NOTE TO THE READER: Several changes have been made to the last chapter in the two months since its publication. In particular some comments regarding Smendes II and Psusennes III have been deleted from the first section. At one time I sided with Egyptologists who equate Psusennes III with a king Psusennes of the Tanite branch, until I found this to be unworkable. And at first I was not sure where to place Smendes II. There does exist some confusion regarding this priest, even among Egyptologists. Thus I had decided to omit discussion of these two priests from this book. But further research dictated otherwise. It was deemed necessary to conclude this book by providing a relatively complete chronology for the Theban pontiffs. This involved providing dates for their Tanite counterparts Siamon and Amenemopet, a task which involved extensive discussion in which both Smendes and Psusennes played a significant role. When the dust settled we found that only Smendes need be placed "out of sync" with the traditional sequence of Theban pontiffs, though he remains the eldest son of Menkheperre. I am confidant that the final chronology is correct.
Other changes are pending, including the addition of chronological charts to better illustrate the possible genealogical connections between the Rudamon and Piankh branches of the Napatan (Melukkhan?) family.

Chapter Eight:
The Liberation of Egypt

Pinudjem I (continued)

In our previous chapter we suggested that Pinudjem, the father of Menkheperre Piankhi, occupied the office of High Priest of Amon for 15 years (661-646 B.C.) and then assumed a kingship, localized in the area of El Hibeh in north central Egypt, which lasted for another nine years (646-637 B.C.). For much of his tenure in office he was a contemporary of Psusennes II (incorrectly identified by Montet as Psusennes I) of the 21st Tanite dynasty. Sheshonk V of the 22nd dynasty, and Rudamon, the nephew of Osorkon III, were also contemporaries. We also suggested that he adopted the name of Aakheperkare Thutmose, an 18th dynasty pharaoh whose tomb he apparently robbed and whose coffin inscription he altered, claiming it as his own.

But we should point out that there exists a problem determining whether Pinudjem I became king after 15 years as pontiff, or whether his kingship began in his first year and ran in conjunction with his high priesthood for the first 16 years and independently for the next nine years.. This possibility certainly exists, and would be more consistent with a thesis discussed below, namely, that the year dates on the documents which provide the basis for the chronology cited above are all referenced to the duration of Pinudjem's combined high-priesthood/kingship. Those year dates would make more sense if Pinudjem were king throughout the entirety of his 25 years in office.

Clearly there is need to review the documents which undergird this chronology.

The Chronology

Fully half of the relative dates assigned to the 21st Theban dynasty rulers are derived from the dockets and bandage epigraphs on the mummies processed by these priest/kings and deposited in the Deir el Bahri tombs. The others are found in inscriptions on sundry monuments. Unfortunately, though apparently dated to the year of a reigning king, none of these documents provides the name of the king. The result is confusion and disagreement among scholars. To engage the debate fully would take us far afield. Fortunately the basic evidence is summed up in a few sentences provided in an article by the Egyptologist Eric Young.[1] For the benefit of the uninformed reader we need mention only the fact that Pinudjem I had at least two sons, an eldest son named Masaharta, who died within the reign of Pinudjem, and the more notorious Menkheperre.

According to Young:

Documents mentioning Pinudjem I as H.P. only are dated between years 1 and 15 of an unnamed king, presumably Psousennes I. His son Masaharta as H.P. has documents of years 16-19 of an unnamed King. His younger son Menkheperre as H.P. has documents dated in years 6, 7, 25, 40, and 48, whilst Painudjem I himself, as king, has a document dated in year 8, which can be associated, because of the handwriting, with those of years 6 and 7 of Menkheperre. The document of Masaharta of year 16 mentions Painudjem I as king, whilst those of years 25,40, and 48 of Menkheperre also mention Painudjem I as king, although not necessarily alive. Can any or all of these documents refer to regnal years of Painudjem I, or do some or all refer to years of the Tanite kings?

