal lines in the lower part of the monument is addressed not only to ‘Amun-Ra, lord of the gods’, but also to ‘the royal ka of (Men-kheper-Ra)|, given life, so they might give everything good and pure, which comes in front of (the deceased) every day for the ka of the lady of the house Henutneferet’. 104 Thutmose III appears here as a divinised royal ancestor and in consequence, as a god 105 he is superior in hierarchy than his son and reigning king, Amenhotep II, which is why his image was placed on the left side of the scene, while Amenhotep II’s was represented on the right side. Henutneferet’s stela, as well as other monuments of this type, cannot thus be used as proof for a co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II.
Stela of Henutneferet (Leiden V, 11) representing Thutmose III and Amenhotep II (after Boeser, Beschreibung, VI/3, pl. 7, no. 8).
All of the aforementioned remarks indicate that there is no convincing and satisfactory evidence for a co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. The very existence of the institution of the co-regency in the form described in the Egyptological literature is extremely doubtful as it seems to contradict what we know about the ancient Egyptian ideology of kingship. Moreover, the very idea of the existence of the co-regencies in ancient Egypt was based on an inaccurate analysis of the sources, especially of the Middle Kingdom period. The conviction that the institution of the co-regency was established already in the Twelfth Dynasty induced many scholars to believe, that it was restored in the early New Kingdom to be continued until the end of the Twentieth Dynasty or even beyond. The present case study of the alleged co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II, taking as a starting point the assumption that there was no co-regency in ancient Egypt prior to the reign of Amenhotep II except for that of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III (which was indeed very extraordinary situation), demonstrates that there is no need to imply a co-regency of both rulers. In fact, the co-regency hypothesis might seem to perfectly explain the available source material at first glance, but careful analysis shows that it not only does not solve all the problems in a coherent and undisputable manner, but moreover, generates a number of questions that cannot be satisfactorily answered if we accept the co-regency hypothesis. Therefore, instead of searching for one explanation for various kinds of sources, it is better to analyse them individually as even seemingly similar representations might have totally different ideological purpose depending on their original context, as demonstrated by the analysis of the Amada temple and private tombs’ decoration.
Nevertheless, it seems that there is no longer a reason to maintain that Thutmose III ruled together with his son even for a brief period of time as Amenhotep II apparently assumed royal power only after his father’s demise. It seems necessary to also reinvestigate other alleged New Kingdom co-regencies in order to examine if they ever actually existed, but this task is beyond the scope of the present article. 106 For now, it is the co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III that can be considered to be the only one that is attested beyond any possible doubt 107 (apart from the Ptolemaic and Roman co-regencies, 108 but this is quite another story), bearing in mind its unique and unparalleled character.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I should like to express my deepest gratitude to Andrzej Ćwiek for a fruitful discussion on various points discussed in the present article. My thanks also go to the Anonymous Reviewers for their invaluable suggestions and critical remarks which helped me to improve my contribution. Of course, I remain solely responsible for all interpretations as well as for all possible errors.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research conducted in order to prepare the present article was possible thanks to the scholarship from the French Government, to whom I am indebted for its generous support.
1.
E. de Rougé, ‘Lettre à M. Leemans, Directeur du Musée d’Antiquités des Pays-Bas, sur une stèle égyptienne de ce Musée’, RAr 6 (1849–50), 572.
2.
C. R. Lepsius, ‘Über die zwölfte Aegyptische Königsdynastie’, APAW 1852 (1853), 447.
3.
J. de Morgan, U. Bouriant, G. Legrain, G. Jéquier, and A. Barsanti, Catalogue des monuments et inscriptions de l’Égypte ancienne I: Haute Égypte I: De la frontière de Nubie à Kom Ombos (Vienna, 1894), 25 (no. 178); H. Jaritz, ‘The Investigation of the Ancient Wall Extending from Aswan to Philae’, MDAIK 49 (1993), pl. 24c.
4.
For a critique of this view, see R. D. Delia, ‘A New Look at Some Old Dates: A Reexamination of Twelfth Dynasty Double Dated Inscriptions’, BES 1 (1978), 24–7; id., ‘Doubts about Double Dates and Coregencies’, BES 4 (1982), 58–61; C. Obsomer, Sésostris I er : Étude chronologique et historique du règne (CEA 5; Bruxelles, 1995), 149–53.
5.
For the classical formulation of the co-regency hypothesis, see W. K. Simpson, ‘The Single-Dated Monuments of Sesostris I: An Aspect of the Institution of Coregency in the Twelfth Dynasty’, JNES 15 (1956), 214–19; W. J. Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies (SAOC 40; Chicago, 1977).
6.
E.g. M. Eaton-Krauss, ‘Middle Kingdom Coregencies and Turin Canon’, JSSEA 12 (1982), 17–20; W. Helck, ‘Mitregentschaft’, in LÄ IV (1982), cols 155–61; E. Blumenthal, ‘Die erste Koregenz der 12. Dynastie’, ZÄS 110 (1983), 104–21; W. K. Simpson, ‘Sesostris I.’, in LÄ V (1984), col. 890; D. Lorton, ‘Terms of Coregency in the Middle Kingdom Egypt’, VA 2 (1986), 113–20; D. Franke, ‘Zur Chronologie des Mittleren Reiches (12.18. Dynastie). Teil I: Die 12. Dynastie’, Orientalia 57 (1988), 113–38; A. Awadalla, ‘Un document prouvant la corégence d’Amenemhat et Sésostris Ier’, GM 115 (1990), 7–14; F. Arnold, The Control Notes and Team Marks, (The South Cemeteries of Lisht 2; New York, 1990), 30–1; Do. Arnold, ‘Amenemhat I and the Early Twelfth Dynasty at Thebes’, MMJ 26 (1991), 14, 18, 42 n. 47; K. Jansen-Winkeln, ‘Das Attentat auf Amenemhet I und die erste ägyptische Koregentschaft’, SAK 18 (1991), 241–64; id., ‘Zu den Koregenzen der 12. Dynastie’, SAK 24 (1997), 115–35; A. Thériault, ‘The Instruction of Amenemhat as Propaganda’, JARCE 30 (1993), 151–60; Th. Schneider, ‘The Relative Chronology of the Middle Kingdom and the Hyksos Period (Dyns. 12–17)’, in E. Hornung, R. Krauss, and D. A. Warburton (eds), Ancient Egyptian Chronology (HdO 83; Leiden, 2006), 170–5; Di. Arnold, The Pyramid Complex of Amenemhat I at Lisht: The Architecture (New York, 2015), 18 (fig. 11), 61–2; Di. Arnold, P. Jánosi, ‘The Move to the North: Establishing a New Capital’, in A. Oppenheim, Do. Arnold, Di. Arnold, and K. Yamamoto (eds), Ancient Egypt Transformed: The Middle Kingdom (New York, 2015), 56.
