they note only that he was established on his father’s throne. Before Thutmose III died, Amenhotep II ruled as a coregent with his father, with

the notion of two Amenhotep II’s is resolutely rejected. 71. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 117. 72. Vandersleyen notes that in spite of the good physical development of Amenhotep II, an examination of his mummy reveals that he was of average height and died at about 44 years of age (Claude Vandersleyen, L’Egypte et la Vallée du Nil, vol. 2 [Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1995], 336). Harris and Weeks, adding that his wavy hair was brown with gray at the temple, suggest that he was 45 at death (Harris and Weeks, X-Raying, 138). 73. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 44. 74. G. Robins, “The Value of the Estimated Ages of the Royal Mummies at Death as Historical Evidence,” Göttinger Miszellen 45 (1981), 63–68. 75. While Thutmose III’s exact age at his accession is unknown, his reign lasted into his 54th regnal year. According to Brugsch-Bey, he reigned 53 years, 11 months, and 1 day (Heinrich Brugsch-Bey, Egypt Under the Pharaohs [London: Bracken Books, 1902], 193), while Tyldesley claims that he reigned 53 years, 10 months, and 26 days (Tyldesley, Hatchepsut, 96, 215). 76. Harris and Weeks, X-Raying, 138. 77. Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas (New York: Macmillan, 1977), 34. 78. Vandersleyen, L’Egypte, vol. 2, 341. 79. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 59. 80. “Previously, on seeing a man from Egypt, the kings of Canaan fled bef[ore him, but] now the sons of Abdi-Ashirta make men from Egypt prowl about [like do]gs” (The Amarna Letters, ed. and trans. William L. Moran [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992], 183). 81. Vandersleyen, L’Egypte, vol. 2, 333. This and all subsequent quotes by Vandersleyen are translated into English from the original French by Lydia Polyakova and Inna Kumpyak. Horemheb reigned from ca. 1335–1307 BC. 82. Yohanan Aharoni, “Some Geographical Remarks Concerning the Campaigns of Amenhotep II,” JNES 19:3 (Jul 1960), 177. 83. James B. Pritchard, ANET (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950), 245. 84. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 118. 85. Pritchard, ANET, 245. 86. Ibid., 245, 246; Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 119. 87. Henry Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. 2 (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 305. 88. Hoffmeier, “Memphis and Karnak Stelae,” in Context of Scripture, vol. 2, 19. 89. Pritchard, ANET, 245; Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 119. 90. Breasted, Ancient Records, vol. 2, 309. 91. The word “Retenu,” an Egyptian term used of Syro-Palestine, is found in the account of Thutmose III’s first Asiatic campaign, during which the Egyptians besieged Megiddo for seven months. When the city fell in December of Year 22, all of the Canaanite leaders—with the exception of the king of Kadesh, who had fled—fell in one stroke. Once these petty kings were in Egyptian hands, they were required to take this vow: “The lands of Retenu will not rebel again on another occasion,” and, “We will never again act evilly against Men-kheper-Re (Thutmose III)—who lives forever, our good lord—in our lifetime” (Pritchard, ANET, 238; Hoffmeier, “Memphis and Karnak Stelae,” in Context of Scripture, vol. 2, 16). Since city-states throughout Syro-Palestine were involved in this rebellion, the territory of the kings of Retenu who pledged perpetual loyalty to Thutmose III must have comprised both Syria and Palestine. 92. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 119. 93. Pritchard, ANET, 245. 94. Eitienne Drioton and Jacques Vandier, L’Egypte (Paris: Les Presses Universitaires de France, 1938), 406, 663. 95. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 120. 96. Ibid. 97. Ibid., 121. 98. Rainey, “Amenhotep II’s Campaign to Takhsi,” 71. 99. Pritchard, ANET, 245. 100. Vandersleyen, L’Egypte, vol. 2, 324. Rainey affirms the activity of later restoration on the Memphis Stele, remarking that its opening lines are difficult to read due to faulty restoration by a later scribe (Rainey, “Amenhotep II’s Campaign to Takhsi,” 72). 101. Vandersleyen, L’Egypte, vol. 2, 325. Shea correctly asserts that “the identification of the campaign of Year 7 is not a scribal error because the campaign of Year 9 is identified as ‘his second campaign of victory’ in the same text” (Shea, “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh,” 46), but he fails to account for the possibility that while the original scribe etched the year of the pharaoh’s first campaign onto the stele correctly, it was subject to damage by alteration and subsequently faulty reparation. 102. Vandersleyen, L’Egypte, vol. 2, 323, 324. 103. Critics of the two-campaign theory argue that “Takhsi,” a region in Syria already known as such at the time of Thutmose III, does not appear on the Memphis and Karnak Stelae, where another “first campaign” is discussed, thus suggesting a variance in destinations. For one, Shea objects that while the Year-3 campaign identifies Takhsi as the region of the campaigning, this term is never mentioned in the account of the Year-7 campaign, thus implying that these two accounts cannot describe the same campaign (Shea, “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh,” 46), despite both of them documenting a campaign that was waged in Syria. This objection is weak, however, since the purpose of the Amada Stele was not to boast of military exploits, but rather to commemorate the work completed on the Amada temple in Nubia. Its brief allusion to the expedition in Syria is included to note that Amenhotep II captured seven rulers of Takhsi, executed them by his own hand to make an example of them, and had six of them hanged upside down for public exhibition on the walls at Thebes, while the seventh was to be hanged similarly at Napata, just downstream from the Fourth Cataract in Nubia. This graphic display functioned to remind the Nubians that pharaoh was to be revered and obeyed. The Memphis and Karnak Stelae had only one goal in mind: to boast of pharaoh’s military victories in Asia (Vandersleyen, L’Egypte, vol. 2, 323–324; Hallo and Simpson, Ancient Near East, 261–262). Since the commissioners of these stelae had no need to mention the capture of the rulers of Takhsi, which was only one of the regions on the campaign’s itinerary, they simply chose not to include the term. 104. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 119–120. 105. Wolfgang Helck, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, no. 18 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956), 1448; Vandersleyen, L’Egypte, vol. 2, 324.106. The view that A1 was launched in response to an Asiatic revolt is held by Breasted and most modern Egyptologists (Breasted, Ancient Records, vol. 2, 304; Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 163; Grimal, History of Ancient Egypt, 218). 107. Dennis Forbes, “Menkheperre Djehutymes: Thutmose III, A Pharaoh’s Pharaoh,” KMT 9:4 (Win 1998–1999), 65. 108. Breasted, Ancient



Records, vol. 2, 304. Curiously, the universally
Rosetta Stone Greek