Amenemheb’s Excellent Adventure in Syria. New Insights from Discourse Analysis and Toponymics...

Neunert, MAJA 4.indd Abs11Neunert, MAJA 4.indd Abs11 10.12.2014 09:04:3310.12.2014 09:04:33

G Ö T T I N G E R O R I E N T F O R S C H U N G E N

IV. REIHE ÄGYPTEN 59

Herausgegeben von Heike Behlmer und Friedrich Junge

2015

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden


2015

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

Text: Wissen – Wirkung – Wahrnehmung

Beiträge des vierten Münchner Arbeitskreises Junge Aegyptologie (MAJA 4)

29.11. bis 1.12.2013

Herausgegeben vonGregor Neunert, Henrike Simon,

Alexandra Verbovsek und Kathrin Gablerunter Mitarbeit von

Catherine Jones und Burkhard Backes


Bibliografi sche Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der DeutschenNationalbibliografi e; detaillierte bibliografi sche Daten sind im Internetüber http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Th e Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the DeutscheNationalbibliografi e; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internetat http://dnb.dnb.de

Informationen zum Verlagsprogramm fi nden Sie unterhttp://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de© Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2015Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt.Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesonderefür Vervielfältigungen jeder Art, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfi lmungen und für die Einspeicherung in elektronische Systeme.Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.Druck und Verarbeitung: A Hubert & Co., GöttingenPrinted in GermanyISSN 0340-6342ISBN 978-3-447-10348-0


Inhalt

Vorwort der Herausgeber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Tonio Sebastian Richter

Heilige Schriften im Alltagsgebrauch Bibeltexte und -zitate im frühislamischen Theben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Renata Landgráfová

“Creative Copying” Notes on Text Tradition and Alteration Evidenced in Multiple-Occurring Texts in the Shaft Tomb of Iufaa at Abusir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Janne Arp-Neumann

„Osarseph – von Geschichten zur Geschichte“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Johannes Auenmüller

Gefolgschaft und Nähe Räumliche Relationen zwischen König und Elite im elitären Diskurs des Neuen Reiches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Susanne Beck

Sāmānu Konzepte der Dämonendarstellung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Jan-Michael Dahms

Wer spricht hier eigentlich? Untersuchung der Formulierung j.jn A r=j in den Sargtexten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Camilla Di Biase-Dyson

Amenemheb ös Excellent Adventure in Syria New Insights from Discourse Analysis and Toponymics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

6 Inhalt

Sven Eicke

Ende mit Schrecken oder Schrecken ohne Ende? Zur Verwendung sprachlicher Ausdrücke für Furcht im Totenbuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Shih-Wei Hsu

Bildliche Ausdrücke im Dienst der Königsideologie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Elisa Priglinger

Texte und ihre Interpretation zum Niedergang des Alten Reiches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Uwe Sikora

Amunnacht, Sohn des Ipuy als Autor der Lehre des Amunnacht Ein Artefakt ägyptologischer Beschreibungspraxis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Elisabeth Steinbach

„Ich habe seinen Anblick geschmeckt …“ Verben der Wahrnehmung und die semantischen Beziehungen zwischen Perzeption und Kognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Christoffer Theis

Ein Stemma-Dilemma Die Rekonstruktion der Überlieferungsgeschichte der Totenbuchsprüche 151d–g anhand königlicher und privater Textträger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Susanne Töpfer

Sothis und der Bahr Yussuf Fragmente eines Sothis-Rituals von Oxyrhynchos aus Tebtynis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Zsuzsanna Végh

„Der Tag des Hörens der Sünden“ Untersuchungen zu den abydenischen Osirisfesten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Kontaktdaten der Beitragenden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Amenemheb’s Excellent Adventure in Syria

New Insights from Discourse Analysis and Toponymics1

Camilla Di Biase-Dyson (Göttingen)

It is argued here that topography and linguistics can be used to test theories made by Egyptologists and Near Eastern specialists about Thutmose III’s eighth campaign. The course of the campaign is still hotly contested but many of the theories are found to be based on problematic methodology. The autobiography of Amenemheb in Theban Tomb 85, which allegedly describes the campaign, forms the focus of this enquiry, since the sequence of events in this text is particularly unclear. This analysis, based both on the type and order of the toponyms as well as the way in which the text is structured, clarifies that Amenemheb joined the eighth campaign in Naharin and not before.

1. To begin

This paper takes as its point of departure the use of topographical and linguistic methods in the testing of historical theories and sets forth that widely disparate styles of analysis can be highly complementary. The text under analysis is the autobiography2 of the military man Amenemheb Mahu, which is inscribed on the wall of his tomb, Theban Tomb 85 in Sheikh Abd el-Gurna.3 The study concentrates on the first half of the text – which concerns itself with Amenemheb’s career in the time of Thutmose III – in which he allegedly made captures in Negeb, ‘Juniper

1 This analysis draws on findings from my unpublished B. A. (Honours) thesis at Macquarie University, Sydney (2003). I am indebted to the patient guidance of my then-supervisor Boyo Ockinga and hope that he enjoys this synthesis after a decade’s silence. I thank the attendees of the MAJA conference in 2013 for their engagement with the topic (particularly chosen due to its close contact with the contribution of Johannes Auenmüller, also in this volume) and thank also Nina Wagenknecht, B. A. for her help with the glosses. The glossing abbreviations are included at the end of this contribution, following C. Di Biase-Dyson / F. Kammerzell / D. A. Werning, Glossing Ancient Egyptian. Suggestions for Adapting the Leipzig Glossing Rules, in: M. Müller / S. Uljas (eds.), Proceedings of Crossroads IV. Conference of Egyptian Language Studies, Basel, March 2009, in: LingAeg 17 (2009), 343–366.

2 See H. U. Gumbrecht, Does Egyptology Need a ‘Theory of Literature’?, in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature. History and Forms, PdÄ 10, Leiden / New York / Köln 1996, 14 and A. M. Gnirs, Biographies, in: Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt I, Oxford 2001, 184. We use the term autobio-graphy as a generic term for a life story composed in the first person singular, despite the fact that it is not certain whether the tomb owner himself composed it.

3 P. Virey, Sept tombeaux thébaines, Mémoires de la Mission Française au Caire V, Kairo 1891, 237 and B. Porter / R. L. B. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts I: The Theban Necropolis 1: Private Tombs, Oxford 1960, 170–175. Amenemheb’s autobiography appears on the right side of the columned hall (walls H’G’, G’F’, F’E’) of TT 85 at Sheikh Abd el-Gurna, a plan of which is on p. 226. See W. M. Müller, Egyptological Researches: Results of a Journey in 1904, Washington 1906, 29. The text was written in blue paint on white plaster, with red lines dividing the text into columns.

122 Camilla Di Biase-Dyson

Ridge’ west of Aleppo and Carchemish4 on his way to Naharin. After crossing the Euphrates, he further distinguishes himself by besieging towns and making captures in Sendjar, Kadesh, the far north of TDA[///], and Takhsy, and he saves the king on an elephant hunt in Niy.5 For these exploits, he is rewarded with the gold of honour, slaves6 and other rewards.7 This section is worthy of a new in-depth analysis for one simple reason: like the autobiography of Ahmose, son of Ibana, before him, this text has long been used as one of the dominant sources for the military campaigns of the pharaoh(s) under which he served. It shall be argued here that the expectations earlier scholars had of this source are only partly justified – or rather, that what Amenemheb wanted to say about his travels to the northern foreign lands has to this point been misinterpreted by Egyptologists and Near Eastern scholars.

2. Setting the scene

2.1 Historical circumstances

Amenemheb Mahu’s career spanned the reigns of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. During this time, he took on many roles and had a corresponding number of titles. Those recorded in the autobiography itself are wa.w ‘army man’8 and on ‘elite soldier’,9 a group to which such men as Senneferi,10 Djedu11 and Amenhotep, the Viceroy of Kush12 claimed to belong. Amenemheb called himself the leader of such a group, the HA.tï n(.ï) on nb,13 although this most likely indica-tes his position in the group and not his rank.14 Amenemheb also claims to be an jr.ï-rd.wï=f,15 which most probably means a bodyguard or escort of the pharaoh.16 There seems to be a connec-tion between this title, being in the Sms nzw ‘the following of the king’17 and stating a lack of ab-

4 K. Sethe, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie IV, Berlin 1961, 890:14 and 891:2, 8–9. 5 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 892:2–3, 10–11, 893:3–4, 8–9, 894:1–2, 8–12, 16–17, 895:1–5. 6 On the topic of slavery see A. E. M. Bakir, Slavery in Pharaonic Egypt, ASAE Suppl. 18, Kairo 1952, 31.

People after being captured were considered the property of the king, (as seen in pHarris I, 77/4–6, in P. Grandet, Le papyrus Harris I–II, BdE 109, Kairo 1994) and were then donated to his officials (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 4:11–13, 11:4–14).

7 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:14–15, 892:4–5, 12–15, 893:10–13, 894:3–4, 895:6–7. 8 Since he records promotions under Amenhotep II, for which see P.-M. Chevereau, Prosopographie des

Cadres Militaires Égyptiens du Nouvel Empire, Antony 1994, 3.03, 11.10, 13.30, 28.03, the title waw at the beginning of the autobiography (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 890:6) most probably does not mean ‘infantryman’ but rather ‘member of the army’, for which see A. R. Schulman, Military Rank, Title and Organisation in the Egyptian New Kingdom, Michigan 1962, 58–59.

9 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 894:16. The title is discussed by A. R. Schulman, Military Rank, 110 and R. O. Faulkner, The Euphrates Campaign of Thutmosis III, in: JEA 32 (1946), 32, 40, 44–45.

10 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 528:9.11 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 995:16.12 W. Helck, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie IV, Berlin 1984, 1637:7. 13 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 895:2.14 A. R. Schulman, Military Rank, 80, 110.15 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 890:11.16 R. O. Faulkner, in: JEA 32 (1946), 40. H. Guksch, Königsdienst. Zur Selbstdarstllung der Beamten in der

18. Dynstie, SAGA 1, Heidelberg 1994, 65–66 claims that this title implies direct contact with the pharaoh.17 R. O. Faulkner, Egyptian Military Organization, in: JEA 39 (1953), 44 suggests that these ‘retainers’ may

have been part of the royal bodyguard, and were possibly also involved in issuing rations to troops, sugge-sted in the Annals of Thutmose III (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 656:8–9). This title is also discussed in H. Guksch, Königsdienst, 58–59. The connection between the two titles is discussed on p. 65.

123Amenemheb ös Excellent Adventure in Syria

sence from the king’s side. All three concepts appear not only in Amenemheb’s autobiography,18 but also in the tomb of Pekhsukher19 and on a statue of the herald Iamunedjeh.20 Amenemheb also mentions being an officer on a barque of Amun, ‘Amun-strong-of prow’,21 in the position of commander of the rope and chief of its crew.22 However, these titles are mentioned in connec-tion with the Opet festival in Thebes.23 About his distinguished career, Amenemheb emphasises the following:

Example 1

jw Sms.n(=j) 3) nb=j r nmt.(w)t=f Hr xAs.t mH.t(ï)t rsy(.ï)t

jw Sms:n-j nb-j r nmt:wt-f Hr xAs:t mHt-ï-t rsy-ï-t

GRND follow:ANT-1SG

lord(M)[SG]-1SG in journey:F.

