However, although when adapting the burial effects for Smenkhkare the Ay/Tutankhamun regime had removed Akhenaten's names, they had not reinserted those of Smenkhkare. Although both perpetrators seem to have had the same motive, there would appear to have been a slight change of procedure. The precise thinking we can only guess at, as no text describing the strange ritual has so far been found. We can only assume that the first perpetrators – Smenkhkare and Meritaten – considered that the imprisoning ritual required leaving the body named, whereas the second perpetrators – the Ay/Tutankhamun regime – had decided, as the procedure had apparently so far been ineffective, that they should not include the inscribed name of the body which the spirit was thought to have possessed. (This also explains why there was no reason for them to remove Akhenaten's name from the 'magic bricks' – it was no longer his remains in which the malevolent influence now resided.)
Although we now have some idea of what took place to result in the strange condition of Tomb 55 as it was discovered in 1907, we still have no idea why such a unique and bizarre form of burial was thought necessary. From the transsexual nature of both burials, we can presume that whatever malevolence Meritaten had imagined to have influenced Akhenaten, the new regime also imagined it to have influenced Smenkhkare. But what was it? We have seen how the Aten was considered a transsexual deity, but it cannot have been this. Ay and Tutankhamun certainly did not consider the Aten itself to be evil, as its image was not even removed from Tutankhamun's throne. Neither did Meritaten, who actually embraced the Aten with greater zeal. So what was it they had both taken unprecedented steps to contain – something so terrible it needed to be imprisoned for eternity? Meritaten may have considered that it was responsible for her father's condition or his change of attitude, and Ay may have considered it responsible for Smenkhkare's desecration of the Temple of Karnak, yet surely, for such an unusual procedure, there must have been more involved than we have so far encountered. Apathy on Akhenaten's part, or even strange behaviour following a mental breakdown, cannot be the full story. Surely many in-bred pharaohs had acted strangely, although it never warranted such action before. Suppression of the Amun cult by Smenkhkare, equally, cannot have been the full story. After all, he did take the first steps to re-establish the old gods. Whatever it was, it must have been seen as a considerable threat to the future well-being of all Egypt.
In order to gain a better perspective on the era, we must more closely examine the figure who seems to be at the very centre of the mystery – Tutankhamun himself. Judging by the seal on the door, we can see that it was in his name that the desecration of Tomb 55 was carried out. What exactly was the relationship between Tutankhamun, Akhenaten and Smenkhkare?
SUMMARY
• We know from the seals from treasure boxes and other broken artefacts found there, that Tomb 55 must once have contained many splendid burial goods, and because of Tutankhamun's name on the seals we know that they were removed during his reign. Many of these items, it seems, had later been used for Tutankhamun's own burial.
• Egyptian mummies of the period were interred in a nest of three coffins, like a set of Russian dolls, one inside the other. In Tutankhamun's tomb, one of these, the middle coffin, had been made for, and still bore the image of, Smenkhkare.
• We find it reproduced in photographs to promote all manner of Egypt-related material: posters to publicize books, brochures to advertise Egyptian holidays, and literature to support Egyptian exhibitions. However, it is not Tutankhamun – but his predecessor Smenkhkare.
• In Tutankhamun's tomb, Smenkhkare's likeness remained on the coffin. This would hardly have been used, unaltered, if Smenkhkare himself was considered malevolent. It is quite clear from the actions of the perpetrators that Smenkhkare had not been considered the malevolence, rather something that was believed to have inhabited his body.
CHAPTER SIX
The Mystery of Tutankhamun
When Tutankhamun came to the throne after the brief reign of Smenkhkare he was merely a child. Forensic analysis of his mummy has shown him to have been around seventeen when he died, and the highest recorded date of his reign, found on wine jar dockets in his tomb, is the year 9. This means that he was only about eight on his accession. The true reins of power must therefore have fallen to the chief minister Ay. To legitimate his rule, Tutankhamun was married to Akhenaten's eldest surviving daughter Ankhesenpaaten, who was considerably older, around seventeen or eighteen by this time. To what degree Ankhesenpaaten was actively involved in state affairs is difficult to say. Was she, like her elder sister, an active element in her husband's reign, or was she simply a pawn of Ay? As we have no real evidence of her activities during Tutankhamun's reign, as we do with Meritaten during the Smenkhkare period, we can only assume that she was a passive player in the events that followed.
