The Dakhamunzu Affair

During the decline of the Amarna period an extraordinary series of events was to take place; one of the most enigmatic of these has become known to Egyptologists as the “Dakhamunzu Affair”, or the “Zannanza Affair”.  During the second half of the fourteenth century BC, relations between Egypt and the other kingdoms in the region had become increasingly strained with the continual threat of uprisings, struggles and war.  The Egyptian empire had only a century before been expansive and magnificent.   This immense empire is apparent from our surviving knowledge of the campaigns of Tuthmose III (later dubbed “the Egyptian Napoleon”), stepson of Hatshepsut and great grandfather of Akhenaten-Amenhotep IV.  Tuthmose had expanded the frontiers of the Egyptian empire and its vassals where he is recorded as having captured over 350 cities.  Significant advances in warfare tactics together with improved weaponry allowed Egypt to take land through successful military campaigns.  These campaigns are recorded by Thanuny, commander of the army and chief royal scribe.  Despite the usual Egyptian propaganda to glorify their successes in battle, it appears that by the end of the Tuthmose’s long reign the Egyptian Empire extended all the way from Canaan to Syria. 

By the time Tutankhamun had ascended the throne in the late fourteenth century BC, the once great empire was no more with much of it having been lost.  These circumstances need to considered and understood when reflecting upon the events surrounding the events of the Armana era during and after the death of Akheneten.   Egypt’s relations with her neighbours had become increasingly strained with power struggle occurring between the nations; in particular between Egypt, Hatti, and Mitanni.  Hatti, and its subjects, the Hittites, were endeavouring to expand their own empire under their king, Suppiluliuma I.   With records of events in Egypt are sparse for the reigns of the pharaohs during the “Amarna period”, one has to draw upon the Hittite records for information relating to this turbulent period of Egyptian history.  Some of these events are recorded in the fragmentary Deeds of Suppiluliuma, compiled after his death by his son, Mursili II.

Suppiluliuma, the Hittite leader.

In Hatti, a onetime general named Suppiluliuma had captured the throne by force, overthrowing king Tudhaliya III.  The disillusioned Suppiluliuma had served under the deposed king’s father, Tudhaliya II.  Suppiluliuma seems to have set about expanding the Hittite empire through alliances and dynastic marriages with his own family.  He also took full advantage of the rather erratic behaviour of the Egyptian pharaoh, Akhenaten.   Akhenaten appears to have had a lack of interest and concern in Egyptian foreign affairs preferring to focus upon implementing his monotheistic reforms, and the building of the city of Akhetaten.  Owing to this apparent indifference to events around him, Egypt lost much of its empire to the north following Hittite invasions.  These acts of aggression against the various kingdoms incited discontentment amongst the subjects, leading to further disruption and revolution.

Nonetheless, Hatti further sought to extend its empire, and went to war with Mitanni.  Mitanni had long been one of Egypt’s allies, owing to dynastic marriages between the royal princes of Egypt and princesses of Mitanni.  Eventually the Egyptians decided to act, and in the region of Kadesh, the Egyptians attempted to defend the city.  This conduct probably followed from repeated requests made by its king to Akhenaten as can be seen in the Amarna letters.  Despite these requests, Egypt lost hold of the city.  Subsequent attempts of later pharaohs Tutankhamun and Horemheb to regain the city were largely unsuccessful, and it did not return to Egyptian rule until the reign of Seti I.  The victorious Suppiluliuma sent forces elsewhere in Mitanni as well as to Amqu (modern day Northern Lebanon).  The Armana letters recount events that occurred in Amqu by Abdi-Risa, its ruler:-

One of the Amarna letters.

“Say to the king, my lord, my god, my Sun: Message of Abdi-Risa, your servant, the ruler of Enišasi.  I fall in the dirt under the feet of the king, my lord, seven times and seven times. Look, we are in Amqu, in cities of the king, my lord, and Etakkama, the ruler of Qinsa (ie Kadesh), assisted the troops of Hatti and set the cities of the king, my lord, on fire. May the king, my lord, take cognizance, and may the king, my lord, give archers that we may (re)gain the cities of the king, my lord, and dwell in the cities of the king, my lord, my god, my Sun."  [EA 363]

Following events at Amqu, the Deeds of Suppiluliuma record that: “[The Egyptians] were afraid.  And since, in addition, their lord Nibhururiya had died, therefore the queen of Egypt, who was Dakhamunzu, sent a messenger to [Suppiluliuma].”  In this message, the apparently destitute dowager queen wrote stating that “my husband has died.  I do not have a son.  But they say, many are your sons.  If you would give me one of your sons, he would become my husband.  I shall never pick out a servant of mine and make him my husband.  I am afraid.”

Having received this request for help and a dynastic marriage, not unsurprisingly, it was greeted by Suppiluliuma with both surprise and suspicion.  Such an event was unprecedented.  Previously, under the reign of Amenhotep III, the pharaoh had made it clear that dynastic marriages in Egypt were specifically to be just between foreign princesses and Egyptian princes or kings, and never the reverse.  Evidence of this prejudice against marriages of Egyptian princesses to non-Egyptians is detailed in the Armana letters.  In the correspondence, a request for a marriage to a royal princess was made to Amenhotep III by the Babylonian king Kadašman-Enlil, appealing to his status as pharaoh and ruler (“You are still the king, and can act as you wish”.)   In a somewhat contradictory statement, Amenhotep III appears to express his dismay at such an idea.  Reference is made to as one of his sisters being previously sent as a consort to Babylon, yet no one has seen her and knows whether she is alive or dead since her departure from Egypt.  Scant surviving evidence of marriages between Egyptian royal males remains, and is found in the Armana letters and inscribed upon a few scarabs commemorating the marriage made between the pharaoh and a foreign princess.  These princesses were usually given a household and taken as a secondary wife.

Drawing showing the likeness of an Egyptian princess, found on a vase in Ugarit

It is intriguing to find evidence that at some point during the late 18th dynasty of a marriage having occurred between an unnamed royal princess (or lady of the court) and of Niqmaddu II, king of Ugarit, incised on the surviving fragments of an alabaster vase.  Christiane Desroches Noblecourt suggested stylistically that the lady depicted upon the vase appears to date from the final years of the reign of Akhenaten up until to that of Ay, which suggests that a possible candidate of this union was one of the surviving daughters of Akhenaten.  The elaborately dressed lady, who strongly resembles an Egyptian, is shown to be in Niqmaddu’s presence, standing beneath a kiosk or canopy, pouring him a drink.   Despite this seemingly dramatic swing in foreign relations, there is no evidence elsewhere to suggest that Akhenaten detracted from standard policy in relation to alliances and marriages, leaving the identification of the lady obscure. 

Wary to this request made from the Egyptians, Suppiluliuma exclaimed that “such a thing has never happened to me in my whole life”.  However, with his curiosity aroused, and appreciating the importance and value of an alliance between Egypt and Hatti, Suppiluliuma sent a chamberlain to further investigate the truth behind this extraordinary request.

A likeness of Akhenaten and his Chief Royal Wife, Nefertiti.

Despite the request for a dynastic marriage between the dowager queen and a royal Hittite prince, Suppiluliuma still successfully took hold of the city of Kadesh that winter.  The following spring, the chamberlain returned to the Hittite court with a messenger from the queen.  The messenger addressed the king, further imploring the Hittite ruler for his aid, and for a son to be sent to Egypt for the widowed queen to marry and make her husband.  The letter addressed the Hittite king’s doubts, once again making a more specific, urgent request for an alliance via marriage to be made between the two families.  As relayed in the Deeds, Dakhamunzu reaffirms her desperate need, saying:-

“Why did you say ‘they deceive me’ in that way?  If I had a son, would I write to you of my shame and that of my country?  You didn’t believe me and have told me so.  My husband has died.  I have no son.  Never shall I take a servant of mine and make him my husband.  I have written to no other country but yours.   They say you have many sons, so give me one of yours.   He will be my husband, and to Egypt he will be king.”

Suppiluliuma remained suspicious and after numerous negotiations with the Egyptian messenger finally decided to send one of his sons, Zannanza, to Egypt. Suppiluliuma was concerned nonetheless and feared that his son would be captured and taken hostage once in Egypt.  His fears were justified, en route to Egypt, possibly even before he arrived, the Hittite prince was killed.  His death was treated with immediate suspicion by the Hittites and their ruler, who believed the Egyptians to have been responsible for his being murdered.  Reporting back to Suppiluliuma, they told him of how Zannanza had been killed by the people of Egypt.  After grieving, and anger and retaliation for the murder of his son and the treachery of the Egyptians, Suppiluliuma once again attacked Anqu.  He then returned victorious to his capital, Hattusa, with Egyptian prisoners and hostages.  Unbeknownst to Suppiluliuma and his heir Arnuwanda II, the hostages were carrying a deadly plague to which both rulers were to later succumb.