7.
N. Kanawati, ‘Deux conspirations contre Pépy Ier’, CdE 56/112 (1981), 203–17. Cf., however, Murnane, Coregencies, 227.
8.
For an overview of the accepted and hypothetical co-regencies, see Murnane, Coregencies.
9.
P. F. Dorman, ‘The Early Reign of Thutmose III: An Unorthodox Mantle of Coregency’, in E. H. Cline and D. O’Connor (eds), Thutmose III: A New Biography (Ann Arbor, 2006), 39–68; M. Sankiewicz, ‘The “co-regency” of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III in the light of iconography in the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari’, in M. Horn, R. Mairs, J. Kramer, A. Stevenson, D. Soliman, N. Staring, C. van den Hoven, and L. Weiss (eds), Current Research in Egyptology 2010: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Symposium, Leiden University 2010 (Oxford, 2011), 131–44.
10.
This view is accepted by V. Golénischeff, Les papyrus hiératiques NoNo 1115, 1116 A et 1116 B de l’Ermitage impérial à St-Pétersbourg (St-Pétersbourg, 1913), 3; A. Alt, ‘Neue Berichte über Feldzüge von Pharaonen des Neuen Reiches nach Palästina’, ZDPV 70 (1954), 40; W. Helck, Untersuchungen zu Manetho und den ägyptischen Königslisten (UGAÄ18; Berlin, 1956), 66; id., ‘Das thebanische Grab 43’, MDAIK 17, 106–9; D. B. Redford, ‘The Coregency of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II’, JEA 51 (1965), 107–22; Sh. Yeivin, ‘Amenophis II’s Asianic Campaigns’, JARCE 6 (1967), 119–28; C. Aldred, ‘The Second Jubilee of Amenophis II’, ZÄS 94 (1967), 6; E. Hornung, ‘Neue Materialen zur ägyptischen Chronologie’, ZDMG 117 (1967), 11–16; id., ‘Amenophis II.’, in LÄ I (1975), col. 203; J. von Beckerath, ‘Ein neues Monddatum der ägyptischen Geschichte?’, ZDMG 118 (1968), 18–21; id., Chronologie des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches (HÄB 39; Hildesheim, 1994); 93; id., Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten: Die Zeitbestimmung der ägyptischen Geschichte von der Vorzeit bis 332 v. Chr. (MÄS 46; Mainz, 1997), 109; R. A. Parker, ‘Once Again the Coregency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II’, in G. E. Kadish (ed.), Studies in Honor of John A. Wilson, September 12, 1969 (SAOC 20; Chicago, 1969), 75–82; J. A. Wilson, ‘The Asiatic Campaigns of Amen-hotep II’, in ANET (1969), 245 n. 1; W. C. Hayes, ‘Chronology: Egypt to the End of Twentieth Dynasty’, in I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, and N. G. L. Hammond (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History I/1: Prolegomena and Prehistory (3rd edn; Cambridge, 1970), 188; A. F. Rainey, ‘Amenhotep II’s Campaign to Takhsi’, JARCE 10 (1973), 71–5; Murnane, Coregencies, 44–57; Ch. M. Zivie, ‘La stèle d’Amenophis II à Giza: À propos d’une interprétation récente’, SAK 8 (1980), 178 n. 36; Helck, in LÄ IV (1982), col. 156; Ch. C. Van Siclen III, The Alabaster Shrine of Amenhotep II (San Antonio, 1986), 1; id., ‘Amenhotep II’, in D. B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, I (Oxford, 2001), 71; P. Der Manuelian, Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II (HÄB 26; Hildesheim, 1987), 19–40; id., ‘The End of the Reign and the Accession of Amenhotep II’, in E. Cline and D. O’Connor (eds), Thutmose III, 413–29; A. J. Spalinger, Five Views on Egypt (LingAeg: SM 6; Göttingen, 2006), 52–3; R. Gundacker, ‘Papyrus British Museum 10056: Ergebnisse einer Neukollationierung und Anmerkungen zur inlahltlichen Auswertung im Rahmen der militärischen Ausbildung Amenophis’ II.’, Ä&L 27 (2017), 304–6; 310–11.
11.
E. Blyth, Karnak: Evolution of a Temple (London, 2006), 52.
12.
