Discussions in Egyptology 60, 2004

ISSN 0268-3083

My father was buried during your reign

The burial of the High Priest Ramessesnakht under Ramses XI 1
A. Thijs

Summary:
When the High Priest Amenhotep refers to the burial of his father in year x of Pharaoh this
should normally refer to the living king, i.e. Ramses XI Menmare. However, in traditional
chronology this causes problems, since the death of Ramessesnakht took place under
Ramses IX Neferkere. In the short chronology for the end of the 20th Dynasty it becomes
possible to solve this riddle, assuming that Amenhotep simply translated his fathers date of
burial in terms of the reign of Ramses XI.

Over the last few years a case has been presented for a shorter chronology for the
end of the 20th Dynasty. 2 In a series of articles problems with the traditional
chronology were brought forward together with bits of evidence indicative of a
substantially shorter interval between certain events and sources than had hitherto
been assumed. After some minor modifications this reduction resulted in a scenario
in which Ramses XI Menmare started his own reign in year 5 of Ramses IX
Neferkere (see Table I). 3

Ramses IX (Neferkere)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Ramses X (Khepermare)
1 2 3
[war]
Ramses XI (Menmare)
1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 15 16 17 18 19
33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
wHm mswt

Table I: the short chronology 4

As so often, the case for their overlapping rules had to be built entirely on indirect
evidence. Administrative texts, tomb robbery-papyri, generation-counting, the careers
of several individuals were brought forward, and in the end a coherent picture
emerged, 5 but the contemporaneous kings themselves remained largely elusive. The
1

I would like to thank Prof. Janssen and Dr Demare for their valuable comments. Further
thanks to A. Grootens for polishing up my English.
2
Thijs, GM 167 (1998), 95-108; GM 170 (1999), 83-99; GM 173 (1999), 175-191; GM 175
(2000), 99-102; GM 179 (2000), 69-83; GM 181 (2001), 95-103; GM 184 (2001), 65-73;
SAK 31 (2003), 289-306.
3
Thijs, GM 181 (2001), 102.
4
Years in bold face represent rule in Thebes.
5
That is to say: as coherent as is possible when one deals with real life

88

first time we catch a real glimpse of Ramses XI, in his letter to Panehsy, 6 is at a time
when he had just become the sole ruler. 7 In itself this is not a problem. Egyptologists
are used to working with indirect evidence: from a simple grain-delivery in a year 9 of
king X we postulate a rule of 8 or 9 years minimum for this king. We do not have to
wait until years 1 to 8 are attested as well. Nor do we need any formal royal
inscription, let alone a coffin, mummy or mortuary temple. Still, in order to convince
the more ardent critics it would be handy to be able to produce some papyrus or
inscription proving, or at least implying, that there were two Ramessides on the
throne at the same time. The chances on being able to provide such irrefutable
evidence are slim. Unless we happen to come across the Ramesside royal archives
it is very unlikely we will ever discover direct evidence of their contemporaneity. They
were not coregents but independent rulers over different parts of Egypt, so double
dated documents are not to be expected. Egyptian kings are not particularly known
for the enthusiasm with which they drew attention to others than themselves. If there
is any chance of an indication of contemporaneity it will probably have to come from
one of their subjects. There is always the hope that some helpful Egyptian may have
left an inscription or graffito showing beyond doubt that at that particular time there
were two kings instead of one. There is little point in roaming through museums and
libraries searching for such an unambiguous source. If one had been discovered,
there would never have been a discussion in the first place. On the other hand one
might also quote the famous bon mot (or should we say passe-partout?): "absence of
evidence is not in itself evidence of absence". Of course it would be ideal if we knew
some Egyptian who explicitly referred to two contemporaneous kings, but ironically, it
is perhaps equally possible to distil some evidence (albeit indirect) for overlapping
rules from the very fact that we do know one who did not...
The suppression of Amenhotep
In 1966 Wente republished a badly damaged inscription from Karnak concerning the
suppression of the High Priest of Amun. 8 Although no name has been preserved
there can be little doubt that it concerns Amenhotep. 9 Much has been written about
this enigmatic event, each analysis rooted in its own chronological bedding. The
short chronology interpretation of the suppression of the High Priest of Amun has
been the subject of an earlier article. 10 In this chronology (see Table I) the sequence
of events is as follows: during the troubled last year of Khepermare the viceroy
Panehsy deposed Amenhotep. This period of actual suppression lasted some 8

8
9

Pleyte-Rossi, Papyrus de Turin, plates LXVI & LXVII; Breasted, Ancient Records IV, par.
595-600; Peden, Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the Twentieth Dynasty, Jonsered 1994,
112-114.
Thijs, SAK 31 (2003), 303; The Adoption Papyrus, for which Gardiner, JEA 26 (1940), 2329, refers to year 1 of Menmare proper, but this is a provincial document which shows little
more than that he was recognised in the vicinity of the town of Spermeru. It does not
provide a real insight into the political situation of the time.

