a) D. Courville PhD., commenting on chronological information by Josephus, wrote that Seti I was the son of Ramses I. He went on and stated Harmais then was also the son of Ramses I. Then he continued: "We have here the peculiar situation of the reign of one son of Ramses I (Harmhab) preceding his father on the throne, while his successor was another son of Ramses I (namely Seti I)." [55] Of course, Horemheb was not a son of Ramses I, the Niku of the Assyrian annals from which, probably, Necho was derived.

b) The other explanation is that Josephus in writing about Sethosis and quoting another older source, amalgameted the Sethos mentioned by Herodotus [60] who went to war against the Assyrians under Sennacherib (701 BC), and Seti the Great, who 2 generations (about 40 years) later fought against the Scythians, Babylonians, and Medes as ally of Assyria, with this person, Sethosis.

Was this Sethosis of Josephus the same person as Seti I? How are we to understand the reference in Josephus? But conventional scholars uprooted Sethos II and placed him at the end of the 19th Dynasty. These scholars claim that the son of Merneptah by the name of Sety-merenptah was Sethos (II) and succeeded him. Did Sethosis and Seti come chronologically after Merneptah? Not at all, that could not be true. As D. Courville pointed out: "In stating that Sethosis and Armais came after Merneptah, he obviously meant only that these names followed that of Merneptah in the list from which he was drawing his information." [70]

The answer to our question is `No'. Seti I was the grandson of Sethos. Furthermore this Sethosis of Josephus was the same person as Sethos of the three brothers. The spread of years separating the period of the three brothers from the 19th Dynasty is from about 700 to 665 BC, about 35 years which were occupied by the Ethiopian Dynasty. In our view none of the Sethis I or II belong at the end of the 19th Dynasty, neither does Twosert/Tausert/Twosre.
The important break to recognize then is between the 4th and 5th name from the list above as found in Josephus, Against Apion', Book I, par. 15. What follows after he mentions name #5, Sethosis, is an elaboration on the events surrounding him and his two brothers. That means he reaches back in time as he (Josephus) begins to tell us about them. The third brother, Armais, becomes now part of his story and thus makes these three contemporaries of course. All of this happened before Seti I the Great.

* The Three most influential Brothers - 1. Ramses-Siptah, 2. Sethos, 3.Haremhab or Armais.[80]

"... after [after the previous names as found on the list of Manetho] him came Sethosis, and Ramesses (Siptah), who had an army of horse, and naval force. This king appointed his brother Armais, to be his deputy over Egypt. .. He also gave him all the other authority of a king, but with these only injunctions, that he should not wear the diadem, nor be injurious to the queen, the mother of his (Sethosis') children, and that he should not meddle with the other concubines of the king; while he made an expedition against Cyprus, and Phoenicia, and besides against the Assyrians and the Medes. ... Armais, who was left in Egypt, did all those very things, by way of opposition, which his brother had forbidden him to do, without fear..." [90]

But the alternate story found by Josephus went like this: "In another copy it stood thus: After him came Sethosis, and Ramesses (Siptah), two brethren, the former of whom had a naval force, and in a hostile manner destroyed those that met him upon the sea: but as he slew Ramesses in no long time afterward, so he appointed another of his brethren to be his deputy over Egypt." [93]

*A saga of love and murder - But yet another personage enters the scene as it unfolds. She is Twosre, queen Twosre at that, who had marital relations with all three brothers and in due time her infant son Merneptah-Siptah, fathered by her first husband.

* This Merneptah-Siptah is not the same as pharaoh Merneptah of the 19th Dynasty. Being the son of Twosre, he had a royal lineage reaching back to the 18th Dynasty. But Sethos and his brother Ramses Siptah, were of undistinguished birth. Merneptah-Siptah passes however from the scene while still young and Sethos comes to the forefront.

* The more complete name of Sethos was `Userkheprure-setpenre-Seti-merenptah', while Seti I had the name `Seti-merenptah-menmaat-re' or `Seti-Ptah-maat'. Merenptah means `beloved of Ptah.' The Greeks identified Ptah with Hephaestos.

* How did the three brothers become kings (~722 - ~700 BC)? - Ramses Siptah was the first to become king for a very short time after becoming a guerilla leader against the Assyrian overlordship. He was murdered by his brother Sethos who sided with the Syrians. It is this Ramses who should have been named Ramses I. They had powerful connections to the Egyptian army and benefited from Assyria under Sargon II ending the rule of the Libyan kings in Egypt. At some point in time Twosre actually claimed the title of pharaoh for herself, not just royal wife or queen. The evidence points for her to have been the wife of Ramses-Siptah first. At the death of her husband she was pregnant and Bey, the Assyrian plenipotentiary of Egypt, set to pronounce her offspring to be the occupant of the throne by birth but did not leave the throne vacant in the interim.[110]

* Twosre is associated with Bey, who refers to himself as "Great Chancellor of the Entire Land" [115] As soon as Twosre's son was born, he was made pharaoh and received the name Merneptah-Siptah. Bey, according to his own words, "established the king on the seat of his father." [117] Whereas Ramses-Siptah was not of royal lineage but gained his throne by marriage to Twosre, in the case of his infant son Merneptah-Siptah, Bey could base his action on the fact that his deceased father had been a pharaoh. This marks the first and only time that three living contemporaries possessed a tomb in that much revered valley. Ramses Siptah was buried in the Valley of the Kings, and in his funerary temple at Thebes Bey's name was found in the foundation deposits.

* In 1962 a scholar discerned a certain figure of Merneptah-Siptah, showing him as a small boy sitting on the lap of his mother Twosre, who is referenced to as a protectress of the boy-Pharaoh. [120] Thus the throne was ceded to the infant, and he occupied it for several years, possibly 6 years. Twosre's new title was `protectress of the pharaoh.'

* By the size of the boy Merneptah-Siptah, compared with the lap of his mother and the part of the hand still surviving on the sculpture, it can be judged that he was a child and remained "in power" or in the position of a puppet of Sargon and Bey for a number of years. An inscription found in Nubia refers to his 6th year. [125]

* Sargon II ruled from 722-705 BC. During these 17 years Ramses-Siptah counted about one year, Twosre less than a year, Merneptah Siptah six years, from then on Sethos counts his years. Sethos survived Sargon before the latter became Sennacherib. Once he was in power the Assyrian influence in Egypt quickly faded. Of Bey nothing is heard again, nor of any other Assyrian functionary. With the start of Sethos, no longer an insurgent, but an occupant of the throne, Twosre being now his wife, of the boy pharaoh nothing further is heard.