Scholars continue to debate the possible answers to Young's final question, though the majority conclude that at least the year 1-15 inscriptions of Pinudjem I, the year 16-19 inscriptions of Masaharta, and the year 25 inscription of Menkheperre all relate to the years of the Tanite king Psusennes I (whom we identify as Psusennes II). It is further agreed that Masaharta's high priesthood must have paralleled the kingship of Pinudjem I, i.e. that Pinudjem elevated his eldest son to the high priesthood, and possibly to control of the army, in the 16th year of Psusennes, 646 B.C. in the revised chronology. That sixteenth year document names both Masaharta as high priest and his father Pinudjem as king, providing some support for this schema. This interpretation is certainly possible but is not the only one in vogue. It was rejected long ago by no less an authority than Pierre Montet, the excavator of Tanis, who theorized that all of these year dates should be assigned to Pinudjem, beginning with the start of his high priesthood and continuing through his kingship. Our proposal is only a step removed from that of Montet. We argue instead that Pinudjem became both king and priest in 661 B.C. and that the year dates from 1 through 25 are his regnal years.

Since we have argued that Psusennes' rule began in 661 B.C., the same date assigned to the beginning of Pinudjem's high priesthood (see the genealogy tabled in the last chapter) it really doesn't matter which of these theories holds insofar as the absolute dating of the Tanite priests is concerned. But later, when we suggest lowering the year when the reign of Psusennes began, we will be compelled to assume that the years belong to Pinudjem I.

We also disagree with the time span typically assigned to the high priesthood of Masaharta. It is generally assumed that it lasted from year 16 through year 25, this based on a faulty interpretation of the Maunier stele which contains the year 25 reference. Instead, we believe that it lasted only six years, four years to account for the year 16-19 inscriptions and an additional two years to accomodate the graffiti dated in the years 20 and 21.[2] His dates must therefore be 646-641 B.C.

We further argue, and here we are at odds with most scholars, that Pinudjem's reign, including the years of his high priesthood, lasted only 25 years, spanning the years from 661 B.C. through 637 B.C., a conclusion also based on our interpretation of the Maunier Stele. This "year 25" inscription, which must be dated to the year 637 B.C., appears to describe Menkheperre's elevation to the kingship in place of his recently deceased father.[3] It is discussed separately later in this chapter.

The year 8 inscription mentioned by Young belongs to Pinudjem II, and therefore has no relevance in discussions related to these early years in the dynasty. We will also discuss this inscription in a later section.

It appears from the Maunier Stele that Menkheperre was already high priest in the year 25 and the conclusion follows that Masaharta must have predeceased Pinudjem I by several years. If we accept, for convenience, the minimum six year figure for Masaharta's high priesthood and assume that Menkheperre replaced him in office in 641 B.C., then we should conclude that Menkheperre had been high priest for four years when Pinudjem died in 637 B.C., at which time Menkheperre added the kingship to his list of titles.

The year 6 and 7 documents mentioned by Young are bandage epigraphs from DB320. They name Menkheperre as high priest and clearly result from duties which are typical of this office. But consistent with arguments presented below we believe that Menkheperre was also king at this time, and therefore that the year dates must be assigned to his kingship. The year 40 and 48 inscriptions also contain his regnal years, a fact made explicit in the year 48 inscription. While both documents identify Menkheperre as high priest (and "son of king Pinudjem") we believe that the title was merely honorific this late in his life.

We should not be surprised that Menkheperre is referred to as high priest during the years of his kingship, whether or not the title was honorific. We believe he considered himself a priest/king throughout his life and multiple strands of evidence, including the Maunier stele (to be discussed later), suggest that he valued the title "high priest" as much, if not more, than his status as "king". In due course we will argue that he was de facto high priest for at least the first 15 years of his kingship, until relieved of this duty by his sons Smendes II and Pinudjem II. In this simultaneous exercise of both priestly and royal duties he was not unique. We have already suggested that his father Pinudjem I did the same for the first 16 years of his reign, until relieved by Masaharta. And we will soon argue that his son Pinudjem II was both acting priest and king for at least ten years following the death of Menkheperre.

