Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 JEGH 3.

2
Also available online brill.nl/jegh DOI: 10.1163/187416610X541727
AY VERSUS HOREMHEB: THE POLITICAL SITUATION
IN THE LATE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY REVISITED*
Nozomu Kawai
Waseda University, Tokyo
Abstract
This article examines the interaction between Ay and Horemheb and their attitudes
towards one another. Under Tutankhamun, Ay was the fatherly advisor of the king
at the court, while Horemheb was the actual governor of all the administration
in the country. However, Ay seems to have obtained the title Vizier, indicating
that he was also capable of governing the country. Ay was indeed on the verge of
becoming the successor of Tutankhamun. There was strong antagonism between
Ay and Horemheb sometime after Tutankhamuns death. The evidence implies
that Horemheb sought to discredit Ay as proper successor to the king. As a result,
Ay appears to have excluded Horemheb from greater courtly influence by appoint-
ing Nakhtmin not only as his Generalissimo but also as Kings Son. This
squabbling even continued after Ays death as Horemheb endeavored to erase all
memory of Ay, his men, and even Queen Ankhesenamun in revenge.
* * * *
* This article is the revised and expanded version of the excurse: Ay versus
Horemheb in my Ph.D. dissertation, Studies in the Reign of Tutankhamun, Department
of Near Eastern Studies, Johns Hopkins University, 2005. The ideas from this article
were rst presented in the forty-ninth annual meeting of the Society for Near Eastern
Studies in Japan at Waseda University in 2006 (in Japanese) and a revised version
was presented at the Tenth International Congress of Egyptology in Rhodes, 2008.
I would like to thank Betsy M. Bryan, Richard Jasnow and Marc Gabolde for reading
the manuscripts of this article and providing invaluable suggestions. I am also grateful
to Geoffrey T. Martin and Jacobus van Dijk for the invaluable information about
the Memphite tomb of Horemheb which they provided to me after I had presented
my paper in the congress. I am also grateful to Dr. Christophe Thiers, Director of
Centre Franco-gyptien dtude des Temples de Karnak (CFEETK) for granting
me the permission to publish Horemhebs scribal statue from Karnak. I would like
to acknowledge Drs. Franois Lrche and Luc Gabolde for allowing me access to
the photographic archive of CFEETK, and I would like to thank Alain Arnaudis
for his kind assistance in the archive.
262 nozomu kawai
Introduction
For many years the individual roles of Ay and Horemheb and
the relationship between them have been discussed. Did they
work together cooperatively or did some form of competition or
hostility exist between them? Was Horemheb the designated suc-
cessor of Tutankhamun, although Ay ascended to the throne after
Tutankhamuns death?
This paper attempts to understand the interaction between Ay
and Horemheb and their attitudes towards one another through
an examination of all the evidence available to us, including some
recent discoveries. The rst part focuses on their positions and
relationship during Tutankhamuns reign and the second deals
with their interactions following Tutankhamuns death, namely
during Ays reign.
During Tutankhamuns reign, Ay was the fatherly advisor of the
young king at the court, while Horemheb acted as the actual gov-
ernor of all the administration in the country under Tutankhamun.
I would suggest that Ay intentionally obtained the title of Vizier in
order to demonstrate that he was capable of ruling the country as
the counterpart of Horemhebs role as Kings Deputy. I will also
demonstrate that there is no concrete evidence that Horemheb was
the designated successor of Tutankhamun as has been proposed
recently.
At the time of the death of Tutankhamun, both Ay and Horemheb
seem to have maintained a peaceful relationship. However, sometime
after Tutankhamuns death there was strong antagonism between
Ay and Horemheb. I argue that Horemheb sought to dishonor Ay
as the proper successor to the king. Horemheb represented himself
as the near equal to the king, although he was a private ofcial.
At the same time, Ay appears to have excluded Horemheb from
greater court inuence by appointing Nakhtmin as his designated
successor. This squabbling continued after Ays death as Horemheb,
soon after ascending to the throne, endeavored to erase all memory
of Ay, his men, and even Ankhesenamun, as revenge.
1. Ay and Horemheb under Tutankhamun
Ay and Horemheb were undoubtedly the most inuential ofcials
behind the throne during Tutankhamuns reign, but scholars have
ay versus horemheb 263
debated the exact nature of their positions and inuence. Some
scholars hold that Horemheb was the predominant gure,
1
while
others considered Ay to be the major player.
2
Among the former
scholars, Jacobus van Dijk argued that Tutankhamun appointed
Horemheb as Crown Prince immediately after his accession, since
Horemheb was ry-pt, Hereditary Prince, chosen by the king
according to Horemhebs coronation inscription.
3
On the contrary,
Otto Schaden maintained that Ay was the regent of Tutankhamun,
since on a gold foil from KV58 Ay was shown standing in front
of Tutankhamun striking an enemy, and more signicantly, it was
Ay who became king before Horemheb.
4
As for the relationship between these two gures during Tutank-
hamuns reign, the picture is also cloudy. C. Descroches-Noblecourt
suggested that there was a tacit agreement between Ay and
Horemheb to operate for mutual benet.
5
Schaden also argued that
Horemheb and Ay must have worked together, Horemheb perhaps
concerning himself with the army and the northern frontiers and
Ay remaining at court to tutor the young king and look after inter-
nal affairs.
6
Ahmed Badawi pointed out that the nation was split.
7

Robert Hari characterized Ays role as passive and Horemhebs
role as active insofar as the politics of the day were concerned.
8

