Altoriental. Forsch., Akademie Verlag, 39 (2012) I,73-80 Rolp Knauss M a- na- afu- pi - / ir- /j a = Mn- bpr- r' Abstract Ma-na-ab-pi-/ir-/ja of the Amarna letters can be identified as Mn-ftpr-r', the throne name of Thutmosis III, rather than Mn-hpr.w-r', the throne name of Thutmosis IV This equation is supported by the un-etymological writing of Thutmoses III's throne name as Mn!-p3-r'in hieroglyphic and Demotic sources. The Hellenistic renderings of Mr -hpr-r' asMesphres and of Mr !-p3-r' as Mrlpqlg indicate that Mrcacpqr,g, as Africanus renders the throne name of Thutmosis III in his copy of the Manethonian king list, is corrupt. It remains an open question whether ftpr in Thutmoses III's throne name is the same as fupr in related names,like Hpr-hpr.w-r', the throne name of Aya. Keywords: Amarna Letters, Egyptian throne names, cuneiform and Greek renderings, Thutmoses Neferkheprure-Akhenaten III, According to Devecchi and Miller (2012:146t.), the Hittite text KUB 19.15+ 'is a narrative composition of Mursili II in which he relates his surly correspondence with an Egyptian named Ar-ma-a.... In the second column Mursili complains of Egyptian intervention in Amurru, which is said to have taken place when a certain person ascended a throne; the new king's name and country are broken away.' Groddek (2007: 100 n. 22) suggests that the latter passage is indicative of a change of ruler on the Hittite, rather than the Egyptian, throne; but he remarks that this suggestion results in difficulties. Wilhelm (2009: 112) points out that the sentence after the relevant passage mentions Mursili's reaction to the Egyptian invasion of Amurru, which does not suit Groddek's interpretation.l Only a trace of the new king's name is preserved; it cannot be read '11 but might suit a HL Wilhelm argues in favour of A[rmaa] < Haremhab. In Miller's response to Wilhelm's proposal (Devecchi / Mlller 2012:156f.), he concludes that 'while it cannot be categorically excluded thatAfr-ma-a] could be restored in l. 2', it still seems quite unlikely.' Wilhelm argues agpinst a reconstruction of the name as A[ya], Haremhab's predecessor on the throne, pointing out that Aya's birth name is not to be expected here, since, as is well 1 Abbreviations used can be found in W Helck / W. Westendorf (eds.), Lexikon der Agyptologie VII, Wiesbaden 1992, XIV-XIX; appendices at http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/helios/fachinfo/www/ aegypt/siglen.html. 74 Rolf Krauss, Ma -na-a!-pi-/ir-/ja = Mn-bpr-r, known, Hittite and other Middle Babylonian sources refer to the Egyptian kings by their throne names. wilhelm (2009:112) sees a problem with Aya's throne name Hpr-hpr.w-r, , 'der in keilschriftlicher (Jmsetzung nach Analogie der bezeugten Thronnamen auf -chepru-re mit dem Zeichen HU beginnen sollte, was ebenfalls nicht zu der Zeichenspur passt.' Devecchi and Miller point to a misunderstanding insofar as Aya's throne name does not begin with fupr.w; rather, hpr,which is not the same as fopr.w,is the first element. Nevertheless, the authors conclude that 'of the suggestions put forth thus far, Aya's throne name flpr- jpr.w-r' canbe considered a leading candidate.'2 The fipr of $pr-[pr.w-r'is perhaps the same word as found in Mn-hpr-r', the throne name of Thutmosis III, which in turn is probably attested in cuneiform as Ma-na-ab-pi-ja (EA 51, from Nub[a5ie) and Ma-na-afi-pi-ir-ja (EA 59, from Tirnip). How hpr of Mn-bpr-r, was pronounced is a question which can be answered without tackling the thorny issue of whether fupr.w is the plural of a substantive fupr or something else (cf. Osing 1976: 550 ff., 882 ff.). Another contentious issue that can be ignored in the present context is the grammatical interpretation of the throne names of Egyptian kings. In the most recent English translation of the Amarna letters, Moran (1992: I30) renders the relevant passage in EA 59, 'Tunip - who ruled it in the past? Did not Manabpirya: am-ma-ti-wu-uJ (Stour anceslor) rule it?'He translates the passage in EA 51 (ibid.:122):'... when Manalpiya, the king of Egypt, your ancestor, made [T]a[ku], my ancestor, a king in Nu!a55e ...'