Wente, JNES 25 (1966), 73-87; Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions VI, 536-538.

E.g. Jansen-Winkeln, ZS 119 (1992), 27f; Polz, SAK 25 (1998), 283.

10
Thijs, SAK 31 (2003), 289-306. Please note that on page 299 a large part of text (3) has
erroneously been omitted (for the present article this is immaterial since the missing part
concerns events that took place some ten years after the suppression of the High Priest of
Amun).

89

months. 11 After that, order was eventually restored. King Ramses XI Menmare, who
was probably closely related to Khepermare, dashed south, took command of the
Thebaid, and imposed his will on the troublesome viceroy. The famous letter to
Panehsy suggests he offered Panehsy a chance to step back into line, a chance the
latter clearly did not take. 12 Once Ramses XI had established himself in the south he
proclaimed a new era, the wHm mswt, and revived the by then almost forgotten routine
of tomb-robbery trials. One can only guess how the Theban people viewed this new
development since one of the key questions, namely whether Khepermare and
Menmare were enemies or rather allies during the "war in the northern district" 13
remains unanswered. From the text published by Wente we learn that the unnamed
High Priest of Amun "appealed to Pharaoh, my lord ()". 14 Apparently Amenhotep
was restored to his former position. 15 I have elsewhere suggested that this step may
have been a clever way to placate Theban religious sentiments, but one that may
have come at a price for Amenhotep. 16 Whatever the exact state of affairs, in
gratitude the once suppressed High Priest composed the text discussed here.
In the long chronology the career of Amenhotep spans the reigns of Ramses IX, X
and XI. If there is anyone who could tell us about their interrelationships it would be
him. His father, the High Priest of Amun Ramessesnakht, is last securely attested in
a letter from year 2 of Ramses IX Neferkere. 17 Amenhotep himself makes his first
known appearance in year 10 of the same king. 18 Under Ramses X Khepermare,
Amenhotep is practically attested by one single letter of his name: Pap. Turin 1932 +
1939 contains a very damaged entry, naming the High Priest of Amun I[mn-htp]. 19 In
the journal of year 3 Khepermare the High Priest remains unnamed. 20 Under Ramses
XI Menmare the situation is not much better. Amenhotep's whole career under this
king is derived from the testimony of Ahautinufer during the wHm mswt-trials that
sometime in the past the High Priest of Amun Amenhotep had been suppressed. 21 If
Ahautinufer had decided not to include the name of the pertinent High Priest, or if the
scribe had decided not to write it down, it would have become very hard to correctly
interpret the inscription published by Wente: the suppressed pontiff might have been
considered to have been Herihor, Piankh, or a hitherto unknown successor of
Amenhotep, and the king he appealed to might perhaps even have been taken to be
11

According to Amenhotep, more or less supported by the testimony of Ahautinufer: Thijs,

SAK 31 (2003), 294.
12
Thijs, SAK 31 (2003), 303.
13
P. Mayer A, 13b.2-3.
14
Wente, o.c., 78, line 21.
15
Pace NiwiDski, Brgerkrieg, militrischer Staatsstreich und Ausnahmenzustand in gypten
unter Ramses XI, Ein Versuch neuer Interpretation der alten Quellen, in: Gamer-Wallert,
Helck (eds.), Gegengabe, (Fs Emma Brunner-Traut), Tbingen, 1992, 253-254. His
reasons to doubt that Amenhotep was restored to his former post cannot be called
convincing. It seems his doubts are a by-product of his chronology, which since the work of
Jansen-Winkeln (ZS 119 (1992), 22-37; GM 157 (1997), 49-74) is no longer valid.
16
Thijs, SAK 31 (2003), 304; comp. Von Beckerath, Tanis und Theben, Hamburg/New York
1951, 93.
17
Helck, JARCE 6 (1967), 135-151, text B.
18
19

Breasted, Ancient Records IV, 241-245, 492ff; KRI VI, 455-458.

KRI VI, 686, 4.

