by Ahmed Osman
The debate about ownership of the tomb has rumbled on for the greater part of this century and still surfaces from time to time. Initially it was thought that the decayed mummy was that of Queen Tiye, then that of Akhenaten. This, allied to an apparently nude statue of the king at Karnak – one of four colossi – which showed him seemingly deformed and without genitalia, led to elaborate pathological attempts to try to discover what disease he suffered from. At the end of the day this proved to be something of a storm in a canopic jar: it was demonstrated eventually that the mummy was not that of Akhenaten, but of his coregent, Semenkhkare, and, in addition, that the seemingly nude colossus at Karnak was actually an unfinished statue, awaiting, like the completed three, the addition of a kilt. It is worth examining this debate, however, because it indicates the lengths to which some of those who do not find Akhenaten to their taste are prepared to go to try to discredit him (see Appendix E). The contents of Tomb No. 55, which have prompted a protracted debate over the original ownership of the tomb, and some of the items found in the tomb of Tutankhamun, provide further evidence that Akhenaten’s life did not end when he fell from power, but in order not to weary the reader at this point I have put them in Appendix F. Here it is perhaps worth making the point briefly that some magical bricks of Akhenaten, essential for his burial, were found in Tomb No. 55, whose incumbent has been established as Semenkhkare – indicating that Akhenaten himself did not need them.
THE AMARNA FAMILY
Both Professor D. E. Derry, then Professor of Anatomy in the Faculty of Medicine at Cairo University, who restored the skull of the occupant of Tomb No. 55 and concluded that the remains were those of a man no more than twenty-three or, at most, twenty-four years of age at the time of death, and Professor R. G. Harrison, the late Derby Professor of Anatomy at the University of Liverpool, who confirmed Derry’s conclusion that the remains were those of Semenkhkare (see Appendix E), found a striking similarity between the facial characteristics of Semenkhkare’s skeleton and the artistic impressions we have of Akhenaten, suggesting that they must have been brothers or close relatives. Grafton Elliot Smith, at the time Professor of Anatomy at Cairo Medical School, also found similarity between Semenkhkare’s remains and the mummies of both Amenhotep III and Yuya, sufficient to make him a descendant of both. As Queen Tiye was Yuya’s daughter, this suggests that Semenkhkare could have been a son of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye, a full brother of Akhenaten. At the same time he could also have been the son of Akhenaten, who was a descendant of both Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye. However, as Harrison’s examination proved that he died in his twentieth year, and that was Year 17 of Akhenaten’s reign, this would mean that he was born about three years before Akhenaten came to the throne as coregent. As we know that Akhenaten was not married until around the time the coregency started, this rules out the possibility that Semenkhkare was his son, and it is most likely that he was Akhenaten’s full brother.
As for Tutankhamun, who certainly belonged to the same family, he was about nine or ten years of age when he succeeded Akhenaten on the king’s fall from power and the sudden death of Semenkhkare. This means that he was born during Year 7 of Akhenaten, which was Year 34 of Amenhotep III. As we saw earlier, Baketaten, the youngest of Queen Tiye’s daughters, was probably born in Year 4 of Akhenaten, Year 31 of Amenhotep III. In Year 7 of her son, Akhenaten, Queen Tiye was about forty years of age and Amenhotep III about forty-five, in both cases a possible age for them to produce a son. Yet it is more likely that Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti.
In Tutankhamun’s tomb a figure of a recumbent jackal was found upon a shrine containing pieces of jewellery. The figure, which had been carved from wood, was overlaid with a thin layer of plaster and painted with black resin. The body of the jackal was covered almost completely with linen draperies, one of which proved to be a shirt dated to Year 7 of Akhenaten, the same year that Tutankhamun was born.14 This dated Akhenaten shirt was surely used for Tutankhamun at the time of his birth, strongly indicating the parental relationship and the place of birth as Amarna. His original name at the time of his birth, Tutankhaten, also suggests that he was born at Amarna. In addition, there is evidence that, while still a prince, he lived at the northern Amarna palace, the very same place where Queen Nefertiti lived during the last years of Akhenaten’s reign. Why would he have lived at Amarna with Queen Nefertiti if he were the son of Queen Tiye?
