Van Der Perre A. The Year 16 Graffito of

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108
brill.com/jeh
The Year 16 graffito of Akhenaten in Dayr Abū

Ḥinnis. A Contribution to the Study of the Later
Years of Nefertiti
Athena Van der Perre
Dayr al-Barshā Project, Near Eastern Studies, KU Leuven (Belgium)
Athena.VanderPerre@arts.kuleuven.be
Abstract
A building inscription in a limestone quarry at Dayr Abū Ḥinnis dated to Year 16 of

Akhenaten proves that Akhenaten and Nefertiti were still the royal couple near the
end of his reign. It is the highest known date of Queen Nefertiti and the latest dated
inscription which can be certainly attributed to Akhenaten himself. The second part of
the article evaluates current theories concerning the final years of Nefertiti and the
successors of Akhenaten in the light of the new text.
Keywords
Amarna Period – Akhenaten – Nefertiti – Amarna succession – Semenkhkare
Introduction
The Amarna Period is among the most studied periods in Egyptian history,
but still numerous questions remain unanswered. The end of Akhenaten’s
reign and hence the last years of the royal couple, their closest kin and entou-
rage have been discussed repeatedly. With every piece of evidence that was
discovered, new theories about the life and death of the main queen of
* This research was made possible thanks to the Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
(FWO), KU Leuven and the Dayr al-Barshā Project, directed by Dr. Harco Willems. I would
like to thank Dr. Harco Willems, Dr. Jacobus van Dijk and Dr. Marleen De Meyer for their use-
ful suggestions and comments.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/18741665-12340014

68 Van der Perre
Akhenaten appeared, and often one and the same dataset was used to support
widely divergent hypotheses about the end of the Amarna Period. A recently
discovered building inscription in a limestone quarry at Dayr Abū Ḥinnis pro-
vides new chronological information and leads to a reconsideration of some
longstanding hypotheses.1
The village of Dayr Abū Ḥinnis is located in Middle Egypt, on the east-
ern side of the Nile, about ten kilometers north of Amarna. It lies between
the well-known archaeological sites Dayr al-Barshā and al-Shaykh ʿIbāda
(Antinoopolis) (Fig. 1). The region between Dayr Abū Ḥinnis and al-Shaykh
Saʿīd is part of the research area of the Dayr al-Barshā Project (KU Leuven).
This area is bordered on the East by the hills of the Eastern Desert, and on
the West by the Nile. It is in these hills that the extensive quarry site of Dayr
Abū Ḥinnis is located. The steep limestone hills are intersected by a number of
wadis, in which hundreds of limestone quarries were exploited. Hundreds
of hieratic inscriptions, located on the walls and ceilings of the quarries, and
the presence of nearly finished talatat blocks, prove that their main exploita-
tion phase dates to the Amarna Period.2 A large part of the quarries at Dayr
Abū Ḥinnis was later inhabited by Coptic hermits, installing living quarters,
communal rooms and liturgical spaces inside the quarries.3
The quarry area of Dayr Abū Ḥinnis has three major wadis. The third, known
as the Wādī Dayr Abū Ḥinnis and located in the southern part of the area is the
largest. The text published here was found there in Quarry 320,4 on the north
slope of the wadi. (Fig. 2) The quarry was exploited in different periods, as is
confirmed by Late Period chisel marks on the lower part of some walls. Coptic
inscriptions on one of the walls suggest that the quarry was used or at least
occupied in the Early Christian period. The text was first seen in 2004 by Mark
Depauw (KU Leuven) during a survey in the area. It is written on a pillar in the
back of the quarry, at a height of 8 meters (Fig. 3). It is five lines long and cov-
ers the whole width of the pillar. Written in red ochre, the original inscription
is hard to decipher due to the patina of the limestone. In fact, when it was
discovered, it was not even clear in which script the text was written. Once
1 A preliminary description of this text was published in Van der Perre, “Nefertiti’s last docu-
mented reference [for now].”
2 Gasse, “Rapport préliminaire d’une mission épigraphique à Deir Abou Hennes”; Willems and
Demarée, “A Visitor’s Graffito in Dayr Abu Hinnis,” 224.
3 Van Loon and Delattre, “La frise des saints de l’église rupestre de Deir Abou Hennis,” 89 and
“Le cycle de l’enfance du Christ.”
4 According to the numbering system introduced by the Dayr al-Barshā Project.

The Year 16 graffito of Akhenaten in Dayr Abū Ḥinnis 69
Figure 1 Map of the area. The location of Quarry 320 is marked with an arrow.
© Dayr al-Barshā Project
Figure 2 Quarry 320 at the Wadi Dayr Abu Hinnis.

Photo by author

70 Van der Perre
Figure 3 Pillar with the inscription.

(Photo by author)

Figure 4 Original photo of part of the inscription and processed image of same part.
(Photos by author)
the photos were processed in Photoshop,5 the largest part of the inscription
became clear. However, some parts still remain very difficult to read (Fig. 4).
The graffito is written in a combination of hieratic and cursive hieroglyphs.
The first four lines are written in cursive hieroglyphs reminiscent to those used
in Book of the Dead papyri. The only exceptions here are the day number,
which is written in normal hieratic, and probably the month designation in
the same date. The fifth line is completely written in hieratic. The text contains
some curious spellings, but is quite understandable wherever the writing can
be read.
The chisel marks underneath the inscription appear to have been made
with a broad chisel, leaving marks that are comparable to those in this and
other Amarna quarries. These typical New Kingdom marks create a rather
uneven surface. The scribe painted his text with a rough brush, not being able
to reach the deepest points of the chisel marks.
5 For the used technique, see Depauw and Depraetere, “The Limestone Quarries in the Wâdî
Nakhla at Dayr al-Barsha,” 48, n. 5.

72 Van der Perre
The Inscription
Figure 5 Facsimile of the inscription.

(Drawing by author)
Figure 6 Transcription of the inscription.
1) rnp.t-sp 16 Ꜣbd 1A Ꜣḫ.t [sw] 15B Ꜥnḫ nsw.t bἰ.tyC Ꜥnḫ m mꜢꜤ.t nb tꜢ.wy (Nfr-
ḫpr.w-RꜤ wꜤ-n-RꜤ) Ꜥ.w.s
2) sꜢ RꜤ Ꜥnḫ m mꜢꜤ.t nb ḫꜤἰ.w (Ꜥnḫ Ꜣḫ-n-Ἰtn)D Ꜥ.w.s. ꜤꜢ /// m -ꜢḥꜤ<.w>=f dἰ<.w>
Ꜥnḫ ḏ.t
3) nḥḥ ḥm.t-nsw.t wr.tE mr.y=f nb.t tꜢ.wy (Nfr-nfr.w-Ἰtn Nfr.t-ἰy.tἰ)F Ꜥnḫ.tἰ ḏ.t
4) nḥḥ (Ꜥnḫ rꜤ ḥḳꜢ Ꜣḫ.ty ḥꜤἰ m Ꜣḫ.t) (m rn=f m RꜤ /// ἰy m Ἰtn)G mrἰ//H
5) tꜢ/// tꜢ kꜢ.t tꜢ ḥw.t pꜢ (Ꜥnḫ Ἰtn)I r-ḫ.t sš nsw.t Pnṯw m-ḏr.t J ḥry-kꜢ.tK///
Translation
1) Regnal year 16, first month of the inundation season, day 15. May the King
of Upper and Lower Egypt live, he who lives of Maat, the Lord of the Two
Lands Neferkheperure Waenre, l.p.h.
2) the Son of Re, who lives of Maat, the Lord of the Crowns Akhenaten,
l.p.h., whose life span is long, living forever

3) and ever, the King’s Great Wife, his beloved, the lady of the two lands
Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti, living forever
4) and ever. Beloved of Re, the ruler of the two horizons, who rejoices in the
horizon in his name of Re ///, who comes as the Aten.
5) the /// the work of the Mansion of the Aten, under the authority of the
king’s scribe Penthu, under the authority of overseer of work ///.
Notes to the Transcription and Transliteration

A) The dot above the six strokes of “Year 16” is not part of the number, but
is a splash of paint that dripped down from a painted line drawn at the
edge between the ceiling and the wall. Such splashes are common in
the quarries, due to painting on uneven surfaces created by the chisel
marks. Although the regnal year is clear, the following elements of the
date are slightly more problematic. The month number consists of a ver-
tical stroke, but the top is missing. In hieratic writings of Ꜣbd 1, the sign for
“month” can be extremely narrow, and should fit into the available space
(Möller II, 310), a small rounded stroke seems to be attached to the bot-
Q
tom of the sign. Following this reading, the season is written as d0, with
a large part of the Ꜣḫ.t-sign missing, the small round stroke being the t of
Ꜣḫ.t. A less likely alternative is to read Ꜣbd 3, as Ꜣbd 3 can be written with a
vertical stroke and a rounded element to its left.6 This element is not fully
preserved, only the lowest part is still visible. This implies that the season
Q
is written rather peculiarly, without the .t, d. However, in both options
the solar disc is used for both the determinative of the season and for sw
in the day notation.
B) Again, the top part of the signs is not fully preserved. The remaining
strokes suggest the date “day 15,” with a hieratic day number 10 com-
bined with a slightly larger right-hand sign (hieratic day number 3) and a
smaller sign to the left (hieratic day number 2). However, “day 16” cannot
be fully excluded. It cannot be determined for sure that the second sign
was originally not as high as the first sign, resulting in a combination of
two times the hieratic number 3.
C) The title nsw.t-bἰ.ty is written without the phonetic t-complement.
This was a common practice in New Kingdom papyri. Attestations are
also known from the Amarna Period as can be seen on P. Berl. 9784.7
6 Cf. Möller, Hieratische Paläographie II, N° 312 (P. Rollin).

7 Möller, Hieratische Paläograpie II, Tf. III. Tf. IV and V show similar examples from the time of
Seti I and Ramses II.

74 Van der Perre
An 18th Dynasty hieratic ostracon from the tomb of Senenmut at Thebes

also gives the same writing.8
D) The name of Akhenaten is preceded by an Ꜥnḫ-sign. This practice is
known from other inscriptions in Amarna, where the Ꜥnḫ-name is seen as
a variant of the original name.9
E) The style of Nefertiti shows that she did not change her title of ḥm.t
nsw.t wr.t to ḥm.t nsw.t ꜤꜢ.t after the 12th year of Akhenaten, as is often
suggested.10 Although the occurrence of the ḥm.t-nsw.t ꜤꜢ.t-title is rather
rare, it appears five times in the tomb of Meryre II at Amarna.11 However,
in the tomb both titles are used simultaneously, so a definitive change
from one title to another was not the case. As the new inscription proves,
the original title ḥm.t nsw.t wr.t was still used towards the end of the reign
of Akhenaten.
F) The first part of the queen’s name is well preserved, all signs being clearly
written. The second part causes more problems. After the fifth nfr-sign,
the phonetic complements f and r are clearly visible. They are followed
by two low, narrow signs, of which the remains suggest the reading of a t
and the two strokes of y. The next sign can be restored as Möller II, 284;
ἰἰ, followed by the remains of a t and the two legs (Möller II, 120). The
last two signs are two tall narrow signs, of which the first is possibly a tἰ
(Möller II, 401) and the last again the ἰ. So far, parallels of this writing of
the queen’s name have not been found.
G) The second cartouche of the name of the Aten also contains some curi-
ous spellings. The normal construction would be m rn=f m it RꜤ ii m Ἰtn.
The first m is written with the hieroglyphic owl, while the second m, in
hieratic, clearly is a later correction. The Re-sign is followed by a tall, nar-
row sign, an unidentified sign and the ἰἰ-sign (Möller II, 284). Perhaps
the tall, narrow sign can be read as an ἰ. One would expect the word “ἰt”
(father) here, so the unidentified sign should be part of this word group.
The final part of the cartouche is again written in cursive hieroglyphs,
with the owl used as m.
8 Hayes, Ostraka and Name Stones from the Tomb of Sen-Mūt (N°. 71) at Thebes, 28, pl. XXV.
9 Willems and Demarée, “A Visitor’s Graffito in Dayr Abu Hinnis,” 224, n. 14; Pendlebury and
Černý, COA III, 169.
10 Samson, “Royal Names in Amarna History,” 37–38 and “Nefertiti’s Regality,” 94; Perepelkin,
The Secret of the Gold Coffin, 120; Reeves, “A Further Occurrence of Nefertiti as ḥmt nsw
ꜤꜢt,” 61–65.
11 Davies, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna. Part II, pl. XXIX, XXXII, XXXVII, XXXVIII; Samson,
“Nefertiti’s Regality,” 94.

