18th Dynasty

Sir Flinders Petrie’s excavations at Tell el‐Amarna in Egypt uncovered a large number of glass finds and vitreous debris from areas identified as palace trash heaps and industrial buildings, revealing that as early as the 14th century BC, glass was produced at the site. His findings, combined with those from recent archaeological investigations and chemical analyses, show the important role Amarna played in early glass technology and its significance as a location for glass production, both locally and abroad, during the Late Bronze Age (LBA).  

Though Petrie found evidence of different stages of glass production at the site, it is not clear whether these finds indicate glassmaking or working. Recent excavations at Amarna have shed some light on the types of activities that took place there. However, due to a lack of thorough recording by Petrie of the areas he excavated, and the fact that many of these early glasses have not been fully analyzed, questions still remain about glass production at the site and how these materials should be interpreted within the larger context of the Egyptian glass industry.  

The research conducted aims to provide further insight into the production of vitreous materials at Amarna through the instrumental analysis of glass debris excavated by Petrie housed in the Penn Museum. Using a multi‐analytical approach (pXRF, SEM‐EDS, EPMA, LA‐ICPMS), the glass was characterized to identify the raw materials utilized and determine whether the debris belongs to primary glass made at Amarna or was imported to the site to be worked into finished objects. The results of this study will be used as comparanda to aid in the interpretation of glass found at other LBA sites adding to the broader understanding of glassmaking during this time period and the long‐distance trade networks used to move this material across the eastern Mediterranean.

Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh Thutmose III conquered the ancient city-state of Megiddo in the late fifteenth-century BC as a part of his first campaign into Syria-Palestine. This victory, part of the first campaign in history for which there is an extant detailed account, ensured that Thutmose III would be remembered as one of Egypt’s greatest warrior pharaohs. He began to reverse the military decline that occurred during the reigns of Thutmose II and Hatshepsut by crushing a strengthening rebellion, reclaiming Egyptian military dominance over northern Palestine, gaining substantial booty and tribute for Egypt, and exerting control over communications routes between Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia. While the exact date of the battle is uncertain, what is certain is that the conquest of Megiddo highlighted Thutmose’s skill as a military commander. He analyzed the available intelligence to devise a daring plan to take the enemy coalition off guard. He took advantage of the terrain, his numerical superiority, and used deception to exploit the tactical weakness of his opponent. The Battle of Megiddo was an impressive victory for Thutmose III, and it set Egypt on a path of military dominance in the region that lasted nearly two hundred years.

Tematem niniejszego opracowania są królewskie pałace Amenhotepa III, jednego z największych władców XVIII dynastii. Założenia te wzniesione zostały na jego polecenie w Tebach, na zachodnim brzegu Nilu. Stanowisko znane pod współczesną nazwą Malgata badane było na przestrzeni ponad stu lat przez wiele misji archeologicznych. Niniejsza praca zawiera zestawienie opublikowanych wyników badań i interpretacje poszczególnych założeń. W pracy opisana została historia wykopalisk, topografia stanowiska, architektura oraz dekoracje pałaców. Ponadto w celach porównawczych zaprezentowane zostały w zarysie także inne znane królewskie pałace z tego okresu. Na tej podstawie autor przedstawia własne interpretacje niektórych założeń znajdujących się w Malgacie.

"The purpose of this paper is to review the
relationships between Egypt and the King-
dom of Mitanni (also known as Naharin
in Egyptian sources) during the reign of
Amenhotep III, King of Egypt (c.  1390-
1352 BCE), and Tushratta, King of Mitan-
ni. It is commonly accepted that they were
peaceful during the reign of Amenhotep
III. However, reading texts carefully, dete-
rioration in relations and even a short
period of animosity between them can be
observed, though relations soon improved.
In this article I shall forward the evidence
and suggest a reason for this animosity."

This chapter presents an introduction to Amarna religion, beginning with some main features of pre-Amarna notions of kingship, especially the 18th Dynasty thoughts on the royal /ka/ and divine birth. The following sections describe the development in the name and features of the Aten from the earlier monuments in Thebes to the final forms later in the reign, followed by discussions of the view of the old deities of the traditional pantheon in the Amarna religion as well as the re-interpretation of the category of ‘god’ itself.
The final parts of the chapter discuss the practical aspects of the cult of the Aten as it is known from inscriptional, representational and archaeological evidence, and present an exposition of some central parts of the Great Hymn to the Aten.