PL-3SG.M in foreign_land:F[SG]

north-ADJV-F

south-ADJV-F

(I) followed my lord on his journeys through the northern and southern foreign lands (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 890:10)

And that when he fought it was:

Example 2

15) n(j) tS(j).t=j r bw xr(.ï)=f

nj= tSj:t-j r bw xr-ï-f

NEG= be_absent:COMPL-1SG from place(M) under-ADJV-3SG.M

… without my having yet left the place where he (the king) was (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 892:9)

Such statements are common to private autobiographies of this time.24 The question that re-mains is the extent to which this is true and in what context. After all, although this study uses the autobiography of Amenemheb as a historical source, we must consider that, when inter-

18 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 890:10, 11, 892:7, 9.19 W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1461:16–17, 1462:19, 1463:12.20 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 1370:8–10. It is clear this is a title, because it appears among his titles in his tomb (K.

Sethe, Urk. IV, 962:6). Other examples are also cited in H. Guksch, Königsdienst, 65, 198–199.21 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 895:9–11. Sethe has reconstructed the name of the barque, which, due to its gouged

state, probably bore the name of Amun. See also J. A. Wilson, Egyptian Historical Texts, in: J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton 1955, 241, Anm. 38. At the same time, the boat classifier is not at all clear in the handcopy in W. M. Müller, Egyptological Researches, Taf. 37. However, the interpretation is viable since Amenemheb claims to have served on one of these boats during the Opet festival (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 895:11–12).

22 Amenemheb’s position in Egypt was probably still that of an army officer (A. R. Schulman, Military Rank, 130). However, the title ‘commander of the rope’ is speculative, since although the noun aoA could mean a type of rope (A. Erman / H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache I, Berlin 1971, 234), the rope classifier (Gardiner Sign V1) is not used here (W. M. Müller, Egyptological Researches, Taf. 37).

23 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 895:11–13. The role of soldiers in such official ceremonies is discussed in R. O. Faulkner, in: JEA 39 (1953), 43.

24 A. Hermann, Die Stelen der Thebanischen Felsgräber der 18. Dynastie, Glückstadt 1940, 122–123; H. Guksch, Königdienst, 60–61. Examples occur in the statue inscriptions of Iamunedjeh (W. Helck, Urk. IV,


preting an autobiographical text “the relationship between a written record and the reality to which it refers is conditioned by the author’s knowledge of reality, the purpose of the writing, (and) its hypothetical audience”.25 For instance, although the terminology used is formulaic and repetitive,26 the value of the source should not be dismissed.27 It is only by ascertaining how and why the document was written the way it was that we gain an understanding of Amenemheb’s account of the historical period.

2.2 The state of the discourse

Various possibilities have been postulated concerning the arrangement of this document, from it being entirely random28 to being chronological,29 or even thematic.30 Such interpretations na-turally affect the way we view the historical situation. The success of these claims varies, based on their use of the sources and their awareness of the boundaries of their method. In any case, it seems that interpretations of the autobiography to date have been restricted by only utilising one method of analysis, either toponymy or discourse structure. Therefore, this study advocates not only a judicious use of these methods, but also their combination.

3. The methods

The compositional structure of the text is analysed using a method that combines toponymy and discourse linguistics. For the toponymic study, in other words, the study of place names, the toponyms that appear in the document are analysed in order to see if the linguistic structure of the text can be associated with events documented by other contemporary sources. In this manner, a route of travel taken by Amenemheb can be suggested. Discourse linguistics, on the other hand, is the study of language ‘beyond the sentence’, which considers how the gramma-tical elements are integrated into discourse31 by investigating the connection between language structure and meaning. The structure of a text can be analysed using, amongst other things, ‘discourse markers’, which divide text sections primarily on temporal grounds and mark the relationship between events.

1370:8) and Minmose (W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1441:15), the stela inscriptions in the tombs of Montuiwy, (W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1466:14) and Tjaneni (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 1004:2).

25 J. M. Galán, Victory and Border. Terminology Related to Egyptian Imperialism in the XVIIIth Dynasty, Ann Arbor 1994, 4, also W. W. Hallo, The Limits of Scepticism, in: JAOS 110 (1990), 189.

26 C. J. Eyre, Why was Egyptian Literature?, in: G. M. Zaccone / T. R. di Netro (eds.), Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia: Atti II, Turin 1992, 117.

27 A. Spalinger, Aspects of Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians, Yale Near Eastern Researches 9, New Haven 1982, 240 and J. M. Galán, Victory and Border, 174. Furthermore, this language makes us more aware of how the Egyptians perceived their own actions. J. K. Hoffmeier, The Problem of ‘History’ in Egyptian Royal Inscriptions, in: G. M. Zaccone / T. R. di Netro (eds.), Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia: Atti II, Turin 1992, 296 claims that a text should not just be used as a source of information, but as information in itself.

28 J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt II. Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest, Chicago 1906, 228.

29 A. H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I. Text, Oxford 1947, 151*.30 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, erläutert am Beispiel des narrativen Texttyps, in: L. Gestermann /

H. Sternberg-El Hotabi (eds.), Per aspera ad astra. Wolfgang Schenkel zum neunundfünzigsten Geburtstag, Kassel 1995, 158.

31 M. A. K. Halliday, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, London 1994, 15.


3.1 Toponymy

The preeminence of toponymy in studies of the Ancient Near East extends from many towns having been built in the same areas over long periods and thereby forming tells.32 The names of these sites were often preserved because of their significance to the area, since they described the nature of the site, its geographical location, or even plant names.33 The bulk of the textual sources for a toponymic analysis come from the so-called Egyptian topographical lists, which record the foreign cities captured by the king.34 In the case of Amenemheb’s autobiography, the lists of Thutmose III35 in particular will be used, the main three of which contain 119 names,36 primarily from the Palestinian region,37 with the third list also containing another 240 names from further north in Syria.38 However, there is considerable speculation about the method by which the toponyms in the lists of Thutmose III are ordered, which is an important considera-tion when attempting to place unknown toponyms in their spatial context.39

In this analysis, the locations between Egypt and modern-day Syria that are named in Amenemheb’s narrative (Abb. 1) have been investigated according to their placement in the narrative sequence, location, topology (city, region) and role in the events that take place. They have then been compared with place names from contemporary autobiographies as well as with the ‘official’ records on the monuments of Thutmose III, such as the Annals, the Gebel Barkal stela, the Armant Stela, topographic lists and the like. This method has already been utilised, amongst others, by James H. Breasted, Raymond O. Faulkner, Alan H. Gardiner, Wolfgang Helck and Donald B. Redford.40 The problem that the scholars in question attempt to resolve, in addition to deciding where exactly some of the toponyms were located, is why the toponyms are not arranged in a logical northwards-southwards order. Unfortunately, since the toponyms have to date been the main means of analysing the intention behind the text’s organisation, it has been difficult to test the different theories against each other.

32 Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible. A Historical Geography, London 1967, 94–95. 33 Y. Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 97–99.34 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 779–794. However, it is not certain that toponyms on the list would have only been ones

with which the king had direct contact, since if the lists were a record of all lands conquered by Egypt, then the presence of the king may not have been important.

35 J. Simons, Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia, Leiden 1937, 27, 29–30, 109–110. These lists are based in the Temple of Karnak, the main three being situated: (a) on the western face of the northern tower of Pylon VI, (b) on the southern face of the western tower of Pylon VII, and (c) on the northern face of the western tower of Pylon VII.

36 As made clear in J. Simons, Topographical Lists, 28–29, this number is an estimate based on the combined number of toponyms from the three lists. These lists are allegedly identical, although all omit different toponyms.

37 These three lists are collectively termed the ‘Palestine list’, whereas the extension of the third is named the ‘Syrian’ or ‘Northern list’ (J. Simons, Topographical Lists, 28).

38 J. Simons, Topographical Lists, 28 states that this extension comprised originally 270 names.39 S. Ahituv, Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents, Jerusalem 1984, 4 warns against asso-

ciating unknown toponyms with known ones with which they co-occur, without first determining their geographical, archaeological and historical context.

40 J. H. Breasted, AR; R. O. Faulkner, in: JEA 32 (1946); A. H. Gardiner, AEO; W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Wiesbaden 1971 and D. B. Redford, The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 16, Leiden 2003.


3.1.1 The toponyms

The land of Negeb, the first mentioned toponym in the autobiography, has been commonly equated with modern Negev, in the south of Palestine,41 which extends from just north of Gaza down to the Sinai, and east from the coast to the Dead Sea.42 The absence of Negeb from the official records of the eighth campaign43 may have been due to a number of things. Since these records concern events that substantially include the king,44 Negeb may not have been mentioned because the king did not campaign there,45 although the official documents only concern the principal events of any one campaign.46 The land of Naharin is generally consi-dered to be equivalent to the kingdom of Mitanni.47 However, the Gebel Barkal Stela, among other contemporary sources, uses the term ‘the countries of Mitanni’,48 which presents the possibility of Naharin being the ‘Euphratean’ province of the confederation of lands that made up the kingdom of Mitanni.49 In Naharin, Amenemheb seems to have met the king, setting the captives he had made in the course of his travels before him.50 The king is described at this time as ‘arriving’ in Naharin,51 which Spalinger claims is the term most frequently used for the Egyptian army’s attack against the enemy.52 The location tA Tst wan, which most probably means ‘the Juniper Ridge’53, is described as being ‘west of Aleppo’,54 modern Haleb.55 The absence of

41 J. A. Wilson, Egyptian Historical Texts, 241, Anm. 29.42 I. H. Marshall / A. R. Millard / J. I. Packer / D. J. Wiseman (eds.), New Bible Dictionary, Leicester 1996, 811.43 Negeb appears only in the topographical lists (D. B. Redford, A Bronze Age Itinerary in Transjordan [Nos.

89–101 of Thutmose III’s List of Asiatic Toponyms], in: JSSEA 12/2 [1982], 55–74, 59) and has thus not been associated with any particular event or campaign.

44 J. M. Galán, Victory and Border, 214.45 Thutmose III’s coastal journey in Year 33, as recounted in the Gebel Barkal Stela (W. Helck, Urk. IV,

1232:1) probably discounts the probability of him passing through the Negeb on the eighth campaign.46 A. J. Spalinger, A Critical Analysis of the ‘Annals’ of Thutmose III (Stücke V–VI), in: JARCE 14 (1977), 42.47 This can be seen in the equivalence of the two terms in the Gebel Barkal Stela, where they are alternated:

‘Naharin’ appearing in W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1231:5, 1232:6, 1232:11, 1233:1, and ‘Mitanni’ in W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1230:5, 1232:9. This is also emphasised by E. Edel, Die Ortsnamenlisten aus dem Totentempel Amenophis III., Bonn 1966, 2–3, referring to the marriage scarab of Amenhotep III and EA 17.

48 W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1232:9.49 Evidence for ‘the lands of Mitanni’ appears on the Constantinople Obelisk (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 589:9) and

the Poetical Stela (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 616:8), as well as in the tomb of Menkheperreseneb (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 931:1–3), which makes reference to the ‘princes’ of Mitanni.

50 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 890:16–891:1, 11–13. The former reference refers to the three captives of Negeb, but the latter does not record a number, so perhaps the captives here are those from all his captures.

51 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 890:16.52 A. J. Spalinger, Aspects, 80–81. This statement is explained in the context that: “in order to encounter the

enemy, the Egyptians first had to travel to his region; hence, the scribes chose to use spr to recount the mo-vement of the army”. Naharin appears for the first time in an Egyptian record in almost the same context, in the record of the campaign of Thutmose I in the Autobiography of Ahmose, son of Ibana (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 9:10 also E. Edel, Ortsnamenlisten, 2).

53 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 151, similarly W. Helck, Beziehungen, 152, call it ‘die Wacholderhügel’. The translations ‘Ridge of Wan’ (J. A. Wilson, Egyptian Historical Texts, 241) and ‘The Height of Wan’ (J. H. Breasted, AR, 231 and R. O. Faulkner, in: JEA 32 [1946], 40) do not explain the tree classifier after wan, which suggests a more literal translation.

