Dating Akhenaten Libre

8/9/2019 Dating Akhenaten Libre

1/57

The Akhenaten's reign: an egyptological delirium!

Abstract: The reign of Akhenaten is one of the most controversial of all Egyptian history sinceonly about the co-regency with Amenhotep III there are more than 1200 books and academic articles that

have been written. He has thus become the center of many other controversies: although he had only (six)daughters he would be the father of Tutankhamun (a boy!) despite the fact that the latter had clearly statedto be the son of Amenhotep III, although he had worshiped the sun under different shapes (Aten, Re,

Amun) he would be the true father of monotheism that inspired the biblical myth of Moses as well as theJewish god Adon "Lord", a plagiarism of Aton, although he was the sovereign pontiff of Egypt, adelegation of priests of Amun would have plotted a religious rebellion in order to remove the heretic worshipof Aton, etc. All this doesn't seem seriousness. The only way of knowing the (historical) truth is to use achronology anchored on absolute dates (coming from astronomy). Thus the precise dating of this periodconfirms historical testimonies: Amenhotep III (1383-1345) reigned 11 years beside his eldest son

Amenhotep IV (1356-1340) and was the father of Tutankhamun (1336-1327) born in 1347 BCE.

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

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

Carbon 14: 1397-1359 1359-1345 1345-1342 1345-1342 1342-1333Dodson 1388-1348 1360-1343 1346-1343 1346-1343 1343-1333[Gertoux] 1383-1345 1356-1340 1340-1338 1338-1336 1336-1327Grimal 1390-1352 1352-1338 1338-1336 1338-1336 1336-1327Helck 1379-1340 1340-1324 1324-1319 1324-1319 1319-1309Hornung 1402-1364 1364-1347 1351-1348 1351-1348 1347-1338Kitchen 1386-1349 1356-1340 1342-1340 1342-1340 1340-1331

Krauss 1390-1353 1353-1336 1336-1334 1334-1333? 1333-1323?Malek 1391-1353 1353-1337 1338-1336 1338-1336 1336-1327Redford 1410-1372 1372-1355 1335-1335 1335-1335 1355-1346

Vandersleyen 1387-1348 1359-1342? 1341-1339? 1342-1341? 1339-1329von Beckerath 1388-1350 1355-1337 1338-1335 1338-1335 1335-1325

The dating of Akhenaten's reign is highly fluctuating: 1372-1335 without co-regencywith Amenhotep III for Redford, but 1340-1324 for Helck or 1360-1343 with 12 years ofco-regency with Amenhotep III for Dodson. As the accuracy on dates is about +/- 15years according to the Carbon 14 dating2, the year 1 of Amenhotep III has to be between1412 and 1382 BCE and his reign lasted at least 37 years according to the highest date.

The short period 1360-1330 BCE is one of the best documented about Canaan,

Palestine and Egypt through the Amarna letters (almost 400), but paradoxically some partsremain controversial3because of the following:!Most protagonists are rarely mentioned by name but almost exclusively by their title

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

1M. DESSOUDEIX Chronique de l'gypte ancienneParis 2008 d. Actes Sud pp. 293-316.2C.B.RAMSEY, M.W. DEE, J.M. ROWLAND, T.F. G. HIGHAM, S.A. HARRIS, F.BROCK, A.QUILES, E.M. WILD, E.S. MARCUS, A.J.SHORTLAND- Radiocarbon - Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt in: ScienceVol 328 (10 june 2010) pp. 1554-1557.3D. KAHN One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward: The Relations between Amenhotep III and Tushratta, King of Mitanniin: Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature (Brill, 2011) pp. 136-152.

4The land ofMitanni(Hittite) is calledMeteni(Egyptian), !anigalbat(Assyrian),Aram-Naharaim(Hebrew),Naharina"[between the] rivers[Tigris and Euphrates]" (Babylonian),Neherine(Egyptian),Mesopotamia"between rivers" (Greek). The people of Mitanni are called !urri.


2/57

2 SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO AN ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGYTHROUGH SYNCHRONISMS DATED BY ASTRONOMY

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

! It is difficult to distinguish ethnic vs common names, but a link exists between them6. InEgyptian7: Aperu"crew members/workmen", !asu"Bedouins", A[l]amu "Asiatics"; in

Babylonian: Apiru "factious", !apiru SA.GAZ "nomads", !abiru "migrants", A"lamaiu"Arameans"; in Hebrew: Ibrim "Hebrews/those of Eber", ebermeans migrant! Theseterms often refer to people in the same place at the same time. In Middle Assyrianapru/eprumeans "put crown on the head8". In Amarna letters Apiru are compared to: arunaway dog (EA 67); mercenaries (EA 71); a rebel (EA 288); robbers (EA 318). In

Akkadian !apir/!abbtuluSA.GAZmeans "nomads/looters9".!Canaanite mayors all accuse each other of treachery to the pharaoh (who are the liars?).!There were several simultaneous wars: 1) Hatti against Mitanni (ally of Egypt) then

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

Canaan appears at this time as a sort of protectorate under the power of pharaohs.Each king, wren, or town mayor, must swear allegiance to the pharaoh and take intoaccount the requirements of the latter who secured his power in the land by sending hisrepresentatives on the spot accompanied by a police escort of a few hundred archers.

These letters reveal a generally peaceful international environment with the exception oftwo areas of conflict, one in the region around the land of Amurru and another in the areaaround the town of Shechem.

Nearly one-quarter of the letters are from Rib-Hadda, the mayor of Byblos. Thepolitics of Rib-Hadda's Byblos were dominated by the emergence of a major power in

Amurru with Abdi-A!irta and the aggression of "uppiluliuma I, King of Hatti. With Sumurcaptured and Byblos virtually besieged, Amenhotep IV was obliged to summon the ruler of

Amurru, Aziru, to court, where he was detained for several months. Subsequently,however, Aziru stepped up the pressure on Byblos and switched his allegiance to the Kingof Hatti. The politics of Palestine, on the other hand, were dominated by local power-games in which Egypt intervened as little as possible. However, the raiding of Labayu andhis sons near Megiddo was one local irritation which grew into a thread to trade. Avoidingdirect intervention, Amenhotep IV demanded that a group of Palestinian city-states putaside their own differences and co-operate in order to eliminate Labayu (and protectingthe trade routes with the minimum of direct intervention).

As the backbone of history is chronology it is necessary to have first an accurateand precise dating of all historical ancient testimonies. Fortunately, Egyptian chronologyhas numerous synchronisms with other well-known chronologies (Assyrian, Babylonian,

Hittite and Mitannian) also anchored on astronomical phenomena. To date precisely thesesynchronisms a relative chronology based on carbon-14 dating is required, then animprovement can be made combining known reigns' duration as well as accession dates.Finally, astronomical events described during some reigns, as the particularly long reign of

Thutmose III for example, make it possible to obtain an absolute dating.5A. DODSON Were Nefertiti & Tutankhamen Coregents?in: KMT a Modern Journal of Ancient Egyptn 20:3 (2009) p. 48.6W.L. MORAN- Les lettres d'El Amarnain: LIPOn13 Paris 1987 d. Cerf pp. 569, 604-605.7R.O. FAULKNER A Concise Dictionary of Middle EgyptianOxford 2002, Ed. Griffith Institute pp. 38, 42, 261.8J. BLACK, A. GEORGE, N. POSTGATE-A Concise Dictionary of AkkadianWiesbaden 2000, Ed. Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 19, 99.9R. LABAT, F. MALBRAN-LABAT-Manuel d'pigraphie akkadienneParis 1999 Ed. Geuthner p. 87.


3/57

THEAKHENATEN'S REIGN: AN EGYPTOLOGICAL DELIRIUM

3

ABSOLUTE DATING OF THE EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY

If the dates obtained by 14C (calibrated by dendrochronology) are imprecise (+/- 15years) they nevertheless allow setting a relative chronology over the period 1500-1000 10.Dates obtained both by 14C and astronomy (dates in bold) have been highlighted (the

astronomical dating is given as an indication, because it will be calculated afterward):17thDynasty Reign

according to 14CLength of reign Reign according to

astronomical datinggap

8 Taa Seqenenre - 11 years /1544-04/15339 Kamose - 2 years 11 months 05/1533-04/1530

18thDynasty1 Ahmose 1557-1532 25 years 4 months 04/1530-07/1505 +272 Amenhotep I 1532-1511 20 years 7 months 08/1505-02/1484 +273 Thutmose I 1511-1499 12 years 9 months 02/1484-11/1472 +274 Thutmose II 1499-1486 3 years 08/1472-07/1469 +27

[-Hatshepsut] 1480- [21 years 9 months] [08/1472-04/1450] +85 Thutmose III

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

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

+14

6 Amenhotep II 1434-1407 25 years 10 months 04/1418-02/1392 +167 Thutmose IV 1407-1397 9 years 8 months 02/1392-10/1383 +158 Amenhotep III

/[Amenhotep IV]1397-13591359-1345

37 years 10 months[11 years 5 months]

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

+14

Akhenaten 5 years 2 months 08/1345-10/13409 Semenkhkare 1345-1342 1 year 4 months 10/1340-02/1338 +5

10 -Ankhkheperure 2 years 1 months 02/1338-03/133611 Tutankhamun 1342-1333 9 years 8 months 03/1336-10/1327 +612 A 1333-1330 4 years 1 month 10/1327-11/1323 +613 Horemheb I [former regent]

Horemheb II [pharaoh]1330-1302 14 years

13 years 2 months11/1323-11/130912/1309-01/1295

+7

19thDynasty

1 Ramses I 1302-1302 1 year 4 months 01/1295-05/1294 +72 Sety I 1302-1285 11 years 06/1294-06/1283 +83 Ramses II 1285-1219 67 years 2 months 06/1283-07/1216 +24 Merenptah 1219-1206 9 years 3 months 08/1216-10/1207 +35 Sethy II 1206- 5 years 11/1207-10/1202 -16 [Amenmes] 1209- [4 years] [04/1206-03/1202] +37 Siptah 1200-1194 6 years 11/1202-10/1196 -2

Siptah-Tausert / [Setnakht] 1194-1192 1 year 6 months 11/1196-04/1194 -220thDynasty

1 Sethnakht 1192-1189 3 years 5 months 11/1196-03/1192 -42 Ramses III 1189-1158 31 years 1 months 04/1192-04/1161 -33 Ramses IV 1158-1152 6 years 8 months 05/1161-12/1155 -34 Ramses V 1152-1148 3 years 2 months 01/1154-02/1151 -2

5 Ramses VI 1148-1140 7 years 03/1151-02/1144 -36 Ramses VII 1140-1133 7 years 1 month 03/1144-03/1137 -47 Ramses VIII 1133-1130 3 months ? 04/1137-06/1137 -48 Ramses IX 1130-1112 18 years 4 months 07/1137-10/1119 -79 Ramses X 1112-1103 2 years 5 months 11/1119-03/1116 -7

10 Ramses XI 1103-1073 26 years 1 month ? 04/1116-04/1090 -13

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

10C.B.RAMSEY, M.W. DEE, J.M. ROWLAND, T.F. G. HIGHAM, S.A. HARRIS, F.BROCK, A.QUILES, E.M. WILD, E.S. MARCUS, A.J.