The co-regency hypothesis is rejected by Delia, BES 1, 15–28; id., BES 4, 55–69; W. Helck, ‘Schwachstellen der Chronologie-Diskussion’, GM 67 (1983), 43–9; id., ‘Nochmals zur angeblichen Mitregentschaft Sesostris’ I. mit seinem Vater Amenemhet I.’, Orientalia 58 (1989), 315–17; id., ‘Anmerkungen zum Turiner Königspapyrus’, SAK 19 (1992), 174; C. Obsomer, ‘La date de Nésou-Montou (Louvre C1)’, RdE 44 (1993), 103–40; id., Sésostris I er , 35–145; C. Vandersleyen, L’Égypte et la Vallée du Nil II: De la fin de l’Ancien Empire à la fin du Nouvel Empire (Paris, 1995), 52, 57, 61–2; D. Franke, Das Heiligtum des Heqaib auf Elephantine: Geschichte eines Provinzheiligtums im Mittleren Reich (SAGA 9; Heidelberg, 1994), xi–xiii; V. G. Callender, ‘The Middle Kingdom Renaissance (c.2055–1650 BC)’, in I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (2nd edn; Oxford, 2002), 137–71; P. Tallet, Sésostris III et la fin de la XII e dynastie (Paris, 2005), 265–72; N. Favry, Sésostris I er et le début de la XII e dynastie (Paris, 2009), 31–50. Note that some scholars have changed their previous views on the existence of the co-regency in the Middle Kingdom. The most significant is, however, the opinion of William Kelly Simpson, one of the ‘founding fathers’ of the co-regency hypothesis, expressed in his study ‘Belles Lettres and Propaganda’, in A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms (PdÄ 10; Leiden, 1996), 441: ‘Delia and Helck have equally cogently denied the existence of any coregency between these rulers (i.e. Amenemhat I and Senwosret I – F.T.), and now Obsomer has shown convincingly that the data usually cited in favor of coregency of ten years do not support it’.
13.
For this, see H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature (2nd edn; Chicago, 1978), 36–45.
14.
J. von Beckerath, review of W. J. Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies (Chicago, 1977), BiOr 36 (1979), col. 306; A. J. Spalinger, review of Murnane, Coregencies, JARCE 16 (1979), 189; D. B. Redford, review of Murnane, Coregencies, JEA 69 (1983), 181. It should be noted, however, that although all of these scholars observe the incompatibility of the co-regency hypothesis with the ancient Egyptian ideology of kingship, they still accept it. Cf. also L. Christophe, ‘La carrière du Prince Merenptah et les trois régences ramessides’, ASAE 51 (1951), 371, who denies the possibility of the existence of any co-regency in the Ramesside Period (because he thinks that the idea of the identification of the ruling king with the sun god in this period precludes him from sharing his power with a co-regent), but accepts it for the Middle Kingdom.
15.
Delia, BES 1, 15–28; id., BES 4, 55–69; Obsomer, RdE 44, 103–40; id., Sésostris I er , 35–145.
16.
The only possible exceptions come from the co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III of the Eighteenth Dynasty, in this case, however, the structure of the ‘double’ date is different from its alleged Middle Kingdom antecedents. If a ‘double’ date does occur in Hatshepsut’s co-regency inscriptions (which does not happen very often) it has a structure of ‘year x of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III’, while the alleged Middle Kingdom examples have a structure of ‘year x of king X, year y of king Y’. Most of Hatshepsut’s co-regency inscriptions, however, do not name any king at all (‘year x’). See J.-L. Chappaz, ‘Un cas particulier de corégence: Hatshepsout et Thoutmosis III’, in Ch. Cannuyer and J.-M. Kruchten (eds), Individu, société et spiritualité dans l’Égypte pharaonique et copte: Mélanges égyptologiques offerts au Professeur Aristide Théodoridès (Ath, 1993), 93–102.
17.
They are attested on the following monuments: stela of Intef of Abydos (CG 20516; H. O. Lange and H. Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine des Mittleren Reichs, II (CGC Nos 20400–20780; Berlin, 1909), 108–11), stela of Wepwawetaa (Leiden V 4); P. A. A. Boeser, Beschreibung der Ägyptischen Sammlung des Niederländischen Reichsmuseum der Altertümer in Leiden, I (Leiden, 1909), pl. IV; W. K. Simpson, The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: The Offering Chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13, (New Haven, 1974), pl. 30) as well as the aforementioned rock-cut stela of Hepu found at Konosso (de Morgan, et al., Catalogue, I/I, 25 (no. 178); Jaritz, MDAIK 49, pl. 24c).
18.
In the case of Wepwawetaa’s and Hepu’s stelae.
19.
In the case of Intef’s stela.
20.
R. Krauss, Das Ende des Amarnazeit: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Chronologie des Neuen Reiches (HÄB 7; Hildesheim, 1978), 173–5; id., ‘Zur Chronologie des Neuen Reiches’, OLZ 90 (1995), 241–2; M. Bierbrier, review of W. J. Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, (Chicago, 1977), Orientalia 49 (1980), 108; Vandersleyen, L’Égypte et la Vallée du Nil, II, 319–23; M. Defossez, review of P. Der Manuelian, Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II (Hildesheim, 1987), CdE 67/134 (1992), 275–6; D. Laboury, La statuaire de Thoutmosis III: Essai d’interprétation d’un portrait royal dans son contexte historique (Liège, 1998), 53–4; E. Hornung, ‘The New Kingdom’, in E. Hornung, R. Krauss, and D. A. Warburton (eds), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, 203; S. Pasquali, ‘La date du papyrus BM 10056. Thoutmosis III ou Amenhotep II?’, RdE 58 (2007), 74.
21.
The throne name of the king appears in the name of the sacred bark in P. Hermitage 1116B, vrs. 56; Golénischeff, Les papyrus hiératiques, pl. XXVII.
22.
P. Hermitage 1116B, vrs. 61; Golénischeff, Les papyrus hiératiques, pl. XXVIII.
23.
P. Hermitage 1116B, vrs. 66; Golénischeff, Les papyrus hiératiques, pl. XXVIII.
24.
Golénischeff, Les papyrus hiératiques, 3; Der Manuelian, Studies, 21.
25.