H) The epithets following the cartouches of the Aten are no longer legible.
The first signs can be restored as the cursive hieroglyph for mrἰ, followed
by the man with a hand to his mouth (Möller II, 35). However, this recon-
struction is uncertain, especially since the mrἰ-sign is written almost
vertically.
I) In the reference to the temple,12 the name Ἰtn is preceded by the Ꜥnḫ-sign.
This particular spelling is often found in hieratic wine dockets and does
not have to be translated.13
J) R-ḫt denotes the highest ranking official responsible for the work. The
name following m-ḏr.t refers to a lower-ranking official.14
K) It is almost impossible to reconstruct the end of the last sentence. After
m-ḏr.t, the sign of the man holding a basket (Möller II, 42) is easy to recog-
nize. This is followed by two signs, which can be reconstructed as a scroll
and the remains of the plural strokes (Möller II, LVIII). Since the preposi-
tion should be followed by the title and name of an official, the second
part of the title can be reconstructed as kꜢw.t. However, faint traces of
a horizontal sign are visible between the preposition and the man with
the basket. This probably refers to the p.t-sign, implying that the title can
be restored as ḥry-kꜢw.t, “overseer of work.”15 The position of the sign is
remarkable. One would expect it to be placed after the preposition m-ḏr.t
and not partly underneath it. This can only be explained by the lack of
space which occurs at the end of the last line. The name of the official is
too damaged to read. The remaining space suggests a very short name.
The only known Amarna officials with the title ἰmy-r kꜢw.t or ḥry kꜢw.t and
a short name are Bak, Men and Pakha.16 However, the remaining traces
cannot be linked to their names, so no definite conclusions can be made.
The first four lines of this building inscription give the date and the names
and titles of the royal couple, combined with the cartouches of the Aten.
The cartouches of the god clearly give the late form of the name, which was
changed after the last attestation of the original form in the colophon of the
12 The Mansion of the Aten (tꜢ ḥw.t pꜢ Ἰtn) was already identified with the Small Aten Temple
by Pendlebury. See COA III, 92–97 and 191.
13 See note D for references.
14 Lopez, “Inscriptions hiératiques sur les talatât provenant des temples d’Akhenaton à
Karnak,” 254.
15 Wb III, 193. For the title “Overseer of work” in the Amarna Period, see Willems, “The One
and the Many in Stela Leiden V1,” 242.
16 Hari, Répertoire onomastique amarnien, N° 74, 146 and 103.

76 Van der Perre
Later Proclamation on Boundary Stelae A and B, dated to regnal year 8 of

Akhenaten.17 Possibly the name changed only after the 12th regnal year of
Akhenaten.18 The last line of the building inscription refers to the destination
of the limestone. First of all, the text points out that the quarry was used for the
work in the Small Aten temple (tꜢ ḥw.t pꜢ Ἰtn), indicating that in the 16th regnal
year of Akhenaten the temple was still not complete. Limestone from Dayr
Abū Ḥinnis was used to finish some work in the temple, thus adding a chapter
to the building history of the capital.
Penthu, the royal scribe who wrote this text, is perhaps identical with the
like-named owner of Tomb N° 5 in the northern rock tombs of Amarna.19 This
Penthu had several high-ranking court titles, but not a lot is known about
his life in Amarna. His house has not been identified in the city centre. The
decoration of his tomb in Amarna remained incomplete.20 This, the fact that
only the three eldest daughters of Akhenaten are depicted in it, and that it
displays the early form of the name of Aten, has led scholars to believe it was
constructed during the early years of Akhenaten’s reign in Amarna. After this,
Penthu seemed to disappear from the record. However, in view of the rarity of
the name, Černý identified a vizier with the name Pntw who is mentioned in a
hieratic wine jar docket in the tomb of Tutankhamun with the owner of Tomb
N° 5 in Amarna.21 Habachi identified Penthu as the second vizier in the reign
of Tutankhamun.22 He might then be identified with one of the viziers on the
so-called “Trauerrelief ” (Berlin No. 12411).23 However, since these are anony-
mous, the discussion is still open.24
Our new text fills the chronological gap between the attestations of Penthu
in Amarna tomb 5 and the reign of Tutankhamun, and therefore lends support
to Černý’s idea that he did not disappear early in the reign of Akhenaten.
There are at least strong indications that the owner of the tomb must have been
identical with the Penthu mentioned in Dayr Abū Ḥinnis. One of the titles
mentioned in the tomb, bꜢk tpy n Ἰtn m tꜢ ḥw.t pꜢ Ἰtn m Ꜣḫ.t-Ἰtn “first servant of
the Aten in the Mansion of Aten in Akhetaten,” suggests that the tomb owner
17 Allen, “The Amarna Succession,” 9, n. 2.

18 Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, 110–18.
19 PM IV, 210, 217; Davies, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna. Part IV, 1–6.
20 Davies, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna. Part IV, 2.
21 Černý, Hieratic Inscriptions from the Tomb of Tut’ankhamūn, 4, pl. V, N° 26.
22 Habachi, “Unknown or Little-known Monuments of Tutankhamun and of his Viziers,” 39.
23 Schulman, “The Berlin “Trauerrelief” (No. 12411) and Some Officials of Tut’ankhamn and
Ay,” 67–68.
24 For the discussion, see van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 13–14 and
59–62.

acted as high priest in the same temple for which the new text records the
quarrying of building stone. That a man with the name Penthu was responsi-
ble for this work is probably more than coincidental. Moreover, excavations in
the Small Aten Temple have shown that the temple was constructed in differ-
ent phases. Enlargement of the temple area and replacement of the bricks by
stone were the major projects during the occupation of the site.25 Interpreted
this way, the Dayr Abū Ḥinnis inscription affords crucial new information on
Penthu’s biography.
However, the importance of the inscription from Dayr Abū Ḥinnis lies in the
first part of the text. This inscription offers incontrovertible evidence that both
Akhenaten and Nefertiti were still alive in the 16th year of his reign and, more
importantly, that they were still holding the same positions as at the start of their
reign. This makes it necessary to rethink the final years of the Amarna Period.
Hypotheses
It is generally agreed that Akhenaten died in his 17th regnal year. However,
the last dated inscription usually attributed to his reign, a wine jar label from
Year 17,26 does not actually mention his name.27 This makes the building
inscription of Dayr Abū Ḥinnis also the latest dated inscription certainly
attributable to Akhenaten himself. His fate cannot be seen apart from that of
other protagonists of the later Amarna period. Most theories are linked to his
alleged successor, king Ankhkheperure Semenkhkare and the disappearance
of Nefertiti.
Seele elaborated on the suggestion of earlier scholars28 that near the end
of Akhenaten’s reign, a quarrel divided the royal house in two parties.
He argued that Nefertiti had withdrawn to the northern quarter of the city,
accompanied by Tutankhaten, while Akhenaten, Semenkhkare and Meritaten
occupied the rest of the city.29 According to Roeder, Semenkhkare adopted the
name Neferneferuaten after the queen was banished, to ensure the continuity
25 Mallinson, “Investigation of the Small Aten Temple,” 138. A wine docket dating from
Year 13 and a ring bezel of Ankhkheperure provide a terminus ante quem for the construc-
tion of the final phase. Mallinson, “Investigation of the Small Aten Temple,” 126.
26 COA III, 152, 159.
27 Hornung, Krauss, and Warburton, Ancient Egyptian Chronology, 206.
28 For references to the suggestions of earlier scholars, see Seele, “King Ay and the Close of
the Amarna Age,” 172, n. 30–31.
29 Seele, “King Ay and the Close of the Amarna Age,” 172.

78 Van der Perre
of rulership.30 In 1959, Hayes elaborated upon this theory by arguing that

Akhenaten laid the foundation for the later restoration politics of his succes-
sors. At the end of his reign, he tried to reach a compromise with the follow-
ers of the old state gods through his co-regent Semenkhkare.31 Nefertiti, being
offended by the proposals of her husband, withdrew to the northern quarter
of the city. She was accompanied by the young Tutankhaten and Ay, who both
remained loyal to the Aten. The queen stayed in the North Palace until the
death of her husband.32 During her banishment, Akhenaten promoted his
oldest daughter Meritaten and her husband to the royal throne.33
A second theory argued that Nefertiti died early, based on apparent disap-
pearance of her name after the 12th regnal year of Akhenaten, when she is
still mentioned in the tomb of Meryre.34 In a recent publication, Hermann
Schlögl argued that Nefertiti died in an accident in Year 14, because of the
injuries seen on the mummy of the so-called Younger Lady from KV 35, whom
he identifies with Nefertiti.35 However, this identification is not generally
accepted. Most scholars assume Nefertiti must have died in Year 13 or 14, based
on a combination of facts. The first piece of evidence frequently mentioned
in this connection is the so-called Durbar-scene in the Tomb of Meryre II,
which depicts the presentation of foreign tribute during the second month of
winter in Akhenaten’s Year 12.36 In the scene, the king is still accompanied by
his wife and their six daughters. Sometime after the Durbar, several members
of the royal family passed away. Scenes in the Royal Tomb at Amarna depict
the funeral of the second daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, Meketaten.37
Nefertiti is still shown in these scenes as the Great Royal Wife. The funeral is
often argued to have taken place in the 13th or 14th year of Akhenaten’s reign,
although there is no conclusive evidence for the date. Whatever the exact date
may be, it must have been later than the event depicted in the Durbar scene,
where Meketaten is depicted still alive, which make the funeral scenes the lat-
est depicting Nefertiti as Chief Queen.
30 Roeder, “Thronfolger und König Smench-ka-Rê (Dynastie XVIII),” 43.

31 Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt. Part 2, 296.
32 Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt. Part 2, 296.
33 Redford, History and Chronology, 175.
34 Cf. Infra.
35 Schlögl, Nofretete. Die Wahrheit über die schöne Königin, 90.
36 Davies, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna. Part II, pl. XXXVIII.
37 Martin, The Rock Tombs of El-’Amarna. Part VII, pl. 63, 68.

Nefertiti’s disappearance was also deduced from the fact that the name of
her residence changed from pr Nfr-nfr.w-Ἰtn (Nfr.t-ἰy.tἰ) to pr ḥm.t nsw.t some-
time after Year 13.38 However, Krauss has demonstrated that the pr ḥm.t nsw.t
was already mentioned in Year 11,39 when Nefertiti was certainly still alive.40
So, except for the fact that no inscriptions were hitherto known with her name
post-dating Year 12, no positive evidence is found to support this theory.
According to another hypothesis, Nefertiti was banished by her husband
and replaced by her own daughter Meritaten. Some scholars link the apparent
promotion of Meritaten to the position of Great Royal Wife with the hypoth-
esis of an early death of Nefertiti.41 The assumption is based on architectural
elements inscribed with the name of Meritaten, which were unearthed dur-
ing the excavations of Woolley in the Maru-aten, the small garden temple
at the southern border of Amarna.42 A closer look at the fragments revealed
that the original name of the owner had been erased and replaced by the name
of Akhenaten’s eldest daughter. Since it was clear that the original inscription
mentioned a king’s wife, conclusions were hastily drawn: it must have been
Nefertiti’s name that was erased, she having been replaced as a queen by her
own daughter.43 It was argued that such a rare thing was only conceivable in
either of two cases. Either Nefertiti was dead at the time of the replacement
of the names, or she had fallen into disgrace and was banished from her royal
position. However, some of the original hieroglyphs are still visible and these
do not correspond to the name of Nefertiti, but to that of Kiya, a concubine of
Akhenaten.44 This hypothesis as well is based on insufficient evidence.
Whereas all of the above hypotheses draw a gloomy picture of the fate of
the queen, articles published in the 1970s by Samson and Harris offered a new
idea concerning Akhenaten’s rule, emphasizing the important role played by
Nefertiti also in its later years.45 Harris argued that Akhenaten’s co-regent
Semenkhkare, was actually Nefertiti. Both share the same epithets and Nefertiti
is often depicted wearing royal regalia throughout the reign of Akhenaten.46
38 Helck, “Amarna-Probleme,” 202.