SHORTLAND- Radiocarbon - Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt in: ScienceVol 328 (10 june 2010) pp. 1554-1557.http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/328/5985/1554/DC1/1


4/57


DETERMININGTHUTMOSE III'S REIGN THROUGH ASTRONOMY

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

(length of his reign: 53 years 11 months)

11

. Years of reign are counted from the date ofaccession (I Shemu 4) and not from 1stThoth (I Akhet 1). Moreover, Thutmose IIIbegan to reign independently, without Hatshepsut, presumably from year 22, II Peret10, according to Armant Stela.

!The astronomical ceiling of Senenmut's tomb gives the position of several constellationsand planets, known at this time. Some of them are easy to identify as the Big Dipper,Orion, Venus, Mars, Mercury, Saturn and Jupiter. This ceiling describes a rightascension of Jupiter between 73 and 95 where Mars is not visible, which could occurin the period from 1455 to 1505, only during the night on November 14, 1463 BCE (theIII Akhet 23) according to astronomy12. Senenmut was a very important person underHatshepsut, thus it is possible to find the year of the reign when the ceiling of his grave

was designed. Senenmut received the prestigious title of "Grand Steward of Amun"probably around the 5thor the 7thyear of Tuthmose III and also had the rare privilegefor an individual to develop a royal tomb and to append his own grave. Ostraca of thistomb13can set the year in which the ceiling was realized, because masonry and stonecutting started on IV Peret 2, year 7 of Thutmose III and spread out through year 9. Asostracon No. 80 states that the door of the chapel was opened on III Akhet 27, year 11,

we can assume that the development work and decoration, such as the astronomicalceiling design (from the observation) were performed at the end of development workin year 9 or 10. According to Dorman14, Senenmut monuments and those of the vastcomplex of Deir el-Bahari were probably built in parallel. The posthumous disgraces ofSenenmut and Queen Hatshepsut led to an hammering and a rewriting of theircartouches, which creates conflicting dates15. These two disgraces are unexplained sincethe mummy of Thutmose I was placed (in year 16) in the sarcophagus of Hatshepsutbeside another which was built after his death16(in year 22). However, the start date ofthe tomb is Year 7. As Senenmut's tomb is only a small part of the vast complex, 2 yearsof construction seem to be sufficient to complete the ceiling. The famous expedition toPunt, for example, which is represented on a retaining wall of the temple17, is dated year9. Astronomical observation represented on the ceiling must therefore date this year 9of Tuthmose III, which sets the accession of the pharaoh in 1472 (= 1463 + 9) BCEand his reign from 08/1472 to 03/1418, according to the accession date.

!Two lunar days 1 (psdntyw)18respectively dated I Shemu 21 of year 23 (Urk.IV 657.2) and

II Peret 30 of year 24 (Urk.IV 836.1-3), confirm the dating of Thutmose III's reign.11C. VANDERSLEYEN- L'Egypte et la valle du Nil Tome 2Paris 1995 d. Presses Universitaires de France pp . 271-318.12C. LEITZ Le premier plafond astronomique dans la tombe de Senmoutin: Les dossiers d'archologie n187 S (Novembre 1993) pp. 116,117.13W.C. HAYES Ostraka and Name Stones from the Tomb of Sen-mut (TT71) at ThebesNew York 1942 Ed. Arno Press pp. 7,21-23.14P.F. DORMAN The Monuments of Senenmut. Problems in Historical MethodologyNew York Ed. Kegan Paul International pp. 66-109.15C. DESROCHES NOBLECOURT La reine mystrieuse HatshepsoutParis 2002 d. Pygmalion p. 58.16C. LALOUETTE Thbes ou la naissance d'un empireParis 1995 d. Flammarion pp. 270-271.17C. GRAINDORGE Deir El Bahari le temple de millions d'annesin: Les dossiers d'archologie n187 S (11/1993) pp. 72-75.18K. SETHE Urkunden der 18. DynastieLeipzig 1907 Ed. J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung pp. IV 657, 807-809, 836.


5/57


5

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

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

19R.A. PARKER- The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III and Ramesses II

in:Journal of Eastern StudiesXVI (1957) pp. 39-43.20Thutmose III inaugurated a sanctuary 30/VI/24he called Akh-menu "brilliant monument" (Urk. IV, 836:2-3).


6/57


main stars of this constellation embodied a bull or rather its thigh and that the star (!) atthe tip of the meridian was Ursae majoris, the Big Dipper. If we extend the spear of falcon-headed god figured under the Big Dipper and the meridian, the two lines meet at the NorthPole (90 declination), the meridian being itself on the equator (0 declination). The star inthe small circle (!Ursae majoris) is precisely located at 68.2 (by measuring its distance from

the equator and knowing that the total distance from the equator to the pole represents90). When a star is on the meridian, it holds the highest position (if it is a circumpolar starit is also its lowest position), one says that it culminates. The culmination played animportant role among the Egyptians and the culmination of the star ! Ursae majoris wasdone on the night of March 18 to 19 at midnight with a declination of 68.2 at that time(which confirms that it is indeed the culmination of this star). Moreover, if one extends thespear backwards it leads on the month 8 (IV Peret) which began in mid-March at that time(around 1470 BCE), which confirms again the identification.

The vertical line in the middle represents the meridian, the floor line represents theequator (0) and the ceiling line represents the pole (90). By extending the inclined side ofthe meridian in the upper part, this line intersects the toes of Orion's left foot (equidistantfrom the left and right edges), that is to say Rigel ("Orionis). The line that crosses the BigDipper and pointing to the pole is directed towards the month 8. The Egyptians identifiedOrion to Osiris and its main star Rigel ("foot" in Arabic) gave its name to the whole

constellation, s3!meaning "Orion" as well as "Toes." The arrangement of 12 months in 3groups of 4 can be used to date events because these 360 days (= 36 decanates of 10 days)are divided by the meridian into 3 equal parts of 120 days.

month 8 month 9 month 10 month 111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

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

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2417 Jul. 27 Jul. 6 Aug. 16 Aug. 26 Aug. 5 Sep. 15 Sep. 25 Sep. 5 Oct. 15 Oct. 25 Oct. 4 Nov.

month 4 month 5 month 6 month 725 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

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


7/57


7

If the boundary between the 2nd and the 3rdpart is the night of March 18 to 19(culmination of the star !Ursae majoris), the one between the 3rdand the 1stis 120 days later,on the night of July 16 to 17 which corresponds to the heliacal rising of Sirius, the brighteststar in the sky, and the Egyptian New Year celebration. That day, began the first season ofthe Egyptian year, and the Nile began to flood the Lower Egypt in mid-July. The boundary

between the 1st

and the 2nd

part was located 120 days later, on the night of November 14 to15. During that night unfolded another major astronomical event: the culmination of Rigel("Orionis) at midnight (note: the full year, excluding the 5 days epagomenal, is divided into36 decanates, each covering a period of 10 days).

From the foregoing, it is possible to dateastronomically the ceiling, because a heliacal rising ofSirius on July 17 is only possible at a latitude of 30N, near Heliopolis. Similarly, the simultaneouspassage on the meridian of Rigel ("Orionis) and starof the Big Dipper (!Ursae majoris) also gives a latitudeof 30 N21. Because of the precession of theequinoxes, the value of the declination of the BigDipper varied slightly from about 0.06' per year,

which allows us to date22the ceiling (under its precisevalue in the drawing) in 1460 to +/- 10 years,because the human eye can not separate an apparentangle of less than 1' (= 17x0,06', these 17 years arerounded to 20 years or +/- 10 years). In the upper part of the drawing of the southern sky,one recognizes the god Orion standing in a boat. On the left there is a woman standing tooin a boat. It is Isis identified with the goddess Sothis. Following two falcon-headed gods

with a star on their head. The hieroglyphs above them identify them as Jupiter and Saturn.

At the extreme left is Venus that the Egyptians represented in the guise of a heron (bnw).Mercury is also present in the form of a small Sethian figure, above to the right of Venus.Mars, the last of five planets known in antiquity, is missing23. Its absence (empty boat) in acelestial map also neat is all the more remarkable that in all later cards and, withoutexception, even more schematic, Mars follows in a ship Jupiter and Saturn as 3rd falcon-headed god. The only possible conclusion is that Mars was not visible during the nightrepresented in the tomb of Senenmut. Another detail makes it possible to calculate the yearof astronomical ceiling. We note that near the figures of Orion and Jupiter there are smalldots determining the exact position of the two stars. The line near Jupiter corresponds onthe map to all points of the same longitude which have the same rise between 73 and 95.However, among the 50 years between 1505 and 1455 (= 1480 +/- 25), there is only one24

in which Jupiter had a right ascension between 73 and 95, on the night of November 14to 15, and Mars was not visible: it is the year 1463 BCE.

The previous result is surprising, because the Egyptian priests astronomers, usuallyvery accurate in their representations, were particularly ill-advised to choose this year whenMars is absent (unique in Egyptian representations), or it is not so. Indeed, the observationof the shape and the position of Orion's constellations, Sirius and Venus explains thereason for their choice. If Rigel corresponds to Orion's toes with the 3 stars aligned in its21. TISSOT Etude de l'astronomie gyptienne et ses implications dans la symbolique astrale de la constellation d'Orion dans la religiongyptienne Lyon 1990 Mmoire de matrise : Histoire de l'art - Maison de l'Orient Universit Lyon 2 (M - 12/1) pp. 112-114.22http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon23C. LEITZ Remarks about the Appearance of Mars in the Tomb of Senenmut in Western Thebesin: CentaurusVol. 44 (2002) pp. 140-142.24C. LEITZ Le premier plafond astronomique dans la tombe de Senmoutin: Les dossiers d'archologie n187 S (Novembre 1993) pp. 116-117.


