Causing His Name to Live

Culture and History of the

Ancient Near East

Founding Editor
M. H. E. Weippert

Editor-in-Chief
Thomas Schneider

Editors
Eckart Frahm, W. Randall Garr, B. Halpern,
Theo P. J. van den Hout, Irene J. Winter

VOLUME 37
William J. Murnane 1945–2000
Causing His Name to Live
Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History
in Memory of William J. Murnane

Edited by

Peter J. Brand and Louise Cooper

LEIDEN • BOSTON
2009
This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Causing his name to live : studies in Egyptian epigraphy and history in memory of William J. Murnane /
edited by Peter J. Brand and Louise Cooper.
p. cm. — (Culture and history of the ancient Near East, ISSN 1566-2055)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-17644-7 (hard cover : alk. paper)
1. Egypt—History—New Kingdom, ca. 1550-ca. 1070 B.C—Sources. 2. Egypt—History—To 332 B.C.—
Sources. 3. Inscriptions, Egyptian. 4. Egypt—Antiquities. I. Brand, Peter James. II. Murnane, William J.
III. Title. IV. Series.

DT87.C34 2009
932’.014—dc22
2009020675

ISSN: 1566-2055
ISBN: 978 90 04 17644 7

Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

 table of contents v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Bibliographical Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A Fond Remembrance: William Joseph Murnane, Jr. March 22, 1945–November 17,
2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Lorelei H. Corcoran

The Amarna Succession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

James P. Allen

Note archéologique et épigraphique sur les architraves de la grande salle hypostyle du

temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Michel Azim et Vincent Rondot

Usurped Cartouches of Merenptah at Karnak and Luxor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Peter J. Brand

Quantifying Regalia: A Contextual Study into the Variations and Significance of Egyptian
Royal Costume Using Relational Databases and Advanced Statistical Analyses . . . . . . . . . 49
Amy Calvert

The Long Coregency Revisited: Architectural and Iconographic Conundra in the Tomb of
Kheruef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Peter F. Dorman

The Death of Meketaten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Jacobus van Dijk

Images of Amenhotep IV and Nefertiti in the Style of the Previous Reign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Earl L. Ertman

Two Semi-Erased Kushite Cartouches in the Precinct of Mut at South Karnak . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Richard A. Fazzini

Un assemblage au nom d’Amenemhat Ier dans les magasins du temple de Louxor . . . . . . . . . 103
Luc Gabolde

Under a Deep Blue Starry Sky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Marc Gabolde

The Festival on Which Amun Went out to the Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Helen Jacquet-Gordon

A Sandstone Relief of Tutankhamun in the Liverpool Museum from the Luxor Temple
Colonnade Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
W. Raymond Johnson
vi table of contents

Egyptian New-Kingdom Topographical Lists: An Historical Resource with “Literary”

Histories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Kenneth A. Kitchen

A Reconstruction of Senwosret I’s Portico and Some Structures of Amenhotep I at

Karnak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
François Larché

The Land of Ramesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Donald B. Redford

Bibliography of William J. Murnane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
 bibliographical abbreviations
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS
ÄAT Ägypten und Altes Testament. Studien zu
Geschichte, Kultur und Religion Ägypten
und des Altes Testament. Wiesbaden
ADAIK Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäolo-
gischen Instituts Kairo. Ägyptologische
Reihe. Hamburg and New York
AO Acta Orientalia. Copenhagen
ASAE Annales du Service des Antiquités de
L’Égypte. Cairo
ASE Archaeological Survey of Egypt.
London
BÄBA Beiträge zur ägyptischen Bauforschung
und Altertumskunde. 11 vols (Cairo,
Zurich & Wiesbaden: Schweizerisches
Institut für ägyptische Bauforschung und
Altertumskunde in Kairo, 1938-1997)
Barguet, Barguet, P. Le temple d’Amon-rê à
Karnak Karnak (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Insti-
tut Français d’Archéologie Orientale,
1962)
BdE Bibliothèque d’Étude. Institut Français
d’Archéologie Orientale. Cairo
BES Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar. New
York
BIE Bulletin de l’Institut Égyptien. Alexan-
dria.
BIFAO Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Ar-
chéologie Orientale. Cairo
BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis. Leiden
BMMA Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of
Art. New York
BSEG Bulletin de la Société d’Égyptologie de
Genève. Geneva
BSFE Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyp-
tologie. Paris
CG/CGC Catalogue général des antiquités égypti-
ennes du Musée du Caire. Cairo
CdÉ Chronique d’Égypte. Brussels
Champol- Champollion, J.F. Notices descrip-
lion, ND tives conformes aux manuscrits autographes
rédigés sur les lieux par Champollion le
Jeune. 2 vols (Paris: Didot, 1844-1889)
EEF/EES Egypt Exploration Fund/Society.
London
EEM Egypt Exploration Society Memoir.
London
ERC Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Paris.
FIFAO Fouilles de l’Institut Français d’Ar-
chéologie Orientale du Caire. Cairo
Gauthier, Gauthier, H. Dictionnaire des noms
vii
DG géographiques contenus dans les textes
hiéroglyphiques (Cairo: Société Royale
de Géographie d’Égypte, 1925-1931)
Gauthier, Gauthier, H. Le Livre des rois d’Égypte,
LdR recueil de titres et protocoles royaux I-V.
MIFAO 17-21 (Cairo: Imprimerie de
l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orien-
tale, 1907-1917)
GM Göttinger Miszellen: Beiträge zur ägyp-
tologische Diskussion. Göttingen
HÄB Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Bei-
träge. Hildesheim
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal. Tel Aviv
IFAO Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.
Cairo.
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society.
New Haven
JARCE Journal of the American Research Center
in Egypt. Boston & New York
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.
London
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chi-
cago
JSSEA Journal of the Society for the Study of
Egyptian Antiquities. Toronto
Karnak Cahiers de Karnak. 12 vols (Paris: ERC,
1980—present). Centre Franco-égyptien
d’études des temples de Karnak.
Key Plans Nelson, H. H. Key Plans Showing Loca-
tions of Theban Temple Decorations. OIP
56 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1941)
KMT KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient
Egypt.
KRI I-VII Kitchen, K. A. Ramesside Inscriptions, His-
torical and Biographical. I-VII (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1969-1990)
LÄ I-VII Helck, W. et al. Lexikon der Ägyptologie.
7 vols (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,
1972-1992)
LD Lepsius, K. R. Denkmäler aus Ägypten
und Äthiopien. Abteilung I-VI in 12
vols (Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung,
1849-1858 & reprint Geneva: Éditions de
Belles-Lettres, 1973)
LDT Lepsius, K. R. Denkmäler aus Ägypten und
Äthiopien: Texte. I-IV (eds.). Naville, E.
et al. (Berlin & Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897-
1913)
MÄS Münchener Ägyptologische Studien.
Berlin & Munich
MDIK/ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäo-
viii bibliographical abbreviations

MDAIK logischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo. Wb. Erman, A. & Grapow, H. Wörterbuch
Cairo der ägyptischen Sprache. 6 vols (Berlin:
MIFAO Mémoires publiés par les membres de Akademie-Verlag, 1926-1963)
l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orien- WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen
tale. Cairo der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
MMAF Mémoires publiés par les membres de ZÄS Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und
la Mission Archéologique Française au Altertumskunde. Leipzig & Berlin
Caire. Cairo ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländis-
MMJ Metropolitan Museum Journal. New York chen Gesellschaft. Lepzig
and Cairo
NARCE Newsletter of the American Research
Center in Egypt. New York Other Abbreviations
OIP Oriental Institute Publications. Chi-
cago ad loc. ad locum, at the location of
OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. ARCE American Research Center in Egypt.
Leuven Cairo
OLZ Orientalische Literatur Zeitung. Berlin cat. catalog entry number
PM I-VII Porter, B. & Moss, R. L. B. Topographical cf. confer
Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hiero- CFEETK Centre Franco-égyptien d’études des
glyphic Texts Reliefs and Paintings. 7 vols temples de Karnak. Luxor, Egypt.
(Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1927-1952) chpt(s). chapter(s)
PM I-III.22 Porter, B., Moss, R. L. B., Burney, E. W. cm. centimeter
& Málek, J. Topographical Bibliography CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scien-
of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, tifique. Paris
Reliefs and Paintings. 3 vols. second edi- EAP Egyptian Antiquities Project. ARCE.
tion (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1960- Cairo
1978) e.g. exempli gratia, for example
RecTrav Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et ed(s). editor(s)
à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes. et al. et alii, and others
Paris fasc. fascicle
RdE Revue d’Égyptologie. Cairo and Paris ff. and following pages
RIK I-IV Epigraphic Survey. Reliefs and Inscriptions fig(s). figure(s)
at Karnak Temple. 4 vols (Chicago: Uni- ibid. ibidem, in the same place
versity of Chicago Press, 1936-1986) idem. by the same author
RILT 1-2 Epigraphic Survey. Reliefs and Inscrip- i.e. id est, that is
tions at Luxor Temple. 2 vols (Chicago: IFAO L’institut Français d’Archéologie Orien-
University of Chicago Press, 1994-98). tale. Cairo
RITANC Kitchen, K. A. Ramesside Inscriptions, JE Journal d’Entrée, Egyptian Museum,
I-II Translated and Annotated: Notes and Cairo
Comments. 2 vols (Oxford: Blackwell, KV Kings’ Valley
1993-1999) m. meter
RITA I-II Kitchen, K. A. Ramesside Inscriptions, n.d. no date
Translated and Annotated: Translations. neg. photographic negative
2. vols (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993-1994) n(n). note(s)
SAK Studien zur Altägyptische Kultur. Ham- no(s)./ n° number(s)
burg op.cit. opus citatum, the work cited
SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization. pl(s). plate(s)
Chicago QV Queens’ Valley
TTS Tutankhamūn Tomb Series. Ox - SR Special Register, Egyptian Museum,
ford Cairo
Urk. IV Sethe, K. & Helck, W. Urkunden des s.v. sub verbo, under the heading of
aegyptischen Altertums IV. Urkunden TN Temporary Number, Egyptian Museum,
der 18. Dynastie. Hefte 1-22 (Leipzig & Cairo
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1908-1909, TT Theban Tomb
1927-1930 & 1955-58) trans. translated by
VA Varia Agyptiaca. San Antonio viz. videlicet, namely
 list of figures ix

LIST OF FIGURES

James P. Allen
Fig. 1. Inscription on Jar 405 from the Tomb of Tutankhamun.
Fig. 2. Inscription on Box 1k from the Tomb of Tutankhamun.
Fig. 3. Stela Berlin 17813.
Fig. 4. Unfinished Stela Berlin 20716.
Fig. 5. Block from Hermopolis naming Tutankhamun and [Ankhesenpa]aten.
Fig. 6. Nurse and Child from Room Gamma.

Michel Azim et Vincent Rondot

Fig. 1. Plan du magasin SB au sud de la salle hypostyle (relevé V. Rondot, mai 1983).
Fig. 2. La salle hypostyle vue depuis le sud en 1912 avec, devant sa porte latérale, plusieurs des grands blocs
descendus par Legrain ; on notera, au premier tiers gauche de la photographie, la présence des deux
dernières demi-architraves reposant sur le mur sud (Collection M. Pillet, CNRS-MOM, 1912, inv..
B028-16).
Fig. 3. Nouvel établissement des textes des architraves N° 31, sup. et 31, inf. (d’après V. RONDOT, Les
architraves, p. 18*).
Fig. 4. Photographie G. Legrain 1899. Archives Lacau A XX 12. Détail agrandi de l’architrave.
Fig. 5. Fac-similé schématique du texte lisible sur la photographie d’archives Lacau A XX 12.

Peter J. Brand
Fig. 1. Cartouches of Merenptah surcharged by Seti II from a war scene at the north end of the west exterior
wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak. The surface of the cartouche has not been cut back as have
others on this wall. Location: PM II2, p. 132 (491).
Fig. 2. Drawing of the same cartouche. No trace of Amenmesse’s name as claimed by Yurco was found after
repeated collations.
Fig. 3. Cartouches of Seti II carved over thoroughly erased originals from a gateway in central Karnak. Loca-
tion: PM II2, p. 95 (272). The original author in this case was Amenmesse based on traces from another
cartouche in the same series identified by Roy Hopper.
Fig. 4. Bandeau text from central Karnak usurped by Seti II. No trace of the original name can be detected,
although its original author is probably Merenptah. Location: PM II2, p. 88 (237).
Fig. 5. Bandeau text of Merenptah usurped by Amenmesse from a pier in the second court of the Rames-
seum. Location: PM II2, p. 435, pillar E(b); Leblanc et al., Le Ramesseum IX-1, pl. 9.
Fig. 6. Detail of figure 5. the prenomen cartouche usurped by Amenmesse. Traces of plaster used to cover
Merenptah’s titulary remain.
Fig. 7. Architrave fragment from the “Mansion of Nepkhepurure at Thebes” found at Karnak. The prenomen
of Ay was carefully erased by Horemheb while that of Tutankhamen was left intact. O. Schaden,
NARCE 127 (1984), p. 57, fig. 25-2.
Fig. 8. Another erased cartouche of Ay. Distinct traces of his prenomen can still be made out.
Fig. 9. Another architrave fragment from the “Mansion of Nebkhepurure at Thebes.” The distinctive epithets
of Ay’s Horus and Two Ladies names have been erased though traces remain. O. Schaden, NARCE
127 (1984), p. 56, fig. 7-2.
Fig. 10. Scene of Merenptah kneeling between the paws of a criosphinx from the north end of the east interior
wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak. Location: PM II2, p. 131 (482).
Fig. 11. Detail of figure 10. Merenptah’s names have been subject to hacking, but the damnatio memoriae was
never completed and no other royal names were carved in their stead.
Fig. 12. Seti II driving the four calves before Amen-Re in a scene from the west interior wall of the Cour de
la Cachette at Karnak. Location: PM II2, p. 132 (490, II.5).
Fig. 13. Detail of figure 12. cartouches and Horus name of Seti II carved over erased originals on the west
interior wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak.
x list of figures

Fig. 14. Erased cartouche of Merenptah surcharged by Seti II on a loose block from the war scenes on the west
exterior wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak. Le Saout, Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1987), p. 231.
Fig. 15. Drawing of figure 14. My own collation did not find as many traces of Merenptah’s prenomen as Le
Saout’s did. Cf. Le Saout, Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1987), p. 231.
Fig. 16. Erased marginal inscription of Merenptah along the base of the west interior wall of the Ramesside
forecourt at Luxor Temple beneath a procession of Ramesses II’s daughters. Location: PM II2, p. 308
(28).
Fig. 17. Erased marginal inscription of Merenptah along the base of the west half of the south wall of the
Ramesside forecourt at Luxor Temple beneath a procession of Ramesses II’s sons. A statue may have
once stood in front of the un-erased segment in the middle of the photo. Location: PM II2, p. 308
(30).
Fig. 18. Part of an erased marginal inscription of Merenptah below an intact one of Ramesses II from the west
wing of the facade of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor. The phrase sA Ra nb xaw has been incompletely
erased. More thorough was the treatment of the king’s nomen cartouche on the right, although the
mr-hoe and mAat-figure are discernable. Location: PM II2, p. 309 (31); Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl.
143A.
Fig. 19. Erased nomen cartouche of Merenptah from the east wing of the facade of the Colonnade Hall at
Luxor Temple. Cf. Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 143B.
Fig. 20. Part of a damaged and erased prenomen cartouche of Merenptah from the west wing of the facade of
the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple. Cf. Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 143A.
Fig. 21. Facimile drawings of erased cartouches of Merenptah on the facade of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor
Temple, after Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 143. Cf. fig.s 19-20.
Fig. 22. Erased bandeau text of Merenptah from the dado of the west interior wall of the Colonnade Hall
at Luxor Temple. Ramesses IV later carved another bandeau text in its place. The partially erased
ram-glyph of Merenptah’s prenomen is visible beneath the D-cobra at the left end of the photograph.
Location: PM II2, p. 314 (78); Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 173.
Fig. 23. Large cartouches of Seti II surcharged over erased ones of Merenptah on a column in the Colonnade
Hall at Luxor Temple. A Htp-sign is discernable beneath the group PtH of Seti’s nomen on the left.
None of these traces are shown in the Epigraphic Survey’s drawings of the columns. Cf. Epigraphic
Survey, RILT 2, pl. 194.
Fig. 24. A nomen cartouche of Seti II surcharged over an erased cartouche of Merenptah from marginal deco-
ration on a column in the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple. A diagonal line between the two reed
leaves may stem from a squatting deity figure in Merenptah’s nomen.
Fig. 25. An erased bandeau text of Merenptah from the base of the east interior wall of the solar court at Luxor
Temple. Location: PM II2, p. 317 (96).
Fig. 26. Block from the war scenes on the west exterior wall of the Cour de la Cachette showing Crown Prince
Seti riding in a chariot. The first part of the Prince’s titulary has been erased. Le Saout, Karnak 8 (Paris:
ERC, 1987), p. 232.
Fig. 27. Detail of fig 26. The erased protocol of Crown Prince Seti, iry-pat %wtXy.
Fig. 28. Partly hacked cartouches of Merenptah from a Cour de la Cachette block. The relief was later plastered
over by Seti II who cut a new inscription over it. The pattern of hacking to Merenptah’s cartouches
is consistent with an uncompleted damnatio memoriae by Amenmesse rather than keying for plaster
by Seti II prior to carving a new relief in its place. Cf. figs. 10-11.

Amy Calvert
Fig. 1. Detail of Medinet Habu Epigraphic Survey plate 121.
Fig. 2. Photograph of same showing preserved paint.
Fig. 3. Detail of Ramses III wearing feathered back apron.
Fig. 4. Detail of Ramses III wearing falcon shirt in battle.
Fig. 5. Ramses III wearing a falcon shirt.
Fig. 6. Detail of Ramses III in QV 55 wearing red textile shirt topped by a falcon shirt.
Fig. 7. Details of Ramses III at Medinet Habu showing preserved sections of red textile shirts.
Fig. 8. Ramses II wearing red textile shirt topped by a falcon shirt at his temple at Abydos.
Fig. 9. Example of high positive correlation: horns, feathers, and multiple uraei with nms.
Fig 10. Example of high negative correlation: fans and divine interaction.
Fig. 11. Main Layout: Pharaoh tab.
Fig. 12. Main Layout: Text tab.
 list of figures xi

Fig. 13. Main Layout: Context tab.

Fig. 14. Main Layout: Context tab with both types of actors.
Fig. 15. Main Layout: Divine actor screen (related to Fig. 14).
Fig. 16. Main Layout: Human actor screen (related to Fig. 14).
Fig. 17. Main Layout: Chariot tab.
Fig. 18. Main Layout: Visual tab.
Fig. 19. Dichotomous Layout.
Fig. 20. Search for images of the king wearing selected attributes.
Fig. 21. Results of search.
Fig. 22. Example of a ‘multi’ apron.
Fig. 23. Example of a ‘flanking’ apron.
Fig. 24. Early version of the Dichotomous Layout.

Peter F. Dorman
Fig. 1. Plan and section of the tomb of Kheruef. From Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pl. 3.
Fig. 2. Amenhotep IV offers a libation to his parents. From Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pl. 13.
Fig. 3. Schematic timeline for a hypothetical long coregency between Amenhotep III and Akhenaton.
Fig. 4. Lintel and upper jambs of the entrance doorway of the tomb of Kheruef. From Epigraphic Survey,
Kheruef, pl. 8.
Fig. 5. Lintel and upper jambs of the second doorway of the tomb of Kheruef. From Epigraphic Survey,
Kheruef, pl. 67.
Fig. 6. Usurped cartouches on the cornice of the doorway of the first pylon of Soleb Temple. From Schiff
Giorgini, et al., Soleb V: Le temple: bas-reliefs et inscriptions, pl. 23.

Jacobus van Dijk

Fig. 1. The so-called birth scene in Room γ of the Royal Tomb at Amarna
Fig. 2. Parallel scene in Room α of the Royal Tomb at Amarna
Fig. 3. A reconstruction by G. Legrain of the two columns of text inscribed in front of the woman holding
the child in Room γ
Fig. 4. G. T. Martin’s reconstruction of the same columns of text
Fig. 5. Martin’s drawing of the scene, including the two columns of text
Fig. 6. M. Gabolde’s reconstruction of the same columns of text
Fig. 7. New reconstruction of the same columns of text
Fig. 8. Detail of G. Jéquier’s photograph of the scene reconstructed in Fig. 7

Earl L. Ertman
Fig. 1. Amenhotep IV kissing the ground: Karnak talatat assemblage A 0081, after R. Vergnieux and M. Gon-
dran, Aménophis IV et les Pierres du soleil. Ahkénaton retrouvé (Paris: Arthaud, 1997), pp. 170-1.
Fig. 2. Nefertiti kissing the ground: Karnak talatat assemblage A 0081, after R. Vergnieux and M. Gondran,
Aménophis IV et les Pierres du soleil. Ahkénaton retrouvé (Paris: Arthaud, 1997), pp. 170-1.
Fig. 3. After the Epigraphic Survey, The Tomb of Kheruef, pl. 9.
Fig. 4. Brussels E 2157, relief of Tiy from the tomb of Userhet. Drawing by Elaine Taylor.
Fig. 5. Nefertiti in the Window of Appearances, TT 55, Tomb of Ramose. Photograph courtesy of George
Johnson.
Fig. 6. Nefertiti talatat ©CNRS/CFEETK—A. Bellod.

Richard A. Fazzini
Fig. 1. Detail of a Dynasty XXV stela found in front of the south wing of the Second Pylon of the Amun
Temple at Karnak. Photograph by B. V. Bothmer.
Fig. 2. The prenomen of Taharqa in the crypt under the main sanctuary of the Temple of Mut. Drawing by
J. van Dijk and R. Fazzini.
Fig. 3. Schematic plan by C. Van Siclen of the rear half of the Temple of Mut. The dotted line indicates the
Tuthmoside platform.
Fig. 4. The crypt under the main sanctuary of the Temple of Mut and the shaft before it. Photograph by M.
McKercher.
Fig. 5. Fragmentary offering table found at the bottom of the shaft before the crypt under the main sanctu-
ary of the Temple of Mut. Photograph by M. McKercher.
xii list of figures

Fig. 6a-b. Photograph and drawing of the front part of a cartouche of ^bA…found in the rear of Temple A.
Drawing by R. Fazzini. Photograph by M. McKercher.
Fig. 7. Two well-preserved faces in relief in the rear of Temple A. Photograph by M. McKercher.

Luc Gabolde
Fig. 1. Assemblage de blocs d’Amenemhat Ier dans les magasins du temple de Louxor

Marc Gabolde
Fig. 1. An inlay fragment of the ‘sky’-sign discovered among the finds from KV 55 (Egyptian Museum in
Cairo).
Fig. 2. Original inscription from the canopic jars of KV 55 with the titulary of Kiya (drawing by the author
based upon the reconstruction of Krauss, MDAIK 42 (1986), p. 72, Abbildung 7).
Fig. 3. First step of the erasure of the name of Kiya. Her titulary is hacked out and the ‘sky’ sign is cut.
Fig. 4. Second step of change: the right corner of the ‘sky’-sign is moved to the left and a calcite fragment is
inserted in its place.
Fig. 5. Reconstruction of the inscribed panel of the canopic jars from KV 55 in accordance with the identity
of the last owner.
Fig. 6. Last step of change, the remaining royal cartouches are erased and the ‘sky’-sign removed. Part of the
calcite inlay is broken during the process. The names of the god were removed as well to prevent any
confusion (the Aten could not have viscera).
Fig. 7. View of the panel after the last change. A fragment of the ‘sky’-sign was left in the tomb and recovered
later by the excavators.
Fig. 8. Schematic drawing of traces from the gold sheet fragment ‘D 6’ from the coffin from KV 55.
Fig. 9. Nomen from pectoral Carter 261 p 1. top, from left to right: enlarged detail scanned from the pho-
tography of T. G. H. James and A. De Luca, Toutankhamon (Paris: Gründ, 2000), p. 227; traces of
defaced and re-engraved cartouches; traces of re-engraved cartouche; traces of defaced cartouche;
bottom, from left to right, drawing of traces of both defaced and re-engraved cartouches; traces of
re-engraved cartouche; traces of defaced cartouche; reconstruction of original cartouche.
Fig. 10. Cartouche in Selkis coffinette (Carter 266g = JE 60691) line 7. top: scan from catalogue The Treasures
of Tutankhamun, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1976, cat. no. 45, between plates 26 and 27; middle
left: traces of both first and second engraved names; bottom left: traces of second engraved name;
middle right: traces of first engraved name; bottom right: reconstructed first name taking advantage
of the reading of Carter 261 p 1.

W. Raymond Johnson
Fig. 1. Liverpool Museum 1967.35. Courtesy of National Museums Liverpool (Liverpool Museum).
Fig. 2. The barge of Mut (detail of prow) being towed by the barge of the queen, Luxor Temple Colonnade
Hall western wall. photo by Ray Johnson.
 list of figures xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude to Richard Fazzini, who first suggested the idea of organizing a memo-
rial volume in honor of Bill Murnane in early 2001. He has given me his advice and support for the
project ever since. To Jacobus van Dijk, I am grateful for his assistance and encouragement in start-
ing the project as the initial coeditor, and later for securing Brill’s agreement to publish the work. I
am indebted, also, to my coeditor and doctoral student Louise Cooper for her invaluable editorial
and organizational contributions. Thanks also go to Jennifer Pavelko, my editor at Brill. I must also
express my profound gratitude to all of the contributors to this volume for their submissions and for
their patience and forbearance during the long publication process. Their contributions stand as a
fitting tribute to Bill Murnane’s eclecticism and insightfulness as a scholar. Finally, I am very grateful
to Bill’s sister, Annie Miles, and especially to his beloved mother, Marie Murnane, for their support
and encouragement.

Peter J. Brand
April 2009
xiv list of figures
 introduction
INTRODUCTION
For all who knew him, Bill Murnane’s unexpected
death in 2000 came as both a great shock and a
double tragedy. Not only had we suddenly lost
one of the foremost Egyptological scholars of his
generation, but a dear friend well known to col-
leagues around the world for his kindness and
generosity. Bill was unfailingly a gentleman who
freely gave of his time and expertise to all who
asked it, be they scholars, students, tourists or
members of the general public.
Even when engrossed in his fieldwork for the
Epigraphic Survey and later for his own Karnak
Hypostyle Hall Project, Bill was never too busy
to answer questions posed by tourists, respond-
ing in Arabic, English, French, German or Span-
ish depending on the questioner’s native tongue.
Having grown up in Venezuela, he spoke Spanish
fluently, and happily lent his expertise to Spanish
speakers, whether to give the wife of a high-rank-
ing Spanish dignitary a private tour of the Tomb
of Queen Nefertari or to advise a new Argentinean
expedition on their epigraphic work in the tomb
of Neferhotep in Gurnah in his final years.
Bill’s knowledge of Egyptology was encyclope-
dic. Simply put, he was a walking reference work
who could cite on demand relevant bibliography,
ancient textual references and monumental art
and inscriptions from his prodigious memory. He
loved to “talk shop” about all aspects of Ancient
Egyptian history, especially the Amarna Period.
Leisurely discussions over lunch and dinner,
during breaks in fieldwork or in his office after
class soon brought out his extensive lore on Egyp-
tology, always illustrated with funny anecdotes
about his own experiences and the many color-
ful personalities he encountered throughout his
career. One of his favorite stories was a hysteri-
cal account of how he once climbed the gebel in
Gurnah to sing the great love aria of Radames
from the opera Aida at sunset, only to incite
every dog on the west bank to barking. He was
then pinned down by gunfire from locals, who
presumed him to be a jackal, and he remained
1
One of his final contributions to scholarship was as
a panellist for the millenium debate on history writing in
Egyptology at the Eighth International Congress of Egyp-
tology held in Cairo in the spring of 2000. W.J. Murnane,
“Millennium Debate: Response to D.B. Redford,” in Egyp-
tology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century: Proceedings
1
stranded on the mountain overnight! Another of
his favorite “war stories” was how he and Charles
C. Van Siclen perfected the culinary art of “one
pot spaghetti,” by boiling the noodles in the
tomato sauce, during their expedition to record
the boundary stelae of Akhenaten at Amarna. All
who met him soon learned, too, of Bill’s great pas-
sion for Grand Opera. He once proudly confessed:
“I own fifteen complete recordings of Wagner’s
entire Ring cycle on vinyl records and CDs, not
including separate recordings of the individual
operas and discs with arias by various divas!”
Among Bill Murnane’s most appealing schol-
arly qualities were his rigorous approach to the
evidence and his open mindedness. These twin
virtues were especially important in his favorite
subject, the Amarna period. He would tell his
students: “remember, we’re having an ongoing
conversation about these issues; we’re not in the
business of revealing truth.” He was always willing
to reconsider the evidence and even change his
mind about cherished, long-held views. Bill was
a consummate field epigraphist who delighted
in such conundrums as usurped cartouches and
palimpsest inscriptions. He was also one of the
deans of history and historiography in Egyptol-
ogy, both as a thoughtful and meticulous scholar
and a passionate and devoted mentor to students
at the University of Memphis.1 Bill was a master
of applying epigraphic data and analysis to the
interpretation of Egyptian history. He could also
make the most arcane subjects accessible to wider
audiences of students, tourists and the public.
In explaining the complex succession of usurpa-
tions and recut inscriptions at Karnak during the
Ramesside Period, for example, he would often
quip: “the history of Egypt is the story of who did
what to whose monuments!”
Bill Murnane made huge contributions to the
recording and analysis of Egyptian monumen-
tal inscriptions through his tenure with the Epi-
graphic Survey of the University of Chicago2 and
through the Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall Project
of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists Cairo
2000, Vol. 2, History and Religion, eds. Z. Hawass and
L.P. Brock (Cairo: American University in Cairo Press,
2003), pp. 15-19.
2
Among the Epigraphic Survey’s volumes to which he
contributed through fieldwork and editorially are: Epigraphic
2 introduction
which he founded at the University of Memphis.3
Bill also took the initiative to edit, correct and
publish the complete set of Harold H. Nelson’s
drawings of the reliefs and hieroglyphic texts from
the interior wall scenes in the Karnak Hypostyle
Hall which had sat largely forgotten in the archives
of Chicago House after Nelson’s death.4
The bibliography of Bill’s works highlights
other contributions he made to the publication
and interpretation of ancient sources, especially
epigraphic data. These include publication of frag-
ments of an important inscription of Hatshepsut
from her famous Chapelle Rouge at Karnak and
a funerary cone from a New Kingdom private
tombs at Thebes.5 Most important is the volume
he co-authored with Charles C. Van Siclen con-
taining the definitive documentation, translation
and analysis of the texts of the several bound-
ary stelae of Akhenaten at Amarna with all their
editions and colophons.6 His work also called
attention to historically interesting temple reliefs
which often seem to hide in plain sight on the
walls of as yet unpublished Theban monuments,
Survey, The Temple of Khonsu I, Scenes of King Herihor in
the Court, OIP 100 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1979); idem, The Temple of Khonsu II, Scenes and Inscrip-
tions in the Court and the First Hypostyle Hall, OIP 103
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981); idem, The
Tomb of Kheruef: Theban Tomb 192, OIP 102 (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1980); idem, The Battle Reliefs
of King Sety I, RIK 4 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1985); idem, The Festival Procession of Opet in the Colonnade
Hall, RILT 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984);
idem, The Facade, Portals, Upper Register Scenes, Columns,
Marginalia, and Statuary in the Colonnade Hall, RILT 2
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). He is also
listed as a participant in the prepration of the Epigraphic
Survey’s latest volume: Medinet Habu IX, The Eighteenth
Dynasty Temple, Part I: The Inner Sanctuaries (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, forthcoming).
3
In addition to articles published during his lifetime
and after his death, some forthcoming volumes of the
Karnak Hypostyle Hall Project will be published in his
name: W.J. Murnane, “Egyptian Monuments and Histori-
cal Memory,” KMT 5.3 (Summer 1994), pp. 15-24, 88; idem,
“Ramesses I and The Building of the Great Hypostyle Hall
at Karnak Revisited,” Iubilate Conlegae: Egyptological Stud-
ies in Memory of A.A. Sadek, VA 10 (1995), pp. 163-168;
idem, “Reconstructing Scenes from the Great Hypostyle
Hall in the Temple of Amun at Karnak,” in Essays in
Honour of Prof. Dr. Jadwiga Lipińska, ed. A. Niwinsky and
A. Majewska, Warsaw Egyptological Studies vol. 1 (Warsaw:
Polish Academy of Sciences, 1997), pp. 107-117; idem†,
“A Forest of Columns: The Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall
Project,” KMT 12.3 (Fall 2001), pp. 50-59; idem†, P.J. Brand,
J. Karkowski, and R. Jaeschke, “The Karnak Hypostyle Hall
Project (1992-2002),”ASAE 78 (2004), pp. 79-127.
Currently in preparation are two further volumes:
W.J. Murnane†, P.J. Brand, The Great Hypostyle Hall in the
Temple of Amun at Karnak, Vol. 1, Part 2. The Wall Reliefs:
such as reliefs from the Triple Shrine at Luxor
and the Eighth Pylon at Karnak. His meticulous
and exacting approach to the documentation and
analysis of such inscriptions is reflected in his
study of erased figures of Tutankhamun on the
Third Pylon at Karnak.7
Bill Murnane made invaluable advances to our
understanding of the history and chronology of
pharaonic Egypt. Most fundamental was Ancient
Egyptian Coregencies (Chicago: Oriental Institute,
1977), his wide ranging study of this important
and controversial historical phenomenon from
the Old Kingdom down to the Roman emper-
ors who ruled Egypt in the guise of pharaohs.
He revisited the coregency debates concerning
the Middle and New Kingdom in several articles,
always keeping an open mind for new data and
interpretations and modifying some of his own
earlier conclusions.8 Sadly, a thoroughly revised
and updated edition of his first book was only in
the planning stages when he died.
Another important contribution was The
Road to Kadesh, SAOC 42 (Chicago: University
Translations and Commentary; and idem, Murnane† and
Brand, The Great Hypostyle Hall in the Temple of Amun
at Karnak, Vol. 2. The Gateways. Finally, his contribution
to an eventual publication of the war scenes of Ramesses
II on the south exterior wall of the Karnak Hypostyle Hall
will also be honored.
4
H.H. Nelson, The Great Hypostyle Hall in the Temple
of Amun at Karnak, Volume I, Part 1. The Wall Reliefs, ed.
W.J. Murnane, OIP 106 (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1981).
5
W.J. Murnane, “Unpublished Fragments of Hatshep-
sut’s Historical Inscription from Her Sanctuary at Karnak,”
Serapis 6 (1980), pp. 91-102; idem, “A Hitherto Unpublished
Funerary Cone,” GM 19 (1976), pp. 39-40.
6
W.J. Murnane and C.C. Van Siclen, The Boundary Stelae
of Akhenaten (London: Kegan Paul International, 1993).
7
W.J. Murnane, “The Bark of Amun on the Third Pylon
at Karnak,” JARCE 16 (1979), pp. 11-27; idem, “False Doors
and Cult Practices Inside Luxor Temple,” in Mélanges Gamal
Eddin Mokhtar Vol. II, ed. P. Posener-Kriéger (Cairo: Institut
Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire, 1985), pp. 135-
148; idem, “Tutankhamun on the Eighth Pylon at Karnak,”
VA 1 (1985), pp. 59-68.
8
E.g., W.J. Murnane, “The Hypothetical Coregency
Between Amenhotep III and Akhenaton: Two Observa-
tions,” Serapis 2 (1970), pp. 17-21; idem, “The Earlier Reign
of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” JNES 34
(1975), pp. 153-190; idem, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses
II: Two Addenda,” GM 19 (1976), pp. 41-43; idem, “In
Defense of Middle Kingdom Double Dates,” BES 3 (1981),
pp. 73-82; idem, J.P. Allen, J. van Dijk, “Further Evidence
for the Coregency of Amenhotep III and IV: Three Views
on a Graffito Found at Dahshur,”Amarna Letters 3 (1994),
pp. 26-31, 152; idem†, “Coregency,” Oxford Encyclopedia
of Ancient Egypt, vol. 1, ed. Donald B. Redford (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 307-311.
 introduction
of Chicago Press, 1985), Bill Murnane’s study
of Egypt’s relations with Western Asia from the
Amarna Period down to the early Nineteenth
Dynasty written to accompany the Epigraphic
Survey’s definitive edition of the Seti I battle
reliefs at Karnak. His masterful elucidation and
analysis of the complex range of evidence for the
origins of the Egyptian-Hittite conflict found in
the Amarna letters and in numerous other Egyp-
tian and Akkadian sources had, in Donald Red-
ford’s words, left us all in Bill’s debt. The book was
so successful that it quickly sold out and a second
revised edition was published in 1990.
Bill Murnane was one of the foremost experts
on the Amarna Period, as reflected in books
and articles published throughout his career. In
addition to his studies on the hotly debated core-
gency of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten and his
monograph on the Amarna Boundary Stelae, his
Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt (Atlanta:
Scholars’ Press, 1995), provides a comprehensive
set of excellent translations of important texts
from the reign of Amenhotep III down to that of
Horemheb together with a survey of the historical
problems of the Amarna age. A large corpus of
his articles and book reviews considered various
aspects of the age ranging from the accession date
of Akhenaten to the epigraphic complexities of
Soleb Temple and the enigmatic events at the end
of the Amarna Period.9
Among Bill’s other important contributions
to scholarship and the public’s knowledge of
Ancient Egypt are his excellent gazetteer The Pen-
guin Guide to Ancient Egypt (Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1983, revised 1996) which still enjoys
a wide following. Another is United With Eter-
nity: A Concise Guide to the Monuments of Medi-
net Habu (Cairo: American University in Cairo
Press,1980). The wealth of other scholarly articles
and book reviews is too numerous to survey here.
A final representative example of his meticulous
analysis and thought-provoking interpretations
of Egyptian history is his study of the introduc-
tion to Thutmose III’s Annals from Karnak. The
title of this gem also betrays a playful sense of
humor that could appear in even his most erudite
9
E.g., W.J. Murnane, “On the Accession Date of
Akhenaton,” in Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes, Janu-
ary 12, 1977, eds. J.H. Johnson and E.F. Wente, SAOC 39
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), pp. 163-167;
idem, “The Return to Orthodoxy,” in Pharaohs of the Sun,
eds. R. Freed, Y. Markowitz, and S. D’Auria (Boston: Museum
of Fine Arts, 1999), pp. 177-185; idem, “Soleb Renaissance:
3
work.10 A hallmark of all his writings was lucid
and elegant prose married to incisive, prescient
analysis of the evidence.
The essays in this volume reflect Bill Mur-
nane’s wide variety of interests, especially his-
torical and epigraphic issues. Lorelei H. Corcoran
offers a fond remembrance of Bill and his legacy
as a scholar and teacher based on the eulogy she
gave at his funeral in November 2000.
Subjects from the Amarna period loom large, as
they did in Bill’s own research and thinking, espe-
cially the events at the close of Akhenaten’s reign
and its aftermath. He would be delighted by the
studies devoted to his favorite period of Egyptian
history. James P. Allen investigates the complex
problem of the royal succession in a study Akhen-
aten’s three immediate successors, Smenkhkare,
the female pharaoh Neferneferuaten, and Tut-
ankhamun, as he reaches new conclusions about
the parentage of the latter. Peter Dorman revisits
the hotly debated coregency between Amenhotep
III and Akhenaten. Dorman uses the Theban tomb
of Kheruef as a lens through which he establishes a
chronological structure for Akhenaten’s reign and
tests the coregency against it. In an addendum, he
integrates the evidence from Soleb Temple into
this picture.
Jacobus van Dijk’s study on the death of Prin-
cess Meketaten reconsiders the funerary scenes
in room γ of the royal tomb at Amarna and gives
a new reconstruction of the broken text glossing
the figure of a nurse who caries an infant from
the death chamber. He concludes with a new
interpretation of who this infant represents. Earl
Eartman offers an art historical and iconographic
study on a representation of Nefertiti on a talatat
block from one of Akhenaten’s early temples at
Karnak which shows a continuity of artistic style
with the reliefs of Amenhotep III.
Marc Gabolde’s offering combines Bill Mur-
nane’s interests in the Amarna Period and monu-
mental epigraphy through a careful analysis of
erasures, alterations and usurpations of inscrip-
tions on three objects: a canopic jar and the golden
coffin from KV 55 and one of the gold coffinettes
from Tutankhamun’s burial. He identifies the
Reconsidering the Nebmaatre Temple in Nubia,” Amarna
Letters 4 (Fall, 2000), pp. 6-19, 160; idem†, “The End of the
Amarna Period Once Again,” OLZ 96 (2001), pp. 9-22.
10
W.J. Murnane, “Rhetorical History? The Beginning
of Thutmose III’s First Campaign in Western Asia,” JARCE
26 (1989), pp. 183-189.
4 introduction
original owners of all three objects and names the
individual buried in KV 55. W. Raymond Johnson
traces the history and original location of a frag-
ment of relief decoration of Tutankhamun now
in the collections of the Liverpool Museum.
Bill dedicated most of his professional life to
the scientific recording and interpretation of the
standing monuments of Thebes, especially the
temples of Karnak and Luxor, during his tenure
with the Epigraphic Survey and later with his own
Karnak Hypostyle Hall Project at the University
of Memphis. It is appropriate, then, that several
of the articles dedicated to his memory deal with
these same monuments to which he devoted so
many of his own energies.
Michel Azim and Vincent Rondot present
archaeological and epigraphic notes on a “lost”
architrave of the Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall.
Peter J. Brand examines cartouches of Merenptah
erased by Amenmesse and usurped by Seti II at
Karnak and Luxor.
Bill’s former graduate student Amy Calvert
gives a précis of her doctoral study on the use of
a computer database for analyzing the complex
iconography of royal costume in New Kingdom
temple reliefs from Medinet Habu and else-
where. Richard Fazzini considers two semi-erased
cartouches from Kushite monuments from the
precinct of Mut at Karnak Temple.
Luc Gabolde investigates a group of blocks from
the storage magazines of Luxor Temple inscribed
for Amenemhet I and their relevance to the early
history of Karnak temple. Helen Jacquet-Gordon
reconstructs the origins and history of the “Fes-
tival on which Amun went out to the Treasury”
which centered around the Treasury of Thutmose
I in North Karnak. François Larché presents a
major synthesis of a large corpus of archaeologi-
cal and epigraphic data to reconstruct the monu-
ments of Senwosret I and Amenhotep I at Karnak,
including their eventual dismantling and reuse by
various Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs.
Bill Murnane also excelled in the realm of his-
torical and textual studies. In honor of his impor-
tant contributions to these disciplines, Kenneth
A. Kitchen offers methodological analysis on
the historical and literary aspects of New King-
dom topographical lists. Finally, Donald B. Red-
ford examines the literary and lexicographic
background in Egyptian texts to the “Land of
Ramesses” of the Hebrew Bible. The book closes
with a compilation of Bill Murnane’s own pub-
lications.
 a fond remembrance: william joseph murnane, jr.
A FOND REMEMBRANCE: WILLIAM JOSEPH MURNANE, JR.
MARCH 22, 1945NOVEMBER 17, 20001
Lorelei H. Corcoran
University of Memphis
On November 17, 2000, we lost a beloved col-
league. William Murnane died unexpectedly of
heart failure at Baptist Memorial Hospital East in
Memphis, Tennessee. Bill held a Dunavant Pro-
fessorship in the History Department and was
research associate of the Institute of Egyptian Art
& Archaeology at the University of Memphis. He
was also director of the Great Hypostyle Hall Proj-
ect at Karnak Temple, Luxor, Egypt.
Among his scholarly monographs, several are
recognized as standard references by historians
and philologists alike. These include Ancient Egyp-
tian Coregencies (Chicago, 1977), The Road to
Kadesh (Chicago, 1985; revised 1990), and Texts
from the Amarna Period (Atlanta, 1995; revised
1998). Other publications, including The Penguin
Guide to Ancient Egypt (London, 1983; revised
1996) and United with Eternity (Chicago, 1980),
a comprehensive guide to the mortuary complex
of Ramses III, are known to a wider audience.
Dog-eared editions of these texts are carried
throughout Egypt by tourists who are guided
by Bill’s encyclopedic knowledge of the ancient
monuments, every one of which he had person-
ally visited.
Of Bill, her friend of over thirty-five years, Cyn-
thia Sheikholeslami wrote, “He was unfailingly
a gentleman, perpetually kind and patient, and
yet unassumingly modest with a gentle sense of
humor. He was also one of the best of the Egyp-
tologists of our generation.”
Born in New York, but raised in Venezuela, Bill
returned to the U.S. and attended St. Anselm’s
College. He showed an early interest in Egyptian
language and wrote letters home to his sister,
Annie, in Egyptian hieroglyphs. His professional
career began however in 1972 when he joined the
staff of the Epigraphic Survey at Chicago House,
1
This text was first read as a eulogy at the memorial
service for William Murnane on November 20, 2000, at the
Memphis Funeral Home, Poplar Chapel, Memphis, TN. It
5
Luxor, Egypt, shortly before he received his doc-
torate from the University of Chicago in 1973.
As field epigrapher, and then as senior Epigra-
pher until 1986, Bill helped document the texts
and scenes on the walls of the major temples of
Karnak, Khonsu, and Luxor, and at the small
temple at Medinet Habu. He also contributed to
the commentaries and translations of the land-
mark folio publications of the Oriental Institute.
With Charles van Siclen he lived under difficult
conditions at Amarna in Middle Egypt, a place
Bill would have described as “a spot where God
left his shoes.” The two of them braved challeng-
ing circumstances to locate and copy the texts
at Akhenaten’s capital city, and to publish them
in The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten (London,
1993).
Bill’s dream of sharing his knowledge and
experiences with students as a faculty member
at a university came true in 1986 when he was
appointed Visiting Associate Professor of Egyp-
tology at the University of California, Berkeley. In
1987 he was hired by the History Department of
the University of Memphis (then Memphis State
University). According to Rita Freed, fellow Egyp-
tologist in the Art Department at the time, “When
the History Department hired Bill those of us at
the Egyptian Institute couldn’t believe our good
fortune. To count a scholar of his stature in our
ranks immediately catapulted a fledgling aca-
demic program to international prominence.”
Bill was promoted to full professor in 1994.
Throughout his faculty career, one of the world’s
foremost experts taught a wide range of courses—
from undergraduate surveys in World Civilization
to graduate seminars on the Amarna Period—in
which he helped students to decipher the com-
plexities of ancient history. Those who studied
was originally published (in an adapted form) in KMT,
A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt, Volume 12, Number
1 (Spring 2001) and appears here with permission.
6 lorelei h. corcoran
with him will always treasure his comprehensive-
if-intimidating reading lists.
His role as a mentor to his students was marked
by those qualities Rita Freed attributed most
closely to him, “his brilliance, his patience, and
his generosity” with his time, his ideas and his
library. In 1992 his master’s student, Peter Brand,
left Memphis to study Egyptology at the Uni-
versity of Toronto where he went on to receive
a Ph.D. in 1998. Bill beamed with obvious pride
when he presented to his Memphis colleagues a
copy of the publication of Peter’s dissertation on a
topic inspired by the work Peter had shared with
Bill on the Hypostyle Hall Project.
Bill Murnane’s achievements as an eminent
scholar were acknowledged by his receipt of
numerous awards and prestigious grants. He
won three University faculty research awards. In
1994, he was awarded the Distinguished Research
Award of the College of Arts and Sciences. In 2000
he was presented with the University of Memphis’
highest distinction: the Eminent Faculty Research
Award.
Bill’s commitment to professional service
extended beyond the University, where he served
on numerous politically significant academic
committees, such as the Faculty Senate, and as
the University’s representative to the American
Association of University Professors. Bill was a
member of the editorial boards of journals, in par-
ticular JARCE, JEA and KMT, as well as a member
of the grant review boards of the National Endow-
ment for the Humanities and the Michela Schiff
Giorgini Foundation. Bill’s international reputa-
tion is evident from the outpouring of reminis-
cences and condolences the Egyptian Institute
received from colleagues all over the world.
For over twenty years Bill served as the direc-
tor of the Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall Project:
its mission to document the disappearing record
of texts and scenes on one of the most frequently
visited monuments in Egypt. His interest in the
project began during his “free time” as a staff
member of Chicago House. The project went
with him to the University of Memphis. Sup-
ported by private donations and two major and
increasingly competitive grants from the National
Endowment for the Humanities, Bill took stu-
dents to work with him in Egypt, some of whom
had never left the U.S. before. He guided them
through daily life in Egypt and bouts of “mummy
tummy” as kindly and generously as he instructed
them in the intricacies of identifying deteriorating
hieroglyphs on crumbling sandstone walls. Bill
had projected twenty more years at the Hypostyle
Hall; he considered this work to be vitally impor-
tant and recognized it as his personal responsi-
bility and legacy. The Institute of Egyptian Art
& Archaeology honored its commitment to the
project by appointing Peter Brand as director to
complete Bill’s planned goals. One of Bill’s col-
lection of quaint phrases seems appropriate in
this context as he used it often about some excep-
tionally difficult or daunting task, “If generosity
means giving, I give it to you.”
James Allen struggled to accept the news
of Bill’s passing. “It can’t be true,” he argued
defensively against fate on behalf of his long-
time friend, “because Bill hasn’t yet completed
the general textbook of Egyptian history he had
contracted to write,” on which he was working
and had already titled, Kings and Mortals. An
apt title, another friend remarked, for “Bill was
a prince among men.” Richard and Helena Jae-
schke wrote that they had “felt honored to know
and work with such an eminent Egyptologist, but
would miss his friendship far, far more.” Bill’s
compassionate humanity touched some who had
met him in person only once, and others who
had never met him such as the members of an
international Egyptological internet discussion
group with which he graciously corresponded.
Although the list of his publications on esoteric
scholarly subjects is prolific, Bill enjoyed sharing
his knowledge and ideas in on-screen interviews
with television’s The Learning Channel and The
History Channel, even offering a “historical intro-
duction” to the films “Ben Hur” and “Spartacus”
for a local Memphis film series. His last public
lecture was for the Southern California Chapter
of the American Research Center in Egypt.
On my first visit to Egypt in 1983, Bill Mur-
nane gave me a one-on-one introduction to
Luxor Temple that I will always treasure. He
also instructed me on the practicalities of get-
ting about Egypt (when I proposed to him my
day’s itinerary he responded, “Ah, the courage
of these Western women”). Ever polite, he was
adamantly protective, and stated emphatically,
“The fare for the ferry to the west bank is only
2 1/2 cents. Don’t let them tell you otherwise.”
Inevitably, I fell ill on my visit and, while suffering
in my room at Chicago House, having actually
selected the lemon tree in the back garden beneath
which I wished to be buried, Bill appeared with
a bottle of ginger ale. He shook his head with
 a fond remembrance: william joseph murnane, jr.
an impish grin, “The worst part,” he said, from
experience, “is that you’ll feel so bad you’ll wish
you would die . . . but you won’t!” A decade later,
I would work together with Bill on the Hypostyle
Hall Project. Although he was a passionate fan of
opera and classical music, those who spent 24/7
with him out in the field also knew that Bill had
unexpected tastes in other forms of music. None
of us will forget Bill’s rendition of Screamin’ Jay
Hawkins’ “I put a spell on you.”
7
Cynthia Sheikholeslami, wrote of Bill, “The
most earnest wish of the ancient Egyptian was
that his name, the most intimate sign of him-
self, would be remembered forever. I am sure that
Bill’s name will live always amongst those of us
who were fortunate enough to have been counted
his friends, and amongst all Egyptologists now
and in the future who benefit from his scholarly
publications.”
Indeed, we miss him dearly.
8 lorelei h. corcoran
 the amarna succession
THE AMARNA SUCCESSION
James P. Allen
Brown University
Bill Murnane had many admirable qualities, but
the one that impressed me most was his open-
mindedness as a scholar. Bill was always concerned
about facts, and he valued them much higher than
theories. He was always ready to embrace new
interpretations if they could be shown to be more
consistent with the facts than previous ones, even
at the expense of his own theories, published or
otherwise. This article treats a subject for which
hard facts are few and theories many. It concerns
a period of Egyptian history that interested Bill
more than any other, one that his own work has
significantly elucidated. I don’t know whether he
would have agreed with its interpretations or not,
but I wish he were here to discuss them with.
****
The scene of foreign tribute in the tomb of
Merire II at Amarna, often called the “durbar,”
provides the last clear view we have of the Amarna
Period before the accession of Tutankhamun.
Dated to the second month of Akhenaten’s twelfth
regnal year, it shows Akhenaten and Nefertiti
together with their six daughters, Meritaten,
Meketaten, Ankhesenpaaten, Neferneferuaten Jr.,
Neferneferure, and Setepenre.1 The scene provides
the last securely dated appearance of all seven
women as well as the first dated attestation of
the later name of the Aten.2 Between this point
and the accession of Tutankhamun, the events of
Amarna history are much less lucid.
1
N. de Garis Davies, The Rock Tombs of el Amarna, II.
The Tombs of Panehesy and Meryra II, ASE 14 (London:
EEF, 1905), p. 38 and pl. 38. The second month of Akhen-
aten’s regnal years was 2 prt; his accession took place in 1 prt:
W.J. Murnane, “On the Accession Date of Akhenaten,” in
Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes, eds. J.H. Johnson and
E.F. Wente, SAOC 39 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, 1976), pp. 163-67.
2
The Aten’s name was changed sometime after its last
attestation in the colophon of the Later Proclamation on
boundary stelae A and B at Amarna, dated to the last day
of Month 12 in Regnal Year 8. It is possible that the change
occurred even later than Regnal Year 12: see M. Gabolde,
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon (Collection de l’Institut
d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Antiquité vol 3 (Lyon &
9
Most of the questions in this shadowy period
center on the identity behind two sets of phara-
onic cartouches, both characterized by the element
n-prw-r in the prenomen. One set, belonging
to a king named Smenkhkare, always has the form
(n-prw-r)| (smn-kA-r sr-prw)|; the other, of
a king named Neferneferuaten, regularly appears
as (n-prw-r plus epithet)| (nfr-nfrw-jtn plus
epithet)|; the epithets usually identify this king as
“desired of Akhenaten,” using one of the two parts
of Akhenaten’s prenomen (nfr-prw-r w-n-r)|.
In the second set, elements of both cartouches are
occasionally marked as feminine: the prenomen
as nt-prw-r and the relative form “desired”
in the epithets as mrt; in addition, the epithet
“desired of Waenre” in the nomen is occasionally
replaced by At n h(j).s “effective for her husband,”
and the names can be followed by the feminine
attributes n.tj Dt “alive forever” and mAt rw
“justified.”3
Both sets of cartouches are associated with
Akhenaten. In the case of Smenkhkare, the two
kings appear together on one object only, a
calcite jar from the tomb of Tutankhamun on
which Smenkhkare’s cartouches follow those of
Akhenaten, both subsequently erased (Carter 405,
Fig. 1).4 Evidence for Neferneferuaten’s associa-
tion with Akhenaten is more substantial: apart
from the epithets noted above, her cartouches
follow his on at least two objects, a box from the
tomb of Tutankhamun (Carter 1k, Fig. 2) and a
Paris: Université Lumière-Lyon 2, 1998), pp. 110-18.
I thank M. Gabolde for his comments on an earlier draft of
the present article.
3
J.P. Allen, “Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re,” GM 141
(1994), pp. 7-17; M. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon,
pp. 147-62, 213-219.
4
C.E. Loeben, “No Evidence of Coregency: Zwei getilgte
Inschriften aus dem Grab von Tutanchamun,” BSEG 15
(1991), pp. 82-90; idem, “No Evidence of Coregency: Two
Erased Inscriptions from Tutankhamun’s Tomb,” Amarna
Letters 3 (1994), pp. 105-109. See Gabolde, D’Akhenaton
à Toutânkhamon, pp. 224-26. Fig. 1 is based on Loeben’s
reconstruction; darker signs represent those for which traces
are preserved.
10 james p. allen
Fig. 1. Inscription on Jar 405 from the Tomb of Tutankha-
mun.
fragmentary stela found at Amarna.5 Smenkh-
kare and Neferneferuaten are each associated as
well with Meritaten as chief queen, the former
in a scene in the tomb of Merire II at Amarna
and the latter (together with Akhenaten) on the
box just cited.6
At least one of these kings have served for a
time as coregent with Akhenaten. The primary
evidence for Smenkhkare as coregent is the jar
5
J.R. Harris, “Neferneferuaten Regnans,” AO 36
(1974), p. 13 (1a); Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkh-
amon, pp. 178-83, 162-66 and pl. 24a. On the stela, the
dual cartouches of Neferneferuaten are carved over an
original single cartouche of Nefertiti and a column of text
identifying a daughter of Akhenaten, probably Meritaten:
J.P. Allen, “Two Altered Inscriptions of the Late Amarna
Period,” JARCE 25 (1988), pp. 117-21; M. Gabolde, “Le droit
d’aînesse d’Ânkhesenpaaton (À propos de deux récents
articles sur la stèle UC 410),” BSEG 14 (1990), pp. 33-47. See
also W.J. Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, SAOC 40
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), pp. 173-75. Fig.
2 here is based on Gardiner’s hand copy, available at http://
www.ashmolean.museum/gri/carter/001k-c001k-3.html.
6
Davies, Amarna II, pl. 11; Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à
Toutânkhamon, pp. 178-83. Gabolde argues that the names
of Neferneferuaten and Meritaten on the box denote the
same person, but a reference to two individuals remains the
simplest and most transparent interpretation of the evidence:
see W.J. Murnane, “The End of the Amarna Period Once
Again,” OLZ 96 (2001), col. 18.
7
See Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, pp. 213-
15.
8
P.E. Newberry, “Akhenaten’s Eldest Son-in-Law
Ankhkheperurē,” JEA 14 (1928), p. 8 Fig. 3.
9
Newberry, JEA 14 (1928), p. 8 Fig. 4. For the seated
woman at the end of the queen’s cartouche, cf. Harris, AO
36 (1974), pp. 13 (1a) and 17 (2a, 2d).
10
The scene seems to depict the king presenting a building
to the Aten: see, however, B. Löhr, “Ahanjāti in Memphis,”
that once displayed his cartouches side by side
with those of Akhenaten. The juxtaposition, how-
ever, is not conclusive proof of a coregency;7 the
jar could have been dedicated by Smenkhkare in
memory of his deceased predecessor. Examples of
Neferneferuaten’s cartouches together with those
of Akhenaten are subject to the same caveat.
A relief found at Memphis, apparently showing
a male king behind a larger figure, has often been
cited as evidence of a coregency between Smen-
khkare (as the smaller figure) and Akhenaten
(as the larger).8 The identification of the smaller
figure as Smenkhkare was based on a second block
from the same site, which preserves the ends of his
cartouches and that of a queen, probably Meri-
taten.9 The cartouches, however, are juxtaposed
directly with those of the Aten, at the same level
and approximately the same size, which must
indicate that Smenkhkare was depicted as the pri-
mary figure in the scene below.10 Both blocks are
preserved only in drawings; additional drawings
of the first block, recently published, indicate that
the scene probably depicted an Amarna princess
behind one of her parents.11
Several stelae from the end of the Amarna period
show a male and female king, who must be Akhen-
aten and Neferneferuaten (Figs. 3-4).12 These have
been interpreted as anachronistic scenes carved
after Akhenaten’s death,13 but the nature of the
SAK 2 (1975), p. 158. If so, it is unlikely that he was facing
another figure of comparable size on the other side of the
Aten.
11
J. Málek, “The ‘coregency relief’ of Akhenaten and
Smenkhkare from Memphis,” in Studies in Honor of Wil-
liam Kelly Simpson, ed. by P. Der Manuelian (Boston,
1996), vol. II, pp. 553-59. The identification of the smaller
figure as a woman was suggested by B. Löhr, SAK 2 (1975),
pp. 156-57.
12
Berlin 17813: here Fig. 3, reproduced from Gabolde, BSFE
155 (2002), p. 38. Berlin 20716: here Fig. 4 (author’s draw-
ing). The sex of the junior king was first noted by J.R. Harris,
“Nefertiti Rediviva,” AO 35 (1973), pp. 5-9. On the “Core-
gency Stela” (UC 410 + Cairo JE 64959), the secondary addi-
tion of Neferneferuaten’s cartouches over that of Nefertiti
(see n. 5, above) seem to refer to the figure below them: R.
Krauss, “Neues zu den Stelenfragmenten UC London 410 +
Kairo JE 64959,” BSEG 13 (1989), pp. 83-87; Allen, JARCE
25 (1988), pp. 117-21; Gabolde, BSEG 14 (1990), pp. 33-47,
and D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 162-66. Nothing but
the figure’s rear lower leg is preserved, but it presumably
represented Nefertiti in the original and therefore a female
king in the altered version of the stela. See the drawing in
Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pl. 24a.
13
M. Gabolde, in Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges:
Echnaton und das Ende der Amarnazeit, eds. A. Grimm
and S. Schoske, Schriften aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung
10 (Munich: Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, 2001),
pp. 29-30; idem, “La parenté de Toutânkhamon,” BSFE 155
(2002), pp. 38-39.
 the amarna succession 11

Fig. 3. Stela Berlin 17813.

Fig. 4. Unfinished Stela Berlin 20716.