Cf. the mention of the ‘temple (ḥwt-nṯr) of (Ramesses- meri-Imen)| – may he live, may he prosper, may he be healthy!’ in P. Anastasi VI, 1.15, dated to the reign of Sethi II (as explicitly stated in ibid. 1.1–2; all citations after A. H. Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Miscellanies (BiAeg 7; Bruxelles, 1937), 72–8). The fact that the same papyrus mentions also the ‘fortress of (Merenptah-hetep-her-Ma‘at)| – may he live, may he prosper, may he be healthy!’ (ibid. 4.15 and 5.4) indicates that the royal name as a part of a longer name of a building or an institution may well be followed by the ʿnḫ.w wḏȝ.w snb.w-formula even after the given king’s demise. Therefore, the occurrence of the formula in such a context has no bearing at all on the question of whether the given king is dead or alive.
26.
For the temple of millions of years of Thutmose III at Western Thebes, see H. Ricke, Der Totentempel Thutmoses’ III. Baugeschichtliche Untersuchung (BÄBA 3; Cairo, 1939); M. Seco Álvarez, ‘The Temple of Millions of Years of Tuthmosis III’, EA 44 (2014), 21–5; ead., ‘The Henket-ankh Temple of Thutmosis III in Luxor West Bank: Five Years of Investigation’, in A. Jiménez-Serrano and C. von Pilgrim (eds), From Delta to the Cataract: Studies Dedicated to Mohamed el-Bialy (CHAN 76; Leiden, 2015), 240–53. For the role of these temples in the New Kingdom royal ideology, see M. Ullmann, König für Ewigkeit – Die Häuser der Millionen von Jahren: Eine Untersuchung zu Königskult und Tempeltypologie in Ägypten (ÄAT 51; Wiesbaden, 2002); G. Haeny, ‘New Kingdom “Mortuary Temples” and “Mansions of Millions of Years”’, in B. E. Shafer (ed.), Temples of Ancient Egypt (2nd edn; London, 2005), 86–126; S. Schröder, Millionenjahrhaus: Zur Konzeption des Raumes der Ewigkeit im konstellativen Königstum in Sprache, Architektur und Theologie (Wiesbaden, 2010).
27.
For the great tomb robberies at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty, see P. Vernus, Affaires et scandales sous les Ramsès: La Crise des Valeurs dans l’Égypte du Nouvel Empire (Paris, 1993), 11–74; M. Barwik, The Twilight of Ramesside Egypt: Studies on the History of Egypt at the End of the Ramesside Period (Warszawa, 2011), 1–38.
28.
P. Abbott 6.2–3. Translation after KRI VI, 477.5–8.
29.
See a detailed discussion in Redford, JEA 51, 107–10.
30.
The exact location of Peru-nefer is a matter of controversy among the scholars. Some want to identify Peru-nefer with the shipyard of Avaris (M. Bietak, ‘The Thutmoside Stronghold of Perunefer’, EA 26 (2005), 13–17; id., ‘Perunefer: The Principal New Kingdom Naval Base’, EA 34 (2009), 15–17; id., ‘Perunefer: An Update’, EA 35 (2009), 16–17; Gundacker, Ä&L 27, 313–16), while others prefer to situate it in the Memphite area (M. Kamish, ‘Problems of Toponymy with Special Reference to Memphis and Prw-nfr’, Wepwawet 2 (1986), 32–6; Pasquali, RdE 58, 77–81; I. Forstner-Müller, ‘Avaris, Its Harbours and the Perunefer Problem’, EA 45 (2014), 32–5). See also D. Jeffreys, ‘Perunefer: At Memphis or Avaris?’, EA 28 (2006), 36–7.
31.
P. Hermitage 1116A, vrs. 50; Golénischeff, Les papyrus hiératiques, pl. XVI.
32.
P. Hermitage 1116A, vrs. 19; Golénischeff, Les papyrus hiératiques, pl. XV.
33.
P. BM 10056, vrs. 2.6, 3.2, 3.8, 4.2; S. R. K. Glanville, ‘Records of a Royal Dockyard of the Time of Tuthmosis III: Papyrus British Museum 10056’, ZÄS 66 (1932), 117–18.
34.
Golénischeff, Les papyrus hiératiques, 3.
35.
Glanville, ZÄS 66, 106, 120. The date appears in P. BM 10056, vrs. 9.8.
36.
Redford, JEA 51, 108–16. For the stela of ‘Prince B’, see Ch. M. Zivie, Giza au deuxième millénaire (BdE 70, Cairo, 1976), 96–104.
37.
Der Manuelian, Studies, 174–8; Van Siclen III, Alabaster Shrine, 2; A. Dodson, ‘Crown Prince Djhutmose and the Royal Sons of the Eighteenth Dynasty’, JEA 76 (1990), 93:12. Cf. however B. Schmitz, Untersuchungen zum Titel sȝ-nśwt, Königssohn (Bonn, 1976), 299–300; B. M. Bryan, The Reign of Tuthmosis IV (Baltimore, 1991), 49–52, 57–64. On the other hand, E. F. Wente and Ch. C. Van Siclen III, ‘A Chronology of the New Kingdom’, in J. H. Johnson and E. F. Wente (eds), Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes, January 12, 1977 (SAOC 39; Chicago, 1976), 227–8 suggest that the papyrus should be dated to the regnal year 30 of Amenhotep II.
38.
Pasquali, RdE 58, 71–83.
39.
Gundacker, Ä&L 27, 292–3, 304–5, 310, 319–20.
40.
It should be noted, however, that Glanville’s suggestion that Amenhotep II was a sem-priest in his father’s 30th regnal year does not seem probable. Amenhotep II’s mother, Merit-Ra Hatshepsut is attested on the monuments of the second part of Thutmose III’s rule, which means that Amenhotep II must have been born quite late in the reign of his father; M. Gitton, Les divines épouses de la 18e dynastie, (Besançon, 1984), 75–8; F. Maruéjol, Thoutmosis III et la corégence avec Hatchepsout (Paris, 2007), 103–6. Moreover, in the Great Sphinx Stela, Amenhotep II is said to have been 18 years old at his coronation (Urk. IV, 1279.8–10), which (even if the hypothesis of a short co-regency is accepted) precludes him from executing the office of the sem-priest in regnal year 30 of his father.
