Site Section Links
KRONOS Vol VII, No. 1
HAREMHAB: ASSYRIAN VASSAL OR XVIIITH DYNASTY PHARAOH?
GEOFFREY GAMMONCopyright (C) 1981 by Geoffrey Gammon
KRONOS V:3 contained an article by Dominick A. Carlucci, Jr. entitled "On the Placement of Haremhab: A Critique of Gammon", together with an editorial note by Professor Lewis M. Greenberg.(1) Both writers commented unfavorably on an article published in the SIS Review (III:2), in which I departed radically from the chronological placement proposed for this pharaoh by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky in his as yet unpublished Assyrian Conquest.(2) The correct placement of Haremhab in the sequence of Egyptian kings and dynasties is crucial to the development of any chronology whose starting point is the radical revision put forward by Velikovsky in Volume I of Ages in Chaos.(3) I am therefore grateful to the editor for this opportunity to reply to the criticisms which have been made of my presentation of the evidence linking Haremhab to the late XVIIIth Dynasty.
Any attempt to reconstruct the history of pharaonic Egypt must take into account the harsh truths spelt out by Sir Alan Gardiner in his masterly survey Egypt of the Pharaohs: "Even when full use has been made of the king lists and of such subsidiary sources as have survived, the indispensable dynastic framework of Egyptian history shows lamentable gaps and many a doubtful attribution. If this is true of the skeleton, how much more is it of the flesh and blood with which we could wish it covered. Historical inscriptions of any length are as rare as the isolated islets in an imperfectly charted ocean. The importance of many kings can be guessed at merely from the number of stelae and scarabs that bear their names. It must never be forgotten that we are dealing with a civilization thousands of years old and one of which only tiny remnants have survived. What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters" (my italics).(4)
Later in his invaluable discussion of the foundations and nature of Egyptian history, Gardiner adds: "It would be good if the quantitative defects of our documentation were offset by its qualitative excellence. Unhappily it is not.... In general it may be said that anything sinister or unsuccessful in the careers of the pharaohs is carefully suppressed, thus depriving us of just that information which gives authentic history its color and complexion."(5)
The documentary evidence is thus not merely scanty but needs to be treated with great caution, while the purely archaeological evidence requires very careful interpretation to establish not only its significance as an individual artefact, monument, or building, but also its context in the overall structure of ancient Egyptian material culture. It is against this unpromising background that the arguments for a 14th, 9th, or 7th century date for Haremhab must be considered.
Carlucci and I agree in rejecting a 14th century date for Haremhab. However, he has made two general criticisms of my approach to the problem: first, that I failed "to present a single shred of synchronistic evidence in support of a ninth century placement of Haremhab"; second, that I ignored Velikovsky's arguments in KRONOS III:3 for a 7th century placement. The first statement is true so far as it goes, but it is equally true to point out that Velikovsky's case for linking Haremhab to Sennacherib of Assyria is circumstantial and not based on unequivocal documentary evidence. It would be as true – and as pointless – to state that Velikovsky failed to establish a 10th century context for Amenhotep I and Thutmose II, since their place in Egyptian history depends on their relationship to Ahmose (a contemporary of Saul) and to Thutmose I and Hatshepsut (contemporaries of Solomon).
There is no doubt that Haremhab was the immediate predecessor of the first three XIXth Dynasty pharaohs – Ramesses I, Seti I (Velikovsky's "Seti the Great"), and Ramesses II, who was a contemporary of the Hittite kings Muwatallis (his opponent at the battle of Kadesh) and Hattusilis III (with whom he signed a treaty in year 21 and whose daughter he married in his year 34).(6) Both Hittite kings were sons of Mursilis II and grandsons of Suppiluliumas I, author of el-Amarna letter No. 41. The latter's annals record his campaigns against Tusratta of Mitanni (another Amarna correspondent) while his son, Murtsilits II, referred to Aziru of Amurru (whom Velikovsky identified as the Biblical Hazael of Damascus) as a vassal of Suppiluliumas in his treaty with one of Aziru's successors.(7) Peter James has already drawn attention to the problems inherent in Velikovsky's attempt to prove that the Suppiluliumats of the Amarna period was an entirely different person from the grandfather of Hattusilis III, since this requires two rulers of that name, both of whom were overlords of an Aziru of Amurru 150 years apart.(8) Consequently, if Hattusilis III was the grandson of the Amarna correspondent Suppiluliumas I, then Haremhab – who was the immediate predecessor of Ramesses I, Seti I, and Ramesses II – must have lived either during or not long after the Amarna period.