* Sethos was the high priest of Ptah (Hephaestos in Greek). Sethos became an ally to Assyria in the days of Sargon/Sennacherib. In Egypt since ancient times the royal succession was supposed to follow the female line of the royal family - an heir to the throne usually legitimized his claim for kingship by marrying a sister of his. Having made Harmais (Haremhab) his deputy over Egypt while Sethos went to war Haremhab violated the queen and wore the diadem thus setting himself up as king in the absence of his brother Sethos. In this case the female of royal lineage was queen Tworse who was the wife of Merneptah-Siptah and later of Sethos and by violation Harmais.

* Sethos and his Queen Tworse [~740-730?] - Jewelry found in a nameless cache in the Valley of the Kings shows her to have been the first [main] wife of Sethos. "A silver bracelet depicts her standing before her husband and pouring wine into his outstretched goblet." [140] This scene is very similar to one adorning the throne of Tutankhamen - with him sitting, holding a goblet, and Ankhesenpaaten, his young wife, standing before him and pouring wine. She probably had a pedegree stemming from the house of the Thutmoses and Amenhoteps of the 18th Dynasty who reigned 150 years before her. Very little is known about her but we wonder why she had a separate tomb in the same valley as her husband? The honor of having her own tomb was a distinction previously only accorded to one other female suzerain, Queen Hatshepsowe [Hatshepsut]. [144] But the contents of her tomb are even more intriguing. Gardiner describes the perplexing circumstances, she bears the title of "King's Great Wife" by virtue of her marriage to Sethos, but one scene shows her standing behind another king who is making an offering; the name of this king, Merneptah-Siptah, has been plastered over and that of Sethos cut into the same space. "Since there are excellent reasons for thinking that Sethos was the earlier of the two kings, this replacement [the substitution of Sethos' name for Merneptah-Siptah's] must have been due to Twosre's later preference to be depicted with the king who had been her actual husband." [150] In her tomb, on various places she is called "King's Great Wife" - but immediately we are confronted with the problem of who were her husband-kings and in what order. She is also called "Lady of the Two Lands" and "Mistress of Upper and Lower Egypt", which is the same as being pharaoh herself; and another title was found, "Hereditary Princess". That means she claimed to have had a pedigree of royal blood. In the framework of our synchronization that could only have been the house of the Thutmoses and Amenhoteps of the 18th Dynasty which came to their end just about 140 years earlier, with the start of the Libyan Dynasty. In Egypt, traditionally, the throne was inherited through a royal princess and marriage of a royal son to such an heiress legalized the succession. The evidence from her tomb and the few other finds involving her, present a confused and often debated state of affairs. What interests us is, what was the relationship between the three brothers [Sethos, Armais, Ramses Siptah]?

* The Proposed Succession in Egypt during the reign of Sargon/Sennacherib (722 - ca.687/6) [160] of Assyria and Ahaz and Hezekiah in Judah. About one year for Ramses Siptah, Twosre less than one year, Merneptah Siptah 6 years, the rest of the 17 years go to Sethos.

* Breasted calls Mutnodjme by the name of Mutnezmet.

* In Palestine, the Ten Tribes had been led into exile about 722 BC and Samaria lay wasted for a time until others began to restore it. In Judah Hezekiah became king in 715 BC and Isaiah, the prophet, became very influential to his people. When Sennacherib decided to destroy the Jewish state his army suffered total defeat explained in the paper on Judith. This complex history will be elaborated on in future papers.

* Who was Haremhab? He was `Djeserkheprure-setpenre', son of Re `Haremhab-miamun' given life. The first important fact is that according to the dated monuments, Haremhab's last entry is in his 8th year. He was a military man [Egytian `imyr mesha wer'] who married Mutnodjme, the daughter of Sennacherib, which brought him the crown by marriage. Mutnodjme is the only queen we know of who had her scarabs made of gold. Haremhab then was elevated from the king's deputy [iry p't, `hereditary nobleman' (some translate it as `crown prince' depending how one looks at it.] over Egypt to pharaoh by the Assyrian king. He is most famous for the `Great Edict', a legal document of which a fragmentary text is found on the largest stele ever found in Egypt. This stele confirms that Haremhab was an appointee of his Assyrian overlord. But there exists a legal document referring to `Year 59'. But this `year 59' probably refers to a point in time of the Assyrian era. In 747 BC started the important era of Nabonassar, the 59th year then is 689/688 BC. About this time the Ethiopian Pharaoh Tirhaka began his rule over Egypt. According to some gestimates Haremhab fled Egypt by sea at this time.

* How valid is Haremhab's placement in the time of Tutankhamun? The evidence is circumstantial and not as direct as scholars would want us to believe. Wolfganng Helck and Mata Hari helped lay the foundation of this view that Haremhab was a contemporary of Tutankhamen. But workers of the Supreme Council for Antiquities have uneartherd the bases of two sphinxes near the 10th pylon of the `Avenue of Sphinxes' with both, the cartouche of King Thut and Horemheb on it. The straightforward conclusion is that the avenue was begun around the time of these kings but we think that they were placed there much later in commemoration of former Egyptian kings. [180]

A stela which exists in several fragments spread out in a number of museums mostly in Europe is supposed to show that he lived at the end of the 18th Dynasty. Breasted wrote that the Vienna museum fragment shows Akhnaton, not Haremhab. [183] But yet he still claims that Haremhab is indicated in this fragment. He states that `Zeserkheprure' is another name for Harmhab. [185] Because in the tomb inscription his hieroglyphic signs are inserted into those which formerly applied to Akhnaton. That is not solid evidence for placing Haremhab into the time of the late 18th Dynasty. In the revised chronology the 18th Dynasty ended with an invasion by the Libyans who ruled Egypt for some 120 years. The Libyan Dynasty of the Sheshonks and Osorkens is characterized with promulgating a lot of the art styles and workmanships of their predecessors. So much so that art experts who had attributed certain pieces to the 18th Dynasty, and these were then sold for very high prices, were later found to be of 22nd Dynasty manufacture. Very embarrassing situations resulted out of these type of mistakes. [Ex. Carnavon Statue and other art objects] Conventional chronology places about 350 years between the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 22nd dynasties, a time span which would have caused many changes in art and sculpture. They also allot about a 250 year time span to this dynasty which is far too long. In revised history about 120 years passed between the end of the 18th [~1012 to ~805 BC] and the time of Harmhab. What Breasted describes as traces of art style from the time of Ikhnaton, e.g., "the thin ankles, above which the limbs too suddenly thicken," [190] actually do no not show any other thickening of the type which characterized Akhnaton. This thickening is actually very subtle and may just indicate that he was somewhat obese. But it is this type of evidence which was used to place Haremhab into the BC time frame.
That there is no consensus by the scholars on where to put Haremhab is shown by the following.
Maspero wrote: "It is difficult at the present day to know what position to assign him [Haremhab] in the pharaonic (Abydos) lists: while some regard him as the last of the 18th Dynasty, others prefer to place him at the head of the 19th." [192]

Because Horemheb reused stones from constructions of Akhnaton and Tutankhamon for his own purposes that should make us wonder if conventional chronology placed him correctly on the BC time scale. Would he have done that so soon after their passing?