. In a footnote (ibid.:122, n. 1), Moran remarks that'since Thutmosis III (Manalpiya) was not the grandfather of any of the kings possibly addressed in this letter, Akkadian ab(i) abi, "grandfather", must have here a more general meaning, undoubtedly through the influence of Hurrian ammati "grandfather, ancestor" . . .'. Aside from noting that Thutmosis III took Thnip in his 42"d year, Moran does not discuss the identification of Ma-na-a!-pi-/ir/-ja as Thutmosis III in depth. In Knudtzonb edition of the Amarna Letters (1915: 40-42), he interpreted the genealogical indications in EA 51 and 59 verbatim and identified Ma-na-ab-pi-/ir/-ja as Mnfupr.w-r' = Thutmosis IY the grandfather of Amenhotep IV / Akhenaten, and the latter as recipient of both letters. Weber (in Knudtzon / weber 1915, IV: 1I02f.,1125f.) in his commentary on Knudtzon's edition, relied on the Egyptologist Hermann Ranke (1910: l2), who identified Ma-na-afi-pi-/ir/-ja with Thutmosis III. A quarter century earlier, the Egyptologist Georg Steindorff (1890: 333f.) had already reached the same conclusion, referring to the evident correspondence of Manachpilir/j a Lo Mn-fupr-r., while supposing (erroneously) thatB{2g named Thutmosis IV as Mimmuaria. In 1920, Ranke (1920:73) argued his point in detail, noting that in cuneiform the p of fupr.w is rendered, if at all, with an Alef, and that hpr.w is usually written bu-ru as, for example, in Nfr-fupr.w-r' : Na-ap-bu-ru-ri-ja. Moreover, Ranke referred to xeQ < fupr.w asi.t appears in royal names in the so-called Manethonian king list.3 Ranke cited AXcQQqS tentatively as a transcription of '3-fopr.w-r' (throne name of Amenhotep II). Actually AXeQQng in Africanus, Eusebius and in the Book of Sothis is a corruption of what Josephus Devecchi / Miller (2012: I57) also cite Marc Gabolde's tentative suggestion, according to which the first element in Aya's throne name would correspond to *bip I *bap or *bi l*!a. For Manetho's Aigyptiaka see Krauss (2006: 227-234);for a correction see Ryhort (201r: 6rJz). Altoriental. Forsch. 39 (201 2) I 75 renders as Axeyx€Qng or Ax€yXsQqE örsQoE, corresponding to 'n!-hpr.w-r< and 'nb(.t)hpr.w-r'. Ranke concluded that Manachpirja = Mn-hpr-r', i.e. Thutmosis III, and he reconstructed hpr as *hpir;for Mn-fupr.w-r'(Thutmosis IV) he suggested the vocalization * Man/Minfru-ru-ri-j a. Recently Hertier (2012:.115t.) explained the Egyptian royal name Necpeqorrrpgr,g, which is cited in Suda e 3399 and r 762, as Nfr-fipr.w-r', the throne name of Akhenaten;a his explanation has a bearing on the vocalization of fipr.w.Hertier translates the first entry in the Suda as follows: 'EYIPAMMATON ONOMA (< nom bien 6crit >): [nom] de bon augure. OYK EY|PAMMATON (< qui n'est pas bien 6crit >), [nom] de mauvais augure: ainsi pour fl'expression] < Nephersophris roi d'Egypte >>.' He concludes that the articles in the Suda 'fassent rdfdrence de maniöre explicite ä Neferkheprourö, et de maniöre un peu plus obscure ä sa sinistre m6moire . .. .' The identification of the names NecpegoocpquE and Nfr-fipr.w-r' is not straightforward. The cuneiform examples show that the r of nfr in Nfr-hpr.w-r'was not preserved, or in any case not pronounced. The p of fipr.w was represented by an Alef if at all, as noted by Ranke. The full vowel ur in the penultimate o<llcp is unexpected; it