41.
Urk. IV, 1343.10. According to Der Manuelian, Studies, 32 the accession of Amenhotep II in IV akhet 1 is attested also in P. BM EA 10056, but unfortunately his statement is misleading. The date of IV akhet 1 is indeed attested in P. BM EA 10056, vrs. 3.6 (Glanville, ZÄS 66, 118) but it is in no way connected with the anniversary of Amenhotep II’s coronation. Besides, if the document is indeed to be dated to the final years of Thutmose III (see the discussion earlier in this article), then Amenhotep II appears in this source as a sem-priest and not a king.
42.
Urk. IV, 896.14–896.8.
43.
Redford, JEA 51, 121; Parker, in Kadish (ed.), Studies Wilson, 75–82; Helck, in LÄ IV (1982), col. 156; Der Manuelian, Studies, 20–1; id., in Cline and O’Connor (eds), Thutmose III, 420–1; von Beckerath, Chronologie des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches, 93.
44.
Murnane, Coregencies, 51–2, believes that Amenemheb’s self-presentation concerns the universal order of nature, in which one king succeeds his predecessor, which, according to him, does not opposes the historicity of a co-regency between the two monarchs. Such interpretation does not seem to be accurate.
45.
This is the opinion of Krauss, Das Ende der Amarnazeit, 173–5 and Laboury, La statuaire de Thoutmosis III, 53.
46.
This view is accepted by Vandersleyen, L’Égypte et la Vallée du Nil, II, 319–23 and Pasquali, RdE 58, 72–4.
47.
As rightly observed by Defossez, CdE 67/134, 275: ‘Dans la mesure du possible, il faut en effet toujours faire confiance au texte originel’.
48.
H. W. Fairman, ‘The Kingship Rituals of Egypt’, in S. Hooke (ed.), Myth, Ritual and Kingship: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and in Israel (Oxford, 1958), 78–85.
49.
50.
M. Dolińska, ‘Temples at Deir el-Bahari in the New Kingdom’, in B. Haring and A. Klug (eds), 6. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Funktion und Gebrauch altägyptischer Tempelräume, Leiden 4–7. September 2002 (Wiesbaden, 2007), 67–8. The continuity between the Feast of the First Month of the Shemu-Season and the Beautiful Feast of the Valley is called into question by L. Postel, Protocole des souverains égyptiens et dogme monarchique au début du Moyen Empire (MRE 10; Turnhout, 2004), 228–9. For more information on the Beautiful Feast of the Valley, see G. Foucart, ‘Études thébaines. La Belle Fête de la Vallée’, BIFAO 24 (1924), 1–209; S. Schott, Das schöne Fest vom Wüstentale: Festbräuche einer Totenstadt (Wiesbaden, 1953); E. Graefe, ‘Talfest’, in LÄ VI (1986), cols 187–9; S. Wiebach, ‘Die Begegnung von Lebenden und Verstorbenen im Rahmen des thebanischen Talfestes’, SAK 13 (1986), 263–91; M. Bietak, ‘La belle fête de la vallée: L’Asasif revisité’, in Ch. Zivie-Coche and I. Guermeur (eds), ‘Parcourir l’éternité’: Hommage à Jean Yoyotte, I (Turnhout, 2012), 135–64; K.-J. Seyfried, Bemerkungen und Quellen zum ḥȝb nfr n jnt, dem ‘Schönen Fest des Tales’ in Theben (GM Beihefte 13; Göttingen, 2013).
51.
F. Taterka, ‘La date du couronnement de Thutmosis III et ses conséquences sur la régence de Hatchepsout’, GM 250 (2016), 170–5.
52.
Urk. IV, 262.7–8.
53.
For the discussion on Hatshepsut’s accession date, see P. F. Dorman, The Monuments of Senenmut: Problems in Historical Methodology (London, 1988), 18–45. It should be noted that although Hatshepsut might have gradually assumed royal attributes which led to her taking over the power in Egypt at some point between II peret 8 and IV peret 2 of the regnal year 7 of Thutmose III, her official coronation could have indeed been planned for I akhet 1 in order to combine it with the celebrations of the New Year’s Feast and, in consequence, strengthen her legitimacy. For the gradual assumption of the royal power by Hatshepsut, see D. Laboury, ‘How and Why Did Hatshepsut Invent the Image of Her Royal Power?’, in J. M. Galán, B. M. Bryan, P. F. Dorman (eds), Creativity and Innovation in the Reign of Hatshepsut: Papers from the Theban Workshop 2010 (SAOC 69; Chicago, 2014), 49–91.
54.
A. H. Gardiner, ‘The Coronation of King Ḥaremḥab’, JEA 39 (1953), 13–31; Taterka, GM 250, 174.
55.
For the sed-festivals of Ramesses II organised on the day of the feast of Nehebkau in his regnal years 42, 45, 51, 54, 63, and 66, see S. Schott, Altägyptische Festdaten (Wiesbaden, 1950), 973–4; R. A. Parker, The Calendars of Ancient Egypt (SAOC 26; Chicago, 1950), 61. For the coronation of Ramesses III organised on the same day, see The Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu III: The Calendar, the ‘Slaughterhouse,’ and Minor Records of Ramses III (OIP 23; Chicago 1934), pl. 163, list 52, no. 1191; W. Barta, ‘Thronbesteigung und Krönungsfeier als unterschiedliche Zeugnisse königlicher Herrschaftsübernahme’, SAK 8 (1980), 48. For the Feast of Nehebkau, see id., ‘Nehebkau’, in LÄ IV (1982), col. 389.