Since writing the article to which Carlucci objects, I have had the opportunity to read and consider the further evidence for a 7th century placement of Haremhab presented in an article by Velikovsky published in KRONOS IV:3.(9) Unfortunately, I feel unable to change my original view of Haremhab's position in the sequence of Egyptian kings and dynasties.
The key question which Velikovsky did not address is: What evidence is there from Assyrian records (which are far more numerous, detailed, and continuous than Egyptian records) for a conquest of Egypt by Sennacherib after the battle of Eltekeh? In fact, there is none. In a recent article, Anthony Spalinger has argued that Sennacherib probably suffered a reverse at Eltekeh, pointing out that, after 701 B.C., no further Assyrian campaigns in Palestine are recorded until the reign of Esarhaddon (680-669 B.C.).(10)
Sennacherib's own account of his third campaign is as follows: "The officials, nobles and people of Ekron, who had thrown Padi their king, bound by (treaty to) Assyria, into fetters of iron and had given him over to Hezekiah the Jew – he kept him in confinement like an enemy – they became afraid and called upon the Egyptian kings, the bowmen, chariots and horses of the king of Meluhha (Ethiopia), a countless host, and these came to their aid. In the neighborhood of the city of Altaku (Eltekeh), their ranks being drawn up before me, they offered battle. (Trusting) in the aid of Assur my lord, I fought with them and brought about their defeat. The Egyptian charioteers and princes, together with the charioteers of the Ethiopian king, my hand took alive in the midst of the battle. Altaku and Tamna I besieged, I captured and took away their spoil."(11) There is no mention of an invasion of Egypt nor of the appointment of a vassal king.
On the other hand, both Esarhaddon and his successor Assurbanipal (668-627 B.C.) left records of successful campaigns against the Ethiopian rulers Tarku (Taharqa) and Urdamane (Tanautamun or Tantamani). On the Zinjirli stele, Esarhaddon styled himself inter alia "king of the kings of Musur, Paturisu and Kusi (Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt and Ethiopia)",(12) while Assurbanipal recorded the names of 20 kings, prefects, and governors installed by Esarhaddon and re-instated by himself after his defeat of Taharqa in 667 B.C.(13) It is difficult to accept that the boastful Sennacherib, "the great king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, king of the four quarters", would have omitted to record the conquest of Egypt had he in fact achieved this feat.
Turning to the detailed arguments advanced by Velikovsky in KRONOS IV:3 section by section, I have the following comments:
Haremhab – Harmais. The argument here depends on the acceptance as historical fact of Manetho's story of Sethosis and Harmais and also of Velikovsky's identification of the former with the Sethos of Herodotos. If, as Velikovsky suggests, this Sethos was the uncle or grandfather of Seti the Great, it seems paradoxical that he should not have appeared in the king lists of Seti or Ramesses II, whereas the "usurper" Haremhab does.(14)
Haremhab and Tirhaka. The reign of Taharqa (Tirhaka) as king of Egypt and Ethiopia is firmly fixed to the 26 year period from 690 to 664 B.C.(15) If, as Velikovsky suggests in the preceding section, Haremhab ruled Egypt from 702 to 687 B.C., he can hardly be the hereditary governor and priest Hor-em-heb depicted in the relief described in thissection.