20
Botti & Peet, Il Giornale della Necropoli di Tebe, Turin 1928, 42-55, plates 50-63.
21
P. Mayer A, 6, 4-11.

90

Khepermare. Although in the past there has been discussion, 22 nowadays the identity
of the High priest and King of Wente's inscription are beyond dispute, at least as far
as I know. In all chronologies it is presumed that we are dealing with Amenhotep and
Ramses XI, and that must be our startingpoint here as well. For this article the actual
references to the suppression and the suffering of Amenhotep do not really concern
us. They will be treated elsewhere. 23 What interests us here is the fact that line 5-6
mentions the death of the father of Amenhotep.
The burial of Ramessesnakht
Amenhotep's fragmentary statement: "() at the time when my father went to rest on
the West of Thebes in year x of Pharaoh ()" 24 presents us with an interesting
problem. The burial of Ramessesnakht must have taken place under Ramses IX
Neferkere, not so much because he was last attested during that reign, but it is
obvious that he cannot have survived this reign since his son Amenhotep is already
attested as High Priest of Amun in year 10 of this king. If one wants to date the
suppression to the reign of Ramses XI Menmare it follows that the king who restored
Amenhotep into office (I appealed to Pharaoh, my lord) cannot have been the
same ruler who buried Ramessesnakht. In both chronologies we are dealing with two
separate kings. The fact that in this period of Egyptian history the designation
"pharaoh" is normally only used to refer to the living king forced Wente to write: 'In
line 6, where it is stated that the high priest's father went to rest in the West of
Thebes in Year x of Pharaoh , the normal assumption would be that this pharaoh
was the monarch reigning at the time when the inscription was carved on the wall
()'. 25 At the time when Wente wrote his article the last attestation of
Ramessesnakht dated from the time of Ramses VI. 26 He was willing to prolong
Ramessesnakht's tenure office into the reign of Ramses IX, but this still caused
problems since all indications pointed towards a suppression under Ramses XI. 27
The only way out for Wente was to argue that in his text Amenhotep used the
designation "Pharaoh" for a king who at the time was already dead: "Another
approach to this dilemma is to question the assumption that the pharaoh in line 6 was
alive at the time the inscription was placed on the wall. Although there is a mass of
evidence for the use of the expression 'pharaoh' to indicate the reigning king during
the Ramesside period, there appear to be a few cases where it was also applied to a
deceased king." 28 In the accompanying footnote he gave just one example from the
20th dynasty: Pap. Salt 124. In this papyrus, the famous complaint of the workman
Amennakht about the behaviour of the notorious Paneb, the expression "Pharaoh"
indeed seems to have been used for king Sethos II, who by that time was already
dead. 29 Perhaps not too much is to be made out of this. ern drew attention to "the
strange discrepancy between the primitive style of the papyrus and its perfect writing
22

Helck, JARCE 6 (1967), 138f.

At the moment I am working on an article concerning Fechts views on the Tale of Woe in
relation to the suppression of Amenhotep.
24
Wente, JNES 25 (1966), 78, line 6.
25
Wente, o.c., 82.
26
Wente, o.c., 83; an oracle-stela of year 7 from Karnak: KRI VI, 282f. Sources naming
Ramessesnakht are summarised in: Polz, SAK 25 (1998), 276-278.
27
Wente, o.c., 83.
28
Wente, o.c., 83f.
29
ern, JEA 15 (1929), 243-258.

23

91

and orthography", which he explains as the result of a scribe slavishly following the
plaintiff's "clumsy style with its abuse of conjunctives and chronological disorder". 30
Amennakht's use of "Pharaoh" may very well simply reflect the vernacular of the day,
which puts it on quite a different level than Wente's more formal inscription. 31 The
language of a mere workman will have differed considerably from that of a High
Priest of Amun. 32 What we would ideally need is an official inscription from the time
of the last Ramessides, but the only other example Wente gives comes from the
22nd Dynasty' Dakleh stele, "somewhat over a century and a half later than our text
()". As an explanation he adds: "From the period intervening between our text and
the Dakleh stele there is a paucity of formal inscriptions drawn up on stone by private
persons in which reference is made to a deceased king, so that we have very little
comparative material to aid us in determining what expressions may or may not have
been used in referring to a deceased pharaoh in an inscription such as ours." 33
Despite the "e.g." before Wente's mention of Pap. Salt 124, it seems that there are
not that many other examples. When ern and Peet wrote "Pr-aA is normally used
only for the living Pharaoh", in the accompanying footnote they too drew attention to
only one exception: Pap. Bulaq 10. 34 Prof. Janssen, who wrote an article on this
papyrus, pointed out that in the pertinent case the law of Pharaoh (line 11 of the
recto) should be considered a fixed expression to designate the law as laid down,
without relevance for any particular king being dead or alive. 35 Jansen-Winkeln, when
discussing our problem, simply refers to Wentes footnote. He further mentions Rec.
Trav. 22 (1900), 53 as an early occurrence of pr-aA followed by a cartouche (that of
Siamun), but for our purposes this is irrelevant, because in this case the pharaoh is
obviously not presented as deceased. 36 Since neither Pap. Salt nor the provincial
(and much later) Dakleh stele are at the same level of formality as our text, so far the
burden of proof rests on anyone who wants to connect the term "Pharaoh" to a
deceased king
[i] -in a formal inscription
[ii] -from the end of the 20th Dynasty
[iii] -which also refers to the living king as "Pharaoh" (line 21) 37