Fig. 2. Inscription on Box 1k from the Tomb of Tutankha-
mun.
12
interaction between the two individuals indicates
that they were depicted as living. It is therefore
likely Neferneferuaten’s reign was at least partly
contemporary with that of Akhenaten.
Akhenaten’s reign probably ended in his Regnal
Year 17, to judge from two jar labels with that
date: one was found in the king’s burial com-
plex in the Royal Tomb at Amarna; on the other,
the higher date was replaced by Regnal Year 1
of another king.14 The highest date known for
Neferneferuaten is Regnal Year 3, in a graffito
from the tomb of Pairi at Thebes (TT 139).15 The
sole date associated with Smenkhkare—Regnal
Year 1, in a label on a jar of wine from “the house
of Smenkhkare”—could come from the reign of
Tutankhamun; even if it is Smenkhkare’s, it is
doubtful that he ruled for more than a year.16
Depending on the length of Neferneferuat-
en’s coregency with Akhenaten, the accession
of Smenkhkare could have occurred as early as
the year of Akhenaten’s death or at most three
years later. The graffito dated to Regnal Year 3 of
Neferneferuaten was written by a “lay-priest and
scribe of god’s offerings of Amun in the temple
of Ankhkheperure in Thebes.” The existence of
offerings to Amun in this structure—perhaps her
mortuary temple—has long been seen as evidence
that her reign extended for a time beyond that
of Akhenaten, in whose final years the name of
Amun had been proscribed.17 Further indications
of her sole reign may exist in a few of her car-
touches that bear unique epithets not associated
with Akhenaten: mr jtn “desired of the Aten” and
pA m At-jtn “the incarnation of Akhetaten,” in
james p. allen
If Smenkhkare also served as Akhenaten’s core-
gent, however, then Neferneferuaten’s reign must
have coincided completely with that of Akhen-
aten. Given the probable length of Smenkhkare’s
reign, any coregency between him and Akhen-
aten could not have lasted for more than a few
months, since he appears in place of Akhenaten
in the tomb of Merire II.
The data therefore indicate that Nefernefer-
uaten became king sometime in the period of
Akhenaten’s Regnal Year 15-17 and that she was
succeeded by Smenkhkare, who ruled less than a
year. This gives a maximum of three to four years
and a minimum of one year or less between the
death of Akhenaten and the accession of Tutan-
khamun.
Tutankhamun’s age at death has been esti-
mated as young as 16-17, but the most recent
examination of his mummy seems to confirm the
usual estimate of nineteen years.19 With a reign of
nine years, he must have become king at the age of
ten or eleven.20 Depending on the length of time
between Akhenaten’s death and his accession, this
places his birth between Akhenaten’s Regnal Year
7 at the earliest and 11-11 at the latest.
Smenkhkare’s age at death is less certain and
can only be estimated if the body buried in Tomb
55 of the Valley of the Kings is his—a vexed ques-
tion. Two physicians who examined the body
shortly after its discovery identified it as female,
but they seem to have been influenced by the fact
that the tomb’s excavator, Theodore M. Davis,
believed the burial to be that of Akhenaten’s
mother, Queen Tiya; subsequent examinations
the prenomen; and A “ruler,” in the nomen.18
14
G.T. Martin, The Rock Tombs of El-Amarna, Part VI:
The Royal Tomb at El-Amarna, vol. II: The Reliefs, Inscrip-
tions, and Architecture, ASE 39 (London: EES, 1989), p. 27,
p. 60 no. 522 and n. 3; J.D.S. Pendlebury, The City of Akhen-
aten, Part III: The Central City and the Official Quarters,
EEM (London: EES, 1951), vol. II, pl. 95, no. 279. The latter
jar was originally labeled rnpt-sb 17 bjt [ … ] “Regnal Year
17: honey [ … ]”; this was erased and the label rnpt-[sb] 1
j[rp … ] “Regnal Year 1: w[ine … ]” added beneath it.
15
A.H. Gardiner, “The Graffito from the Tomb of Pere,”
JEA 14 (1928), pp. 10-11 and pls. 5-6.
16
Pendlebury, City of Akhenaten III, vol. II, pl. 86, no. 35.
For the probable length of Smenkhkare’s reign, see Gabolde,
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 219-21.
17
Neferneferuaten is also associated with gods of the
traditional pantheon on a pectoral from the tomb of Tut-
ankhamun, Carter 261p(1), which depicts Nut and mentions
Onnophris: see Gabolde, in Das Geheimnis des goldenen
Sarges, p. 29.
18
Allen, GM 141 (1994), p. 9; Gabolde, D’Akhenaton
à Toutânkhamon, pp. 157-61. The epithet At n h(j).s
have consistently identified the remains as those
“effective for her husband” might also date from a time
after Akhenaten’s death: parallels for its phraseology, noted
by Gabolde (op.cit., pp. 156-57), concern Isis’s relation-
ship to her deceased husband, Osiris: see Gabolde, in Das
Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges, p. 28, and BSFE 155 (2002),
p. 39. In at least one instance, however, Neferneferuaten’s
nomen with this epithet follows the prenomen identifying
her as “desired of Neferkheperure” (Gabolde, D’Akhenaton
à Toutânkhamon, p. 154).
19
F.F. Leek, “How Old Was Tutankhamūn?,” JEA 63
(1977), pp. 112-15; SCA press release dated March 8, 2005:
http://guardians.net/hawass/press_release_tutankhamun_
ct_scan_results.htm.
20
The length of Tutankhamun’s reign is based on wine-
jar dockets from his tomb: J. Černý, Hieratic Inscriptions
from the Tomb of Tutankhamūn, TTS 2 (Oxford: Griffith
Institute, 1965), pp. 3 and 23-24, nos. 19 and 23-24. For the
docket of Regnal Year 10, see P. Tallet, “Une jarre de l’an
31 et une jarre de l’an 10 dans la cave de Toutânkhamon,”
BIFAO 96 (1996), pp. 375-82. For Tutankhamun’s age at
accession, see also Gabolde, BSFE 155 (2002), pp. 35-36.
 the amarna succession
of a man, who died probably between the ages of
eighteen and twenty-five.21 Royal attributes on the
coffin and mummy indicate that the body was that
of a king. Since it is male, the king cannot have
been Neferneferuaten and must therefore have
been either Akhenaten or Smenkhkare.
Substantial epigraphic evidence seems to favor
Akhenaten. Canopic jars and magic bricks found
in the Theban tomb were intended at one point
for him, though his name was later expunged.22
The coffin itself bears pharaonic titularies but was
long thought to have been made for Kiya, Akhen-
aten’s junior wife, and subsequently altered for the
burial of a king.23 A recent examination, however,
has demonstrated that it was intended originally
for Akhenaten himself, and later altered primar-
ily by excising the names within the pharaonic
cartouches.24 The burial would therefore seem to
be that of Akhenaten, removed from his original
resting place in the Royal Tomb at Amarna and
reinterred in the Valley of the Kings.
The body’s probable age at death, however,
argues against this identification. If Akhenaten
died between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five
in his seventeenth regnal year, he would have been
one to eight years old at his accession. The earliest
dated mention of his eldest daughter, Meritaten,
occurs in the Early Proclamation on boundary
stelae K and X at Amarna, dated to Month 4 of
Regnal Year 5. If this coincides with her birth, she
must have been conceived at the latest in Month 7
of Regnal Year 4, when Akhenaten himself would
have been five to twelve years old. At the higher of
21
R. Germer, “Die Mumie aus dem Sarg in ‘KV 55’,” in
Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges, pp. 58-61. See also Mur-
nane, OLZ 96 (2001), col. 22. Davis was also influenced by
the arrangement of the body in the coffin, with one arm on
the chest and the other by the side, normally the posture of a
female mummy. In the face of the consistent identification
of the body as male, this anomaly remains unexplained.
22
For the canopic jars, see M. Gabolde, “Under a Deep
Blue Starry Sky,” in the present volume; for the bricks,
H.W. Fairman, “Once Again the So-Called Coffin of Akhen-
aten,” JEA 47 (1961), p. 37.
23
As argued by R. Hanke, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis:
Neue Veröffentlichungen und Studien, HÄB 2 (Hildesheim:
Gerstenberg Verlag, 1978), pp. 171-74 and 195.
24
A. Grimm, in Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges,
pp. 101-120. The inscription on the foot was originally
addressed to Akhenaten by Nefertiti and was changed so that
the deceased himself addressed “My father Re-Harakhti.” This
supersedes my arguments in JARCE 25 (1988), 121-26.
25
For the talatat, see D.B. Redford, Akhenaten, the Heretic
King (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 79.
26
It is nonetheless possible that the coffin originally con-
tained the body of Akhenaten when it was moved to KV 55.
The alteration of the text on the foot, changing an address
to Akhenaten by Nefertiti into one of Akhenaten himself to
13
these two ages he may just have reached puberty,
but it seems unlikely that he would have fathered
children at so early an age. Moreover, talatat from
Karnak with the image of Meritaten are almost
certainly earlier than Regnal Year 5.25
Despite the clear association of the coffin and
burial equipment with Akhenaten, the body itself
must therefore be that of another male pharaoh,
who can only have been Smenkhkare.26 Its age
at death places his birth some eight years before
Akhenaten’s accession at the earliest (assuming
that he succeeded Akhenaten within a year and
died at twenty-five) and in Akhenaten’s Regnal
Year 2 at the latest (assuming that he came to
the throne three years after Akhenaten and died
at eighteen).
Tutankhamun is attested before his accession as
zA-nswt n t.f mry.f twt-nw-jtn “king’s son of his
body, his desired, Tutankhuaten,” on a block found
at Hermopolis (Fig 5).27 In general use, the term
zA “son” can denote not only a first-generation
male child but also a grandson, great-grandson, or
son-in-law.28 The inscription could have referred
to Tutankhamun as “son-in-law” of Akhenaten
if he had already been married to Akhenaten’s
daughter, Ankhesenpaaten, before his accession.
The association of these two royal children, if not
their marriage, at that time is probably attested
by the left half of the block, which records her
titulary: zAt-nswt n t.[f mr]t.f zyt At n nb tAwj
[n.s-n-pA]-jtn “king’s daughter of [his] body, his
desired, the greatly blessed one of the lord of the
Two Lands, [Ankhesenpa]aten.”29 Since the two
Re-Harakhti (see n. 24, above) could have been made at that
time, prompted by the removal of the coffin from the royal
sarcophagus, on whose corners Nefertiti is depicted. The
excision of Akhenaten’s names from the coffin’s cartouches,
as well as their erasure on the magic bricks, could have been
done subsequently, when these items were appropriated for
the burial of Smenkhkare.
27
G. Roeder, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis: Ausgrabun-
gen der Deutschen Hermopolis-Expedition in Hermopolis
1929-1939, ed. R. Hanke, Pelizaeus-Museum zu Hildesheim,
Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung 6 (Hildesheim: Verlag
Gebrüder Gerstenberg, 1969), pls. 105 (56–VIIIA) and 106
(831-VIIIC). For the join of the two halves, see Gabolde,
in Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges, p. 26, and BSFE 155
(2002), p. 40, from which Fig. 5 here is adapted. Gabolde’s
drawing indicates traces of an earlier text under the three
righthand columns, but Roeder’s photograph shows only
incidental damage and no signs of erasure.
28
D. Franke, “Verwandschaftsbezeichnungen,” LÄ VI,
col. 1033.
29
The third column shows only j[t]n. Roeder restored
Akhenaten’s cartouche in the lacuna above, and read the
name as mr[t]-j[t]n. Ankhesenpaaten, however, is the only
Amarna princess with whom Tutankhamun is associated,
and the lacuna suits the first part of her name. The space
14 james p. allen
Fig. 5. Block from Hermopolis naming Tutankhamun and [Ankhesenpa]aten.
titularies face one another closely, the figures asso-
ciated with them must have done the same, in an
intimate interaction of some sort.
Despite this relationship, however, in the
context of Amarna the additional phrase n t.f
mry.f “of his body, his desired” probably indi-
cates a more direct, lineal descent from a king.
Akhenaten’s daughters are regularly called zAt-
nswt nt t.f mrt.f “king’s daughter of his body,
his desired,” where the phraseology refers to a
child sired by the king himself. The same wording
also precedes the names of his granddaughters;
in that case it may indicate merely lineal descent
from the king, unless Akhenaten fathered his own
grandchildren, as has been suggested. The latter
possibility will be examined below; in any case,
the terminology on the Amarna block identifies
Tutankhamun as at least a direct lineal descen-
dant, if not the son, of a king rather than merely
the son-in-law of one.
If the term zA “son” was meant literally, the
king in question would seem to be either Akhen-
aten or Smenkhkare. Neferneferuaten is also a
possibility, even though the Hermopolis block
uses the masculine pronoun f “his” in referring
to this king. She would then have been Tutankha-
mun’s mother rather than his father, but the
inscriptions of Hatshepsut provide a precedent
for the use of masculine pronouns to refer to a
female pharaoh. Akhenaten’s father, Amenho-
tep III, could have sired Tutankhamun only if
he lived on after Akhenaten’s accession. Once a
central theory in the history of Amarna, such a
beneath j[t]n probably contained a seated figure, comparable
to that at the end of Tutankhamun’s name on the right.
30
W.R. Johnson, “Amenhotep III and Amarna: Some
New Considerations,” JEA 82 (1996), pp. 65-82.
31
P. Dorman, “The Long Coregency Revisited: Architec-
tural and Iconographic Conundra in the Tomb of Kheruef,”
coexistence, if not coregency, is now generally
considered improbable. Although it was revived
a few years ago on artistic grounds,30 the theory
has now been disproved decisively by analysis of
the decoration of the tomb of Kheruef (TT 192).31
Aya calls Tutankhamun zA.f “his son” on blocks of
a structure in Karnak begun by Tutankhamun and
completed by Aya.32 This reference cannot have
denoted literal parentage, because the Hermopolis
block identifying Tutankhamun as a king’s son
was carved before either man came to the throne;
nor was Aya the father-in-law of Tutankhamun.
He could have been Tutankhamun’s grandfather
or great-grandfather—most likely maternal, since
he came to the throne only after Tutankhamun—
but this possibility is unenlightening because no
children of Aya are known. The reference to Tut-
ankhamun as “his son” may merely reflect Aya’s
pre-pharaonic title jt-nTr “god’s father” (retained
in his pharaonic nomen), which commemorated
his role as mentor of Akhenaten—a function he
may also have exercised for Tutankhamun.
Among Akhenaten, Neferneferuaten, and
Smenkhkare, the first seems a priori the likeliest
candidate for Tutankhamun’s parent, and is gen-
erally considered as such. He could certainly have
sired Tutankhamun in his Regnal Year 7, since
he had already produced at least two daughters
by that time. The chief difficulty with this theory,
however, is Akhenaten’s appointment of a female
coregent before his death. Egyptian history dem-
onstrates that the son of a pharaoh had first claim
to the throne—if not the son of the chief queen,
pp. 65-82. For Tutankhamun’s use of the term “father”
in reference to Amenhotep III, see D. Redford, “Once
Again the Filiation of Tutankhamun,” JSSEA 9 (1978-79),
pp. 111-15.
32
O.J. Schaden, “Report on the 1978 Season at Karnak,”
NARCE 127 (1984), p. 46 and pls. 2-4.
 the amarna succession
then one by another woman within the imme-
diate royal family. It is possible that Akhenaten
deliberately repudiated this tradition in appointing
Neferneferuaten as coregent, but in the absence of
any evidence to that effect such a motive is mere
speculation. Neferneferuaten’s coregency therefore
most likely indicates that Akhenaten was not the
father, nor the grandfather, of Tutankhamun, and
the same is true for his relationship with Tutan-
khamun’s predecessor, Smenkhkare.
In fact, the history of Amarna suggests a deter-
mined but frustrated effort on the part of Akhen-
aten to produce a male heir. With his chief queen,
Nefertiti, he had six daughters by Regnal Year 12.
His marriage to Kiya, which occurred before the
name-change of the Aten between Regnal Years
8-12, can be understood as partly if not primarily
motivated by the need to beget a son, even by a
wife other than the chief queen; she too, however,
gave him only a daughter.33 In a final attempt
to sire a male successor, Akhenaten may then
have turned to his oldest daughters, at least two
of whom produced daughters before the end of
his reign: Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten, who
appear with their daughters, respectively Merit-
aten Jr. and Ankhesenpaaten Jr., in altered reliefs
from Amarna that originally depicted Kiya with
her daughter.34
The parentage of Akhenaten’s granddaughters
seems clear from their titles but has been the sub-
ject of debate nonetheless. The granddaughters
are regularly identified as zAt-nswt nt t.f mrt.f
N tA Srjt ms.n zAt-nswt nt t.f mrt.f N “King’s
daughter of his body, his desired, N Jr., born
of King’s daughter of his body, his desired, N,”
33
Kiya’s name occurs in conjunction with the early
name of the Aten on a vase in the Metropolitan Museum
of Art (MMA 20.2.11): Fairman, JEA 47 (1961), p. 29. For
her daughter see Hanke, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis,
pp. 190-92. Her name is lost, but Gabolde has suggested she
was the “king’s daughter” named Baketaten, who appears with
Queen Tiya in the tomb of Huya at Amarna: M. Gabolde,
“Baket aton fille de Kiya?,” BSEG 16 (1992), pp. 27-40;
N. de G. Davies, The Rock Tombs of el Amarna, Part III:
The Tombs of Huya and Ahmes, ASE 15 (London: EEF,
1905), pls. 4, 6, 9, and 17-18.
34
Hanke, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis, pp. 142-45
and 150-53. The term “Jr.” is used here as a translation of
the phrase tA-Srjt “the younger,” always appended to the
eponymous names of the daughters’ daughters. Gabolde,
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 285, regards the grand-
daughters as “phantom children,” invented to replace Kiya’s
daughter in the altered reliefs. This is based primarily on
the belief that the daughters were too young to have had
children before Akhenaten’s death, but the altered reliefs
must be regarded as prima facie evidence to the contrary.
This question will be addressed in what follows.
35
E.g., Roeder, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis, pls. 19
15
sometimes with the king identified as Akhenaten
and occasionally with the additional specification
ms.n jmt-nswt wrt (nfr-nfrw-jtn nfrtj-j.tj)| n.tj
“born of Chief Queen Neferneferuaten Nefer-
titi, alive” (and variants).35 These titles tradition-
ally have been understood as a statement that
Akhenaten sired his own granddaughters.36 Since
Nefertiti is clearly cited in the granddaughter’s
titularies only as parent of the senior Meritaten
or Ankhesenpaaten, however, the same could be
true for Akhenaten, and it has been argued that
the junior daughters were fathered not by Akh-
enaten but by his sons-in-law Smenkhkare and
Tutankhamun, or were Akhenaten’s daughters
by Kiya.37
The suggestion that Meritaten Jr. and Ankhes-
enpaaten Jr. were daughters of Kiya is improb-
able, since one or the other of their names replaces
that of Kiya’s daughter in scenes where Kiya’s
own name was altered to that of Meritaten or
Ankhesenpaaten. Moreover, the name of Nefer-
titi’s fourth daughter, Neferneferuaten Jr., indi-
cates that daughters designated as “Jr.” were
named after their own mother. The possibility
that Akhenaten’s granddaughters were fathered
by Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun depends in
part on when the reliefs naming the daughters
were recarved.
Decoration of the monuments to which the
altered reliefs belonged was begun in the first
half of Akhenaten’s reign but largely completed
after the name-change of the Aten.38 The recarv-
ing to honor the junior daughters must then be
somewhat later still, certainly no earlier than the
second half of Akhenaten’s reign.39 The altered
(234-VI) and 106 (451-VIIA). See D. Redford, “Studies on
Akhenaten at Thebes, II,” JARCE 12 (1975), pp. 11-12.
36
E.g., H. Brunner, “Eine neue Amarna-Prinzessin,”
ZÄS 74 (1938), pp. 104-108; J.A. Wilson, “Akh-en-aton and
Nefert-iti,” JNES 32 (1973), pp. 235-36; R. Krauss, Das Ende
der Amarnazeit: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Chronologie
des Neuen Reiches, HÄB 7 (Hildesheim, Gerstenberg Verlag,
1978), pp. 114-17.
37
W. Helck, “Die Tochterheirat ägyptischer Könige,” CdE
44 (1969), pp. 24-25; idem, “Tochterheirat,” LÄ VII, cols.
15-16; J.R. Harris, “Kiya,” CdE 49 (1974), p. 30 n. 6. See also
Redford, JARCE 12 (1975), p. 12; G. Robins, “mt nsw wrt
Meritaton,” GM 52 (1981), pp. 75-81.
38
J.D.S. Pendlebury, The City of Akhenaten, Part I: Exca-
vations of 1921 and 1922 at El-Amarneh, EEM 38 (London:
EES, 1923), pp. 148-56. Of 79 instances, Pendlebury recorded
25 with the early name and 64 with the later name (in 10
instances the early name was changed to the later). The blocks
from Hermopolis show a similar ratio (23 early vs. 55 late):
Roeder, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis, pls. 1-201.
39
The reliefs could not have been recarved until after the
death—or disappearance—of Kiya, whose name and image in
them were replaced by those of Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten.
16 james p. allen
scenes depicted Akhenaten with his daughters
and granddaughters, and the complex from which
most of the reliefs derive was evidently abandoned
before his death.40 Tutankhamun therefore could
not have fathered Ankhesenpaaten Jr., since he did
not reach puberty until after his accession. This
in turn makes it unlikely that Smenkhkare sired
Meritaten Jr., even though he would have been
old enough to do so in Akhenaten’s final years;
in any case, he and Meritaten are not attested as
husband and wife before he became king.
The weight of evidence thus indicates that
Akhenaten himself was the father of his two
granddaughters. The altered reliefs showing him
with Meritaten or Ankhesenpaaten and their
daughters suggest as much in the hieroglyphic
filiations of the granddaughters. The scenes them-
selves originally depicted Akhenaten with his wife
and daughter;41 the altered reliefs can be read in the
same manner, despite the fact that they identify the
senior women only as zAt-nswt “king’s daughter”
rather than jmt-nswt “king’s wife.”42
Akhenaten’s final attempts to father a male heir
may not have been limited to his relationship with
Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten. Scenes in Room
gamma of the Royal Tomb at Amarna depicting
the death of their sister, Meketaten, indicate that
she died in childbirth.43 No husband of hers is
known; apart from mere speculation, the likeliest
candidate for the father of her child is also Akhen-
aten. The child itself is also unknown, although
it has often been identified as the one shown on
Wall A of Room gamma being carried by a nurse
No clear evidence exists for the date of that event. The pr tA
Spst “house of the noblewoman” cited in a wine-jar docket
of Regnal Year [1]6 cannot be linked with certainty to Kiya,
despite arguments to the contrary: e.g., Gabolde, D’Akhenaton
à Toutânkhamon, p. 169. Gabolde (loc.cit.) also dates the recarv-
ing after the death of Meketaten, which occurred after her last
dated appearance in Regnal Year 12, because she does not
figure in the altered reliefs. This has some validity, though
it is an argument from silence.
40
Pendlebury, City of Akhenaten I, p. 165.
41
E.g., Roeder, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis, pl. 29.
42
As noted by G. Robins, GM 52 (1981), p. 75. The rea-
sons for this discrepancy are unclear. Since Akhenaten’s
concern was to produce a male heir, he could have tried
to do so with his daughters without naming them “king’s
wife,” since they were already allied to the royal line as “king’s
daughters,” a relationship closer than that of “king’s wife.”
For a son born to such a union, his status as zA-nswt n
t.f “king’s son of his body” would have been enough to
secure his succession.
43
Martin, Royal Tomb II, pp. 42-48, pls. 63-71. The pri-
mary evidence for this interpretation is the booth in which
Meketaten is shown being mourned by the royal family (ibid.,
pls. 68-69), which has been most plausibly interpreted as a
birth pavilion (ibid., pp. 45-48). Fragments from the Royal
Fig. 6. Nurse and Child from Room Gamma.
away from the chamber in which Akhenaten
and Nefertiti are depicted mourning the body of
Meketaten.44 In front of the nurse and child, two
partly-destroyed columns of hieroglyphs give the
name [ … ]t ms.n [ … ] (nfr-nfrw-j[tn] nfrtj-j.tj)|
n.tj Dt n (Fig. 6).45 Despite the usual assump-
tion that this identified a grandchild of Nefertiti,
the lacuna in the first column has room enough
only for the titulary of one of her children.46 More-
over, the hieroglyphs face right and therefore per-
tain to the nurse, who faces in the same direction,
and not to the child, who is turned to the left.47
Tomb at Amarna have been reconstructed (on paper) as part
of her sarcophagus, with an interior width of 50 cm (1 ft. 7
in.) and a maximum interior length of 3½ feet, probably too
small for a woman capable of childbirth: Gabolde, D’Akhe-
naton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 132-34 and pls. 16-17. It is pos-
sible, however, that the fragments belonged to Meketaten’s
canopic chest (ibid., p. 132 n. 1059); the long inscription on
the side of the lid reconstructed on Gabolde’s pl. 17b could
have turned the corner at each end (cf. his pl. 17a) on the
shorter lid of a canopic chest.
44
Martin, Royal Tomb II, pp. 43-45, pls. 63-65.
45
Martin, Royal Tomb II, pls. 63-64; Fig. 6 here is repro-
duced from Martin’s pl. 63. The name in the first column
ended in the determinative of a seated person. Gabolde,
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 118-19, has interpreted
the t before this sign as the feet of a quail-chick w, but Mar-
tin’s pl. 63 shows a t and the sign seems clear in Bouriant’s
photograph (Martin’s pl. 64), as does the head of the deter-
minative, pace C. Vandersleyen, “Les scènes de lamentation
des chambres alpha et gamma dans la tombe d’Akhénaton,”
RdE 44 (1993), p. 193.
46
As pointed out by Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkha-
mon, p. 119, pace Martin, Royal Tomb II, p. 44.
47
Cf. Martin, Royal Tomb II, p. 44 n. 6, pace op.cit.,
p. 44. The orientation of the remaining signs is clear in the
 the amarna succession
The inscription here is virtually identical to that
which identifies the figure of Akhenaten’s eldest
daughter on Wall B in the same room and can be
restored on that basis as [zAt-(n)swt n t.f mrt.f
[mr]t-[jtn] ms.n [jmt-nswt wrt … ] (nfr-nfrw-
j[tn] nfrtj-j.tj)| n.tj Dt n “[King’s daughter of
his body, his desired, Meri]t[aten], born of the
[Chief Queen … ] Neferneferuaten Nefertiti,
alive forever continually.”48
Since Meritaten is shown nursing the child on
Wall A, it is probably her own daughter, Meritaten
Jr. Similar figures of a nurse and child, without
accompanying text, appear in the earlier reliefs of
Room alpha, in which the nurse is shown walking
away from a chamber in which Akhenaten and
Nefertiti are mourning.49 Martin has interpreted
the scenes in this room as those of Kiya’s death in
childbirth, but Gabolde has made a more plausible
case that they depict the deaths (from other causes)
of the two youngest and Nefertiti, Neferneferure
and Setepenre, who are not depicted with their sis-
ters in the reliefs of Room gamma.50 If the nursing
woman here is also Meritaten, as seems likely, the
death of Meketaten must have occurred not long
after theirs. Meketaten’s child remains unknown,
and presumably died with its mother.51
The events depicted in Rooms alpha and
gamma are not dated but must have occurred
after Month 2 of Regnal Year 12, the last dated
appearance of the three deceased daughters
alive. The scenes in Room gamma suggest that
Akhenaten first attempted to produce an heir with
Meritaten (who had given birth to a daughter),
then impregnated Meketaten (who died in child-
birth), and had yet to turn to Ankhesenpaaten
(who would produce a daughter in turn). Since
his union with Meketaten probably occurred only
photograph on Martin’s pl. 64 and is reproduced correctly
in Martin’s pl. 63.
48
The parallel text is on Martin, Royal Tomb II, pl. 68.
Both inscriptions are characterized by the determinative
following the daughter’s name and the position of the final
t before it, features absent from the names of the other two
daughters on Wall B; the determinative may reflect Meri-
taten’s seniority among the daughters, but it could also derive
from her status as a mother, unique among Akhenaten’s
daughters at the time when the reliefs in Room gamma were
carved. In the parallel text Nefertiti has the titles jmt-nswt
wrt mrt.f nbt tAwj “Chief Queen, his desired, lady of the
Two Lands.” The lacuna above her name on Wall A has
room enough only for mrt.f “his desired” or nbt tAwj “lady
of the Two Lands” but not both.
49
Martin, Royal Tomb II, pls. 58-60.
50
Martin, Royal Tomb II, pp. 39-40; Gabolde, D’Akhe-
naton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 107-110.
51
The evidence advanced here indicates that the nursing
17
after the birth of Meritaten Jr., the latter must
have been at least some nine months or so old
by the time of Meketaten’s death—and probably
even older, if the woman and child in the earlier
scene of Room alpha are also Meritaten and her
daughter. She could not have been more than
three years old, however, since she is shown nurs-
ing: Egyptian children were weaned by the age
of four.52 To all appearances, the “durbar” scene
of Regnal Year 12 shows Akhenaten’s two oldest
daughters before either became pregnant. Meri-
taten Jr. was therefore born at the earliest nine
months later, in Month 11 of Regnal Year 12. Her
birth could not have occurred much later than
this, since Meketaten’s pregnancy, the birth of
Ankhesenpaaten Jr., and the recarving of Kiya’s
reliefs to depict the granddaughters with their
mothers all had to take place before the end of
Akhenaten’s reign.
Akhenaten’s granddaughters were probably
born not long after their mothers reached puberty.
Egyptian women usually married at thirteen,53
and it seems likeliest that Akhenaten would have
turned to each of his three oldest daughters as
they reached that age. The date of those events
can only be estimated. It is often assumed that the
daughters first appeared on Akhenaten’s monu-
ments at their birth, but this cannot have been the
case at least with Meketaten, the daughter whose
first appearance can be dated most closely. Only
Meritaten is mentioned in the text of the Early
Proclamation on the Amarna boundary stelae,
dated to Month 4 of Regnal Year 5; the Later
Proclamation of Regnal Year 6, Month 4, men-
tions Meketaten as well.54 If Meketaten was born
sometime in the interval, she would have reached
thirteen at the earliest after Akhenaten’s death,
child shown in Rooms alpha and gamma is unrelated to
the cause of the deaths depicted there. It may then have
been included as an affirmation of life in the midst of death;
significantly, in both instances the nurse carries her child
away from the death scene, in the direction opposite to
that of the deceased and mourners: see Murnane, OLZ 96
(2001), pp. 15-16.
52
To judge from the Instruction of Ani: tw.k msw.tw
m t jbdw.k … mnd.s m r.k m 3 rnpwt “you were born
after your months (of gestation) … and her breast was in
your mouth for three years”: J.F. Quack, Die Lehren des
Ani, OBO 141 (Freiburg and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1994), p. 315.
53
E. Feucht, Das Kind im Alten Ägypten (Frankfurt and
New York, 1995), pp. 32-33.
54
See W.J. Murnane and C.C. Van Siclen III, The Bound-
ary Stelae of Akhenaten, Studies in Egyptology [19] (London
and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1993), p. 175.
18 james p. allen
and her younger sister Ankhesenpaaten would
have come of childbearing age even later. Since
the latter bore a daughter during the reign of her
father, she must have reached thirteen at the latest
in Regnal Year 16-17. This places Ankhesenpaat-
en’s birth no later than Regnal Year 3-4, and that
of her older sisters even earlier.55
If Meketaten’s first dated appearance in the
Later Proclamation of Regnal Year 6 does not
indicate that she was born sometime in the pre-
ceding year, it must reflect some other important
event in her early life; it is hardly feasible that her
omission from the text of the Early Proclamation
was merely arbitrary. The event that best suits the
other evidence is her weaning.56 Celebrating her
fourth birthday between Month 4 of Regnal Years
5 and 6, she would have reached the age of thirteen
in Regnal Year 14 or 15 and subsequently died in
childbirth no later than the first month of Regnal
Year 16. On that basis, the birth of Meritaten Jr.
can be dated between the end of Regnal Year 12,
at the earliest, and the beginning of Regnal Year
15, at the latest. In the most likely sequence of
events, Meritaten Jr. was born in Regnal Year 14
or 15, Meketaten died in childbirth in Regnal Year
15, and Ankhesenpaaten Jr. was born in Regnal
Year 16 or 17.57
The final stage in Akhenaten’s efforts to plan for
his succession was the appointment of a coregent,
probably also in Regnal Year 16-17. The identity
of this female ruler has been the subject of intense
debate. Speculation has centered on two women
from Akhenaten’s immediate family, Nefertiti and
Meritaten. First proposed in 1973,58 Nefertiti’s
candidacy was in the ascendant for a time until
the publication of a shawabti of hers, evidence
55
This makes it impossible for the body from KV 55 to
be Akhenaten’s. He could not have fathered his three older
daughters before Regnal Year 4 and died thirteen years later
at the age of twenty-five or less.
56
The significance of this event can only be surmised:
perhaps it was seen as the beginning of her existence as an
independent individual. The onset of puberty is also possible
but less likely, since Meritaten would have reached that stage
before Meketaten yet did not bear a child until some six
years later, at the earliest in Regnal Year 12.
57
This scenario places the birth of Meritaten within
the first two years of Akhenaten’s rule, if not before his
accession. During that period, Nefertiti does not appear
in his reliefs. Her absence, however, does not necessarily
indicate that she was married to Akhenaten only later. It
may be conditioned instead by the traditional character of
the reliefs, which stress the new regime’s continuity with
the preceding one. Nefertiti is only attested in reliefs carved
in the later, innovative Amarna style.
58
J.R. Harris, “Neferneferuaten,” GM 4 (1973), pp. 15-17,
that she died as a queen, not a pharaoh.59 Gen-
eral opinion now seems to favor Meritaten; for
what it is worth, Manetho’s tradition that a king
of the late Eighteenth Dynasty was succeeded by
“his daughter Akenkherēs” points to a daughter
rather than Nefertiti.60 The chief difficulty with
Meritaten’s candidacy is the fact that her cartouche
appears with the title jmt-nswt wrt “Chief Queen”
in conjunction with those of both the coregent
Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare (in the latter
instance also with their figures). The first juxta-
position seems clearly to identify Meritaten and
Neferneferuaten as two different individuals, while
the second would involve an unprecedented—
and for the Egyptians, perhaps unthinkable—
“demotion” of a pharaoh if Meritaten had indeed
served as Akhenaten’s coregent.61
Overlooked in the discussion of the coregent’s
identity is the significance of her nomen, Nefern-
eferuaten—although this was adduced by propo-
nents of Nefertiti as evidence for her candidacy,
since she used that name as part of her own from
at least Akhenaten’s Regnal Year 5 onward. Inso-
far as can be determined, the primary element
in the nomen of a pharaoh always corresponds
to the name he (or she) bore before coming to
the throne; from the Eighteenth Dynasty onward,
epithets were usually added to this name in the
pharaoh’s cartouche, but Akhenaten provides the
only example of a complete and consistent change
of the nomen’s primary element, and even he used
his birth name, Amenhotep, at his accession. The
evidence of this tradition argues that the core-
gent bore the name Neferneferuaten before her
coronation, and since it now seems clear that the
coregent was not Nefertiti, she must have been the
and “Nefertiti Rediviva,” AO 35 (1973), pp. 5-13.
59
C.E. Loeben, “Eine Bestattung der großen königlichen
Gemahlin Nofretete in Amarna? Die Totenfigur der Nof-
retete,” MDAIK 42 (1986), pp. 99-107, and most recently,
“Une inhumation de la grande épouse royale Néfertiti à
Amarna? La figurine funéraire de Néfertiti,” Égypte Afrique
et Orient 13 (1999), 25-30. A recent article has proposed
that the two pieces reconstructed by Loeben as a single sha-
wabti of Nefertiti belonged instead to two separate shawabtis,
one of Nefertiti and the other of Meritaten: J.-L. Bovot, “Un
chaouabti pour deux reines amarniennes?,” Égypte Afrique
et Orient 13 (1999), 31-34.
60
First proposed by R. Krauss, Das Ende der Amarnazeit,
pp. 43-53, and argued more recently and extensively by
M. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 147-85.
“Akenkherēs” is evidently the Greek form of the coregent’s
throne name Ankh(et)kheperure.
61
See n. 6, above. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon,
pp. 187-226, explains the “demotion” of Meritaten as political
expediency, but this is unconvincing.
 the amarna succession
only other woman known by that name: Akhe-
naten’s fourth daughter, Neferneferuaten Jr.62
To judge from the epithet “effective for her hus-
band,” Neferneferuaten served as Akhenaten’s wife
as well as his coregent.63 Meritaten, in turn, filled
the role of the coregent’s (or coregents’) chief
queen, while Ankhesenpaaten acted as senior
“king’s daughter,” the function formerly exercised
by Meritaten.64 Akhenaten’s motive for the pro-
motion of his youngest surviving daughter over
her two older sisters can only be the subject of
speculation. If she was in fact his wife, he may yet
have hoped to produce a male heir, which neither
Meritaten nor Ankhesenpaaten had given him;
her status as coregent would also enhance the
claim of any son born to such a union. Should he
succeed Akhenaten while still a child, the pres-
ence of a senior coregent would serve to safe-
guard that right, as Hatshepsut’s coregency had
done for Thutmose III earlier in the dynasty. If
the union produced no son, however, Akhenaten
could still count on a successor from his own
direct lineage.
The calculations argued above indicate that
Neferneferuaten Jr.’s three older sisters were born
by Regnal Year 4. If she was born within a year
of them, as seems likely,65 she would have turned
thirteen in Regnal Year 16-17, allowing her to
62
The absence of tA Srjt “Jr.” from the coregent’s cartouche
does not necessarily argue against this identification. It may
have been considered inappropriate for a king’s nomen but
could also have been otiose after the death of the senior
Neferneferuaten. The date of Nefertiti’s death is unknown;
her last appearance is in the scenes in Room gamma described
above, sometime after her last dated appearance in Regnal
Year 12. It has been argued that she survived until the end of
Akhenaten’s reign or even beyond (see Gabolde, D’Akhenaton
à Toutânkhamon, p. 171) but the evidence is unclear and she
could have died before the appointment of Neferneferuaten
as coregent: see n. 64, below.
63
Neferneferuaten Jr. and another daughter are attested
earlier with the title jmt-nswt zAt n t.f, but these do not
necessarily indicate that they were “king’s wife” at the time:
see Robins, GM 52 (1981), pp. 75-76. If they are not simply
errors, they are perhaps to be read as “daughter of the king’s
wife and of his body.”
64
See M. Gabolde, BSEG 14 (1990), 45. Meritaten’s
service as chief queen may also be reflected in her appar-
ent designation as “mistress” of the royal house in Amarna
Letter EA 11: see Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon,
p. 175. Together with her role as chief queen, this seems
clear evidence that Nefertiti had already died.
65
Since her name reflects the initial epithet of her mother’s
cartouche, she must have been born after the epithet was
adopted. Its first dated appearance is in the Early Proclama-
tion of Regnal Year 5, but it also appears in reliefs at Karnak,
which are probably earlier: R.W. Smith and D.B. Redford,
The Akhenaten Temple Project, vol. I: Initial Discoveies
(Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1976), p 80.
66
Some of the material used for Tutankhamun’s burial
19
serve as the prospective mother of Akhenaten’s
heir. Her appointment as coregent probably
dates to the same one- or two-year period. Part
of her three-year reign must then have occurred
after the death of Akhenaten. It is undoubtedly
within that period of sole rule that her association
with the traditional gods appeared, along with
her Osirian epithet At n h(j).s “effective for her
husband” and her less common “Akhenaten-less”
cartouches. This in turn places the short reign of
Smenkhkare after that of Akhenaten (and her).66
Since Smenkhkare probably ruled less than a year,
Tutankhamun’s accession can therefore be dated
more narrowly to sometime between one and two
years after the death of Akhenaten, and his birth
to Akhenaten’s Regnal Year 9 or 10.
On the basis of the arguments advanced here,
neither Smenkhkare nor Tutankhamun could
have received their right to the throne by descent
from Akhenaten or any of his wives or daugh-
ters. Tutankhamun’s status before his accession
as the son of a king can therefore derive only
from Smenkhkare. The probability that the body
from KV 55 is that of Smenkhkare enhances
this relationship, since physical examination has
indicated that its owner was a close relative of
Tutankhamun.67
was originally made for Neferneferuaten as king, most nota-
bly her four royal canopic coffins: J. Allen, “The Original
Owner of Tutankhamun’s Canopic Coffins,” to appear in
the forthcoming Festschrift for David P. Silverman, ed. by
Z. Hawass and J. Houser-Wegner; see also Gabolde, D’Akhen-
aton à Toutânkhamon, p. 185. The appropriation of this
and other elements of her burial equipment indicates that
Smenkhkare denied her a pharaonic burial. Whether she or
Ankhesenamun was the queen of the notorious daamunzu
episode—for which, see Gabolde, op.cit., pp. 187-212—is a
question outside the parameters of the present article. It
should be noted, however, that if it was she, her request for
a Hittite prince—“To me he will be husband, but in Egypt
he will be king”—does not necessarily imply her “demotion”
from pharaoh to king: she could have had in mind a core-
gency like that she had just shared with Akhenaten. This
is different from the case of Meritaten, who clearly served
as queen to Smenkhkare after the death of her father, a
“demotion” improbable if she, rather than Neferneferuaten
Jr., had been Akhenaten’s coregent.
67
D.E. Derry, “Note on the skeleton hitherto believed to
be that of King Akhenaten,” ASAE 31 (1931), pp. 115-19;
R.G. Harrison, “An Anatomical Examination of the Phara-
onic Remains Purported to be Akhenaten,” JEA 52 (1966),
pp. 113-116; R.C. Connolly et al., “Kinship of Smenkhkare
and Tutankhamun affirmed by Serological Micromethod,”
Nature 224 (1969), pp. 325-26; R.C. Connolly et al., “Serological
evidence for the parentage of Tutankhamūn and Smenkh-
karē,” JEA 62 (1976), pp. 184-86. Cf., however, E.S. Melt-
zer, “The parentage of Tutankhamūn and Smenkhkarē,”
JEA 64 (1978), pp. 134-35; R, Germer, Das Geheimnis des
goldenen Sarges, p. 60.
20 james p. allen
Smenkhkare’s adoption of the primary ele-
ment of Neferneferuaten’s prenomen and of her
chief queen, Meritaten, as his own, as well as the
juxtaposition of his name with Akhenaten’s on the
vase from Tutankhamun’s tomb, all seem clearly
designed to enhance the legitimacy of his claim
as Akhenaten’s successor. Tutankhamun followed
the same course by taking Ankhesenpaaten as his
chief queen. The right of Smenkhkare and Tut-
ankhamun to the succession, however, may not
have been based merely on these marriages.
Although Tutankhamun’s designation of
Amenhotep III as “his father” is not a literal
statement of his parentage, it does indicate that
he regarded that king as an ancestor. The model
coffin found in his tomb, containing a lock of hair
from Amenhotep III’s queen, Tiya, looks like a
family heirloom and suggests that the term “his
father” had more than just religious meaning.68
Tutankhamun’s ties to the family of Amenho-
tep III are underlined by a surveying instrument
dedicated to Amenhotep’s father, Thutmose IV.69
Inscriptions on both sides of the object describe
Tutankhamun as
“he who renews the monument of …, Lord of
the Two Lands, Menkheperure.” Only two
interpretations of the signs preceding nb tAwj
68
For the coffin, see A. Rowe, “Inscriptions on the Model
Coffin Containing the Lock of Hair of Queen Tyi,” ASAE
40 (1940), pp. 623-27.
69
J.A. Larson, “The Tutankhamen Astronomical Instru-
ment,” Amarna Letters 2 (1992), pp. 77-86.
70
jtw.f “his fathers” is impossible in the context, which
refers only to Thutmose IV. The term might also be read
as jtwj.f “his dual father,” meaning that Tutankhamun had
descended from a son and daughter of Thutmose IV, but
this too implies an improbable nonsingular reference to
Thutmose IV.
71
For the daughters of Thutmose IV, see B. Bryan, The
“Lord of the Two Lands” seem possible: jt jt.f “his
father’s father” or jt jt jt.f “his father’s father’s
father.”70 The former would identify Thutmose IV
as Tutankhamun’s grandfather, and the latter as his
great-grandfather. The epithet’s unusual character
suggests that it was meant literally: had Tutankha-
mun merely intended to honor Thutmose IV as an
illustrious ancestor, he would undoubtedly have
used the more common term jt.f “his father.” Of
the two readings, the first is ruled out by the evi-
dence that Tutankhamun’s father was probably
Smenkhkare, who was born at the earliest thirty
years after the death of Thutmose IV; by the same
measure, his mother is not likely to have been a
daughter of that king.
The inscription therefore honors Thutmose IV
as Tutankhamun’s great-grandfather. This in turn
identifies his grandfather or grandmother as a
child of Thutmose IV, who must be either Amen-
hotep III or one of that king’s siblings. Although
Amenhotep III had several sisters (or half-sisters),
and possibly also brothers (or half-brothers),71 any
of whom could have been grandparents of Tut-
ankhamun, the lock of Queen Tiya’s hair buried
with Tutankhamun argues that Amenhotep III
himself was Tutankhamun’s grandfather, and
Tiya his grandmother. His father, Smenkhkare,
was therefore a son of Amenhotep III and Queen
Tiya, and a younger brother of Akhenaten.
Reign of Thutmose IV (Baltimore and London: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1991), pp. 120-23. Three or four
brothers of Amenhotep III may be represented as children
on the lap of the owner of TT 226: N. de G. Davies, The
Theban Tomb Series V: The Tombs of Menkheperresonb,
Amenmosĕ, and Another (Nos. 86, 112, 42, 226) (London:
EES, 1933), pl. 30 (E). These are usually seen as sons of
Amenhotep III, but the fact that tomb dates to his Regnal
Years 1-2 makes it more likely that they were his broth-
ers, and perhaps himself as a child. The only two names
preserved, in part, were compounded with the throne name
of Thutmose IV’s father, Amenhotep II.
 architraves de la grande salle hypostyle du temple d’amon-rê à karnak
NOTE ARCHÉOLOGIQUE ET ÉPIGRAPHIQUE SUR LES ARCHITRAVES DE
LA GRANDE SALLE HYPOSTYLE DU TEMPLE D’AMONRÊ À KARNAK
Michel Azim
Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, CEPAM–CNRS
et
Vincent Rondot
Section française de la Direction des Antiquités du Soudan
On sait l’importance capitale que revêt, pour la
connaissance des sites antiques, l’étude des docu-
ments anciens—gravures et photographies notam-
ment—ce dont William J. Murnane, bien entendu,
avait une conscience parfaitement claire. Lorsqu’il
sut, en 2000, grâce à Luc Gabolde, que je travail-
lais sur les clichés rassemblés ou pris naguère par
Georges Legrain à Karnak, il me contacta, naturel-
lement intéressé, renouant ainsi avec l’époque
où nous fîmes connaissance à Louqsor dans les
années soixante-dix. Je me réjouissais de pouvoir
examiner avec Bill, en France, les clichés réunis ;
le dialogue studieux et amical espéré, certes, ne
devait pas avoir lieu, mais j’ai un peu le sentiment,
néanmoins, de l’ouvrir aujourd’hui au travers de
cette note que Vincent et moi-même lui dédions ;
relative à des éléments d’un monument dont il
contribua tant à développer la connaissance, elle
exploite des documents photographiques illus-
trant des épisodes encore mal connus de l’histoire
récente des travaux de la salle hypostyle et ajoute
un passage inédit à l’établissement de ses textes.
1
Cf. V. Rondot, La grande salle hypostyle de Karnak.
Les architraves (Paris : ERC, 1997), Fig. 2, p. 5 ; M. Azim,
G. Réveillac, Karnak dans l’objectif de Georges Legrain (Paris :
CRA Monographies, 2004), vol. I, Fig. 9 p. 135 ; ces deux
figures font la synthèse des connaissances actuelles sur l’état
archéologique des architraves et l’histoire récente de leur
ruine.
2
V. Rondot, Les architraves, pl. 55.
3 4
Les architraves naviformes sont celles qui présentent
en plan le contour d’un petit bateau : l’une de leurs extré-
mités est taillée en prisme droit à 45° pour pouvoir s’in-
tégrer, au-dessus d’une colonne, à une ligne d’architraves
perpendiculaire creusée en « V », l’assemblage étroit de ces
éléments assurant ainsi une surface d’appui suffisante à
chacun d’eux. Les figures citées supra n. 1 montrent que ces
architraves, comme celles qui les reçoivent, sont les seules à
ne pas être constituées de deux blocs parallèles ; elles sont
au contraire faites essentiellement d’un énorme monolithe,
21
Les architraves naviformes du quart sud-ouest
de la salle hypostyle1
Au sud de la salle hypostyle et l’ouest de la cour du
VIIe pylône, au bord de l’ancienne route venant
de Louqsor, demeure de nos jours un magasin en
plein-air que Vincent Rondot a désigné par le sigle
SB2 (Fig. 1) ; il regroupe des éléments architecto-
niques retirés de la salle, dont quatre architraves
naviformes provenant de son quart sud-ouest3. Au
départ de notre recherche, nous espérions pouvoir
utiliser les photographies d’archives existantes
pour déterminer leur position d’origine dans le
monument, qui pose problème pour deux d’entre
elles, celles qui jadis reliaient les colonnes de la
nef sud 24 et 33 d’une part, 25 et 34 de l’autre4.
Ces photographies, hélas, se sont avérées insuf-
fisantes, et il manque toujours le cliché, s’il existe,
qui fournirait une preuve décisive ; on a jugé inté-
ressant, toutefois, de commenter la question et
faire le point des connaissances sur les différentes
étapes qui ont amené le quart sud-ouest de la salle
qu’une « feuille » de pierre composée de deux plaques longi-
tudinales accolées surmonte, détail qui a trompé S. Clarke,
R. Engelbach, Ancient Egyptian Masonry (ouvrage réédité
en 1990 sous le titre Ancient Egyptian Construction and
Architecture) (London : Oxford University Press, 1930),
Fig.203 après p. 171, où elles n’associent à tort que deux
grands blocs seulement sur toute leur épaisseur. Chacune des
architraves naviformes complète pèse plus de 40 tonnes.
Blocs SB4 et SB12, V. Rondot, Les architraves, p. 110,
SB4 côté. La numérotation des colonnes utilisée ici est celle
de G. Legrain, Les temples de Karnak (Bruxelles : Vromant,
1929, p. 160 ; lorsque nécessaire, on donnera également celle
de H.H. Nelson, Key Plans showing Locations of Theban
Temples Decorations, OIP 56 (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1941), pl. III.
5
Cf. M. Azim, « La structure des pylônes d’Horemheb
à Karnak », Karnak 7 (Paris : ERC, 1982), p. 127-134.
22 michel azim et vincent rondot
Fig. 1. Plan du magasin SB au sud de la salle hypostyle (relevé V. Rondot, mai 1983).
hypostyle à son état actuel, et de chercher à éta-
blir ce qu’il s’est passé entre l’effondrement du IIe
pylône et la constitution du magasin d’architraves
SB.
Le IIe pylône, on le sait, est un immense édifice
qui, victime de sa propre structure5, s’est effondré
de longue date, son môle nord s’écroulant vers
l’ouest dans la grande cour, son môle sud à la fois
vers l’ouest et vers l’est entraînant, dans la salle
hypostyle, la chute de six colonnes et l’inclinaison
de deux autres6. Si l’état récent du monument,
vu depuis la grande cour ou le Ier pylône, a été
illustré par de nombreuses gravures ou photog-
raphies depuis la Description de l’Égypte7, il en a
été tout autrement de l’éboulis ayant affecté la
salle hypostyle, malaisé à dessiner ou photogra-
phier et surtout singulièrement dénué d’intérêt
aux yeux des visiteurs du passé, éblouis ailleurs
par la grandeur et la majesté de l’ensemble monu-
mental de Karnak. C’est dire si les rares photo-
graphies retrouvées dans les archives de Legrain
sont précieuses du point de vue de l’archéologie :
elles constituent les seules sources permettant de
visualiser l’impact de l’écroulement du IIe pylône
6 10
M. Azim, G. Réveillac, Legrain, vol. I, p. 168-171 et
Fig.11.
7
Description de l’Egypte, Antiquités, vol. III (Paris :
Imprimerie Impériale, 1812), pl. 19.
8
Elles sont vierges de tout martelage, et si elles avaient
connu des placages de boue avant leur chute, celle-ci les
aurait à l’évidence fait disparaître ; sur cette question, voir
V. Rondot, Les architraves, p. 4-5.
9
Ibid., p. 192 ; textes N°63, 64, 65 p. 77-78 et pl. 34,
35, 44.
sur la nef sud de la salle hypostyle et d’envisager ce
que fut le destin des quatre architraves naviformes
qui jadis furent hissées dans sa moitié occidentale,
SB4, SB5, SB11 et SB12, retrouvées au sol de nos
jours dans le magasin SB8.
L’emplacement initial de SB11 a pu être déter-
miné sans erreur possible par l’étude épigra-
phique9 : c’était l’architrave la plus proche du IIe
pylône. Celui de SB5 ne fait aucun doute non
plus, puisque ses blocs furent arrachés à leur posi-
tion d’origine par Legrain au début de 190910; SB5
occupait la quatrième position vers l’est à partir
du IIe pylône. Ce sont donc les deux architraves
intermédiaires, SB4 et SB12, que l’on avait eu
l’espoir de pouvoir replacer11.
Les photographies pertinentes sont au nombre
de sept12 : six dues à Legrain (4-3/19, 4-3/142,
4-3/143, 4-3/144, 4-3/145, 4-3/146) et une plus
ancienne, à Beato (4-3/147), mais, sur cette série
de clichés, une seule architrave naviforme tombée
est visible. Le cliché Beato, pris vers 1870-1880,
montre l’allée transversale de la salle hypostyle
barrée vers le sud par une énorme masse de blocs
tombés provenant de la chute de la colonne 35, qui
M. Azim, G. Réveillac, Legrain, p. 171-172 ; V. Rondot,
Les architraves, textes N°54, 55, 56, p. 72-73, et pl. 31, 32,
43.
11
V. Rondot, ibid., p. 110 et pl. 52, J (SB4) ; p. 111 et
pl. 52, K (SB12).
12
Nous conservons ici les numéros qui leur ont été
attribués dans M. Azim, G. Réveillac, Legrain, chap. 4-3,
vol.I, p. 130, 170-171, vol.II, p. 44, 80-81.
 architraves de la grande salle hypostyle du temple d’amon-rê à karnak
marque aussi—ou presque—la limite orientale de
l’éboulis du IIe pylône et des éléments architecto-
niques emportés dans son naufrage à l’intérieur
de la salle ; il donne déjà une idée de ce formi-
dable chaos que l’on est bien en peine, en simple
promeneur de Karnak aujourd’hui, d’imaginer.
Les six autres photographies constituent un état
des lieux avant travaux enregistré par Legrain, en
précurseur qu’il fut de ce qui est systématique-
ment réalisé aujourd’hui avant toute intervention
sur le monument.
Le cliché 4-3/19 illustre l’aspect du contrefort
antique érigé entre le IIe pylône et la première des
grandes colonnes de la rangée axiale sud avant
son démontage en 1912 ou 1913 ; au-dessus de
cet élément, aucune des architraves de la salle
hypostyle n’apparaît dans l’éboulis du pylône.
En revanche, sur la photographie 4-3/146 mon-
trant sa seconde travée nord-sud à partir de ce
même pylône, on constate qu’une architrave, à
l’arrière-plan, s‘est écroulée sur l’amas des blocs
tombés. Elle est visible également, vue depuis
l’est cette fois et beaucoup plus nettement, sur le
cliché 4-3/143, avec sa pointe dressée vers le ciel
et les deux queues d’aronde ménagées à sa partie
supérieure. Il s’agit de la pierre qui reliait les col-
onnes 14 et 23 de la nef sud, soit le bloc SB11.
On retrouve ce bloc quelque temps plus tard, au
début de 1909, pendant son déplacement : Legrain
en a publié une photographie en 1914 dans son
ouvrage Louqsor sans les pharaons13, qui montre
des équipes d’ouvriers affairés à le tirer dans un
premier temps vers l’est sur une plateforme de
manoeuvre ménagée à environ mi-hauteur des
colonnes.
Une fois sorties du quart sud-ouest de la salle
hypostyle, les quatre architraves naviformes
furent laissées par Legrain immédiatement au
sud du monument, devant sa porte méridionale,
comme l’a confirmé Maurice Pillet en 1923 : « Tout
l’espace compris entre la Salle Hypostyle au nord,
le temple de Ramsès III à l’ouest, la route au sud et
la cour de la Cachette à l’est était encombré d’une
13
Fig.77 après p. 194 (la Fig.76, elle, montre le dépla-
cement du bloc SB12).
14
M. Pillet, « Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak (1922-
1923) », ASAE 23 (1923), p. 111.
15
Cf. M. Azim, G. Réveillac, Legrain, vol.I, p. 171-
172.
16
M. Pillet, Thèbes, Karnak et Louqsor (Paris : Laurens,
1928), Fig.11 p. 16 ; p. Barguet, Le temple d’Amon-Rê à
Karnak (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéo-
logie Orientale, 1962), pl. I.
17
Boîte B089, clichés n°08 à 14 ; les archives égypto-
logiques de Maurice Pillet sont désormais conservées à la
23
masse de décombres provenant, pour la plupart,
du déblaiement de la partie centrale du temple.
Au-dessus, quatre grands linteaux de l’Hypostyle
avaient été tirés là par M. Legrain. Ils sont tous
en mauvais état et il n’y avait pas à songer à les
remettre en place ; ils furent donc rangés plus au
sud, en bordure de la route. »14 Ces « linteaux » sont
visibles, en compagnie de quelques autres pierres
descendues par Legrain, sur un cliché pris en févr-
ier 1912 par Pillet lors de sa toute première visite
de Karnak sous la direction de Legrain (Fig. 2),
notamment l’architrave qui reliait initialement les
colonnes 17 et 26, toujours recouverte de la feuille
de pierre en deux parties qui la surmonte (soit le
bloc SB5)15 ; ils apparaissent encore sur une pho-
tographie aérienne prise par la Royal Air Force le
7 mai 1921, avant les travaux de Pillet.16
Legrain, toutefois, fut bien à l’origine de la créa-
tion du magasin SB où, dans la foulée de ses travaux
de 1909-1910, il avait déjà transporté plusieurs
blocs ; l’embryon du dépôt apparaît clairement sur
la photo aérienne précitée. Les architraves navi-
formes, quant à elles, furent amenées au magasin
SB par Pillet, du 4 au 6 janvier 1923. Une série de
photographies conservées dans ses archives rend
compte de l’opération17, et l’une d’entre elles a été
publiée 18, qui montre les préparatifs de déplace-
ment de deux naviformes. La première est en
train d’être tirée vers le sud, c’est le bloc SB12,
reconnaissable à la cassure caractéristique que
présente son « nez » 19 ; l’autre, SB11, retournée,
est encore sur cales (ses queues d’aronde appa-
raissent au bas du bloc, et son texte de soffite à
sa face supérieure20). L’architrave descendue par
Legrain (SB5), surmontée de sa « feuille » en deux
plaques de grès juxtaposées, est déjà arrivée au
magasin SB, de même que SB4 rangée immédi-
atement à l’ouest de SB5.
En conclusion, ni les textes qu’elles portent, ni
les documents d’archives n’ont permis, jusqu’à
présent, de trancher l’alternative quant à la posi-
tion d’origine des architraves SB4 et SB12 ; seul
l’argument épigraphique avancé par Vincent
Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée-Jean Pouilloux
(MOM), CNRS, Université de Lyon 2, France. Les dates de
l’opération sont portées sur les plaques photographiques
elles-mêmes.
18
Cliché B089-10, Fig.33 p. 42 dans M. Pillet, Thèbes,
Karnak et Louqsor : « Karnak. Déplacement des linteaux de
la Salle hypostyle ».
19
Cassure visible sur la Fig.76 de G. Legrain, Louqsor
sans les pharaons : légendes et chansons populaires de la
Haute Égypte (Paris : Vromant, 1914).
20
Bloc illustré par la Fig.77 du même ouvrage.
24 michel azim et vincent rondot

Fig. 2. La salle hypostyle vue depuis le sud en 1912 avec, devant sa porte latérale, plusieurs des grands blocs descendus par
Legrain ; on notera, au premier tiers gauche de la photographie, la présence des deux dernières demi-architraves reposant
sur le mur sud (Collection M. Pillet, CNRS-MOM, 1912, inv. . B028-16).

Rondot est, pour l’instant, susceptible de fournir
un indice21. Au-delà, le seul moyen, peut-être,
d’acquérir une certitude relèverait de l’observation
archéologique : il consisterait à comparer un relevé
minutieux des pointes des deux monolithes au
sol—qui prendrait en compte tous leurs détails
significatifs, dimensions exactes, angles de taille,
position des queues d’aronde, cassures, traces de
plâtre de liaison …—, et l’observation attentive
des zones d’encastrement des pierres au sommet
des colonnes comme de leurs anciennes surfaces
d’appui22, ce qui demanderait le montage sur place
d’un échafaudage.
Des architraves récemment disparues
Si, au fil des siècles, la majeure partie des archi-
traves de la salle hypostyle ont été malheureuse-
ment détruites, particulièrement dans la nef
nord23, quelques documents d’archives montrent
que certaines d’entre elles, jusqu’à une date rela-
tivement récente, étaient encore visibles.
Outre celle que Vincent Rondot étudie ci-après,
on signalera :
– Un bloc abandonné jadis au sommet du mon-
tant nord de la porte du IIe pylône, illustré
par une photographie de la fin du XIXe siècle
publiée par Mariette24 ; après l’intervention de

21
Cf. V. Rondot, Les architraves, p. 110, SB4 côté
(pl.52, J).
22
Il en existe des photographies dans les archives de
M. Pillet, insuffisantes toutefois pour que le but recherché
puisse être atteint.
23
Voir l’état des connaissances résumé par les plans
donnés dans V. Rondot, Les architraves, Fig.2 p. 5, et M. Azim,
G. Réveillac, Legrain, vol.1, Fig.9 p. 135. V. Rondot, Les archi-
traves p. 6, indique que les pierres in situ ne représentent
plus aujourd’hui que 43% du total initial, et seulement 13,5%
dans la nef nord.
24
Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte (Le Caire : Mourès,
1878, réédité chez Paris : Errance, 1999), pl. 41 ; V. Rondot,
J.-C. Golvin, « Restaurations antiques à l’entrée de la salle
hypostyle ramesside du temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak »,
MDAIK 45 (1989), p. 249-259, Fig.1 p. 250 et Taf.29
(bloc B).
 architraves de la grande salle hypostyle du temple d’amon-rê à karnak
Legrain sur le monument, en 1907 semble-t-il,
ce bloc n’apparaît plus sur aucun document et
n’a pu depuis être repéré sur le site 25, ce qui
fait donc craindre qu’il n’ait été détruit26.
– Un des deux blocs constituant l’une des
grandes architraves est-ouest de l’allée cen-
trale, côté sud, entre les deux premières
grandes colonnes à compter du IIe pylône27,
a vu sa chute s’arrêter contre le montant
sud de la porte de ce monument ; il est vis-
ible sur une photographie de Francis Frith
prise à la fin des années 1850 28, et avait
auparavant été dessiné par Edward William
Lane dans les années 182029 ; il fut détruit
selon toute vraisemblance vers l’année 1860,
n’apparaissant plus sur aucun cliché après
cette période.
– De toutes les architraves qui joignaient les
rangées extrêmes de colonnes aux murs
latéraux de la salle hypostyle, au nord comme
au sud, une seulement était encore en place
en 191230, bien que les deux blocs qui la
composaient se soient affaissés vers le sud à
la suite de la dégradation de leur mur por-
teur, comme on le constate sur la figure 2.
Cette architrave fut descendue peu après par
Legrain ; son bloc occidental pourrait être
SB131, alors que son compagnon oriental, lui,
n’a pas été retrouvé.
(M.A.)
Une architrave perdue de la nef nord et son
texte
C’est à Michel Azim que je dois la connaissance
de la photographie d’archives qui me fournit la
25
V. Rondot, J.-C. Golvin, MDAIK 45 (1989), n.2
p. 249.
26
M. Azim, G. Réveillac, Legrain, vol.1, p. 127-128.
27
Colonnes n°1 et 2 de Legrain, n°7 et 8 de Nelson ; cf.
V. Rondot, Les architraves, pl. I, deuxième texte de soffite,
en 5, d.
28
A. Grimm, Ägypten, Die photographische Entdeckung
im 19. Jahrhundert (München : Edition Photographica,
Laterna magica, 1980), p. 66 ; J. Vercoutter, L’Égypte à la
chambre noire. Francis Frith, photographe de l’Égypte retrou-
vée (Paris : Gallimard, 1992), p. 31, 125-126.
29
E.W. Lane, Description of Egypt, éd. J. Thompson
(Cairo : American University in Cairo Press, 2000), Fig.81
av. p. 177.
30
M. Azim, G. Réveillac, Legrain, vol.I, Fig.9 p. 135,
architrave 59 sud, p. 169-170, vol.II, cliché 4-3/152.
31
V. Rondot, Les architraves, pl. 53, L.
25
matière de cette note offerte à Bill. Tous deux
furent, lorsque je me proposais de faire les relevés
des textes des architraves de la Grande salle
hypostyle du temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak, les
collègues irremplaçables que tout étudiant sou-
haiterait pouvoir rencontrer au moment où il fait
ses premières armes sur le terrain. L’accueil con-
fiant de Bill et ses conseils avisés ont été décisifs
dans le succès de cette entreprise et c’est un plaisir
que de pouvoir signer avec Michel cet article à sa
mémoire32.
Les archives Lacau, conservées au Centre Vladi-
mir Golénischeff, contiennent une photographie
de G. Legrain datable du début de l’année 1899
et représentant des ouvriers au milieu du désor-
dre des colonnes tombées dans la moitié nord
de la grande salle hypostyle33. La photographie
est publiée34 et, sur mes indications, M. Azim
avait proposé comme position d’origine la volée
entre les colonnes 53 et 6235, côté ouest. Un réex-
amen plus approfondi des indices me fait penser
aujourd’hui que sa position d’origine est beau-
coup plus certainement la volée d’architrave
entre les colonnes 54 et 6336. L’intérêt de ce cliché
est qu’il documente un bloc d’architrave qui a
aujourd’hui disparu et qui fournit un fragment
de texte inconnu de moi lorsque je travaillais à
l’établissement du corpus. Publier un texte à partir
d’une photographie d’archives est toujours une
entreprise délicate, et celle-ci n’échappe pas à la
règle. Il m’a cependant paru possible de prendre
le risque à nouveau, comme j’avais déjà été amené
à le faire pour plusieurs extraits des textes des
architraves37, dans la mesure où nous pouvons
raisonnablement tenir pour acquis que des blocs
aussi gros, lorsqu’ils sont introuvables, ont selon
toute probabilité définitivement disparu.
32
Pour une présentation générale des travaux de pub-
lication de la Grande salle hypostyle de Karnak, W.J. Mur-
nane, p. J. Brand, J. Karkowski, R. Jaeschke, « The Karnak
Hypostyle Hall Project : (1992-2002) », ASAE 78 (2004),
p. 79-127.
33
Archives Lacau A XX 12. Tous mes remerciements à
Christiane Zivie-Coche et à Ivan Guermeur pour les facilités
qui m’ont été faites lors de l’examen du tirage original.
34
M. Azim, G. Réveillac, Legrain, photo 4-3/56, vol.II
p. 57, et commentaire, vol.I p. 146-147.
35
Ou 120 et 129 (numérotation Nelson).
36
121 et 130 de Nelson.
37
Grâce à des clichés inédits ou publiés, V. Rondot, Les
architraves, p. 187 sq. Les textes des architraves concer-
nés sont : N° 1, sup. et inf. ; N° 2, Sud ; N° 19, Est ; N° 19,
Ouest ; N° 22, Est ; N° 33, inf. ; N° 35, Ouest et Est ; N° 37,
sup. et inf. ; N° 38, Ouest et Est ; N° 39, inf. ; N° 43, sup. ;
NA28+NA29+NE20 côté, sup. et inf.
26 michel azim et vincent rondot
Fig. 3. Nouvel établissement des textes des architraves N° 31, sup. et 31, inf. (d’après V. Rondot, Les architraves,
p. 18*).
Ainsi replacé selon les critères archéologiques
fournis par la photographie, ce bloc permet de
compléter l’établissement des textes N° 31, sup. et
N° 31, inf.38.
Je donne en Figures 4 et 5 le détail agrandi du
bloc d’architrave visible sur la photographie et le
fac-similé schématique des signes encore lisibles,
sur lequel ne figurent que les informations qui
me paraissent assurées. Même ainsi incomplet
et imparfait, cet établissement du texte présente
plusieurs intérêts pour notre connaissance du
corpus des textes des architraves. Le premier tient
dans le fait que ce fragment complète deux des
textes décorant les architraves placées sur l’axe
secondaire nord-sud de la salle c’est-à-dire à une
position remarquable dans le plan général des
architraves. Le second est que le texte de la ligne
supérieure (N° 31, sup.) contient une formule de
dédicace que notre fragment vient compléter par
un développement, alors que dans l’établissement
antérieur, la lacune interrompait brutalement ce
texte. Le troisième enfin tient à ce que ce fragment
ajoute au vocabulaire des architraves deux mots et
une expression jusqu’à présent non attestés dans
notre corpus.
38
Ibid., Rondot, p. 18* et pl. 10.
La Fig. 3 ci-dessous donne le nouvel établisse-
ment des deux textes.
La traduction de N° 31, sup. est désormais la
suivante :
(Vive)
l’Horus : Taureau puissant, celui qui apparaît dans
Thèbes celui qui fait vivre les Deux Terres.
Roi puissant,
Aux grands monuments dans le domaine de (son)
père Amon-Rê,
[…] ? […] ? pour lui.
Le roi de Haute et Basse-Égypte : Menmaâtrê-
l’élu-de-Rê.
Il a fait comme mémorial personnel pour (son)
père Amon-Rê, roi des dieux, l’acte de faire pour
lui un temple auguste et grand […]
[…] il irradie et il s’en (du temple) réjouit. En
récompense à [ce]la, [il donne ?] vie-et-pouvoir
[…].
Ps est l’un des mots nouveaux dans le vocabulaire
des architraves, à ajouter à wbn, déjà attesté par
deux fois (N° 29, inf. et NE 40 côté, sup.), seul autre
verbe qui décrive dans nos textes le dieu investis-
sant de sa lumière le nouveau temple construit39.
39
Les deux autres verbes, en effet, s et n, sont réser-
vés au roi qui fait resplendir le temple, Ipet-Sout, Thèbes
 architraves de la grande salle hypostyle du temple d’amon-rê à karnak 27

Fig. 4. Photographie G. Legrain 1899. Archives Lacau A XX 12. Détail agrandi de l’architrave.

Fig. 5. Fac-similé schématique du texte lisible sur la photographie d’archives Lacau A XX 12.

Il n’est pas exclu, alors, que le fragment NE40
(pl. 48, W) ait pu appartenir à notre texte, sur
l’argument de son contenu, mais également parce
qu’il appartient lui aussi à une ligne supérieure
dont les hiéroglyphes ont été martelés systéma-
tiquement, selon la même technique que N°31
comme du bloc de notre photographie d’archives.
Nous aurions dans ce cas un long développement
tout entier consacré à la brillance du dieu dans
le temple.
Les martelages rendent la suite du texte dif-
ficile à établir avec certitude. La forme qu’ils pren-
nent autant que la présence du r au bas du cadrat
invitent à restituer un r dans le cadrat suivant40
dans une phrase tp r.s décrivant la joie du dieu
pour le temple construit (wt-nr wrt), repris
par le pronom suffixe .s. Le verbe jusqu’alors
le plus largement attesté dans nos textes pour
décrire cette joie divine est ἰ (N° 1, inf., n. b),

ou les Deux-Terres ou dont l’éclat est étincelant à l’instar
des dieux solaires (ibid., Les architraves, Index I, p. 162 et
164), à l’exception toutefois d’une attestation de s dans
un texte qui dit du temple qu’il est « resplendissant comme
le disque du soleil » (N° 1, sup.).
40
Pour d’autres exemples de r intégralement martelés
et en ne débordant pas ou que très peu la silhouette du
signe, pl. 3 (N° 4, sup.), pl. 4 (N° 6, sup.) et pl. 9 (N° 15,
inf., trois fois). Le contour que j’ai donné aux martelages
sur la Fig. 3 n’est pas assuré.
28 michel azim et vincent rondot
l’expression tp r étant quant à elle réservée au
roi, dans un total de seulement trois attestations
il est vrai, dont deux épithètes royales41.
Ainsi « découpée », cependant, la phrase
reprend par l’expression r ἰsw, alors que l’on atten-
drait plutôt un nouveau verbe, avec pour sujet le
dieu ou le pronom suffixe le désignant. Peut-on
proposer, sans être trop conjectural, que le verbe
prenne place plus loin, dans la lacune après le
démonstratif nn dans une phrase qui serait r ἰsw
n[n rdἰ.f] nh-wAs [… n sA R cartouche] ? Le mot
ἰsw est déjà employé deux fois dans nos textes
(N° 9, sup., n. j) et c’est ici la troisième attestation,
dans une graphie nouvelle42. Les autres termes
utilisés sont mtn « récompense » et l’expression
nm sw m (N° 9, sup., n. e).
Les textes en place comme les fragments font
apparaître que cette réjouissance divine pour la
fondation royale, suivie des récompenses accor-
dées au roi, est l’un des thèmes fondamentaux
du corpus des textes des architraves. Ce sont les
mots mêmes du dieu, rapportés par les discours
divins placés symétriquement sur l’axe majeur,
l’un adressé aux dieux de l’Égypte (N° 9, sup.),
l’autre au roi (N° 10, sup.), qui le manifestent de
la façon la plus directe et la plus étendue. Il semble
bien que, dans les textes de la partie nord de la salle
(ceux de Séthi Ier), cette réjouissance suivie d’une
récompense divines aient été l’une des clausules
les plus utilisées, ce que l’état fragmentaire des
textes ne laisse plus voir aujourd’hui.
La traduction de N° 31, inf. est désormais la sui-
vante :
Les Deux Maîtresses : Celui qui répète les nais-
sances, celui dont le glaive est puissant, celui qui
repousse les Neuf Arcs ;
L’Horus d’Or : Celui qui répète les couronnements,
celui dont les arcs sont puissants dans tous les
pays.
41
V. Rondot, Les architraves, Index I, p. 161 et Index III,
p. 172.
42
Comparer, pour la salle hypostyle, avec KRI I, p. 210,
13 (discours d’Amon au-dessus de la barque procession-
nelle).
43
A. Erman et H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der ägyptischen
Sprache, II, Die Belegstellen, 4e édition (Berlin : Akademie-
Verlag, 1992) cite Urk. IV, p. 424 et Abyd. Mar. I, 19b (=
KRI I, p. 161, 13). Je renvoie à nouveau à Chr. Desroches
Noblecourt, Ch. Kuentz, Le petit temple d’Abou Simbel I (Le
Roi
[qui fait un mé]morial dans le domaine
d’Amon,
[détermi]né [à construi]re pour celui qui l’a mis
au monde.
Le roi de Haute et Basse-Égypte : Men-[maât]rê-
[l’él]u-de-Rê.
Prince parfait,
le bien-aimé,
fils aîné de Horakhty,
celui qui construit les temples […]
[…] ses rayons.
C’est le roi lui-même […]
Le mot mAwt et l’expression nswt s.f sont tous
deux nouveaux dans nos textes. Le contexte est
beaucoup trop lacunaire pour qu’il soit utile ou
possible d’établir plus avant ce passage. On remar-
quera cependant que les « rayons » dont il est
question sont divins selon toute vraisemblance,
agissant d’une façon ou d’une autre sur les temples
construits par le roi et dont il est fait mention43.
L’expression « C’est le roi lui-même » conclut la
série d’épithètes qui précède en décrivant le sou-
verain « à l’œuvre » lorsqu’il s’agit de donner les
instructions pour la construction du temple44.
Voici donc les informations supplémentaires
fournies par ces deux fragments de textes. Elles
sont à la fois nouvelles, pour le vocabulaire, et
attendues, pour la phraséologie. Il faut rappeler
ici que selon mes calculs, nous ne connaissons
qu’une partie très réduite des textes ayant décoré
la partie nord de la salle (sculptés sous le règne de
Séthi Ier) puisque j’avais pu estimer à 13,5 % le
pourcentage des blocs en place ou rétablis à leur
position d’origine45. On retiendra ici surtout la
place particulièrement importante donnée à la
radiance divine, dans ces deux lignes de textes pla-
cées sur l’axe secondaire nord-sud de la salle.
(V. R.)
Caire : Centre de documentation et d’étude sur l’ancienne
Égypte, 1968), p. 142-145. J’avais remarqué que pour
l’épithète mrwty « le bien-aimé », lorsque le roi est comparé
à des divinités, ce sont les divinités solaires qui reviennent le
plus souvent, V. Rondot, Les architraves, N° 31, inf., n. e.
44
N° 4, sup., n. d avec le recours deux fois dans nos
textes à l’expression équivalente ἰn m.f « C’est Sa Majesté
qui… ». Comparer, pour la salle hypostyle, avec KRI I, 207,
5-6 (fête d’Opet).
45
V. Rondot, Les architraves, p. 5 sq. et Fig. 2.
 usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor
USURPED CARTOUCHES OF MERENPTAH AT KARNAK AND LUXOR
Peter J. Brand
University of Memphis
It is an honor to dedicate this article to my late
friend and mentor Bill Murnane. I have the fond-
est memories of hours we spent together at Karnak
pouring over epigraphic conundrums on the walls
of the Great Hypostyle Hall. I count myself highly
fortunate to have been trained in the arcane art
of epigraphy from a master of the craft. So too in
the disciplines of Egyptian history and historiog-
raphy I benefited immeasurably from his tutelage
during countless hours of exposure to his vast
knowledge and incisive reasoning skills both in
formal class sessions and stimulating discussions
outside the classroom as a student in Memphis
and later during our work at Karnak. His death
left a great void in my own life professionally
and personally, and not a day passes when I do
not think about him or speak about him to my
colleagues and my own students.
Introduction: Usurped Cartouches in
the New Kingdom
At Karnak and Luxor temples one often finds the
cartouches of Seti II carved secondarily over the
erased titulary of one of his Ramesside predeces-
sors in wall reliefs, statuary and bandeau texts.
The usurpation of royal inscriptions, especially
in the Nineteenth Dynasty, is a common enough
phenomenon in the New Kingdom, but one can
1
P.J. Brand, “Methods used in Restoring Reliefs
Vandalized during the Amarna Period,” GM 170 (1999),
pp. 37-48.
2
E.g., Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions from
Luxor Temple, Volume 1: The Festival Procession of Opet
in the Colonnade Hall (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of
the University of Chicago, 1994), passim; idem, The Facade,
Portal, Upper Register Scenes, Columns, Marginalia, and
Statuary in the Colonnade Hall (Chicago: The Oriental Insti-
tute of the University of Chicago, 1998), passim.
3
K.C. Seele, The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I and
the Date of the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1940), pp. 7-8 and Figs. 1-2.
4
Ibid, pp. 7-8; W.J. Murnane, “Ramesses I and the Build-
ing of the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak Revisited,” VA
10 (1995), pp. 163-168; W.J. Murnane† and P.J. Brand,
29
often find vestiges of the earlier ruler’s name as
a palimpsest beneath the surcharger’s. Although
this is not always the case, especially with inscrip-
tions carved in hard stone like granite,1 enough
traces usually remain to credit the original authors
of whole series of usurped wall reliefs on lime-
stone and sandstone monuments. Examples are
numerous, including reliefs of Hatshepsut at
Karnak and Deir el-Bahari, Tutankhamen’s reliefs
surcharged by Horemheb in the Colonnade Hall
at Luxor,2 Ramesses I’s usurpations of Horemheb
on the Second Pylon at Karnak,3 Ramesses II’s
replacements of his three immediate predeces-
sors’ cartouches on the Second Pylon4 and in the
Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall,5 as well as Ramesses
VI’s appropriation of Ramesses IV’s reliefs in the
Hypostyle Hall6 and elsewhere at Karnak.7
Usurped Cartouches Naming Seti II at
Karnak
Among the cartouches usurped by Seti II at
Karnak, however, only rarely do any traces of
the original author remain. In a few instances
it is clear that Merenptah’s name had occurred
earlier, as with the war scenes on the west exte-
rior wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak
and some blocks from its walls, where faint
traces of Merenptah’s titulary occasionally surive
“The Karnak Hypostyle Hall Project (1992-2002),” ASAE
78 (2004), pp. 100-101.
5
W.J. Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and
his Coregency with Sety I,” JNES 34 (1975), pp. 180-183;
P.J. Brand, The Monuments of Seti I: Epigraphic, Histori-
cal and Art Historical Analysis (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000),
pp. 193-196.
6
Murnane† and Brand, ASAE 78 (2004), pp. 106-107
and Figs. 12A-B.
7
E.g., the bandeau texts inside the Cour de la Cachette
(PM II2, p. 132 [490]; KRI IV, pp. 40-42) and on the obe-
lisk of Thutmose I (PM II2, p. 75 [D]; KRI IV, pp. 31-32).
See K.A. Kitchen, “The Twentieth Dynasty Revisited,” JEA
68 (1982), p. 122; A.J. Peden, The Reign of Ramesses IV
(Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1994), p. 38.
30 peter j. brand

Fig. 1. Cartouches of Merenptah surcharged by Seti II from a war scene at the north end of the west exterior wall of the
Cour de la Cachette at Karnak. The surface of the cartouche has not been cut back as have others on this wall. Location.
PM II2, p. 132 (491).

(Figs. 1-2, 14-15). The original date of these sur-
charged reliefs on the west wall of the Cachette
court—especially the war scenes—has been the
subject of great controversy and some maintain
that they were first authored by Ramesses II and
usurped in turn by Merenptah, Amenmesse and
finally Seti II.8 No sign of Ramesses II’s titulary
and no reliable trace of Amenmesse has ever been
found in this court.9 Vestiges of Merenptah’s mon-
ikers are occasionally found in some of the car-
touches from the Cachette war scenes, but many
betray no sign of their previous owner although
it is obvious they have been recut. Unfortunately
this is true of most of the cartouches inscribed
secondarily for Seti II at Karnak. The telltale
smooth depression where the primary name was
erased, while clearly betraying that Seti’s name is
not original, was typically accomplished so well
that the identity of the original author is often
unrecoverable (Figs. 3-4). Reliefs and marginal
inscriptions of this type occur all over central
Karnak, including on the Fourth Pylon10 and on a
gateway south of the main axis between the Fifth
and Sixth Pylons.11
It has long been suspected that Amenmesse’s
hand lay beneath the cartouches surcharged by
Seti II, either as their original author or as the
usurper of Merenptah’s titulary. It is all the more

8 10
D.B. Redford, “The Ashkelon Relief at Karnak and
the Israel Stela,” IEJ 36 (1986), p. 193; H. Sourouzian, Les
monuments du roi Merenptah, (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von
Zabern, 1989), p. 150; S. Iskander, “The Reign of Merenptah,”
(PhD dissertation, New York University, 2002), p. 318.
9
So K.A. Kitchen, “Some New Light on the Asiatic Wars
of Ramesses II,” JEA 50 (1964), p. 68, n. 9; idem, RITANC
II, pp. 72-73.
PM II2, pp. 78-79 (202).
11
PM II2, p. 81 (210a); H.H. Nelson, Key Plans Showing
Locations of Theban Temple Decorations (Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1941), KC 34; C. Loeben, “La porte
sud–est de la salle–wAjt,” Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1987),
pp. 207-223.
 usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor
Fig. 2. Drawing of the same cartouche. No trace of Amenmesse’s name as claimed by Yurco was found after repeated
collations.
puzzling, therefore, that direct evidence of Amen-
messe’s presence on the monuments at Karnak
and elsewhere has rarely been detected. A group
of silicious sandstone statues from Karnak rein-
scribed for Seti II are probably to be assigned
to Amenmesse based on historical and stylistic
criteria, although the original monikers have
been thoroughly erased leaving only a few inde-
terminate traces of the primary edition.12 KV 10
can also be confidently assigned to Amenmesse.
Although his reliefs were largely hacked out, his
protocol is still legible in several examples from
the tomb.13
12
F.J. Yurco, “Amenmesse: Six Statues at Karnak,” MMJ
14 (1980), pp. 15-31.The fact that silicious sandstone, often
called quartzite, is a hard stone and was left unpainted
necessitated the thorough erasure of the original text prior
to usurpation since paint and plaster could not have been
used to mask the original inscription. See Brand, GM 170
(1999), pp. 37-48.
13
E.L. Ertman, “A First Report on the Preliminary Survey
of Unexcavated KV-10 (The Tomb of Amenmesse),” KMT 4.2
(1993), pp. 38-46; O.J. Schaden, “The Tomb of Amenmesse
(KV-10): The First Season,” ASAE 63 (1998), pp. 116-155;
idem, “KV-10: Amenmesse 2000,” ASAE 78 (2004), pp. 129-
147; idem, “Some Observations on the Tomb of Amenmesse
(KV -10),” in Essays in Egyptology in Honor of Hans Goedicke,
eds. B.M. Bryan and D. Lorton (San Antonio, Texas: Van
Siclen Books, 1994), pp. 243-254.
31
Amenmesse is often suspected to have been
responsible for deleting Merenptah’s names from
the walls of Karnak and Luxor. It is generally
assumed, too, that he simultaneously placed his
name in their stead. Frank Yurco claimed to have
found slight traces of Amenmesse’s names in a
couple of cartouches from the war scenes on the
west wall of the Cour de la Cachette,14 but subse-
quent inspections have shown these to be phan-
toms (Figs. 1-2).15 Elsewhere at Karnak, only a
handful of Amenmesse’s cartouches have ever
been detected as palimpsests beneath usurpa-
tions by Seti II or even Ramesses III.16 In those
14
F.J. Yurco, “Merenptah’s Canaanite Campaign,” JARCE
23 (1986), pp. 189-215.
15
I have inspected these cartouches on three separate
occasions in the past few years: in the company of Bill Mur-
nane and Samah Iskander (February 2000), alone (March
2001) and with my graduate students Robert Griffin, Louise
Cooper and Heather Sayre (December 2004). On each occa-
sion, we all agreed that only the names of Merenptah and
Seti II were visible amid chisel marks. No traces suited
Ramesses II or Amenmesse. See Murnane† and Brand, ASAE
78 (2004), p. 104.
16
A handful of usurped cartouches at Karnak have been
attributed to Amenmesse. These include: a bandeau text
from the eastern temple of Ramesses II (PM II2, p. 211
[30-31]; P. Barguet, Le Temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak, [Cairo:
Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale,
32 peter j. brand

Fig. 3. Cartouches of Seti II carved over thoroughly erased originals from a gateway in central Karnak. Location. PM II2,
p. 95 (272). The original author in this case was Amenmesse based on traces from another cartouche in the same series
identified by Roy Hopper.

Fig. 4. Bandeau text from central Karnak usurped by Seti II. No trace of the original name can be detected, although its
original author is probably Merenptah. Location. PM II2, p. 88 (237).

cases where Amenmesse’s name can be detected
beneath Seti II’s, it seems likely that Amenmesse
was the original author of the inscription since in
no case have traces of both Merenptah and Amen-
messe been detected in cartouches usurped by
Seti II. From a historical point of view, however,
it seems less plausible that Seti II would have
usurped cartouches of Merenptah left untouched
by Amenmesse as Seti was Merenptah’s son and
legitimate heir. But what if Amenmesse, instead
of usurping these cartouches, had merely erased
them?