* Nowhere can we find the name of the king who appointed Harmhab as king over Egypt. It was surmised that he was Akhnaton. But Akhnaton had sons-in-law who followed him on the throne, Smenkhare and Tutankhamen. Often Tutankhamen is thought to have appointed Harmhab, but this king was followed by an old general - Aye, the maternal grandfather of the two young princes. Was it Aye who appointed Harmhab to administer the land for him, and then, in his own life time crowned him king? But of Haremhab's relations to Aye we know absolutely nothing.

We should also remember the following points:

The Abydos King List ought not to be read as a document intended to convey accurate chronological order of the pharaohs. Since it does not mention any of the kings between the 12th and 18th Dynasty, leaves out Hatshepsut, and omits the names of the Amarna pharaohs, we have here a highly biased document. It is more of a memorial type document then one useful in establishing chronological order. And so the next name after Amenhotep III is Horemheb without stating that over a hundred years passed between these rulers. But the art of the 18th Dynasty is not a characteristic of its kings but rather that of the methods of its artists and so we have late 18th Dynasty style artwork of the time of Horemheb.
On a stone from Haremhab's tomb, discovered serving as a door post in a building in Cairo, Haremhab is described as "a henchman at the feet of his lord on the battle field on this day of slaughtering the Asiatics." [210]

(23) On another fragment (at Alexandria) he is said to have been "sent as the King's envoy to the sun-disc's rising, returning in triumph, his attack having succeeded." [215]

(24) Many times in his tomb he is entitled "Great Commander of the Army", also one who was "chosen by the king to carry on the administration of the Two Lands [Egypt]." All leads to the conclusion that Haremhab served under an Assyrian king as an appointed military administrator of Egypt.

* Who were other contemporaries of Haremhab (or Horemheb)[~705 - 688 BC]?

In conventional history Harmhab is associated in some way with the chancellor Bay and Maya who in turn is associated with Ramose (TT55). What do we know about the historical background of the latter of these two?

Chancellor Bay
In conventional view chancellor Bay was the trusted confidant of Seti II. This is deduced from carvings inside the small temple of Seti II at Karnak which are interpreted to show Bay following Seti II but that later either Setnakht or Ramses III changed the figure of Bay into a crown prince in order to support their claim of royal lineage reaching to Seti II.

As we pointed out before there is a confusion between Sethos of the three brothers, Seti I (the Great) and Seti II going on. The Nubian graffiti is that of Sethos/Seti, not of the 19th Dynasty Seti II. Some 190 years separate the two. Sethos/Seti was a supporter of the Ethiopian king against the Assyrians while much later Seti I supported the Assyrians. Sethos brother Armais/Horemheb became king because he opposed his brother and aligned himself with the Assyrians. This was the time of chancellor Bay, the years from 721-700 BC, following the end of the 22nd Dynasty and before the 25th Ethiopian kings ruled in Egypt.

Ramose
Ramose (TT55) was the second son of Imhotpe and later in life became vizier to Pharaoh Amenhotep III of the 18th Dynasty. In the tomb of Ramose archaeologists found the image of Maya and his wife Urol. According to conventional chronologists, Maya and Horemheb were contemporaries and we shall examine what the evidence for that conclusion is; because their tombs were close together? Later, in the days of Ramses II, there was another Ramose.

Maya
Richard Lepsius found the tomb of Maya in 1843. At that time he made drawings of the sculptures found inside, among them the memorial art gallery which was still in place at that time. During the subsequent years sand covered the tomb once more and its location was lost until in 1986 it was found again.

The facts are that Maya never mentions Harmhab and Harmhab never mentions Maya. What we have here is conventional free thought that, since Horemheb is dated to the time of Tutankhamun and Ay and Maya was their contemporary, Horemheb must be too. The tomb of Horemheb utilized many stones from the nearby Step Pyramid complex. In fact his workmen usurped several 18th Dynasty monuments to leave the cartouche of Harmhab in them. Excavators thought one of the burials inside belonged to the wife of Harmhab, Mutnodjme.

Queen Mutnodjme occupied the throne not just because she was now the king's wife, but in her own right. Her exalted position is also reflected in her scarabs and signet rings. They were made of gold. She was given as a wife to the administrator of Egypt by his suzerain, the king of Assyria, and at the same time her husband was promoted from the position of "King's Deputy" in Egypt to the status of pharaoh, yet still dependent on his suzerain and even subordinate to his queen, the daughter of Sennacherib. Conventional investigators will state that Mutnodjme appears on at least 14-17 surviving wall reliefs in 9 different tombs. Her association with the Amarna tombs of Parennefer, Panehesy, Meryre II and some others seems to place her into the time of the 18th Dynasty, where the shown cartouche appears next to her. [220]

Above: Cartouche of Horemheb's Mutnodjme
Below: Glyphs of Mutnodjmet in tombs

How Horemheb's Mutnodjmet's name was written can be seen on a damaged statue showing her as the Great Royal Wife of King Horemheb located at `Turin's Museo Egizio' in the form of a grey-granite dyad of the couple. The side of the queen's throne is decorated with a female sphinx adoring her name ring. This name ring seems to show 4-5 signs,

a) the vulture,
b) two bread loafs,
c) a side of an inverted dish and
d) a crouched female with a royal swash.
e) the photo in KMI does show some vague lines, but they are hard to recognize as the overlapping rope and here shown in blue.

When we compare this cartouche with the hieroglyphs found in the tombs, which are not inside a ring, we notice that the tomb example lacks the inverted dish also shown by Gardiner's rendition (see below). Also notice that the crouched figure does not hold any royal regalia in the example from the tombs. The reading may still be the same but then again it may not.

In revised view Mutnodjmet was the daughter of Sennacherib and not the sister of Nefertiti so how can we explain the evidence? Horemheb's Mutnodjmet is called `the heiress' in an inscription from his reign. The question conventional historians ask is, `If Horemheb's queen and Akhnaton's sister in law are two different persons, to which earlier ruler was she an heiress?' Our answer is, she was the heiress to the throne of Sennacherib, the Great King, master over Egypt at that time, for the heiress to Akhnaton was not she, sister of Nefertiti, but his daughters. It is probably correct to assume that in the mind of any conqueror, he plans to make his conquests last forever. In other words, there must have been two Mutnodjmets. That this name was not unusual can be seen from the fact that we know of at least 3 ladies by that same name, the third being the wife of Psusennes I. The daughter of Sennacherib in choosing an Egyptian name for herself chose that one to complete the image of association with a native line of kings. Perhaps in this sense the variation in the hieroglyphics mentioned are of significance. It seems we must make a choice between those statements which imply that their was a higher suzerain besides Horemheb himself and the instances where his Amarna relations play a role. We invite the reader to consider all the evidence before making a choice.