Before we leave behind our discussion of the formative years of the Theban 21st dynasty we need to tarry briefly to clarify our position regarding the dating system employed by these priest/kings. We agree with Egyptologists, against Montet, that high priests did not number the years of their pontificates. That is, in part, the reason we extend the kingship of Pinudjem back to the year 661 B.C. In fact, as we will soon see, at no time was this dynasty ever without a king. The kingship of Pinudjem I was followed immediately by that of Menkheperre, then of Pinudjem II and finally Psusennes III. And the year dates on the monuments authored by these priest/kings consistently refer to the year of the reigning Theban king. In cases where the king elevated a son to assist him, yielding to him the duties of the high priesthood as Pinudjem did to Masaharta, then the new high priest consistently dated his years in office by the years of the king, his father. It is not an unusual system. As we will soon see, it continued through to the end of the dynasty. It ought not to have resulted in mass confusion on the part of scholars, as it has.

This must suffice as an overview of the chronology of the early years of the 21st Theban dynasty. We have spent considerable time detailing various aspects of the "reign" of king Pinudjem. We would like to move on and discuss issues related to his successors. But before we do we need to discuss two remaining aspects of his life, both potential subjects for debate if and when critics respond to our proposals. One relates to our claim that Pinudjem adopted the name Aakheperkare; the other to the documents which we claim were authored by him using this name. We treat these two issues separately and in sequence.

Who is Kheperkhare Pinudjem?

Regarding our claim that Pinudjem adopted the name Aakheperkare Thutmose we expect strong reaction from the critics. The argument will surely be raised that the titulary names of Pinudjem I are otherwise well known and do not at all correspond to those of Thutmose I. According to the textbooks Pinudjem as king adopted the prenomen Kheperkhare and a distinct five-fold titulary bearing almost no resemblance to that of the 18th dynasty Thutmose. How do we explain the inscriptions belonging to this king Kheperkhare Pinudjem?

That Pinudjem became king is well established. On his burial shroud Pinudjem II, grandson of Pinudjem I, refers to himself as the "HPA Pinudjem, son of Menkheperre, son of king Pinudjem". As well, the bandage inscription of Masaharta to which we have just alluded, clearly refers to the kingship of Pinudjem. And the borrowed coffin mentioned above contains the name of Pinudjem as king, enclosed in a cartouche. Several other artifacts also attest this reign. Last, but not least, Menkheperre, in the year 25, 40 and 48 inscriptions referred to above, identifies himself as the "son of king Pinudjem".

What is not so clear, though accepted as fact by all scholars, is that king Pinudjem I adopted as a prenomen the name Kheperkhare in addition to the other names of a complete titulary. If this were the case then our hypothesis that he also adopted the name Aakheperkare Thutmose is in jeopardy, it being possible, but unlikely that he possessed two completely different five-fold titularies. But are the scholars correct? Certainly the half dozen or so inscriptions just mentioned, those most clearly and closely identified with Pinudjem I, fail to add this prenomen. Is it possible that another king Pinudjem ruled in roughly the same time frame and has been confused with Pinudjem I? If so the most likely candidate is Pinudjem II.

The inscriptions of king Kheperkhare Pinudjem are relatively abundant, but none of them supply any genealogical references which would confirm that the name belongs to Pinudjem I as opposed to Pinudjem II. There is no rationale for assigning all monuments bearing this name to the first Pinudjem other than the assumption that the second Pinudjem never became king. But that assumption is in turn based entirely on the assumed absence of monuments attesting the kingship of Pinudjem II, circular reasoning at its worst, and an argument from silence which in this instance is entirely the creation of the scholars. What else should we expect but silence if all the monuments attesting the kingship of Pinudjem II have been mistakenly assigned to someone else. Only one piece of physical evidence even remotely connects Kheperkhare with Pinudjem I. Two funerary chests inscribed with the names of Kheperkhare Pinudjem were found in DB320 near the coffin of Aakheperkare Thutmose, that which once contained the body of Pinudjem I - hardly the basis for an identification. And there are several positive reasons for arguing that Kheperkhare is Pinudjem II. .