Haremhab Appointed to Administer Egypt: By Whom? Velikovsky marshals his arguments and evidence here skillfully and persuasively. However, the evidence is largely circumstantial and must be set against the complete absence, to which reference has already been made in this article, of any documentary evidence from Assyrian sources for a conquest of Egypt by Sennacherib. Furthermore, the appearance of certain Assyrian features in Egyptian art of this period can be explained in terms of Haremhab's contemporaneity, in the late 9th century, with an early phase of Neo-Assyrian material culture which lasted from the early 9th to the late 7th centuries B.C.
Haremhab Crowned . In this section Velikovsky refers to and quotes extensively from Sir Alan Gardiner's article on the coronation text of Haremhab.(16) The latter's argument that, by a pious fiction, the king ascribed his elevation to the patronage of the god Horus, whose name was incorporated in his own, seems a perfectly valid alternative to Velikovsky's interpretation. There is, however, no positive evidence to support the hypothesis that Haremhab's consort – Mutnodjmet – was an Assyrian princess. On the other hand, a Mutnodjmet who is described as the queen's sister is depicted on some of the earlier tomb reliefs at el-Amarna. It has been suggested, but not proved conclusively, that Nefertiti was the daughter of Tutankhamun's successor Ay; if her sister Mutnodjmet was the same person as Haremhab's queen, this would explain her exalted position, since this marriage would have been an important factor in legitimising Haremhab's claim to the throne.(17)
Harsiese, the High Priest of Amon . "Harsiese" can be rendered either as the proper name Harsiese, in accordance with Velikovsky's interpretation, or as Horus, son of Isis, which is preferred by Gardiner. Velikovsky's identification of this person with the high priest of Amun (Amon) who officiated under Shoshenq (Sheshonk) III depends entirely on the unproven premise that the XXIInd (Libyan) Dynasty preceded the reign of Haremhab.(18) On the other hand, the references elsewhere in Haremhab's coronation text to "Horus of Hnes" give credence to Gardiner's alternative interpretation.(19)
Haremhab's Great Edict. Velikovsky's comparison between the severity of the Assyrian penal code and the relative mildness of the Egyptian one prior to Haremhab is very fair. However, at no time did the Egyptians approach the consistent harshness and cruelty of Assyrian punishments and it should be recalled that the admittedly fragmentary text of Haremhab's decree refers to a general breakdown of law and order whose cure required drastic remedies. If foreign influence is evident here, the Amarna letters provide ample evidence of widespread contacts between Egypt and Western Asia, notably with Assyria, Kardunias (Babylonia) and Mitanni at the end of the XVIIIth Dynasty (20)
Year 59 Under Haremhab . So far as I am aware, there is no corroboration from any other Near Eastern source for the era of Nabonassar being used for dating purposes, except for astronomical calculations along the lines proposed by Velikovsky in Worlds in Collision.(21)
The Year -687 and Tirhaka a Captive of the Assyrian s. These sections are not directly relevant to the placement of Haremhab.
The Sethos Temple at Hermopolis . The Sethos referred to here is the king usually designated Seti II, whom Velikovsky considers to be a predecessor of Seti I, the father of Ramesses II. The sequence Ramesses I – Seti I – Ramesses II – Merenptah (Merneptah) is well established and is accepted by Velikovsky. Yet, there is also direct inscriptional evidence that Seti II was a close successor and not a predecessor of Merenptah.(22) I therefore see no difficulty in accepting Faulkner's proposal that Seti II added reliefs inside this temple after Merenptah had completed the structure and dedicated it to Thoth.(23)
The Tomb of Petamenophis . The evidence that the tomb of Petamenophis dates from the XXVth Dynasty is strong. The proximity of a cartouche of Haremhab to an inscription of Petamenophis is indeed anomalous, although the difference in time under my proposal would be around the order of 100 years, as against 600 under the conventional chronology. However, the tomb itself is part of a large building complex and some distance from the wall of the great outer courtyard on which the cartouche was found.(24) Since there are many examples of tombs being re-used, an alternative explanation is that the tomb was built during the XXVth Dynasty within a larger complex dating from the XVIIIth.