54 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:3.55 G. Bunnens / A. Kuschke / W. Röllig / U. Matthies, Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Wiesbaden 1990,

Map B III 3. The name xlb used here (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:3) has clearly not changed over time.


‘Juniper Ridge’ from the official record could be because it is a region,56 or possibly because Thutmose himself never fought there. The town of Carchemish was possibly located at what is now Jerablus,57 100 kilometers north-east across a plateau from Aleppo.58 It is probable that the soldiers did not attack the city,59 because Amenemheb only says that he made captures in the ‘foreign land’,60 which was most probably the land surrounding the city-state. Amenemheb, presumably with his military company, crossed ‘the water of Naharin’,61 (the Euphrates River) after the battle. Given that Amenemheb seems to have met the king there, his crossing possibly happened subsequently to Thutmose’s crossing, since this episode makes reference neither to the king’s crossing nor to the establishment of a stela.62 Sendjar can most probably be equated with Qal’at Sejar, approximately 25 kilometers northwest of Hamath on the Orontes.63 Sendjar was a city-state,64 but the statement that Amenemheb made captures in the ‘foreign land’65 most probably indicates, as with the example of Carchemish, that there was no siege on the city itself, but rather a land battle. Kadesh is now commonly associated with Tell Nebi Mend,66 situated about 44 kilometers southwest of Qatna,67 on the west bank of the Orontes river.68 Takhsi has been identified as lying in the Lebanese Beqa’ valley, probably south of the territory of Kadesh,69

56 Thutmose III’s topographical list only contains cities with the exception of the region of Negeb (D. B. Redford, in: JSSEA 12/2 [1982], 59).

57 D. G. Hogarth, Carchemish. Report on the Excavations at Djerabis on Behalf of the British Museum I. Introductory, London 1914, 1 and J. A. Miller, Carchemish, in: N. Watson (ed.), International Dictionary of Historic Places IV: Middle East and Africa, New York 2013, 173. The Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients (G. Bunnens / A. Kuschke / W. Röllig / U. Matthies, TAVO, Map B III 3) indicates that this sett-lement has a square surrounding wall and settlement expansion exceeding 300 meters in diameter.

58 C. L. Wooley, Carchemish. Report on the Excavations at Djerabis on Behalf of the British Museum II. The Town Defences, London 1921, 33; I. H. Marshall / A. R. Millard / J. I. Packer / D. J. Wiseman (eds.), New Bible Dictionary, 177; A. H. Gardiner, AEO, 132*.

59 The probable scenario, that the city was not captured, provides another refutation of the ‘Northern List’ being based entirely on the eighth campaign.

60 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:9; D. G. Hogarth, Carchemish, 14 also suggests this.61 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:11.62 D. G. Hogarth, Carchemish, 14. This suggestion is strengthened by comparison with the statue inscrip-

tion of Iamunedjeh, who “crossed the Euphrates behind his majesty in order to lay down the boundaries of Egypt” (W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1370:11). Montuiwy on his stela also states that the king “crossed the river Euphrates” (W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1467:10).

63 D. B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton 1992, 147, also J. A. Wilson, Egyptian Historical Texts, ANET, 241, Anm. 31.

64 W. Helck, Beziehungen, 299–300. This is also seen in EA 53: 40–44 (W. L. Moran, The Amarna Letters, Baltimore 1992, 125), where the ruler of Sendjar is mentioned.

65 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:17.66 A. J. Spalinger, Aspects, 338; M. G. Hasel, Domination and Resistance. Egyptian Military Activity in the

Southern Levant, ca. 1300–1185 B.C., PdÄ 11, Leiden 1998, 156. The association of the name ‘Kadesh’ with the Semitic root qdS, which means ‘sanctuary’ (J. E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, Princeton 1994, 306), is uncertain. The settlement is lar-ge, with a round surrounding wall, as seen in the Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients (G. Bunnens / A. Kuschke / W. Röllig / U. Matthies, TAVO, Map B III 3).

67 D. B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, 147–148.68 A. H. Gardiner, AEO, 137*; J. A. Wilson, Egyptian Historical Texts, 239.69 E. Edel, Ortsnamenlisten, 11. A. H. Gardiner, AEO, 150–151* suggests that it may lie either to the north or

to the south, but it seems that he only suggests a northerly position to justify a trip north to Niy afterwards (157*). The claim by W. Helck, Beziehungen, 276, based on Papyrus Anastasi I 22, 3 (A. H. Gardiner,


which can be seen in the Amarna Letters.70 However, the town of Meriu is unidentified,71 possibly because its record in Amenemheb’s autobiography suggests a damaged extension of the name. Niy may have been located near what is now Qal’at el-Mudiq, which was ancient Apamea, located forty kilometers northwest of Hamath72 and quite near to the Orontes River.73 Amenemheb claims to have partaken in an elephant hunt here,74 an activity also discussed in the Gebel Barkal and Armant Stelae.75 Since the Annals record the king arriving at the city of Niy,76 without mentioning the hunting event, a completely different event is probably recounted here. If spr means ‘to attack’,77 then perhaps a successful attack on the city78 was followed by a hunting expedition in the vicinity. In terms of the connection between the Kadesh episodes, both apparently concern sieges on the city, and in both cases, Amenemheb brought off two Maryannu.79 Therefore, perhaps the first Kadesh episode is an abbreviated version of the more colourful second one recounted as a finale to the campaign stories, which is linked thematically by its description of the slaughter of the mare to the elephant hunt at Niy.80 Therefore, the siege episode was suspended until after the mare episode, because it is contingent on Amenemheb’s slaughter of the mare.81

3.1.2 Theories based on the toponyms

Breasted, in his work Ancient Records of Egypt II, contended that although “Amenemheb’s au-tobiography forms a very important supplement to the Annals of Thutmose III”, the story had been arranged “without attempt at order, beyond the involuntary association of events that belong to the same campaign”,82 which means that he attributes the toponyms to various cam-paigns conducted by Thutmose III as recorded in his Annals: Negeb is from the fourteenth

Egyptian Hieratic Texts I, Leipzig 1911), that Kadesh lies in the land of Takhsy, is not justified, since most of the cities mentioned in association with Takhsy and Kadesh are still unidentified.

70 In Amarna Letter EA 189, verso 9–11 (VAT 336) Takhsy is mentioned by the ruler of Kadesh in relation to the region of Upe, both being at this time under the rule of Namiawaza (W. L. Moran, Amarna Letters, 269).

71 S. Ahituv, Canaanite Toponyms, 138.72 W. Helck, Beziehungen, 140, 150. A. Tulhoff, Thutmosis III. 1490–1435 v. Chr. Das ägyptische Weltreich

auf dem Höhepunkt der Macht, München 1984, 152, claims, with no justification, that Niy lay “an dem großen Bogen des Euphrats … bevor dieser seinen Weg nach Babylonien fortsetzt”. See the map p. 260. S. Yeivin, A New Egyptian Source for the History of Palestine and Syria, in: JPOS 14 (1934), 220–222, also argues for a location near the Euphrates.

73 We can see it was near the Orontes through the Memphis and Karnak Stelae of Amenhotep II, since Amenhotep turns south to Niy after crossing the Orontes (W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1302:7, 1303:5, 1310:18, 1312:2).

74 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 893.75 W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1233: 13–16, 1245: 18–19. They concord with Amenemheb’s record regarding the hun-

ting of 120 elephants.76 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 698: 15.77 A. J. Spalinger, Aspects, 80–81.78 D. B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, 155 claims that the reason for such a venture was because Niy, as

a dependency of Alalakh, had become connected with Mitanni.79 Compare passages in K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 892:10 and 895:4–5. See W. Helck, Beziehungen, 140.80 W. Helck, Beziehungen, 139.81 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 894:5, 13, 16–17. The siege seems to occur almost as a result of the actions of the prince

of Kadesh, although this is not certain. The fact that the wall is stated as being ‘new’ (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 894:17) is intriguing, implying that it had been built afresh in the wake of a prior (Egyptian?) siege.

82 J. H. Breasted, AR, 228.


campaign of Year 39 and Naharin, ‘Wan’, Carchemish and Sendjar are from the eighth cam-paign of Year 33.83 Following this is the capture of Kadesh in the sixth campaign of Year 30, then a campaign in a place whose name is mutilated. A battle in Takhsy that probably dates to Year 35 is then followed by the elephant hunt at Niy in Year 33. The sequence concludes with the siege of Kadesh in Year 42.84 The problems with these assertions are manifold, firstly since the document, both grammatically and through the use of the phrase ‘on this campaign’85 indi-cates cohesion of the events, and secondly because many of the toponyms Breasted uses are far more open to interpretation than the author himself allows them to be.86

Faulkner, in his article The Euphrates campaign of Tuthmosis III, instead claims that all events pertain to a chronological enumeration the eighth campaign of Year 33, with the possible ex-ception of the second attack on Kadesh, which could have occured during the campaign in Year 42.87 The Negeb episode is taken as occurring separately from the eighth campaign,88 after which Amenemheb allegedly met with Thutmose III further north near Aleppo. However, not only is the king not mentioned as being present at ‘Juniper Ridge’ near Aleppo,89 but Amenemheb explicitly states that he gave the captives to him at Naharin.90 Faulkner’s comment that the capture of Carchemish opened up to Thutmose “the best available crossing of the Euphrates”91 is also not supported by the sources, since Amenemheb’s autobiography does not mention the presence of the king at Carchemish,92 and the official documents do not mention a specific site of the river crossing.93 Moreover, Amenemheb is quite explicit about setting his booty at the feet of the king only after crossing the Euphrates94 – if he had met the king before this, why did he present his booty at this point? Faulkner, like Gardiner below, in his appraisal of the homeward march, argues that battles took place at Sendjar, Kadesh, and Takhsy,95 after which a northward turn to Niy took place,96 where Thutmose hunted elephants, an event in which Amenemheb di-

83 J. H. Breasted, AR, 228–229. The mention of Naharin in line 5 is regarded here as a separate battle.84 J. H. Breasted, AR, 228.85 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:2, 8. The grammatical consistency of the text shall be described in Section 4.86 A. H. Gardiner, AEO, 157*. 87 R. O. Faulkner, in: JEA 32 (1946), 39–41.88 R. O. Faulkner, in: JEA 32 (1946), 40 susbstatiates the king’s absence from this event on the basis firstly

that the Annals make no mention of it, secondly that the king is recorded to have opened his campaign at Qatna in Syria, and lastly that Amenemheb probably “travelled north to join his master in Syria in time to take part in a battle near Aleppo, taking his three captives with him to present them to the pharaoh”. This notion is also adopted by A. Tulhoff, Thutmosis III., 147.

89 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:2–7.90 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 890:16–17, 891:1, 10–13.91 R. O. Faulkner, in: JEA 32 (1946), 40.92 This can be seen particularly since the king is mentioned frequently in the latter part of the document.

Amenemheb explicitly states that he “made captures in the presence of his majesty” (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:12 and 893:20) and claims to have seen the king in battle (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:12, 892:14–15, 17–18, 893:20). Amenemheb also does not mention crossing the river with the king in K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:10, which should be compared with the inscription on the cube statue of Thutmose III’s First Herald Iamunedjeh, who claims that he crossed the Euphrates behind the king (W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1370:11).

93 See the Gebel Barkal Stela, W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1232:5–9 and 1245:20–1246:1, which only mentions Naharin as the general area.

94 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:8–13. 95 R. O. Faulkner, in: JEA 32 (1946), 41. 96 A. H. Gardiner, AEO, 157*.


stinguished himself by saving the king’s life.97 Lastly, Faulkner asserts that the second attack on Kadesh recorded by Amenemheb refers to a later war, such as that of Year 42, since “it is unlike-ly that Kadesh would have to be subdued twice in a single campaign”.98 Thus, Faulkner ignores the possibility that these mentions of Kadesh could refer to the same event. Therefore, there is much in Faulkner’s theory that is conjectural. He uses the topographic method in an attempt to prove the chronological nature of Amenemheb’s autobiography, however, like Gardiner, he ignores what seem to be deviations in the document for the sake of linear narrative develop-ment. This being said, the claim that Negeb was part of a separate mission, although unproven, is excellent, since it attempts to explain the absence of the king in the first part of the document.