Andrea Gnirs recently suggested that under Tutankhamun the
court was divided into two circles: those who had been close to
Tutankhamun and supported Akhenatens religion, and those
who favored restoration and wanted a return to orthodoxy.
9
Gnirs
1
Gardiner, The Tomb of the General Horemheb, 11; Winlock, Harmhab,
Commander-in-chief of the Armies of Tutekhamon, 8; Badawi, Memphis als zweite
Landeshauptstadt im Neuen Reich, 86; Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb; van Dijk,
The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis; van Dijk, Horemheb and the Struggle for
the Throne of Tutankhamun; van Dijk, The Amarna Period and the later New
Kingdom, 291.
2
Newberry, King Ay, The Successor of Tutankhamun, 52; Carter and Mace,
The Tomb of Tut.Ankh.Amen, 27; Helck, Der Einu der Militrfhrer, 74; Seele, King
Ay and the Close of the Amarna Age, 176; Hornung, Untersuchungen zur Chronologie
und Geschichte des Neuen Reiches, 93; Schaden, The Gods Father Ay, 142.
3
Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 4748 and Horemheb and the
Struggle for the Throne of Tutankhamun, 36.
4
Schaden, The Gods Father Ay, 142.
5
Desroches-Noblecourt, Vie et mort dun phraon, Toutankhamon, 170.
6
Schaden, The Gods Father Ay, 143.
7
Badawi, Memphis als zweite Landeshauptstadt im Neuen Reich, 86.
8
Hari, Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet, 57.
9
Gnirs, Die 18. Dynastie: Licht und Schatten eines internationalen Zeitalters, 41.
264 nozomu kawai
noted that Tutankhamuns restoration program was initiated by
the latter circle and that Horemheb was the driving force behind
this. Although she admitted that we cannot establish to which side
Ay belonged when Tutankhamun ascended the throne, she saw
him as one of the most eager supporters of Akhenatens religion,
characterizing him as one of the major gures in preserving the
continuity of the royal family of Akhenaten.
These theories, however, do not seem to have examined the
contemporary evidence of Ay and Horemheb as a whole in
order to understand what kinds of roles they played in relation to
Tutankhamun. The following discussion will demonstrate that Ay
was the senior advisor to Tutankhamun at the court and also in
the cult rituals performed by the king, while Horemheb functioned
as the regent supervising every branch of the administration.
Ay
Although Ay does not mention his parents at all, he seems to have
originated from Akhmim, from whence the wife of Amenhotep III,
Queen Tiye, also came.
10
Ay held the important titles fan-bearer
on the right of the king, troop commander, master of the
horse, and gods father. Obviously, his background was from
the military sphere. However, his most important title was that of
gods father, which he retained even when he became king after
the demise of Tutankhamun. The gods father seems to have
played the role of the closest advisor to the king.
11
10
Although Ay did not leave any documents regarding his parents, some scholars
suggest that he was a son of Yuya and Tjuya. See van Dijk, Horemheb and the
Struggle for the Throne of Tutankhamun, 3. Three inscriptions of Ay after he became
king conrm Akhmim as his place of origin. The rock shrine of Ay in Akhmim suggests
that he originated from there; see Kuhlmann, Der Felstempel des Eje bei Achmim.
In an inscription on the base of a sphinx between the 10th pylon and Mut temple
at Karnak, Ay is mentioned as Son of Min and Isis; see Vandersleyen, Lgypte et
la Valle du Nil, 479. In the tomb of Neferhotep (TT 49), chief scribe of Amun under
Ay, an inscription mentions forever on the throne of his father, just as the lifetime
of Min in Akhmin; see Davies, The Tomb of Nefer-hotep at Thebes, 21.
11
The ofcial who had the title gods father prior to Ay was Yuya from Akhmim,
who was the father of Queen Tiye. Thus, he was the father-in-law of Amenhotep
III. Recently, Birrel proposed that Ay was the father of Akhenatens second wife
Kiya (Birrell, Way Ay the Father of Kiya?), yet this hypothesis does not provide
plausible evidence that Ay and Ty were the parents of Kiya. Tys position as the
nurse of Queen Nefertiti suggests that she was in the highest position after the female
members of the royal family. However, this does not seem to have been the reason
why Ay was very inuential. Rather, their origin from Akhmim was important. They
ay versus horemheb 265
Ay seems to have participated in the royal rituals where he often
appeared with Tutankhamun. In Tutankhamuns monument at
Karnak, Ay often appears standing behind the king who performs
for the gods (Fig. 1).
12
On a piece of gold foil from KV58 in the
Valley of the Kings, Tutankhamun smites his foreign enemies in
front of Ay, who is shown carrying the royal fan (Fig. 2).
13
Gnirs
suggested that as the ofcial companion of the ruler, Ay introduced
the Ramesside ritual roles of the Crown Princes accompanying
their fathers in cult rituals.
14
I would agree and further suggest
that Ay was intentionally demonstrating that he was the power
behind the king.
During the reign of Tutankhamun, Ay gained a new title to signify
his participation in the return to orthodoxy. Three small ivory discs
in the Turin Museum contain the title Leader of the Festival of the
Ennead.
15
This was a priestly duty given to non-priestly ofcials
by the king.
16
This indicates that Ay participated in temple festivals
of the old traditional cult during Tutankhamuns reign.
There are some other scraps of gold leaf with titles from KV 58,
which have been attributed to Ay.
17
The inscriptions seem to show
Ays titles just before he was elevated to king: Hereditary noble,
count, [Seal bearer] of the king of Lower Egypt. . . . (gods) father, fan
bearer (on the right of the king). . . ., vizier, one who does the truth,
m-nr-priest of Maat, one who unites the gods hand. . . .
18
The
other inscription reads: Hereditary noble, count. . . . Great. . . . of
[His] Majesty. . . .
19
Although Ays name does not appear on any of these fragments,
there is yet another fragment containing the end of the possible
name of Ay: ( y).
20
This assumption can be supported by the
fact that the epithet r mt (one who does the truth) was contained
were probably closely connected to the royal family as was the case with Yuya and
Tuya from the reign of Amenhotep III.
12
Saad, Fragments dun monument de Toutnkhamon retrouvs dans le Ixe
pyln de Karnak.
13
Davis, et al., The tombs of Harmhabi and Toutnkhamanou, g. 4.
14
Gnirs, Militr und Gesellschaft, 98.
15
Newberry, King Ay, The Successor of Tutankhamun, 52; Schaden, The Gods
Father Ay, 13839.
16
Kees, Das Priestertum im gyptischen Staat, 4647.
17
Davis, et al., The tombs of Harmhabi and Toutnkhamanou, 13, 12535.
18
Davis, et al., The tombs of Harmhabi and Toutnkhamanou, 133.
19
Davis, et al., The tombs of Harmhabi and Toutnkhamanou, 133.
20
Davis, et al., The tombs of Harmhabi and Toutnkhamanou, 133.
266 nozomu kawai
Fig. 1 Ay stands behind Tutankhamun. After Saad, Karnak V, g. 5. Courtesy
of Centre Franco-gyptien dtude des Temples de Karnak.
ay versus horemheb 267
Fig. 2 Ay watches Tutankhamun smiting his enemy.
After Davis, The tombs of Harmhabi and Toutnkhamanou, g. 4.
in the cartouche of Ays prenomen when he became king.
21
This
titulary of Ay is extremely important; he now possessed the title
Vizier, which cannot be identied in any other monument of
Ay. Since we know that there were two viziers in the north and
south respectively under Tutankhamuns reign,
22
I assume that this
Vizier title was intended to show Ays political capability to rule the
country in order to counter the position of Horemheb who was the
regent of Tutankhamun. In addition, the title m-nr-priest of Maat
and the epithet one who does the truth both emphasize the legal
aspect of the vizier.
23
Moreover, the epithet dm rt nr. . . . one who
unites the hand of the god . . . seems to express Ays relationship
as the gods father with royal women, since the hand of the god
21
His prenomen was Kheper-kheperu-Ra ir-Maat (pr-prw-R r m t). Cf.
Dessoudeix, Chronique de l'gypte Ancienne, 318.
22
Apparently Tutankhamuns viziers were Pentu (North) and Usermontu (South).
See Habachi, Unknown or Little known monuments of Tutankhamun and his
Viziers.
23
This title and epithet were included among those of the Vizier Usermontu
under Tutankhamun. See Habachi, Unknown or Little known monuments of
Tutankhamun and his Viziers.
268 nozomu kawai
(rt nr) was normally possessed by the Gods Wife of Amun or the
queen.
24
Gnirs assumed that Ay wanted to express his personal rela-
tionship to the royal women, such as Nefetiti and Ankhesenamun.
25