The first important decree made during Tutankhamun's reign was a proclamation known from the so-called Restoration Stela from Karnak. This purports to describe the situation facing the king at his accession, with the temples throughout the country ruined and desecrated. The new king promises to reopen and rebuild temples to Amun-Re, repair shrines and erect new statues. This he certainly seems to have done, as one of the epithets applied to him on a seal from his tomb describes Tutankhamun as: 'He who spent his life in making images of the gods'.
However, this proclamation was not made until the year 2 of Tutankhamun's reign. Before this time his government appears to have continued to adhere to Akhenaten's new religion. This conjecture is suggested by two pieces of evidence: a change in the king's and queen's names and the throne found in Tutankhamun's tomb. We know from the Restoration Stela that by the year 2 Tutankhamun had dropped the Aten element from his original name. His birth name had been Tutankhaten, meaning 'Living image of the Aten', but after the second year his name appears as the now familiar Tutankhamun, 'Living image of Amun'. His queen also changed the Aten element in her name and became Ankhesenamun (pronounced Ank-es-en-amun). These original names provide us with' an important indication that the first two years had seen a continuation of Atenism as the chief religion. The gold-covered back panel of Tutankhamun's throne shows the king and queen beneath the Aten disc, with their names still in the original form. In the early part of the reign, therefore, the Aten must still have been the principal god. There is much debate about whether or not the new government continued to rule from Amarna. However, as Smenkhkare had himself already returned to Thebes (as evidenced by the inscription in the tomb of Pairi concerning the king's funerary temple), it would seem that at least part of the machinery of government had already been relocated there. Although Tutankhamun does seem to have remained in Amarna for a short while, as one of the Amarna letters addresses him as king, there is considerable evidence, we shall examine later, which indicates that the evacuation of Amarna was begun fairly soon after his accession.
Whatever the original intentions, events soon impelled the new administration to reinstate Amun-Re as the principle deity, albeit seemingly as a token gesture to appease opposition. There was no re-establishment of the once mighty Amun priesthood and Atenism was not only tolerated but, considering the number of items in his tomb that still bore the image of the new god, the king himself continued privately to venerate it. Even the skull cap worn by Tutankhamun as he was embalmed bore a cartouche of the Aten. Ay also seems to have continued his allegiance to the Aten, judging by the savage destruction of his monuments by the anti-Atenists a few years later.
In fact, it seems that much of the court continued to venerate the Aten. Even the person with the great responsibility for erecting the Canopic shrine in Tutankhamun's tomb seems unfamiliar with the old gods. The internal organs – the viscera – were separately preserved in four receptacles representing the four genii – or spirits – with which they were associated: the Imsety for the liver, the Hepy for the lungs, the Duamutef for the stomach and the Qebehsnewef for the intestines. Each of them was in turn under the special protection of on
e of the funerary goddesses: Isis guarded the liver, Nephthys guarded the lungs, Neith guarded the stomach and Selkit guarded the intestines. These four goddesses were represented by a figurine on the Canopic shrine, each of which had a specific position, prescribed for centuries in ancient texts. As Howard Carter observed, the workman responsible for assembling the shrine seems to have been completely unaware of this:
They must have known better than we do now, that the goddess Nephthys should be on the south side of the chest, and that her charge was the genius Hepy. And that Selkit should be on the east side, and her charge was the genius Qebehsnewef. Yet in erecting this Canopic equipment, even though it bears distinct marks as well as distinguishing inscriptions upon each side, they placed Selkit south in the place of Nephthys, and Nephthys east where Selkit should have been.
Not only was the workman unfamiliar with the old religious customs, but presumably so was everyone else who had been in the tomb. Surely they could not have failed to notice one of the most important effects in the entire burial procedure. We know from the reconstructed sarcophagus of Akhenaten in the royal tomb at Amarna that these goddesses had been proscribed in Amarna to be replaced by the images of Nefertiti. The priests and courtiers who had been appointed during the seventeen years of Akhenaten's reign, and a further nine of Tutankhamun's, were presumably not old enough to remember the old ways and, judging by this unnoticed error, they had not been re-versed in them. This strongly suggests that although there was an attempt to reconcile the country by reinstating the old gods, monotheistic Atenism was still being widely practised.
