Site Section Links
KRONOS Vol V, No. 1
ON THE PLACEMENT OF HAREMHAB: A Critique Of Gammon
DOMINICK A. CARLUCCI
A recent issue of the SIS Review (III:2) contained an article by Geoffrey Gammon entitled "The Place of Horemheb in Egyptian History". In that article, Gammon put forth a case for linking Haremhab to the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty, assigning him an absolute date of ca. 822-814 B.C. Velikovsky, on the other hand, has dated Haremhab to the years 702-687 B.C. while conventional dating places Haremhab in the latter part of the fourteenth century B.C. Gammon's proposal was offered as part of "some tentative beginnings of an alternative 'Glasgow chronology' ", to use the words of Peter James,(1) begun at the Glasgow Conference on Ages in Chaos held in the spring of 1978. However, Gammon fails to present a single shred of synchronistic evidence in support of a ninth century placement of Haremhab; and his essay is nothing more than a summary collection of conventional chronologists' attempts to place Haremhab at the close of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The ninth century context is not established.
Even though the "Glasgow chronologists" agree that the Eighteenth Dynasty should remain where Velikovsky dated it more than thirty years ago (i.e., the tenth and ninth centuries B.C.), they believe "that a less 'drastic' [sic] course than that offered in Ramses II and in Peoples of the Sea should be steered for the completion of Ages in Chaos".(2) James offers as a rationale for this position the belief that "the valuable work begun by Velikovsky in Ages in Chaos and the far-reaching implications of his general thesis for the archaeology of the Near East and the Aegean [should] not . . . be lost entirely on the academic community"(3) – as if it would be without the criticisms and revisionism of the Glasgow school.
If, in fact, this is the situation, then a far more rigorous revisionist approach is to be expected from the "Glasgow chronologists". Otherwise, the impression is conveyed that accommodation of the conventional chronology is perhaps of primary concern (though I realize that this was not Gammon's intent). For, instead of discussing and critiquing Velikovsky's previously published work on Haremhab,(4) Gammon mentions it only in passing at the beginning of his paper without confronting or refuting a single point. Instead, Gammon proceeds to remind us of assorted Egyptological material, the interpretation of which is based mainly on conventional understanding, circumstantial evidence, and conjecture.(5) Could it be that he had no answer for Velikovsky's arguments? This question may answer itself.
Let us now analyze Gammon's arguments:
1) First, Gammon notes that various king-lists place Haremhab and the Nineteenth Dynasty directly after Amenhotep III of the Eighteenth Dynasty, thus rendering the kings Akhnaten through Ay as "uncanonical". However, he also admits that if the Libyan and Ethiopian kings (as well as the Assyrian) had intervened, then they too would have been eliminated from the lists; "No conclusions can therefore be drawn from their absence from these lists."(6) Thus, the possibility does exist that, between the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, the Libyan and Ethiopian dynasties did, in fact, intervene along with the Assyrian domination.(7)
2) Second, Gammon points out that Haremhab's prenomen, Djeser-khepru-Re Setep-en-Re, is "consistent with established Dynasty XVIII tradition", (8) citing the element kheper as proof. I would imagine that, had Egypt been invaded and occupied for over one hundred years, Haremhab would have preferred – for political reasons to attach himself to the last legitimate native rulers by any means possible.* Furthermore, while Gammon's observation suggests that Haremhab may possibly have imitated Eighteenth Dynasty tradition, it does not prove that Haremhab followed immediately after that dynasty or, for that matter, that he was even a member of that dynasty.
With respect to the element kheper, we could just as easily say that Haremhab was following Fourth Dynasty tradition (Kheper-Ra-djedef), Twelfth Dynasty tradition (Kheperkare Senwosre and Khakheperre Senwosre), Twentieth Dynasty tradition (Kheperma-re-setpenre Ramesse), Twenty-first Dynasty tradition (Hedjkheperre-setpenre [Smendes], Akheperre-setpenamun [Psusennes], Nutekheperre-setpenamun [Siamun]), as well as following the traditions of the Twenty-second or Libyan Dynasty (Hedjkheperre-setpenre [Shoshenk and Takelot], Sekhemkheperre-setpenre [Osorkon], Akheperre [Shoshenk]), the Twenty-fifth or Ethiopian Dynasty (Menkheperre [Shebitku]), or the Thirtieth Dynasty (Kheperkare [Nekhtnebef]).