1962], p. 229, n. 2); on the gate of the Fourth Pylon (PM
II2, 79 [202c-d]; ibid., Barguet, p. 90, n. 3); on a gate in the
Akhmenu (ibid., Barguet, p. 204); a gateway with adjoining
wall space in central Karnak south and west of the Sixth
Pylon (PM II2, p. 95 [269-273]); and the south-east gateway
of the so-called wAyt-hall of Thutmose I and Hatshep-
sut (PM II2, p. 81 [212d]; Barguet, p. 104, n. 5; Loeben,
Karnak 8 [Paris: ERC, 1987], pp. 213 and 217). I was able
to inspect most of these cartouches in 2004 and 2006. Of
these, the bandeau text from the eastern temple I found no
discernable traces of an earlier name, only chisel marks from
where the surface was cut back. The palimpsest traces on the
south-east gate of the wAyt-hall clearly suit Amenmesse.
On the facade of the Fourth Pylon, vertical lines in the
palimpsest might correspond to elements of Amenmesse’s
nomen. I was unable to locate the text from the Akhmenu
cited by Barguet. However, my doctoral student Mr. Roy
Hopper, who is preparing a dissertation on Amenmesse and
Seti II, has now confirmed that there are indeed traces of
Amenmesse’s titulary in some of these locations, includ-
ing the gateway south and west of the Sixth Pylon and on
one of the colossi at the entrance to the Akkhmenu (PM
II2, p. 112 [343]).
 usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor
Of pharaonic chronology after Merenptah’s
death, we can only be certain that—in the Theban
area at least—Amenmesse held sway before Seti
II, regardless of whether Seti enjoyed some
brief control over the region immediately after
Merenptah’s death. We shall not consider here
the geographical range of Amenmesse’s author-
ity, his origins, the length of his tenure, nor his
blood relationship with either Merenptah or Seti
II, if any, all of which are being investigated in
a new study of Seti II’s and Amenmesse’s reigns
by my doctoral student Roy Hopper of the Uni-
versity of Memphis.17 Instead, the aims of this
study are limited to investigating the alteration
of Merenptah’s reliefs at Karnak and Luxor by
Amenmesse and Seti II.
The treatment of the cartouches reinscribed by
Seti II is telling. Before his name was placed in
them, the original titulary had been thoroughly
erased by cutting back and carefully smoothing
down the surface, a process, we have seen, that
often left no sign of the original text (Figs. 3-4). In
every case we are dealing with sunk relief, but the
most common practice in the Ramesside era when
usurping a sunk relief cartouche was simply to
plaster over the original name and incise the new
text over it without shaving the original surface
down.18 This method was applied, inter alia, to a
cartouche of Merenptah usurped by Amenmesse
from an isolated bandeau text at the Ramesseum
(Figs. 5-6).19 When the aim was damnatio memo-
riae, however, it was common practice simply to
hack the name away as with reliefs vandalized by
Akhenaten or many defacements of Hatshepsut’s
17
For recent scholarship on the reign, see most impor-
tantly: R. Krauss, “Untersuchungen zu Konig Amenmesse
(1. Teil),” SAK 4 (1976), pp. 161-99; idem, “Untersuchungen
zu Konig Amenmesse (2. Teil),” SAK 5 (1977), pp. 131-74;
A. Dodson, “Amenmesse in Kent, Liverpool, and Thebes,”
JEA 81 (1995), pp. 115-28; C. Vandersleyen, L’Égypte et la
Vallée du Nil, vol. 2, De la fin de l’Ancien Empire à la fin du
Nouvel Empire (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1995),
pp. 575-81; A.J. Spalinger, “Review of Die Elephantine-Stele
des Sethnakht und ihr historischer Hintergrund, by Rosemarie
Drenkhahn,” BiOr 39 (1982), pp. 272-88.
18
Examples include reliefs of Horemheb on the facade
of the Second Pylon usurped in turn by Ramesses I and II
(Seele, Coregency, Figs. 1-2; Murnane† and Brand, ASAE
78 [2004], Fig. 54). Ramesses II used the same methods
on the exterior walls of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak as
did Ramesses VI in usurping Ramesses IV throughout
Karnak. Traces of plaster masking can still be found in
some instances. (ibid., Murnane† and Brand, Fig. 12A;
P.J. Brand, “Veils, Votives, and Marginalia: The Use of Sacred
Space at Karnak and Luxor,” in Sacred Space and Sacred
Function in Ancient Thebes, eds. P.F. Dorman and B.M. Bryan
[Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
2006], p. 53 and Fig. 5.6).
33
monuments.20 Sometimes, however, a damnatio
memoriae was perpetrated by carefully erasing a
name while leaving the attendant surface of the
monument otherwise unblemished, especially in
the case of raised relief which could be sliced off.
This process was also employed to usurp raised
relief inscriptions, which were typically replaced
by sunk relief in the Ramesside era. Slicing away
raised relief cartouches generally left engraved
traces behind caused by the method employed in
carving raised relief. These traces have allowed the
original authors of many usurped 18th Dynasty
and early 19th Dynasty reliefs to be identified.21
The thorough erasure of earlier names that leave
no trace whatsoever, however, is less common,
especially with sunk relief. Even with proscrip-
tions of Tutankhamen and Ay on the dismantled
temple called the “Mansion of Nebkhepurure at
Thebes,” Horemheb erased raised and sunk relief
cartouches of these kings, but not so completely
that they cannot still be read, sometimes easily
(Figs. 7-9).22 By contrast, the care applied to era-
sures of cartouches secondarily inscribed for Seti
II is remarkable and this is all the more frus-
trating for the epigraphist seeking a palimpsest.
Fortunately, there are some revealing exceptions.
A handful of altered inscriptions of Merenptah at
Karnak and Luxor shed much light on the rest.
In a few places at Karnak and Luxor, Meren-
ptah’s name escaped erasure. Aside from some
marginalia,23 the most prominent survivors are in
the Great Historical Inscription on the south half
of the east wall inside the Cour de la Cachette.24 In
both the text and some accompanying triumphal
19
C. Leblanc et al., Le Ramesseum IX-1, Les piliers
“osiriaques” (Cairo: Organisation égyptienne des antiquités,
1980), pp. 45, 167, j. 20a and pl. 96.
20
For the various methods of defacement of Hatshepsut’s
monuments see A.M. Roth, “Erasing a Reign,” in Hatshepsut:
From Queen to Pharaoh, ed. Catharine H. Roehrig (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), pp. 277-281.
21
Bill Murnane was responsible for some of these dis-
coveries. See n. 4.
22
O. Schaden, “Report on the 1978 Season at Karnak,”
NARCE 127 (1984), pp. 44-64; idem, “Tutankhamun-Ay
Shrine at Karnak and the Western Valley of the Kings Proj-
ect: Report on the 1985-1986 Season,” NARCE 138 (1987),
pp. 10-15.
23
So in the negative space between the legs of some
of the colossi in the Ramesside court at Luxor (PM II2,
pp. 311-312).
24
PM II 2, pp. 131-132 (486-488); C. Manassa, The
Great Karnak Inscription of Merenptah: Grand Strategy
in the 13th Century BC (New Haven: Yale Egyptological
Seminar, 2003); F. Le Saout, “Reconstitution des murs de la
cour de la cachette,” Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1982), pp. 213-
258.
34 peter j. brand

Fig. 5. Bandeau text of Merenptah usurped by Amenmesse from a pier in the second court of the Ramesseum. Location.
PM II2, p. 435, pillar E(b); Leblanc et al., Le Ramesseum IX-1, pl. 9.

Fig. 6. Detail of figure 5. the prenomen cartouche usurped by Amenmesse. Traces of plaster used to cover Merenptah’s
titulary remain.

scenes, Merenptah’s titulary was never mutilated.
Elsewhere in the court, we know that the war
scenes on the west exterior wall had once been
inscribed for him—originally or secondarily—as
well as an isolated scene at the north end of the
east interior wall of the Cachette court showing
the king between the paws of a criosphinx (Figs.
10-11).25 On the west interior wall, the original
royal names in a series of ritual scenes have been
erased and replaced with those of Seti II (Figs.
12-13).26 Although they have been attributed to
Ramesses II,27 they are more likely the work of
Mereptah.28 Even more fierce is the debate con-
cerning the initial author of the war scenes on

25
PM II2, p. 131 (482) where it is wrongly attributed prior to Seti II’s has been discovered in this series ritual
to Ramesses IX: Yurco, JARCE 23 (1986), p. 198, Fig. 12; scenes.
27
H. Sourouzian, Les monuments du roi Merenptah, pp. 149- Le Saout, Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1987), p. 229 and n.
150 and Fig. 11. 98; Sourouzian, Les monuments du roi Merenptah, pp. 143
26
PM II2, p. 132 (490), which wrongly labels them “Sethos and 150.
28
II usurped by Ramesses II”(!) The original names were so Yurco, JARCE 23 (1986), pp. 189-215.
thoroughly erased here that, to date, no trace of any name
 usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor 35

Fig. 7. Architrave fragment from the “Mansion of Nepkhepurure at Thebes” found at Karnak. The prenomen of Ay was care-
fully erased by Horemheb while that of Tutankhamen was left intact. O. Schaden, NARCE 127 (1984), p. 57, Fig. 25-2.

Fig. 8. Another erased cartouche of Ay. Distinct traces of his prenomen can still be made out.

Fig. 9. Another architrave fragment from the “Mansion of Nebkhepurure at Thebes.” The distinctive epithets of Ay’s Horus
and Two Ladies names have been erased though traces remain. O. Schaden, NARCE 127 (1984), p. 56, Fig. 7-2.
36 peter j. brand

Fig. 10. Scene of Merenptah kneeling between the paws of a criosphinx from the north end of the east interior wall of the
Cour de la Cachette at Karnak. Location. PM II2, p. 131 (482).

Fig. 11. Detail of figure 10. Merenptah’s names have been

subject to hacking, but the damnatio memoriae was never
completed and no other royal names were carved in their
stead.

Fig. 12. Seti II driving the four calves before Amen-Re in a

scene from the west interior wall of the Cour de la Cachette
at Karnak. Location. PM II2, p. 132 (490, II.5).
 usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor
Fig. 13. Detail of figure 12. cartouches and Horus name of Seti II carved over erased originals on the west interior wall
of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak.
the west exterior wall of the Cour de la Cachette.
It has been claimed by Redford, Sourouzian,
Iskander and Lurson that the cartouches in these
war scenes were inscribed and reinscribed by as
many as four kings, viz. Ramesses II–Merenptah–
Amenmesse–Seti II,29 while Yurco would elimi-
nate only Ramesses II from this list.30 Yet in just
a couple of the war scenes (Figs. 1-2),31 and a
small number of loose blocks stemming from this
section of the wall (Figs. 14-15),32 the only traces
of an earlier name beneath Seti II’s final edition
belong to Merenptah alone.33
29
Redford, IEJ 36 (1986), p. 193; Sourouzian, Les monu-
ments du roi Merenptah, p. 150; S. Iskander, “The Reign of
Merenptah,” p. 318; B. Lurson, “Israël sous Merenptah ou
le sort de l’ennemi dans l’Égypte Ancienne,” in Étrangers
et exclus dans le Monde Biblique. Colloque International
à l’Université Catholique de l’Ouest, Angers, les 20 et 21
février 2002 (Théolarge 3), (Angers: Université Catholique
de l’Ouest, 2003), 45-62 .
30
Yurco, JARCE 23 (1986), pp. 197-198.
31
Ibid., pp. 196-201 and Figs. 10-11, 13 and 15.
32
Ibid., pp. 201-204 and Figs. 17-20.
33
As noted above, traces of Amenmesse’s name in some of
these cartouches have proved illusory after repeated examina-
tion in the field. So contra Yurco, ibid., pp. 196ff. and Figs.
10, 13 and 15. His evidence for Amenmesse’s name in these
cartouches is very slim, consisting of a few scratches against
very distinctive traces of Merenptah’s titulary in his Fig. 10.
His figures 13 and 15 are somewhat misleading. Only the
mἰ-sign in the text over the horses’ backs is said to remain,
but this is in a severely damaged part of the inscription,
yet the “second version” is rendered without indicating that
even he saw almost none of this phantom cartouche. So
too the “possible second version” of Amenmesse’s nomen
37
Measurement of the depressions in which the
final version of Seti II was carved shows that
it is impossible for four or even three separate
royal names to have been carved successively in
any of them.34 Are we to believe that three or
four sets of sunk relief carvings were inserted in
these confined spaces, yet aside from the final ver-
sion of Seti II, in only a handful of the dozens of
usurped cartouches do we find even a few traces
of any earlier name and these always belong-
ing to Merenptah? Moreover, since the usurped
cartouches from the Cour de la Cachette have
in Fig. 15 is likewise virtually impossible.
34
Measurements of cartouches from the battle scenes
made in 2000 by the late William J. Murnane and the
author, and augmented in 2001 and 2004 in a check of
other usurped cartouches naming Seti II from the Cour de
la Cachette and central Karnak, confirmed that the depres-
sions in these cartouches were quite shallow. The depth to
which the original surface was cut back varies from 0.7 to
1.5 cm. It is impossible that three successive sunk relief
cartouches could have been carved and then erased inside
these cartouches, leaving no trace behind when a fourth
one was carved. The reading of palimpsests is taxing, but
not impossible and we need not succumb to a council of
ignorance and declare that it is too difficult to decipher such
inscriptions and that “no one can tell whether the name of
Merenptah is original, or whether it was carved secondarily
in a blank cartouche” (Redford, Israel Exploration Journal
36 [1986], p. 193). Moreover, to posit that Ramesses II’s
name once existed here but has been obliterated by mul-
tiple subsequent usurpations constitutes an argument ex
silento. So contra: Redford, ibid., p. 193; Sourouzian, Les
monuments du roi Merenptah, p. 150; Iskander, “The Reign
of Merenptah,” p. 318.
38 peter j. brand
Fig. 14. Erased cartouche of Merenptah surcharged by Seti
II on a loose block from the war scenes on the west exterior
wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak. Le Saout, Karnak
8 (Paris. ERC, 1987), p. 231.
been shaved back to the same degree as other
cartouches reinscribed by Seti II in various ban-
deau texts, marginal inscriptions and a gateway
from the central part of Karnak, we would have to
conclude that Merenptah had usurped these, too,
from his father while ignoring many other reliefs
of Ramesses II at Karnak. Finally, if Merenptah
had started this orgy of usurpation by appropriat-
ing the war reliefs on the west wall of the Cour de
la Cachette from Ramesses, why did he not annex
the adjoining ones on the south wall of the Great
Hypostyle Hall or the decorative titulary on the
pilasters of the Hittite Peace Treaty stela?
It would seem that Merenptah did not engage
in a large program of usurping Ramesses II’s
decoration on the west exterior wall of the Cour
de la Cachette or elsewhere at Karnak where his
own name itself was subsequently erased. Instead,
35
In the later stages of preparing this essay I chanced
across a brief article where Bill Murnane had already reached
the same conclusions about Amenmesse and the inscrip-
tions of Merenptah at Luxor Temple which I discuss here.
W.J. Murnane, “Les cartouches trompeurs du temple de
Fig. 15. Drawing of figure 14. My own collation did not find
as many traces of Merenptah’s prenomen as Le Saout’s did.
Cf. Le Saout, Karnak 8 (Paris. ERC, 1987), p. 231.
Merenptah’s original relief decoration at Karnak
was subjected to erasure. Amenmesse would
seem to be the most likely candidate responsible
for this proscription, yet we find no trace of his
name in these erased cartouches. Rather it is Seti
II, Merenptah’s rightful and eventual heir, who
placed his names over his father’s deleted ones.
An examination of some erased inscriptions from
Luxor temple and a second look at some of the
Karnak examples resolves this conundrum.
Erased Marginal Decoration of Merenptah at
Luxor Temple35
At Luxor temple, bandeau texts and other
marginal inscriptions from the later Nine-
teenth Dynasty can be found in the Ramesside
Louqsor,” in Égypte: Louqsor temple du Ka royal, Dossiers
histoire et archéologie 101 (1986), pp. 48-49.
36
Located at PM II2, pp. 307-309 (27-31) but omitted
there. See Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pls. 143, 200 and
204.
 usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor
Fig. 16. Erased marginal inscription of Merenptah along the base of the west interior wall of the Ramesside forecourt at
Luxor Temple beneath a procession of Ramesses II’s daughters. Location. PM II2, p. 308 (28).
forecourt,36 the Colonnade Hall37 and the solar
court of Amenhotep III.38 Despite the poor condi-
tion of the lower course of the eastern and western
walls of the Ramesside and solar courts, we may
confidently reconstruct this program of marginal
texts as having encompassed most of the interior
dados of all three structures. In addition, decora-
tive friezes of cartouches and strings of titulary
have been added to the columns in the Colonnade
Hall.39 All of this marginalia was subsequently
altered in some fashion to eliminate the name of
its original author, but the treatment of specific
inscriptions varies throughout the temple.
Inside the Ramesside forecourt, a series of ban-
deau texts cut in sunk relief along the base of the
interior walls has been deliberately, if not thor-
oughly, erased. The texts probably once encom-
passed the south, west and east interior walls of the
court. The lower courses of the masonry are often
so poorly preserved that only fragments of the
western text remain and no such inscriptions—if
they ever occurred—survive along the base of the
eastern wall (Fig. 16). Along the dado of the better
preserved south wall, corresponding in part to the
facade of the Colonnade Hall, substantial remains
of these erased texts persist (Figs. 17-18).40 On
both wings of the facade, Merenptah’s texts were
carved over the horizontal lines of a dado pattern.
In each case, after the phrase n r kA nt, the rest
of the inscription and the earlier dado lines were
37
Ibid., Epigraphic Survey, pls. 155-159, 172-173, 194-
195 and 224.
38
PM II2, p. 317 (93-98, 101). Some are listed as “texts
of Sethos II,” the rest are omitted.
39
Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pls. 178, 194-195.
40
Ibid., pls. 143, 199-200.
39
deleted.41 Extensive traces of the suppressed text
can still be made out, such as the phrase sA R nb
w on both sides and nsw-bἰty on the western one.
More exacting was the treatment applied to the
cartouches. Even here, though, enough survives
to peg Merenptah as the unfortunate victim of
these efforts. On the east wing, his nomen Mr-n-
Pt-tp-r-MAt can be detected (Figs. 19 and 21).
A prenomen cartouche on the west wing is more
damaged, although the mr-hoe, the head of the
Re hieroglyph and the distinctive ram-glyph of
BA-n-R-Mr-’Imn leave no doubt as to Merenptah’s
authorship of the original text (Fig. 20 and 21).
On the west wall proper, a bandeau text below a
procession of Ramesses II’s daughters has been
shaved down in a similar manner, almost certainly
to the detriment of Merenptah (Fig. 16). It is clear
that whoever altered these reliefs had no intention
of usurping them, but rather he preferred instead
to obliterate them. The only likely candidates are
Amenmesse and Seti II. Votive inscriptions of the
High Priest Pinudjem were later imposed over
some of the erased texts on the east wing of the
south wall.42
In the Colonnade Hall, marginal texts of
Merenptah were arrayed along the bottom of
the east and west walls but were erased in a
manner similar to those in the Ramesside fore-
court. Ramesses IV later carved new bandeau texts
in the same location, but he was certainly not
41
The Epigraphic Survey suggests that Seti II was respon-
sible for the erasures and had originally intended to reuse
these for a new series of inscriptions that were never carved.
Ibid., pp. 6-7. This now seems unlikely, see below.
42
Ibid., pls. 199-200, 204.
40 peter j. brand

Fig. 17. Erased marginal inscription of Merenptah along the base of the west half of the south wall of the Ramesside
forecourt at Luxor Temple beneath a procession of Ramesses II’s sons. A statue may have once stood in front of the
unerased segment in the middle of the photo. Location. PM II2, p. 308 (30).

Fig. 18. Part of an erased marginal inscription of Merenptah below an intact one of Ramesses II from the west wing of
the facade of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor. The phrase sA R nb w has been incompletely erased. More thorough was
the treatment of the king’s nomen cartouche on the right, although the mr-hoe and MAt-figure are discernable. Location.
PM II2, p. 309 (31); Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 143A.

Fig. 19. Erased nomen cartouche of Merenptah from the east wing of the facade of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple.
Cf. Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 143B.
 usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor 41

Fig. 20. Part of a damaged and erased prenomen cartouche of Merenptah from the west wing of the facade of the
Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple. Cf. Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 143A.

Fig. 21. Facimile drawings of erased cartouches of Merenptah on the facade of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple, after
Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 143. Cf. Fig.s 19-20.
42 peter j. brand

Fig. 22. Erased bandeau text of Merenptah from the dado of the west interior wall of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple.
Ramesses IV later carved another bandeau text in its place. The partially erased ram-glyph of Merenptah’s prenomen is
visible beneath the -cobra at the left end of the photograph. Location. PM II2, p. 314 (78); Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2,
pl. 173.

responsible for deleting Merenptah’s (Fig. 22).43
Merenptah also clad the shadow of the door inside
the main entrance of the hall with masonry to
which he added ritual scenes, replacing decora-
tion of Ramesses II that his new masonry covered,
and here, too, his cartouches were subsequently
erased and replaced by Seti II’s protocol.44 Look-
ing to the columns, the culprit might seem to be
Seti II whose name has been inserted over erased
cartouches of Merenptah (Figs. 23-24).45
In the solar court, Merenptah’s dado texts once
encompassed the entire east wall, the east wing of
the north wall and southern portions of the west
wall (Fig. 25). The rest of the west wall and the
west half of the north wall is missing today, but
it is likely that his marginalia also included these
areas. In every case, the bandeau inscriptions were
wholly erased. Along the base of the eastern por-
tico behind the double row of columns, the texts
were never replaced. Elsewhere, on the east half of
the north wall, and on both the east and west walls
of the thicket of columns at the south end of the
solar court, an entirely new set of bandeau texts
was carved by Seti II. Prima facie, the treatment of
Merenptah’s marginal decoration at Luxor temple
appears to be a “typical” case of Ramesside usur-
pation on the part of Seti II.46 If so, Seti went to a
great deal of trouble to remove his father’s inscrip-
tions, often without replacing them. In fact, the
erasures at Luxor Temple have all the hallmarks
of a damnatio memoriae. Evidence from Karnak
and elsewhere indicates that Seti II himself was
not responsible for Merenptah’s proscription.
The Proscription of Crown Prince Seti at
Karnak
Among a dozen or more blocks stemming from
the war scenes on the west exterior wall of the
Cour de la Cachette which now lie in the yard
nearby is a unique representation of a prince

43
Ibid., pp. 25-26 and pls. 172-173, 224B.
44
Ibid., p. 16 and pls. 155-159. According to the Survey,
the recesses in the thickness of the doorway were clad to
erect a smaller doorway here. The cartouches of Merenptah
on the cladding have been usurped, but marginal texts of
Ramesses II on either side were left intact, indicating that
Merenptah’s purpose in covering his father’s reliefs in the
recesses was not antagonism towards his father.
45
Ibid., pls. 178 and 194. These traces were recorded
by the Epigraphic Survey but not shown in their published
drawings except for an erased marginal text on the base of
column 2 (ibid., pl. 195).
46
So Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pp. 6-7.
 usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor 43

Fig. 23. Large cartouches of Seti II surcharged over erased ones of Merenptah on a column in the Colonnade Hall at Luxor
Temple. A tp-sign is discernable beneath the group Pt of Seti’s nomen on the left. None of these traces are shown in
the Epigraphic Survey’s drawings of the columns. Cf. Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 194.

riding in a chariot while enjoying the protection

of a sunshade (Fig. 26).47 The figure of the prince
is intact, but his name has been erased.48 His titu-
lary is ἰry-pt Swty sA-nsw n t.f (Fig. 27). Less
affected is his title ἰry-pt while the phrase sA nsw
n t.f was left untouched.49 Clearly, the intention

Fig. 24. A nomen cartouche of Seti II surcharged over an
erased cartouche of Merenptah from marginal decoration on
a column in the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple. A diagonal
line between the two reed leaves may stem from a squatting
deity figure in Merenptah’s nomen.
47
Le Saout, Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1987), p. 232, 4c and
pl. 9, 4c; Yurco, JARCE 23 (1986), pp. 204-205.
48
This erasure is certainly not the result of a Late Period
proscription of heiroglyphs of the god Seth. In all such cases
in the Theban region, when the Seth-ideogram was removed
from the protocols of kings and princes named Seti, it was
hacked out, not erased. Further, only the offending ideogram
was attacked, not the rest of the name. This is even true
in cartouches of Seti II which themselves were inscribed
in earlier cartouches usurped by that king. Cf. Figs. 3, 13,
23, and 24. So contra Lurson in Étrangers et exclus dans le
Monde Biblique, 57 who maintains that the prince’s name
was erased by iconoclasts in the Late Period offended by
the Seth element.
49
Yurco, Sourouzian and Lurson have argued that the
phrase sA nsw n t.f was the beginning of the titulary of
another prince, the one pictured under the sun shade, and
that the figure of the ἰry-pt Seti was before him on an
adjoining block with his name spilling over onto the pres-
ent one. Ibid., Yurco, p. 205; Souruzian, Les Monuments
du roi Merenptah, 14, n. 84; Lurson, in Étrangers et exclus
dans le Monde Biblique, 57. Lurson even maintains that the
arragement of the prince’s titulary requires three princes
to have once been represented in these war scenes, viz.
Khaemwaset, Seti and “Prince X.”
44 peter j. brand

Fig. 25. An erased bandeau text of Merenptah from the base of the east interior wall of the solar court at Luxor Temple.
Location. PM II2, p. 317 (96).

Fig. 26. Block from the war scenes on the west exterior wall of the Cour de la Cachette showing Crown Prince Seti riding
in a chariot. The first part of the Prince’s titulary has been erased. Le Saout, Karnak 8 (Paris. ERC, 1987), p. 232.

was damnatio memoriae, not usurapation, despite
the seemingly imperfect execution. Of course,
incomplete erasures could have been disguised
further with plaster and whitewash. The identity
of the prince has been subject to debate.50 He is
most probably the Crown Prince and future king
Seti II. As I have argued elsewhere in a study of
the war scenes from the Cour de la Cachette and
their relationship to those of Ramesses II on the
south wall of the Hypostyle Hall, Yurco’s iden-
tification is certainly right.51 At present, I would
note that while the title ἰry-pt need not always
refer to the Crown Prince in the Ramesside age, it
usually does.52 Moreover, the other named prince

I have challenged these observations elsewhere: “The Date
of Battle Reliefs on the South Wall of the Great Hypostyle
Hall and the West Wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak
and the History of the Later Nineteenth Dynasty,” in Rames-
side Studies in Honour of K.A. Kitchen, eds. M. Collier and
S. Snape, (Bolton: Rutherford Press, forthcoming). Here
I would only note that the title ἰry-pt + personal name often
precedes the phrase sA nsw n t.f and this usage is common
with other inscriptions naming Crown Prince Seti (the future
Seti II), in sources from the reign of Merenptah.
50
Ibid., Yurco, p. 205; Kitchen, RITANC II, p. 74;
Iskander, “The Reign of Merenptah,” pp. 57-58.
51
Brand in Ramesside Studies.
52
M.M. Fisher, The Sons of Ramesses II (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2001), pp. 85 and 125.
 usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor
Fig. 27. Detail of fig 26. The erased protocol of Crown Prince
Seti, ἰry-pt Swty.
53
Debate on the identity of this prince Khaemwaset in
the war scenes has been more contentious than that over the
Crown Prince Seti from the loose block. Yurco and Kitchen
maintain that the name is a common enough Ramesside
moniker that it could belong to an otherwise unattested son
of Merenptah, especially as it belonged to his own illustrious
elder brother (Yurco, JARCE 23 [1986], p. 206; Kitchen,
RITANC II, pp. 73-74). Others would identify the prince
from the Karnak war reliefs as Ramesses II’s celebrated son
Khaemwaset (Redford, IEJ 36 [1986], p. 196; Sourouzian,
Les monuments du roi Merenptah, p. 150; Iskander, “The
Reign of Merenptah,” pp. 59-60).
54
Fisher, The Sons of Ramesses II, vol. 1, pp. 109-110;
vol. 2, pp. 151-154; KRI II, p. 900; RITANC II, pp. 603-
604. A prince Seti with the title ἰry-pt is attested once on
a column drum from Cairo (JE 36652; TN 16/2/25/8; SR
13959*) as ἰry-pt. Both Kitchen and Fisher identify him
as the son of Ramesses II and Fisher believes he may have
served briefly as Crown Prince between the tenures of
Khaemwaset and Merenptah (ibid., Fisher, vol. 1, p. 110;
vol. 2, p. 153, no. 9.14). The prince on this drum is shown
standing before his father, a king whose cartouches have
been hacked out. Kitchen’s hand copy records traces of
a sun disk at the top of the prenomen cartouche and of
an Amun-glyph and a Re-glyph at the top of the nomen,
the rest of both monikers he placed in brackets. Without
further direct observation of the piece in Cairo, it is not
clear whether any of these traces are reliable, but Kitchen
clearly expected to find Ramesses II in them.
But could these defaced cartouches have named
45
on the wall, the “king’s son Khaemwaset,” does
not hold this title.53 If Crown Prince Seti is not
the future Seti II, then he would presumably be
the ninth son of Ramesses II.54 But it seems highly
unlikely that this synonymous son of Ramesses,
who died years before his father, would have ever
been singled out as the target of persecution in
the later Nineteenth Dynasty.55 If, however, the
Cour de la Cachette war scenes are the work of
Merenptah and featured his eldest son Seti, then
the latter’s suppression alongside his father at the
hands of the Gegenkönig Amenmesse accounts
for the epigraphic data.56
That Amenmesse suppressed the names and
titles of Merenptah and his intended successor
Seti II on monuments in Thebes seems hard to
escape. Rather than hack them out or carve his
own protocol in their stead, Amenmesse preferred
to erase Merenptah’s titulary. These deletions
occasionally included whole bandeau texts. Nor
did an isolated ocurrance of Crown Prince Seti’s
name in his father’s war scenes on the west wall
of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak escape pro-
scription. It is not clear why Amenmesse never
carved his name over Merenptah’s, but to date
no reliable evidence for the former usurping the
latter has been found at Karnak or Luxor. In fact,
it may be the case that Amenmesse never com-
pleted his program of erasures.
Merenptah? Fisher’s photograph shows the cartouches at a
partially oblique angle, due to the curvature of the column,
and it is impossible to tell from it anything other than the fact
that they were clearly defaced. The king in this instance—but
not his son Seti—was the target of a damnatio memoriae by
a later king who did not seek to usurp the monument for
himself. Why would this be Ramesses II? Are there any other
examples of such deliberate violence to Ramesses’ cartouches,
as opposed to usurpation of them? A more likely scenario
is that they belonged to Merenptah and were hacked out
at the behest of Amenmesse whose agents were looking
for Merenptah’s titulary but overlooked the name of his
Crown Prince, and their own lord’s rival for the throne, the
future Seti II. We do know that Merenptah was proscribed
elsewhere. Until the column is carefully examined again, it
need not be taken difinitively as a monument of Ramesses
II’s like-named son and could just as likely belong to the
future Seti II as Crown Prince of Merenptah. Under this
scenario, the prince’s name could have been overlooked
by the chisel men who were mainly seeking Merenptah’s
cartouches which occurred much more frequently than the
prince’s titulary.
55
Kitchen, RITANC II, p. 74. The hacking out of the Seth-
glyph in the name of Ramesses II’s ninth son in inscriptions
at Luxor Temple and the Ramesseum occurred in the Late
Period, and is not germane to the question. Its defacement
in instances of Prince Seti’s name is consistent with removal
of the Seth-glyph from the royal nomen cartouches of Seti
I and II on Theban monuments. See n. 48.
56
Cf. Kitchen’s similar conclusions in RITANC II, 74.
46 peter j. brand
The Incomplete Damnatio Memoriae of
Mernptah inside the Cour de la Cachette at
Karnak
Among the handful of usurped cartouches bearing
Seti II’s name in the war scenes on the west exte-
rior wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak—
including loose blocks stemming from them—by
far the best preserved instance of Merenptah’s
titulary beneath that of Seti is from the northern-
most scene (Figs. 1-2). It was here, too, that Yurco
thought he detected a phantom trace of Amen-
messe.57 Substantial vestiges of both Merenptah
and Seti II are evident. Still, this cartouche is unlike
the rest in other respects. There are some chisel
marks inside the ring, but the background surface
has not been cut back or smoothed down and is
still largely intact despite light scoring with a chis-
el.58 Seti II’s names were cut over Merenptah’s in
a manner similar to many Ramesside usurpations
but without the erasure of Merenptah’s cartouches
as in other cases on the west wall of the Cachette
court and throughout Karnak. The conclusion to
which these observations are leading is that these
particular cartouches may have only been partly
erased or perhaps not at all by Amenmesse and
that they are unlike the others reinscribed for Seti
II in the war reliefs because his father’s names
were still largely intact in this one instance. Since
Merenptah’s name had been systematically erased
from the other scenes on this wall, Seti may not
have felt remorse about appropriating what might
have been the only instance where his father’s
name still survived there.
Yurco seems to have mistaken this pair of car-
touches as being typical of the method used to
surcharge Merenptah’s cartouches elsewhere in
the Cachette court. His reconstruction of the pro-
cess was as follows. Merentpah’s name was only
partially removed with a chisel and the cartou-
che was plastered over. Amenmesse’s titulary was
inscribed over them, but much of it was cut into
the plaster, not the stone. Next, Seti II removed
this plaster, all but obliterating Amenmesse’s pro-
tocol, and replaced it with his own. Supposedly,
vestiges of Merenptah, (although partly erased),
remained beneath the plaster and survived all this,
57
Location: PM II2, p. 132 (491). Yurco, JARCE 23
(1986), p. 197.
58
Yurco interprets light chisel marks inside the cartouche
as keying for plaster used to usurp the cartouche. If this be
the case, then this was done only once by Seti II and not
also by Amenmesse as he suggests. Ibid., p. 197. I suspect
while Amenmesse’s monikers, (carved in stucco),
did not. Yurco’s understanding of the epigraphic
sequence of these usurpations was based largely
on the one aforementioned set of cartouches from
the north end of the Cachette court. As we have
seen, however, these are not like the rest. They
lack the smooth depressions of the others and
contain far more substantial traces of Merenptah
than their fellows precisely because they have not
been cut back!
It may be that Amenmesse’s program of dam-
natio memoriae was never completed in the area
of the Cour de la Cachette. Confirmation of this
hypothesis can be found inside the court. As was
noted earlier, Merenptah’s ritual scenes on the
west interior of the court were usurped in toto
but his name often survives intact on the east
side. While his monikers were untouched in
the Great Historical Inscription and adjoining
scenes at the south end of the wall,59 the same
cannot be said of an isolated tableau at the north
end (Fig. 10). Here Merenptah is depicted as a
young king wearing the youthful side-lock and
kneeling between the paws of a great ram-headed
sphinx.60 The relief is entirely intact and the wall
surface smooth and even, except for the interior
of the cartouches which show hacking. Despite
this, the royal names are clearly legible and there
is no indication that they were ever usurped or
that they are not the original work of Merenptah
(Fig. 11). This strange case has long puzzled me,
but I believe that a solution may now be offered.
We have here a damnatio memoriae left unfin-
ished. Examination of a loose block now in the
south yard at Karnak steming from the Cour de la
Cachette also shows the deletion of Merenptah’s
cartouches in media res with some hacking prior
to their final erasure (Fig. 28).
Elsewhere Merenptah’s cartouches were fully
erased by smoothing down the surface. As they
were all sunk relief, it was first necessary to chisel
away the projecting background matrix around
the sunk relief glyphs after which the scooped-out
cartouches were polished smooth with a sand-
stone buffer. This process would leave few and
very often no traces of the original name once
completed. The few chisel marks persisting on
that this hacking stems from the incomplete deletion of
Merenptah’s cartouches by Amenmesse, see below.
59
Sourouzian, Les monuments du roi Merenptah, pl.
26b.
60
Ibid., pl. 27a.
 usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor 47

Fig. 28. partly hacked cartouches of Merenptah from a Cour de la Cachette block. The relief was later plastered over by
Seti II who cut a new inscription over it. The pattern of hacking to Merenptah’s cartouches is consistent with an uncom-
pleted damnatio memoriae by Amenmesse rather than keying for plaster by Seti II prior to carving a new relief in its
place. Cf. Figs. 10-11.

the smooth surfaces of other erasures, like those
at Luxor and inside the cartouches usurped by
Seti II, show this to be the case. The criosphinx
scene at the north end of the east interior wall of
the Cour de la Cachette preserves the first stage
of this process. The mason was in the midst of
chipping away at the background surface of the
cartouche and the incised hieroglyphs remained
mostly untouched when the work was abandoned.
Elsewhere, Amenmesse’s erasures of Merenptah
were largely complete and so thorough that Seti
II was free to carve his own name in their place.
Presumably, Amenmesse’s agents completed their
work on the west wall before moving on to the
east. They had started with the criosphinx scene
at the north end of the wall when the project
came to an end, leaving Merenptah’s cartouches
in the Great Historical Inscription and attendant
triumph and ritual scenes at the south end of the
east interior wall still intact.
Conclusions: Programs of Marginal Decoration
and Damnatio Memoriae in the Late
Nineteenth Dynasty
The picture that emerges from all this is that
neither the addition of marginal decoration
and bandeau texts on Theban monuments by
Merenptah nor their erasure and usurpation,
respectively, at the hands of Amenmesse and
Seti II were carried out in a piecemeal or epi-
sodic fashion. Instead, as with wall reliefs depict-
ing rituals or battles, Ramesside pharaohs often
took a systematic approach to their decoration
of standing monuments, even when they were
merely filling in the limited blank spaces such
as the dados of walls or the gaps between earlier
reliefs on columns.61
Amenmesse’s damnatio memoriae against
Merenptah at Karnak and Luxor was comprehen-
sive if not exhaustive. At Luxor, some marginalia

61
See Brand in Sacred Space and Sacred Function in
Ancient Thebes, pp. 52-58; By the end of the Ramesside era,
Herihor was forced to employ the bases of the columns and
the wall dados in the Karnak Hypostyle Hall as virtually all
the available space had already been used by his predeces-
sors. See A.M. Roth, “Some New Texts of Herhihor and
Ramesses IV in the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak,” JNES
42 (1983), pp. 43-53.
48 peter j. brand
were overlooked.62 Merenptah’s image was not
targeted and his cartouches were rarely usurped
by Amenmesse. Inside the Cour de la Cachette
at Karnak, erasures of Merenptah’s cartouches
were underway when they finally ceased, perhaps
abruptly, at the end of Amenmesse’s brief reign.
The complete obliteration of Merenptah’s ban-
deau texts inside the Ramesside court at Luxor
indicates that usurpation was not the motive for
targeting his monuments. The deletion of the
name of a Crown Prince Seti alongside that of his
father confirms that Amenmesse was the author
of this systematic damnatio memoriae.
Amenmesse himself may have been more con-
cerned with removing his predecessor’s titulary
62
E.g., inscriptions added by Merenptah to the negative
space bewteen the legs of some of the colossi of Ramesses
II in the Luxor temple forecourt. These were overlooked by
Kitchen and remain unpublished (PM II2, pp. 311-312).
from the Theban temples than with adding his
own name to them. Amenmesse’s own original
inscriptions at Karnak and elsewhere would like-
wise be erased and usurped by Seti II, and deter-
mining the original author of many cartouches
reascribed by Seti has been a complex and dif-
ficult problem.63 Yet in no case have traces of
both Merenptah and Amenmesse been detected
in any cartouches reinscribed by Seti II. When
Seti became the sole master of Egypt, he chose to
bolster his own position by replacing his father’s
erased cartouches and inscriptions with his own
while respecting Merenptah’s texts where they
had survived Amenmesse’s purge.
63
See the special note by Kitchen in KRI IV, p. 194. Here
he states that many inscriptions of Seti II may have been
originally carved for Amenmesse or earlier kings.
 variations and significance of egyptian royal costume
QUANTIFYING REGALIA: A CONTEXTUAL STUDY INTO THE VARIATIONS AND
SIGNIFICANCE OF EGYPTIAN ROYAL COSTUME USING RELATIONAL DATABASES
AND ADVANCED STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Amy Calvert
Institute of Fine Arts—New York University
During my time at the University of Memphis,
I had the great privilege to study with Dr. Mur-
nane. Those seminars, one on Amarna history and
the other focused on Egyptian imperialism, were
some of the most stimulating I have experienced.
Dr. Murnane’s sharp mind, depth of knowledge,
and probing questions made each meeting a beau-
tiful challenge. His unfettered generosity with his
time, always happy to provide guidance, refer-
ences, and suggestions made a huge impression.
So too did his absolute passion for Egypt and
his drive to record her endangered monuments
as thoroughly as possible. It is with this in mind
that I dedicate this article, an initial presentation
of my dissertation project, to the memory of Dr.
Murnane.
Introduction
The hundreds of scenes at the temple of Medi-
net Habu usually feature the king in a variety
of contexts (ritual, ceremonial, battle, etc.) and
allocate to him regalia involving an array of attri-
butes. For example, in many scenes he wears a
prš-crown. In others, he wears a t-crown, a
šnjt-kilt and a royal beard (the šnjt and the beard
seemingly never appear with the prš). Do these
and other attributes form significant clusters of
spatial distribution and association that would
enhance our understanding of the various levels
of meaning potentially embedded in the scenes?
But how would we study such patterns of clus-
tering and association given the massive number
of attributes and the variability of the contexts/
scenes involved?
Thanks to generous awards from the American
Research Centre in Egypt, the Samuel H. Kress
Foundation and the Institute of Fine Arts of New
1
For his sage advice and focused direction, I am also
most grateful to Dr. Ogden Goelet. In addition, this project
49
York University, I hope to be in a position to
help answer such questions and much more. With
their assistance, I was able to spend January to
May 2006 in Egypt gathering essential data for
my Ph.D. dissertation, The Regalia of Ramses III:
A Contextual Study into the Variations and Sig-
nificance of Royal Costume. This dissertation is
under the astute direction of Dr. David O’Connor
and aims to provide a comprehensive understand-
ing of the contextual importance of select royal
regalia in the New Kingdom through detailed
examination of depictions of the pharaoh in a
variety of settings.1 The mortuary temple of the
king at Medinet Habu, with its abundance of well-
preserved relief, is the focus of this project.
The primary goals of this dissertation project
are: 1) to create a total digital color photographic
record of Medinet Habu, of which approximately
90% is completed; 2) to develop a relational data-
base to track all Medinet Habu scene attributes
(and those of comparative data sets); 3) through
advanced statistical analyses, to discover pairs
and/or triads of correlated attributes of royal
regalia; and 4) to provide a methodology which
would be valuable for similar studies by others
in the future.
Using the visual data assembled during my field
season, individual elements of royal dress, as well
as attributes and signifiers appearing in associa-
tion with the king (such as chariot equipment
or insignia), are being examined in conjunction
with accompanying texts and epithets. This will
facilitate an exploration into the ways in which
those elements interact with each other and with
the body of the king, as well as how they function
together as a whole to provide him with a visual
projection of royal power, divine strength, and
apotropaic protection. The communicative aspect
of royal regalia and the ways in which items of
has benefited greatly from discussions with Dr. Ann Roth
and I would like to thank her for her guidance.
50 amy calvert
pharaonic costume impacted audiences will also
be explored.
For this particular project, rather than attempt-
ing to examine all of the depictions of Ramses III
and the contexts in which he appears at Med-
inet Habu (a daunting task to say the least), a
reduction of focus depth to a more manageable
amount of material was clearly necessary. While
an entire dissertation could certainly be written on
an examination of the variations in royal regalia
that are seen within a single genre of scenes, a
more productive and interesting angle is a com-
parative study of the regalia that appears in the
battle cycles and the festival reliefs.2
There are several reasons to approach the
topic in this way. Both types of scenes display
the king engaged in terrestrial interactions—quite
unlike the cultic and mortuary scenes where he is
focused solely on the divine realm. Both groups
portray the pharaoh as ‘facing off’ against chaotic
forces, albeit forces of differing types. Both are
also venues where pharaoh had a human audi-
ence, although those audiences were disparate in
nature. Additionally, the reliefs themselves would
have had a living, if limited, audience. This audi-
ence points to the importance of the commu-
nicative aspect of royal regalia and the ways in
which items of pharaonic costume interacted with
and conveyed information to those who saw his
image, whether in the flesh or etched in stone. The
physical locations of the festival and war reliefs
also speak of an implied connection, especially
in the courtyards of Medinet Habu where they
are directly juxtaposed.
By comparing the two ‘public’ venues of warfare
and festival, selected patterns of regalia related to
the particular powers to be emphasized and/or
different levels and different types (i.e. physical
vs. cultic) of vulnerability the pharaoh experi-
enced may become discernible. Within each broad
group of war and festival and in each individual
2
By ‘battle cycle’ I refer to the entire sequence that
begins with the commission from the gods to carry out a
military action and finishes with the presentation of spoils
to the gods, following (most recently) Susanna Heinz, Die
Feldzugsdarstellungen des Neuen Reiches (Vienna: Verlag
der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
2001).
3
Such as G. Vogelsang-Eastwood, Pharaonic Egyptian
Clothing (Leiden–New York–Köln: E.J. Brill, 1993), Studies
in Ancient History, p. 2.
4
For one example, see W.R. Johnson, “Monuments
and Monumental Art under Amenhotep III: Evolution
and Meaning,” Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign,
eds. D. O’Connor and E. Cline (Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 1998), p. 84, where he discusses the
cycle (e.g. Sokar festival, First Libyan war, etc.),
I will be searching for regalia patterns of geo-
graphical, temporal and seasonal elements. Pat-
terns may emerge of certain elements being used
in scenes with specific enemies at particular times
of the year, or discernible shifts in selected ele-
ments may be visible over a span of time (e.g. First
vs. Second Libyan wars). Differences in costume
related to the type of audience, how they would
have seen the king, and how they were intended
to view the king could be most telling.
These data should be most revealing in terms
of the selection of particular attributes, or combi-
nations thereof, for specific contexts and duties.
Individual components will be carefully examined
in an attempt to determine their distinct natures
and the powers they suggest. Ensembles will be
investigated to ascertain how individual accoutre-
ments symbolically integrate to provide support
and divine strength to the king while outwardly
projecting different aspects of those powers. The
role of regalia as an apotropaic unit functioning to
shield him from any potential danger, terrestrial
or otherwise, will be explored. Now that field-
based research is completed, detailed analyses of
the symbolic, historical, and ideological associa-
tions of select elements of royal regalia is cur-
rently under way.
‘Regalia’ applies to more than headgear, and
this project will also examine the contextual inter-
actions of dress, jewelry, apron, sandals, scepters,
and many other elements. Previous research into
pharaonic costume has tended to focus on indi-
vidual aspects or has approached the topic from
a more technical standpoint.3 Useful information
has emerged as a peripheral result of research on
specific rulers in specialized contexts, but is by
its very nature limited in scope.4 While a number
of studies have been written about crowns and
other items of pharaonic dress, they are generally
examined in isolation.5
elaboration of costume that accompanies the deification
of the living king.
5
For a few instances, E.L. Ertman, “More Comments on
New Kingdom Crown Streamers and the Gold Temple-band
They Held in Place,” JSSEA 23 (1993), pp. 51-55; S. Col-
lier, The Crowns of the Pharaohs: their Development and
Significance in Ancient Egyptian Kingship (Ph.D. Disserta-
tion: University of California Los Angeles, 1996). K. Goebs,
“Some Cosmic Aspects of the Royal Crowns,” Proceedings of
the 7th International Congress of Egyptologists, ed. C. Eyre,
OLA 82 (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), pp. 447-60. One very useful
study that examines the related attributes of a specific royal
costume is D.C. Patch, “A ‘Lower Egyptian’ Costume: Its
Origin, Development, and Meaning,” JARCE 32 (1995),
pp. 93-116.
 variations and significance of egyptian royal costume
Fig. 1. Detail of Medinet Habu Epigraphic Survey plate
121.
To date, no analysis has attempted to investi-
gate comprehensively all elements of royal cos-
tume to determine how they function together as
a whole. There is good reason for this. Put simply,
tracking thousands of variables across hundreds
of scenes, and more importantly being able to
actually utilize that data, would be quite impos-
sible without current technology. Even the core
task of acquiring these images in the field would
have been time and cost-prohibitive before the
recent advent of affordable, high-resolution digi-
tal photography. The questions of why particular
attributes were selected for certain contexts and
what their specific functions have understandably
not been quantifiably addressed.
During the research season, my primary goal
was to collect high-quality color digital photo-
graphic documentation of several royal monu-
ments from the New Kingdom that have either not
been entirely published or have been published
only in grayscale.6 My photographic documenta-
tion supplements the irreplaceable work of the
University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute Epi-
graphic Survey at many of these sites.7 For my
project, it was not only necessary to fully pho-
tograph the painted scenes of my core monu-
ment, Medinet Habu, but also to document in
6
For his generosity and support in Luxor, I would like
to sincerely thank Dr. W. Raymond Johnson, director of
Chicago House. In Abydos, I was warmly welcomed and
greatly aided by Dr. Matthew D. Adams. In addition, I must
mention the extraordinary support given by my Supreme
Council of Antiquities inspector, Salah el Masekh Ahmed
51
Fig. 2. Photograph of same showing preserved paint.
color other locations of great comparative value.
Many elements of royal costume were rendered
exclusively in paint and, thus, are not generally
discernible in epigraphic drawings, which do not
always record painted details and rarely indicate
color (Figs. 1 and 2). The color of specific elements
of regalia is clearly significant for this project and,
therefore, even full black and white documenta-
tion was insufficient for my research.
Due to the well-preserved state of his monu-
ments and their rich variety of scenes, this project
focuses on depictions of Ramses III (c. 1184-1153
bce). Often called the last great pharaoh of the
New Kingdom, the costumes of Ramses III can be
viewed as representative amalgams of the period.
It is well known that he had strong affinities for
his eminent namesake, Ramses II, but he was also
heavily influenced by Amenhotep III, as evidenced
Mohamed. He was a great asset to my project and I am
extremely grateful to the Council for their choice.
7
Especially at Medinet Habu. Epigraphic Survey, Medi-
net Habu, 8 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1930-1970).
52 amy calvert

Fig. 4. Detail of Ramses III wearing falcon shirt in battle.

Fig. 3. Detail of Ramses III wearing feathered back

apron.

by the many statues of that king found re-used

at Medinet Habu.8
Much of the regalia utilized by Ramses III
was also worn by his powerful predecessors of
Dynasty Nineteen, while other attributes were
more commonly seen in the later Eighteenth Fig. 5. Ramses III wearing a falcon shirt.
Dynasty. Falcon clothing, which usually identi-
fies the king with Horus or Montu, depending
on the context, became particularly prominent Ramses III also wears such an attribute, in the
during the Eighteenth Dynasty.9 Amenhotep III, Sokar festival at Medinet Habu (Fig. 3).12
for instance, made extensive use of falcon-garb Falcon shirts appear on many images of the
at Luxor temple;10 one example being the feath- king (Figs. 4 and 5). Often seen on Dynasty Eigh-
ered back apron well known from the quartzite teen kings, especially at Deir el-Bahri where there
image of the king found in the Luxor Cachette.11 are a number of well-preserved relief examples,

8 10
As Johnson (Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign,
p. 73) points out, none of the statuary found at Medinet
Habu appears to belong to the time of Ramses III, but
rather seems to have originally come from monuments of
Amenhotep III.
9
For some discussion of falcon costume, see T. Podgór-
ski, “Royal Plume Dress of XVIII Dynasty,” MDAIK 40 (1984),
pp. 103-121. Note that he discusses a specific ceremonial
garment, not the falcon-jacket.
Podgórski, “The Horus dress as represented in the
temple of Amenhotep III in Luxor,” Studies in Ancient Art
and Civilization 4 (Kraków, 1992), pp. 27-31.
11
J838—now on display at Luxor Museum. This type
of apron also appears on Thutmosis IV, in the relief scenes
on his chariot (Cairo CG 46097).
12
Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu, pl. 223.
 variations and significance of egyptian royal costume
Fig. 6. Detail of Ramses III in QV 55 wearing red textile
shirt topped by a falcon shirt.
this ‘falcon-jacket’ appears on blocks belong-
ing to Amenhotep III that were reused at Medi-
net Habu.13 These shirts certainly continued to
be worn by rulers of the Nineteenth Dynasty.
Although they may not seem to be as common
on Seti I or Ramses II in their mortuary temples
in Thebes, this is likely due to the level of preser-
vation.14 With very few exceptions, these falcon
13
C. Van Siclen, “Three blocks of Amenhotep III from
Medinet Habu,” VA 2 (1986), pp. 189-206. The scenes on
the blocks show Amenhotep kneeling and receiving a series
of crowns from the gods.
14
There is at least one certain example of a falcon shirt
at the Ramesseum, in the ished-tree scene of the hypostyle
hall. Several other images from the same temple preserve
hints that a falcon shirt was originally depicted.
15
Such as Amun-her-hepershef (QV 55) and Kaemwa-
set (QV 44) where he interacts with (among others) Isis,
Hathor and Geb.
16
Prominently appearing in the painting of the princesses
from the King’s House now in the Ashmolean Museum,
Oxford (1983.I-41).
17
See L.P. Brock, “The Amarna ‘Royal Red Fabric’,
JSSEA 25 (1995), pp. 7-14. She also links the material
(possibly leather) with the military, foreigners (specifi-
cally Syrians), and strongly suggests a connection with
the diamond-patterned heb-sed robe. Personally, I find the
military aspect more viable—note, for example, that the
53
shirts are executed entirely in paint; with any
image stripped of paint where pharaoh appears
to be bare-chested, the potential exists that he
was originally depicted wearing one of these attri-
butes.
In the tombs of his sons, Ramses III is also
frequently depicted in elaborate falcon-garb
(Fig. 6),15 often combined with another intrigu-
ing garment—a shirt apparently made of a mate-
rial known primarily from the late Eighteenth
Dynasty, and most famously from Akhetaten.16
This textile, known as ‘royal red fabric,’ was par-
ticularly prominent during the Amarna period
and has been suggested to have strong solar con-
nections.17 It appears used as an element of rega-
lia, specifically as an under-kilt, in a royal tomb
from the end of Dynasty Eighteen before seeming
to vanish from the pictorial record.18 However,
besides the numerous occurrences in QV 44 and
55, I have cataloged several additional instances
where the fabric ‘reappears’ through the photo-
graphic survey of Medinet Habu performed this
season (Fig. 7).19
For such reasons, Ramses III was an ideal
subject for this topic, since he is often portrayed
wearing complex costumes displaying a combina-
tion of elements which in many cases had their
origins and/or symbolic significance grounded in
the heights of New Kingdom power.
More so than his predecessors, Ramses III faced
civil unrest and enemy attacks on Egypt itself.
This tangible threat may have exerted a discern-
able influence on the appearance patterns of cer-
tain regalia elements, particularly those that are
strongly apotropaic or embody the ‘rage’ of the
divine king. Hypothetically speaking, if an attri-
bute appeared rarely under Seti I (falcon shirts
Nubian archers on the Dynasty Eleven wooden model of
Mesehti from Asyut (Cairo JE 30969) wear red loincloths
embellished with blue diamonds.
18
Brock, JSSEA 25 (1995), p. 7.
19
This fabric also appears (among numerous other
instances) as a shirt on Ramses II, layered underneath a
falcon shirt, on the facade of the temple of Seti I at Abydos.
Seti I wears the red fabric shirt and falcon shirts, albeit inde-
pendently, inside the temple. There is but a single occurrence
of the pairing preserved at the temple of Ramses II at Abydos
(Figure 8). Additionally, I. Rosellini depicts the pairing in
his record of the reliefs from the temple of Ramses II at Abu
Simbel and Baltzar Cronstrand likewise shows traces of the
two shirts together at Karnak, in the Great Hypostyle Hall;
my thanks to Dr. Peter Brand for bringing these instances
to my attention. See I. Rosellini, I Monumenti dell’Egitto e
Della Nubia, pl. 79; B. George and B. Peterson, Die Karnak-
Zeichnungen von Baltzar Cronstrand, Medelhavsmuseet
Memoir 3 (Stockholm: Medelhavsmuseet, 1979), p. 21.
54 amy calvert
Fig. 7. Details of Ramses III at Medinet Habu showing
preserved sections of red textile shirts.
worn in battle scenes, for example) but was very
common on Ramses III, this might indicate that
the more vulnerable the office of pharaoh became,
the more the symbols of power were emphasized.20
A parallel could be made to the extreme elabo-
ration of the regalia of Amenhotep III after his
jubilee—all designed to visually solidify the iden-
tity of the king with the solar deity.21 A concen-
tration of regalia elements connected with the
physical and military prowess of the king under
Ramses III might have served a similar purpose
in exemplifying the ideal pharaoh for a danger-
ous and chaotic time.
20
However, it is highly likely that there were many more
instances of these attributes and it is problematic to make
any historiographical arguments based on the whims of
preservation.
Fig. 8. Ramses II wearing red textile shirt topped by a falcon
shirt at his temple at Abydos.
Methodology
The technical goal of this relational database will
be to identify attributes with the strongest cor-
relations. Correlation (values range between –1.0
for a perfect negative correlation to 1.0 for a per-
fect positive correlation) is defined as a mutual
relationship or connection between two or more
variables. Imagine finding correlations between
weather-related variables. Although the appear-
ance of rain and the appearance of umbrellas are
connected, rain does not cause umbrellas. Neither
is the reverse true, which is why correlation stud-
ies are not about cause and effect, but rather are
intended to discover significant patterns and
tendencies. Negative correlation means when you
21
Johnson in Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign,
p. 88.
 variations and significance of egyptian royal costume
Fig. 9. Example of high positive correlation: horns, feathers, and multiple uraei with nms.
Fig 10. Example of high negative correlation: fans and divine interaction.
see one variable, you usually do not see the other
—such as how rain and sunglasses rarely appear
together. Such a relationship can be just as telling
as a positive correlation. Basic correlation results
from the current data set (Figs. 9 and 10) shows,
for example, that the headgear elements horns,
feathers, and multiple uraei have a high positive
correlation with one type of crown, the nms, while
fans are shown to rarely appear inscenes where
the king interacts with divine beings.
Instead of randomly picking scenes or blindly
choosing an element of regalia on which to focus,
by utilizing a combination of FileMaker Pro,
Microsoft Excel, and SPSS, this suite of techno-
logical facilitators allows for an open, unfiltered
approach. Through its powerful analytical capa-
bilities, this custom tool will instantly identify
statistically significant attributes in need of fur-
ther study from the pool of thousands of images
and attributes.
During the season I was able to amass more
than 15,000 high-quality color digital images.22
This documentation includes a full photographic
survey of several monuments from the reign of
Ramses III, including his tomb (KV 11) and those
of his sons (QV 42, 43, 44, 52, and 55). Only
22
Photographs were captured with a Canon EOS Digital
Rebel XT (8-megapixel), a telephoto lens where appropriate,
and a polarized filter for exterior images. Where possible, a
tripod was utilized (my sincere thanks to Sandro Vannini
for allowing me to borrow one of his tripods after mine was
damaged by a tourist). Much of the painted relief at Medinet
Habu was shot from atop a ladder generously loaned by
Dr. W. Raymond Johnson of Chicago House.
55
portions of Ramses III’s temple to Amun at Karnak
were photographed since it has little preserved
paint and is fully published in epigraphic form
and grayscale photographs.23 I photographed the
mortuary temple of the king at Medinet Habu
in its entirety, except for a few inaccessible areas
including the interior of the Eastern High Gate.
In addition to the monuments of Ramses III, it
was very important for me to photograph other
royal monuments where color is preserved. This
comparative data will be absolutely essential in
my study of how elements of regalia change (or
remain the same) in function and form over a span
of time. Of particular importance in this regard
are the Dynasty Nineteen temples of Seti I and
Ramses II at Abydos, both of which retain a great
deal of paint and preserve scene types comparable
to those at Medinet Habu. The interior of the
temple of Seti I was photographed in its entirety
(excepting the column reliefs in the hypostyle
halls), as was the facade and the exterior pillars.
Portions of the interior walls surrounding the two
courtyards were also documented, although their
ruinous state, dearth of paint and existence in
epigraphic publication made them less essential.24
The more destroyed but still vibrantly painted
23
Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak
I: Ramses III’s Temple Within the Great Enclosure of Amon,
part 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936), and
part 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Pres, 1936).
24
A.M. Calverley and M.F. Broome, The Temple of King
Sethos I at Abydos, 4 vols (London and Chicago: Egypt
Exploration Society, 1933-1958).
56 amy calvert
temple of Ramses II was completely documented,
including the exterior walls.
Through special permission,25 I was also able
to photograph relevant comparative sections of
several other royal tombs in the Valley of the
Kings. These were the tombs of Merenptah (KV
8), Seti II (KV 15), Siptah (KV 47) and Tausret
and Sethnakht (KV 14). Also greatly appreciated
was the permission I received directly from Dr.
Zahi Hawass during his March 10 visit to the
Valley. He generously allowed me to photograph
in the tomb of Ramses VI (KV 9), since it contains
several well-preserved images of unusual royal
costumes that will be important comparanda.
Now that the research season is completed,
the images are being used in conjunction with
the invaluable work of the Epigraphic Survey to
form an extensive relational database. I am build-
ing the database with the skilled help of D. Craig
Calvert, using a combination of FileMaker Pro,
Microsoft Excel, and SPSS. This suite of tools is
designed to track an unlimited range of points in
each relief image, including not only all costume
elements but also body position, interactions, wall
placement, epithets, and key textual markers, to
name but a few.
The custom database is an absolutely essential
tool for this project, and its high level of complex-
ity has required more than a year of development.
The first stage of designing and populating the
database for this project was an exhaustive study
of the approximately 6,000 high-resolution digi-
tal images of Medinet Habu acquired during my
season. During this stage, I compiled a compre-
hensive list of scene attributes, more than 1,600 in
number. Once the list was completed, each scene
was marked with all of the attributes it contained.
Now that the current group of data entry is com-
pleted, analysis has begun, looking for any and
all correlated connections within and/or between
any of the scenes across the complete range of
attributes (‘variables’).
There are two main layouts now in use. One of
these is designed to hold all the variables in the
scene, and I have termed it my ‘Main Layout.’
In order to handle such an expanse of data, this
is designed as a tabbed layout with each tab
representing a different focus. Along the top of the
25
My sincerest thanks go to Ali Ibrahim Alasfar, the
General Director of Qurna, and Dr. Mohamed Adb el Aziz,
Chief Inspector of North Qurna, for allowing this access.
26
The record for Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu I,
pl. 19, is used in the following series of figures.
layout is the static data that stays visible regard-
less of which tab is displayed. This includes the
record number, the plate number and the scene
title. The top tab, ‘Pharaoh’ (Fig. 11),26 contains
fields to track all items in direct association with
the king, such as all his costume attributes, his
body position, the king’s actions and items held
in his hands. I have also included a key plan with
the appropriate plate highlighted for ease of visual
location identification.
For the next tab, ‘Text,’ (Fig. 12), I have sepa-
rated some of the text into sections using struc-
tural divisions, such as marginal texts and the
name block.27 However, spoken text directed at
the king is tracked based on who is doing the
speaking; bound enemies calling out praise clearly
should be recorded separately from deities who
address the king. The Text tab is for general text,
names and epithets, and the speech of the king,
while actual interaction between the king and dei-
ties or humans is tracked in the ‘Context’ tab.
‘Context,’ as always, is very important
(Fig. 13). It contains fields related to practicali-
ties such as location, scene orientation, and relief
type, but more of the layout deals with the king’s
appearance and actions. The position, type, and
number of fans and sunshades held in association
with pharaoh are tracked here. Also cataloged are
elements that hover above the king, such as the
sun discs, vultures, and falcons, taken along with
their textual identifiers. In addition, I am track-
ing the many variations in the specific wording
of the lines of protective text that appear behind
the king.
One of the most potentially productive lines of
questioning in terms of regalia selection is “with
whom is the king interacting and what are they
saying to each other?” This is tracked here on
the ‘Context’ tab (Fig. 14 shows a record with
both divine and human actors). They have been
separated into Divine and Human actor groups,
for obvious reasons.
Each actor listed in the ‘Context’ tab has a
separate dedicated layout (Figs. 15 and 16). The
actor layouts are accessed through the ‘Context’
tab (see Fig. 14) by clicking on the small grey
button at the end of the ‘actor’ field, which brings
up the layout for that individual actor. On these
27
This phrase is used here to refer to the discrete grouping
of text which includes the cartouches of the king, associated
epithets, titles, and sometimes, as in the case of the plate
in Figure 11, additional elements.
variations and significance of egyptian royal costume 57

Fig. 11. Main Layout. Pharaoh tab.

Fig. 12. Main Layout. Text tab.

Fig. 13. Main Layout. Context tab.

58 amy calvert
Fig. 14. Main Layout. Context tab with both types of actors.
related layouts, I can keep track of the actor’s
titles, actions, accoutrements, and their words
to the king. In addition to the fields tracking the
individual’s (or group’s) speech, all of the actor
layouts contain a text field with the entire text of
the scene in which they appear. This is simply to
provide ease of data entry, and though duplica-
tive, this also allows their comments to be viewed
in context.
A separate layout was also necessary to deal
with the royal chariot (Fig. 17). The ‘Chariot’ tab
allows the collection of data such as the type of
horse headdress and chariot body, the names of
the royal span, and whether they are rampant or
not. The number and types of bow cases, quivers,
and staff-cases shown attached to the chariot of
pharaoh are also tracked.
The ‘Visual’ tab (Fig. 18) allows for a number
of details to be easily accessed; clicking the small
button in the corner of each image brings up a
full-sized version of that image. The ‘Preserva-
tion’ tab, which is still under development, deals
with the surviving amount of paint, percentage
and types of damage to the relief surface, such as
intentional destruction of relief during the Coptic
period and the countless grooves worn into the
walls by centuries of local inhabitants rubbing
sand from the stone for ritual use. In addition,
this tab will record any special treatment, such
as inlay or sections of relief that were originally
veiled.
28
Since Mr. Soran’s return to his homeland of Turkey
last year, this project has been taken up by another talented
professional research analyst, Li Li Gerrard, who has been
As one can discern, this layout is extremely
detailed in the number and variations of the attri-
butes tracked. When I first showed this database
to Adam Soran, an experienced research analyst
who initially assisted me with the statistical side of
this project,28 he was rather overwhelmed by the
sheer complexity of the data. In order to perform
the first level of analysis, he suggested that I pull
from this layout approximately 30 pointed ‘yes/
no’ questions and analyses would begin there.
Clearly, use of this new layout does not ignore
all the data in the full layout just discussed. This
dichotomous approach simply allows larger pat-
terns to be perceived in a more efficient manner
while the ‘Main’ layout will be used in the second
research phase to permit focused analysis of
greater detail.
The current version of the ‘Dichotomous’
layout (Fig. 19) contains 132 questions, divided
up into the same general groups as the ‘Main’
layout: things worn by the king, objects in the
hand, his immediate context, textual markers,
interactions, and scene location and type. Note
that there are currently two basic ‘types’ of scene
in this layout—all relief is considered either one
or the other. ‘Battle’ refers to the full sequence of
battle narrative scenes, not simply to depictions
of actual battle. Scenes of hunting at Medinet
Habu are also considered ‘Battle,’ due primarily
to parallels in their placement, the king’s posture,
and immediate context. ‘Ritual’ is obviously much
absolutely invaluable. My sincerest gratitude also to Justin
Musterman and Andy Gage for their efforts.
variations and significance of egyptian royal costume 59

Fig. 15. Main Layout. Divine actor screen (related to Fig. 14).

Fig. 16. Main Layout. Human actor screen (related to Fig. 14).

Fig. 17. Main Layout. Chariot tab.

60 amy calvert

Fig. 18. Main Layout. Visual tab.

Fig. 19. Dichotomous Layout.

broader. This heading covers festival, offering and
‘smiting’ scenes as well, although they are also
tracked separately. This is the layout currently
being used to calculate attribute correlations.
Organizing the thousands of photographs from
the research season and database construction
took more than a year after my return from Egypt.
As the reader can discern simply from glancing
at it, entering a record in the ‘Main’ layout takes
considerable time. Currently, I have 125 scenes
from Medinet Habu entered in this exhaustive
manner, and the remaining pertinent reliefs will
soon join them. One of the great boons of this
second, ‘Dichotomous,’ layout is the speed with
which the ‘big’ questions about a scene can be
entered. Since designing this layout in March
2007, I have entered the ‘yes/no’ data for the same
279 scenes currently recorded in the ‘Main’ layout,
 variations and significance of egyptian royal costume
and have also answered these questions for an
additional 232 scenes, for a current total of 511.
Most of the 511 scenes (357 of the current set)
are from Medinet Habu. These appear on the exte-
rior walls and in the first and second courtyards
and, thus, could conceivably have been viewed
by humans other than the pharaoh and temple
staff during times of festival. Of these 357 scenes,
41 are considered ‘Battle’ scenes and 316 ‘Ritual’
scenes. Since one of the foci of this dissertation is
the communicative facet of regalia, it is because
of their ‘public’ aspect that these scenes represent
the main study set.
Currently, the remaining 154 scenes are
from Karnak. Specifically, these include the war
sequences of Seti I and the reliefs from the tem-
ples of Ramses III, all recorded by the Epigraphic
Survey.29 These data sets are being used as com-
paranda; one set because of subject matter and
the other due to similarity of scenes and date.
I plan to continue to add further comparative
data of different types. For instance, including
relief from Ramses III’s tomb or those of his sons
would provide well-preserved examples of some
of the costumes appearing in Medinet Habu.
Karnak and Habu are fundamentally different
types of temples and it is problematic, though
potentially interesting, to directly compare sec-
tions of them. However, by adding relief from
the other royal mortuary temples such as the Seti
I temple at Gurna, the Ramesseum, and Hatshep-
sut’s temple at Deir el-Bahri, comparisons of their
iconographic programs may elucidate details that
shift in usage or meaning over time.
After months of data entry, a basic paired corre-
lation analysis was performed on all records from
Medinet Habu, as well as an additional analysis
on the entire data set, comprised of all recorded
scenes from Medinet Habu and Karnak.
We serendipitously discovered that the suite of
tools also provided solid error checking abilities.
For example, a slip of the wrist at the end of a long
day of entry, which dropped a ‘Yes’ instead of a
‘No’ in one field, was immediately caught when
a correlation analysis was run. Another odd rela-
tionship that confounded us for a few days was a
.76 correlation between variables that should have
been total opposites—interior and exterior. We
searched the data set, but there was no overlap
29
Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak
IV: The Battle Reliefs of King Sety I, (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1986).
30
This scene appears on the south tower of the pylon
61
in ‘yes’ answers. Then we realized there was an
overlap in ‘no’ answers—location has three fun-
damental possibilities in data entry: all scenes are
exterior, interior, OR portal. The instances where
the scenes were located within a portal, and thus
‘No’ was the answer in both interior and exterior,
created false connections.
Therefore, of course, one must always look at
the data with a trained eye. Just because a com-
puter insists that there is a correlation does not
mean that there is a true connection through cau-
sality. As an example, the results of one search
showed scenes where horns and feathers appear
together atop the nms. There are 21 other exam-
ples of this combination, from a variety of con-
texts, in the complete data set, which suggests
that the connection is worth investigating. The
search results for scenes with aggressive enemies
and horses appearing together, unlike the above
combination, show that this has no likely causal
relationship—it is no surprise to find horses in
battle. Thus, for any perceived relationship, the
custom suite of tools allows rapid retrieval of all
possible images to study and immediately inves-
tigate the viability of their connection.
In short, if I want to know which scenes from
the entire data set have Pharaoh wearing a nms
and a beard while facing right, it takes no more
time using this suite than it would take to use
an internet search engine like Google (Figs. 20
and 21).
While waiting for advanced statistical analy-
ses to be carried out by the professional analyst,
I have been working with the data set directly in
FileMaker and have noticed a number of inter-
esting attribute patterns (Table 1). For instance,
of the 85 occurrences of the nms in the Medinet
Habu set, only two appear on the exterior of the
temple, and both of these are on the main portal.
A sole nms appears in one of the battle narra-
tive scenes; that of the king’s presentation of Sea
Peoples to Amun and Mut located on the east
face of the second pylon. It is likewise the only
nms appearing at any point in a battle sequence
in the entire current data set.30
Another suggestive pattern is related to the
apron, or sporran, of the king. Of the 375 Habu
records, in 290 of them he wears one of two basic
types of apron; these I have grouped into ‘multi’
and is balanced on the north tower by an inscription of year
8 (Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu I, pl. 46), where the
Sea Peoples event is recorded. The presentation of spoil to
the gods provides a visual completion of the sequence.
62 amy calvert

Fig. 20. Search for images of the king wearing selected attributes.

