Drama in History

8/6/2019 Drama in History

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/drama-in-history 1/33

Drama in History: Exemplars from Mid Dynasty XVIIIAuthor(s): Anthony SpalingerSource: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Bd. 24 (1997), pp. 269-300Published by: Helmut Buske Verlag GmbHStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25152743 .Accessed: 28/05/2011 05:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hbv . .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Helmut Buske Verlag GmbH is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hbv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25152743?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25152743?origin=JSTOR-pdf




Drama in History: Exemplars from Mid Dynasty XVIII

von

Anthony Spalinger

Ananalysis

of theliterary

and historical forms ofEgypt during

thereigns

ofHatshepsut

and Thutmose III.

Special attention is placed upon those texts dealing with the "nomination" to kingship. The focus of the

study centers on the heigthened drama evident in those inscriptions, and the connection between Thutmose

III and his predecessor of Dynasty XII, Sesostris I. In addition, the Berlin Leather Roll is covered with

special attention placed upon its history as an administrative document.

Many have discussed the rise of historical consciousness in Pharaonic Egypt, especially

with regard to the XVIIIth Dynasty if not the reigns of Hatshepsut and her stepson, Thut

mose III1. However, all too often such analyses have been oriented to a philosophical

religious overview which lacks a deep historical background. The following remarks have

as the point d'appui an integration of the empirically deductive with the inductive. That is to

say, what will be attempted here is an approach that covers the development of native

Egyptian thought processes in the early New Kingdom at a time in which, I feel, the

Egyptian outlook was open to new perspectives rather than being locked into a one-way

street of thought. I have not chosen an approach that is limited with regard to historical

sources. Quite to the contrary, the interested reader will find the road well served by various

signpostsof a historical nature instead of

beinga

presentation lackingin numerous

primaryreferences, if being at the same time refreshingly philosophical. My goal in this analysis is

to provide a mature presentation of one side of the then growing intellectual transformation

of Pharaonic Egypt which, I firmly maintain, did not occur in so great a fashion at an earlier

time period. Although the orientation of this work far exceeds the final product, I hope that

the results are not written in so tentative a manner as to obfuscate the thesis. Basically,

1As the studies concerned with these two Pharaohs are as varied as they are detailed, let me merely refer

at this point to the provocative remarks of J. Assmann, Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom,1995, 128 with note 159. His earlier remarks in:Agyptens Aufstieg zur Weltmacht, Mainz 1987, 47-55,are too brief. The following notes will amply cover the specific data which are, after all, the grist of thehistorian's mill.



270 A. SpaUnger SAK 24

foUowing upon recent yet often unclear research, I see a mental transformation of Pharaonic

Egypt occurring in early Dynasty XVIII, a tendency that can be witnessed from many pers

pectives, not the least being royal inscriptions themselves. Reasons for such a change wiUbe brought into the discussion; however, it is sufficient to observe that the series of divine

nomination texts which Hatshepsut and Thutmose III "pubUshed" form a useful corpus

which deserve a more detaUed working from a perspective that is concerned with their

Uterary aspects as weU as historiographic ones.

The series of omens that surrounded Thutmose Ill's early Ufe and presaged his nomina

tion to be ruler of Egypt are extremely remarkable owing both to their purpose and to the

manner in which they are expressed2. Incorrectly understood by Breasted as a "Coronation

Inscription", the lengthy text has kept its French title of "Texte de la Jeunesse" because the

narrative is concentrated upon a series of prodigies and later offerings in which the youthful

Thutmose EQ was involved. The text itself was carved considerably later than the purported

series of events themselves; it is a retrograde one3. The style of the composition presents the

account in the first person, and early Egyptologists did not hesitate in arguing for a Sitz im

2 Urk. IV, 156-75. The most useful and very detailed analysis of this inscription and the following one

discussed in this study is now that of M. Romer, Gottes- und Priester-Herrschaft in Agypten am Ende

des Neuen Reiches, AUAT 21, 1994, passim, especially 142-52, and the summary list in Abteilung IV,478-80. The author's preliminary analysis in: GM 99, 1987, 31-34, is extremely important and, in fact,forced Assmann to alter some of his ideas: see the latter's "State and Religion in the New Kingdom", in:

Yale Egyptology Studies 3, 1989, 71.

Redford's recent overview, in: O'Connor /Silverman (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Kingship, PA 9, 1995,

157-84, is quite brilliant but contains too much personal interpretation; e.g., "The common grizzly

vocabulary of Eighteenth Dynasty military records": page 159. On page 174 he discusses the texts of

Hatshepsut and Thutmose III which are covered here; note, however, that he considers them to be

"juridical omens", an interpretation which is false, as Romer has shown. (Indeed, there is nothing

"juridical" about them) More judicious comments of Redford can be found in his perceptive "Pharaonic

King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books", 1986, 168-71.

For a penetrating study of these Eighteenth Dynasty nomination texts and others of similar nature, see

P. Vernus, in: BSEG 19, 1995, 69-95 and, more generally, Essai sur la conscience de l'Histoire dans

l'Egypte pharaonique, 1995, 137-42.3

The comments of Lacau/Chevrier, Hatshepsout, should be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, the

reader will find P.F. Dorman's detailed analysis (The Monuments of Senenmut, 1988, 47-50, 55-58,

64-65) very useful for deterrnining the overall date of the Thutmose III composition. I do not follow the

analysis of C. Meyer, Zur Verfolgung Hatschepsuts durch Thutmosis III., in: H. Altenmiiller/R. Germer

(eds.), Miscellanea Aegyptologica, Fs Helck, 1989, 119-26. Breasted's comments in BAR II, 1906,55-59; a translation (now dated and incomplete) is on pages 59-68.



1997 Drama inHistory 271

Leben centered at the court with Thutmose III speaking to his courtiers4. That is to say, the

common Uterary backdrop of the Konigsnovelle was employed to present the king's own

words, aU directed from his mouth, to the assembled notables, aU of whom ought to have

been weU-surprised at the tenor and focus of their monarch's argument.

The "Texte de la Jeunesse" was placed on the southern exterior waU of tjhe Hatshepsut

suite some years after he became sole Pharaoh upon the death of his stepmother. The

inscription was placed over scenes of the dead queen after the wall itself had been smoothed

for re-carving. An exact date for Thutmose's retrospective upon his early Ufe remains to be

determined. However, in his judicious sifting of aU the available information, Dorman, partly

foUowing Seipel, has shown that a relatively late date (regnal year 42 of Thutmose III) for

the text is impossible and that a time frame ca. regnal year 30 seems more appropriate for

dating purposes5. Whatever the exact date of the "Texte de la Jeunesse" may be, the famous

Chapelle Rouge of Queen Hatshepsut was stiU standing when Thutmose III ordered the

pubUcation of his thoughts concerned with his early career.

As stated above, the "Texte de la Jeunesse" presents an account in the form of an official

address of the Pharaoh to some officials whose titles are lost in the fragmentary beginning

of the composition. Such speeches, normaUy in dialogue form between king and high

ranking commoners, were a weU-liked method of Uterary presentation since the end of

Dynasty XI. Given the rubric Konigsnovelle, they first occur under the reign of Nebhepetre

Montuhotep (II), as Henry Fischer showed in 19656. Hence, the orderly, regulated manners

of speech and language of the conversation between the Pharaoh and his foUowers occurs

are not a product of the times of Thutmose III nor even a continuation of practices often

4In

general, Hermann, Konigsnovelle,1938.1

providedsome brief comments on

this so-called "genre"in:Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians, 1982, 101-114. The best treatment ofthis literary setting is to be found inA. Loprieno's well-argued study: The "King's Novel", in: Ancient

Egyptian Literature, History and Forms, PA 10, 1996, 277-95. Assmann, Egyptian Literature (Survey),in: D. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary II, 1992, 387, is too brief.

5Dorman's remarks are found in his study referred above in note 3.

6It is odd that Egyptologists ignore this first case: see Fischer, Coptite Nome, 103-106 and 112-118 (No.

45); cf. Spalinger, Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians, 1982, 114-115. For

example, I. Shirun-Grumach, Offenbarung, Orakelund Konigsnovelle, AUAT 24, 1993, 149-73, persistswith the older position claiming the Berlin Leather Roll (Sesostris I) to be the first case. If, in fact, one

wants to see parts of the "Annals" of Thutmose III (Megiddo campaign) as well as the Kadesh "Poem"of Ramesses II as containing "Konigsnovelle" elements, then Montuhotep's inscription from Deir el

B alias ought to be included as well.




assumed to have begun under Sesostris I7. Indeed, a truncated version of the Konigsnovelle

presentation could occur with the king enunciating his plans to the court. In this one-sided

format the firstperson

is stiUemployed

but no overt tensionresulting

from the conflict

between ruler and officials takes place. Rather, as in the "Texte de la Jeunesse", any sus

pense must be found in the narrative account itself without the heightened interest of a

by-play between the ruler and the high ranking members of his entourage, both presenting

different plans for the future; e.g., as in the beginning of the Kamose Stela or during the

campaign of Thutmose III against Megiddo.