 A likeness of the young Meritaten, daughter of Akhenaten.

The identity of Dakhamunzu remains enigmatic and uncertain;  Three possible candidates have been proposed as being the dowager queen in question.  These women are Nefertiti, and two of her daughters, Meritaten and Ankhesenamun.   At one time, in the early days of scholarship; it was suggested that Dakhamunzu was simply a Hittite corruption of the name Ankhesenamun, the widow of Tutankhamun.  However, this explanation now seems to be improbable and unjustified.  It is now generally accepted and believed that the name is derived from the Hittite rendering of the Egyptian ta hemet nesu, an Egyptian title meaning “the King’s wife” rather than being a proper name.  The confusion arises from confusions in the recognised chronology of events in pharaonic Egypt’s historical timescale, allowing for approximately twenty years to be placed on either side of events that occur within its history.  Further confusion surrounds the identity of the deceased pharaoh, named “Nibhururiya”.  This Hittite interpretation of his name might refer to the prenomen of either Akhenaten [Neferkheperure] , or Tutankhamun [Nebkheperure]. 

Close-up of the the gold shrine, showing Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun.

In the identification of Nibhururiya as Tutankhamun, the case rests upon the facts that Tutankhamun left no surviving (male) heirs.  Additionally, his widow appears to have eventually married Ay.  Ay may well have been her own grandfather;  but also had been grand vizier in the court of the late Tutankhamun.  This status could well have been seen as that of being a servant despite his close affiliation and blood ties with the royal family.  Although most accept this marriage as having occurred, evidence for a marriage between Ankhesenamun and Ay is rather tenuous, based upon the existence of one ring , and another reported as having been seen by Percy Newberry.  In a letter written to Howard Carter, Newberry speaks of having found a ring bearing the cartouches of Ay and Ankhesenamun together, suggesting that the two were at one point married.  A ring similar to the one described which bears both inscriptions is housed in Berlin.  The marriage itself would have been purely to reinforce Ay’s claim to the empty throne.  Despite her royal heritage and being the “daughter of a god”, Ay never made Ankhesenamun his Chief Royal Wife; that accolade and title having been conferred to the lady Tey.  Tey had been married to Ay for many years and had been named as being the former wet-nurse of Nefertiti.   Ankhesenamun appears in none of the funerary decorations in Ay’s tomb suggesting that he did not wish her to accompany him into the afterlife as his consort.

The eventual fate of Ankhesenamun remains uncertain.   Noblecourt proposed that she was executed by Horemheb, possibly as a result of her role in the Zannanza affair.  Her body is now believed to be one of the ladies whose skeletal remains were found in KV21; having been named as Mummy KV21A, and through DNA testing as being the mother of the foetuses found in the tomb of Tutankhamun.  The recently discovered tomb KV63 has been suggested having been Akhenaten’s original resting place, owing to its close proximity to KV62.  This theory is supported by the presence of a woman’s coffin, women’s clothing and jewellery, as well as pottery bearing the partial name of “-paaten”,  Ankhesenamun’s birth name, being found in the tomb. 

Not all scholars agree with the identification of the anonymous queen as being Ankhesenamun, but propose the suggestion her identity might be attributed to either Nefertiti or Meritaten.  Certainly both women had attained the title of “Chief Royal Wife” and would have seen themselves as being “the King’s wife”.  Nefertiti’s attribution of this title and status is obvious from the role she played during her husband’s reign, but in relation to Meritaten, it remains somewhat more obscure and vague.  Meritaten seems to have entertained this title during the reign of her father, whom she apparently later married (and may have sired his children).  She also would appear to have been the “Chief Royal Wife” of at least one of his successors/co-regents, viz. Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare (see The Heirs of Akhenaten for further details on this fascinating subject). 

The Newberry ring, showing the cartouches of Ay and Ankhesenamun

Identifying Nefertiti as Dakhamunzu has gained support by leading scholars such as Nicholas Reeves, based upon a number of differing factors.  The first of these is based upon the title adopted by the queen if indeed Dakhamunzu is indeed a re-rendering of ta hemet nesu.   The ancient Egyptian language rarely utilised the definite article, and the presence of the word “ta” (feminine form of “the”) to be included in the queen’s title would suggest a certain prominence in her status, above that of other women in the royal household, and above those  of the pharaoh’s other surviving wives.  Reeves has suggested that the inclusion of the definite article is to emphasise the import of the role which Nefertiti, as Chief Royal Wife, held; owing to Akhenaten having various wives (see The Wives of Akhenaten).  The use of the word “ta” was to exalt and emphasise the queen’s rank, from being just that of a wife to the king to being one of the “king’s wife par excellence”, to the Hittites.  Nefertiti had no known (or surviving) sons, nor did Meritaten; The identities of the parents of the young Tutankhaten still remain uncertain, and if his father is not Akhenaten but another royal prince, he would not have been accorded the status of being a royal son.     

William McMurray has corroborated the theories proposed by Reeves in his article Towards an Absolute Chronology for Ancient Egypt where McMurray makes use of astronomical phenomena such as solar eclipses, as well as sources outside of Egypt and the Near East, to draw together a chronology of events.  In parallel to this research, Jared Miller has attempted to draw up a chronology of events that took place in the Hittite empire. His theories have furthered the likelihood of Akhenaten being the deceased pharaoh “Nibhuririya”.   In calculating the probable times of the year of Akhenaten and Tutankhumun’s deaths; a suggestion of late September has been made for that of Akhenaten based upon the vintaging of wine around this time, and that of late December based upon the flora and fauna found in Tutankhamun’s tomb.  Comparing these findings with the seasons recounted in the letters to Suppiluliuma and the taking of Anqu, the first letter appears to the Hittite king would appear to have arrived in the late autumn.  This theory is further endorsed by the Amarna letters which speak of the military campaigns in Anqu, echoing those reported in The Deeds of Suppiluliuma.  The city of Akhetaten (where the letters were found) was abandoned during the reign of Tutankhamun coinciding with the restoration of the old religion and return to Thebes as the royal capital.  These events back up the theory that Tutankhamun cannot have been “Nibhururiya.”  Horemheb (given the name/title of Armaa) has recently been suggested as being the commander and viceroy in Asia mentioned in a Hittite document which relates to events from regnal years 7 and 9 of Suppiluliuma’s successor, Mursili II.  This position of responsibility would have been held by Horemheb prior to his ascension to the throne, further ruling out the likelihood of Tutankhamun as being the deceased king.

For scholars such as Reeves who believe that Akhenaten was succeeded as pharaoh by his consort, Nefertiti, under the newly adopted kingly name of Nefneferuaten Ankhkheprure, all of these goings-on this were part of her gradual progression from Chief Royal Wife to (possibly) co-regent to sole ruler/pharaoh.  Therefore, although Nefertiti (under her newly assumed name) might well have been recognised as pharaoh by her court, she would still have been seen as the (former) king’s wife to neighbouring kingdoms.  Most telling is that thus far neither a tomb nor funerary goods have ever been located and identified with having belonged with definite certainty to Nefertiti.  There is a broken shabti figure bearing her name and queenly titles; but it also bears traces of her husband’s name and titles, which suggests that the figure could indeed have been intended for the burial of the latter as a votive offering.  

The fragment of the shabti figure in the Louvre.

When considering the political climate Egypt found herself in, it seems unlikely that foreign powers would have recognised a woman ascending to the throne and taking on the duties of kingship.   The presence and rule of a female pharaoh during this period is mentioned in later (inaccurate) histories, notably those of Manetho.  Faience bezel rings have been found at Armana, which have female pharaonic epithets inscribed upon them.   This era continues to remain shrouded in mystery, and facts cannot be determined with any definite certainty.  Other scholars have suggested that Nefertiti predeceased her husband by several years, and that Akhenaten was succeeded by Meritaten.  This theory was popularised by Krauss in the late 1970s, identifying Meritaten as the daughter named by Manetho as “Akenkheres”, of “Oros” (i.e. Akhenaten).  This would make the shadowy, ephemeral pharaoh Smenkhkare as being either the servant she demonstrated such reluctance to marry, or in an even less likely circumstance, that it was Zannanza under a newly assumed, and more Egyptian, name. 

The Wives of Akhenaten

Due in no small part to his infamous attempts to change the state religion requiring the worship of numerous deities to that of just one, the sun, Akhenaten has become one of the most celebrated and famous of all the pharaohs.  This infamy has been compounded by the discovery in the twentieth century of the tomb of one of his heirs, the so-called “boy King” Tutankhamun, and the wonderful treasures that were found therein.  Numerous sculptures and monuments, some intact and many damaged or defaced are testament to his reign.  Alongside the death mask of Tutankhamun, and the bust of Nefertiti; the image of Akhenaten accompanied by his wife, Nefertiti, and their daughters under the life-giving rays of the sun remains one of the most popular and frequently replicated images from Ancient Egypt, being painted unto modern day papyrus and sold to numerous tourists and visitors to Egypt each and every year.