After a brief survey of various uses of the sledge in ancient Egypt, the article focuses on the role of this mundane implement in funeral processions. Because of its close association with funerary rites, the
sledge was often incorporated into the design of various types of burial goods, ranging from coffins to canopic chests to shabti boxes. This study traces the history of these sledge-based funerary items from the 18th Dynasty to the Late Period and then explores the possible meaning of the iconography. It is proposed that the image of a sledge became a symbol of spiritual transformation in ancient Egypt.

"Funerary function of Egyptian Furniture" - Essential results of the unpublished Master-Thesis: Christian E. Loeben, "Die beschrifteten Truhen und Kästen des Tutanchamun" (Inscribed Chests and Boxes of Tutankhamun), Freie Universität Berlin (1986). - See now also the contribution by C. E. Loeben in the catalogue of the Tutankhamun exhibition in Liège (2019-20) in French and English (PDF also here on Academia.edu). - (in French)

The three Hyksos dynasties (XIV, XV, XVI) ruled Egypt approximately from 1750 to 1530 BCE and then disappear abruptly after the death of Pharaoh Seqenenre Taa. One can notice that Egyptian documents unanimously describe the departure of the Hyksos from Egypt to Palestine in a disaster. Modern Egyptologists pictured a ‘war of the Hyksos’, however no document speaks of war but only that Avaris, Hyksos' capital, was looted and vandalized after their departure. Moreover all accounts of former historians picture the Hyksos as the ancestors of the Hebrews, led into Palestine under the leadership of Moses. In addition both biblical and Egyptian chronologies date the Hyksos departure in 1533 BCE, which implies the coincidence of these two dramatic events. The only way to date the so-called “Hyksos' war” is: gathering all historical and archaeological documents about the Hyksos, establishing a relative chronology of the “Hyksos' war”, identifying who was Apopi and his links with the biblical Moses, determining from where came the Hyksos and where did they go, dating the Hyksos war according to the Egyptian chronology through synchronisms dated by astronomy and dating the Exodus according to the Israelite chronology (based on masoretical text) checked by absolute dates.
According to Egyptian accounts the last king of the XVth dynasty, named Apopi, "very pretty" in Hebrew that is Moses' birth name (Exodus 2:2), reigned 40 years in Egypt from 1613 to 1573 BCE. 40 years later Apopi met Seqenenre Taa the last pharaoh of the XVIIth dynasty and gave him an unspecified disturbing message. The eldest son of Seqenenre Taa, Ahmose Sapaïr, who was crown prince died in a dramatic and unexplained way shortly before his father. Seqenenre Taa died in May 1533 BCE, after 11 years of reign, in dramatic and unclear circumstances. The state of his mummy proves, however, that his body received severe injuries and remained abandoned for several days before being mummified (see Psalms 136:15). Prince Kamose, Seqenenre Taa's brother, assured interim of authority for 3 years and threatened attack the former pharaoh Apopi, new prince of Retenu (Palestine). In the stele of the Tempest he also blames Apopi for all the disasters that come to fall upon Egypt which caused many deaths."

I am proposing the final answer to the question of millennia who the Pharaoh of the Exodus was by establishing common grounds between primary evidence in the religious texts and historical material. Using this approach I also explored some other significant characters of the story. The reader should see the overwhelming evidence disclosing the major characters and events of the story. Thereby, ultimately, we will be able to witness the historicity of the Exodus major events as described in the Holy scripts.

