Volume 1 Chapter 6

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 1

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate
School of Theology In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Theology

by Herman L. Hoeh

1962(1963-1965, 1967 Edition)

CHAPTER SIX

The Revival of Egypt

The return of Egypt to a great world power commenced with the overthrow of
the Shepherd Kings in Upper Egypt. It opened the way for the most glamorous
— and the most incestuous — of all Egyptian families — Dynasty XVIII of Thebes.

Archaeology has provided a wealth of information for this period. Yet no
standard textbook has ever restored Dynasty XVIII to its rightful place in history.
Because Manetho presented his history of Egypt’s thirty dynasties in successive
order, it was early assumed that the exodus occurred under this dynasty. Modern
historians have long recognized that not one shred of evidence supports this
preposterous traditional conception inherited from Catholic scholars. As a solution,
they have proposed an even more preposterous theory — that the exodus — if
it took place at all! — was under the succeeding nineteenth dynasty. There
is indeed a reference to Israel during the nineteenth dynasty of Egypt, but
it is to the captivity of Israel — not to the exodus, as will be demonstrated
when restoring the Ramesside period.

Dynasty XVIII

Archaeological and classical materials are sufficient to restore in detail
the dynastic sequence and relationship of the kings and queens of Dynasty XVIII.
Ahmose commenced the dynasty and expelled the foreign Shepherd Kings. His queen,
Ahmose-Nofreteroi, is ‘depicted for some unaccountable reason with a black countenance,’
declared Sir Alan Gardiner in ‘Egypt of the Pharaohs’, page 175. The second
king, Amenhotpe (Amenophis I), was pictured, black (I. Rosellini, ‘I Monumenti
dell’ Egitto e della Nubia’, Pisa, 1832-44). Foucart in an article in the ‘Bulletin
de, l’Institut Egyptien’, 5 serie, II (1917), pages 268-269), presented evidence
that in the Egyptian royal family of this period was Ethiopian blood.

But first, to restore Dynasty XVIII to its rightful place in history. From
archaeological research and the classical writers the following chronological
chart may be constructed.

*Joint with Thutmose III.

At this point the dynasty should be interrupted to recount the major events
in Egypt which synchronize with the history of neighhoring nations and with
the Bible.

The Biblical Parallel

The synchronism of Biblical and Egyptian history begins in the reign of Solomon,
king of Israel. ‘Solomon became allied to Pharaoh king of Egypt by marriage,
and took Pharoah’s daughter, and brought her into the city of David …’ (I
Kings 3:1, Jewish Pub. Soc. trans.). (Who was the Pharaoh who became Solomon’s
father-in-law?

The answer may be established by determining the time of Solomon’s reign.
It is stated in I Kings 6:1, ‘And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth
year after the children of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth
year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month,
that he began to build the house of the Lord’ (JPS trans.).

From Egyptian history the exodus may be dated Nisan (March-April) 1486. The
480th year thus extended from 1007-1006 (spring to spring). The fourth year
of the reign of Solomon (1008-1007, reckoning autumn to autumn according to
the civil calendar) thus corresponds to the time of Pharaoh Thutmose II. His
chief wife and queen was Hashepsowe (Hatshepsut in earlier authors). As the
mother of the Egyptian princess whom Solomon married is unrecorded it is presently
impossible to determine from history whether Hashepsowe was Solomon’s mother-in-law
or step-mother-in-law. In either case she could learn firsthand of the riches
and fame of Israel’s king.

Solomon commenced the building of the Temple in his fourth year. In the eleventh
year of his reign it was completed (I Kings 6:37-38). Thereupon Solomon devoted
his time to the erection of his palace. ‘And Solomon was building his own house
thirteen years …’ (I Kings 7:1). It was now the twenty-fourth year of Solomon’s
reign.

‘And it came to pass at the end of twenty years (7 plus 13), wherein Solomon
had build the two houses …’ that Hiram the king of Tyre came to visit Solomon
(I Kings 9:10). But Hiram was not the only royal visitor who came about this
time. ‘And when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon because of the
name of the Lord, she came to proof him with hard questions’ (I Kings 10:1).
Jesus called the queen of Sheba ‘the queen of the south’ (Matthew 12:42 and
Luke 11:31). In the book of Daniel, chapter 11, the king of the south is the
ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia. Jesus’ designation of the queen of Sheba as the
‘queen of the south’ therefore means that she was the ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia.
Was a woman — a queen — ruling Egypt in the twenty-fourth year of Solomon?
Indeed — Maekaure Hashepsowe!