8/57


belt, Sirius is located consequently on the level of Sothis' ankles which is at the same levelof the head of the heron representing Venus. This heron, called Phoenix by the Greeks,inaugurates the beginning of the ceiling to the upper left and month 1 inaugurates thebeginning of the ceiling to the bottom right. If the culmination of the Big Dipper can bedated November 14, 1463 BCE, this year began with the heliacal rising on Sirius July 16,

1464 BCE, at month 1. But on this day occurred an exceptional phenomenon which onlyhappens every 103 years: the heliacal rising of Sirius, the brightest star in the sky, coincided

with the heliacal setting of Venus, the brightest planet. This coincidence of datesinaugurated a new era called "Great year" or "Rebirth of the phoenix" by the Greeks.

Astronomical observation represented on the ceiling makes it possible to date the year 9 ofThutmose III in 1463 BCE, which sets its accession in 1472 (= 1463 + 9). Thosecoincidences were calculated by van Oosterhout25 (astronomical dates *; Heliopolis:longitude 3119', latitude 3005'; Thebes longitude 3239', latitude 2542'):

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

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

The dates in this table can be shifted +/- 8 years because of the pseudo period of 8years. Astronomical simulation (see hereafter) enables to choose the best fit between theone in -1455* (1456 BCE) or the other one in -1463* (= -1455 - 8) which is better. Thesedates have played a special role, since some have been commemorated and those in boldhave left a historical record. Other eras of the Phoenix were pictured26. This Greek wordmatches to the Egyptian expression rnpt "year" / "regeneration". The date of 143

commemorated by Antoninus Pius coincides with a double helical rising of Sirius andVenus (July 19, 143 CE). There were ones in -1299 by Sety I; -1196 by Tausert; -1056 byPsusennes I (whose name means the star that rises over the city [Thebes]); -343 by Nectanebo IIand the one of -240 (?) on Harendotes' sarcophagus. Some historians such as Tacitus(Annals VI:28), cited these "eras of the Phoenix" without understanding the meaning.Coins of Antoninus Pius27of year 2 (in 139 CE) and 6 (in 143 CE) of his reign are marked

with the phoenix28and the term #$%&"lifespan".Several dates can be obtained by astronomy software as: the heliacal rising of Sirius

at Heliopolis on 16 July 1464 BCE29(= -1463) coinciding with the heliacal rising of Venus(Jupiter and Mars have a right accession about 40)30and the 78 right ascension of Jupiter

without Mars on 14 November 1463 BCE31(an arcus visionisof around 9 means that Siriusand Venus may be seen 2 above the horizon). We can see from the following images thatthe Egyptian drawings of celestial maps were extremely accurate.

25G.W.VAN OOSTERHOUT Sirius, Venus and the Egyptian Calendarin: Discussions in Egyptology27 (1993) pp. 83-96.26O. NEUGEBAUER, R.A. PARKER Egyptian Astronomical TextsLondon 1969 Ed. Brown University Press pp. 6-11, plates 3, 9, 16, 25, 28.27H. MATTINGLY The Roman Imperial Coinage Vol. III Antoninus Pius to CommodusLondon 1962 Ed. Spink and Son Ltd pp. 1-7, 168-169.28R.VAN DEN BROEK The Myth of the PhoenixLeiden 1972 Ed. E.J. Brill pp. 66-73, 103-109, 428-433.29Year = -1463; arcus visionis = 86; longitude = 3119' North; latitude = 3005' East;http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php30Universal Time = -1463-07-16 2:15 (= Local Time 5:05), Azimuth 90 (E); Field of view 90; latitude = 3005' North; longitude =3119' East; http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon31Universal Time = -1462-11-14 20:00 (= Local Time 00:10), Azimuth 90 (E); Field of view 90; latitude = 3005' North; longitude =3119' East; http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon


9/57


9

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

Venus Jupiter Mars Sirius

The star on the head of the phoenix represents the heliacal setting of Venuscoinciding with the heliacal rising of Sirius, located in the ankles of Sothis (associated withIsis representing Venus), Rigel being located in the toes of Orion.

The year 1 of Thutmose III starting in 1472 BCE, the year 23 had to begin on April21, 1450 BCE (I Shemu 4). The date I Shemu 21 year 23 (21/IX/23) of Thutmose IIIcorresponds to May 8, 1450 BCE and the 30 II Peret, year 24 (30/VI/24), corresponds toFebruary 15, 1448 BCE. These two dates coincide with full moons (such coincidencesreproduce only every 25 years). Thutmose chose this specific lunar day to attack Megiddo(21/IX/23) because he considered it as an auspicious day of shining full moon (the word

psdntyw "lunar day 1" actually means "shining ones"). He explains: Now that illuminates themoon, that encircles the solar disk when it shines, that surround Geb and Nut, he placed them in the circle


10/57


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

AKHET PERET SHEMUyear I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV 5

Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug.

Thutmose III 1472 1 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 171471 2 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 61470 3 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 251469 4 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 141468 5 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 31467 6 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 231466 7 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 121465 8 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 11464 9 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 201463 10 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 101462 11 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 281461 12 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 181460 13 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7

1459 14 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 261458 15 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 151457 16 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 41456 17 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 241455 18 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 131454 19 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 21453 20 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 211452 21 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 111451 22 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 301450 23 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 191449 24 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 81448 25 23 3 2 2 1 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 271447 26 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17

1446 27 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6

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

The beginning of works in Senenmut's tomb is dated IV Peret 2, year 7 ofThutmose III (full moon of March 24, 1465 BCE) and the door of the chapel was openedon III Akhet 27, year 11 (November 1462). Two other Sothic dates appear during the reignof Thutmose III, but regnal years are not known33, likely after the II Peret 10 of ThutmoseIII's year 22 without Hatshepsut. The Elephantine Stone, from the temple of Khnum that

Thutmose made built, mentions a Sothic rising dated III Shemu 28 and the Buto Stelacontains a Sothic setting dated immediately before the I Shemu 30 (penultimate line).

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

32C. LALOUETTE Thbes. La naissance d'un empireParis 1995 d. Flammarion pp. 276-279, 371-372).33A.S.VON BOMHARD- Le calendrier gyptien. Une uvre d'ternitLondon 1999 Ed. Periplus pp. 41-44.


11/57


11

It is indeed a setting, not a Sothic rising, for the following reason: between IIIShemu 28 and I Shemu 29, the 61 days between these two Sothic dates would correspondto a difference of 244 years (= 4x61), which is impossible for the same king. In addition,the hieroglyph representing the "rising" actually means "leave" (two legs walkingsurmounted by a horizontal bar "bolt") and not "arrive", confirming the representation

(very rare) of a Sothic setting which occurs 61 days before the rising. Between the Sothicsetting dated I Shemu 29 and the Sothic rising dated III Shemu 28 there is a period ofinvisibility of 61 days and not 70 days. This difference could be explained by the fact thatthis period decreased about 1.5 day for 1 latitude southward, which implies 67 days inButo (latitude 31.1) and 59 days in Thebes (latitude 25.7). This period of invisibility isdifferent from Egyptian texts which always indicate 70 days. This discrepancy withastronomy illustrates the role of religious Egyptian astronomy. Indeed, at this time 34, theperiod of invisibility of Sirius is about 65 days at the latitude of Buto, 63 days at the latitudeof Memphis. Even assuming good observing conditions (arcus visionisof 8 for Sothic risingand 6.5 for Sothic setting) there is a period of 67 days at the latitude of Buto and not 70days as Egyptian texts indicate. This period of 70 days covered in fact a symbolic period of7 decans35, Egyptian year being covered by 36 decans, or 360 days (= 12x30).

The date of 28 Shemu III belongs to the effective reign of Thutmose, after his 22years of co-regency with Hatshepsut. In addition, the Palestine campaign which occuredfrom years 23 to 25 is mentioned in Buto Stela: It is a brave king who, in the melee, made greatslaughters among Asiatic coalitions. He is the one that makes rulers of Retenu's land, in their entirety, tobe required to provide their tribute36. Sothic dates appearing on Buto Stela and on ElephantineStone are likely dating to year 25. According to astronomy (arcus visionisof 8.5 and latitude25.7 at Thebes), this Sothic rising is dated around July 12 (to -1500). The III Shemu 28coincides with July 12 on the period 1448-1445. The heliacal rising of Sirius dated July 12,1448 BCE (year 25) coincides with a full moon, which has no doubt been a remarkable

event (the lunar cycle of 25 years begins in 1471 BCE at the 1st

Thoth coinciding with the1stlunar daypsdntyw, full moon of August 26, 1471 BCE). In addition, a previous full moonof I Shemu 29 (15 May 1448), coincides this time with the Sothic setting mentioned inButo Stela. These exceptional coincidences with full moon may explain why these twoSothic dates were mentioned on inscriptions.

Dated lunar days in the Egyptian calendar allow obtaining absolute dates inEgyptian chronology and, for example, to fix precisely the reigns of Thutmose III andRamses II. These days are of the type "year x, month y, day z which is a lunar day 1 [psdntyw]"and are almost linked to that day 1, because the other lunar days (6, 15, 18, 29) dated in thecalendar are exceptional. Synchronisms dated by astronomy show that the Egyptian lunarmonth began on the full moon (until the beginning of the Ptolemaic era)37. The Egyptian

lunar calendar was used to fix religious observances associated with the moon, hence theimportance of day 1 starting the cycle, but has rarely been used to date events since the civilcalendar was planned for this purpose. Double lunar dates such as "month X, days Y [lunar]corresponding to year x, month y, day z [civil]" are rare38, but they allow demonstrating that theEgyptian lunar calendar began with an intercalary month (which explains its difficult use34M.F. INGHAM The Lenght of the Sothic Cyclein: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology55 (1969) pp. 36-40.J. CONMAN It's About Time: Ancient Egyptian Cosmologyin: Studien zur Altgyptischen Kultur Band31 (2003) pp. 42-47.35A.S. VON BOMHARD Le livre du ciel. De l'observation astronomique la mythologiein: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta150 (2007) Ed. Uitgeverij Peeters pp. 202-205.36A.S.VON BOMHARD- Le calendrier gyptien. Une uvre d'ternitLondon 1999 Ed. Periplus pp. 41-44.37Greek astronomers used a lunar calendar beginning on the new moon.38Papyrus Rylands inv. 666 (dated 180 BCE), papyrus Louvre 7848 (dated 558 BCE), papyrus Ebers (dated around 1500 BCE).