We have already observed that all of the documents produced during the years of Pinudjem I and Masaharta, up to and including the first year of Menkheperre, are referenced consecutively and consistently to years 1 through 25 of an unidentified dignitary, identified by most scholars as Psusennes I, and by a few others, including Montet, as the high-priest/king Pinudjem I. In this system the kingship of Pinudjem is said to have begun in the 16th year of Psusennes' kingship or the 16th year of Pinudjem's high priesthood.. But the only dated inscriptions of king Kheperkhare Pinudjem, a pair of bandage epigraphs on mummies from DB320, both refer to year 8 of this king. If Kheperkhare is Pinudjem I, and if Pinudjem's kingship began in the 16th year of this sequence, then we must infer that he adopted a numbering system for his regnal years different from that found on the other documents, most of which are also bandage inscriptions. It is strange that Masaharta continues to number his years consecutively from the number 16, while Pinudjem, his father, who is now king, chooses to start anew at the number 1. This is improbable to say the least. Of course, this argument does not apply if Pinudjem's high priesthood and kingship began at the same time, in year 1 of the sequence, an assumption unique to this revision.

Additionally, we observe that the only inscription which provides a titulary name (other than a nomen) clearly connected with king Pinudjem I, a wall inscription on the Luxor Temple where the name of Pinudjem I is otherwise prominent, contains a Horus name of the king which differs significantly from that of Kheperkhere Pinudjem found elsewhere, suggesting, if it doesn't prove, that the two kings should be distinguished.[4]

Further supportive argument must await our discussion of the life of Pinudjem II later in this chapter.

One series of inscriptions might have settled the case out of hand. Unfortunately the evidence has been badly handled. Apparently the mummified remains of Pinudjem I found in DB320 did contain several bandage inscriptions containing the king's prenomen. Unfortunately there remains a question regarding the transcription of the name. According to Maspero in his massive publication of the Deir el-Bahri finds, Les momies royales de Deir el Bahari, published in 1889, the mummy bandages several times cite the prenomen Kheperkare[5] (not to be confused with Kheperkhare), arguably a shortened form of the name Aakheperkare, which name (according to our thesis) Pinudjem borrowed from the 18th dynasty king whose coffin he usurped. This evidence would argue compellingly for the present thesis. But in a list of errata at the end of Maspero's book, volume I in the series of Memoires published by the Mission Archeologique Francaise Au Caire, the noted Egyptologist (or more likely the editors of the series) modified the earlier reading, arguing instead that the name in all instances should read Kheperkhare. What is fundamentally clear is that this adjusted reading was not based on a reexamination of the bandages. It is likely that Maspero was, by the time of publication of his book, domiciled in France, while the mummy and inscribed bandages (assuming they were preserved) were in Cairo. We assume that the change was made in hindsight, based entirely on probabilities. Maspero (or his editors) believed, as did all scholars, that king Pinudjem I had adopted the prenomen Kheperkhare. The name Kheperkare on his mummy made no sense in light of the traditional history. Ergo the name change in the errata based entirely on the assumption that an error had been made in the original transcription. But if an error was made it was made multiple times since the inscribed prenomen was present on multiple bandages. This is, a priori, very unlikely, more so since the "ka" and "kha" hieratic signs do not at all resemble one another. A reexamination of the mummy might settle the question, though chances are slim to none that the evidence remains intact.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary we assume that the prenomen Kheperkhare belongs to the second, not the first Pinudjem. The presence of several funerary boxes bearing his name in the vicinity of a coffin which had once been occupied by the mummy of Pinudjem I, his grandfather, hardly qualifies as an objection.[6] Beside that same coffin were two other chests bearing the name of the high priest Pinudjem, son of Piankh, i.e. Pinudjem I himself. Surely the first Pinudjem was not buried with two entirely distinct sets of funerary artifacts (ushabtis?).

The Inscriptions

The second problem alluded to earlier is related to the identification of the monuments of Pinudjem I. If he adopted the name Aakheperkare Thutmose, then which monuments bearing this name belong to him, and which belong to the 18th dynasty king whose name he borrowed? There exists some difficulty separating the inscriptions which refer to the two kings named Aakheperkare, since there exist many parallels in the early years of their kingships. It is therefore imperative that we examine the relevant inscriptions to determine which, if any[7], were authored by Pinudjem I. Perhaps our effort will shed further light on his "reign".