Despite the immediately recognisable bust of Nefertiti, in fact housed many miles from Egypt in Berlin, and the likeness of Akhenaten as described above; events surrounding his life and of his immediate family remain vague and obscure. Much of what is understood from that shadowy period in the fourteenth century B.C. still remains highly speculative and open to interpretation and guesswork.  As discussed in the previous article “The Heirs of Akhenaten”; considerable questions are raised by scholars as to the order of succession following the death of Akhenaten, and to their identities and familial relationship to Akhenaten himself.  Many of the details of the reign of Akhenaten are, to paraphrase the words of Winston Churchill “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.”

Although his reforms were a fraught endeavour to change the infrastructure of religious life in Egypt, Akhenaten still adhered to the traditions set by his predecessors concerning the pharaonic practice of polygamy, so as to continue his dynasty and provide heirs to the throne.  Polygamy was frequent among the pharaohs; however it was not practiced by the general Egyptian populous at large.  Furthermore, the King would frequently be married one of his sisters, following the divine traditions set by the gods, who since Creation had married their siblings thus following a divine precedent as well as keeping the royal blood pure.  Of all the King’s wives, the favourite was named the “Chief Royal Wife”, rather than “queen” (the Egyptians had no such term in their language), and all other the other royal brides were given the status of concubine, or as secondary wives.  Within the context of this article, the terms “queen” and “lady” shall be used, although not Egyptian terms, convey the status and bearing of the woman afforded such a title.

The famous bust of Nefertiti, housed in Berlin

In the role of Chief Royal wife was Nefertiti, arguably one of the most famous of all of Egypt’s queens, alongside Hatshepsut [the female pharaoh], and Cleopatra.  It was only in the late early twentieth century that Nefertiti achieved the recognition she deserved, as for many centuries her name was not known, with very little discovered  or written prior to excavations at Akhetaten [modern day Amarna], an abandoned, ruined city located some 400 kilometres north of Thebes.   In the late nineteenth century, a certain mystique was attached to Nefertiti’s mother-in-law, Tiye.  Tiye had been the consort and chief Royal Wife of Amenhotep III, seemingly a strong powerful woman, when one reads inscriptions dedicated to her, and from surviving likenesses.   It has been suggested that Tiye might have been instrumental in the religious reforms and changes carried out by her son.  However this temporary “fame” enjoyed by Tiye was soon enough superseded by that of Nefertiti.

Together with the infamous reforms brought into being by her husband, Nefertiti has achieved worldwide recognition from an elaborate, colourful limestone bust discovered in the workshop of Thutmose at Armana in 1912 by the German archaeologist, Ludwig Borchardt.  The bust had been left on a shelf which had collapsed in antiquity, found with various likenesses of other members of the Royal Family.  It is of such beauty that it has been paralleled with that of the golden death mask of Tutankhamun in terms of Egyptian sculpture.  Measuring 47 centimetres in height and weighing nearly 20 kilograms, it has been fashioned from limestone but covered with painted stucco layers.  Facially, it is almost perfectly symmetrical; however one of the eyes is absent, apparently never having been affixed to the empty socket.  Nefertiti is depicted wearing a multi-coloured floral collar, and a cap-crown and diadem that appears in the many reliefs of Nefertiti in and around Armana.  Despite its aesthetically pleasing and contemporary beauty, the work appears to have never been intended for public display nor devotional purposes, but as a presumed, lifelike model for the creation of official portraits of the queen.  

Nefertiti, whose name means “The beautiful [one] has come” was bestowed with many titles including Mistress of Upper and Lower Egypt, Hereditary Princess, Sweet of Love and Great of Praises.  Her parentage and origins remain unknown, although it has been suggested that she was the daughter of Tutankhamun’s vizier and successor, Ay, brother of Tiye.  Ay’s wife, Tey, is believed to have been nursemaid or wet nurse to the infant Nefertiti.  However, the identity of her mother remains unknown.  She is believed to have had a younger sister, Mutbenret (previously thought to read as Mutnejmet), who is depicted on various works of art in the Amarna complex, and was later to marry the general, Horemheb. 

As the chief royal wife, Nefertiti played a highly important and significant role during the reign of her husband.  The dowager queen, Tiye, had revolutionised how queens were seen and portrayed in Egyptian art, being seen on an equal standing and level to her husband, the King.  A number of surviving portraits show Tiye as being of an equal height and level to her husband, and not as that of a subservient spouse, a typical, traditional portrayal.  This was to continue with Nefertiti; in fact, her might and power was accentuated.  Likenesses exist of Nefertiti with her husband in praise of the solar disc alongside her husband, but also in various scenes of the “Window of Appearance”, awarding courtiers for their services by bestowing them with collars.  As well as accompanying her husband in such scenes of worship, there are scenes of great candour and affection between the Pharaoh, his wife, and their children, showing scenes of kissing, or playful affection between the daughters and their parents.  Equally there exists a scene showing sadness and mourning within the family group, most memorably of the death and mourning by the family of one of the royal princesses, Meketaten.  Finally there are likenesses of Nefertiti on her own, wearing a King’s crown and smiting enemies and captives, a role previously exclusively reserved for the King. 

A relief showing Akhenaten, his wife Nefertiti, and two of their daughters.

In the wake of his reforms, Akhenten and Nefertiti moved from the long established royal capital and religious centre of Thebes to the newly build city of Akhetaten.  Akhenaten had by then changed his name from Amenhotep, and Nefertiti adopted the epithet of Neferneferuaten, and is thereafter referred to as Neferneferuaten Nefertiti.  Her name now meant “The Most Beautiful One of the Aten – The beautiful [one] has come.”   During her marriage to Akhenaten, she was to deliver at least six daughters who survived infancy: Meritaten [“She who is beloved of Aten”], Meketaten [“Behold the Aten”], Ankhesenpaaten [“Living for Aten”], Neferneferuaten [“The Most Beautiful One of the Aten”] Tasherit [meaning “the Younger”], Neferneferure [“The Most Beautiful One of Ra”] and Setepenre [“Chosen of Ra”]. 

The fate of Nefertiti remains unknown.  Her name disappears from the stage after year 13-14 of Akhenaten’s reign, however some scholars have proposed that this disappearance is due to Nefertiti having been named as Akhenaten’s co-regent.  Previously, it was thought that she had fell into disgrace, and her name was removed from monuments, however this theory has been dismissed.  Another theory is that she died, possibly from a plague that was sweeping Egypt at the time, and may have carried off some of her daughters at the same time.  To date, no tomb nor body of the queen has been found.  As discussed previously, suggestions have been made proposing Nefertiti assumed the throne or at least acted as a co-regent, under the name of Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten.

In 2003, it was suggested by a British archaeologist, Joann Fletcher from the University of York, identifying one of the bodies, that of the Younger Lady, as being that of Nefertiti.  Recent DNA testing and research has shown the body to be that of the mother of Tutankhamun, and daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye.  It was also been proposed that the body found resting alongside that of the Younger Lady, named the “Elder Lady” was that of Nefertiti.  Again, through DNA testing of this body and coupled with a lock of hair found in the tomb of Tutankhamun; together with analysis of the teeth, show this to be the body of an older woman, and daughter of the courtiers Yuya and Tjuju, therefore confirming its identity as being that of Tiye.

A suggestion has been made proposing that Nefertiti was in fact a princess of Mitanni, located to the northeast of Egypt in modern day Northern Syria, with the name of Tadukhipa.  Alliances had been formed between the two nations inasmuch as Amenhotep III had taken the sister of Tusharatta, King of Mitanni, Gilukhipa, as a secondary royal wife.  Tushtatta later sent his own daughter, Tadukhipa, as another wife for Amenhotep, laden with gifts of gold, cloth and precious stones.  Correspondence survives from the Amarna letters relating to this proposed marriage, however it appears that the elderly Amonophis died soon after the arrival of the princess.  From other letters, it is stated that she later married his son and heir, Akhenaten.  The attribution of Tadukhipa being Nefertiti arises from the translation of Nefertiti’s name, suggesting that she was of foreign origin.  This suggestion however doesn’t take into account if Tey was indeed Nefertiti’s nurse, as a mature princess would have no need of one.  Furthermore, if the marriage took place soon after Akhenaten ascended the throne, it doesn’t tie in with the believed sequence of events such as the birth of the first royal child, Merititan.   If not Nefertiti then, Tadukhipa’s identity has also been linked with possibly being another, significant wife of Akhenaten; the Lady Kiya.
Where information on Nefertiti, despite the relative proliferation of objects and artwork, is scant, even less survives on Kiya.  Her existence was unknown to Egyptologists until 1959.  The name “Kiya” in and of itself is unusual, appearing to have been a pet name rather than a full name.  The name contains no religious overtones or veneration towards a particular god or goddess, and simply means “monkey”.   However, it could be an abbreviation or contraction of a foreign sounding name. 