Fig. 21. Results of search.

and ‘flanking,’ referring to the number and place-
ment of the uraei (Figs. 22 and 23). Of the 290
found, 54 were ‘multi,’ with 20 of those being
‘Battle’ and 34 ‘Ritual.’ In contrast, the remaining
236 ‘flanking’ were primarily ‘Ritual’, with only
9 examples appearing in ‘Battle’ scenes. Another
search of the entire data set brought out that the
‘multi’ apron never occurs with any of the crowns
related to Upper Egypt, Lower Egypt, or the uni-
fied lands (the t, dšrt, or smty), but appears in
26 of its 54 occurrences at Habu with the prš.
It is important to point out that, to date, only
the most basic of analyses have been applied to
the data set. The suggestive patterns noted above
are likely but a hint of what lies hidden in the
visual record. Currently, this dissertation project
is focused on continued analyses of the current
Medinet Habu data set. In early fall, advanced
analyses began for selected potentially signifi-
cant attribute correlations. To date, several factor
analyses have been performed which demon-
strate succinct groupings of related attributes.
 variations and significance of egyptian royal costume
Fig. 22. Example of a ‘multi’ apron.
Table 1. Initial results from database searches of Medinet
Habu set.
63
Fig. 23. Example of a ‘flanking’ apron.
These analyses are in turn leading to other, more
intensive search methods which will include:
covariance, cluster analysis, and multiple logis-
tical regression. As analyses progress, additional
questions inevitably emerge. When this occurs,
changes can be made to the database layouts to
track the new attribute—compare, for example,
the first and most recent versions of the ‘Dichoto-
mous’ layout (Figs. 24 and 19).
With each addition or change, of course, new
analyses must be run. The final product of this
dissertation will likely be a thorough study of one
set of correlated attributes with high statistical
significance. However, this research will continue
long after the dissertation is completed. I plan to
constantly expand the database, focusing first on
temples from the late New Kingdom, but I expect
to eventually include royal images in funerary art
and also those captured in sculpture and other
media. It is my (decidedly) long-term goal to
use this database to capture and analyze royal
depictions from all periods of ancient Egypt.
Many elements of royal regalia appeared at the
very inception of Egyptian civilization.31 By means
31
Clearly evidenced by the Narmer palette (Cairo JE
32169), to name just one example.
64 amy calvert
Fig. 24. Early version of the Dichotomous Layout.
of such a thorough study, larger patterns of attri-
bute usage related to Egypt’s relative strength at
the time, her interconnections or interactions
with foreign powers, or even the individual desires
of pharaoh may become evident.
It is my intention to make this project fully
digital, web-based, and permitting user interac-
tion with the database—allowing others to inves-
tigate for deeper levels of correlation in line with
their own research interests. In addition, I hope
that this project will provide a framework for
future interdisciplinary studies. Far from being
purely Egyptological, the model developed here
can easily be adapted for any study of any image
or group of images from any time period.
Different ensembles of regalia were necessary
to support the king in different roles, to provide a
physical embodiment of his myriad royal powers,
and clearly communicate that information to the
deities and people who interact with him, while
simultaneously protecting him from malevolent
forces. Through this examination of the variations
of the king’s regalia in what could be considered
publicly accessible wall reliefs, a more complete
picture of the public image of pharaoh may be
achieved. Unlike the mortuary cult reliefs or those
of the temple proper, where the king interacts
only with the divine, the scenes in the main data
set portray pharaoh also surrounded by a human
audience. The enemies of Egypt who flee in terror
at his appearance and the people of Egypt who
rejoice at it both do so in response to the dazzling
and intentionally created image of divine king-
ship in their midst.
By delving into this topic through the use of
this newly assembled corpus of images and by
analyzing these data with such powerful analytical
tools, a greater comprehension of the various roles
of the ruler, and of kingship itself, in ancient Egypt
may be achieved. Through this study we should
gain further insight into not only the selections
made to design such an image of pharaoh, but
also the reasons behind the choices. By adding
to our understanding of the purpose of the indi-
vidual elements of royal regalia, we will develop
an enhanced perception with which to view depic-
tions of pharaoh.
 architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef
THE LONG COREGENCY REVISITED: ARCHITECTURAL AND
ICONOGRAPHIC CONUNDRA IN THE TOMB OF KHERUEF*
Peter F. Dorman
Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
A generation of young scholars has been intro-
duced to the complex issue of Egyptian coregen-
cies through Bill Murnane’s seminal dissertation
on the topic, published by the Oriental Institute
in 1977. Of all the coregencies discussed by Mur-
nane, none has been debated with more passion
than the one alleged between Amenhotep III
and his son. The long coregency of ten or eleven
years is far more than a chronological quibble:
it has serious implications for the structure of
royal administration, the determination of foreign
relations, the management of economic resources,
the promulgation of art styles, the coexistence
of apparently conflicting religious cults, and the
reconstruction of the genealogy of the royal family
at the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty. This pres-
ent revisitation of a subject that Bill Murnane
himself addressed several times is affectionately
dedicated to his memory, in admiration of his
scholarship and out of gratitude for his unfailing
personal generosity—and with the hope that he
would have found the argument of interest.
The Tomb of Kheruef in the Coregency Debate
Long one of the bones of contention around
which the coregency debate has swirled, the tomb
* This article is partly based on presentations given, in
different versions, in Tucson, Arizona (annual meeting of
the American Research Center in Egypt), and Grenoble (9th
International Congress of Egyptology) in 2004. The author
is grateful to Professor Edward Wente, one of the members
of the epigraphic team to have documented TT 192, who
read a draft of the article and made a number of thoughtful
observations that have been incorporated here.
1
Certain pieces of evidence have been deemed more
diagnostic or pertinent than others, but most have ultimately
been judged inconclusive, like the tomb of Kheruef. Even
the general amalgam of ambiguous data has been proposed
as persuasive in itself; see F. Giles, The Amarna Age: Egypt,
Australian Center for Egyptology Studies 6 (Warminster:
Aris and Phillips, 2001), pp. 55, 81, 252. The essential points
of evidence have long been known and have been treated by
D. Redford, History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty
65
of Kheruef (TT 192) has never been considered
to be the primary crux in the coregency contro-
versy, but just one of a myriad pieces of evidence,
thus far more or less inconclusive, brought forth
to support or refute the possibility of joint rule.1
Each of these fragments of the coregency puzzle
tends to turn on a single question of interpreta-
tion, whether it be a reading of a regnal year, the
juxtaposition of cartouches, or the significance of
the presence, attire, or pose of various royal fig-
ures. Those readers familiar with the situation of
Kheruef’s tomb in the coregency debate, however,
will recall the unusually rich variety of criteria
offered by TT 192: to wit, the portrayals of both
kings as well as Queen Tiye in various parts of the
unfinished wall reliefs, the intact preservation of
the early name of Amenhotep IV, and the depic-
tion of certain dated events in two of the historic
jubilees celebrated by the elder king. This fortu-
itous combination of personalities and criteria
should, at first glance, serve to delimit certain dat-
able parameters pertaining to the reigns of Amen-
hotep III and Akhenaton, according to which
the phenomenon of joint rule might be persua-
sively demonstrated or definitively denied. Such
has not proved to be the case: scholars on both
sides of the argument have happily embraced the
tomb of Kheruef to promote their own opinions
of Egypt: Seven Studies (Toronto: University of Toronto,
1967), pp. 88-169; W. Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregen-
cies, SAOC 40 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977),
pp. 123-69, 231-33; Giles, Amarna Age: Egypt, pp. 25-137;
and M. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, Collection
de l’Institut d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Antiquité, vol.
3 (Paris: Université Lumière-Lyon 2, 1998), pp. 62-98. The
debate on these points cannot be addressed in full here.
Two more criteria, brought into play recently, include a
graffito found at Dahshur (see J. Allen, “Further Evidence
for the Coregency of Amenhotep III and IV?” GM 140
[1994], pp. 7-8; and J. Allen, W. Murnane, and J. van Dijk,
“Further Evidence for the Coregency of Amenhotep III and
IV? Three Views on a Graffito Found at Dahshur,” Amarna
Letters 3 [1994], pp. 26-31, and especially p. 152), and a boat
scene from the tomb of Maya at Amarna (Giles, Amarna
Age: Egypt, pp. 78-79).
66 peter f. dorman
Fig. 1. Plan and section of the tomb of Kheruef. From Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pl. 3.
while rarely convincing those whose views differ.
The purpose of this article is not to revisit the
entire question of the coregency, but only to exam-
ine the problem in light of the limited evidence
incorporated in the tomb of Kheruef, through a
chronological assessment that employs the dei-
fication iconography of Amenhotep III2—which
adds a useful new dimension to the material from
TT 192—the development of the didactic proto-
col of Ra-Horakhty-Aton, and the architecture
of the tomb itself.
Even for the reign of Amenhotep III, the tomb
is both impressive and unusual in its layout
(Fig. 1). Carved into the floor of the Asasif valley,
Kheruef’s monument is approached by a ramp
descending into the earth and terminating in a
doorway that gives access, by means of a short
passageway, to a large open court measuring
approximately 24 meters square and carved 5.5
meters below ground level. The court was to have
been provided with columns on all sides, but these
were only finished to varying degrees before the
tomb was abandoned. At the center of the western
portico, a second doorway leads into a pillared
hall, then into an axial chamber and finally into
2
For these iconographic traits, see below, with note
19.
3
Redford, History and Chronology, pp. 113-17; the
the burial apartments, which were carved at much
deeper levels. Few of these areas ever received
their decoration before the tomb was abandoned:
only the entrance doorway and its passageway; the
walls of the western portico and its doorway and
reveals; and two of the pillars of the columned
hall, carved with vertical offering texts.
The most convenient starting point for Kheruef’s
tomb as it impinges on the coregency question is
the masterful chapter by Donald Redford, who
critiqued previous commentary on the tomb and
presented a host of insightful observations, even
at a time when the full publication of the monu-
ment was not yet available.3 At the time Redford
was writing, two arguments using the tomb of
Kheruef had been brought forth to support a long
coregency. The first argument centered on a badly
damaged relief carved into the south wall of the
short passageway just inside the entrance door of
the tomb, showing Amenhotep IV pouring a liba-
tion onto an offering stand before the figures of
Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye, and on the ques-
tion of whether all three persons were living at the
time the wall was decorated (Fig. 2). While sev-
eral earlier scholars had considered this grouping
publication of the tomb appeared twelve years later: the
Epigraphic Survey, The Tomb of Kheruef: Theban Tomb 192,
OIP 102 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).
 architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef
Fig. 2. Amenhotep IV offers a libation to his parents. From Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pl. 13.
to be purely a posthumous hommage, Fairman
believed that Amenhotep III was depicted as both
alive and deified, and that the scene in Kheruef
might be compared to reliefs at the Temple of
Soleb in which Amenhotep IV makes offering to
his still-living father, Nebmaatre, Lord of Nubia.4
On the other hand, Redford maintained that the
costume, royal insignia, and the lack of a ped-
estal in the Kheruef scene are typical of similar
representations of the deified Amenhotep I, and
4
H.W. Fairman, “The Inscriptions,” in The City of Akhen-
aten, vol. 3, EEM 44, ed. J.S. Pendlebury (London: Egypt
Exploration Society, 1951), pp. 155-56. The damage to the
scene was sufficient at the time to lead Fairman to describe
the figure of Amenhotep III as “seated,” when in fact all
three figures are standing. See also the remarks, supportive
of Fairman’s view, of C. Aldred, Akhenaten, King of Egypt
(London: Thames and Hudson, 1988), pp. 174-75.
5
Redford, History and Chronology, p. 116. The debate
over whether Amenhotep III was alive or dead when the
scene was carved is only peripheral to the concerns of the
present article: regardless of the validity of this observation,
67
observed that the entire passageway of the tomb—
including the adjacent depiction of Amenhotep
IV reciting a hymn to the rising sun—is devoted
to a context that is “timeless,” without reference
to historical reality. But even more, “the essence
of the offering ritual precludes that the recipient
should be a living person.”5
The second argument hinged on the progress
of tomb decoration, carefully set forth by Cyril
Aldred.6 It has long been recognized that the
we shall proceed on the basis of other criteria.
6
C. Aldred, Akhenaton, Pharaoh of Egypt: A New Study
(London: Thames and Hudson, 1968), pp. 107-09. Simi-
lar reasoning was put forward by F. Giles in his Ikhnaton:
Legend and History (London: Hutchinson, 1970), pp. 80-81,
apparently following an independent train of thought, since
he does not cite Aldred’s slightly earlier work. In his later
study, Akhenaten, King of Egypt, Aldred does not discuss
the reliefs of Kheruef in depth (see p. 92), stating simply
that “their sequence and completeness are problematical”
(p. 163).
68 peter f. dorman
decoration of Theban tombs was normally initi-
ated before the excavation had been completed,
with the draftsmen and painters set to work in the
outer portions of the tomb before the stonemasons
within had fully achieved their task of quarrying
out the deepest extremities. If the same sequence
holds true for TT 192, one would expect that the
entrance of the tomb was the first section exca-
vated and decorated, with the western side of the
court following only later. Aldred remarked that
when the entrance was adorned Amenhotep IV
had already been crowned, but the historical first
and third jubilees of Amenhotep III are depicted
only further inside, in the western portico of the
open court.7 He was thus led to conclude that the
distribution of these scenes demonstrate that the
son was already on the throne of Egypt, as a junior
coregent, even before his father’s jubilee of year
30 and thus before the death of Amenhotep III,
necessitating a long coregency. In responding to
these arguments, Redford noted that Kheruef’s
tomb exhibits a number of anomalies in terms of
its construction: not only does the carved deco-
ration appear limited to the entrance areas and
the western portico, but work seems to have been
abandoned in all parts of the tomb at once. And
since these areas had received their final painted
coats—at least in part—he asserted that the drafts-
men and stonecutters had not conformed to the
expected progression of work exhibited in other
Theban tombs (that is, east-to-west), but had
been engaged in both inner and outer areas at
the same time.8
In a review of Redford’s book,9 Edward Wente
professed himself “not quite prepared to endorse
Redford’s statement regarding the sequence of
its decoration,”10 and provided a more nuanced
description of the state of the tomb decoration.
Specifically, he noted that the southern wing of the
western portico (where the first jubilee is depicted)
is architecturally less advanced than the entrance
doorway and that the carving of the southern-
most reliefs was never completely finished; by
comparison, the northern wing (third jubilee)
had been brought to completion and the upper
portions painted as well. Wente also pointed out
that the entrance doorway had been carved and
7
Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pls. 24 and 47.
8
Redford, History and Chronology, pp. 116-17.
9
E. Wente, “review of History and Chronology of the
Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies, by Donald Red-
ford,” JNES 28 (1969), pp. 273-80.
10
Ibid., p. 275.
11
Ibid.
painted, but that inside the passageway only the
acrostic hymn had received its pigment, perhaps
“because of the extremely delicately incised relief
of the inner wall containing the scene of Amen-
hotep IV offering to his parents.”11 Nor did he
entirely discount the east-to-west progression of
construction. Wente further noted that one of
Kheruef’s titles, “Steward of the Estate of Amun,”
appears only in the pillared hall beyond the west-
ern portico, implying that it may have been an
office conferred on him later in life, and that its
occurrence only relatively deep within the tomb
might reflect a chronological datum for tomb
construction.12
William Murnane’s later analysis of the work in
Kheruef, in his monograph on Egyptian coregen-
cies, conceded that it is possible that the progress
of the decoration flowed from east to west, but if
so, there must have been a significant chronologi-
cal gap between the entrance doorway—which
represents some of the earliest relief work exe-
cuted under Amenhotep IV—and the western
side of the open court, “since the portico is all
of a piece and the events of the third jubilee are
portrayed there.”13 Murnane estimated this lapse
of time at “about ten years,” but did not otherwise
believe the evidence to compel a decision either
for or against a coregency.
In The Amarna Age: Egypt, Frederick J. Giles
has recently returned to the substance of Aldred’s
(and his own) earlier position, reasserting that
“the scenes of the first and third jubilees, dated
to Amenhotep’s Year 30 and 37 respectively, are
within the tomb on the western wall of the fore-
court, and therefore probably to be dated later
than the scenes of Ikhnaton on the façade.”14 He
quotes extensively from Wente’s careful remarks
on the carving and painting of the Kheruef reliefs,
which, although useful as clarification, in point
of fact skirt the fundamental question of whether
work in the tomb flowed strictly from east to
west. Giles does accede to Murnane’s deductions
concerning a time lag before the jubilee scenes
were carved, with one caveat: “the intervening
period was long or short depending on whether
the scenes in the first court were executed in
one group, in or after Regnal Year 37, or in two
groups, the first after Year 30, and the second
12
For a cautionary remark, see C. Nims, in Epigraphic
Survey, Kheruef, p. 15, n. 52.
13
Murnane, Coregencies, p. 149, with n. 192, which
indicates the concurrence of Charles Nims, field director
of the Epigraphic Survey during the years Kheruef was being
recorded; see further below.
14
Giles, Amarna Age: Egypt, p. 111.
 architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef
group in Amenhotep III’s last year.”15 Thus, he
leaves open the question of whether each of the
jubilee scenes was cut at the time the celebra-
tions were respectively observed. If this question
is answered in the affirmative, however, it greatly
complicates the interpretation of the quarrying
of the court and preparation of the portico: are
we to understand that the southern wing of the
portico was decorated with the portrayal of the
first jubilee seven years before the northern wing
was carved with scenes of the third jubilee? Why
then was it left (as Wente noted) “architectur-
ally at a less advanced stage” than the northern
wing, and its reliefs never painted? Are we then
to assign the decoration of the central doorway
of the portico to a time part way between years
30 and 37, or closer to the former date?
A Timeline for the Supposed Long Coregency
Let us accept for a moment the premise of a long
coregency. To illustrate how the decoration of the
tomb of Kheruef might be fit into the chronologi-
cal limits of such a scheme, a diagram may be
created with four correlative timelines that com-
pare the reigns of the assumed coregents against
the tomb of Kheruef itself (Fig. 3). The uppermost
line represents the recurring cycle of the civil year
against which all other dates are entered, with 1
A.t 1 marked by a star and the seasons following
in a purely schematic fashion.
The second timeline shows the reign of Amen-
hotep III from years 26 onward, with his three
jubilees prominently noted, as well as his highest
attested year date. As Charles Van Siclen III has
shown, each of the three jubilees of the elder king
took place over the identical range of dates, to
15
Ibid., p. 115.
16
C. Van Siclen III, “The Accession Date of Amenhotep
III and the Jubilee,” JNES 32 (1973), pp. 290-300.
17
Ibid., pp. 294-96. J. von Beckerath, Chronologie des
pharaonischen Ägypten. MÄS 46 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern,
1997), p. 201, chooses the option of early 3 šmw (“Anfang
XI”), just a month later, which does not materially affect
the arguments here.
18
W. Hayes, “Inscriptions from the Palace of Amenhotep
III,” JNES 10 (1951), pp. 35-40, Fig. 11, no. 143. Jar label
143A, presumptively year 38 but missing its year date, men-
tions msw.t r. Von Beckerath, Chronologie, pp. 110 and
201, assigns the month 2 pr.t as the highest approximate
date within year 38, to account for the fact that jar label 62
(Hayes, JNES 10, Fig. 7) refers to new wine of “year 38,”
which must have been harvested in mid-summer.
19
The initial study, which outlines three major phases, is
W.R. Johnson, “Images of Amenhotep III in Thebes: Styles
69
judge from the relatively voluminous documenta-
tion from each of these celebrations: from 4 pr.t
26 of one regnal year to 3 šmw 2 in the succeeding
year, or sixty-seven days for each jubilee.16 Within
this span of time fell the anniversary of the king’s
accession, probably on 2 šmw 1.17 The highest
attested date of Amenhotep III is a jar docket
from Malkata: sb.t 38 sw.w 5 ry.w-rnp.t msw.t
Wsἰr, one of the two epagomenal days mentioned
in the palace corpus, which occurred only three
months into the king’s 38th year.18
Another vital chronological characteristic has
been developed in a series of seminal articles by
W. Raymond Johnson on the progression of
royal art styles and the deification iconography
of Amenhotep III.19 Johnson has characterized
the style of the third decade of the king’s reign as
“mature naturalism,” basing his observations on
certain relief blocks extant from the king’s mortu-
ary temple at Kom el-Heitan on the west bank at
Luxor—in particular the Ptah-Sokar-Osiris com-
plex—and from the sun court at Luxor Temple.20
This phase, indicated on the timeline as “natural-
istic,” is distinguished by a more relaxed, softer
formality, of which the hallmark is light-raised
and light-sunk relief, with emphasis on a more
detailed rendering of the ear.
According to Johnson’s studies, “mature
naturalism” ends with the first jubilee, when
the final, “baroque,” phase asserts itself for the
remainder of the reign. The new royal style is
characterized by very high, rounded relief.21 In
both three-dimensional sculpture and relief, the
hallmark is “exaggerated youthfulness,” with the
king’s face almost orb-like, the eyes overlarge,
the nose made smaller and the lips enlarged.
At the same time, the royal insignia are infused
with solar symbolism implying the deification of
and Intentions,” in The Art of Amenhotep III: Art Historical
Analysis, ed. L.M. Berman (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum
of Art, 1990), pp. 26-46. An expanded scheme, with four
phases that largely correspond to each of the decades of the
king’s reign, is presented in idem, “The Deified Amenhotep
III as the Living Re-Horakhty: Stylistic and Iconographic
Considerations,” in Atti del Sesto Congresso Internazionale
di Egittologia, vol. 2, ed. Silvio Curto et al. (Turin: Società
Italiana per il Gas p.A., 1993), pp. 231-36; and idem, “Monu-
ments and Monumental Art under Amenhotep III: Evolution
and Meaning,” in Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign,
eds. D. O’Connor and E. Cline (Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan, 1998), pp. 80-85.
20
For other relief monuments to be placed in this
category, see Johnson, “Deified Amenhotep III,” n. 7 on
pp. 233-34.
21
For a range of examples, see ibid., n. 9 on p. 234.
70 peter f. dorman
Fig. 3. Schematic timeline for a hypothetical long coregency between Amenhotep III and Akhenaton.
Amenhotep III: the king’s sporran is often adorned
with multiple uraeus serpents and, on occasion, a
leopard skin; the sashes of the kilt are tied with
an elaborate double loop, and pendant stream-
ers are tipped with papyrus or sedge umbels; and
a shebyu collar often adorns the royal neck. On
the timeline, the “baroque” phase extends from
the first jubilee until the end of Amenhotep III’s
reign.22
The major chronological points of Akhenaton’s
reign are shown in the lowermost timeline. His
accession fell within the very narrow range of 1
pr.t 1-8,23 situating this event almost exactly six
months distant from the accession day of his father
in terms of the calendar year. In other words, the
correlation of the two reigns in any proposed core-
22
In a more recent commentary, Johnson (in “The Setting:
History, Religion, and Art,” in Pharaohs of the Sun: Akhen-
aten, Nefertiti, Tutankhamun, eds. R. Freed, Y. Markowitz,
and S. D’Auria [Boston, New York and London: Bulfinch/
Little, Brown and Co., 1999], pp. 46-47) observes that the
final decade is further distinguished by a variety of other
styles as well: “the youthful ‘deification style’ of Amenho-
tep III’s last decade existed side by side with statuary and
relief work carved in a totally different style, that of the
Old Kingdom private sculpture,” noting also the influence
of statuary of the late Middle Kingdom (Sesostris III and
Amenemhat III) on sculpture of Amenhotep III and opining
that many of the known examples originated at Amarna
rather than the Theban area.
23
W. Murnane, “On the Accession Date of Akhenaton,”
in Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes, eds. J.H. Johnson
and E.F. Wente, SAOC 39 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute
gency does not offer an indefinite sliding scale of
possibilities, but only one in which the accession
anniversaries of Akhenaton fall halfway through
the regnal years of his father; accordingly, they can
only be adjusted (to the right or left) by whole-
year increments. One relatively early datum is a
series of graffiti in the Wadi Hammamat referring
to a quarrying expedition undertaken under the
auspices of the High Priest of Amun May, dated
to year 4, 3 A.t 11, implying at least an outward
tolerance of the chief god of Karnak.24 The date
at which the younger king changed his name to
Akhenaton is of special note: the alteration took
place in his 5th regnal year, between the 19th
day of 3 pr.t, the date of a letter in which the
steward Apy addresses the king according to his
of the University of Chicago, 1976), pp. 163-67; and
W. Murnane and C. Van Siclen III, The Boundary Stelae
of Akhenaten (London and New York: Kegan Paul Interna-
tional, 1993), pp. 149-55. See also von Beckerath, Chronologie,
pp. 111, 201; and Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon,
pp. 14-16, who asserts a preference for 1 pr.t 2.
24
For the two primary graffiti, see G. Goyon, Nou-
velles inscriptions rupestres du Wadi Hammamat (Paris:
Libraire d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1957),
pp. 106-07, pls. 25 and 31; and W. Murnane, Texts from
the Amarna Period in Egypt, Society of Biblical Literature.
Writings from the Ancient World 5 (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1995), pp. 68 and 248.
25
For the letter (pGurob 1.1 and 1.2), which also invokes
the protection of Ptah on pharaoh, see ibid., pp. 50-51 and
247.
 architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef
birth name,25 and the 13th day of 4 pr.t, the date
of the “earlier proclamation” on the boundary
stelae at Amarna, where “Akhenaton” appears
for the first time26—a span of only 24 days. The
boundary stelae also furnish three other dates (in
years 6 and 8), and the reception of foreign trib-
ute, shown in the Amarna tombs of Huya and
Meryra II, bears the notation “regnal year 12, 2
pr.t 8,” in juxtaposition with the later didactic
name of the Aton.27
Other events may be more loosely positioned
within the early years of Amenhotep IV. One is
the construction of the sandstone Ra-Horakhty
structure at Karnak, where the Aton is still por-
trayed as a falcon-headed anthropomorphic deity
and his early didactic name is written without
cartouches; though not precisely dated, this shrine
must have been under construction in the younger
king’s first years.28
The lengthy overlap between the two king’s
reigns shown in Fig. 3 is essentially predicated on
the observations of Aldred, who suggested that the
three jubilees of Amenhotep III might be closely
matched with the changes in the didactic name
and epithets of the Aton, resulting in a long core-
26
Murnane and Van Siclen, Boundary Stelae, pp. 11-
68.
27
For Meryra II: N. de Garis Davies, The Rock Tombs of
El Amarna, Part II, ASE 14 (London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trübner and Co., 1905), pl. 38; for Huya: idem, The Rock
Tombs of El Amarna, Part III, ASE 15 (London: Kegan Paul,
Trench, Trübner and Co., 1905), pl. 13. The hieratic docket
on Amarna letter EA 27 is not shown on this timeline; none-
theless, it is one of the essential chronological anchors that
have been used to justify a long coregency of at least eleven
years. For a recent examination of the tablet and its docket,
advocating a reading of “year 2,” see W. Fritz, “Bemerkungen
zur Datierungsvermerk auf der Amarnatafel Kn. 27,” SAK
18 (1991), pp. 207-14; for a rebuttal (unpersuasive, in the
opinion of this writer) and reading of year 12, see Giles,
Amarna Age: Egypt, pp. 30-34. The docket was added in 1
pr.t, but unfortunately the day is lost; it could have been
written either during the very first days of regnal year [1]2
or during the very last. See also n. 31, below.
28
For the Ra-Horakhty temple, see J.-L. Chappaz, “Le
premier édifice d’Aménophis IV à Karnak,” BSEG 8 (1983),
pp. 13-45.
29
C. Aldred, “The Beginning of the El-Amarna Period,”
JEA 45 (1959), pp. 19-33. The numbers cited are Aldred’s; in
fact, Akhenaton’s year 11 would have begun in his father’s
year 38. The long coregency is often referred to as eleven or
twelve years long, but there is no reason for such imprecision:
one can be quite definite about the chronological options
available. Note that the schematic timeline in Fig. 3 shows
the reign of Amenhotep IV beginning in year 27 of his
father, not year 28, for reasons expounded below.
30
Johnson has proposed that the appearance of the Aton
as a sun disk—just prior to, or exactly coincident with, the
first jubilee of Amenhotep III—contains crucial theological
overtones, equating the elder (and newly deified) king with
71
gency that begins in the elder king’s year 28 (year
1 of Amenhotep IV) and ends in year 39 (year 11
of Akhenaton [sic]).29 Although Aldred’s theory
that the Aton itself celebrated three historic jubi-
lees synchronized with those of the elder king has
not been widely embraced, other grounds have
been found to reinvigorate this suggested syn-
chronism. Johnson has noted close and convinc-
ing similarities between the “mature realism” of
Amenhotep III’s third decade and the restrained
relief carving of the Ra-Horakhty sanctuary at
Karnak.30 Not only would the first appearance
of the Aton (year 2 of Amenhotep IV in such a
scheme) coincide nicely with the elder king’s first
jubilee, but the death of Amenhotep III, probably
in year 39, would correspond neatly to a restored
docket of year [1]2 on Amarna letter EA 27, which
(it has been claimed) contains a reference to a
royal funeral.31 The death of Amenhotep III has
also been linked to the onset of the proscription
of Amun in year 12.32
It is unlikely, however, that the earliest appear-
ance of the Aton as a rayed solar disk can be
set as early as year 2. As Jean-Luc Chappaz has
shown, the Aton’s new iconic form is inextricably
the Aton itself, and that this syncretism lies at the very heart
of a proper understanding of the Aton religion. For these
views, see Johnson, “Images of Amenhotep III,” pp. 43-45;
idem, “Monuments and Monumental Art,” pp. 91-93; and
idem, “The Deified Amenhotep III,” pp. 232-33.
31
Proponents of the long coregency uniformly support
this double synchronism with the reign of Amenhotep III
in years 2 and 12; see, for example, Aldred, Akhenaten,
King of Egypt, pp. 169-82; W.R. Johnson, “Amenhotep III
and Amarna: Some New Considerations,” JEA 82 (1996),
pp. 81-82; idem, “Images of Amenhotep III,” p. 43; Giles,
Amarna Age: Egypt, p. 136; and C. Vandersleyen, L’Égypte
et la vallée du Nil, tome 2, De la fin de l’Ancien Empire à
la fin du Nouvel Empire, Nouvelle Clio (Paris: Presses uni-
versitaires de France, 1995), pp. 402-07. For EA 27, see n.
27, above. The internal reference in EA 27 to a “festival of
mourning,” however, was already cast into doubt by Mur-
nane, Coregencies, pp. 124-25; and see now W. Moran, The
Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1992), pp. 89-90, with n. 19, who disavows any connection
of the “kimru-feast” with the funeral of Amenhotep III.
32
For this historical reconstruction, see Johnson, “Images
of Amenhotep III,” pp. 45-46; idem, “Monuments and Monu-
mental Art,” p. 93 with n. 171; and idem, “The Setting:
History, Religion, and Art,” pp. 47-48. For the persecution
of Amun, see below.
33
There is no example of the name of the solar disk
employed without cartouches. On the other hand, Chappaz,
BSEG 8 (1983), pp. 18, 33-34, cites five examples in the Ra-
Horakhty temple at Karnak in which the cartouches of the
anthropomorphic god were added later; in these cases, the
(original) raised relief was shaved down and the didactic
name merely incised, this time within cartouches. Gabolde,
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, n. 202 on p. 26, also notes,
“l’apparition des cartouches autour du protocole d’Aton
72 peter f. dorman
linked to its didactic name framed in cartouches.33
The time span for the setting of Aton’s protocol
within cartouches seems to be provided by two
pieces of linen that were entwined around divine
statues found in the tomb of Tutankhamun. One
linen wrapping displays the didactic name with-
out cartouches in conjunction with the notation
“year 3,” and the second shows the name inside
cartouches along with the date “year 4, 2 šmw.”34
In order for the first appearance of the rayed disk
to correlate with the first jubilee of Amenhotep
III, the junior king would have had to ascend the
throne no later than the middle of his father’s
27th regnal year, as shown in the present time-
line, not his 28th.35
Placed between these concurrent reigns, the
decoration of Kheruef’s tomb occupies two
restricted spans of time, as Murnane pointed out.
The lintel of the entrance doorway to the tomb
bears the figure of Amenhotep IV accompanied
by his mother, Tiye, in paired offering scenes
in which the king offers wine to Ra-Horakhty
and Maat, “daughter of Ra,” on the left side, and
incense to Atum and the “chieftainess of Thebes”
on the right (Fig. 4). The passage just within the
doorway bears the well known scenes of Amen-
hotep IV offering a libation to his parents (Fig. 2)
and reciting an acrostic hymn addressed to Ra-
Horakhty and Amun. The iconography evident
on the figure of Amenhotep III—who wears a
leopard skin and broad streamers on his sporran,
and is referred to only by his prenomen, Neb-
maatre—is typical of the solar insignia added to
his costume only after his deification during the
first jubilee. The entrance doorway and passage,
therefore, must have been carved at some point
after the first jubilee but before Amenhotep IV
changed his name: at most a period of less than
two years.
a, en fait, précédé de très peu la nouvelle iconographie du
dieu d’Amenhotep IV,” and cites two other monuments
on which the hieracocephalic Ra-Horakhty displays his
didactic name inside cartouches.
34
These pieces of linen (JE 62705 and JE 62703, respec-
tively) were first noted by D. Redford (“The Sun-Disc in
Akhenaten’s Program: Its Worship and Antecedents, I,”
JARCE 13 [1976], p. 55) as pertinent to this question. See
now Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 27 with
n. 211, citing H. Beinlich and M. Saleh, Corpus der hiero-
glyphischen Inschriften aus dem Grab des Tutanchamun
(Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1989), pp. 131 (Carter 281a)
and 133 (Carter 291a).
35
The difference of a year does not greatly affect the
arguments offered here in regard to TT 192. If the beginning
With the completion of these elements of the
entrance, work on the decoration of Kheruef’s
tomb must have been brought to a halt for over six
years. Those advocating a long coregency would
hold that the great courtyard was in the process
of excavation during this period, as well as the
rooms beyond; the construction of the tomb is
further addressed below.
The second phase of decoration in Kheruef’s
tomb would have been initiated after the third
jubilee of Amenhotep III (and in the 11th year of
his son), according to the long coregency scheme,
and it is of uncertain duration. The carving of
the scenes could scarcely have begun prior to the
completion of the third jubilee (unless the reliefs
are to be considered anticipatory). Realistically,
the creation of the third jubilee reliefs can scarcely
be made to fit into the reign of Amenhotep III at
all. Since his highest known day date falls barely
three months after the completion of the third
jubilee, it is entirely possible that these reliefs were
carved only following the king’s death.
Work on the tomb was apparently terminated
after a catastrophic collapse that forestalled fur-
ther carving or repair, a least in the innermost
rooms.36 Two of the pillars in the columned hall
closest to the central door, however, received
their dedication texts before the roof fell in, and
a fragment from the top of one of the pillars still
contains the intact name of Amun, here actually
compounded with the name of Ra-Horakhty.37
As it was not defaced during the Atonist pro-
scription, the name provides a clue that, even in
the scheme of the long coregency, the collapse
of the columned hall must have preceded the
desecration of the figure and name of Amun by
Akhenaton. On our theoretical time line, the per-
secution of Amun is generously indicated at year
13, allowing for approximately two years for the
decoration of the western portico and its adjacent
spaces.38
of the coregency is correlated to Amenhotep IV’s year 2
rather than year 3, each construction phase of the tomb
would be expanded by a year, and the hiatus between them
lessened by a year.
36
Nims, in Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, p. 15.
37
Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pl. 80F. Numerous men-
tions of Kheruef’s title as ἰmy-r pr m pr-ἰmn, with “Amun”
left intact, occur on the column fragments as well.
38
It seems clear that the name and figure of Kheruef
were attacked sometime during the reign of Akhenaton, but
only after the accumulation of debris that helped to preserve
a least one of his depictions in the lowermost register of the
portico; see Nims in Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pp. 14-15.
The fall of the portico roof may not have occurred simul-
taneously with the collapse of the columned hall.
 architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef
Fig. 4. Lintel and upper jambs of the entrance doorway of the tomb of Kheruef. From Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pl. 8.
Iconographic and Chronological Conundra
Given the severe constraints of the long coregency
scheme on the decoration of TT 192, the entrance
area of Kheruef’s tomb offers a proliferation of
discordant data, foremost of which is the presence
or absence of certain royal figures. Amenhotep
III, newly deified in his first jubilee, a ceremony in
which Kheruef himself participated, seems to have
been banished from the entrance lintel in favor
of his son and the queen mother.39 The primary
female presence throughout is Queen Tiye, whom
Kheruef served as steward; but while Nefertiti
was already deemed of sufficient importance to
be the sole officiant in her own w.t-bnbn across
39
The reason for this absence given by Aldred in Akhen-
aten, Pharaoh of Egypt, pp. 108-09, is hardly compelling:
that Amenhotep III donated the tomb to Kheruef about the
time of his first jubilee, but that Kheruef simply “associated
the son of his patroness with her husband, particularly as
he had recently been made co-regent.”
40
See D. Redford, in R. Smith and D. Redford, The
73
the river at Karnak,40 she appears nowhere in the
tomb of Kheruef, either in name or in figure.
Religious anachronisms abound. At a time
when Amenhotep IV was building temples to his
new deity at Karnak, replete with its fully devel-
oped representation of the Aton as a disk with
animate rays, the king apparently had himself
depicted on Kheruef’s tomb entrance in front of
an anthropomorphic Ra-Horakhty and Atum (see
Fig. 4). In the case of the former deity, Ra-Hor-
akhty is provided with the epithet nr A nb p.t, a
protocol abandoned by Amenhotep IV in his own
third year or earlier, by which time the didactic
name of the Aton was already fully elaborated.41
In the offering text to Ra-Horakhty on the door
Akhenaten Temple Project, Vol. 1, Initial Discoveries (War-
minster: Aris and Phillips, 1976), pp. 79-82, pls. 20-23.
41
See n. 34, above; and I. Munro, “Zusammenstellung von
Datierungskritierien für Inschriften der Amarna-Zeit nach
J.J. Perepelkin ‘Die Revolution Amenophis’ IV.’, Teil 1 (russ.),
1967,” GM 94 (1986), pp. 81-82; and Gabolde, D’Akhenaton
à Toutânkhamon, pp. 24-25, with references.
74 peter f. dorman
jamb of the entrance (who is not provided with
any epithet in this instance), it seems clear that the
deity is viewed as an entity quite separate from the
Aton: Ra-Horakhty is invoked in order “that he
(the god) may grant observation of the solar disk
(ἰtn). . . (to Kheruef).”42 Such references cannot be
easily reconciled with purportedly contemporary
icons at Karnak that depict Ra-Horakhty-Aton
as the physical disk of the sun. The plethora of
other deities invoked in such proximity to Amen-
hotep IV is also problematic for the coregency
scheme, to wit, Osiris, Isis, Thoth, and Anubis, to
say nothing of Amun pAwty tA.wy and Amun-Ra
nb nsw.t tA.wy.43 Moreover, the prominent occur-
rence of the name of Amun in the acrostic hymn
of the passageway, adjacent to Amenhotep III’s
portrayal in jubilee garb, ensures that this area
must have been decorated together with the lintel
and jambs of the entrance.44 The resultant con-
tradictions within the long coregency scheme are
irreconcilable with the textual evidence.45
The long coregency poses two more puzzles
on the lintel of the second doorway, which leads
into the unfinished columned hall (Fig. 5). The
lintel is laid out in a manner identical to that of
the entrance doorway, but the damage is such that
only the lower portions of the scenes remain, so
that the identity of the royal and divine figures
cannot be determined. The door jambs contain
ten vertical offering texts, rather than eight, invok-
42
Following the translation of E. Wente, in Epigraphic
Survey, Kheruef, p. 33.
43
Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 25-26,
assigns Amenhotep IV’s prohibition against using the name
of Amun—rather than active persecution itself—to a time
prior to the enclosure of the Aton’s name in cartouches,
that is, by year 3, even before the time at which work on
Kheruef’s entrance could have commenced: “Le dieu de
Thèbes n’est pas encore proscrit, mais il (Amenhotep IV)
n’est plus fait allusion à lui que très discrètement dans les
inscriptions officielles, notamment dans le nom du roi.”
44
E. Wente, in Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pp. 35-37,
with pls. 14-15.
45
A number of the discrepancies thus far noted could
be resolved by assigning the inception of the coregency to
the middle of regnal year 29 of Amenhotep III. This rear-
rangement would break the neat synchronicity between the
first jubilee of the elder king and the first appearance of the
Aton (delaying the latter by two years), and the year 12 of
Akhenaton would then start midway into the 40th year of
his father; but see further below.
46
The god is again mentioned here without the didactic
protocol and without the cartouches that, by year 11 of
Akhenaton, had become numbingly de rigeur for the Aton
at Amarna; nor is the accompanying text compatible with
Atonist theology: “that he (Ra-Horakhty) may grant entry
into his mountain of the righteous and voyaging in front
of the stars that are wont to go up to the sky,” after Wente,
in Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, p. 68.
ing the following gods: Amun, Ra-Horakhty,46
Khepri, Atum, Osiris Ptah, Anubis, Wepwawet,
Min, Djehuty, and Hathor. By analogy with the
entrance, the damaged lintel—presumably carved
along with the adjacent jubilee reliefs of year 3747
and thus concurrent with the junior coregent’s
year 11—should contain figures of Akhenaton
and Tiye, offering to seated male deities with
goddesses standing behind their thrones.48 The
reverent mention of a multitude of such deities,
four represented in human form, in juxtaposition
with Akhenaton in his 11th or 12th regnal year, as
the long coregency requires, cannot be explained
away.49 Perhaps, then, it was Amenhotep III who
was portrayed on the lintel with Tiye, and whose
sensibilities required the inclusion of traditional
gods that were, by that time, anathema to his son?
But this again raises the question: why should the
elder coregent have been portrayed on the lintel of
the second doorway with his wife, while the son
was depicted on the tomb entrance with the queen
mother? Even the supposition that Amenhotep III
is indeed the king portrayed on the lintel of the
second doorway begs the question of what was not
happening at the entrance of the tomb: in a monu-
ment still being actively decorated in the younger
king’s 11th and 12th year, why was no attempt
made—at the very least—to alter the nomen of
Amenhotep IV to “Akhenaton,” as had been done
consistently at Karnak and elsewhere?50
47
For the suggestion—and rejection—that the dates
referring to regnal year 37 in the Kheruef reliefs were later
additions, see B. Bryan, in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep
III and His World, eds. A. Kozloff and B. Bryan (Cleveland:
Cleveland Museum of Art, 1992), n. 6 on pp. 205-06; and
Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 69.
48
It is generally agreed that Akhenaton was probably
the king portrayed on the lintel of the second doorway; see
Aldred, Akhenaten, King of Egypt, p. 92; Nims, in Epigraphic
Survey, Kheruef, p. 13; and A. Radwan, Die Darstellungen
des regierenden Königs und seiner Familienangehörigen in
den Privatgräbern des 18. Dynastie, MÄS 21 (Berlin: Bruno
Hessling, 1969), p. 94.
49
Again, Amun and Ra-Horakhty are especially prob-
lematic. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 25 with
n. 200, asserts that, on the basis of monuments dated to
the early years of Amenhotep IV, Amun (though not yet
actively persecuted) was no longer mentioned in royal texts
of that king from his regnal year 4 onward. To be sure,
even after the first several years of Akhenaton’s reign, a
number of deities other than the Aton were tolerated and
even honored, at least in specific contexts; see S. Bickel,
Untersuchungen im Totentempel des Merenptah in Theben
III: Tore und andere wiederverwendete Bauteile Amenophis’
III, BÄBA 16 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1997), pp. 92-94.
Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 32-34, delineates
the extent of the sporadic and inconsistent attacks against
Amun and other deities outside of the Theban area.
50
For the Aton temples, see D. Redford in Smith and
 architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef
Fig. 5. Lintel and upper jambs of the second doorway of the tomb of Kheruef. From Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef,
pl. 67.
Second, there is the artistic convention of the
“near foot,” a criterion that can be applied to the
one of the few pertinent iconographic elements
preserved on the lintel in question. Edna Russ-
mann has demonstrated that the representation
of the near foot in Egyptian art, with all of its
five toes indicated, originated in painted form in
certain Theban tombs of pre-Amarna date, but
during the reign of Akhenaton became virtually
a “royal prerogative” extended to the king and
immediate members of the family.51 It is notewor-
thy, then, that the convention of the near foot,
a motif that Akhenaton deliberately adopted as
a feature of his personal royal presentation and
extended to immediate family members,52 is
avoided everywhere in TT 192, although it was
otherwise consistently applied on private and
royal monuments of the younger king for much
of his reign.
Redford, Akhenaten Temple Project, vol. 1, p. 76; for the
Ra-Horakhty shrine, see Chappaz, BSEG 8 (1983), p. 33, who
notes eleven examples, all executed in incised carving.
51
E. Russmann, “The Anatomy of an Artistic Conven-
tion: Representation of the Near Foot in Two Dimensions
Through the New Kingdom,” BES 2 (1980), pp. 57-81.
52
Ibid., pp. 70-71.
75
Textual and iconographic anomalies such as
these can only be accounted for, in the context
of a long coregency, by the dubious presumption
of conflicting but separate artistic and religious
sensibilities, practiced according to geographic
location or at the whimsical discretion of the
coregents while Amenhotep III was still alive.53
Such a presumption would, a priori, vitiate any
attempt to trace in reasonable fashion the consis-
tent development of artistic and religious trends
during the presumed coregency period, or to for-
mulate a viable chronological framework on the
basis of them.
Finally, the erasure of the name of Amun
throughout the tomb is only possible, in the core-
gency scenario outlined here, if its inception is
dated roughly no earlier than Akhenaton’s year
13, after the decoration of the several offering
texts in Kheruef’s columned hall. Susanne Bickel’s
53
The suggestion that Akhenaton was motivated, in the
decoration of the second doorway, to embrace traditional
religious and artistic conventions out of consideration for his
father is a priori unsatisfactory. In any case, it has already
been pointed out that dated records suggest that Amenhotep
III was, in all likelihood, deceased at the time this part of
Kheruef’s tomb was decorated.
76 peter f. dorman
study of the northern monumental gateway of
Amenhotep III’s mortuary complex, however,
raises certain arguments for assigning the begin-
ning of the persecution of Amun to the period
directly following Akhenaton’s own name change
and his removal to Amarna: year 5 or shortly
thereafter.54 Bickel has noted that Amun was not
merely eradicated from the scenes of the gateway,
but shortly thereafter his figure was recarved as
a deified form of Nebmaatre, probably as part of
a prearranged process of cultic transformation.55
The figures of the deified Nebmaatre are provided
with various epithets, one of which (nr nfr) seems
only to be employed by Akhenaton in the years
preceding the change in the didactic name of
the Aton, after which it is replaced by hqA nfr.56
The alterations of the monumental gateway must
therefore be assigned to a time preceding the revi-
sion of the Aton’s cartouches.57 Bickel observes
that scholarly consensus assigns the final manifes-
tation of the Aton’s didactic protocol to years 8 or
9, providing a fairly narrow range (between years
5 and 9) for the alterations to have been effected
at the mortuary temple gateway.58 Such a dating
would also make it impossible for the name of
Amun to be used in the tomb of Kheruef in year
11 or later: it could hardly have been employed
in the innermost reaches of the tomb while it was
being excised at the entrance.59 In addition, on
the occasion of the presentation of foreign trib-
ute, shown in the tombs of Huya and Meryra II at
Amarna and bearing the date of year 12, 2 pr.t 8,
the royal couple are enthroned beneath the later
54
Bickel, Untersuchungen, pp. 91-94. If these changes
were indeed effected in year 5 or 6, the portrayal of Neb-
maatra in the entrance passage of Kheruef’s tomb preceded
them by just one or two years. Her position on the early
persecution of Amun is supported by Gabolde, D’Akhenaton
à Toutânkhamon, pp. 29-30, who also examines, and dis-
misses, the arguments that Aldred has proposed for assign-
ing a later date of year 12 to the proscription. That Amun
was still tolerated in year 4 of Amenhotep IV is indicated
by the series of graffiti in the Wadi Hammamat that refer
to an expedition sent there on 3 A.t 11, a date that falls
toward the end of the king’s fourth regnal year (see Fig.
3); see ibid., Gabolde, p. 26.
55
Not to be confused with Nebmaatra lord of Nubia,
or the deified Amenhotep III in Luxor Temple; see Bickel,
Untersuchungen, pp. 89-90. Bickel (p. 89) is further of the
opinion that the recut figures of Nebmaatra on the gateway
cannot be concurrent with the last decade of Amenhotep III,
as they are inconsistent with the proportional canon of that
period and lack the expected solar iconography associated
with Amenhotep III in his final years.
56
Ibid., p. 93, citing Munro, GM 94 (1985), p. 85.
57
That is, the final manifestation of the Aton’s protocol,
which was subject to numerous minor alterations, for which
didactic name of the Aton, seemingly confirming
these rough parameters.60
The Quarrying and Decoration of the Tomb of
Kheruef
The presumption that Kheruef’s tomb was exca-
vated and decorated in the usual Theban manner,
proceeding from east to west, not only offers firm
support for a long coregency, but is essential to
it, demonstrating the rise of Amenhotep IV to
the throne before the death of his father. In fact,
far from representing a typical example of the
Theban tomb genre, TT 192 is an innovation in
private mortuary architecture, notably by reason
of its large open court, sunk into the floor of the
Asasif valley. Moreover, the condition of its walls
at the time of its abandonment directly contra-
dicts the assertion that work began at its entrance
and proceeded inexorably toward its innermost
rooms (see Fig. 1). The main descending ramp
was completed and its walls smoothed, and of
course the doorway and entrance leading into
the court were carved with their reliefs and even
partially painted. In the next area directly adja-
cent to the entrance, within the court itself, the
columns of the eastern portico had only reached
the stage of roughing out; two sections of the
wall behind the columns had been smoothed,
but this work had not progressed far. As for the
courtyard, the northern and southern porticos
were largely unquarried; only two columns in the
see Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 105-06.
58
Bickel, Untersuchungen, pp. 92-93. The year 8 or 9
datum derives largely from the early study of B. Gunn, “Notes
on the Aten and His Names,” JEA 9 (1929), pp. 168-76.
59
Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 29, also
views the persecution of Amun to have begun more or
less concurrently with Akhenaton’s name change in year 5:
“C’est vraisemblablment de cette époque que date le début
des remplacements du nomen «Amenhotep» par le praeno-
men «Nebmaâtre» dans les cartouches d’Amenhotep III et
les martelages du nom d’Amon sur les parois des temples
thébains: il serait paradoxal que le roi censurât les références
à Amon jusque dans son proper nom de naissance si c’était
pour laisser intactes partout ailleurs.”
60
Gabolde, ibid., pp. 110-18, has recently urged a recon-
sideration of the first appearance of the later didactic name
to year 14. His conclusions rest on a statistical parsing of
the variants of the Aton’s names at Amarna; on the differing
number of princesses in the two scenes of foreign tribute;
and on the caution that the carving of the tribute scenes
may both be retrospective by a year or two. Nonetheless, it
is not the appearance of the Aton’s later didactic name that
is of concern here: it is the date of the active proscription
of Amun; these phenomena are not necessarily linked.
 architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef
northwestern corner were in the process of being
roughed out. The western portico, by contrast, is
in a state of advanced completion. It had received
its jubilee scenes (the third jubilee had been
partially painted as well), with the pillars of the
northern wing fully carved, while the pillars of
the southern wing had been left only in rough
condition. The walls of the large columned hall,
yet farther in, had been completely smoothed,
with its pillars architecturally finished, but just a
few of the texts on the columns had been drafted
and carved. The final rectangular chamber, with
its double row of columns, had been roughed out,
but only the eastern half of the walls of the room
had been smoothed. There is no demonstrable
east-to-west progression here, but rather a more
complicated distribution of labor.
Nor does it make practical sense to claim that
TT 192 was quarried from its entrance doorway
alone, with draftsmen and painters following on
the heels of the stonemasons. The proposition that
this vast tomb was excavated from its entrance
alone would imply that the open court, carved
into the bedrock of the Asasif, was created essen-
tially by tunneling from below, a procedure that
is simply not credible from a logistical point of
view. Such a scenario mandates laborers engaged
in removing over 5000 cubic meters of quarried
chip, taken from all parts of the subterranean
tomb, solely through an entrance doorway mea-
suring 1.4 m wide. For a time the doorway would
have been inaccessible due to sculptors engaged
in carving the delicate reliefs of Amenhotep IV
performing a libation to his parents, and for years
thereafter these scenes would have been exposed
to gangs of men hauling debris.
The Epigraphic Survey realized the essential
problem and came to different conclusions, based
on the fact that the open court itself contains
so many unfinished features, including porticos
whose columns had never been fully cut:
With quarrying going on simultaneously in the
front of the tomb and more than thirty meters
away in the rear, the disposal of the debris from
the rear without interference with the work in
the front makes probable the use of a ramp or
ramps in the area of the court, which would have
delayed the quarrying there.61
61
Nims, in Kheruef, p. 6.
62
Ibid., p. 4.
63
Very few of these observations are new. The reader will
note what a large debt is owed to Redford’s early chapter
77
The problem of access and movement in the
unfinished tomb led to an obvious deduction:
Indeed, it may be that more than one ramp was
used so that quarrying could be done more rap-
idly. Besides the present ramp at the entrance,
one or more could have been started in the area
where the court eventually was quarried. A pos-
sible point for the start of another ramp is a
depression that ran north and south through the
area of the court, evidences of which are shown
on plates 3A and 6A.62
The most likely scenario, then, is that the cutting
of TT 192 was initiated in the area of the open
court by means of at least two construction ramps
(one of which was the entranceway itself) leading
from ground level into the ever-deepening court,
with the access ramps left in place until the court
had been fully roughed out to its present dimen-
sions. Such organization would enable work to
proceed on a much broader and faster scale, and
without damage to the completed decoration.
The quarrying of Kheruef’s tomb using the
open court as the starting point vitiates the need
to view the excavation (and thus decoration) of its
various parts in the usual east-to-west sequence.
However, the tomb does otherwise conform to
the usual exigencies of mortuary construction,
in that decoration was begun on wall surfaces
as soon as they could be made available to the
draftsmen. Presumably, once the entranceway,
court, and the two inner halls were roughed out
in their basic dimensions (aside from the columns
of the northern and southern portico), drafts-
men were set to work at the front of the tomb
(the entrance doorway) and the western portico
simultaneously, and both teams began working
from the east gradually westward. Such a pre-
sumption accords with the sequence of finished
areas of the tomb itself, and there is therefore no
need, on architectural grounds at least, to pos-
tulate a chronological gap between the entrance
and western portico of the tomb.63
Moreover, it is remarkable how similar in style
and technique the carved decoration of the west-
ern portico is to that of the entrance of the tomb.
By itself, the passage of five or six years would
hardly make a great difference in terms of a pro-
mulgated and monolithic royal style, but the years
on the coregency (History and Chronology, pp. 113-17),
where his percipient observations, recorded years before
many of the details were confirmed in the publication of
Kheruef, have stood the test of time.
78 peter f. dorman
in question are those that span the full flower-
ing of Amenhotep III’s deification iconography,
the founding of Akhetaton, and probably also
the moderation of the earliest and most extreme
stylistic experiments of the Amarna period. Aside
from the outward trappings of Amenhotep III’s
solar insignia (such as the leopard-skin sporran
and shebyu collar) the tomb of Kheruef seems to
have been utterly untouched by any of the ram-
pant artistic innovations or revisions promulgated,
in very different ways, by Akhenaton and by his
father: its decoration is surprisingly immune to
the turbulent and fecund artistic milieu of a long
coregency.64 As Murnane observed, advocates of
a long coregency must embrace a gap in the dec-
oration of Kheruef’s tomb, though his estimate
of ten years should be shortened to six.65 If the
architecture of the tomb fails to support such an
interpretation, other features of the tomb decora-
tion similarly fail to demonstrate a total suspen-
sion and subsequent resumption of work.
In its documentation of Kheruef’s tomb, the
Epigraphic Survey was keenly aware of the impor-
tance of the reliefs in illuminating aspects of the
coregency question, and its epigraphers closely
examined the style of carving at different points
in the tomb. Regarding the entrance doorway,
the inner door to the first columned court, and
the passages attached to those doors, Nims states
that
the work in these areas seems to have been carried
out concurrently; a study of the style of the reliefs
shows similarities and, in some cases, identity
in treatment. A striking example of the latter is
the consistency in the details of the hieroglyph
of the owl … Note the design on the upper wing
coverts; the crosslines on the primary and sec-
ondary feathers of the wing; the chevron pattern
of the feathers of the breast, abdomen, legs, and
undertail; and the lines on the rectrices…. The
consistency of treatment of the details in the
reliefs suggests that those reliefs were carved by
the same sculptor or by sculptors of the same
school at approximately the same time.66
64
Compare, for example, the tombs of Ramose (N.
de Garis Davies, The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose, Mond
Excavations at Thebes vol. 1 [London: Egypt Exploration
Society, 1941], pls. 32-38) and Parennefer (idem, “Akhenaten
at Thebes,” JEA 9 [1923], pls. 24,1 and 25), in which the
innovations wrought by the Atonist revolution were freely
employed; an argument may be made that both traditional
and new styles were used simultaneously, at least in private
tombs. See also Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon,
Simultaneous work on the tomb decoration is
reflected also by the evidence of its abandonment,
in every area of the tomb, prior to its comple-
tion. Although the tomb entrance has often been
characterized as finished, a smoothed area to
the south of the entry jambs was left only with
a painted red grid, as if in expectation of some
scene to balance the existing relief on the north,
but it was left without a draft cartoon. 67 The north
wing of the western portico (third jubilee) was
fully carved as far as it had been drafted, but a
smoothed area at the northernmost extremity of
the wall had been left blank. The upper registers
had been painted, while the lower register had
not, perhaps because it had been carved later; the
ceiling inscriptions had never been completed.68
The reliefs of the south wing (first jubilee) had
been largely carved, except for the southernmost
extremity of the drafted scenes, where the stern of
the bark and the steersman are incomplete. There
remains sufficient stone to have added a lower reg-
ister to match that of the north wing, but further
work was not undertaken; no pigment was added
here, but a portion of the wall was whitewashed
as if in anticipation of the event.69
Conclusions
The architecture of the tomb of Kheruef argues
for an atypical progression of work by stonecut-
ters and draftsmen, and various epigraphic and
stylistic criteria also point toward the simultane-
ous decoration of the reliefs of the entrance and
those of the western porticos. If we take these
indicators at face value and suspend the dogmatic
insistence on an east-to-west sequence of labor
in TT 192, the decorated surfaces of Kheruef’s
tomb must be seen as having been completed at
roughly the same time. If this conclusion is cor-
rect, none of the carved reliefs can significantly
predate the latest chronological indicator con-
tained within them, namely regnal year 37 of
p. 13, n. 75, and pp. 70-73.
65
Murnane, Coregencies, p. 149.
66
Nims, in Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pp. 5-6.
67
Pointed out initially by Redford, History and Chro-
nology, p. 117; confirmed by Nims, in Epigraphic Survey,
Kheruef, p. 11.
68
Nims, ibid., p. 10, observes that no paint drips are
evident on the bare stone of the lower register.
69
Ibid.
 architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef
Amenhotep III. The argument for a long core-
gency is therefore impossible to sustain.
Similarly, the iconographic and textual contra-
dictions noted in the paragraphs above can only
be resolved by the conclusion that Amenhotep IV
succeeded Amenhotep III on the throne following
his death, probably in his 38th regnal year, with
little or no overlapping coregency period. The
relief decoration in Kheruef’s tomb, the excava-
tion of which may have begun in the last years of
Amenhotep III, belongs to the very early period
of Amenhotep IV, doubtless to his first two years,
before Ra-Horakhty became associated with the
protocol that was to develop into the Aton’s early
didactic name, 70 and thus while Nefertiti’s rise
to unusual ritual stature had not yet taken place
(nor, perhaps, had the union of the royal couple).
Thus it is Amenhotep IV, the new sole reign-
ing king, who was commemorated on both of
the doorways of the tomb along with the queen
mother, whose steward Kheruef was. On the other
hand, the elder king was celebrated as a deceased
ancestor (Nebmaatre) in the entrance passageway,
as well as in the retrospective wall reliefs of the
western portico, where his jubilees are commemo-
rated. Unlike the former commemorative scene,
the latter reliefs depicted historical ceremonies, in
which Amenhotep III is appropriately referred to
by both his nomen and prenomen, celebrations in
which Kheruef figured prominently and arranged
to have recorded on the walls of his tomb. The
plethora of standard deities that appears on the
jambs of the two doorways of the tomb was still
palatable to the new king in the first year of his
reign, while the adoption of the “near foot” as
a distinctive iconographic feature for the royal
family, along with many other Amarna innova-
tions, still lay in the future. The unaltered state of
Amenhotep IV’s nomen in the entrance of tomb
is understandable if the tomb was abandoned as
70
Perepelkin’s observation regarding Amenhotep IV’s
titulary—summarized by Munro, GM 94 (1985), p. 84—that
the king’s epithet A-m-=f is included within cartouche
only from the last third of regnal year 3 is apparently incor-
rect. On the lintel of Kheruef’s entrance, the king’s nomen
79
unusable well before the adoption of his later
name.71
In the damaged entrance passageway, the
space in front of the elder king’s figure is suf-
ficient to accommodate only his prenomen,
written in a single column of text (just below
the name and epithet of Wadjet), which the
Epigraphic Survey was at a loss to reconstruct
(Fig. 2).72 The text is probably to be understood
as [nr nfr] Nb-mA.t[-R], an abbreviated protocol
that appears frequently at Soleb in connection with
representations of Amenhotep III garbed in the
sed-festival robe, and with the deified Nebmaatre
of the northern gateway of the king’s mortuary
complex. In the tomb of Kheruef, this titular for-
mation may adumbrate the changes Akhenaton
effected at that latter monument in conjunction
with the effacement of the god Amun.73
The monument may have been abandoned
when the roof of the columned hall collapsed
around year 2 and, doubtless because of its ruined
condition, no effort was made to alter the car-
touches of Amenhotep IV when the king changed
his name to Akhenaton.74 This did not save the
tomb from the later attentions of the Atonists,
who attacked the name of Amun wherever they
could find it, nor from the persecutions aimed
against Akhenaton (inconsistently achieved) and
Kheruef himself.
Admittedly, the architectural and decorative
features of Kheruef’s tomb are but one part of
the complicated coregency debate, but it is not
within the scope of this paper to pursue other
points of the controversy. The debate over the
existence of a long coregency is, in the opinion
of this writer, one that is of markedly diminished
scholarly value, and one that can be answered
in the negative.75 But having argued here for the
accession of Amenhotep IV only following the
death of his father, the present writer might note
the textual variants given on p. 86. One difference in the
tomb of Kheruef is that Nebmaatra is adorned with the
trappings of solar symbolism accorded the king during his
jubilees, while the deified Amenhotep III in the mortuary
temple is not portrayed in such a manner.
74
reads ἰmn-tp nr A WAs.t A-m-=f, and yet Ra-Horakhty
is not referred to by his early didactic name, which was
already in use in year 3, as the linen from the tomb of
Tutankhamun attests.
71
This reconstruction of events is largely consistent
with Gabolde’s view, in D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon,
pp. 12-13, 70.
72
Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, p. 35, with pl. 13.
73
See Bickel, Untersuchungen, pp. 86-90, in particular
Nor was any effort made to alter the nomen of Amen-
hotep III, which during the reign of Akhenaton was fre-
quently recut as a paired “Nebmaatra” to the prenomen,
or erased with care and simply left blank; for the latter
phenomenon, see ibid., p. 83.
75
Within the context of the tomb of Kheruef, at any
rate, an argument might be made for a short coregency, if
there be any who perceive a necessity for it.
80 peter f. dorman
that other interesting avenues offer themselves
for exploration. Not the least of these stems from
Johnson’s keen observations regarding the sty-
listic conventions adopted by Amenhotep IV at
the inception of his reign, which are clearly not
a continuation of the final phase of Amenho-
tep III’s reign, but can be viewed as a deliberate
reversion to the “naturalism” of that king’s third
decade. That is, Amenhotep IV chose to spurn the
“baroque” characteristics of his father’s deification
phase—developed for idiosyncratic reasons by
Amenhotep III—and embraced instead an older
idiom associated with the deceased king that may
have been regarded by him and his contempo-
raries as “pre-jubilee,” and which provided the
baseline for experimentation in royal and divine
iconography along very different lines.
Addendum
The preceding article has conscientiously focused
solely on the monument of Kheruef to reconstruct
a time line that illustrates the unlikely possibility
of a long coregency. With the appearance of all
three volumes on the architecture and decora-
tion of the temple of Soleb,76 authored by Michela
Schiff Giorgini and edited by Natalie Beaux, an
irresistible opportunity arises, however, to make
one further observation on the essential utility of
the timeline in Figure 3 in establishing firm chron-
ological parameters to the coregency debate.
The magnificently detailed publication of the
Soleb Temple outlines the gradual construction
of the temple complex, beginning with the very
earliest structures: a large open enclosure with six-
teen gates (actually, nonfunctioning doorways, or
“portes-chapelles”) and an early peripteros shrine
located inside, not centered within the enclosure
but positioned on the axis of the future temple.
Although the peripteros shrine was soon disman-
tled (and later, the enclosure as well), it served
76
Michela Schiff Giorgini, in collaboration with Clément
Robichon and Jean Leclant, prepared and edited by Nath-
alie Beaux, Soleb III: Le temple: description (Cairo: IFAO,
1998); idem, Soleb IV: Le temple: plans et photographies
(Cairo: IFAO, 2003); idem, Soleb V: Le temple: bas-reliefs
et inscriptions (Cairo: IFAO, 2002).
77
Schiff Giorgini, et al., Soleb III, pp. 24-29; Soleb IV,
Figs. 8-20.
78
Schiff Giorgini, et al., Soleb III, pp. 31-33.
79
The concomitant assumption seems to be that the
temple was built in a location that was sure to be flooded
by annual waters, and indeed was flooded each year during
its construction.
as the core for a double sanctuary dedicated to
Amun and a new local god, the deified Nebmaatra
of Nubia, to which was then added a hypostyle
hall, two courts built sequentially, an outer pylon,
and finally an entry porch. The excavators were
able to follow these multiple stages of construc-
tion by means of distinct strata of beaten earth
painted with whitewash, clearly associated with
each of the phases of temple development.77 These
sequential layers, of which thirty-two were ulti-
mately identified, are referred to in the publica-
tion as “sols blanchis” and provide a sound basis
for relative site chronology.78 The temple publica-
tion assumes that each “sol blanchi” represents
a new sedimentary deposit of a Nile inundation,
so that the temple must have been built over the
course of thirty-two years.79 Since the excava-
tors associated the twenty-eighth “sol” with the
arrangements for the first jubilee of year 30,80 they
therefore concluded that Soleb Temple must have
been founded in the king’s third regnal year.81
Problems abound with this reconstruction of
events. To mention just one difficulty: among
the reliefs of the first jubilee, carved in the first
court at Soleb, one large panel depicts Amenho-
tep III and his officials making the rounds of the
great sixteen-gated precinct, performing rituals
of “striking” each doorway as part of the jubilee
festivities.82 Yet the enclosure itself is associated
archaeologically only with “sols” 1 through 16,
ostensibly years 3 through 18, after which it was
demolished. The excavators’ interpretation of the
stratigraphy implies that the “striking” ceremonies
had to have been conducted eleven years before
the first jubilee was actually observed, surely a
dubious interpretation of the evidence.83
More importantly, several decorated blocks
from the earliest peripteros shrine of Soleb
temple, which were recovered in the course of
excavation, belong to the final, or “baroque,”
phase of Amenhotep III’s reign, as outlined by
W. Raymond Johnson:84 the scenes are rendered
80
The date is given in a text from the first court, showing
the king carried on a palanquin as the jubilee ceremonies
unfold; Schiff Giorgini, et al., Soleb IV, pl. 97.
81
Schiff Giorgini, et al., Soleb III, pp. 29-30.
82
Schiff Giorgini, et al., Soleb IV, pls. 34-60.
83
Clearly, the assumption that each “sol blanchi” can be
equated with a separate Nile innundation must be rethought:
doubtless these levels were laid down in much more fre-
quent sequence.
84
See note 19.
 architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef 81

Fig. 6. Usurped cartouches on the cornice of the doorway of the first pylon of Soleb Temple. From Schiff Giorgini, et al.,
Soleb V: Le temple: bas-reliefs et inscriptions, pl. 23.

overall in markedly high relief, and the king is
depicted with a rounded, youthful-seeming face,
with a large eye set at a noticeable angle in his
face. Hence, art-stylistic analysis also supports a
much later date for the founding of the temple
than that suggested by the excavators of Soleb, a
date probably tied to the creation of the cult of the
deified king in conjunction with the first jubilee.
The “striking” rites shown taking place within
the sixteen-gated enclosure may be assumed to
have transpired when that monument was still
construction must be ascribed to the last eight or
ten years of Amenhotep III’s reign.
Implications for the postulated long coregency
are to be found in the entry porch attatched to
the first pylon, where several scenes and lintel
cartouches originally ascribed to Amenhotep
III have been usurped for Amenhotep IV. As
William Murnane has pointed out,85 in at least
one instance traces in the prenomen cartouche
are to be reconstructed as “Nebmaatra,” while
in the nomen they are to be read as ’Imn-tp
standing and were later commemorated, after the
enclosure was dismantled, in the scenes adorning
the first court of the temple. The entire course of
85
W.J. Murnane, “Soleb Renaissance: Reconstructing
the Nebmaatre Temple in Nubia,” Amarna Letters 4 (2000),
pp. 18-19. The article presents a summary of papers delivered
at a symposium held in Cairo in April 1999, organized to
nr-A-WAst, which is not the name of Amen-
hotep III but of his son, prior to his adoption
of the name “Akhenaton” (Fig. 6).86 The current
address certain issues pertaining to Soleb Temple; these
papers are presently being edited and should appear shortly
as Soleb VI.
86
Schiff Giorgini, et al., Soleb V, pl. 23.
82 peter f. dorman
version of the nomen, A-n-ἰtn, therefore repre-
sents a double usurpation, the first occurring in
the first five years of the younger king’s reign and
the second after his move to Amarna, when the
name “Akhenaton” is first attested.
If one were to plot these salient chronologi-
cal indicators on the double time line in Figure
3, certain impossibilities immediately spring
to light. The temple of Soleb would have to be
founded around years 28-29 of Amenhotep III
(corresponding to the first years of the purported
long coregency) in preparation for the first jubi-
lee; the sixteen-gated enclosure would have been
utilized for those rites in year 30 (the middle of
Amenhotep IV’s regnal year 3); and the usurpa-
tions within the entry porch attached to the first
pylon must have been accomplished before the
change in Amenhotep IV’s name, at the begin-
ning of his own regnal year 5 (his father’s year
31). Most of the work on Soleb Temple, then—the
demolition of the great jubilee enclosure and the
building of the double sanctuary, the hypostyle
hall, the second court, the first court and the entry
porch, in addition to all the decoration—would
have to be telescoped into about eighteen months,
and certainly less than two years—hardly a fea-
sible task, no matter how large and talented the
workforce.
Even more to the point, the archaeological and
architectural evidence from Soleb, compressed
thus onto the coregency timeline, requires Amen-
hotep IV to be actively engaged in usurping his
own father’s reliefs no later than his own regnal
year 5, while the elder king was still alive, as much
as seven years before his death. Indeed, any core-
gency theory advocating a duration of more than
five years would have to deal with this unwelcome
datum from Soleb Temple.
The strongest evidence for a coregency of any
length is the art-historical argument that links the
refined relief style of the first years of Amenhotep
IV’s reign with that of his father’s pre-jubilee years
(and thus the concurrence of the first jubilee of
Amenhotep III with that of the Aton at Karnak);
yet this equation leads to irreconcilable contra-
dictions with the architecture and chronology at
Soleb. In the opinion of this author, a coregency
of any length can no longer be supported.
 the death of meketaten 83

THE DEATH OF MEKETATEN

Jacobus van Dijk

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Back in 1979, Bill Murnane was one of the first
Egyptologists I met in the field, if the bar of the
old Luxor Hotel can be counted as such. We kept
in regular contact over the years and his prema-
ture death came as a great shock. Bill’s epigraphic
acumen and the lucid style of his brilliant writ-
ings on the history of New Kingdom Egypt have
always been an inspiration to me, and I gratefully
dedicate the following article to his memory.
Among the many controversial problems of
the Amarna Period is the interpretation of the
so-called birth scene in Room γ in the Royal
Tomb at Amarna. In fact, there is a second, very
similar scene in Room α, but for the time being
we shall concentrate here on Room γ. The scene
(Fig. 1) occupies the East wall (A) of a room in the
Amarna royal tomb which appears to have been
specially designed for the burial of Akhenaten
and Nefertiti’s second daughter Meketaten.1 On
the left a chamber is depicted; inside, Meketaten,
identified by an inscription, is lying on a bed. Her
parents are standing at the head end of the bed
and although the scene is very damaged here it
is clear from the parallel in Room α (Fig. 2) that
they are mourning the death of their daughter.
Two other unidentified, but nonroyal, persons
are mourning at the foot end of the bed. Outside
the chamber are two registers with further fig-
ures, both male and female, all displaying various
gestures of mourning; among them is the vizier.
All of these figures face the entrance to the cham-
ber, except three females in the lower register.
The first of these is a woman holding a newborn
baby in her arms and breast-feeding it. She is fol-
lowed by two other females, each of whom holds
a bht fan or sunshade. The whole context of this
scene strongly suggests that there is a connec-
tion between the events inside the bedchamber

Fig. 1. The so-called birth scene in Room γ of the Royal Tomb at Amarna.