Gardiner, in Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I, also regards almost all toponyms as correspon-ding to battlefields of the eighth campaign of Thutmose III.99 The sequence of events is regarded as being principally chronological.100 Thus, if we regard the first reference to Naharin (in line 5)101 as an aside,102 the sequence of Negeb, Aleppo, Carchemish, and the Euphrates crossing is “clearly in perfect order”,103 and Sendjar, Kadesh and Takhsy belong to the return journey.104 The problams arise, however, when Gardiner attempts to treat the last two episodes (Niy and Kadesh) as being part of a chronological sequence. Gardiner claims, for instance, that it would be “in no way surprising” if Thutmose did not turn north again towards Niy after the battle in Kadesh.105 However, Gardiner translates the eighth campaign record in Thutmose III’s Annals as “His majesty arrived at the city of Niy, going southward, when his majesty returned, having set up his tablet in Naharin”,106 which fairly negates the likelihood of Niy being reached by tra-velling northwards. In addition, the second reference to Kadesh is taken as a possible reference to the siege of Year 42,107 though here the question still remains why this cannot be considered a side note like Naharin earlier, particularly since, as in the case of Naharin, the same number of captives was taken in both Kadesh episodes.108 Additionally, no explanation is offered for Amenemheb not taking part in a campaign between Years 33 and 42.109

Helck, in his work Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien, proposes instead that the chro-nological order be restricted to the episodes before the elephant hunt and the slaughter of the mare of Kadesh; the justification being that they concern themselves not with heroic deeds

97 R. O. Faulkner, in: JEA 32 (1946), 41. This event is very well documented, appearing in K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 893:14–17, 894: 1–2 and W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1233:13–15, 1245:18–19.

98 R. O. Faulkner, in: JEA 32 (1946), 39. However, Faulkner attributes these theories to Gardiner prior to the publication of Ancient Egyptian Onomastica.

99 A. H. Gardiner, AEO, 151*–157*.100 This idea has been taken even further by some scholars without paying great regard to the textual record.

For instance, H. Klengel, Syria 3000 to 300 B.C. A Handbook of Political History, Berlin 1992, 92–94 sees all toponyms as pertaining to the eighth campaign, without addressing the repetitions and contradic-tions to the theory that their presence demands.

101 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 890:16.102 A. H. Gardiner, AEO, 155*. 103 A. H. Gardiner, AEO, 157*.104 A. H. Gardiner, AEO, 150*. 105 A. H. Gardiner, AEO, 157*.106 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 698:15–17. The term xntj is explained in A. H. Gardiner, AEO, 161*.107 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 730:9–10.108 As pointed out by E. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums II/1, Stuttgart 1928, 131, note 1. See K. Sethe,

Urk. IV:8ff., 894:5ff.109 See the Annals record (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 696:15, 729:3), although this passage is reconstructed.


against enemies, but against animals and therefore pertain to a thematic shift.110 Although this observation is insightful, Helck then makes the mistake of combining different documents to come up with ‘one’ version of the campaign, and thus attempts to show that Thutmose III and Amenemheb were on the same northward journey by equating the Annals account with that of Amenemheb. By disregarding Amenemheb’s reference to Negeb,111 Helck claims that following making the boats at Byblos,112 Thutmose moved on to Ullaza, over Urim, which is above Aleppo,113 an event he associates with the battle at ‘Juniper Ridge’. He then states that the army went across Pitru to Carchemish,114 where the Euphrates was crossed.115 Helck’s source of information for the route is his singular interpretation of the topographical lists of Thutmose III at Karnak, which asserts that the northern extension of list c116 is a retrograde application of the route of the eighth campaign,117 a claim for which there is no substantive evidence. Therefore, although Helck’s idea of a thematically based layout seems convincing, his tendency to want Amenemheb to accompany Thutmose III leads him to unjustifiably equate the topographical list with the biography of Amenemheb. Helck’s assumption that Amenemheb would have recor-ded events akin to the official records ignores one of the main reasons Amenemheb would have had for including these particular events: to glorify his own brave actions.

Redford, in his book The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III, also cannot free himself from this confutation of sources and uses Amenemheb’s toponyms as evidence for an official route over Negeb, Aleppo to Carchemish as part of the eighth campaign.118 Redford then claims “the leisurely homeward march and the obligatory hunt … brought the campaign to a formal conclusion”119 and in so doing, attributes the later battles to subsequent campaigns. In Year 42, Kadesh was captured “possibly for the first time”.120 Redford adds that at this time the land of Takhsy was in revolt, and despite the Egyptian destruction of thirty towns in the area,121 the re-volt continued into the coregency and early sole rule of Amenhotep II.122 As such, he states that

110 W. Helck, Beziehungen, 139. 111 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 890:14. The use of Negeb in the document conflicts with the possibility of a route by sea.112 W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1232:3.113 W. Helck, Beziehungen, 152.114 W. Helck, Beziehungen, 152.115 R. O. Faulkner, in: JEA 32 (1946), 40; W. Helck, Beziehungen, 151. Helck claims further that it was at

Carchemish that Thutmose I had earlier erected his victory stela, although there is no evidence to prove it. Wolfgang Helck quotes the Annals, Gebel Barkal and Armant Stelae as evidence (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 697:5 and W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1246:2 and 1232:11, as quoted in W. Helck, Beziehungen, 151, note 89), although they give no indication of Carchemish being the crossing place, the Annals only claiming to have established a stela beside that of Thutmose I, wherever that may have been located.

116 For a discussion and description of this list, see J. Simons, Topographical Lists, 30–31.117 W. Helck, Beziehungen, 151, with a list of the cities pp. 152 ff.118 D. B. Redford, Wars in Syria and Palestine, 170–172. However, a statement like: “as the army entered

the region of Aleppo, the Mitannians offered resistance” (D. B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, 159), which clearly uses Amenemheb’s autobiography (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:3) as evidence, actually has little justification, since claims to Mitanni control beyond the Euphrates at this time are unproven (D. B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, 155).

119 D. B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, 160.120 D. B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, 162, referring to K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 729–730. This is based on

the assumption (158) that in the Annals record of the sixth campaign, Kadesh was attacked, although it is probable that only the surrounding countryside was destroyed (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 689:7–10).

121 This is referred to on the statue of Minmose (W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1442:16–18).122 D. B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, 162. He substantiates this with reference to the Amada Stela of

Amenhotep II (W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1297:3).


all references to the Takhsy revolt postdate Year 42 and the conclusion of the Annals, among which he includes the autobiographies of Amenemheb and Minmose.123 However, no evidence exists to substantiate these assertions, since neither of these records is dated. Also, if we took Redford at his word, the sequence of the autobiography would jump from Year 33 to Year 42 at Kadesh and Takhsy, back to Year 33 for the hunt at Niy, and then to Year 42 (or later) for a second round at Kadesh, a sequence which, as also discussed in relation to Breasted, negates the hints of grammatical continuity in the text and unjustifiably conflates different records.

In sum, given a reasonable consensus about the location of the toponyms in question, the point of contention of the studies so far has been focused on the sequence of the toponyms. Helck shows that there are thematic reasons for organising the text into dominance over for-eigners and dominance over animals, although he perhaps erroneously claims that Thutmose III and Amenemheb travelled northwards together. Faulkner’s approach of a separate depar-ture and Gardiner’s theory of some toponyms (like Naharin) being mentioned in asides should therefore be explored further. It seems clear that these historians are restricted by only using toponymy as their method, and would benefit from a greater understanding of the construction of the text itself.

3.2 Discourse Analysis

As previously mentioned, discourse markers like initiating particles or verb forms can be ana-lysed to determine the structure of a text. One can take into consideration their type, their semantic value, their function in the sentence and their placement in the sequence of the text. In Earlier Egyptian, the language stage in which this autobiography was written, sentence particles are frequently used to establish paratactic and hypotactic relationships between text segments.124 We shall therefore focus on these elements in our investigation of textual structure, particularly at the beginnings of new episodes, which are frequently bound to a change in location.

To this point, the sole practitioner of a discourse analytical method for this text has been Thomas Ritter, in his Semantische Diskursstrukturen, erläutert am Beispiel des narrativen Texttyps. He uses the Linguistic Discourse Model of Livia Polanyi125 to analyse the hierarchical structure of a text, which can be demonstrated via parse trees.126 Each new sentence is attached to the right side of the tree diagram according to its semantic and syntactic contextual framework.127 A change in the contextual framework, which includes changes of place, time, or participant,128

conditions the commencement of a new text-section or episode, which manifests itself in the

123 D. B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, 162, note 160, see K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 893:6–13 and W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1442:16–18.

124 Parataxis is the juxtaposition of syntactic units without using a conjunction, whereas hypotaxis con-cerns subordination of clauses by means of particular grammatical strategies (D. Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, New York 1985, 221 and 223). For the Egyptological discussion, see J. B. Callender, Discourse and Sentence Structure, in: G. Englund / P. J. Frandsen (eds.), Crossroad: Chaos or the Beginning of a New Paradigm. Papers from the Conference on Egyptian Grammar, Helsingør 28–30 May 1986, Kopenhagen 1986, 74, 76–77.

125 L. Polanyi, A Formal Model of the Structure of Discourse, in: Journal of Pragmatics. An Interdisciplinary Bi-Monthly of Language Studies 12/5–6 (1988), 601–638.

126 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 123.127 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 128.128 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 128, 130. Thomas Ritter does not discuss how he determines

the ‘change in the contextual framework’, although the toponyms provide the clearest indication of a


highest branches of the tree.129 In Amenemheb’s autobiography, such episodes are usually marked with the jw sDm.n=f form, or through a form of the verb wHm.130 These lexical units are called discourse markers in textual analysis131 and will play a key part in this study. Ritter himself attributes little importance to these forms, only mentioning that sentences that show a change in the contextual framework are usually marked by introductory particles,132 despite the fact that only these initiating main clauses form top branches in his parse tree133 and hence govern the structure of the text.

Using the method outlined above, Ritter concludes that the episodes of Amenemheb’s au-tobiography are not grammatically sequential. Instead, enumerative text relations134 link events through the theme of Amenemheb’s prowess.135 Ritter claims that the autobiography was only organised sequentially in that the battles must logically follow each other,136 although this im-plies that the battles are in order, an assumption that is unsubstantiated. Also, as we will see, although the discourse markers are indeed enumerative, by showing change in the hierarchy of grammatical forms in the document, sequential change can actually be identified. In addition, since these results have not been tested for their impact on the historical record, comparison with an established historical method, such as toponymy, presents a new direction. Since the use of linguistic analysis is necessary for an understanding of a text’s structure and its purpose,137 it shall be clear that synthesising it with other methods challenges the way we look at the histori-cal record and helps us to test the current theories about the text.

change of location and situation. See also E. Gülich / U. M. Quasthoff, Narrative Analysis, in: T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis II: Dimensions of Discourse, London 1985, 192.

129 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 143, 156. The highest branches of the tree are therefore indica-tors of the text’s structure, including digressions and highlighting, and whether the text’s organisation is temporal or atemporal.

130 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 130, 156. He calls these features particles, or forms, on p. 157.131 E. Gülich / U. M. Quasthoff, Narrative Analysis, 192. D. P. Silverman, Clauses in Middle Egyptian, in:

G. Englund / P. J. Frandsen (eds.), Crossroad: Chaos or the Beginning of a New Paradigm. Papers from the Conference on Egyptian Grammar, Helsingør 28–30 May 1986, Kopenhagen 1986, 333, calls these particles (such as jw, aHa.n, and jst) markers of initiality.