Tutankhamun and his chief minister certainly seem to have been unpopular in Thebes, so much so that they moved their seat from this heartland of the Amun cult to the ancient capital at Memphis in Lower Egypt. The Restoration Stela tells us that Tutankhamun was residing at Memphis by the year 2, probably in the great palace complex founded by Tuthmosis I, and from other sources we learn that Thebes was left in the hands of the chief physician Pentu, who had been appointed – perhaps reluctantly – as southern vizier.
Other important figures in the administration were Akhenaten's old treasurer and master of works, Maya, who seems to have acted as Ay's right-hand man in civil matters, and two important army officers: General Minnakht, who probably commanded the armies of southern Egypt, and General Horemheb, who was evidently in charge of the northern armies. The army was no longer the mighty imperial war machine it had been a couple of decades earlier, having been reduced to the role of a domestic police force. However, all this was to change as Tutankhamun's reign wore on. Horemheb rose to become the king's deputy, and at the end of Ay's reign he was strong enough to seize power for himself and establish what has all the signs of a military junta.
One of the greatest mysteries surrounding Tutankhamun is his origins: he seems to appear from nowhere. When Tutankhamun's tomb was found virtually intact, it was hoped that there would be preserved inside some important literature to throw new light on this enigmatic period and reveal who Tutankhamun really was. Unfortunately no historical documentation was found. As he had reached the age of eight when he came to power, we should expect, like the young princesses, to see something of this second-in-line to the throne in the last two or three years of Akhenaten's reign, yet he appears nowhere. There is not one statue or relief known to have been made of him before his accession, and only one early reference to him survives. So who exactly was he?
We know, as Akhenaten is only ever shown with daughters, that Tutankhamun was not the late king's legitimate son from Nefertiti, though a popular theory would have him as Akhenaten's son by his secondary wife Kiya. This would seem unlikely, however. Although Kiya certainly had a child, the Hermopolis Talatat identify her as a daughter, and in the Amarna reliefs Kiya is only ever shown being followed by a girl. Interestingly, no one in the immediate royal family is known to have given birth to a boy during the Amarna period.
Tutankhamun's marriage to Ankhesenpaaten certainly legitimated his claim to the throne, as she appears to have been Akhenaten's only surviving daughter. Along with Tiye, Meketaten, Nefertiti, Kiya and Meritaten, all three younger princesses disappear from the scene by Tutankhamun's reign. Both Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten seem to have had daughters of their own before this time, as two children are recorded in the late Amarna years with the names Ankesenpaaten-te-sherit, and Meritaten-te-sherit – Ankhesenpaaten and Meritaten junior. Who the fathers were is unknown, but the general consensus is that the former was Smenkhkare's daughter and the latter had been the issue of an incestuous coupling with Akhenaten, perhaps still desperate for a son after his chief wife's death. However, they too disappear before Tutankhamun is made king.
Unlike Smenkhkare, we do have one reference predating Tutankhamun's reign which seemingly reveals his father's identity – or at least his occupation. Although he is not pictured, he is referred to in an inscription on one of the Hermopolis Talatat, made around the year 14 of Akhenaten's reign: 'The king's son of his loins, Tutankhaten' (Tutankhamun's birth name). Although this reference to him as a king's son has led some scholars to speculate that Tutankhamun was an illegitimate son of Akhenaten, Tutankhamun himself tells us that he is the son of another king. In an inscription on one of the huge granite lions erected at the temple of Sulb in the Sudan, Tutankhamun refers to his father as Amonhotep III. This statue, which is now in the British Museum, has led to a bitter debate about Tutankhamun's parentage. If this it is a true statement, and not just metaphorical, then it would mean that Tutankhamun was Akhenaten's younger brother. Yet at first glance this seems impossible. If Tutankhamun was only seven or eight when Akhenaten died, then he would not have been born until around the year 9 or 10 of Akhenaten's reign, seemingly a decade after Amonhotep's death. The only way Tutankhamun could have been Amonhotep's son, therefore, is if Amonhotep had not died when Akhenaten had come to the throne, and there had been a co-regency – and an exceptionally long one – between Akhenaten and his father.