Josephus, the Jewish historian, preserves an account of this famous visitor.
‘There was then a woman, queen of Egypt and Ethiopia book VIII, chapter vi,
part 5).

Many modern historians have assumed that both Jesus and Josephus were incorrect.
They limit the land of Sheba exclusively to southern Arabia. It is at this point
that they seem to forget their history. Ethiopia anciently extended to southern
Arabia. The land of Sheba — the leading Ethiopian tribe — included both southern
Arabia and Ethiopia. Under Dynasty XVIII of Thebes Ethiopia and Egypt were united.
The queen of the south was therefore also queen of Egypt — the Hashepsowe of
history.

Josephus preserves the name of the Queen of Sheba. He quotes from Herodotus
and calls her ‘Nicaule’ (‘Antiquities’, book VIII, chapter vi, part 2). Any
philologist would immediately recognize in the name Nicaule (Nikaule in Greek)
only a dialectic form of the Egyptian Maekaure, the ‘prenomen’ of Hashepsowe.

Perhaps the most striking proof that Hashepsowe visited Palestine may be
found recorded in the temple at Deir el Bahari. The walls of this temple enshrine
the visit of the Queen to ‘God’s Land.’ The event occurred in her ninth year
— 988-987 — the year Solomon completed his great palace. In ‘Ancient Records
of Egypt’, by Breasted, volume II, may be found the English translation of the
inscriptions of the expedition. Here are extracts from this most famous of all
Egyptian voyages:

‘Sailing in the sea, beginning the goodly way towards God’s-Land, journeying
in peace to the land of Punt …’ (section 253).

God’s Land is described in detail in section 288: ‘I have led them on water
and on land, to explore the waters of inaccessible channels, and I have reached
the Myrrh-terraces.’

Queen Hashepsowe explored in God’s Land ‘waters of inaccessible channels’
— an awkward modern translation meaning ‘spring-fed pools.’ Solomon built many
spring-fed pools to supply the lovely artificial wooded terraces. ‘I made me
gardens and parks,’ wrote Solomon, ‘and I planted trees in them of all kinds
of fruit; I made me pools of water, to water therefrom the wood springing up
with trees’ (Ecclesiastes 2:5-7).

‘It is a glorious region of God’s-Land; it is indeed my place of delight
…. They took myrrh as they wished, they loaded the vessels to their hearts’
content, with fresh myrrh trees, every good gift of this country, Puntites whom
the people know not, Southerns of God’s-Land.’ ‘Trees were taken up in God’s-Land,
and set in the ground in Egypt’ (sect. 294). The vessels of the Queen, on the
return trip up the Nile to Thebes were heavily loaded with ‘all goodly fragrant
woods of God’s-Land’ and many other rarities which previously had been imported
from around the world by the people of God’s-Land. ‘Never was brought the like
of this for any king who has been since the beginning’ (sect. 265).

Scholars have foolishly puzzled for decades over the location of ‘God’s-Land’
— ‘Toneter’ in Egyptian. It is really no puzzle. The word in Egyptian signifies
‘Divine Land’ or ‘Holy Land.’ The ‘Holy Land’ is Palestine!

Egyptian inscriptions precisely define the location of God’s-Land as Palestine.
It lies between Egypt and Syria. In the Papyrus Harris one reads of ‘the products
of Egypt, God’s-Land, Syria and Kush’ (Breasted, op. cit., vol. IV, sect. 313).
Again: ‘products of Egypt, products of God’s-Land, products of Syria’ (sects.
341, 387).

From the Piankhi Stela comes the same evidence: ‘Then the ships were laden
with silver, gold, copper, clothing, and everything of the Northland, every
product of Syria, and all sweet woods of God’s-Land. His majesty sailed up-stream
…’ from the Mediterranean coast southward up the Nile to Upper Egypt (Breasted,
op. cit., vol. IV, sect. 883).

En route from Egypt to Upper Syria, Thutmose III passed by God’s Land. ‘All
plants that grow, all flowers that are in God’s-Land which were found by his
majesty when his majesty proceeded to Upper Retenu (Syria)’ (Breasted, op. cit.,
vol. II, sect. 451).

