Hi Lysimachus,
I am still extremely busy here, hopefully I can give some fuller answers over the next few days, but in the meantime I just have to comment on:
1. That Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II were the same person:
2. That Thutmosis IV and Amenhotep III were the same person.
A quick word on the cliam that ‘Thutmosis’ and ‘Amenhotep’ were official titles or ranks and not personal names. Paul has already outlined most of this but I have typed it up so I am as well posting it.
I was fortunate enough to have some spare time yesterday, so I spent the afternoon in the Uni library reading some books and journals. I have listed the referenced books at the end of this reply, so that it reads easier.
According to Stephen Quirke, who was curator in the Department of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum when he wrote in his book,
at the birth of a future king of Egypt he would receive a personal name in the same way that every Egyptian acquired his or her label of identity. For the king of Egypt a second name became necessary when he came to power, in order to express his new identity as king. For two and a half thousand years, from the Pyramid Age to the last of the Ptolemies, kings of Egypt received five names, four at accession and one at birth. These names followed a traditional order from the Middle Kingdom onwards, and each name was introduced by a special royal title.
The titles of the royal names were, in the classic order:
Horus
He of the Two Ladies
(Horus of) Gold
He of the Sedge and Bee
Son of Ra
The last title, son of Ra, introduced the birth name of the king. All five titles and the first four names were taken at the installation of the king, to distinguish him from ordinary human beings (Quirke, 10).
The two pillars of kingship, its duality and its limited divinity, permeate the titles to the five royal names. The first title identifies the king as a form of the heavenly falcon Horus, god of the sunlit sky of daytime. The Two Ladies in the second title are the cobra-goddess Wadjet and the vulture-goddess Nekhbet, later attached respectively to Buto and Elkab, the most northerly and southerly royal cities of the Early Dynastic kingdom. The Gold in the third title expresses the divinity of the king, both by its material and its colour: gold never decays, and thus stands for the flesh of gods and kings, as eternal beings; in colour and radiance it represents the powerful sunlight of an Egyptian day. In the fourth title the 'sedge and bee' probably did not symbolise Upper and Lower Egypt originally; they form a conceptual duality of uncertain significance in the earlier periods. The first part of the title, 'He of the Sedge', represents the commonest word for 'king' in Egyptian, perhaps by abbreviation from the full 'He of the Sedge and Bee'. The fifth title, 'son of Ra , claims a direct solar origin for the king as child of the sun-god, summarising in one phrase that Egyptian conception of kingship (Quirke, 11).
So we have here contradictory information Lysimachus, according to this book (and others) the five titles are there for everyone to see. I do not see anywhere in the five names any reference to a title labelled ‘Thutmosis’ or ‘Amenhotep’, you would think that they would be there wouldn’t you? In fact, if we look at the titularies of the four pharaohs we can easily see what their birth names (son of Ra names) actually were.
Thutmosis III
From the Armant Stele and an inscription from Thutmosis III’s temple at Karnak recognising Amon-Re had given Thutmosis III victories in military campaigns, both texts in Pritchard 233-34.
Live the Horus, Mighty Bull, Appearing in Thebes, The Two Goddesses: Enduring of Kingship, Like Re in Heaven; the Horus of Gold: Majestic of Appearances, Mighty of Strength; The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two lands, Lord of Making Offerings: Men-kheper-Re; the Son of RE, of his Body: Thutmosis Heqa-Maat, beloved of Montu, Lord of Thebes, Residing in Hermonthis, living forever.
Amenhotep II.
From the Memphis, Karnak, Amada, and Elephantine Stelae, texts in Pritchard page 245 and 247.
Year 7, 1st month of the third season, day 25, under the majesty of Horus: Mighty Bull, Sharp of Horns; the Two Goddesses:Rich in Dread, Made to Appear in Thebes; Horus of Gold: Carrying off and Gaining Power over All Lands; King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands: A-khepru_Re; the Son of Re, Lord of the Diadems, Lordof the Strong Arm: Amenhotep the God Ruler of Heliopolis, given life forever; the good god, likeness of re, son of Amon upon His throne.
Thutmosis IV.
From Thutmosis IV Giza Sphinx Stele is a list of his five titles.
Year 1, month 3 of Inundation, day 19, under the Majesty of the Strong Bull, perfect of diadems, the Two Ladies, enduring of kingship like Atum, Golden Horus, powerful of the khepesh (scimitar) who subdues the [Nine Bows], the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Men[kheperu]re, [son of Ra Thutmose kha khau, beloved of Hore-makhet], given life, stability, and dominion like Ra forever. (O’Connor, page 42)
Amenhotep III.