132 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 158–159.133 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 151–153. He emboldens the first word of clauses indicating

contextual change, although he includes forms that appear within an episode, such as aHa.n sDm.n=f, which is inconsistent, since they do not appear at the top of the parse tree, as can be seen on pp. 154–155.

134 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 154–155. The examples can be seen in his parse tree. Enumerative text relations establish the events horizontally across the parse tree (‘one doesn’t lead sequen-tially to the other’). The narrative passages arise from within the episodes themselves, linked by posterior text-relations and depicted diagonally across the parse tree (‘one thing leads to another’).

135 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 155, 158.136 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 150.137 Of course, when attempting to apply a method of this type, we must be aware of our linguistic prejudices

about how language works, and what we expect from the linguistic structures (C. J. Eyre, Approaches to the Analysis of Egyptian Sentences. Syntax and Pragmatics, in: G. Englund / P. J. Frandsen [eds.], Crossroad: Chaos or the Beginning of a New Paradigm. Papers from the Conference on Egyptian Grammar, Helsingør 28–30 May 1986, Kopenhagen 1986, 120). This is particularly important when dealing with texts from another language and time (M. A. K. Halliday, Introduction to Functional Grammar, xxxi). Thus, the cultural context of the text must be considered (A. Loprieno, Defining Egyptian Literature. Ancient Texts and Modern Literary Theory, in: J. S. Cooper / G. M. Schwartz (eds.), The Study of the Ancient Near East in the 21st Century, Winona Lake 1996, 222). See also A. M. Gnirs, Die ägyptische Autobiographie, in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature. History and Forms, PdÄ 10, Leiden 1996, 191–241.


4. Findings

The findings will be divided into conclusions about the sequencing and then about the hierar-chy of the individual discourse elements. Following this, potential routes of Amenemheb and Thutmose III will be plotted and the interaction between the various methods evaluated.

4.1 Sequence

This analysis reveals that discourse markers indicate thematic structure, as well as hierarchical change in the text. The thematic structure alerts us as to the purpose of the autobiography, namely, to expound the virtues of the tomb owner. The episodes seem to be arranged according to themes concerning Amenemheb’s achievements, within which the events are chronologically sequenced. However, the nature of the language changes to accommodate the king’s primacy and therefore suggests the point in which Amenemheb joined the king on his campaign.

The particle jw plus an anterior sDm.n=f form138 often initiates episodes in the text. This complex is followed either by subordinate clauses in the form of the bare imperfective sDm=f,139 as occurs in column 5,140 or bare anterior sDm.n=f main clauses following paratactically,141 as in columns 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 21.142 These forms describe the captures of Amenemheb or the activities of the king, both in battle and rewarding Amenemheb afterwards. The particle jw stands before the verb form at the beginning of an account or a new thematic unit,143 signalling a return to the main topic.144 The usage of jw in this way is common in self-presentation inscrip-tions where past events are linguistically ‘commemorated’.145 However, although the first set of jw sDm.n=f forms refer to actions of Amenemheb,146 from column 12 onwards this form is used to preface an introductory statement to some action of the king, as occurs in columns 12, 14, 18, 20, and 23.147

Episodes are also initiated by an infinitive form of the verb wHm, ‘to repeat’, which takes on iterative semantic quality (‘again’) when it precedes the anterior form in wHm xf a.n=j (columns 7 and 9).148 It seems to have a function like the particles jw and aHa.n,149 since other bare sDm.n=f forms can also follow paratactically from it.150 It could be classified as a repetitive complex tem-

138 D. A. Werning, Einführung in die hieroglyphisch-ägyptische Schrift und Sprache. 2. verbesserte Ausgabe, Berlin 2013–2014, 47; J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian. An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs, Second Edition, Cambridge 2010, 227 calls it ‘Perfect’. K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 890:14, 891:6, 16, 892:16, 893:5.

139 D. A. Werning, Einführung, 121; J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian, 267.140 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 890:15.141 D. A. Werning, Einführung, 121; J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian, 412 calls them ‘secondary main clauses’.142 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 892:1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 12, 893:8, 9.143 B. Ockinga, A Concise Grammar of Middle Egyptian, Mainz 1988, § 90.144 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 157–159. C. J. Eyre, Approaches, 126, claims that this is done

by ‘topicalising’ compound verb forms with suffix conjugations.145 M. Collier, The Language of Literature. On Grammar and Texture, in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient

Egyptian Literature. History and Forms, PdÄ 10, Leiden 1996, 539, Anm. 24.146 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 890:10, 14.147 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 16, 892:6–7, 18–893:1, 5–6, 14.148 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:2, 8, which contains the variation on xf a, kf a.149 D. A. Werning, Einführung, 49; J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian, 235.150 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:4, 10.


poral relation,151 which does not give an indication of sequence but conveys thematic linkage by signalling “ein Wiederaufgreifen des Hauptthemas”152 which was introduced earlier in the document153:

Example 3

23) wHm [mA.n(=j)]154 ky zp mnx

wHm mA:n-j ky zp mnxrepeat:INF see:ANT-1SG another occasion(M) splendid

Again [(I) saw] another splendid deed (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 893:14).154

Sometimes wHm is used as a verb in a verb construction, which necessitates the use of jw as sen-tence particle, as can be seen in Example 5 below.

The aHa.n sDm.n=f form seen in column 26155 also initiates an episode. This form is followed in column 27 by an adverbial clause, introduced by jw plus a suffix pronoun,156 which is subordina-te to the main clause. Three instances of the later form jw=f Hr sDm follow this,157 which are used for continuing narrative that has been introduced by an independent verbal form.158 The aHa.n marks the beginning of a new section of narrative within a larger narrative structure by logically linking consecutive clauses159 and through its position in the sentence, setting up a ‘temporal-se-quential’ semantic relationship160 with the preceding paragraph.161 However, although this form coincides with a clear change in context from the previous episode (in other words, a change in location),162 it does not seem to mark a clear logical linkage, since from the perspective of content, Kadesh has been mentioned previously in the text163 and from the perspective of form, the clause that begins with aHa.n does not stand in a posterior text relationship to its preceding sentence.164 This is similar to the autobiography of Ahmose, son of Ibana, where the temporal

151 M. A. K. Halliday / R. Hasan, Cohesion in English, London 1976, 266.152 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 157.153 R. O. Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford 1962, 67.154 Kurt Sethe’s hand copy suggests that this passage be read wHm.n=j mAA (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 893:14), like the

cases in columns 14 and 20 (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 892:6, 893:5). However, this reading produces the prob-lem that wHm would be a finite verb form without a preceding particle – in other words not an initiating form – despite its presence at the beginning of an episode. Furthermore, this verb form takes up about half the space of the verb form in columns 14 and 20, W. M. Müller, Egyptological Researches, Taf. 34 and 35. Therefore it would probably only accommodate the mA.n form. The reconstruction above is, however, hypothetical, given the poor state of the paint at this point.

155 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 894:5.156 D. A. Werning, Einführung, 72; J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian, 114.157 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 894:7, 8, 10. Although Middle Egyptian was still considered to be the dominant writ-

ten form in the 18th Dynasty, forms from the vernacular of the time were occasionally used in such texts. F. Junge, Late Egyptian Grammar. An Introduction, trans. D. Warburton, Oxford 2001, 17 calls this hybrid language ‘Frühneuägyptisch’.

158 F. Junge, Late Egyptian Grammar, 207.159 D. A. Werning, Einführung, 49; J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian, 182.160 M. A. K. Halliday / R. Hasan, Cohesion, 243.161 M. A. K. Halliday / R. Hasan, Cohesion, 232; M. A. K. Halliday, Introduction to Functional Grammar, 50.162 The last episode occurs at Niy (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 893:14), whereas this episode takes place at Kadesh (K.

Sethe, Urk. IV, 894:5, and more particularly 894:16–17).163 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 892:8. 164 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 157. K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 894:2 still refers to the Niy episode.


marker aHa.n establishes little cohesion with the preceding sentence – the enumeration of heroic deeds is only incidentally influenced by temporal considerations.165 The idea is then rather to in-dicate thematic continuity from the preceding passage in the manner of ‘in addition’ and perhaps to a certain degree contingency between events within an episode (‘when’), despite the fact that aHa.n is (at least ordinarily) an initial particle.166 This form is also used in this manner as part of the Niy episode mentioned directly before (column 23), where it describes not the initiation but the development of the episode, prefacing a turning point in the action:

Example 4

aHa[.n] 24) Szp.n pA Abw aA n.tï jm=sn aHA

aHa:n Szp:n pA Abw aA ntï jm-sn aHA

then begin:ANT DEF.ART:M.SG

elephant(M)[SG] great REL amongst-3PL fight:INF

Then (when) the great(est) elephant which was amongst them launched an attack... (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 893:16–17).

Here, the elephant charging on the king can be seen as a prelude to the action of Amenemheb saving the king in the next clause. The translation of the following, very similar Kadesh passage could then go along the same lines: “and then when the prince of Kadesh sent forth a mare...”, from which it would be clear that this episode is not (necessarily) consecutive to the Niy epi-sode, but rather serves as a background for Amenemheb’s ‘courageous’ pursuit and killing of the mare.167 This interpretation suggests that the later Kadesh incident may refer back to the Kadesh campaign mentioned in column 15,168 since the two occurrences can be separated on thematic grounds. Amenemheb’s subsequent actions appear in the grammatical foreground (i.e. with him as subject) in both of these cases, which also lends weight to the theory that the temporal markers do not so much mean ‘the next event in time’ as ‘the next sequence in the current discourse (about me)’.169 Thus even a conjunctive adjunct such as this with ostensible narrative intent really only serves to fuel the theme of Amenemheb’s heroism.170 The usage of the discourse markers shows us the extent to which these passages are both grammatically and semantically parallel.

The infinitive form that appears in column 30171 as rDj.t jn Hm=f and 32172 as wHm jn nb=j is also used initially. The jn is a preposition and agent marker.173 Possibly the use of the infinitive at this moment relates to the ‘narrative infinitive’, which characterises Annals-style writing.174 It

165 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 5:16, 6:11.166 The ‘balanced’ type of ‘when-clause’ in an initial finite clause is a common subordination strategy in

world languages, for which see S. Cristofaro, ‘When’ Clauses, in: M. S. Dryer / M. Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Leipzig 2013 (http://wals.info/chapter/126), 23.09.2014.

167 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 894:8–11.168 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 892:8.169 M. A. K. Halliday / R. Hasan, Cohesion, 267.170 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 157.171 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 894:16.172 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 895:6.173 D. A. Werning, Einführung, 130; J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian, 86.174 W. Helck, Beziehungen, 120. This has also been called the ‘daybook style’ (A. J. Spalinger, Aspects, 122),

on account of the Annals having been allegedly sourced from a military ‘daybook’.


may have been used in the autobiography to similar effect, emphasising the role of the king as agent, and perhaps even refers to an original document,175 although such a suggestion is highly speculative. Since this infinitive form is used within the same episode as another infinitive, in wHm jn nb=j,176 perhaps they were used for the same reasons, not to begin an episode but to con-tinue one. Therefore, infinitives convey continuation within the discourse.

The word xft that seems to initiate the episode in column 5177 provides a grammatical pro-blem. Firstly, since it is a preposition,178 its use is generally inter-clausal rather than initial.179 However, the use of a different toponym180 indicates contextual change,181 as well as a temporal connection,182 since it corresponds in its temporal usage roughly to ‘when’.183 In this position in the sentence, it most probably introduces an aside. Therefore, after Amenemheb’s description of the battle and captives made in Negeb, he elaborates on the fate of his captives, who were placed before the king “when his majesty arrived at Naharin”.184 This theory therefore advocates a lo-gical sequence in the autobiography relating Amenemheb’s travel north towards the Euphrates. In any case, what we see throughout the text is that most particles that begin episodes are enu-merative and not explicitly narrative.