It is interesting to note that if the argument of tradition is followed – and if Velikovsky is correct about the relative placement of the Libyans and Ethiopians – then Haremhab fits very nicely with the above-mentioned Takelot, Osorkon, and Shoshenk of the Libyan Dynasty. But, as I have endeavored to show, the element kheper appears in royal names throughout Egypt's history, leaving us to wonder which king was following what tradition by the assumption of a given name. Using this argument to place Haremhab at the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty would be tantamount to, say, placing Kheperkare-Nekhtnebef of the Thirtieth Dynasty at the close of the Fourth Dynasty because he was following the tradition of KheperRa-djedef of that dynasty. The argument is unsound and cannot be used to place Haremhab anywhere.(9)
3) A scene in the tomb of Haremhab at Memphis shows him "being loaded with golden necklets". While it may be that such necklets were given as gifts at Akhet-aten, one wonders if they might not still have been in vogue during the Libyan and Ethiopian dynasties. As Velikovsky has pointed out: "The Egyptian language and orthography under the Ethiopians and the Twenty-sixth (called also Saitic) Dynasty were so similar to [that of] the Eighteenth Dynasty that experts have often engaged in disputes about the date of a literary relic . . . the Ethiopian artists followed the style of the Eighteenth Dynasty, and more especially imitated the forms of human bodies so characteristic in the art of Akhnaton's artists..."(10) It is not unreasonable to expect that the preceding observations about language and art forms would be applicable to jewelry as well; it is not impossible for the motif of the "golden necklets" to have survived for a period beyond the termination of the Eighteenth Dynasty.
In any event, Gammon has not even begun to make so much as a preliminary effort in considering the artistic history of Egyptian jewelry – a highly problematic field in its own right.(11)
Gammon also makes much of the "Trauer-Relief" in the Berlin Museum. One of the figures depicted bears titles supposedly borne by Haremhab and Haremhab only, and the piece is "dated to the late Eighteenth Dynasty on stylistic grounds".(12) Here, I will defer to the remarks by Greenberg found at the end of this article.
4) In the Memphite tomb of Haremhab, he was also shown addressing Pharaoh.(13) Yet, Haremhab wears the Uraeus; and scholars at least as far back as Breasted have seen and commented on this fact.(14) Gammon acknowledges that the king whom Haremhab addresses here is "unnamed but represented in Egyptian dress",(15) thus assuming or implying the king to be Egyptian. But is it not possible that the king could be a foreigner? Elsewhere in Egyptian art we are met with a relief depicting a foreign monarch in Egyptian dress, and Gammon should have been well aware of it. In Ramses II and His Time, Velikovsky reproduces a relief depicting both the "Hittite" king Hattusilis III (whom he identifies as Nebuchadnezzar) and his daughter in Egyptian trappings.(16) In view of Velikovsky's assertion that Haremhab was appointed, then crowned, by Sennacherib,(17) it would not be at all surprising if that ruler were also portrayed in the Egyptian manner. Since the king whom Haremhab addresses is unnamed, there is no reason to suppose that we are automatically in the presence of Akhnaten, Tutankhamen or Ay.
5) Gammon refers to a text where Haremhab is described as having been "sent as King's envoy to the region of the sun-disk's uprising, returning in triumph". Gammon's main point is that, because the Aten sign is represented here, the Aten cult still existed; and thus the time of the late Eighteenth Dynasty is indicated. However, Velikovsky has presented sufficient evidence to show that the Aten (Aton) cult most likely persisted down to the beginning of Ethiopian times [see Velikovsky's article elsewhere in this issue – LMG] and this would coincide with Haremhab's ascendancy according to the revised chronology.*
Conventional theory assumes that Haremhab took it upon himself or was sent by Tutankhamen or, more likely, Ay to level Akhet-aten and wipe out the last vestiges of the heresy. Yet, the text cited above actually says no such thing. The king sending Haremhab is not named, the purpose of the assignment is nowhere indicated, the geographical situation is vague, and what Haremhab did is barely hinted at. Furthermore, the conventional interpretation is not uncontested.(18)
6) Gammon directs attention to the architectural style and decoration of Haremhab's tomb in the Valley of the Kings, pointing out its similarities to royal tombs of the Eighteenth Dynasty, there by again attempting to prove a close connection between Haremhab and the Eighteenth Dynasty. For now, I would merely refer the reader to section 3 above, especially reference 10. The application of the argument outlined there to this particular problem should be obvious.