Characteristic of Amenhotep III’s reign are large commemorative scarabs inscribed on their undersides with lengthy texts extolling their king’s deeds. Over two hundred are known, they have been found everywhere from Syria to the Sudan. Amenhotep III’s titles can be found on many of these scarabs, it reads:
Horus, Strong Bull, appearing in Truth, Two Ladies, Who establishes laws, who pacifies the Two Lands; Golden Horus: Great of strength, smiter of the Asiatics: King of Upper and Lower Egypt; Neb-maat-re (Ra is the Lord of Truth); Son of Ra: Amenhotep Ruler of Thebes (O'Connor, page 2).
If you remember earlier in the thread I provided evidence that Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II were two different people, well I have some other contemporary records to add to that evidence:
Some scholars have claimed that there is circumstantial evidence that suggests that Thutmosis III and Amenhotep may have had short coregency, it is difficult to imagine one person having coregency with himself, but the evidence is not that convincing, what the evidence for this alleged coregency does manage to do is to undermine the fusing of these two pharaohs into one person.
The royal scribe Tjaneny, for instance, notes that he served Tuthmosis III, Amenhotep II, and Tuthmosis IV in sequence, but said nothing to signify that these reigns may have overlapped (Urk IV 10004-5). Likewise, the high priest of Osiris Nebwa’wy, after mentioning his service under Tuthmosis III, goes on to say that
"his son, King Akheprure, living forever, continued to show favour to me. He gave to me an image of his father, King Menkheperre, given life, (to be) his portable-statue-of-millions-of-years in the house of his father Osiris." (Urk 14-94-95). (Murnane, 50)
An argument against a Thutmosis III/Amenhotep coregency can be found in a passage in the tomb biography of Amenemhab that seems not only to omit mention of a coregency but actually to deny that one existed:
Now the king [i.e., Tuthmosis III] completed his period of many good years in valor, in [po]wer and in justification, beginning with regnal year one down to regnal year fifty-four, III Proyet, last day, under the [Majesty of] King Menkheperre, the triumphant. He went up to heaven, joining the solar disk, and the god's limbs were commingled with the one who made him. And at first light, when the morrow had come," (then) the sun was risen, the sky was bright, and King Akheprure, the son of Re [Amenhotep II], given life, was established on the throne of his father. He alighted on the serekh; he received the lordship (Urk IV 895-96). (Murnane, 51)
However, there is some evidence that supports a coregency. In one of the rooms south of the granite sanctuary at Karnak there are two statue groups, one of them Tuthmosis III and Amun, the other Amenhotep II and Amun. It is tempting to suppose that they were set up at the same time, to create a similar impression to that of the juxtaposition together at some later time, and they cannot be accepted uncritically as memorials to the coregency. (Murnane, 52)
Also Leyden Stela V.II shows two kings seated facing one another across a laden offering table. Both are described as "the Good God . . . living like Re forever." The text underneath is a simple htp-dj-nswt formula invoking Amun-Re King of the Gods and the royal ka of Tuthmosis III on behalf of a woman name Henutnofret (Murnane, 53)
Next, Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep II are associated in several Theban tombs. In that of Dedi (No. 200) they are seen seated together under a sunshade, reviewing troops; here Tuthmosis III is seated behind Amenhotep II. In Nofer-ronpet's tomb (No. 43) the tomb owner presents a bouquet to two kings seated under a canopy; the king at the rear is Amenhotep II; although the top of the figure in front is destroyed, along with his names, he is generally identified as Tuthmosis III. (Murnane, 53)
Again, in the tomb of Amen-mose (No. 42), at the east end of the north wall, a painted stela shows two kings seated back to back; the cartouche on the left is Tuthmosis III's; although the one on the right is blank, it is plausible to infer that it was Amenhotep II's, especially as the cartouches and partial titularies of these two kings face one another above the door to the shrine in this tomb.