Modern historians talk about `Intermediate' periods in Egyptian history. If any period constitutes an `intermediate' period it is that of the `Three Brothers' since they neither belong to the 18th nor the 19th Dynasty. They were separated from the 18th Dynasty by close to 100 years and from the 19th Dynasty by some 23 years. Conventional historians also have these three brothers pulled apart by placing Ramses-Siptah and Sethos at the end of the 19th Dynasty. Not only that, they also place Queen Twosert at that time, a situation we cannot agree with. Once again, the three brothers were Ramses Siptah, Sethos and Horemheb. Merneptah Siptah was not a brother to them.

How does Tia fit in? - Since the tomb of Tia is located so close to that of Harmhab how does she fit in? There is one Tia who was one of the two sisters of Pharaoh Ramses II/Necho II. Of course this Tia lived long after the time of Horemheb. During her time, a century after Horemheb, his tomb complex was probably already much damaged.

There is another Tia whose fragmentary funerary objects were found in the sarcophagus chamber (No. 47) of King Siptah. The items found included an alabaster canopic jar chest. We do not know what the family connections of this Tia are. No such person, other than Ramesses daughter, is named in the extant documents of the 19th dynasty. According to conclusions reached by Cyril Aldred, Tia was the mother of Siptah. Therefore we have here once again two Tia's represented with no connection between them other then the name. [250]

How did Ramose get his tomb complex in there? - In revised view the order of construction of the tombs was Ramose, Maya, Horemheb and Tia where the tombs of Ramose and Maya are located close together. The Leiden, Netherlands, team of archaeologists cleared an area immediately to the south of the tomb of Harmhab [at Sakkara] and determined that there were burials of the mid-18th Dynasty below the foundation of Harmhab's tomb. This fact helps us realize that Harmhab lived sometime after the 18th and not immediately after that Dynasty. "The joint expedition of the Leiden Museum and Leiden University, directed by Geoffry Martin, enjoyed a successful January-to-March season at Sakkara, working on the clearance of an area immediately to the south of the inner court of the Tomb of Horemheb. A Coptic level and the rims of eight shafts of New Kingdom and Late Period dates were revealed. ... The expedition also determined that there is a cemetery - or at least isolated burials - of mid 18th Dynasty date below the level of the foundation of Horemhab's tomb. Two intact coffined burials were uncovered..." [260]

On what basis they were termed `mid 18th Dynasty' is not explained but we presume it was style and pottery associated with it. Should we assume this term was used in order to leave reasonable time between these burials and that of the conventional date for Horemheb, but that the real time of burial is unknown and they could just as well have been `early' or `late 18th Dynasty' burials? In our opinion this discovery underscores the later placement for Harmhab rather than a close chronology to the 18th Dynasty since, in our view, Horemheb would not have purposely violated burials of native royalty, or commoners for that matter, to the former dynasty to which he sought a connection to establish his own right to the throne. Ramses III would later also seek to make such connections to the previous native 19th/26th dynasty.

The earliest evidence of Haremhab comes to us from the son of Pharaoh Osorken II by the name of Sheshonk and his wife Karoma. But the prince {Sheshonk] never became king as he died while still of a young age during the reign of his father. Osorken had built for him a funerary chamber in Memphis where the prince had served as the high priest of Ptah during his life time. During his lifetime Sheshonk was the high priest of Ptah and was now interred in a funerary chamber built for him by his father. In most current history books Osorken II is said to have lived in the days of King Ahab of Israel, but we must locate him in the time of Jeroboam II, sometime after the year 744 BC, which was the year Jeroboam died, but before the destruction of Samaria in 722 BC. We identify Haremhab as Armais, one of the three brothers known from the writings of Josephus. [270] In `Against Apion' Armais is credited with 4 years and one month.

* In 1942 his Memphis tomb was discovered, cleared and the reports and contents given to the care of Ahmad Badawi. [273]

At the entrance of the tomb, on the lintel of the doorway, Badawi found an incised relief showing Haremhab kneeling in front of a table bedecked with offerings; behind Haremhab can be seen the deceased prince, also in a kneeling position. Haremhab's cartouche had received some damage in a purposeful attempt to erase it. But from the remainder Badawi was able to identify the figure of the crown prince as that of Haremhab. In conventional chronology Sheshonk reigned of course some 600 years before this time. There is no known reason why this prince should want to have Haremhab's cartouche in his tomb since they would have no relation to each other. For this reason the historians were searching for an answer.
But there are two other details which we need to explain:
1. How can the tomb paintings of the tomb of Ramses I. be so much like those of Horemheb and
2. Haremhab is depicted as king, his name is enclosed in a cartouche, the sign of royal power - and this at least 25 years before his appointment as king by Sennacherib. This leads us to conclude that he worked as a viceroy of Memphis under the last king of the Libyan Dynasty, continuing in that position under the Ethiopian Dynasty, until to the day of his defection to the side of the Assyrians in 702 BC.
We realize now also that Haremhab was a contemporary of Pharaoh Tirhaka of the Ethiopian Dynasty which are supposed to be 600 years apart in the conventional view. But as it so happens in a certain scene, carved on one of the walls of a small temple at Karnak, they are shown to have been together. This scene not only proves that they knew each other but it also helps to establish a brief period of time where they had relations with each other. De Rouge, describing the relief, wrote this: "Tirhaka is standing and takes part in a paneguric. An important personage, named Hor-em-heb, a priest and hereditary governor, addressed to the people the following discourse in the name of the two forms of Amon: `Hear Amon-ra, Lord of the Thrones of the World and Amon-ra, the husband of his mother, residing in Thebes! This is what they say to their son, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt [Neferatmukhure] son of the sun, Tirhaka, give life, forever: `You are our son whom we love, in whom we repose, to whom we have given Upper and Lower Egypt; we do not like the kings of Asia ...'" [285]

The monument must be dated to the time early in the career of Haremhab when he was still an acting priest and governor under his brother Sethos. Egypt was then an ally of Ethiopia, actually under Ethiopian domination, and was bracing itself to meet the armies of Assyria; for Sennacherib had shut up Hezekiah in Jerusalem "like a bird in a cage" and was advancing to the border of Egypt. The Egyptian/ Ethiopian army suffered a crushing defeat at Eltekeh in Palestine. The declaration "We do not like the kings of Asia" was therefore an appropriate statement for the time. The ways of Tirhaka and Haremhab would soon part. Tirhaka fled to Ethiopia and became the bitterest enemy of Haremhab, who went over to the side of the Assyrians against Ethiopia and his own brother Sethos.
The name of Tirhaka's queen was Duk-hat-amun, the widow of Tirhaka. She must have been Dakhamun of the annals of Mursilis who inquired for a princely husband.