39 Krauss, “Neues zu den Stelenfragmenten UC London 410 + Kairo JE 64959,” 87.
40 Krauss, “Nefretitis Ende.”
41 Wilson, “Akh-en-Aton and Nefert-iti.”
42 Woolley, “Excavations at Tell el-Amarna,” 81–82.
43 COA III, 201.
44 Aldred, Akhenaten. King of Egypt, 288.
45 Harris, “Nefertiti Rediviva,” and “Neferneferuaten Regnans.”
46 Samson, “Nefertiti’s Regality.”

80 Van der Perre
She even used double cartouches, resembling those of the king and the Aten.47
In almost every scene, Nefertiti is depicted as being the equal of her husband.
When the couple is shown during the worship of the Aten, they perform
the same rituals and use the same symbols, suggesting they might also have
shared power.
Harris rejected the possibility that Semenkhkare was a male co-regent, as
had until then been commonly assumed. His argument was mainly based on
the so-called Co-regency stela (Petrie Museum UC410)48 and on an unfinished
stela, known as the stela of Paser (Berlin 17813). The former is a double-sided
stela, probably from a domestic shrine. On one side, which depicts the royal
family, the cartouches have been altered: the names of Nefertiti and Meritaten
are replaced by the double cartouches of Ankhkheperure Nefernefruaten, while
an additional column now gives the name of Ankhesenpaaten. The cartouches
of Akhenaten and Ankhkheperure Nefernefruaten are now shown together,
and this was taken as confirmation of their co-regency.49 Since Samson and
Harris believed that Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten was the same person
as Ankhkheperure Semenkhkare, this stela was used to prove the co-regency
of Nefertiti/Semenkhkare and Akhenaten.
The stela of Paser shows two anonymous crowned figures in an intimate
scene. Most earlier authors had assumed that they were kings because of their
crowns, which was taken as proof of the co-regency of Akhenaten and another
male, presumably Semenkhkare. But, since Harris considered it certain that
Nefertiti herself used to wear the king’s crown, he argued that this stela might
represent Akhenaten with his wife.50 He rejected the possibility that the stela
was proof of a co-regency, since then there should be two cartouches for each
king and not three (referring to a king (two cartouches) and his wife (one car-
touche)), as actually shown on the stela.51
Both Harris and Samson argued that Nefertiti’s name disappeared after
Year 12 because her status changed. She was no longer just the King’s Great
Wife, she became his official co-regent. She also expanded and eventually
changed her name in the following years to fit royal tradition.52 Samson’s argu-
47 Petrie, Tell El Amarna, pl. XV, N° 82.

48 Samson, “The Amarna Collection at University College, London,” 231–37.
49 Harris, “Nefertiti Rediviva,” “Nefernefruaten,” and “Neferneferuaten Regnans.”
50 Harris, “Nefertiti Rediviva,” 5.
51 Samson, “Nefertiti’s Regality,” 88–89.
52 Freed, et al., Farao’s van de Zon. Achnaton, Nefertiti, Toetanchamon, 88–89.

ment that the official coronation of Semenkhkare53 as co-regent was actually

that of Nefertiti54 found support with the discovery of several ring bezels in
Amarna with the female variant Ankhetkheperure.55 Samson, who did not
believe in the existence of a male called Semenkhkare, argued that Nefertiti
Neferneferuaten changed her name to Ankh(et)kheperure Neferneferuaten
during her co-regency with Akhenaten. After his death, she altered her name a
second time to Semenkhkare, to remove all associations with Akhenaten.56 She
continued to reign as a sole king until Tutankhamun was old enough to claim
his rights to the throne. Redford likewise placed the death of Nefertiti in the
reign of Tutankhamun, particularly in the 3rd year of his reign.57 According to
Redford, her death caused a loss of Aten-minded influence, clearly implied
in the name change from Tutankhaten to Tutankhamun, and resulted in the
move to the former capital and the restoration of polytheism. However, since
the famous Restoration Stela shows that the name change had already taken
place in the 1st year of Tutankhamun’s reign and that the court had by then also
been moved to Memphis,58 this has been proven to be impossible. The reign of
Nefertiti as co-regent or sole ruler was countered by Loeben, who published a
shabti with her name from the Royal Tomb, which describes her as the Great
Royal Wife. According to Loeben, this implies that she died as a queen and
not as a pharaoh.59 This left only one person capable of becoming the female
co-regent of Akhenaten, namely his eldest daughter Meritaten.60 According to
the tradition of Manetho, a king of the late Eighteenth Dynasty was succeeded
by his daughter Akenkheres. Gabolde and Krauss have argued that this is
53 According to Redford, the coronation took place at the end of Akhenaten’s 15th regnal
year. However, no solid evidence is given to support this theory. Redford, History and
Chronology, 181–182.
54 Samson, “Royal Names in Amarna History” and “Nefernefruaten-Nefertiti ‘Beloved of
Akhenaten’.”
56 Samson, “Nefertiti’s Regality,” 95.
57 Redford, Akhenaten. The Heretic King, 206.
58 Van Dijk, “De restauratiestèle van Toetanchamon,” 235–36.
59 Loeben, “Eine Bestattung der großen königlichen Gemachlin Nofretete in Amarna?
Die Totenfigur der Nofretete,” 99–107. However, the two parts of the shabti described
by Loeben originally belong to two different statuettes. It has been argued that these
were probably put into the tomb as votive offerings. They appear to have been made at
the beginning of the reign of Akhenaten, so the inscriptions cannot be used to provide
information about the last years of Nefertiti. (See Reeves, Akhenaten. Egypt’s False
Prophet, 170.)
60 Allen, “The Amarna Succession,” 18.

82 Van der Perre
probably the Graecized form of the Egyptian Ankhkheperure.61 Although this

assumption is probably correct, it does not confirm the co-regency of Meritaten,
since her name is never combined with the prenomen Ankhkheperure.62
Yet another theory recognizes the existence of two ‘kings’, one being called
Ankh(et)kheperure Neferneferuaten, and the other Ankhkheperure Semenkh-
kare, as rulers of the Amarna Period. The first king was Ankhkheperure
Neferneferuaten, who became co-regent of Akhenaten, probably at some time
during years 15 to 17. Since the nomen of this evidently female person was
identical to the second name of Nefertiti, it would be she who would reign for
3 or 4 years beside Akhenaten and was then succeeded by the young man
Semenkhkare.63 The reign of the young king Ankhkheperure Semenkhkare
was only a very brief episode in the Amarna story: he would have been on
the throne for at most 1 year.64 Depending on the moment when Nefernefer-
uaten became co-regent, and keeping in mind that her reign only lasted for
3 years, a maximum of 3 and a minimum of 1 year separated the death of
Akhenaten and the accession of Tutankhamun.
A variant of the last hypothesis places Meritaten on the throne after her
father’s death, with the name Ankhetkheperure Neferneferuaten. She is
then to be identified with the Dakhamanzu (tꜢ ḥm.t nsw.t) who wrote to the
Hittite king Suppiluliuma, to ask for his son’s hand.65 In opposition to all other
interpretations, Gabolde argues that Zannanza, the Hittite prince, actually
arrived in Egypt and ascended the throne as Ankhkheperure Semenkhkare,
after which Meritaten returned to her former position of King’s wife.66
Although various arguments can, and have, been mustered in support of
each of these theories, the evidence is highly fragmentary and tenuous. Post-
Amarna and Ramesside kings tried to expunge the names of the Amarna kings
from the annals of Egypt. Although they did not succeed in their quest, a large
part of the information is forever lost. While it remains impossible to reliably
reconstruct the correct sequence of events in this period, due to the inscrip-
61 Krauss, Das Ende der Amarnazeit, 43–53; Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, 147–85.
62 Dr. van Dijk, personal communication, May 2013.
63 Allen, “Two Altered Inscriptions of the Late Amarna Period,” 117–18 and “The Amarna
Succession,” 12.
65 The identity of Dakhamanzu is still not clear. She has been identified as Nefertiti (Reeves,
Akhenaten. Egypt’s False Prophet, 176–77), Kiya (Helck, “Kijê,” 164–66), Meritaten (Krauss,
Das Ende der Amarnazeit, 18–19), and Ankhesenamun (Kitchen, “Further Notes on New
Kingdom Chronology and History,” 319). See also: Bryce, “The Death of Niphururiya and
Its Aftermath” and Breyer, “Egyptological Remarks Concerning Daḫamunzu.”
66 Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, 187–226 and Gabolde, “Smenkhkarê à Ugarit?,”
295–319.

tion from Dayr Abū Ḥinnis, some hypotheses can now be ruled out with cer-
tainty. Nefertiti did not die nor was she expelled shortly after the 12th regnal
year of Akhenaten. She was not replaced by her daughter Meritaten or by Kiya
as Chief Queen, at least not before early in Year 16, when the text published in
this article still features her as a ḥm.t-nsw.t wr.t.
However, several other theories are still in the running. Before anything
can be concluded, we must consider what is known about Semenkhkare and
Neferneferuaten.
Semenkhkare
Based on the known evidence, much of which will be discussed in the follow-
ing paragraphs, it is clear that a man named Semenkhkare lived at Amarna.
He was married to Akhenaten’s oldest daughter Meritaten67 and, since his
name was written in a cartouche, he held a royal position.68 Although
Semenkhkare must have borne a full royal titulary, his name string is only par-
tially preserved. The Horus-name, Golden Horus-name and nb.ty-name are
unknown so far.
However, the evidence also suggests that a distinction has to be made
between Semenkhkare and Neferneferuaten, who both shared the prenomen
Ankhkheperure. The distinction is often complicated due to the inaccurate
publications of finds before the 1980s. A first issue was the spelling of the
name Semenkhkare. The prenomen of the young king was often misread;
Bouriant spelled it as Aakheperure,69 while Scheil,70 Maspero71 and
Petrie72 held on to Neferkheperure instead of Ankhkheperure. A second
problem is that the earliest publications use the name “Semenkhkare,” even if
the original inscriptions only referred to Neferneferuaten. Unless a facsimile of
a given piece is provided, one cannot be certain of the true reading. It appears
that most of the alleged references to Semenkhkare do not actually mention
the name “Semenkhkare” at all. This ambiguity has made it difficult to draw
conclusions.
In order to make the correct distinctions between the two persons, one needs
to be aware of the existence of different epithets linked with the prenomen
67 Kemp, The City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, 15.

68 Davies, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna. Part II, pl. XLI.
69 Bouriant, “Notes de voyages,” 70.
70 Scheil, Le tombeau de Pâri, 588.
71 Maspero, The Struggle of the Nations. Egypt, Syria & Assyria, 317, n. 2.
72 Petrie, A History of Egypt. Vol. II, 227.