The "Texte de la Jeunesse" itself concentrates upon the relations between Amun and

Pharaoh as befits its location at Karnak. From the very beginning of the preserved portions

one receives this blunt outlook: "He is my father", states the king, referring to Amun of

course, "and I am his son. While I was in his nest he commanded that I be upon his throne,

and he begot me though stoutheartedness". The age, approximated but overtly connected

with the Horus myth, stresses the aspects of the youthful Thutmose: he is like a "puppy",

akin to the child, Horus of Chemmis, when he was standing on the north of the hypostyle

court, and in the role of the Iwn-mwtf priest8. (The latter fact indicates that the "Texte de la

Jeunesse" must predate the walling-up of Hatshepsut's two obeUsks located between Pylons

IV and V.)

Suddenly the narrative moves to a reUgious setting: "... the intimacy of his horizon after

he had made festival heaven through his beauty. When he commenced great prodigies, his

rays were in the eyes of the nobiUty as when Harachti left. And the people gave to him

7 This follows from the evidence of the Berlin Leather Roll. Pace: Ph. Derchain, in: RdE 43, 1992, 35-47,that text ismost assuredly a mid Dynasty XVHI copy of an original of Sesostris. I find J. Osing's edition

in: Fs Iversen, The Heritage of Ancient Egypt, J. Osing/E.K. Nielsen (eds.), 1992, 109-119, to be the

best.8

Thepassages

are from Urk.IV,

156.17-57.8. For the"puppy" (inpw)

motifsee,

interalia,

W. J.Murnane,

Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, SAOC 40, 1977, 255; my review in: JARCE 16, 1979, 189-90 and 192

with note 19; E. Wente, in:An X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, J.E. Harris/E.F. Wente (eds.), 1980,

247; P. der Manuelian, Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II, HAB 26, 1987, 189 note 96; D. Franke,

Anchu, der Gefolgsman des Prinzen, in: Fs Helck, Miscellanea Aegyptologica, 1989, 73-75; C.

Vandersleyen, Inepou: Un terme designant le roi avant qu'il ne soit pas roi, in: U. Luft, (ed.), The

Intellectual Heritage of Egypt, Studia Aegyptiaca 14, 1992, 563-66 (overly formal); and C. Obsomer,Sesostris Ier. Etude chronologique et historique du regne, 1995, 133-35.

For the role of the Iwn-mwt.f priest at this time: L. Bell, in: JNES 44, 1985, 251- 94. However, he

avoided the twenty-year research of J. Assmann. Useful in this context is his study "Das Bild des

Vaters"^ in: Stein und Zeit, 1994, 134-37 (Die "Kamutef-Konstellation"), a study originally publishedin 1976. One might add his "Die Zeugung des Sohnes", in J. Assmann et al. (eds.), Funktionen und

Leistungen des Mythos, OBO 48, 1982, 13-61.




[praise] ..."9. These unknown miraculous events are never explained; aU is left in darkness.

Even though the crucial word, bilt, occurs in this passage, the Ustener is left in abeyance

concerning what, precisely, occurred10. Certainly it was no oracle which took place; thiseariier interpretation has been finaUy put to rest by Pascal Vermis in an extremely important

analysis of divine-human affairs11. For Vermis the omina presented were not anticipated,

instead they occur at an unexpected time in order to reveal the divine plan even though there

is no real rupture of the norm. The king first proceeded to his ritual activity, placing incense

on the fire and offering cattle and goats to his deity. Then Amun circulated around the

hypostyle court and finaUy stopped at the king: "It was when he stopped that I took con

science of myself', states the text, perhaps indicating that Thutmose III momentarily lost his

senses under the awesome series of divine events; such occurrences, the king then adds,

were not planned by the priests who carried Amun's image12. Subsequently, while located at

one of the god's resting places ("stations") and bent in subservience, Thutmose was given a

further series of omina. Though being outside of the perception of mankind and hidden with

in the divine sphere, the young king knew of them and, apparently, understood these un

specified extra-Unguistic occurrences.

Continuing with his account, the Pharaoh then refers to his ascent to heaven and en

counter with the creator god, Re. This elevation to heaven, not at aU specified in the birth

cycle texts, is contained in this account of divine nomination to kingship. It wiU not be out

of place here to present Assmann's translation of the key passages although it is partly

modified13:

[When he opened for] me the door-leaves of heaven

he unfolded the gates of [it]s horizon for me.

When I rose to heaven as a divine falcon

<I ?> saw his secret image in heaven.

And Iworshipped

hismajesty (...)

I beheld the transformations of Akhti on his secret ways in heaven.

9 Urk. IV, 157.14-17; cf. Vermis, in: BSEG 19, 1995, 72.10

Vermis, in: BSEG 19, 1995, 72-77, concentrates on this situation.11

Vermis, op.cit., 73-74; see as well the analysis of Romer, Gottes- und Priester-Herrschaft, 1994, 144-52.12

Vernus, in: BSEG 19, 1995, 74 and note 27.13 J. Assmann, Death and Initiation in the Funerary Religion of Ancient Egypt, in: Yale Egyptology Studies

3, 1989,142, note 41. On page 149 of his study will be found additional data concerning the role of the

priest with regard to the "innermost sanctuary of the god" (in heaven). Note that Thutmose III was "not

yet" a hm-ntr priest (Urk. IV, 157.9) in the temple of Amun at Karnak. Undoubtedly, this "initiation"or "path" of Thutmose III, if Imay borrow Assman's terms, iswhat these passages describe.




for year 20 and in the wiU of Senimose, dated one year later, only the name of Thutmose III

is written. Additional references enumerated by Murnane refer to the king: year 10 (Deir el

Bahriostracon, stamped

with Thutmose Ill'scartouche)

andyear

13(Sinai stela,

with a

prayer mentioning the queen)24. One can add here Redford's analysis of Thutmose Ill's

Armant Stela as weU as other inscriptions of the king that indicate the major role he

performed in foreign miUtary activities during the later years of Hatshepsut25. FinaUy, the

evidence of the ChapeUe Rouge- the outer scenes and inscriptions in particular

- reveals

him to be frequently included whUe Hatshepsut was aUve. Owing to this data, the role of the

king was not at aU subservient to the queen in the last half-decade of their joint rule.

Furthermore, during the entire second decade of the joint reign of Hatshepsut-Thutmose

III there is no indication of a lowly status of the junior partner. Indeed, as Murnane

observed, Thutmose even occurs at one end of the series of reUefs at Deir el Bahri

connected to the Punt expedition26. To put it another way, considering the sources just Usted

it appears impossible to argue that Hatshepsut shunted away her stepson. Quite to the con

trary, he was in the midst of the capital, at Karnak itself, before embarking upon a career in

the army. If in regnal year 12 he was already in Nubia with the Egyptian army, then we must

see the young Pharaoh as pursuing the standard or traditional early career of crown princes.

In the "Texte de la Jeunesse" he states that he had not yet been inducted (the verb bsi is

employed)27 into the office of "High Priest" when those prodigious events took place duringwhich he was elected to be Pharaoh28. How then can we assume any attempt on the part of

the queen to disposess the boy from the throne of Egypt or to remove him from the hub of

activity within the state when he was intimately connected with the godhead of the Egypt,

immersed in the theology of the day with its growing stress on the solar cult, and eventuaUy

rising to prominence at Karnak? Whatever his later feeUngs were concerning his stepmother,

I find it difficult to argue a poUtical removal of the king- for at most five years (between

regnal years 7 and 12)-

by Hatshepsut.

24 The references are also to be found in note 20.25

Redford, Eighteenth Dyn., 62; cf. as well L. Stork, Die Nashorner, 1977, 241-96.26

Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, 1977, 37. Indeed, it is not overly speculative to maintain that

Thutmose III owed far more to his stepmother than to his father, Thutmose II, who after all ruled fora short period of time. See, for example, his accession and her regency. The emphasis placed by

Hatshepsut as well as Thutmose III on Thutmose I cannot be overlooked.27 The use of this verb has been discussed by me in: SAK 22, 1995, 276, note 23; add now Redford, in:

PA 9, 1995, 164.28

The passage may remind some of the role that queen Ahmose-Nofretary played in the hierarchy ofKarnak; namely, the Second High Priest of Amun. See most recently B. Menu and M. Gitton's contre

temps in: BIFAO 76, 1976, 65-89, 77, 1977, 89-100, 78, 1978, 327-31.




The question of the date of the miracles at Karnak solely recognized by Thutmose III

remains to be elucidated. Unfortunately, we enter the realm of speculation at this point. As

the queenis not

mentionedone is

onlyleft with the references to his

youthas weU as his

position at Karnak. Remembering that the text is a reflection upon the past by the then sole

ruler Thutmose, it is not surprising that his own deeds (donations, monumental construc

tions) are recorded. Furthermore, some of the activities can definitely be placed within the

joint reign as noted earUer in this discussion although others may reasonably be dated after

the death of his stepmother. Are we deaUng with a divine nomination that was approved if

not "stage-managed" by the queen herself29? Does this account, late though itmay be, imply

official acknowledgment of the heir to the throne? Considering his importance by year 12

and onwards did the prodigies at the main cult center of the land, intimately connected to

kingship, serve to enhance the (future) role of the junior partner? In an old interpretation

they occurred in the reign of Thutmose I although Thutmose II now appears the probable in

cumbent. Since queen Hatshepsut seems to have been regent upon the death of her spouse,

Thutmose II, it is most likely that the "Texte de la Jeunesse" reflects an official recognition

of the Pharaoh to be at a time during which his claim was not aU that secure, if only owing

to his youth and descent from a secondary wife.