56.
Schott, Festdaten, 89. A. J. Spalinger, ‘The Date of Amunhotep II’s First Accession’, SAK 40 (2011), 387–97 argues that Amenhotep II’s accession on IV akhet 1 should be connected with the feast of Khoiak, originally celebrated at the beginning of the fifth lunar month (I peret 1), which in Amenhotep II’s time must have been moved to the preceding month, due to the irregularities of the phases of the moon and, in consequence, to the imperfection of the lunar calendar. Although Spalinger’s general idea about combining the coronation of Amenhotep II with a religious feast is certainly correct, it seems that such an explanation based on potential shifts in the festival calendar is not necessary as there is another feast traditionally celebrated at the beginning of the fourth month of the akhet-season, namely the Feast of Hathor.
57.
It is noteworthy that a similar procedure, where the aim was to combine the royal coronation with the celebrations of the religious feasts, was a common practice also among the kings of France, who organised their official coronation and their Sacre at Reims on Sunday or on a day of an important liturgical feast; A. Bonnofin, Sacre de Rois de France (Limoge, 1988), 152. For more information on the similarities between the pharaonic Egypt and the French monarchy with respect to the ideology of kingship, see B. Mathieu, ‘Pharaons et rois de France: Profanation et résurrection’, in C. Berger, G. Clerc, and N. Grimal (eds), Hommages à Jean Leclant IV: Varia (BdE 106/4; Cairo, 1994), 215–27.
58.
Urk. IV, 1279.8–10.
59.
Urk. IV, 1283.5–6.
60.
Redford, JEA 51, 117–18; Zivie, Giza au deuxième millénaire, 76–7; Der Manuelian, Studies, 189–90.
61.
Urk. IV, 1276.17.
62.
Zivie, SAK 8, 278 n. 36 (note that the author changed her previous opinion (cf. note 60 of this article), although she accepts the existence of the co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II); Spalinger, Five Views, 52–3.
63.
H. Gauthier, Les temples immergés de la Nubie: Le temple d’Amada (Cairo, 1913), 19–23 with pls X–XI; A. Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III (MonAeg 8; Turnhout, 2002), 286–92.
64.
The upper part of the stela is kept in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna (ÄS 5909; E. von Bergmann, ‘Ein Denkmal aus den Zeiten Amenophis II.’, RT 4 (1883), 33–8), while the lower one is kept in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (CG 34019 = JE 28585; P. Lacau, Stèles du Nouvel Empire (CGC Nos 34001–34189; Cairo, 1909–1957, 38–40). Cf. also Klug, Königliche Stelen, 278–85.
65.
Urk. IV, 1289.1. The date is not preserved on the Elephantine stela, although it is plausible to think that it was identical to the one known from the Amada stela.
66.
Urk. IV, 1294.13–1295.8.
67.
Urk. IV, 1296.7–16.
68.
JE 86763; A. Badawy, ‘Die Neue historische Stele Amenophis II.’, ASAE 42 (1943), 1–23; Klug, Königliche Stelen, 242–53. The same events have been described also on a stela discovered at Karnak, although in a slightly different manner (cf. G. Legrain, ‘La grande stèle d’Amenôthès II à Karnak’, ASAE 4 (1903), 126–32; Klug, Königliche Stelen, 260–70). However, the year dates are not preserved on this monument.
69.
Urk. IV, 1301.3.
70.
The exact meaning of the idiom ‘to be on somebody’s water’ (wnn ḥr mw) is not certain. W. Westendorf, ‘“Auf jemandes Wasser sein” = “vom ihm abhängig sein”’, GM 11 (1974), 47–8 proposed to understand it as ‘to be dependent on somebody’, while Vi. Davies, ‘Readings in the Story of Sinuhe and Other Egyptian Texts’, JEA 61 (1975), 45–6 suggested that the idiom means rather ‘to be loyal to somebody’.
71.
Urk. IV, 1301.15–17.
72.
Urk. IV, 1305.13–15.
73.
Alt, ZDPV 70, 40; Redford, JEA 51, 118–21; Yeivin, JARCE 6, 119–20; Rainey, JARCE 10, 71; Der Manuelian, Studies, 21–3; id., in Cline and O’Connor (eds), Thutmose III, 420–2.
74.
Defossez, CdE 37/134, 275–6. The scholar also points out that the schematic nature of the Egyptian annals gives various possibilities of understanding the ‘first victorious campaign’, which did not necessarily have to be the first one in an absolute sense, but could have equally well been understood as a first campaign against a particular enemy or town.
75.
Murnane, Coregencies, 44–8; B. M. Bryan, ‘The 18th Dynasty before the Amarna Period (c.1550–1352
76.
For more information on Amenhotep II’s Syrian campaigns, see E. Edel, ‘Die Stelen Amenophis’ II. aus Karnak und Memphis mit dem Bericht über die asiatischen Feldzüge des Königs’, ZDPV 69 (1953), 97–176; Yeivin, JARCE 6, 119–28; Rainey, JARCE 10, 71–5; Der Manuelian, Studies, 45–97. Note, however, that some of the authors accept both the co-regency hypothesis and three military campaigns of Amenhotep II in Syria.
77.
P. Laskowski, ‘Monumental Architecture and the Royal Building Program of Thutmose III’, in Cline and O’Connor (eds), 223.
78.
Murnane, Coregencies, 54–7; Der Manuelian, Studies, 25.
79.
M. Aly, F. Abdel-Hamid, and M. Dewachter, Le temple d’Amada IV: Dessins, index, tables de concordances (Cairo, 1967), throughout.
80.
R. A. Caminos and T. G. H. James, Gebel es-Silsilah I: The Shrines (ASE 31; London, 1963), 93–4, pl. 73.
81.