The military successes of the 18th dynasty king Thutmose I, insofar as they are portrayed in the history books, are determined largely on the basis of the tomb inscriptions of two of his most famous generals, Ahmose pen Nekhbet and Ahmose son of Ebana, in addition to those of one other official, an architect named Ineni. According to these three sources Thutmose I should be credited with an invasion of Nubia early in his kingship followed soon after by moderately successful battles against Asiatics in the vicinity of the Euphrates. No dates are given. These inscriptions are consistent with the anatomical results on the mummy of the king which suggest that Thutmose I died while very young. All of these officials served multiple 18th dynasty kings. Ahmose pen Nekhbet was active under six kings/queens (Ahmose I, Amenhotep I, Thutmose I, II, and III, and Hatshetsup); Ahmose son of Ebana under three (Ahmose I, Amenhotep I, Thutmose I) and Ineni under four (Amenhotep I, Thutmose I, Thutmose II and Thutmose III), a fact which argues strongly that Thutmose I reigned for only a brief few years.

But there are other monuments which present a slightly different picture, in which the chronology of Egypt's dealings with Nubia and Syria does not agree with the accounts provided by the two Ahmoses, consistent with our belief that they are authored by a different king. Two in particular, the king's coronation decree and a stela from Tombos, are sufficient to illustrate the alternative view.

The Coronation Decree

According to Breasted ...

This unique document is a royal decree issued on the king's coronation day to the viceroy of Nubia, Thure, informing him of the king's accession, fixing the full titulary, the royal name to be used in the oath. Thure's official residence was doubtless Elephantine, for he is charged to offer oblations to the gods of that city, and it was he who put up the records of Thutmose I's return from his Nubian campaign, at the first cataract. He then caused the decree to be cut on stelae and set up in Wade Halfa, Kubban, and probably also Elephantine. BAR II 54 (emphasis added)

The inscription begins with an announcement of the king's coronation and a complete rendering of his adopted titulary:

Royal command to the king's son, the governor of the south countries, Thure (*w-rA) triumphant. Behold, there is brought to thee this [command] of the king in order to inform thee that my majesty has appeared as King of Upper and Lower Egypt upon the Horus-throne of the living, without his like forever. Make my titulary as follows:
Horus: "Might Bull, Beloved of Mat"
Favorite of the Two Goddesses: "Shining in the Serpent-diadem, Great in Strength"
Golden Horus: "Goodly in Years, Making Hearts Live;"
King of Upper and Lower Egypt: "Okheperkere;"
Son of Re: [Thutmose], Living forever, and ever." BAR II 55-56

The inscription goes on to request the institution of offerings on the king's behalf in the Elephantine temple. It provides the name of the king's mother, Seniseneb, and the exact day of the coronation, the 21st day of the seventh month in the civil calendar, and then it abruptly ends.

Breasted rightly describes this inscription as a "unique document". It is difficult to fathom the circumstances which might have led to its creation. In Egypt, as in most Ancient Near Eastern cultures, the death of one king and the accession of his successor occur simultaneously. The dateline of the stela appears to provide the precise calendar date of that event. That is, at least, how Egyptologists interpret the date. But the dateline also reads as if descriptive of the precise time when the stele was erected. We ask the obvious question. Did Aakheperkare prepare the stela in the days immediately following his father's death, and date the stela retroactively, or did the circumstances which led to his kingship provide him some "lead time" in which to prepare the stele, either because he did not "inherit" the kingship, or because his predecessor (Herihor in this instance) was not dead, but had simply been removed from office (by the Assyrians). At minimum the announcement is consistent with the hypothesis that this stela was prepared ahead of time for publication, by Pinudjem I, and most likely in 661 B.C.