As for the placement of Haremhab's tomb, Gammon states: "It is, moreover, located between the tombs of Amenhotep II (No. 35) and Tutankhamun (No. 62), in that part of the Valley of the Kings where the royal tombs of Dynasty XVIII from Thutmose I onwards are found, and some distance from those of Dynasties XIX and XX."(19) Yet, this fact proves nothing. Haremhab's apparent preference for linking himself, even in the afterlife, with Eighteenth Dynasty kings cannot really be used as an effective chronological argument. Otherwise, employing the same logic, we might just as well say that Queen Hatshepsut of the Eighteenth Dynasty belonged to the same dynasty as Mentuhotep (of the Eleventh), since their funerary monuments exist side by side at Deir el-Bahari. The tomb placement of the later Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasty kings shows only that they preferred to dissociate themselves, more so than Haremhab, from the final dwelling places of their Eighteenth Dynasty predecessors.*
The locale of Haremhab's tomb is certainly not inconsistent with Velikovsky's historical reconstruction. Furthermore, neither the style nor location of Haremhab's funerary architecture is strong enough evidence to prove that he followed, without intervention, immediately after the Eighteenth Dynasty (cp. section 2 above).
7) Two additional pieces of evidence introduced by Gammon need to be considered. The first is a lawsuit found in the Memphite tomb chapel of Mose. It is an account of a dispute over the ownership of some land, the case of which was heard in Year 18 of Ramses II, and contains a reference to "the enemy from Akhetaten". This, of course, is assumed to be none other than the heretic pharaoh Akhnaten. But the passage Gammon uses to substantiate his claim that "a grandchild and great-grandchild of one of this pharaoh's subjects were living in the first half of the reign of Ramesses II" is incomplete and Gammon also admits that "the text is mutilated".(20)
One must always take the greatest care with the translation and interpretation of damaged texts. The text in question makes reference to Year 59 of Haremhab, a fact clearly noted by Gammon. However, regarding Velikovsky's novel explanation for this date – on record since 1945(21) – Gammon took no cognizance and simply chose to ignore it. If Haremhab ruled for only eight years, as Gammon believes, then what does "Year 59 of Haremhab" really signify? Surely it cannot stand for the cumulative regnal years of Haremhab, Ay, Tutankhamen, Smenkhkare, and Akhnaten, for then we must concede that Haremhab reigned for twenty-seven years – a figure rather forcefully denied by Gammon.(22)
The other piece of evidence to be dealt with is, at a first glance, potentially the most damaging to Velikovsky's thesis. It is a small statue in the Cairo Museum, the subject of which is Haremhab. In the words of Gammon, "this mutilated statue represents the lower part of a man dressed as a scribe, holding a roll of papyrus in front of him. The trunk and head are missing, while the arms and knees are broken. The subject of the statue is Hr-m-hb, and the mutilated text of the papyrus contains a reference to 'the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands Nb-h prw-R' Twt-'nh-' Imn'. . . Both royal names appear in cartouches and can only refer to Nebkhepru-Re' Tutankhamun."(23) Thus, we apparently have a definite link between Haremhab and the late Eighteenth Dynasty. Nevertheless, we have good reason to question the genuine weight of this particular evidence.
To begin with, Gammon himself devotes only a short paragraph to what may be his most solid piece of evidence. He fills in no details, such as where or under what conditions this statue was found (indeed, Gammon's entire paper is rather sparse); and though the quoted inscriptions seem to be intact, the statue and at least part of the text are severely mutilated. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that this particular statue was appropriated by Haremhab, for whatever reason, years after the Eighteenth Dynasty had ceased to exist. Aldred has already noted that some of "the monuments of Tut-ankh-Amun and Ay had their inscriptions altered to apply to Har-em-hab"(24) (though the circumstances surrounding the Cairo statue are not as clear-cut and may be somewhat different).