84 Van der Perre
and nomen. Although both kings shared the same prenomen, it is still possible
to make a distinction based on the accompanying epithets.73 The following
forms of the prenomen, with or without epithet, can be found (A):747576777879
N° Prenomen Epithet Translation of epithet
1 Ankhkheperure /74 /
2 Ankhkheperure Mr.y WꜤ-n-rꜤ 75 Beloved of Waenre
3 Ankhkheperure Mr.y Nfr-ḫprw-rꜤ 76 Beloved of Neferkheperure
4 Ankhetkheperure Mr.y(.t) WꜤ-n-rꜤ 77 Beloved of Waenra
5 Ankhkheperure Mr.y Ἰtn78 Beloved of the Aten
6 Ankhkheperure pꜢ ḥm Ꜣḫ.t-Ἰtn79 The incarnation of Akhetaten
Different forms of the nomen can also be distinguished (B):
N° Nomen Epithet Translation of epithet
A Semenkhkare /80 /
Djeserkheperu
B Neferneferuaten Mr.y Ἰ(tn)81 Beloved of Aten?
C Neferneferuaten Mr.y Ꜣḫ-n-Ἰtn82 Beloved of Akhenaten
D Neferneferuaten Mr.y WꜤ-n-rꜤ 83 Beloved of Waenre
73 This list is an extended version of the list made by Allen in 1987, see Allen, “Nefertiti and
Smenkh-ka-re,” 9.
74 Petrie, Tell El Amarna, pl. XV (97–101); Krauss, Das Ende der Amarnazeit, 84–85.
75 Petrie, Tell El Amarna, pl. XV (95–96); Martin, “The Coregency Stela University College
London 410,” 357, fig. 1a–1b.
76 Petrie, Tell El Amarna, pl. XV (92–93).
77 Petrie, Tell El Amarna, pl. XV (94).
78 Harris, “Neferneferuaten Regnans,” 16, n. 20, fig. 3.
79 Hornung and Staehelin, Skarabäen und andere Siegelamulette aus Basler Sammlungen,
267, N° 378.
80 Petrie, Tell El Amarna, pl. XV (104). Krauss, Das Ende der Amarnazeit, 87.
81 Restoration proposed by Tawfik: Tawfik, “Aton Studies 3: Back again to Nefer-nefru-Aton,”
167. However, this restoration has been criticized, see Krauss, Das Ende der Amarnazeit,
88, n. 7.
82 Martin, “The Coregency Stela University College London 410,” 357, fig. 1a–1b.
83 McLeod, Composite Bows from the Tomb of Tut’ankhamūn, 11, n. 1.

N° Nomen Epithet Translation of epithet
E Neferneferuaten Ꜣḫ.t n hy=s84 Effective for her husband

F Neferneferuaten ḥḳꜢ85 The Ruler
The question arises which name has to be linked to which royal person.
Recently, Dodson raised the hypothesis that all forms of the prenomens
Ankhkheperure and Ankhetkheperure combined with an epithet (mr.y X,
pꜢ ḥm Ꜣḫ.t-Ἰtn, ḥḳꜢ, Ꜣḫ.t n hy=s [A2–6]) belong to the successor of Akhenaten,
Neferneferuaten (B[B-F]). The name Ankhkheperure without epithet should
be linked to Semenkhkare Djeserkheperu (B [A]).86 The practice of a mon-
arch adding epithets to his prenomen and nomen was common from the New
Kingdom onwards,87 the epithet often referring to a god’s name. However, in
the Amarna period, the epithet most often relates the bearer of the name to the
most important person of the Aten-cult, namely Akhenaten.
Following Dodson’s approach, we can now link the archaeological evi-
dence to its rightful owner: The material where Ankhkheperure is combined
with an epithet belongs to the (female) Neferneferuaten, while the material
of Ankhkheperure without an epithet belongs to Semenkhkare.88 The use of
epithets also suggests that Neferneferuaten must have been on the throne
at a later stage than Semenkhkare, since epithets were necessary to make
the distinction between Neferneferuaten and her predecessor. Not much is
known about the young man Semenkhkare, although a scene in the tomb of
Meryre II suggests he was married to Akhenaten’s oldest daughter, Meritaten.89
Nothing is known about his parentage. Different options have been suggested
by Redford, but none can be proven.90 One hypothesis is that Semenkhkare
was a son of Amenhotep III and one of his lesser consorts. Being the half-
brother of Akhenaten, his promotion to co-regent could have been a logical
step, especially since Akhenaten had six daughters, but is not known to have
84 Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, 153–57; Hoffmeier and van Dijk, “New Light on
the Amarna Period from North Sinai,” 201–02, pl. IVb.
85 Harris, “Neferneferuaten Regnans,” 16, n. 20, fig. 3.
86 Dodson, “Amarna Sunset: the late-Amarna succession revisited,” 31–32.
87 Von Beckerath, Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen, 23, 26.
88 Although this remains ambiguous, see Allen, “Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re,” 10.
89 Davies, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna. Part II, pl. XLI.

86 Van der Perre
had a son. The marriage of one of his daughters with his half-brother could
solve the problem of the succession, created by the absence of a male heir.91 A
second hypothesis is that both Semenkhkare and Tutankhamun were sons of
Akhenaten.92 Semenkhkare, being the eldest son, was appointed as successor
of his father.
Recent scientific examination by Hawass, et al. of the remains of
Tutankhamun and other royals of this period categorize Tutankhamun as the
son of the mummy from KV 55, a man of 35 to 45 years old, who, according to
the authors, can be no other person than Akhenaten himself.93
The identification of the man in KV 55, whose names were removed from
the coffin, still raises questions. Other scholars who have examined the
remains of the man from KV 55 came independently to an entirely different
conclusion than Hawass, et al. The bones suggest an actual age of 18 to 25
years according to G. Eliot Smith and others.94 If this is correct, it is impos-
sible to identify this mummy with Akhenaten, who reigned for 17 years. The
most logical option would then be to identify the remains from KV 55 with
Semenkhkare. The genetic evidence would then imply that Tutankhamun was
a son of Semenkhkare, a theory also defended by Allen and Eaton-Krauss.95
Furthermore, according to Hawass, et al., DNA analysis shows that the man
from KV 55 was the brother of the so-called Younger Lady (KV 35).96 She
has also been identified as the mother of Tutankhamun.97 Putting all these
pieces together, it seems that Semenkhkare and his sister were the parents of
Tutankhamun. This would have some consequences for the family tree of the
Amarna royal family, since it automatically makes Akhenaten the father of
both Semenkhkare and Meritaten. However, actual evidence for these identi-
91 Dodson, Amarna Sunset, 39–40.

92 This theory is now commonly accepted. Kemp, The City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, 15.
93 Hawass, et al., “Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family,” 641.
94 Elliot Smith, The Royal Mummies, 51–56; Harrison, “An Anatomical Examination of the
Pharaonic Remains Purported to Be Akhenaten”; Leclant and Minault-Gout, “Fouilles et
travaux en Egypte et au Soudan, 1997–1998. Première partie,” 387; Filer, “The KV 55 Body:
The Facts”; Ashrafian, “Familial epilepsy in the pharaohs of ancient Egypt’s eighteenth
dynasty,” 25–26.
95 Allen, “The Amarna Succession,” 19; Eaton-Krauss, “Mummies (and Daddies),” 34.
96 Although Gabolde shows that they can also be cousins, see Gabolde, “L’ADN de la famille
royale amarnienne et les sources égyptiennes,” 194 ff.
97 Hawass, et al., “Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family,” 641 and confirmed
by Gabolde, “L’ADN de la famille royale amarnienne et les sources égyptiennes,” 196–201.

fications is lacking, since no references to Semenkhkare are found in the tomb

and the age of the KV 55 man is still under discussion.98
In fact, the objects from the tomb date the burial and give additional infor-
mation about the deceased, which seem to confirm the results of Hawass,
et al.99 Not only was part of the tomb furniture stamped with the name of
Tutankhamun,100 at least two of the magical bricks carried the title “Osiris
Neferkheperure true of voice.”101 This identifies the deceased as Akhenaten
and it also shows that by the time of the reburial in KV 55, the Osirian beliefs
were restored. Akhenaten was originally buried in the Royal Tomb at Amarna,
probably by his successor Neferneferuaten. However, to claim his rights on the
throne, Tutankhamun decided to rebury his father in the Valley of the Kings. In
order to do this, parts of the burial equipment of Kiya were altered.
It is not clear when or where Semenkhkare died. Dodson places his passing
in the 14th or 15th regnal year of Akhenaten, but based on slender evidence.102
Since the other tombs in the Royal Wadi were unfinished, it is possible that he
was originally buried in the Royal Tomb of Amarna, but no evidence was found
to support this theory.
Although the certain attestations of Semenkhkare’s name are limited in
number, some were found outside Amarna, and more precisely in the Valley of
the Kings and in Memphis.103
The Tomb of Meryre II (TA2) at Amarna

Tomb N° 2 of the Northern Rock Tombs was constructed for the steward
of Nefertiti, Meryre II.104 This is the only tomb where the 6 daughters of
Akhenaten are depicted, thus it must have been one of the latest tombs built
or at least decorated.
98 Several mummies are known to have had a longer reign than the forensic data suggests.
A list of these can be found in: Gabolde, “Under a Deep Blue Starry Sky,” 115–16.
99 Gabolde, “Under a Deep Blue Starry Sky,” 109–20.
100 Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, 262–63.
101 Gabolde, “Under a Deep Blue Starry Sky,” 117, n. 65.
102 Dodson, “Amarna Sunset: the late-Amarna succession revisited,” 33.
103 Here we will not discuss the scarabs and ring bezels of Semenkhkare, but these men-
tion the prenomen Ankhkheperure without epithets and/or the nomen Semenkhkare
Djeserkheperu, which can only refer to Semenkhkare: Petrie, Tell El Amarna, pl. XV;
Samson, “Royal Inscriptions from Amarna,” 245.
104 PM IV, 213–14.

88 Van der Perre
The unfinished scene on the north wall in the second chamber of the tomb
probably constitutes the most convincing evidence to confirm the existence
of a male king called Semenkhkare. The scene is roughly sketched with red
ink, depicting the king and the queen, while the accompanying hieroglyphs
are hastily executed. Originally this may have been an image of Akhenaten
and Nefertiti rewarding Meryre, whose cartouches were later altered to those
of Semenkhkare and Meritaten.105 Lepsius copied the hieroglyphs in his
Denkmäler (1849–1850),106 but the cartouches were removed in the late 1880s,
probably by local robbers, and by the time Davies made his copies of the
tomb decoration (1905), only the cartouche of Meritaten remained.107 Davies
noticed that the cartouches seemed “somewhat large and clumsy in com-
parison with the rest of the inscription.”108 This might explain why none of
the previous visitors read the same name.109 Nonetheless, this scene remains
the major argument for the existence of Semenkhkare, his claim on the throne,
and his marriage to Meritaten.
The placing of the couple’s names in the tomb suggest that Semenkhkare
was at least co-regent at the time of execution. The Durbar-scene in this tomb
is dated in the 12th regnal year of Akhenaten. The location of the adjacent
scene showing Semenkhkare suggested to Dodson that it was made around
the same time of the Durbar-scene.110 If this is correct, we have to put the
reign of Semenkhkare around the 13th year of Akhenaten. If his name was
added in the tomb after the death of Akhenaten, it would have been applied
more than half a decade after any other known decoration was applied to an
Amarna tomb.111 Dodson argues that the young king was only appointed as
co-regent to guarantee the continuity of the Amarna-dynasty.112 Dodson also
states that, since the scene in TA2 was left uncompleted, an important event
must have interrupted the decoration progress. It is possible that all decorators
had to leave their tasks in private tombs to decorate the Royal Tomb after the
death of Meketaten.113 Since several members of the royal family disappear
from the record around this time, he deems it likely that they died, and that
105 Davies, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna. Part II, 44; Harris, “Neferneferuaten Regnans,” 18.
106 LD II, 138; LD III, 99.
107 Davies, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna. Part III, pl. XLI.
108 Davies, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna. Part II, 44.
109 Newberry, “Akhenaten’s Eldest Son-in-Law ‘Ankhkheprure’,” 6.
112 Dodson, Amarna Sunset, 32.