It is true that he describes Amenhotep III as his ‘father’ on a statue of a lion, now in the British Museum, and that a small golden statue of Amenhotep III as well as some of Queen Tiye’s hair, in a small coffin, were found in Tutankhamun’s tomb, but it was customary among Egyptians, as with the Hebrews, to use the word ‘father’ as a synonym for ‘ancestor’, and if Queen Tiye were Tutankhamun’s grandmother, it would be normal to find some of her belongings as well as Amenhotep III’s in his tomb.
What is the correct sequence of events? It would seem that the political struggle must have reached a point where the old priesthood and some factions of the army were in open revolt against Akhenaten’s regime as a result of his attempt to impose his new God on his people. Aye, who was responsible for the army and must have been the most powerful man in Egypt at the time, either convinced, or even forced, Akhenaten to abdicate in order to save the Amarna Dynasty, and replaced him with Semenkhkare. It seems that, shortly after the fall of Akhenaten, Semenkhkare died suddenly at Thebes, most probably from unnatural causes because he was not regarded as a suitable replacement for Akhenaten.
While the country was still in turmoil it was not possible to bury Semenkhkare in the proper way – especially as it seems that his death occurred at Thebes – using his own funerary equipment which had been prepared for him (and some of which was later used by Tutankhamun). Aye therefore had to do the best he could with whatever material was available. He buried Semenkhkare secretly, and in a hurry, using some objects meant to be used by Akhenaten, who had already fled from Amarna.
The presence of a shrine of Queen Tiye’s in the tomb (see Appendix F) is not easy to explain, but it is possible that she was either still alive or, as Weigall thought, had died and been buried in the same tomb prior to the death of Semenkhkare, in which case her mummy and most of her objects would have been moved away when the time came to bury the young coregent. It is also clear that, as Tutankhamun’s priests would not have erased Akhenaten’s name from the shrine and coffin, the tomb was re-entered later, probably during the reign of Horemheb when the campaign was mounted to try to wipe out all traces of the Akhenaten regime from Egypt’s memory.
15
THE FALLEN ONE OF AMARNA
IT is now generally accepted that Akhenaten ruled for only seventeen years, although there is no evidence pointing to which month of this final year his rule ended. However, although he was no longer on the throne, did his followers believe that he was still alive – and would perhaps return one day to take power again?
The Philological Evidence
The main reason for accepting Year 17 as Akhenaten’s last in power is that a docket, No. 279, found by excavators at Amarna, bears two different dates – Year 17 and Year 1. This was explained by Fairman in the following terms: ‘It records, therefore, the first year of an unnamed king which followed the seventeenth year of another unnamed king. There cannot be any doubt that the latter was Akhenaten. Year 1 can hardly have been that of Semenkhkare since … his Year 1 was probably Year 15 of Akhenaten. Thus the docket must be assigned to the first year of Tutankhamun.’1
Fairman dismissed the possibility that these two dates might be construed as pointing to a coregency between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun: ‘This docket does not contain a double-dating since “Year 1” is written over “Year 17”.’ Yet a few pages earlier Fairman had given us a different account of how the dates were written: ‘ “Year 1” is written partly over an earlier “Year 17”. And if the copy of the text on the docket was correctly produced (No. 279 in plate XCV), then the second da
te is written neither completely over nor partly over the earlier date, but underneath it.’2
This is the first time, as far as I am aware, that a king placed his own date on the same text as that of a predecessor after the latter’s rule had come to an end. However, as no other evidence was found to support a coregency between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun, Fairman’s explanation was taken for granted. Yet, in the light of Egyptian custom, the evidence of docket No. 279 is confusing. Egyptians calculated the years of each king separately and, if there was no coregency, the first year of the new king began only after the last year of his predecessor. How, therefore, is it that Akhenaten’s Year 17 was also regarded as Year 1 of Tutankhamun unless there was a coregency?