Amenhotpe III cut cedar in God’s Land for his sacred barge: ‘ was dragged
over the mountains of Retenu (Lebanon) by the princes of all countries’ (section
888). No mistaking this reference. God’s Land could refer to no other region
than Palestine, the Holy Land.

In God’s Land, or Palestine, Hashepsowe found more than one people. Inhabiting
the southern portion, where the Queen first landed, were native ‘Puntites,’
presented to her as servants by the ruling people of the land. In her monuments
at Deir el Bahari these ‘Puntites’ are pictured as a short, round-headed, dark-skinned,
thick-lipped people, whereas the dominant people were white men (Naville’s ‘Deir
el Bahari’, Pt. III, page 12).

The two peoples of the Holy Land were Israelites and Canaanites. A remnant
of Canaanites — the ‘Puntites’ of the inscriptions — long lived in the mountains
of Seir bordering on the Gulf of Aqaba. The words ‘Punt’ and ‘Puntite’ came
to be pronounced in Egyptian without the ‘t.’ A better spelling of the Egyptian
word would be ‘Puoni’ or ‘Pwene’, the latter most commonly used today by scholars.
(See Gardiner’s ‘Egypt of the Pharaohs’, page 37, note 1.) When referring to
wars with the Canaanite Carthaginians, the Romans spoke of Punic wars — Punic
being a synonym for Canaanite. The chief Canaanite people were the Sidonians.
The father of Sidon, in classical literature, was named Pontus (Eusebius, ‘Preparation
for the Gospel’, I, x, 27). In Scripture he is Canaan.

The land of Punt or Pwene was the land wherever Canaanites settled. Originally
the land of ‘Punt’ was limited to Palestine — in Scripture ‘the land of Canaan’
— but in later times signified any land to which Phoenicians or Canaanites
migrated. ‘Afterward were the families of the Canaanite spread abroad’ (Genesis
10:18). Hence in Egyptian literature Punt included lands outside of Palestine
or God’s Land.

God’s Land is Palestine. The Queen of Sheba is Hashepsowe. But who is ‘Shishak’
the king of Egypt at the close of Solomon’s reign?

Shishak Captures Jerusalem

In the later years of Solomon’s reign, Egypt was ruled by a king named Shishak.
He is introduced in I Kings 11:40, in an account of the strife between Solomon
and Jeroboam. ‘Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam; but Jeroboam arose,
and fled to Egypt, unto Shishak king of Egypt, and was there in Egypt until
the death of Solomon.’ Archaeology has as yet not found this name in Egypt,
but it has appeared on tablets excavated at Ras Shamra in northern Syria. (See
Dhorme’s article in ‘Revue Biblique’, XL, Jan. 1931, page 55.) The Pharaohs
of Egypt usually had many names, many of which have not yet been recovered by
the archaeologists. Which king of Dynasty XVIII was Shishak?

The chronological chart at the beginning of this chapter indicates he was
Thutmose III, often designated ‘the Great.’ He reigned not only in the later
years of Solomon, but in the time of Rehoboam.

The Biblical record states that Shishak invaded Judah shortly after Solomon’s
death. ‘And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak
king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem; and he took away the treasures of the
house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house: he even took away
all; and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made’ (I Kings
14:25-26).

A parallel and richer account is preserved in II Chronicles 12:1-8:

And it came to pass, when the kingdom of Rehoboam was established, and he was
strong, that he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him. And it
came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt
came up against Jerusalem, because they had dealt treacherously with the Lord,
with twelve hundred chariots, and three- score thousand horsemen; and the people
were without number that came with him out of Egypt; the Lubim, the Sukkiim,
and the Ethiopians. And he took the fortified cities which pertained to Judah,
and came unto Jerusalem. Now Shemaiah the prophet came to Rehoboam, and to the
princes of Judah, that were gathered together to Jerusalem because of Shishak,
and said unto them: ‘Thus saith the Lord: Ye have forsaken Me, therefore have
I also left you in the hand of Shishak.’ Then the princes of Israel and the
king humbled themselves; and they said: ‘The Lord is righteous.’