While adhering to the present chronological time frame I feel that Thutmose Ill's words

are not a fiction but rather a reiteration of what had occurred earUer. In fact, his stress on

divine nomination fits with Dorman's wise remarks concerning the date of the inscription;

namely, that it is not a late one (ca. year 42 or later) nor one connected with the hostiUty

shown by him towards his stepmother30. On the contrary, this narrative, though a retros

pective, appears concerned with the king's nomination and early beneficial deeds to Amun.

NaturaUy god and king as weU as poUtics and theology are intertwined. But of equal im

portance is the emphasis placed by Thutmose III on his career. Absent are his later deeds,

quite a number of which had strong repercussions for the Amun temple; e.g., his wars in

Asia and the booty brought back to Amun; his festal temple (begun in year 24)31. Hence, I

29 On this situation, note the comments of Redford, Eighteenth Dyn., 74-76 with the later (more interpretative) ones: Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books, 1986, 168-69.

30Dorman, The Monuments of Senenmut, 1988, 46-65 (Chapter III) provides the necessary data.

31 This is well known from Urk. IV, 833-38; for a most recent translation of the inscription: J. von

Beckerath, in:MDAIK 37, 1981,41-49 and the queries ofW. Helck on the lunar date, in: GM 69, 1983,40-42. For the date of Thutmose Ill's Festival Temple Inscription (A. Gardiner, in: JEA 38, 1952, 6-23

and Urk. IV, 1251-75) see our comments below. However, note that Gardiner had earlier seen thecorrect solution in: JEA 31, 1945, 16, a position that he later retracted on page 9 of the editio princeps.

W.J. Murnane, in:MDAIK 37, 1981, 373 and note 29, is somewhat unfair with Gardiner.



278 A. Spalinger SAK 24

feel that the text mentions those characteristics which needed emphasizing if not confirming:

the divine nomination of Thutmose III to be king; his early religious connections to Karnak;

and his beneficence shown to the temple. By and large, such aspects ought to predicate adate not too late in his reign, and, in essence, the conclusions of Dorman regarding the

architectural and epigraphic implications of the "Texte de la Jeunesse" fit my hypotheses.

One can bring into the discussion at this point the lengthy inscription of Thutmose III

describing the preparations for his Festival Temple. Dated to year 24 the inscription

mentions earlier offerings that the king established in his seventh regnal year and so pro

vides a parallel to the king's narrative of divine nomination; i.e., both inscriptions can be

placed within a time frame not that far removed from the (second) accession of Thutmose III

as sole Pharaoh and both refer to donations set up at Karnak during the king's early years32.

Dating the "Texte de la Jeunesse" within the first decade of Thutmose Ill's sole rule after

Hatshepsut's death allows us to understand the purport of the inscription; namely, its out

standing stress on divine nomination. Thutmose was the Pharaoh of Egypt and, apparently,

he wished to emphasize this. The causes of the first series of divine events in Karnak are

lost to us; nevertheless, the king's stress on his nomination by the agency of Amun must

indicate that some difficulty or difficulties were associated with his claim. After all, not

being directly descended from Hatshepsut did pose a problem; equally, he extreme youthhad to be considered since his father, Thutmose II, likewise was not old when he came to

the throne of Egypt. Indeed, the latter did not rule very long. After twenty odd years

Thutmose III was alone but this time, in a lengthy retrospective, he singled out that earlier

record of godly intervention as proof for his right to rule.

But the literary flavor of Thutmose Ill's nomination inscription, as well as its religious

orientation in the first half - and especially the section dealing with the sudden omina of

Amun - have to be brought into discussion. Fortunately, we have at our fingertips a handy

copy of anearly

XllthDynasty inscription

(time: Sesostris I, year 3) that appears to have

been employed as a quarry. I am referring to the well-known Berlin Leather Roll (P. Berlin

3029)33. Although doubts have been presented concerning its redaction -queries that can,

I feel, be easily dismissed - the series of parallels between that text and the nomination

32 For this phase of the inscription, see Gardiner, in: JEA 38, 1952, 12 and note 5.33 The latest edition of this text is that of Osing, referred to in note 7 above. An up-to-date bibliography

of the previous scholarship is provided as well as a fresh and improved translation. Useful as well is

Assmann's short study, Politik zwischen Ritual und Dogma, in: Stein und Zeit, 1991, 253-55, a study

originally published in: Saeculum 35, 1984, 109-111.Most recently, two useful although brief analyses of this work can be found in the detailed volume of

Ancient Egyptian Literature, History and Forms: Baines, op.cit., 162; and Loprieno, op.cit., 286.



1997 Drama in History 279

inscription of Thutmose HI are extremely striking. It is to the credit of de Buck and his pupil

Leeuwenburg that quite a number of concurrences between Sesostris I's account and

Thutmose's were pointed out34. In particular, four useful cases of coincidence can be found;a fifth is close to Hatshepsut at Speos Artemidos. Additional paraUels were brought forward

by Derchain who, contrary to most scholarly opinion, preferred to see the BerUn Leather

Roll as an original text of Dynasty XVIII, a conclusion that seems extremely difficult to

maintain35. Moreover, just as in Thutmose Ill's inscription, the idea of divine purpose is

prominent, as Assmann has seen36.

The connection between Thutmose HI and Sesostris Iwas earUer noted by Redford in his

extremely weU-researched and thoughtful book concerned with the Egyptian concepts of

history37. There is Uttle doubt that ever since the reign of Amunhotep I, if not earUer, a

distinctive trait of those warrior monarchs was to forge a Unk, inteUectuaUy in this case, with

their successful ancestors of a bygone age. The use of the BerUn Leather RoU by can be

marshaled as one additional piece of evidence with regard to this pursuit38. Thutmose III

34 A. de Buck/Leeuwenburg, in: The Building Inscription of the Berlin Leather Roll, in: Studia Aegyptiaca

1,1938,48-57; see De Buck's comments on page 54 (note 6), 55 (notes 22 and 26), 56 (note 31), and

57 (note 43).35 These parallels are listed in:RdE 43, 1992,46-47. C. Eyre, in: Ancient Egyptian Literature, History and

Forms, 1996,417-18, appears to accept the revisionist dating of Derchain. He has useful comments con

cerning the reign of Thutmose III which to some degree parallel mine in this study.36

Assmann, in: Yale Egyptology Studies 3, 1989, 70.37

Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books, 1986, 168-73; see as well his subsequentcomments in: PA 9, 1995, 169-171.

38 In this case it is not too speculative to maintain that the stress on Re in the Sesostris I text could have

been understood by Thutmose III who, in the middle of his third decade, began work on the Festival

Temple to the east of the Middle Kingdom complex at Karnak. Specifically, one can refer to the em

phasis upon the solar cult in the new edifice: in general, see Barguet, Temple d'Amon-Re, 191-98. The

proximity of the Festival Temple to that of Dynasty XII (and directly or indirectly) to Sesostris I cannot

be overlooked, as point emphasized by Redford, King-Lists, Annals and Day Books, 1986, 170-71.

Since there are parallels between the Sesostris I text and the inscriptions of Hatshepsut as well as Thut

mose HI (conveniently, Derchain, in:RdE 43, 1992,46-47), this position has to be broadened to include

the roles of both monarchs, a position that Redford, among others, has argued.The Leather Roll is to be dated to year 5 of Amunhotep II; see note 45 below and the accompanyingtext. Since itwas used from the treasury and the Sesostris I composition itself is a palimsest, perhapsone can argue that at least one other hieratic copy was available, and the extant text was not the first to

be written down inmid Dynasty XVIII; i.e., can the preserved building inscription be one among many?

Eyre, in: Ancient Egyptian Literature, History and Forms, 1996, 427, deals with the possibility that

various papyrus versions of the Battle of Kadesh were circulating and concludes that this text was

"widely 'published'".




himself appears to deal with his noble predecessor Sesostris I at Karnak in more than one

way. For instance, important depictions of Thutmose III with his ancestor kings can be

found in a small room to the southwest of the Festival HaU. Inparticular,

I refer to those

fragmentary depictions of Thutmose III and Sesostris III in a paviUon located on the outer

waU of the rooms built by Hatshepsut; they are identical in layout and design, and the formeris the one which accompanies the nomination text of Thutmose, hitherto covered in this

analysis39. The latter, located to the east end of the waU, is probably a copy of an original of

Sesostris I by Thutmose III; some fragmentary blocks of the original scene are stiU extant.

The accompanying inscription reads:

[Year] after the 9th, IV prt day 24. A [king's] sitting took place [in the audience haU]; the

court and the [officials of the palace] were ushered in order to ...] with his majesty, givenUfe forever. Now when ...