Der Manuelian, Studies, 27.
82.
Cf. the examples coming from the Lower Anubis Shrine (É. Naville, The Temple of Deir el Bahari II: The Ebony Shrine, Northern Hall of the Middle Platform (MEEF 14; London, 1896), pl. XL) or the Main Sanctuary of Amun (id., The Temple of Deir el Bahari V: The Upper Court and Sanctuary (MEEF 27; London, 1906), pl. CXX) in Hatshepsut’s temple of millions of years at Deir el-Bahari.
83.
H. G. Fischer, Egyptian Studies II: The Orientation of Hieroglyphs (New York, 1977), 6–8; R. Grieshammer, ‘Rechts und Links (Symbolik)’, in LÄ V (1984), cols 191–3; W. H. Peck, ‘The Orientation of the Figure’, in M. K. Hartwig (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art (Oxford, 2015), 360–74.
84.
J. Karkowski, The Temple of Hatshepsut: The Solar Complex (Deir el-Bahari 6; Varsovie, 2003), 59–60; Sankiewicz, in Horn, et al. (eds), Current Research in Egyptology 2010, 142; ead. ‘The Iconography of Co-Rule at Deir el-Bahari: Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III in the Statue Room of the Main Sanctuary of Amun’, PAM 24/2 (2015), 165; Laboury, in Galán, et al. (eds), Creativity and Innovation, 87–90. For a different view, see Va. Davies, ‘Hatshepsut’s Use of Tuthmosis III in Her Program of Legitimation’, JARCE 41 (2004), 55–66.
85.
Aly, et al., Le temple d’Amada, IV, throughout.
86.
G. Posener, ‘Sur l’orientation et l’ordre des points cardinaux chez les Égyptiens’, NAWG 1965 (1965), 69–78; M. J. Raven, ‘Egyptian Concepts on the Orientation of the Human Body’, JEA 91 (2005), 37–53; id., ‘Egyptian Concepts on the Orientation of Human Body’, in J.-C. Goyon and Ch. Cardin (eds), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, Grenoble, 6–12 Septembre 2004, II (OLA 150; Leuven, 2007), 1567–73; Sankiewicz, in Horn, et al. (eds), Current Research in Egyptology 2010, 142; ead., PAM 24/2, 164–5.
87.
For the meaning of this title, see J. von Beckerath, Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen (2nd edn; MÄS 49, Mainz, 1984), 10–16, R. J. Leprohon, The Great Name: Ancient Egyptian Royal Titulary (Atlanta, 2013), 17.
88.
For this title, see W. Seipel, ‘Königinnentitel’, in LÄ III (1980), col. 474.
89.
E.g. The Prophecy of Neferti reads: ‘He will receive the [White] Crown and he will wear the Red Crown. He will unite the Double Crown and he will appease the two Lords’ (P. Hermitage 1116B; translation after W. Helck, Die Prophezeiung des Nfr.tj (2nd edn; Wiesbaden, 1992), 51), while Hatshepsut, in the inscription engraved on the base of the northern obelisk of the pair erected between the 4th and 5th pylons at Karnak, states of herself ‘I wear the White Crown and I appear in the Red Crown for I have united the Two Lords as well as their shares’ (Urk. IV, 366.1–3). On the other hand, it seems that sometimes it is the White Crown alone that served as a symbol of the royal power as such. E.g. in The Instructions of King Amenemhat, the ruler addresses his son: ‘Look, I have made the beginning so that I might form for you the result. It was me who caused successful mooring of (the ideas) that were in my heart, while you wear the White Crown, being the seed of god’ (pSallier II 12.5–6; translation after F. Adrom, Die Lehre des Amenemhet (BiAeg 19; Turnhout, 2006), 1–85), while in one of the inscriptions from the Northern Middle Portico in Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir el-Bahari the god Amun-Ra states of the future female king: ‘My ba is hers, my [power] is hers, my glory is hers, my Great White Crown is hers. She will be ruling over the Two Lands and will be leading all the living’ (Urk. IV, 221.10–15). For more information on this topic, see S. Collier, The Crowns of the Pharaohs: Their Development and Significance in Ancient Egyptian Kingship (PhD thesis, University of California; Los Angeles, 1996), 16–36. See also Va. Davies, JARCE 41, 63.
90.
Von Beckerath, Handbuch2, 10–16; Leprohon, The Great Name, 13–15.
91.
Similar procedure was applied also during the co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III in order to subtly underline the primacy of the female ruler over her younger co-regent; Sankiewicz, in Horn, et al. (eds), Current Research in Egyptology 2010, 131–44; ead., PAM 24/2, 161–8.
92.
It is also significant that although it is exclusively Thutmose III who is shown in the decoration of the temple as the founder of the Amada temple, it is actually Amenhotep II who acts there as the living king as it is the latter who is depicted while performing the rituals in front of Amun as rightly pointed out by Laskowski, in Cline and O’Connor (eds), Thutmose III, 224.
93.
It seems highly significant that the aforementioned Amada stela, describing Amenhotep II’s decision to restore the temple, designates the king’s action with the term snfr. The very same term has been used in the inscriptions of Thutmose III engraved on the statues of Amenhotep I and Thutmose II, which originally were to represent Hatshepsut but, for some unknown reason, were never completed (cf. Urk. IV, 605.16–17 and 606.2). It has been rightly observed that the exact meaning of snfr in such a context would be therefore ‘to cover with inscriptions’ or, more generally, ‘to cover with decoration’, although this word is usually used with respect to the action aiming at honouring royal ancestors by the ruling king (R. Tefnin, ‘Une statue de reine British Museum et Karnak et les paradoxes du protrait égyptien’, JEA 69 (1983), 106; Laboury, La statuaire de Thoutmosis III, 1998, 31–2; P. Laskowski, ‘Meaning of the Verb snfr in the Building Records of Thutmoside Period’, in J. Popielska-Grzybowska (ed.), Proceedings of the Second Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists, Egypt 2001: Perspectives of Research, Warsaw 5–7 May 2001 (Warsaw, 2003), 91–5; id., in Cline and O’Connor (eds), 221–3; J. Iwaszczuk, ‘Rebirth of Temples under the Rule of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III: Vocabulary’, ET 28 (2015), 36–7). Therefore, it seems that Thutmose III started the construction of the Amada temple. What Amenhotep II did, however, was to snfr the temple (i.e. he covered it with decoration and inscriptions). That would explain the presence of both Thutmose III and Amenhotep II in the decoration of the temple without any necessity to imply that both pharaohs ever ruled together.