12/57


for dating). Thanks to these double lunar dates, it is possible dating year 12 of Amasis in558 BCE and 9 year of Amenhotep I in 1496 BCE.

Reigns prior Thutmose III can be reconstructed by combining the length of reignswith accession dates39. These data are insufficient to reconstruct the chronology, but theinformation provided by Manetho40, transmitted by Josephus (Against Apion I:93-98),

which seem fairly reliable over this period, can complete this table:Pharaoh Accession date Highest date Duration (min.) Manetho Reign duration

Taa Seqenenre ? 11 II Shemu 10 years - 10 years x m.Kamose II Shemu 3 III Shemu 10 2 years - 3 years

Ahmose 22 21 years 25 years 4 m. 25 years 4 m.Amenhotep I III/IV Shemu ? 21 20 years 20 years 7 m. 20 years 7 m.Thutmose I III Peret 21 11 ? 10 years 12 years 9 m. 12 years 9 m.Thutmose II 1 II Akhet 8 1 year 13 years 3 years[Hatshepsut] [coregency] 20 III Peret 2 [20 years] [21 years 9 m.] [21 years 9 m.]

Thutmose III I Shemu 4 54 III Peret 30 53 years 11 m. - 53 years 11 m.

Durations of reign are obtained by matching the highest dates of the reign withaccession dates. The 13 years attributed to Thutmose II by Manetho result either from amiscalculation in the subtraction of co-regencies, or a scribal error "/ 3 years" being read"13 years." The length of the reign of Thutmose II can be checked by listing the number ofscarabs assigned to each pharaoh41and assuming a normal statistical distribution (constantaverage production rate):

Pharaoh Reign duration Number of scarabs Average per yearThutmose I 12 years 9 months 241 / 290 18,9 / 22,7Thutmose II [3 years] 65 / 90 [20] / [30]42Hatshepsut 21 years 9 months 463 / ---- 21,3 / ----

Thutmose III 08/1472-03/1418Thutmose IV 9 years 8 months ---- / 374 ---- / 38,7

Assuming an annual average of 20/30, we obtain a reign of about 3 years (= 65/20or 90/30) for Thutmose II, not 13 years. A second way to check the approximate length ofthis reign comes from the biography of Ahmose Pen-Nekhbet who claims to have reacheda good old age after serving several pharaohs from Ahmose until the death of Hatshepsut,or 82 years (25 + 20 + 12 + 3 + 22). If he had started at the age of 18, he would havereached 100 years (110 years old with 13 years of reign). Even if the co-regency betweenHatshepsut and Thutmose III is well documented since Thutmose III ruled with her untilyear 22 (then he ruled alone), it is more complicated than it seems. The date of accessionbeing I Shemu 4 and his death being dated III Peret 30 year 54, that implies a total duration

of 53 years and 11 months, including 32 years for the reign alone (subtracting his co-regency with Hatshepsut). However, Josephus seems making two mistakes: forgetting thereign of Thutmose III and giving a wrong sonship, because Hatshepsut was the daughterof Thutmose I, not Amenhotep I. This could be due to a misinterpretation of the reign ofHatshepsut, because the queen dated her reign in the name of her son Thutmose III incontinuity of the reign of her husband Thutmose II. Thutmose III argues, for example,

39E. HORNUNG The New Kingdomin: Ancient Egyptian Chronology. Leiden 2006 Ed. Brill pp. 198-201.J.VON BECKERATH Chronologie des pharaonischen gypten1997 Ed. Verlag Philipp von Zabern pp. 201,202.40W.G. WADDELL- ManethoMassachusetts 1956 Ed. Harvard University Press pp. 101-119.41L. GABOLDE La chronologie du rgne de Thoutmosis II

in:Studien zur Altgyptischen KulturBand 14 (1987) pp. 61-81.42[20] = [18,9 + 21,3]/2 ; [30] = [22,7 + 38,7]/2.


13/57


14/57


Thutmose II, which prevents calculating the month of accession in 1472 BCE, probablyaround month XI (as the construction of two obelisks lasted 7 months, from 15/VI/15 to30/XII/16, the accession must be just before month XII).

year Pharaoh1487 19/20 Amenhotep I1486 20/211485 21/ 1 /11484 1/2 1/2 Thutmose Iaccession date III Peret 21 (17 February 1484)1483 2/3 2/31482 3/4 3/41481 4/5 4/51480 5/6 5/61479 6/7 6/71478 7/8 7/81477 8/9 8/91476 9/10 9/101475 10/11 10/111474

11/12 11/121473 12/13 12/131472 13/ 1 13/141471 1/2 14/15 Thutmose II, accession date [-]/XI/13(September 1472)1470 2/3 15/161469 3/(1) 3/4 16/17 Death of Thutmose II dated around [-]/XI/3(July 1469)1468 4 4/5 17/18 Hatshepsutextends the reign of her husband on behalf of1467 5 5/6 18/19 Thutmose III1466 6 6/7 19/201465 7 7/8 20/21 Senenmut's tomb began on 2/VIII/7(full moon dated 23/March/1465)1464 8 8/9 21/22 Great Yearbegan on 16-July-1464 (heliacal risings of Sirius and Venus)1463 9 9/10 22/23 astronomical ceiling of the tomb of Senenmut. Culmination of1462 10 10/11 23/24 the Big Dipper, in the absence of Mars (14-November-1463).

1461 11 11/12 24/251460 12 12/13 25/261459 13 13/14 26/271458 14 14/15 27/28 construction of two obelisks ordered by Thutmose I(!)1457 15 15/16 28/29 from 15/VI/15(02-February-1457) to 30/XII/16(16-August-1457)1456 16 16/17 29/30 year 30ofJubileebegan at the end of year 16(le 18-July-1456)1455 17 17/181454 18 18/191453 19 19/201452 20 20/211451 21 21/22 Hatshepsut died on 10/VI/22(27-January-1451)1450 22 22/23 year 22 of Thutmose IIIbegan on I Shemu 4, 4/IX/22(21-April-1450)1449 23/24 lunar dayspsdntywdated 21/IX/23(full moon dated 07-May-1450)1448 24/25 and 30/VI/24(full moon dated 16-February-1448), Sothic rising dated1447 25/26 28/XI/[25] (full moon dated 12-July-1448)1446 26/27

The dating of Thutmose III's reign by several astronomical phenomena (officially08/1472-04/1418 but actually 08/1469-04/1418) allows to anchor the chronologicalbeginning of the 18thDynasty. The helical rising of Sirius during the 11-year reign of Sety I,dated I Akhet 1, year 448fixes the end of the 18thDynasty. This astronomical event fixes hisaccession around 1294 BCE +/- 449. It is indeed a Sothic rising because the astronomical48K. SETHE- Sethos I und die Erneuerung der Hundssternperiodein: Zeitschrift fr gyptische Sprache66 (1931) pp. 1-7.49At Thebes (Longitude 3239' Latitude 2542') with an arcus visionisof 8.7 the Sothiac rising is dated 12 July on the period 1370-600

(see http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php) and I Akhet 1 = 12 July only for 4 years 1293-1290(see http://www.chronosynchro.net/wordpress/convertisseur)


15/57


16/57


several days after the brewing was not necessary. The sequence had to be the following:recording the grain stock on 6 of III Shemu, then brewing of beer from 7 to 10 andoffering on 11 (psdntywday is therefore dated III Shemu 11 Year 19). Thus the co-regencyof Amenhotep II which began 2 years and 4 months before the death of Thutmose III (10March 1418), the IV Akhet 1 corresponds to 11 November in 1420 BCE, so the reign of

25 years and 10 months is the duration without the co-regency. The date of III Shemu 11Year 19 of Amenhotep II matches the full moon of June 15, 1402 BCE (lunar cycles of 25years begin at I Akhet 1 at the full moon of 13 August 1421 BCE and 7 August 1396 BCE.One can also note that the co-regency of Amenhotep II started from a new lunar cycle of25 years). The next two reigns, those of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III, do not presentdifficulty (no co-regency) and can be placed after that of Amenhotep II.

Year AKHET PERET SHEMUI II III IV I II III IV I II III IV 5

Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun Jul.

Thutmose III 1422 51 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 171421 52 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6

Amenhotep II 1420 53 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 251419 54 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 141418 3 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 31417 4 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 231416 5 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 121415 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 11414 7 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 201413 8 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 101412 9 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 281411 10 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 181410 11 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 71409 12 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 261408 13 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15

1407 14 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 41406 15 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 241405 16 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 131404 17 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 21403 18 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 211402 19 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 111401 20 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 301400 21 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 191399 22 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 81398 23 23 3 2 2 1 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 271397 24 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 171396 25 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 61395 26 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 251394 27 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 141393 28 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3

Thutmose IV 1392 1 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 231391 2 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 121390 3 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 11389 4 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20

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

As Thutmose III died in March 1418 BCE, Amenhotep III's death must be in April1345 = 1418 - (37 years 10 months) - (9 years 8 months) - (25 years 10 months).

The missing reign of Semenkhkare can be reconstituted through the 6 rings made

during his reign, compared to the 18 issued during the 4 years and 1 month of Ay's reign,


17/57


17

implying a period of 1 year and 4 months (= 4 years x 6/18) 55. The Josephus' remark:Akencheris, daughter of Orus [Akhenaten], reigned [1]2 years and 1 month, shows that he was wellinformed56 because Semenkhkare appears married with Merytaton (who was indeed adaughter of Akhenaten, her name is transcribed Mayati in Akkadian) in the tomb of Meryreand this queen reigned 2 years 1 month after the death of her husband under the name of

[Semenkhkare]-Ankhkheperure. One notes however that several reigns have some ten toomuch and the duration of reigns with co-regencies is systematically wrong. Horemheb'sreign is oddly divided into two parts, but Horemheb is indeed referred to his birth name(Ar-ma-a in Akkadian) in the annals of Mursili II until his year 10 (1322-1312), instead hiscoronation name (Djoser-kheperu[setepen]re), as it is usually the case for pharaohs in title.