In applying discourse analysis to this text we can confirm the predominance of enumerative forms,185 which emphasise the expositional, rather than narrative, nature of the autobiography: in this respect it clearly pertains to the text type of ‘encomiastic biography’.186 The theme prima-

175 This has been speculated in regard to the autobiography of Ahmose, son of Ibana (A. J. Spalinger, Aspects, 134) on the basis of the infinitive form (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 4:10 and 11).

176 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 895:6. 177 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 890:16.178 D. A. Werning, Einführung, 69; J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian, 88.179 A. H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar. Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, Oxford 1957,

§ 159: “Egyptian shows a repugnance for placing so weak a word as a preposition at the beginning of a sentence”.

180 E. Gülich / U. M. Quasthoff, Narrative Analysis, 192, show how this is one of the most common methods of determining contextual change.

181 This concept is manifest on Ritter’s parse tree, where xft appears as a top branch, and hence as an initia-ting clause, T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 154. The contradiction that this form presents can furthermore be seen in T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 151, who does not count xft as an initial marker in his chart by emboldening it, but despite this he translates xft as an initiating item ‘als’.

182 It seems to be what T. A. van Dijk, Connectives in Text Grammar and Text Logic, in: T. A. van Dijk / J. Petöfi (eds.), Grammars and Descriptions. Studies in Text Theory and Text Analysis, Berlin 1977, 14–15 calls a ‘time conjunctive’.

183 D. A. Werning, Einführung, 130; S. Uljas, The Modal System of Earlier Egyptian Complement Clauses: A Study in a Dead Language, PdÄ 26, Leiden 2007, 222.

184 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 890:14–891:1.185 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 156. Forms of the enumerative type include jw sDm.n=f and

forms of the verb wHm. On the other hand, aHa.n, a sequential text relation occurs either within the episo-des, or in a sense that does not seem sequential.

186 J. B. Callender, Discourse, 76, referring to R. E. Longacre, An Anatomy of Speech Notions, Lesse 1976, 200, establishes criteria for historical narrative and the expository genre. The autobiography of Amenemheb fulfils criteria for both, which indicates the text’s existence between the two genres, as sug-gested by C. J. Eyre, Is Egyptian Historical Literature ‘Historical’ or ‘Literary’?, in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature. History and Forms, PdÄ 10, Leiden 1996, 429. See also A. M. Gnirs, Die ägyptische Autobiographie, 203. Vladimir Propp’s functions of narrative, expounded by M. J. Toolan, Narrative. A Critical Linguistic Introduction, London 1988, 14–17, are not as pertinent to this text.


rily discussed is the courage and initiative of Amenemheb.187 This notwithstanding, sequence in the text exists and it appears not only semantically through the battles.188 The discourse markers themselves indicate sequence in the text through change in the hierarchical structures, such as when the king ‘enters’ the text grammatically and semantically at Naharin.

4.2 Hierarchy

Due to the predominance given to the king in the introduction and the emphasis throughout the text of instances in which Amenemheb was m-bAH nzw, ‘in the presence of the king’189 once he reaches Naharin,190 it seems likely that in the parts of the document that do not mention the king, the king was most probably not present in person.

Thutmose III is explicitly referred to as being present in the text from line 11 onwards, but, as we would perhaps expect from an autobiography, Amenemheb, our narrator, remains gram-matically central. He is the subject in verbal sentences as the suffix pronoun =j and in non-verbal nominal sentences as jnk.

Nevertheless, a dramatic shift in the discourse occurs in column 12 via the use of jw mA.n=j nxt(.w) nzw ‘I saw the victories of the king’.191 From here, all mentions of Amenemheb’s captures appear in bare non-initial main clauses,192 subordinated to introductory clauses that describe him observing the exploits of the king, who is the initiator of the military activity.193 Another formulation, to equal effect, is jw wHm.n=j mAA:

Example 5

[jw] 20) wHm.n=j mAA nxt(.w)=f

jw wHm:n-j mAA nxt:w-f

GRND repeat:ANT-1SG see:INF victory:PL-3SG.M

Again I saw his victories (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 893:5).

These cases indicate that when the king is physically present, he takes precedence at a semantic level in the clause: Amenemheb is the subject of the predicate but not the agent of the action being described, whereas the king is the agent but is either the object194 or he is not explicitly mentioned.195 An interesting compromise of power ensues: although the tomb owner maintains grammatical importance, he can no longer initiate an episode, which seems to be a style used

187 This is, following A. M. Gnirs, Biographies, 186, 187, an ‘encomiastic autobiography’, in which the ar-rangement of scenes is flexible, and the most prominent topic is professional success, brought about by initiative.

188 T. Ritter, Semantische Diskursstrukturen, 150.189 J. M. Galán, Victory and Border, 214.190 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:13.191 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:16.192 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 892:2.193 M. G. Hasel, Domination and Resistance, 87.194 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 892:16.195 The only cases in which the king is subject of a finite verbal predicate is when he is in the course of giving

and rewarding, not of acting/fighting and so on (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 893:10, 894:3).


in other private autobiographies of this period.196 Thus, we can see two themes: Amenemheb’s bravery, but also his position relative to the king, a phenomenon that seems common in private autobiographies.197 Thus, by accepting the extent to which hierarchy in life is also manifest in language,198 we can chart exactly when the king ‘arrives’ in the document, a conclusion as im-portant for the historical record as it is for discourse analysis.

Line Episode introduced by discourse marker Paratactic sentence Place

2 jw Sms.n(=j) nb=j r nmt.(w)t=f

4 jw xfa.n(=j) xAs.t n.(ï)t ngb

5 xft spr Hm=f nhrn

6 D(j)=j st m-bAH Hm={k}<f> nhrn

7 wHm xfa.n(=j) wDy.t tn xAs.t tA Ts.t-wan Hr jmn.tï xlb

9 wHm kfa.n(=j) wDy.t tn xAs.t n.(ï)t qrqmS

11 [wAH].n=j st m-bAH nb=j nhrn

12 jw mA.n=j nxt(.w) nzw xAs.t snDr

13 xfa.n=j m-bAH nzw xAs.t snDr

14 jw wHm.n=j mAA qnn=f [dmj n(.ï)] qdS

15-16 [D(j)=j st] m-bAH nzw dmj n(.ï) qdS


17 jw mA.n(=j) nb=j xAs.t pH.wï n(.ï) TDA [///]m[///]HA[///] xr=tw

20 [jw] wHm.n=j mAA nxt.w=f xAs.t n.(ï)t tjxsï Xz.t m dmj n(.ï) mrjw[///]

21 kfa.n=j jm=f m-bAH nzw xAs.t n.(ï)t tjxsï Xz.t m dmj n(.ï) mrjw[///]

23 wHm [mA.n(=j)] ky zp mnx jr(j).n nb tA.wï nïy

23 aHa[.n] Szp.n pA Abw aA n.tï jm=sn aHA nïy

24-25 jnk Sad Dr.t=f jw=f an[x] [m-bAH] Hm=f nïy

25-26 aHa.n rD(j).n pA wr n(.~) qdS pr(j) wa.t ssm.t qdS

28-29 rD(j).n=j sw m-bAH nzw qdS

30 rD(j).t jn Hm=f pr(j) qn nb n(.ï) mSa=f qdS

32 wHm jn nb=j{r} fqA.w=j Hr=s qdS

196 The repeated use of jw mA.n(=j) is noted in the stela inscription of Iamunedjeh (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 940:9, 10, 11) and the statue inscription of Minmose (W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1441:16, 18).

197 A. Hermann, Stelen, 123, quoting from the autobiography of Amenemhet. See also the statue inscription of Iamunedjeh (W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1370:9–10).

198 The hierarchical structure of discourse, manifest in the grammar, is emphasised by T. Ritter, Semantische Disursstrukturen, 124, based on the writings of L. Polanyi, in: Journal of Pragmatics 12/5–6 (1988), 602.



33 xr-swt jr(j).n=j nn n(.ï) kfa jw=j m waw N/A

36 jst nzw km.n=f aHa.w=f N/A

Tab. 1: Clauses with discourse markers in context. The turning point is marked in grey.

4.3 Paths crossing

To return now to our conclusions of the toponymic analysis, it was argued that provided we allow for deviations within the episode structure, the toponyms could logically follow one ano-ther in a northward and then a southward direction. This indicates that events documented in the autobiography of Amenemheb most probably did fall into the timeframe of Thutmose III’s eighth campaign of Year 33. What remains then is to attempt to analyse the events, as they could reasonably have occurred in order to reconstruct the routes taken by Amenemheb and Thutmose III respectively.

4.3.1 The route of the king

The Gebel Barkal Stela clearly indicates that the king travelled up the Levantine coast as far, possibly, as Byblos,199 in the mountains behind which he had boats made.200 The verb DAj sug-gests that the king travelled by ship.201 Although the stated destination is the pHw.w n.w sTt, ‘the furthest limits of Asia’,202 since the ships were built “on the mountains of God’s Land in the neighbourhood of the Lady of Byblos”,203 it is likely that the royal ships stopped at Byblos. The army caravan then probably travelled inland,204 possibly through Qatna,205 as is suggested by the fragment of Pylon VII which refers to ‘… [the dis]trict of Qatna on the 8th victorious

199 D. B. Redford, Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom, in: S. Ahituv (ed.), Beer-Sheva. Studies by the Department of Bible and Ancient Near East IV, Beer-Sheva 1990, 33, claims that campaigns 5 through 7 concerned securing the Phoenician ports, which allowed Byblos to be put to use in the 8th campaign.

200 W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1232:1–3.201 See W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1232:1. The verb DAj means ‘to ferry across water’ (R. O. Faulkner, Concise

Dictionary, 318). Thus, Sethe’s similar reconstruction at the beginning of the Annals (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 697:3) is probably justified.

202 W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1232:1; B. Cumming, Egyptian Historical Records of the Later 18th Dynasty, Fascicle I, Warminster 1982, 2; R. Hannig, Die Sprache der Pharaonen. Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch (2800–950 v. Chr.), Mainz 1995, 289.

203 W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1232:2–3. Breasted’s claim (AR, 201), that the navy docked at Simyra, has been outdated by the discovery of the Gebel Barkal Stela. For a recent discussion of the term tA nTr ‘God’s land’, see E. Hirsch, Ramses III. und sein Verhältnis zur Levante, in: R. Gundlach / U. Rößler-Köhler (eds.), Das Königtum der Ramessidenzeit. Voraussetzungen – Verwirklichung – Vermächtnis. Akten des 3. Symposions zur ägyptischen Königsideologie in Bonn 7.–9.6.2001, BAKI 3, ÄAT 36,3, Wiesbaden 2003, 205: “Dieser Begriff wurde nicht nur für den Libanon verwendet, sondern auch auf Arabien, Punt und andere Länder, die als Lieferanten von exotischen Hölzern, Harzen, Mineralien etc. bekannt waren, angewandt”.

204 This can clearly be seen in W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1232:4, translation in B. Cumming, Egyptian Historical Records, 2 – The vessels “were then placed on carts and oxen dragged them”.