94.
Laboury, La statuaire de Thoutmosis III, 54 points out that Thutmose III appears in the role of protective ancestor of Amenhotep II also in the Great Sphinx Stela of the latter. The relevant passage reads: ‘It has been heard in the House of the King by his father, Horus: Victorious-Bull-Appearing-in-Waset (i.e. Thutmose III – F.T.) and the heart of His Majesty was happy when he heard of it, rejoicing because of what had been said of his eldest son (i.e. Amenhotep II – F.T.). And he said in his heart: “It is him who will be the lord of the entire land without being attacked”’ (Urk. IV, 1281.15–19). Moreover, the scholar rightly observes that if Thutmose III and Amenhotep II had indeed ruled together, this would have been an ideal place to mention it, instead of evoking the thoughts of his father regarding the future of his successor that no-one could actually hear.
95.
See especially S. Bickel, ‘Le dieu Nebmaâtrê de Soleb’, in N. Beaux and N. Grimal (eds), Soleb VI: Hommage à Michela Schiff Giorgini (BiGen 45; Cairo, 2013), 59–82; H. Sourouzian, ‘Le roi et la reine: Le couple royal à Soleb’, in ibid., 143–201.
96.
T. Säve-Söderbergh, ‘The Paintings in the Tomb of Djehuty-hetep at Debeira’, Kush 8 (1960), pl. 15; A. Radwan, ‘Thutmosis III. als Gott’, in H. Guksch and D. Polz (eds), Stationen: Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens Rainer Stadelmann gewidmet (Mainz, 1998), 339.
97.
The names and images of Amenhotep II appear in the monuments constructed by Thutmose III at Kumma, el-Kab, and Tod. In all instances it is, however a result of later additions of Amenhotep II to the original decoration executed under the reign of his father; Redford, JEA 51, 116; Murnane, Coregencies, 57; Ch. C. Van Siclen III, The Chapel of Sesostris III at Uronarti (San Antonio, 1982), 49; Der Manuelian, Studies, 25.
98.
The names and images of both rulers appear on the walls of the tombs of Amenmose (TT 42; No. de G. Davies, The Tombs of Menkheperrasonb, Amenmosé, and Another (Nos. 86, 112, 42, 226) (TT Series 5; London, 1933), 33, pl. 39), Neferrenpet (TT 43; M. Baud, Les dessins ébauchés de la nécropole thébaine, (MIFAO 63; Cairo, 1935, pl. 8; Helck, MDAIK 17, 103, fig. 3); Amenemheb (TT 85; PM I/12, 171 (no. 9) and 172 (no. 17)), Mentjuiwi (TT 172; PM I/12, 208 (no. 3), Dedi (TT 200, PM I/12, 303 no. 3), and Nebenkemet (TT 256; PM I/12, 341 (no. 3) and (no. 5)). Cf. also Redford, JEA 51, 116; Murnane, Coregencies, 53; Der Manuelian, Studies, 23–4.
99.
E.g. in the tomb of Amenmose (TT 42) the names and images of Thutmose III were placed on the left side, so that they are oriented rightwards (Davies, The Tombs of Menkheperrasonb, 33, pl. 39), while in the tomb of Neferrenpet (TT 43) Thutmose III precedes Amenhotep II (Baud, Les dessins ébauchés, pl. 8). It should be noted, however, that in the latter case, Thutmose III’s pre-eminence might be somewhat illusory as the scene showing one king behind the other could be intended to indicate that they were supposed to be positioned side by side as pointed out by Davies, JARCE 41, 62.
100.
A list of these objects can be found in Der Manuelian, Studies, 24–32.
101.
A. H. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs: An Introduction (Oxford, 1961), 200 n. 2; Redford, JEA 51, 116–17.
102.
Stela Leiden V, 11; P. A. A. Boeser, Beschreibung der Aegyptischen Sammlung des Niederländischen Reichsmuseums der Altertümer in Leiden VI: Die Denkmäler des Neuen Reiches III: Stelen (Haag, 1913), pl. 7, no. 8. The monument is cited as an argument in favour of the co-regency hypothesis by Murnane, Coregencies, 53 and Der Manuelian, Studies, 28.
103.
For the caution necessary in dealing with the epithets ‘given life’ (dj ʿnḫ) and ‘true of voice’ (mȝʿ ḫrw) following the names of the kings, see the insightful remarks of Murnane, Coregencies, 267–72 and Obsomer, Sésostris Ier, 429–34.
104.
Translation after Boeser, Beschreibung, VI/3, pl. 7.
105.
For the role of Thutmose III as divine intermediary, see Radwan, in Guksch and Polz (eds), Stationen, 329–36.
106.
See for now the critical analyses of the evidence concerning the alleged co-regencies of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten in M. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon (Lyon, 1998), 62–98 and that of Sethi I and Ramesses II in C. Obsomer, Ramsès II (Paris, 2012), 71–89 leading both scholars to the conclusion that none of the co-regencies in question ever existed.
107.
Laboury, La statuaire de Thoutmosis III, 53 n. 306.
108.
For the Greco-Roman co-regencies, see Murnane, Coregencies, 94–109.