1
Granite fragments belonging to her sarcophagus or
perhaps her canopic chest have been found within the royal
tomb, see G. Daressy, “Tombeaux et stèles-limites de Hagi-
Qandil,” RecTrav 15 (1893), p. 62; G.T. Martin, The Royal
Tomb at El-‘Amarna I: The Objects (London: EES, 1974),
p. 29 (no. 103), p. 104; M.J. Raven, “A sarcophagus for
Queen Tiy and other fragments from the Royal Tomb at
el-Amarna,” Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijks-
museum van het Oudheden 74 (1994), p. 8. Of the four
additional fragments (Martin nos. 251, 303, 592, and 699)
mentioning an unidentified princess which Martin tentatively
assigned to Meketaten, only nos. 303 (joined to the named
fragments by Raven) and 592 probably belonged to her.
No. 592 writes the mr-sign with N36, like the Meketaten
fragments, whereas nos. 251 and 699 use the Amarna form
N37, as does the fragment no. 218 which is inscribed for
Merytaten.
84 jacobus van dijk

Fig. 2. A parallel scene in Room α of the Royal Tomb at Amarna.

of Meketaten and this group of three women with

the baby; the logical conclusion seems to be that
Meketaten has just given birth to a child, but has
died in the process, and this is indeed the almost
universally accepted interpretation.
Although the inscription above the body of
Meketaten on her deathbed is clear enough, the
text inscribed in two columns in front of the
woman holding the child has only partly survived,
that is, it did until 1934, when what was left of
the text and indeed of much of the decoration
was almost entirely destroyed by vandals. This
means that we have to rely on old photographs
and handcopies, foremost of which is the photo-
graph taken in 1893/94 by Gustave Jéquier and Fig. 3. A reconstruction by Legrain of the two columns
published by Bouriant, Legrain and Jéquier in of text inscribed in front of the woman holding the child
in Room γ.
their Monuments pour servir à l’étude du culte
d’Atonou en Égypte.2 The traces visible on this
photograph include a seated person determinative of the scenes and the commentary on the inscrip-
followed by what looks like a ms-sign at the end tions,4 provides it in printed hieroglyphs together
of the first column and the cartouche of Queen with his reconstruction of the missing parts (Fig.
Nefertiti followed by the usual ‘may she live for 3, reversed).
ever and ever’ in the second column. This leaves Legrain rightly remarks that the orientation of
us Egyptologists literally with room for specula- the text conforms to the orientation of the woman
tion. What was in the missing portion of the text? holding the child and not to that of the child
And to whom does it refer? itself, and he therefore bases his restoration on the
In the drawing of the scene3 the inscription assumption that the text identifies the nurse, not
is omitted, but in the letterpress of the volume the child. Because of the fact that Nefertiti is men-
Legrain, who was responsible for the description tioned in col. 2 Legrain concludes that this nurse

2 3
U. Bouriant, G. Legrain and G. Jéquier, Monuments Ibid., pl. VII (Fig. 1 above).
4
pour servir à l’étude du culte d’Atonou en Égypte, MIFAO Ibid., pp. iii and 23 n. 1.
8 (Cairo: IFAO, 1903), Pl. IX.
 the death of meketaten
Fig. 4 G.T. Martin’s reconstruction of the same columns
of text.
has to be a princess. The group preceding the ms-
sign at the end of col. 1 he identifies as a t plus a
seated woman determinative; the presence of the
t, about which he expresses no doubt whatsoever,
leads him to suggest that the name is either that
of Merytaten, the eldest daughter, or Baketaten.
Since Baketaten had clearly not yet been born at
this stage, Merytaten is left as the only possibility
(and of course we now know that Baketaten was
not a daughter of Nefertiti5). However, looking at
Legrain’s reconstruction of the text, one cannot
help feeling that the damaged area is simply too
large for just the signs he wants to read in it. Even
if we insert mrt=f between sAt nsw n t=f and the
name, as one would expect, the text is still not
long enough to fill the available space. Legrain’s
restoration is therefore problematic.
This was also the opinion of Geoffrey Martin,
whose seminal publication of the Royal Tomb
contains an alternative reconstruction of the
inscription.6 Unlike Legrain, he thinks that the
text refers to the child, although he does so on
the erroneous assumption that the signs in the
text face left, like the child, which is clearly not
the case. He then rightly says that
“in Bouriant’s [i.e. Legrain’s, JvD] reconstruc-
tion the signs in the second [actually the first]
5 9
M. Gabolde, “Baketaten fille de Kiya?,” BSEG 16 (1992),
pp. 27-40.
6
G.T. Martin, The Royal Tomb at El-‘Amarna II: The
Reliefs, Inscriptions, and Architecture (London: EES, 1989),
p. 44, Fig. 10.
7
Ibid., pl. 63.
8
Ibid., p. 45. Cf. R. Krauss, in Tutanchamun, eds.,
R. Krauss and R. Wagner (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von
Zabern, 1980), pp. 51-2.
85
Fig. 5 Martin’s drawing of the scene, including the two
columns of text.
column are very widely spaced, and there is clearly
room in the area available to accommodate the
customary titulary of Meketaten as well as the
name of the child.”
He gives his own reconstruction in a handcopy,
which, however, is marred by an unfortunate
reversal of both the hieroglyphic signs and the
order of the columns. In corrected form, Mar-
tin’s reconstruction appears as shown in Fig. 4
above.
However, when one actually tries to insert the
signs of Martin’s proposed reconstruction in the
available space on his drawing7 (Fig. 5), one soon
discovers that his reconstruction is far too long.
Here even shortening the phrases by taking out
mrt=f does not help. I have tried several possi-
bilities, but the text simply will not fit the avail-
able space. Martin does not suggest a name for
the child, although he briefly considers the idea,
also suggested by Rolf Krauss,8 that the child is
male and that it is Tutankhaten whose birth is
shown here. Whatever the merits of Martin’s
reconstruction, however, it is important to note
that he does not question the t plus seated female
which Legrain saw at the end of col. 1; in fact,
those are the only signs beside the group ms (or
ms.n) which appear in col. 1 on his drawing.
First published in popular form in “La postérité
d’Aménophis III,” Égyptes Histoires et Cultures 1 (1993),
pp. 29-34 (reprinted in Akhénaton et l’époque amarnienne,
eds. T.-L. Bergerot and B. Mathieu [Paris: Éditions Khéops /
Centre d’Égyptologie, 2005], pp. 13-33), then in more detailed
form in his D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon (Lyon: Univer-
sité Lumière—Lyon II, Institut d’Archéologie et d’Histoire
de l’Antiquité; Paris: Boccard, 1998), pp. 118-24. See also
his “Das Ende der Amarnazeit,” in Das Geheimnis des
86 jacobus van dijk
More recently, Marc Gabolde has come up with
an entirely new and startling solution.9 After iden-
tifying the elements in the text which he considers
to be beyond doubt, i.e. the group ‘born of’ at the
end of col. 1 and the cartouche of Nefertiti in col.
2, he rightly remarks that the text therefore must
have contained the customary phrase ‘king’s son/
daughter of his body, his beloved’ and that the
usual titles ‘great king’s wife, his beloved’ must
have preceded the cartouche of Nefertiti in col.
2. He also correctly states that in col. 1 there is
room for one name only, not for the two sug-
gested by Martin. Here, however, Gabolde unfor-
tunately leaves the field of epigraphy and turns
to hypothetical historical arguments. The child,
he says, because it is depicted in a scene show-
ing the death of Meketaten, must have been born
before Meketaten’s death. Three of her sisters,
Meryaten, Ankhesenpaaten and Neferneferu-
aten-ta-sheryt, are depicted elsewhere in Room
γ and can therefore be ruled out. The youngest
two daughters of Nefertiti, although not shown
in Room γ, must also be ruled out because they
were already old enough to participate in ritual
events in Akhenaten’s Year 12, when Meketaten
was still alive. This, according to Gabolde, leaves
only one other possibility: the infant is a seventh
child of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, and since we do
not know of a seventh daughter but we do know
of a king’s son called Tutankhaten, the child in
Room γ must be Tutankhaten, son of Akhenaten
and Nefertiti.
Before we return to the epigraphy, it is as well
to ask ourselves what the reason might be for
showing a newborn baby in the arms of its nurse
in a scene depicting the death of a princess. If
this child is Tutankhaten, why are not the other
surviving children of Akhenaten and Nefertiti,
Meketaten’s sisters, depicted in this scene?10 After
all, the daughters are virtually omnipresent in
Amarna tomb and temple scenes, whereas Tut-
ankhaten is almost never depicted. And why is the
group of the nurse with child and the two women
holding the fans orientated facing all the other
figures shown in the two registers outside the
goldenen Sarges: Echnaton und das Ende der Amarnazeit, eds.
A. Grimm and S. Schoske (München: Staatliches Museum
Ägyptischer Kunst, 2001), pp. 9-41 (especially pp. 24-7).
10
C. Vandersleyen, “Les scènes de lamentation des
chambres alpha et gamma dans la tombe d’Akhénaton,”
RdE 44 (1993), pp. 192-4.
11
Bouriant et al., Monuments, pl. VI (Fig. 2 above);
Martin, Royal Tomb II, pls. 58-59.
12
Gabolde believes that the newly born Tutankhaten
Fig. 6. M. Gabolde’s reconstruction of the same columns
of text.
death chamber of Meketaten, as if they have just
left that room? That this is indeed what they have
just done is evident from the parallel in Room α,
where the nurse and child are shown just outside
the door of the death chamber, while the atten-
dant holding the open fan over the child is still
inside the chamber.11 Surely these facts must have
some significance. Nefertiti herself is present in
the scene in both Rooms α and γ, and in both
scenes her purported child is shown as a newborn
baby. In Gabolde’s reconstruction of the events
this would mean that two or even three12 of Nefer-
titi’s daughters died within very short succession
of each other shortly after Nefertiti herself had
given birth to a male heir to the throne. This is
not in itself impossible, but the presence of the
child in the actual death chamber of his purported
sisters is inexplicable.
In my opinion, a close scrutiny of the remains
of the inscription in Room γ makes Gabolde’s
reconstruction of the text (Fig. 6) highly question-
able, and serious doubts have also been expressed
by C. Vandersleyen, although the latter did not
suggest an alternative reading.13 Gabolde gives the
sign preceding the group ms in col. 1 as a seated
man holding a flail; the traces in front of the face
of this sign he interprets as the feet of a quail w.
is depicted in both Rooms α and γ, and that the scene in
Room α depicts the demise of Neferneferure and Setepenre,
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 107-10. Vandersleyen also
assigns Room α to Akhenaten and Nefertiti’s two youngest
daughters.
13
Vandersleyen, RdE 44 (1993), p. 193; cf. also M. Eaton-
Krauss and R. Krauss, Review of D’Akhenaton à Toutânkha-
mon, by Marc Gabolde, BiOr 58, no. 1-2 (2001), p. 93, who
call Gabolde’s reconstruction ‘methodically unsound.’
 the death of meketaten
On the photograph published by Bouriant c.s.,
however, this latter sign is clearly a t, as expressly
stated by Legrain and confirmed by Martin. The
seated man with flail as given by Gabolde has
a form that is unattested before the Ramesside
period, i.e. with knees pulled up instead of squat-
ting on the ground (A52) or seated on a chair
(A51). Seated king signs (A42) have their knees
pulled up like Gabolde’s hieroglyph, but they wear
a royal headdress with uraeus; moreover, the child
was not a king, and princes, even crown princes,
were not depicted with royal regalia. The pub-
lished photograph would appear to confirm the
seated female sign (B1) read by Legrain and by
Martin and Vandersleyen. These two crucial signs
are in my opinion beyond reasonable doubt and
are a clear indication that the child held by the
nurse is female, not male. Further confirmation of
this comes from the fact that male children who
are depicted nude are almost without exception
shown with a clear indication of their male geni-
talia, and these are absent in this relief, also in
Gabolde’s drawing of it. Perhaps it is also worth
pointing out that in the only instance we have of
the name of Tutankhaten as a prince, the famous
block from Hermopolis, his name is spelled Twt-
nw-ἰtn, with an additional w not found in later
spellings of his name as king, and, incidentally,
with the elements twt, nw, and ἰtn in a different
order than in the form used in Gabolde’s draw-
ing. Because we do not have any other occur-
rences of Tutankhaten’s name from Amarna we
do not know whether the form Twt-nw-ἰtn was
an exception rather than the rule, but if it was the
normal form of the name at Amarna, it would no
longer fit in Gabolde’s reconstruction.
So, if the child is a daughter of Nefertiti, as
seems clear from the remains of the inscription,
who can she be? Here we can return to Legrain’s
original discussion of the text. The only names
of princesses which fit, he stated, were those of
Merytaten and Baketaten, but neither of these
two can be meant here for reasons which have
already been discussed. This leaves us with only
one option: the missing name is that of Meketaten
herself. Inevitably this means that the newborn
baby which is shown leaving the death chamber
in the arms of a nurse is the reborn Meketaten
herself. This conclusion may seem just as startling
14
Martin, Royal Tomb II, p. 39 n. 6. For the significance
of the fan and its association with the royal ka see now
L. Bell, “Aspects of the Cult of the Deified Tutankhamun,” in
87
Fig. 7. New reconstruction of the same columns of text.
as the one we have just rejected, but, unlike all
the other options we have discussed, the name
Meketaten fits both the traces and the available
space exactly (Fig. 7). In fact, although I do not
want to stress this point too much, enlarging a
high-resolution scan of the inscription in the pub-
lished photograph on the computer reveals not
only the indisputable presence of the t, but also
appears to suggest the contours of a k above the
t and the seated female sign (Fig. 8).
Further arguments in favor of the hypothesis
that the child is the reborn Meketaten may be
found in the nature of the scene itself. In a burial
chamber the death and resurrection of the occu-
pant is the main subject to be expected in the
decoration, which is much more likely to be of a
symbolic nature rather than depicting an histori-
cal event. An indication of the symbolic nature
of the scenes in the burial chamber is provided
by the scene on the adjacent wall in Room γ,
which shows a statue of the deceased Meketaten
in a shrine entwined with plants usually found
in connection with birth and rebirth. In a foot-
note in his Royal Tomb at El-‘Amarna, Geoffrey
Martin recorded a suggestion made by Lanny Bell
in connection with the death chamber scene in
Room α, that “the presence of a child in connec-
tion with the fan might symbolize the rebirth of
the deceased ruler,” adding that “this does not
seem to be the correct interpretation here.”14 I am
sure Lanny Bell’s suggestion is correct, however,
although it is not the rebirth of the deceased king
Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar I, ed. P. Posener-Kriéger
(Cairo: IFAO, 1985), pp. 31-59.
88 jacobus van dijk
Fig. 8. Detail of G. Jéquier’s photograph of the scene recon-
structed in Fig. 7.
here, but the rebirth of a princess. In an essay in
the book accompanying the exhibition on The
Royal Women of Amarna in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art in 1996, Dorothea Arnold com-
mented on the scene in Room γ as follows:
“It has been suggested that she [i.e. Meketaten]
died in childbirth, but she seems too young—ten
years old at most—to have borne a child, even at
a time when women matured early. Considering
her youth and the well-known unwillingness of
Egyptians to depict anything like the cause of
death, this scene probably expresses, in symbolic
terms, a wish for her rebirth rather than the fact
that she died in childbirth.”15
Such an interpretation would also explain why
this scene is depicted not once, in Room γ, but
again in Room α.
Of course one might object that there is no par-
allel elsewhere in Egyptian tomb representations
for this kind of scene, but this applies equally to
any alternative explanation of the scene, including
an historical one. Amarna iconography is unique
in many other respects and the absence of a par-
allel from more traditional Egyptian funerary
15
Do. Arnold, “Aspects of the Royal Female Image during
the Amarna Period,” in The Royal Women of Amarna: Images
of Beauty from Ancient Egypt (New York: Metropolitan
Museum of Art, 1996), pp. 85-119. The quote is on p. 115.
See for a rare depiction of a deceased mother feeding a
baby on a funerary stela D. Wildung and S. Schoske, Nofret,
die Schöne. Die Frau im Alten Ägypten (Mainz am Rhein:
Philipp von Zabern, 1984), No. 9, and F. Dunand, “Les
scenes is not in itself surprising. On the other
hand, we know that the traditional Osirian beliefs
about the underworld were no longer adhered to
at Amarna and that the deceased were thought to
live again on earth under the beneficial rays of the
Aten in whose temple they received their daily
food offerings. An instant rebirth at the moment
of death, as appears to be depicted in the scenes
in Rooms α and γ does not seem at all inconceiv-
able within the new Atenist religion. In fact, one
wonders whether the child may not actually be
a representation of the deceased princess’s ka.
It is the ka, often depicted as a person’s double,
which lives on and which receives food offerings
in the deceased’s renewed co-existence with the
Aten on earth.16 Whatever the exact nature of the
newborn child, however, I would propose that
the scene in Room α is a symbolic representa-
tion of the death and rebirth of Meketaten and
that neither this scene nor its parallel in Room
γ have anything to do with the actual birth of a
royal child, let alone that of Tutankhaten.
Postscript
The above article is a slightly expanded version of
the paper I read during the Ninth International
Congress of Egyptologists in Grenoble, 6-12 Sep-
tember 2004. Not long after the congress, Dr. Lise
Manniche wrote to me informing me that Prof.
John Harris was about to publish an article with
much the same interpretation as the one I had sug-
gested in the Grenoble paper. The article, entitled
“En sag om forveksling,” has now been published
in the Danish Ægyptologisk Tidsskrift Papyrus 24
no. 2 (December 2004), pp. 4-13. Harris too reads
the name of Meketaten in the scene in Room γ
and identifies the child as one of the stages of
transformation (prw) in the renewal of life of
the deceased princess.
enfants et la mort en Égypte,” in Naissance et petite enfance
dans l’Antiquité, ed. V. Dasen (Fribourg: Academic Press;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2004), pp. 13-32,
esp. pp. 13-6.
16
In Akhenaten’s religion ‘the living Aten’ and at least
the royal ka were identical, see the texts quoted by L. Bell,
Mélanges Mokhtar I, p. 50 n. 122.
 images of amenhotep iv and nefertiti
IMAGES OF AMENHOTEP IV AND NEFERTITI IN THE STYLE OF
THE PREVIOUS REIGN*
Earl L. Ertman
University of Akron
There is no doubt about the great scholarship of
Bill Murnane as his publications speak for them-
selves. Few Egyptologists outside of the members
of the Karnak Mission that he led were around
Bill on a daily basis. For several years Bill and his
staff also stayed at the Windsor Hotel in Luxor,
during their field seasons. We of the Amenmesse
Project also stayed there for some years during
our early work in the Valley of the Kings. This
put us into contact on several levels with him
from breakfast to some evening meals and at times
some after working hours discussions of many of
the same issues and topics published in this com-
memorative volume. Bill was a quiet, thoughtful
man immersed in many periods in ancient his-
tory, especially those in Egypt. He was willing
to share his insights with anyone who asked or
cared to discuss an issue. He is obviously missed
as a beloved individual, but also to many, he is
missed for the loss of insight into problems left
unstudied and unpublished that will not now be
investigated by this brilliant scholar. To him and
his memory this brief article is dedicated. (And,
thanks again for all the good bakery bread you
often brought to breakfast.)
When one speaks of Akhenaten and Nefertiti,
Amarna style representations often come to mind.
These images are ‘mannered’ and apparently dis-
torted since later renderings of these two historic
individuals show them in a less artificial style with
‘near-normal’ proportions and features.
* This article is based on my presentation in Tucson,
Arizona at the annual meeting of the American Research
Center in Egypt, April 17, 2004. It has been enlarged since
then.
1 4
C. Aldred, Akhenaten and Nefertiti (New York: The
Brooklyn Museum / Viking Press, 1973), pp. 48-57 and
passim.
2
K. Lange and M. Hirmer, Egypt: Architecture, Painting,
Sculpture in Three Thousand Years (New York: Phaidon,
1968), p. 449. This scene of the king and Maat is illustrated
in W.S. Smith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt,
revised with additions by W.K. Simpson (New Haven, Con-
necticut: Yale University Press, 1998), Fig. 256 and in a larger
89
Representations of Amenhotep IV are known
from early in his reign. These images are in the
style used by the carvers who decorated for his
father, Amenhotep III. None of the distortions
so familiar from what Cyril Aldred has termed
the ‘Early Period’ of the Amarna Style1 are shown
in a few renderings of him like an example from
Theban Tomb 55 of Ramose, Amenhotep IV/
Akhenaten’s southern vizier.2 A description of
this tomb indicates that:
“The north-west wall of the great hall of pillars
has reliefs dating from the years immediately
following the death of Amenhophis III on both
sides of the doorway… Of these reliefs, those on
the left of the door clearly belong to the earliest
period of the reign of Amenhophis IV, certainly
no later than the third regnal year. The king is
shown seated on a throne beneath a canopy with
the goddess Maat seated behind him. The whole
of the scene is executed in the style of the reign
of Amenhophis III.”3
A sandstone block (Berlin 2072) with the god
Re-Harakhty facing left and the king facing right
is another example of Amenhotep IV’s image in
the style of his father’s reign.4 The king wears a
khepresh crown and his features are not distorted.
The images are in raised relief. The scenes from
the tomb of Kheruef (TT 192)5 show Amenhotep
IV on both ends of a lintel along with his mother
Queen Tiy. They make offerings to Re-Harakhty
format in the 1958 edition, pl. 115. For a line drawing see
N. de G. Davies, The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose (London:
Egypt Exploration Society, 1941), pl. XXIX.
3
Lange and Hirmer, Egypt, p. 449.
Aldred, Akhenaten and Nefertiti, Fig. 30, and R. Freed,
Y. Markowitz and S. D’Auria, Pharaohs of the Sun: Akhen-
aten, Nefertiti, Tutankhamen (Boston: Museum of Fine
Arts / Bullfinch Press/Little, Brown and Co., 1999),
Fig. 75 and no. 20.
5
The Epigraphic Survey, The Tomb of Kheruef, Theban
Tomb 192 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago, 1980), pls. 8-9.
90 earl l. ertman
Fig. 1. Akhenaten kissing the ground: Karnak talatat assemblage A 0081, after R. Vergnieux and M. Gondran, Aménophis
IV et les Pierres du soleil. Ahkénaton retrouvé (Paris: Arthaud, 1997), pp. 170-1.
and Maat on the left while on the right they offer
to Atum and Hathor, all in the style of Amenho-
tep III. Another relief (Louvre E 13482) portrays
the king with the baby-face features found in the
reign of his father, but with the additional feature
of a protruding belly.6
After a discussion of the two scenes in differ-
ent styles in the tomb of Ramose of Amenhotep
IV in a pavilion with the goddess Maat behind
him and the king with Nefertiti in the window of
appearances, Cyril Aldred indicated, “We cannot
say whether Nefertiti’s appearance underwent a
comparable change, since no representation of
her is known before the advent of the new style,
but it seems likely.”7 Aldred was correct when he
wrote this statement and his belief that represen-
tations of Nefertiti in the style of Amenhotep III
were likely. This can now be confirmed, for at
least one representation is preserved and one or
more are probable based on surviving evidence.
A scene on the north-west wall in the tomb of
Ramose is considered to have been carved early
in the ‘new’ style just coming into vogue with
the name change of the king from Amenhotep
IV to Akhenaten. Here we see Nefertiti (Fig. 5)
6
Freed, Fig. 38 and p. 207, no. 21; R. Vergnieux and
M. Gondran, Aménophis IV et les Pierres du soleil. Ahkénaton
retrouvé (Paris: Arthaud, 1997), p. 93. I thank Joann Fletcher
for calling this book to my attention. Talatat blocks pictured
in this book are not as well known in the United States as
are those blocks excavated and published by Donald Redford
and his team from the Akhenaten Temple Project or those
illustrated in G. Roeder, Amarna Reliefs aus Hermopolis
(Hildesheim: Gebrüder Gerstenberg, 1969).
7
Aldred, Akhenaten and Nefertiti, p. 54.
8
For a drawing of this scene, see Davies, The Tomb of
the Vizier Ramose, pl. XXXIII; Lange and Hirmer, Egypt,
Fig. 38.
9
Also visible in Johnson’s close-up photograph are the
dual uraei on Nefertiti’s brow, each wearing horns, with
behind her husband in a window of appearances.8
What remains of Nefertiti’s distorted features9
mimic many of those of the king from this scene.
This distortion is also true of her image on the
majority of the talatat that we are familiar with
from Thebes where her extended jaw and angular
features, while not as prominent as those of her
husband, are never-the-less distinctive.
On lesser known blocks from Karnak, Amen-
hotep IV and Nefertiti both face left with the
queen behind her husband as they bow to kiss
the ground:10 scene number A 0081 (Figs. 1-2, 6).
A cartouche inscribed with Nefertiti’s name and
placed in front of her image between the soles of
the king’s feet and her head makes this identifica-
tion certain.11 Both the king and queen have long
spindly fingers which are more mannered than
naturalistic. Similar finger shapes are known from
earlier dynasties, but during the reign of Amen-
hotep III, they are seldom found on royal images.
In scenes of dancers in the tomb of Kheruef (TT
192) the dancers’ hair hangs down vertically,
their hands are ‘cupped’ near the ground line
with curved, but jointless thumbs and fingers.12
The rays of the Aten, in early representations like
one possibly wearing a sun disk.
10
Vergnieux and Gondran, Aménophis IV et les Pierres
du soleil, p. 43, top. I thank both E.C. Brock for his help
and Alain Arnaudiès, in charge of the documentation of
Karnak for the French Egyptian Centre in Luxor, for his
assistance in obtaining the photograph of Nefertiti as well
as permission to publish it.
11
Ibid., p. 73 where the talatat blocks which make up
the larger scene are assembled.
12
The Epigraphic Survey, The Tomb of Kheruef,
pls. 24, 33-4 and Lange and Hirmer, Egypt, pl. 168. The fingers
of some other individuals in this same tomb also exhibit
this boneless structure of their hands from the knuckles
to the finger tips.
 images of amenhotep iv and nefertiti
Fig. 2. Nefertiti kissing the ground: Karnak talatat assemblage A 0081, after R. Vergnieux and M. Gondran, Aménophis
IV et les Pierres du soleil. Ahkénaton retrouvé (Paris: Arthaud, 1997), pp. 170-1.
those in the tomb of Ramose (see Johnson’s pho-
tograph, Fig. 5) also are without bone structure
for all the digits, except the thumb.
In the complete talatat scene under study,13
the king wears a khepresh crown. On the right
hand side of A 0081, block number 34-118, the
queen wears a tripartite wig surmounted by an
undecorated modius and two tall plumes—she
is obviously dressed as a goddess (Figs. 2 & 6).
Two uraei, each topped by sun disks are held
in place by a band around her deeply cut wig.14
A gold browband is present, visible from the front
of her heavy wig to her ear. She may wear a very
small circular earring.15 Her face, often angular
in representations from Theban talatat,16 is more
rounded here with little emphasis on her cheek
bones or extended jaw. This is in stark contrast to
the representation of King Amenhotep IV in front
of her whose sharp angular features and promi-
nent jaw recall many other similar representations
from this early time in the reign prior to the move
by the king and court to Akhetaten.
There are two relief portraits of Queen Tiy
which are quite similar to the talatat image of
Nefertiti under review. One is the queen from
13
Vergnieux and Gondran, Aménophis IV et les Pierres
du soleil, pp. 73-5, 170-1.
14
See this author’s comments on dual uraei wearing
sun disks in “An Amarna Icon Reconsidered: Berlin Relief
15000,” KMT 15.4 (2004-05), pp. 41-2.
15
It is difficult to determine if a small earring is pres-
ent or not. A larger earring is seen in the later statuette of
Nefertiti (Berlin 21 263). See D. Arnold, The Royal Women
of Amarna (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1996),
Figs. 68-9, 71. The yellow quartzite head of this queen from
the Thutmosis workshop at Amarna (Berlin 21 220), shows
double piercing of the ears in this later work, Figs. 66-7.
16
For examples see Aldred, nos. 23-25, 31 and other
especially early works.
91
the right end of the Kheruef lintel (Fig. 3) men-
tioned earlier (see note 5 supra). There are many
similarities to the Nefertiti image. Tiy’s modius
(on both ends of the lintel) is plain and undeco-
rated. A heavy circlet is placed over her wig. A dis-
tinctive and pronounced gold browband extends
from brow to ear with the ‘tab’ of this browband
showing under her wig. Individual sections of
the wig (locks or curls) are rendered in a similar
fashion.
A portrait of Queen Tiy on a relief17 (Brus-
sels E2157) from the tomb of Userhet (TT 47)
also compares well, including those features cited
for the Kheruef lintel (right side). A drawing by
Elaine Taylor of this image (Fig. 4) compares well
to the talatat carving under study. The overall
shape of the faces of each are closer than any
other two images of these queens in their rounded
softer forms.
Returning to the talatat image of Nefertiti
(Fig. 6), what would account for this difference in
rendering the king’s and queen’s faces in different
styles and why is the queen’s image in the style
of the previous reign?18 One possibility would be
that while the king’s image followed a new canon
17
C. Aldred, New Kingdom Art in Ancient Egypt (London:
Alec Tiranti, 1961), pl. 85.
18
P. Dorman’s comments related to Nefertiti in “The
Long Coregency Revisited: Architecture and Iconography:
Conundra in the Tomb of Kheruef,” in this volume. Dorman
suggests that the status or iconography for Nefertiti may not
have been established when Kheruef’s lintels were carved
and this could support the idea that Nefertiti is shown as a
goddess on the talatat under study (similar to ways Queen Tiy
was at times depicted) in terms of form at the earliest time
of Amenhotep IV’s reign. Dorman’s comments in reference
to Kheruef’s tomb decoration are, “The relief decoration
in Kheruef’s tomb … belongs to the very early period of
Amenhotep IV, doubtless to his first two years … and thus
92 earl l. ertman

Fig. 3. After the Epigraphic Survey, The Tomb of Kheruef, pl. 9.

there may not have been a new canon yet designed

for images of the queen so she was sculpted as
her mother-in-law Queen Tiy had been. Another
possibility is favored by this writer, that obvi-
ously two different draftsmen/sculptors, carving
in different styles, created this scene. Seemingly
against this scenario, Cyril Aldred, referring to
the two different styles in the tomb of Ramose,
indicated regarding the scene of the king with
the goddess Maat:
“This scene had not been completed before the
companion relief was drawn and partly cut in the
new style and with the new subject of Akhenaten
and Nefertiti at their Window of Appearances …
albeit by the same craftsman responsible for the
traditional style of work.”19
It is possible that the work in Ramose’s tomb Fig. 4. Brussels E 2157, relief of Tiy from the tomb of User-
followed this formula, but as far as the talatat het. Drawing by Elaine Taylor.

while Nefertiti’s rise to unusual ritual status had not yet but used those of the last reigning queen (Tiy) or at least
taken place…” Therefore she may not yet have had her own the sculptors did.
19
personal symbols to distinguish her from other queens, Aldred, Akhenaten and Nefertiti, pp. 50-51.
 images of amenhotep iv and nefertiti
Fig. 5. Nefertiti in the Window of Appearances, TT 55, Tomb
of Ramose. Photograph courtesy of George Johnson.
scene under study is concerned this writer’s
view is that the carver of the king’s image on the
left worked in the ‘new’ style while the carver
of the queen’s face, on the right, worked in the
style of Amenhotep III with which he was prob-
ably more familiar. It would seem that no time
interval elapsed between the carving of each of
these figures since they are placed side by side
and it is thought that the carved decoration was
cut only after the wall blocks were set in place.
If Aldred’s assumption is correct that the carver
of Ramose’s tomb (if indeed there was only one
master involved) was one craftsman working in
both styles, it does not seem to follow that both
images, those of the king and queen on the tal-
atat, would be created in different styles. The fact
20
Confirmed in an e-mail conversation with Don Red-
ford whom I thank for his assistance.
21
A point of interest while noting the facial structure
of Nefertiti on this talatat, it may be that we should not so
hurriedly exclude Nefertiti as a possible candidate for the
ownership of Metropolitan Museum 26.7.1396 (the famous
yellow jasper head) if it was in fact not from Amarna, but
from Thebes. See Aldred’s remarks, Akhenaten and Nefertiti,
p. 107. “Probably from Tell el Amarna.” The similarity of
93
that Queen Nefertiti’s face does not resemble any
of the later inscribed representations of her on
talatat nor those features of her known images
from the studio of Tuthmosis at Akhetaten does
not mean that this talatat image is the earliest
known representation of Nefertiti as queen. At
this time it is the only image of her in the style of
Amenhotep III’s reign. Since the construction of
the Aten temple complex in Thebes commenced
around the second year of her husband’s reign, as
Donald Redford believes,20 images like that seen
in Ramose’s tomb may actually have been carved
earlier in the reign, but they are carved in the ‘new’
style. Important, however, is the fact that this
talatat image of Nefertiti has to be early in date,
surely within the first year or two of the reign,
since a craftsman familiar with the previous style
(that of the reign of Amenhotep III) had not yet
assimilated the newly desired structure of images
for Akhenaten’s radical decorative plan. Surpris-
ing is the fact that the king appears much more
harshly, with angular features and that Nefertiti
has a soft serene appearance. The sculptor who
had worked for Amenhotep III created an image
more like those seen in Amenhotep III’s reign, but
he did include two features found in other late
representations of Nefertiti. I have commented
on these in other presentations and papers. These
are: virtually an unbroken profile line from the
top of the forehead to the tip of the nose without
a noticeable depression for the bridge of the nose
and a ball-like chin.21
Until more images of Nefertiti in the style of
Amenhotep III are recognized, this talatat proves
that she along with her husband were portrayed
early in Amenhotep IV/Akheanten’s reign with
more examples of his image surviving that her
own.
Susan Redford, who has cleared the tomb of
Parennefer, has indicated to me in personal com-
munication that, “I agree that there were prob-
ably some traditional style representations in
the tomb…” Charles Nims had inferred this in
an article in 1973 stating, “From the style of the
decoration in the tomb [Parennefer] it is almost
the talatat image here under study of Nefertiti to relief
carving of some representations of Queen Tiy could sug-
gest a similarity in the earliest years of the reign also in
three-dimensional representations of Nefertiti, depending
on the sculptor’s experience. See Arnold, The Royal Women
of Amarna, Figs. 27, 29 and her comments on this head
included in the chapter, “An Artistic revolution: The early
years of King Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten,” pp. 35-39.
94 earl l. ertman
Fig. 6. Nefertiti talatat ©CNRS/CFEETK—A. Bellod.
certain that the king and queen were convention-
ally represented.”22 From the present evidence,
Susan believes that:
“There is only one scene in the hall that I can
say once depicted Nefertiti and it is my belief
that she and her husband are depicted in the
Amarna art-style on this wall… On the outside
façade, Akhenaten and Nefertiti were shown in
the usual Amarna art style offering scene to the
sun-disk.”
Although this tomb may have been started early
in the reign of Amenhotep IV, the sculptors of
this tomb may not have relied on any forms
from the previous reign, at least not for images
of Nefertiti.
22
C. Nims, “The Transition from the Traditional to
the New Style of Wall Relief under Amenhotep IV,” JNES
32 (1973), p. 184.
The talatat block under study depicts Nefertiti
in the earlier style of her father-in-law, but the
king, Amenhotep IV, was carved in the ‘new’ style,
an unusual circumstance at best. In a similar, but
heavily damaged scene, we can see Nefertiti again
bowing to kiss the ground apparently in the same
style as the undamaged example we have been
reviewing.23 So originally there were at least two
and possibly more examples like this of Nefer-
titi in the style of her father-in-law, Amenhotep
III.
Once more Theban talatat blocks with their
decoration are published and studied we will pos-
sibly see more ‘early’ representations of Queen
Nefertiti in the style of the previous reign, but
perhaps not juxtaposed with those of her husband
in the ‘new’ style.
23
Vergnieux and Gondran, Aménophis IV et les Pierres
du soleil, p. 172.
 two semi-erased kushite cartouches in the precinct of mut
TWO SEMIERASED KUSHITE CARTOUCHES IN THE PRECINCT OF MUT
AT SOUTH KARNAK
Richard A. Fazzini
Brooklyn Museum
William Murnane is perhaps best known for his
work in New Kingdom Egypt, but his interests
were more far ranging than that. For example,
in the 1990s he became involved with the ques-
tion of the name of Taharqa in the entrance way
of the Second Pylon of the Temple of Amun at
Karnak.1
Much earlier, soon after I began work in the
Precinct of Mut at South Karnak in 1976, I ben-
efited from conversations with Bill concerning
Ptolemaic inscriptions at the site. At the time, Bill
was also engaged in attempting to establish the
date of a much damaged stela in the first court
of the Amun Temple before the south wing of
the Second Pylon (Fig. 1).2 This stela had been
attributed first to Dynasty XXV and Taharqa3
and then to a much later time.4 Bill had come to
believe that it could be dated to Dynasty XXV on
the basis of its style and asked me, as an art histo-
rian, what I thought of his attribution. I told him
that I thought that he was correct, and advised
him not to worry that he was not trained in art
history: paleography, after all, is a variant of art
history. Not long thereafter Bill got confirmation
1
W.J. Murnane, “Egyptian Monuments & Historical
Memory: New Light on the Ancients’ ‘Uses of the Past’
from the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak,” KMT 5.3 (Fall
1994), pp. 14-24 and 88. See also the later comments of
E. Russmann and Bill Murnane as cited by her in “Two
Bracelets with Anachronistic Cartouches, with Remarks
on Kushite Royal Jewelry and on the Commemoration of
Kushite Kings in Egypt,” BES 13 (1997), pp. 47-58.
2
This is described in PM II2, p. 24 as “Stela, unfinished,
two figures of Amun, back to back, and text with erased
cartouche, granite, in front of south wing of the Second
Pylon.”
3
H. Chevrier, “Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak (1930-
1931),”ASAE 31 (1931), p. 85, where he said that “Dans tout
le déblai, nous n’avons trouvé qu’une stèle en granit noir…
La stèle, où ne subsistent plus que les figures d’Amon et
du roi [sic: the figures of Amun and the king are actually
back to back figures of Amun], est entièrement martelé.
Elle date, je pense, de l’époque éthiopienne: le cartouche,
dont l’intérieur seul est martelé, est très petit, permet de
l’attribuer à Taharqa.” For good images of the stela’s figures,
see B. de Gryse, Karnak, 3000 Jahr ägyptischer Glanz, trans.
N. Hiltl and H. Weber (Liège: Éditions du Perron, 1985),
95
of his theory: Claude Traunecker and Françoise
Le Saout of the Centre Franco-Égyptien d’Étude
des Temples de Karnak arranged for a latex cast
to be made of the cartouche on the stela, and both
they and Bill agreed that the traces must belong
to Nefertumkhure, the prenomen of Taharqa.5
The same prenomen exists in a crypt in the Mut
Temple (Fig. 2).
Margaret Benson and Janet Gourlay reported
that they uncovered crypts in “Room f,” which is
the Mut Temple’s central bark shrine (Fig. 3) and
another chamber which they did not specify. They
described these as “small stone-lined vaults, too
low to stand upright in, and had probably been
used for safe-guarding treasure.”6
The bark shrine does not seem to have such
a chamber, but one of these “crypts” could pos-
sibly be the room just northwest of Benson and
Gourlay’s “Room e” (Fig. 3), whose south wall
seems to have had a sliding panel and where the
space between the edge of the Tuthmoside plat-
form of the temple and the foundations of a later
expansion of the temple could have been seen as
a crypt. 7
unnumbered pages 66-67, where it is also attributed to
Dynasty XXV.
4
J. Lecant, Recherches sur les monuments thébains de
la XXVe dynastie dite éthiopienne, BdE 36 (Cairo: Impri-
merie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1965),
p. 15, E, where he says “Si le martelage des cartouches
pouvait faire envisager de la considerer comme éthiopienne,
le style de sa gravure, exagérément maniérée, exigé, nous
semble-t-il, qu’on la rejette à l’époque ptolémaïque ou peu
auparavant.”
5
Letter in the files of the Brooklyn Museum from Wil-
liam Murnane to Bernard V. Bothmer, who had agreed
with Leclant’s dating.
6
M. Benson, J. Gourlay and P. Newberry, The Temple
of Mut in Asher. An account of the excavation of the temple
and of the religious representations and objects found therein,
as illustrating the history of Egypt and the main religious
ideas of the Egyptians (London: Murray, 1899), p. 75, with
plan of Mut Temple opposite p. 36.
7
R. Fazzini, “Some Aspects of the Precinct of the
Goddess Mut in the New Kingdom,” in Leaving No Stones
Unturned. Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in
Honor of Donald P. Hansen, ed. E. Ehrenberg (Winona Lake,
96 richard a. fazzini
Fig. 1. Detail of a Dynasty XXV stela found in front of the south wing of the Second Pylon of the Amun Temple at
Karnak. Photograph by B.V. Bothmer.
Fig. 2. The prenomen of Taharqa in the crypt under the
main sanctuary of the Temple of Mut. Drawing by J. van
Dijk and R. Fazzini.
Another structure in the Mut Temple identi-
fied as a crypt is that called the Crypt of Taha-
rqa or Montuemhat (Fig. 3). As the author has
stated elsewhere, this is not necessarily a crypt or
Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2002), pp. 72-73, and p. 64, Fig. 1,
11.
8
R. Fazzini, Egypt, Dynasty XXII-XXV, Iconography
of Religions, Section XVI, Egypt 10 (Leiden: Institute of
Religious Iconography, State University of Groningen /
E.J. Brill, 1988), pp. 16-17 and 33, and pl. XXX.
For this “crypt” see also PM II2, p. 258; R. Fazzini and
W. Peck, “The Precinct of Mut During Dynasty XXV and
early Dynasty XXVI: A Growing Picture,” JSSEA 11 (1981),
pp.115-116; R. Fazzini, “Report on the 1983 Season of Excava-
tion at the Precinct of the Goddess Mut,” ASAE 70 (1985),
p. 294, and pl. IV, a.
9
For a wt-kA of Nesptah, son of Montuemhat, that
was built into one of the Mut Temple’s XXVth Dynasty
porches, see R. Fazzini, “The Precinct of the Goddess Mut at
South Karnak 1996-2001,” ASAE 79 (2006), pp. 85-94. This
monument will be dealt with in greater depth in R. Fazzini,
Aspects of the Art, Iconography and Architecture of Late
chamber to hold ritual images or equipment but
could be a sort of serdab8 or wt-kA.9 However,
it does contain an image of Taharqa labeled with
both his prenomen and nomen.
The cartouche with Taharqa’s prenomen in
Fig. 2 is in what is both the one definite crypt that
Benson and Gourlay identified and a structure
that has normally been ignored in discussions
of crypts.10 It is located under the central shrine
of the Mut Temple (Fig. 3). Benson and Gourlay
described it and its discovery as follows:11
…the man who was clearing out the earth in
front of it perceived that under its pavement was
a hole large enough for a little boy to crawl into.
We began to work out the hole, and found that it
extended inwards from the top of a narrow door,
through which, when the earth was removed we
Dynasty XX-early Dynasty XXVI (with Special Emphasis
on the Temple Precinct of the Goddess Mut at Karnak),
forthcoming.
10
For some recent publications of crypts, their decora-
tion and contents, see S. Cauville, “Les statues cultuelles de
Dendera d’après les inscriptions parietals,”BIFAO 87 (1987),
pp. 73-117; C. Traunecker, “Cryptes décorées, cryptes ané-
pigraphes,” in Hommages à François Daumas (Montpellier:
Université de Montpellier, 1986), pp. 571-577; C. Traunecker,
“Cryptes connues et inconnues des temples tardifs,” BSFE
129 (1994), pp. 21-46; W. Waitkus, “Zum funktionalen
Zusammenhang von Krypta, Wabet und Goldhaus,” in
3. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung, Hamburg, 1-5 Juni 1994.
Systeme und Programme der ägyptischen Tempeldekoration,
ÄAT 33, ed. D. Kurth (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995),
pp. 283-303.
11
M. Benson, J. Gourlay and P. Newberry, The Temple
of Mut in Asher, pp. 50-52.
 two semi-erased kushite cartouches in the precinct of mut 97

Fig. 3. Schematic plan by C. Van Siclen of the rear half of the Temple of Mut. The dotted line indicates the Tuthmoside
platform.

descended into a tiny underground chamber,
measuring 4 feet 4 inches in breadth by 5 feet 6
inches in length, and too low to allow one to stand
upright…The door or hole at which one got in
was broad enough to admit the shoulders of the
average person but not more than two feet high,
and its top being on the same level as the top of
the chamber there was thus a drop of about three
feet inside. From the top of the doorway outwards
masonry extended for a short way, the blocks of
stone being ingeniously placed in such wise that
two more stones dropped between them would
have filled up the space and completely hidden
the little door… when on having cleared out the
earth and rubbish with which the chamber was
choked we found that in the paved floor there
was a hole extending from the north-east corner
to halfway below the door. There is probably but
one paving-stone missing, and the hole seemed
to have been deliberately made, for it was filled
not with earth but with rubbish… We worked
at the hole in the floor through rubbish, find-
ing nothing but some scraps of pottery, half a
Hathor head in earthenware, a broken bit of blue
glaze, until we came to the sand. Even then we
did not despair of finding a deposit in the sand,
and worked through it until we came to layers
of earth that were wet with infiltration from the
lake…
The Brooklyn Museum’s investigation of the crypt
(Fig. 4) indicated that it was a rectangle 157 cm.
deep and 135 cm. wide (slightly different from
Benson and Gourlay’s measurements) and 155
cm. tall. The short shaft leading to it was almost
centrally located, being 39.5 cm. from the crypt’s
east wall and 42.5 cm. from the west wall. The
preserved portion of the shaft is 94 cm. tall, 52
98 richard a. fazzini
Fig. 4. The crypt under the main sanctuary of the Temple of Mut and the shaft before it. Photograph by M. McKercher.
cm. wide, 50 cm. deep, its floor sitting 61 cm.
above the crypt’s floor. A line of text that ran
around the interior of the crypt except for the
space left by the opening has been almost com-
pletely erased. However in one area, Jacobus van
Dijk and the present writer were able to make
out remains of an inscription that could be read
as nr nfr nb tAwy nb w, followed by the traces
of the cartouche with the name Nefertumkhure
illustrated in Fig. 2.12
A fragmentary and not easily datable offering
table13 (Fig. 5) was found at the bottom of the
shaft. However, as Benson and Gourlay did not
mention it, one cannot be sure that it was there
when they conducted their excavation of this
entrance. Moreover, the length and width of the
preserved portion of the table suggest that it was
too large to fit in the bottom of the shaft. If the
offering table was originally associated with this
part of the temple it could have been placed inside
the crypt or have fallen down from the paving
of the sanctuary. Be this as it may, the crypt’s
entrance seems only to have been accessible by
pulling up paving stones of the floor above.
12
The few readable elements of decoration of this crypt
will be published in R. Fazzini, Aspects of the Art, Iconog-
raphy and Architecture of Late Dynasty XX-early Dynasty
XXVI. Suffice it to say here that one group of signs could be
restored to read “Beloved of the Mistress of the Gods.”
13
Expedition Number 6M.14. Length 41.5 cm.; width
45.5 cm.; height 13 cm.
14
C. Traunecker, “Observations sur le décor des temples
In an interesting article, C. Traunecker dis-
cussed a number of types of cult images. Among
his tentative classifications of these images were:
(1) images used in the “culte manifesté,” i.e. images
of the god(s) of the temple and of temple equip-
ment with specialized functions, such as sacred
barks; and (2) “images de culte latent,” defined
as: “les effigies divines conservées en des lieux
discrets tel les cryptes, les cénotaphes ou les salles
cachées d’un temple où par leur seule présence
elles remplissent leurs fonctions.”14 If images were
contained in the crypt under the main shrine of
the Temple of Mut, they would certainly only be
accessible with considerable effort and of Trau-
necker’s “latent cult” type.
Temple A in the northeast sector of what
became the Precinct of Mut also contains some
badly damaged cartouches, probably or definitely
of Dynasty XXV.
The most important and only readable one of
these is on a stray block found in the north side
of the Inner Hall by the door to the North Sanc-
tuary.15 Badly damaged, this front part of a hori-
zontal cartouche was read first by Jacobus van
égyptiens,” in L’Image et la production du sacré. Actes du
colloque de Strasbourg (20-21 Janvier 1988) organisé par le
Centre d’Histoire des Religions de l’Université de Strasbourg
II. Groupe «Théorie et pratique de l’image cultuelle», eds.
F. Dunand, J.M. Speiser and J. Wirth (Paris: Méridiens
Klincksieck, 1991), pp. 85-86.
15
PM II2, pl. XXVI.
 two semi-erased kushite cartouches in the precinct of mut
Fig. 5. Fragmentary offering table found at the bottom of the shaft before the crypt under the main sanctuary of the
Temple of Mut. Photograph by M. McKercher.
Dijk and then confirmed by this writer as ŠbA …
(Fig. 6).16 From the Third Pylon (called Second
Pylon in the plan cited in n. 15) to the rear of
the building, Temple A was built as a whole. The
style of those of its reliefs that were not recarved
in later times is that of Dynasty XXV17 and much
more likely of the reign of Shabaqo than She-
bitku. The reasons for this attribution are simple.
We do not have any large-scale construction of
Shebitku and the few well-preserved faces in
relief in this part of the temple (Fig. 7) resemble
16
The Mut Expedition’s reading of this cartouche was
already reported by K. Cooney, “The Edifice of Taharqa:
Ritual Function and the Role of the King,” JARCE 37 (2000),
p. 39 with n. 163.
17
P. Barguet, Le temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak. Essai
d’exégèse. Recherches d’Archéologie, de Philosophie et
d’Histoire 21 (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français
d’Archéologie Orientale, 1962), pp. 9-10; R. Fazzini and
W. Peck, “The Precinct of Mut During Dynasty XXV and
early Dynasty XXVI,” pp.115-126; R. Fazzini, “A Monument
in the Precinct of Mut with the Name of the God’s Wife
Nitocris I,” in Artibus Aegypti. Studia in Honorem Bernardi
V. Bothmer a Collegis, Amicis, Discipulis Conscripta, eds.
H. De Meulenaere and L. Limme (Brussels: Musées Royaux
d’Art et d’Histoire, 1983), pp. 51-62.
18
E.g., K. Myśliwiec, Royal Portraiture of the Dynasties
XXI-XXX (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1988),
pls. XXVII, a-d; XXXI, b-d; XXXIII, b and d; J. Leclant, in
R. Parker, J. Leclant and J.-C. Goyon, The Edifice of Taha-
rqa by the Sacred Lake of Karnak, Brown Egyptological
Studies 8 (Providence: Brown University Press, 1979), pls.
2, E and 3, A-B.
99
more closely known faces in relief of Shabaqo18
than of Shebitku.19 Nevertheless, these faces are
examples of a main style of the art of the Third
Intermediate Period, one with roots in Dynasty
XXI and which continued into early Dynasty
XXVI.20
Unfortunately, the birth and circumcision
scenes on the north wall of Temple A’s First
Court (called simply “Court” in PM II2) cannot be
dated by inscription because their cartouches are
entirely erased.21 Nevertheless, the faces in these
19
K. Myśliwiec, Royal Portraiture of the Dynasties XXI-
XXX, pls. XXXIV and XXXV, b.
20
R. Fazzini, “Sculpture, Third Intermediate Period,” in
The Dictionary of Art 9, ed. J. Turner (London and New York:
Grove, 1996), pp. 886-888; and R. Fazzini, “The Chapel of
Osiris Ruler-of-Eternity and the Art of the Third Intermedi-
ate Period,” in The Twenty-Third Dynasty Chapel of Osiris
Ruler of Eternity at Karnak, eds. G. Kadish and D. Redford
(Mississauga, Ontario: Society for the Study of Egyptian
Antiquities Publications, forthcoming), with references to
E. Russmann, The Representation of the King in the XXVth
Dynasty, Monographies Reine Élisabeth 3 (Brussels: Fon-
dation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth; Brooklyn: Brooklyn
Museum, l974); S. Wenig, Africa in Antiquity. The Arts of
Ancient Nubia and the Sudan II: The Catalogue (Brook-
lyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1978); C. Aldred et al., L’Égypte
du crepuscule. De Tanis à Meroé, 1070 av. J.-C. - IVe siècle
apr. J.-C., Le monde égyptien. Les pharaons 3 (Paris: Gal-
limard, 1980).
21
A decent published photograph of the best preserved
cartouche is W. J. de Jong, “De tempel van Chonsoe-het-kind
(vervolg),” de Ibis 8, no. 4 (1983), Afb. 37 on p. 115.
100 richard a. fazzini

a b

Fig. 6a-b. Photograph and drawing of the front part of a cartouche of ŠbA… found in the rear of Temple A. Drawing by
R. Fazzini. Photograph by M. McKercher.

Fig. 7. Two well-preserved faces in relief in the rear of Temple A. Photograph by M. McKercher.

scenes22 have significant similarities to reliefs of
the reign of Taharqa, who was responsible for
other significant work in south Karnak,23 and this
writer believes the attribution of these reliefs to
Taharqa is relatively safe.
As we and others have also argued elsewhere,
during the Third Intermediate Period and later
Temple A functioned as a mammisi,24 and the attri-
bution of this building to Shabaqo and Taharqa
leads to another point worth mentioning.