No attempt was made to erase or cross out the earlier date before the later one was written. For this there can be only one convincing explanation. When we say that Akhenaten abdicated his power, we use a modern term expressing a modern practice. However, Egyptian Pharaohs did not gain power from the people or the parliament, but from the gods. From the time of his birth the king was regarded as the son of Amun-Re and destined to rule, and on being crowned he took possession of his inheritance, the lands given to him by the gods, and retained possession until the day he died. As long as he was alive Pharaoh was regarded as being the lawful ruler of his lands, even if he was weak and had no authority.
The abdication of Akhenaten must have been the first in Egyptian history. It is true that Aye and his army stopped him from exercising his power, but he was still regarded as the legitimate ruler. Semenkhkare was not accepted by Egyptians as a successor and was most probably assassinated at Thebes a few days after Akhenaten gave up his throne. When Tutankhamun became ruler, he was still called Tutankhaten, and as his Year 1 – although not as coregent – started while Akhenaten was still regarded as the legitimate ruler, in a way he took his authority from the old king until such time as he abandoned his allegiance to the Aten.
Akhenaten had ruled in the name of the Aten, whom he regarded as his father, having rejected, and been rejected by, Amun. The only legal way the new young king was able to establish himself on the throne was to renounce the course of action taken by his predecessor. In his Year 4, therefore, he rejected the Aten and returned to being the son of Amun. The Amun priesthood accepted this return in a new crowning celebration. Thus, at this point the Aten had no power in Egypt, no land to give. It was only then, as we shall see later, that Akhenaten, who was still alive, stopped being king and Tutankhamun became regarded as the sole heir of the god Amun.
TESTIMONY OF SURVIVAL?
Another hieratic docket found at Amarna recorded another date that has been the subject of long arguments and has even resulted in a charge of dishonesty being levelled at certain scholars. The essence of the dispute is whether this docket refers to Year 11 of Akhenaten or – despite the fact that we know he ruled for only seventeen years – to Year 21.
A facsimile of this docket, made and published by Battiscombe Gunn, the British archaeologist,3 persuaded the American scholar Keith C. Seele to believe that ‘the hieratic date is certainly “Year 21” ’.4 He even went as far as to accuse British scholars of avoiding the evidence intentionally: ‘While the actual fate of Akhenaten is unknown, it is evidence that he must have disappeared in his twenty-first year on the throne or even later. Some Egyptologists, including the Egypt Exploration Society’s excavators at Amarna, allow him but seventeen years.’5 As many scholars all over the world became convinced by Seele’s arguments, Fairman, who had been one of the society’s excavators at Amarna, felt he had to rally to their defence: ‘It seems appropriate to state the true position and at the same time vindicate those members of the Egypt Exploration Society’s expeditions at Amarna who have been quite unjustly accused of dishonesty.’6
Although Fairman has to be regarded as one of the most trusted British Egyptologists of this century, the way he tried to dispose of Seele’s opposition makes it clear why Seele had grounds for feeling suspicious: ‘Year 21 occurs “certainly”, according to Seele, on a hieratic docket published by Gunn. Seele has not seen this docket, but he is quite satisfied to reject Gunn’s reading on the evidence of the published facsimile. The first comment that occurs to one is that no one knowing the very high standards set and maintained by Gunn can believe that he would have advocated a reading he knew to be false simply to support a theory.’7
This statuette of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, now in the Louvre in Paris, offers a more realistic view of the King and Queen than do the exaggerated representations of other, more romantic styles of Amarna art. No physical defect mars Akhenaten’s appearance.
Yuya’s mummy, found in his small tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1905, now lies inside his coffin in the Cairo Museum. I have been able to identify this minister of both Tuthmose IV and Amenhotep III as the Patriarch Joseph of the coat of many colours, who brought the Israelite family into Egypt. His importance was enhanced when Amenhotep III married his daughter Tiye and made her the Queen of Egypt.