The same Uterary setting, the so-caUed Konigsnovelle, is present in the nomination in

scription of Thutmose III; the beginning is virtuaUy identical as weU. Moreover, the BerUn

Leather RoU also provides us with the common if stereotyped commencement of hpr famswtas probably did Thutmose DI. The latter copy of an original Xllth Dynasty building inscription provides us with the smrw officials as in Thutmose Ill's text and srw ones as weU. In

other words, the coincidences are strong enough, as they were for Habachi, to warrant us

concluding that Thutmose showed great interest in his worthy ancestor. This conclusion,

nonetheless, is simpUstic, if only as it avoids the problem of inteUectual causaUty wlulst

remaining on a level of bare empiricism. One could equaUy marshal the "odd" regnal year

dates of Thutmose III and Sesostris I to reveal a further inteUectual connection, one that is,in fact, not so empty of spirit as has been assumed. I am referring to the only two extant

cases of a post Old Kingdom regnal year using the "year after" system. Sesostris I, as

depicted by Thutmose III, provides the date of rnpt sp m-ht 9 IV prt sw 24 with hpr famswt

[nswt] foUowing)40. In his Festival Temple Inscription Thutmose III has rnpt sp m-ht 23 tpySmw sw 2 (also foUowed by hpr famswt nswt!). The exact dates are the tenth regnal year of

Sesostris I and the twenty-fourth of Thutmose III. Both are not to be expected in the eras in

which they were written down. Here, then, is a further mental connection.

For Hatshepsut's connections to the emergence of a theological discourse (via eulogies) based uponAmun-Re I can refer to the brief comments of Assmann, Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom,

1995, 128, and Agypten. Theologie und Frommigkeit einer friihen Hochkultur, 1984, 228.39

L. Habachi, in: Fs Mokhtar I, 1985, 349-59; the text was alluded to inAspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians, 105 with note 17.

40Habachi, op.cit., 353 and 354 note h. See references to the Festival Inscription in note 31 above.




As for the Berlin Leather Roll itself, the contents stress, especially in Section II, the

divine choice and predestination of Sesostris to be king. Terms such as inpw, swht, and ti

occur, all of which provide an amorphous development of the king-to-be41. A similar outlook

may be seen at the beginning of Thutmose's nomination inscription as well. Then too, one

may lay warranted stress upon the dates themselves. Although Thutmose's report to his

courtiers of an early divine selection is undated, his Festal Inscription is not: it took place

exactly two days before his twenty-fifth regnal year, exactly 728 days after his accession (I

Smw 4), or virtually at the end of his second year as sole Pharaoh subsequent to his step

mother's death42. If the latter date be taken into consideration (II prt 9 or 10), then the sole

Pharaoh would be in his "third regnal year". On the Berlin Leather Roll Sesostris - who

must be sole Pharaoh - the day given is that upon which he came to the throne after the

death of his father, Amenemhet I: III iht 843. That is to say, the anniversary of his actual

accession, and thus the use of hci is significant. Since the Middle Kingdom chronological

system demanded that New Year's Day (I iht 1) witnessed a change in regnal years, sixty

eight days had passed in the civil year before the royal sitting of Sesostris I took place; still,we are in the third regnal year. The copy of Sesostris drawn up in mid Dynasty XVIII pre

sents IV prt sw 24 in the tenth regnal year. If the latter refers to an event after Amenemhet

l's death, as seemsclear,

then a new andindependent reign

hadjust begun.

The connection

of this text with the scenes and inscriptions of Thutmose III previously covered (and also

some of Hatshepsut) is thereby made the more close. Lastly, one has but to refer to such

phrases in the Berlin Leather Roll such as the following to see how repetitive these concepts

of royalty and divine choice are. That XVIIIth copy affirms the connection of the Pharaoh

with his father, Harachty, as befits the original outlook; namely, Heliopolis, the sun cult, and

Atum in particular. It furthermore refers over and over again to Sesostris as destined to be

a "born conqueror", "king by nature", "nursed to be a conqueror", and the like.

41This situation is discussed by J. Osing, Zu zwei literarischen Werken des Mittleren Reiches, in: Fs

Iversen, 1992, 118-119.42 With Helck, Manetho, 66,1 place the death of Hatshepsut in regnal year 22, II prt, sw 9 following the

Armant Stela (Urk. IV, 1244.14). That inscription gives day 10, presumably the accession of Thutmose

(at dawn: cf. Urk. IV, 855.14-896.8) as sole Pharaoh once more; cf. Redford, Eighteenth Dyn., 56 withnote 32.

43 A. Gardiner, in: JEA 32, 1946, 100, realized the significance of the date; there are brief comments on

the composition by Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, 1977, 3, (e), 254-55. The Berlin Leather

Roll clearly records a royal decree in the independent reign of Sesostris I: C. Obsomer, in: RdE 44,1993, 103-140 (concerning the impossibility of a ten year coregency between Sesostris I and his father

Amenemhet I) and Chapter I of his Sesostris I.




a "born conqueror", "king by nature", "nursed to be a conqueror", and the like.

The history and make-up of the Berlin Leather RoU ought to be brought into the dis

cussionat

this point if onlyas

thesemore

mundane factors havetoo often been

neglectedin

the Uterature. Stern was the first to point out that the main text, the copy of Sesostris I's

inscription at HeUopoUs, was written on the recto over some notes relating to wood

deUveries, most of which were erased; some of these were later translated by Erman44. The

direction of the report of Sesostris was inverted in relation to the earUer notes even though

the script of both appears to be by the same hand. On the verso wiU be found a partly

preserved account of a legal difficulty, dated to the reign of Amunhotep II; it too was

erased, although only partiaUy. From the original it is clear that the date on the verso is rnpt

sp 5 III iht sw 10 of Amunhotep II, and the case concerns a sculptor named Ipw-m-R*45.

44 L. Stern, in: ZAS 12, 1878, 86; A. Erman/F. Krebs, Aus den Papyrus der Koniglichen Museen, Berlin

1899, 59-63, 87-89; and Moller, Palaographie II, 8. (I have simplified the use of the document to some

degree.) Erman's account on page 87 must be altered somewhat. I have seen the original in Berlin and

collated the verso owing to the kind offices of Drs. K.-H. Priese and I. Muller. Both Stern and Ermanwere correct in their evaluation of the two texts on the recto. This can be seen most clearly by means

of the "indented" last lines of the Sesostris I text. For the reader's convenience I refer to Tafel 9 (bottom)inH. Goedicke, The Berlin Leather Roll (P Berlin 3029), in: Fs. Museum Berlin, 1975. Note as well H.

W. Fischer-Elfert, Agyptische Handschriften 4, 1994, 50-51.45 In addition to collating the verso I have seen Cerny's transcription as well as the original, which is in the

Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum. I must thank Dr. Malek for his kind assistance in allowing me

to obtain a copy of the work. Cerny added the comment "lig." regarding the regnal year figure of 5,

although he skipped over gr.kwi at the beginning of line 5. Erman also collated the verso for the files of

theWb., copies of which I have also consulted through the able support of Dr. Stefan Grunert. The text

reads:

"(1) Regnal year 5 third month of inundation day 10 under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower

Egypt ci-hprw-Rc the son of Re Amunhotep the godly one and ruler of Thebes who lives for ever andever. (2) What the sculptor lpw-m-Rc said: 'As for me, my son (hence read "My own son" as Erman

wished) Wsr-hit was sent... (3) and I (m.) was satisfied/silent' (gr.kwi). A (N. B.) woman said: 'Then

he took everything'. And I (m.) gave the woman to him (??). (Cerny read rdi.i n.fti st whereas I saw

rdit.i n.fti st. The passage is difficult as Erman saw. Is 'Then he took everything which I had given to

him' possible? However, the ti st remains unresolved in this interpretation.) And I (5) said to him: 'Whyhave you acted thusly?' Then he said: '[Iwill] not... against you; [I] will not... your (m.) things. (6) So

long as the ruler endures, l.p.h., so long as the ruler endures, l.p.h., so long as Amun endures, so long

as Amun endures, I will never enter your house! (7) I will not seize/take (ph) your things!' Then the

scupltor 'Ipw-m-R?gathered together (nwh) the ... (8) saying: 'You have heard the matters which my son

did'. Then... peo[ple ??]... (9) her people (?)... his plea (mdt.f) in their presence. Then he said: 'The one

...'... (10) in front of the [witnesses/people ?] ... in front of Rc-m[s], (11) in front of Iwti, (12) in frontof Mn-hpr the son of the majordomo li-m-htp (13) Nn-wn-[ms ?]-... (14) ... (15) Imn-m-ipt the son of

My... (16) ... (17) Hiy (18) Hwy (19) ...".




first one to be written48. That is to say, the building inscription itself appears to resemble to

some degree the history of the Carnarvon Tablet which contains the opening of the first

Kamose Stela directly copied from the text itself at Karnak49.If this Thutmose III inscription can be seen to have been inspired by the king's

re-accession to the throne of Egypt, an earlier nomination inscription of Hatshepsut provides

additional clues concerning its genesis. That text, quite similar in nature and phraseology to

Thutmose's, was first described in detail by Sethe; additional comments worth noting were

made by Redford50. In both royal cases the king or queen witnessed a series of miraculous

events connected with Amun in his Karnak temple. Even the woeful state of Hatshepsut's

version, located at Deir el Bahri, indicates that when the queen was standing in Karnak a

series of omina took place. The parallels between this inscription and that of the nomination

of Thutmose III are so strong that one ought not to hesitate in assuming some type of

borrowing by the latter from the former. Even though Thutmose III subsequently reworked

this narrative through recarving and rewriting, clearly the purported nomination of Thutmose

I - even his accession date is noted! - is not original to him. Therefore, in addition to some

useful literary passages from the Berlin Leather Roll, Thutmose III had at his hand a version

of a divine nomination that was recorded under his stepmother's reign. I suspect that rather

than employing his agents to go to Hatshepsut's terrace temple and so copy that divine

nomination text, Thutmose simply ordered his intellectuals or scribes to search their literary

models51.

