Drawn by Boudier,
from a photograph
lent by M. Grébaut,
taken by Emil
Brugsch-Bey.
Happily the face, which had been plastered over with pitch at the time of embalming, did not suffer at all from this rough treatment, and appeared intact when the protecting mask was removed. Its appearance does not answer to our ideal of the conqueror. His statues, though not representing him as a type of manly beauty, yet give him refined, intelligent features, but a comparison with the mummy shows that the artists have idealised their model. The forehead is abnormally low, the eyes deeply sunk, the jaw heavy, the lips thick, and the cheek-bones extremely prominent; the whole recalling the physiognomy of Thûtmosis II., though with a greater show of energy. Thûtmosis III. is a fellah of the old stock, squat, thickset, vulgar in character and expression, but not lacking in firmness and vigour.* Amenôthes II., who succeeded him, must have closely resembled him, if we may trust his official portraits. He was the son of a princess of the blood, Hâtshopsîtû II., daughter of the great Hâtshopsîtû,** and consequently he came into his inheritance with stronger claims to it than any other Pharaoh since the time of Amenôthes I. Possibly his father may have associated him with himself on the throne as soon as the young prince attained his majority;*** at any rate, his accession aroused no appreciable opposition in the country, and if any difficulties were made, they must have come from outside.
* The restored remains allow us to
estimate the height at about 5 ft. 3 in.
** His parentage is proved by the
pictures preserved in the tomb of
his foster-father, where he is
represented in company with the
royal mother, Marîtrî
Hâtshopsîtû.
*** It is thus that Wiedemann
explains his presence by the
side of Thûtmosis III. on
certain bas-reliefs in the
temple of Amada.
It is always a dangerous moment in the existence of a newly formed empire when its founder having passed away, and the conquered people not having yet become accustomed to a subject condition, they are called upon to submit to a successor of whom they know little or nothing. It is always problematical whether the new sovereign will display as great activity and be as successful as the old one; whether he will be capable of turning to good account the armies which his predecessor commanded with such skill, and led so bravely against the enemy; whether, again, he will have sufficient tact to estimate correctly the burden of taxation which each province is capable of bearing, and to lighten it when there is a risk of its becoming too heavy. If he does not show from the first that it is his purpose to maintain his patrimony intact at all costs, or if his officers, no longer controlled by a strong hand, betray any indecision in command, his subjects will become unruly, and the change of monarch will soon furnish a pretext for widespread rebellion. The beginning of the reign of Amenôthes II. was marked by a revolt of the Libyans inhabiting the Theban Oasis, but this rising was soon put down by that Amenemhabî who had so distinguished himself under Thûtmosis.* Soon after, fresh troubles broke out in different parts of Syria, in Galilee, in the country of the Amurru, and among the peoples of Naharaim. The king’s prompt action, however, prevented their resulting in a general war.** He marched in person against the malcontents, reduced the town of Shamshiaduma, fell upon the Lamnaniu, and attacked their chief, slaying him with his own hand, and carrying off numbers of captives.
* Brugsch and Wiedemann place this expedition at the time
when Amenôthes IL was either hereditary prince or associated
with his father the inscription of Amenemhabî places it
explicitly after the death of Thûtmosis III., and this
evidence outweighs every other consideration until further
discoveries are made.
** The campaigns of Amenôthes II. were related on a granite
stele, which was placed against the second of the southern
pylons at Karnak. The date of this monument is almost
certainly the year II.; there is strong evidence in favour
of this, if it is compared with the inscription of Amada,
where Amenôthes II. relates that in the year III. he
sacrificed the prisoners whom he had taken in the country of
Tikhisa.
Drawn by Faucher-Gudin.
He crossed the Orontes on the 26th of Pachons, in the year II., and seeing some mounted troops in the distance, rushed upon them and overthrew them; they proved to be the advanced guard of the enemy’s force, which he encountered shortly afterwards and routed, collecting in the pursuit considerable booty. He finally reached Naharaim, where he experienced in the main but a feeble resistance. Nîi surrendered without resistance on the 10th of Epiphi, and its inhabitants, both men and women, with censers in their hands, assembled on the walls and prostrated themselves before the conqueror. At Akaîti, where the partisans of the Egyptian government had suffered persecution from a considerable section of the natives, order was at once reestablished as soon as the king’s approach was made known. No doubt the rapidity of his marches and the vigour of his attacks, while putting an end to the hostile attitude of the smaller vassal states, were effectual in inducing the sovereigns of Alasia, of Mitanni,* and of the Hittites to renew with Amenôthes the friendly relations which they had established with his father.**