22
See, e.g., W. J. de Jong, “De tempel van Chonsoe-het-
kind (vervolg),” p. 105, afb. 30; p. 107, afb. 32.
23
See, e.g., K. Myśliwiec, Royal Portraiture of the Dynas-
ties XXI-XXX, pl. XL; R. Fazzini and W. Peck, “The Precinct
of Mut During Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI,”
pp. 115-126; R. Fazzini and W. Peck, “Excavating the Temple
of Mut,” Archaeology 36 (1983), pp. 16-23.
24
H. De Meulenaere, “Isis et Mout du mammisi,” OLA
13 (1982), pp. 25-29; R. Fazzini and W. Peck, “The Precinct
of Mut During Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI,”
pp. 122-126; R. Morkot, The Black Pharaohs: Egypt’s Nubian
Rulers (London: Rubicon Press, 2002), p. 244. For publica-
tions of the decoration of Temple A see PM II2, pp. 270-
272, especially the references to M. Pillet, “Les scènes de
naissance et de circoncision dans le temple nord-est de Mout
à Karnak,” ASAE 52 (1952), pp. 77-104; and G. Nagel, “Déco-
ration d’un temple de Mout à Karnak,” Archiv Orientální
20 (1952), pp. 90-99. See also W. J. de Jong, “De tempels
van Karnak, 4: De tempel van Chonsoe-het-kind,” de Ibis 8,
no. 3 (1983), pp. 66-96 and W. J. de Jong, “De tempel van
 two semi-erased kushite cartouches in the precinct of mut
The Lake Edifice of Taharqa by the sacred lake
of the Amun Precinct at Karnak had strong links
to solar-Osirian ideas of divine and royal renew-
al.25 Equally important, it may also be a structure
originally built by Shabaqo but then rebuilt by
Taharqa.26 If so, and admitting that ideas of divine
and royal rebirth/justification are also known in
the Lake Edifice and other Theban structures in
Dynasty XXV, it seems reasonable to see Temple
A, apparently just brought into the Mut Precinct
Chonsoe-het-kind (vervolg),” pp. 98-119. Without referring
to the articles by De Meulenaere or Fazzini and Peck just
cited, de Jong argued (p. 118) that Temple A “…can be
tentatively identified as a ‘missing link’ between the temple
halls of Deir el Bahri and Luxor…” He also suggested (p.
119) that the Khonsu Temple shows “the merging of the
ancient royal birth reliefs with the, already existing, separate
child-god temple,” which led to the later mammisis. As we
have already indicated, the identification of Temple A as
a temple of Khonsu is not necessarily correct and there is
reason to believe that it was a mammisi by Dynasty XXV
(R. Fazzini and W. Peck, “The Precinct of Mut During
Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI”). This has been
accepted by other scholars (e.g., D. Arnold, The Encyclo-
pedia of Ancient Egyptian Architecture, trans. S. Gardiner
and H. Strudwick [Princeton: Princeton University Press,
2003], p. 33).
In “A Monument in the Precinct of Mut with the Name
of the God’s Wife Nitocris I,” p. 58, I stated my belief that
the presence of certain female images in Temple A was
related to the presence in the temple of scenes of the birth
of a king. Here I will add that it probably also reflects the
relationships among Mut, queens and God’s Wives of Amun.
If this is accepted, I wish to briefly note here two errors in
that article on topics with which I will deal in more detail
elsewhere. First, at the time of writing the article I was
not certain that the Nitocris I lintel belonged to the small
structure near which it was found; after further study, there
seems no reason to doubt that it does. Secondly, I stated
that the base of a statue of a queen, inscribed for a queen
of Taharqa (p. 57 and Fig. 7a-b), was original to Dynasty
XXV. This statue was also attributed to a queen of Taharqa by
R. Morkot, The Black Pharaohs, p. 244, possibly on the basis
of my article. However, and as first noticed by Jacobus van
Dijk, the sculpture appears to be an earlier work usurped by
her, such a usurpation being unusual in Dynasty XXV royal
statuary. After studying the object further and examining
101
at the beginning of Dynasty XXV,27 as a structure
devoted to mammisiac royal renewal/justification
that served as a counterpoint to the Lake Edifice,
site of solar-Osirian royal renewal/justification.28
Be this as it may, it is important to keep in mind
that the rise of both the mammisiac and the solar-
Osirian ritual of Djeme began no later than late
Dynasty XX,29which is the time by which Temple
A appears to have changed from a “Temple of Mil-
lions of Years” of Ramesses II to a mammisi.30
a parallel piece at the Ramesseum to which Jacobus van Dijk
kindly referred me, it appears to me that Queen Tiye is a
potential candidate for original ownership of the statue. For
another possible fragmentary statue of Tiye in the Precinct,
see R. Fazzini, “Some New Kingdom Images,” in Studies in
Honor of James F. Romano (=BES 17 [2007]), ed. J. Allen,
pp. 83-96.
25
J.-C. Goyon, in R. Parker, J. Leclant and J.-C. Goyon,
The Edifice of Taharqa by the Sacred Lake of Karnak,
pp. 11-86; K. Cooney, “The Edifice of Taharqa,” pp. 27,
34, 39, 41.
26
J. Leclant, in R. Parker, J. Leclant and J.-C. Goyon, The
Edifice of Taharqa by the Sacred Lake of Karnak, pp. 5-10;
K. Cooney, “The Edifice of Taharqa,” p. 17.
27
R. Fazzini and W. Peck, “The Precinct of Mut During
Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI,” p. 119.
28
R. Parker, J. Leclant, J.-C. Goyon, The Edifice of
Taharqa by the Sacred Lake of Karnak, pp. 30, 33-35, 82;
K. Cooney, “The Edifice of Taharqa,” pp. 21, 27, 34, and
39. For the importance of the solar-Osirian cycle in the
earlier Third Intermediate Period, see A. Niwiński, “The
Solar-Osirian Unity as principle of the Theology of the ‘State
of Amen’ in Thebes in the 21st Dynasty,” Jaarbericht van
het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 30
(1987-1988) (1989), pp. 89-107.
29
On the mammisiac see, e.g., R. Fazzini, “Four Unpub-
lished Ancient Egyptian Objects in Faience in the Brooklyn
Museum of Art,” JSSEA 28 (2001) = Papers Presented in
Memory of Alan R. Schulman, pp. 55-66. On the ritual of
Djeme see R. Fazzini, Egypt, Dynasty XXII-XXV, pp. 22-24,
with its numerous references, and K. Cooney, “The Edifice
of Taharqa,” pp. 26-37.
30
R. Fazzini and W. Peck, “The Precinct of Mut During
Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI,” pp. 122-124. This
subject will be discussed in more detail in R. Fazzini, Aspects
of the Art, Iconography and Architecture of Late Dynasty
XX-Early Dynasty XXVI.
102 richard a. fazzini
 un assemblage au nom d’amenemhat ier dans les magasins du temple de louxor 103
UN ASSEMBLAGE AU NOM D’AMENEMHAT Ier DANS LES MAGASINS DU TEMPLE
DE LOUXOR
Luc Gabolde
Centre Franco-Égyptien pour l’étude des Temples de Karnak
En 1999, Bill Murnane, en réponse à une ques-
tion que je lui posais sur l’ancienneté du temple
de Louxor, m’avait révélé l’existence des docu-
ments jusqu’alors inédits que j’ai le privilège de
présenter ici en hommage à sa science et à son
humanité.
Il s’agit d’un lot de blocs en calcaire décorés
en bas-reliefs et portant des éléments de la titu-
lature d’Amenemhat Ier (Fig. 1). Conservés dans
le magasin sud du temple de Louxor, ils ont été
minutieusement documentés en 1996 par le Dr.
R. Johnson et l’équipe de l’Oriental Institute 1 et
portent aujourd’hui les n° d’inventaire ES 393
(situé à l’est de 123 E) et n° 875 (situé en 122 W,
extrémité sud). L’assemblage est composé de deux
très longs blocs—chacun brisé en deux parties—
qui se raccordent quasi directement pour former
les restes d’une scène. Ce format est étrange et
résulte apparemment du débitage du ou des blocs
primitifs en longs moellons, débitage qui doit
avoir été effectué à la scie après le démantèlement
de l’édifice auquel ils avaient appartenu.2 Le bloc
supérieur comporte en outre la trace d’une sorte
d’échancrure, réalisée à coups de ciseaux et de scie,
1
Avec une libéralité dont je lui suis profondément recon-
naissant, le Dr. Raymond Johnson, directeur du Chicago
House de Louxor, a accepté de m’en confier les photos
assorties de l’autorisation (de ses encouragements, devrais-je
dire) de les publier ici. Son recensement des blocs du Moyen
Empire conservés dans les magasins de Louxor comporte
22 autres blocs, parmi lesquels on relève un élément avec
un cartouche de Sésostris III et deux autres avec le simple
nom de Sésostris.
2 5
Le débitage en long blocs, sans doute pour obtenir
des éléments de linteau, de jambages ou de seuil, est encore
attesté pour des blocs du Moyen Empire conservés dans le
magasin du Cheikh Labib à Karnak : 87 CL 57 ; 87 CL 59 ;
87 CL 61 ; 87 CL 300. Un élément similaire—sur lequel on
reviendra plus bas—a été retrouvé à Tôd : L. Postel, « Frag-
ments inédits du Moyen Empire à Tôd (mission épigraphique
de l’IFAO) », dans J.-Cl. Goyon, Chr. Cardin (éd.), Actes
du IXe Congrès international des égyptologues, Grenoble,
6-13 septembre 2004, OLA 150, (Louvain : Peeters, 2006),
p. 1539-1550.
3
À Éléphantine, plusieurs monuments de la XIe dynastie
avaient ainsi été constitués de briques crues plaquées de
comme si une pièce d’encastrement y avait été
primitivement insérée. Quoi qu’il en soit, le bloc
d’origine était assez peu épais et devait former une
sorte de placage de pierre plutôt qu’une maçon-
nerie pleine. Il faudrait donc imaginer un édifice
originel constitué d’un noyau de maçonnerie en
grès ou en briques crues et recouvert d’un placage
de calcaire portant la décoration.3
Le matériau
Les blocs sont taillés dans une pierre calcaire. La
nature exacte du matériau utilisé n’est pas facile à
déterminer sur les seules indications données par
un examen de la photo et il ne m’a pas été possible
de procéder à un examen de visu de la roche. Sa
cassure paraît grumeleuse et l’apparente en cela
au calcaire de Tourah extensivement employé plus
tard par Sésostris Ier.4 Les constructions d’Ame-
nemhat Ier à Ermant avaient toutefois été réalisées
dans un calcaire local5 tout comme celles qui lui
sont attribuables à Karnak.6
parois en grès, voir W. Kaiser et alii, « Stadt und Tempel von
Elephantine, 19./20. Grabungsbericht », MDAIK 49, 1993,
p. 148-152 ; idem. « Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine,
25./26. Grabungsbericht », MDAIK 55 (1999), p. 90-94.
4
Sur le calcaire employé par de Sésostris Ier, à Karnak,
voir Ch. Karlshausen et Th. De Putter, « Provenance et carac-
tères distinctifs des calcaires utilisés dans l’architecture du
Moyen et du Nouvel Empire à Karnak », Karnak 11 (Paris :
ERC, 2003), p. 373-386.
Pour les blocs d’Amenemhat Ier trouvés à Ermant voir
R. Mond, O.H. Myers, Temples of Armant I-II, EEM 43
(Londres : Egypt Exploration Society, 1940), pl. LXXXVIII
et les dessins pl. XCVIII. C’est mon propre examen visuel
des pierres d’Ermant qui m’a conduit à la conclusion qu’il
s’agissait d’une roche locale. Des analyses plus poussées
seraient les bienvenues pour confirmer ou infirmer cette
estimation.
6
Un bloc en calcaire avec une représentation d’Atoum,
remployé dans la plate-forme en grès de la « cour du Moyen
Empire », doit appartenir au décor du temple d’Ame-
nemhat Ier . Il s’agit apparemment d’un calcaire local (voir
L. Gabolde, J.-Fr. Carlotti, E. Czerny, « Aux origines de
104 luc gabolde
Fig. 1. Assemblage de blocs d’Amenemhat Ier dans les magasins du temple de Louxor.
Le style
Le bloc est traité en bas-relief très peu saillant,
difficilement comparable, de ce point de vue, aux
décors en relief dans le creux du même Ame-
nemhat Ier à Ermant7 et notablement distinct des
décors en méplat assez saillant de Sésostris Ier à
Karnak. Ce style en relief très peu marqué se
rattache à la tradition de l’Ancien Empire, mais
aussi aux styles en cours à la fin de la XIe dynastie
comme celui des reliefs raffinés de Mentouhotep
III-Seânkhkarê à Tôd, Ermant et Éléphantine.8 On
relève que ce sera encore la tradition de l’atelier
d’artisans qui a réalisé les bas-reliefs de Sésos-
tris Ier à Éléphantine.9
Karnak : les recherches récentes du Centre Franco-Égyptien
d’Étude des Temples de Karnak dans la “ cour du Moyen
Empire ” », BSEG 23 (1999), p. 40, Fig. 8-9-11). Les pierres
utilisées à Karnak au Moyen Empire ont été, on l’a mentionné,
étudiées par Ch. Karlshausen et Th. De Putter (« Provenance
et caractères distinctifs des calcaires utilisés dans l’architecture
du Moyen et du Nouvel Empire à Karnak », Karnak 11 (Paris :
ERC, 2003), pp. 373-385). L’échantillonnage examiné ne
comportait pas d’élément d’Amenemhat Ier mais du règne
suivant, celui de Sésostris Ier, lequel emploie exclusivement
le calcaire de Tourah.
7
Supra n. 5.
8
F. Bisson de la Roque, Tôd 1934 à 1936, FIFAO XVII
(Le Caire : Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie
Orientale, 1937), pls. XXI,2-XXVII et R. Mond, O.H. Myers,
Temples of Armant, pl. LXXXVIII (Éléphantine) et XCIV-
XCVII (Ermant).
Le style et l’épigraphie sont sobres et dépour-
vus des abondants détails que l’on rencontre sur
les décors d’Amenemhat Ier à Ermant, sur ceux
de Mentouhotep III à Tôd ou, plus tard, sur ceux
de Sésostris Ier à Karnak.
La scène
Les éléments fragmentaires dont on dispose per-
mettent de restituer une scène où le roi, coiffé de
la couronne rouge, se dirigeait vers la gauche,
précédé d’une enseigne d’Oupouaout10, comme
c’est souvent le cas lors des sorties solennelles,
lors des « montées royales »11 ou encore pendant
9
L. Habachi, « Building Activity of Sesostris I in the Area
South of Thebes », MDAIK 31 (1975), pl. 12 a-b. Voir encore
W. Kaiser et alii, « Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 13/14.
Grabungsbericht », MDAIK 43 (1986), p. 84-88 et pl. 8.
10
Sur cette enseigne, qui représente le nom d’Horus
du roi, voir P. Barguet, « Un groupe d’enseignes en rapport
avec les noms du roi », RdE 8 (1951), p. 9-19.
11
Voir, sous Sésostris Ier, l’introduction du roi dans la
chapelle d’Anubis, ou un des rituels préludant à l’érection
du mât de Min, P. Lacau, H. Chevrier, Une chapelle de Sésos-
tris Ier à Karnak (Le Caire : Imprimerie de l’Institut Français
d’Archéologie Orientale, 1956-1969), pl. 13, scène 3 ; pl.
31, scène 8’, ou bien, pour des occurrences plus commu-
nes et plus récentes, H.H. Nelson, W. Murnane, The Great
Hypostyle Hall at Karnak, vol. I, part 1, The Wall Reliefs,
OIP 106 (Chicago : Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, 1981), pl. 50 ; 51.
 un assemblage au nom d’amenemhat ier dans les magasins du temple de louxor 105
les cérémonies jubilaires.12 Il serait hautement
spéculatif d’essayer ici de la reconstituer plus
complètement.
Les textes
Devant le roi, sa légende :
r Wm L’Horus « qui
mswt renouvelle les
[1] créations »a,
[2] zA-R le fils de Rê
’Imn-m- Amenemhat,
[At]
dἰ n t gratifié de vie
éternellement.
[3]
Au-dessus de la déesse vautour (dont on aperçoit l’extrémité
des plumes) :
Nbt Nekhbetb.
[4]
a—Il s’agit du second nom d’Horus du roi,
adopté apparemment après quelques années de
règne.13 Il faut peut-être comprendre que ce nom-
programme signale la mise en œuvre d’un vaste
projet de construction du roi, le mot mswt (« ce qui
a été créé = création ») pouvant, en effet, signifier
sporadiquement « création(s) architecturale(s) ».14
La titulature viendrait ainsi faire écho à la trace
architecturale laissée par les blocs, lesquels consti-
tuent par eux mêmes des indices de cette refon-
dation proclamée.
b—On remarquera que le nom et l’image de la
déesse n’ont pas été attaqués par les agents d’Akhe-
naton, contrairement à ce que l’on constate glo-
balement sur le territoire thébain, ce qui montre
que ces blocs étaient hors d’atteinte au Nouvel
Empire (parce que sans doute remployés).
12
F.W. F. von Bissing, Das Re-Heiligtum des Königs
Ne-woser-re (Rathures) II (Leipzig : Hinrichs, 1923), pl. 1,
10, 11 et particulièrement 13.
13
J. von Beckerath, « Zur Begründung der 12. Dynastie
durch Ammenemes I. », ZÄS 92 (1966), p. 7 ; idem., Han-
dbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen, MÄS 49 (Mayence :
Philip von Zabern, 1999), p. 83 et p. 82, n. 1.
14
Chr. Wallet-Lebrun, « Contribution à l’histoire de la
construction à Karnak », dans L’égyptologie, histoire, résul-
tats et perspectives (Grenoble : Presses Universitaires de
Grenoble, 1994), p. 227-229 ; voir les mentions éloquentes
La provenance des blocs et la question de
l’ancienneté de Louxor
La présence de ces vestiges au nom d’Amenemhat
Ier conduit naturellement à s’interroger sur leur
provenance exacte et, subséquemment, sur l’an-
cienneté des sanctuaires de Louxor. Ces blocs mis
à part, les plus anciens témoins historiques exhu-
més du site du temple sont constitués d’une table
d’offrandes de Sésostris III, usurpée par Apopi,15
d’une seconde table d’offrandes, au quadruple
nom d’un Sésostris indéfini, trouvée dans le vil-
lage16, enfin d’éléments de porte de Sobekho-
tep II.17 Comme le soulignait déjà G. Daressy, la
table d’offrandes de Sésostris III pourrait bien
avoir été apportée d’Hérakléopolis en raison des
divinités qui y sont mentionnées (et ce, bien après
le Moyen Empire). Les éléments trouvés dans le
village peuvent, quant à eux, provenir aussi bien
des ruines de Karnak que de celles de Louxor,
sans compter qu’on a pu encore les transférer
de la rive gauche.
Les deux fragments architecturaux en granit
rose de (Sekhemrê-khoutaouy)-Sobekhotep II
qui furent exhumés dans la cour d’Amenho-
tep III sont peut-être plus significatifs, mais ils
sont bien incapables de garantir une ancienneté
du site allant au-delà de leur époque.
S’il est vraisemblable, malgré tout, que la fon-
dation des sanctuaires de Louxor remonte au
moins au Moyen Empire, compte tenu du conser-
vatisme théologique des anciens égyptiens, force
est, cependant, de constater qu’aucun vestige n’en
a jamais été trouvé in situ, et donc que l’hypo-
thèse demeure une pure, quoique séduisante,
conjecture.
Un matériau de récupération amené d’ailleurs ?
Compte tenu du débitage qu’ont subi les blocs,
on est tenté d’y reconnaître un matériau de récu-
pération, amené sur le site après l’abandon des
dans les récits de refondation de temples de Thoutmosis III :
Urk. IV, p. 817, 10 et 17 ; 820, 17 ; 830, 8.
15
PM II2, p. 339 = CG 23009, A.B. Kamal, CGC, Tables
d’offrandes (Le Caire, 1906-09), pl. V, p. 8-9 et E. Grébaut,
« Fouilles de Louqsor », BIE X (1889), p. 335-6.
16
PM II2, p. 339 = K. Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Ägypten
und Äthiopien, Text III (Genève : Editions des Belles-Let-
tres, 1975), p. 89.
17
PM II2, p. 338 = G. Daressy, « Le voyage d’inspection
de M. Grébaut en 1889 », ASAE 26 (1926), p. 8.
106 luc gabolde
cultes.18 Ce genre de transfert est bien attesté
pour la plupart des sites de la région thébaine :
des talatates de Karnak se sont ainsi retrouvées
au temple de Tôd,19 d’autres ont rejoint Ermant.20
À Louxor, c’est encore de Karnak que provient
l’essentiel des blocs arrachés d’un autre site. On
recense ainsi dans les magasins de Louxor la série
d’éléments suivants originaires du grand temple
d’Amon-Rê :
1°) un fragment d’obélisque en granit rose de Thout-
mosis Ier provenant de l’obélisque nord du IVe
pylône de ce roi (inédit) ;
2°) plusieurs fragments des obélisques orientaux
d’Hatchepsout (avec notamment les figures des
Amon ithyphalliques), généralement remployés
en meules (inédits) ;
3°) des talatates d’Akhenaton dont les thèmes per-
mettent de les raccorder aux talatates remployées
dans les murs des cours des IXe-Xe pylônes (et
d’une manière générale toutes les talatates retrou-
vées à Louxor) ;
4°) une table d’offrandes de Thoutmosis III provenant
manifestement de l’Akhmenou.21
L’éventualité d’une origine à Karnak
Or, à Karnak, les vestiges au nom d’Amenemhat Ier
sont, justement, bien attestés, montrant que l’ac-
tivité architecturale de ce roi y avait été loin d’être
négligeable. Il y a tout d’abord le très important
socle de naos en granit rose destiné à recevoir
le tabernacle de la vénérable statue d’Amon.22
18
Dans le magasin dit du « Cheikh Labib » à Karnak sont
conservés des blocs du Moyen Empire en calcaire dont le
format actuel, très allongé, peu haut et peu épais, semblable
à celui des blocs d’Amenemhat Ier traités ici, semble indiquer
qu’ils avaient été débités pareillement, dans la perspective
d’une réutilisation. Voir leur liste, supra n. 2.
19
M. Etienne dans G. Pierrat et alii, « Fouilles du Musée
du Louvre à Tôd, 1988-1991 », Karnak X (Paris : ERC, 1995),
p. 490-492. Les blocs proviennent assurément de Karnak
et ont probablement été amenées à Tôd à l’époque ptolé-
maïque ou romaine.
20
Comme l’a rappelé A. Eggebrecht (« Armant », LÄ I,
col. 437), l’éventualité que les quelques fragments du règne
d’Amenhotep IV trouvés à Ermant (R. Mond, O.H. Myers,
The Temple of Ermant ; Idem, Bucheum II, EEM 41 (Londres :
Egypt Exploration Society, 1934), p. 46) puissent effective-
ment attester l’existence d’un temple primitif d’Aton dans
cette ville et que celle-ci ait eu un rôle particulier dans
l’essor de la nouvelle théologie a été mise en doute avec
des arguments de fond par H. Kees (« Ein Sonnenheilig-
tum im Amonstempel von Karnak », Orientalia 18 (1949),
p. 433 et 439).
21
PM II2, p. 339 = L. Habachi, « Clearance of the Area to
the East of Luxor Temple and Discovery of Some Objects »,
ASAE 51 (1951), pl. V, Fig. 12 et p. 464-68 [IX].
22
PM II2, p. 200 (23) = A. Mariette, Karnak : étude
topographique et archéologique (Leipzig : Heinrichs, 1875),
Aujourd’hui remployé au temple de Ptah, il ne
fait guère de doute qu’il avait à l’origine été ins-
tallé dans le sanctuaire qui s’était dressé dans la
« cour du Moyen Empire ». À ce très ancien temple
d’Amon appartient sans doute le fragment de bloc
décoré en relief dans le creux qui avait été rem-
ployé dans la plate-forme en grès. Représentant
une scène d’allaitement du roi en présence du dieu
Atoum, il pourrait, en effet, remonter au règne
d’Amenemhat Ier.23 Le second élément d’impor-
tance est un groupe statuaire fragmentaire, une
dyade, en granit gris ayant originellement figuré
Amon et le roi.24 On peut encore suspecter que
le groupe statuaire à six personnages trouvé près
de l’autel solaire au nord de la « cour du Moyen
Empire » lui soit redevable.25 Ces documents font
d’Amenemhat Ier un des souverains les plus actifs
sur le site de Karnak avant le règne de Sésos-
tris Ier ; il n’y aurait rien d’extraordinaire à ce que
des parois de placage en calcaire décorées en bas
relief aient orné les murs du temple primitif où
il avait installé son naos.26 Démontés par Sésos-
tris Ier, ces éléments auraient ensuite pu servir
à garnir les fondations de son nouveau temple.
Réapparus après la désaffection des cultes et le
démantèlement du temple par les chaufourniers
médiévaux, les placages de calcaire auraient
ensuite été apportés, entre autres, à Louxor et
débités en éléments longs, constituant ces élé-
ments mêmes qui ont été retrouvés et documentés
par l’équipe de l’Oriental Institute.
p. 10, 41-42, pl. 8 e ; E. Hirsch « Die Kultpolitik Amenemhets
I. im Thebanischen Gau », dans Ägyptische Tempel-Struktur,
Funktion und Programm, HÄB 37 (Hildesheim : Gerstenberg
Verlag, 1994), p. 137-142, notamment p. 139.
23
Supra, n. 6.
24
PM II2, p. 107 ; G. Evers, Staat aus dem Stein (Munich :
Bruckmann, 1929), p. 95, § 634, p. 22, ill. 4 et pl. II, ill. 35 ;
A. Mariette, Karnak, p. 41, n° 4, pl. 8 d ; G. Legrain, « Notes
prises à Karnak », RecTrav 23 (1901), p. 63 ; M. Seidel, Die
Königlische Statuengruppen I, HÄB 42 (Hildesheim : Gers-
tenberg Verlag, 1996), p. 65-66 (doc. 31).
25
PM II 2, p. 103, (307) ; M. Seidel, Die Königlische
Statuengruppen I, doc. n° 32, p. 67-68 et pl. 23 a-c et L.
Gabolde, Études sur la genèse des temples de Karnak et du
culte d’Amon-Rê, à paraître. Il pourrait se raccorder à un
élément similaire acheté par Mond et Myers à Tôd.
26
Les fouilles récentes du CFEETK dans le secteur des
cours nord et sud du VIe pylône ont confirmé l’existence de
structures de briques crues contemporaines ou de très peu
antérieures aux aménagements de Sésostris Ier et ont montré
aussi que la stratigraphie du lieu ne pouvait guère remonter
au-delà de la fin de la PPI ou du début de la XIe dynastie
(G. Charloux, J.-Fr. Jet, E. Lanoë, « Nouveaux vestiges des
sanctuaires du Moyen Empire à Karnak. Les fouilles récentes
des cours du VIe pylône », BSFE 160 (2004), p. 26-46).
 un assemblage au nom d’amenemhat ier dans les magasins du temple de louxor 107
Des blocs isolés ?
Une ultime interrogation demeure : l’assem-
blage de blocs d’Amenemhat Ier conservé dans
les magasins de Louxor est-il seul de son espèce ?
En fait, un bloc des magasins du temple de Tôd,
dépourvu de nom royal, mais pareillement décoré
en bas-relief, présente des dimensions, un style de
décor et pour finir un type de retaille en forme de
longue poutre, extrêmement similaires à ce que
l’on observe sur l’assemblage qui nous occupe27 ;
peut-être a-t-il été lui aussi arraché à Karnak,
comme l’ont été bien d’autres éléments retrou-
vés sur ce site.28
Conclusion provisoire
Les blocs isolés au nom d’Amenemhat Ier trou-
vés sur le site de Louxor et enregistrés dans les
magasin du CSA, de par leur format et du fait
qu’ils montrent des traces de débitage, ont sans
doute été apportés comme matériau de construc-
tion depuis un autre site de la région, comme ont,
par exemple, été apportés à Louxor les talatates
qui y ont été découvertes. Compte tenu des traces
conséquentes de l’activité architecturale d’Ame-
nemhat Ier à Karnak, ce dernier site constitue
probablement le meilleur candidat pour leur pro-
venance et ils en constitueraient quelques uns des
plus anciens vestiges.
27
N° d’inventaire : Tôd 310. Ma gratitude va à L. Postel
qui publie ce bloc avec les autres trouvailles du site (« Frag-
ments inédits du Moyen Empire à Tôd (mission épigraphique
de l’IFAO) », dans J.-Cl. Goyon, Chr. Cardin (éd.), Actes
du IXe Congrès international des égyptologues, Grenoble,
Résumé en Anglais
Two broken limestone slabs, stored in the Luxor
temple magazine and carefully documented by the
team of the Chicago Oriental Institute, bear frag-
ments of the titulatury of king Amenemhet I. As
the blocks have apparently been sawn and recut,
they can be considered as reused material, and
may have been brought from other sites in the
Theban area. It is a matter of fact that several
pieces found in the vicinity of Luxor Temple
precisely originate from Karnak. It is also well
known that Amenemhet I worked at Karnak and,
significantly, dedicated a granite naos there for
the sacred sanctuary of the god Amun-Râ. On the
other hand, no archeological element can guar-
antee that the temple of Luxor could be older
than the reign of Sobekhotep II, and nothing
there can, of course, be related to Amenemhat I.
I would consider it plausible that the two blocks
published here in memory of Bill Murnane—who
had mentioned their existence to me—constitute
the remains of one of the oldest temples dedicated
to Amun at Karnak. They would have reappeared
after the dismantling of the sanctuary and the sub-
sequent recovery of the building material, which
was then brought to the site of Luxor.
6-13 septembre 2004, OLA 150 (Louvain : Peters, 2006),
p. 1539-1550) et qui m’a permis de faire état ici, en primeur,
de son existence.
28
Supra n. 19.
108 luc gabolde
 under a deep blue starry sky
UNDER A DEEP BLUE STARRY SKY
Marc Gabolde
Université Paul Valéry—Montpellier III
As one of the last authors reviewed by W.J. Mur-
nane who kindly sent me his final comments a few
days before his death, I am delighted to present
this tribute to his memory, a roving walk in the
company of one of his favorite pharaohs, under
a deep blue starry sky.1
Among the finds from KV 55 recently exhib-
ited in Munich and then returned to the Egyptian
Museum in Cairo there was an inlay fragment of
the ‘sky’-sign, slightly convex, in deep blue glass,
adorned with yellow stars (Fig. 1).2
This object was previously published by Reeves,
and I have commented on its possible original
location in tomb KV 55.3 The possibilities are:
A) the coffin,
B) an unknown or destroyed object from KV
55,
C) the canopic jars.
The coffin may be ruled out. Only one ‘sky’-sign
was inserted at the end of the inscription and the
inlay is still visible. It is made of deep blue glass
without stars.4 Another possibility may have been
the top of the same column where such a sign
might be expected, but there is no room for it now
and the fact that the starry fragment is slightly
curved strongly suggests that it was not placed
there. Moreover, it would have been surprising
to find two identically-shaped inlays with such
different details.
1
I wish to express my thanks to Amanda Dunsmore for
her precious advice and improvements to the translation.
2
A Grimm and S. Schoske, Das Geheimnis des goldenen
Sarges (Munich: Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst,
2001) [Munich 2001 hereafter], p. 75, Kat. 63, Abb. 39,
cf. p. 78.
3 6
C.N. Reeves, Valley of the Kings: The Decline of a Royal
Necropolis, Studies in Egyptology (London and New York:
Kegan Paul International, 1990), pl. III; M. Gabolde, D’Akhe-
naton à Toutânkhamon, Collection de l’Institut d’Archéo-
logie et d’Histoire de l’Antiquité, vol. 3 (Lyon: Université
Lumière—Lyon II, 1998) [D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon
hereafter], pp. 239-240, ns. 1713-1715, pl. XXX (f).
4 9
Munich 2001, front cover.
5
Munich 2001, p. 75, Kat. 63. The possibility that the
nomen of Akhenaten was written Amenhotep in the emended
109
Option B: An unknown or destroyed object, is
hardly plausible despite the fact that some inlays
recovered from the tomb apparently belonged to
items other than those already known. Since, as
the authors of the catalog suggest, the deep blue
signs formerly in Munich were part of the nomen
Amenhotep,5 I believe the fragment of the
hieroglyph6 comes from the end of the right hori-
zontal inscription on the outside under part of
the coffin (inscription ‘C’). There, in the lacuna,
was perhaps the formula to which the
hieroglyph probably once belonged.7 The
symmetrical formula gives however “Son of Re,
living by Maat, lord of the crowns.”8 In the same
way, the fragment of a clypeus from a ‘scarab’-sign
is from part of a royal praenomen, despite the fact
that its scale is slightly larger than expected for
the known inscriptions from the coffin.9 How-
ever, all of these inlays and fragmentary inlays
are easy to insert in the already known inscrip-
tions from KV 55, opposite the starry ‘sky’-sign.
This means that option C: the canopic jars must
be considered seriously.
The problem, however, is that on each jar, in
the location where this inlay should have been,
there is a fragment of calcite that fills the channel
of the right end part of the ‘sky’-sign. As Krauss
part of the coffin is not to be completely discounted if this
last change occurred during Tutankhamen’s reign. However,
the inlaid signs newly executed in the altered parts of the
coffin present a wide range of materials and colors, opposite
the signs belonging to the nomen Amenhotep apparently
only worked in a deep blue, glazed material.
Munich 2001, p. 75, Abb. 37.
7
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pl. XXXII, b, missing
in δ. In the restored underside of the coffin, fragments of
gold foils suggest the title “lord of the crowns” at the end
of the formula, just before the cartouche, cf. Munich 2001,
p. 104, Abb. 59.
8
Ibid., pl. XXXII, a.
Ibid., pl. XXX (g). Another possibility is that it belonged
to a ‘heart-scarab’ composed of various elements.
110 marc gabolde
has convincingly demonstrated, this fragment of
calcite comprises part of a more ancient ‘sky’-
hieroglyph.10 There is no evidence that the original
‘sky’-sign was inlaid, yet the channel looks too
deeply cut for a hieroglyph to have been simply
engraved. If this was the case, it would have been
easier to sand back completely the inscription of
Kiya, including the ‘sky’-sign, rather than replace
it with a sliver of calcite. If it had been filled in
such a way, it was probably because the original
sign was also inlaid. If one compares the dimen-
sions of the items, the results are as follows:
starry fragment:11
Length: 5.55 cm,
Width: 1.1 cm (0.68 cm for the ‘sky’ without
the ‘corner’),
Thickness: 0.25 cm
calcite fragment:12
Length: 3.6 cm (but, Martin adds: “The channel
was not continued for the entire length of the
‘heaven’ sign, but only for a distance of approxi-
mately 5.4 cm from its right end.”13),
Width: 0.6 cm
The difference between the dimensions are at odds
if one supposes that the space for the calcite inlay
was the original location of the fragment. Never-
theless, it seems that all the calcite inlays vary in
width from one jar to another and moreover, it
seems that the plaster join is also of some thick-
ness. If one allows a thickness of 0.04 cm for this
join on both the upper and the lower sides, then
the channel is about 0.68 cm high which may fit
with the starry inlay. As for the length, it is note-
worthy that the channel in which the calcite frag-
ment was originally laid was about 5.4 cm, hence
not so far from the 5.55 cm of the starry fragment.
The remaining calcite inlays have apparently all
been broken a few centimeters along the left side,
probably when the colored inlays on the left were
removed, leaving the channel empty there.
If we accept the possibility that the starry inlay
comes from one of these jars, a scenario then
arises: the removal of the right side of the ‘sky’-
sign and its replacement with a calcite inlay, con-
temporaneous with the erasure of the titles and
name of Kiya underneath, was carried out in the
tomb and one fragment of the original inlay was
10
R. Krauss, “Kija—ursprüngliche Besitzerin der Kano-
pen aus KV 55,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 42 (1986), p. 75.
11
Munich 2001, p. 78.
12
G.T. Martin, “Notes on a canopic jar from King’s
Valley 55,” in Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar II, ed.
‘left’ in the tomb by the workers. Such a scenario
seems hardly possible. Tomb KV 55 was not the
best place for such work, even if hastily done.
Moreover, logically speaking, the other changes
to the funerary equipment of Kiya must also have
been undertaken in KV 55. It is hard to imagine
the insertion of a new uraeus on the jar stop-
pers and coffin, the cutting of a new false beard,
new scepters, new inlays (items not immediately
available in the Valley of the Kings) and the new
engraving on gold foil inside the coffin, in such
an inappropriate place. All these factors suggest
that the changes to the canopic jars and coffin of
Kiya, in order to adapt them for a king, were done
in a workshop and not in the tomb.
We must then consider another scenario. The
starting point is the shape of the right end of the
starry fragment. Here, the ‘corner’ of the ‘sky’-sign
is visible. If the ‘sky’-sign had only been cut out
and replaced with a calcite inlay, this essential part
of the hieroglyph would have been missing over
the remaining inscription. It would have been
necessary to add this ‘corner’ with another mate-
rial (paint for example). It is then very possible
that the workers preferred to re-insert this part
of the hieroglyph with its starry decoration and
to cut another fragment corresponding in length,
in the middle part of the ‘sky’-sign rather than
to bungle the work. The care they took in filling
the empty space at the right end of the sign with
a fragment of calcite, instead of simply filling it
with some plaster, indicates that their intention
was to perform a high quality change and not
simply the erasure of Kiya’s hieroglyphs. Making
a new ‘sky’-sign with parts of the former one, i.e.,
its ‘corner’ elements, was presumably the obvi-
ous solution.
In this case, the presence of the starry inlay
fragment among the items from KV 55 can only
be explained by considering that the defacement
of the remaining inscription (i.e., that which
involved Akhenaten’s and the Aten’s names) and
the sanding back of the ‘sky’-sign above it took
place in KV 55. This possibility has, however, been
challenged by Dodson, following a suggestion of
Eaton-Krauss: “This erasure is normally linked
with the removal of cartouches from the coffin
P. Posener-Kriéger, Bibliothèque d’Étude 97/2 (Cairo: Institut
Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1985), p. 113.
13
Ibid., p. 113. In fact, the channel had been cut all
along its length, but was later sanded back, except for 5.4
cm on the right end.
 under a deep blue starry sky
and shrine found in KV 55, but I would prefer
to see it as simply the final elimination of texts
that were irrelevant to the jars’ final owner.”14 He
also states that: “Regarding the erasures from the
coffin and shrine, I am persuaded by Marianne
Eaton Krauss that they did not take place within
KV 55, but before they came to rest within that
tomb.”15
It is clear that if the deep blue sky from KV 55
actually belongs to one of the canopic jars, then
Dodson’s theory falls short. It also becomes obvi-
ous that the defaced panel on the jars represents
the last phase of the changes to this canopic equip-
ment and that no other name was ever intended
to be engraved. Moreover, in such a case, it would
have been useless to remove the ‘sky’-sign and the
Aten’s names. Once again, Dodson has a brilliant
explanation for another succession of events:
“It is clear that their (i.e. canopic jars) inscriptions
had been excised of portions relating to their
former ownership by Kiya at an early stage; less
certain is the date of the removal of the remainder
of the panel of text, which bore the names and
titles of Akhenaten and the Aten. It is not impos-
sible that this could have been associated with
the erasures seen on other items from KV 55, but
the fact that the whole panel was removed, and
not just the cartouches of Akhenaten, suggests
that it was part of the preparation of the vases
for their new owner. Perhaps new decoration was
intended, but never carried out, or else inscribed
in paint which has long since disappeared.”16
It would seem, however, slightly paradoxical to
erase the panel so carefully yet fail to engrave it,
even roughly with a new name or to re-inscribe
it so carelessly that the name has completely dis-
appeared. It is furthermore stretching the eye of
faith to deduce the existence of such a name from
its complete absence.
Nevertheless, the fact that the whole panel has
been defaced is not as surprising as Dodson would
14
A. Dodson, The Canopic Equipment of the Kings of
Egypt (London and New York: Kegan Paul International,
1994), p. 59.
15
Ibid., p. 59, n. 67.
16
A. Dodson, “On the Origin, Contents and Fate of
Biban el-Moluk Tomb 55,” GM 132 (1993), p. 22.
17
R. Krauss, MDAIK 42 (1986), pp. 67-80. The comments
of A. Dodson (GM 132 [1993], pp. 22-23 and n. 17) following
an observation by G.T. Martin (BdE 97/2 [1985], p. 112)
about the poor fit of the stoppers on the jars is unconvinc-
ing. This is often the case and as he acknowledges, there
is often ancient and modern confusion in attributing the
111
suggest. If only the names of Akhenaten had been
erased and the Aten names preserved, then, from
the Egyptian point of view, this canopic set would
have been attributed to the Aten himself and the
viscera inside would have necessarily belonged to
him. One presumes that the ancient Egyptians
were sadly less imaginative than Dodson and
preferred simply to avoid any inconsistency by
removing the whole text. The complete erasure
of the panel appears in this way to be a successful
attempt at depriving the jar’s owner of his names
and status. I am more persuaded to think that the
Egyptians succeeded in making the last owner
anonymous rather than to believe that they failed
to attribute the set to an alleged new owner.
As a diagram is often more illuminating than
any statement, Figures 2-7 show the different
steps of work on the inscribed panel, as sug-
gested above.
We can be quite sure that the original owner
of the canopic jars with stoppers was Kiya.17 It is
also almost certain that the coffin was originally
made for Kiya.18 It is now also highly probable that
the last owner of these items was Akhenaten and
no other. For the canopic jars, if the starry frag-
ment of ‘sky’-sign actually belonged to one of the
panels, it is now strong evidence. Concerning the
coffin, it is also possible to argue that it belonged
to Akhenaten, on the basis of two points: 1) the
epithet “great in his lifetime” after the defaced
cartouche of the king in bands (B) and (C) and
2) the reading “Waenre” instead of “beloved of
Waenre” on band (D).
1) The formula “great in his lifetime,” inscribed
on re-cut areas of inscriptions (B) and (C) on the
coffin19 concerns only Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten
and is never found in original inscriptions after
the name of another pharaoh.20 It must be remem-
bered that Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten included
this epithet in his own cartouche in the tomb
stoppers to the jars. Given the very constant iconography
of Kiya and making allowances for the fact that the faces
are thin, these masterpieces may actually belong to the early
stages of Amarna art and depict very probably Kiya in her
youth, despite A. Dodson, The Canopic Equipment of the
Kings of Egypt (1994), p. 58, based on presupposed views
of the Amarna style.
18
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 237-255.
19
G. Daressy, “Le cercueil de Khu-n-Aten,” BIFAO
12 (1916), pp. 145-149; D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon,
p. 245.
20
There are only three cases where Amenhotep III is
112 marc gabolde
of Kheruef21 and that this king is sporadically
described simply as “the one who is great in his
lifetime.”22 The fact that this formula has been
inserted in an emended part of the inscription on
the coffin from KV 55 demonstrates indisputably
that it refers to the last addressee of the coffin.
2) After checking with May Trad, and thanks to
the authorization of Dr. Mamdouh Al-Damaty
and the kind collaboration of Mr. Sabri from the
Cairo Museum, the fragment of inscription ‘D
6’ from the inside part of the coffin lid from KV
55 appears to bear the following signs, (Fig. 8),
which corresponds to the formula:
Despite the poor state of preservation, it is
clear that the last two signs are , with the
simply written as a streak, as in all other
parts of this text. Unfortunately, the gold sheet
is scrunched up over the , but the space
supposed to be A(w) m w=f “great in his lifetime”:
1) the legend of a statue depicted in the tomb of Huya
at Amarna (C.E. Loeben, “No Evidence of Coregency—Two
Erased Inscriptions from Tutankhamen’s Tomb,” Amarna
Letters 3 (1994), p. 108, n. 30),
2) the door of the gilded shrine from KV 55,
3) some reliefs at Soleb.
The case for 1) is, in fact, a misinterpretation by C.E.
Loeben and the statue concerned, whose cartouches are
defaced, actually depicts Akhenaten, despite the fact that it
looks isolated among other statues of Amenhotep III. The
king is n(w) m MA.t and queen Tiyi, depicted to the side,
is called “king’s mother,” which is not the case when she
is depicted along with Amenhotep III who is never n(w)
m MA.t, cf. N. de G. Davies, The Rock tombs of El Amarna,
Part III, The Tombs of Huya and Ahmes, with an appendix
on the Greek Graffiti by S. de Ricci, Archaeological Survey
of Egypt Memoir 15 (London: Egypt Exploration Society,
1905), pl. X.
2) On the door of the gilded shrine from KV 55 the
name of Amenhotep III, written with the goddess Maat in
the praenomen and with the nomen Amenhotep, is clearly
a secondary emendation in red ink (cf. T.M. Davis [G. Mas-
pero, G.E. Smith, E.R. Ayrton, G. Daressy and E.H. Jones
(coll.)], The Tomb of Queen Tîyi [London: Constable and
Co., Ltd., 1910], pp. 13-14). Despite the fact that Daressy
forgot to mention the emendation (p. 14), it is clear from his
reading of it on p. 13 where he claims that the praenomen
of Amenhotep III, written with the goddess Maat, occurs
only on reworked parts.
3) At Soleb too, it appears that the names of Amenhotep
III have been recut over that of Amenhotep IV after the
death of the last pharaoh. M. Schiff-Giorgini, J. Janssen and
J. Leclant have been misdirected by the fact that the nomen
has been corrected twice and the praenomen once. It is clear
Fig. 8. Schematic drawing of traces from the gold sheet
fragment ‘D 6’ from the coffin from KV 55.
between and the body of the -sign is
about twice as high as that between the and
the . This indicates that something existed
over the rectangular part of the . A -sign
and a -sign may be ruled out as no trace of
them can be seen there. The more plausible solu-
tion for filling the space is the now illegible seal
and tie of the papyrus-sign that G. Daressy saw
from the published photographs that the first names were
Neferkheperure-Waenre Amenhotep netjer-heqa-Waset,
emended to Neferkheperure-Waenre Akhenaten during
Akhenaten’s reign and changed to Nebmaatre Amenhotep
heqa Waset after the restoration, cf. M. Schiff-Giorgini,
“Soleb,” Kush 6 (1958), pp. 82-97; J. Janssen, in M. Schiff-
Giorgini, “Soleb, Campagna, 1958-59,” Kush 7 (1959), p.
168; M. Schiff-Giorgini, C. Robichon and J. Leclant, Soleb
I, 1813-1963 (Firenze: Sansoni, 1965), p. 131, n. 3 (see too
pp. 78-79, doc. 11, G; pp. 103-104, doc. 20, I; pp. 105-106,
doc. 20, L and n. 18; p. 113, doc. 20, M); J. Leclant, men-
tioned in W.J. Murnane (Ancient Egyptian Coregencies,
SAOC 40 [1977], pp. 154-155); J. Leclant, “Soleb,” LÄ V
(Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1984), col. 1076. In one of
his last e-mails, W.J. Murnane told me that he had reached
the same conclusion.
21
Epigraphic Survey [The] (in cooperation with the
Department of Antiquities of Egypt), The Tomb of Kheruef—
Theban Tomb 192, OIP 102 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute
of the University of Chicago, 1980), pls. 8-9.
22
M. Sandman, Texts from the time of Akhenaten, Biblio-
theca Aegyptiaca 8 (Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique
Reine Élisabeth, 1938), p. 31, line 14; p. 40, line 4; p. 66,
line 14; p. 171, line 9 and, probably, p. 79, line 9. For the
three texts where this epithet seems to concern Amenhotep
III, see D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 232, n. 1675.
A.H. Gardiner, in “The so-called Tomb of Queen Tiye,”
JEA 43 (1957), p. 21, n. 3, suspected that the epithet A(w)
m w=f was inscribed once after the cartouches of the
Aten. Unfortunately, his reference: “Amarna I, pl. 7,” does
not show any evidence of that. The only other king whose
“duration of life” was referred to in the literature is the
pharaoh Sisebek of Papyrus Vandier, see G. Posener, Le
Papyrus Vandier, Bibliothèque Générale 7 (Cairo: Institut
Francais d’Archéologie Orientale, 1985), passim.
 under a deep blue starry sky
in 1910.23 It is noteworthy that all the signs are
very spaced out, excluding the possibility of any
short writings of words, and giving the feeling
that the engraver tried to enlarge the length of
the inscription to fill the whole space. Looking at
the phrase from a grammatical point of view, the
only possible solution is the last reading:
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) Idem
Daressy Daressy Engelbach Gabolde & M. Trad
1910 1916 1931 1998 2003
My suggestion of 1998 to read the end of the
formula mA-rw is clearly wrong and I must
apologize for having misled the authors of
Munich’s exhibition catalog who accepted my
proposal. Engelbach’s reading can be
explained by the fact that the two horizontal lines
of the pass slightly over the vertical edge
of the sign on the left hand side, but actually less
than one millimeter. The various translations give
the following results:
A) W(w)(~n) R A: “Wa(en)re the Great” makes
no real sense and supposes the absence of (~n).
(Such an absence occurs only in one of the papyri
from Ghurob, but the close similarity of
and in hieratic explains it fully.24
B) W(w) R š/mr(y) tA makes no sense either and,
here too, the absence of (~n) should be noted.
C) Mr(w)~n W(w)(~n)-R appears to make sense
and is generally accepted, but it presents one
incorrect writing: W(w) R instead of W(w)~n R,
and an unattested relative form Mr(w)~n which
is never encountered with the epithet of “king”
23
G. Daressy, in T.M. Davis (G. Maspero, G.E. Smith,
E.R. Ayrton, G. Daressy and E.H. Jones [coll.]), The Tomb
of Queen Tîyi (London: Constable and Co., Ltd., 1910),
p. 19.
24
A.H. Gardiner, “Four papyri of the 18th dynasty from
Kahun,” ZÄS 43 (1906), p. 29, l. 14 and l. 20.
25
For the misreading Mr(y)~n A(w)~n Jtn instead of
A(y).t~n-h(j)=s, see n. 68 below.
26
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 248. This recon-
structed epithet on band (D) is to be emended on pp. 252-
253 of the same publication as well as in Das Geheimnis
113
Ankh(et)kheperure … Neferneferuaten … The
epithets of this ruler are always written without
~n: Mr(y)(.t) W(w)~n-R or Mr(y)(.t) Nfr-pr.w-R
(and never Mr(y)~n A(w)~n ’Itn). 25 The fact that
one (~n)–sign is missing and another is unneces-
sary strongly suggests another solution.
D) W(w)(~n) R mA-rw is clearly to be ruled out
after checking the original, despite the fact that the
formula mA-rw is encountered twice in the foot
end inscription after the name of the king.26
E) W(w)~n R makes sense, is grammatically cor-
rect and presents no mistakes. The only pecu-
liarity is the unusual writing of W(w) with a
rare ‘arm’-sign as phonetic complement27 and a
‘papyrus-roll’-sign unattested until now for the
nickname of Akhenaten, but found sometimes in
Middle Kingdom literature.28 Such a developed
writing can be explained here by the noticeably
wide spacing between glyphs due to the need to
fill extra space.
The end of the inscription (D) reads then:
“(O) Lord of heaven, I am one whose heart is
living in its (right) place. May thou contemplate
Waenre every day without ceasing!”
Such a text unequivocally makes Akhenaten the
last owner of the coffin. The fact that Akhenaten
is referred to once in the first person singular,
and another time in the third person singular
is simply due to the fact that the relationship of
Akhenaten/Kiya in the original inscription has
been adapted, with some difficulty, to the rela-
tionship of the Lord of Heaven/Akhenaten in the
emended text.
To sum up, the changes in the inscriptions on
both the coffin and canopic jars strongly suggest
that the last owner of these items was Akhenaten
and no other. Some indirect evidence is also to
be found in the text of the Restoration Stela of
Tutankhamen (CGC 34183). In line 26 it is writ-
des goldenen Sarges (Munich, 2001), p. 39, p. 108, and “La
parenté de Toutânkhamon,” BSFE 155 (2002), p. 47.
27
For this writing in hieroglyphic inscriptions, see
N. de G. Davies, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, Part IV,
The Tombs of Penthu, Mahu and others, Archaeological
Survey of Egypt Memoir 16 (1906), pl. XXI.
28
R. van der Molen, A Hieroglyphic Dictionary of Egyp-
tian Coffin Texts, Probleme der Ägyptologie 15 (Leiden,
Boston and Köln: E.J. Brill, 2000), p. 87, where the writing
is specifically associated with the qualitative verb wj “(to)
be alone/unique.”
114 marc gabolde
ten concerning Tutankhamen and after claiming
that this king is the real, eldest son of Amun, that
“taking care of the father who bore him, his king-
ship is the kingship of (his) father Osiris.”29 This
allusion to the god Osiris is completely isolated
in the text. The formula translated here as “taking
care of,” n r in Egyptian, is obviously related
to the pious behaviour of a son, considered to be
Horus, toward the body of his dead father Osiris.
It is exactly the role of Harendotes whose name
includes the same wording.30 Reading the text lit-
erally, this indicates that Tutankhamen buried his
actual father who became Osiris and consequently
inherited the kingship of his father. As some seals
from tomb KV 55 were stamped with the name of
Tutankhamen31 and given that Tutankhamen is
most probably the son of Akhenaten,32 it is logi-
cal to deduce that the king buried in KV 55, and
significantly entitled “Osiris Neferkheperure” on
at least two of the magical bricks, is Akhenaten,
the father of Tutankhamen.
Such a scenario provides a possible answer to
the pertinent question of Dodson: “Why was a
king of the Amarna Period placed in an elab-
orately altered woman’s coffin rather than his
own?”33
29
Cf. H.W. Helck, Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums
IV. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
1984), 2031, 6-7, with complements of R. Hari, Horemheb
et la reine Moutnedjemet ou la fin d’une dynastie, Éditions
de Belles-Lettres (Genève: Imprimerie la Sirène, 1964), pls.
XXIb, XXII and XXIIIg from the fragment found at Karnak
north (A. Varille, Karnak I, FIFAO 19 [Cairo: Institut Francais
d’Archéologie Orientale, 1943], p. 19 and pl. 48 [line x+11]) :
. and P. Der Manuelian, ibid., p. 128, Fig. 3. The dedication
30
D. Meeks, in LÄ II (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz,
1977), pp. 964-965.
31
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 262-263 and Fig.
8(b) p. 262.
32
M. Gabolde, BSFE 155 (2002), pp. 32-48.
33
Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia—Atti, vol.
1, International Association of Egyptologists (IÆ) (Torino:
Società Italiana per il Gas p.A.), p. 135.
34
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 267-270.
35
Probably the tomb cut by Ineni, cf. Urk. IV, 57, 3-5. For
the discussions about the tomb of Thutmosis I, cf. J. Romer,
“Tuthmosis I and the Bibân El-Molûk: Some Problems of
Attribution,” JEA 60 (1974), pp. 119-133; L. Gabolde, “La
chronologie du règne de Thoutmosis II, ses consequences
sur la datation des momies royales et leurs répercutions
sur l’histoire du developpement de la Vallée des Rois,”
SAK 14 (1987), pp. 78-80; C.N. Reeves, Valley of the Kings:
The Decline of a Royal Necropolis, Studies in Egyptology
(London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1990),
pp. 13-19; C.E. Loeben and P. Der Manuelian, “New Light
on the Recarved Sarcophagus of Hatshepsut and Thutmose
I in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,” JEA 79 (1993),
pp. 122-128. For the material associated with this burial, cf.
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 267, ns. 1893-1894.
This is not an isolated case as another king of
the XVIIIth Dynasty was buried in a sarcophagus
previously cut for a woman and later altered for
him, namely Thutmosis I. The strange story of
the mummy of Thutmosis I is in many points
directly parallel to that of the king from KV 55.34
Thutmosis I was first buried by Thutmosis II in an
unidentified tomb.35 Later, during Hatshepsut’s
reign, his body was re-buried in tomb KV 20 of
Hatshepsut.36 It is noteworthy that for this second
burial Hatshepsut altered her own sarcophagus
for her father and ordered a new one to be cut for
herself.37 A few years later, Thutmosis III decided
to remove Thutmosis I from KV 20 and to bury
him in a new tomb, KV 38,38 with a new sar-
cophagus,39 a new coffin,40 a new canopic chest41
and, apparently, non-royal canopic jars adapted
by adding uraei to the stoppers,42 as in KV 55.
The motivation to remove this mummy is obvi-
ous: It was to strengthen the legitimacy of the
ruling king by acting as Horus acted for Osiris.43
For Hatshepsut, it was a good way to legitimate her
claim to the throne and for Thutmosis III it was an
opportunity to annul the legitimacy of Hatshepsut
and to assert his own rights. It is interesting to
note that, in each case, part of the funerary equip-
36
C. Vandersleyen, L’Égypte et la Vallée du Nil, tome 2, De
la fin de l’Ancien Empire à la fin du Nouvel Empire, Nouvelle
Clio—l’Histoire et ses problèmes (Paris: Presses universitaires
de France, 1995), pp. 263-264.
37
C.E. Loeben and P. Der Manuelian, JEA 79, pp.121-
155, pls. V-XIV.
38
C.N. Reeves, Valley of the Kings, pp. 17-18.
39
Cairo Museum JE 52344.
40
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 269; C.E. Loeben
text, with masculine pronoun, reads: “[…] for his father, the
good god, king of Upper and Lower Egypt, [Aakheperka]re.”
As the text on the lid clearly mentions Thutmosis I as the
owner and, as this coffin, 2.32 m long, was too large for the
sarcophagus from KV 20 but suitable for the sarcophagus
from KV 38 (2.33 m inside), its attribution to Thutmosis I
by Thutmosis III appears inescapable.
41
A. Dodson, The Canopic Equipment of the Kings of
Egypt (London and New York: Kegan Paul International,
1994), p. 119, n° 28.
42
C. Lilyquist, “Some Dynasty 18 Canopic Jars from
Royal Burials in the Cairo Museum,” JARCE 30 (1993),
p. 112 and p. 114, Fig. 9.
43
M. Gabolde and L. Gabolde, “Les temples “mémori-
aux” de Thoutmosis II et Toutânkamon,” BIFAO 89 (1989),
pp. 177-178; D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 59-62, p.
270 and n. 1911. The inheritance is clearly attributed to the
heir who performed the burial with special reference to the
“law of pharaoh,” in Papyrus Boulaq X, even this use was
mainly a way to cover the cost of the burial, cf. J.J. Janssen
and P.M. Pestman, “Burial and Inheritance in the Commu-
nity of the Necropolis Workmen at Thebes,” Journal of the
Economic and Social History of the Orient 11, no. 2 (1968),
pp. 137-170; A. Théodoridès, “Les ouvriers-‘magistrats’ en
 under a deep blue starry sky
ment had to be renewed, presumably because the
original equipment was considered as ‘corrupted’
by the rites performed previously.44 In any case,
a new sarcophagus or coffin and a new canopic
equipment appeared necessary.
The post-mortem adventures of Thutmosis I
provide an ideological backdrop to the burial in
KV 55. Here again, the most persuasive expla-
nation is that Tutankhamen buried his father
to annul the legitimacy of Akhenaten’s female
successor, probably Merytaten,45 who originally
buried her father in the Royal Tomb at Amarna46
and to strengthen his own claim to the throne.
The only obstacle to such a reconstruction
of events is the alleged age at death of the body
found in the coffin. More recent studies propose
an age between 18-25 years at death,47 neces-
sarily ruling out Akhenaten. The discrepancy
between epigraphic data and forensic ones had
already been discussed by Germer48 and Robin.49
Strangely, egyptologists are generally more likely
to consider the coroner more reliable than the
epigraphist. Nevertheless, a careful examination
of the methods used for assessing age at death for
ancient Egyptian bones clearly shows the great
uncertainty of the forensic data. The results are
hampered by three major problems:
1) the subjective nature of data collection.
2) the appropriateness of standards used for com-
parison.
3) the statistical value of the method.
Concerning the first point, a remarkable example
is provided by Filer in her description of the body
from KV 55: “Elliot Smith states that the limb
bones are fully fused and consolidated, but as
noted above, this is definitely not the case.” As this
is a question of direct observation, it is impossible
for the non-specialist to obtain the facts. The pho-
Égypte: à l’époque Ramesside,” Revue International des Droits
de l’Antiquité, 3rd ser., 16 (1969), pp. 139-165, especially
pp. 147-148.
44
The destruction of the sarcophagi of Akhenaten, Tiyi
and Maketaten in the Royal Tomb at Amarna has been
generally misinterpreted as a case of damnatio memoriae
which makes no sense in the case of Tiyi. It seems more
plausible that smashing this monument into such tiny pieces
was a way of preventing any re-use, and hence it should be
considered a pious act rather than an offending one.
45
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 147-185.
46
G.T. Martin, The Rock tombs of El Amarna, Part VII/i,
The Royal Tomb at El-‘Amarna I: The Objects, Archaeological
Survey of Egypt Memoir 35 (London: Egypt Exploration
Society, 1974), pp. 105-106.
47
Study of Nasri Iskander and Eugen Strouhal reported
115
tograph published by Harrison50 seems to confirm
Filer’s results, but still there is some reluctance to
accept that Elliot Smith was completely wrong in
stating that the bones were fully fused as he paid
great attention to these details.
Regarding the second point, it must be remem-
bered that the standards used for comparison are
mostly modern and European. There are no reli-
able standards for the ancient Egyptians as there
is not, for the 15-30 year old population, one
mummy whose age at death is indisputably known
through epigraphic data or strong deduction. We
have no idea about the impact of diet, climate,
genetic inheritance, diseases or social status on
the growth curves of ancient bones. These aspects
are generally dismissed—probably to avoid a dif-
ficult interpretation—by scientists as indicated
in the following text:
“There is no reason to believe that today’s stan-
dards are not generally applicable to any sample
of Homo sapiens, making due allowance for envi-
ronmental influences such as nutrition, health and
disease, endocrinic balance, and so on; in effect
it may be concluded that the ancient Egyptian
aged in bone and tissue much as today; it may be
assumed that they experienced the same matu-
rational changes in essentially the same order as
present-day populations.”51
However the problem of assessing secular changes
in the rate of maturation was apparent to Smith
in 1912 when he reflected upon his earlier assign-
ment of 25 years as the age at death for Thutmosis
IV. Smith states:
“But during the eight years that have elapsed since
I examined this mummy, and, on the assumption
that the data given in all text-books of Anatomy
in reference to this matter were reliable, estimated
his age as 25 years, I have examined the epiphysis
of the iliac crest in several thousands of Egyptian
by J. Leclant and A. Minault-Gout, “Fouilles et travaux en
Égypte et au Soudan, 1997-1998,” Orientalia 68 (1999),
p. 387: 18-22 years old; J. Filer, “The KV 55 Body: The
Facts,” Egyptian Archaeology 17 (2000), pp. 13-17: 20-25
years old at most.
48
R. Germer, “Die angebliche Mumie der Teje,” SAK
11 (1984), pp. 85-91.
49
G. Robins, “The Value of the Estimated Ages of the
Royal Mummies at Death as Historical Evidence,” GM 45
(1981), pp. 63-68.
50
“An Anatomical Examination of the Pharaonic Remains
Purported to be Akhenaten,” JEA 52 (1966), pl. XXI, 3.
51
W.M. Krogman and M.J. Bear, in An X-Ray Atlas
of the Royal Mummies, eds. J.E. Harris and E.F. Wente
(Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press,
1980), p. 189.
116 marc gabolde
skeletons. In the course of this investigation I
have discovered that in the Ancient Egyptians
it was not an uncommon event for the union of
the posterior end of the epiphysis cristae to be
delayed; and that the corresponding part of the
sulcus often persisted well on into the middle age.
Hence at the present moment I feel much less
certain of the youth of Thutmosis IV than I did
in 1903 before I had learned to distrust the data
given so positively in treatises on Anatomy.”52
This conclusion is notably in conflict with the
opinion of Harrison: “(…) the epiphyseal union
has been found generally to occur earlier in Egypt
than modern European and American standards
dictate.”53
In many cases, when the forensic data is in
total disagreement with the epigraphic data, the
estimated age at death is younger than what can
be deduced from historical sources, giving some
support to the opinion of Smith. The following
cases are of peculiar interest:
–Thutmosis III, whose mummy is clearly
identified by the original funeral shroud made
by Amenhotep II, and who reigned for 54 years
is credited with 35-40 years at death.54
–Amenhotep III, whose mummy is identi-
fied by a label on the shroud, and who certainly
reigned for 38 years, is credited with 30-35 years
at death.55
–Ahmes-Nefertary, whose mummy is not
clearly identified (in her huge coffin, another
mummy, that of Ramses III, was also found, but
the mummy attributed to her clearly dates from
the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty), gave birth
to a child before year 18-22 of Ahmosis and she
also outlived Amehotep I.56 If we assume that she
was 14 years old in year 20 of Ahmosis’ reign
(more recently a year 22 has been attested, but
this is not necessarily his last), she was at least
52
G.E. Smith, The Royal Mummies, CGAE, n° 61051-
61100 (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie
Orientale, 1912), pp. 44-45.
53
JEA 52 (1966), p. 111.
54
W.M. Krogman and M.J. Bear, in An X-Ray Atlas,
table 6.4, no. 47.
55
Ibid., no. 22.
56
Stela of Thutmosis I, Urk. IV, 80, 3-4.
57
C. Vandersleyen, L’Égypte et la Vallée du Nil, tome
2, De la fin de l’Ancien Empire à la fin du Nouvel Empire,
Nouvelle Clio—l’Histoire et ses problèmes (Paris: Presses
universitaires de France, 1995), p. 240.
58
W.M. Krogman and M.J. Bear, in An X-Ray Atlas,
table 6.4, no. 60.
59
A case of complete distrust of epigraphic evidence can
be seen in E.F. Wente and J.E. Harris, “Royal Mummies
of the Eighteenth Dynasty: A Biological and Egyptological
Approach,” in After Tutankhamūn, Research and excavations
37 years old at the death of Amenhotep I, who
reigned for 21 years.57 Her mummy is credited
with 30-35 years at death.58
–Ramses III, whose mummy is positively iden-
tified by the inscription on the shroud, was at least
15 years old in year 5 of his own reign, while going
to war against the Libyans. Most egyptologists
believe that he was in fact more than 30 at his
accession to the throne. He reigned for 30 years
and his mummy is estimated to be 30-35 years
old at death. (Ibid., no. 64)
–For other mummies, like that of Amenhotep
II, estimated to be between 35-45 years at death,
the textual evidence gives a date at the very end
of his estimated age (18 years at his accession and
year 26 on a docket from his funerary temple,
hence he must have been at least 44 years old).
These examples show that the age at death
is very often under-estimated when compared
to historical evidence. Currently, egyptologists
prefer to consider that the ancient Egyptians con-
fused the mummies during the re-wrapping and
re-burial.59 But those who re-buried these royal
mummies had at their disposal more information
than the modern scientists and it is methodologi-
cally unwise to question first their reliability.
As there are now good reasons for suggesting
that Amenhotep IV was about 9-10 years old at
his accession to the throne and looked like a very
fat young boy,60 unmarried and chaperoned by his
mother,61 he was probably 26-27 years old when
he died. Given the unreliability of statistics for
bone growth, we can be certain that, although the
estimated age of 18-25 years is the most probable
case, the same statistics also suggest that estimates
as low as 16 years or as high as 27 years cannot be
discarded. They are simply less probable. An error
of five years in the estimation of age at death of
in the Royal Necropolis of Thebes, ed. C.N. Reeves, Studies
in Egyptology (London and New York: Kegan Paul Inter-
national, 1992), pp. 2-20.
60
Forthcoming article “Ce bon gros Amenhotep IV.” The
main arguments are: the most ancient reliefs of Amenhotep
IV depict him as a fat young boy with a short, wide neck
and double chin (blocks from the X pylon at Karnak and
Tomb TT 55 of Ramose). These characteristics are very
recognizable on plaster portrait Berlin inv. no. 21299 from
Amarna which, due to the shape of the mouth, cannot repre-
sent Amenhotep III “rejuvenated” as currently claimed, but
depicts Amenhotep IV at the very beginning of his reign.
The change in Amenhotep IV’s iconography in years III-IV
reveals three phenomena: 1) characteristics of Barraquer
and Simon’s syndrome, 2) elongation of the body and new
sensual marks by the time of puberty, and 3) exaggeration
of these characteristics due to the baroque style.
61
Tomb of Kheruef; Amarna Letters EA 26-EA 29.
 under a deep blue starry sky
these very old and poorly preserved bones seems
more probable than that the ancient Egyptians
who buried the body in KV 55 were neglectful,
careless or inconsistent in their work.
Looking at the alternative proposal for the body
from KV 55, namely that it belongs to Semenkh-
kare, it becomes clear that this identification is not
supported by any epigraphic evidence. This name
has never been found in the tomb, and the for-
mula “beloved of Waenre” which was thought to
concern him clearly reads in fact only “Waenre.”
Dodson’s theory, that Akhenaten buried his core-
gent Semenkhkare with ideologically atonist
burial equipment in KV 55 because the traditional
burial equipment of that king, later usurped by
Tutankhamun, appeared too traditional, is based
on prejudiced views. In fact, after alterations, the
coffin in KV 55 was not atonist at all:
– The name of the Aten is carefully avoided on
the re-cut parts, and when a god is alluded to,
he is called nb p.t “Lord of Heaven” (inscription
D) or R-r-Aty, without cartouche (inscrip-
tion F). This last mention is very significant as
R-r-Aty was excluded from the name of the
god after year 1462 and, after a temporary pho-
netic writing, was replaced by R-qA-Aty to
avoid the possible reading r “Horus,” of the
falcon.63 It is clear then that it was impossible
for this writing to be used between year 14 and
year 17 of Akhenaten (lapses of time foreseen
by Dodson for the burial in KV 55) and so it
necessarily post-dates Akhenaten’s death.
– MA-rw legible on the foot end inscription of
the coffin and on the magical bricks, is almost
62
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 110-118. This
suggestion was acknowledged by W.J. Murnane, “The End
of the Amarna Period Once Again,” OLZ 96, no. 1 (2001),
p. 14: “Since these changes in the Aten’s titulary can be
more-or-less fixed in time by association with the persons
buried in these sections (pp. 110-118), there emerges a date
for the change to the Aten’s final name that is later than
what has been assumed previously—i.e., between years 12
and 14, instead of years 9 and 11. Gabolde makes a plausible
case for this new dating, which in turn can shed valued
(and sometimes startling) light on other members of the
royal circle and their monuments.” It is also considered
with interest by M. Eaton-Krauss and R. Krauss in their
review of D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, by Marc Gabolde,
BiOr 58 (2001), p. 92: “Er (Gabolde) macht wahrscheinlich,
dass die jüngste Namensform erst nach Jahr 12 eingeführt
wurde, und erschüttert damit eine scheinbare ägyptolo-
gische Sicherheit.”
63
It is clear that the last change in the name of the Aten
was undertaken to avoid the mention of r, which may
allude to the god Horus and Šw which may allude to the god
Shu. But the words chosen in replacement were phonetically
closer to the former ones: qA with the same initial  and
the same metric value, and šwty jj(=y) (semi-cryptographic
writtng ) for šwty) sounds nearly like šw nty.
117
always avoided at Amarna for the king.64
– The magical bricks, which are a set with the
coffin and canopic jars, mention the “Osiris king
Neferkheperure true of voice” on two of the
inscriptions.65 As these items were prepared at
the time of burial (and not prepared in advance
and stored),66 it is clear that Osirian beliefs had
already been restored when the burial in KV
55 occurred, and consequently that Akhenaten
was dead. Confirmation of this is to be found in
the presence of seals mentioning Tutankhamen
which indisputably attribute the burial to his
reign.
– As Dodson acknowledges, the cartouches of the
Aten, as well as those of Akhenaten were defaced
on the panel of the canopic jars. Such deface-
ment makes no sense if the panel had to be
altered in an atonist way. It is totally paradoxical
that the only visible traces of the alleged change
on the canopic jars ordered by Akhenaten to
make this equipment “atonist” is precisely the
defacement of Akhenaten’s names and the Aten’s
names.
Finally, there is one more point that makes Dod-
son’s reconstruction implausible. This is the fact
that the royal funerary equipment altered for
Tutankhamen never mentions Semenkhkare
but only refers to the female pharaoh Ankh(et)
kheperure … Neferneferuaten … This is clear by
looking carefully at the pectoral Carter 261 p 1.
The iconography of this object, with the goddess
Nut deploying her arms and wings, is typically
Osirian and the text, adapted from Pyramid Texts
777b and 1654, ensures that it was exclusively
part of the funerary equipment. This object is
64
The exceptions are four shabtis of Akhenaten for which
I gave an explanation in D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon,
pp. 254-255.
65
Despite H.W. Fairman’s comment (“Once Again the
So-called Coffin of Akhenaten,” JEA 47 [1961], p. 37), the
name of Akhenaten is legible on the two bricks he published.
The signs for nfr-pr(.w)-R are indisputable and those for
W(w)~n-R are not so hard to deduce from the traces as
Fairman claimed they were. Only the three plural strokes
are hard to find on one brick.
66
It is clear that the magical bricks and the cutting of the
niches were not part of the funerary equipment, but were
part of the funerary ritual. For the niches, this is obvious by
the fact that the decoration on the walls was often damaged
by their cutting. For the bricks this is evident through their
poor material and the rough character of the inscriptions.
That they were molded, inscribed and consecrated as part
of the ritual performed during the burial, is obvious by
reading Chapter 137 of the Book of the Dead which is
devoted to theses bricks, cf. now A.M. Roth and C.H. Roehrig,
“Magical Bricks and the Bricks of Birth,” JEA 88 (2002),
pp. 121-139. A. Dodson acknowledged that the presence of
Akhenaten’s bricks was “less easy to explain in terms of (his)
reconstruction,” and his complicated reconstruction failed
to be convincing, GM 132 (1993), p. 27, n. 56.
118 marc gabolde
consequently part of the burial equipment of a
king who turned back to the traditional religion,
as the scarab (Carter 256a), the golden mummy
bindings (Carter 256b), the coffinettes (Carter
266g1-4), and the quartzite sarcophagus attest.
The pecularly legible enlargement of Carter 261
p 1 published recently67 allows a reading of the
praenomen as n(.t)-pr.w-R mr(y.t)-w(w)~n-R.
The feminine ending is confirmed by the femi-
nine epithet MA.t-rw following the cartouche.
The nomen itself reads Nfr-nfr.w- Jtn A.t-n-h(j)=s
“Neferneferuaten—Beneficial for her husband
(Fig. 9).”68
These praenomen and nomen show indisput-
ably that this king was a female pharaoh other
than the husband of Merytaten, Semenkhkare,
who is doubtlessly male.69 As it is now certain
that this queen-pharaoh returned to the poly-
theistic beliefs, it seems reasonable to identify
her with the king mentioned in the graffito from
the tomb of Pare (TT 139) dated from year III
of Ankh(et)kheprure–Mer(yt)aten Nefernefer-
uaten-Mer(ytaten), with a significant prayer to
Amun.70 That this female pharaoh is also the origi-
nal owner of the coffinettes 266g1-4 is proven by
the (rare) occurrence of the feminine ending71
and, moreover, by the presence of the nomen Nfr-
nfr.w-Jtn A.t-n-h(j)=s in at least the coffinette
67
T.G. H. James and A. De Luca, Toutankhamon (Paris:
Gründ, 2000), p. 227, Carter 261 p 1 = JE 61944.
68
M. Eaton-Krauss, OLZ 98 (2003), p. 47: “Enlargements
of details that exceed the actual size of an object can some-
times be illuminating for specialists; a case in point is the
detail of the pectoral Obj. no. 261p1 (p. 226) where traces
of the original hieroglyphs in the cartouche now reading
Tutankhamun confirm for sceptics Marc Gabolde’s read-
ing of the epithet A.t n hj.s (‘beneficial for her husband’)
for Neferneferuaten, the original owner of this piece of
jewellery.”
69
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 213 and ns. 1531-
1535.
70
Ibid., p. 161 with references. It is noteworthy that the
name “Semenkhkare” is always associated with the “Aten”
cult and is never encountered with the material that post-
dates the restoration of the traditional cults.
71
Carter 266g Neith, line 13, cf. H. Beinlich and M. Saleh,
Corpus der hieroglyphischen Inschriften aus dem Grab des
Tutanchamun (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1989), p. 110.
In the text from chapter 130 of the Book of the Dead, the
king is in the formula “Turmoil is the abomination
of the Osiris king Tutankhamen, Ruler of Southern Heliopolis,
may she (sic) live for ever.” The context makes clear that
n=t(j) is a 3rd fem. sing. ending and not a 2nd masc.
sing. ending.
72
A. Dodson, “The Canopic Coffinettes of Tutankhamun
and the identity of Ankhkheperure,” in Egyptian Museum
Collections around the World, eds. M. Eldamaty and M. Trad
of Selkis (Carter 266g, Selkis = JE 60691, line 7)
(Fig. 10).
The recent interpretation of this cartouche by
Dodson,72 entirely inspired by the publication
of Saleh and Beinlich73 is clearly wrong. Dodson
failed to recognize the top of the second and
fourth nfr-signs which can be clearly seen on both
parts of the top of the n-sign, and so he wrongly
placed the only nfr -sign that he identified. His
alleged n-sign on the left part of his misplaced
nfr-sign is then actually another misinterpreta-
tion, as only traces of a nfr-sign are clearly read-
able there. The same inaccuracies can be seen in
Dodson’s interpretation of the cartouche in line
9 of the same coffinette where the alleged n-sign
(in the horizontal stroke of the n-sign, so unrec-
ognisable itself) and ‘solar-disk’-sign underneath
are actually invisible. It follows that the alleged
Jtn-hieroglyphs in the middle of the cartouche
appear to be non-existent in both nomina of
lines 7 and 9. The reconstruction of the epithet
Mr(y)-A(w)~ n- Jtn becomes consequently very
uncertain. Moreover, this epithet never existed in
the cartouche of any king and the formula used
as a reference by A. Dodson from stela UC 410
is actually ill-timed.74 Besides the different order
of the signs at the end of the cartouche,75 it is
noticeable that the assumed hieroglyphs for Jtn
are lacking in this text as well as in the other texts
(Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities, 2002), pp. 275-284
and particularly p. 277 and p. 285, c.
73
H. Beinlich and M. Saleh, Corpus der hieroglyphischen
Inschriften aus dem Grab des Tutanchamun (Oxford: Griffith
Institute, 1989), p. 116. The traces “seen” by A. Dodson are
none other than those published by H. Beinlich and M. Saleh
whose accuracy has already been questioned, particularly
concerning the re-engraved inscriptions, cf. M. Eaton-Krauss,
“A Falsely Attributed Monument,” JEA 78 (1992), p. 335,
comment on Carter 48h. It is noticeable that A. Dodson
suggests no improvement to readings from this publication.
The reconstruction of A. Dodson is hampered overall by his
method of identification: the dotted line overlying the poor
quality enlargements of the photograph actually hinders the
reading rather than illuminating it.
74
A. Dodson, ibid., p. 276, n. 5. For the reading, see
D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 155.
75
On UC 410 the alleged -sign precedes the alleged
-sign which would suggest a reading Mr(y)~n-A(w)~n-
Jtn. But both signs are more likely to read and . There
is only one case where the -sign (written ) is placed
at the bottom of the cartouche, a stamped handle from
Palestine, cf. O. Goldwasser, “A Cartouche of Semenkhkare
from Canaan,” GM 115 (1990), pp. 29-32. It would have
been very strange to find the -sign preceding Akhen-
aten’s nickname in the praenomen of “king” Ankhkheperure
and, as on the same text, the same -sign is following
Akhenaten’s alleged nomen in the nomen beginning by
Neferneferuaten. This is another good reason to discard the
readings Mr(y)~n-A(w)~ n-Jtn and Mr(y)-A(w)~ n-Jtn.
 under a deep blue starry sky
where this supposed name was suspected to have
taken place (Carter 620 (41) and 620 (42)).76 More
seriously, the apparent failure of Dodson to rec-
ognise the nomen Nfr-nfr.w-Jtn A(y).t~n-h(j)=s
instead of the erroneous Mr(y)-A(w)~n- Jtn 77
is surprising as this new name is fully discussed
in D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 153-15778
and this reading has been acknowledged by Mur-
nane,79 Krauss and Eaton-Krauss80—three refer-
ences that are conveniently ignored by Dodson.
On the other hand, the reading of Semenkhkare’s
nomen in the coffinette of Nephthys, line 26, is
only based upon the fact that an indisputable
‘solar disk’-sign is observable at the beginning
of this cartouche and on the assumption that
“Since elsewhere nomina overlie nomina, one
must assume this to be true in this case as well.”81
This last statement of Dodson’s, which apparently
works for coffinettes is clearly untrue for other
usurped objects: Carter 48h (JE 61517), where the
cartouche (sic) replaces proba-
bly the nomen Neferneferuaten,82 and on pectoral
Carter 261 p 1 (3) where one can find on the right:
(sic) and
on the left: (sic).83
Interestingly, on two other objects from
the tomb of Tutankhamen where this extract
from Chapter 134 of the Book of the Dead is
76
R. Krauss, Das Ende der Amarnazeit, HÄB 7 (Hil-
desheim: Gerstenberg, 1978), p. 88, (h).
77
A. Dodson, “The Canopic Coffinettes”; J. Von Beck-
erath, Handbuch der ägyptologischen Königsnamen, MÄS
49 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1999), pp. 144-145, 11.E.2.
These texts are now attributed to “king” Nfr-nfr.w-Jtn A.t
n h(j)=s.
78
That this publication was known to A. Dodson is
attested by his comment: “Marc Gabolde has, in D’Akhenaton
à Toutankhamon (Lyon, 1998), 214-5, attempted to dismiss
these conclusions, but in doing so fails to address the totality
of the traces. This paper is not the place to further address
Dr Gabolde’s novel conclusions regarding Ankhkheperure.”
I prefer to let the reader make up his own mind regarding
the facts and “novel conclusions” in our respective publica-
tions, but the case for the royal name in the Selkis coffinette
(Carter 266g = JE 60691) line 7 published here (Fig. 10)
shows clearly which author actually failed to address the
totality of traces.
79
OLZ 96 (2001), p. 16.
80
BiOr 58 (2001), p. 94 and OLZ 98 (2003), p. 47
[M. Eaton-Krauss].
81
A. Dodson, ibid., p. 276.
82
W. McLeod, Composite Bows from the Tomb of Tutan-
khamūn, Tutankhamūn’s Tomb Series 3 (Oxford: Griffith
119
engraved, the nomen occurs on one object and
the praenomen appears in the same place on the
other.84 This clearly demonstrates that there were
no strict rules for the positioning of nomina and
preanomina in the fragments from this funerary
book and that n.t-pr.w-R + epithets could have
been placed where Twt-n-Jmn qA Jwnw šm
is now engraved. Lastly, the possibility that the
nomen of Neferneferuaten was written with the
rare writing of the object Kansas City 67-21, 5-6:
85
cannot be totally
ruled out. This means that the presence of the
‘solar disk’-sign at the beginning of the cartouche
does not necessarily indicate that “Semenkhkare”
was once written there. The fact that no traces
of the s-sign, the mn-sign, or the kA-sign, have
ever been recognized by Dodson, encourages the
author to remain very dubious of Dodson’s imagi-
native reconstructions of nomina since he fails to
give traces of A-sign, n-sign and mr(y)-sign and
is able to concoct a non-existent Jtn group in the
alleged epithet Mr(y)~n- A(w)~ n- Jtn, of his false
reconstruction of the end of the cartouche.86
From the epigraphic evidence it now appears
that the king buried in KV 55 is none other than
Akhenaten whose age at death was approxima-
tively 26-28 years. He was buried there by his son
Tutankhamen to strengthen the rights of the last
king to the throne. Semenkhkare has nothing to
do with this burial nor with the usurped funerary
Institute, 1970), p. 11 and pls. IV, XVII and XX, despite
the opinion of J.R. Harris, “Akhenaten and Neferneferuaten
in the tomb of Tutankhamūn,” in After Tutankhamūn,
Research and excavations in the Royal Necropolis of Thebes,
ed. C.N. Reeves, Studies in Egyptology (London and New
York: Kegan Paul International, 1992), p. 61 and n. 82.
83
J.R. Harris, ibid., p. 61 and n. 97.
84
Cf. A. Piankoff, Les Chapelles de Toutankhamon,
MIFAO 72 (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orien-
tale, 1952), p. 15, column 13 Nb-pr.w-R and p. 59, column
30 Twt-n-Jmn qA Jwnw šm.
85
R. Krauss, “Einige Kleinfunde mit Namen von Amarna-
herrschern,” CdÉ 65, fasc. 130 (1990), p. 210, Fig. 3, [1].
86
During a friendly discussion in Grenoble (2004),
A. Dodson told me that the very careful analysis of J.P. Allen
of the cartouches first engraved in the coffinettes has con-
vinced him that the traces of the name of “Semenkhkare”
are now less probable than he formerly claimed and are
possibly non-existent. For a retractatio see now A. Dodson
and D. Hilton, The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt
(London: Thames & Hudson, 2004), p. 285, n. 11. Strangely,
the discovery of the epithet A(y).t~ n-h(j)=s is credited to
J.P. Allen while in fact Allen’s examination of the coffi-
nettes simply confirmed all my correct readings previously
denounced fiercely by Dodson.
120 marc gabolde

equipment from KV 62 which concerns, as far as A.t~n-h(j)=s who is probably none other than
the inscriptions are legible, only the female king Merytaten herself.
n(.t)-pr.w-R mr(y.t)-W(w)~n-R Nfr-nfr.w-Jtn
 the festival on which amun went out to the treasury
THE FESTIVAL ON WHICH AMUN WENT OUT TO THE TREASURY
Helen Jacquet-Gordon
Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale
Karnak temple and its environs were among Bill’s
special interests. I am happy to make a small con-
tribution towards the understanding of its history
in this volume devoted to his memory.
Festivals during which the bark of Amun was
carried out of his temple of Karnak in order to
visit neighboring sanctuaries played a consider-
able role in the annual religious calendar at Thebes
from the beginning of the New Kingdom onward.
The best known of these outings are those which
conducted the god southwards from Karnak
towards the temple of Luxor on the festival of
Opet, and that which took him to the west, across
the river to Deir el-Bahari, during the Beautiful
Feast of the Valley. If the latter of these festivals
may already have been celebrated as far back as
the Eleventh Dynasty,1 the former appears not
to have existed before the beginning of the Eigh-
teenth Dynasty.2 It is about a third festival of this
nature during which the bark of Amun traveled
northwards from Karnak in the direction of the
temple of Ptah, at that period situated outside
the enclosure wall of the Amun precinct, that we
are here concerned. This festival, like the festival
of Opet, appears to have been instituted at the
beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty.
In 1902, when Legrain cleared the Temple of
Ptah at Karnak, a stela of Tuthmosis III was dis-
covered in situ in the forecourt of the temple,3 the
text of which had been partly erased during the
Amarna period and summarily restored by Seti I.4
It relates how his majesty ordered the Temple of
1 7
H. Altermüller, “Feste,” LÄ II, col. 181.
2
D. Arnold, Der Tempel des Königs Montuhotep von
Deir el-Bahari, Band I, Architektur und Deutung, Archäol-
ogische Veröffentlichungen (Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut, Abteilung Kairo) 8 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern,
1974), pp. 78-80.
3
G. Legrain, “Le temple de Ptah Rîs-anbou-f dans
Thèbes,” ASAE 3 (1902), pp. 107-111. CG 34013: P. Lacau,
Stèles du Nouvel Empire I (Cairo: IFAO, 1909), pp. 27-30,
pl. IX.
4
The renewal formula of Seti I is placed in the center
of the vignette at the top of the stela.
5
Urk. IV, p. 765: 7-11.
6
Urk. IV, p. 770: 3.
121
Ptah to be (re)built to serve as a way-station for his
father Amun “during the festival on which he went
out to the Treasury of the Head of the South.”5
A list of offerings to be presented to Ptah on the
occasion of this festival, among them “white bread
from the bakeries of the Treasury,” is followed
towards the end of the text by a statement of the
precise date on which this particular festival of
Amun was celebrated, namely: the 26th day of the
first month of the inundation season.6 No men-
tion of this festival date has been noted elsewhere,
but a certain number of circumstances connected
with the building and functioning of the small
temple and bark shrine included in the temenos
of the Treasury of Tuthmosis I at Karnak North
suggest that a close association existed between
this temple and the above mentioned festi-
val.
The temple built by Tuthmosis I at Karnak
North was dedicated to Amun, as is indicated
from what remains of the decoration of its walls.7
It was originally a free-standing building preceded
by a bark shrine and surrounded by a peripteral
colonnade,8 an architectural ensemble of which
this appears to be the earliest example known to
us.9 That the temple was endowed with a regular
clergy is indicated by the discovery in the fill over
the bakeries attached to the Treasury of a small
stela dedicated to the sacred geese of Amun by
a priest whose name has been erased but whose
title remains intact. He was “hem-netjer of Amun
in the Treasury.”10
H. Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak-Nord VI. Le Trésor de
Thoutmosis Ier. La Décoration, FIFAO 32 (Cairo: IFAO,
1988).
8
J. Jacquet, Karnak-Nord V. Le Trésor de Thoutmosis Ier.
Etude Architecturale (Cairo: IFAO, 1983), pp. 29-45.
9
The same plan was later adopted by Hatshepsut and
Tuthmosis III for their sanctuary at Medinet Habu as well
as for their bark shrine situated in front of the Mut Temple
at Karnak (in its original form), and survived in variously
modified versions at least until the time of Amenhotep III
in his temple at Kuban.
10
H. Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak-Nord VIII, Le Trésor de
Thoutmosis Ier. Statues, Stèles et Blocs Réutilisés. FIFAO 39
(Cairo: IFAO, 1999), No. 170, p. 269.
122 helen jacquet-gordon
Pursuing his program of construction, Tuth-
mosis I included the already existing temple
together with its bark shrine within the perim-
eter of the stone enclosure wall built to protect
his newly completed per hedj.11 This complex of
buildings, whose remains are still visible directly
north-east of the Temple of Ptah, can with cer-
tainty be identified with the Treasury named by
Thutmosis III on his stela “The Treasury of the
Head of the South.” It was the destination towards
which the bark of Amun was carried on the feast
that brought him north from Karnak to stop on
the first lap of his journey before the Temple
of Ptah and to come to rest finally in the bark
shrine prepared for him in front of the sanctu-
ary of Tuthmosis I within the Treasury complex
itself. The bakeries situated along the southern
side of the treasury enclosure12 were those where
the bread for the offerings to Ptah was baked.
The reference on the stela of Tuthmosis III to
the occasion when the bark of Amun, after halting
at the Ptah Temple, proceeded out to the Treasury
of the Head of the South, indicates clearly that
such a festival was regularly celebrated during
the reign of that King. But it is evident that the
bark shrine situated in front of the sanctuary of
Tuthmosis I was destined from its inception to
receive the sacred bark of the god to whom it
was dedicated on the occasion of such a festival.
It may therefore very well have been Tuthmosis
I himself who inaugurated this festival although
we cannot exclude the possibility that it existed
even earlier. Fragments of wall decoration bearing
the name of Ahmose, found during the excava-
tion of the Treasury of Tuthmosis I in a context
which suggests that they had been intentionally
preserved there, may have belonged to an older
bark sanctuary located in the same general area.13
Evidence that this festival continued to be cel-
ebrated at least until the time of Amenhotep II
is provided by the inscription on a block from
the latter’s bark shrine for Amun reused in the
foundations of the temple of Amenhotep III at
Karnak North. It clearly mentions the festival
“when (Amun) proceeds (from) his temple to the
Treasury of the Head of the South,” using the
same expressions as on the Tuthmosis III stela.
11
J. Jacquet, Karnak-Nord V, pp. 45-73.
12
Ibid., pp. 82-84.
13
H. Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak-Nord VI, §6.2.5,
pp. 90-92.
14
Ch. van Siclen, “Amenhotep II’s Bark Chapel for Amun
The shrine of Amenhotep II appears to have been
erected approximately where the Amenhotep III
temple now stands.14 It would have constituted
a second way-station for the bark on its way to
the treasury.
During the Amarna period, all the festivals of
Amun were, presumably, in abeyance, and it is
apparent from what remains of the decoration
of Tuthmosis I’s temple and bark shrine that the
latter underwent rough handling on the part of
Akhenaten’s agents of destruction. The festival
when Amun went out to the Treasury, there-
fore, like Amun’s other festivals, was probably
suspended. But there is reason to suppose that it
was reinstated, at least for a short time, during
the reign of Seti I or possibly earlier.
Spallinger, who briefly mentions this feast
in his study of the Amun festivals,15 points out
that the date mentioned on Tuthmosis III’s Ptah
Temple stela is situated in that part of the inscrip-
tion which was restored by Seti I and does not
necessarily reproduce the exact text as it origi-
nally stood and whose reading is very uncertain.
This may very well be so, but for our purposes
is not of primary importance. What interests us
most here is the fact that the festival was still (or
again) celebrated at the beginning of the Nine-
teenth Dynasty, whether it was on the traditional
date or on a new date fixed by Seti I. That it was
so celebrated is guaranteed not only by the fact
that the festival is mentioned in Seti’s restora-
tion of the text of the Tuthmosis III stela, but
also by archaeological evidence observed in the
bark shrine of Tuthmosis I itself. Nothing much
remains in situ of this building apart from its
foundations and the sill of its southern doorway.
However, the pavement of the narrow passageway
which led from the bark shrine via this doorway
to the chapels of the small temple behind it still
remains in place. It was very much worn and had
been repaired with a number of talatat and with
two paving slabs cut from a pillar on the face
of which the cartouches of Tutankhamun could
be deciphered.16 The necessity for making such
repairs can only be attributed to the renewed cel-
ebration of the festival on these premises, which
required that the buildings be renovated and put
at North Karnak,” BIFAO 86 (1986), p. 356, pl. LV.
15
A. Spalinger, Three Studies on Egyptian Feasts and
their Chronological Implications (Baltimore: Halgo, Inc.,
1992), p. 14, n. 50 and p. 20.
16
J. Jacquet, Karnak-Nord V, p. 32, pl. XXVIII/B.
 the festival on which amun went out to the treasury
into condition worthy of receiving the sacred bark
of the god.
Such renovations could, of course, have been
made by any one of the successors of Tutankha-
mun, but since no trace of activity on the part of
Ay, Horemheb or Ramses I have been detected
in the Treasury whereas a cartouche of Seti I was
found recut over an erased royal name on one of
the fragments of wall relief,17 it seems probable
that it is indeed Seti I to whom can be attributed
the work of restoration.
The dismantling of the entire Treasury complex
of Tuthmosis I by Ramses II18 necessarily put an
end to the celebration of this particular feast leav-
ing a lamentable lacuna in the festival calendar.
But it should be remarked that the days following
those on which this festival had been celebrated,
namely the 28th and 29th of Thoth, the first month
of the inundation season, are known to have been
the dates of one of the festivals dedicated to the
cult of Amenhotep I and Ahmes-Nefertari.19 This
cult, very widely celebrated in the Theban area
during the Ramesside period, was particularly
important on the west bank. As Černý has pointed
out, there existed at Deir el-Medina several forms
17
H. Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak-Nord VI, pp. 166, 171;
pl. XLIII/C, XLV(C26/1).
18
J. Jacquet, Karnak-Nord VII. Le Trésor de Thoutmosis
Ier. Installations antérieures ou postérieures au monument.
FIFAO 36, fasc. 1 (Cairo: IFAO, 1994), p. 150.
123
of this cult corresponding to the statues, each of
which had a particular name, housed in the vari-
ous sanctuaries established there.20 Now the brick
sanctuaries built by Ramses II and his successors
down to the time of Pinedjem I on the emplace-
ment of the Treasury of Tuthmosis I appear like-
wise to have been dedicated to the cult of King
Amenhotep I and Queen Ahmes-Nefertari.21 A
small statue found in the fill above the Treasury
may even have mentioned the name of the par-
ticular form of Amenhotep’s statue which was
worshipped there.22 Unfortunately the inscription
on the dorsal pillar is badly broken and all that
one can recognize of the title inscribed there is:
“First Prophet of Amenhotep of the ….” Traces
which follow do not correspond to the writing of
any of the known names of the king’s cult statues.
It is not unreasonable, therefore, to attribute it to
the form of Amenhotep worshipped in the suc-
cessive sanctuaries erected on this spot at the end
of the New Kingdom. The fact that these sanctu-
aries were located at Karnak North may possibly
be attributed to the association of this area with
memories of the Sanctuary first established there
by the early Eighteenth Dynasty kings.
19
J. Černý, “Le culte d’Amenophis Ier chez les ouvriers
de la nécropole thébaine,” BIFAO 27 (1927), p. 182.
20
Ibid., pp. 162-163.
21
J. Jacquet, Karnak-Nord VII, p. 64, §5.9.
22
H. Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak-Nord VIII, Statue No.
80 (KN Inv. No. A378), p. 132.
124 helen jacquet-gordon
 a sandstone relief of tutankhamun in the liverpool museum
A SANDSTONE RELIEF OF TUTANKHAMUN IN THE LIVERPOOL MUSEUM FROM
THE LUXOR TEMPLE COLONNADE HALL
W. Raymond Johnson
Epigraphic Survey
It was my good fortune to join the Epigraphic
Survey based at Chicago House in Luxor during
the spring of 1978 when Bill Murnane was work-
ing as senior epigrapher there. I started as appren-
tice epigraphic artist, graduated to full-time in
1979, and began what was to become my life-long
career with the Survey. I owe a tremendous debt
to Bill and former director Lanny Bell for initiat-
ing me into the rigors and discipline of epigraphic
documentation and life “in the field.” Bill was
particularly patient with this enthusiastic green-
horn, and I will always remember his encourage-
ment, his humor, his dignity, and his delight in
talking with everyone about the work (his and
theirs). His encyclopedic memory was astonish-
ing; I long even now for just a fraction of it. His
enthusiasm infected us all, and does to this day.
Bill taught me that expedition life did not have
to be deprived of culture; I learned more about
opera in Luxor listening with him to his incredible
library of cassette tapes than anywhere else in the
world. No one could write the way Bill wrote, or
analyze other people’s work more cogently, or in
a more gentlemanly fashion. Just before his death
he was producing some of the most thoughtful
and insightful writing of his career, particularly
concerning the Amarna period, which makes his
untimely passing doubly tragic. There is not a
day that goes by in Luxor that I do not think
of him, and wonder what he might have to say
about this or that.
At the time I started work in Luxor, the Epi-
graphic Survey was documenting the great Colon-
nade Hall of Amenhotep III and Tutankhamun
at Luxor Temple.1 This astonishing edifice—80
feet tall, almost 200 feet long, and supported by
14 open papyrus columns—in its day may have
1
Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor
Temple Volume 1: The Festival Procession of Opet in the
Colonnade Hall, OIP 112 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of
the University of Chicago, 1994); Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs
125
been the largest free-standing stone structure in
the ancient world. But by the first century AD
seismic activity had caused the great stone roof
blocks to fall, and systematic quarrying of the
side walls throughout the medieval period has
left us only the 14 papyrus columns and archi-
traves standing to their original height (still one
of the most impressive sights in the modern
world). Part of the first register of decoration—the
famous Opet water procession reliefs—survives
today, out of the four registers of decoration that
originally reached all the way up to the roof line
(although I was to discover later that fragments
of all four registers do survive). One of my first
tasks for the Survey, suggested by Bill (for which
I will be forever grateful), was to trace the sev-
eral dozen inscribed, fragmentary sandstone wall
fragments that the Epigraphic Survey had identi-
fied as having been quarried from the Colonnade
Hall in later antiquity. These beautiful wall frag-
ments, identifiable by the distinctive low raised
relief carving style of Tutankhamun, had been
culled by the Survey from the blockyard stor-
age areas around the temple where tens of thou-
sands of inscribed fragments found in medieval
foundations around the temple precinct had been
stored. Little did anyone know at that time that
I would end up specializing in the analysis and
reassembly of this fragmentary material, a proj-
ect that is ongoing to this day, 30 years later! At
current count, 50,000 inscribed fragments from
all periods of Luxor Temple (over 1500 from
the Colonnade Hall alone) and even parts of
Karnak are being documented and analyzed by
the Epigraphic Survey. The blockyards recently
have become the focus of our growing conser-
vation and restoration programs designed to
and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple Volume 2: The Façade,
Portals, Upper Register Scenes, Columns, Marginalia, and
Statuary in the Colonnade Hall, OIP 116 (Chicago: The
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1998).
126 w. raymond johnson
protect the material and make it accessible to the
public.2
I cannot pass through the Colonnade Hall
without thinking of Bill, with whom the Chicago
House team and I worked for many seasons docu-
menting the beautifully inscribed wall surfaces.
While it is clear that Amenhotep III began the
construction of the Hall at the end of his reign
to commemorate his deification while alive, he
sadly did not reign long enough to complete it.
This was largely accomplished only at the end of
Tutankhamun’s reign; the evidence of unfinished
reliefs at the southern end of the Hall, later carved
by Sety I, indicates that Tutankhamun died before
he could finish inscribing the walls. This suggests
that the young king was obliged to finish the Hall’s
construction first, at a time when the Egyptian
work force was spread rather thin during the res-
toration of Amun’s cult throughout Egypt. Except
for one doorjamb scene on the exterior facade of
the Colonnade Hall that was started by Amenho-
tep III in paint, the entire facade appears to have
been carved solely by Ay after Tutankhamun’s
death. Both Tutankhamun’s and Ay’s reliefs were
ultimately usurped by Horemheb who erased and
reinscribed their cartouches with his own name,
often not very carefully. The plaster and paint
which concealed traces of the earlier kings’ names
is now gone, and the palimpsest of the sets of
names is quite clear, especially in raking light.3
Analysis of the standing wall remains and
the fragmentary material from the missing wall
sections indicates that all four registers of Tut-
ankhamun’s decoration in the Hall documented
rites associated with the annual Opet festival, the
processions which were part of that festival, and
the coronation of the king (or reenactment of
same) at the culmination of the rites. There are a
number of iconographic and stylistic anomalies in
the decoration that suggest Tutankhamun utilized
2
These programs have been funded by an ARCE/EAP
grant, BP Egypt, USAID Egypt, and the World Monuments
Fund (Robert Wilson Challenge grants), and numerous
contributions from private individuals. For reports on the
Epigraphic Survey’s conservation activities at Luxor Temple
since 1995, see The Oriental Institute Annual Report, from
1995-1996 to the present. The results of the first seven sea-
sons’ conservation activities will be published in a forthcom-
ing ARCE/EAP publication series volume. An epigraphic
volume dedicated to facsimile drawings and photographs
of Colonnade Hall upper register fragments and joined
groups will published in the RILT series.
3
For a review of the sequence of carving in the Col-
onnade Hall, see the prefaces for each of the two volumes
cited above, RILT 1 and 2.
4 7
For a more detailed examination of this question, see
a pre-existing program for the relief decoration
of the Hall which had been drawn up during
Amenhotep III’s reign. The presence of the bark
of the king for the first time among the barks of
the Theban triad, and figures of Amenhotep III
which Tutankhamun includes behind the cabin
sanctuaries of the divine barges and in all of the
processions might not be simply hommages to
the king who started the Hall, but might actually
reflect Amenhotep III’s original program which
commemorated the deified Amenhotep III taking
his place among the Theban pantheon.4 A scene
which may shed some light on this question can
be found in Amenhotep III’s solar court at Luxor
Temple. Here Amenhotep III is shown presenting
an enormous offering pile to Amun’s bark set up
in the center of the court. Standing behind the
bark is another figure of Amenhotep III accom-
panied by his ka, which implies that Amenhotep
III and Amun are one and the same, with both
benefiting from the offerings.5 In the Colonnade
Hall, the placement of figures of Amenhotep
III at the rear of each divine barge behind the
cabin sanctuaries; behind the barks of Amun in
the bark processions; and behind the Amun-Re-
Kamutef procession in the second register west
wall all indicate identification of Amenhotep III
with Amun, and would have been an appropriate
part of his program for the Hall. Since Amenho-
tep III was deceased at the time Tutankhamun
executed the reliefs, there was no need to change
the program.6
Amenhotep III’s great water procession scene
(also Opet-related) on the eastern face of his 3rd
pylon at Karnak shows the king offering incense
and a bouquet to the cabin (within which was
enshrined the bark of Amun), but a figure of
Amenhotep is also depicted on the stern of the
barge helping to steer with a long-handled oar.7
In Tutankhamun’s divine riverine barge scenes in
this author’s, “Honorific Figures of Amenhotep III in the
Luxor Temple Colonnade Hall,” in For His Ka: Essays in
Memory of Klaus Baer, SAOC 55, ed. D.P. Silverman (Chi-
cago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
1994), pp. 133-144.
5
For a preliminary drawing of this scene, the upper
section of which has been partly restored from fragmen-
tary material, see this author’s, “Images of Amenhotep III
in Thebes: Styles and Intentions,” The Art of Amenhotep
III: Art Historical Analysis, ed. L.M. Berman (Cleveland:
Cleveland Museum of Art and Indiana University Press,
1990), p. 30, drawing 2. Restoration of this fragmentary
group to the original wall will be finished by the Epigraphic
Survey in 2009
6
See note 4 for details of these scenes.
PM II2, p. 61 (183). The sunk relief bark of Amun
 a sandstone relief of tutankhamun in the liverpool museum
Fig. 1. Liverpool Museum 1967.35. Courtesy of National Museums Liverpool (Liverpool Museum).
the Colonnade Hall, the placement of a figure of
Amenhotep III on the stern of each barge made
it awkward to squeeze in the traditional figure
of the king holding the steering oar. Instead, the
two Tutankhamun figures were depicted back-
to-back on the prow, the figure on the left hold-
ing a steering oar, and the figure on the right
offering incense and flowers to the cabin. In the
preserved wall reliefs and fragmentary material
from the Colonnade Hall this arrangement of ele-
ments on the riverine barges of the divine triad of
Thebes is consistent: back-to-back Tutankhamun
figures (whose cartouches have been usurped by
Horemheb) on the prow, and a figure of Amen-
hotep III at the stern. All preserved royal figures
on the barges wear khepresh crowns.8
A sandstone relief in the Liverpool Museum,
Inv. #1967.35 shows this same detail, back-to-
back small-scale figures in shallow raised relief,
visible today in the Amun Barge’s main cabin was carved
in the later Ramesside period, possibly by Sety II who also
added a renewal inscription below the scene. In the time of
Amenhotep III, divine riverine barge cabins were depicted
closed within a shrine. The divine riverine barge represen-
tations in the Colonnade Hall represent the first time in
Egyptian art that the cabins of such barges are depicted
open and their contents—the bark of the god or goddess
within—visible.
8
RILT I, pls. 17 (west wall), and 68 (east wall).
9
The relief is a shallow piece of sandstone 38 cm in
width and approximately 20 cm in height, acquired by
the Liverpool Museum in 1967 from J. Moger in Holland.
I would like to thank Gary Brown, Assistant Curator of
127
of Tutankhamun wearing the khepresh crown
(Fig. 1).9 The Tutankhamun figure on the left is
intact from head to shoulder with text above and
in front, and the king’s upraised hand grasping
the steering oar pole is preserved at the break. A
streamer attached to the base of the king’s crown
falls over his shoulder and is partly hidden by the
streamer of the right-hand king. Tutankhamun’s
prenomen cartouche Nebkheperure, is carved
slightly above the leftmost king’s face and has
been rather crudely recarved into Horemheb’s
prenomen, Djeserkheperure Setepenre, with traces
of the original prenomen visible.10 To the left of
the cartouche read: “the Good God,” and over
the king’s head read “given life like [R]e.” The
whole group, including cartouche, reads “The
Good God, Nebkheperure, given life like [R]e.”
There are traces of an inscription above the car-
touche and epithets, too broken to read, from a
Antiquities, National Museums Liverpool for permission
to publish 1967.35, and for the photograph of the relief
published here, courtesy of National Museums Liverpool
(Liverpool Museum). I would also like to thank Margaret
Warhurst, Head of Humanities, National Museums Liverpool
for information about the acquisition of the piece. See also
P. Bienkowski and A.M. J. Tooley Gifts of the Nile, National
Museums and Galleries on Merseyside (London: Her Maj-
esty’s Stationery Office, 1995), p. 27, Fig. 28. This relief can
also be viewed online at: http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.
uk/wml/humanworld/egyptian/sandstone_relief.aspx.
10
The sun disk is original and was utilized for both
names.
128 w. raymond johnson
Fig. 2. The barge of Mut (detail of prow) being towed by the barge of the queen, Luxor Temple Colonnade Hall western
wall. photo by Ray Johnson.
separate text above the two kings. To the left of the
leftmost king and cartouche is a larger-scaled, ver-
tical column of text in reverse orientation, facing
the king, “... born of Mut.” The rightmost Tut-
ankhamun figure is mostly broken away except for
the back of his khepresh-crowned head, streamer,
and upper left section of his shoulder. Between
the heads of the two kings read “protection, life.”
Part of a quail chick over the rightmost king’s
head is part of an epithet that follows his (broken
away) cartouche.
Having spent a good deal of time drawing the
Tutankhamun barges in the Colonnade Hall,
and reconstructing almost an entire divine barge
from fragments (that of the god Khonsu from the
eastern wall), I believe that Liverpool Museum
1967.35 is actually a piece of the Colonnade Hall.
In fact, the style, scale, surface treatment, pale-
ography, and textual reference to Mut makes it
certain that 1967.35 comes from the divine barge
of Mut scene on the Colonnade Hall western wall.
This section of the water procession, which fea-
tured the divine barges of the Theban triad being
towed by towboats and the barges of the king
11
RILT 1, pl. 17, far right for the wall context; pls. 27
(photo) and 28 (drawing) for details. The published photo
dates to 1912 and still shows the feet of the right-hand king
figure, but the upper part is already gone.
12
“La Procession d´Ammon dans la temple de Louxor,”
MMAF 8 (Paris: Leroux, 1892).
(Amun) and queen (Mut), still preserves the better
parts of the barge of the queen, in full sail, towing
the barge of Mut (Fig. 2).11 Mut’s barge is well
preserved at the prow and stern, but the central
section is very decayed, and only vestiges of the
cabin remain. Today all that remain of the two
back-to-back figures of Tutankhamun at the prow
are the feet. Photos from 1912 published in RILT 1
show more of the legs and lower bodies preserved.
Earlier photos taken by Georges Daressy in the
1890s seem to show both kings intact.12 Liver-
pool fragment 1967.35 must have fallen off the
badly fractured Colonnade Hall wall and had been
recovered sometime after the 1890s but before
1912. Comparison of the breaks of the wall and
graining on 1967.35 supports the match.
It is always sweet to run into old friends in
unexpected places, and this is how I feel about
Liverpool 1967.35; an old friend, long lost, and
now found again. It is with deep gratitude, and
a sense of great loss that I dedicate this study to
a dear friend we have lost, but whose name will
always live. Thank you, Bill. 13
13
A reconstruction of the wall scene with restored frag-
ment Liverpool 1967.35 will appear in Epigraphic Survey,
RILT 3, Upper Register and Miscellaneous Wall Fragments
from the Colonnade Hall, forthcoming.
 egyptian new-kingdom topographical lists 129