I turn now to the detailed criticisms of my own article made by Mr. Carlucci and Prof. Greenberg in KRONOS V:3, pages 11-22.
Haremhab's Place in the King Lists . I agree that no conclusion can be drawn from the absence of Libyan and Ethiopian kings from the "canonical" king lists of the early XIXth Dynasty. On the other hand, it is difficult to square Velikovsky's view of Haremhab as an Assyrian vassal – who first betrayed and was later expelled by the legitimate king Sethos – with the inclusion of the former (Haremhab) and the omission of the latter (Sethos) from the king lists of Seti I (who, according to Velikovsky, was probably either the grandson or nephew of Sethos) and Ramesses II.
Moreover, Haremhab appears clearly in association with Ramesses I.(25) If, as Velikovsky claims, the latter is identical with the Niku (Necho I) appointed as ruler of Memphis and Sais by Esarhaddon in 671 B.C., how can this association be reconciled with Haremhab's supposed deposition and exile in 687 B.C., as recounted by Velikovsky in the section entitled Haremhab – Harmais in his earlier article in KRONOS III:3?(26)
Haremhab's Prenomen . Carlucci correctly points out that the "Kheper" element appears in the prenomina of numerous Egyptian kings from the IVth to the XXXth Dynasties. However, the form "khepru-re" is found predominantly in the late XVIIIth Dynasty. Apart from Haremhab himself (Djeserkheprure), there are Thutmose IV (Menkheprure), Akhenaten (Neferkheprure), Smenkhkare (Ankhkheprure), Tutankhamun (Nebkheprure), and Ay (Kheperkheprure), the sequence being broken only by Amenhotep III (Nebmare).(27)
The Golden Necklets . The presentation of gold necklets to officials was a notable feature of paintings and reliefs from the Amarna period. Carlucci wonders "if they might not still have been in vogue during the Libyan and Ethiopian dynasties". Unless he can produce supporting evidence, this possibility remains pure speculation on his part.
References to the Aten . It is true that the cult of the Aten both preceded and survived the reign of Akhenaten. Nevertheless, the bulk of the evidence for it comes from the Amarna period. The references to the Aten quoted in my article and, in particular, the Aten sign in one of the Leiden blocks from Haremhab's tomb at Saqqara,(28) are consistent with the other evidence which supports a late Dynasty placement for him.
The Style and Location of King Haremhab's Tomb . The sarcophagi of Amenhotep III, Tutankhamun, Ay, and Haremhab were all made of red granite and the last three were of similar design (although Ay's had been smashed to pieces).(29) These similarities are not invalidated by the evidence of similarities between some features of plastic art in the XVIIIth and XXIInd Dynasties.(30) The precise location of Haremhab's tomb in the Valley of the Kings is not significant. On the other hand, the fact that it contains the tombs of the great majority of XVIIIth, XIXth, and XXth Dynasty pharaohs and none from those which, according to Velikovsky, intervened between them is consistent with the conventional view (which I accept) that these three dynasties followed one another without a break.
The Memphite Tomb Chapel of Mose . Although the text on the chapel walls is damaged, the family relationships emerge clearly, as do the references to the activities of certain of its members during the reigns of particular pharaohs. I assume that Carlucci does not challenge the identification of "the enemy from Akhetaten" with Akhenaten. On this basis, then, we obtain the following links between the family of Mose and the rulers under whom their lawsuit was pursued:(31)
SHERITRE AKHENATEN |––––––-¬ URNERO TAKHARU HAREMHAB | HUY m. NUBNOFRET RAMESSES II | MOSE RAMESSES IIThe conclusion that little more than three generations separated the reigns of Akhenaten and Ramesses II, and that Haremhab reigned not long after Akhenaten, seems inescapable. It is, moreover, borne out by the sequence of Hittite kings who had dealings with XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasty rulers, as I pointed out earlier in this article. I have already referred above to "Year 59 under King Haremhab" whose precise significance remains uncertain if, as I think we must, we reject Velikovsky's ingenious solution.