* Why Haremhab belongs into Assyrian times - The Memphite Tomb Inscription Text: "Words spoken to his majesty ... when ... came the great ones of all foreign lands to beg life from him,by the hereditary prince, sole friend and royal scribe Haremhab, justified. He said, making answer (to the king ... foreigners) who knew not Egypt, they are beneath thy feet forever and ever; Amun has handed them over to thee ... Thy battle cry is in their hearts." [300] On many bas-reliefs of the 18th Dynasty, those of Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, Amenhotep III, Akhnaton, foreigners are shown in the presence of the pharaoh either as prisoners, vassals, or in a submissive role; but never is a person designated as `interpreter' shown; nor do the bas-reliefs of the 19th Dynasty, when showing foreigners, show them as being interpreters. Was the king whose likeness is not preserved on this relief, not able to understand Egyptian? Was the Egyptian king `the great one of all foreigners'? Hardly, but it fits the king of Assyria.

1) In Egyptian texts of conquest, the expression "plunder their towns" is frequently encountered, but the expression "cast fire into [their lands]" is not usual. [310] In the records of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon and also earlier Assyrian kings, the graphic description of their "scorched earth" tactics makes it clear that casting fire was never absent in their warfare. "I besieged, I captured, I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire," wrote Sennacherib in the record of his 2nd, 5th, 6th and 7th campaigns. He called himself "the flame that consumes the insubmissive." [315][Luckenbill, `Records of Assyria', Vol. II, p.238-250] This epithet of the great king "the flame" is also used by Haremhab: significantly enough not in describing himself, but in addressing the king who appointed him: "Thy name is flame." 317] It was a fitting description used by Sennacherib and Haremhab in lieu of a name to designate the Assyrian king.

2) The removal of entire populations from their lands was a practice peculiar to the Assyrians and later adopted by the Chaldeans; the Egyptians never transferred conquered peoples from one country to another [except prisoners of war]. Yet the last line of the already quoted text refers to such measures.
Brestead's reading of this passage was: "...Asiatics, others have been placed in their abodes." [The hieroglypic sign for "fire" or "flame" is a noun. Gardiner does not translate literally "Thy name flares"; Breasted renders it more accurately, "Thy name is fire." [330]

3) The Taylor Prism, a stone found as a door post in a building in Cairo and on a fragment from Alexandria, we find the words respectively "a henchman at the feet of his lord on the battle field on this day of slaughtering the Asiatics," and "... sent as the king's envoy to the sun-disc's rising, returning in triumph, his attack having succeeded." [335]

Another fragment states: "... chosen by the king to carry on the administration of the Two Lands [Egypt]." [340]

* From the Memphite tomb of Haremhab comes the first relief carving [342][#1889 from Bologna] of a horse with a rider done in the Assyrian style with no saddle. This fact confirms our dating of Haremhab into the time of the Assyrian Empire. All this leads us to conclude that the elusive Haremhab served under a king of Assyria as an appointed military administrator of Egypt. Only later was he crowned king of Egypt.

The Saqqara Tomb of Horemheb

In his book Geoffrey Martin wrote:

"In the statue room of Horemheb's tomb two plinths supporting recumbent statues of the jackal-god Anubis were erected during the reign of Ramesses II on either side of the west doorway, their heads facing eastward towards the tomb entrance. They were meant to act as guardians of the most westerly or intimate parts of the monument. The reliefs and inscriptions on the fronts and sides of the plinth give us some fascinating details about the family of mortuary priests who were employed to carry out the cult of the dead and deified King Horemheb. .....One of them was Pehefnefer, whom we saw named in the relief in the vestibule. Horemheb's name would be thus remembered and venerated, in theory forever. We do not know how long the cult actually lasted in this place, but it would not be surprising if it did so right down to the end of the Ramesside Period."

Even though Maya was no king, Martin comments on his unique tomb and position on the royal court from a conventional viewpoint:

"As one stands in these subterranean chambers, decorated with figures of some of the most ancient deities of Egypt, one gets the impression of being in the Netherworld. There are no other burial chambers like these in the Saqqara necropolis, since this kind of iconography was, until the Ramesside Period, usually reserved for Pharaoh and members of his family. That Maya was able to commission such work gives an inkling of his status in the realm....The underground rooms in the tomb of Horemheb, who outranked Maya, had only rather crude linear decoration. Even this was exceptional for the period; most tomb chambers, even of important officials, were without texts or decoration. How can we account for the fact that Maya's subterranean chambers were so lavishly decorated? We can only speculate, but it must be supposed that Maya was especially influential at court. Indeed we learn from the newly discovered biographical texts on the pylon, that he was brought up in the royal entourage....Can he even have been a member of the royal family?" [360]

What do the artful decorations in the tomb of Maya reveal? Maya was a contemporary of Tutankhamun and Ay and therefore had no connection with Horemheb but visitors to his tomb will sometimes state that they recognize a relationship between his tomb and those of the Ramesside period which started some 150 years later in revised view. It could also be that the tomb was constructed over a period of time in stages and that is why partial cartouches of Horemheb were found in the rubble of Maya's burial chamber, after all these tombs are right next to each other (speaking now again of Horemheb's Memphis tomb). To address these observations on the art we suggest that cult statues and relief art may have been added at a later time to the upper parts of the tomb and that he was thus honored even then to the point that his tomb would be posthumously embellished in an effort to honor popular native Egyptians. One has the impression that Egypt's artists celebrated thus the return of native rulers after a time when foreigners (Lybians, Assyrians and Ethiopians) ruled over them.

---

* The Crowning of Haremhab - A finely crafted double statue of Haremhab and his queen [her name was Mutnodjme] from the Turin Museum bears the coronation inscription on its backside. [370] The text and her titles lead us to conclude that in fact he was crowned king at their wedding ceremony and that it was due to her that he was elevated to the throne. He was crowned by a king who did not abdicate his own crown at this occasion, nor was he a co-ruler.

"Great Wife of the King, Lady of the Two Lands, Mutnodjme, beloved of Isis, mother of the god, may she live eternally"

The inscription on the statue gives the account of Haremhab growing in the king's favor and an account of the coronation ceremony. "Now he acted as vice-regent of the Two Lands [Upper and Lower Egypt] over a period of many years." With his own councillors Haremhab was "doing obeisance at the gates of the King's House." It also happened that "He being summoned before the Sovereign when the palace fell into rage, and he opened his mouth and answered the King and appeased him with the utterance of his mouth." Haremhab had to quiet the king's rage in a difficult situation. Was the raging king the teenager Tutankhamen? Hardly.