And when the Lord saw that they humbled themselves, the word of the Lord
came to Shemaiah, saying: ‘They have humbled themselves; I will not destroy
them: but I will grant them some deliverance, and My wrath shall not be poured
out upon Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak. Nevertheless they shall be his servants;
that they may know My service, and the service of the kingdoms of the countries.’
‘

This momentous event in the history of Judah is dated to the fifth year of
king Rehoboam. Reckoning from the fourth year of Solomon, 1008-1007 (autumn
to autumn according to the civil calendar). the fifth year of Rehoboam would
be 967-966. Now the thirty-first year of Thutmose III is 967-966 (spring to
spring). The two regnal years overlap six months in the autumn and winter of
the year 967-966.

In his thirtieth year Thutmose campaigned in Judah. He did not capture Jerusalem
in this year (Breasted’s ‘Ancient Records of Egypt’, vol. II, sect. 465, footnote
a). However he did harvest their grain and take hostages.

Year thirty-one of Thutmose corresponds to Rehoboam’s fifth. In this year
Rehoboam humbled himself. Nevertheless, God allowed Thutmose to take Jerusalem.
(For best Bible rendering see the Jewish Publication Society translation of
II Chronicles 12:1-8.) For the list of spoils and tribute taken see Breasted,
sections 471 and 473.

The first Egyptian to pierce the walls of Kadesh was Amenemhab He records
in his biography: ‘His majesty sent forth every valiant man of his army, in
order to pierce the wall for the first time, which Kadesh had made. I was the
one who pierced it, being the first of all the valiant: no other before me did
it’ (section 590).

Archaeologists have spent years guessing the whereabouts of the city of Kadesh.
No one, it seems, has suspected that it is Jerusalem!

All scholars recognize that the word Kadesh means ‘Holy.’ When used in reference
to a city, it means a Holy City. Jerusalem is many times called the Holy City
in Scripture. In Daniel 9:24 Jerusalem is referred to as ‘the holy city.’ In
the original Hebrew, the root word for ‘holy’ is KADESH. Nehemiah 11:1 speaks
of ‘Jerusalem the holy city.’ Again the Hebrew root for ‘holy’ is KADESH, sometimes
spelled KODESH. See also Isaiah 48:2 and numerous other passages.

In all, Thutmose mentions one hundred and nineteen captured cities of Palestine.
Kadesh is listed first, Megiddo second (A. Jirku, ‘Die aegyptischen Listen der
Palaestinensischen und Syrischen Ortsnamen,’ ‘Klio Beihefte’, XXXVIII, Leipzig,
1937). The wealth plundered from the Palace and the Temple in Jerusalem was
engraved on the walls of the great Amon temple at Karnak and may be seen to
this day.

Thutmose received continuous tribute from Judaea during the succeeding years
of his reign, confirming the Biblical statement that the Jews became the ‘servants’
of Shishak (II Chronicles 12:8).

In the forty-second year of Thutmose’s reign he again ‘arrived at the district
of Kadesh, captured the cities therein.’ (Sections 529, 531 ) This was in 955
or one year before Rehoboam died. Rehoboam reigned seventeen years in all (II
Chronicles 12:13) In 954 Abijah succeeded his father — twelve years after the
capture of Jerusalem (966) Thutmose’s intention was to perpetuate Egyptian rule
on the kingdom of Judah. Rehoboam was old and weak after continual wars with
Jeroboam.

Before completing the life of Thutmose, it is important to consider two other
campaigns which preceded the attack on Jerusalem. In his twenty-third year,
975 exactly 511 years after the Exodus and the coming of the Hyksos into Egypt,
Thutmose commenced ‘the first victorious expedition to extend the boundaries
of Egypt with might … Now, at that period the Asiatics had fallen into disagreement,
each man fighting against his neighbor .’ (Breasted, op cit., vol II, sections
415-416).

This campaign proceeded no farther north than Tripolis of the southern Lebanon.
It marks the termination of the 511 years assigned to the Hyksos period by Josephus
and the classical writers. Southern Phoenicia, from whence came some of the
Shepherd Kings, was now subject to the Egyptians. Seven years later, 518 years
after the Exodus in the thirtieth year of Thutmose III, a major campaign was
carried on along the eastern Mediterranean coast to the city of Arvad (sect.
461). All of Phoenicia now passed under Egyptian sway. With this campaign the
518 years also assigned to the Hyksos period by Josephus were completed.