This anomaly shows that this Pharaoh initially reigned as a former representative ofPharaoh before being a full-fledged Pharaoh. The reigns indicated by Manetho are reliableexcept for periods of co-regencies (highlighted in orange).

Pharao Accession date Highest date Duration (min.) Manetho Reign duration18thDynasty

Ahmose 22 21 years 25 years 4 m. 25 years 4 m.

Amenhotep I III/IV Shemu? 21 20 years 20 years 7 m. 20 years 7 m.Thutmose I III Peret 21 11 ? 10 years 12 years 9 m. 12 years 9 m.Thutmose II 1 II Akhet 8 1 year [1]3 years 3 yearsHatshepsut co-regency 20 III Peret 2 20 years 21 years 9 m. 21 years 9 m.

Thutmose III I Shemu 4 54 III Peret 30 53 years 11 m. [co-regency?] 53 years 11 m.Amenhotep II IV Akhet 1 ? 26 25 years 25 years 10 m. 25 years 10 m.Thutmose IV 8 III Peret 2 7 years 9 years 8 m. 9 years 8 m.Amenhotep III II/III Shemu ? 38 III Shemu 1 37 years 10 m. 30 years 10 m. 37 years 10 m.Amenhotep IVAkhenaten

I Peret 1-8 ? 17 II Akhet 16 years 7 m. 36 years 5 m.[co-regency?]

16 years 7 m.

Semenkhkare 1 1 year - 1 year 4 m.Ankhkheperure 3 III Akhet 10 2 years [1]2 years 1 m. 2 years 1 m.Tutankhamun 10 9 years 9 years 9 years

A 4 IV Akhet 1 3 years 4 years 1 m. 4 years 1 m.Horemheb 27 I Shemu 9 27 years 12 years 5 m.

12 years 3 m. 27 years 2 m.19thDynastyRamses I III Peret ? 2 II Peret 20 1 year 4 m. 1 year 4 m. 1 year 4 m.Sety I III Shemu 24 ? 11 IV Shemu 13 11 years 11 years

The durations of the two reigns: 37 years 10 months for Amenhotep III and 16years 7 months of Amenhotep IV are admitted, only the 11-year co-regency of Akhenaten

with his father is disputed. Elements that support the co-regency are as follows57:!The transactions between Mesy and the shepherd Nebmehy (Berlin Papyrus 9784) dated

III Shemu 20, year 27 of Amenhotep III then [?] Peret 27, year 2 of Amenhotep IV (not

Akhenaten) implies a co-regency of 11 years between the two transactions separated of1 year (without co-regency it would have been 12 years of silence).

!The mention of a sedfeast in the year 30 of Amenhotep III, as reported by AmenhotepIV during his 3rdyear58, confirms the 11-year co-regency. Those59who refuse this co-regency are obliged to say that this sed festival commemorating 30 years of reign,

55M. GABOLDE- D'Akhenaton ToutnkhamonLyon 1998 d. Institut d'Archologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquit p. 220.56G. GREENBERG Manetho. A Study in Egyptian ChronologyPennsylvania 2004, Marco Polo Monographs 8 pp. 78-86.57P.F. DORMAN The Long Coregency Revisited: Architectural and Iconographic Conundra in the Tomb of Kheruefin: Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane2006 The University of Memphis.58L.E. BAILEY Amenhotep III and Akhenaten : an Examination of the Coregency IssuesChicago 2000 E. University of Chicago pp. 14,26-28,38.59M. GABOLDE- D'Akhenaton ToutnkhamonLyon 1998 d. Institut d'Archologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquit pp. 26-28.


18/57


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

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

Amenhotep IIIChange of name:

Amun is pleased (Amenhotep III's son)

2627282930343738

Amenhotep IV

JubileeJubilee (of year 33)Jubilee (of year 36)

12371011

Re-Horakhty (...) who is Aten

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

1217/1

Akhenaten 16

Life of Aten(transfer to Akhetaten) 27

23

Semenkhkare-Ankhkheperure

[7][8]

(brother of Akhenaten)(wife of Semenkhkare)

89

1 Tutankhamun (younger brother of Akhenaten) 10!Among the dated jar-labels from the 8thto the 38thregnal years of Amenhotep III there

are seven dated year 28 including five examples dated year 1 [of Amenhotep IV]61.! In the year 12 of Amenhotep IV, Tiy (wife of Amenhotep III) moved to Akhetaten62.!Changes of name (Aten instead of Amun) in the titular of Amenhotep IV at the years 3

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

+/- 2 years (according to the state of his mummy), his statement can only be true ifthere was a co-regency of at least 11 years. Without co-regency, Amenhotep III's deathis separated from Tutankhamun by 30 years (= 17+3+10) and he could not be his son

because he died when he was 20 as confirmed by his coronation chair made for a 10years old child. With the co-regency, the gap of 19 years (= 6+3+10) is in agreementwith his birth to the end of Amenhotep III's reign in 1347 (= 1327 + 20). Thus thesuccessor of Akhenaten was first Semenkhkare (his brother) then Tutankhamun (hisyounger brother) 3 years later. There is a paradox for those who refuse the co-regencyand Gabolde agrees: then why, if Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten, would have he hidden itin this way his real ancestry to proclaim, on occasion, he was the son of Amenhotep III? (...) Thelegitimacy of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten has never been questioned under Tutankhamun andcontinuity was maintained during his reign in the traditional pattern: a son succeeded his father. Toassume that Tutankhamun would have denied his "father" Akhenaten, who had only 6girls!, for religious reasons is unprecedented and leads to an absurdity:Admittedly, it is

paradoxical to consider that Tutankhamun may seemingly, in the same spirit, honor his father and denyhim all at once and there is no obvious explanation for this contradiction64. The obviousexplanation exists: as he claimed Tutankhamun was the son of Amenhotep III. Inaddition if Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten why Semenkhkare succeeded hisbrother Akhetaten instead of his own son? Once again, there is a new anomaly!

60C. DESROCHES-NOBLECOURT - ToutankhamonParis 1965 d.Hachette pp. 110-111.61W.C. HAYES- Inscriptions from the Palace of Amenhotep IIIin:Journal of Near Eastern Studies10:1 (Jan. 1951), pp. 35-56.62N. GRIMAL - Histoire de l'gypte ancienneParis 1988 d. Fayard pp. 301-302.63J. GOHARY Akhenaten's Sed-Festival at KarnakLondon 1992 Ed. Kegan Paul International pp. 29-33.64M. GABOLDE- D'Akhenaton ToutnkhamonLyon 1998 d. Institut d'Archologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquit p. 293.


19/57


19

The 11-year co-regency between the two pharaohs is therefore well established.Amenhotep IV probably expected the death of Amenhotep III for transferring the wholecourt in the new city (Akhetaten) and to favor the promoting of Aten's worship(Toutankhaton, later Tutankhamun, will choose again the ancient Amun's worship). Thereceipt of foreign tributes at Amarna is dated IV Peret 8 Year 12 of Amenhotep IV65. This

celebration inaugurated in fact Aten's worship in Amarna. The date was well chosenbecause it was a few days before the solar beam appearing the IV Peret 13. The numerousjars of wine excavated in the city dated years 1-4 as well as the boundary stelae dated years5 and 6 seem to refer to Akhenaten's reign officially appearing at the 12 th year of

Amenhotep IV, which was the 1styear of Akhenaten (stelae of year 8 are posthumous andcontemporary of Semenkhkare)66. Inasmuch Akhenaton stated in the stela year 5 that thesituation is worse in his time than the one of Amenhotep III, it was not the AmenohotepIV's year 5 but Akhenaten's year 5 because he would not have spoken in such terms of thereign of Amenohotep III if he was still alive and shared power with him. Semenkhkarebeing Akhenaten's successor, the jars dating year 1 just after year 17 should be attributed tohim rather than Akhenaten67. Despite evidence of the co-regency between Amenhotep IIIand his son Amenhotep IV the reconstitution without co-regency is favored by mostegyptologists of the 32nd Dynasty (those affected by pharaonic megalomania). Howeverchronological synchronisms, as well as calculation by astronomy of the dates of

Akhenaten's death in October 1340 BCE and of Tutankhamen in October 1327 BCE68,confirm the 11-year co-regency.

King Reign durationAhmose 25 years 4 months 04/1530-07/1505Amenhotep I 20 years 7 months 08/1505-02/1484Thutmose I 12 years 5 months 03/1484-07/1472Thutmose II 3 years 08/1472-07/1469Thutmose III 53 years 11 months 08/1472-03/1418[Thutmose III/Amenhotep II] [ 2 years 4 months] [11/1420-03/1418]

Amenhotep II 25 years 10 months 04/1418-02/1392Thutmose IV 9 years 8 months 02/1392-10/1383Amenhotep III 37 years 10 months 10/1383-07/1345[Amenhotep III/Amenhotep IV] [11 years 5 months] [03/1356-07/1345]

Akhenaten 5 years 2 months 08/1345-10/1340Semenkhkare 1 year 4 months 10/1340-02/1338-Ankhkheperure 2 years 1 month 02/1338-03/1336

Tutankhamun 9 years 8 months 03/1336-10/1327A 4 years 1 month 10/1327-11/1323Horemheb I [former regent]Horemheb II [pharaoh]

14 years13 years 2 months

11/1323-11/130912/1309-01/1295

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

Total: 124 years 04/1418-05/1294

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

65M. GABOLDE- D'Akhenaton ToutnkhamonLyon 1998 d. Institut d'Archologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquit pp. 281-283.66F.J. GILES The Amarna Age: Egypt2001 Ed. Aris & Phillips pp. 43-45.67W.J. MURNANE- Ancient Egyptian Coregenciesin: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization40 (Chicago, 1977) pp. 215-225.68The month of Akhenaten's death must be around October because a label on a jar dated year 17 (partially erased and changed to 1)refers to honey and honey harvesting in Egypt, in the valley, was carried out in September (P.T. NICHOLSON, I. SHAWAncient Materials

and Technology, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 410-411). In addition, Suppiluliuma I was informed of Tutankhamun's death at the end of hiscampaign which ended before the onset of winter (November).