Our interpretation of the circumstances behind the stela serves also to explain why such an announcement was necessary in the first place and why the stelae were erected only in the extreme south (out of sight of the Assyrian authorities), in lands supervised by the viceroy of Nubia Thure (who has replaced Piankh) in the ancestral home of Pinudjem I. It is difficult to comprehend the need for such an announcement if the author of the stela was truly Thutmose I, the successor of Amenhotep I and sole ruler of Egypt. It makes more sense to view the document as the work of an otherwise inconsequential Egyptian official (priest?), with some family ties to Nubian lands south of Thebes, announcing a coronation that might otherwise be overlooked, and instituting ritual offerings which might otherwise not be given.

It is clear that the stela inscription is as much concerned with announcing the new names of the fledgling king as with declaring the fact of his kingship. The titulary contains at least one element of interest. We remarked earlier that a Horus name belonging to Pinudjem I, part of a series of inscriptions at the Luxor temple which refer consistently and often to Pinudjem as a high priest[8] (further proof that his high priesthood and kingship overlapped - high priests did not possess Horus names), bore only slight resemblance to the Horus name of Kheperkhare described elsewhere. But the Luxor temple name ("Mighty Bull, beloved of Amon"}[9], does compare favorably with the Horus name of Aakheperkare in the coronation stele ("Mighty Bull, beloved of Maat [truth]"). Such minor alterations in titulary names are commonplace.

Interesting and suggestive though it is, the coronation stele provides no data which connects it unambiguously with Pinudjem I. Nor does it provide detail regarding Pinudjem's kingship. For that information we turn our attention to the Tombos stele.

The Tombos Stela

A second relevant text is "engraved on the rocks on the island of Tombos, just above the third cataract of the Nile"[10], again demonstrating Aakheperkare's preoccupation with Nubia. Like the coronation inscription this text begins (after a dateline citing the 15th day of the second month of the king's 2nd year) with a complete five-fold titulary, essentially identical to that contained in the coronation inscription. The author boasts that already, at this early date, only a year and seven months into his reign, he is already the undisputed ruler of the whole of Egypt, Nubia, and Syria. His sovereignty over Nubia is attested both by the location of the inscription, and by large sections of the inscription itself:

He hath overthrown the chief of the [Nubians]; the Negro is helpless, defenseless in his grasp. He hath united the boundaries of his two sides, there is not a remnant among the Curly-Haired, who come to attack him; there is not a single survivor among them. The Nubian Troglodytes fall by the sword, and are thrust aside in their lands ... BAR II 71

To the north Thutmose's domains extended as far as the Euphrates River, which he refers to as the land of "the inverted water". The concluding paragraph, which constitutes fully half the length of the inscription, describes the limits of his Syrian possessions:

(He) brought the ends of the earth into his domain; (he) trod its two extremities with his mighty sword, seeking battle; (but) he found no one who faced him. (He) penetrated valleys which the (royal) ancestors knew not, which the wearers of the double diadem had not seen. His southern boundary is as far as the frontier of this land, (his northern) as far as that inverted water which goes downstream in going up-stream. The like has not happened to other kings; his name has reached as far as the circuit of heaven, it has penetrated the Two Lands as far as the nether world ... Subject to him are the isles of the Great Circle (Sn[w].wr, Okeanos), the entire earth is under his two feet, bodily son of Re, his beloved, Thutmose, living forever and ever ... BAR II 73 (emphasis added)

We cannot help but wonder, if this document is authored by Thutmose I, how that young king managed to conquer domains fully as extensive as those of his famous (grand-)son Thutmose III, all in less than two years after taking office, and apparently without a fight. It behooves us to explain the incongruity of these boastful remarks vis-a-vis the life of the 18th dynasty Thutmose, and how they mirror precisely the circumstances of the life of Pinudjem I. Then we must move on.

Documents of Thutmose I

We have already mentioned that the military life of the 18th dynasty Thutmose is provided in capsule form in the tomb inscriptions of two of his generals, Ahmose pen-Nekhbet and Ahmose son of Ebana. Those two inscriptions agree in describing an Egyptian invasion of Nubia early in the king's tenure in office, followed by a campaign in which battles were fought in Naharin at the bend of the Euphrates. There is no ambiguity about the order of events - first the conquest of Nubia, then successful battles near the Euphrates. Though no year dates are provided in these tomb inscriptions, Egyptologists are emphatic in stating that the Nubian campaign began in year 2 and finished in year 3 of the king. The year 2 date is derived, as we might have expected, from the Tombos inscription. The fact that the campaign ended in year three, some 8 months after the Tombos date, is based on two inscriptions found at Sehel and Assuan, erected by the same viceroy Thure mentioned in the coronation inscription, and dated the 22nd day of the ninth month of the 3rd year of the king. Apparently on the return from the Nubian campaign the king found the canal which by-passed the cataract stopped up, and set about to clear it, leaving record of his achievement.[11] The Syrian campaign must have begun later in the third year or into the fourth.