EGYPTIAN NEWKINGDOM TOPOGRAPHICAL LISTS:

AN HISTORICAL RESOURCE WITH “LITERARY” HISTORIES

Kenneth A. Kitchen
University of Liverpool

Bill Murnane always showed a clear, incisive grasp
of the various epigraphic and historical matters
that he dealt with; in his published works, he
left an invaluable deposit of useful studies and
observations that will long be of service to us all.
I have happy memories of our rare meetings long
since. I hope that this brief tribute may be found
fitting.
Introduction
Lists of foreign place-names (so-called topograph-
ical lists) have long been recognized as a potential
resource for historical, geographical and archaeo-
logical purposes in the study of Syria-Palestine in
the Late Bronze age, and less usefully (in southern
lists) for the Nile Valley and adjoining terrain
south of Egypt proper (from Aswan). However,
the varying types (and hence, equally variable
nature) of such lists is not well understood by
most people attempting to use them, and this
matter is deserving of clearer definition for the
general benefit of all who wish to utilize such lists
in their studies. Non-egyptologists in particular
need to know that one cannot pick names indis-
criminately out of these lists, to use as instant
history-pegs for the study of any given place in
the Near East or NE Africa.
Classification
A. Types of Record: Physically Defined. These
lists were included in several different types of
context.
1. In Triumph-Scenes. From the 1st Dynasty to
Roman times, the most persistent icon of phar-
aonic victory was that of the victorious king,
striding forward with weapon upraised to bring
it down on the heads of hapless, defeated foes
half-kneeling confusedly before him. In New-
Kingdom times, opposite the king, there stood a
welcoming deity who (in Ramesside times) might
hold forth the scimitar-sword of victory. He (or
else a lesser deity) also held the ends of cords that
ran along and bound the hands and heads of rows
of foes behind the deity/ies and below the entire
scene; each foe was but a head upon a vertical
oval containing the appropriate place-name, with
bound arms and hands hanging down behind.
A rhetorical superscription runs along over the
main full-width rows of names. On the twin
towers of pylon-gateways, it was normal to feature
northern foes (Syria-Palestine and beyond) and
southern foes (Nubia and southward) and their
lists respectively on one tower each (e.g., Tuthmo-
sis III, Pylons VI, VII, Karnak), especially if the
gateway faced east/west, so that a northerners’ tri-
umph-scene could be placed on the north tower,
and a southerners’ scene on the matching south
tower. It became standard Ramesside practice
also to have two different introductory triumphal
texts, one for each of the two matching scenes.
One was created by using the triumph-hymn of
Amenophis III from his memorial temple, plus a
linking text, plus the triumph-hymn of Tuthmosis
III at Karnak. The other was a fresh composition
on related themes. But in some pairs of scenes
(e.g., those of Sethos I and Ramesses II flanking
the north and south side-doorways of the great
hall at Karnak), even though northern wars were
the cause of celebration, some southern names
were also included in the lists, as a reflex of Pha-
raoh’s claim to universal dominion. Special cases
of single triumphal reliefs are two by Merenptah
(one, now destroyed) north of Pylon VII, and the
unique one by Shoshenq I adjoining the Bubas-
tite Gate, all three at Karnak. Triumphal scenes,
however, were not the sole context for these lists
as the following will show.
2. Similar Scenes & Lists in Lunettes of Major
Stelae. On major stelae, such as those of the
“Blessing of Ptah” of Ramesses II and III, a full
triumph-scene occupies the uppermost part of
the stela, along with name-ovals (as described
130 kenneth a. kitchen
above) behind the deity and at times below the
full scene, just as on a temple pylon-tower or wall.
On most others (like those of the viceroy Setau
at Abu Simbel), lists are not included.
3. Row of Names along the Base-panels of
Temple Walls. So, around all four interior walls
of the hypostyle hall of Ramesses II at Amarah
West temple in Nubia; above, on three sides, war-
fare and other scenes occupy the main areas; but
matching triumph-scenes flank the rear doorway
into the inner temple. At Abydos, in the Temple
of Ramesses II, short lists appear on the south
façade of the IInd Pylon (below prisoners led to
the king), and on the north and south end-walls
of the forecourt portico (context above them,
now lost).
4. Sets of Names inscribed around Lower Parts of
Columns & Door-passages. This is most prominent
in the runs of names around columns in the main
hypostyle hall of the vast temple of Amenophis
III at Soleb in Nubia. In Upper-Egyptian Abydos,
two short lists (engraved as if on royal sphinx-
bases) adorn the door-thicknesses of the King’s
chapel of the Temple of Sethos I.
5. Lists inscribed around the Base-blocks of
Royal Statues & Sphinxes. A far commoner usage
than Nos. 2-5, attested (e.g.) for Amenophis II and
III, Haremhab, Sethos I, Ramesses II, Ramesses
III and Taharqa. Such statues and sphinxes can
occur just in isolated pairs, or else in a whole
series, as in a temple court.
6. Brief “heraldic” lists. These are usually short,
and set as decoration in royal contexts. So, in
scenes in private tomb-chapels on the throne-
base below the king; once, on a chariot, that of
Tuthmosis IV from his tomb. Plus the two sets
of labeled foreign chiefs high on the façade of
the front ‘high gate’ of Ramesses III at Medinet
Habu. To these may finally be added:
7. Series of place-names in non-list contexts,
such as the six registers of captured towns in the
reliefs of Year 8 of Ramesses II at the Ramesseum;
and much earlier, the set of personified Syrian
places on jambs of a gateway of Amenophis I at
Karnak.
8. Series of place-names in sets of battle-reliefs,
which are not lists in any sense, but do contain
collocations of place-names in warfare contexts;
so, for Sethos I, Ramesses II, Merenptah and
Ramesses III.
B. Types of Record: Textually Defined. The nature
of each list (and type of list) has to be defined
by inspection of the contents, and with the aid
of such identifications with known places as are
beyond doubt.
Not all relate to wars, it should be emphasized.
We may distinguish the following types:
1. Encyclopedic. Such lists can be long, and
cover all manner of distant places that Egypt’s
rulers knew about, even if contact might be
more tenuous than real (e.g., as remote as Uruk
in southern Babylonia); such lists are not limited
to places under Egyptian control, but serve to
illustrate the concept that Egypt’s gods held uni-
versal rule, and the pharaoh was their deputy as
potentially lord of “all lands,” pantocrator.
2. Regional Lists. (a) Limited to either Nubia
and the south, or to Western Asia and north-
ern environs. (b) Mainly one region or the other,
but including names from other regions, out of a
sense of universalism, or to fill up the number of
names required by the layout on the wall, base,
or whatever.
3. Lesser Lists. (a) Abregés of longer listings; (b)
‘heraldic’, often limited to traditional names (e.g.,
Nine Bows) or to major entities beyond Egypt.
Exemplification
A. African/Southern Lists. We turn first to the lists
for southern lands, because they show very clearly
most phenomena found also in the more heavily
used (and abused) lists for northern lands. For the
New Kingdom, our ‘foundation documents’ are
the three copies of basically 116 names (conven-
tionally listed as “1-117,” with [accidentally!] no
No. 6), plus a supplementary list of 152 additional
names (“118-269”), left to us at Karnak by Tuth-
mosis III (mid-15th-century BC) on Pylons VI
and VII in Karnak temple in Thebes. These great
lists include seven regions over which the Egyp-
tian Empire actually ruled (e.g., Kush, names Nos.
1-10, Wawat, 24-47), or sought to control, but
incompletely (e.g., Irem, 11-23, Libya, 88-116), or
probably notionally (e.g., Medja, 78-85, Kenset,
86-87; desert zones), or simply traded with, they
being independent throughout (e.g., Punt, 48-77).
Once Egypt’s rule was firmly established along
the Nile from the 1st to the 4th Cataract under
Tuthmosis I and III, incorporating Wawat and
Kush, subsequent wars were limited to the crush-
ing of local revolts every two or three decades,
or to attempts to cow marginal powers such as
Irem, or fend off attacks from such quarters. As a
 egyptian new-kingdom topographical lists
result, later pharaohs requiring to celebrate their
ascendancy in the south had few new places to
boast of subduing—so, it was found convenient
simply to recopy larger or lesser extracts from
copies of the great Tuthmoside lists, with or with-
out minor more current additions. So, the subse-
quent history of these lists sees them transformed
(effectively and functionally) from historical into
literary sources, for most of the rest of the New
Kingdom. Examples will best illustrate this.
Between the reigns of Tuthmosis III and Sethos
I, the lesser lists of Amenophis II and Haremhab
are mainly little more than brief extracts from such
sources as the great lists of Tuthmosis III. Only
with Amenophis III at Soleb and Kom el-Hettan
do we again find longer lists of original content,
but for the North rather than for Africa. Some
African names survive at Soleb, but hardly so far
at Kom el-Hettan.
The major lists that accompany the triumph-
scenes of Sethos I at Karnak (north wall of the
Great Hypostyle Hall) are instructive in this
regard. Originally, these lists were of a series
of Asiatic names, complemented with a set of
African names; subsequently, the second set of
African names at the base of the scene was plas-
tered over, and recut with Asiatic names, as the
Chicago Epigraphic Survey was able to establish.1
The African names in the upper part o Abydos
f the scene were kept intact, such that the final
lists continued heraldically to proclaim the uni-
versal dominion of the pharaoh over all lands,
both northern and southern. For the southern/
African names, as long known, the scribes made
selections from the great lists of Tuthmosis III at
Karnak. Thus the upper, clear section (after Upper
Egypt) began with ‘Kush,’ i.e., Upper Nubia (No.
2), and Nos. 3-10 (E Side list; 3-9, W Side, omit-
ting E.5), copying directly the Nos. 2-10 names
that constituted ‘Kush’ in the original Tuthmosis
III list. Then comes ‘Irem’ (No. E. 11/W. 10), the
next territory, but here the scribes added only
the first three places in the Irem list (E. 12-14/W.
11-13, from Tuthmoside Nos. 12-14), cutting
it drastically short for their more limited pur-
poses. In the second (overwritten) Nubian list,
1
See Epigraphic Survey, The Battle Reliefs of King Sety
I, RIK IV (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago, 1986), pp. 49-50, 56-57.
2
Existing sequence: W. 44-45, 50, 49, 37(!), 40(?), 41,
39, 38, (E. 49 omitted), 46, (E. 51 omitted), 47-48, 51-53;
55, 54, 58-59, 57, (E. 62-63 omitted), 63, 62, 64, 61, 60.
3
K. A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, Historical and
131
at the base of the twin scenes, the scribes chose
to omit Wawat (Lower Nubia) entirely (Th. III,
Nos. 24-47). Instead, they headed it with the far
more prestigious ‘Punt’ (Th. III, No. 48), and
included practically the entire Punt list (Th. III,
Nos. 49-77), in proper order in Sethos I’s Eastern
list (Nos. E. [40-41], 42-64, <65?>, then [66-68]),
but in some disorder2 and with further omissions
in the Western version of the list. Thereafter,
Medja is listed, with just one other name of its
group (E. 69-70/W. 56, 65, from Th. III, Nos. 78,
84). Kenset and Tjehenu (Libya) were omitted
entirely from this sequence. This gives us already
an insight into scribal methods in editing exist-
ing lists for fresh use in a more limited context.
They drew extensively upon the more prestigious
Kush and not Wawat, but only in part, then from
Irem, a smaller extract, then almost the whole of
exotic and prestigious Punt, with a final glance at
the desert Medja. Faithfully so, in the East Side
scene, but with curious ‘scrambling’ of ordering
of names in the West Side scene, probably partly
as a result of editorial vacillation over what to
include/not include.
Under Ramesses II, at Karnak (Great Hypostyle
Hall, South Wall), almost all the emphasis in the
lists there is on Western Asiatic names, in keep-
ing with that theatre of war in the adjoining war-
scenes. Only in the East Side list is there a brief
concession to wider horizons. After Upper Egypt,
as with Sethos I, we have the heading ‘Kush’ (at
No. 2), but followed by only its first three topo-
nyms (Nos. 3-5) rather than by its first eight as
Sethos I had done. Then at No. 5 comes Irem on
its own, then Tjehenu (Libya) as first of 7 out of
the Nine Bows (Nos. 7-13), before continuing
with Levantine toponyms.
But in his Nubian temples, Ramesses II’s
scribes had to provide Southern lists. Here the
Aksha temple Nubian list is closely paralleled by
the 1st Nubian list at Amarah West.3 Both begin
with a double heading: Kush and Irem (Nos. 1-2),
followed by three toponyms from Kush (Nos. 3-5;
Th. III, Nos. 2-4). Then Gurses (No. 6) is from
Irem, Tywrrk may also be from Irem (Th. III, No.
14?), but Srnyk is back to Kush (Th. III, No. 8).
Biographical II (Oxford: Blackwell, 1979), pp. 218-220; idem,
Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated and Annotated: Transla-
tions II (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), pp. 76-77; and remarks,
idem, Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated and Annotated:
Notes and Comments II (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Black-
well, 1999), p. 130.
132 kenneth a. kitchen
This ties up with the remains of the set of Nubian
toponyms on column-bases in the south wing of
the hypostyle hall of the great temple of Ameno-
phis III at Soleb. 4
However, as for the very strange lists not only
of Th. III, Nos. 118-269, of Amenophis III passim
with Ramesses II at Aksha (Nubian), Nos. 10-27,
and parallel at Amarah West, Nubian Lists I-II,
Nos. 10-95,—these all remain mutually unparal-
leled (Th. III vs. Am. III/R. II) at present.
In turn, the scribes of Ramesses III massively
reused older sources in compiling the vast lists at
his Medinet Habu temple. Nubian/African names
are included in the North Tower list. Already, long
since, Edgerton and Wilson pointed out the links
between Ramesses III’s list and the great lists of
Tuthmosis III.5 The order of names and in groups
is erratic, and includes reduplications. Short runs
of names recur, from the great list, including from
the long second part (Nos. 118-269). It is need-
less to list all these scattered bits here; they can
be well observed from Edgerton-Wilson.
What was happening in the African lists is that
we probably possess in the great lists of Tuthmosis
III a conspectus of places gleaned from various
sources for each region cited. Tax-lists for villages
along the Nile in Wawat and Kush; places encoun-
tered in invading Irem; the many little villages
and hamlets met with by Punt-expeditionaries
going inland (as with Hatshepsut’s expedition)
from the Red Sea coast deep westward to reach
the aromatics terraces within the borderlands of
Sudan, Eritrea/Ethiopia. The second, obscurer list
(Nos. 118-169) may have drawn upon expeditions
that went beyond normal limits in the south. And
so on. Under Amenophis III, old names were kept,
but new ones added; possibly in the wake of that
king’s own expedition deep into southern regions
by his claim, in Year 5. Haremhab, Sethos I and
Ramesses II drew upon these lists (Th. III; Am. III)
in abbreviated form. Interestingly, with emphasis
on the more distant areas: Kush, which they ruled;
Irem which they periodically fought with; Punt to
which their trading expeditions went; and Medja
as representing the great eastern deserts. And
then Ramesses III’s scribes simply put extracts
regarding all these places in existing sources
pell-mell into his North pylon-tower list. What
4 5
New publication, J. Leclant et al., Soleb III (Cairo:
Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 2002), pp. 142ff;
Soleb V (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale,
1998), pls. 236-239. Older sources, in Soleb I (Firenze:
Sansoni, 1965), pp. 64-102, passim.
began as reflections of historical events and/or
administrative records of these regions became
(by recopying and editing) a “literary” and sym-
bolic phenomenon, at first by copying and adding
new data (Amenophis III), and then simply by
recopying/editing/rearranging with nothing new
added—except scribal errors in copying (often
through misreading of hieratic copies used).
B. Northern/Western Asiatic Lists. Here, we can
utilize what we have begun to glean for a better-
nuanced study of what happened to lists that
reflect the northern arc of Egyptian interests.
Here we have the advantages (i) of a good many
well-established identifications of foreign lands,
states and settlements, and (ii) of considerable
knowledge of the local history and geography of
a variety of such places, from their own (non-
Egyptian) records.
Here, Tuthmosis III’s superscription to the
main part of his triply inscribed great list iden-
tifies the 119 places listed as those of the “330”
chiefs besieged in Megiddo on his 1st campaign
(Years 22/23, 1458/57 BC). Significantly, in two
copies, this prior list begins with Qadesh (No. 1)
and Megiddo (No. 2). The superscription would
thus imply that, aided by a large number of lesser
Central and North Syrian rulers (as well as the
local Palestinian ones), the ruler of Qadesh had
headed the coalition and been based in Megiddo
on the occasion—which is also clearly stated in
the Annals (Urk. IV, 649:5-6).
In subsequent years, Tuthmosis III reached
north, subdued Qadesh itself (6th campaign, Year
30, 1450 BC), and then proceeded in his 33rd year
(1447) and 8th campaign to invade as far north as
Carchemish (Amenemhab’s text) and across the
Euphrates into Mitanni itself. It is with these more
northern raids that the second major list (Nos.
120-359) is concerned. With the publication of
the archives from Alalakh, it became possible to
identify in those texts over 30 place-names from
this later phase of the pharaoh’s campaigning,
as was long since established by Albright and
Lambdin.6 The layout of these places on the map,
however, cannot be systematically established,
although some segments may be part of land
routes in North Syria. However, it is improbable
In their Historical Records of Ramses III (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1936), pp. 114-115.
6
In “New Material for the Egyptian Syllabic Orthogra-
phy,” Journal of Semitic Studies 2 (1957), pp. 119-122, items
(12)-(42e) passim, followed up by others since.
 egyptian new-kingdom topographical lists
that such segments can all be joined-up to map
the campaigns of Years 30, 33, as attempted by
Helck; the results are too eccentric and bizarre to
permit of this. Thus the historical/geographical
realities behind the northern great lists should
be accepted, but do not necessarily yield actual
campaign-routes. Compare the narrative of the
real march-route through Canaan to Megiddo in
the Annals with a variety of places in the main
great list—some of the same places can be found,
but not necessarily in marching-order.
When we come to the published Kom el-Hettan
lists of Amenophis III (north half of the temple
court only), what is striking is the wide variety of
places touched upon. List A covers major powers
and places from Assur, Sangara (Babylonia) and
Naharin (Mitanni) in the east through Syrian
Carchemish, Aleppo and Nuhasse to Anatolian
Arzawa in the far west. List B is south-Syrian
(Takhsi) to south-Palestinian areas. Lists C and
F are too damaged to be useful. List D has Bab-
ylon (city), Assur again, and then Aram from
more westerly zones. Finally, List E is strikingly
a record of Aegean locations: Knossos, Lyktos,
Amnisos, Phaistos in Crete; nearby Cythera, and
mainland Nauplia, Mycenae, Messenia, Cydonia,
plus Wilios (Troad) in NW Asia Minor. What we
have in this combined group of lists is an ency-
clopedic representation of the wide world over
which the god Amun and his pharaoh were ideally
considered to be in principle supreme. In no way
did Egypt rule politically over Mesopotamia, Asia
Minor or the Aegean. Links here could only be
through diplomacy and/or trade. Topographical
lists are NOT exclusively lists of physical con-
quests, still less lists of places destroyed outright
(though in some cases, some might be).
Haremhab’s lists are more ‘heraldic’, being
anthologies of places in the Syro-Palestinian
realm deemed subject to Pharaoh. But already
the move from active history to literary record is
beginning to show. He includes Qatna in his ideo-
logical realm, as later do Sethos I and Ramesses
II. But Qatna no longer existed as a viable entity
so late as Haremhab. It was a great central-Syrian
city-state down to Akhenaten’s time. But then, in
battle with Mitanni over Syria, the Hittite armies
of Suppiluliuma I destroyed it totally, and it never
recovered its greatness again.
The Karnak and Qurnah lists of Sethos I take us
further down the road of the move from history to
7
For which see Kitchen, “An Egyptian Inscribed Fragment from Late Bronze Hazor,” IEJ 53 (2003), pp. 20-28.
133
heraldry. At Karnak, in both triumph-scenes east
and west of the north door of the Great Hypostyle
Hall, the first set of northern places begins with
the traditional Nine Bows series, then moves on
to the great powers of Hatti, “Naharin” (Mitanni),
and Sangara (Babylonia), before coming to Syria:
“Wunum” is a scribal corruption of <T>uni“p” in
both lists, Qatna had been destroyed half a century
before and no longer existed, while Asy was a mis-
understood form of (Al)asiy(a), probably Cyprus,
picked up from texts of Tuthmosis III, the sole
pharaoh to use Asy as a “live” entity. Mennus is an
obscure traditional name from Middle-Kingdom
times, while Iqpt is obscure, Barna is corrupt for
Barga, and Artun a similar error for Ardukka. In
short, this pharaoh’s scribes were copying names
already becoming ‘traditional’ from older hieratic
copies and in places misreading them. The second
part of the list (at the bottom of the scene) is more
interesting. Here, traditional African names had
been included, from the great list of Tuthmosis
III, as noticed above. But then, new orders came
to superimpose a set of Levantine names instead.
And this time, they were contemporary. Pahil,
Hammath, Beth-Shan, Yenoam (close together)
had been involved in local troubles in Jezreel with
Galilee in the opening years of Sethos I himself.
So, their inclusion here marked his recapture
and reoccupation of these places. (NOT their
final destruction!) Even more so, inclusion here
of Accho, Tyre and Uzu and Ullaza illustrated
his renewed contact with Phoenicia, as shown
by the scene of their hewing timber in the pha-
raoh’s relief-scenes. Hazor, too, was simply one
more strongpoint, not a smoking ruin this early;
it was still operative down to the last decades of
Ramesses II, whose vizier [Prehotep] left a statue
there.7 So, here, these names illustrate the sov-
ereignty of Pharaoh, not his destructive force.
His lists at Qurnah are similar. Again, there are
“traditionalized” northern names (Ardukka, mis-
written; but Tunip, correctly), and also the “con-
temporary” set; and both Asy and Alasiya, no
longer known to be simply the same place.
In the case of Ramesses II, we have twin lists at
Karnak and another pair at Luxor, in paired tri-
umph-scenes. Here, they accompany battle-scenes
of wars in Syria (later than the Qadesh-conflict of
Year 5). Names of places in the actual war-scenes
recur solidly in the West list at Karnak; it is his-
torical as the scenes are. But in the East list, for
134 kenneth a. kitchen
variety (so to speak), the Levantine component is
taken from the ‘new’ part of the lists of his father
Sethos I. Down at Luxor, the twin triumph-scenes
(so far as preserved) again copy Sethos I, but add
in one or two names from Ramesses II’s own wars,
such as Dalat-Silul (“Door of the Locusts”). On
the bases of colossi at Luxor, the S. lists are tradi-
tional Tuthmosis III, while the N. lists are a mix
of traditional names, Sethos I names, and occa-
sional new entries (such as Moab, from Ramesses
II’s own wars). Thus, Ramesses II alternated lists
in his temples, some of original data from his
own wars, some using older material, especially
taken from his father’s lists. This is halfway his-
tory, halfway to a “literary” tradition, as had long
been the case with African names.
Under Ramesses III, things go still further. The
first 69 Asiatic names (S. tower) do not seem to
appear in any other known list, while Nos. 70-78
include central Syrian items like Hernam (Hermel,
S. of Qadesh), Qarmiyan from Ramesses II, Shab-
duna (ditto), and the commonly-attested Yenoam
in or close to Galilee. Of Nos. 1-69, few have been
universally identified except No. 2, certainly Pitru
(biblical Pethor), at a crossing of the westernmost
stretch of the Euphrates. Astour attempted to
show that most of these names come from Upper
Mesopotamia, from Pitru eastward to beyond the
Tigris.8 This is tempting, but needs careful test-
ing. After No. 78, Nos. 79-101 (with omissions),
and 108-110 derive in reversed groups from the
West Karnak-list of Ramesses II (or its tradition).
A few more are unplaced. There is no reason to
believe that Ramesses III actually reached Pitru,
still less that he ever invaded Upper Mesopota-
mia. However, his scribes most likely ransacked
copies of “encyclopaedic” lists from some previ-
ous reign, plus the more original list of Ramesses
II as at Karnak. Significantly, none of the data
in the front Pylon lists has any connection with
the king’s own wars, so far as we can determine
currently. For that, one must go to the heraldic
scenes of vanquished chiefs on the façades of the
Eastern High Gate, with chiefs of Sea Peoples, etc.
Thus, the big lists of Ramesses III have become
a “literary” triumphal record, re-employing the
historical detritus of former reigns.
Wholly different is the final great list from
Egyptian pharaonic history—that of Shoshenq
I, engraved at Karnak c. 925 bc, some 250 years
8
M. C. Astour, “Mesopotamian and Transtigridian Place
Names in the Medinet Habu List of Ramses III,” JAOS 88
later than Ramesses III. While cast in the fully
traditional heroic mold, this piece differs radi-
cally from all its predecessors in several respects.
Firstly, in its triumphal text above the scene. In
the Ramesside period, it was firmly customary to
use here either a text made up from the triumph-
hymns of Amenophis III plus Tuthmosis III (in
that order), or else a pendant text; or one of each,
in a pair of matching scenes. Not Shoshenq I; his
text begins in triumphal form, reusing much good
traditional phraseology, but NOT copies of the
two texts used under the Ramessides; and in his
case, triumph then passed over into a building-
text—a wholly original and unparalleled develop-
ment. Secondly in its list of place-names (so far
as preserved), after the obligatory Nine Bows, we
find a list (so far as extant) which is 90% origi-
nal, corresponding to no previous list whatsoever.
Thirdly in orthography. His scribes no longer
stayed with the old ‘syllabic orthography’, but
largely adopted their own version. Fourthly, his
set of names certainly contains route-segments
(of the kind found in P. Anastasi I), and from
these, reasonable suggestions can be made as to
the course of his campaign. Thus, this scene is
a document of very great interest, and of con-
siderable historical value. It is no mere pastiche.
But it was the last of its kind. Taharqa’s brief
list is mundane; the Graeco-Roman lists reflect
only late priestly learning, and attempts to adapt
old, largely-forgotten names to the conditions of
their day.
Conclusions
We must now sum up. Egyptian topographical
lists occur in various contexts (usually monumen-
tal), and show some change in nature through
their history in the New Kingdom. There are
short, ‘heraldic’ lists that merely symbolize the
might of Pharaoh; these usually offer us nothing
else, except names known at the time of inscrip-
tion, whether derived from previous reigns or
still current or new. But much more important,
we have very extensive lists, commonly as part of
triumph-scenes, but by no means always. Under
Tuthmosis III, the great lists probably reflect the
knowledge of his time, particularly in Western
Asia; no other pharaoh had penetrated as far (or
(1968), pp. 733-752 with map.
 egyptian new-kingdom topographical lists
further) than he, except Tuthmosis I—of whose
time, no such records have so far been recovered,
and who reigned very closely before Tuthmosis
III in any case. It is important to compare lists
with war-narrations (annals, stelae, etc.) and sets
of war-scenes, as a form of control as to the con-
temporaneity and nature of other records and
lists. Segments of routes as used by travellers
(be it merchants, diplomats or armies) may be
detectable—but this is not necessarily the same
as actual campaign-records of routes used in par-
ticular wars. Route-marches would commonly
have to go by recognized routes; but this has to
be worked out separately.
With time, as wars ebbed and flowed, it was not
felt necessary to produce complete new up-to-the
minute lists every time some temple needed heral-
dic triumph-scenes with lists. So, older material
could simply be used to fill the need; new, cur-
rent data could be used also if desired (so, Sethos
I, Ramesses II). Particular sequences might be
135
repeatedly reused/recopied, and scribal misco-
pying sometimes deform names (e.g., Tunip >
Wunum!)
The appearance of town names in these lists
(even highly original, up-to-date ones) does NOT
necessarily imply that the places concerned had
been wiped off the map by a warring pharaoh.
That could happen on occasion; Tuthmosis III
once mentions reducing settlements to ‘reddened
mounds.’ But normally, the astute pharaohs pre-
ferred to defeat foreign/hostile places, and leave
them alive, more profitably to become tribute-
paying vassals. To vanquish a foe or town does not
automatically mean kill/destroy, unless explicitly
stated. So, a place might indeed suffer damage,
or partial destruction, then, be allowed to rebuild
and get on with becoming Pharaoh’s profitable
vassal. Thus, all of us, including archaeologists,
need to be careful in interpreting Egyptian writ-
ten data and site destruction levels alike.
136 kenneth a. kitchen
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak 137