The whole relationship between Haremhab and Tutankhamen is something of a puzzle, considering the state of the later king-lists wherein Haremhab is made to appear as the immediate successor of Amenhotep III – and the fact that Haremhab is credited with being both the usurper and repairer of Tutankhamen's monuments. Therefore, I would suggest that a great deal of work still needs to be done before such a slender thread, in the form of a very badly damaged statue, can be expected to bind Haremhab securely to the Eighteenth Dynasty as part of a continuous chronological chain.
Velikovsky has presented strong arguments in his attempt to show that the time of Haremhab was not that of the Amarna period.(25) One of the principal reasons he gives is that "had Haremhab been a prominent official in the days of el-Amarna, he, like other generals and courtiers, would have had a sepulchral chamber built for him in the necropolis of Akhet-Aton (el-Amarna)".(26) Velikovsky buttresses this statement with a footnote quoting Maspero. The words I emphasized in the preceding quotation are especially significant, for there was at least one general who had a tomb built for him at Akhet-aten.
On page 81 of Oedipus and Akhnaton, we find a list of "the southern group of tombs" in a discussion of the layout of the necropolis of Akhet-aten. One of the tombs was for "Paatenemheb, commander of the troops". Paatenemheb? Could this be an alternative for Haremhab? The names are fundamentally similar enough, as are the posts;(27) and some scholars have uncritically accepted the identification without question. For example, in Tutankhamen, Desroches-Noblecourt states the following: "The priests of Amun had set Horemheb on his throne, and in no circumstances would he wish to consider himself the successor of the Amarnan kings; it was a long time since, during the Atenist heresy, he had called himself Pa-aten-em-heb."(28) But nowhere in Desroches-Noblecourt's book is the slightest shred of evidence produced to prove that Paatenemheb changed his name to Haremhab. It is merely assumed that he must have in order to link Haremhab with Amarna.
The strongest case for identifying Paatenemheb with Haremhab was put forward by Hari in agreement with Breasted, Vandier, and Drioton.(29) Nevertheless, the identification was also opposed by such notables as Helck, Steindorff, Winlock, and Schulman.(30) According to the latter: "The identification of him [Haremhab] with the 'general of the lord of the Two Lands, Overseer of works in Akhetaton and royal steward Paatonemheb' at Amarna on the part of some scholars is extremely improbable."(31) One would hardly call the issue finalized; and we are only left with yet another dubious link in the Haremhab-Amarna connection.
In conclusion, we can see that the "evidence" brought together by Gammon (and some that he didn't) has, for the most part, alternative explanations that lend credence to Velikovsky's reconstruction as well. Other arguments hurt Gammon more than they help him; and I wish to reiterate a point made several times in the preceding discussion. Gammon was well aware of Velikovsky's material on Haremhab in KRONOS III:3, yet he chose not to address it. Instead, he merely reviewed the conventional interpretation of Haremhab. This is both damning and tragic. Gammon professes to be an objective supporter of Velikovsky, yet what he has done – or rather, what he has not done – has been symptomatic of the entire anti-Velikovsky movement. Like so many others, he not only fell back on the "safe" and "correct" interpretation of events, he totally ignored Velikovsky's evidence and conclusions, to which he himself had alluded.
After Gammon's piece was published, KRONOS printed an expanded article on Haremhab by Velikovsky (K IV:3) which firmly places this monarch in the Ethiopian/Assyrian period. Gammon would do well to examine this article in detail and rebut directly the material and conclusions therein if he still believes in the "Glasgow chronology". But before he does so, I would remind him of my admonition at the beginning of this essay: "Could it be that he had no answer for Velikovsky's arguments? This question may answer itself."
* * * * *
Editor's Note (LMG):
The "Trauer-Relief " in the Berlin Museum, to which Gammon makes reference, depicts twelve mourners – identifiable only by title – participating in a state funeral. The premier figure in the procession is designated as "royal scribe" and "general of the army". In the words of A. Schulman, "It is certain, if only from the artistic style, that the Berlin relief is to be dated to the very end of the 18th Dynasty, or to the very beginning of the 19th" (JARCE 4, 1965, p. 57).