Semenkhkare himself was among them. If the king (or co-regent in this case)
himself died before the scene was finished, it is not likely that the decorators
had completed the scene, especially since it appears that the decoration in the
other tombs also was left incomplete.
Decorated Blocks from Memphis

Several limestone blocks, decorated in Amarna style, were discovered during
the excavation of Hekekyan Bey in 1854 at Mit Rahina.114 Two must be dis-
cussed in detail.
The first block shows the lower part of five cartouches. Those arranged
at the right-hand side of the block can only be restored as those of the Aten.
The three others seem to refer to a king and his queen, of whom the presence
is confirmed by the determinative of the sitting woman in the last cartouche.
The remains of the king’s cartouches, of which both end with the ḫpr-sign
and the plural determinative, can only refer to the prenomen and nomen of
Semenkhkhare: Ankhkheperure Semenkhkhare Djeserkheperu.115 The current
location of this block is unknown.
The second block is the so-called “co-regency relief” of Akhenaten and
Semenkhkare. A young, male (?) monarch is depicted following a larger figure.
The block has often been argued to represent a co-regency of the two kings,
the first time in 1917 by Borchardt.116 The identification of the younger male
with Semenkhkare was based on the existence of the first block, where his
cartouche had been discovered. However, these blocks could not have been
linked in the first place. In the block we have just discussed, the cartouches
of Semenkhkare appear at the same height and size as those of the Aten, so
that Semenkhkare must have been the primary figure in the scene.117 In the
“co-regency relief,” however, the person argued to be Semenkhkare stands
behind a larger and therefore more important person, making the connection
between the inscription and the decoration unlikely. This block is also missing,
so that the exact details cannot be studied. The only direct reference is the
sketch by Hekekyan Bey, which was “improved” for publication by Bonomi.
He changed several elements in the sketch (the crown, the clothes, the uraeus
on the forehead of the smaller figure) and gave the smaller figure male
114 Nicholson, Aegyptiaca, 117 ff. The excavation reports of Hekekyan Bey were recently pub-
lished in: Jeffreys, The Survey of Memphis VII, 169–72.
115 Newberry, “Akhenaten’s Eldest Son-in-Law ‘Ankhkheprure’,” 8–9; Löhr, “Ahanjati in
Memphis,” 157–58.
116 Borchardt, “Aus der Arbeit an der Funden von Tell el-Amarna: vorläufiger Bericht,” 10.

90 Van der Perre
characteristics.118 The original sketch shows a large figure, either Akhenaten

or Nefertiti, dressed in typical Amarna style. The smaller figure appears to be a
fan bearer, but its gender cannot be distinguished. The elongated shape of the
head resembles that of the Amarna princesses, although there is no sign of a
side lock.119 The evidence for the co-regency is actually quite flimsy.
Calcite vase (JE 62172/Carter N° 405)

In the tomb of Tutankhamun, Carter discovered two calcite globular vases
with a short neck, bearing inscriptions that were recarved. Only one (Carter
N° 405) has remains of the original inscription, namely four cartouches and
titles, which must refer to two different kings, the titles nsw.t-bἰ.ty and sꜢ RꜤ
being repeated. The inscription has been erased and only vague traces of
the original hieroglyphs are preserved. Carter recognized the cartouches
of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten,120 and the vase was used to confirm the
co-regency of Akhenaten and his father.121 However, the study by Loeben
based on the actual remains on the vase and not only on Carter’s sketch,
suggests that the vessel originally bore the names of Akhenaten and
Semenkhkare.122
This object has often been used as evidence of a co-regency. However, the
vase could also be meant as a memorial piece of Semenkhkare to honor his
deceased predecessor Akhenaten (or, depending on how one dates the death
of Semenkhkare, of Akhenaten for Semenkhkare).123
Wine Jar Inscriptions from Amarna

Hieratic jar dockets discovered at Amarna, mention a 1st regnal year and the
name of Semenkhkare.124 On docket 35, this is followed by what is usually read
as the epithet mꜢꜤ ḫrw, “true of voice,” which is normally reserved for dead
118 The two sketches can be compared in: Malek, “The ‘coregency relief’ of Akhenaten and
Smenkhkare from Memphis,” 556.
119 Malek, “The ‘coregency relief’ of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare from Memphis,” 558–59.
120 Carter and Mace, The Tomb of Tut-Ankh-Amun. Vol. III, 146.
121 E.g. Reeves, The Complete Tutankhamun, 199.
122 Beinlich and Saleh, Corpus der Hieroglyphischen Inschriften aus dem Grab des
Tutanchamun, 185, N° 405; Loeben, “No Evidence of Coregency”; von Falck, “Zwischen
Echnaton und Tutanchamun,” 87.
123 Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, 213–15.
124 COA III, 164, pl. LXXXVI [35–36].

persons.125 The second docket (N° 36) is only partially preserved and is dated
to the 1st year of Ankhkheperure, but it is not clear whether Ankhkheperure
Semenkhkare or Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten was intended.126
If the docket really contains the epithet “true of voice,” the wine might be
intended for the estate or the mortuary temple of Semenkhkare and the date
might refer to Neferneferuaten’s or Tutankhamun’s 1st year, in which case these
two dockets can no longer be considered reliable Semenkhkare datings.
Sequinned garment from the Tomb of Tutankhamun

(Carter N° 46 gg)
The name of Ankhkheperure occurs on a linen garment from Tutankhamun’s
tomb, which is decorated with golden daisies, other golden flowers, and golden
circles containing two cartouches. Two names appear here: Ankhkheperure
and Meritaten.127 Since only the prenomen is mentioned, without epithets,
and the cartouche is combined with the cartouche of Meritaten, this must
be a reference to Semenkhkare. Although one might suggest that the epithet
was actually mentioned in the second cartouche (Neferneferuaten changed
her epithet to mry Ἰtn towards the end of her reign), this cannot be the case.
The last sign in the second cartouche is clearly the determinative of the sitting
woman and thus refers to the royal wife Meritaten.
Gabolde regards this as the prenomen and nomen of “King” Meritaten,
following the theory of Krauss, who suggests that Meritaten succeeded
Akhenaten as Ankhetkheperure before her husband Semenkhkare ascended the
throne.128 However, since Meritaten was married to a king named Ankhkhe-
perure, the most logical explanation for the combination of their cartouches
remains the fact that they were a royal couple instead of the representation of
a new royal name.
The same cartouche of Ankhkheperure appears in a corner of a linen shawl
from the tomb of Tutankhamun, known as Carter N° 101s. Here it is followed
by the title nb tꜢ.wy.129 Several objects from the tomb originally carried the car-
125 COA III, XCVIII [35]. However, the facsimile suggests that the reading “ḏsr-ḫpr.w,” complet-
ing the king’s style, is also possible. I would like to thank Dr. van Dijk for this suggestion.
126 COA III, LXXXVI [36].
Tutanchamun, 20, N° 46 gg.
128 Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, 287.
Tutanchamun, 38, N° 101s .

92 Van der Perre
touches of earlier rulers; most of these can be reconstructed as cartouches of

Neferneferuaten. These objects will be discussed below in the paragraph on
Neferneferuaten’s co-regency.
Stamped Mud Bricks from Amarna

The pillared hall at the southern end of the Great Palace, also known
as the Coronation Hall, contained bricks stamped with the cartouche of
Ankhkheperure and a reference to the “House of Rejoicing of the Aten.”130 The
few known examples all come from the first two or four central columns at
the northern end of the Hall. Since no stamped bricks were found in any other
part, this was probably a later addition to the Palace. The impressions are
destroyed at the bottom, but it is doubtful whether there was room for more
than one (low) sign (Fig. 7). It is possible that the missing sign is pr, referring to
“the House of Ankhkheperure (in) the House of Rejoicing of the Aten.”131 There
is definitely insufficient space left for one of the epithets of Nefernerferuaten,
so that the “House of Ankhkheperure” probably belonged to Semenkhkare.
Nothing further is known of the function of this building. The combination of
the cartouches of Semenkhkare and the hasty construction method have often
been interpreted as reflecting the period after Akhenaten’s death, when the
country was in desperate need of a successor.132 This hypothesis, however, is
no longer commonly accepted. Another hypothesis is that the decoration and
architectural elements actually belong to a large vineyard,133 but this is not
generally accepted.134
According to Pendlebury, the stamped bricks were no longer in situ and
might derive from a building that did not survive.135 In that case, the bricks
cannot be linked to the end of Akhenaten’s reign or to the coronation of his suc-
cessor. They only confirm the existence of a building which included the name
of Semenkhkare, without any further indication for its construction period.
The remaining elements confirm that this part of the palace was erected as a
temporary building, used for the celebration of a single event. A parallel for
this type of celebration hall was found at Malqata.136
130 COA III, pl. LXXXIII [III].

131 COA III, 194.
132 Kemp, The City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, 137.
133 Traunecker and Traunecker, “Sur la salle dite ‘du couronnement’ à Tell-el-Amarna.”
134 Mallinson, “Excavation and Survey in the Central City,” 188.
135 COA III, 60.
136 COA III, 188–89.

Figure 7 Stamped mud brick Amarna

Drawing by author, based on Dodson, Amarna Sunset, 32, fig. 25
Ring Bezel from Amarna

During the excavations in the Small Aten temple, a ring bezel with the name of
Ankhkheperure was discovered beneath the upper gypsum layer of the stone
platform.137 In the same building phase, a wine jar docket with Year 13 was
buried.138 This suggests that the stone platform was built during or after the
reign of Ankhkheperure. The docket also suggests that his reign must be placed
in or after Akhenaten’s Year 13. Since this platform was built in limestone, the
origin of the stone might be found in the quarry of Dayr Abū Ḥinnis.
137 Boyce, “Notes on the manufacture and use of faience rings at Amarna,” 166.
138 Mallinson, “Investigation of the Small Aten Temple,” 126. I would like to thank Dr. Barry
Kemp for pointing out this reference.

94 Van der Perre
Co-Regent Semenkhkare
The question arises as to why Akhenaten wanted a co-regent, while he was

himself still a relatively young man on the throne. No textual or iconographic
evidence is left to answer this question, but the historical conditions in this
period have been used to explain some of his considerations. The aftermath
of the Amarna Period shows that Akhenaten’s revolution was not much appre-
ciated in the highest ranks of the state. This might have created a politically
unstable atmosphere, which may have given rise to concern over the continu-
ity of the Aten cult after Akhenaten’s death. Therefore, Akhenaten may have
felt the need for an early appointment of a successor to continue his work.139
The only way to be sure of this was to guide his successor himself, by taking
him as his co-regent.
The attestations of the name of Semenkhkare not only confirm his pres-
ence in the city of Amarna, they also prove his royal status. The young man
has often been regarded as the co-regent and successor of Akhenaten, but this
hypothesis is based on slender facts. The actual length of the co-regency is not
known. No double-dated inscriptions have been found. The lack of inscrip-
tions can be explained by assuming that the co-regency was fairly short. The
fact that the scene in the tomb of Meryre II was never finished can be seen
as an argument for his sudden death. It is highly unlikely that Semenkhkare
had an independent reign.140 We have seen that the common attribution to
his reign of two inscriptions dated to a Year 1 is not fully certain.141 No further
dated inscriptions of his reign were found, nor is he mentioned in the Amarna
Correspondence. The last argument has been attributed to the incompleteness
of the archive, but such an assumption cannot qualify as an argument support-
ing an independent reign.142
Although it is often assumed that Semenkhkare was the successor of
Akhenaten, reigning for a short period before the accession of Tutankhamun,143
other hypotheses might fit the surviving evidence better. If Semenkhkare
should have died before the man he was supposed to succeed, the lack of dated
inscriptions and the fact that he is not mentioned in official texts would be
139 Martin, “The Coregency Stela University College London 410,” 354.
140 Gabolde even doubts if he reigned at all; see Gabolde, “Smenkhkarê à Ugarit?,” 304, n. 28.
141 Cf. Supra: Wine jar inscriptions from Amarna. COA III, 164, pl. LXXXVI [35–36].
143 Petrie, Tell El Amarna. 42. More recently Allen, “The Amarna Succession,” 12.

explained. The unfinished decoration in the tomb of Meryre II could mark the
period just before Semenkhkare’s death.
After the death of Semenkhkare, the royal family had to face the problem
of succession again. Akhenaten was left with two royal wives (Nefertiti and
Meritaten) and one possible future successor, who was still too young to reign
(Tutankhaten). At some point after Semenkhkare’s disappearance, Akhenaten
must have decided that there was only one person capable of reigning and
tutoring Tutankhaten after his death. The new regent would use the name
Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten. The reign of “king” Neferneferuaten is actu-
ally better documented than that of Semenkhkare. Several attestations were
found, revealing some interesting facts about this king’s reign. The name is
attested in Amarna, Thebes and Tell el-Borg.144 Mud jar sealings referring to
the “(wine of the) estate of Neferneferuaten, beloved of Waenra,” were also
discovered in Saqqara.145 Nefertiti, who already played an important role in
Amarna, and already bore the name Neferneferuaten, is in my view the most
likely candidate for this function. Her name was extended with epithets inside
the cartouches; Ankhkheperure mr.y X Neferneferuaten mr.y Y, where X and
Y could differ.146 After her husband’s death, Nefertiti would reign the coun-
try herself. During a short period, probably near the beginning of her reign,
she used the female variant “Ankhetkheperure.”147 The epithets were used
to show the affection between Akhenaten and his wife and to confirm the
legitimacy of her position. The epithet Ꜣḫ.t n hy=s “who is effective for her hus-
band,” clearly confirms the femininity of “King” Neferneferuaten. Gabolde
noted that the epithet was probably used after Akhenaten’s death; as an allu-
sion to Isis’s relationship to her deceased husband Osiris, but he identifies
the bearer of the title as Meritaten.148 Meritaten was still referred to as ḥm.t
nsw.t wr.t, although she was no longer married to a reigning king. According
to Gabolde, this title must be regarded as evidence of a marriage between
Akhenaten and his daughter, but there is actually no proof of this. Titles such as
144 Cf. Infra “Evidence for (the co-regency of) Neferneferuaten.”