A likeness of the Lady Kiya, possibly engaged in a purifying ritual.



Whether of foreign extraction or not, Kiya certainly seems to have enjoyed a unique status whilst queen at the court of Akhenaten.  She was evidently not of royal Egyptian birth as nowhere in her titles is she named as “Heiress”, or “daughter of the God”, all of which were epithets for the daughter of a pharaoh.  Nonetheless,  Kiya was bestowed a title which no other royal wife, before or after, was afforded .  This title was as “the greatly beloved”, also affectionately referred to as “the Favourite.”   Her full titles are given as: “The wife and greatly beloved of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Living in Truth, Lord of the Two Lands, Neferkheperure Waenre [i.e. Akhenaten], the Goodly Child of the Living Aten, who shall be living for ever and ever, Kiya.”   All that survives in relation to the enigmatic Lady Kiya comes from the anonymous tomb KV55, or from Amarna itself. 

Kiya’s existence first came to archaeologists when her name and titles were noted on an unguent jar at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, previously bought by the Museum in 1929 from Howard Carter.  The container itself was without provenance.   After this identification, further “discoveries” relating to Kiya’s existence were discovered, despite that certain cases her name had been removed and had been re-inscribed with the names of others, most notably the two eldest surviving daughters of Akhenaten viz. Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten.   Kiya herself does not appear until soon after the Royal Family and entourage moved from Thebes to the newly constructed capital of Akhetaten.  This is believed to have taken place sometime after Year 5 of the pharaoh’s reign.

It is only at Amarna where her likeness appears and her attribution as the “greatly beloved" is to be found.  Sunshades were built to the south of the city, with at least one of them carrying the likeness, name and titles of Kiya.  These sunshades were similar to adjoining chapels to the temples, and there is one, the Maru-Aten, which bears the name of Kiya.  Furthermore, she is listed as having sired another daughter, whose name, sadly, has been lost.  She was also previously thought to have been the mother of Tutankamun, for which she received the honorary title of being the “Greatly beloved” however recent DNA evidence has shown this is not the case.  The mother of Tutankhamun was a daughter of Amenhotep  and Tiye, and being of royal blood, one would expect to find references to Kiya as the “God’s daughter”, and this is nowhere to be found.  In addition, the name “Kiya”, an affectionate pet name or not, would not be one which was suitable for a royal Egyptian princess.
Much like Nefertiti, the Lady Kiya disappears from the record during the final six years of her husband’s reign.  A number of theories abound as to the reasoning behind this.  One, as suggested is that she shared a similar fate to Nefertiti in that a plague swept across Egypt and was responsible for the death of numerous members of the royal household.  This is not beyond the realms of possibility as plagues were rife and prevalent in the ancient world.  However, a theory has been proposed suggesting the reason for Kiya’s disappearance was due to something far more sinister. 

One theory has been proposed that there was a considerable rivalry between the two royal wives: Nefertiti and Kiya.  Nefertiti, as Great Royal Wife became jealous of Kiya, who had risen from merely being a secondary wife to that of the King’s favourite, his “greatly beloved” – titles which had never been used before and were never to be used again for a royal bride.  It has been suggested by Nicholas Reeves that perhaps the jealous Nefertiti orchestrated a coup and this resulted in Kiya being “denounced” and sent into exile.  An alternative theory proposed by Marc Gabolde is that relations between Egypt and Mitanni became so strained, and that if Kiya were indeed Tushratta’s daughter, Tadukhipa, she was returned home to her father.    

A damaged fragment showing Kiya, affectionately kissing her daughter.

It seems that Kiya somehow incurred disfavour, so much so that her name was removed and in certain cases the likeness altered.  Kiya is often portrayed as an attractive young woman, pretty rather than stately like the noble Nefertiti.  She is also shown to be wearing large earrings and a Nubian wig; a short cropped wig which became fashionable amongst men and women during the 18^th dynasty.  A plaster study of a nameless young woman in large earrings, found at the studio of Tuthmose, and on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, has generally been thought to be her likeness.  However the most intriguing story which could to the fate of Kiya comes from a mythological tale told some years later “The Tale of Two Brothers”; in a papyrus dating from approximately 150-200 years after the death of Akhenaten, and the subsequent damnatio memoriae of the Amarnan pharaohs  instigated by Horemheb.

The story tells of two brothers, Anpu and Bata.  The two brothers live together, farming the land, together with Anpu’s wife.  Anpu’s wife attempts to seduce her brother in law, however he rebukes her advances.  After Bata spurns her spurns her advances, his angry sister in law feigns sexual assault.   In anger, Anpu plans to kill his brother; however the gods intervene and warn Bata of his brother’s intentions, having believed his wife’s lies.  Bata flees with his brother pursuing him with a knife.  Bata prays, and a river of crocodiles is created dividing the brothers, and Bata swears his innocence, cutting his flesh and makes himself bleed.  Anpu then realises the truth and returns home, full of grief, and kills his adulterous wife, feeding her body to the dogs.  Before the brothers part, Bata tells his brother that he will place his heart in an acacia tree.  He advises Anpu that should he, Bata, ever be danger, that the beer in Anpu’s hand will foam.  If this happens Anpu will need to find his brother’s heart and place it in water, reviving him.

Bata then makes his way to the Valley of the Acacia, where he settles.  One day, the gods happen upon Bata, and seeing his loneliness, Re-Horakhti fashions a beautiful woman for Bata to be his wife.  The seven Hathors determine the woman’s fate is to die by the executioner’s knife.   Despite the love and loyalty of her husband, the young woman becomes bored, and against her husband’s wishes, she leaves their home.  The sea, besotted by the beauty of Bata’s wife endeavours to rape the girl, and calls upon an acacia tree to seize her by the hair for him.  However, the acacia doesn’t manage to hold the woman in its grasp, and only manages to grab a lock of her hair.  The hair is carried by the sea to Egypt, where it is washed up and perfumes the water where the Pharaoh’s launderers are cleaning the royal linen.  The linen, imbued with the divine scent from the hair, arouses the pharaoh’s interest, and realising the divine origin of the hair (as being the daughter of the god Re-Horakhti), sends envoys to locate the owner of the lock of hair.  The envoys, upon arrival in the Valley of Acacia, in a foreign land, discover the identity of the woman with the sweet scented hair. Bearing treasures and gifts from the pharaoh, the woman agrees to leave, instructing them to cut down the tree where her husband, Bata, had previously hidden his heart.  She then returns with the envoys to Egypt, where the pharaoh adorns her with jewels, and marries her, making her his greatly beloved wife.

Upon the cutting down of the tree, Bata falls to the ground, dead.  At that exact point the beer which Anpu is holding foams in his hand, and he leaves for the valley where his brother resided.  Upon discovering the body of his brother, for nearly four years he searches through the acacia leaves to find his brother’s heart.  It is not until the final day of the third year, and on the verge of giving up, does Anpu find his brothers heart.  Following his brother’s wishes he places his heart in water and revives his brother from the dead.  Bata, taKing the form of a prize bull, tells his brother to take him to Egypt where he will attempt to regain his wife.  Upon arrival in Egypt, the bull attracts much attention and is sold to the pharaoh.  Whilst in the pharaoh’s palace, Bata makes himself known to his cuckolding wife, who, in fear asks that the bull be sacrificed. Although this request upsets the pharaoh, he reluctantly agrees.  Bata then takes on other forms to remind his former wife of her misconduct, each of which she endeavours to destroy to protect her secret.  In his final transformation, he is transformed into a persea tree, which the queen orders to be cut down.  Whilt the tree is being cut down, she swallows a splinter. She then becomes pregnant bearing the pharaoh a son, a final incarnation of Bata.

A sheet from the Papyrus D'Orbiney, British Museum telling
the "Tale of the Two Brothers."

There is a lacuna in the text detailing the conclusion of the of the story, however the most popularly proposed ending for the story is that the son, an incarnation of Bata, grows up and exposes his mother for her action and exposes her actions to the court.  She is then taken away to be executed and thereafter he sends for his brother, Anpu, and together they rule Egypt. 

The suggestion has been made that Kiya was the personality (or the inspiration thereof) behind the cheating, beautiful woman in this tale.  This suggestion has arisen from the title which the wife of Bata is bestowed by the pharaoh; that of the “greatly beloved wife”, a title unique to Kiya.   Like most ancient civilisations, the Egyptians possessed an excellent oral tradition for telling tales and fables, as well as myths of the gods, in the absence of widespread literacy and written material. Given that this was written down less than two centuries afterwards, it is indeed possible that through recollection and association that there is an allegorical retelling of the eventual fate of Akhenaten’s “greatly beloved wife.”