The reign of Akhenaten is one of the most controversial of all Egyptian history since only about the co-regency with Amenhotep III there are more than 1200 books and academic articles that have been written. He has thus become the center of many other controversies: although he had only (six) daughters he would be the father of Tutankhamun (a boy!) despite the fact that the latter had clearly stated to be the son of Amenhotep III, although he had worshiped the sun under different shapes (Aten, Re, Amun) he would be the true father of monotheism that inspired the biblical myth of Moses as well as the Jewish god Adon "Lord", a plagiarism of Aton, although he was the sovereign pontiff of Egypt, a delegation of priests of Amun would have plotted a religious rebellion in order to remove the heretic worship of Aton, etc. All this doesn't seem seriousness. The only way of knowing the (historical) truth is to use a chronology anchored on absolute dates (coming from astronomy). Thus the precise dating of this period confirms historical testimonies: Amenhotep III (1383-1345) reigned 11 years beside his eldest son Amenhotep IV (1356-1340) and was the father of Tutankhamun (1336-1327) born in 1347 BCE.

To be or not to be is a crucial question regarding Moses as well as the Exodus because, according to the Bible, the character related to that famous event forms the basis of the Passover which meant the Promised Land for Jews and later the Paradise for Christians. However, according to most Egyptologists, there is absolutely no evidence of Moses and the Exodus in Egyptian documents, which leads them to conclude that the whole biblical story is a myth written for gullible people. Ironically, if one considers that “truth” must be based on two pillars: an accurate chronology anchored on absolute dates (Herodotus’ principle) and reliable documents coming from critical editions (Thucydides’ principle), that implies an amazing conclusion: those who believe Egyptologists are actually the real gullible ones. According to Egyptian accounts the last king of the XVth dynasty, named Apopi, “very pretty” in Hebrew that is Moses’ birth name (Ex 2:2), reigned 40 years in Egypt from 1613 to 1573 BCE, then 40 years later he met Seqenenre Taa the last pharaoh of the XVIIth dynasty and gave him an unspecified disturbing message. The eldest son of Seqenenre Taa, Ahmose Sapaïr, who was crown prince died in a dramatic and unexplained way shortly before his father. Seqenenre Taa died in May 1533 BCE, after 11 years of reign, in dramatic and unclear circumstances. The state of his mummy proves, however, that his body received severe injuries, in agreement with Psalms 136:15, and remained abandoned for several days before being mummified. Prince Kamose, Seqenenre Taa's brother, assured interim of authority for 3 years and threatened attack the former pharaoh Apopi, new prince of Retenu (Palestine) who took the name Moses, according to Manetho (280 BCE), an Egyptian priest and historian. In the stele of the Tempest, Kamose also blames Apopi for all the disasters that come to fall upon Egypt, which caused many deaths.

During the preparation for the exhibition in the Tut-ankhamun Galleries at the Grand Egyptian Museum (GEM) new evidence occurred for Tutankhamun's parents. The recent examination of the box strip with royal names, sequins from a robe and a previously untouched decayed tunic suggest a new interpretation of the family relationships at the post-Amarna period, including a new approach for the identification of the shadowy king/queen Ankhkheperure.

The early 18th Dynasty was a time of military and political reorganization and consolidation in which signifi cant administrative changes were enacted that were likely designed to support a "powerful and pervasive royal authority." 1 Certainly the offices of viceroy of Kush and vizier were a central feature of this, and the rise of Amun and his priesthood -with newly created positions -was another area which King Ahmose and his successors sought to promote. While initially the kings may have chosen men to fi ll the positions of viceroy and vizier, and likely several high posts within the Amun precinct, some office-holders were quickly able to establish family dynasties that would last for several generations. This paper reviews the connections, both political and familial, between the viceroys, viziers and various offi cials of the Amun domain. It seeks to demonstrate the considerable role that one elite family, utilizing heredity, marriage and nepotism, was able to play in controlling a wide range of positions within the burgeoning 18th Dynasty government.

Solomon's father-in-law is shown to have been 18 th-Dynasty Thutmose III, who captured and burned Gezer and presented it to his daughter, Solomon's bride, as a wedding present. The reign of Hatshepsut, aunt/stepmother to Thutmose III, possibly overlapped with Solomon's early reign for a few years (although she was not the Queen of Sheba). Arguments that Shishak was Rameses II are shown to be flawed. A difference of about 470 years between the biblical and secular chronologies at the time of Solomon is therefore postulated. This moves all post-Thutmose III history forward into the first millennium bc.