However, they did not bear the title hand of the god. Thus,
Ays title one who unites the hand of the god may represent his
relationship with a queen in the role of gods father. In fact, Ay
had a nger ring bezel inscribed with the name of Ankhesenamun,
Tutankhamuns widow, and his name side-by-side.
26
It is likely
that Ay wanted to stress his relationship to Ankhesenamun before
his accession. The last title . . . wr n m.[ f ] . . . . . . Great of [His?]
Majesty . . . must be a high-ranking title, but it cannot be recon-
structed due to the fragmentary preservation of the text. These
new titles and epithets indicate Ays ambitious preparations for the
throne. Probably, he included the Vizier title to show himself as
kings deputy in the civil administration,
27
since the Generalissimo
Horemheb also proclaimed himself as Kings Deputy. In fact, the
title Vizier seems to have become one of the mandatory titles used
to legitimize kingship in the Ramesside period,
28
for Paramessu
and Seti I both bore the Vizier title before they became kings.
29
It
is interesting to note that the titulary of Paramessu consists of a
combination of the titles which both Ay and Horemheb had before
they became kings.
30
I would suggest that Paramessu intentionally
bore these titles in order to secure his new kingship since he came
from a non-royal blood line.
When did Ay add these new titles and epithets? If he gained the
new titles and epithets before Tutankhamuns death, it indicates
that Ay was already planning to assume the trappings of royalty.
If, as Gnirs assumed, Tutankhamun was shown on the gold leaf
of Ay containing his Vizier title,
31
this was likely the case. On the
other hand, it is also possible that Ay assumed these new titles and
24
The hand of the god (rt-nr) refers to the hand for the masturbation of
the creator god when he created Shu and Tefnut. Due to the feminine form of the
word, this was identied as a goddess, who became assimilated with Hathor by the
Eighteenth Dynasty. The epithet was associated with the title of Gods Wife of Amun.
See, Robins, Women in Ancient Egypt, 153.
25
Gnirs, Militr und Gesellschaft, 63.
26
Newberry, King Ay, The Successor of Tutankhamun.
27
For the Vizier as Kings Deputy, see van den Boorn, The Duties of Vizier,
32022.
28
Martin-Pardey, Wesir, Wesirat, 1228.
29
See the 400-Year Stela, KRI II, 28788.
30
For the titles of Paramessu, see Polz, Die Srge des (Pa)-Ramessu.
31
Gnirs, Militr und Gesellschaft, 92.
ay versus horemheb 269
epithets immediately after Tutankhamun died in order to legitimize
his succession. Whenever Ay was exalted, Ay had reached the posi-
tion to be ready for the throne around the time of Tutankhamuns
demise. At least one clear point is that Ay had already become king
when Tutankhamun was buried in his tomb, as Ay appears as king,
while Tutankhamun is depicted as Osiris, the deceased person.
Horemheb
Almost nothing is known about the origin of Horemheb other
than that he came from Hutnesu (wt-nsw),
32
now called El-Kom
el-Ahmal Sawaris, near Sharuna in Middle Egypt.
33
It has been
suggested that he is to be identied with a certain Paatenemheb,
who was a military ofcial and one of the close adherents of
Akhenaten.
34
Probably, he gained his credit through his military
and administrative career during Akhenatens reign.
Horemheb married two women, Amenia and Mutnodjmet,
both of whom seem to have been buried in his tomb at Saqqara.
35

Horemhebs second wife Mutnodjmet has been assumed by many
scholars to be Nefertitis sister, and it has been further proposed
that she secured Horemhebs throne.
36
However, Horemhebs wife
Mutnodjimet was in fact not Nefertitis sister, since, as Sethe noted,
the name of Nefertitis sister can be read as Mutbeneret rather
than Mutnodjmet.
37
Therefore, Horemheb was not related to the
royal family at all.
Horemheb compensated for his apparently modest family back-
ground through an outstanding career in military and civil service.
During Tutankhamuns reign, Horemhebs titles are unparalleled
by any other contemporary ofcials. Horemheb referred to himself
as r-gs ity at the side of the sovereign.
38
This seems to be a textual
equivalent to the image of Ay appearing with Tutankhamun men-
tioned above. Horemheb was not only the Generalissimo, but also
the regent of Tutankhamun, bearing the titles ry-pt Hereditary
32
See Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I, 106*108*, no. 387 A.
33
Horemhebs coronation inscription mentions his hometown. See Gardiner, The
Coronation of King Haremhab.
34
Hari, Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet, 2936; Martin, The Hidden Tombs of
Memphis, 37.
35
Martin, The Hidden Tombs of Memphis, 9398.
36
Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. 3, 22.
37
Sethe, Die Schwgerin Amenophis IV.
38
Martin, The Memphite tomb of Horemheb, 31, scene 7, pl. 2122.
270 nozomu kawai
Prince (of the entire land) and dnw n nswt Deputy of the King
among other major functions, controlling almost all the branches
of the government.
39
Due to his predominant status, van Dijk and William Murnane
suggested that Tutankhamun appointed Horemheb as his desig-
nated successor, should the king die without an heir.
40
However,
this theory is not plausible. If Horemheb was appointed as the
Crown Prince already at the beginning of Tutankhamuns reign,
this means that the end of the royal bloodline was already arranged.
If this arrangement was made, people like Ay, who were closely
connected to the royal family, would not have accepted it. Although
Horemheb boasted of his strength already in his pre-royal career,
the statements must have been exaggerated, especially in his coro-
nation inscription, which was undoubtedly intended to propagate
his legitimacy as the king. Notably, he called himself the Eldest
son of Horus, a title that regularly refers to the Crown Prince.
For van Dijk this means that he was already the designated suc-
cessor of Tutankhamun.
41
Janssen, however, states that the Eldest
Son was honoric and did not indicate the surviving heir to the
throne.
42
I would suggest that this expression seems to have been
a propaganda title meaning the Eldest son of Horus of Hutnesu,
Horemhebs birthplace. Therefore, this expression should be inter-
preted in the context of his coronation ceremony. Van Dijk also
referred to the fragmentary inscription from the tomb of Maya,
Overseer of Treasury, mentioning Eldest Son as a reference to
Horemheb.
43
However, it probably refers rather to a deity, since
Maya mentions divine statues in the text.
44
During Tutankhamuns reign, a pattern emerged wherein high
ofcials took on administrative prerogatives normally reserved for
the king. Ays participation in royal cultic ritual is one example.
Horemheb, in his separate sphere, assumed similarly royal attributes
39
As for the pre-royal titles of Horemheb, see Martin, The Memphite Tomb of
Horemheb, 16264; Thiem, Speos von Gebel es-Silsileh, 27579.
40
Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 48 and Horemheb and
the Struggle for the Throne of Tutankhamun, 36; Murnane, The Return to
Orthodoxy.
41
Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 16.
42
Janssen, La Reine Nefertari et la succession de Ramss II par Merenptah,
36.
43
Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 1819.
44
Martin, et al., The Tomb of Maya and Meryt, 12 and n. 20.
ay versus horemheb 271
by depicting and describing himself as the victorious military leader
and an excellent legislator, roles which were supposed to have been
signicant to the kingship. In this manner, royal functions seem to
have been delegated to the high ofcials such as Ay and Horemheb
under Tutankhamun.
2. Ay and Horemheb under King Ay
Although Ay and Horemheb had played important roles in their
separate duties, the relationship between the gures appears to have
changed after Tutankhamuns sudden death.
The relationship between Ay and Horemheb after the former
became king has been controversial as well. There are two schools
of thought on this matter. There are those who consider the rela-
tionship between Ay and Horemheb to have been peaceful and
who believe that the succession from the former to the latter went
smoothly;
45
others believe that there was a struggle between the two
in which Horemheb was ultimately victorious.
46
I would suggest that
at least at the beginning of Ays reign, he and Horemheb probably
kept the relationship they had under Tutankhamun. However, their
relationship seems to have changed shortly thereafter. Horemheb
discredited Ay as the king throughout most of Ays reign. The fol-
lowing discussion will demonstrate my argument.
Wall Scene from Tutankhamuns Tomb
Many scholars have suggested that Horemheb did not leave any
evidence in Tutankhamuns tomb, while prominent persons such as
Ay, Maya and Nakhtmin left either funerary items or iconographic
images. However, the wall scene of the tomb shows Tutankhmuns
cofn dragged by a group of ofcials in a mourning procession that
contains a man who seems to be Horemheb (Fig. 3). The lone gure
standing behind the two viziers must be Horemheb, which also
makes him situated closest to the mummy of Tutankhamun. This
means that Horemheb acted as the leader of the funerary procession.
As Schulman, Hornung and Gnirs have rightly pointed out, this
45
Hornung, Das Grab des Haremheb im Tal der Knige, 17; Aldred, Egypt: the Amarna
Period and the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty, 71.
46
Pger, Horemheb und die Amarnazeit, 45; Hari, Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet,
144; Helck, Der Einu der Militrfhrer, 81; van Dijk, The New Kingdom Memphite
Necropolis, 4864.
2
7
2