205 Qatna has been associated with modern Mishrife, on the east side of the Orontes, for which see D. Morandi Bonacossi (ed.), Urban and Natural landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital. Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-Western Syria, Studi archeologici su Qatna, Udine 2007.


campaign’.206 A route towards the Euphrates was then pursued.207 The places that were encoun-tered on the journey are uncertain. As discussed in Section 3.2, the postulation that Aleppo and Carchemish were visited as part of the official campaign is based on a misuse of the autobiogra-phy of Amenemheb.208 The king then ‘crossed the Euphrates pursuing him who attacked him … seeking that wretched enemy of the land of Mitanni’.209 Since Carchemish was a strategic crossing in the ancient world,210 it is certainly a possible location, although Amenemheb, who most probably crossed separately,211 is our only source for this theory. At Carchemish proper there is a stream 300 metres wide, which may have been an appropriate place for the royal crossing, whereas sand islands south of the citadel would perhaps have been too shallow.212 Following this, Thutmose seems to have set up a stela on the bank of the Euphrates,213 most pro-bably to commemorate the victories of the king in its most distant frontier.214 The Gebel Barkal Stela states that the stela ‘was cut out of the mountain on the west side of the Euphrates’.215 However, this phrase could refer to quarrying the stone or alternatively to cutting the stela into the bank.216

206 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 188:15–16.207 W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1232:5–6.208 R. O. Faulkner, in: JEA 32 (1946), 40; W. Helck, Beziehungen, 151. Naturally we should keep in mind

that the Annals records were very abbreviated (A. J. Spalinger, Aspects, 128), but this does not mean we should by definition use all sources in the same manner.

209 W. Helck, Urk, IV, 1232:8–9; translation B. Cumming, Egyptian Historical Records, 3. The crossing of the Euphrates is mentioned in the Armant Stela (W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1245:20), the Constantinople Obelisk (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 587:13), the Poetical Stela (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 613:9), as well as in the stela inscription of Montuiwy (W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1467:10), and tomb inscription of Menkheperreseneb (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 930:16–931:3), which refers to the king’s crossing of the Euphrates, as well as his ‘destruc-tion’ of the ‘lands of Mitanni’.

210 Y. Aharoni, The Archaeology of the Land of Israel. From the Prehistoric Beginnings to the End of the First Temple Period, transl. A. F. Rainey, Philadelphia 1978, 101. The idea of a ford, which would have provided a through route for trade, is suggested by C. L. Wooley, Carchemish, 38 and maintained by I. H. Marshall / A. R. Millard / J. I. Packer / D. J. Wiseman (eds.), New Bible Dictionary, 177 and J. A. Miller, Carchemish, 173.

211 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:9–12.212 C. L. Wooley, Carchemish, 34, with a map of the area on p. 37. We must be aware, however, that the river

has very probably changed its course over time.213 W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1232:11. This gives us no indication either of which mountain, or the way in which

the stela was established. Breasted’s theory that Thutmose III erected two stelae (J. H. Breasted, AR, 202) mistakenly relies on his own reconstruction of a second stela in the Annals, and the use of the word ky (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 697:5), which seems to refer to the nearby stela of Thutmose I.

214 J. M. Galán, Victory and Border, 313. That the stela marked the extent of Egyptian control is postulated both by W. Helck, Wo errichtete Thutmosis III. seine Siegesstele am Euphrat?, in: CdE 56 (1981), 242. See also A. J. Spalinger, A New Reference to an Egyptian Campaign of Thutmose III in Asia, in: JNES 37 (1978), 40.

215 W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1232:12.216 The verb SAd ‘to cut out’ can mean ‘to quarry’ (R. O. Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 262). A. H. Gardiner,

AEO, 175*, note 1 and W. Helck, in: CdE 56 (1981), 241–242 propose that the Naharin stela was located on the east bank, the stela “being taken from a mountain on the west side of the Euphrates” and establis-hed on the east bank, the easternmost limit of Egyptian control, according to the Armant Stela (W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1246:2) and the Annals (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 697:3–5) (A. J. Spalinger, in: JNES 37 [1978], 40). This theory is also based on the presumption that the west bank is a steep cliff whereas the east bank is flatter, and therefore not appropriate for cutting out a stela (W. Helck, in: CdE 56 [1981], 242, supported by C. L. Wooley, Carchemish, 33–34). This theory assumes, however, that the Naharin stela was free-standing, which is not certain, though this idea is supported by a stela fragment in Pennsylvania (Stela


The Niy episode probably follows ‘on his returning from Naharin’,217 although in the Gebel Barkal Stela, as with Amenemheb’s autobiography,218 it occurs outside the chronological frame-work of the battles, being introduced by: “Still another instance which Re decreed to me …”,219 and continuing the theme of the god’s generosity to the king. The Armant Stela also places the elephant hunt in a thematic context, although in this case it refers to the hunting prowess of the king.220 As discussed earlier, the Annals seem to suggest a siege on the city itself,221 which may have preceded the hunt, in which the king allegedly took out 120 elephants,222 since both clearly occurred on the eighth campaign.223 The next passage of the Gebel Barkal Stela records returning south to Egypt (Hzj m xntj r tA-mrj).224

4.3.2 The route of Amenemheb

Since the document has been shown to be sequential, we can assume that the first three episodes are logistically important, indicating Amenemheb’s journey north to meet the king. The later episodes then document his travels back south. The choice of the locations is not just logistical: every episode relates to Amenemheb’s achievements. Therefore, the outcome of these events for the Egyptian army as a whole does not seem to play a decisive role, which would account for a significant deviation from the official records, which concentrate on the nxt.w of the king.225 Therefore, the value of this document extends from the different sort of information it offers.

In terms of the route itself, we can postulate that Amenemheb travelled via Negeb up to-wards Aleppo, then northeast to Carchemish. Amenemheb’s route from Negeb to Aleppo may have involved the later dubbed ‘King’s Highway’, which was the main inland route226 from the Gulf of Aqabah east of the Jordan River to Damascus.227 He might then have crossed the plain of El-Beqa’,228 a common route for Egyptian troops,229 up the east side of the Orontes River towards Aleppo. From there, he would have travelled northeast to arrive in Carchemish. Having crossed the Euphrates, he then met the king, who had been destroying the settlements on the ri-verbank.230 From here, after crossing to the west bank of the Euphrates, the army most probably

of Thutmose III, University Museum of Pennsylvania 39-12-3, in A. J. Spalinger, in: JNES 37 [1978], 35, 38, 41). However, since the stela was established “on that mountain of Naharin” (W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1232:11), perhaps the cliffs of the west were being referred to.

217 This is conveyed in the Armant Stela (W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1245:19).218 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 893:14ff.219 W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1233:13.220 This theme is demonstrated by the initial clause of the series of hunting stories (W. Helck, Urk. IV,

1245:12): “If he spends a moment of recreation on the hunt in any foreign land …”221 W. Helck, Beziehungen, 152 assumes that it refers to the hunt, as does K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 698:13–14.222 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 893:15 and W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1233:16, 1245:18. 223 The Niy record of the Annals clearly forms part of the record of the eighth campaign, which mentions the

campaign in Naharin (K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 696:15ff, 698:15–699:1). The Armant Stela then mentions the elephant hunt at Niy in connection to the campaign in Naharin (W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1245:18–20).

224 W. Helck, Urk. IV, 1232:20. This is explained in A. H. Gardiner, AEO 161*.225 J. M. Galán, Victory and Border, 206, 214.226 D. B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, 193.227 I. H. Marshall / A. R. Millard / J. I. Packer / D. J. Wiseman (eds.), New Bible Dictionary, 655.228 A. H. Gardiner, AEO, 138*. There is a good map of this region on p. 133*.229 A. H. Gardiner, AEO, 138*.230 Thutmose mentions using conflagration as his method of destruction, as seen in W. Helck, Urk. IV,

1231:7–8, and discussed by M. G. Hasel, Domination and Resistance, 248–249.


went on to Niy, where after a siege of some sort, Thutmose hunted elephants and Amenemheb saved his life.231 Perhaps Amenemheb does not mention the siege because he did not distinguish himself particularly here. From here, the army probably passed to Sendjar, in the vicinity of which there was a battle, followed by a siege on the city of Kadesh.232 A siege on an unknown city follows, after which the city of Meriu in the land of Takhsy was attacked. One fascinating conclusion that can be made from Amenemheb’s route is that Amenemheb, when going north, ‘makes captives’ in what seem to be raids in the countryside. Then, after he meets the king, suddenly town after town is captured in a series of sieges: this is seen through the tactics that are used, such as breaching and scaling the city walls.233 This provides further indication that the northward journey was a troubleshooting deposition, whereas the latter half of the text relates to activities on the actual eighth campaign.

4.4 Synergy

The hypothesis that the king ‘enters’ the text as an agent from line 12 onwards, once Amenemheb reaches Naharin, fits extremely well with the toponymic study, if we consider carefully what the place names are, where they are located and what seems to have happened in each. Firstly, only two of the toponyms – Naharin and Kadesh – occur explicitly outside the trajectory of northward and southward travel but they do so for clear thematic reasons. Moreover, whereas the toponyms in the first half of the text (the travel northwards) do not fit with the official re-cords of the eighth campaign of Thutmose III (Abb. 2), many from the second half do (Abb. 3), which makes it likely that Amenemheb had been conducting land battles in the Negeb and near Aleppo on his way to meet the king further north. The supposition of Cline and O’Connor, that chronological ordering of the events in the autobiography is impossible,234 is thus overstating the matter. The events could indeed quite feasibly belong to a single campaign.

5. Conclusions: How do we reconstruct History?

By analysing the methods by which information can be gained from sources, this study has reinterpreted the autobiography of the military man Amenemheb. Linguistic and toponymic methods were assessed and employed to discover the structure of this text, with significant results. The construction of the text is better understood and historical events can also be recon-sidered. These results come not only from the separate types of information that these two me-thods offer, but also from the way in which their results are interrelated and interdependent. For instance, the sequence in the text is established linguistically but the meaning of that sequence relies on the semantic context. On the other hand, the toponyms establish context within the text, by linking the document to historical events, but this information can only be studied with reference to the text’s sequence.

231 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 894:1–2.232 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 891:16–892:3, 8–11, 894:5–895:5. Whether this was the only siege on this city during

this campaign is not known.233 K. Sethe, Urk. IV, 893:3–4, 894:16–17.234 E. H. Cline / D. O’Connor, Thutmose III. A New Biography, Ann Arbor 2006, 327–333 simply claim

that “chronological sequence does not come into question. As in the seances and encomia, it is the thema-tic association that informs the ordering of events. Ignoring this obvious fact leads to serious distortion in writing a history”.


Discourse linguistics and toponymy in combination can therefore help us draw conclusions about historical documents like the autobiography of Amenemheb to decide whether the events of a single campaign are being outlined or whether a mixture of events from various campaigns are being described in no particular order. The conclusions reached from the analysis carried out here is that the text has a very clear structure, both in terms of the ordering of the episodes chronologically and thematically, but also grammatically. Amenemheb travels north without the king, is grammatically dominant and active. He meets the king in Naharin, sets his booty before him and becomes an onlooker. The action (via Amenemheb’s ever-present eye) becomes focused on King Thutmose III as the direction turns toward Egypt.

Interestingly, despite the methods undertaken being so disparate, the results are very similar, which reinforces our need to study texts from a variety of viewpoints and gives credibility to the result. On a more basic level this study also adds structural and semantic dimensions to our understanding of the text, and makes us more aware of how and why individuals such as Amenemheb wrote autobiographies. The study of this text emphasises that texts recording the achievements of officials necessitate a description of both proximity to the king and personal achievement – even in the absence of the king. These elements affect both text structure and form. Autobiographies have much to give to the historical record, but it is our interpretations of them that affect the way that we write history. It is fundamental to the study of history to be aware of the extent to which our interpretations are affected by our means of analysis. This study makes one aware of the inadequacy of utilising only one method in order to make his-torical conclusions, and conversely, the way in which using a variety of divergent methods not only lends more detail, but also more perspective to the study of the history of the Eighteenth Dynasty.

AbbildungsverzeichnisAbb. 1–3: © GoogleMaps, modified C. Di Biase-Dyson.