Already Wilhelm SPIEGELBERG remarked in his Kunstgeschichte from 1903 that many artistic forms of the early 18th dynasty were inspired by models from the Old- and Middle Kingdom. Since then, many publications pondered on the question of 18th dynasty archaism, highlighting questions on motivations, developments and modes of transmission. Topics of this discussion were phenomena of archaism itself, principles of transfers, questions on consciousness and visitor’s inscriptions as sign of a “lived tradition”.
However, one set of evidence was overlooked so far. In several instances protagonists of that period commented on or referred to certain ways of approaching the past: Examples like Senenmut’s remark on his access to “all the writings of the priests” (Urk. IV, 415 f.) are part of a larger group of texts in which the Cultural Memory of that time was expressed ver-bally. Strangely enough, such remarks were treated as orphans in Egyptology so far and solely presented as self-explanatory aphorisms without notions of their discursive potential.
I argue that a concise definition and embedment of such quotes within the frameworks of discourse analysis could lead to a better understanding and finally to a more fruitful and structured discussion about the relation between the early 18th dynasty and it’s past. In this talk I will present several of those remarks and discuss a way of freeing them from their exist-ence as mere footnotes of history.

The role and significance of queenship during the New Kingdom is arguably the most prominent throughout ancient Egyptian history, exemplified particularly by the queens of the 18 th dynasty. This essay will focus on the iconographic representations of two queens of the 18 th dynastyqueens Tiye and Nefertitiportraying traditionally masculine iconography (and more importantly, the symbolism behind the iconography) to the female form. 1 The main focus of study for the masculine iconographic representation of Tiye are the sphinx depictions of the queen, as can be seen in Sedeinga and most prominently in the symbolic form of trampling the enemy, found on Tiye's throne in the reliefs of the tomb of Kheruef (TT192). The focus of Nefertiti's masculine iconography will be the scenes of 'smiting the enemy' (MFA Boston 63.260), a topos of ancient Egyptian kingship. These representations, and the symbolism they hold, will be analysed in order to better understand the role of the queen during this period. Queen Tiye is arguably one of the most influential characters of the 18 th dynasty, especially regarding queenship. Of the royal women of the 18 th dynasty, Tiye was the first queen to be depicted as a female sphinx, trampling the enemies of Egypt. 2 Before the depictions of Tiye in the form of a sphinx, Hatshepsut is portrayed in a similar fashion. Hatshepsut, however, is not depicted as female sphinx, but during her reign as pharaoh, 1 Queens Tiye and Nefertiti are not the only examples of queens depicted with masculine iconography during the 18th dynasty. For example, Hatshepsut depicted herself in the masculine form during her reign as pharaoh, a title that was solely male, no matter the gender of the occupant. See: Roehrig, C. H. (Ed.). (2005). Hatshepsut: From queen to pharaoh; Smilgin, A. (2012). Sandstone sphinxes of Queen Hatshepsut from Deir el-Bahari: preliminary remarks.

The Movement of Time. News from the ‘clockmaker’ Amenemhet, in: R. Landgráfová/J. Mynářová (eds.), Rich and Great. Studies in Honour of Anthony J. Spalinger on the Occasion of his 70th Feast of Thot, Prague 2016, 207-231.

New edition and translation of the autobiography of the early 18th dyn. nobleman Amenemhet famous for supposedly inventing the water clock. The new study demonstrates that in fact his invention was even more impressive and can rather be described as a mechanical device with moving figures. Included are photographs of the only surviving piece of the inscription as well as the hitherto unpublished copy of the inscription and two pictorial scenes from the tomb by W. Golenischeff. The paper also provides a full study of the tomb according to the available evidence and a proposal where to look for the lost parts of the inscription, in case Amenemhet's tomb TT C. 2 is ever rediscovered.