should be an e as in Xeg < fupr.w, cited above, or perhaps an a. A full vowel is to be expected in the last syllable -r', for which the standard Greek rendering would have been -Q4E.Thus Necpeqotoqglg is not the contemporaneous pronunciation of Akhenaten's throne name, and it differs from its late pronunciation as at least partially preserved inlhe x-hpr.wr'-name AxelXegqE. Another recent discovery allows for a modification of Hertier's interpretation, alleviating the obstacles inherent in it. Biston-Moulin (20t2: 19-27) has shown that the well- known alteration of Thutmosis III's epitheton nfr-fipr(.w) into zm3 fiprw, '3-fiprw etc., dates not to his own reign but rather to post-Amarna times. These alterations are mostly documented in Theban temples, but also at Buhen, Elephantine and Dendera. BistonMoulin proposes that the epithet may have been interpreted pars pro toto as Akhenaten's throne name, which was subject Io a damnatio memoriae. After centuries, the royal epithet Nfr-[pr(.w) reappeared in Theban temple inscriptions of the Late Period (Biston-Moulin 2012:23),s but it seems possible that a tradition survived about the negative connotations of Nfr-!pr.w. The Suda's vepsQorrlcpQlE corresponds plausibly to *nefer56prö: Nfr-!pr.w. The question arises whether Nfr-hpr.w, the epitheton of Thutmosis III, is the same as Nfr-lpr.w in Akhenatent throne name. There might be a difference that is not evident in the hieroglyphic writing, but only in the contemporaneous pronunciation. Possibly the many syllables of *Na-far-bup-raw-ri-'a prompted a shortened pronunciation with one stressed syllable at the end. The Manethonian form Nep€QXsQTIE for Nfr-k3-r'provides a plausible parallel:6 here, in a name of four syllables, nfr is not shortened as compared to a In the late 1970s I discussed the relevant entries in the Suda with the Egyptologist Gerhard Fecht and the Papyrologist Herwig $aehler without coming close to the solution which Hertier has found. s Biston-Moulin mentions a Third Intermediate Period ruler of Hermopolis who chose Nfr-fipr-r' as his prenomen and Thothemhat as nomen. This regional ruler might have chosen his prenomen as an allusion to Nfr-!pr.w-r', Akhenaten, who had ruled in neighbouring Amarna and never attacked Thoth, the god of Hermopolis; Akhenaten's attacks on Amun of Thebes might have been of no concern to a later local ruler in Middle Egypt. 6 For this king of Dyn. XXI see von Beckerath $98a:253). Rolf Krauss, Ma-na-afu-pifirJja = Mn-bpr-r' 76 the six syllables in Akhenaten's throne name. If so, Nfr-frpr.w-r'might well have been pronounced *Nafchururi'a or *Nefchururi'a, yielding NapA{ip-chururiya in cuneiform, as implied by Miller's (2007, passim) identification of Armaa with Haremhab. By contrast to Ranke, Vergote (1961: 15; cf. Edel 1963: 35) reconstructed Mn-!pr-r' as *Min-[äpar-rö' on the basis of Mr,oo,cppug, i.e. Africanus's rendering of Thutmosis III's throne name in his copy of the Manethonian king list. If so, Manachpirja cannot be a transcription of Mn-fupr-r'and must be explained as the throne name of Thutmosis IV, which Vergote reconstructed as *Mn-fuprw.w-r't *Mana-bpiru-ri'a. Elmar Edel (1963: 36) remarked that the fotm fiprww appears to be attested once, though not in association with a royal name.7 The copies of the Manethonian king list by Eusebius, Theophilus and Josephus as well as the Book of Sothis have MrccpqqE, M1eQnE and the like for Mn-hpr-r'; none of these forms shows the o of Mloacpgug. Furthermore, Thutmosis III's throne name is preseryed independently of the Manethonian list by the Latin authors Pliny and Isidor. Pliny refers to Thutmosis III's Heliopolitan obelisks that were brought to Alexandria in the time of Augustus; Pliny and