It is also interesting to observe Thutmose Ill's second and chronological report of his

nomination. On the Vllth pylon he had carved a relatively long account of his economic

48 For the related problem of the cost of papyrus and its reuse, see most recently J. Janssen, in: DE 9, 1987,

33-35, referring to Caminos' study in "Some Comments on the Reuse of Papyrus", in:M. Bierbrier (ed.),

Papyrus: Structure and Usage, 1986.

49 Most recently, I can refer to Quirke's useful comments in: Ancient Egyptian Literature, History andForms, 1996, 265 and 381. The Carnarvon Tablet was standing in the temple of Karnak when it was

copied, after the beginning of the stela was altered through the superimposition of "Year 3".50 K. Sethe, Das Hatschepsut-Problem, APAW, 1932.4, 77-81, following the edition of Naville, Deir el

Bahari VI, Pis. CLVI-CLVII. The preserved date of rnpt sp 1 Ibd 3 prt is to be restored with [sw 21]:W. Helck, in: Studia Biblica et Orientalia, 1959, 115. Note as well Redford's partial translation in his

Eighteenth Dyn., 75-76 and the translation in note 89. There are only brief bibliographic references listed

by Romer, Gottes- und Priester-Herrschaft in Agypten, 1994, 478, note 2.51 The existence of an already utilized leather roll in the state archive (treasury) may very well imply that

there was at least one other copy of the Sesostris I inscription in circulation. After all, it is remarkable

that the Berlin Leather Roll was not in pristine condition when the royal composition was written uponit.With Quirke, I see parallels with the Carnarvon Tablet (Kamose text) and the hieratic copies of the

Battle of Kadesh.




donations to the temple of Amun, and from internal criteria it is easy to date the narration to

a time after his eighth campaign of victory inAsia (regnal year 33)52. The beginning of the

king's reporttakes

placeunder the

reignof his

father,Thutmose II. In

particular,the

youngprince was foretold to be Pharaoh in terms again identical to that of her stepmother

Hatshepsut and his accession date is included (I Smw 4); the fragmentary first section deals

with his presence "next to" his father. This composition is also presented in the format of a

Konigsnovelle for Thutmose III narrates the past to the smrw as weU as his wish to repay

his god, Amun, for his choice. The more lengthy portions of this account, however, con

centrate upon Thutmose's success in Asia and the estabUshment of new feasts and his

multipUcation of offerings. In other words, the Pharaoh is far less concerned with divine

nomination than his other account. After aU, the date of the composition is within the fourth

decade of the king's reign, more than one decade after he alone took charge of Egypt.

Considerations less concentrated upon his divine choice and connection to Thutmose II but

now rather linked with war, booty, success abroad, and a new building program apparently

loomed greater than his earUer feelings. After aU, there was Uttle need to reiterate once more

his rightful connection to Amun in such lengthy prose as he did on one previous occasion.

It is with Hatshepsut, however, that we have to come to grips for that queen's ChapeUe

Rouge inscription provides us with the clearest and most lengthy account of the intervention

of the divine in royal election53. Throughout the inscription-

though it is preserved only in

part-

terminology and phraseology can be found which are similar and in some places

identical to Thutmose Ill's lengthly narrative of divine nomination54. The series of un

expected marvels, at least one of which did not occur at the expected place (the "stations of

the king" in block 222), are frequent in the account. Two blocks (nos. 287 and 54) often

have been discussed in this context55. The latter passage relates how Amun, foUowing the

"Route of Offerings" performed his omina instead at the gates of the king's palace. Blocks

109 and 72, however,specificaUy

indicate thatHatshepsut

was now Pharaoh and Amun

ordered her to the "stations of the king"; however block 287, perhaps the most famous of aU,

relates the prediction of Hatshepsut to be Pharaoh in the second regnal year of an unnamed

52 Urk. IY, 178-191.4; see the recent comments of C. Cannuyer, in: S. Groll, (ed.), Studies in EgyptologyPresented toMiriam Lichtheim I, 1990, 105-109.

53Lacau/Chevrier, Hatshepsout I, 92-153.

54These coincidences are remarked upon by Lacau and Chevrier in their editio princeps.55 See Romer, Gottes- und Priester-Herrschaft in Agyptens, 1994, 142-52 and his brief study in: GM 99,1987,31-34.




king56. In that brief section the narrator mentions multiple prodigies which predicted the

kingship to the queen and singles out the one that took place on the twenty-ninth day of the

sixth civil month, corresponding to the second day of the Litanies of Sekhmet. Amun acted

in some untold way during his festival. The auspicious occasion was rendered at Opet, a

temple specifically connected to kingship or, rather, the filial connection of father god

(Amun) and his son (the Pharaoh)57. Noteworthy was the date itself- virtually at the end of

one half-year- and the specific location, the more open area of the broad court of Luxor58.

A further broken portion of the Chapelle Rouge inscription (block 54) covers additional

similar events, apparently directed by the goddess Mut to the queen.

At least one section of the Chapelle Rouge presents the association with the sun god Re

rather than Amun as, in fact, did Thutmose III later (see pages 273-274 above and the

translation of Assmann). Nevertheless this portion of the account must be seen in a different

light than the explicit historical observations. In similar manner, the detailed description of

the "titulary-fixing", which can be seen in the legend of Hatshepsut's divine birth cycle as

well, has to be laid to one side when examining the account. What is important is not the

connection between god and queen (or king as with Thutmose III); this interrelation can

occur whenever and wherever. Pharaohs can claim divine birth in Dynasty XVIII by simply

reiterating age-oldbeliefs and stories. With

Hatshepsutand her

stepsonwe are on another

ground; namely, the wholesale reference to specific places and times. In the birth legend

56 J. Yoyotte, in:Kemi 18, 1968, 85-91; see as well Cannuyer, Studies M. Lichtheim, 109-115, who optsfor regnal year 2 of Thutmosis I as the date of the major auspicious event that took place on day 29 of

the sixth civil month.57 Inter alia, see L. Bell, in: JNES 44, 1985, 251-94 andWJ. Murnane, s.v. Opet, in: LA IV, 574-79, (the

best analysis in English) with his more general analysis in: Les dossiers. Histoire et archeologie 101,

January 1986, 22-25; add now the pertinent comments of D. O'Connor, in: O'Connor /Silverman,Ancient Egyptian Kingship, PA 9, 1995, 276-78 and 282. P. Pamminger, in: Beitrage zur Sudan

forschung 5, 1992, 93-140, is surprisingly not informative on this issue.58 On the assumed public access for inscriptions and reliefs within temples, the recent analysis of Vemus,

Essai sur la conscience de rhistoire dans l'Egypte pharaonique, 1995, 164 with note 695 (arguing againstE. Bleiberg, in: BES 7, 1985/86, 5-15), neatly covers the situation.

Here, I can refer to J. Assmann, Das agyptische Prozessionfest, in J. Assmann/T. Sundermeier (eds.),Das Fest und das Heilige, 1991,105-22. In that succinct analysis the author has pointed out the mundanenature of "ordinary" religious events in contrast to the extremely visible performances of bark festivals:"Es sind die Jahresfeste, die im ausgepragten Gegensatz zum sakralen Alltag stehen". I believe that the

significance of the visible-hidden in religion is connected to the actual events themselves rather than

where, precisely, they were depicted/recorded. Of course, the latter point is not to be ignored; however,one should not overly rely upon architectural locations at the expense of the actual rite itself.

'




cycle, for example, all takes place in a mythological (or at least "godly") setting59. The scene

is the hoary shrine of Heliopolis; various birth deities surround the queen; her titulary is not

ratified within a temple with humans watching but instead promulgated via Thoth, acting forAmun. Emphatically, the time is said to be the ancient New Year's Day of Thoth 1,1 iht I60.

Of course, neither Hatshepsut nor any New Kingdom Pharaoh had a regnal year system

based on this anniversary; she and the others reckoned from accession day to accession day.

Needless to say, such texts as Hatshepsut's birth account must be placed to one side

when examining the independent or creative aspect of these inscriptions. At this point I dis

agree with Assmann who maintains that the queen's "pictorial cycle of divine birth ...,

although in keeping with the classical dogma, stresses the aspect of 'Heilswende' in the same

sense as pWestcar"61. That is to say, I do not recognize original intellectual thought at this

point. Specifically, it is oft-repeated (in scholarly literature) that the queen's commencement

with I iht 1 (twice: see Urk. IV, 261.8-9 and 262.7-8) ought to predicate a viewpoint older

than that of the New Kingdom. The voyage to Heliopolis and not to Karnak (or even Luxor)

similarly places us in an environment at odds with the aforementioned accounts of both

Hatshepsut and Thutmose III. The avoidance of familiar historical settings such at Thebes

(palace, quay), in Karnak or Luxor, has to be noticed. So too is it with the dates. Both

monarchs recorded a specific occurrence of divine selection, whether it be predicted

(posterior act) or actualized. In other words, the birth cycle text of Hatshepsut has to be

considered from a different viewpoint. There is no Konigsnovelle setting; the entire set up

is at variance to a royal speech. The queen does not state her munificence to the gods or godas a recompense to the throne of Egypt. In fact, a late Dynasty XII text of Amenemhet III

can be brought forward as a likely Vorlage to Hatshepsut's lengthy Deir el Bahri birth and

accession (often called "coronation") cycle62.