Kiya can always be differentiated from Nefertiti, not just in inscriptions and titles, but also in appearance.  Despite her unique title, this served no religious function to the King, she is never shown wearing a crown, a diadem, nor a uraeus, all of which were emblematic of queenship, and all of which are at various junctures portrayed on the likenesses of Nefertiti.  Equally relevant is that her name is never seen contained within a royal cartouche.  She also appears with only one daughter, unlike Nefertiti who is seen with as many as six.  However there appears to be a fragmentary inscription of Kiya with Akhenaten and their daughter, notable for the absence of Nefertiti.  In addition there are fragments of Kiya’s likeness (determined in part by her large earrings and an absence of Nefertiti’s usual regalia, receiving the life giving rays of the sun, the ankh beneath her nostrils.  This bestowing of life from the Aten was exclusive to likenesses of the Royal Family which shows the elevated status that she was afforded, most likely in the absence of the Great Royal Wife.

Whatever became of Kiya, she left behind some impressive and beautiful funerary equipment, which possibly were never actually used by their intended owner.  These objects were found by Theodore Davis in the enigmatic tomb KV55, which was previously ascribed, incorrectly, as being that of Queen Tiye.  The mummy that was found in the tomb has been identified as being the father of Tutankhamun, however his identity remains obscure and indeterminate, with some scholars suggesting Akhenaten himself, and others the shadowy Smenkhkare.  The coffin is the most telling piece of evidence, and of fine, elaborate and expensive workmanship.  The shape and style of the coffin betray that it was originally intended for a woman, as the coffins with a designated male owner would have the protective wings of the goddess wrapped around them, whereas the coffins for women did not.  Furthermore, the footboard of the coffin is inscribed with an Atenist prayer, although “spoken” by a man (its occupant), there are plentiful grammatical errors to suggest that the prayer was originally intended to be “spoken” by a woman.   This coffin is of equally fine workmanship to a similar coffin found in the tomb of Tutankhamun, again also quite probably usurped and intended for a woman, demonstrating the respect in which its original owner was held.  All cartouches have been carefully excised from the coffin, and face torn off in antiquity, making the identity nearly impossible to ascertain. Additionally the wig is of an atypical style and design, and is mirrored in style on the four canopic jars, also found in the tomb.  It has been suggested that the wig design is more feminine in style, lending a further probability that the coffin’s original intended occupant was Kiya.

Suggestions have made that Akhenaten married two of his daughters in an attempt to keep the royal blood pure.  These daughters were Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten (who later was to marry Tutankhamun).  Akhenaten’s father Amenhotep had ceremonially married his own daughter, Sitamun, and however distasteful this idea might sound to a modern audience the marriage was purely of ceremonial nature.  However, it appears that Akhenaten took his presumed marriages to his young daughters one step further, and some scholars have proposed that Akhenaten and his daughters were responsible for having sired two further daughters named Meritaten Tasherit and Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit respectively.

Finally, a suggestion has been made that Akhenaten married one of his sisters, and the fruit of their union was the birth of Tutankhamun.  Certainly the recent DNA findings have suggested that Tutankhamun was born of a brother-sister union, and that they were the children of Amenhotep III and of Tiye.  However his parentage is still subject to much debate and discussion, as the DNA found in the two foetuses buried alongside Tutankhamun are not aligned with the remains of a mummy believed to be that of Ankhesenamun, who was Akhenaten’s daughter.  If Akhenaten also were to have married one of his sisters, it seems unusual that she was not promoted to the status of Chief Royal Wife, over and above Nefertiti, and there is no mention anywhere of another wife of Akhenaten, and certainly not one of the importance and rank of being a god’s daughter, which she would have been.  Also the chronology of events does not follow through as Tutankhamun was born between years 8 and 11 of Akhenaten, and his mother died, probably murdered, when she was in her mid to late twenties.

The Heirs of Akhenaten

The Amarnan period of Ancient Egyptian history, i.e. the period of pharaonic rule from the death of Amenhotep III through to the reign of Horemheb, is undoubtedly one of the most fascinating yet enigmatic for the scholar or Egyptologist.  It is not just the case of analyzing and endeavoring to interpret a period of history that occurred close to 3500 years ago where historical documentation was scant, but to study an era that was deliberately obliterated from history by the immediate successors to the throne.  Not only did Horemheb usurp monuments and inscriptions that had been made to Akhenaten and his heirs, but an official rewriting of history took place; whereby Horemheb claimed that he was immediate successor to Amenhotep III, thereby subsuming over thirty "lost" years into his reign.  

Understandably, it was the failed attempt at religious change in the constitution that was condemn Akhenaten and his religious reforms to a shadowy obscurity; most of the events can only be speculated upon during the latter years of his reign.  This obscurity was to change when archaeologists such as Flinders Petrie uncovered the ruins of his lost city, Akhetaten, in the latter half of the nineteenth century; together with the discovery of the Amarna letters, and ultimately, culminating in the discovery of various 18^th dynasty tombs and caches in the Valley of the Kings.  These were the tombs of some of the key individuals during this period; including those of Yuya and Thuya, the mysterious occupant of Tomb KV55, and a small, near intact, tomb found in 1922 by Howard Carter of the arguably the most well known pharaoh in modern times, Tutankhamun.  It is however due to this destruction of the historical record that the tombs discovered so far in the Valley of the Kings from that period have remained in better condition than those of other periods, as these kings and their family’s memory had been so effectively repressed. 

It was once suggested that Akhenaten was deposed as pharaoh, and was replaced by the young Tutankhamun [then named Tutankhaten]. Tutankhamun subsequently married one of his predecessor’s daughters so as to assure his right of succession to the throne.  All sorts of crackpot theories were born of this suggestion of Akhenaten having been ousted from the throne, arguably the most ludicrous being that Akhenaten was in fact the Biblical figure of Moses. Following his deposal; he went into exile under a new identity, leaving Egypt behind, with his followers. Among these followers were the Israelites, heading across the desert for the land of Canaan, a “promised land”. There, Akhenaten would able to continue his monotheistic pursuits and ideals, the Aten reborn and renamed Jehovah.  This hypothesis can be immediately discounted based upon the surviving evidence such as inscriptions, together with DNA testing on various royal mummies that took place in early 2010. Also, after Akhenaten’s kingship came to an end, the evidence exists to support the notion that the cult of the Aten didn’t entirely vanish, and continued to be practiced by the Royal family and their supporters for some time after. 

Scholars have long determined that the reign of Akhenaten ended after seventeen years, from wine labels which dated their vintage to the year of the king’s reign. Wine labels are used for determining the length of a king’s reign, together with, where possible, inscriptions or monuments.  A questionable Egyptian historian, writing in the third century BC, named Manetho was to write the Aegyptiaca [History of Egypt], an important if not entirely accurate work. The Aegytiaca displays numerous inaccuracies , not least around this period, drawing into question its reliability. Despite its shortcomings, Manetho was clearly able to gather information now lost to us, accurate or not, from this turbulent period of Egyptian history; a difficult task given the subsequent damnatio memoriae instigated under the reign of Horemheb.

Akhenaten

It appears that in the wake of this tumultuous and obscure period that Akhenaten appears to have had at least one, quite possibly two immediate successors prior to the ascension of Tutankhamun to the throne.  Was a co-regency was entertained between Akhenaten, and one or both of these individuals?  These possible co-regents were named Smenkhkare, and Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten [hereafter referred to as Ankhkheperure except in instances where the full title is used] respectively.  It cannot be determined with certainly whether the two kings ruled in their own right, nor the sequence in which they ruled, in the role of co-regent or pharaoh. Experts are inclined to follow the chronology of Akhenaten, Smenkhkhare, Ankhkheperure, Tutankhamun, Ay and finally Horemheb; this same chronology has been adopted when discussing the succession of the last of the 18^th dynasty kings.

Very little is known of either of the individuals.  A significant number of experts have proposed that it is the remains of Smenkhkare which were found by Theodore Davis in the coffin of Tomb KV55; which would thereby identify Smenkhkare as the father of Tutankhamun.  In 2002, Joyce Filer, anthropologist and Egyptologist at the British Museum, stated that “[the] human remains from Tomb 55, as presented to me, are those of a young man who had no apparent abnormalities and was no older than his early twenties at death and probably a few years younger. If those wanting to identify the remains with Akhenaten demand an age at death of more than mid-twenties, then this is not the man for them. As an obviously younger individual, some people might like to identify the remains as belonging to the mysterious Smenkhkare. Might they, in fact, belong to neither of them? Whoever he was, the similarity between the Tomb 55 skull and that of Tutankhamun, Akhenaten's son, certainly suggests he was a member of the royal family."   