Isidor render Mn-!pr-r' as Mesphres/IVlespheres and Mesfres (Krauss 1978: 153 f.; Hertier 2DI2: 116 n. 14). Thus it is questionable whether the q in Muoapgq is authentic; it looks instead like a mistake made by Africanus himself or by a copyist. Neither Vergote nor Ranke considered the un-etymological writingof Mn-[pr-r' as corresponding to Mnb-p3-r' in late hieroglyphic and Demotic sources. As early as 1900, Griffith (1900: 54 n. L.1) explained the name of King Menkh-pa-Ra (Si-Amun) in the second tale of Setne as Mn-[pr-r', writing that 'Menkh-pa-Ra looks like an unetymological version of Men-kheper-Ra, the Prenomen of Thotmes III, which must have been well remembered, and would be pronounced something like Menekhprö. In the cuneiform letters of Tell el Amarna the name is transcribed Manakhbiria.' In 1980, however, Lichtheim (1980: 151) described Mn!-p3-r' as 'a garbled throne name' and thought it unclear which king the Demotic author had in mind as Menkh-pa-Ra SiAmun. Lichtheim was apparently unaware that the throne name Mnb-p3-r' occurs together with the birth name phwty-ms on a Late Period sphinx (Fig. 1).8 (*)'%.:m=a,g r K (ät?l B (m + h. Fig. 1: Throne r'ame Mn!-pj-r' and birth name plqwty-ms on Late Period sphinx (after Legrain 1906a: 35). Legrain (1906a: 35; 1906b: 160) discovered the sphinx in the Karnak cachette and assignit [Cachette] no. 710.e Legrain and Maspero objected to the suggestion that the sphinx documented a new king to be counted as Thutmosis V by referring to Griffith's interpretation of Menkh-pa-Ra. Maspero (1907:60) explained Mnb-p3-r' as 'orthographe artied Note, however, that according to Erman (1901: 50 n. 2) the correct reading may be lprtw rather than bpr.w. Note that the r'-hieroglyph does not occupy the honorific first place within the cartouche. See also <www.ifao.egnetöases/cachette>. Altoriental. Forsch.39 (2012) I 77 ficielle formde sur la prononciation courante du prdnom fMn-hpr-r,l de Thoutmösis III, Manakhpirriya ä la XVIII" dynastie, Mnfu-p3-r' ou Manakhphr€ ä l'6poque saito-grecque'. Gauthier (1912:264) summarized the arguments of Maspero and Legrain in his Livre des Rois. In the early 1980s, Jasnow (1983: 33 f.) noted three first-century BC Demotic stelae from Memphis naming a prophet (or prophets) of a pharaoh @r:3) Mnb-p3-r, Dhwty-ms andl or the temple of Mnb-p3-r' (phwty-ms).Jasnow accepts Mnb-p3-r' asa late un-etymological writing of Mn-hpr-r'. For him the three stelae would 'provide the only evidence of which I am aware for a cult of Thutmosis III in the Ptolemaic period'. Given the historical importänce of Thutmosis III, it is certainly far more probable that he is meant, rather than Thutmosis IV. In the late 1980s, the authors of the Demotisches Namenbuch listed examples of Mnlp3-r' (Re is excellent) as a personal name, corresponding to MeXIQIE or MeXcpgqg. Citing Jasnow's article, they refer to Mnb-p3-r' as an umdeutung (reinterpretation) of Mn-hpr-r, (Lüddeckens 1988: 595). In a recent translation of the second Setne story Hoffmann (2007: 127) renders the royal name as Mechpres Siamunis. If the pronunciation of MnS-p3-r' as a personal name and also as a reinterpretation of to Melnqqg or MelqgqE, then MropQTlE and Mesphres are accurate late renderings of Mn-fupr-r', while Muoo,gglg is not. Further, there are parallels Mn-fopr-r' corresponded for the differing transcriptions of & as X or o in MsXnQnE and Mr,ocpQnE (e.g. Quaegebeur 1974:418). Finally, Mnb-fupr-r' occurs in a hieratic 'exercise de composition de noms royaux commenqant par Ra' on a Deir el Medina ostracon transcribed by Gasse (1990:25, no. 1725; cf. Fischer-Elfertl993:128) as follows (Fig. 2). o 'l/ffffiT? r; I Z,tub[ZfiTet Fig.2: Hieratic ostracon from Deir el Medina (after Gasse I99O:25) Besides Mnb-hpr-r', the text names Mn-plqftjl-r' (Ramesses I) andWsr-!pr.w-r, mrjjpmn?l (Sety II);10 the latter name and the provenance of the ostracon date the text to the time span 'end of Dyn. XDVDyn. XX'. Why the scribe added the divine determinative after hpr is anyone's gtess. Mnfi-[pr-r' cannol be taken as a writing of the throne name of Thutmosis IV, since there is no indication of the plural. Apparently, only one explanation remains, i.e. 10 Mn!