n
o
z
o
m
u

k
a
w
a
i
Fig. 3 Funerary procession for the burial of Tutankhamun in the tomb of Tutankhamun (KV62). Authors photo.
ay versus horemheb 273
scene resembles the scene of the Berlin Trauerrelief which depicts
a Royal Scribe, Hereditary Prince and Generalissimo pre-
ceding the two viziers in the funerary procession of Ptahemhat Ty,
the High Priest of Ptah in Memphis under Tutankhamun (Fig. 4).
47

As many scholars have already observed, the person represented
as the head of the procession is Horemheb.
Van Dijk argued that the person was not Horemheb because
he was no longer the ry-pt at the time of Tutankhamuns death,
although he admitted that the person appears to represent the ry-
pt.
48
However, it does not seem that the person in question could be
anyone other than Horemheb at the time of Tutankhamuns burial,
since Nakhtmin, who will have acquired the title ry-pt later, was
just a General at that time, as we learn from the titles on the shabti
gures that he donated to Tutankhamun.
49
Therefore, I suggest
that Horemheb seems to have maintained his position as the chief
of the high ofcials at the time of Tutankhamuns burial, namely,
the beginning of Ays reign, when the scene was painted.
The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb
Geoffrey Martin and van Dijk suggested that the second courtyard
in Horemhebs Memphite tomb would have likely been decorated
during Ays reign, since it was demonstrated that the eastern end
of the courtyard was the last to be built and decorated, and much
of its surviving adornment is in outline only, implying the work was
done just before Horemheb ascended to the throne (Fig. 5).
50
The
wall scenes in the second courtyard, therefore, provide informa-
tion on the career of Horemheb during Ays reign. On the south
wall of this part, Horemheb clearly intended to represent King Ay,
because there is an unnished relief showing a part of the so-called
47
Schulman, The Berlin Trauerrelief (No. 12411), 57; Hornung, Das Grab des
Haremheb im Tal der Knige, 17; Gnirs, Militr und Gesellschaft, 108.
48
Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 57. Van Dijk felt that it was
odd that a man who had been the deceased kings crown prince designate should
be shown in such a casual and wholly anonymous way.
49
Carter nos. 318a, 330j, 330k; Beinlich and Saleh, Corpus der hieroglyphischen
Inschriften aus dem Grab des Tutanchamun, 140, 16566.
50
Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 14, 25; van Dijk, The New Kingdom Memphite
Necropolis, 36. This courtyard has been regarded as the rst courtyard previously, but
recent excavations revealed another courtyard to the east of this one. Thus, it turned
out that the previously designated rst courtyard was indeed the second courtyard.
See, Raven, et al., Preliminary Report on the Leiden Excavation at Saqqara.
2
7
4

n
o
z
o
m
u

k
a
w
a
i
Fig. 4 Berlin Trauerrelief, funerary procession of Ptahemhat-Ty, High Priest of Ptah under Tutankhamun and Ay.
Photo courtesy of the gyptisches Museum, Berlin, inv. no. 12411, archive photo.
ay versus horemheb 275
Fig. 5 Development of the plan of the Memphite Tomb of Horemheb. After
Martin, Hidden Tombs of Memphis, pl. 9. Reproduced with the permission of the
author.
Window of Appearances in the royal palace on the south wall
of the second courtyard (Fig. 6).
51
If it had been nished, the king
would have been shown distributing rewards to Horemheb who
was standing in the courtyard below. Considering the length of Ays
reign four full years
52
Horemheb could easily have completed
the gure of King Ay at the window of appearances on his tomb
wall. However, the work seems to have been abandoned. This might
imply that Horemheb intentionally decided not to depict Ay.
On the opposite wall of the scene of the Window of Appearances,
instead of showing King Ay, Horemheb represented himself, in
large scale, giving the Gold of Honor to an aged ofcial in small
51
Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 25.
52
Vandersleyen, Lgypte et la Valle du Nil, 483.
2
7
6

n
o
z
o
m
u

k
a
w
a
i
Fig. 6 Unnished relief showing a part of the Window of Appearance. After Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Scenes 2
and 3, pl. 19. Courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society.
ay versus horemheb 277
scale (Fig. 7).
53
This was an act that is regularly attributed to the
king,
54
and indeed, Horemheb represented himself receiving the
Gold of Honor from Tutankhamun on the wall of the innermost
courtyard.
55
Martin interpreted the scene as showing Horemheb, as
regent of Tutankhamun, deputizing an ofcial whom he assumed
was Paramessu, the future Ramesses I.
56
However, Martins theory
contradicts the dating of the second courtyard, which he believes
was adorned in Ays reign. Van Dijk argued that the scene shows
Ay rewarding Horemheb with the Gold of Honor, because this
sort of scene regularly depicts the king rewarding his servants, and
there are no parallels which represent an ofcial rewarding another
ofcial.
57
Susanne Binder also follows van Dijks idea.
58
I agree with
Martin that the scene shows Horemheb giving the reward to one
of his ofcials, although he does not seem to have been deputized
as Tutankhamuns regent, and there is no concrete evidence that
the ofcial is Paramessu. Van Dijks argument contradicts some
elements of the scene. As he admitted, the dress of the larger g-
ure shows a typical pleated costume worn by Horemheb in other
parts of his tomb.
59
The text on the block contains the epithets
of Horemheb: smr wty ns shrr [m t r r.f ]. . . . Sole companion,
tongue that appeases [in the entire land.] Since the text is ori-
ented in the same direction as the large gure, there is no doubt
that Horemheb rewards the ofcial. Why, then was the king not
depicted as the giver of honor to the ofcial? In my opinion, this
scene represents Horemheb giving honor to one of his ofcials.
60