Gardiner wrote: "[Haremhab] also dwells upon the confidence that had been reposed in him by the king, doubtless Tutankhamen, on whose behalf he had ruled over a long period of years ... a time ... when the temper of the Palace was not always as cool as it might have been, and needed the wisdom and moderation of a man as astute as himself to steer the ship the right way." [390]

* To shorten the process of unraveling the meaning of the coronation text, let us substitute the proper king for the anonymous king referenced in the text. It was king Sennacherib of Assyria. He had Haremhab, a scribe, priest, and military man - a not unusual combination of offices in ancient Egypt - as the commanding officer in charge of an expedition against Ethiopia [Nubia] and as his regent over Egypt. In this capacity Haremhab weathered the rages of the wrathful overlord; by this, he claims, he won also the appreciation of his own people ( "the people were happy" ). Then the king, according to the inscription on the statue: "...knew the day of his good pleasure to give him his kingship. Lo, this god distinguished his son in the sight of the entire people ... The heart of the King being content with his dealings, and rejoicing at the choice of him. ... Lo, this noble god Horus of Hnes, his heart desired to establish his son upon his eternal throne and commanded ... [missing lines] Then did Horus proceed amid rejoicing to Thebes, the city of the lord of Eternity, his son in his embrace, to Ipet-Isut (Karnak), in order to induct him into the presence of Amun for the handing over to him of his office of king." In this and other passages "king" and "this god" are designations of the sovereign who crowned Haremhab.

Haremhab and the Great Edict- Having been crowned pharaoh over Egypt, Haremhab composed and published a decree, his Great Edict found by G. Maspero in 1882 in Karnak. "Hear ye these commands which my majesty has made for the first time, governing the whole land, when my majesty remembered these cases of oppression...." And he gave his edict to deliver "the Egyptians from the depressions which were among them." [410]

The king who crowned Haremhab was called "god" by him and he himself was his "son". At the same time the rule of the land of Egypt before he became king he branded as a wicked rule. Here again is an incongruity unless the king, who gave him the crown was not the king who ruled Egypt as a native ruler. The rule of Haremhab was that of a king named to administer Egypt by the decree of a foreign king, not Tutankhamen nor Aye. Haremhab's edict is a manifesto of his policy for keeping the state in order. The language differs from the usual mode of expressions in other Egyptian edicts. It is a dry judicial document, clear and, apart from the introduction, free from the usual verbosity and figurative exaltations of himself. This is the same style in which Assyrian legal documents were written. Throughout the edict emphasize is placed upon the principle of justice. The edict might be entitled, `The Justice of the King.' [420] Sennacherib wrote of himself as one "who likes justice, who established order." [422] So we see that Haremhab used the same style of language. The edict contains provisions for martial law; punishment for offenders was severe; anyone interfering with boat traffic on the Nile "his nose shall be cut off and shall be sent to Tharu." [425] This penalty was not known before the time of Haremhab in Egypt, but in the time of Sennacherib it was a customary punishment inflicted by the Assyrians on conquered people. For this reason Tharu, the place of exile, was called Rhinococura or Rhinocolura by the Greek authors, meaning the "cutting off of noses." [430] Rhinocolura is el-Arish on the Palestinian border with Egypt.
Before this time Egyptian justice was mild in comparison. The edict represents a turning point also in the matter of punishment, Assyrian style.

* Were reasons ever found to date Haremhab as done here? Lepsius was the first to describe a the tomb of Petamenophis, a high official of the Ethiopian period. It was of a large size and ambitious layout. [440] The king under whom he served is not named but his identity is revealed on a wall in the northern part of the outer courtyard. Though much damaged it contains two names: Petamenophis, and next to it a cartouche of King Haremhab.

And so we read:

"Wilkinson reported that in one side chamber of the tomb a royal name was found `which may possibly be of king Horus of the 18th Dynasty, by which he means Harmais, the last king of that Dynasty. In agreement with this wrote Lepsius, `at a much damaged portion of inscriptions in the northern area of the great entrance chamber to the grave are two names, that of `Petamenophis' and `an unknown cartouche', the drawing of which clearly reads `Harmais' and the plaster impression to which Mr. Anthes and Grapov gave me (that is v. Bissing) access, shows the name quite clearly." [450]

Even though v. Bissing, Wilkinson and Anthes came to different conclusions as to the time of this `Harmais', v. Bissing choosing the Persian period to avoid conflicts in style, Wilkinson choosing the 26th Dynasty to account for style and Anthes choosing the Ethiopian period (Tearkos/Tirhaka) because the tomb is located among graves which reach from Ethiopian to Persian times. How exactly they all fit together and how many of each type are there is not explained.

---

* An Unheeded Warning about the Errors produced by a false Egyptian Chronology! 687 BC also represents the time of the end of the Phrygian Empire with the passage of the Cimmerians. In Anatolia, according to conventional history, the Hittite empire came before the Phrygian, yet excavators discovered that relics of the `Hittite Empire' are found only in Phrygian or post-Phrygian, never in pre-Phrygian, levels, and the excavator of Gordion [the archaeologist Ekrem Akurgal from Turkey], the short-lived capital of the Phrygians, resolved this difficulty by saying the Persians who occupied the country by 546 BC carried from the long-since non-existent `Hittite Empire' earth and clay with the relics of that period, all the way across the site of modern Ankara, across rivers and mountains, and spread it evenly over the Phrygian capital, so that the Phrygian relics rightfully appear under the multitudinous relics of the Hittite Empire, instead of being in a stratum over them. So it is that antiquities, supposedly of the 15th to 13th centuries, came to rest OVER antiquities of the kingdom that saw its end in 687 BC with the passage of the Cimmerians. But then from 687 to 546 BC nothing attests to any occupation, a startling discovery by an excavator who did not dare to theorize that the Persians carried these layers somewhere to cover other regions with this soil. This is an unheeded warning about the errors a wrong chronology introduces into ancient history. [470]

Rudamun was the son of Takelot III. With him is associated his God Wife Shepenwepet and another God Wife, Amenirdis the daughter of King Kashta of the proto-25th Dynasty and the sister of king Piankhy (or Piye) of the 25th [Ethiopian] Dynasty. Piankhy besieged Hermopolis.

---

Between the years of the three brothers and the start of the 19th Dynasty came the 25th or Ethiopian Dynasty which lasted from 700 - 663 BC.