-!pr-r'is an un-etymological writingof Mn-bpr-r'. For Wsr-hpr.w-r' mrjj-Jmn,see von Beckerath (1984: 241 T 8). 78 Rolf Krauss, Ma -na-afu-pi-/ir-/ja = Mn-bpr-r' The interpretation of Mnfu + bpr + r' as, for example, * Mnb-pr-r' (Excellent is the house of Re) is unlikely, though theoretically possible; it is likely that Mnfu + fipr + r' corresponds Iothelater Mnb-p3-r'. Since in Middle Babylonian cuneiform transcriptions the articlep3 was transcribed pa/pi/pu (Albright 1946: 16-19), it is possible that Mn-bpr-r. was interpreted in the New Kingdom as * Mnb-pi-rl 'a; subsequent evolution of the language would have resulted in*pi-ri'a> pre' . Ranke presumed that one and the same form of mn was present in the throne names of Sety I and Thutmosis III, as represented in cuneiform by Minmuaria and Mana[pilirlja.11 Therefore he interpreted the cuneiform writing of Mn-hpr-r' as *Man-a$pir-ria, remarking, 'dass der ,,vorschlagsvokal" vor einer mit ! beginnenden Doppelkonsonanz als a erscheint, ist durchaus korrekt' (Ranke 1920:74n.8). By contrast to Ranke, Vergote and Osing interpret cuneiform ma-ne- as an indication that the grammatical form of mn in Mn-hpr-r' differs from mn in Minmuaria (Sety I) and Minpahtaria (Ramesses I). Vergote (1961: 10) suggested that mana- could be the prospective sa{mäf, whereas osing (1976: 561) interprets ma-na- as adjectival *ma-nuw. Fecht (1965: 14 n. L) suggested for mana- the form sQm.f,in the case of *manuw, he judged that the 'Entwicklung zu mana- D. 18 ist in ordnung'.12 Furthermore, he explained -bpir < *b-plr- as geminatingsdm.f, presuming that 'nach dem Vokal votmana- ist die erste Silbe synkopiert, daher - fupir: . Whereas MsXxlQnE < Mnfu-p3-r' as a reinterpretation of Mn-hpr-r' prohibits the conclusion that Muoccpgtg is an accurate late form of Mn-hpr-r', it does not allow for the conclusion that mnfi of Mnfu-p3-r' was vocalized *manah in the New Kingdom; different vocalizations would be possible for hieroglyphic mnb. On the other hand, cuneiform m a-na-afrlends some probability to the vocalization *mana\ for mnfi in Mnb-p3-r'. provided that the vocalization of mnh conformed to the cuneiform writings in EA 51 and 59, it could be concluded that at least soon after the time of Thutmosis III, his throne name would have come close to being homophonouswith Mnfu-p3-r'. If so, then there was no vowel between bof mnfoandp,i.e.betweenvocalized3-lit.mn[andthe articlep3.ThusVergote's*hdpar Mn-bpr-r' ,whereas Ranke's * fupir is compatible with Mnh-p3-r' and cuneiform Manachpi/irlja. The sources available today support the conclusion that fupr of Mn-!pr-r' was pronounced*!pir as Ranke proposed; according to Fecht the same fupr on its own would have been *b-ptr-. This conclusion provides no is an indefensible reconstruction of fupr in answer to the question of whether fupr in Mn- fupr-r' is the same as Spr in $pr- fupr.w -r,, the throne name of Aya, though the possibility remains open. Under this premise the trace of a possible HI in the second column of KUB 19.15+ may be a trace of Aya's throne name. L1 L2 It appears that he accepted Nipbururia Letter to the author, dated O ctober 2I, as variant of Napburvia: Nft-!pr.w-r'; cf. Vergote (1961: 10). 