20/57


matches the sum of reigns: 124 years (= 25 years 10 months of Amenhotep II + 9 years 8months of Thutmose IV + 37 years 10 months of Amenhotep III + 5 years 2 months of

Akhenaten + 1 year 4 month of Semenkhkare + 2 years 1 month of Ankhkheperure + 9years 8 months of Tutankhamun + 4 years 1 month of Ay + 27 years 2 months ofHoremheb + 1 year 4 month of Ramses I) provided the 11 years of co-regency between

Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV are not counted. To dispute this coincidence,egyptologists of the 32nd Dynasty assume that the reign of Horemheb lasted only 16 years(or 14!) instead of 27. This assumption defies common sense.

Even if the duration of Horemheb's reign is controversial because of the lownumber of dated inscriptions between years 14-27 (which is not unusual), only years 1-4, 6-9, and 12 - 14 are attested in his grave (unfinished!)69, this reign is dated from 1330 to 1302BCE by carbon-14 implying a reign of about 28 years. Kitchen also observed 70 thatHoremheb's extensive building projects at Karnak supported the theory of a long reign forthis Pharaoh and stressed that "a good number of the undated 'late 18thDynasty' privatemonuments that are in both Egypt and the world's Museums must, in fact, belong to hisreign. There are only two datedinscriptions after the year 14: adecree on a section of wall datedyear [2]571 and a graffito on afragment of a statue dated year 27.

The ink graffito reads: Year 27, IShemu 9, the day72 on which Horemheb,who loves Amun and hates his enemies,entered the temple for this event. The useof Horemheb's name and theaddition of a long "Meryamun" (Beloved of Amun) epithet in the graffito suggests a living,

eulogised king rather than a long deceased one73

. If the reading of the year [2]5 is only themost likely74(figure above), that of 27 year is indisputable and requires a period of reign ofat least 26 years. A second element supports the period of 27 years.

Mes' inscription75describes a complaint during the year 18 of Ramses II about aland inherited from the time of Horemheb, which is finally judged and dated in the year 59of Horemheb. The only plausible explanation for this unusual year 59 is to assume that the58-year reign posthumously attributed to Horemheb correspond to 27 years 2 months ofHoremheb's actual reign + 1 year 4 months of Ramses I's reign + 11 years of Sety I's reign+ 18 years from the beginning of Ramses II's reign. The reign of Horemheb was extendedposthumously because the year 28 is followed by years 1-2 of Ramses I (years 29-30 ofHoremheb) then by years 1-11 of Seti I (years 31-41 of Horemheb) and finally with years 1-

18 of Ramses II (42-59 years of Horemheb). Sety I's reign lasted 11 years (actually 11 yearsand a few days) as shown in the autobiography of the priest Bakenkhons 76.69J.VAN DIJK New Evidence of the Length of the Reign of Horemhebin:Journal of the American Research Center in Egyptvol. 44 (2008) pp. 193-200.70K.A. KITCHEN The Basis of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age in: "High, Middle or Low? Acts of InternationalColloquim on Absolute Chronology held at the University of Gothenburg 20-22 August 1987" Ed. Paul Astrm Volume 1 pp. 37-55.71Petrie Collection (UC 14391),the part where appeared the year [2]5 has been chipped and is now illegible.72This date I Shemu 9 Year 27 corresponds to March 18 in 1296 BCE and coincides with a 1st lunar crescent.73D. REDFORDin: JNES 25 (1966), p. 123; in BASOR 211 (1973) No. 37 footnote.74R. HARI Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet ou la fin d'une dynastieGenve 1964 Imprimerie La Sirne. Thse n179 fig. 82, 84.75A.H. GARDINER The Inscription of MesLeipzig 1905 in: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde gyptens4:3.76Bakenkhonsu states that he spent 4 years as an excellent youngster, 11 years as a youth, as a trainee stable-master for king Men[maat]re (Sety I), wab priestof Amun for 4 years, god's father of Amun for 12 years, third pries of Amun for 15 years, second priest of Amun for 12(E. FLOOD Biographical Texts

from Ramessid Egypt Atlanta 2007 Ed. Society of Biblical Literature p. 41). The 11 years of Sety I are all represented, except 10, whichconfirms the 11 years reign (E. HORNUNG-The New Kingdom in: Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Leiden 2006) Ed. Brill pp. 210-211).


21/57


21

Hari, in his thesis about Horemheb, note that the usual explanations about thispharaoh are romanticized and baseless. After reviewing overall enrollments andrepresentations, he concluded that transitions between pharaohs were based solely on the"principle of legitimacy." General Horemheb had been appointed as "representative of thePharaoh" by Tutankhamun, but not as co-regent, and after the death of Tutankhamun, Ay

was his legitimate successor. Ay having no children when he died, Horemheb remainedonly the representative of a dead pharaoh. To extend his function of representing thePharaoh, Queen Mutnodjmet, divine Ay's daughter, got married Horemheb (as did in thepast Queen Hatshepsut, daughter of Thutmose I, with his half-brother Thutmose II). ThusHoremheb reigned about 14 years as a "representative (idenu) of Pharaoh" and after thedeath of the queen he was enthroned as Pharaoh and started a "new reign" of about 13years (year 1 succeeding year 14). In his "Decree of Coronation" Horemheb reminds thathe had been designated as "representative" by King (unnamed) and it was in this way that:he ruled the country for a period of many years [more than 10 years] before eventually be designated as"king" by the "eldest son of Horus"("son of Horus" meant the king in title, ie Mutnodjmet'shusband?). Manetho has rightly separated the reign of Horemheb into two roughly equalparts (14 years as a representative of pharaoh, then 13 years as pharaoh, or 27 years in totaland hence the oddity of the reckoning).

DATING THETUTANKHAMUN'S DEATH IN 1327 BCE

Tutankhamun died the year Hittite king "uppiluliuma I conquered the Mitanniankingdom of Carchemish. This victory took place 5 years before "uppiluliuma I's death, whodied during his 6th year of war. Mur!ili II, youngest son of "uppiluliuma, succeeded hisfather after the brief reign of Arnuwanda II the eldest son. "uppiluliuma learned of thedeath of Pharaoh during his 1styear of war77which lasted 6 years and that ended with hisown death78. The presence of the brief reign of Arnuwanda II, whose duration is not

specified, complicates this chronology, but luckily the account of "uppiluliuma's deedsstates that the king died with the plague, as well as his son Arnuwanda, transmitted bysome Egyptian captives he had deported into Hittite country. This detail allows a datingbecause plague epidemics in Europe have shown that the average mortality rate was about30% of the total population and 60 to 100% of the population was infected, thus the

weakest were quickly killed and the plague in a given location therefore lasted on average 6-9 months. One can deduce from this epidemiological observation that Arnuwanda II couldreign only 6 months (max) during the accession year of Mur!ili II. In his annals, the kingmentions the death of his father and older brother during his accession, therefore all theseevents occurred during a single campaign between April and November in 1322 BCE79.

Mur!ili II's reign can be dated precisely80because at the beginning of his 10thyearthere was "a solar omen81" (total eclipse on the Hittite capital !attu!a). During this period1330-1310 BCE there was only one total solar eclipse on Hittite territory, that of 24 June1312 BCE82. The eclipse of -1307* (1308 BCE) April 13, can not be accepted because it77J.B. PRITCHARD- Ancient Near Eastern TextsPrinceton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press p. 319.78K.A. KITCHEN Suppiluliuma and the Amarna PharaohsLiverpool 1962 Ed. Liverpool University Press pp. 3-5,22,23.79T. BRYCE The Kingdom of the Hittites.Oxford 2005 Ed. Oxford University Press pp. 154-220.80E. WENTE, C. VAN SICLEN- Studies in Honor of George R. Hughesin: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization39 (Chicago, 1976) p. 249.81I. SINGER Hittite PrayersAtlanta 2002 Ed. Society of Biblical Litterature pp. 75,77.P.J. HUBER-The Solar Omen of Mursili II

in:Journal of the American Oriental Society121 (2001) pp. 640-644.82http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE-1399--1300.html


22/57


was an annular eclipse 95% of magnitude, which means that it was not noticed by a casualobserver, because eclipses of a magnitude less than 98 % go unnoticed. In addition, thetrajectory of this eclipse did not pass on the Hittite territory. The eclipse of 1312, whichoccurred shortly after the beginning of the year, as the text of the omen suggests, is theonly one to fulfill two key criteria: it was total (magnitude 102%) and its path passed near

Hattu!a, the Hittite capital. Given the year 10 of Mursili II is dated 1312, that means itsaccession has to be dated between April 1322 and March 1321. Thus Tutankhamun's deathtook place in 1327 BCE, 5 years before the brief reign of Arnuwanda II83and the accessionof Mursili II dated 1322/1321. Trajectories of eclipses between 1320 and 1300 (below) 84,only the one of -1311 (1312 BCE) June 24 matches the two key criteria.

Tutankhamun's death in 1327 BCE can be deduced from the following (Egyptian,Mitannian and Hittite) synchronisms:!Amenhotep III died in April 1345 BCE in the 38thyear of his reign.!Tu!ratta wrote 7 letters85to Amenhotep III (EA 17 to 26) then 3 letters to Amenhotep

IV (EA 27 to 29). He relates in his first letter (EA 17) his accession to the throne afterthe murder of his brother Arta!uwara, then the following year the attack of Hittite king["uppiluliuma] that he managed to repel. EA 23 letter (BM 29793) is dated IV Peret 1

Year 36 and 27 EA letter is dated I Peret [5] Year [1]2 of Amenhotep IV.Correspondence with Amenhotep III was intense because the EA 20 letter stated thatthe following letter will be sent 6 months later, involving a total period of 4 or 5 yearsbetween his first and last letter. Correspondence with Amenhotep IV was more relaxedsince the last letter written to Amenhotep IV (EA 29) states "my messengers for 4 years",involving a period of at least 4 years between his first and last letter.

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

!"uppiluliuma died in 1322, as well as his son Arnuwanda II, during the 6 thand final yearof the war. The deeds of "uppiluliuma mention a period of 20 years between thisHurrian war of 6 years and the Syrian war of 1 year (KUB 19:9 I). The preparation ofthe Syrian war covered a period of 3 or 4 years after the first unsuccessful attack against

Tu!ratta at the beginning of his reign (KBo I:1).83W.L. MORAN- Les lettres d'El Amarnain: LIPOn13 Paris 1987 d. Cerf pp. 55 note 137.84http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEatlas/SEatlas-2/SEatlas-1319.GIF85W.L. MORAN- Les lettres d'El Amarnain: LIPOn13 Paris 1987 d. Cerf pp. 48, 110-190.