These momentous shifts in world politics at the close of Solomon’s reign
were the direct result of Solomon’ sin, described in I Kings 11:1-13. Historians,
interpreting history without God and the Bible, have mistakenly assumed that
the spectacular growth in Egyptian power was due solely to Thutmose’s political
astuteness. Neglected is the military situation. Thutmose could never have accomplished
his extended campaigns apart from revolts against Solomon. I Kings 11 14-40
unveils what the trip-hammer blows were that cracked Israel’s power. The Edomites
became restive, the Arameans in Damascus independent, and ten out of the twelve
tribes of Israel were anticipating the death of Solomon as a quick remedy for
excessive taxation. Thutmose merely seized the spoils of a nation which had
grown soft spiritually because it set its mind on physical greatness alone.

Who Was Zerah the Ethiopian?

Time moves on to another generation. Thutmose is dead. In his stead reigns
Amenhotpe II. In Jerusalem king Rehoboam was succeeded first by Abijah (for
3 years), then by his grandson Asa. The record is found in II Chronicles 14
and 15.

Important military changes were disturbing the eastern Mediterranean seaboard.
Fortified cities had to be hastily constructed throughout Judah (II Chr 14:5).
An efficient army was trained during ten years of quiet. Suddenly in the fifteenth
year of Asa (937-936) ‘there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with
an army of a thousand thousand (one million troops), and three hundred chariots;
and he came unto Mareshah. Then Asa went out to meet him ….’ Judah earnestly
sought divine intervention against the great host of Lubim and the Ethiopiens
(II Chr. 16:8) that had come out of Egypt. ‘So the Lord smote the Ethiopians
before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people
that were with him pursued them unto Gerar; and there fell of the Ethiopians
so that none remained alive: for they were scattered before the Lord, and before
His host: and they (Judah) carried away much booty’ (Jewish translation), After
the battle and the spoiling of the region of Gerar, the Jews ‘gathered themselves
to Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa.
And they sacrificed unto the Lord in that day (Pentecost), of the spoil which
they had brought …’ (II Chr. 15:10-11). Who was the Zerah whose army was totally
annihilated in Asa’s reign?

One would hardly expect to discover the full truth of such a catastrophic
defeat engraven on the monuments of the vanquished. Perchance the defeat is
glossed over and made to appear a victory.

No monument to our knowledge tells the story of the defeat. However, there
certainly is an historical Zerah. He appears in the king lists of Ethiopia at
the very time the battle occurred. Through the centuries the Ethiopians preserved
the name of this man who played no small role in the history of Judah.

Zerah belonged to the Dynasty of Menelik I. The dynasty began with the death
of Hashepsowe in 975 B.C. Menelik, the first ruler, was the son of Solomon and
an Egyptian princess. The complete king list can be found in C.F. Rey’s book:
‘In the Country of the Blue Nile’, 1927.

Dynasty of Menelik I

The king list continues down to the present and can be referred to in the
Compendium, vol. II, appendix B.

In Egypt Amenhotpe II was reigning. His authority extended south beyond Napata
in Ethiopia (Breasted, ‘Ancient Records’, vol. II, sect. 797). He succeeded
his father Thutmose III in 943. Amenhotpe’s first documented campaign into Palestine
occurred in his year 3 (941). This was near the close of the 10th year of Asa,
king of Judah. Asa had ten years of peace at the beginning of his reign (951-941).
(See II Chronicles 14:1, 5, 6). A later Egyptian campaign occurred in the beginning
of Amenhotpe’s seventh year (937). The king set out on a grand expedition into
Palestine. His seventh year corresponds to Asa’s fourteenth. This date — 937
— is one year before Zerah’s invasion. Amenhotpe’s campaign, recorded on the
Memphis stela, should not be confused with the Ethiopian invasion of Palestine
in the spring of 936.

(NOTE: To view the figure placed here, see the file CMPDM1B.TIF in the Images\OtherWCG
directory.)

The Memphis stela reads: ‘Year 7, 1st month of the third season. day 25 ….
His majesty proceeded to Retenu (Palestine) …. His majesty reached Shamesh-Edom.’
On the Karnak stela the next move is also dated: ‘1st month of the third season.
day 26. His majesty’s crossing the ford of the Orontes on this day.’ He was
north of Palestine.

The prince of Kadesh surrendered the city to the armies of Amenhotpe. He
swore fealty to the Egyptians rather than undergo a siege. But this Kadesh —
a holy city — was Carchemish in Syria. (Consult Pritchard’s ‘Ancient Near Eastern
Texts’, page 245, and footnotes 8 and 9; also Breasted’s translation of the
Karnak stela, section 784.)