145 Van Walsem, “The Dutch expedition to Saqqara, 1999–2000,” 17; Raven, et al., The Memphite
Tomb of Horemheb, Commander in Chief of Tutankhamun V, 102–03.
146 It has been suggested that the actual successor of Akhenaten was his daughter
Neferneferuaten, who kept her name as a king. However, apart from the name they share,
there is no other evidence supporting this theory. If Akhenaten was planning to make one
of his daughters co-regent, then Meritaten would have been a more logical option. See
Allen, “The Amarna Succession,” 14–15.
147 As suggested by Dodson, “Amarna Sunset: the late-Amarna succession revisited,” 32.
148 Gabolde, “Das Ende der Amarna Zeit,” 28.

96 Van der Perre
ḥm.t nsw.t (wr.t) and mw.t-nsw.t continue to be used by queens after the acces-
sion of another king,149 so Meritaten kept the title she gained while being mar-
ried to Semenkhkare.150 This implies that the only female person to whom the
epithet may apply is in fact Nefertiti, who was the actual wife of Akhenaten.
During her sole reign, Nefertiti also used other epithets. She replaced the name
of her former husband with references to Aten and Akhetaten in her prenomen
and she added the title “ḥḳꜢ ” in her nomen.151
Although texts confirming the identity of Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten
are not preserved, the following objects suggest that the case for identifying
Nefertiti with Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten is stronger than for linking
Neferneferuaten with Meritaten or Kiya.
Evidence for (the Co-Regency of) Neferneferuaten
Ankhetkheperure
Petrie discovered seven examples of ring bezels containing the female ver-
sion of the prenomen, Ankhetkheperure.152 This variant is always followed by
the epithet mrἰ.t WꜤ-n-RꜤ, “Beloved of Waenre.” When the name Ankhkheperure
is combined with an epithet, the name usually refers to king Neferneferuaten,
and not to Semenkhkare. Other ring bezels, scarabs and seal impression
with the combination of Ankhkheperure and an epithet have been discovered
in Amarna by Petrie, but not all were published by him.153 On several of
these objects, the name is followed by the female form of the epithet (mrἰ.t).
In other cases, the name is followed by the feminine attributes Ꜥnḫ.tἰ ḏt and
mꜢꜤ.t ḫrw.154
149 Robins, “ḥmt nsw wrt Meritaton,” 77.

150 Meritaten kept her important position in the following years, which is proven by the
Amarna Letters (Amarna Letters EA 10, 11 and 155). Gabolde uses these letters to prove her
co-regency with Akhenaten. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, 174–78. However, the
present article shows that the evidence for the co-regency of Nefertiti is much stronger.
153 Samson, “Royal Inscriptions from Amarna,” 244–45.

Objects from the Tomb of Tutankhamun (KV 62)

A fragment of a box from the Tomb of Tutankhamun, Carter N° 1k, has the
most intriguing inscription so far (Cairo JE 61500). Two kings (Akhenaten
and Nefernefruaten) are mentioned, both with the title nsw.t-bἰ.ty, together
with a Great King’s Wife (Meritaten).155 It is striking that the cartouches were
not altered before the box was placed in the tomb. The kings are Akhenaten
and Neferneferuaten (who in our opinion is most likely to be identical with
Nefertiti), so this box might arguably offer the only evidence of their co-
regency. However, just as in the case of vase Cairo JE 62172, inscribed with the
names of Akhenaten and Semenkhkare, this is uncertain. In any case, the great
queen is Meritaten, who may have kept her title after the death of her husband
Semenkhkare. This object makes it impossible to identify Nefernefruaten with
Meritaten,156 since the juxtaposition of the names clearly identifies them as
separate individuals.
The second object that needs to be discussed is box Carter N° 79. The inscrip-
tions on it give the cartouches of Tutankhamun and his wife, Ankhesenamun.
However, Carter noticed that the original inscriptions were still visible
underneath, presenting the names of Ankhkheperure Mry Neferkheperure,
Neferneferuaten and the great king’s wife Meritaten.157 Again, Meritaten, des-
ignated as a Great Wife of the King is differentiated from Neferneruaten.
The golden Nut pectoral (Carter N° 261p1) was also reused at the funeral
of Tutankhamun. Carter believed that Tutankhamun’s cartouches replaced
earlier ones containing the name of Akhenaten (Carter object card 261p1–3).
Gabolde reconstructed the underlying hieroglyphs as Ꜥnḫ-ḫpr.w-RꜤ mry
WꜤ-n-RꜤ and Nfr-nfr.w-Ἰtn Ꜣḫ.t n hy=s. This was recently confirmed by von
Falck.158
Traces of the cartouches of Neferneferuaten are also visible underneath
the cartouches of Tutankhamun on the four miniature golden coffins (Carter
N° 266g).159
Tutanchamun, 4, N° 1k. von Falck, “Zwischen Echnaton und Tutanchamun,” 88.
156 As suggested by Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon; Sadowska, “Semenkhare and
Zananza.”
Tutanchamun, 31–32, N° 79.
158 Von Falck, “Zwischen Echnaton und Tutanchamun,” 89, pl. 9.
159 Von Falck, “Zwischen Echnaton und Tutanchamun,” 90–91.

98 Van der Perre
The numerous objects of Neferneferuaten in Tutankhamun’s tomb are

difficult to explain. Since Neferneferuaten was the direct predecessor of
Tutankhamun, he should have been responsible for her funeral. It is pos-
sible that Neferneferuaten was originally buried at Amarna and later moved
to Thebes by Tutankhamun. The new tomb might have been too small for all
her funerary equipment and thus, the remaining objects were modified for the
new king.160 However, solid evidence for this theory is lacking, especially since
her burial has not been discovered so far.
The Co-Regency Stela Petrie Museum UC410 + Cairo JE 64959

A part of the private stela known as the “Co-Regency Stela”161 was discovered
by Petrie in the so-called North Harem of the Central Palace at Amarna, but
he did not publish it.162 Other parts were discovered during Pendlebury’s
mission.163 Apart from the cartouches of the Aten, flanking his depiction on
the upper part of the stela, four other cartouches were preserved. Two car-
touches give the prenomen and nomen of Akhenaten. The others are clearly
altered, now referring to king Neferneferuaten. Originally the name of Nefertiti
was written in the third cartouche, followed by the name of Meritaten.164
Both Samson and Harris used this stela to demonstrate the co-regency
of Akhenaten and Nefertiti/Semenkhkare, using the name Neferneferuaten.165
When the cartouches were altered, the name of Meritaten was removed and
the name of Ankhesenpaaten was added in the last column. Gabolde regards
this as proof for the reign of Meritaten. Once she became “king,” her position as
eldest daughter would have been taken by Ankhesenpaaten.166 However, the
removal of the name of Meritaten can equally well be explained by assuming
that she was no longer alive at the time the inscriptions were altered. In her
role as King’s wife, she should have been added instead of Ankhesenpaaten,
160 Also suggested by Reeves, “An Amarna-period Ostracon from the Valley of the Kings,”
501–02.
161 Cf. Supra “Hypotheses.”
162 Later published in COA III, pl. CVIII.
163 COA III, 231–33, pl. CVII [2,3].
164 A full description of the stela, the iconography and the inscriptions can be found in
Martin, “The Coregency Stela University College London 410.” 345–353.
165 Samson, Amarna. City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, 103–06; Harris, “Neferneferuaten
Regnans.”
166 Marc Gabolde, personal communication 2012.

who was a younger sister with no other important position or function than
being the King’s daughter.167
This stela must date from a later period than the box from the Tomb of
Tutankhamun (Carter N° 1k), since Meritaten was still mentioned on the box,
but is replaced by her sister on the stela.
Stela Berlin 25574

A small, unfinished private stela shows two figures in front of an offering
table. They can be identified as Akhenaten and Nefertiti, based on the type of
crown they are wearing. While the first figure is wearing a bag wig and can
be presumably identified as Akhenaten, the smaller second figure is wear-
ing the typical flat-topped crown, which is characteristic for Nefertiti.168 The
upper part of the scene is dominated by four cartouches and the solar disc. To
the left of this, three cartouches were originally carved to identify the persons
beneath. However, these were left blank. In a later phase, a fourth blank car-
touche was added. Three cartouches were necessary to identify the king and
his queen, four cartouches suggest the presence of two “kings.”169 This stela
can be regarded as proof for the changing status of a woman (in my opinion:
Nefertiti), from queen (one cartouche) to co-regent (two cartouches).
Graffito of Pawah (TT 139)

In Theban Tomb 139, a long inscription was written by Thay, on behalf of his
blind brother Pawah.170 This text, a prayer to Amun, is dated in the 3rd year of
king Neferneferuaten and mentions the temple of Ankhkheperure at Thebes.
Pawah is a wꜤb-priest and scribe of the temple of Amun in the mansion of
Ankhkheperure.171 This title raises many questions. Since Ankhkheperure is
mentioned without epithets, the name is likely to refer to Semenkhkare, so
this temple might be his mortuary temple.172 Not only was this by implication
located at Thebes and not at Amarna, where he probably died, it also housed a
temple dedicated to Amun. Although this seems to suggest that Amun-worship
167 Although she might have been married already to Tutankhamun by this time. See
van Dijk, “The Noble Lady of Mitanni,” 39.
168 The stela is published in Reeves, Akhenaten. Egypt’s False Prophet, 169.
169 Reeves, Akhenaten. Egypt’s False Prophet, 169.
170 For a photo of the graffito, see van Dijk, “The Amarna Period and the Later New Kingdom,”
279.
171 Gardiner, “The Graffito from the Tomb of Pere,” 11, pl. VI.
172 Reeves, Akhenaten. Egypt’s False Prophet, 164.

100 Van der Perre
was allowed in the early years after Akhenaten’s death, the location of the
prayer suggests that things still happened “under cover.”
Apart from the theological issues, the inscription confirms a reign of king
Neferneferuaten, lasting at least 3 years. This inscription is the highest known
date of this king and by mentioning a possible funerary temple of Semenkhkare,
it also confirms the death of Semenkhkare at the time Neferneferuaten is
ruling. On the other hand, it is also possible that the temple is actually the
funerary temple of Neferneferuaten herself and thus does not give additional
information about the fate of Semenkhkare.173
Tall al-Burj (Tell el-Borg)

Attestations of the Amarna Kings were also present in the New Kingdom mili-
tary site of Tall al-Burj on the border with the Sinai. A stamped jar handle shows
the name “Ankhkheperure Beloved of Waenra,” according to the publication
“the prenomen of Semenkhkare.”174 The epithet however, shows that this is
the prenomen of Neferneferuaten, not Semenkhkare. Another seal impression
contained the name Neferneferuaten with the epithet Ꜣḫ.t n hy=s.175 A sec-
ond stamped jar handle gives the prenomen of Tutankhamun.176 The name
of Tutankhamun’s successor, Ay, was also found on the site. It is clear that
there was considerable royal activity here in the decade following the death
of Akhenaten.177 Both Neferneferuaten and Tutankhamun were obviously rep-
resented at the military site. According to Dodson, this might support a co-
regency between Neferneferuaten and Tutankhamun.178 However, since the jar
handles were not discovered in the same place, it cannot be used as proper
evidence for their co-regency.179
173 Funerary temples or “Houses of Millions of Years” were constructed at the beginning of a
king’s reign and were immediately used as cultic places, even before the death of the king.
See Ullmann, König für die Ewigkeit, 668–69.
174 Hoffmeier and Abd El-Maksoud, “A New Military Site on ‘The Ways of Horus’: Tell el-Borg
1999–2001,” 180–81.
175 Hoffmeier, “Recent Excavations on the ‘Ways of Horus’: The 2005 and 2006 Seasons at
Tell El-Borg,” 276, fig. 23; Hoffmeier and van Dijk, “New Light on the Amarna Period from
North Sinai,” 201.
176 Hoffmeier and Abd El-Maksoud, “A New Military Site on ‘The Ways of Horus’: Tell el-Borg
1999–2001,” 181.
177 Ertman and Hoffmeier, “A new fragmentary relief of King Ankhkheperure from Tell
el-Borg (Sinai)?,” 301.
178 Dodson, Amarna Sunset, 45–46.
179 Hoffmeier and van Dijk, “New Light on the Amarna Period from North Sinai,” 201–02.