59 I therefore diverge with Assmann's analysis at this point: Yale Egyptology Studies 3, 1989, 71. Redford,in: PA 9, 1995, 174, has the same orientation as mine. Gardiner was the first to note Middle Kingdomantecedents for Hatshepsut's "Coronation": BAR II, 95 and note c. See H. AltenmiiUer, Zu Isis und

Osiris, in:Wege offhen. Festschrift fur R. Gundlach, AUAT 35, 1996, 1-17, for new Old Kingdomevidence.

60 The calendrical implications of this date have been misunderstood by many Egyptologists; cf. Redford,

Eighteenth Dyn., 54-56.

For the date itself: A. Spalinger, in: SAK 17, 1990, 289-94; W. Helck, in: Or Ant 8, 1969, 295 with

Geschichte, 154; Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books, 1986, 168; and von Beckerath,

Chronologie des agyptischen Neuen Reiches, HAB 39, 1994, 43 with note 233.61

Assmann, in: Yale Egyptology Studies 3, 1989, 71.62 The references are located in note 60 above; specifically, see Berl. Inschriften I, 1913, 138.




In order to make my point as clear as possible, let me reiterate my parameters of in

dependence or literary creativity with regard to the texts of divine nomination. They are

specificallyset in time and

space.With some notable insertions into the account, both

Hatshepsut and Thutmose HI eschew age-old settings; there is no intervention of a series of

deities as we find, for example, in the program devoted to divine birth or even in Papyrus

Westcar. Moreover, the narrative is presented by the then ruler who is viewing the past.

About Thutmose HI we have seen that two separate texts can, in fact, be dated to a specific

point in time owing to their internal facts. Such is not the case at Deir el Bahri with regard

to Hatshepsut's birth and subsequent accession to the throne of Egypt. Scenes, in fact, are

not associated with the divine choice; they are part and parcel of the other cycle. The

language, of course, differs in both narratives: the birth and "coronation" accounts of

Hatshepsut's are clearly archaic, hoary, purposely elevated, and even written in a style that

was outmoded at the time of its carving. Then too, one can add the relatively minor

differences that occur between Hatshepsut and Amunhotep Ill's divine birth cycles; such is

not the case with Hatshepsut and Thutmose Ill's retrospectives on their kingship63. Granted

that there is a similarity of phraseology and even of grammar; however, notwithstanding the

communality of vocabulary, their nomination texts are not very close.

It is true that the gods (or god) play specific roles in all of these narratives. But with the

divine nomination we are in a world where Amun manifests himself through various

prodigies. The birth cycle, on the other hand, is totally mythological or miraculous; there is

no rupture of the human by the divine. For this reason a concentration on the considerably

more historically-oriented accounts is necessary. For it is in these literary compositions, the

language of which was in no way arcane or pseudo-intellectual- note the absence of

recherche words and outmoded constructions - that a purportedly sober chronicle by the

ruling monarch is given. Clearly, the purpose of these texts is clear; namely, to give proof of

the designated king's right to rule as he/she was chosen at some time in the past by the chief

god Amun. This was furthermore done on a specific occasion (or a series of them) with

witnesses present. The intimacy or linkage between king and god naturally is the key, but

the royal nomination is quite a different written and intellectual presentation than that

offered by the divine birth cycle of Hatshepsut. Indeed, it is significant that the latter has as

one of its literary patterns in the Cheops and the Magicians story, that of divine nomination

does not.

63 In general, Brunner, Geburt des Gottkonigs2, 1986.




One must look for the causes in the historical presentations of divine nomination in a

different realm of Egyptian thought. It is here, I feel, that the role of Amun and his Karnak

templehave to be considered before

delving deeperinto the role of the inteUectual in

earlyXVIIIth Dynasty history. Most certainly, the rise to power of Thebes during the outgoing

XVIIth Dynasty had led to the great role which the godhead Amun played, and that part was

intimately associated with the kingship64. NaturaUy, there were antecedents to Amun's

importance as weU as that of Thebes. One can mention the earUer position of "Victorious

Thebes", recently brought into Ught by Franke65. In a similar fashion the visual display of the

Feast of the VaUey at Thebes itself- weU recorded in contemporary sources of the New

Kingdom as befits its high religious importance- can be traced back to the Middle King

dom. The Kamose Stela itself depicts the return of the victorious ruler to his capital amidstmuch cheering. Perhaps the first thing that the Pharaoh did upon setting foot at the quay of

his capital was, auspiciously, to enter the Karnak temple as befitted his reUgious impetus66.

For just as Thutmose IV some centuries later went to Amun at Karnak to inquire (through an

oracle) what would occur if he were to go to Nubia, it seems readily apparent that Kamose

did the same before embarking northward against his Hyksos foe67. In the reign of Kamose's

successor, Ahmose, a grand and solemn affair occurred within the temple precinct of Karnak

solely concerned with the sale of the office of Second High Priest of Amun which was held

by the king's wife Ahmose-Nofretari68. In this case the specific juridical role was determined

by Amun, represented in this case by his temple priesthood as well as the god himself. If any

example serves to witness the theological-poUtical interconnections of the day- in fact, it

appears impossible to separate the two sides - this legal account does.

Given the obvious developments of the theology associated with Amun, the real difficulty

arises concerning the origins of the presentation of historical intervention by the god. As

stressed above, with these nomination texts the scholar is faced with a seemingly new

64 For the moment I can refer to Redford, in: PA 9, 1995, 159-72 and his earlier studies of Pharaonic

King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books, 1986, 165-88; Eighteenth Dyn., 70-87. For the religious development of the cult of Re at this time I can do no better than cite Assmann's monumental Egyptian Solar

Religion in the New Kingdom, 1995, passim, especially Chapter 4.65 D. Franke, in: ZAS 117, 1990, 124-26.66 In particular, see lines 33-34 of the Second Stela: L. Habachi, The Second Stela of Kamose, ADAIK

8, 1972, 42-44 and H.S. Smith/A. Smith, in: ZAS 103, 1976, 61.67

Romer, Gottes- und Priester-Herrschaft in Agypten, 1994, 140, for an all-too-brief analysis; cf. J.

Yoyotte/J. Lopez, in: BiOr 26, 1969, 5, for a useful study of the military arrangements of the Pharaoh.68

The most recent analyses are: M. Gitton, in: BIFAO 76, 1976, 65-89 and in: BIFAO 79, 1979, 327-31;and B. Menu, in: BIFAO 77,1977, 89-100.1 have devoted some attention to this inscription in a forth

coming study entitled, "Sovereignty and Theology inNew Kingdom Egypt: Some Cases of Tradition".




presentation of divine-royal interaction. Unlike the birth cycle presentation no precedent

from the Middle Kingdom is extant. This probably can be explained by both the ever in

creasing importance of Karnak at the time as weU as the lack of any centraUy-located and

theologicaUy-driven cult of the capital in the Middle Kingdom. A new tradition seems to

have been forged in the opening century of Dynasty XVIII, one that had to rely upon an

extant Uterary format for its narrative setting and dramatic verbal interconnection of king

and courtiers. The latter format was diffuse enough-

perhaps general is a better word - to

allow the introduction of specific mundane ("worldly") elements such as time and place.

After aU, such texts as the Stela of Rahotep or that of Neferhotep bear witness to the

preservation of the format of Sesostris I's building inscription, later copied on a leather role;

the interplay between king and miUtary men can be seen by Dynasty XI, as I have stressed

earUer in the discussion69. One main difference here is that these earUer Konigsnovelle texts

lacked a series of dates, simply because they dealt with the enunciation of Pharaonic poUcy

from the throne itself: only the opening reference to time was necessary as the work

embarked on was preceded by the announcement (and possibly foUowed by discussion or

acclamation). But with the aspect of divine intervention through prodigies it was not the

actual date of the royal sitting which was crucial. Rather, the actual revelation of god to

Pharaoh was the nexus through which the divine acts - not the king's- were accompUshed.

The somewhat overused term Konigsnovelle is therefore not that refined a designation

for such presentations although it is hard to find another; "royal audience" or "royal sitting"

are too clumsy to employ as a designation70. These divine nomination texts are the re

working of a broad and vague format or matrix. What was developed is not a dialogue bet

ween king and X but rather a historicaUy-based account in which a progression over time

occurs and specific dramatic events take place. In other words, owing to the necessity of

stressing the king's right to be on the throne, theologicaUy speaking, the presentation ex

pandsto include

pastevents which can be dated and which are at the same time

soUdlyplaced within an environment, be it Luxor, Karnak, or other places at Thebes. The earUer

method of the Konigsnovelle was to provide a brief setting (time and place) and foUow that

69 For the Rahotep text, see most recently E. Blumenthal, in: Fs Hintze, 63- 80. There are some brief

remarks on these pre-New Kingdom Konigsnovelle texts in: Spalinger, Aspects of the Military Docu

ments of the Ancient Egyptians, 1983, 101-105. The Neferhotep Stela will be found in M. Pieper, Die

grosse Inschrift des Konigs Neferhotep inAbydos, 1929. Both are now available in Helck's edition,

Historisch-Biographische Texte der 2. Zwischenzeit, 1975, 21-29 and 59-60.