Apparently, Horemheb acts as the political leader, dishonoring Ay
as king during the latters reign. Following the idea of Martin and
van Dijk that the decoration of the outer courtyard was carried out
during Ays reign, this scene might indicate the political situation
of Horemheb during Ays reign. In fact, it is strange that the scene
53
Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 4043, pl. 32, 34 and The Hidden Tombs
of Memphis, 5456, g. 18.
54
Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 39, 40, g. 8. He noted a close
parallel to this from the tomb of Meryre, Greatest of Seers of Aten, at Amarna.
55
Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 8792, pl. 106107, scene 72.
56
Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 5456.
57
Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Memphite Necropolis, 3841.
58
Binder, The Gold of Honour in New Kingdom Egypt, 11415.
59
Binder, The Gold of Honour in New Kingdom Egypt, 41.
60
Binder refers to the only explicit example for a scene showing a high ofcial
in charge of a rewarding ceremony in the absence of the king found in the tomb of
Penniut at Aniba in the 20th Dynasty. Binder, The Gold of Honour, 114, n. 475.
2
7
8

n
o
z
o
m
u

k
a
w
a
i
Fig. 7 Horemheb represented himself, in large scale, giving the Gold of Honor to an aged ofcial in small scale. After Martin, The
Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Scene 21, pl. 34. Courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society.
ay versus horemheb 279
of the throne dais of the king was not nished on the south wall
where Ay could have been depicted. Therefore, I would argue that
Horemheb tried to maintain his inuence over the ofcials during
Ays reign, dishonoring him as the king.
The Hittite Texts KUB 19.15+KBo 50.24
At the 6th International Congress of Hittitology in 2005, Jared
Millar presented the newly reconstructed text KUB 19.15+KBo
50.24 and argued that this text is a letter of Mursili II addressed to
Horemheb who was still Generalissimo at the end of Tutankhamuns
reign and the beginning of Ays reign.
61
In the text, Mursili II cor-
responds with an Egyptian high ranking military ofcer named
Armaya, who is considered to be identied with Horemheb due to
the similarity with Horemhebs name as it appears in the excerpts
of Manethos history.
62
Generally, the Hittite king writes to the
Egyptian king himself and not to his subordinates. This means that
Armaya was nearly as powerful as the king, although he is a high
ofcial. This perfectly ts the status of Horemheb deducible from
the contemporary Egyptian sources.
63
The text appears to relate to
the Hittite conict with the Egyptians in Syria in year 7 of Mursili
II, when King Ay had just came to power while Horemheb began
to invade Amurru in Syria. Thus, Horemheb was nearly the virtual
king even when Ay was ruling. These Hittite texts complement
my idea.
Horemhebs Scribal Statues
There is other evidence indicating that Horemheb dishonored Ay.
Of the three scribal statues of Horemheb, one, a quartzite statue
from Karnak, bears three cartouches of Tutankhamun,
64
but the
two others, granite statues from Memphis
65
and Karnak the latter
61
Millar, Amarna Age Chronology and the identication of Nibuhuriya; Stempel,
Identication of Nibhururiya. I would like to acknowledge Marc Gabolde for
bringing these articles to my attention.
62
Millar, Amarna Age Chronology and the identication of Nibuhuriya, 254.
Horemheb was described as Armais, Harmais, and Armaios in the excerpts of
Manethos history.
63
For example, Horemheb describes himself as almost equal to the king in military
and diplomatic activities. See, e.g., the Zizinia inscription, Martin, The Memphite Tomb
of Horemheb, 80, pl. 91, scene 69.
64
Urk. IV, 2103.152105.20.
65
Winlock, A Statue of Horemheb before his Accession.
280 nozomu kawai
published here for the rst time (Figs. 811),
66
do not mention the
name of any king at all. Notably, the inscriptions on the last two
statues describe Horemheb as a wise administrator rather than as
a military leader and their phraseologies are almost comparable to
that of the king. I would suggest that the last two scribal statues were
made in Ays reign and that they support the view that Horemheb
did not acknowledge Ay as the king at all.
67
On the quartzite scribal statue from Karnak inscribed with the
name of Tutankhamun, it is clear that, although Horemheb cer-
tainly represents himself as an excellent administrator, the king is
acknowledged as an authority: Tutankhamuns name is mentioned
twice, once at the beginning and again at the end of the text. The
tone of the text is that of an ofcial showing his respect to the
king. For example, Horemheb states the laws of the temple of
Amun were given
68
and you (the king) founded the city anew.
69