The relationship between Tutankhamun and the body in KV55 has been corroborated by recent DNA analysis, thus his paternity has been ascertained.  However, these discoveries complicate to the case.  KV55's has been identified as being a son of king Amenhotep III, and of Queen Tiye; and was initially named, following publication of the DNA results, as Akhenaten.  A number of experts disagree, such as Filer, and even the initial report by G. Elliot Smith.  Smith's findings were presented in open defiance of the belief of Theodore Davis, who discovered the tomb, and believed the body to be that of Queen Tiye.  Smith identified the body as being that of a man aged between 25-26 years old.  However some experts continue maintain the remains are still that of a middle aged man.  Davis' initial suggestion can be wholly dismissed as unfounded, and purely that of an opportunist in determination to find a royal tomb. 

Drawing further information from the DNA reports, Tutankhamun's DNA shows that he was born of a brother-sister union.  His mother has also been identified as the anonymous, informally named “Younger Lady” found in KV35.  She was found alongside her mother, Tiye, previously whose remains were given the name of “The Elder Lady”. These bodies were discovered by Victor Loret in 1898. Previously Tutankhamun was thought to be the son of Kiya, one of Akhenaten’s secondary queens. These theories can be discarded, as the Younger Lady is not Kiya.  Of the few surviving objects and inscriptions, nowhere is Kiya referred to as being either the “King’s daughter”, nor as “daughter of the God”; both titles used when referring to a royal princess.  Kiya's name means “monkey”; an affectionate yet unlikely, unsuitable name for an Egyptian royal princess. Royal names frequently invoked the gods in their etymology.  

Returning to the question of succession, this question arises from the existence of two sets of cartouches bearing the names of two separate pharaohs.  The first set belongs to Smenkhkare, and the second, to Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten.  Only two surviving instances of the names of Smenkhkare and Akhenaten’s names have been found together, which has lead to the suggestion the possibility of a co-regency between the two.  The first object was in fact located amongst the very first finds made by Howard Carter in November 1922, just outside the tomb itself in the fill of the lower staircase. The object (no. 1k) was parts of a broken linen box, made of wood and covered in white gesso.  On the central rail are inscribed the names of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare.  The knobs of the box are further inscribed the names of Smenkhkare, and Neferneferuaten.  The other object, a calcite vase (no. 405) located within the tomb itself, where an incised inscription bears the two names in cartouches, once filled with blue pigment, but have been subsequently erased in antiquity.  Placing Smenkhkare’s name in such close proximity to that of Akhenaten’s, even on a linen box or a vase, suggests this could have been done to reinforce his claims to the throne.  But this is mere speculation.

A study, believed to represent Smenkhkare and Meritaten.

A likeness of Smenkhkare as pharaoh is depicted in a scene in the tomb of Meryre (II), steward, scribe and superintendent of Queen Nefertiti, located to the north east of the city of Akhetaten.  The scene shows Smenkhkare alongside his wife, the princess Meritaten, at the “Window of Appearances”, handing out tribute, an act which appears to only have been carried out by the pharaoh and his consort.  A further study, located in Berlin, exists of two figures (illustrated below) believed to be of Smenkhkare leaning on a cane (leading to speculation that the figure is in fact that of Tutankhamun), and of Meritan offering him flowers. No inscription is to be found on the study, and neither of the two figures are named.  However, the likeness of the individual does not resemble either Tutankhamun nor Akhenaten.  An assumption can be made that it therefore is representative of Smenkhkare.  A further temple to the Aten was built at an indeterminate location in the city of Memphis, and that Smenkhkare played a role in its construction and/or dedication.  His reign however appears brief, having been for, at most, one year. This is attested by the existence of a wine label dated “Year 1”, and from “the house of Smenkhkare.” (but apparently with the epithet “deceased”).    Even the suggestion that the body in Tomb KV55 is that of Smenkhkare is open to speculation, as all the cartouches bearing the name of the occupant of the coffin have been excised, any reference to Akhenaten on the surviving panels of the gold funerary shrine [of Tiye?] were removed and re-inked with his father’s name and no objects found within the tomb carried the name of Smenkhkare.  

Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten is often given epithets bestowing up the king such titles as “desired of Akhenaten”, or “desired of Waenre” [Neferkheprure-Waenre being the name of Akhenaten] , after being named in the cartouches.  Other unique epithets include “desired of Aten”, and “incarnation of Akhenaten”.  Cartouches are also found to be marked with distinctly feminine elements, and attributes such as the expression “living”, an epithet most notably found in reverence to royal wives.  The most fascinating and enigmatic of all the attributes relating to Neferneferuaten however reads “effective for her husband.”

The association between Ankhkheperure and Akhenaten is more evident than that between Akhenaten and Smenkhkare.   As well as the cartouches and epithets, her name too was found on the fragmentary linen box, and yet more objects bearing her name or traces thereof were found in the tomb of Tutankhamun.

Ankhkheperure seems to have set about starting to implement changes to the reforms of her predecessor, perhaps having seen or been advised of the collateral damage that had been caused by the reforms and religious upheaval that had had been caused in the previous decade or so. Akhenaten had implemented a cultural reform that affected the constitution of Egypt.  This wasn’t just a fancy or a new cult. It wasn’t just the pharaoh changing his name nor deciding to encourage a new design of fashioning sculpture or art. It cannot be understated that the cult of Akhenaten was so vehemently anti-Amun, shown by his endeavours to obliterate of the name of Amun from temples, to the chiseling out of the sacred goose of Amun from various monuments.  The knock-on effect caused such outcry that any lingering memory of his actions would be condemned for generations thereafter.

The centre rail of the broken wooden box found in the

tomb of Tutankhamun, with the names of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare.

After the end of the reign of Akhenaten, it is indeed possible that the Royal family still continued to privately worship the Aten; however a graffito from Year 3 of the reign of Ankhkheperure makes mention of  “offerings of Amun in the temple of Ankhkheperure at Thebes”.  This at least suggests some attempt at the start of effecting reconciliation with the old religion. The offerings referred to were possibly made at Ankhkheperure’s morturary temple. It is significant that these offerings are being made to Amun (of who’s worship had been just recently been proscribed), and at Thebes, the former, traditional capital and centre of worship.  The complete inscription is quoted below, and evidently is valuable to the historian on numerous levels, reading:

“Year 3, 3rd month of the Inundation, day 10. The king of Upper and Lower Egypt, lord of the Two Lands, Ankhkheprure - beloved of Aten, son of Re, Nefereneferuaten, beloved of Waenre ... Giving praise to Amun, kissing the ground before Onnophris by the wab-priest and scribe of divine offerings of Amun in the temple of Ankhkheprure in Thebes, Pawah, born to Itefseneb."

The season of the Inundation (or Akhet) is the first season of Ancient Egyptian lunar calendar, marked by the rising of the Nile, and consisting of four months.  The wab-priest refers simply to a priest who was seated, holding his arms in adoration before a god or gods.  Pawah appears to served as a minor priest of Amun.

One of the most extraordinary factors in all this is the nomination of a woman as co-regent or pharaoh, whether by Akhenaten or Smenkhkare, over and above Tutankhamun, following the death of her predecessor.  If it is the body of Akhenaten discovered in Tomb KV55, it seems even more extraordinary, and a change in royal protocol not to have named his [nameless] sister Chief Royal wife over Nefertiti, and their son as his immediate heir.  The identity of this sister is a further enigma in this already convoluted history. The current suggestion made is that she is Nebetah, one of the younger daughters of the union between Amenhotep III and Tiye, or Baketaten (who may or may not be their daughter).  The three eldest daughters – Sitamun, Isis, and Henuttaneb having previously ceremonially married their father, but it is believed that Tiye may have given birth  to up to eight daughters. Together with two, possibly three, sons. Certainly Ankhkheperure’s co-regency with Akhenaten seems to imply that Tutankhamun was not the son, nor grandson, of Akhenaten. By this rule of thumb, the same logic might apply to the familial relationship between Akhenaten and Smenkhkare.

Like Smenkhkare, the identity of Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten cannot be pinpointed with certainty and to date, continues to remain a mystery.  Her gender seems to have been female, owing to the feminine nature and usage of her epithets, and the reportings of Manetho seem to correspond with the facts.   She most certainly was a member of the royal family.  Expects have speculated that she could have been either Nefertiti, or one of her daughters, either Meritaten or Neferneferuaten Tasherit. 