70 Cf. Redford, in: PA 9, 1995, 159. Loprieno, in: Ancient Egyptian Literature, History and Forms, 1996,

277-95, retains the term but easily sees its inherent weaknesses. The Konigsnovelle was most certainlyno ancient Egyptian genre.




up with the enunciation of the king's plan and, if necessary, the reaction of concerned

parties. By Hatshepsut and Thutmose III there is present a solitary figure, the king-to-be.

Assmann in fact argued that "there is a nuance towards the individual aspect which will

become virulent in the New Kingdom", and he significantly pointed out the role of Sesostris

I in the Berlin Leather Roll as well as the miraculous birth of the three kings to be in the

Papyrus Westcar story in contrast to the later Dynasty XVIII accounts of divine birth and

nomination71. All emphasis remains upon the (future) monarch, of course, but now there is

dramatic movement. True, the backdrop remains that of the king addressing his court with

the concomitant series of official praise by his followers bestowed upon the thoughtful and

successful monarch. But there is now drama and suspense. It was only Thutmose who

understood what was occurring in Karnak; the god Amun selected him. Likewise, as block

287 of the Chapelle Rouge indicates, at auspicious religious events the god Amun allowed

himself to intervene in the course of history.

The heightened suspense is not merely a product of the historical technique of specifyingtime and place. It is equally dependent upon the solitary role of the king-to-be. This part that

he or she plays is quite different from the oft-cited ones of Thutmose III at Megiddo or

Ramesses II at Kadesh, even if these two cases are not at all similar to each other. First,

there is no real conversation between the protagonist and another, nor is there an enuncia

tion of differing policy. Rather, the king-to-be is regarded as a solitary individual who by

him/herself alone can understand the prodigies. One can add at this point the seemingly

lowly status of Thutmose or even Hatshepsut; the predictions to kingship are purposely

made to read as if they were as unexpected as they were sudden. To put it another way, the

authors of these compositions exploited a literary medium for specific theological-religious

aims: the affirmation of kingship for two individuals whose claims were not all that

"proper".

What wasproduced, however,

was no reiteration of along-employed literary

device.

Added as a nested box within the later royal sitting was a core which reveals itself to be

more historically-based than those earlier Konigsnovelle compositions. The events unroll to

affect the future monarch; the god Amun, ineffable, lays the future open. In the present

during which the king is speaking to the courtiers, past is narrated, and in that earlier period

of time a future is revealed, but one that is not located contemporaneously with the back

drop or royal sitting. Moreover, the account is regarded from the perspective of the king:

he/she experiences in a personal manner the revelations. I am strongly of the opinion that

71Assmann, in: Yale Egyptology Studies 3, 1989, 71.




Derchain was on the right track when he titled a recent study of the BerUn Leather RoU "Les

debuts de l'histoire"; unfortunately, he took the wrong text though chosing the right time

frame72. But more than an expansion of historical consciousness is present in these overtly

self-propounded narratives. EquaUy, as I have pointed out in the previous paragraphs, there

is a sense of drama. The roles of Thutmose/Hatshepsut, that of Amun, and the weU-wishing

but uncomprehending officials are drawn. Note how differently the latter figures play their

parts in the unfolding of the astounding events from their earUer role of mere respondents.

It must not be forgotten that in miUtary compositions there is a similar development. It is

sufficient to bring to the fore the story-like commencement of the Kamose Stela with its

heightened effect produced by the dramatic interplay of king and advisors. On another

occasion I have commented upon the introductory setting of the composition wherein the

Uterary effect presents an idealized tableau akin to a story rather than to a narrative of war73.

This section of Kamose's wars contrasts greatly with that of Nebhepetre speaking to his

army and their response. In the latter royal inscription the dialogue at first may appear to

resemble Kamose's but a careful reading reveals that the army speaks to their king with the

expected fulsome rhetoric of a Konigsnovelle presentation and the king responds with a

brief recounting of his miUtary deeds, now completed upon the return to Thebes. If we were

to assemble aU of the known miUtary texts of the Pharaohs in an effort to determine the

points of similarity with the nomination inscriptions of Thutmose III or Hatshepsut, I feel

that the task would not be that useful. Both groups differ in their approach to theology and

poUtcs, as befits their individual orientations; similarly, the presence of the divine world is

extremely Umited in war texts.

Kamose probably consulted his deity Amun before his campaign; afterwards he erected

his stela of victory in Karnak. However, Uttle else of a theological nature pervades the

account; there is no intervention of Amun in the mundane affairs of the here and now.

Althoughthe narrative of war presents the

kingas the center of aU

activity, achievinghis

sudden victories over the hated enemy with viriUty and inteUigence, his role is not at aU to

be compared to the soUtary one of, for example, Thutmose, who is astonished over the

revelations about his future kingship. One can say the same with regard to Thutmose III at

the Aruna Pass. There, even though Amun is invoked, the decision is one of the man (or

Pharaoh) and not one revealed by his God Amun. The choice of what road to take was

determined through the innermost thoughts of Thutmose and not presented to him from

outside, from the divine world. Amun does not personaUy intervene; the same may be said

72Derchain, in: RdE 43, 1992, 35-47.

73Spalinger, Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians, 1982, 36-40.




for Ramesses II at Kadesh although the situation at that later date is quite different from the

Thutmose's Megiddo campaign74.

In military compositions,no

matter how much the king's relation with his god is stressed,it is the Pharaoh who acts. Naturally, his decisions are his and his alone, and in these cases

there is little difference (if any) between the plots of those accounts and virtually all other

royal inscriptions. But the king is painted with a far different set of pigments. Youthful he

may be, yet he is not young and inexperienced. He is separate from the cult centers of his

god Amun. He presents the strategy or tactics to be employed; god does not reveal his plan.

There is no theophany or series of omina; any personal relationship to his father Amun (as

at Kadesh) is that of dependence but most certainly not that of revelation. The tension is

derived from the battle encounter or the choice of war plan, as at Megiddo or the beginning

of Kamose's narrative.

The divine nomination compositions covered here were composed for two individuals

whose claims to the throne of Egypt were somewhat moot. They were written down (or

carved) within the temple precinct of Karnak or at the mortuary temple of Deir el Bahri; not

carved on self-standing stelae. In the case of the Chapelle Rouge the location was within the

inner sanctuary of Karnak, albeit on the exterior facades75. Thutmose Ill's was placed over

original Hatshepsut texts on the exterior southern wall of the chambers located to the south

of the bark shrine enclosure; the briefer second inscription of Thutmose III was inscribed on

the doorway to the VHth Pylon. The location of the Chapelle Rouge was quite remote from

the public; nevertheless, it was connected to Amun as the edifice housed the bark of the

god. Similarly placed, though not so hidden from general view, was the account of the

divine choice of the young Thutmose III. Here once more the intimate relationship between

king and god was memorialized in stone within the innermost area of Karnak. None was set

up on freestanding stelae bearing overt witness to the king's successful policies as, for

example Sesostris I at Heliopolis, Neferhotep I at Abydos, or Rahotep at Coptos, to take

three pre-New Kingdom examples of the Konigsnovelle.

These inscriptions of divine choice would have had to be composed by a series of

authors or at least refined for publication by a group of redactors before receiving the

official Pharaonic stamp of approval. All three of them fit perfectly within the historical

74 In the Kadesh "Poem", Amun is called to by Ramesses II. However, the situation is radically differentfrom that presented in the nomination texts. In general, Assmann, in:Mannheimer Forum 1983-84, 1984,175-231; I am not in agreement with the conclusions of Von der Way, Die Textiiberlieferung Ramses

H. zur QadeS-Schlacht: Analyse und Struktur, HAB 22, 1984, as the study is overtly anti-historical; cf.A. Spalinger, in: JARCE 24, 1987, 152-57.

75 See the comments in note 58 above.




presenting the dramatic unfolding of the divine occurrence through archaic language or old

turns of phrase. The story is always clear even if the precise series of omina are not.

One useful parallel to these accounts may be added to our survey at this point; namely,the report of the foundation of the Festival Temple by Thutmose III81. In this case the king

himself executes the orders and has his policy written down upon completing a consultation

on new building activities. After the actual plans were prepared for the "Stretching the

Cord" ceremony, the king went forth in order to effect the appearance of his father, Amun,

for itwas the day of the feast of this deity- the tenth day of an Amun celebration in fact. At

this time the god "began to signify (biit) numerous times with regard to the lord", to quote

Vermis82. Here, no oracle took place. Immediately after this Amun "placed his majesty [=

Thutmose] in front of him at this monument which his majesty had decided. And then the

majesty of this god [= Amun] rejoiced over this monument". It is clear that whatever divine

events actually occurred, the Pharaoh understood them. Almost immediately after this the

inscription adds the extremely tantalizing yet puzzling passage83:

[Then the king spoke to themajesty] of this god:Proceed! Celebrate every beautiful feast, my lord!

And then I will come in order to effect the

"Stretching-of-the-Cord" inasmuch as ...

