I have had several requests to summarize the answers to my query regarding Ahmose and Kamose and their familial relationship, if there was one. So here is a brief summary. My thanks go to (in the order I received the responses) Al Berens, Gay Robins, Filip Coppens, Nigel Strudwick, Steve Harvey, David Lorton, and Ron Leprohon.
The problem is not limited to Kamose and Ahmose; it goes back to the question of who is Ahhotep and how many Ahhoteps she was (1? 2? even 3?);for this topic I was referred to Gay Robins' article in _GM_ 56 (1982) 71-77.
Once you get to Ahmose and Kamose themselves, Gay Robins writes that the original reason for the identification of Kamose and Ahmose as brothers is a statue of a prince who is the son of King Tao and a s3t nsw wrt Ahhotep. "It is generally assumed that the king is Tao II and the queen is king Ahmose's mother Ahhotep who is well-attested elsewhere." The problem is that Kamose came between Tao and Ahmose, therefore it seems logical to assign Kamose as the older brother, but the problem with Ahhotep means that one cannot automatically assume this Ahhotep is the same Ahhotep as the mother of Ahmose... Anyway, the exact relationship of Kamose to the royal family is a bit problematic, by her reckoning.
Others referred me to the work of Claude Vandersleyen. Nigel Strudwick suggested his work in _Egypt et la vallee du Nil_ volume II (recommended it as a textbook, actually, if my students read French. They are more likely to have Spanish, sadly enough for this field, or if I am lucky they have German. But that is a different debate). Filip Coppens checked the LA for me, and the article on Ahmose was by Vandersleyen, who suggests that Kamose might have been the Uncle rather than the brother of Ahmose. Ron Leprohon also recommended Vandersleyen's book on Ahmose, to which I do not have access yet (but the interlibrary loan librarian may choose to hide next time she sees me coming).
Other evidence comes from the cranio-facial studies by Wente and Harris (references to the _X-ray atlas of the Royal Mummies_ pp, 122-30 and in C.N. Reeves, _After Tutankhamun: Research and Excavation in the Royal Necropolis at Thebes_, p. 6). The craniofacial examinations show that Ahmose is not close enough to the skeletal forms of Sekenenre Tao or Amenhotep I to be the son of the one or the father of the other. [editor's note -- although if the mummies are misidentified does this still hold true?]. Filip Coppens notes that the remains of Kamose were destroyed upon its discovery in 1857, so it could not be included in the study.
One final reference was to the discussion on the Kamose relationship to Sekenenre Tao and Ahmose in Donald B. Redford's _History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty_, p. 37, where he notes that the tying of Kamose to the family was a ramesside development.
The last thing I will mention is that Steve Harvey is writing his dissertation on Ahmose, and he writes that "some space" is devoted to the familial relationships. I am looking forward to what he has to say about the problem.
I think this covers at least the main points that people raised in their messages to me. Again, I was very happy with the useful and friendly responses. Thanks very much.
Sara E. Orel
Division of Fine Arts
Northeast Missouri State University/Truman State University
Kirksville, MO 63501