The most important monument to survive from this coregency period is the temple at Amada. In the account of his improvements at the Amada temple, Amenhotep II pointedly refers to it as a building
"which his father, King Menkheperre made for his fathers, all the gods." (Urk IV 1494) While this is not a very detailed statement, it is more reasonable to suppose that it refers to the temple as substantially finished before Amenhotep II made his additions rather than to an undecorated shell. The distribution of decoration within the temple provides confirmation of this supposition. Throughout the building reliefs and inscriptions of the two kings seem to be arranged to balance one another; the sheer extent of this juxtaposition creates the impression of joint authorship (Murnane, 55) In the portico (F) and the broad hall (H) Tuthmosis III appears to dominate the north half of the building, and Amenhotep II the south half. The same is true in the central (N) and south (J) sanctuaries: Amenhotep II appears on the south walls (J 1-7, N 1-3), Tuthmosis III on the north walls (J 8-15, N 4-6). In the north sanctuary (L) the positions are reversed: Tuthmosis III appears on the south wall, closest to the Station of the Lord (L 1-8), while Amenhotep II appears on the opposite, north wall (L 9-12). The rear (west) walls of Rooms J and L are divided between the kings, each of whom is represented by one or more scenes. In the surviving portions of these damaged walls Tuthmosis III appears more often than his son (J 16-20, L 15-19). In the central sanctuary, the rear wall is taken up by the stela which was, of course, erected later by Amenhotep II. The scenes in the two side rooms are evenly divided between the two rulers (P and R). The cumulative effect is one of a deliberate and schematic distribution of credit to both kings. Amenhotep II's scenes, then, could hardly have been "left blank" by Tuthmosis III except by design, which seems unlikely. (Murnane, 55)
I truly cannot imagine that these two pharaohs were anything but two different people. Of course, I haven’t seen your evidence yet so it may indeed be possible to explain this seemingly contradictory evidence. You must admit that the evidence above is extremely strong and doesn’t appear to help the argument that they were the same person.
I haven’t had the time that I would like to spend on the alleged fusing of Thutmosis IV and Amenhotep III, but here are two texts that pretty much prove they were two different people.
In my opinion, that these two people were in fact the same person is extremely unlikely, given this inscription from the Luxor temple scenes depicting Amenhotep III's divine birth, in Birth Room 10. There, the god Amon-Ra visits Mutemwia in her palace disguised as her husband, Thutmose IV. After he reveals his true identity, they conceive the future king Amenhotep III.
Words spoken by Amon-Ra, lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands, foremost in his harem: When he had transformed himself into the Majesty of this husband, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Men-kheprura (Thutmose IV), given life, he found her (Mutemwia) as she was resting in the beauty of her palace. She awoke on account of the aroma of the god and cried out in front of His Majesty. He went to her straightaway. . . and he caused her to see him in his form of a god. . . . She rejoiced at the sight of his beauty, and love of him coursed through her limbs. The palace was flooded with the god's aroma; all his fragrances were (of) Punt.
Words spoken by Mutemwia before the Majesty of this august god, Amon-Ra, lord of the thrones of the Two Lands: "How great is your power!. . . Your dew permeates all my limbs." And then the Majesty of this god did all that he desired with her.
Words spoken by Amon-Ra, lord of the thrones of the Two Lands, before her: "Amenhotep, ruler of Thebes, is the name of this child I have placed in your body. . . . He shall exercise the beneficent kingship in this whole land. . . . He shall rule the Two Lands like Ra forever." (O'Connor, page 4)
From the same book:
Royal sons tended to be inconspicuous in the Eighteenth Dynasty, and it was highly unusual for one to be singled out in his father's lifetime as the heir to the throne. The reign of Thutmose IV was an exception. Many of his sons are known, and it is clear that the young Amenhotep was publicly recognized as the heir apparent. Amenhotep appears as the "king's son of his body" in a much-damaged scene in the tomb of his tutor, Heqarneheh (TT 64), whose tomb was decorated in the reign of Thutmose IV. Heqarneheh's father, Heqareshu, had been Thutmose IV's tutor. Heqareshu is seated on the left, with a child-size figure of the then reigning king Thutmose IV on his lap. Facing him is the full-scale figure of his son Heqarneheh, originally accompanied by seven royal children. The one in front, standing on the dais of the throne, shown larger than the others, is the future Amenhotep III (page 9).
This is pretty solid Lysimachus, god appears to Mutenwia in the form of her husband Thutmosis IV and informs her that the child she is going to have is to be called Amenhotep, I do not see how this can possibly be referring to the same person.
Speak soon, take it easy.
Brian.
Murnane, W. J. (1977). Ancient Egyptian coregencies. Chicago, Oriental Institute.
O'Connor, D. B. and E. H. Cline (1998). Amenhotep III: perspectives on his reign. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
Pritchard, J. B. (1969). Ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the Old Testament. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Quirke, S., R. Parkinson, et al. (1990). Who were the pharaohs? a history of their names with a list of cartouches. London, Published for the Trustees of the British Museum by British Museum Publications.
™ Version 4.2