* What really happened? - The intricate history of the 19th Dynasty - Just like the Assyrian king had 12 governors and vice-kings appointed to rule over Egypt his successor Assurbanipal confirmed the administration of these Assyrian representatives. At the head of the list was Necho, who received Memphis and Sais as his share - two of the most important cities of the period. But the governors were not content with their subordinate position under an Asiatic/Assyrian king. As Assurbanipal wrote: "Their hearts plotted evil." They sent mounted messengers to Tirhaka, king of Ethiopia, saying: "Let brotherhood be established among us, and let us help one another. We shall divide the land in two, and among us there shall not be another lord." But as soon as the Assyrian found out about this plot: "An officer of mine heard these matters and met their cunning with cunning. He captured the mounted messengers together with their messages, which they had dispatched to Tirhaka, king of Ethiopia." [480] The reaction of the Assyrians was swift and decisive. The governors were arrested, bound in chains, and sent to Niniveh to face the wrath of Assurbanipal. There followed a wave of savage reprisals in the cities of Egypt (665 BC) against the civilian population. The soldiers "put out to the sword the inhabitants, young and old ... they did not spare anybody among them. They hung their corpses from stakes, flayed their skins, and covered with them the wall of the towns." [485] This same event is also mentioned by the prophet Isaiah "And the Egyptians will I give over into the hands of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them..." Isaiah 19:4.

When the twenty governors reached Nineveh, all save one were put to death: only Necho (I), vice-king of Memphis and Sais, was allowed to live. Assurbanipal, in need of a reliable ally to govern Egypt and keep it safe from the Ethiopians, chose Necho to be sent back to the country as its sole king. "And I, Assurbanipal, inclined towards friendliness, had mercy upon Necho, my own servant, whom Esarhaddon, my own father, had made king in Kar-bel-matate [Sais/Tanis]." The king of Assyria secured Necho's allegiance by "an oath more severe than the former. I inspired his heart with confidence, clothed him in splendid (brightly-colored) garments, laid upon him a golden chain as the emblem of his royalty ... Chariots, horses, mules, I presented to him for his royal riding. My officials I sent with him at his request." [500] This Necho lives in history as Ramses I of the 19th, and Necho I of the 26th Dynasties. He was installed by Assurbanipal in ca. -665, a score of years after Haremhab's final expulsion. We shall continue, in this reconstruction of history, to refer to him as Ramses I, although an earlier king of that name, Ramses Siptah, held the throne briefly decades earlier, in the time of Sargon II, and might therefore have a better claim to that title. It is sometimes surmised that it was Haremhab who appointed Ramses I to the throne; but the course of this reconstruction makes it evident that some twenty-two years passed from the time of Haremhab's expulsion by Tirhaka (ca. -688) and the accession of Ramses I (ca. -665). Historians have wondered that none of the extant inscriptions of Ramses I contains any reference to Haremhab, and that no traceable relation of Ramses I to the family of Haremhab has been found. [510] Instead, Ramses I calls himself "Conductor of the Chariot of His Majesty," "Deputy of His Majesty in North and South," "Fanbearer of the King on His Right Hand." [513] The similarity of these titles to those borne earlier by Haremhab has been noted [515] — as we saw, both Haremhab and Ramses I were appointees of Assyrian kings: Haremhab of Sennacherib and Ramses I of Assurbanipal. Assurbanipal also elevated Necho's son to the position of co-rulership with his father, and let him reign in Athribis. The Assyrian called him Nabushezibanni, but the Greek authors knew him as Psammetichos. In his own inscriptions he names himself Seti Meri-en-Men-maat-Re, or Seti Ptah-Maat. It is known from Egyptian sources that Seti was co-regent with his father Ramses I. [520] In both his existences, Ramses I--Necho I lived only one year and a few months after being crowned.

* Ramses I reigned, according to Manetho [as stated in Josephus] for 1 year, 4 months. This is confirmed by a stele dated to his 2nd year. [525] The length of Necho's reign can be determined from the Assyrian documents. It began about 665 BC when he was installed by Assurbanipal, and ended in 664/663 BC with his assassination by Tandamane. The Egyptologists, looking for Necho's monuments apart from those of Ramses I, have failed to find any inscriptional evidence whatsoever for the reign of Necho I. Many publications have just one pharaoh Necho.

Horemheb and Ramses I

A short stone (ca. 10.7 cm), probably broken off of a larger piece, reworked with 3 of its sides polished, bears the hieroglyphic name of Horemheb and Ramses I. Cyril Aldred concluded on the basis of this item that there was a co-regency between the two. One side, we call it A), bears the "titulary of King Horemheb, ... giving the end of his Horus name, his nebty-name in full, and the beginning of his Golden Horus name; B) gives the end of his Horus-name, and his prenomen preceded by the titles of nsw bíty and nb t3wy. C) gives part of the middle titulary of King Ramesses I, viz. the end of his Horus-name, his nebty-name in full and the beginning of his prenomen preceded by the title of nsw bíty.

The juxtaposing of the titularies of these two kings on the same monument without any traces of usurpation implies that it was made during a co-regency between them and not that a monument of Horemheb was completed by his successor Ramses I. This presumption is strengthened by the form of the nebty-name of Ramesses I which is given here as whm rnpwt mí 'Itm `repeating years like Atum', for which reading we are indepted to Cerny, and not the more usual h' m nsw mí 'Itm, `arising as King like Atum': for it is extremely improbable that two versions of the nebty-name of Ramesses I would have been composed during the mere sixteen months of his brief reign. Moreover, what we may identify as the latter part of his nebty-name as given on the monuments cited by Gauthier is more appropriate to a sovereign who has achieved sole rule." [530]

The source of this stone was represented as Bubastis which was, according to Aldred, very unlikely. Therefore, we do not know where this stone came from. As far as the co-regency is concerned, in our model the Ethiopian Dynasty intervened between Horemheb and Ramesses I. How then can we explain this stone fragment? While Aldred's reasoning seems sound according to conventional chronology, we would interject perhaps that he already states that the short reign of Ramses I makes it unlikely that `two versions of the nebty-name would have been composed'. To this we could add that it would have also been very unlikely that Ramesses I would have been receiving these royal titularies as a co-regent to Horemheb. Our answer to the question `how these names of these two kings could appear side by side on a stone' would be, that perhaps the stone does represent a part of a miniature obelisk as Aldred thought, and therefore is of a commemorative nature. The producer of the original object, for one reason or another, was perhaps only interested in presenting names of native kings. There is the Assyrian connection between Horemheb and Ramesses I which we already pointed out. This could also explain the purpose of this stone.

---

Notes & References

[10] An example can be seen in KMT Magazine, Vol. 10, Summer 1999, p. 38. This stone slab was found at the base of sphinxes which are part of the Avenue of Sphinxes at Karnak and therefore commemorative in nature. These cartouches are not necessarily meant to convey chronological succession but rather ideological and national (home grown) affinity. But lately some other possibilities as to the identity of Horemheb have been mentioned which are being worked out at the present as to their viability. If these new, revolutionizing identities should have merit we will present them at this website. So keep in touch, the best may yet to come.

[30] Gardiner, `The Memphite Tomb of General Haremhab', Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 39 (1953), p. 5.

[35] See Peter Clayton, `Chronicle of the Pharaohs', p. 137-139.