Apparently, the statue represents Horemhebs loyalty to the king.
The inscriptions on the Memphite scribal statue, however,
show that Horemheb regarded himself as comparable to the king
by equating himself with Thoth and never mentioning the kings
name. Presumably, through the association with Thoth, Horemheb
intended to express himself in his capacity as the ideal administrator
rather than as a military leader. Assmann observed the emphasis
in this text on law and legislation, on memory and knowledge, and
characterized the hymn as a self-portrayal of Horemheb in which
he equated his relation to the king with the relationship between
Re and Thoth.
70
Horemhebs comparison of himself with Thoth
is also paralleled in his other inscriptions, such as his coronation
inscription
71
and his great stela from his Memphite tomb, which
66
This statue is unpublished. I am grateful to Dr. Christophe Thiers, Director
of Centre Franco-gyptien dtude des Temples de Karnak for granting me the
permission to publish this statue (Inv. no. OR218). I would like to acknowledge
Drs. Franois Lrche and Luc Gabolde for allowing me access to their photographic
archive. I would like to thank Alain Arnaudis for his kind assistance.
67
For the date of the Memphite scribal statue of Horemheb, contra to my view,
see Winlock, A Statue of Horemheb before his Accession, 4. Hari, Horemheb et la
reine Moutnedjemet, 4748, dates the statue to Tutankhamuns reign, but Hari pointed
out that the statue from Memphis, now in New York, was probably carved a few
years after the quartzite statue from Karnak, now in Cairo.
68
Urk. IV, 2105.9.
69
Urk. IV, 2105.13.
70
Assmann, gyptischen Hymnen und Gebete, 63132.
71
His coronation inscription declares: All his plans were at the footsteps of the
Ibis. He expressed the image of the Lord of Hesret, rejoicing with the truth like the
Beaky one. Urk. IV, 2115.810.
ay versus horemheb 281
once stood in the second courtyard that dates to Ays reign.
72
As
van Dijk suggested, it is likely that Horemheb equated himself
with Thoth from Tutankhamuns reign.
73
However, the text on
Horemhebs Memphite scribal statue clearly describes him as a
capable administrator, ready to ascend to the throne, by compar-
ing himself to Thoth.
The new granite scribal statue of Horemheb from Karnak shows
him squatting dutifully, pen and papyrus in hand.
74
The statue is
now in very fragmentary condition (Figs. 811). The lower body,
cracked in the middle, is broken into two parts and the upper body
is missing, probably due to intentional destruction. Horemheb
holds the writing rush with his right hand and a papyrus roll with
his left hand. On his left knee is his ink shell with its two cakes of
writing pigment. He wears an intricately pleated kilt like on other
scribal statues of him.
The inscriptions of the statue, published here for the rst time,
nearly refer to Horemheb in royal terms, although his appearance
is just as a scribe and his name is not written as king yet. Like
Horemhebs scribal statue from Memphis, he never mentions the
name of the king. Furthermore, he does not even mention any
word meaning the king. In the text on this statue, Horemheb
demonstrates his prominence among the high ofcials and states
that it was he who restored the cult of Amun in Karnak. The
phraseology of the text is comparable to that of a king, unlike the
aforementioned other scribal statues.
Text and Translation on Base (Figs. 810)
72
Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 31.
73
Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 19.
74
Inventory number OR218. The provenance is unknown. The left part measures
55cm in height and 28cm in width (front), while the right part measure 52cm in
height and 41cm in width (front).
282 nozomu kawai
Figs. 811 A granite scribal statue of Horemheb from Karnak. All photos
courtesy of Centre Franco-gyptien dtude des Temples de Karnak.
Fig. 8 Front.
Fig. 9 Left side.
ay versus horemheb 283
Fig. 10 Back.
Fig. 11 Right side.
284 nozomu kawai
///// r-m-b, d=f srw (Front)
smrw wrw nty r-gs m.f, m(w) n tn m r tn m srw n nb nrw,
stp.n=f w r rt mt sr.f mn m/////d=f n. (w) [r]/////
(From left side to back)
. . .
a
Horemheb, he says: O great magistrates and companions of
the palace who are on the side of His Majesty, Look
b
yourself with
your eyes regarding the plans of the Lord of the gods. He has
chosen me while doing justice, his plan being rm
c
with. . . . so that
he may grant me an abundance [of ]
d
. . . .
Commentary
a) One would expect at least Royal Scribe to have been present
before the preserved inscription, but it is uncertain whether the
common title Hereditary Prince and another title General of
the Army were written.
b) Plural determination can be taken as indicator of plural impera-
tive.
c) This word can be reconstructed as .
d) The edge outline of is seen near the crack on the back of
the statue.
Horemheb expresses his prominent position among the dignitaries
and courtiers in the palace who support the king. He boasts about
himself almost like a king in saying that he was chosen by the Lord
of the gods, namely Amun.
Text and Translation on the Scroll (Figs. 8, 11)
ay versus horemheb 285
s///srw sb/////
/////r hrrt nb nrw Imn nb nswt twy
[m pt]-swt m mw s mnw.s wn m m y
rt t n nb.f nswt nrw s nwt.f r t nb nty r w(t) nb
swb rm s n t
///// n ry-pt s nswt r-m-b
///// /////
mn R r/// n///
sy /////
. . . . plans, one who makes festive. . . . one who does what the Lord
of the gods, Amun, Lord of the thrones of the Two Lands in
Karnak pleases anew, one who erects its monuments which have
been ruined,
a
in searching for doing what is effective for his Lord,
King of the gods,
b
one who magnies his city more than any other
lands continually on every side, one who consecrates its people
c

forever. . . . continually by the Hereditary Prince, Royal Scribe,
Horemheb. . . . garland of Re upon . . . of . . . one who is greatly
praised. . . .
Commentary
a) This sentence is similar to a sentence from Tutankhamuns resto-
ration stela (Cairo GC 34183): swrd.n.f nty mw m mnw he repaired
what was ruined as the monument. Urk. IV, 2026.16.
b) This sentence parallels a sentence from Tutankhamuns restora-
tion stela: r y t n t Imn searching for what is benecial for
his father Amun. Urk. IV, 2028.11.
c) This sentence also parallels a sentence from Tutankhamuns
restoration stela: w swb.n.m.f, .w.s. mw mwt myt byt wn m nt
m pr nswt His Majesty consecrated male and female servants as
well as female singers and dancers who had been maid servants in
the kings house. Urk. IV, 2030.67.
Horemheb clearly states that he is responsible for the restoration of
the temple of Amun at Karnak and city of Thebes without acknowl-