Adding to the confusion is the “Coregency Stela”; a fragmentary stela consisting of seven fragments, made of limestone, found at Amarna, and currently housed in the Petrie Museum, London.  On the stele are the figures of Akhenaten, Nefertiti, and Meritaten.  However, at some point after the completion of the stela, the name of Nefertiti appears to have been chiselled out and replaced by the titles of Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten.  Contemporary to this embellishment of Nefertiti’s titles are those of Meritaten, with her name being replaced by that of her younger sister, Ankhesenpaaten (later Ankhesenamun).  The enigma as to why Nefertiti, clearly a feminine figure, should have her name replaced by Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten, a throne name for a king, remains mysterious and unresolved to this day. Equally mysterious is the replacing of the name of one daughter, Meritaten, with that of another daughter. 

A calcite vase, found in the tomb of Tutankhamun,

with the names of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare, erased in antiquity.

Rolf Krauss has proposed that the identity of Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten to be Meritaten, eldest daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti; previously attributed with having performed the role of Chief Royal Wife to Ankhkheperure (as well as Smenkhkare previously), rather than being the king per se.  Krauss initially draws on the evidence as presented by Manetho as Meritaten’s being  of “the king’s daughter”;  followed by an interpretation of her “brother” as being, in fact, her brother in law (if not, her half brother as well) as succeeding her to the throne of Egypt soon after her death.  What renders this theory dubious is that Meritaten never seems to have been accorded a status higher than as King’s daughter. Certainly her position never eclipsed that of her mother, nor even one of the king’s secondary wives, Kiya, described as “Greatly Beloved wife”.

Far more convincing evidence to the identity of Ankhkheperure has been proposed by James Harris, given further weight by Nicholas Reeves, and ties in with the belief that Ankhkheperure was a woman.  Harris’ theory being that the disappearance of Nefertiti several years before the end of Akhenaten’s reign was not due to disgrace as suggested by some, nor due to death, but to the queen was elevated to the status of co-regent. This was a progressive step up from the high standing that the previous queen, the mighty Tiye, appears to shared with her husband, Amenhotep III.  Previously, Nefertiti adopted a prefix to her name, now called Neferneferuaten Nefertiti, however she abandoned this name and adopted, as co-regent, the kingly name of Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten.  The presence of the “Neferneferuaten” element to both individuals names suggests a sense of unity between both, lending itself to the idea that one was quite probably the same as the other, just operating under different names.  The fact that that feminine elements and epithets occur alongside the name of Ankhkhepure seem to corroborate this idea.

Akhenaten seems to have undertaken a determined effort to produce a male heir so as to continue his reforms.  His marriage to Nefertiti was fruitful, and certainly by Year 12, he is shown as having six daughters by Nefertiti.  One of his secondary wives, Kiya, the “Greatly Believed Wife” provided him a further daughter whose name has been lost.  Kiya was once thought to have attained this title as being responsible for having delivered the son and heir, Tutankhamun. Marc Gabolde has proposed that this daughter of Kiya to be Baketaten, who appears with Queen Tiye in a relief showing the workshop of the royal sculptor, Iuty.  Akhenaten appears to have turned to his own daughters, Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten for issue, and through them was responsible for two further daughters, Meritaten Tasherit and Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit respectively (the term “Tasherit” meaning “The Younger” or “Junior”, in modern parlance). These children were born before the end of Akhenaten’s reign, and it appears that it is likenesses of Kiya and her daughter were usurped and replaced with the names and titles of Akhenaten’s daughters.  These granddaughters can be named as being his daughters owing to the quite specific titles they both receive. They are named as being “King’s daughter of his body, his desired Meritaten [or Ankhesenpaaten] the younger,  born of the King’s daughter of his body, his desired Meritan [or Ankhesenpaaten], born of the Chief Royal Wife Nefertiti Neferneruaten, living.“  A further daughter, Meketaten, may have had a sexual union with her father, being shown to have died in childbirth, in reliefs found in the Royal Tomb at Amarna.  Akhenaten would certainly be following the precedent set by his father in marrying his three eldest daughters, and no husband of the young Meketaten is known.  Akhenaten need not have married his daughters to bestow upon them the role of Chief Royal Wife, as the “King’s daughter” was certainly not without prestige and still kept the royal blood pure, and were any sons born of the union, they would still be afforded the title of “King’s son of his body”, thereby making them heirs to the throne.  The paternity of these daughters being ascribed to Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun seems unlikely, Tutankhamun having been too young and Smenkhkare is not mentioned as being the husband of Meritaten until after her appearance at the Window of Appearances in place of her mother; Nefertiti.

Neferneferuaten and her sister on a fragment of a wall painting.

One final suggestion has been proposed as to the identity of Ankhkheperure tied in directly to the nomen Neferneferuaten.  It has been suggested that the usage of this title was related to its bestowal upon Nefertiti later into the reign of her husband, but often overlooked is that the couple had amongst their daughters one named Neferneferuaten Tasherit.  It has been proposed that the practice among pharaohs was to use the name that he or she bore before his/her coronation.  Her sisters had not been successful in providing their father with a male heir, and if she were co-regent, any son born of their union would have its claims further substantiated.  Once crowned, her sister, Meritaten, could act as her consort or “Chief Royal Wife”, and her other sister, Ankhesenpaaten, as the “King’s eldest daughter”. 

Upon his ascension to the throne, Tutankhamun appears to have still used the “Aten variant” of his name, viz. Tutankhaten, as a number of objects in his tomb are testament.  A small crook and flail with the frail bearing the name of Tutankheten.  Probably the most splendid is Golden Throne, with the image of king and consort, under the rays of the solar disc. The figures depicted appear to be neither Tutankhamun nor Ankhesenamun though, as the names in the cartouches would appear to have been subject to alteration twice; once from the earlier “Aten variants” of the king and queen’s names (indeed, those versions are still found on the throne’s arms).  Their cartouches superimpose others inscribed beneath, a safe assumption can be made of different individuals.  Both king and queen are seen wearing rather elaborate and ornate headpieces; an atef crown and a feathered headdress respectively.  These headpieces are shown cutting through, eradicating the rays emanating from the solar disc above. 

The existence of Tutankhamun is attested prior to his ascension to the throne. His likeness does not appear in any of the Amarna tombs, as it was not common practice to depict sons in artwork.  A tenuous suggestion has been made that Tutankhamun is the baby which is being breast fed by a wet-nurse in one of the scenes, but this supposition remains unproven either way, all that can be said with any clarity is that an infant in the royal household is being suckled at its nurses breast.  The identity of the baby remains unknown.  A block survives at Hermopolis with the inscription “the king’s son of his body, his desired, Tutankaten”, the term “son” however can refer to a son, a grandson, or even a son in law. Certainly Tutankhaten/Tutankhamun would have been Akhenaten’s son in law if he were already married to Ankhesenpaaten/Ankhesenamun at this point in time.  Or this royal paternity could relate to the enigmatic Smenkhkare.  Ankhesenpaaten is also mentioned on this block, cited as the “king’s daughter of his body, his desired, the greatly blessed one of the lord of the two lands, [Ankhesenpa]aten.”  Both individuals are seen to face one another, suggesting some form of union between the two. 

Despite the subsequent fame that Tutankhamun has attained since the discovery of his tomb in the twentieth century, despite his royal status and the significant reforms he implemented to undo the changes made by his predecessor(s), his role in the grand scheme of Egyptian history is largely insignificant.  Yet his tomb has proved paradoxical in nature; inasmuch that such a rich and exquisite trove should be found, crowded into such a small, unassuming tomb.  Based upon other objects discovered in other tombs and environs, it seems apparent that the majority of the effects in found in his tomb are par excellence. Quality is as apparent as quantity in terms of objects.  

Nicholas Reeves has suggested that the magnificence of the burial treasure found with Tutankhamun and its being deposited in such a miserable little tomb is not unconnected with the fact that a number of the objects interred with the king were not made with him in mind, and though their precise, intended owners cannot be established, they were certainly designed with either Akhenaten, Smenkhkare or Ankhkheperure in mind.  These range from the one of the bows (no. 48h), the stoppers of the canopic jars (nos. 266c-f), to the mummy bands (no. 256b).  In some cases the cartouches removed and/or replaced, in others the names of the original owners are still there. Indeed, one of the statuettes ascribed to Tutankhamun has such distinctly feminine features, breasts and wider hips, that it is doubtless that of a woman.  Other “recycled” items, rather than “heirlooms” include the gold shrine surrounding the sarcophagus bearing epithets of Akhenaten, the difference in the facial physiognomy on the second coffin, and the feminine design of most of the canopic equipment containing the king’s viscera. 