Gammon, like W. Spiegelberg (ZÄS 60, 1925, pp. 57-58) before him, asserts that "it has long been recognised that the only person to have borne these titles simultaneously without being a king's son was Horemheb" (SISR, p. 56). Yet, Schulman has presented persuasive evidence to show that a military official named Nakhtmin had the identical titles. "It is possible, then, that it is Nakhtmin, and not Horemheb who leads the funeral cortege pictured on the Berlin relief, particularly so since all the details of Horemheb's rise to power are not clear and since Nakhtmin, his [assumed] contemporary, had exactly those titles on which Spiegelberg's identification of Horemheb rested" (JARCE, Ibid., p. 64; cf. Schulman's earlier remarks in JARCE 3, 1964, pp. 56 and 125).
Since Schulman was following the conventional chronology, he did not challenge Haremhab's presence in the "Trauer-Relief". He did argue against Spiegelberg's earlier identification of Haremhab as the leader of the cortege, preferring to relegate him (Haremhab) to a lower position in the retinue. Aldred contested Schulman's proposal on the grounds that, "As the burial is of a high-priest of Ptah of Memphis, the chief mourner is more likely to be Harem-hab who held his important offices in the north while Nakht-Min discharged his similar duties in the south" (Akhenaten, p. 264, n. 53). Aldred's argument, however, stems from a tacit acceptance of Haremhab's present historical position. Indeed, both Aldred and Schulman automatically embrace the conventional placement of Haremhab without question and, therefore, neither is prepared to dispute Haremhab's presence in the "Trauer-Relief".
It should be emphasized here that Gammon was totally silent on Schulman's discussion of Nakhtmin despite the fact that Gammon cited Schulman's article no less than four times during his own discussion of the "Trauer-Relief". Yet, it is incumbent upon Gammon, and anyone else for that matter, to comment on the alternatives proposed by Schulman and the ramifications thereof.
In the light of Velikovsky's historical revision, I would question the presence of Haremhab in the above-mentioned relief whether or not it is, in fact, an Eighteenth Dynasty monument – a point I am also prepared to question. As previously noted, the "Trauer-Relief" has been dated to the late Eighteenth Dynasty on artistic grounds by comparing it with a representation of Tutankhamen's funeral, preserved on the walls of his tomb chamber. If Haremhab was responsible, in later years, for restoration work in the tomb of Tutankhamen (and this too may be questioned), the court artists would have been familiar with the funerary art of that pharaoh and could have easily copied it.
Thus, the "Trauer-Relief" presents us with two alternatives to conventional interpretation: 1) It does date from the Eighteenth Dynasty, during the reign of Ay, but Haremhab is not present; 2) It does not date from the Eighteenth Dynasty, but rather the late Libyan, and Haremhab is present.
Gammon's automatic acceptance of the conventional dating and interpretation of the "Trauer-Relief" leads him into another gray area. One of the officials portrayed in that relief is designated as "overseer of the treasury". Gammon notes that, under Tutankhamen, this office was held by an individual named Maya; and then goes on to identify this person with another of the same name who "later undertook the restoration of the tomb of Thutmose IV, an enterprise which he marked with a graffito in the tomb dated to Year 8 of Horemheb" (SISR, p. 56).
Gammon's equation and conclusion quite obviously require several key assumptions: 1) That the "Trauer-Relief" dates from the Eighteenth Dynasty; 2) That the person referred to as the "overseer of the treasury" is none other than the Maya who officiated under Tutankhamen; 3) That the Maya of Tutankhamen is one and the same as the Maya who served under Haremhab. As it happens, every link in this chain of argumentation is breakable.
The dating of the "Trauer-Relief" suffers, in part, from purely circular reasoning, while the Maya of Tutankhamen and the Maya of Haremhab need not be the same man. According to Dr. David Lorton (in a personal communication to D. Carlucci of 10/16/79), their titles and functions are sufficiently dissimilar to permit a conclusive identification. Furthermore, Maya's "gift of objects for the Tutankhamun burial shows that he not only stood in the official hierarchy, but that he stood in extremely close relationship to the royal family"; and Schulman "wonders how he [Maya] managed to retain his office after Horemheb took the throne, particularly so as Horemheb was quite explicit about his appointment of his own followers to the key posts" (JARCE 4, 1965, p. 66 and n. 114). Schulman tries to rationalize Maya's presence in the "Cabinet" of Haremhab by appealing to his titles and official family connections. But the reasoning is somewhat strained.