edging the king at all. The text resembles Tutankhamuns restora-
tion stela; the number of formulae belonging to the Knigsnovelle
with specic royal phraseology clearly indicate that Horemheb
considers himself as the actual virtual ruler. One would assume
that this statue was made when Horemheb was on the verge of
ascending to the throne even though the king was ruling. If the
statue had been made under Tutankhamuns reign, I believe that
286 nozomu kawai
his cartouche would have been inscribed on the statue and the tone
of the text would have been more modest. Otherwise, one would
be forced to argue that Horemheb ignored the king even during
Tutankhamuns reign, which is highly questionable.
Evidence from Ays Party
Why would Horemheb discredit Ay as king? Sometime after
Tutankhamuns burial, King Ay appointed two ofcials as ry-pt,
Hereditary Prince, within his short reign. There is no clear evi-
dence as to when the two were elevated to that rank. Van Dijk
pointed out that King Ay originally gave this ofce to a high ofcial
Nay who built his tomb (TT271) at the hill of Qurnat Murai, fac-
ing Ays mortuary temple at Medinet Habu.
75
Nay bears the titles
chief physician, chamberlain, overseer of the Kings private
apartment, and fan bearer on the right of the king, suggesting
that he was the highest palace ofcial under King Ay. Moreover,
King Ay promoted Nay not only to Hereditary Prince, but also
to great chief in the entire land, scribe of the elite troops, and
chief spokesman in the entire land, indicating that he outranked
all other ofcials under the king.
76
In fact, these titles were previ-
ously held by Horemheb during Tutankhamuns reign. However,
it is not likely that Nay took over Horemhebs position. As I have
already argued, these titles, including ry-pt, could have just indi-
cated the heads of the government, not the designated successor
or Crown Prince. In fact, Nays tomb did not suffer from any
damnatio memoriae. This suggests that Nay was not the designated
successor and he could not have been Horemhebs rival. However,
the case of Nakhtmin is different. Nakhtmin was a general, probably
a subordinate of Horemheb in the military under Tutankhamun,
but he had also a close relation to Ay. He is known to have dedi-
cated ve shabtis to Tutankhamuns funerary equipment. On these
shabtis, he was called General and fan bearer on the right of
the king. Then, he appears to have been promoted by King Ay
to not only Hereditary Prince and Generalissimo but also even
Kings Son namely the Crown Prince of Ay who would suc-
ceed the throne.
77
This title is undoubtedly superior to Horemhebs
75
Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 59.
76
Habachi and Anus, Le tombeau de Ny Gournet Mare (No. 271), 2730.
77
Gnirs pointed out that Nakhtmins title ry-pt did not designate the function
of the regent, since this title remained untouched by desecrators, while his titles
ay versus horemheb 287
status. Therefore, King Ay intended to relegate Horemheb to a
less important position and replace him with Nakhtmin to carry
out his functions. We do not know exactly when Nakhtmin was
promoted, but this must have created Horemhebs strong hostility
against King Ay.
Because of the fact that two men were appointed as ry-pt within
the short reign of Ay, van Dijk believed that Horemheb was pen-
sioned off his crown-princely title with an honoric priestly position
like other military ofcials.
78
Van Dijk also suggested that under Ay
Horemheb himself resigned from the rank of Hereditary Prince
and received the ofce of the Overseer of Priests of Horus, Lord of
Seby, since the title ry-pt does not appear in the second courtyard
of his Memphite tomb, and because his title Overseer of Priests
of Horus, Lord of Seby appears on the inner doorjambs of the
entrance to the statue room, which van Dijk assigned to the reign
of Ay.
79
However, this theory has some problems. First, the title
ry-pt does appear in several locations in the second courtyard
including on column panels, abaci from columns, jambs, and two
large stelae.
80
Second, his title Overseer of Priests of Horus, Lord
of Seby is mentioned among other titles and epithets of Horemheb
granted during Tutankhamuns reign. Even if he resigned the ofce
of the Hereditary Prince, he kept his title of Generalissimo in
all these places. Therefore, I would argue that Horemheb probably
kept his power and ignored the king, and that there must have been
a tension between the two factions.
Helck suggested that Horemheb did not accept being deprived
of his title Hereditary Prince by King Ay, and removed both
Ay and Nakhtmin.
81
It is, however, more likely that he just kept
silent. Horemheb did not plot revenge on Ay, probably because Ay
was old and would likely die soon. Meanwhile, he seems to have
Kings Son, Royal Scribe, and Generalissimo were hacked out. Gnirs, Militr
und Gesellschaft, 113.
78
Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Memphite Necropolis, 59, 62.
79
Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 62.
80
Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, pl. 20, scene 6, pl. 2125, 27, scene 14,
pl. 39, scene 39d, pl. 4142, scene 40d, 40f, 40h.
81
Helck suggested that the persecutions of these monuments were undertaken
during Ays reign. Helck, Probleme der Knigsfolge. Dodson maintained that the
mutilation was conducted much later in the reign of Horemheb, or under one of his
immediate successors, which could be paralleled by the case of Hatshepsut whose
disgrace occurred at least twenty years after her disappearance from the scene. See
Dodson, Crown-Prince Thutmose (V) Generalissimo Nakhtmin, 30. Cf. Dorman,
The Monuments of Senenmut, 4665.
288 nozomu kawai
maintained his power and ignored the king. Ultimately, Horemheb
succeeded to the throne, although how this came about is unknown.
What is known is that Horemheb became king after Ays demise,
although Nakhtmin was intended as Ays designated successor as
the Crown Prince. It is not clear if Horemheb pushed Nakhtmin
aside, or whether Nakhtmin had already died before Ay. Sometime
after Horemheb came to power, he started erasing all depictions of
Ay on the monuments of Tutankhamun, as well as those on Ays
royal monuments and those of his entourage. This action must be
understood as damnatio memoriae. Horemheb desecrated Ays tomb
(KV 23) in the Western Valley of the Kings, usurped his memorial
temple at Medinet Habu, and removed all other inscriptions and
images of Ay.
82
Nakhtmins two statues, probably from his tomb in
Akhmim, were also desecrated. As Boyo Ockinga rightly showed,
the tomb of Senqed in Akhmim was similarly severely desecrated.
83