Recently, and perhaps most staggering of all, is an entirely believable suggestion made by Reeves tells of another hugely important object having been appropriated by Tutankhamun for his burial; that object being his gold death mask (no. 256a). The suggestion has been made that the majority of the mask, as seen today, was not actually designed for Tutankhamun at all, but only the face. This could explain why the face is made from a different, inferior quality of gold to the rest of the mask, also why the blue inlays of the mask are of glass for the headdress and main body, whereas on the face are fashioned from stone i.e. lapis lazuli. If the mask was all constructed at the same time, not even taking into account the timescale(see below) in which the goldsmiths would have had to fashion the object, it seems unusual to have constructed it from differing materials.  In addition, Reeves draws attention to the pierced ears on the mask, whereby pierced ears were common in the art of pharaohs who had not yet reached puberty, these piercings were replaced by dimples in the imagery of boys having reached adulthood.  The suggestion that the mask was made for Tutankhamun as a child can disputed as the mask and coffin (bearing the dimpled ears of an adult male) are full-sized, not for a constructed for a pubescent child. Other goods found in close proximity to the mask were equally fashioned for someone else other than Tutankhamun; the aforementioned mummy bands,  a resin scarab, the gold hands holding a crook and flail.  The underside of these objects show that they were inscribed for a different pharaoh: his predecessor, Ankhkheperure Neferneruaten.

Canopic coffinette of Tutankhamun,

originally made for Ankhkheprure.

To expand upon Reeves’ theory, and given that Tutankhamun died comparatively young, whether due to foul play, to sickle cell decease, or the most recent suggestion of malaria, it would have been an unforeseen eventuality. Following death, the body had the obligatory seventy or so days as part of the mummification process, hence burial goods and materials would be required, and quickly, to afford the king a decent burial with funeral goods befitting his station.  Hence, a small tomb was employed, though a larger one appears to have been prepared.  Equipment from his predecessors, perhaps adorned with heretical images of the Aten, could be used as a ready source of bullion.  Or the objects could be appropriated, cartouches renamed and adjusted accordingly, with the names and titles of Tutankhamun.  Evidently some of the objects ended up this way. Others may well have ended up deposited in the cache in KV55, certainly one of the splendid gilded panels from the funerary shrine of queen Tiye seems to have been; doubtless once been an object of outstanding beauty and an exceptional example of Amarnan art.   

Smenkhkare and Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten were considered up until recently still considered by some to be one individual, not least Aiden Dodson, and indexed under the name of the sole personage of Smenkhkare.  This confusion was compounded as both kings were to marry the daughter of Akhenaten, Meritaten, and make her their chief Royal Wife respectively.  Evidence now seems to point to the fact that we are dealing with two distinct individuals, and certainly (at least) one of them was a female pharaoh.  Writing many years later, Manetho writes of a female pharaoh during this period.  She is named Akenkeres, a “King’s daughter” and who he states ruled Egypt for twelve years and one month.  Manetho was unreliable with transcribing the Egyptian names, showing inconsistency and possible confusion over which of the kings names he chose to record.  Scholars have debated as to whether the “Akenkeres” of Manetho is a transcriptional error of Ankhkheperure.  

At least one, if not both, of the individuals might well have served as a co-regent alongside Akhenaten.  The only evidence of a co-regency between Smenkhkare and Akhenaten is mentioned above, and this is not conclusive proof.  A small block, depicting a smaller figure that might well be that of Smenkhkare, alongside a larger figure (possibly that of Akhenaten) has been found at Memphis.  The ends of his cartouches, and possibly those of his consort, Meritaten are found on the same block from which this identification has been based.  These assumptions are based on drawings of the original blocks.

In addition, there exists an unfinished Amarnan stela, made for a military official named Pase, depicting two kings, both crowned, seated under the life giving rays of the Aten, with one affectionately touching beneath the chin of the other.  Previously, this stele provoked concern and distaste, when published in 1928 by Percy Newberry.  The unfinished image appeared to suggest that Akhenaten was in fact a homosexual, having abandoned the beautiful Nefertiti, and replaced her with a male consort in the shape of the younger Smenkhkare.  This hypothesis of an “unwholesome” relationship between the king and his favourite has since been dismissed as being wide of the mark. John R. Harris published that the problem with identification as being of two kings lies in the number of cartouches located on the stele. Two pairs are located on either side of Aten to contain its name and titles, leave just three blank.  Two would have been for the king’s titles leaving just one, presumably to carry the cartouche of the queen.  James P. Allen proposed that this nonetheless is a representation of the female pharaoh, Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten.  Also the question has been raised as to whether the scene is taken from when both individuals were alive, as it was not unusual to depict a living pharaoh with his dead predecessor. The intimacy of the pose suggests that the depiction is of Akhenaten, still alive, suggesting that the reigns of the kings depicted were at the very least, partly contemporary.

The unfinished stele of Pase, depicting two figures,

believed to be Akhenaten and Nefertiti, both wearing the crowns of Egypt.

The female pharaoh in the writings of Manetho, Akenkeres is listed as being succeeded by her brother, Rathotis, who reigned for nine years.  Scholars assume that “Rathotis” to be Tutankhamun; examinations of his mummy have shown him to have been around 18-19 years old at the time of death, and wine jars in his tomb list up to at least nine full years on the throne, so it’s likely he ruled just over ten years in total.  Neither Ankhkheperure nor Smenkhkare’s age at death can be given nor ascertained with any degree of certainty.  If the body in KV55 is indeed that of Smenkkare, debates and disagreements between experts continue to rage as to the age of the body.  The body is that of a younger brother to Akhenaten, who fulfilled royal protocol by marrying his sister, who delivered a son.  As for Tutankhamun’s mother’s age, the younger lady’s remains in KV35 show her to have been in her mid twenties when she died.  British Egyptologist Joann Fletcher initially proposed the remains were those of Nefertiti, but DNA analysis has proved the contrary.  Events surrounding the lady’s death are more compelling; her face bears a large wound to the left side around her mouth and cheek, destroying part of the jaw.  Previously this was thought to have occurred post-mortem as an act of vandalism by tomb robbers, yet recent analysis has shown the assault as having occurred prior to death, most like to have been a fatal and agonising injury.

Ultimately, the attempts by Horemheb to eradicate the memory of his predessors indeed has proved to be largely successful. Since 1922, historians have acquired and attained new information, in substantial depth, of this otherwise still very blurred, obscure era, with many questions still unanswered.   Over the years, only one further tomb (KV63) has thus far been uncovered, at the start of the twenty-first century, in the Valley of the Kings.  Contained therein were numerous unused coffins and funerary and embalming goods from the period of the 18th dynasty, including pillows, which may have formed part of the mummification process or rituals.  Also found are important objects involved in the various magic rituals, such as the “Opening of the Mouth” by the kings successor.  

As is often the case with speculative history, one hypothesis might very well answer particular questions, but with those answers, further confusion relating to other events or personalities in this drama tends to arise.  Even with the most recent DNA findings; finally ascertaining the parentage of Tutankamun, experts are still are no clearer to attributing an exact name to either his mother nor his father, two of the children of Amenhotep III (whom Tutankhamun described as “his father”) and Queen Tiye.  If Smenkhkare were to indeed to be the father of Tutankhamun, and by extension the body in KV55; the extraordinary fact exists that his son did not afford him a respectable burial.  A burial apparantly without any honours, nor surviving funerary goods, in his name.  A father, and a king, whose destiny was to end up with his body placed in an undecorated tomb, enclosed in a usurped woman’s coffin (most likely that of Kiya), with excised cartouches and its face savagely torn off; surrounded by abandoned, seemingly unused funerary goods of others. These goods included such paraphernalia as empty canopic jars, magic bricks bearing the name of Akhenaten, and with a vulture pectoral bent (once believed to be a "crown") and placed upon his head.  If the body is that of Akhenaten; it is a sad, sorry end for one of history’s most written about, yet little known, kings of the past four thousand years.

References and Further Reading.

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

Allen, J.P. 2006. The Amarna Succession. In Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murname

Brier, B. 1998. The Murder of Tutankamen: A true story. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Davis, T. M. 1910. The Tomb of Queen Tiyi. London

Desroches-Noblecourt, C. 1963. Tutankhamen: Life and Death of a Pharoah. Penguin Books, London.

Dodson, A. 2009. Amarna Sunset: Nefertiti, Tutankhamun, Ay, Horemheb and the Egyptian Counter-Reformation. Cairo, American University in Cairo Press.

Dodson, A. and Hilton, D. 2004. The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. London and New York: Thames and Hudson.

Fletcher, J.2004. The Search for Nefertiti.  London, Harper Collins

Hawass, Z. et alia. 2010. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family. JAMA.   

Krauss, R. 1978. Das Ende der Amarnazeit. Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge, Hildeshiem.

Reeves, N. 1990. The Complete Tutankhamun: The King, The Tomb, The Royal Treasure. London: Thames and Hudson.

Reeves, N. 2001. Egypt’s False Prophet: Akhenaten. London: Thames and Hudson.

Smith, G. E. 1991 (reprinted). The Royal Mummies.  London: Duckworth.

Tyldesley, J. 1998. Nefertiti. London, Penguin Books.

Van Dijk, J. 2006. The Death of Meketaten. In Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murname