23/57


23

Astronomical dating EGYPT MITANNI HATTIAmenhotep III !utarna II Tut!aliya III

1357 27 P. Berlin 97841356 28 Amenhotep IV Arta"umara1355 29 21354 30 3 Tu"ratta

1353 31 4 [1] !uppiluliuma Ifirst letters 1352 32(EA 254) 5 [2] 1stattack1351 33 [6] EA 17,EA 18 1 21350 34 [7] EA 19, EA 20 2 31349 35 8 EA 21, EA 22 3 41348 36 (EA 75) 9 EA 23,EA 24 4 1-year War1347 37 (EA 106) [10] EA 25 5 6/11346 38 [11] EA 26 21345 Akhenaten 12(EA 116) EA 27 1 31344 [2] [13] 2 41343 [3] 14 EA 28 3 51342 [4] [15] 4 6

3 March 1341 5 16 EA 29 7

3 March 1340 6 17

81339 [-] Semenkhkare [15] 9 (EA 41)14 May 1338 *8* 2 (EA 43) 10

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

1335 2 25 131334

3 26 141333 4 (Burna-Buria"II) 27 151332

5 (Kurigalzu II) 1 161331 6 2 171330

7 181329 8 191328 9 CARCHEMISH 20

1327

10

0 6-year War1326 Ay !arri-Ku"u! 1 21325 2 2 31324

3 3 41323 4 4 51322 Horemheb 5 Arnuwanda II1321 2 6 Mur"ili II1320

3 7 21319 4 8 31318

5 9 41317 6 10 51316

7 11 61315 8 12 7

1314

9

13 81313 10 14 924 June 1312

11 15 101311 12 16 111310 13 !a!urunuwa 1 121309

Mutnodjmetdied 14 2 131308 [15] 1 3 14

"uppiluliuma and his son Arnuwanda II died in 1322 BCE. The 1 st year of theHurrian 6-year war goes back in 1327 BCE, year of Tutankhamun's death. The Syrian 1-year war against Amurru is dated 1348 BCE and "uppiluliuma's attack against Tu!ratta in1352 BCE. Tu!ratta likely to have begun to reign 1 year before the attack and died86during

86J. FREU, M. MAZOYER Les dbuts du nouvel empire hittite. Les Hittites et leur histoireParis 2007 d. L'Harmattan p. 271.


24/57


the brief reign of Semenkhkare (c. 1338 BCE). Akhenaten's death in 1340 BCE (year 6 ofhis reign = year 17 of Amenhotep IV) and EA 9 letter that Burna-Burias II (1360-1333)sent to Tutankhamun, shortly after his accession, has coincided with the beginning of hisreign in 1336 BCE (3 years before Burna-Burias II's death in 1333 BCE).

The letter EA 17 written just after the attack by Suppiluliuma (1353-1322), which

was repelled by Tu!ratta (1354-1339), must be dated 1351, which means dating the letterEA 23 in 1348, a year which actually coincides with year 36 of Amenhotep III. Anothersynchronism again confirms this date87. The correspondence from the mayor of Byblosattests that Tu!ratta and the Hurrians led a vigorous counterattack during the months thatfollowed the Hittite raid (mentioned in EA 75), before their entering into Amurru and theiradvance towards Byblos (EA 85:51-55). Amurru was plundered (EA 86:8-12) and despite

Abdi-A!irta was sick (EA 95:41-42) he negotiated with Tu!ratta (EA 90:19-20). The latterrecognized that Amurru, too large for him, was a "possession" of Pharaoh (EA 95:27-31).

The information with numbers (as 1, 2 or 3 years) allow us to date these events in the year35 and 36 of Amenhotep III (1349-1348), which coincided with the marriage between himand Taduhepa, Tu!ratta's daughter (EA 22-23-24).

The letter EA 27 must be dated in 1345 BCE and corresponds therefore to Year 12of Amenhotep IV since the latter died in 1340 BCE in his 17 thyear of reign. The contentsof this letter supports this conclusion. Indeed, the demand for Tu!ratta may be explainedonly if Amenhotep III, Amenhotep IV's father, had died recently (a few months at most)88,in addition, the preparation of a wide celebration kimru, with sending of gifts, correspondsto foreign tributes that werereceived on year 12 the IV Peret8. Letter EA 27 has a hieraticinscription: [year 1]2 I Peret [5 ..](opposite figure, shaded areas

are reconstructions) [year 1]2 I Peret[5 [year]2 I Peret[5

The reading "year 2" would imply a co-regency of only 1 year because 2 years, not 1, followyear 38 of Amenhotep III. Furthermore the reading"year 12" is preferable to "year 2" for the followingreason: the sign that appears before the "2" may be aremnant of the sign "10" and not the sign "year"because among the 99 hieratic inscriptions found atEl-Amarna only two (No. 27, 37) may correspond tothe reconstitution "year 2". This exceptional andtherefore abnormal reading, used for a reconstitutionthat would be also abnormal, eliminates this choice.In addition, the Egyptian scribe who wrote the lettersEA 23 and EA 2789wrote "year 36" (EA 23, oppositefigure) with the usual hieroglyph and not . Anywayas the letter EA 27 is dated in 1345 BCE this yearmatches exactly the year 12 of Amenhotep IV.

87J. FREU La chronologie du rgne de Suppiluliumain: Silva Anatolica. Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko (Warsaw 2002) pp. 87-107.88W.L. MORAN- Les lettres d'El Amarnain: LIPOn13 Paris 1987 d. Cerf pp. 53,171-176.89L. WATERMAN Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire Vol. 4Ann Arbor 1936 Ed. University of Michigan Press plate 4 n11.


25/57


25

DATING THEAMENHOTEP IV'S DEATH IN 1340 BCE

Synchronisms imply dating Amenhotep IV's death in 1340 BCE and Semenkhkare'sdeath around 1338 BCE. The reconstitution of the interregnum between Akhenaten and

Tutankhamun is controversial because of the many changes in titulars (not to mention

usurpations). The simplest explanation is to admit that since Akhenaten had no son,Semenkhkare his brother had to succeed him for a short reign of about 1 year and 4months. On Semenkhkare's death, Merytaton90 his widow continued the reign of herhusband for 2 years 1 month under the name Ankhkheperure, a female name which wasthen masculinized91 (similar case with queen Tausert, wife of Seti II who continued thereign of Siptah after his death, likewise Hatshepsut, wife of Thutmose II, who continuedthe reign of her deceased husband on behalf of his nephew Thutmose III). Amenhotep IVdied after 17 years of reign, in year 6 of Akhetaten, this data being understood as: "year 6 ofthe city of Akhenaten," the new town understood as merged to the new pharaoh. This cityhas also lasted 6 years of Akhenaten's reign without his co-regency (= 17 - 11). This reigncan be dated through an indication from a temple dedicated to the solar cult which he built

(small temple of Aton) in El-Amarna to celebrate the rise of Aton, the god representingdisk of the sun (temples of the ancient Egyptian civilization were frequently astronomicallyorientated)92. This temple is directed precisely toward a notch in the mountains93visible onthe horizon (azimuth 103)94. In the photograph (right below) the axis of the temple isoriented in the direction of the notch (hidden by a column) on the horizon.

The name of the new capital built by Akhenaten, called Akhetaten (3ht-'itn) "wherethe sun disk rises [Aten's horizon]" which was represented by the hieroglyph exactlyimitating the sun appearing in the notch of the mountain in Amarna. The temple in the city

was inaugurated on IV Peret 13 in Year 5 of Akhenaten and commemorated in Year 6 atthe same date95. The fact that the temple is oriented exactly in line with the Royal Wadi 96

suggests that Akhenaten chose to inaugurate the city, the precise day when the sun rose

97

inthe notch of the mountain, illuminating the temple as a laser beam. The simulation of90C. ALDRED Akhenaton roi d'gypteParis 1988 d. Seuil, pp. 160-161, 284-296.91J.-L. BOVOT La tombe KV 55 un imbroglio archologiqueM. GABOLDE Pour qui fut confectionn le mobilier funraire de Toutnkhamonin: Akhnaton et l'poque amarnienne, d. Khops et centre d'gyptologie (2005) pp. 183-224, 273-286.92M. SHALTOUT, J.A. BELMONTE, M. FEKRI- On the orientation of ancient Egyptian temples:in:Journal for the History of AstronomyXXXVIII (2007) pp. 313-333.93M. GABOLDE Amarna : la ville du soleilin: Les grands secrets de l'archologie n9 septembre-octobre 2008 pp. 24-31.94http://earth.google.fr/95W.J. MURNANE- The "First Occasion of the Discovery" of Akhet-Atonin: Studien zur Altgyptischen Kultur14 (1987) pp. 239-246.96D.P. SILVERMAN, J.W. WEGNER, J.H. WEGNER Akhenaten and Tutankhamun Revolution and RestorationPhiladelphia 2006 Ed. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology pp. 43-55.97L. GABOLDE Mise au point sur lorientation du temple dAmon-R Karnak en direction du lever du soleil au solstice dhiverin: Cahier de Karnak13 (Presses du Conseil Suprme des Antiquits de lgypte, 2010), pp. 243-256.


26/57


sunrise observed at that location98(14thcentury BCE) indicates that it appeared to 4:38 UTin the notch of the mountain (which apparent diameter is 0.9, the one of the sun is 0.5)only two days in the year: 3/4 March and 5/6 November, as the apparent path of the sundrift of about 0.4 per day at the horizon (0 altitude) to go back and forth between thetwo extreme positions reached at solstices on 1stJanuary and 5 July (spring equinox was on

2 April99

at that time). This implies that the equation: IV Peret 13 = 3 March100

[day of solarillumination in the temple] was satisfied only for 4 years, from 1341 to 1338 BCE. As thecommemoration of IV Peret 13 stopped at the 6 thyear of Akhenaten (no 7thyear), one canassume that it was the last year of his reign (matching the 17thyear from his co-regency).