30

ern, JEA 15 (1929), 257f.

Comp. how A. Egberts admits to informally referring to Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
using the very colloquial Trix, something he would never do in a more formal situation:
ZS 125 (1998), 102.
32
The smaller and more isolated the community, the greater the chance that informal
language (shared by all members of the community) would, unconsciously, be considered
to be normal usage also in more formal circumstances.
33
Wente, o.c., 84; for the Dakleh stele: Gardiner, JEA 19 (1933), 19-30.
34
ern & Peet, JEA 13 (1927), 38, referred to by Wente, o.c. 82, n26.
35
Personal letter, d.d. 25-9-2003. For Pap. Bulaq 10: Janssen, Pestman, JESHO 11 (1968),
137-170.
36
Jansen-Winkeln, ZS 119 (1992), 33f, with n95 on page 34.
37
One would expect a High Priest who is speaking about two subsequent kings, to choose
his words as carefully as possible to avoid any possible confusion between the ruling
Pharaoh and his bemoaned predecessor. This was an inscription intended to inform
posterity about the deeds and benevolence of the living king. Ambivalence would hardly be
welcomed by Ramses XI.
31

92

In the long chronology Amenhotep's inscription in the end will ultimately acquire the
status of proof itself: a problem can all too easily be changed into its own solution. If
the long chronology is correct we do indeed have a clear example here of 20th
Dynasty' use of the expression "pharaoh" in relation to a dead king, but for as long as
the chronology itself is under discussion we must ask ourselves: did Amenhotep
really refer to a king who at that time was already dead? Before we can answer that
question it would be helpful if we could determine a little more precisely the moment
when Amenhotep succeeded his father. Luckily it is possible to narrow down that
interval a little. We will try to do so by subsequently approaching the interval from
both sides.
[1] Amenhotep
Using P. Turin 1900 Helck has shown that the first attestation of Amenhotep as High
Priest of Amun can be dated to year 9 of Ramses IX Neferkere. 38 The same
conclusion can be reached using the tomb of Imiseba (TT 65). 39 If, along the lines of
the short chronology, we equate the accession-date of Menmare, "year 1, month 11,
day 20" 40 with "month 11, day 20" of year 5 Neferkere 41 we can by dead reckoningexpress the entire career of Amenhotep in terms of the reign of Menmare. The
reference from P. Turin 1900 (year 9, month 4, day 12 of Neferkere) would then
equal "year 4, month 4, day 12" of Menmare; the famous text from year 10 (year 10,
month 3, day 19 of Neferkere) could be translated into "year 5, month 3, day 19" of
Menmare (see table II).

Ramses IX (Neferkere)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
V V
Ramses X (Khepermare)
1 2 3

[war]
Ramses XI (Menmare)
1_ _ 4 5

15 16 17 18 19
33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
[. . . . . . . . ______________________________ _ _
wHm mswt

Table II: the career of Amenhotep prior to the war

Although the primary function of table II is to translate Neferkere- and Khepermaredates into years of Menmare, as an aside it should be noted that it also helps to
explain the surprising paucity of Amenhotep related sources from the time of Ramses
XI Menmare. 42 In the long chronology he is believed to have served under this king
38

Helck, Cd 59 (1984), 245. The evidence is indirect but seems valid.