Aldred informs us that "the name Maya is one of the commonest [in the Amarna] period and could apply to one of several men" (Akhenaten, op. cit., p. 202). But there is no reason why that name could not have been in vogue more than a century later when, according to Velikovsky, Haremhab came to power. Names of prominent people have been known to retain a certain degree of traditional popularity (e.g., those of the pharaohs). In any case, Gammon must unequivocally demonstrate that the Maya of Tutankhamen and that of Haremhab are indeed one and the same individual. He has not done this.
I would not rule out the possibility that the "overseer of the treasury" depicted in the "Trauer-Relief" was a court official of the Pharaoh Ay, if that relief actually does date from the Eighteenth Dynasty; and "of Haremhab's relation to Ay we know absolutely nothing" (JEA 39, p. 11, n. 3).
Gammon concludes his discussion of Haremhab with a reference to a chief of police named Mininiwy who "reminds the vizier Khay that he has been in his service since Year 7 of Horemheb". Mininiwy is introduced merely to refute the idea of a long reign for Haremhab since "a long reign for Horemheb would imply that Mininiwy . . . was chief of police some 50 years after entering the vizier's service" (SISR, p. 56). The problem of the duration of Haremhab's regnal period aside, the allusion to Mininiwy results in a silly and trivial argument. J. Edgar Hoover was 77 years old when he died, and he was head of the FBI. As for Mininiwy: By Velikovsky's historical scheme (KRONOS IV:3, p. 4), Year 7 of Haremhab could conceivably be 688 B.C. counting just the years from the time that Haremhab was actually crowned and no longer viceroy. Then, using Velikovsky's arguments concerning the co-regency of Seti and Ramses II (Ramses II and His Time, pp. 212-217) allows us to consider 630 B.C. as Year 16 of Ramses II according to one method of reckoning. If Mininiwy was ten years of age, as Redford assumes, when he (Mininiwy) was first in the employ of Haremhab (as a stable boy – BASOR, 211, Oct. 1973, p. 38, n. 8), then he would have been in his late seventies or early eighties when the vizier Khay was in power. This is hardly outlandish. Indeed, Mininiwy even refers to himself as "aged servant" (Redford, Ibid.). If one can accept Ramses II being near 90 at the time of his death (something Velikovsky does not), then it is certainly possible for Mininiwy to have been a chief of police while even in his eighties.
In conclusion: The "Trauer-Relief" Maya, and Mininiwy are all superficially and perhaps erroneously treated by Gammon; the document of Mose from his tomb chapel is highly garbled and of questionable value; statuary evidence is severely mutilated; Haremhab's prenomen can be used to draw any number of conclusions; artistic and religious material are subject to alternative interpretations. These are serious items and go far beyond an earlier problem I posed to Gammon, namely the exact length of Haremhab's regnal period (SISR IV: I, p. 6). A response to the arguments presented here is certainly welcome. If the proponents of the "Glasgow chronology" wish to be taken seriously, however, they will have to be far more rigorous in their presentation of material than so far evidenced by Gammon's arguments for the historical placement of Haremhab .
REFERENCESl. SIS Review III:2 (Autumn 1978), p. 54. All SISR quotes are from this issue.
2. Peter James, Ibid .
3. Ibid .
4. KRONOS III:3 (Spring 1978), "From the End of the Eighteenth Dynasty to the Time of Ramses II", pp. 15-21. A more detailed article on Haremhab alone has since appeared – see KRONOS IV:3 (Spring 1979), "The Correct Placement of Haremhab in Egyptian History", pp. 3-22.
5. Which Gammon himself admits – see SISR, p. 55: Sir Alan Gardiner's 1953 JEA article "contains circumstantial evidence linking him [Haremhab] to the Amarna period" (italics added).