The attestations of the name confirm the reign of Neferneferuaten, which,

if this was Nefertiti, could not have started until after the 1st month of the
16th year of Akhenaten, as has been shown in the quarry inscription at Dayr
Abū Ḥinnis. So far, no evidence has been found about the queen’s demise. The
most likely possibility is that she died after reigning at least 3 years. After her
death, Tutankhaten―now a boy approximately 8 years old―would start his
own reign. With no queen-mother left to guide him, the actual power came
into the hands of a small group of high officials at the court.180
Conclusion
The building inscription at Dayr Abū Ḥinnis reveals important new informa-
tion about the last years of Akhenaten’s reign and his principal queen, Nefertiti.
Although one still cannot prove the identity of Akhenaten’s direct successor,
some of the many current theories can be definitely countered. Nefertiti did
not disappear during the reign of her husband; she was not banished from the
court, replaced by another woman, or pass away before the 16th regnal year
of Akhenaten. The royal couple still reigned together during the final years of
Akhenaten.
The existence of a younger male co-regent called Ankhkheperure
Semenkhkare, who was married to Meritaten and was intended to be the next
king of Amarna, seems to be confirmed by the surviving evidence. However,
the small and uncertain amount of (dated) documentation for his reign sug-
gests he was only on the throne during a very brief period, possibly caused by
an early death.
We have argued that the existing evidence suggests that at some point
Nefertiti assumed the royal office under the name of Ankh(et)kheperure
Neferneferuaten. There are slender indications she could have been Akhenaten’s
coregent. However, this could not have happened before Akhenaten’s 16th reg-
nal year, since the quarry inscription at Dayr Abū Ḥinnis still gives the known
names and titles of the queen as a Great Royal Wife. The most likely sequel to
these events is that Nefertiti eventually adopted the prenomen of her prede-
cessor, Ankhkheperure, and combined it with her own name Neferneferuaten.
References to her husband were added in her epithets, to confirm the legitimacy
of her reign. As time passed by, her epithets evolved. After Akhenaten’s death,
these references to his name were still used, suggesting a deified position of the
180 Van Dijk, “Horemheb and the Struggle for the Throne of Tutankhamun,” 31 and The New
Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 10.

102 Van der Perre
king. However, later in her reign, the queen changed the epithets to “Beloved of
Aten” and to “the ruler,” which leaves little to imagination. After reigning for 3
years, Nefertiti disappeared; she probably died. The boy Tutankhaten, by now
8 years old, ascended the throne and started his own reign.
Apart from this historical dimension, some new information about the his-
tory of Akhetaten is revealed. Although the building inscription does not offer
many details, we know that the Small Aten Temple was still under construction
near the end of Akhenaten’s reign. It is not likely that the stone was needed to
rebuild the sanctuary, because this would mean that one of the key buildings
at Amarna existed only in mud brick until the end of Akhenaten’s reign. Kemp
suggests that the plan was being developed during Akhenaten’s final years to
replace the mud brick pylons of the temple with stone pylons. Stone from Dayr
Abū Ḥinnis could be intended for this enhancement, which was never carried
out.181 However, the stone was quarried and presumably also transported to
Amarna. What happened next still remains an open question.
The text also proves that this construction was supervised by the king’s
scribe Penthu. Although he was already known as the owner of a rock tomb
in Amarna and attested again during the reign of Tutankhamun, whom he
served as a vizier, no further information from Amarna was known. The quarry
inscription now confirms that he still was an active member of the court dur-
ing the final years of Akhenaten, even though his rock tomb was never finished.
Abbreviations
ÄL Ägypten und Levante

COA III J.D.S. Pendlebury and J. Černý. The City of Akhenaten 3: The Central City and
the Official Quarters: The Excavations at Tell El-Amarna during the Seasons
1926–1927 and 1931–1936. EES Memoirs, Vol. 44. London: Egypt Exploration
Society, 1951.
JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association
LD K. Lepsius, Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs,
1897–1913.
MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
PM IV B. Porter and R.L.B. Moss. Lower and Middle Egypt (Delta and Cairo to
Asyût). Topographical bibliography of Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic
texts, reliefs and painting, Vol. 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1934.
181 Barry Kemp 2013, personal communication.

Bibliography
Aldred, C. Akhenaten. King of Egypt. London: Thames and Hudson, 1988.

Allen, J.P. “The Amarna Succession.” In Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian
Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane, ed. P. Brand and L. Cooper,
9–20. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
―――. “Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re,” GM 141 (1994): 7–17.
―――. “Two Altered Inscriptions of the Late Amarna Period.” JARCE 25 (1988):
117–126.
Ashrafian, H. “Familial epilepsy in the pharaohs of ancient Egypt’s eighteenth dynasty.”
Epilepsy & Behavior 25 (2012): 21–31.
Beckerath, J. von. Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen. MÄS 49. Mainz am Rhein:
von Zabern, 1999.
Beinlich, H. and M. Saleh. Corpus der Hieroglyphischen Inschriften aus dem Grab des
Tutanchamun. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1989.
Borchardt, L. “Aus der Arbeit an der Funden von Tell el-Amarna: vorläufiger Bericht.”
MDOG 57 (1917): 1–32.
Bouriant, U. “Notes de voyages.” RdT 14 (1893): 67–74.
Boyce, A. “Notes on the manufacture and use of faience rings at Amarna.” In Amarna
Reports V, ed. B.J. Kemp, 160–168. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1989.
Breyer, F. “Egyptological Remarks Concerning Daḫamunzu.” ÄL 20 (2010): 445–451.
Bryce, T.R. “The Death of Niphururiya and Its Aftermath.” JEA 76 (1990): 97–105.
Carter, H. and A.C. Mace. The Tomb of Tut-Ankh-Amun. Vol. III. London: Cassell, 1933.
Černý, J. Hieratic Inscriptions from the Tomb of Tut’ankhamūn. Tut’ankhamūn’s Tomb
Series. Vol. 2. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1965.
Davies, N. de G. The Rock Tombs of El Amarna. Part II: The Tombs of Panehesy and
Meryra II. ASE 14. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1905.
―――. The Rock Tombs of El Amarna. Part III: The Tombs of Huya and Ahmes. ASE 15.
London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1905.
―――. The Rock Tombs of El Amarna. Part IV: Tombs of Penthu, Mahu, and others. ASE
16. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1906.
Depauw, M. and D. Depraetere. “The Limestone Quarries in the Wâdî Nakhla at Dayr
al-Barsha: Qualitative Stone Material for Temple Building.” In 7. Ägyptologische
Tempeltagung: Structuring Religion, ed. R. Preys, 47–61. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
2009.
Dijk, J. van. “The Amarna Period and the Later New Kingdom.” In The Oxford History of
Ancient Egypt, ed. I. Shaw, 272–313. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
―――. “Horemheb and the Struggle for the Throne of Tutankhamun.” BACE 7 (1996):
29–42.

104 Van der Perre
―――. The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis. Historical and Iconographical

Studies. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Groningen, 1993.
―――. “The Noble Lady of Mitanni and Other Royal Favourites of the Eighteenth
Dynasty.” In Essays on ancient Egypt in honour of Herman te Velde, ed. J. van Dijk,
33–46. Groningen: Styx, 1997.
―――. “De restauratiestèle van Toetanchamon.” In Zij schreven geschiedenis, ed.
R. Demarée and K.R. Veenhof, 226–237. Leiden: Ex Oriente Lux, 2003.
Dodson, A. Amarna Sunset. Nefertiti, Tutankhamun, Ay, Horemheb, and the Egyptian
Counter-Reformation. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2009.
―――. “Amarna Sunset: the late-Amarna succession revisited.” In Beyond the Horizon.
Studies in Egyptian Art, Archaeology and History in Honour of Barry J. Kemp, ed.
S. Ikram and A. Dodson, 29–43. Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities, 2009.
Eaton-Krauss, M. “Mummies (and Daddies).” GM 230 (2011): 29–35.
Ertman, E.L. and J.K. Hoffmeier. “A new fragmentary relief of King Ankhkheperure
from Tell el-Borg (Sinai)?” JEA 94 (2008): 296–302.
Falck, M. von. “Zwischen Echnaton und Tutanchamun.” Sokar 25, no. 2 (2012): 86–97.
Filer, J.M. “The KV 55 Body: The Facts.” EA 17 (2000): 13–14.
Freed, R.E., Y.J. Markowitz, and S.H. D’Auria. Farao’s van de Zon. Achnaton, Nefertiti,
Toetanchamon [Pharaohs of the Sun. Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Tutankhamen]. Rijksmu-
seum van Oudheden. Leiden: Ludion, 2000.
Gabolde, M. “L’ADN de la famille royale amarnienne et les sources égyptiennes.” Égypte
Nilotique et Méditerranéenne 6 (2013): 177–203.
―――. D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon. Vol. 3. Collection de l’Institut d’Archéologie et
d’Histoire de l’Antiquité Université Lumière-Lyon 2. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 1998.
―――. “Das Ende der Amarna Zeit.” In Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges: Echnaton
und das Ende der Amarnazeit, ed. A. Grimm, 9–41. Munich: Staatliches Museum
Ägyptischer Kunst, 2001.
―――. “Smenkhkarê à Ugarit?” In Et in Aegypto et ad Aegyptum. Recueil d’études
dédiées à Jean-Claude Grenier. II, ed. A. Gasse, F. Servajean, and C. Thiers, 295–329.
Cahiers de l’ENiM 5. Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry (Montpellier III), 2012.
―――. “Under a Deep Blue Starry Sky.” In Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian
Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane, ed. P. Brand and L. Cooper,
109–120. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 37. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Gardiner, A.H. “The Graffito from the Tomb of Pere.” JEA 14, no. 1/2 (1928): 10–11.
Gasse, A. “Rapport préliminaire d’une mission épigraphique à Deir Abou Hennes.”
ASAE 69 (1983): 95–102.
Habachi, L. “Unknown or Little-known Monuments of Tutankhamun and of his
Viziers.” In Glimpses of Ancient Egypt. Studies in Honour of H.W. Fairman, ed.
J. Ruffle, G.A. Gaballa, and K.A. Kitchen, 32–41. Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1979.