Akhenaten and Nefertiti make an offering to Aten. The royal family worshipped in the open. This scene, which was found in the Amarna house of Panehesy, the Chief Servitor of the Aten, portrays the latest symbol of the Aten, the disc at the top, sending its rays over the members of the royal family. These rays are directed at the key of life, held in front of their eyes. The name of the God (the same as that of the King) appears inside a cartouche.
This mummy of a woman, found in 1898 with other members of the royal family in the tomb of Amenhotep II in the Valley of the Kings, has now been identified as Queen Tiye.
Queen Tiye, daughter of Yuya/Joseph, wife of Amenhotep III and mother of Akhenaten. This small head of Tiye was found by Petrie, the father of modern archaeology, in the cave temple of Sarabit el Khadim in Sinai. The presence of the head of Akhenaten’s mother in this remote area is one of the indications that the young king himself could have been living there for some time after he had been forced to abdicate the throne.
Aye (right) and Tiy. Tiy, Nefertiti’s childhood nurse, also nursed Akhenaten during his childhood. She was married to Aye, second son of Yuya and brother of Queen Tiye. As the strongest military figure in Egypt, Aye protected Akhenaten’s rule and helped him during his religious revolution. Aye himself became the fourth and last of the Amarna kings when he sat on the throne after Tutankhamun’s death.
Akhenaten and Semenkhkare. This sculptor’s model found at Amarna is another indication of a co-regency, this time between Akhenaten on the left and his brother Semenkhkare on the right. Semenkhkare died shortly after Akhenaten’s fall from power, and it was Tutankhamun, the latter’s son, who followed him on to the throne.
Akhenaten, Nefertiti and three of their children. This stela in Cairo Museum shows the royal family in kissing and relaxing mood, something that was never allowed to be shown in Egypt either before or after the Amarna rule. Scenes showing different aspects of the life of the royal family took the place of the old deities of the dead on the tomb walls of the Amarna nobles.
The Israel Stela. This stela of Merenptah, Ramses II’s son and successor, contains the only mention of Israel in ancient Egyptian sources. Although the stela was made in Merenptah’s fifth year to commemorate his victory over invading Libyan tribes, the fact that the text concludes with the mention of some already subdued nations in western Asia (including the Israeli people) has misled some scholars into believing that this king was the Pharaoh of the Exodus who followed the Israelites into Canaan.
Akhenaten’s Osiride statues. These statues are two of the four colossal figures that were made to stand at the entrance of the temple Akhenaten built for his God inside the Karnak complex. They are now in Cairo Museum. In three of the statues the King is shown wearing a kilt, while the fourth, which has larger lower parts, has no kilt. This persuaded some scholars to claim that Akhenaten lacked any signs of genitalia. This proved to be an incorrect assumption; the statue is in fact unfinished, and the lower part would have bee
n cut back later to make the kilt.
Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye. This stela was found in the house of Panehesy at Amarna. The fact that Amenhotep III is represented in a clearly realistic style at Amarna indicates that the old King was living at the time and confirms the existence of a co-regency between him and his son Akhenaten. Neither the scene nor the text indicates that Amenhotep III was dead at the time. The stela is now in the British Museum.
This unfinished statue of Akhenaten kissing one of his daughters was also found at Amarna. Again this was claimed by some scholars as evidence of Akhenaten’s homosexuality; without any justification they stated that the younger figure represented Semenkhkare, the King’s brother and son-in-law.
This figure of the guardian of the dead, Anubis, was found in the tomb of Tutankhamun. The jackal was sitting on a shrine containing pieces of jewellery. A linen shirt covering Anubis was dated in year 7 of Akhenaten, the birth year of Tutankhamun. The dating of Tutankhamun’s birth in this manner indicated that Akhenaten was his father.
This was Fairman’s first attempt to avoid the facts, for, contrary to what he said, Gunn translated the date as ‘Year 11’ only because of the belief that Akhenaten ruled for seventeen years. He even stated this reason himself: ‘In the absence of other evidence as to the reign extending beyond Year 17, no one will want to read the dating of I, plate lxiii, as “Year 21”.’8