Bcs, GM 148 (1995), 7-11.
40
P. Ashmolean 1945.96 (Adoption Papyrus): Gardiner, JEA 26 (1940), 23-29; Cannuyer,
GM 132 (1993), 19-20; Ohlhafer, GM 135 (1993), 59-62.
41
Thijs, GM 181 (2001), 102.
42
Comp. Surprisingly few details are known about the life and career of Ramsesnakhts son
Amenhotep: Polz, SAK 25 (1998), 283.

39

93

for something up to 18 or perhaps even 24 years. 43 Yet during this long period he is
barely attested. 44 In the short chronology the actual period served by Amenhotep
under Menmare is set by two limits: [1] his petition after the war 45 and [2] the first
attestation of the High Priest of Amun Piankh in year 7 of the wHm mswt, 46 which gives
him some 7 years maximum, which would fit the scarcity of sources much better than
the 18 to 24 years of the long chronology. One could even venture the guess that the
enigmatic reference in line 16 of the Wente-inscription to "five and a half years" 47
somehow refers to his career following his petition. Although it precedes the mention
of the suppression in line 18 this need not mean much. There is no reason to
presume that the text was composed to present a strictly chronological rendering of
events. One might presume that the main focus of the text would be on the services
performed by Amenhotep for the living king (and mutatis mutandis vice versa) rather
than on outdated information on his previous relationship with either Neferkere or
Khepermare, who after all at the time were both already dead. If, as NiwiDski thinks,
the inscription is posthumous, 48 this could perhaps even give us some indication of
his total tenure of office under Menmare. On the hypothesis that line 16 refers to
Ramses XI we lack precise evidence on the startingpoint for this period of "five and a
half years", but we may assume that it will not have been too far removed in time
from the start of the Renaissance, which would imply that Piankh could not have
succeeded too long before his first attested appearance in year 7. On the other hand
the time-span may also refer to some interval not connected to any of the sparse
data that happened to survive.
[2] Ramessesnakht
As we have already seen, the last securely dated reference to the High Priest of
Amun Ramessesnakht stems from a letter from year 2 of Ramses IX Neferkere, 49
which in the short chronology would be some 3 years before the accession of
Menmare. But as so often there exists evidence of a more ambivalent nature. P.
Turin 2002, vso.1,8, names a Ramessesnakht whose title is damaged. 50 Apparently

43

The suppression is now believed to have preceded the wHm mswt by only a small period of
time: NiwiDski, o.c., 241; Jansen-Winkeln, ZS 119 (1992), 28f. The reversal of Herihor
and Piankh by Jansen-Winkeln makes it possible to take his career well into the wHm mswt
with the first attestation of Piankh as terminus ad quem.
44
In this respect he neatly fits the pattern for Menmares pre-Renaissance ghost years:
comp. Thijs, GM 184 (2001), 72; years that can now be shown to be devoid of securely
dated Theban sources: GM 173 (1999), 175-191.
45
Before that time Menmare did not rule over the Thebaid.
46
Nims, JNES 7 (1948), 157-162; from the same year, but slightly later is Pap. Prakhov:
Berlev, GM 160 (1997), 5-15. Comp. Thijs, GM 181 (2001), 101.
47
Wente, o.c. 78.
48
NiwiDski, o.c. 253. It of course remains possible to accept this part of his theory even if one
doubts his conjecture that Amenhotep was not restored to his former office (see above),
but perhaps this view is hard to square with the rest of line 16 where it reads "May AmonRe grant me (..) a long lifetime", which does not seem to fit a posthumous text.
49
Helck, JARCE 6 (1967), 135-151, text B, mentioning year 2, month 9 day 19 and year 2,
month 10, day 13. Considering the relative order of the entries of this collection of letters,
it seems text C, which also mentions Ramessesnakht, may be a bit later, but to judge from
text E the letters are fairly close in time. Comp. Polz, SAK 25 (1998), 278.
50

Pleyte-Rossi, Papyrus de Turin, plate CVIII.