Ilinca Bartos, « Tutankhamun’s Golden Armchair: Its Original Owner and Shape
Reconsidered », ENiM 14, 2021, p. 273-284.        http://www.enim-egyptologie.fr/?page=enim-14&n=13       

Résumé :
Il est généralement admis que le fauteuil doré léontocéphale de la tombe de Toutânkhamon a été fabriqué pour ce roi, au début de son règne. Cependant, certains auteurs, qui ont étudié la scène atonienne sur le dossier, pensent que le siège a appartenu à un précédent roi amarnien. Dans cette étude, nous proposons deux nouvelles analyses afin d’identifier le propriétaire originel : le contexte typologique et l’iconographie globale. Ces deux approches nous permettent également de reconsidérer la forme originelle du siège. Nous démontrons ainsi que le fauteuil léontocéphale de Toutânkhamon a appartenu à un précédent roi, probablement Akhenaton, et qu’il s’agissait d’une simple chaise léonine, typique de la période amarnienne.


Abstract:
It is often admitted that the lion-headed golden armchair from the tomb of Tutankhamun was made for this king, at the beginning of his reign. However, some authors, who studied the Atenist scene on the backrest, think the seat belonged to a previous Amarna king. In this study, we propose two more analyses in order to identify the original owner of the armchair: the typological context and the global iconography. These two approaches allow us to reconsider the original shape of the seat, too. We show that Tutankhamun’s lion-headed armchair belonged to a previous king, most probably Akhenaten, and that it was a simple lion-legged chair, typical of the Amarna period.

Very little is known about the administration of the 18th Dynasty crew of royal necropolis workmen, but ostraca inscribed with non-textual identity marks provide a significant source of information for this period. Many of the ostraca are kept in Cairo in the Egyptian Museum and the IFAO, and remain unpublished and poorly understood. This article discusses the functional and social context of these documents. Although the precise meaning of the ostraca with identity marks is often elusive because of their implicit nature, the documents provide valuable insights into the organisation of the crew of workmen, the administration of work, the size of the crew, as well as the absence of a local scribal tradition.

What if Amarna’s Great Aten Temple was not as innovative as often thought? An architectural comparison with Amun Ra’s temple in Luxor and Akhenaten’s first religious complex in East Karnak reveals structural similarities beneath the claims of disruption.
The infamous transition only began to be understood through the examination of Akhen- aten’s works at Karnak by Redford (1984) and pioneering digital research by Vergnieux and Gondran (1997). Indeed, even if a more complete—albeit debated—picture of both Karnak and Amarna at that pivotal moment has now emerged (Laboury 2010; Kemp 2012; Redford 2013; Gabolde 2018), the evolutionary chain from the Amun-Ra temple to the Great Aten Temple is still missing links.

Numerous workmen’s marks known from ostraca found at the village of Deir el-Medina as well as in the Valley of the Kings are also attested on objects from the tombs around the Deir el-Medina settlement. This paper presents some preliminary results of the research project ‘Symbolizing Identity: identity marks and their relation to writing in New Kingdom Egypt’ at Leiden University, and considers the significance of the marks in pre-Amarna tombs. For the majority of these tombs, the owners are still unidentified. The presence of workmen’s marks proves that the anonymous tomb owners were in contact with the individuals working on the royal tomb, and perhaps even belonged to that group. Noteworthy is the fact that very few pre-Amarna tombs around Deir el-Medina contained inscribed material, and that the forthcoming inscriptions are often incorrectly or oddly written. The combined occurrence of marks and erroneously written inscriptions could indicate that the tomb owners were marginally literate.

Este trabajo pretende analizar el origen y naturaleza del pueblo y la élite gobernante que llamamos “hicsos”, así como las características de su dominio sobre Egipto. Nos centramos en la presencia asiática en el Delta Oriental, desde el Imperio Antiguo, su conquista del poder, la forma en que lo ejercieron y sus relaciones comerciales.

L’examen de la stèle de Minhotep Houtoutou (Musée du Caire 17/5/25/7 [S.R. 12041]) et la confrontation avec un passage du papyrus Ermitage 1116-B verso, (38)-(39), permettent d’assurer que Minhotep Houtoutou fut bien un contemporain d’Amenhotep III et qu’il participa même à l’un des jubilés du roi. Il en résulte que le papyrus du pErmitage 1116-B verso est plus récent que le règne d’Amenhotep II auquel il a toujours été attribué, ce que confirme la présence d’un cartouche de Thoutmosis IV au lieu de celui reconnu jusqu’à présent comme appartenant à Thoutmosis III aux lignes (61) et (66). Minhotep pourrait également être le père du grand pontife d’Amon sous Toutânkhamon Parennefer / Ounennefer dont la tombe thébaine a été retrouvée en 1990 par Fr. Kampp et K. Seyfried et être apparenté à l’intendant Sennefer dont la tombe, située au pied de la falaise du Bubasteïon a été localisée et fouillée par A.-P. Zivie.