Cairo Statue No. 42129 . This badly damaged statue in the Cairo Museum depicts Haremhab as a scribe, holding a roll of papyrus on which Tutankhamun is referred to twice. In the second instance he is addressed directly in the following terms: "You appeared on the throne of Horus, O Nebkheprure, master of Thebes."(32) Carlucci's suggestion that "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" fails to carry conviction. If we consider whether this was probable or what reason Haremhab could have had in depicting himself as the servant of an obscure pharaoh who had died over 100 years previously, we are unlikely to arrive at a satisfactory answer. The alternative and obvious solution – that Haremhab really was an official of Tutankhamun seems preferable on all counts.
The Absence of Haremhab from El-Amarna. The argument that Haremhab, had he lived during the Amarna period, would have had a tomb in the necropolis of Akhetaten rests on the assumption that he was already a highly placed court official under Akhenaten. However, there is no direct evidence that Haremhab held an important position of any kind before the reign of Tutankhamun. Even then his main centre of activity appears to have been Lower rather than Upper Egypt and it therefore seems natural that his original tomb should have been located at Saqqara – the necropolis of Memphis. I agree with Carlucci that there is no reason to identify him with "Paatenemheb, commander of the troops" – but I never suggested this in the first place. In fact, a cartouche of Djeserkheprure (Haremhab) has been found at Akhetaten, but it is also known that Haremhab appropriated blocks from existing buildings there for his own use elsewhere.
The Berlin Trauer-relief . I accept the validity of the main point which Greenberg made in his editorial note – that the evidence identifying Haremhab as the chief mourner is not conclusive. However, I see no reason to question either its attribution on stylistic grounds to the late XVIIIth Dynasty or the generally accepted view that the officials depicted in the "Trauer-relief" were mourning Tutankhamun, given its similarity to a scene on the wall of that king's burial chamber in which twelve officials are dragging a sledge bearing the royal corpse.
So far as Nakhtmin is concerned, the antecedents and history of this important official have given rise to much debate among Egyptologists. Four finely carved wooden shawabtis now in the Cairo Museum were dedicated and presented to the dead Tutankhamun by the "royal scribe and military officer" Nakhtmin.(33) The identification of Nakhtmin as the "military officer" – jmy-r-ms' – on the "Trauerrelief" depends mainly on the implicit assumption that Haremhab was the "royal scribe, rp't and military officer" – ss nswt rp't jmy-r ms' – who appears as chief mourner. However, as Greenberg rightly points out, Nakhtmin also bore the titles of "rp't, royal scribe and general" on two mutilated statues in the Cairo Museum. On JE36526 he is given the additional title of "military officer of the lord of the two lands". On CG 779, however, he is called "king's son" – s[Egyptian Text] nswt – immediately prior to the erasure of his name, except for the initial "n". The missing hieroglyphs have variously been restored as s[Egyptian Text] nswt N(ht-mnw) – "the king's son Nakhtmin" – and as s[Egyptian Text] nswt n (Ks Nht-mnw) – "the king's son of Kush (i.e., Viceroy of Nubia) Nakhtmin".
This is the only evidence to support the view that Nakhtmin was viceroy of Nubia, and Reisner omitted him without comment from his comprehensive list of New Kingdom viceroys.(34) The alternative restoration, proposed by Wolfgang Helck, implies that Nakhtmin was the son of a king – the putative father being Ay (although there is no proof for this hypothesis). It is possible that Nakhtmin was the chief mourner in the "Trauer-relief", but virtually nothing is known of his career, while the evidence that Haremhab occupied a prominent, if not preeminent, position under Tutankhamun is strong.(35)
Maya. It is also possible that the Maya who restored the tomb of Thutmose IV in year 8 of Haremhab was not the same person as the Maya who presented grave gifts to Tutankhamun; and while this identification is not of critical importance in the argument for linking Haremhab to the late XVIIIth Dynasty, it is consistent with the other evidence reviewed in this paper.