Dynasty XVIII in Manetho

Manetho’s transcribers — Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius — are usually charged
with totally corrupting this Theban dynasty. Had the archaeologists and historians
spent as much time understanding Manetho’s extractors. instead of condemning
them, they would have recovered the full account of Amenhotpe II. The chart
which follows is based solely on Manetho’s transcribers. It should be compared
with the first one given in this chapter which is based on archaeological evidence
and on Manetho. (The abbreviations — ‘J’, ‘A’, ‘E’, ‘T’ — following either
names, or lengths of reign stand for variations in Josephus Africanus, Eusebius,
or Theophilus. — The figures of Josephus have been reduced to whole calendar
years.)

The insignificant differences of spelling in the Greek are due naturally
to the changes in pronunciation of Egyptian sounds over many centuries — and
to abbreviations. Several of these names have never been discovered by archaeologists.
This does not mean the Greek or Hebrew writers imagined names, but rather that
archaeology is limited in what it can recover from the past.

Of greater historic significance are the variations in regnal years. Far
from being mere scribal errors, each contributes additional information not
preserved by the other epitomes of Manetho. If Manetho is to be fully understood,
all the evidence must be taken together.

Consider the minor variations in the reign of Thutmose II and Hashepsowe.
Josephus preserves the fact that he reigned only twenty full calendar years
when succeeded by his son Thutmose III. But both Africanus and Eusebius bring
out the detail that one more year elapsed before his sister and queen, Hashepsowe,
assumed supreme rule as Queen of Egypt. Again, Africanus assigns 22 years to
Hashepsowe to indicate that she was associated with her stepson for 22 calendar
years after the death of her brother. Her dominant role in government as senior
co-regent for 21 years is preserved only by Josephus, who is confirmed by archaeology
and monumental finds.

The length of reign of Thutmose III as preserved by Manetho’s abstractors
has been rejected in toto. Though it appears on the surface to be irreconcilable
with archaeological finds, it is nevertheless correct. Thutmose III reigned
solely for only 12 years after the death of Hashepsowe. At that time he associated
his son Amenhotpe II with him on the throne. Archaeology confirms a period of
joint reign, but has not yet discovered its duration. Had the archaeologists
opened their eyes, they would have long ago found its duration in Manetho. (See
Pritchard’s ‘Ancient Near Eastern Texts’, page 245, footnote 1.)

The figure of 13 calendar years for the reign of Thutmose III, preserved
by Africanus, does not commence with the death of his step-mother, but with
his assumption of power in 976 — the beginning of his 22nd year. In the year
following 976 he began his military campaign into southern Phoenicia, 511 years
after the Exodus. Next the reign of Amenhotpe II — the son of Thutmose III.
His frightfully long name is not what has confounded historians. It is his length
of reign that no one, it seems, has made sense of. Compare the information from
archaeology, in the first chart, with these figures from Manetho. It is immediately
evident that Theophilus has preserved the length of the joint reign — 20 years
— 963-943. In 943 Thutmose III died. Josephus, by contrast, has preserved Amenhotpe
II’s length of reign — 25 years — after the death of his father. But Africanus
and Eusebius give yet a different length — 26 years. They measure the length
of Amenhotpe’s reign from the time he held full power during the last year of
his father’s reign — that is 944-943. The emphasis upon this date in Amenhotpe’s
reign has been corroborated by archaeology. Again the figures of the transcribers
can be explained.

It should be noted that none of the transcribers of Manetho has preserved
all his facts. Each, however, complements the other. Why is Amenhotpe I missing
as the second king in the dynasty? Tethmosis or Amose is correctly stated to
be the first king. His 25 years are also confirmed by archaeology. He is plainly
declared by Manetho’s transcribers to be the father of Thutmose I or Chebron
who was the third king of Dynasty XVIII. How are these apparent discrepancies
to be resolved?

It has been commonly assumed by moderns that Thutmose I was a son of the
first Amenhotpe by a secondary wife. But there is absolutely no evidence from
archaeology to support this hypothesis (Drioton and Vandier, ‘L’Egypte’ (1952),
page 336).

Manetho’s statement that he was a son of Ahmose explains, in part, why the
classical writers passed over Amenhotpe I. The story of Dynasty XVIII is the
story of a family through blood descent. Apparently Amenhotpe I was not in that
line of descent. He may have been a younger brother of Amosis. The following
list of kings, beginning from the expulsion of the Hyksos rulers in 1076, is
preserved by Syncellus from the book of Sothis. Take special note of the dates
of Amose.