The study of the stela of Minhotep Hututu (Cairo Museum 17/5/25/7 [SR 12041]) and comparison with few lines of papyrus Ermitage 1116-B verso, (38) - (39), make sure that Minhotep Hututu was indeed contemporaneous with Amenhotep III, and that he even participated in one of the kings jubilees. Consequently, papyrus Ermitage 1116-B verso is likely more recent than the reign of Amenhotep II to which it has always been attributed. This is also supported by two occurrences of a cartouche naming Thutmosis IV which were until now misinterpreted as cartouches of Thutmosis III [lines (61) and (66)]. Minhotep could also be the father of the high priest of Amun under Tutankhamun, Parennefer / Wenennefer, whose Theban tomb was found in 1990 by Fr. Kampp and K. Seyfried. He may also have been related to the steward Sennefer whose tomb, located at the foot of the Bubasteon cliff, was located and excavated by A.-P. Zivie.

This article presents a new examination of the dating elements of the 7th pylon of the temple of Amun-Ra at Karnak, and some new observations concerning its decoration. Traces of amendments to the lists of “captives” carved on the northern face of the monument suggest that the decoration was added in two distinctive phases. A new dating for the construction of the monument and the execution of its decorative program in the reign of Thutmosis III is proposed.
Cet article propose un réexamen des éléments de datation du VIIe pylône du temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak et de nouvelles observations concernant sa décoration. Des traces de modification des listes de «peuples vaincus» représentés sur la face nord du monument conduisent à considérer que la décoration du pylône a été réalisée en deux étapes distinctes. Une nouvelle datation dans le règne de Thoutmosis III pour la réalisation du monument et de son programme décoratif est proposée.

This is the story of a remarkable statue associated with two of the most important cities of the ancient Eastern Mediterranean, Enkomi and Amarna. Made during the Amarna period of various materials, including bronze, it was at some point shattered in pieces, one of which ended up at Enkomi as scrap metal. From an Egyptian point of view, this work makes an impression through its high quality and association with the art of the Amarna period, its connection to the royal family, its symbolic value and the historical circumstances that led to its creation and destruction. From a Cypriot point of view, it stands out as one of the most important imports on the island, even if in a ruined condition.

Hatschepsut, Pharao der 18. Dynastie, wurde von den meisten Ägyptologen über viele Jahre hinweg mit wenig schmeichelhaften Worten betitelt: Der König gilt als "skrupellos", "eitel" und "hinterhältig" oder bestenfalls als "passiv" oder "stark von Anderen beeinflusst". Bemerkenswert ist dabei, dass sich diese Adjektive allein auf die Person Hatschepsut beziehen und kaum ihre – oft als gesetzwidrige Machtergreifung aufgefasste - Regierung beschreiben. Erst in den 80er und 90er Jahren wurde das akademische Narrativ um diesen Pharao ausgeglichener, und seit dem vergangenen Jahrzehnt erwägt man eine revidierte Beurteilung über ihr königliches Wirken. Der Hauptgrund dieser undifferenzierten Debatte um Hatschepsut liegt wohl einzig darin, dass sie eine Frau war.
Welches Bild von Hatschepsuts Herrschaft würde sich ungeachtet dieser Tatsache ergeben? Um ihre Leistung als König von Ägypten fair beurteilen zu können, sollen hier Belege nach den Maßstäben ihrer Zeit aufgeführt werden : einerseits nach Aspekten des göttlichen Königtums und anderseits nach einem Vergleich mit königlichen Vorgängern.