6. Gammon, SISR, p. 55.
7. That the el-Amarna period was followed by Ethiopian and Asiatic domination is strongly suggested in the tomb of Tutankhamen. There, a painted chest shows Tutankhamen waging war against Ethiopians and Syrians. – See I. Velikovsky, Oedipus and Akhnaton (N.Y., 1960), p. 149 and footnote; C. Desroches-Noblecourt, Tutankhamen (N.Y., 1963), pp. 80, 81, 297. Cp. C. Aldred, Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Egypt (N.Y., 1968), p. 241.
8. Gammon, SISR, p. 55.
9. All royal names listed in this paper are taken from Sir Alan Gardiner's Egypt of the Pharaohs (N.Y., 1964), pp. 434-453.
10. KRONOS III: 3, pp. 5-6. Also see the relevant comments on this subject in the article by Velikovsky – "Cultural Aspects of the Libyan and Ethiopian Dynasties" – elsewhere in this issue.
11. See Cyril Aldred, Jewels of the Pharaohs (N.Y., 1978), pp. 7-9.
12. SISR, p. 56.
13. Ibid., p. 55; Sir Alan Gardiner, JEA, 39, p. 5.
14. ". . . incongruity in the tomb. Throughout its reliefs . . . Haremhab wears the uraeus." J. H. Breasted, Records, III, § 12 (p. 7). Others have speculated that the uraeus was added later, only after Haremhab became pharaoh. The question is still open.
15. SISR, p. 55.
16. Plate 24, following p. 178, and p. 184.
17. Or possibly by his son, Esarhaddon. See KRONOS III:3, p. 20 and KRONOS IV:3, pp. 12-14.
18. See Cyril Aldred, Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Egypt (N.Y., 1968), p. 255. – "It is also a fact that Har-em-hab usurped some of the monuments of his immediate [sic] predecessors; but then, so did Ay, and so did most Pharaohs, or their officials on their behalf. So far from instituting a policy for the systematic destruction of the Atenist monuments with which he is usually accredited, Har-em-hab appears to have built at Amarna, and it is fairly certain that it was his officials who tidied up the tomb of Tutankhamun and resealed it after it had been robbed by metal thieves. . ." (emphasis added). Aldred goes on to state that the most vindictive persecutions against Akhnaten came from the Ramessides of the Nineteenth Dynasty; indeed, it seems that none other than Ramses II was chiefly responsible for the destruction of Akhet-aten in order to acquire building material for his own needs. See also Elizabeth Riefstahl, Thebes in the Time of Amenhotep III (Norman, 1964), pp. 194ff.
19. SISR, p. 56.
20. Ibid .
21. I. Velikovsky, Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History (N.Y., 1945), Thesis #170 (p. 16); I. Velikovsky, KRONOS III:3, pp. 19-20; I. Velikovsky, KRONOS IV:3, pp. 18-19. See also Worlds in Collision, p. 210.
22. SISR III:2, p. 56; SISR IV: I (Autumn 1979), p. 6; cp. J. von Beckerath, "Nochmals des Harenhab," Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, vol. 6 (1978), pp. 43-49.
23. SISR III:2, p. 56.
24. Aldred, op. cit, p. 256; see also Alan R. Schulman, "Some Observations on the Military Background of the Amarna Period," JARCE, 3 (1964), p. 68, n. 123; R. Hari Horemheb et la Reine Moutnedjemet (Geneva, 1964), p. 37.
25. KRONOS IV:3, op. cit, pp. 3-22.
26. Ibid., p. 6 (emphasis added).
27. Hari, op. cit., p. 35.
28. C. Desroches-Noblecourt, Tutankhamen, op. cit., p. 284 (emphasis added); cp. the popularized work by R. Silverberg, Akhnaten, the Rebel Pharaoh (N.Y., 1964), p. 98 and passim.
29. Hari, op. cit, pp. 35ff. in particular, and notes 21 and 23.
30. Alan R. Schulman, "The Berlin 'Trauerrelief' (No. 12411) and Some Officials of Tut'ankhamun and Ay," JARCE, 4 (1965), pp. 59, 60 and notes 47 and 50.
31. Ibid., p. 60; cp. Aldred, op. cit, p. 132.
Acknowledgment: I would like to thank Prof. Lewis M. Greenberg for his valuable assistance in the preparation of this paper. 22