94

he was a high official. 51 P. Turin 2002, vso.1,1 gives a date in a year 7 which,
according to Gutgesell, should be ascribed to the reign of Ramses IX Neferkere. 52
Helck has raised the possibility that this Ramessesnakht could be identified with the
like-named High Priest, which would pin down the change of office between father
and son to ca. year 8 of Neferkere. 53 Naturally this would be a welcome step forward
in any chronology. Unfortunately, after having read a draft of the present article
Professor Janssen was kind enough to inform me that he doubted Helcks tentative
suggestion. He read the traces of the damaged title as () pr Imn, which of course
would not fit the title High Priest of Amun. It therefore seems we are dealing with a
different individual. But although the Ramessesnakht of P. Turin 2002 may not be the
father of Amenhotep after all, we are not left empty-handed since Helcks suggestion
may still provide the clue to our problem. We know that Ramessesnakht died some
time between year 2 and year 9 of Ramses IX Neferkere. The date of his actual last
attestation does not lead us anywhere, but as soon as we consider that
Ramessesnakht may have continued in office for a few years more, immediately the
entire picture starts to clear up. All we have to assume is that Ramessesnakht was
still alive some time after year 5, month 11, day 20 of Neferkere. 54 From that
moment on it becomes possible to redefine his career in regnal years of Menmare,
and in my view that is exactly what Amenhotep did. (see table III).

Ramses IX (Neferkere)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
V
V
Ramses X (Khepermare)
1 2 3
[war]
Ramses XI (Menmare)
<<
1234 5
15 16 17 18 19
33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
_ ____. . . . . . . . . . ]
wHm mswt

Table III: the maximum career of Ramessesnakht

Although Amenhotep had been a true servant of Ramses IX and X, 55 when their
respective rules were over and he had been reinstalled by Ramses XI, he felt free to
"redefine" their reigns in terms of the new king. His father was buried under Ramses
IX Neferkere, but at the same time (in the most literal sense of the word!) his burial
also took place when Ramses XI Menmare was already king of Egypt.
51

Gutgesell, Die Datierung der Ostraka und Papyri aus Deir el-Medineh und ihre
konomische Interpretation. Teil I: die 20. Dynastie, Hildesheim 1983 [HB 18+19], 135:
"Titel ist beschdigt, doch geht aus dem Kontext hervor, da es sich um einen hohen
Beamten handeln mu."
52
Gutgesell, o.c., 135.
53
Helck, Cd 59 (1984), 245.
54
The day Menmare started his rule somewhere in Egypt: Thijs, GM 181 (2001), 102. For
his accession date: Gardiner, JEA 26 (1940), 23-29; Cannuyer, GM 132 (1993), 19-20;
Ohlhafer, GM 135 (1993), 59-62.
55
Comp. Polz, o.c., 289f.

95

Sceptics might object that the line "Again His Majesty heard my plea [for] ()" just
before "at the time when my father went to rest on the West of Thebes in year x of
Pharaoh" 56 would hardly fit this theory, since at that time it would have been
Ramses IX Neferkere, not Ramses XI Menmare who was in a position to hear any
pleas by the Theban High Priest of Amun. Unfortunately the text is too damaged to
discern the exact nature of the plea, or indeed the relationship between these lines,
especially given the rather substantial gap between them. Furthermore, I think that in
an Egypt ruled by two Ramesside kings (family-members, who seem to have
coexisted in a relatively friendly way) 57 it would have been the task of Thebes to
preserve the unity of Egypt as a religious entity. I can see no reason why the Theban
priesthood may not have benefited from gifts, etc. by Menmare during the time that
the city was ruled by Neferkere and/or Khepermare. 58 It may well have been an
overall good relationship between the Theban clergy and both Ramesside kings
which ultimately instigated Ramses XI Menmare to head south to free the city from
the terror of Panehsy after his relative, Ramses X Khepermare, had died or lost his
power. All we do know with some degree of probability is that Ramses XI
subsequently allowed Amenhotep to return to his former position. Whether this was
primarily an altruistic service to an old friend or merely a political scheme to gain
influence in the south, we will probably never know, although, as in many such
cases, the best option would certainly be to look for the answer somewhere between
the two extremes
For those expecting hard evidence the above has little to offer. Still, it seems that
what has always been a minor semantic problem in the traditional chronology has
found a natural solution in this new framework. To return to the somewhat enigmatic
statement made at the start of this article: strictly speaking Wente's inscription only
mentions one king, one who is referred to as "pharaoh" throughout, but as it appears,
sometimes an Egyptian who mentions only one king can in the process provide
indirect proof that there were indeed two pharaohs at the same time.

Ad Thijs
Van Diemerbroeckstraat 103
6512 BA Nijmegen
The Netherlands

56

Wente, o.c., 78, line 5-6.

There is no reason to presume that the "war in the northern district" lasted for some 16/17
years, neither that it was a war between Ramses X and XI. Both may have had a common
enemy.
58
If the lines 7f are in some way connected to the preceding, the plea may well have
concerned Menmares partaking in the donation of costly goods for the cult of Amun.

57