Results of the 2002 field season of the Ahmose and Tetisheri Project, southern Abydos.  Major results included the identification and initial excavation of a previously unknown temple of Queen Ahmose-Nefertary, called Temple C; magnetic survey revealing the outlines of this and adjacent structures at the base of the Ahmose pyramid; and the identification of a massive enclosure wall surrounding the pyramidal shrine of Queen Tetisheri.  Important discoveries of architectural decoration include the earliest known image of a pile of severed hands, probably from the battle narratives of King Ahmose, as well as a depiction of the pharaoh standing in a bark.  Later votive material and evidence is also described.

Chapter 1 “Literature of the Classical Age” includes seven compositions. They are:
“The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant”. Transliteration and translation are given for each of the four sources separately.
“The Instruction of Amenemhet I”. The translation is preceded by a separate transliteration for each of the three papyri (Millingen, Sallier I and Sallier II). I have already reviewed F. Adrom’s edition (Panov, 2008), but as the photos of the papyri Sallier as well as the first facsimile (Birch, Hawkins, 1841–1844) have only recently become available to me, some additional discrepancies between Adrom’s copy and the original texts are revealed, and a few critical notes made previously on the second facsimile (Budge, 1923) are dismissed.
“The Instruction of Kheti” (or “Satire of Trades”). The translation is preceded by a separate transliteration for each of the two principal sources (papyri Sallier II and Anastasi VII); a few critical notes on S. Jäger’s, W. Helck’s and H. Brunner’s hieroglyphic transcriptions are made through the collation of the photos (to both papyri and other sources).
“The Hymn to the Nile”. A separate transliteration for each principal source (papyri Sallier II, Anastasi VII, Ch.Beatty V, and ostraca Gol. 4470, IFAO 1176), a synoptic transliteration and translation. A number of critical notes on D. van der Plas’s and W. Helck’s publications of the three manuscripts is made. The colophons of the papyri Sallier II and Anastasi VII are presented at the end of this section.
As a result, the entire papyrus Sallier II is given in transliteration of the three literary compositions, the colophons are presented in a supplement.
“The Book of Kemit”. The first Russian translation.
“The Dialogue of Ipuwer and the Lord of All”. Three earlier hieroglyphic transcriptions are collated with the photos of the papyrus AMS 27 (= Leiden I 344, rt), a number of critical notes is made on R. Enmarch’s edition (not listed in the review by F. Adrom).
“The Prophecies of Neferti”. The study is based on the W. Golénischeff’s facsimile of the Hermitage papyrus and freely avaible photos of other sources; a number of critical notes on the hieroglyphic transcriptions published in the previous editions is made.

Chapter 2 “Historical and Biographical Inscriptions of the 16th–19th Dynasties” includes forty-four records, the major part of which dates to the 18th dynasty. They are:
a document of the office sale “The Juridical Stela” (Caire JE 52453), the decree of Antef VII (Caire JE 30770bis), various records from the reign of Ahmose I, the Tombos stela of Thutmose I, inscriptions commemorating the victories of Thutmose II and Thutmose III, selected records from Semna, the poem of victory on the stela of Thutmose III, the inscription on the obelisk of Thutmose III and Ramesses II (Cleopatra’s Needle) now in New York, the stela describing the campaign of Amenhotep III in Kush (BM 657), the text describing the building activity of Amenhotep III in Karnak, the rock inscription of Thutmose IV on Konosso island, the donation stela of Ay. Records of non-royal persons include inscriptions from the tombs of Ahmose-Pennekhbet and Paheri at el-Kab, the tomb of Ineni (TT 81), the tomb of Hui (TT 40), the tomb of Tutu at el-Amarna, graffiti and the stela of Turi, the viceroy of Kush, the texts from the tomb of Djehuti at Kom el-Ahmar and the tomb of Neferhotep (TT 50), including the so-called Harper’s songs, two graffiti from KV 43.

Chapter 3 “Literary Compositions of the 18th–19th Dynasties” includes three papyri. They are:

AMS 23a (= Leiden I 346) with a chapter “The Epagomenal days”;
BM 10184, rt (= Sallier IV) with “The Calendar of Lucky and Unlucky Days”;
BM 10689 (= Ch.Beatty IX) with a ceremonial manual “The Ritual of Amenhotep I”.