Mininiwy . Greenberg's contention that it is possible to reconcile the fact that Mininiwy was both a stable boy as early as year 7 of Haremhab and chief of police some time between years 16 and 30 of Ramesses II – within the framework of Velikovsky's dates for these two kings – provides an admirable example of the chronological problems inherent in this part of Velikovsky's revision. If we accept that the battle of Kadesh, fought in year 5 of the reign of Ramesses II, was identical with the battle of Carchemish between Necho II (his alter ego) and Nebuchadnezzar II, this event took place in 605 B.C. The first regnal year of Ramesses II would therefore have been 610/ 609 B.C. Year 16, the earliest date at which Khay, under whom Mininiwy was serving as chief of police, could have become vizier,(36) would thus have been 594 B.C. Since Velikovsky also claims that Haremhab was defeated by Sethos and expelled from Egypt no later than 687 B.C., the gap between Mininiwy's service as a stable boy in the reign of Haremhab and as chief of police when Khay was vizier to Ramesses II would have been at least 93 years and probably longer!
It should be noted, however, that Greenberg follows Velikovsky in arguing that year 16 of Ramesses II could in this instance refer to the period of co-regency with Seti I, though the issue of the existence and possible length of this co-regency as well as that of the length of the two reigns is exceedingly complex. I hope to be able to deal with it more fully in a later issue of this journal. For the moment, I can only say that I find myself in almost total disagreement with Velikovsky's treatment of this problem in Ramses II and his Time.(37)
Finds from Haremhab's Memphite Tomb . Further finds have been made during the excavations undertaken by Dr. Geoffrey Martin at Haremhab's tomb at Saqqara since the appearance of my original article.(38) Of the four burial shafts, Shaft I contained Ramesside burials; Shafts II and IV early Ptolemaic and XXXth Dynasty material; while Shaft III contained exclusively XVIIIth Dynasty material. The datable material recovered from this last shaft in 1977/78 includes an elaborate vessel inscribed for Amenhotep III, with the nomen obliterated; a seal impression of the Aten temple of Heliopolis; a limestone plaque with the prenomen of king Ay; a miniature stele of king Ay; fragments of painted pottery with hieratic dockets naming Haremhab as a royal scribe in year 2 of an unnamed king; two stamped jar handles naming Haremhab as king; and two sherds with hieratic dockets, one with Haremhab's prenomen Djeserkheprure, the other referring to wine "from the vineyard of the estate of Haremhab beloved of Arnun, Life, Prosperity, Health, in the house of Amun" and dated to a year 13, which the excavators assume to belong to Haremhab himself. No Assyrian material nor Egyptian material from the Libyan or Ethiopian periods has been discovered.
In conclusion, while I would not claim that any single piece of evidence linking Haremhab to the late XVIIIth Dynasty is of itself proof of the view expressed in this paper of his true place in Egyptian history, I firmly believe that the weight of the available evidence confirms its correctness. By the same token, the opposing arguments for an early 7th century date for Haremhab appear, when subjected to critical scrutiny, to have little of substance to support them and even, in some instances, to reveal internal contradictions. Given the imperfect state of our knowledge of Egyptian history and the possibility that fresh evidence may come to light, it would be foolhardy for anyone to regard the case for or against the alternative chronologies as closed. However, on the basis of such evidence as is currently available, I see no reason to modify my earlier view – which further research has only strengthened – that Haremhab's links with the late XVIIIth Dynasty are at least as strong as those with the XIXth, which nobody has as yet called into question.
NOTES AND REFERENCES1. KRONOS V:3, pp. 11-22.