LiteraturverzeichnisAharoni, Y., The Archaeology of the Land of Israel. From the Prehistoric Beginnings to the End of the

First Temple Period, transl. A. F. Rainey, Philadelphia 1978.Aharoni, Y., The Land of the Bible. A Historical Geography, London 1967.Allen, J. P., Middle Egyptian. An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs, Second

Edition, Cambridge 2010.Ahituv, S., Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents, Jerusalem 1984.Bakir, A. E. M., Slavery in Pharaonic Egypt, ASAE Suppl. 18, Kairo 1952.Breasted, J. H., Ancient Records of Egypt II. Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the

Persian Conquest, Chicago 1906.Bunnens, G. / A. Kuschke / W. Röllig / U. Matthies, Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Wiesbaden 1990.Callender, J. B., Discourse and Sentence Structure, in: G. Englund / P. J. Frandsen (eds.), Crossroad:

Chaos or the Beginning of a New Paradigm. Papers from the Conference on Egyptian Grammar, Helsingør 28–30 May 1986, Kopenhagen 1986, 71–89.

Chevereau, P.-M., Prosopographie des Cadres Militaires Égyptiens du Nouvel Empire, Antony 1994. Cline, E. H. / D. O’Connor, Thutmose III. A New Biography, Ann Arbor 2006.Collier, M., The Language of Literature. On Grammar and Texture, in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient

Egyptian Literature. History and Forms, PdÄ 10, Leiden 1996, 531–553.Crystal, D., A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, New York 1985.Cumming, B., Egyptian Historical Records of the Later 18th Dynasty, Fascicle I, Warminster 1982.


Di Biase-Dyson, C. / F. Kammerzell / D. A. Werning, Glossing Ancient Egyptian. Suggestions for Adapting the Leipzig Glossing Rules, in: M. Müller / S. Uljas (eds.), Proceedings of Crossroads IV. Conference of Egyptian Language Studies, Basel, March 2009, in: LingAeg 17 (2009), 343–366.

Dijk, T. A. van, Connectives in Text Grammar and Text Logic, in: T. A. van Dijk / J. Petöfi (eds.), Grammars and Descriptions, Studies in Text Theory and Text Analysis, Berlin 1977.

Edel, E., Die Ortsnamenlisten aus dem Totentempel Amenophis III., Bonn 1966.Erman, A. / H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache I, Berlin 1971.Eyre, C. J., Approaches to the Analysis of Egyptian Sentences. Syntax and Pragmatics, in: G. Englund / P. J.

Frandsen (eds.), Crossroad: Chaos or the Beginning of a New Paradigm. Papers from the Conference on Egyptian Grammar, Helsingør 28–30 May 1986, Kopenhagen 1986, 119–143.

Eyre, C. J., Is Egyptian Historical Literature ‘Historical’ or ‘Literary’?, in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature. History and Forms, PdÄ 10, Leiden 1996, 415–433.

Eyre, C. J., Why was Egyptian Literature?, in: G. M. Zaccone / T. R. di Netro (eds.), Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia. Atti II, Turin 1992, 115–120.

Faulkner, R. O., A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford 1962.Faulkner, R. O., Egyptian Military Organization, in: JEA 39 (1953), 32–47.Faulkner, R. O., The Euphrates Campaign of Tuthmosis III, in: JEA 32 (1946), 39–42.Galán, J. M., Victory and Border. Terminology Related to Egyptian Imperialism in the XVIIIth Dynasty,

Ann Arbor 1994.Gardiner, A. H., Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. Text I, Oxford 1947.Gardiner, A. H., Egyptian Grammar. Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, Oxford 1957.Gardiner, A. H., Egyptian Hieratic Texts I, Leipzig 1911.Gnirs, A. M., Biographies, in: Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt I (2001), 184–189.Gnirs, A. M., Die ägyptische Autobiographie, in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature. History

and Forms, PdÄ 10, Leiden 1996, 191–241.Grandet, P., Le papyrus Harris I–II, BdE 109, Kairo 1994.Guksch, H., Königsdienst. Zur Selbstdarstellung der Beamten in der 18. Dynastie, SAGA 11, Heidelberg 1994.Gülich, E. / U. M. Quasthoff, Narrative Analysis, in: T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse

Analysis II: Dimensions of Discourse, London 1985.Gumbrecht, H. U., Does Egyptology Need a ‘Theory of Literature’?, in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient

Egyptian Literature. History and Forms, PdÄ 10, Leiden 1996, 3–18.Halliday, M. A. K., An Introduction to Functional Grammar, London 1994. Halliday, M. A. K. / R. Hasan, Cohesion in English, London 1976.Hallo, W. W., The Limits of Scepticism, in: JAOS 110/2 (1990), 187–199.Hannig, R., Die Sprache der Pharaonen. Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch (2800–950 v.

Chr.), Mainz 1995.Hasel, M. G., Domination and Resistance. Egyptian Military Activity in the Southern Levant, ca. 1300–

1185 B.C., PdÄ 11, Leiden 1998.Helck, W., Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Wiesbaden 1971.Helck, W., Urkunden der 18. Dynastie IV, Berlin 1984.Helck, W., Wo errichtete Thutmosis III. seine Siegesstele am Euphrat?, in: CdE 56 (1981), 241–244.Hermann, A., Die Stelen der Thebanischen Felsgräber der 18. Dynastie, Glückstadt 1940.Hirsch, E., Ramses III. und sein Verhältnis zur Levante, in: R. Gundlach / U. Rößler-Köhler (eds.),

Das Königtum der Ramessidenzeit. Voraussetzungen – Verwirklichung – Vermächtnis. Akten des 3. Symposions zur ägyptischen Königsideologie in Bonn 7.–9.6.2001, BAKI 3, ÄUAT 36,3, Wiesbaden 2003, 197–238.

Hoch, J. E., Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, Princeton 1994.

Hoffmeier, J. K., The Problem of ‘History’ in Egyptian Royal Inscriptions, in: G. M. Zaccone / T. R. di Netro (eds.), Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia. Atti I, Turin 1992, 291–299.

Hogarth, D. G., Carchemish. Report on the Excavations at Djerabis on Behalf of the British Museum I. Introductory, London 1914.

Junge, F., Late Egyptian Grammar. An Introduction, trans. D. Warburton, Oxford 2001.Klengel, H., Syria 3000 to 300 B.C. A Handbook of Political History, Berlin 1992.


Longacre, R. E., An Anatomy of Speech Notions, Lesse 1976.Loprieno, A., Defining Egyptian Literature. Ancient Texts and Modern Literary Theory, in: J. S. Cooper / G.

M. Schwartz (eds.), The Study of the Ancient Near East in the 21st Century, Winona Lake 1996, 209–232. Marshall, I. H. / A. R. Millard / J. I. Packer / D. J. Wiseman (eds.), New Bible Dictionary, Leicester 1996.Meyer, E., Geschichte des Alterthums II/1, Stuttgart 1928.Miller, J. A., Carchemish, in: N. Watson (ed.), International Dictionary of Historic Places IV: Middle

East and Africa, New York 2013, 173–176.Moran, W. L., The Amarna Letters, Baltimore 1992.Morandi Bonacossi, D. (ed.), Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital. Settlement

and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-Western Syria, Studi archeologici su Qatna, Udine 2007.

Müller, W. M., Egyptological Researches. Results of a Journey in 1904, Washington 1906.Ockinga, B., A Concise Grammar of Middle Egyptian, Mainz 1988.Polanyi, L., A Formal Model of the Structure of Discourse, in: Journal of Pragmatics. An Interdisciplinary

Bi-Monthly of Language Studies 12/5–6 (1988), 601–638.Porter, B. / R. L. B. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs

and Paintings I. The Theban Necropolis, Part 1. Private Tombs, Oxford 1960.Redford, D. B., A Bronze Age Itinerary in Transjordan (Nos. 89–101 of Thutmose III’s List of Asiatic

Toponyms), in: JSSEA 12/2 (1982), 55–74.Redford, D. B., Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton 1992.Redford, D. B., Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom, in: S. Ahituv (ed.), Beer-Sheva. Studies by the

Department of Bible and Ancient Near East IV, Beer-Sheva 1990.Redford, D. B., The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III, Culture and History of the Ancient

Near East 16, Leiden 2003.Ritter, T., Semantische Diskursstrukturen, erläutert am Beispiel des narrativen Texttyps, in: L.

Gestermann / H. Sternberg-El Hotabi (eds.), Per aspera ad astra. Wolfgang Schenkel zum neunund-fünfzigsten Geburtstag, Kassel 1995, 123–162.

Schulman, A. R., Military Rank, Title and Organisation in the Egyptian New Kingdom, Michigan 1962. Sethe, K., Urkunden der 18. Dynastie IV, Berlin 1961.Silverman, D. P., Clauses in Middle Egyptian, in: G. Englund / P. J. Frandsen (eds.), Crossroad: Chaos

or the Beginning of a New Paradigm. Papers from the Conference on Egyptian Grammar, Helsingør 28–30 May 1986, Kopenhagen 1986, 315–335.

Simons, J., Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia, Leiden 1937.Spalinger, A. J., A Critical Analysis of the ‘Annals’ of Thutmose III (Stücke V–VI), in: JARCE 14 (1977), 41–54.Spalinger, A. J., A New Reference to an Egyptian Campaign of Thutmose III in Asia, in: JNES 37 (1978), 35–41.Spalinger, A. J., Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians, Yale Near Eastern

Researches 9, New Haven 1982. Toolan, M. J., Narrative. A Critical Linguistic Introduction, London 1988.Tulhoff, A., Thutmosis III. 1490–1435 v. Chr. Das ägyptische Weltreich auf dem Höhepunkt der Macht,

München 1984.Uljas, S., The Modal System of Earlier Egyptian Complement Clauses: A Study in a Dead Language,

PdÄ 26, Leiden 2007.Virey, P., Sept Tombeaux Thébains. Mémoires de la Mission Française au Caire V, Kairo 1891.Werning, D. A., Einführung in die hieroglyphisch-ägyptische Schrift und Sprache, 2. verbesserte

Ausgabe, Berlin 2013–2014.Wilson, J. A., Egyptian Historical Texts, in: J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to

the Old Testament, Princeton 1955, 227–264.Wooley, C. L., Carchemish. Report on the Excavations at Djerabis on Behalf of the British Museum II.

The Town Defences, London 1921. Yeivin, S., A New Egyptian Source for the History of Palestine and Syria, in: JPOS 14 (1934), 194–229.

OnlineCristofaro, S., ‘When’ Clauses, in: M. S. Dryer / M. Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language

Structures Online, Leipzig 2013 (http://wals.info/chapter/126), 23.09.2014.


Glossing abbreviations

1 first person3 third personADJV adjectivizerANT anteriorART articleCOMPL completiveDEF definite (article)F feminineGRND groundINF infinitiveM masculineNEG negativePL pluralREL relativeSG single- connects segmentable morphemes= marks clitic boundary: marks units that are segmentable without visible formal segmentation_ shows that two words in one language correspond to one in another. separates several meta-language elements rendered by a single object-language element( ) marks inherent, non-overt categories[ ] marks an element in the gloss not corresponding to element in the source language{} emends a scribal error (deletion) or represents an orthographical convention


Abb. 1: The landscape traversed in the text


Abb. 2: Amenemheb (= dashed line) on tour northwards and the 8th campaign of Thutmose III (= solid line)


Abb. 3: Ameneheb on his way back (8th campaign of Thutmose III)

Amenemheb’s Excellent Adventure in Syria. New Insights from Discourse Analysis and Toponymics...

Documents

Transcript of Amenemheb’s Excellent Adventure in Syria. New Insights from Discourse Analysis and Toponymics...