[40] Private e-mail: "One finds a few occurrences of Horemheb being written Hr-mH, i.e. without `b', in hieroglyphs during the Ptolemaic period, thus giving additional evidence of Harmais as the Greek rendering of Horemheb, see: pp. 216-217 Herman De Meulenaere, `Anthroponymes égyptiens de Basse Époque', pp. 216-217; also `Chronique d'Égypte tome 38', no 76 juillet 1963, pp. 213-219."][For Haramassi issue click here]

[55] Donovan Courville, `The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications', Vol. I, p. 287.

[60] Open Cit., Vol. II, Sec. 141& 147.

[70] Open Cit., Vol. I, p. 287; See also Jürgen Von Beckerath (1920-??), `Queen Twosre as Guardian of Siptah' in JEA, Vol. 48, 1962, p. 70-74.

[80] Flavius Josephus, `Against Apion', Book I, par. 15.

[90] Open cit., Bk. I, par. 15.

[93] Ibid.

[110] From a left backwall at Silsilis come damaged wall pictures which illustrate a campaign of Horemheb against the Nubians the former consorts of his Ethiopian oriented brother Sethos and now enemies of the Assyrian oriented Horemheb.

[115] Petrie, `Six Temples at Thebes,' London, 19?), pl.. 16, 1-7; 17, 2; 19, 2; cf. J. von Beckerath, `Die Reihenfolge der letzten Könige der 19. Dynastie', `Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft,' Vol. 106 (1956), p. 249]
As to her throne names read also Gardiner, `The Tomb of Queen Twosre.'
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology,' Vol. 40 (1954), p. 42 Gardiner read "The Royal Wife" and also the "King's Great Wife" as her royal titles. A. Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 278; J. von Beckerath, `Queen Twosre as Guardian of Siptah', Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Vol. 48 (1962), p. 70; Beckerath read "King of Upper and Lower Egypt".

[115] Sir Alan Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 277.

[117] Ibid.

[120] Beckereth, Ibid, plate 3.

[125] Reisner, `Journal of Egyptian Archaeology', Vol. 6 (1920), pp. 47-50.

[140] Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 277.

[144] Ibid.

[150] Ibid., p.277.

[160] Reign length recently adapted from the information that Sargon was Sennacherib and survived his son Esarhaddon for a short time..

[180] KMT, Vol. 10, No. 2, Summer 1999, p. 38.

[183] James H. Breasted, `Records', Vol. 3, p.7.

[185] Records, `Vienna fragment', par. 12, p. 7.

[190] Records, Vol.3, Sec. 15.

[192] Ibid.

[200] Maspero, `The Struggle of Nations', p. 360; cf. A.K. Philips, `Horemheb, Founder of the 19th Dynasty', Orientalia Vol. 46 (1977).

[210] K. Pfluger, `Haremhab und die Amarnazeit', (1936), p. 16; also Hari, `Horemheb et la reine Moutnodjemet', p. 89 and plate XIV.

[215] The so-called Zinzinia fragment: Breasted, `Records', Vol. III, Sec. 8. Hari, Horemheb et la reine Moutnodjemet, p. 66 and pl. XI.

[220] KMT, Winter, 2001, `Mutnodjmet, Sister in Waiting & Great Royal Wife', p. 32-40.

[250] Cyril Aldred, `The Parentage of King Siptah' in JEA, Vol. 49, 1963, p. 41-48.

[260] KMT, X, No. 2, Summer 1999, p. 7 Note: These 18th Dynasty burials appear to be a civil cemetary.

[273] A.Badawi, `Das Grab des Kronprinzen Scheschonk, Sohnes Osorken's II. und Hohenpriesters von Memphis', Annales du Service des Antiquities, Vol. 54 (1956), p. 159 and Plate IV.

[285] M.le Vicomte de Rouge, `Etude sur quelques monuments du regne de Taharka', Melanges d'Archeologie, Vol. I (1873), pl. XXXII (Wall D of the small building of Tirhaka at Karnak). De Rouge's article is printed in Bibliotheke egyptologique 28 (1918), p. 268.

[300] Gardiner, `The Memphite Tomb of General Haremhab', Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 39 (1953), p.5.

[310] See: Gardiner, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Relief #1889, Bologna, Spain.

[315] Luckenbill, `Records of Assyria', Vol. II, p.238-250.

[317] Ibid.

[330] Breasted, `Records', Vol. III.

[335] Taylor Prism; K.Pfluger, `Haremhab und die Amarnazeit', (1936), p.16; Also Hari, `Horemheb et la reine Moutnodjemet', p. 89 and plate XIV.

[340] The so-called Zinzinia fragment: Breasted, `Records', Vol. III, Sec. 8; Hari, `Horemheb et la reine Moutnodjemet', p. 66 and plate XI.

[342] Fragment #1889 from Bologna.

[360] G. Martin, `The Hidden Tomb of Memphis', p. 184; Writing here about his Saqqara Tomb]

[370] A.Gardiner, `The Coronation of King Haremhab', Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Vol. 39 (1953), p. 13-31.

[390] Ibid., p. 16.

[410] Breasted, `Records', Vol. III, Sec. 67; Other translations are by: 1) Maspero in Davis, `The Tombs of Harmhabi and Toutankhamanou', (London, 1912), pp. 45-57; 2) Pflueger in `Journal of Near Eastern Studies', Vol. 5 (1946), pp. 260-268.

[420] Petrie, `History of Egypt', Vol. II, p. 251.

[422] Sennacherib's Taylor Prism inscription, the first campaign. Luckenbill, `Record's of Assyria', Vol. II.

[425] Wolfgang Helck (1914-1993), `Das Dekret des Königs Haremheb', Zeitschrift für die Ägyptische Sprache' Vol 80 (1955), p.118, translates "Abschneiden der Nase und Verbannung nach Sile."

[430] Strabo, XVI, ii 31; Diodorus, I, 60.

[440] Berlin, 18~~; Text, pp. 244-245.

[450] Freiherr Friedrich Wilhelm v. Bissing (1873-1956), `Das Grab des Petamenophis in Theben', p. 24; R. Lepsius, `Denkmäler', Text 245 middle.

[470] E. Akurgal, `Die Kunst Anatoliens', (Berlin, 1961).

[480] Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-1973), `Historical Prism Inscriptions of Assurbanipal', (Chicago, 1933), pp. 13-15.

[485] Luckenbill, `Records of Assyria', Vol. II, p. 876 in Pritchard, `Ancient Near Eastern Texts', p. 295.

[500] Ibid., p.297.

[510] Robert Hari (1922-1988), `Horemheb et la Reinee Moutnodjemet', (Geneva, 1964), p. 412.

[513] Ibid.

[515] Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 248.

[520] `Bulletin de l'Institut Francais d'Archeologie Orientale au Caire'.

[525] Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 248.

[530] Cyril Aldred, `Two Monuments of the Reign of Horemheb', in `JEA', Aug. 1968, Vol. 54, p. 100ff.