2. Geoffrey Gammon, "The Place of Horemheb in Egyptian History", SIS Review III: 2, pp. 55-57.
3. Immanuel Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos: From the Exodus to King Akhnaton (New York, 1952; London, 1953).
4. A. H. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford, 1961),p.53.
5. Ibid., p. 54.
6. For the links between Haremhab and Ramesses I, C. Aldred, "Two monuments of the reign of Horemheb", JEA 54 (1968), pp. 100-102; for Ramesses I and Seti I, Gardiner, op. cit, p. 248; for Seti I and Ramesses II, numerous references which can be found in all the standard works.
7. I. Velikovsky, Ramses II and his Time (New York/ London, 1978), pp. 217-221.
8. Peter James, "A Critique of 'Ramses II and His Time'", SIS Review III:2, pp. 48-55.
9. I. Velikovsky, "The Correct Placement of Haremhab in Egyptian History", KRONOS IV:3, pp. 3-22.
10. Anthony Spalinger, '*The foreign policy of Egypt preceding the Assyrian Conquest", Chronique d 'Egypte 53 (1978), pp. 22-47.
11. D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Vol. II (Chicago, 1925), paras. 240 and 311.
12. Ibid, para. 575.
13. Ibid. para. 771.
14. E. Meyer, Chronologie égyptienne (Paris, 1912), p. 146 and Planche I.
15. K. A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (Warminster, 1973), p. 161, note 317.
16. A. H. Gardiner, "The Coronation of King Haremhab", JEA 39 (1953), pp. 13-31.
17. C. Aldred, Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Egypt (London, 1968), pp. 75, 162, 179.
18. KRONOS IV:3, p. 15.
19. JEA 39, p. 16.
20. S. A. B. Mercer (ed.), The Tell el-Amarna Letters (Toronto, 1939): Letters EA 1-29.
21. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (New York/London, 1950), p. 206.
22. M. L. Bierbrier, The Late New Kingdom in Egypt (Warminster, 1975), pp. 1-44.
23. R. O. Faulkner, Cambridge Ancient History (3rd edition), Vol. II, Part II, p. 237.
24. Vide the plan on page 54 of Bertha Porter and Rosalind Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings, Vol. I, Part I (Oxford, 1960).
25. Vide first item in reference 6 above.
26. KRONOS III:3, pp. 20-21.
27. Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 443.
28. A. H. Gardiner, "The Memphite tomb of the General Haremhab", JEA 39, pp. 3-12.
29. Erik Hornung, Das Grab des Haremhab im Tal der Könige (Bern, 1971), pp. 35-36.
30. I. Velikovsky, "Cultural Aspects of the Libyan and Ethiopian Dynasties", KRONOS V: 3, pp. 1-10.
31. G. A. Gabella, The Memphite tomb-chapel of Mose (Warminster, 1977).
32. Wolfgang Helck, Urkunden der 18 Dynastie (Ubersetzung zu den Heften 17-22) (Berlin, 1961), pp. 399-400, Text No. 809.
33. Egyptian Museum, Cairo, A brief description of the Principal Monuments (Cairo, 1961), Nos. 462, 467-469.
34. G. A. Reisner, "The Viceroys of Nubia", JEA 6 (1920), p. 36. However, he does include Amenenopet, vizier to Seti I and Ramesses II, whose father Paser is associated at Gebel esh Shems with king Ay.
35. Alan R. Schulman, 'The Berlin 'Trauer-relief' (No. 12411) and some Officials of Tutankhamun and Ay", JARCE 4 (1965), pp. 61-63 for discussion and references.
36. J. R. Harris, "How long was the reign of Horemheb?", JEA 54 (1968), pp. 95-99.
37. Ramses II and his Time, pp. 212-217.
38. JEA 63 (1977), pp. 13-19; JEA 64 (1978), pp. 13-16; JEA 65 (1979), pp. 5-9.