1. It is not necessary to assume that Kimuhu was a vassal of Egypt, though it seems a reasonable assumption. Egypt was driven across the Euphrates in the immediate aftermath of the failed siege of Harran in 609 B.C. We can reasonably assume that the city of Carchemish was under its control at the time. There is no indication in the Chronicle that Nabopolassar either crossed the Euphrates in pursuit, or claimed sovereignty over lands west of the Euphrates. We agree with Wiseman that Carchemish might have housed a garrison of Egyptian troops from 609 B.C. through the battles in Naharin in 606-605 B.C.. The city may have come under Egyptian control as early as 616 B.C.
2. Chronicle of Chaldaean Kings, p. 22. Cf. Wiseman's discussion on the location of the two cities on p. 83.
3. Some scholars locate Niy on the Euphrates, others on the Orontes River. We agree with the location in Naharin, but the substance of our argument would change very little if the city were located in Syria.
4. It is, of course, possible that Menkheperre did in fact engage the Hittites in battle. But in that case we should have expected this mention of tribute from the Hittites in the section of the Annals which precedes the departure of Menkheperre from the Euphrates region.
5. Albright anticipated one aspect of our conclusion in his 1928 discussion of the "Royal Stele of the New Empire from Galilee," (see below note 12). In this article he mentions the Annals reference to the "chief of Shinar" and interprets it correctly as a reference to a city on the banks of the Euphrates. But he relates it to "cuneiform Shanhar, south-east of the Khabur" (p283). The identification suffers the same criticisms applied to the Shinar interpretation.
6. If Breasted is correct then Amenemheb's journal begins with three battles which took place in the year 33 [which we have placed in year 30 (sect. 581-584)], followed by an account of the capture of Kadesh dated to the year 30 (sect. 585), then the campaign in the unknown country, left undated (sect. 586), and finally the battle in Tikhsi of year 35 (sect.587). Only then does Amenemheb once again interject an incident from the year 33 campaign (sect. 588). The confusion attributed to Amenemheb should rather be credited to his interpreters.
7. The name Tiksi occurs in reference to the 1st campaign of Amenhotop II (prior to his 3rd year) and on the chariot inscription of Thutmose IV. Both documents will be examined at the appropriate time.
8. BAR II 416
9. We can at least mention the obvious instances of this phenomenon. Those who have read the introductory book of this series will realize that Piankhi's reign overlaps those of 22nd and 23rddynasty kings with prenomens Aakheper(u)re (Sheshonk V) and Aakheperre (Takeloth IV). These two kings are clearly namesakes of the 18th dynasty pharaohs. Special mention should be made of the fact that the inscriptions of Sheshonk V are often confused with those of Amenhotep II (Aakheperure), the son of Menkheperre Thutmose in the traditional history, because of the similarity of name.
10. Chronicle of Chaldaean Kings, p. 24.
11. Cf. Immanuel Velikovsky, Ramses II and His Time, pp. 177-179.
12. W.F. Albright and Alan Rowe, "A Royal Stele of the New Empire From Galilee" JEA 14 (1928) 282
13. Although Assyria as a nation ceased to exist in 609 B.C., for several centuries after the name Assur continued to be used as a designation of the former Assyrian homeland in the Upper Tigris region.
14. When the Annals discuss the aftermath of the Battle of Megiddo and
the defeated by Menkheperre of the three resisting cities of Lebanon, it
mentions among the list of tribute "38 lords ([m-r'-y-]n') of theirs".
The entire area was clearly occupied by Arameans.