The Supplement provides newly refined hieroglyphic transcriptions of:

the papyrus ÄM 10499, 1,1–10,7rt (= Peas R) with photos;
the papyrus BM 10185 (= Sallier I), 9vs;
the papyrus BM 10182 (= Sallier II);
the papyrus Amherst XIV (“Satire of Trades”);
the papyrus BM 10222 (= Anastasi VII), 1,1–7,6 (“Satire of Trades”);
the ostracon UC 39637 (“The Prophecies of Neferti”) with photo;
the ostraca UC 31911, 31912, 31913, 31927 (“Kemit”) with photos;
the stela Caire JE 52453 (“The Juridical Stela”);
the inscriptions from the tomb of Neferhotep (TT 50) with photos;
the papyrus AMS 23a (= Leiden I 346), 2,5–3,8.

Ein altägyptisches Vergangenheitsbewusstsein war bereits häufiger Gegenstand der Forschung, wobei kunsthistorische Betrachtungen (Archaismus), philologische Auswertungen (Textkritik, Textüberlieferung) und politische Überlegungen (Königslisten) häufig die größte Rolle spielten. Eine weitere, bisher nicht terminologisch eingefasste Argumentationsgrundlage bildeten kurze Zitate von Königen oder Beamten, die die Existenz eines Vergangenheitsbewusstseins unterstreichen sollen. So wurde die Einlassung Senenmuts, Zugang zu den „Schriften der Priester“ zu haben, als Argument für die Existenz von Bibliotheken genommen, während Teile der Speos-Artemidos Inschrift der Hatschepsut eine spätere, politische Ausdeutung der Zweiten Zwischenzeit belegen sollten.
Auffällig ist, dass diese Einlassungen in der Ägyptologie häufig ohne ihren Kontext eingebracht wurden. Somit dienten sie nicht als eigenständige Beleggruppe, sondern sollten eine bereits vorgefasste Meinung über den Sachverhalt lediglich literarisch abrunden. Dabei half ihnen ihr narratives Potential, das es erlaubte, in einem einzigen, authentischen Satz gleich mehrere Erzählungen über altägyptische Verhaltensmodelle widerzuspiegeln.
In meinem Vortrag soll der Umgang der Ägyptologie mit diesen Zitaten exemplarisch am Beispiel der 18. Dynastie angesprochen werden. Sie sollen unter dem Begriff der Bemerkung als neue Beleggruppe präsentiert und schließlich auf ihr diskursives Potential hin untersucht werden. Um die Spannung innerhalb dieser Gruppe zu verdeutlichen, sollen die Bemerkungen, die sich mit der Vergangenheit befassen, von denen, die diese ablehnen und sich der Zukunft zuwenden geschieden, schlussendlich aber als Teile ein und desselben Diskurses präsentiert werden.

This conference presentation was published in MDAIK 76-77, 2022, p. 63-82.
L'article issu de cette présentation est paru dans MDAIK 76-77, 2022, p. 63-82.

Among the most important officials during the reign of Ay is a man named Nakhtmin, who was a high priest of Min and Isis in Akhmim and chief architect of the pharaoh. He is well-known thanks to a number of stelae and other artefacts mostly proceeding from his tomb as well as from an inscription located near Akhmim, at el-Salamuni. The aim of this paper is to gather all the objects belonging to him, including a new unpublished relief, in order to reconstruct his career in Akhmim and his family, at the end of the 18 th dynasty. Moreover, by studying the modern history of these objects, mostly excavated during the 19 th century, and their alleged provenience and circumstances of discovery, we will try to suggest a new localisation for his long lost tomb, usually thought to be found in the Akhmim necropolis. We will also see that this very hypothesis leads to a reinterpretation of his building activity for the king Ay.

Byen Amarna er på den ene side enestående, eftersom den blev grundlagt i en speciel periode i Ægyptens historie, hvor mange aspekter af den religiøse opfattelse og det kunstneriske udtryk ændredes, hvad der bevirkede ændringer også af bygningers og især templers grundplaner og opbygning. På den anden side blev den nye by bygget op efter ældgamle principper og med alle de elementer, som en residens og hovedstad skulle indeholde: paladser, templer, administrative enheder, privatboliger og værksteder.