1. Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 178.

2. G. Elliot Smith, "The Royal Mummies," Catalogue General des Antiquites du Egyptiennes du Musee du Caire, Nos. 61051-61100.

3. Harris, James E. and Weeks, Kent R., X-Raying the Pharaohs (1973).

4. Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 443.

5. We are reminded by Breasted that "this mercenary commander from Busiris (Sheshonk) is subordinate to Pekmou, prince of that city (l. 116).  They are contemporary, and neither bears royal titles; hence they cannot have been identical with Pemou and Sheshonk IV (Sheshonk V in later numering of 22nd dynasty kings), the last kings of the Twenty-second Dynasty.  Moreover, both Pemou and Sheshonk IV hald Memphis to the end of their regins, but Memphis has now long been held by Tefnakht, who was sem priest of Ptah there."  BAR IV p. 423 note h.

6. Consensus on the fact of the coregency was reached early in the twentieth century.  Alan Gardiner, writing in 1945, describes the two strands of evidence which lead to this conclusion: 1) the fact that Amenhotep's coronation date, known from a then unpublished stela discovered by Reisner at Semnah, differs from the date of death of Thutmose III recorded in Amenemheb's tomb, leading to the conclusion that he did not immediately succeed his father, and 2) the presence of the two kings together on various monuments.   In explanation of the differing coronation dates he states: "But another possibility - it even amounts to a probability - is that Amenophis II had been associated on the throne with Thutmosis III for exactly four months before the latter's death.   A brief co-regency has sometimes been supposed for these two kings [most notably Petrie, History,  II, 135 and Breasted BAR II, 74 n. c] their names being several times placed opposite one another on the same lintel ..."  JEA 31 (1945) 27.    In a footnote to the second point he adds: "Besides the two doorways at Amada, there is a similar one in Thebes, tomb 42, The tombs of Menkheperrasong, Amenmose and Another, pl. 39: the presomen Aakheper[w]re is there damaged, but op. cit. p. 34 Davies produced grounds for the belief that the name was that of Akmenophis II, rather than of Thuthmosis I or II.  But by far the most important evidence is that in the Theban tomb od Dedi (No. 200), where the two kings were shown enthroned and inspecting a military display together; see Porter & Moss, Bibliograph, I, 153, (3)(4).   Ibid, note 7.

7. Donald B. Redford, "The Coregency of Thutmosis III and Amenophis II," JEA 51 (1965) 107 According to Redford "the hypothesis which claims for Amenophis II a long coregency of a quarter-century or more apparently originated following Golenischeff's publication in 1913 of papyri 1116A and 1116B of the Hermitage, and was augmented by Glanville's publication in 1932 of the British Museum document 10056.   It is important to note that the lengthy coregency had sufficiently widespread support in 1965 to warrant Redford's somewhat vituperative article in the prestigious Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.

8. I.e. Senzar

9. If they belong to namesake kings our thesis is all but proved, at least with respect to Amenhotep II.   However, many details of the discussion which follows must in that case be altered, including the identification of Amenhotep, which depends significantly on the provenance of the Memphis stela.   If that stela, which contains an account of the campaigns of years 7 and 9, belongs to the earlier king, the proposed identification of Amenhotep is null and void.  In that case he must be identified as a son of Piankhi, hitherto unknown.   There are no particular problems associated with that suggestion.   In many ways it is the stronger of the two alternative proposals.

10. X-Raying the Pharaohs, p. 139.

11. The anatomists whose opinions are recorded in the later X-Ray Atlas suggest that he suffered from ankylosing spondylitis. (p. 292).  We should also point out that their estimates of age at death run from 35-45 years. Egyptologists adopt the larger number for obvious reasons.  There does exist some remaining controversy regarding the age of this king.   Wente and Van Siclen ("A Chronology of the New Kingdom" in Studies in Honor of George R. Huighes SAOC (39) 1977, p. 227-229) have argued for a longer reign length, up to thirty four years, based on "data pertaining to the royal jubilee and the datum of Thumose IV's inscriptions on the Lateran obelisk.   In this case we begin to see some significant discord between the autopsy reports and the monuments. Even choosing the figure 45 years from the x-ray analyses does not eliminate the problem.