[Then he ? placed the king ?] in ront of him and he

inducted him to the place of the King of Lower

Egypt, the first sh ("booth" ?)84 of the "Stretching-of

of-the-Cord" - for the majesty of this august god

81Urk. IV, 833-38; a useful reinterpretation is that of J. von Beckerath, in:MDAIK 37, 1981, 41-49. Theuse of this inscription purely from a calendrical point of view was challenged by W. Helck, in: GM 69,

1983, 40-42 although not accepted by von Beckerath, Chronologie des agyptischen Neuen Reiches,HAB 39, 1994, 15. Romer discusses this text on pages 142-44 and 152 of Gottes- und Priester

Herrschaft, 1994.82

Vernus, in: BSEG 19, 1995, 77.83

Urk. IV, 836.13-837.5.84

Can the word refer to the "booth" or "pavilion" in which the king normally stood or sat during the

ceremony of "Stretching-of-the-Cord"? Von Beckerath, in:MDAIK 37, 1981, 46 note r, has a different

though not satisfactory explanation. Useful in this context is the compendium of P. Spencer, The

Egyptian Temple. A Lexicographical Study, 1984, 114-19, although the analysis mainly deals with theterm sfa-ntr. Note 167 (page 139) provides the reader with the useful study of H. AltenmiiUer, in: JEOL

22, 1971-72, 307-17, inwhich sfa is discussed. Spencer concludes that "The sfa itself seems to have beena light construction supported by a wooden column."; i.e., it could have been a temporary building asin this case.




wished to effect the "Stretching-of-the-Cord" in

aU the booths (?) of this work, being outfitted with ...

Then thegod performed

theactivity

and Thutmoserejoiced

"when he saw thegreat

marvels (bilt) which his father Amun had performed for him".

The direction of the plot in this text is considerably at variance with the nomination

accounts as is the interaction between god and king. In both cases the divine enters the

mundane or to put it another way, god interacts with royalty. The auspicious phenomena

occur during specific events of a festival. (It is not out of place to observe that the choice of

Thutmose III by Amun probably took place during a reUgious festival and not in a mere

daily ritual at Karnak.) In the example of the Festival HaU preparations the drama consists

of the role of Amun: it was definitely not expected that the official ceremony of "Stretching

of-the-Cord" would take place on the last day of the sixth civil month85. But it did, and

Amun was the director of the work. In this fragmentary and aU too brief depiction the king

interacts with his god and vice-versa; there is dialogue between god and king. The latter

aspect is at singificant variance with the practice in the divine nomination narratives. Note

worthy as weU is one of the concluding phrases of the king: "... what you [= Amun] have

commanded: 'embeUish it!'; [that which has occurred is what you] have commanded"86. In

typical Konigsnovelle texts concerned with building activities or otherwise one meets the

passage spoken by the courtiers, "that which has occurred is what you ka has command

ed"87. The latter will be found as early as Dynasty XIII (Neferhotep Abydos Stela, Une 6)

and later the Rahotep Stela of Dynasty XVII includes a virtuaUy identical passage (Unes

3-4)88. In those examples-

many others can be added - the courtiers reply to their monarch;

in the case of Thutmose III at the beginning of work for the Festival Temple the king takes

the roles of his foUowers and the royal role is acted by Amun. Hence, there is an elevation,

a transposition, of the participants owing to the fact that the plot concerns god and king

85 Inmy review of von Beckerath's Chronologie des agyptischen Neuen Reiches, HAB 39, 1994, for BiOr

I discuss the auspicious timing of the event, both from a religious perspective (the tenth day of one

Amun Feast: Urk. IV, 836.3) as well as from a civil calendrical one. (Half the year was over, as we can

eliminate the epagomenals). B. Letellier's article, s.v. Grundungszeremonien, in LA II, 912-14, is too

brief.86

Urk. IV, 838.1-2.87

Spalinger, Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians, 1982, 118 with the previousliterature covered in note 76. J. Assmann, in: Yale Egyptology Studies 3, 1989, 77, avoids the earlier

(pre Dynasty XVIII: Neferhotep and Rahotep Stelae) uses of this phrase. Loprieno, in: Ancient Egyptian

Literature, History and Forms, 1996, 282-85, describes the role of the king in such activity as intermediary.

88Conveniently, see Helck, Historisch-Biographische Texte, 1975, 22 and 59.




instead of king and officials. Once more a preexistent model of literary presentation is alter

ed to deal with a different situation, one in which the divinity now assumes the role of

determiner ofhistory.

The plot of the nomination texts was therefore patterned upon a model that was

previously employed for royal undertakings. We can see this even in our military in

scriptions, for there the king is at the apex of the drama, even when, in the Kadesh In

scriptions, his part is that of the pious son calling out to his personal god, Amun. One again

must refer to Assmann's interpretation of such compositions as the German scholar wishes

to see the beginnings of a new role of divine volition revealed by such accounts89. Whilst

agreeing with this interpretation in its general aspects Iwould only note that for such texts

to be drawn up, it was necessary to enlist intellectuals to further the experiment. That is to

say, Hatshepsut and Thutmose Ill's inscriptions were not created ex nihilo. The king had to

have written for him a new approach which would cover the more direct involvement of the

divine in his life, and such compositions could only have been created from the need of both

rulers to pinpoint his or her early and unexpected nomination. Yet the Festival Text as well

indicates the new aspect which Amun had achieved by mid Dynasty XVIII since the event

centers on a divine intervention vis-a-vis the monarch just as it does in the nomination texts.

As an overt act of the Pharaoh this new theological relation between god and king was

composed, albeit based on preexistent models. Those individuals who first created such

accounts must have belonged to a learned milieu in early Dynasty XVIII, a group of men

who, apparently, were actively engaged in developing the intellectual frontiers of Egyptian

civilization. This, I believe, is a useful aspect of Pharaonic history that has been neglected.

It is not enough to stress the originality of thought; one must locate the impetus for such

intellectual changes and the individuals involved in such a process. In these cases the originsmust lie in the relation of king to throne, a connection that was as political as it was theo

logical; i.e., the Amun temple and the monarch, neither separate. But other alterations in the

realm of Egyptian thought aroound the same time may be noted. Among these, a new

development in time reckoning, which by its nature would have been concentrated first in

the religious centers of the land and only later (early Dynasty XVIII) began to move outside

of that closed circle, can be discerned90. One can add the growing importance of the military

89 The major study of Assmann on the Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II was referred in note 74 above.90

This is discussed, in: RdE 47, 1996, 67-77. One might add the restricted use of the Amduat in royal

tombs; however, as the case of the vizier Woser proves, this was not so in the early portions of DynastyXVIII. (For the problems of dating that religious text, Assmann, Egyptian Solar Religion in the New

Kingdom, 1995, 7 and note 32, is worth reading).




arm of the state - and with it the rise to prominence of this profession; even the accounts of

the royal war inscriptions are altered from early Middle Kingdom ones; perhaps too the

developmentof detaUed war reUefs can be

broughtinto discussion

although, consideringthe

extant material, a date ca. Amunhotep II appears to be the best terminus a quo for the

expansion of these pictorial representations91.

I do not wish to Ust one by one the factors that differentiate early Dynasty XVIII eUte

(and Uterate) society from its Middle Kingdom ancestors. Such a task would move one into

a wholesale discussion of sociological factors pushing the civiUzation of the Nile VaUey in

a direction hitherto not reaUzed; viz., the predominance of god as direct cause (actor) and

the eUmination or, to be more correct, reduction in the role of social mores (conformity;

acting according to Ma'at) in determining the body poUtic. StiU, such a direction can be

overtly seen in these nomination texts as weU as in the Festival HaU Inscription of Thutmose

III. As a totaUty, these compositions present a vantage point of theological-poUtical inter

action at variance with earUer concepts of reward to the righteous or pious person. This new

theological orientation "requires absolute sovereignty", as Assmann succinctly states92. And,

he observes, "It is not the repeated pattern but the singular event which manifests the wiU of

god".

But, to ask to age-old question: what came first? Did the growing importance of Thebes

and its godhead predicate an inward turn to the theological speculations of the inteUectuals

to such a degree that they, as weU as their monarchs, became more and more (unsuspecting

ly?) ensnared by this deviation from older reUgious speculation? Certainly ifwe foUowingAssmann's analysis, as presented by the last two quotes from his lengthy study of New

Kingdom reUgion, then the historical consciousness altered. After aU, to introduce singular

elements into an estabUshed and non-consciously-viewed society must mean that a

severance, or rupture as Vermis claims, wiU occur from time to time93. This spUtting of the

norm, theological-poUtical in our case, must have been a chaUenge to the accepted social

mores of the day, concepts that were hitherto foUowed without question or, if opposition

occurred, itwas assimilated94. In a nutsheU, the texts covered in this analysis present a new

91Zayed, in: Fs Mokhtar I, 5-17; cf. the recent detailed study of M. Muller, Die Thematik der Schlachten

reliefs, Magisterarbeit Tubingen 1995.92

Assmann, in: Yale Egyptology Studies 3, 1989, 75. The following quote will be found on the same page.93Vernus, in: BSEG 19, 1995, 72-82 with his Essai sur la conscience de l'histoire dans l'Egyptepharaonique", 1995, 137-42.

94From a different vantage point but one that is, nonetheless, politically and ideologically important, I canrefer the reader to the remarks of Henry Kissinger concerning the role of the conservative in a

revolutionary age: A World Divided, Boston, n.d, 192-93. This situation will be explored at a later date,

Drama in History

Documents

Transcript of Drama in History