The conflict is transparent. In the tradition provided by his generals, Thutmose conquered Nubia at an unspecified date and followed that up with a Syrian campaign in which battles were fought. The order of events is unmistakable. First Nubia, then Syria. It is also worth noting that on his return from the Nubian campaign there is no mention of any obstruction at the first cataract, only smooth sailing into Thebes. And we should not overlook the fact that the Syrian victories were inconsequential and arguably unsuccessful. Ahmose, at the head of the army, boasts of capturing a single prisoner. For the record we cite a brief passage from the annals of Ahmose Pen-Nekhbet.

His majesty was furious thereat, like a panther; his majesty cast his first lance, which remained in the body of that fallen one. This was ---- -- powerless before his flaming uraeus, made [so] in an instant of destruction; their people were brought off as living prisoners. His majesty sailed down-river, with all countries in his grasp, that wretched Nubian Troglodyte being hanged head downward at the [prow] of the ba[rge] of his majesty, and landed at Karnak.
After these things one journeyed to Retenu to wash his heart among the foreign countries. His majesty arrived at Naharin . His majesty found that foe when he was [planning destruction; his majesty made a great slaughter among them. Numberless were the living prisoners, which his majesty brought off from his victories. Meanwhile I was at the head of our troops, and his majesty beheld my bravery. I brought off a chariot, its horses, and him who was upon it as a living prisoner, and took them to his majesty. One presented me with gold in double measure. BAR 80-81

In the other tradition, that represented by the Tombos and cataract inscriptions of Thure, Thutmose embarked on a Nubian campaign early in his second year and returned the next year, though delayed in the return trip by navigational problems. By the time the Tombos inscription was erected, early in his second year in office, Thutmose was already master of Syria. Though Thutmose boasts of sovereignty over Syria, he specifically says that had fought no battles in that region, leading some Egyptologists to suggest that Thutmose received these lands as an inheritance from his father Amenhotep I. But no record of Amenhotep's conquest of Syria has ever been found..

How do we explain the two traditions?

The Resolution

The solution to the presence of two incompatible traditions for the military activity of Aakheperkare Thutmose is ready at hand. We assume that the Coronation, Tombos, and cataract inscriptions belong to Pinudjem I. When Herihor died (or was replaced in office by the Assyrian authority) in 661 B.C.[12], Pinudjem assumed both his rank as High Priest of Amon and his benefice as "commander of the army of all of Egypt", in which he acted on behalf of his Assyrian overlord. He also secretly declared his kingship, following the example of Herihor, publicizing the fact in the coronation inscription. Apparently in his capacity as commander of the army Pinudjem acted in his second year to preserve Assyrian hegemony in Nubia, claiming personal credit for his "victory", though the expedition was apparently little more than a tour of inspection. When he boasts in the Tombos inscription that his domains extend from the Euphrates to southern Nubia, and include the coastal regions of the Mediterranean (called the Haunebu elsewhere in the text) he is clearly representing himself, vicariously, as the sovereign of lands actually held by his Assyrian overlord. He did not inherit these lands from his father Amenhotep II, as Egyptologists have suggested. He was the son of Piankh, and he was clearly misrepresenting himself.

The boastful language used by Pinudjem in the Tombos inscription, as also his adoption of the titles of kingship, reflect an understandable desire on his part to be free from Assyrian restraint. No doubt throughout his kingship he hoped to free Egypt from its Assyrian domination. But if so, his dreams would await his death and the ascendancy of his son Menkheperre. But here we are getting ahead of ourselves.