12. Flinders Petrie, History of Egypt III (1905) 259.   Petrie numbers this Sheshonk as Sheshonk IV, as did Breasted in the same time frame.

13. A.M. Badawi, "Die Neue Historische Stele Amenophis II," ASAE 42 (1943) 1.  According to Badawi the stele was used "als Decke fur seine Grabkammer".   Its precise location within the tomb is not specified.

14. The problems with this suggestion are significant, but not insurmountable.   Assuming that the second Aakheperure Amenhotep became king at the age of nineteen then he must have become high priest at a very early age, an unlikely prospect.   And why in his tomb does he give no indication of his kingship other than on the stele which covers his grave pit?  But we are not sure that the "18 years"  mentioned on the Sphinx stele (see above) is a reference to Amenhotep's years before becoming prince (other interpretations are possible), and the excavation reports related to the Memphis tomb need re-examination to see if there are other indications that the tomb owner was a king..

15. Edward Wente and Charles Van Siclen III, "A Chronology of the New Kingdom," in Studies in Honor of George R. Huighes SAOC 39 (1977) 227-230 These scholars suggest a reign length of 33 years for Thutmose IV. In defense of this extended reign they state: "Besides the jubilee evidence in favor of a long reign for Thutmose IV there are some additional bits of information that would indicate that his reign was not a short one.   There are statues of Thutmose IV seated, not with his queen as is normal, but with his mother T iaa.  At the time when he acceded to the throne, Thutkmose IV was called a inpw, a term applied to young princes and kings who had not yet reached puberty.  Yet by the time he died, this pharaoh had produced a rather large family, comprising at least seven sons and twelve daughters.  During his years as king, Thutkmose IV had three queens, each of whom bore the title Great King's Wife.  The Eighteenth Dynasty evidence seems to indicate that a king had only one Great King's Wife at a time, so that these three women must have held the title of principal queen consecutively.  Another indication that Thutmose IV's reign was a long one is the large number of Theban tomb chapels that are assigned to his period. No fewer than nineteen tombs can be specifically dated to his reign ...

16. Betsy M. Bryan, The Reign of Thutmose IV (1991)149

17. Bryan, Reign of Thutmose IV, p. 9-10.

18. We can scarcely imaging a youth under the age of 13 boasting of hunting lions and wild goats, racing a chariot pulled by multiple speeding horses in company with others, with strength comparable to the gods.  We also wonder at the fact that he was beloved by the other king's children, not to speak of the nobility and the army, if he was not well into his teens.

19. A. Erman, "Die Sphinxstele," SB 6 (1904) 428-37.

20. In a footnote Breasted underscores his agreement with Erman, but notes contrary opinion.  "Erman has now put together the reasons for the same conclusion, which he also has reached.  He would date the document between the Twenty-first and Twenty-second Dynasty and Saitic times.  Spiegelberg's objections to this conclusion (Orientalistische Litteraturzeitung, 1904) would explain the mistakes and peculiarities in the orthography as due to the erasure of the inscription under Ikhnaton and the subsequent careless restoration, as in the Theban stelae (e.g. par. 878 ff.)."  Breasted goes on to argue against Spiegelberg.

21. We used the translation by John A. Wilson in ANET p. 224.  The inscription was first published by Selim Hassan in ASAE 37 (1937).

22. Op.Cit. p. 144-145.

23 Translation according to Betsy Bryan, The Reign of Thutmose IV, p. 170.

24 The monument comes from the tomb of the Second Prophet of Amun, Amenhotep si-se. Our translation comes from Yoyotte, “Un Porche Dore,” CdE 28 (1953) 36.

25 Yoyotte, op.cit. pp. 34-35.

26 We must hold open the possibility that Neferkare Shabaka and Menkheperure Thutmose were contemporary kings who jointly constructed this entranceway.    Such an eventuality would have absolutely no effect on our general thesis.