The posthumous stela of year 8 has been completed in the last year of the 4-year cycle, in1338 BCE. His father Amenhotep III died on April 1345 BCE during the year 38 of hisreign. Letter EA 106 was written 5 years after the beginning of the war (1352 BCE) and EA116 after Akhenaten sat on the throne.

period: 2005 CE 1345-1342 1341-1338 1337-1334Crossing the azimuth of 102.7 18 February 3 March 3 March 3 MarchIV Peret 13 (in Julian calendar) [18 November] 4 March 3 March 2 March

Spring equinox 20 March 2 April 2 April 2 April

This coincidence of 3 March occurs today (2005) on February 18 [azimuth 102.7 athorizon 0]101, the apparent path of the sun moving towards the summer solstice, on July 5.

The Egyptian calendar of 365 days drifted 1 day every 4 years compared to the true solaryear of 365.24 days [causing a shift of about 0.1 per year]. All dates allow a reconstitutionmonth by month of the transition between Amenhotep III and Tutankhamun:98R.A. WELLS- The Amarna M,X,K Boundary Stelae Date: A Modern Calendar Equivalentin: Studien zur Altgyptischen Kultur14 (1987) pp. 313-333.99http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/temps/saisons.php100The other possibility IV Peret 13 = 5 November has no solution in the 14 thcentury BCE.101http://www.imcce.fr/fr/ephemerides/phenomenes/rts/index.php


27/57


27

1 VI Amenhotep III2 VII

36Amenhotep IV

3 VIII *** Letter EA 23 from Tu!ratta to Amenhotep III dated 1/VIII/364 IX

5 X6 XI7 XII8 I9 II

10 III Jar-label dated Sedfestival year 37see JNES 10:1 (1951) p. 3611 IV

1347

12 V1 VI2 VII

[10]

3 VIII4 IX5 X6 XI7 XII

8 I

9 II

37

10 III11 IV

1346

12 V

1 VI

2 VII

[11]

3 VIII4 IX5 X6 XI

Labels from Molkata ending on 1/XI/387 XII

38

Death of Amenhotep III8 I Akhenaten [Amenhotep IV]9 II Transfer into Akhetaten

10 III11 IV

12

1345

12 V *** Letter EA 27 from Tu!ratta to Amenhotep IV dated [5]/V/121 VI Tribute scenes in the tomb of Meryre and Huya dated 8/VI/122 VII

[1]

Reception of foreign tributes on 8/VIII/123 VIII (Beginning of the year on 13/VIII)

4 IX5 X

6 XI7 XII8 I9 II

10 III11 IV

1344

12 V1 VI2 VII

[2] [13]

3 VIII4 IX5 X6 XI7 XII8 I

9 II10 III11 IV

1343

12 V1 VI

Graffito at Saqqara dated 2?/VI/142 VII

[3] 14

3 VIII4 IX5 X6 XI7 XII8 I9 II Jar-label dated [II]/15see JNES 10:2 (1951) p. 99

10 III

11 IV

1342

12 V

[4] 15


28/57


1 VI2 VII3 VIII Sunrise at azimuth 103 dated 13/VIII/5(3 March 1341 BCE)4 IX

Temple's inauguration, stela of year 5 in Akhetaten5 X6 XI7 XII8 I9 II

10 III Hieratic text dated 15/III/16of Amenhotep IV stating: "Great King's11 IV Wife, his beloved, mistress of the two lands, Neferneferuaten Nefertiti"

1341

12 V1 VI2 VII

5 16

3 VIII Sunrise at azimuth 103 dated 13/VIII/6(3 March 1340 BCE)4 IX stela of year 6 in Akhetaten5 X6 XI7 XII

8 I

9 II

6 17

Last label of wine jar dated II/17. Death of Akhenaten10 III Semenkhkare (reigned 1 year 4 months)11 IV

1340

12 V

1 VI

2 VII3 VIII (no stela Year 7 of Akhenaten) letter EA 41 from "uppiluliuma to4 IX Semenkhkare congratulating him to be king5 X6 XI

7 XII8 I9 II

1

Letter EA 43 from "uppiluliuma to Semenkhkare who mentions the10 III murder of Tu!ratta11 IV

1339

12 V1 VI

2

Death of Semenkhkare, his wife continues his reign2 VII

[7]

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

4 IX5 X

8

*** Total solar eclipse upon Akhetaten on May 14, 1338 BCE6 XI Ankhkeperure wrote to "uppiluliuma wrote asking him one of his7 XII son (Zannanza) as husband (Deeds of !uppiluliumafrag. 28 III:11-15)8 I9 II

10 III11 IV

1338

12 V1 VI2 VII3 VIII4 IX5 X6 XI7 XII8 I

Graffito dated 1/III/3of Ankhkeperure mentioning a solar eclipse9 II

3

10 III 111 IV 2

1337

12 V 31 VI

42 VII 53 VIII Tutankhamun4 IX5 X6 XI7 XII

1

8 I *** Letter EA 9 from Burna-Buria!II to Tutankhamun in order to renew9 II an alliance with him (Burna-Buria!II died 3 years later in 1333 BCE).

10 III

1336

11 IV


29/57


29

Many synchronisms and the 4 absolute dates fixed by astronomy guarantee an exactchronology for this period. However, many egyptologists reject it on the grounds that theco-regency between Amenhotep III and his son Amenhotep IV is impossible becauseaccording to them, pharaohs never share their power. Such a dogma is of course contraryto historical data and mainly reflects their own conception of power.

The succession of reigns between Amenhotep III and Tutankhamun, based on thesynchronism and the dates calculated by astronomy, can be reconstructed as follows102:towards the end of his reign in the year 27 (1356 BCE), Amenhotep III established his son

Amenhotep IV as co-regent (as already done before Thutmose III with his son AmenhotepII). Amenhotep III died after 38 years of reign (1345 BCE), thus Amenhotep IV began anew reign under the name Akhenaten in his new city of Akhetaten (Amarna). Horemhebalso began a new reign after the death of Queen Mutnodjmet in the year 14 of his reign(1309 BCE). Akhenaten died after 6 years of reign (1340 BCE), or 17 years from his co-regency, and as he had no son his brother Semenkhare succeeded him (as had happenedbefore with Kamose, Seqenenre Taa's brother, who succeeded him after his death and thedeath of Crown Prince Ahmose Sapar). Semenkhkare died (1338 BCE) after a reign of 1year and 4 months (the plague which was becoming endemic in this part of Egypt couldexplain why the mortality was so high at that time). His widow Merytaton then reigned 2years and 1 month on behalf of her husband (as Hatshepsut had done after her husband'sdeath), first under the feminine name Ankh[et]kheperure then under Ankhkheperure thesame name but in the masculine (after a possible marriage with Zannanza a Hittite prince,"uppiluliuma's son, possibly murdered by General Ay, who later became Pharaoh). Otherpossible explanations to solve this Hittite imbroglio do not fundamentally alter thechronological frame of various reigns. The precision transmitted by Josephus "Akencheris,daughter of Orus [Akhenaten], reigned [1]2 years and 1 month" proves accurate becauseSemenkhkare appears married to Merytaton, a daughter of Akhenaten, on an anonymous

stela (Aegyptisches Berlin museum 15000). As he also appears on another stela under aneffeminate shape accompanied by Akhenaton, this has led some to believe a possible co-regency. Similarly, Akhenaten and Nefertiti are sometimes depicted on stelae as two partnerkings (Berlin 17813, Cairo JE 59294). The deeds of "uppiluliuma (28 III:11-15) tell thatafter Akhenaten's death the craven widow of Semenkhkare (written [Nip]!ururiya incuneiform) asked a son to "uppiluliuma for becoming a Pharaoh in Egypt. The total solareclipse of 14 May 1338 BCE upon the city of Akhenaten (Akhetaten), cited in allusion onthe Amun's priest graffito103dated III Akhet 10, Year 3 of Ankhkheperure104 (1st August1337 BCE), and which was understood as a terrible omen against the Pharaoh, couldexplain easily the strange behaviour of the queen to get a king on the throne of Egypt andalso the change to sun worship from the time (Amun replacing Aten). This imbroglio also

explains the difficulty that Manetho encountered, or a precursor thereof, to extract aprecise duration of these reigns. Finally, Ankhkheperure died after 2 years and 1 month ofreign (in 1336 BCE), and having no heir the last son of Amenhotep III, the young

Tutankhamun aged 10, became a new pharaoh.The reconstruction of the succession of reigns is possible only through the use of a

precise chronology, for the same reason, the succession of the numerous events, thatoccurred during the co-regency of Amenhotep IV with his father Amenhotep III, may onlybe reconstructed from this chronology. "uppiluliuma's 1-year war (April 1347 BCE) against

102M. GABOLDE- Les portraits d'une reine pharaonin: Akhnaton et l'poque amarnienne, d. Khops et centre d'gyptologie (2005) pp. 261-286.103 As you [Amon-Re] made me see the darkness which are yours to give, make it for me light so I can see you .104W.J. MURNANE Texts from the Amarna PeriodAtlanta 1995 Ed. Society of Biblical Literature pp. 207-208.


30/57


the powerful kingdom of Mitanni ruled by Tu!ratta (1353-1339), an ally of Egypt, to theend of the reign of Amenhotep III, triggered a profound destabilization of the entireMiddle East, especially in Canaan. Thus Abdi-A!irta (1370-1347) the king of Amurru, aformer ally of Egypt, took advantage of the disorder to conquer several small kingdoms inthe north of Canaan which were vassals of Egypt. Similarly, Labayu, the powerful mayor of

Shechem, conducted a series of raids against the other Canaanite mayors in his region. It isworth noting that Barak, an Israelite judge, took this opportunity to get rid of the authorityexerted by Jabin II (1366-1346), the great king of Hazor, through Sisera (1370-1345) anarmy chief Phoenician ruler (Judges 4:1-25) of U!natu.

Key areas of conflict105during the Amarna period:

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

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


31/57


31

my Apiru [Canaanite mercenaries from Amurru] and my Suteans [Syrian mercenaries from Mitanni], atthe disposition of the archers [Egyptian soldiers], wheresoever the king [of Egypt], my lord, shall order (meto go) (EA 195). These mercenaries were involved in police operations and not in a warbecause of the numbers involved106. Thus Rib-Hadda, the mayor of Byblos wrote: What isAbdi-A"irta [king of Amurru], servant and dog, that he takes the land of the king himself? What is his

auxiliary forces that it is strong? Through the Apiru his auxiliary force is strong! So send me 50 pairs ofhorses and 200 infantry that I may resist him in !igata until the coming forth of the archers(EA 71).

The Apiru of Abdi-A!irta (King of Amurru)were factious from

Documents

Dating Akhenaten Libre