197 6. Altoriental. Forsch.39 (2012) 1 79 Bibliography Albright, w.F. (1946): cuneiform Material for Egyptian Prosopography 1500-1200 B.c., JNES 5, 16-19. Biston-Moulin, S. (2012): Remarques sur la transformation des 1pithdtes n[r-!pr(.w) dans les cartouches du nom de naissance de Thoutmosis III, Z^S ß9, 19-27 . Devecchi, E. I J.L. Miller (2012): Hittite-Egyptian Synchronisms and their Consequences for Ancient Near Eastern Chronology. In: J. Mynäiovä (ed.), Egypt and the Near East - The Crossroads. International Workshop on the Relations between Egypt and the Near East in the Bronze Age, Prague, t30-176. Edel, E. (1963): Review ofVergote, Toutankhamon, BiOr20,35-36. Erman, A. (1901): Zaubersprüche für Mutter und Kind, Berlin. Fecht, G. (1960): Wortakzent und Silbenstruktur, Glückstadt. Fecht, G. (1965): Die Form der altägyptischen Literatur. Metrische und stilistische Analyse (Schluss), z(s92,10-32. Fischer-Elfert, H.-W. (1993): Review of Gasse, Catalogue, BiOr 50, 125-130. Gasse, A. (1990): Catalogue des ostraca hidratiques litt6raires de Deir el Mddineh 4,Nos 1676-1774, Cairo. Gauthier, H. (1912): Livre des Rois II, Cairo. Griffith, F. L. (1900): Stories of the High Priests of Memphis. The Sethon of Herodotus and the Demotic Tales of Khamuas, Oxford. Groddek, D. (2007): Zt den neuen ägyptisch-hethitischen Synchronismen der Nach-Amarna-Zeit, GM 215,95-t07. Hertier, F. (2012): Deux mentions du praenomen d'Akhenaton dans une encyclop6die byzantine du X" siöcle, ENIM 5, ll5-117. Hoffmann, F. H . (2007):Die Zweite Setnegeschichte, in: F. H. Hoffmann / J. F. Quack (eds.), Anthologie der demotischen Literatur, Berlin, 118-137. Jasnoq R. (1983): Evidence for the Deification of Thutmosis III in the Ptolemaic Period, GM 64, 33-34. Knudtzon, J. A. (1915): Die ElAmarna Tafeln, Leipzig. Knudtzon, J. A. (ed.) / O. Weber (1915): Die El-Amarna Tafeln. Zweiter Teil. Anmerkungen und Register, Leipzig. Krauss, R. (1978): Das Ende der Amarnazeit, Hildesheim. Krauss, R. (2006): Manethos Agyptische Geschichte - eine ptolemäische oder römische Kompilation? In: E. Czerny et al. (eds.), Timelines - Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak Ill,Lewen,227234. Legrain, G. (1906a): Notes d'inspection, ASAE 7,33-57. Legrain, G. (1906b): Derniöres d6couvertes faites ä Karnak, RecTrav 28, \37-L6l. Lichtheim, M. (1980): Ancient Egyptian Literature III. The Late Period, Berkeley. Lüddeckens, E. (ed.) (1988): Demotisches Namenbuch I, Wiesbaden. Maspero, G. (1907): La chapelle d'Asfoun, ASAE 7,58-60. Miller, J. L. (2{In7): Amarna Age Chronology and the Identity of Nibbururiya in the Light of a Newly Reconstructed Hittite Text, AoF 34,252-293. Moran, W. L. (1992): The Amarna Letters, Baltimore. Osing, J. (1976): Die Nominalbildung des Agyptischen, Maiu. Quaegebeur, J . (1974): The Study of Egyptian Proper Names in Greek Tianscription. Problems and Perspectives, Onoma 18, 403420. Ranke, H. (19L0): Keilschriftliches Material zur altägyptischen Vokalisation. Abhandlungen Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Anhan 92,I-96. Ranke. H. ( I 920): Keilschrifrliches. Z 56, 69-7 5. Ryholt, K. (201L): New Light on the Legendary Egyptian King Nechepsos,IBAgT ,6112. ^S Steindorff, G. (1890): Die keilschriftliche Wiedergabe ägyptischer Eigennamen, Beiträge zur Assyriologie und vergleichenden semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 2, 593412. 80 Rolf Krauss, Ma _na_a!-pi_/ir_/ja = Mn_bpr_r, Vergote, J. (1961): Toutankhamon dans les Archives Hittites, Istanbul. von Beckerath, J. (198a): Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen, München. Wilhelm, G. (2009): Muriilis II. Konflikt mit Agypten und Haremhabs 108-116. Rolf Krauss Brückenstraße 75A D - 35781Weilburg rolfkrauss@googlemail.com Thronbesteigung, WdO 39,