Even his sarcophagus was usurped by a contemporary ofcial, the
Overseer of the Double Granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt
Ray who probably served under Horemheb and was buried at
Saqqara.
84
At the same time, Ankhesenamun became the target of a dam-
natio memoriae by Horemheb. The evidence indicates that she was
persecuted severely. On the lunette of the restoration stela of
Tutankhamun, which was usurped by Horemheb, her gures were
completely erased and replaced by an inscription instead of chang-
ing her image to that of his wife, Queen Mutnodjmet.
85
An inlaid
stela of Tutankhamun at Karnak shows a large, sharp, rectangular
cavity containing some perforations behind the king who presents
offering to Amun and Mut.
86
The presence of the perforations
82
For Horemhebs usurpation and demolishing of Ays royal monuments, see
Schaden, Clearance of the tomb of Ay (WV-23).
83
Ockinga, A Tomb from the reign of Tutankhamun at Akhmim, 6061.
84
Ockinga, A Tomb from the reign of Tutankhamun at Akhmim, 61.
85
Gabolde once suggested that the erased gures were Ay (Gabolde, Ay,
Toutankhamon et les martelages de la stele de la restauration de Karnak (CG
34183)), but Eaton-Krauss observed that they are actually Ankhesenamun and that
her title mt nswt wrt is still visible (Eaton-Krauss, Akhenaten versus Akhenaten,
554, n. 97). The author also examined the stela and conrmed that Eaton-Krauss
observations hold true.
86
Le Saout and Maarouf, Un nouveau fragment de stele de Toutnkhamon.
Although Le Saout and Maarouf noted that the rectangular cavity behind
Tutankhamuns gure once contained inlayed inscription, I suspect there was a gure
of Ankhesenamun because of the cavitys depth and height, which is almost the same
ay versus horemheb 289
indicates that there was a gure behind him. Since the gure of
the queen is regularly behind the king, it is probable that the gure
of Ankhesenamun was deliberately removed by Horemheb. These
extreme acts of damnatio memoriae against Ankhesenamun were prob-
ably due to some historical events that rankled Horemheb.
Conclusion
During Tutankhamuns reign, Ay and Horemheb were the most
prominent gures in different social groups, suggesting that Ay
was the closest advisor of the king at the court, while Horemheb
was the actual governor of all the administration in the coun-
try as the Regent and Generalissimo under Tutankhamun.
Around Tutankhamuns death, Ay seems to have obtained the
title Vizier, representing that he was now capable of governing
the country. Ay was indeed on the verge of becoming the succes-
sor of Tutankhamun, while Horemheb was not Tutankhamuns
designated successor.
Although Ay and Horemheb maintained a peaceful relation-
ship at the beginning of Ays reign, strong antagonism between
Ay and Horemheb emerged sometime afterwards. The evidence
presented here indicates that Horemheb sought to discredit Ay as
the proper successor to the king. As a result, Ay appears to have
excluded Horemheb from greater courtly inuence by appointing
Nakhtmin as his Crown Prince. This squabbling even continued
after Ays death as Horemheb, once he ascended to the throne,
soon endeavored to erase all memory of Ay, his men and even
Queen Ankhesenamun in revenge.
Abbreviations
BACE Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology
BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis
JEOL Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente
Lux
height as that of Tutankhamuns gure. I found another missing portion of this stela
at Sheikh Labib Magazine at Karnak, which will be published in Cahiers de Karnak in
the future. See also Kawai, Studies in the Reign of Tutankhamun, 20103.
290 nozomu kawai
KRI II Kitchen, K.A. Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Bio-
graphical. Vol. II. Oxford: Blackwell, 1979.
Urk. IV Helck, W. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, Urkunden des gyp-
tischen Altertums, 4. Heft 1722. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
19551958.
References
Aldred, C. Egypt the Amarna Period and the end of Nineteenth Dynasty.
In The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. II, 2nd ed., eds. I.E.S. Edwards, C.J.
Gadd, N.G.L. Hammond and E. Sollberger, 4997. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1971.
Assmann, J. gyptischen Hymnen und Gebete. Zrich/Mnchen: Artemis Verlag,
1975.
Badawi, A. Memphis als zweite Landeshauptstadt im Neuen Reich. Cairo: IFAO, 1948.
Beinlich, H. and M. Saleh. Corpus der hieroglyphischen Inschriften aus dem Grab des-
Tutanchamun, mit Konkordanz der Nummernsysteme des Journal dEntre des gypten
Museums Kairo. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Binder, S. The Gold of Honour in New Kingdom Egypt. Oxford: Aris & Phillips, 2008.
Birrel, M. Was Ay the Father of Kiya? BACE 8 (1997): 1118.
Breasted, J.H. Ancient Records of Egypt. 5 Vols. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 19061907.
Carter, H. and A. Mace. The Tomb of Tut.Ankh.Amen, Vol. I. London: Cassel and
Co., 1923.
Davies, N. de G. The Tomb of Nefer-hotep at Thebes. New York: Metropolitan
Museum of Art, 1933.
Davis, T.M., et al. The tombs of Harmhabi and Toutnkhamanou. London: Biban el
Moluk Publications, 1912.
Desroches-Noblecourt, C. Vie et mort dun phraon, Toutankhamon. Paris: ditions
Pygmalion, 1963.
Dessoudeix, M. Chronique de lgypte ancienne: Les pharaons, leur rgne, leurs contemporains.
Arles: Actes Sud, 2008.
Dijk, J. van. The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis. Historical and Iconographical
Studies, Groningen, 1993.
. Horemheb and the Struggle for the Throne of Tutankhamun. BACE 7
(1996): 3437.
. The Amarna Period and the later New Kingdom. In The Oxford
History of Ancient Egypt, ed. I. Shaw, 272313. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2000.
Dodson, A. Crown-Prince Thutmose (V) Generalissimo Nakhtmin: Two who
might have been king. In Amarna Letters, Vol. 1, ed. D. Forbes, 2630. San
Francisco: KMT Communications, 1991.
Dorman, P.F. The Monuments of Senenmut. London/New York: Kegan Paul
International, 1988.
Eaton-Krauss, M. Akhenaten versus Akhenaten. BiOr 47 (1990): 541559.
Gardiner, A.H. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1947.
. The Tomb of the General Horemheb. JEA 39 (1953): 312.
ay versus horemheb 291
. The Coronation of King Haremhab. JEA 39 (1953): 1331.
Gnirs, A. Militr und Gesellshaft: Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschite des Neuen Reiches. SAGA
17. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1996.
. Die 18. Dynastie: Licht und Schatten eines internationalen Zeitalters.
In Tutanchamun: Das Golden Jenseits, eds. A. Wiese and A. Brodbeck, 2744.
Mnchen: Hirmer Verlag, 2004.
Gabolde, M. Ay, Toutankhamon et les martelages de la stele de la restaurati de
Karnak (CG 34183). BSEG 23 (1987): 3761.
Habachi, L. Unknown or Little known monuments of Tutankhamun and his
Viziers. In Glimpses of Ancient Egypt in honour of H. W. Fairman, eds. J. Rufe,
G.A. Gaballa, and K.A. Kitchen, 3241. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1979.
Habachi, L. and P. Anus. Le tombeau de Ny Gournet Mare (No. 271). MIFAO
97. Cairo: IFAO, 1977.
Hari, R. Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet, ou la n dune dynastie. Genva: Editions
de Belles-Lettres, 1964.
Helck, W. Der Einu der Militrfhrer in der 18. gyptischen Dynastie. Leipzig: J.C.
Hinriches, 1939.
. Probleme der Knigsfolge in der bergangzeit von 18. zu 19. Dyn.
MDAIK 37 (1981): 207215.
Hornung, E. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Geschichte des Neuen Reiches. Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrsowitz, 1964.
. Das Grab des Haremheb im Tal der Knige, Bern: Francke Verlag, 1971.
Janssen, J. La Reine Nefertari et la succession de Ramss II par Merenptah.
Cd 38 (1963): 3036.
Kawai, N. Studies in the Reign of Tutankhamun. PhD Dissertation. The Johns Hopkins
University, 2005.
Kees, H. Das Priestertum im gyptischen Staat. Leiden: Brill, 1953.
Kuhlmann, P. Der Felstempel des Eje bei Achmim. MDAIK 35 (1979):
165188.
Le Saout, F. and A. Maarouf. Un nouveau fragment de stele de Toutnkhamon.
Cahiers de Karnak 8 (1985): 285291.
Martin, G.T. The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander-in-Chief of Tutankhamun. I:
Reliefs, Inscriptions, and Commentary. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1989.
. The Hidden Tombs of Memphis. London/New York: Thames and Hudson,
1991.
Martin, G.T., et al. The Tomb of Maya and Meryt: Preliminary Report on the
Saqqara Excavations, 19878. JEA 74 (1988): 114.
Martin-Pardey, E. Wesir, Wesirat. In Lexikon der gyptologie VI, eds. W. Helck and
W. Westendorf, col. 12271235. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz, 1986.
Millar, J. Amarna Age Chronology and the identication of Nibuhuriya in the
Light of Newly reconstructed Hittite Text. Altorientalische Forchengen 34 (2007):
2, 252293.
Murnane, W.J. The Return to Orthodoxy. In Pharaohs of the Sun: Akhenaten, Nefertiti,
Tutankhamun, eds. R.E. Freed. Y.J. Markowitz and S.H. DAuria, 177185.
Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1993.
Newberry, P.E. King Ay, The Successor of Tutankhamun. JEA 18 (1932):
5052.
Ockinga, B. A Tomb from the reign of Tutankhamun at Akhmim. Warminster: Aris &
Phillips, 1997.
Polz, D. Die Srge des (Pa)-Ramessu. MDAIK 42 (1986): 145166.
Pger, K. Horemheb und die Amarnazeit. Zwickau: Ullmann, 1936.
292 nozomu kawai
Raven, M.J., B.G. Aston, L. Horkov, and G.T. Martin. Preliminary Report on
the Leiden Excavation at Saqqara, Season 2005: The Tombs of Horemheb
and Meryneith. JEOL 39 (2005): 610.
Robins, G. Women in Ancient Egypt. London: The British Museum Press, 1993.
Saad, R. Fragments dun monument de Toutnkhamon retrouvs dans le Ixe
pyln de Karnak. Karnak V (1975): 93109.
Sethe, K. Die Schwgen Amenophis IV. ZS 42 (1905): 134135.
Schaden, O.J. The Gods Father Ay. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota,
1977.
. Clearance of the tomb of Ay (WV-23). JARCE 21 (1984): 5962.
Schulman, A.R. The Berlin Trauerrelief (No. 12411) and some ofcials of
Tutankhamun and Ay. JARCE 4 (1965): 5568.
Seele, K.C. King Ay and the Close of the Amarna Age. JNES 14 (1955):
168180.
Stempel, R. Identication of Nibhururiya and the synchronism in the Egyptian
and Hittite chronology in the light of newly reconstructed Hittite Text.
GM 213 (2007): 97100.
Thiem, A. Speos von Gebel es-Silsileh. AT 47. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2000.
Vandersleyen, C. Lgypte et la Valle du Nil, Tombe 2, Die la n de lAncien Empire la
n du Nouvel Empire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1995.
Van den Boorn, G.P.F. The Duties of Vizier: Civil Administration in the Early New
Kingdom. London/New York: Kegan Paul International, 1988.
Winlock, H.E. Harmhab, Commander-in-chief of the Armies of Tutekhamon.
Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin XVIII, Part 2, (1923): 316.
. A Statue of Horemheb before his Accession. JEA 10 (1924): 15.