The Book of Sothis

This list also placed Amosis immediately before Chebron (Thutmose I). Ahmose
(Amosis) reigned into his 26th year. Syncellus therefore assigned the last incomplete
year as a whole calendar year and gave him 26 — from 1076 to 1050. In 1030
his son Chebron assumed the throne under the name of Thutmose. Manetho’s other
transcribers gave only the length of reign from 1076 to 1051 using the non-accession
year method of reckoning. By contrast Syncellus used the accession year method
of reckoning for Amosis, whereby the last incomplete year is assigned to the
predecessor, not to the successor. Since Syncellus also did not include Amenhotpe
I, he overlooked 20 years and proceeded to name Chebron next.

To fully understand Manetho, one must combine the evidence from his transcribers
with archaeological discoveries. Neither Manetho nor archaeological evidence
is sufficiently complete to be used alone for the beginning reigns of this dynasty.

The Book of Sothis’ dates of the reigns of the first several rulers of the
Theban dynasty are not necessarily indicative of the year of death. They may
designate political changes. Recall the case of Joseph in the third dynasty,
who lived another 14 years after completing his term in public office.

In the book of Sothis king Thutmose II, the husband and brother of Amenses-Hashepsowe,
is given only 15 years. This dating is confirmed by rock inscriptions at Assuan.
Hashepsowe ordered Senmut, an important public officer, to prepare two great
obelisks to commemorate her co-regency ‘in year 16’ of her brother Thutmose
II. It has been commonly assumed that ‘year 16’ refers to a time in her own
reign. This conclusion is totally unwarranted, for ‘in year 16’ Hashepsowe was
still ‘King’s Sister, Divine Consort, Great King’s Wife.’ Thutmose II was still
living. The inscription is in honor of ‘the Divine Consort, Sovereign of the
entire Two Lands’ — that is, in honor of the assumption of royal power by Hashepsowe
in her brother’s sixteenth year. The obelisks were not finally erected and inscribed
until her joint reign with her stepson Thutmose III. (See Breasted’s ‘Ancient
Records’, vol. II, sections 359-362; also Weigall’s ‘History of the Pharaohs’,
vol. II, pages 288-289.)

Thus for five years prior to his death, Thutmose II associated his sister-wife
with him on the throne as queen consort. She became senior co-regent with her
stepson in 996, one year after the death of her brother. She continued in public
office until 975.

Why then does her reign appear to cease in 991 according to the book of Sothis?
Who is the ‘king’ named Misphragmuthosis who ceased to reign the very year that
Hashepsowe died?

The answer is unique in Egyptian history. The masculine name Misphragmuthosis
is Hashepsowe’s! Under Thutmose II she was originally only queen consort. In
the year after his death she began to rule as Queen. At length — in 991 —
she assumed masculine titles, appeared as a man and took a man’s name. The monuments
of Egypt picture her in her later life as a male, though they at times refer
to the king as ‘her.’

Writes Sir Alan Gardiner in ‘Egypt of the Pharaohs’, page 183: ‘ man. The
change did not come about without some hesitation, because there is at least
one relief where she appears as King of Upper and Lower Egypt, and yet is clad
in woman’s attire.’

The inscriptions recovered by archaeologists indicate she commenced the idea
of becoming a king as early as her second year. (‘Nachrichten von der Koeniglichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Goettingen,’ 1955, page 212.) But it was
not until her sixth year that it is officially recognized in the Book of Sothis.

One other hitherto unnoticed fact appears in the book of Sothis. The reign
of Misphres (Thutmose III) continues 23 years after the reign of ‘King’ Hashepsowe.
At that point his grandson Thutmose IV is associated with him on the throne.
The book of Sothis takes no notice of Amenhotpe II. These records indicate that
the practice of Theban Dynasty XII, of associating sons and grandsons on the
throne. was also a practice of Theban Dynasty XVIII. For the last nine years
of Thutmose III or Shishak’s life, he was associated on the throne with both
son and grandson.

With the reign of Thutmose IV, the first half of Dynasty XVIII is completed.
The succeeding rulers of the dynasty lead into the much-misunderstood period
of the Ramessides, to be unravelled in the next chapter, or two.