Although there are no official records concerning Amonhotep III after Akhenaten's accession, or any specific account of a co-regency with his son, there are a number of archaeological clues that do hint at such an arrangement having occurred well into the Amarna years.
The first piece of evidence uncovered to suggest the co-regency hypothesis was a damaged stela found at Amarna by Flinders Petrie's associate Francis Llewelyn Griffith in the 1890s, during excavations near the chief servitor Pinhasy's mansion. It showed a royal couple seated before an altar loaded with food and flowers, above which shone the Aten. The relief, however, differed from many similar scenes found at Amarna in that it did not depict Nefertiti and Akhenaten, but Queen Tiye and her husband Amonhotep III. As the name of the Aten was in its later form, introduced after the year 9 of Akhenaten's reign (see Chapter Four), it seems to show Amonhotep alive and well a decade after his son became king.
In the 1920s, another clue indicating that Amonhotep still survived as co-regent during the Amarna period was unearthed at the site by the British archaeologist John Pendlebury. This was in the form of fragments of a carved tray bearing the name of Amonhotep III. Various tomb reliefs at Amarna depicted temple precincts in which stood statues of Akhenaten carrying such a tray to make offering to the Aten. Pendlebury's colleague, Herbert Fairman, reasoned that if the tray they had found had come from a similar statue, it could only mean that, to have been depicted making offerings to the Aten, Amonhotep must have been alive and living in Amarna. Once again the Aten was in its later form, dating the artefact to after the ninth year.
The Akhenaten/Amonhotep co-regency also appears to be supported in a relief found outside Amarna. Carved on a giant granite boulder below what is now the Cataract Hotel on the eastern bank of the Nile at Aswan, it shows the chief sculptor Bek making offerings before Akhenaten and another sculptor Men making offerings before Amonhotep III. Once more it would imply that both kings were alive at that time it was carved, around the year 9 of Akhenaten's reign.
These three pieces of evidence, though tantalizing, are not conclusive. The reliefs on Griffith's stela and the Aswan boulder may both be depicting Amonhotep as a statue and not a living man, whereas, without the actual statue to accompany it, nothing can be determined with certainty regarding Pendlebury's tray.
Egyptologists seem to be divided equally as to whether or not such finds evidence that Amonhotep was alive for so long. Two of the leading authorities on the Amarna period, for example, Donald Redford, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Toronto, and Cyril Aldred, one-time Curator of the Department of Egyptian Art at the Metropolitan Museum, New York, come down on opposite sides of the fence, Aldred in favour of a long co-regency, Redford against.
Those who dispute the long co-regency explain such depictions of Amonhotep dating from the Amarna period as being venerations of a dead predecessor, which, they argue, were not intended to represent a living person. Such a debate could easily be settled concerning the pre-Amarna period, as the term maet kheru – 'deceased' – usually accompanied depictions of someone who was no longer alive. Unfortunately, Akhenaten's new religion dropped this term, and everyone of importance was described by the term ankh er neheh – 'living for ever' – whether they were alive or dead.
There are two reliefs, however, which certainly do appear to be showing Amonhotep very much alive, well into the Amarna period. One, in the tomb of the steward Kheruef, shows Akhenaten paying homage to his father, and the other, in the tomb of the high steward Huya, shows Akhenaten and Amonhotep together with their respective queens. In the first scene Amonhotep's wrist is held affectionately by his wife, and in the second he is blessing his wife and daughter, Beketaten. In these scenes Amonhotep is certainly no statue, nor is he being venerated as a dead ancestor, as there is clearly an interaction between him and the other figures. Once again, as the Aten is in its later form, both must show scenes at Amarna after the year 9 of Akhenaten's reign.
Atlantis and the Ten Plagues of Egypt: The Secret History Hidden in the Valley of the Kings Page 12