Hari, R. Répertoire onomastique amarnien, Aegyptiaca Helvetica 4. Genève: Ägyptolo-

gisches Seminar der Universität Basel, Centre d’études orientales de l’Université de
Genève, 1976.
Harris, J.R. “Nefernefruaten.” GM 4 (1973): 15–17.
―――. “Neferneferuaten Regnans.” AcOr 36 (1974): 11–21.
―――. “Nefertiti Rediviva.” AcOr 35 (1973): 5–13.
Harrison, R.G. “An Anatomical Examination of the Pharaonic Remains Purported to Be
Akhenaten.” JEA 52 (1966): 95–119.
Hawass, Z., Y.Z. Gad, S. Ismail, R. Khairat, D. Fathalla, N. Hasan, A. Ahmed, et al.
“Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family.” JAMA 303, no. 7 (2010):
638–647.
Hayes, W.C. Ostraka and Name Stones from the Tomb of Sen-Mūt (N°. 71) at Thebes.
Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition, Vol. 15. New
York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1942.
―――. The Scepter of Egypt. A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in
The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Part 2: The Hyksos Period and the New Kingdom
(1675–1080 B.C.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959.
Helck, W. “Amarna-Probleme.” CdE 44 (1969): 200–213.
―――. “Kijê.” MDAIK 40 (1984): 159–167.
Hoffmeier, J.K. “Recent Excavations on the ‘Ways of Horus’: The 2005 and 2006 Seasons
at Tell El-Borg.” ASAE 80 (2006): 257–279.
Hoffmeier, J.K. and M. Abd El-Maksoud. “A New Military Site on ‘The Ways of Horus’:
Tell el-Borg 1999–2001: A Preliminary Report.” JEA 89 (2003): 169–197.
Hoffmeier, J.K. and J. Van Dijk. “New Light on the Amarna Period from North Sinai.” JEA
96 (2010): 191–205.
Hornung, E., R. Krauss, and D.A. Warburton. Ancient Egyptian Chronology. Handbook
of Oriental Studies 83. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Hornung, E. and E. Staehelin. Skarabäen und andere Siegelamulette aus Basler Sammlun-
gen. Ägyptische Denmäler in der Schweiz, Bd.1 Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1976.
Jeffreys, D.G. The Survey of Memphis VII. The Hekekyan Papers and Other Sources for the
Survey of Memphis. EES Excavation Memoirs Vol. 95, London: Egypt Exploration
Society, 2010.
Kemp, B.J. The City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Amarna and its People. London: Thames
& Hudson, 2012.
Krauss, R. Das Ende der Amarnazeit. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Chronologie des Neuen
Reiches. HÄB 7. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981.
―――. “Nefretitis Ende.” MDAIK 53 (1997): 209–219.
―――. “Neues zu den Stelenfragmenten UC London 410 + Kairo JE 64959.” BSEG 13
(1989): 83–87.

106 Van der Perre
Leclant, J. and A. Minault-Gout. “Fouilles et travaux en Egypte et au Soudan, 1997–1998.

Première partie.” Orientalia 68 (1999): 313–420.
Loeben, C.E. “Eine Bestattung der großen königlichen Gemachlin Nofretete in Amarna?
Die Totenfigur der Nofretete.” MDAIK 42 (1986): 99–107.
―――. “No Evidence of Coregency: Zwei getilgte Inschriften aus dem Grab von
Tutanchamun.” BSEG 15 (1991): 81–90.
Löhr, B. “Ahanjati in Memphis.” SAK 2 (1975): 139–187.
Loon, G. van and A. Delattre. “Le cycle de l’enfance du Christ dans l’église rupestre de
Saint-Jean-Baptiste à Deir Abou Hennis.” In Études coptes IX. Onzième journée
d’études (Strasbourg, 12–14 juin 2003), ed. A. Boud’hors, J. Gascou, and D. Vaillan-
court, 119–134. Paris: De Boccard, 2006.
―――. “La frise des saints de l’église rupestre de Deir Abou Hennis.” Eastern Christian
Art 1 (2004): 89–112.
Lopez, J. “Inscriptions hiératiques sur les talatât provenant des temples d’Akhenaton à
Karnak.” In Cahiers de Karnak 8, 245–270. Paris: Recherche sur les civilisations, 1987.
Malek, J. “The ‘coregency relief’ of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare from Memphis.” In
Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson, edited by P. Der Manuelian, 553–559.
Boston, 1996.
Mallinson, M. “Excavation and Survey in the Central City.” In Amarna Reports VI, ed.
B.J. Kemp, 169–215. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1995.
―――. “Investigation of the Small Aten Temple.” In Amarna Reports V, ed. B.J. Kemp,
115–142. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1989.
Martin, G.T. “The Coregency Stela University College London 410.” In Sitting beside
Lepsius: Studies in Honour of Jaromir Malek at the Griffith Institute, ed. D. Magee,
J. Bourriau, and S. Quirke, 343–359. Leuven: Peeters, 2009.
―――. The Rock Tombs of El-’Amarna. Part VII: The Royal Tomb of El-’Amarna. 2: The
Reliefs, Inscriptions, and Architecture. ASE 39. London: Egypt Exploration Society,
1989.
Maspero, G. The Struggle of the Nations. Egypt, Syria & Assyria. London: Society for
promoting Christian knowledge, 1896.
McLeod, W. Composite Bows from the Tomb of Tut’ankhamūn. Tut’ankhamūn’s Tomb
Series, 3. ed. J.R. Harris. Oxford: University Press, 1970.
Möller, G. Hieratische Paläograpie. Die Aegyptische Buchschrift in ihrer Entwicklung von
der fünften Dynastie bis zur Römischen Kaiserzeit. Vol. II. Osnabrück: Otto Zeller,
1965.
Murnane, W.J. Ancient Egyptian Coregencies. SAOC 40. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Oriental Institute, 1977.
Newberry, P.E. “Akhenaten’s Eldest Son-in-Law ‘Ankhkheprure’.” JEA 14, no. 1 (1928):
3–9.
Nicholson, C. Aegyptiaca. London: Harrison and Sons, 1891.

Perepelkin, Y. The Secret of the Gold Coffin. Moscow: Nauka, 1978.

Petrie, W.M.F. A History of Egypt. Vol. II: The XVIIth and XVIIIth Dynasties. London:
Methuen & Co, 1896.
―――. Tell El Amarna. London: Methuen & Co, 1894.
Raven, M.J., V. Verschoor, M. Vugts, and R. van Walsem. The Memphite Tomb of
Horemheb, Commander in Chief of Tutankhamun, V. Papers on Archaeology of the
Leiden Museum of Antiquities, Egyptology, Vol. 6. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011.
Redford, D.B. Akhenaten. The Heretic King. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.
―――. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies. Near
and Middle East Series, Vol. 3. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1967.
Reeves, C.N. Akhenaten. Egypt’s False Prophet. London: Thames & Hudson, 2001.
―――. “An Amarna-period Ostracon from the Valley of the Kings.” Antiquity 25 (2001):
501–502.
―――. The Complete Tutankhamun: The King, The Tomb, The Royal Treasures. London:
Thames and Hudson, 1990.
―――. “A Further Occurrence of Nefertiti as ḥmt nsw ꜤꜢt.” GM 30 (1978): 61–69.
Robins, G. “ḥmt nsw wrt Meritaton.” GM 52 (1981): 75–81.
Roeder, G. “Thronfolger und König Smench-ka-Rê (Dynastie XVIII).” ZÄS 83 (1958):
43–74.
Sadowska, M. “Semenkhare and Zananza.” GM 175 (2000): 73–77.
Samson, J. Amarna. City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Nefertiti as Pharaoh. Warminster:
Aris & Phillips, 1978.
―――. “The Amarna Collection at University College, London.” In COA III, 224–237
(Ch. XI). London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1951.
―――. “Nefernefruaten-Nefertiti “Beloved of Akhenaten”, Ankhkheprure Neferne-
fruaten “Beloved of Akhenaten”, Ankhkheprure Smenkhkare “Beloved of the Aten.”
GM 57 (1982): 61–67.
―――. “Nefertiti’s Regality.” JEA 63 (1977): 88–97.
―――. “Royal Inscriptions from Amarna.” CdE 48, no. 96 (1973): 243–250.
―――. “Royal Names in Amarna History.” CdE 51, no. 101 (1976): 30–38.
Scheil, V. Le tombeau de Pâri. Mémoires publiés par les membres de la mission
archéologique française au Caire. Vol. 5,4. Paris: Leroux, 1894.
Schlögl, H.A. Nofretete. Die Wahrheit über die schöne Königin. Munich: C.H. Beck, 2012.
Schulman, A.R. “The Berlin “Trauerrelief ” (No. 12411) and Some Officials of Tut’ankhamn
and Ay.” JARCE 4 (1965): 55–68.
Seele, K.C. “King Ay and the Close of the Amarna Age.” JNES 14, no. 3 (1955): 168–180.
Smith, G.E. The Royal Mummies. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du
Musée du Caire, Vol. 59. Cairo: IFAO, 1912.
Tawfik, S. “Aton Studies 3: Back again to Nefer-nefru-Aton.” MDAIK 31, no. 1 (1975):
159–168.

108 Van der Perre
Traunecker, C. and F. Traunecker. “Sur la salle dite “du couronnement” à Tell-el-Amarna.”

BSEG 9–10 (1984–1985): 285–307.
Ullmann, M. König für die Ewigkeit—Die Häuser der Millionen von Jahren. Eine
Untersuchung zu Königskult und Tempeltypologie in Ägypten. ÄAT 51. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag, 2002.
Van der Perre, A. “Nefertiti’s last documented reference [for now].” In In the Light of
Amarna. 100 Years of the Nefertiti Discovery, ed. Friederike Seyfried, 195–197. Berlin:
Michael Imhof Verlag, 2012.
Walsem, R. van. “The Dutch expedition to Saqqara, 1999–2000.” EA 17 (2000): 15–17.
Willems, H. “The One and the Many in Stela Leiden V1.” CdE 73, no. 146 (1998):
231–243.
Willems, H. and R. Demarée. “A Visitor’s Graffito in Dayr Abu Hinnis: Remarks on the
Source of Limestone Used in the Construction of al-Amarna.” RdÉ 60 (2009):
224–228.
Wilson, J.A. “Akh-en-Aton and Nefert-iti.” JNES 32, no. 1/2 (1973): 235–241.
Woolley, C.L. “Excavations at Tell el-Amarna.” JEA 8, no. 1/2 (1922): 48–82.

Van Der Perre A. The Year 16 Graffito of

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Van Der Perre A. The Year 16 Graffito of

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

The Year 16 graffito of Akhenaten in Dayr Abū

A building inscription in a limestone quarry at Dayr Abū Ḥinnis dated to Year 16 of

Amarna Period – Akhenaten – Nefertiti – Amarna succession – Semenkhkare

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/18741665-12340014

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

Figure 2 Quarry 320 at the Wadi Dayr Abu Hinnis.

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

Figure 3 Pillar with the inscription.

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

Figure 5 Facsimile of the inscription.

Figure 6 Transcription of the inscription.

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

Notes to the Transcription and Transliteration

6 Cf. Möller, Hieratische Paläographie II, N° 312 (P. Rollin).

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

An 18th Dynasty hieratic ostracon from the tomb of Senenmut at Thebes

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

Later Proclamation on Boundary Stelae A and B, dated to regnal year 8 of

17 Allen, “The Amarna Succession,” 9, n. 2.

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

of rulership.30 In 1959, Hayes elaborated upon this theory by arguing that

30 Roeder, “Thronfolger und König Smench-ka-Rê (Dynastie XVIII),” 43.

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

38 Helck, “Amarna-Probleme,” 202.

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

47 Petrie, Tell El Amarna, pl. XV, N° 82.

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

ment that the official coronation of Semenkhkare53 as co-regent was actually

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

probably the Graecized form of the Egyptian Ankhkheperure.61 Although this

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

67 Kemp, The City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, 15.

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

N° Prenomen Epithet Translation of epithet

Different forms of the nomen can also be distinguished (B):

N° Nomen Epithet Translation of epithet

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

N° Nomen Epithet Translation of epithet

E Neferneferuaten Ꜣḫ.t n hy=s84 Effective for her husband

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

91 Dodson, Amarna Sunset, 39–40.

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

fications is lacking, since no references to Semenkhkare are found in the tomb

The Tomb of Meryre II (TA2) at Amarna

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

Decorated Blocks from Memphis

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

characteristics.118 The original sketch shows a large figure, either Akhenaten

Calcite vase (JE 62172/Carter N° 405)

Wine Jar Inscriptions from Amarna

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

Sequinned garment from the Tomb of Tutankhamun

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

touches of earlier rulers; most of these can be reconstructed as cartouches of

Stamped Mud Bricks from Amarna

130 COA III, pl. LXXXIII [III].

Journal of Egyptian History 7 (2014) 67–108

Figure 7 Stamped mud brick Amarna