A RECONSTRUCTION OF SENWOSRET I’S PORTICO AND OF SOME STRUCTURES

OF AMENHOTEP I AT KARNAK

François Larché
CNRS

Outline The four granite thresholds

The slicing of the radier’s west side
1. Senwosret’s Limestone Portico The channel embedded beneath the radier’s
1.1. The Limestone Radier is too Short West- top face
ward to Place Senwosret I’s Portico The hypothetical plan of the walls built on
The north-west corner block of the radier the radier
The slicing of the radier’s west edge The reused blocks inside the radier
1.2. The Original Decoration on the South The blocks found scattered on the radier
Outer Face of the Hatshepsut Suite The particular case of the calcite socle with
1.3. The Hypothetical Superimposition of Two steps in Senwosret I’s name
Similar Scenes with Different Proportions 3.2. The Brick Structures Predating the Lime-
1.4. The Change in Direction of Senwosret I’s stone Radier
Portico Around the radier
The new placement of the Osirian pillar Below the radier
n°11 Below the 6th Pylon’s courtyards
The new placement of the Osirian pillar Conclusions
n°15 3.3. The Platform Built into the Limestone
Eastward orientation like the contra temple Radier
of Tuthmosis III Its elevation
Placement of the portico Its pebble foundations
1.5. The Existence of a Double Portico The low mud brick wall encasing the pebble
1.6. The Date and Reason for the Dismantling fill
of Senwosret I’s Portico 3.4. The Connection Between the Radier and
1.7. Blocks of Senwosret I’s That Do Not Come the Platform
from the Portico’s Facade 3.5. A Hypothetical Drainage System
Two limestone chapels 4. Proposed Plan of Amenhotep I’s Monu-
Two large limestone gates probably em- ments
bedded in a stone wall 4.1. First Stage: The Constructions Built On
Small limestone doorways probably built and Around the Limestone Radier (in gold
into mud brick walls on the plan)
Elements of a wall The sanctuary
Elements of a sandstone portico The enclosure wall C+C’
1.8. The Furniture in Senwosret I’s Name The wall D+D’
Naos in diorite The wall A+A’
Socle with steps in calcite 4.2. Second Stage: The Constructions Built to
Altar with a cornice in hard limestone the West of the Limestone Radier (in yellow
1.9. Conclusions on the plan)
2. Senwosret I’s Sandstone Colonnade The bark shrine R+R’
3. The New Kingdom Foundations in the The enclosure wall around the bark shrine
So-Called “Middle Kingdom” Courtyard B+E and B’+E’
3.1. The Limestone Radier The two lines N+S of 16 niches, the pre-
The radier’s dimensions decessor of the 6th Pylon
The radier’s top face The chapels G and P for the royal cult
138 françois larché
The chapel of Ahmes-Nefertari
The copy of Senoswret I’s White Chapel
4.3. The Stages of Deconstruction
The first stage of deconstruction under
Tuthmosis I
The second stage of deconstruction, during
the coregency of Hatshepsut and
Tuthmosis III
The third stage of deconstruction under
Amenhotep III
DEFINITIONS: These architectural terms will
be defined as follows:
“+”: altitude above sea level.
Header: a stone block occupying the entire thick-
ness of a wall, that is to say with two visible
faces.
Face: The visible surface of a wall.
Doorframe: The slight projection of the door-
jambs and the lintel on a gateway which forms
a frame around the doorway.
Reveal: The inner reveals are between the rebate
and the inner face. The outer reveals are
between the rebate and the outer face.
Rebate: A projection of the reveal in order to
receive the edges of the doorleaf.
Socle: A raised platform supporting another
structure.
Colonnade: A line of columns and their roof-
ing.
Peristyle: A colonnade on the perimeter of a
building or courtyard which completely or
almost completely surrounds it.
Portico: An open gallery at ground level, but
which is not necessarily bordered by a colon-
nade.
DESIGNATIONS: These designations for archi-
tectural structures will be defined as follows:
Senwosret I’s portico: This formed the facade
of Senwosret I’s temple, “le Grand Château
d’Amon,” of which there remains no certain
vestiges.
So-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard: The
empty space bounded by Hatshepsut’s suite
to the west and the storerooms surrounding
this courtyard to the east, north and south.
No Middle Kingdom remains are visible,
and it would have been better to name it the
“New Kingdom” courtyard. Since, however,
this space has long been known as the “Middle
Kingdom,” it will be designated here as the so-
called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard.
Limestone radier: A stone foundation platform
covering the entire surface to be built upon.
The limestone radier refers to the thick founda-
tion (height: 3 cubits) made of thin courses of
small limestone blocks, which is buried under
the surface of the so-called “Middle Kingdom”
courtyard. The blocks are all reused and were
produced by cutting off the faces of larger
blocks.
Platform: A foundation made of flat blocks of
sandstone, limestone and granite, which occu-
pies a small surface of less than 100 m2, and
built at the west side of the limestone radier.
The blocks are all reused and at least two lime-
stone blocks are decorated.
Storerooms surrounding the radier: A group
of 10 storerooms was built around the east,
north and south sides of the limestone radier
from which they are separated by a U-shaped
corridor. Set on a thick layer of sand, their
foundations are made of two green sandstone
courses surrounding the limestone radier.
Enclosure tied to the 5th Pylon: This enclosure is
made up of four perpendicular walls delimiting
a wide rectangular space, the west one being
divided by the Pylon. Each half of this west
wall is bonded to the Pylon and to the north
or south enclosure walls, while the east wall
is perpendicular to both the north and south
ones. The Akh-menu abutts the east face of this
east enclosure wall.
Service corridor: The north side of this corridor
borders the outer wall of the storerooms sur-
rounding the limestone radier. Its south side is
bordered by a range of rooms with or without
columns. The corridor leads to the south door
of the Akh-menu.
Enclosure tied to the 4th Pylon: This enclosure
consists of three perpendicular walls delim-
iting the courtyard between the 5th and 4th
Pylons, with the west one being bisected by
the 4th Pylon. Each half of the wall is bonded
to this Pylon and to the north or south enclo-
sure walls.
Hatshepsut’s podium: Similar to a high platform
and accessed by several steps, Hatshepsut’s
podium is the massive structure built three
cubits above the pavement of the temple in
order to elevate the superstructures (of the
Chapelle Rouge + her north and south suites).
The east side of Hatshepsut’s podium abutts
both the limestone radier and the platform.
Hatshepsut suite: These rooms were built by the
queen to either side of the Chapelle Rouge.
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
Enclosure tied to the 6th Pylon: This enclosure
is made of three perpendicular walls delimiting
the space bounded by the 6th Pylon and the
limestone radier, the west one being divided by
the Pylon. Each half of this west wall is bonded
to the Pylon and to the north or south enclo-
sure walls, these last two walls being simple
veneers leaning against older walls.
Annals’ courtyard or axial courtyard of the 6th
Pylon: This courtyard is delimited on the west
by the 6th Pylon, on the east by Tuthmosis
III’s vestibule with pillars, and by the cross
walls closing the south and north courtyards
of the 6th Pylon.
From 2001 to 2007, the Franco-Egyptian center
has undertaken new archaeological excavations
in the central area of Karnak, between the Akh-
menu to the east and the 3rd Pylon to the west.
The numerous mud brick walls we discovered are
giving new insights into the vast complex which
spread across this area before the New Kingdom.
These ancient structures allowed us to establish
that in this area of the temple, the New King-
dom monuments could only have been built after
earlier monuments were demolished. A shrewd
expert on the temples of Karnak, William Mur-
nane would have been fascinated by all these new
discoveries which were made possible after the
lowering of the water table successfully imple-
mented by the SCA. During his many seasons
in the Ramesside Hypostyle Hall, he constantly
shared his knowledge of the temple with me. He
taught me never to discard even the tiniest clues,
and the example of his meticulous study of the
monuments has inspired me to propose these new
hypotheses on Senwosret I’s and Amenhotep I’s
monuments.
1. Senwosret’s Limestone Portico
The sounding1 made in 2003 at the north-east
corner of the podium on which Hatshepsut’s suite
is set has revealed the limestone corner block of
1
G. Charloux, “Karnak au Moyen Empire, l’enceinte
et les fondations des magasins du Temple d’Amon-Rê,”
Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 191-204.
2
L. Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon” de Sésostris
Ier à Karnak (Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 1998).
3
Ibid., pl. I.
4
The Osirian pillar n° 11 was discovered by G. Legrain
buried below the south courtyard of the 5th Pylon, very
close to the sandstone elements of Senwosret I’s colonnade,
139
the first course of the radier that is still buried
under the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard.
This block is actually placed 7 cubits (1 cubit =
52.5 cm) east of the location proposed in a recent
hypothesis2 which identified the limestone radier
with the foundation of Senwosret I’s temple, the
“Grand Château d’Amon.” This temple, of which
there remains very few dismantled remnants of
the facade’s portico, will henceforth be named
more modestly as “Senwosret I’s portico.” In
Gabolde’s hypothetical reconstruction, the por-
tico is placed 7 cubits west of the joint between
Hatshepsut’s podium and the limestone radier,
but the north-west corner of this radier should
have been located at the base of the left anta
of the facade’s portico and not 3.7 m further
east.
In reality, the block discovered at the north-
west corner of the limestone radier bonds the
north side of the first course of the radier’s foun-
dations to the west side of this first course of the
same radier (Fig. 24a-b). In Gabolde’s hypoth-
esis, whereby the limestone radier should be the
foundation of Senwosret I’s temple, shifting the
radier’s west side to the east would then oblige
the portico on its facade to line up with the north-
west corner block of the radier. Therefore, this
move challenges some of the arguments on which
Gabolde’s hypothetical reconstruction of the
“Grand Château d’Amon” are based, and it was
essential to reexamine the remnants previously
discovered in the so-called “Middle Kingdom”
courtyard in connection with the architectural
vestiges of Senwosret I’s portico.
1.1. The Limestone Radier is too Short
Westward to Place Senwosret I’s Portico
In Gabolde’s hypothesis for the placement of Sen-
wosret I’s temple, the facade’s portico is set at
the location of the eastern part of Hatshepsut’s
suite3. He has also argued that Hatshepsut would
have dismantled the Osirian pillars4 of the por-
tico’s facade in order to attatch the east face of
her suite to the portico’s back wall.5 According to
the latter having been reused in the foundations of Tuthmosis
I’s colonnade. The clearing by O. de Peretti and Emmanuel
Lanoë of the pit where this pillar was buried seems to show
that it was reused at the same time as other elements of
Senwosret I, but not during the construction of the 6th Pylon
and its enclosure. This indicates that the latest possible date
that Senwosret I’s portico could have been dismantled was
under Tuthmosis I.
140 françois larché
this hypothesis, the construction of Hatshepsut’s
podium would have required the destruction, to
a depth of seven cubits, of six courses forming
the west side of the limestone radier. Therefore,
while the observation of the vestiges of this west
side does not confirm this destruction to such
a depth (3.7 m), it nevertheless shows that ~ 50
cm of the edge of the west side was sliced off,
with this excision stopping exactly at the base of
the west face of the original structure that rested
on the radier.
The north-west corner block of the radier
(Fig. 24a-b)
The actual position of the limestone block forming
the north-west corner of the first course6 of the
radier which occupies the so-called “Middle King-
dom” courtyard, is incompatible with Gabolde’s
proposed placement7 of the facade of Senwosret I’s
temple.8 Indeed, in order to set this corner block
in place, (and probably the whole first course), the
builder had to level a former mud brick structure.
This destruction was made only under the surface
of the block to be placed, since the vestiges of the
brick structure are still visible against the west
and north faces of the corner block. These in situ
bricks indicate that, well before the construction
of Hatshepsut’s podium, the radier’s first course
did not spread further west of the corner block
or further to the north.
The slicing of the radier’s west edge
Observation of the cross joint that separates the
east face of the north half of Hatshepsut’s podium
from the west side of the limestone radier (Figs.
36-37) has shown that Hatshepsut had cut a slice
(50 cm deep) away from the radier’s west face
while keeping its first course intact. Although the
podium is built against the radier, vestiges of the
radier’s west side make it possible to see traces
of this excision. A photograph of the east face of
5
The east side of Hatshepsut’s podium has, at the base
of its setting course, a horizontal groove carved at differ-
ent levels. On the north half, this groove is lined up with
the granite threshold n°1, while on the south half, it is cut
much lower (giving it the appearance of “stairs” at differ-
ent levels) but not along the entire length of the course.
Between the south half of Hatshepsut’s podium and the red
sandstone blocks, the limestone blocks of the 5th course
of the radier are still in place. Their layout shows that the
groove (with “stairs”) was carved intentionally in order
to join the podium to the courses of the limestone radier.
This irregular groove could not have been used to attach
Hatshepsut’s podium to an hypothetically projected dado
the north half of Hatshepsut’s podium (Fig. 25)
shows that the east edge of the bed face of the
sandstone blocks of the podium’s first course rests
on the west end of the top face (+73.09 m) of the
limestone blocks of the radier’s first course. This
overlap of about 50 cm has been confirmed on
the north-west corner block of the first course
of the radier, where this limestone block is par-
tially covered by a sandstone block that forms
the north-east corner of the podium’s first course
(Fig. 24).
Hatshepsut’s podium having thus been built
slightly inside (~1 cubit and not 7 cubits as in
Gabolde’s reconstruction) the west side of the
limestone radier, it is not possible to shift Senwos-
ret I’s portico westward and therefore outside the
radier which was supposed to be its foundation. In
another hypothesis,9 whereby the portico would
be effectively placed plumb with the radier’s west
side, it becomes difficult to imagine how Hat-
shepsut’s suite could have leaned against a line
of Osirian pillars of which no traces exist on the
suite’s back face on either side of the the axis.
1.2. The Original Decoration on the South
Outer Face of the Hatshepsut Suite
Several anomalies have appeared in the hypo-
thetical reconstruction which joins to Senwosret
I’s portico a representation of this king, carved
in sunk relief at the east end of the outer face of
the south wall of the Hatshepsut suite, in conti-
nuity with Tuthmosis III’s Texte de la Jeunesse
(Fig. 1).
Traces of Hatshepsut’s original decoration are
still visible on two of the three outer faces of the
suite she built. This decoration was in sunk relief
on the north side where its has been erased, except
for its west end which was hidden by a doorjamb
of Tuthmosis III.
that would have adorned the base of the back wall of Sen-
wosret I’s portico. F. Larché, “Nouvelles observations sur les
monuments du Moyen et du Nouvel empire dans la zone
centrale du temple d’Amon à Karnak,” Karnak 12 (Paris:
ERC, 2007), pp. 407- 499, pls. 24, 34.
6
G. Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 191-
204, pl. 16, Fig. 22.
7
Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” pl. I; ibid.,
Charloux, pp. 191-204, pl. 19, Fig. 27.
8
Larché, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 407- 499,
pl. 20.
9
Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 191-204,
pl. 20, Fig. 28.
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
On the west face, the original decoration has
been replaced by a new one in sunk relief, and
it is impossible to determine if the original was
raised or sunken relief. South of the bark chapel,
the present decoration is sunk relief in Tuthmosis
III’s name,10 while to the north it is also sunken
but seems to date from Sety I.11 This later decora-
tion has clearly replaced an older one, also sunken,
remnants of which are still visible along the north
face of the north wall of the Annals’ courtyard.
No clue permits their attribution to either Hat-
shepsut or Tuthmosis III, who could have also
erased an older decoration by Hatshepsut. To the
north, the only clue for this erasure is the trace
of its thickness which is delimited by the facade’s
building-line, well incised on the podium’s edge.
The 4 centimeters (5 near the north-west corner)
which separates this building-line from the pres-
ent face, indicates a thin excision of the facade
made after its construction.
Unlike the north side, the decoration of the
south was in raised relief.12 At its west end, an
Amun figure is still visible carved in raised relief,
although partially covered with Tuthmosis III’s
throne in sunk relief. The representation of this
seated king marks the beginning of the Texte de
la Jeunesse.13 It seems impossible, then, to connect
this original decoration with the sunk relief deco-
ration of the outer face14 of the anta of the lime-
stone portico (as L. Gabolde has reconstructed
it) in order to form the facade of Senwosret I’s
temple because the original decoration is in raised
relief and is laid out on several registers.
1.3. The Hypothetical Superimposition of Two
Similar Scenes with Different Proportions
The figure of Senwosret I, carved on Hatshep-
sut’s sandstone wall surface, is larger than the one
decorating the limestone anta that it is supposed
10
Urk. IV, 852; P. Barguet, Le temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak
(Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie
Orientale), p. 127.
11
Ibid., Barguet, pp. 121-122.
12
The original decoration being in raised relief on the
west end of the wall, it is tempting to reconstruct this style
of decoration on the whole south face. However, one cannot
definitively dismiss the hypothesis that Senwosret I’s figure
was carved in sunk relief by Hatshepsut on the east half
of the south face or that both styles of relief appeared on
the same wall.
13
The Texte de la Jeunesse having replaced Hatshepsut’s
earlier decoration, it is likely that this text was carved after
the Chapelle Rouge was dismanted.
14
Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” §51: “La paroi
141
to have replaced. The hieroglyphs carved in the
limestone version are more tightly spaced than
those carved in the sandstone edition. The king’s
feet are not placed at the same level in relation
to the text. The cut of the blocks on the right
joint of the sandstone face does not fit exactly
with the one on the left joint of the limestone
anta.15 Together, these four discrepancies make
the proposed superimposition of the two scenes
representing Senwosret I seated under a canopy
impossible in reality (Figs. 2-3).
Tuthmosis III carved this representation of
Senwosret I followed by an important text of
which only two columns remain. The rest of the
text should not have covered the whole face of the
missing limestone wall, whose east end probably
showed Amun accompanied by other divinities.
The Berlin leather roll (3056, verso, VIII, 4-5)
evokes a similar scene where Amun and Thoth
are shown on the wall named “Kheperkare is pure
in Amun’s temple.”16
1.4. The Change in Direction of Senwosret I’s
Portico
The new placement of the Osirian pillar n°11
(Fig. 4)
The white crown of the Osirian pillar17 n°11
(Cairo Museum JE 48851) allows it to be placed
on the south half of the portico as has already
been proposed.18 However, the scenes on the three
decorated faces of this pillar do not permit its
placement at the east end of the portico, facing
the south anta, as Gabolde suggests. Whereas the
left face of the Osirian pillar and its back face are
decorated with the king facing Amun, its right
face shows a walking figure of a lone king wear-
ing the atef-crown (Fig. 7). Representations of
this type are always found framing passages for
processions, as can be seen all along the east-west
sud présentait une grande scène d’audience royale. Elle était
bordée à droite par un grand texte qui se prolongeait sur le
mur sud de la cour du Moyen Empire, selon une composi-
tion reproduite à trois reprises par Tuthmosis III ” and §59:
“Les blocs en calcaire de Sésostris Ier n’en conservent qu’une
partie de la première colonne, tandis que la copie à l’Est du
texte de la jeunesse n’a gardé en plus que quelques bribes
peu exploitables de la seconde…Toute la suite a disparu
avec le reste du temple du Moyen-Empire.”
15
Ibid., pp. 28, §38-39.
16
Barguet, Karnak, p. 156, n. 4.
17
PM II2, p. 89; Cairo Museum (JE 48851) and Gabol-
de’s numbering: n°11 (Le “Grand château d’Amon,” p. 63,
n. 92).
18
Ibid., Gabolde, pl. I.
142 françois larché
axis of the temple, from the 2nd Pylon to the Akh-
menu. The lone king always holds his walking staff
obliquely on the right of the passage, while the
staff is vertical on the left19 as it has been verified
in the following passages (Figs. 12-13):
– the reveals of the doorways of the 2nd (Fig. 12.4)
and 5th Pylons (Fig. 12.3),20
– the opposite faces of the two axial pillars of the
bark chapel’s vestibule, (Fig. 13.6),21
– the opposite faces of the four axial pillars of the
Akh-menu,22
– the outer doorframe of the north door of Tuth-
mosis IV’s calcite chapel,23
– the west doorframe of the inner door of the
Chapelle Rouge,24
– the west doorframe of the east door of the south-
ern WAyt-hall, (Fig. 12.1)
– the doorframe, turned towards the axis, of the
two doors opened in the walls linking the so-
called “granite arch” to the 6th Pylon.25
One can also observe this layout on the third ter-
race of Deir al-Bahari, on the doorframe of the
sanctuary’s door as well as on the door of the
Hathor shrine.
With passages located on the north-south axis
as well as on the east-west one, it is not possible
to identify the position of the staff (vertical or
oblique) with a geographical direction (north or
south). In fact, this position (vertical on the left
of the passage and oblique on the right) seems
linked to the gesture that the king is making with
his right hand while the left one holds the staff
and a mace.
According to Gabolde’s hypothesis, no door
opened in the back wall of the portico, next to its
angle with the right anta. Such a door would have
justified the position of the Osirian pillar n°11
facing the south anta if the anta’s inner face was
also decorated with a lone walking king, facing
a matching scene on the pillar. As this is clearly
not the case, because the anta is decorated with
a completely different scene, this pillar should
19
Cl. Traunecker, Fr. Le Saout, O. Masson, La chapelle
d’Achôris à Karnak II (Paris: Éditions ADPF, 1981), p. 53:
in his observations concerning the consecration of meat
offerings, Cl. Traunecker remarks that the obliquity of the
staff results from the ritual liturgy which requires the king
to speak with one hand extended outwards.
20
Barguet, Karnak, pp. 54 and 110.
21
Ibid., p. 131.
22
J. –Fr. Pécoil, L’Akh-menou de Thoutmosis III à Karnak
(Paris: ERC, 2000), pls. 45, 47, 49. Near the solar cham-
ber, the fifth pillar is decorated with a lone walking king.
B. Letellier showed me that this lone king was recarved
above an earlier scene where Tuthmosis III faced a deity,
as on the other faces of this pillar.
therefore be moved to its true place alongside the
only passageway of Senwosret I’s portico, that is to
say to the left of the axial passage. This new posi-
tion of the Osirian pillar n°11 orients the colos-
sus’ white crown to the left side of the passage,
and prevents the placement of the left half of the
portico to the north of the axis. The white crown
indicates clearly that the position of this Osirian
pillar is to the south of the passage, and excludes
a westward facing orientation for the portico. At
El-Lisht, six Osirian pillars in limestone leaned
against the walls of a large courtyard in front
of Senwosret I’s pyramid. Their position north
and south of the courtyard was indicated by the
red or white crown, and it is very likely that at
Karnak red crowns, of which no vestige remains,
topped the Osirian colossi abutted against the
pillars placed north of the portico’s axis.
The new placement of the Osirian pillar n°15
(Fig. 7)
A fragment of the face of a pillar is decorated
with the lower part of the oblique staff of a lone
walking king. His direction allows its hypotheti-
cal attribution to the left side of the fragmentary
Osirian pillar (MBAIL 17, n°15, pls. XXIV-XXXV)
and its placement to the right of the axial pas-
sage,26 facing the Osirian pillar n°11. The lone
king holds his staff vertically on the Osirian pillar
n°11, while the staff is oblique on fragment n° 15
facing it. The face-to-face orientation of these two
pillars on both sides of the axis thus seems well
confirmed by the position of the staff in the hand
of the lone king.
Eastward orientation like the contra temple of
Tuthmosis III
On the antas of the portico, the king always seems
to wear the double-crown, to the north as well
as to the south (Gabolde, Le “Grand château
d’Amon,” pls. V, VI, XIII, XIV). This crown is
23
N. Grimal, F. Larché, “Karnak 1994-1997,” Karnak
11 (Paris: ERC, 2003), p. 59, pl. VIIb.
24
P. Lacau, H. Chevrier, Une chapelle d’Hatshepsout
à Karnak (Cairo: IFAO, 1977), p. 395, §708; F. Burgos,
F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge d’Hatshepsout, vol. 2 (Paris:
ERC, 2008), pp. 272-273.
25
E. Arnaudiès-Montelimard, “L’arche en granit de
Thoutmosis II et l’avant porte du VIe pylône,” Karnak 12
(Paris: ERC, 2008), pp. 148-149.
26
The existence of a double portico, (explained further
below), allows a second placement for fragment n°15 in the
median pillar under the portico to the right of the axis.
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
still visible on the outer face of the right anta and
on the facade of the left anta (Figs. 2, 15).
At Karnak, the position of the crowns of kings
not facing west allows Senwosret I’s portico to
face either eastwards or northwards but certainly
not southwards. Osirian pillars facing east are not
rare at Karnak, especially to the east of the teme-
nos, where they can be observed in the temple
of “Amun who hears prayers” as well as in Tuth-
mosis III’s contra temple which abuts the east wall
of the Akh-menu. The contra temple originally
consisted of a portico of six free standing Osirian
pillars without the low walls that linked them later
(Figs. 10-11).27 The three decorated faces of each
pillar display scenes similar to the ones carved on
Senwosret I’s Osirian pillars. Unfortunately, the
Roman restorations made to the reveals of the
axial passage, that is to say the face-to-face sides
of the two Osirian pillars framing it, prevent us
from seeing the original decoration which should
have been a lone walking king. On the other hand,
the king’s direction on the back face of each of
the pillars located south of the axis corresponds
exactly with the king’s direction on the back face
of pillar n°11 that has been replaced to the left of
the axis. The direction of the walking king pro-
ceeds towards the back of the portico, following
the perimeter of the pillars until it returns to the
axis of the portico (Fig. 11).28
The similarity of the decoration of Senwos-
ret I’s Osirian pillars to those of Tuthmosis III’s
contra temple incitates that Senwosret’s pillars
also faced east.
Placement of the portico
It is still impossible to determine if the original
building site of Senwosret I’s portico was close
to the findspot of Osirian pillar n°11, which was
found below the 5th Pylon’s south courtyard with
sandstone drums and architraves of the same king
(Figs. 20-23). Their reuse by Tuthmosis I indicates
that Senwosret I’s temple no longer existed during
his reign. It should be noted that all the other
limestone fragments of Senwosret I’s portico were
discovered further west. At present, the evidence
27
A. Varille, “Description sommaire du sanctuaire ori-
ental d’Amon-Rê à Karnak,” ASAE 50 (1950), pp. 137-172,
pl. XLI.
Barguet, p. 221: “Les six piliers osiriaques renouvelés par
Séti Ier, ont été usurpés par Ramsès II. La porte d’entrée a
été ornée d’un texte par Domitien, où l’on peut reconnaître
une sorte d’hymne au soleil levant.”
28
In Sety I’s temple at Abydos, the portico facade is
143
does not permit a connection between the lime-
stone portico and the sandstone colonnade.
1.5. The Existence of a Double Portico
The two preserved headers of the upper part of
the portico’s right anta are joined and are perpen-
dicular to the facade’s corner architrave.29 These
three blocks supported the roof of the portico’s
corner. On both inner faces of the joined headers,
the horizontal frame which supports the Kheker-
frieze, turns at a right angle to go down along the
two vertical edges (Figs. 8-9).
To the right, the frame runs vertically along
the inner face of the facade’s architrave before
turning at 90° to border horizontally the soffit
of the same architrave.
To the left, the frame runs vertically along
another face,30 like the same type of border seen
in the porticos of Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir al-
Bahari. In this temple, the double range of archi-
traves of the portico which forms the vestibule of
the Anubis chapel is directly embedded into the
side wall without the support of abutted pilasters
(Fig. 9). The embedding of the middle architrave
into the wall is framed, along its soffit and both
vertical faces, by the frame which supports the
Kheker-frieze. A similar layout probably existed
in Senwosret I’s portico where the vertical frame
carved to the left of the two joined headers lets
us suppose the existence of a second range of
architraves supported by pillars rather than by a
back wall as has been reconstructed at this loca-
tion in Gabolde’s hypothesis.
Moreover, the embedding of an intermediary
architrave at this location is confirmed at the
top face of the side wall by the layout of the left
header.31 The left cross joint of this header is cut
to the shape of a right angle and its top face is
hollowed out with a mortice in order to receive
a bonding clamp with a perpendicular block
(Fig. 9). If such a deep excision of the cross joint
is unusual for the simple need to bond the course
of a perpendicular wall, it can be perfectly justified
different since it consists of only one row of pillars without
attached Osirian colossi. On the inner face of each pillar,
the king walks towards the axis of the temple.
29
Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” pl. IX.
30
L. Gabolde sees this as proof of the portico’s depth
(3.03 m), and therefore, the position of its back wall.
31
Ibid., block n°5, pls. X and XL; CFEETK neg.
43091-5.
144 françois larché
to embed an architrave perpendicular to the anta
(Figs. 8-9).
Parallel to the facade, this second range of
architraves could be supported by simple square
pillars that Gabolde’s hypothesis reconstructed
inside a courtyard placed behind Senwosret I’s
portico (Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,”
pls. XXXVIII-XXXIII). Each square pillar (height:
8 cubits) would then stand behind each Osirian
pillar (height: 9 cubits) of the facade (Figs. 5-6,
14-17).32 Each Osirian pillar is one cubit higher
than the square one, but this difference is easily
explained because the Osirian colossi abutting
the pillars of the fadade stand on socles (height:
1.5 cubits). On the other hand, the blank dado
across the four faces of each square pillar, from its
base to the start of the decoration, is about 90 cm
high while it reaches 140 cm on the Osirian pil-
lars. This 50 cm difference (1 cubit) corresponds
to the height of the podium on which the portico
(and the square pillars) was built. Since the socle
(height: 1.5 cubits) supporting each Osirian colos-
sus is higher than the podium (height: 1 cubit),
the feet of the colossi were placed only half a cubit
above the podium. A staircase of four steps equal
to the podium’s height was necessary to reach
the double portico’s floor. It is not impossible
that the whole complex stood on another higher
podium like Montouhotep II’s funerary temple
at Deir el-Bahari.
In adding the architrave (height: 2 cubits) and
the cornice (height: 1 cubit) to the Osirian pillar
32
M. Boccon-Gibod, “Le grand temple d’Amon-Rê
à Karnak reconstruit par l’ordinateur,” Les dossiers de
l’archéologie 153 (October 1990), p. 12: two ranges of pil-
lars are proposed here as a hypothesis.
33
Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” p. 78, §115: “Un
des piliers de Sésostris Ier présente, par ailleurs, une double
retouche particulièrement révélatrice: dans un premier temps,
l’espace compris entre ce pilier et son voisin fut comblé par
une maçonnerie, puis une scène, de module plus réduit
que l’original et placée beaucoup plus haut, fut regravée
tant sur le pilier que sur le mur de comblement qui avait
été élevé tout contre. Comme cette maçonnerie, que l’on
est bien obligé de restituer pour compléter la scène, était
fatalement venue masquer la face adjacente, bien décorée,
elle, dans le style de Sésostris Ier, on est amené à conclure
que le comblement de l’entrecolonnement et la gravure
de la nouvelle scène sont selon toute vraisemblance pos-
térieurs à son règne. Quoi qu’il en soit ce décor de petit
module fut à son tour arasé, de manière assez sommaire,
à coups de ciseaux grossiers. Après un lissage au plâtre,
une nouvelle représentation de roi, cette fois-ci de grand
module—ce dernier est identique à celui adopté pour les
figure humaines sur les autres faces—lui fut substituée.
(height: 9 cubits), the height of the facade reached
12 cubits (Figs. 14-17).
1.6. The Date and the Reason for the
Dismantling of Senwosret I’s Portico
Although the Osirian pillar n°11 was most prob-
ably reused by Tuthmosis I to fill in the 5th Pylon’s
south courtyard, L. Gabolde attributes to Hat-
shepsut the dismantling of the portico’s pillars,
at the time of the construction of her podium
which supported the Chapelle Rouge, between
the Queen’s north and south suites. Among his
arguments, one33 relies on the re-carving of a
king’s figure on one face of the square pillar n° 20
(Fig. 6). He recognizes Tuthmosis II’s profile,
although the shape of the nose, which is straight
and short, does not seem to be a convincing
enough criteria to attribute the relief to this king,
whose portrayals are rare.34
It may well be the case that this modification of
pillar n° 20 was made prior to or at the very begin-
ning of the 18th Dynasty. Since the lack of a royal
beard is very common in reliefs on Amenhotep I’s
limestone blocks,35 it is tempting to attribute the
profile to him, since he could have easily reused
some of Senwosret I’s pillars in his new sanctuary.
In fact, at least ten blocks of Amenhotep I are in
hard limestone, of which three show palimpsest
traces of older relief decoration. Two limestone
patches were, moreover, inserted into one face of
pillar n°20, witness to the incautious handling of
the monolith.
Comme cette nouvelle intervention remettait plus ou moins
cette face en conformité avec les autres et reprenait une
composition du pilier, il faut supposer que cette phase
correspondit à la réouverture de l’entrecolonnement. Les
caractéristiques du nouveau relief, très plat—très différent,
en cela, des canons artistiques d’Amenhotep Ier—et des
particularités des traits du visage, avec, notamment, un
nez court et droit—permettent d’attribuer avec beaucoup
de vraisemblance la retouche à Tuthmosis II: le monument
était donc encore debout pendant son règne.”
34
The recent discovery, at the base of Hatshepsut’s north
obelisk, of a niche with two statues of Neferhotep, a king of
the XIIIth dynasty, has shown a certain flexibility to stylistic
characteristics. Indeed, before Neferhotep’s cartouche was
exposed, the iconography of the kilt and (except for the
ears) the style of the face, seemed to indicate that the niche
dated from the beginning of the 18th dynasty. For Tuth-
mosis II’s reliefs, see K. Myśliwiec, Le portrait royal dans
le bas–relief du Nouvel Empire (Warsaw, 1976), pp. 42-45
and Figs. 39-41, 45-46.
35
Amenhotep I never wears a beard on his calcite bark
shrine now restored in the Karnak open air museum.
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
The state36 of preservation of the portico’s
blocks indicates a the rising water table was prob-
ably one of the reasons for dismantling the Middle
Kingdom monuments,37 of which the lower part
of the walls were very damaged and weakened.
This idea seems justified, although another cause
could just as well explain the destruction of the
lower part of the White Chapel. Indeed, one would
expect a socle, slightly larger than the base of the
main structure, under the first preserved course of
the chapel’s limestone blocks, but this is missing.
It is possible to reconstruct a foundation system
similar to that of Hatshepsut’s Chapelle Rouge,
which was standing on her podium. Here too,
one could have had two superimposed podiums,
the upper one being the only one preserved. Two
large blocks forming the sides of another small
chapel of Senwosret I that were retrieved from
the 9th Pylon give confirmation that the Middle
Kingdom edifices had been flooded: a graffito
from the beginning of the 18th Dynasty mentions
that “in year 5, 2nd month of Akhet, day 12, the
level of the Nile inundation” had been observed
by “the chancelor of the king of Lower Egypt, the
36
Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” p. 137-138,
§214: “La base des quatre faces du pilier à colosse osiriaque,
tout comme la partie inférieure du pilier carré du Musée du
Caire sont profondément rongées. Par ailleurs, dans la ‘Cour
de la Cachette,’ le moignon de pilier dressé verticalement
est encore largement attaqué à la base. Les deux premiers
de ces monolithes retrouvés couchés horizontalement sous
le sol du temple, n’ont pas pu subir les dommages qu’ils
présentent pendant la période où ils sont demeurés enfouis,
car toute la surface aurait alors été atteinte. Au contraire, le
remblai qui les recouvrait constituait un milieu suffisamment
sain pour que leurs couleurs aient résisté jusqu’à leur mise
au jour par G. Legrain (BIE 4/3, 1902, p. 162). Il est donc
clair que les dégradations sont antérieures à l’enterrement
des blocs et donc antérieures au règne de Tuthmosis III. On
relève encore qu’à peu près aucun des blocs de la base des
parois n’a subsisté, comme si cette partie des murs avait
particulièrement souffert. Seul le relief avec la ‘montée royale’
appartient à une première assise. Il présente justement, à sa
partie inférieure, des zones de desquamation et des taches
dues aux migrations salines, qui sont accompagnées d’un
écaillage de la pierre (n. 120: Cette dégradation apparaît
sur tous les clichés anciens …On remarquera encore que
les parties basses de la chapelle blanche de Sésostris Ier
ont presque entièrement disparu. A l’inverse, les parties
supérieures des parois et les architraves sont en relativement
bon état et ne montrent en tout cas aucune des desquama-
tions observées sur les parties basses de l’édifice…§216:
Que l’eau soit responsable des dégâts est évident à l’examen
des vestiges…Un texte de Sobekhotep VIII rapporte ainsi
que le flot avait atteint sous son règne la cour même du
temple d’Amon: ‘Sa Majesté se rendit dans la cour de ce
temple pour regarder le grand Nil venu pour sa Majesté.
La cour de ce temple étant remplie d’eau, sa Majesté se mit
à patauger en compagnie de ses courtisans’ (L. Habachi,
“A High Inundation in the Temple of Amenre at Karnak in
145
general-in-chief Ah[mès],” and that it had reached
the base of the chapel’s walls.38
1.7. Blocks of Senwosret I’s That Do Not Come
from the Portico’s Facade
A number of other blocks naming Senwosret I’s
that were found at Karnak have no direct con-
nection with the portico’s facade.39
Two limestone chapels
– The White Chapel was almost entirely reused
in the 3rd Pylon’s foundations, except for the pil-
lars which were discovered under the Hypostyle
Hall.40
– A bark shrine was found reused inside the
9th Pylon’s fill.41
Two large limestone gates probably embedded
in a stone wall
– Lintel: 7 fragments of a limestone lintel42 have
been reassembled in the Open Air Museum near
Amenhotep I’s calcite shrine. They form the upper
half of a doorway lintel, decorated with a scene
depicting Senwosret I enthroned above the Sema-
the Thirteenth Dynasty, ” SAK 1 [1974], p. 209 et W. Helck,
KÄT, pp. 47-47, n° 63).”
37
In an unpublished study, Cl. Traunecker remarks
that a similar situation happened at Coptos, as the work of
Sennucheri shows: see I. Guermeur, “Glanures,” “La statue
d’Esnou(n),” BIFAO 103 (2003), p. 286, line x+18). The pas-
sage in question relates to problems with the water table. The
evidence indicates that during the 17th Dynasty and at the
beginning of the 18th, it was essential that action be taken
to deal with the problem of damage to the temple caused
by high annual innundations and the water table.
38
Cl. Traunecker, “Rapport préliminaire sur la chapelle
de Sésostris Ier découverte dans le IXe pylône,” Karnak 7
(Paris: ERC, 1982) , pp. 121-123.
39
Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” pp. 119-120,
§ 189.
40
H. Chevrier, “Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak,”
ASAE 28 (1928), p. 123: “Ce fut ensuite un pilier de Sésostris
Ier, en calcaire, découvert [dans la salle hypostyle] à côté du
grand linteau de l’an passé…Sous le mur Est, au droit d’une
niche de mât, on a découvert un autre pilier qui se trouve
être le voisin de celui découvert dans le IIIe pylône sous
l’autre mur de parement. ” It is possible that the blocks of
the White Chapel discovered in the foundation of the 3rd
Pylon were buried here before the construction of the Pylon.
It is also possible that these elements were already reused
inside the fill of Tuthmosis II’s vanished Pylon and that
they were reused a second time in the 3rd Pylon. In both
hypotheses, the White Chapel would have been dismantled
at the beginning of the New Kingdom as Senwosret I’s other
monuments were.
41
Traunecker, Karnak 7 (Paris: ERC, 1982), pp. 121-
126.
42
Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” p. 120, n. 41; PM
II2, p.135; H. Chevrier, ASAE 53 (1956), p. 41; G. Björkman,
Kings at Karnak (Uppsala: BOREAS, 1971), p. 128, 3.
146 françois larché
tawy between Horus and Seth. When the lintel
was dismantled, it was cut up into blocks which
were then turned 180° and then reused inside a
lintel of Amenhotep I built into a battered stone
wall, as the well planed side joints seem to indi-
cate. At the level of the lintel, the doorframe’s
length was 3.10 m (6 cubits) under Senwosret
I, but was 3.46 m under Amenhotep I. This allows
us to reconstruct the width of the vertical door-
frame as 1.5 cubits, and of the doorway as 3 cubits
under Senwosret I and Amenhotep I, while the
height of the doorway can be estimated as being
7 to 9 cubits. The decoration of both lintels (Sen-
wosret I and Amenhotep I) represents the king
wearing the red crown on the left. In the hypoth-
esis where both doorframes would be exterior
ones and not interior ones, this king would be
to the north, implying that the door itself faced
south or west. Although one does not know if this
lintel was really found inside the 3rd Pylon, two
reconstructions can be proposed: either this lintel
belonged to the doorway of the structure that the
6th Pylon replaced, or it belonged to a doorway
on the southern axis. The blocks from Amenhotep
I’s doorjambs and counter-lintel have now been
identified (Fig. 40: the 2 lines N+S of 16 niches).43
– Counter-lintel (length: 364 cm; height: 136
cm; passage: 187.6 cm): carved in sunk relief, this
counter-lintel was found in the foundations44 of
the south courtyard between the 4th and the 5th
Pylon, and not in the Cachette courtyard. Rebuilt
in the Open Air Museum, behind the White
Chapel, this counter-lintel was built into a bat-
tered stone wall, as its perfectly planed side joints
indicate. At the level of the counter-lintel, the
doorframe’s length (7 cubits) implies a doorway
width from 3 to 4 cubits. The stars decorating the
soffit of the counter-lintel indicate that this block
belongs to the inner face of the door, since this
type of starry decoration is only found above the
inner doorway but never above the outer one. To
43
F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, pgs.
326-7.
44
PM II2, p. 135; A. Fakhry, “A report on the Inspectorate
of Upper Egypt,” ASAE 46 (1947), p. 30: the lintel of Sen-
wosret I found broken into three fragments by Abou el-Naga
Abdallah in 1946 beneath the southern courtyard between
the 4th and 5th Pylons seems to correspond perfectly to this
lintel of Senwosret I. See Fr. Le Saout, A. el-H. Ma’arouf,
Th. Zimmer, “Le Moyen-Empire à Karnak: Varia 1,” Karnak
8 (Paris: ERC, 1987), pp. 302-305, pl. VI.
45
On the north-south axis, the red crown is usually
placed to the left of the door, that is to say to the west,
when moving northwards and to the east when moving
southwards.
the right, the king, wearing the red crown,45 stands
before Amun who gives him life, which permits us
to orientate its decorated face either eastward or
northward. This doorway could be placed on the
east-west axis, with the counter-lintel facing east,
or on the north-south axis, with the counter-lintel
facing south. Could it have been the inner face
of the main gate to Amun’s temple, the ancestor
of the 5th Pylon?
Small limestone doorways probably built into
mud brick walls
– Small lintel:46 This fragment of a limestone
lintel was discovered in the Cachette courtyard
and is exhibited in the Open Air Museum.
– Small lintel:47 This fragment of a limestone
lintel of unknown provenance is lost today. Th.
Zimmer remarks that H. Chevrier48 had entioned
a fragment of a Senwosret I lintel which could be
one of those he found not far from the structure
with six columns standing north of the courtyard
between the 3rd and 4th Pylons.
– Small lintel:49 A limestone fragment carved
with a nomen cartouche of Senwosret is epigraph-
ically identical to Senwosret I’s other doorways.
Because no monument of any other Senwosret is
known at Karnak, it is likely that this lintel belongs
to Senwosret I. This fragment is perhaps also one
of those found by H. Chevrier not far from the
structure with six columns standing north of the
courtyard between the 3rd and 4th Pylons.
– Doorjambs:50 Some fragments (87CL 340,
95CL 331) belong to two doorways built into a
mud brick wall. This could be the wall discovered
below the northern part of the sandstone founda-
tions surrounding the limestone radier.
– Doorjamb: A fragment of doorjamb naming
Senwosret, in hard limestone, was reused in the
“horned altar,” east of Karnak (CFEETK neg.
42793/9).
46
Ma‘arouf, Zimmer, Karnak 9 (Paris, ERC, 1993),
pp. 223-225, 234, Fig. 1: archives Lacau n° A IX-a4 and
a4d.
47
Ibid., pp. 225-226, 234, Fig. 2a.
48
H. Chevrier, “Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak
(1937-1938),” ASAE 38 (1938), p. 598.
49 Ma‘arouf, Zimmer, Karnak 9 (Paris, ERC, 1993),
p. 226, Fig. 2b.
50
Le Saout, Ma‘arouf, Zimmer, Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC,
1987), pp. 297-302; for their dimensions see E. N. Hirsch,
“Bemerkungen zu Toren in den Tempeln des Alten und Mitt-
leren Reiches,” in Wege öffnen. Festschrift für Rolf Gundlach
zum 65. Geburtstag Festschrift, ÄAT 35, ed. Mechthild Schade-
Busch (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996), pp. 88-97.
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
Elements of a wall
– Doorjamb in hard limestone: Two opposite
faces are decorated, one with three superimposed
scenes representing Senwosret I making offerings
to Amun and the other with a cartouche which
is part of a larger text. These faces were cut up
during the transformation of the block into a stela
by Kamose. The depth of the block (1.12 m) is
too great and its decoration is inappropriate for
a pillar.51 Instead, it must be from a doorjamb
which could come from an edifice modified or
dismantled by Kamose or one of his predecessors.
This doorjamb could have come from the axial
doorway of Senwosret I’s portico. Reused in the
foundation of the north colossus attributed to
Ramesses II, in front of the 2nd Pylon’s gate, the
stela is today exhibited in the Luxor Museum52
(J 43, CFEETK negs. 53139-53143).
– Large block53 with a niche in hard limestone:
This block carved in raised relief was discovered
in the Cachette courtyard and is exhibited in the
Open Air Museum. It has been reconstructed on
the south axis, either in a wall, by Th. Zimmer, or
in a doorway, by Ch. Van Siclen, while L. Gabolde
places it on the east-west axis inside the “Grand
Château d’Amon.” It seems to me that this block
could come from the back wall of Senwosret I’s
portico or from the rear facade (the one facing
west) of the monument of which the portico
served as entrance. The carving in raised relief
indicates a roofed space, perhaps one behind this
rear facade that one could reconstruct as the sand-
stone colonnade whose elements were reused on
either side of the 5th Pylon.
– Block in soft limestone:54 Decorated in raised
relief, this block (87CL 315) shows the remains
of two large superimposed registers (Fig. 7). On
the lower one, there remains only the king’s red
crown without uraeus and topped with the ves-
tiges of spreading wings of the Behdetite falcon,
51
Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” § 13.
52
PM II2, p. 37; M. Hammad, “Découverte d’une stèle
du roi Kamosé ,” CdÉ 30 (1955), pp. 198-208; L. Habachi,
“Preliminary report on Kamose Stela and other Inscribed
Blocks found reused in the Foundations of two Statues at
Karnak,” ASAE 53 (1956), pp. 195-202, pl. I; idem, The Second
Stela of Kamose and the struggle against the Hyksos Ruler
and His Capital, ADAIK 8 (Glückstadt: Verlag J. J. Augustin,
1972), pp. 28-29 and 51; Björkman, Kings at Karnak, p. 56
and 128; B. V. Bothmer, Catalogue du Musée d’art égyptien
ancien de Louxor (Cairo: IFAO, 1985), p. 21, Fig. 32 and 33;
Chr. Wallet-Lebrun, “Contribution à l’étude de l’histoire de
la construction à Karnak,” in L’égyptologie et les Champollion,
eds. in M. Dewachter & A. Fouchard (Grenoble: Presses
Universitaires de Grenoble, 1994), p. 230, n. 20.
147
and with Senwosret I’s cartouche being perfectly
legible. Decorated with a row of stars, the skyline
of this scene is placed under the groundline of the
upper register, of which only one foot of a running
king is preserved. Contrary to all Senwosret I’s
other blocks, this one is in soft limestone which
could be an argument against its belonging to the
“Grand Château d’Amon.” Moreover, although
the quality of the details is very close to Senwos-
ret I’s style, the carving is flatter and the raptor’s
feathers are less detailed that on Senwosret I’s
monuments. The lack of a uraeus on the crown
is very rare in reliefs of Senwosret I’s, while the
three figures of Amenhotep I preserved on the
lintel of the monumental south gate have none on
their crowns. One potential hypothesis would be
to link this block with those of Amenhotep I, this
one having posthumously represented Senwosret
I whose temple Amenhotep had just destroyed,
even while copying his decorative style. How-
ever, architectural elements55 in soft limestone
have already been attributed to the Middle King-
dom, therefore one cannot exclude block 87CL
315 from Senwosret I’s temple so easily. The direc-
tion of the red crown prevents its placement under
the facade’s portico, so a second hypothesis would
reconstruct this block either in the chapels behind
the portico, or in the rear facade (facing west) of
the monument to which the portico served as
entrance. In this last hypothetical position, this
block should be located in the north half of this
rear facade like the previous large block with a
niche.
– Fragment in soft limestone: This fragment (87
CL 490) shows part of Senwosret I’s cartouche
carved in sunk relief. As with the previous block,
the nature of the limestone throws some doubt on
a Middle Kingdom attribution, although architec-
tural elements in soft limestone have been already
dated to the Middle Kingdom (cf. note 55).
53
PM II2, p. 135; P. Lacau, H. Chevrier, Une chapelle
de Sésostris Ier à Karnak (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut
français d’Archéologie orientale, 1956), p. 209, § 584: this
blocks mentions a chapel which is known from the list
on the White Chapel; Ma‘arouf, Zimmer, Karnak 9 (Paris,
ERC, 1993), pp. 227-232, Fig. 3 and 4; Gabolde, Le “Grand
château d’Amon,” § 125-128.
54
This block was identified by L. Coulon, on April 4,
1994, in fiche 87CL 315 of the “Cheikh Labib” database
(CFEETK neg. 25 883, 29 026). The red crown has no uraeus.
The block is not mentionned in Gabolde, Le “Grand châ-
teau d’Amon.”
55
Fr. Le Saout, “Un magasin à onguents de Karnak
et le problème du nom de Tyr: mise au point,” Karnak 8
(Paris: ERC, 1987), p. 328.
148 françois larché
– Fragments of decoration, in the name of one
Senwosret, were discovered in the courtyard
between the 7th and 8th Pylons.
Elements of a sandstone portico56
– At least two sandstone polygonal columns with
16 faces: Column drums and their fragments were
unearthed in the so-called “Middle Kingdom”
courtyard. One face is inscribed with a column
of text in Senwosret I’s name, on which Amun’s
name was defaced. According to Th. Zimmer, the
carving is characteristic of the 18th Dynasty but
this hypothesis can be challenged by a similar style
of carving on Senwosret I’s sandstone architraves
found reused on both side of the 5th Pylon.
– Sandstone architraves: Two fragments carved
on both faces in sunk relief were found by A. Mar-
iette around 1870 in the so-called “Middle King-
dom” courtyard. The first fragment mentions a
“20th regnal year” and reports a “renewal,” the
text of one of the faces having being recarved over
an older inscription. The second fragment shows
a cartouche of Senwosret I, while Amun’s name
has been hacked out and then recarved. These
architraves seem to belong to the aforementioned
polygonal columns, discovered in the same loca-
tion. According to Th. Zimmer, the dedication of
a “renewal” (that could have happened during
the reign’s 20th year) would be later than Sen-
wosret I and could date between the beginning of
the 18th Dynasty and Akhenaten. However, this
hypothesis can be challenged after the discovery
of another sandstone colonnade, in Senwosret I’s
name, on both sides of the 5th Pylon.57
1.8. The Furniture in Senwosret I’s Name
Naos in diorite (Fig. 18: height 175 cm; width
77 cm; depth 93 cm)
This naos58 was discovered in the later fill which
covered the courtyard between the 7th and 8th
Pylons, just like the block from the left anta of
56
PM II2, p. 108; A. Mariette, Karnak: étude topographique
et archéologique (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1875), pp. 32-33 and
41, pl 8 (a-b-c); LDT, pp. 28-29; H. Chevrier, “Rapport
sur les travaux de Karnak (1947-1948), ” ASAE 46 (1947),
p. 176; Barguet, Karnak, 1962, p. 154, n. 3; J.-M. Kruchten,
Les annales des prêtres de Karnak (XXI-XXIIIe dynasties) et
autres textes contemporains relatifs à l’initiation des prêtres
d’Amon, OLA 32 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989), p. 8: Th. Zimmer
dates these columns and architraves to the reign of Tuth-
mosis III.
57
Larché, Karnak 12 (2007), pp. 421-422, pls. XVI-
XIX.
Senwosret I’s portico. It is crowned with a cor-
nice and its facade is framed by a torus mould-
ing resting on a dado (height: 5 cm). The back
face of the naos was neither decorated nor even
polished, so it must have stood against a wall.
Each side face is decorated with two superim-
posed registers made up of two scenes represent-
ing Senwosret I making offerings to Amun. The
king wears the white crown on the left side and
the red one on the right. The location of the royal
crowns shows that the naos faced to the east or the
north. The god’s figures and names were defaced
under Akhenaten and then later recarved. It is
still unknown if the statue that sheltered inside
the naos represented Senwosret I or Amun. The
naos’ inner volume (height: 129 cm; width: 54
cm; depth: 68 cm) limits the scale of the statue
to 2/3 of human size, similar to the Ka-statue of
king Hor standing inside a wooden naos in the
Egyptian Museum in Cairo.59
Socle with steps in calcite (Fig. 19)
Early photographs shows that fragments of a cal-
cite socle were found, very deeply buried, east of
the granite threshold n°4 in the so-called “Middle
Kingdom” courtyard. This socle has often been
identified as the base of a wooden naos. However
this function does not fit with the design fea-
tures of its upper surface, since the rectangular
grooves carved around its perimeter have a slope
(around 5 cm/m) indicating that they are chan-
nels for the flow of liquids rather than slots to
secure the wooden panels of a naos to the socle.
The liquid would have then been directed toward
steeply sloping, narrow channels cut on both sides
of the steps at the front of the socle. The right
channel can be reconstructed through the much
damaged side elevation of the stairway. On the
other hand, no doorhinge sockets are found on
the socle, making it impossible to have functional
doorleaves on any wooden naos placed on the
socle. Nevertheless, such sockets are clearly vis-
ible on the large quartzite socle which supported
58
M. Pillet, ASAE 23 (1923), pp. 143-158: “Cette pièce
capitale a été trouvée à Karnak, à quelques pas au sud de
l’obélisque occidental du VIIe pylône, le 29 janvier 1922.
Elle était enterrée au milieu d’une petite pièce faisant partie
des habitations élevées dans cette cour à une basse époque
et devait servir de bassin, le rebord de sa face faisant une
saillie de quelques centimètres seulement au-dessus du sol
de cette époque.”
59
Cairo CG 259, JE 30948. The statue is 170 cm high,
27 cm wide, 77 cm deep; its naos is 207 cm high, 70 cm
wide, 105 cm deep.
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
the naos from the Akh-menu, and likewise on the
small diorite socle discovered north of the granite
threshold n°3. These sockets permitted installa-
tion of a wooden naos (Fig. 19e).
This impressive calcite socle looks more like a
stepped altar60 similar to the one that once stood
in the Akh-menu’s axial sanctuary.61 The socle’s
facade is carved with a text in Senwosret I’s name,
which was defaced under Akhenaten and then
restored later. Its back face is vertically levelled
but roughly polished, in order to lean it against
a wall. The stairway is not centered on the socle
since three columns of text are carved on its left
front and only one on its right. This asymmetry
is also noteworthy on its top face, where the two
parallel grooves are not equidistant from the outer
sides. It probably lacks a very thin calcite block
that must have abutted the south side in order
to restore its symmetry.
Altar with a cornice in hard limestone62
Three large fragments and several smaller ones
have been pieced together, in front of the “Cheikh
Labib” storeroom, to form 3/4 of this altar’s top
course (3 x 4 cubits). The support for a ramp or a
stairway (width: 2 cubits) is visible in the middle
of one face, while on the opposite one, a recess
has been carved to fit a patchstone. A shallow
rectangular depression (width: 152 cm; depth:
95 cm; height: 7 cm) is cut into the altar’s upper
surface. It has probably been used to support a
heavy offering table as seems to be indicated by
lever cavities dug on one edge of the depression.
It is framed with a badly damaged vertical pro-
jection (width: 15 cm), placed 13 cm behind the
level of the fillet topping the cavetto cornice. This
projection could be the start of cross-steps, like
60
Ch. Van Siclen suggests that a naos with its own floor
could have been placed on this socle. This arrangement would
not require door hinge sockets to be carved into the socle.
This, I propose, is also the case with Senwosret I’s naos.
61
N. Beaux, Le cabinet de curiosités de Tuthmosis
III. Plantas et animaux du “Jardin Botanique” de Karnak,
OLA 36 (Louvain: Peeters, 1990), p. 10.
62
2001 report of the franco-egyptien committee, p. 20: the
study of L. Gabolde concerns blocks 87CL 338+344+398+429,
92CL 344+645, 94CL 1108. He reckons that the inscription
is in Senwosret I’s name. According to M. Azim, some
blocks would have come from beneath the courtyard of the
8th Pylon and others from the so-called “Middle Kingdom”
courtyard.
63
Burgos, Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2 (Paris: ERC,
2008), p. 202b.
64
Larché, Karnak 12 (2007), pl. XC.
65
The known temples of the Middle Kingdom have small
dimensions. See E. Bresciani, “Le temple double de Sobek
sur la colline de Medinet Madi,” Dossier de l’archéologie 265
149
those seen on the “horned altar,” on the represen-
tations of Tuthmosis III’s “Great Offering,”63 or on
two blocks of Amenhotep I.64 In the inscription
carved in sunk relief on the cornice’s fillet, the
name of Amun remains intact and pristine, indi-
cating that the altar was not visible under Akhen-
aten. One should be certain that these fragments
really came from the so-called “Middle Kingdom”
courtyard before advancing the hypothesis that,
since Amun’s name was not defaced, the altar was
perhaps reused inside the limestone radier.
1.9. Conclusions (Figs. 14-17)
From the “Grand Château d’Amon,” there remains
only the sparse vestiges of a double portico with
pillars lining up in front of a wall.65 Like Tuth-
mosis III’s contra temple, this portico could have
faced east, allowing us to think that Tuthmosis
III may have copied Senwosret I’s portico but on
a smaller scale.66 The reconstruction of the text
carved on Senwosret I’s missing architraves allows
a range of at least eight Osirian pillars in antis,
standing in front of an equal number of square
pillars built under the portico. Behind this facade,
its is still impossible to determine if Senwosret I’s
naos, facing eastward, was simply leaning against
the portico’s back wall or if it was displayed in a
room en suite whose door opened through the axis
of the back wall. M. Pillet thought that the calcite
socle with steps could have been used to support
the diorite naos,67 a hypothesis that is compatible
with the observations made on its top face. If the
naos sheltered Senwosret I’ s statue, the portico
would be the facade of a contra temple, but if it
was an Amun statue, the temple’s main entrance
did not face west, but must have faced east.
(2001), pp.132-140; R. Naumann, “Der Tempel des Mittleren
Reiches in Medīnet Mādi, ” MDAIK 8 (1939), pp. 185-189;
D. Arnold, The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egyptian Architecture
(Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 2003), figure
p. 156 (short note on the temple p. 145); M. Bietak, “Kleine
ägyptische Tempel und Wohnhäuser des späten Mittleren
Reiches. Zur Genese eines beliebten Raumkonzeptes von
Tempeln des Neuen Reiches,” Hommages à Jean Leclant
vol.1, Bibliotheque d’Étude 106/1 (Cairo, IFAO, 1994),
pp. 413-435.8.3.
66
Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” §21: “À Karnak
même, le temple adossé de Tuthmosis III, avec ses six piliers
à colosse osiriaque adossé en façade, s’est à l’évidence inspiré
du modèle de Sésostris Ier…”
67
M. Pillet, ASAE 23 (1923), p. 155: “le point où fut
découvert le naos ne fournit aucun renseignement sur son
emplacement primitif, mais à l’endroit que je viens d’indiquer
se trouve un bloc d’albâtre gravé au nom de Sésostris Ier et
qui, croyons-nous, put servir de socle au naos. ”
150 françois larché
2. Senwosret I’s Sandstone Colonnade
Two architraves, one fragment of a polygonal
column drum and one column base were reused
under the pavement alongside the west face of
the 5th Pylon’s north wing68 when the latter was
built (Figs. 20-21). They come from a sandstone
colonnade of Senwosret I. More column bases of
this colonnade were reused in the foundations of
most of the Osirian colossi leaning against the
east face of the 4th Pylon.69 Five other fragments
of similar architraves as well as 14 fragments of
polygonal sandstone column drums with 16
faces70 (Ø: 1.5 cubit) were reused in pairs, below
the 5th Pylon’s courtyard, as the foundation of
Tuthmosis I’s colonnade which is still partially
standing (Figs. 20-23).71
All of these sandstone elements belonged to
a colonnade that existed before the 5th Pylon’s
construction. Its partial reconstruction is pos-
sible thanks to the symmetry of the text carved
on the two corner architraves, symmetry which
allows the placement of the colonnade on an axis
of the temple.72 The sandstone was covered with
a plaster coating and the sunk relief decoration
was painted yellow. Traces of scratching on Sen-
wosret I’s drums indicate that Amun’s temple had
endured a period of negligence before the 18th
Dynasty’s reconstruction.
To date, there is no indication that Senwosret
I’s colonnade can be restored as standing near
the place of its discovery, where it could, very
hypothetically, have been built at a lower level
(+73.45 m) close to the floor linked with the two
calcite column bases buried between the 5th and
the 4th Pylon.73
The limestone Osirian pillar n°11 (Fig. 4), rep-
resenting Senwosret I wearing the white crown,
68
In november 2005, R. Le Bohec discovered, between
the foundations of the north wing of the 5th Pylon and the
foundations of the north obelisk, three sandstone elements
reused as pavement that were placed on a sand layer fill-
ing the space between the two foundations. Two elements
belonged to architraves (length: 75 cm) each decorated on
one face only. The third one is an upside down column
base. Their dimensions, decoration and the fact that they
are sandstone, link them to elements of Senwosret I’s col-
onnade reused in the foundations of Tuthmosis I’s portico
in the courtyards of the 5th Pylon.
69
They were discovered in april 2007 by R. Le Bohec.
70
Barguet, Karnak, p. 109, n. 3. Fragments of this col-
onnade were partially seen in 1985 by M. Azim during the
clearing of the south courtyard, before being discovered in
their entirety during the 2003-2004 excavations by J.- Fr.
Jet, E. Lanoë and O. de Peretti.
71
H. Chevrier, ASAE 49 (1949), p. 261: “À l’Ouest (plutôt
à l’Est) [of the side room of the 6th Pylon], nous avons
was found below the 5th Pylon’s south courtyard
by G. Legrain.74 The large pit cleaned75 (Fig. 23)
in 2004 outside the west enclosure wall of the 6th
Pylon, corresponds to the negative space where
the pillar once lay. This pit is clearly independent
from the foundation trench of the west enclosure
wall built by Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III. This
disconnection of the trench from the pit invali-
dates the hypothesis that the Osirian pillar n°11
was put here by Tuthmosis III. On the contrary,
it seems very likely that it was buried as a votive
deposit by Tuthmosis I when he reused the frag-
ments of Senwosret I’s sandstone colonnade in
the foundations of his own colonnade in the 5th
Pylon’s courtyards. Because all of these architec-
tural elements of Senwosret I were reused so close
to each other, it is tempting to think that they
come from the dismantling of the same archi-
tectural complex.
The addition of these archaelogical facts clearly
demonstrates that Senwosret I’s temple was dis-
mantled at the latest by Tuthmosis I. Further-
more, other evidence will permit us to identify
his predecessor, Amenhotep I, as the individual
most likely responsible for dismantling the Midlle
Kingdom monuments.
3. The New Kingdom Foundations in the
So-Called “Middle Kingdom” Courtyard
In the light of archaelogical excavations inside76
and archival photographs of the so-called “Middle
Kingdom” courtyard, new observations have been
established concerning this empty space bounded
by Hatshepsut’s podium to the west and the sand-
stone foundations of the rows of storerooms to
the east, north and south. A vast radier made of
nettoyé jusqu’à un niveau mettant au jour les fondations
des colonnes centrales. Sous deux de celles-ci nous avons
vu des tambours de colonnes de seize pans remployés pour
leurs fondations.”
72
O. De Peretti, E. Lanöe in La Chapelle Rouge, vol.
2, pp. 144-150: 7.3, “Les fouilles des cours du 5e pylône.”
These architraves and some fragments of the column drums
were removed to be displayed on a mastaba built between
the 3rd Pylon and the Ptah temple.
73
See n. 68.
74
G. Maspero, Guide du visiteur au Musée du Caire
(Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie
Orientale, 1915), pp. 8-9, n°11; PM II2, p. 89.
75
O. De Peretti, E. Lanöe in La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2,
pp. 144-150: 7.3. Les fouilles des cours du 5e pylône.
76
Excavations by H. Chevrier in 1946 (ASAE 47 [1947],
pp. 176-177); J. Lauffray in 1976-79; M. Azim in 1982-83;
L. Gabolde and J-Fr. Carlotti in 1998; G. Charloux and
R. Mensan from 2004 to 2007.
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
limestone courses built of small and thin blocks
is buried under the surface of the courtyard.
A smaller platform composed of sandstone, lime-
stone and granite blocks, is embedded in the
radier’s west side.
3.1. The Limestone Radier (Figs. 26, 33)
The radier’s dimensions
A vast radier (hight: ~ 3 cubits) was made up of at
least six superimposed courses (Fig. 28), built by
means of an irregular assembly of flat limestone
blocks which do not seem to come from either
the Gebelein quarries, or from Tura or Ma’asara
in northern Egypt.77 This radier is founded at a
lower level (+72.82 m to the west, +72.69 m at
its center and +72.76 m to the south of the plat-
form)78 than the green sandstone foundation of
the storerooms around its perimeter (bed face
+73.46 m and bottom of the trench +73.04 m). The
vestiges of these small and flat limestone blocks,
well organized in courses, still occupy a square
space (72 x 72 cubits) where they have often been
discovered in place among other disturbed ones
(Fig. 31).
This radier is the only limestone subfloor
known at Karnak, the foundations of this site
being nearly always made of sandstone apart
from a few scattered limestone blocks used to
fill joints. If it was logical to quarry hard lime-
stone blocks from northern Egypt in order to
build temple superstructures, it seems strange
to transport them all the way to Karnak only to
hide them inside a radier. On the contrary, the
many smoothen faces79 of these small limestone
blocks (Figs. 28-29) prove that, in fact, they were
produced by slicing up much larger blocks which
belonged to dismantled monuments. It will be
explained below why the radier was built on
the site of earlier structures that had been torn
down, without digging any foundation pit for
the radier.
77
This cream white limestone shows irregular cracks
but it seems to the naked eye quite different from the lime-
stone from the Tura or Ma‘asara quarries. Unfortunateley,
its origin could not be established since the blocks of the
radier were not examined in the study of Th. De Putter and
Chr. Karlshausen, “Provenance et caractères distinctifs des
calcaires utilisés dans l’architecture du Moyen et du Nouvel
Empire à Karnak,” Karnak 11 (Paris: ERC, 2003) pp. 373-
383.
78
This platform, which will be described further below,
is contiguous with the axis to the east side of Hatshepsut’s
podium.
151
The radier’s top face
The sounding80 made along the east face of the
southern half of Hatshepsut’s podium (Fig. 28)
revealed four superimposed courses built of
small limestone blocks, on which rests—parallel
to the podium—a line of three long red sand-
stone blocks. Two limestone courses are miss-
ing to reach the level of the top surface (+74.44
m) of these sandstone blocks. This top surface is
leveled with the granite threshold n°1, which is
now used as a step to the eastern axial door of
Hatshepsut suite, the one named “Door of the
food offerings” (Figs. 24-28). 81 Like the three red
sandstone blocks, this threshold n°1 rests on the
radier’s third course, which extends the platform’s
lower course (see below, 3.3).
The building-guidelines incised on the top face
of the west threshold n°1 (Figs. 24, 26) and also
on the red sandstone block contiguous to its south
edge, indicate that the south doorjamb of the pre-
vious axial gate rested astride both blocks. This
clue is confirmation that these three red sandstone
blocks belong to the setting course of a vanished
monument. While distinctly marking the radier’s
west edge, it is possible that this line of long red
sandstone blocks continued around the radier’s
four sides. In framing the radier’s setting course,
this line of blocks could have thus formed a kind
of chain giving greater stability to the walls built
on its superstructure. Dovetail mortices carved on
the eastern top edge of the red sandstone blocks
show that they were firmly clamped to the radier’s
upper course.
The four granite thresholds (Figs. 26, 31, 34)
The radier’s top surface can be determined by
the four granite thresholds (n°1 to 4 from west
to east) which are aligned on the east-west axis,
the westernmost one (n°1) being one step lower
(15 cm) than the other three82 (n°2, n°3, n°4).
These are the only vestiges of the floor of a van-
ished monument. Resting on the radier’s third
79
M. Azim, CFEETK Report n° 1599 on the project
made to developp the central part of the temple of Amun in
1983-1984: “Ce mur d’enceinte peut avoir entouré un temple
de pierre fondé sur un radier général de calcaire, dont les
blocs sont des remplois.” These reused blocks were observed
during the dismantling of the east side of the radier.
80
J. Lauffray’s sounding was cleared in the spring of
2004.
81
Barguet, Karnak, p. 153.
82
Thresholds n°1: +74.44; n°2: +74.57; n°3: +74.61; n°4:
+74.59: threshold n°1 is at the level of the present pavement
of the 6th Pylon courtyard. This threshold was cut in two,
152 françois larché
course, the four granite thresholds were embeded
in the three uppermost courses (Fig. 33).
Each of these four thresholds has a sliding
channel carved perpendicular to the door reveals
for the placement of the door leaves. This trans-
versal layout is characteristic of Middle Kingdom
thresholds, while in New Kingdom, this channel is
usually parallel to the door reveals. Nevertheless,
there are several exceptions to this practice, which
limit the importance of the channels’ direction
as a dating criteria for thresholds:
– At Medamud,83 there are vestiges of a granite
doorway of Senwosret III’s with its threshold
resting on a limestone course. The sliding chan-
nel is parallel to the door reveals as in the New
Kingdom.
– At north Karnak,84 channels perpendicular to
the door reveals, as in the Middle Kingdom,
are still visible in Tuthmosis I’s Treasury.
Threshold n°1, which marks the radier’s top
face (Figs. 24-27):
– is placed 11 cm above the setting course of
the green sandstone foundations around the
radier;
– is level with the setting course of the east wall
of the enclosure linked to the 5th Pylon;
– is six cm lower than the granite threshold of
Akh-menu’s southern entrance.
In the event that these four thresholds of a Middle
Kingdom type are still in their original locations,
one must admit that the Middle Kingdom floor
was 11 cm higher than the one at the beginning
of the New Kingdom85 (+74.33 m for the top face
of the foundation around the radier). In fact, the
floor of structures previous to New Kingdom
seems to have risen slightly from west to east:
across its length, along the transversal sliding groove, at
the time of the construction of Hatshepsut’s podium. See
H. Chevrier, ASAE 53, p. 16, Figs. 3-5.
83
M.F. Bisson de la Roque, Rapport sur les fouilles de
Médamoud: (1925) (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français
d’Archéologie Orientale, 1925), p. 24. It remains to be con-
firmed whether or not this doorway was rebuilt after the
Middle Kingdom.
84
J. Jacquet, Karnak-Nord V. Le trésor de Thoutmosis
Ier. Étude architecturale, FIFAO 30 (Cairo: IFAO 1983),
p. 37, Fig. 5: the occasional use of sliding grooves perpen-
dicular to the reveals seems, however, to have continued
after the Middle Kingdom since two perfect examples were
identified in the thresholds of rooms 1 and 2 of Tuthmosis
I’s treasury.
85
J. Lauffray, “Les travaux du Centre Franco-Egyptien
d’étude des temples de Karnak de 1972 à 1977,” Karnak 6
(Paris: ERC, 1980), p. 24: “il est un fait constant dans tous
les lieux de culte et sous toutes les latitudes, les abords des
temples s’élèvent avec le temps plus rapidement, surtout
pendant les périodes troublées, que les sanctuaires mieux
entretenus.”
– to the west of the temple, this floor was at +73.37
m as the remains of the pavement attached to
both calcite bases embedded below the 4th
Pylon’s courtyard indicates;86
– to the east of the temple, this floor could be at
+73.50 m as the top of brick structures still in
place87 under the storerooms surrounding the
radier seems to show. The top of the pebble fill
on which the platform rests reaches +73.41 m
in some places (Figs. 34-35).
Since the four granite thresholds are built into a
radier made of reused blocks (older than the New
Kingdom), it is likely that these thresholds were
also reused and that they also came from an ear-
lier, dismantled, construction.88 Given the posi-
tion of the sliding channels for the door leaves,
it is very likely that these thresholds date to the
Middle Kingdom although the example from
Medamud casts some doubt on this dating cri-
terion. It was probably during their removal from
the original monument to which they belonged,
or during their placement in the radier, that fis-
sures developed in thresholds n°2 and n°3. The
widening of each crack was averted by fitting one
or two wooden clamps (Fig. 33). The bed face of
threshold n°2 was strengthened with two hori-
zontal clamps, while on threshold n°3, one clamp
was fitted vertically to its western cross joint and
a second one horizontally on its top face, exactly
under the north doorjamb.89 Since they were prob-
ably removed from their original locations in the
Middle Kingdom sanctuary at the beginning of
the New Kingdom, these thresholds could have
only been reused within a new structure dating
to the beginning of New Kingdom, namely, the
six limestone courses of the radier.
86
Ibid., Lauffray, p. 25.
87
Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC 2007), pp. 191-
204.
88
This reuse was already proposed by Th. Zimmer in
J.-M. Kruchten, Les Annales des prêtres de Karnak, p. 9:
“Les récents travaux dans cet espace, menés par Azim et
l’auteur de ces lignes, ont conduit à contester le fait que
ces seuils soient en leur place originelle et à penser qu’ils
ont été déplacés après le Moyen Empire, s’il s’agit bien de
leur date de construction. See M. Azim et Th. Zimmer, “La
cour du Moyen Empire: quatrième campagne de travaux
dans la zone centrale,” forthcoming); J. Lauffray, Karnak
6 (Paris: ERC, 1980), p. 24; Leclant, Orientalia 47, p. 288;
idem., Leclant, Orientalia 54, pp. 371-372.
89
H. Chevrier, ASAE 49, p.13; ASAE 53, p. 16, Fig.
3-5 and J. Lauffray, Karnak 6 (Paris: ERC, 1980), p. 24, n.
1: “Chevrier croyait que la fondation des seuils avait été
enlevée partiellement en sape par des chercheurs de dépôts.
Nous avons constaté que le seuil le plus à l’Ouest repose au
Nord sur deux assises de pierre et que sa partie médiane
est placée sur du sable jaune très homogène. Ce ne peut
être le résultat d’un comblement hâtif.”
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
The slicing of the radier’s west side (Figs. 24,
28, 36, 37)
At the base of the cross joint marking the sup-
port of the east face of the south half of Hat-
shepsut’s podium against the west side of the
limestone radier, the first course of the two con-
tiguous structures seems to rest on a thick layer
of yellow sand shared by both (Fig. 28). How-
ever, since it is nearly impossible to distinguish
separate layers of sand, this shared criteria does
not prove that the podium is contemporary with
the radier. On the contrary, the joint separating
Hatshepsut’s podium from the limestone radier
(Figs. 35-37) shows that Hatshepsut had cut a
slice (width: 50 cm) away from the radier’s west
face while keeping its first course intact (Fig. 24;
see supra. 1.1).
– The technical reason for this slicing
Hatshepsut built the east face of her sandstone
suite against the west face of a now vanished ear-
lier structure. The sandstone east face, which is
still in place, seems to be counter-battered which
would indicate that it leaned against an earlier
structure. This tight joint is confirmed by the
narrow channels for pouring plaster cut verti-
cally into the abutted sandstone face. In order
to allow two contiguous constructions to react
independently to possibly differential rates of
subsidence, it was essential that the east wall of
the Hatshepsut suite rested only on the podium
without overlapping the limestone radier which,
like every other foundation, protruded slightly
beyond its original superstructure. The only pos-
sible way to maintain the tight joint between the
two structures was to slice off the edge of the
limestone radier where it projected beyond its
now vanished superstructure.
– The unusual arrangement in the middle of
the radier’s west side
The excision of this projection reveals an
unusual arrangement under the granite thresh-
old of the east door of Hatshepsut’s suite (Figs.
36-37). This large granite slab was inserted by
Hatshepsut astride the radier and her podium.
To place this slab, it was necessary to modify the
radier by cutting the earlier threshold n°1 and
by dismantling the upper three courses of the
radier along the entire length of Hatshepsut’s
new granite threshold. The central section of the
90
The west half of the original threshold n°1 and the
original outer doorjambs were dismantled by necessity.
However, the east half of the threshold stayed in place, as
did, probably, the inner doorjambs. However the reveals of
153
radier’s original projection remains intact where
the west half of threshold n°1 was removed. Here
the podium clearly bypassed the projection:
– Just to the north of the remaining east half of
threshold n°1, a long limestone block equiped
with a channel running east-west, was cut at a
right angle in order to slide Hatshepsut’s new
threshold into place (Fig. 37). This long block
continues westwards for approximately 50 cm
beyond the western limit of the present lime-
stone radier, that is to say 50 cm west of the
visible joint between the podium and the radier.
The channel’s western joint could belong to the
radier’s original face which is thus lined up with
the north-west corner block of its first course
(Fig. 24a).
– Just to the south of the remaining east half of
threshold n°1, the radier also extends westwards
for approximately 50 cm before touching Hat-
shepsut’s podium. The excision of the projection
is obvious at this location (Fig. 36).
The removal of the radier’s projection was not
necessary on the axis (Fig. 26) where the earlier
narrow doorway (+74.44 m) was almost entirely
dismantled by Hatshepsut,90 to be replaced by a
wider one (+74.10 m). The new granite threshold
was inserted astride the limestone radier and the
podium, and supported new doorjambs in sand-
stone and granite which were embedded in the
earlier structure while probably leaning against
the original inner doorjambs.
The channel embedded beneath the radier’s top
face (Figs. 27, 36, 37)
Next to the north side of the threshold n°1, is a
long limestone block (length: 245 cm; depth: 66
cm; height: 45.5 cm) belonging to the radier’s fifth
course into which a channel running east-west has
been carved (top face +74.05 m; channel’s bottom
+73.89 m; width: 12 cm; depth: 14 cm), which
was covered by the sixth and upper course of the
radier. The cutting of its east joint indicates that
the channel (Fig. 27) continued inside the radier
while its westward extension was destroyed when
Hatshepsut built her podium. The west joint of the
block seems to have been in line with the radier’s
west face, before this one was chopped off at a
point about 50 cm to the north and south of the
axial door along the entire length of the west face
except beneath the granite threshold.
these inner doorjambs should have been cut back in order
to widen the passage to the same width as Hatshepsut’s
new doorway.
154 françois larché
A similar channel, but in sandstone and ori-
ented north-south, was cut to the north of Hat-
shepsut’s podium91 by the foundation pit of this
last one. This channel continued northwards
beyond Tuthmosis III’s enclosure wall which
surrounds the Akh-menu and the north store-
rooms. It is likely that these two channels were
once connected through a manhole that would
have been destroyed when Hatshepsut built her
podium.
Another channel still exists along with its basin,
both in red sandstone, buried below the pave-
ment at the east end of the corridor which borders
the south side of Hatshepsut’s podium.92 Since
the recent excavations have not yet shown this
channel entering the south side of Hatshepsut’s
podium, it would be unwise to put forward the
hypothesis that the channel could be the extremity
of the one dug in the pavement of the Chapelle
Rouge’s sanctuary.93
The hypothetical plan of the walls built on the
radier (see infra 4. Proposed plan of Amenho-
tep I’s monuments)
The two lower courses of the limestone radier
are made of a very loose assembly of blocks sepa-
rated by thick horizontal and vertical joints, filled
with sand (Figs. 28, 34, 35).94 The blocks are set
discontinuously in order to form a very irregu-
lar casing filled with sand. The preserved courses
above the two lower ones are much better bonded,
having tight joints filled with a mortar made of
plaster and limestone chips.
91
Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 261-
284, pl. 4-7.
92
H. Chevrier: “Les fouilles furent poursuivies vers
l’Ouest, jusque dans le couloir (of the “Texte de la jeunesse”)
entre le mur de la construction de la Reine. On trouvait
là une rigole aboutissant à un petit bassin creusé dans une
pierre et on apercevait des pierres remployées qui ont été
laissées en place” (see ASAE 49, p. 259); Charloux, Karnak
12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pl. 7, Fig. 14.
93
Cl. Traunecker identifies these channels with the drain-
age systems used in the courtyards of the upper/mortuary
temples of Old Kingdom pyramid complexes. Oral com-
munication.
94
R. Mensan, CFEETK preliminary Report, 2005: the
sounding to the south of the platform.
95
From M. Azim’s work to developp the central part
of Amun temple in 1983-1984, CFEETK Report n° 1599:
“Ce mur d’enceinte peut avoir entouré un temple de pierre
fondé sur un raft général de calcaire, dont les blocs sont
des remplois.” M. Azim observed these reuses during the
dismantling of the south side of the radier.
96
PM II2, p. 108; H. Chevrier, “Rapport sur les travaux de
The lower course is irregularly placed, but is
often replaced by a very thick sand layer. This
course seems, however, to form lines at the
radier’s perimeter and around the platform. If
this lower course also existed underneath and in
the extension of the granite thresholds n°2, 3 and
4, it would be tempting to reconstruct the plan
of the missing walls plumbed with the lines fol-
lowed by the blocks of the lower course. The sand
casings framed by the lines of this lower course
would then correspond to the spaces delimited by
the walls. We hope to confirm this hypothesis by
future excavations, but it is still too early to assert
that the walls rested where the radier is built of
six courses or that the spaces between the walls
correspond to the places where sand replaces the
lower course of the radier.
The reused blocks inside the radier
– Limestone blocks: the flat limestone blocks
of the radier are reused.95 Their perfectly smooth
faces, (Figs. 34-35) but often incised with lines,
are still visible on the west side of the radier as
well as other faces with tool marks characteristic
of cross joints. These blocks were made by cutting
up much larger blocks.
– Boundary stela:96 a photography of H. Chevr-
ier illustrates the discovery, on March 13th 1949,
of a limestone boundary stela in the name of
Senwosret I, which was reused as a block in the
north-west part of the radier, most probably in
its second course (Fig. 32). Although it has often
been cited, this obvious reuse of a block inscribed
Karnak (1948-1949),” ASAE 49 (1949), pp. 257-258, Fig. 3: “Le
lendemain, on trouvait les premières pierres en place, parmi
d’autres très bousculées: le 14, une autre table d’offrande,
en calcaire celle-ci, de Sésostris Ier avec très peu de texte très
effacé et du même type que la précédente…Le 13.[04.49],
vers l’Ouest, on découvrait en place dans les fondations une
pierre qui avait la silhouette d’une stèle retournée: on se
trouvait en présence d’une stèle frontière de Sésostris Ier,
la seule que nous connaissions de cette époque. ” Cairo
Museum JE 88802 (56 x 27 x 147 cm); J. Leclant, “Compte
rendu des fouilles et travaux menés en Égypte durant les
campagnes de 1948-1950,” Orientalia 19 (1950), p. 364;
P. Montet, Géographie de l’Égypte ancienne, vol. 2 (Paris:
Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1961), pp. 38-39, Fig. 3;
L. Habachi, “Building activities of Sesostris I in the
Area to the South of Thebes,” MDAIK 31 (1975), pp. 33-37,
Fig. 5 (he refers to figure 4 while the stela is represented in
figure 5); Barguet, Karnak, p. 155, n. 5; Gabolde, Le “Grand
château d’Amon,” p. 115, §185 et 188: “Une stèle-frontière
de Sésostris a été exhumée de la “cour du Moyen Empire”
où elle était remployée en assise de fondation.”
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
for Senwosret I’s in the heart of the radier 97 has
not led to the logical conclusion—which should
have been imperative—that the construction of
the radier was accomplished by some later king
through the systematic reuse of limestone blocks
from dismantled pre-New Kingdom monuments
(including those of Senwosret I, among others).
– Four granite thresholds: on the other hand,
the perpendicular position of the sliding channels
for the door leaves relative to the door reveals
on the four granite thresholds has previously
misled observers, resulting in the prevailing, but
still unconvincing hypothesis that Senwosret I
dismantled his own monuments in order to reuse
them in the radier of his new temple. However,
it is a fallacy simply to date all thresholds with
doorleaf sliding channels perpendicular to their
reveals to the Middle Kingdom, because two
thresholds of this type were used by Tuthmosis I
in his Treasury at North Karnak,98 while at Meda-
mud, the granite threshold of Senoswret III’s door
has a sliding channel parallel to the reveals, a
format usually found in New Kingdom thresholds
(assuming this doorway was not rebuilt after the
Middle Kingdom).
The blocks found scattered on the radier
Many stone temple furnishings of Middle King-
dom date were discovered during the successive
excavations of the courtyard:99
97
A second stele of the same kind stored in the
Cairo Museum (Temp. Reg. 10/4/22/7) may come from
Karnak.
98
J. Jacquet, Karnak-Nord 5, p. 37, Fig. 5: thresholds
of rooms 1 and 2.
99
For Cl. Traunecker, the findspot of the pieces from
Karnak brought to the Louvre by Mariette should be viewed
with suspicion, since these antiquities were mixed in the
Opet storeroom (See J.-J. Fiechter, La moisson des dieux
(Paris: Éditions Julliard, 1994).
100
H. Chevrier, ASAE 49: “le 14, une autre table d’offrande,
en calcaire celle-ci, de Sésostris Ier avec très peu de texte très
effacé et du même type que la précédente.”
101
PM II2, p. 108; ibid., Chevrier, p. 258; Leclant, Ori-
entalia 19 (1950), p. 36.
102
PM II2, p. 110; Barguet, Karnak, p. 155, n. 5.
103
Barguet, Karnak, p. 154, n. 3: “Voir aussi des frag-
ments de montant de porte et d’architrave (encore visibles
sur place), au nom de Sésostris Ier, dans L. D., Text, III,
28 a et 29, et mentionnant l’année 20. Une statue-groupe
de Sésostris Ier et Hathor fut aussi retrouvée à cet endroit
(G. Legrain, Statues et Statuettes de rois et de particuliers,
I, CGC 42001-42138 [Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français
d’Archéologie Orientale, 1906], pl. IV, pp. 6-7; CG Caire
42008). “Deux statues en quartzite rouge (actuellement au
Nord de la cour) représentant deux personnages assis en
155
Offering tables:100
– A limestone offering table 101 was found by
H. Chevrier on March 14th 1949.
Pedestals: (currently displayed on the top face
of the south foundations of the storerooms sur-
rounding the radier)
– The granite pedestal102 n°1, discovered in 1950,
is perhaps one of the two on display;
– the granite pedestal n°2;
– the diorite socle for a naos was found to the
north of the granite threshold n°3 (Fig. 15).
Statues:103
– A granite dyad104 representing Amenemhat I sit-
ting next to another figure (now destroyed), that
P. Barguet identifies as Amun. If this destruction
was the work of Akhenaten, it would cast doubt
on the reuse of this group inside the limestone
radier. This dyad is stored in one of the rooms
attached to the south enclosure wall bound to
the 5th Pylon.
– Two quartzite statues105 dating to the time of
Senoswret III. The eastern one represents an
official seated as a scribe, while the western
one appears to be a kneeling vizier. Both fig-
ures are enveloped in long cloaks. These statues
are now displayed on the top face of the north
foundations of the storerooms surrounding the
radier.
– A diorite dyad106 representing Hathor seated next
to a standing figure of Senwosret I was found
in 1897 and is stored in the Cairo Museum (CG
42008, JE 32751).
– A fragment of a throne107 with the name of king
Wegaf, discovered by G. Legrain in 1897, is now-
stored in the Cairo Museum (JE 33740).
– A granite statue108 was found by A. Mariette. Its
current location is unknown.
scribe, enveloppés d’une longue robe, ont été laissées à
l’endroit où elles furent trouvées; elles sont de l’époque de
Sésostris III (Mariette, Karnak, pl. 8s).”
104
PM II 2, p. 107; Mariette, Karnak, p. 41, pl 8(d);
G. Legrain, “Notes prises à Karnak,” RecTrav 23 (1901),
p. 63; Barguet, Karnak, p. 115, n. 2.
105
Mariette, Karnak, pl. 8s; Barguet, Karnak, p. 154,
n. 3; Fr. Le Saout, “Deux statues en quartzite du Moyen
Empire,” Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1987), pp. 308-312.
106
PM II 2, p. 108; G. Legrain, Statues et statuettes,
I, pp. 6-7, pl. III; G. Maspero, Guide du visiteur du Musée
du Caire, pp. 113-114; H. G. Evers, Staat aus dem Stein vol. 2
(München: Bruckmann, 1929), p. 92, Fig. 24; A. Scharff,
“Gott und König in Aegyptischen Grafftenplastiken,” Studi
in memoria di Ippolito Rosellini nel primo centenario della
morte (4 giugno 1843—4 giugno 1943) (Pisa: Industrie gra-
fiche, 1949), p. 310.
107
PM II2, p. 110; G. Legrain, “Notes d’inspection: Le
roi Ouga-f ,” ASAE 6 (1905), p. 130; W. V. Davies, A Royal
Statue Reattributed, British Museum Occasional Paper 28
(London: British Museum, 1981), n° 1.
108
PM II2, p. 109; Mariette, Karnak, p. 45, pl. 8 (m);
H. Gauthier, Le Livre des Rois d’Égypte, vol. 2, MIFAO 18
(Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie
Orientale, 1912), p. 19 [III].
156 françois larché
– A headless diorite statue109 of king Sobekhotep (I
or IV) shows him seated with his arms crossed
over his chest and his feet crushing the Nine
Bows. It is stored in the Louvre Museum (AF
8969).
– A granite statuette110 of a seated king, discovered
by A. Mariette, is stored in the Louvre Museum
(A. 121 [E 7824]).
Scattered architectural elements:
– A sandstone block111 inscribed with the names
of Sobekhotep IV and Neferhotep I was dis-
covered by A. Mariette. Its current location is
unknown.
– Six decorated limestone fragments, one carved
with a cartouche of Senwosret, were probably
stored inside the Caracol in 1975, and then likely
moved to the “Cheikh Labib” in 2007.
– A fragment of a granite doorjamb and several
sandstone fragments,112 inscribed with a text in
crude relief mentioning Senwosret I and Tibe-
rius. The fragment with Tiberius’ restoration
text was photographied in the “Cheikh Labib”
(CFEETK neg. 44343, doc. 43402). These frag-
ments that were once seen to the south of the
granite threshold n°4, cannot be found today.
* deeply to the east of the radier’s threshold n°4,
The findspots of some stone furnishngs of Sen-
wosret I, like his limestone stela and his calcite
socle with steps, are clearly identifiable in archi-
val photographs as well as the anonymous gran-
ite socle for a naos. It is possible that, as with
109
PM II2, p. 109; Mariette, Karnak, p. 44-45, pl 8 (k);
Ibid., Gauthier, Livre des Rois, vol. 2, pp. 32-33, n. 3; Davies,
A Royal Statue, p. 28, n° 6; J. von Beckerath, Untersuchungen
zur politischen Geschichte der zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägyp-
ten (Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1964), p. 248; É. Delange,
Musée du Louvre—Catalogue des statues égyptiennes du
Moyen Empire (Paris: Éditions de la Réunion des musées
nationaux, 1987), pp. 48-50; H. Sourouzian, “Inventaire
iconographique des statues en manteau jubilaire,” Hommages
à Jean Leclant, vol.1, Bibliotheque d’Étude 106/1 (Cairo:
IFAO, 1994), p. 513.
110
PM II2, p. 109; ibid., Mariette, p. 45, pl. 8(l); ibid., Gau-
thier, Le livre des rois d’Égypte, vol. 2, p. 49 [45,I]; ibid., von
Beckerath, p. 255; ibid., Davies, n° 37; ibid., Delange,
pp. 22-23.
111
PM II2, pp. 109, 180, 293; ibid., Mariette, p. 45, pl. 8
(n-o): he incorrectly attributes the block to Neferhotep I and
Sobekhotep III; ibid., Gauthier, vol. 2, p. 25 [XIII] and 32 [V];
W. Helck, Historisch-biographische Texte der 2. Zwischenzeit
und neue Texte der 18. Dynastie (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1975), p. 30, n° 35; ibid., von Beckerath, p. 244.
112
PM II2, p. 110; G. Legrain, “Notes prises à Karnak—
Une restauration de Tibère au sanctuaire d’Ousertesen Ier
à Karnak,” RecTrav 22 (1900), pp. 63-64; G. Legrain, “Rap-
port sur les nouveaux travaux exécutés à Louqsor à l’Ouest
du temple d‘Amon, octobre 1916—mars 1917,” ASAE 17
(1917), p. 51; Barguet, Karnak, p. 155, n. 3.
113
A. Varille, Karnak-Nord vol. 1 (Cairo: Imprimerie de
l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1943).
114
See 1.9 and L. Gabolde, “Le problème de l’emplacement
the limestone stele, several of these objects were
reused within the radier during its construction.
This radier may have served as reliquary for these
consecrated, but now obsolete, temple furnish-
ings. This pattern of votive reuse is common at
Karnak during every era. One can cite the substra-
tum of the south courtyard between the 4th and
5th Pylon, where Osirian statues and a lintel of
Senwosret I were buried within the sand layer sup-
porting the foundations of the pavement. In the
north courtyard, a niche containing two statues of
Neferhotep was also buried within the sand layer
to the north of the foundation of Hatshepsut’s
obelisk. Neither should one forget the so-called
Monthu temple at North Karnak, whose base is
composed of reused decorated blocks.113
The particular case of the calcite socle with
steps in Senwosret I’s name114 (Fig. 19)
This pattern of reuse inside the radier does not
account for the presence of the calcite socle with
steps115 (supra. 1.8). Although archival photo-
graphs show fragments of the socle buried very
the defacement of Amun’s name proves that this
socle was still visible under Akhenaten.116
If the calcite socle was really in situ on the
limestone radier—to the east of threshold n°4—its
large dimensions would have obliged the builders
primitif du socle de calcite de Sésostris Ier,” Karnak 10 (Paris:
ERC, 1995), pp. 253-256.
115
H. Chevrier, ASAE 49, pp. 12-13: “Continuant les
fouilles de l’année passée, nous avons exploré la partie ori-
entale de ce qui est maintenant une cour, avec d’autant plus
d’intérêt que P. Lacau avait remarqué qu’un bloc affleurait le
sol…, nous avons tout de même mis au jour trois fragments
intéressants. Le bloc d’albâtre affleurant le sol comporte ce
qui reste d’un escalier à degré de faible hauteur, compa-
rable à celui du monument de Sésostris Ier, à sa gauche se
trouvent deux colonnes de texte de ce roi; un autre bloc,
cassé presque au ras de l’escalier, porte une seule colonne.
Enfin un troisième bloc, d’angle celui-là, fut mis au jour à
proximité. Ces trois blocs se raccordent d’une part entre eux,
d’autre part avec les deux blocs qui se trouvaient sur le sol,
à cet emplacement même et que j’avais dû faire repousser
sur l’arasement du mur de l’est pour effectuer les fouilles…
L’emplacement des fragments prouve qu’il était là, derrière
le dernier seuil en granit …”
116
Nevertheless, it will be explained below why the monu-
ments which occupied the location of the so-called “Middle
Kingdom” courtyard could have been, in part, demolished
by Amenhotep III. This king could have also begun the
dismantling of the limestone radier that supported them,
in order to remove the reused blocks on which Amun’s
names and images were later hacked out by his successor.
This would explain the defacement of the god’s name on
Amenhemat I’s statue and on the calcite socle, but this
hazardous hypothesis is still impossible to confirm.
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
to place it on the radier’s top face before the con-
struction of the superstructure. Indeed, the width
of the four doorsways (two cubits, according to
measurements on the four granite thresholds
from the radier) is too narrow to bring the calcite
socle through any of them. This socle could only
have been installed, therefore, after the radier’s
completion but before the construction of the
walls through which these doors were opened. The
back face of the socle, flat but roughly polished,
indicates that it should have abutted a wall.
3.2. The Brick Structures Predating the
Limestone Radier
All of the different architectural phases pres-
ently visible between the so-called “Middle King-
dom” courtyard and the 3rd Pylon date to the
New Kingdom. They rest on the remains of more
ancient mud brick structures which had been lev-
elled beforehand.117 The preservation of these mud
brick structures is quite uneven, which makes it
very difficult to reconstruct a general plan of the
temple prior to the New Kingdom. However, the
systematic drawing of these remains reveals a cer-
tain architectural coherence. Recent soundings
have disclosed the massive scale of their design
and have allowed us to propose a date for their
construction. These vestiges extend out from both
sides of Hatshepsut’s podium: westward in front
of the 4th, 5th and 6th Pylons; eastward into the
so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard and; to
the north and the south, as far as Tuthmosis I’s
enclosure walls.
Around the radier
– a large enclosure wall in mud brick surrounding
the temple
Below the wide corridor separating the north
enclosure wall attributed to Tuthmosis I from
the storerooms surrounding the limestone radier,
a large mud brick wall, oriented east-west, was
cleared to a length of 12.65 m and a width of 3.76
117
Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), p. 191-204,
pls. II, IV; Mensan, La Chapelle Rouge vol. 2, 7.1.4. Les
aménagements en brique crue, pp.126-127.
118
G. Charloux, CFEETK report on operation 128,
2005: “Deux sondages dans le second déambulatoire sud
de la Zone Centrale du Grand Temple d’Amon-Rê,” to be
published by Soleb in a collective work on the mud brick
structures previous to the New Kingdom at Karnak.
119
G. Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), p. 198,
pl. II.
157
m. Its south face is preserved to a height of 90
cm while its north one was cut by the sandstone
foundation of the enclosure wall. Both its loca-
tion and exceptional width make it very likely that
this is an enclosure wall. To the south, another
sounding118 dug below the service corridor has
revealed the continuation of the remains visible
on photographs of the clearance made in 1984.
Here, a mud brick wall is placed symmetrically
to the one observed to the north.
– between the green sandstone foundations sur-
rounding the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard
Outside of the north-east corner of Hatshep-
sut’s podium and below Tuthmosis III’s eastern
chapel, (the one that is leaning against the right
angle made by two of the green sandstone founda-
tions), G. Charloux discovered the well preserved
remains of two perpendicular mud brick walls
in 2004.119 Their bases rest upon another brick
structure described as a “pavement.”120 These walls
can now be connected with those discovered to
the west of the Hatshepsut podium.
More soundings were dug by R. Mensan in
2007121 between the green sandstone foundations
surrounding the so-called “Middle Kingdom”
courtyard in order to reexamine mud brick ves-
tiges discovered by M. Azim in 1984122 during a
drainage operation. Photographs show the pres-
ence of brick everywhere inside the grid pattern
formed by these parallel and perpendicular foun-
dations.
– the sand layers
The very thick layer of sand (~ 80 cm), on
which the green sandstone foundations of the
storerooms surrounding the radier rest (Fig. 29),
would appear to extend, at the same level, to the
radier’s first course, also laid on a sand layer, if
these two layers were not vertically separated
by a thick stack of limestone chips as an archi-
val photograph of the radier’s north half shows
(Figs. 31- 32). This common level (+72.75 m), on
which both subjacent layers of sand were poured,
gives the impression that the whole surface of the
120
Ibid., Charloux, pp. 191-204, pl. X.
121
R. Mensan, CFEETK preliminary report, 2007: to
be published by Soleb in a collective work on mud brick
structures at Karnak predating the New Kingdom.
122
M. Azim, to be published by Soleb in a collective
work on mud brick structures at Karnak predating the New
Kingdom.
158 françois larché
so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard was uni-
formly leveled (infra 4.1). It is therefore impor-
tant to establish whether this levelling was made
everywhere at the same time.
Below the radier (Figs. 28-29)
The radier’s first course rests on a thick yellow
sand layer123 (~10 cm to the south of the platform)
under which is a horizontal crust made of sand
hardened by contact with the subjacent layer of
mixed silt and clay124 (+72.75 m). On the radier’s
edges, this crust seems to rise on levelled remains
of mud bricks.
An archival photograph (Fig. 30) of the south-
east corner of the so-called “Middle Kingdom”
courtyard shows a few aligned limestone blocks
forming the first course of the radier’s south
side.125 This limestone course seems to have cut
through mud bricks at a level close to the upper
face of the large mud brick wall observed to the
north of the courtyard,126 below the parallel foun-
dations of the storerooms surrounding the radier.
The tiny mud brick platforms that H. Chevrier
called “landmarks,” probably belong to these
levelled structures.127 Everywhere else below the
radier, the elevations of mud bricks seem to have
been planed down to their lowest level, although
we must await the result of the micro-morpho-
logical analysis of the mixed silt and clay substra-
tum to know whether or not this results from the
compression of mud bricks compacted by suc-
cessive floods.
123
J. Lauffray, “Les travaux du Centre Franco-égyptien de
1972 à 1977,” Karnak 6 (Paris: ERC, 1980), p. 21: “Comme
l’a justement noté H. Chevrier, avec aussi, par place, du
sable gris de rivière bien distinct de celui dont le fouilleur
a recouvert le fond de son sondage en fin de chantier.”
R. Mensan, CFEETK preliminary report, 2005: “La base
de ce radier repose sur un substrat limono-argileux recouvert
d’une fine croûte de sable cristallisé. La surface est parfaite-
ment horizontale. Il s’est avéré impossible de déterminer
si ce sédiment est un limon apporté par la crue ou s’il est
d’origine anthropique. La texture macroscopique évoque
plutôt de la brique crue mais aucune structure de ce type
ne permet de corroborer cette hypothèse.”
This is also the opinion of archaeological specialists in
mud brick, like M. Millet and J. Domer. A team of British
geologists who examined a core drilled below the south-
west corner of the radier identified this substratum as a
geological formation consisting of layers of silt. South of the
platform, R. Mensan excavated a small area (1.5 x 1.5 m) to
a depth of 70 cm through this silt and clay layer, reaching
a level +72.05. Since this layer is perfectly homogenous and
contains no intrusions, only a micro-morphological analysis
will permit us to determine whether or not it consists of
compacted mud bricks.
124
Ibid., J. Lauffray: “Presque partout, jusqu’à la couche
Further west, these brick structures extend
below the corridor bordering the north and south
sides of the Hatshepsut suite. This suite rests on
a podium built of three courses, the lowest of
which cut through a mud brick wall that appears
to be contemporary with another one, described
earlier, under the foundation of the storerooms
surrounding the radier (Fig. 24).
Below the 6th Pylon’s courtyards
An earlier building with mud brick foundations
was identified below the 6th Pylon’s courtyards,
occupying a space 39 m in length. Its walls are
perfectly symmetrical on both sides of the east-
west axis of the temple, under which were found,
between the 6th Pylon’s threshold and the granite
ramp to Philip Arrhideus’ chapel, the foundations
of a large platform in mud brick (length: 4.30 m).
This platform forms the axis of symmetry of these
foundations prior to the New Kingdom.128 On
each side of this platform, a series of parallel and
perpendicular walls (thickness: 2 cubits) are regu-
larly spaced out. Finally, the grid pattern formed
by these thin walls is framed by two thicker ones
(thickness: 4 cubits), oriented east-west.
Conclusions
Because most of these mud brick vestiges are
badly preserved, it is quite difficult to differenti-
ate the several phases of construction. On the
other hand, a recurrent feature of all these walls
is the fact that they all cut through or rest on a
cristalline, on trouve des intrusions de tessons romains et
des fragments de la chapelle de granit de Philippe Arrhidée,
même dans des zones laissées intactes par H. Chevrier. Les
carriers et les chercheurs de trésor ont tellement bouleversé
les stratifications que le matériel mobilier ne peut servir à
établir une chronologie absolue des structures in situ dont
nous constatons la succession.”
125
G. Charloux’s observation on photographs (n° 100695
to 100697) of H. Chevrier’s sounding.
126
Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 191-
226; R. Mensan, to be published by Soleb in a collective
work on mud brick structures at Karnak predating the New
Kingdom.
127
H. Chevrier, ASAE 49 (1949), p. 259, pl. XIII:
“À l’angle nord-est, on mettait au jour deux petits massifs
carrés de briques crues (pl. XIII), dont la face extérieure
correspond à l’alignement interne du mur de la XVIIIe
dynastie… Mais le travail fut repris au nord le long du mur
de la XVIIIe dynastie, pour voir si de semblables jalons
existaient également là. On en a trouvé en effet, mais pas
disposés de la même façon.”
128
G. Charloux, “The Middle Kingdom temple of Amun
at Karnak,” Egyptian Archaeology 27 (2005), 20-24, offered
the hypothesis that this mud brick platform could have
supported a ramp leading up to the House of Amun.
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
layer of fill containing ceramics dating from the
end of the 11th Dynasty to the beginning of the
12th Dynasty. This fact permits us to determine
that the mud brick walls are possibly contem-
porary with or at least subsequent to the Middle
Kingdom.
The excavations made between the so-called
“Middle Kingdom” courtyard and the 3rd Pylon,
have shown that this area was very likely occupied
since the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. The
first inhabitants settled here in order to establish
a sanctuary whose vestiges are preserved as mud
brick walls that are cut through and levelled by
the foundations of the stone monuments of the
18th Dynasty. The stratigraphy shows that the
architectural phase directly subsequent to these
earlier occupants is still in situ.
One can therefore point out that the lime-
stone radier is surrounded by two parallel deep
trenches which very likely once contained an
ancient foundation that was a continuation of
the five sandstone courses observed below the
south wall of Tuthmosis III’s south chapels. After
the removal of these five courses, both trenches
were half filled with a very thick layer of sand
on which the green sandstone foundations that
supported the now vanished limestone construc-
tion of Tuthmosis I still rest. The discovery of a
sandstone channel, contemporary with these last
foundations, reveals the existence of a building
that required the draining of liquids. The fact that
this channel was cut through by the construction
of Hatshepsut’s podium suggests that this earlier
building, now destroyed, should have stood in
the same location as the Chapelle Rouge. It also
reveals the continuity of the architectural plan of
129
L. Gabolde, J.-Fr. Carlotti, E. Czerny, “Aux origines de
Karnak: les recherches récentes du Centre Franco-Égyptien
d’Étude des Temples de Karnak dans la ‘cour du Moyen
Empire’” BSEG 23 (1999), pp. 35-36: “Cette plate-forme en
grès a été signalée en 1904 par L. Borchardt, qui semblait
l’assigner au Moyen Empire. Elle fut ensuite fouillée une
première fois par H. Chevrier qui, lui, ne la datait pas puis,
en 1976-1979, par J. Lauffray qui en réalisa un nouveau
dégagement et en fit alors effectuer un relevé minutieux. Il
la considérait comme postérieure au Moyen Empire, mais
antérieure au Nouvel Empire. L’examen de Lauffray sem-
blait révéler plusieurs strates visibles de remblais. Enfin, des
structures très anciennes de briques crues—déjà mentionnées,
du reste par H. Chevrier—paraissaient avoir été aperçues au
plus profond des sondages. Plus récemment, Th. Zimmer
supposait que la plate-forme était l’élément le plus récent
de la cour mais ne lui donnait pas de date précise.”
R. Mensan, CFEETK preliminary report, 2005, pp. 3-6:
“les sondages autour de la plate-forme,” to be published
159
the temple from the beginning of the 18th Dynasty
onward.
3.3. The Platform Built Into the Limestone
Radier129 (Figs. 25-27)
A kind of platform is embedded in the center of
the west side of the limestone radier. It is located
just behind the east door of the Hatshepsut suite.
Twenty cubits long from north to south and nine-
teen cubits wide from east to west, the platform
is placed slightly northwards of the true central
axis of the temple.
Its elevation (Figs. 34-35)
On its edges, the platform is built of two thin
courses (height: ~30 cm) made from blocks of
varied size while inside one can observe three
thin courses in place. The visible face of its lower
course shows that it is made of sandstone blocks130
except for a long granite block which is reused (top
face +73.78 m). Its upper course has its perimeter
built of long red sandstone blocks framing slabs
either in limestone or red sandstone131 (top face
+74.05 m).
The existing top face of the platform could not
have been used as the setting course for any super-
structure since it has many projections and wide
open joints, along with construction details that
are usually hidden, like a mortice for a clamp.
This platform was, in fact, entirely covered by
the fifth and sixth limestone courses, the last one
serving as the pavement and the setting course
for the superstructures.132
Thus, the platform seems to have served only
to recycle elements reused from dismantled
by Soleb in a collective work on the mud brick structures
previous to the New Kingdom at Karnak.
130
Ibid., Gabolde, Carlotti, Czerny, p. 38: “Qu’il s’agisse
de remplois ou de blocs apparemment neufs, tous sont
taillés dans un même grès de couleur gris-rose à rouge
sombre. C’est le grès de la colonnette au nom d’Antef II,
celui utilisé au temple de Mentouhotep à Deir el-Bahari ou
encore celui employé au temple primitif de Médinet Habou.
Il est totalement distinct du grès jaune ou brun employé
au Nouvel Empire.”
131
J. Lauffray, Karnak 6 (Paris: ERC, 1980), p. 21: “Ces
dalles incluent des remplois: au centre une double table à
libations, vue par H. Chevrier; au Nord, une partie d’une
figure royale et un fragment de texte. ”
132
Gabolde, Carlotti, Czerny, BSEG 23 (1999), p. 39,
n. 17: “C’était déjà plus ou moins l’avis de H. Chevrier
(ASAE 47, p. 176) qui y voyait seulement des fondations
et dans une certaine mesure, celui de Lauffray (Karnak
6, pp.18-26) qui reconnaissait dans l’assise du haut une
160 françois larché
older monuments, including some with peculiar
characteristics:133
– A soft limestone tablet134 is decorated in relief
with a figure looking back and whose head is
carved just below the horizontal frame that sup-
ports usually a Kheker-frieze. The nature of the
soft limestone as well as the style of the carving—
which is much flatter than reliefs of Senwosret
I— suggests that this tablet stems from an early
New Kingdom monument (Figs. 37-38);
– A soft limestone tablet is decorated in sunk
relief with the kilt of a god.135 The soft lime-
stone differs from the hard limestone used in
Senwosret I’s monuments;
– Two column bases in red sandstone (Ø105 cm)
once supported octagonal columns (Ø 57cm);
– A limestone offering table for double liba-
tion136 (Fig. 25).
Its pebble foundations (Figs. 34-35)137
The platform exactly covers an area of fill poured
into a kind of casing. On three sides of the plat-
form, (east, north and south), a regular stratig-
raphy consisting of two superimposed layers has
been observed to a heigth of about 70 cm, that is
to say from the bottom upwards:138
– A fill (height: ~ 60 cm) containing few
shards139 is composed of a mix of grey muddy sand
and irregular small pebbles (Ø 0.5 to 4 cm) which
appear to come from the bed of a wadi.140 This fill
rests on a flat, but not quite horizontal, substra-
tum (+72.71 m below the north-west corner of the
platform, +72.91 m below its south-east corner)
of a mixed silt and clay. This substratum is at the
superstructure du fait que ses faces latérales avaient été
soigneusement dressées.”
133
Ibid., pp. 39-45.
134
This tablet was embedded in plaster in the upper
course of the platform, along the north half of Hatshepsut’s
podium. Numerous fragments of the tablet were reassembled
by the conservator Sa’adi. The upper frame is oversimpli-
fied since it shows only two lower lines, wheras there are
usually four. The two reeds are also very schematic with
no detail. N. Grimal and M.-D. Martellière attribute the
style of carving to the beginning of the New Kingdom, and
it would be useful to re-examine the other tablet (stored
inside the “Cheikh Labib”) which is carved in sunk relief
with the belt of a god.
135
Gabolde, Carlotti, Czerny, BSEG 23 (1999), pp. 40—44:
the god is identified as Atum.
136
J. Lauffray, Karnak 6 (Paris: ERC, 1980), p. 22,
Fig. 7.
137
Ibid., Lauffray, pp. 21, 22, Fig. 7; Ibid., Gabolde,
Carlotti, Czerny, BSEG 23 (1999), pp. 35-36.
138
Ibid., Lauffray, p. 21; Ibid., Gabolde, Carlotti, Czemy,
pp. 45-46; R. Mensan, CFEETK preliminary report, 2005.
139
R. Mensan, CFEETK preliminary report, 2005. North
same level and has an identical composition to the
one onto which the sand layer supporting the first
course of the limestone radier was poured.
– A layer (depth: 5 to 20 cm) of grey and fine
alluvial sand, containing very few tiny shards,
rests on the former fill whose top does not appear
to have been levelled. This sand layer was used
to wedge the blocks of the lower course of the
platform, since those blocks had their bed faces
at different levels.
The low mud brick wall encasing the pebble fill
(Figs. 34-35)
A fill of small pebbles was poured inside the
perimeter delimited by a low wall in mud brick,
which predates the radier, and whose north, east
and south sides were examined. It had already
been described by H. Chevrier as a low wall.141
Its likely function was to prevent the effluence
of the pebbles, since this material can only be
contained inside a pit or casing.
There appears to be a kind of casing here,
delimited by three low walls of mud brick, (the
fourth wall ought to exist under Hatshepsut’s
podium), which so closely resembles a rough
“roll” of soil that it is difficult to compare them
with the mud brick walls which appeared at the
same level (+73.84 m) below the sand layer on
which the green sandstone foundations of the
storerooms surrounding the radier rest. 142 This
resemblance to an irregular “roll” results from
man-made damage to the faces of the low wall,
as tool marks on the bricks show. The inner face
was cut before the pebbles were poured while the
of the channel, four limestone blocks carefully joined with
plaster were removed. Visible at a level of +73.41, the pebble
fill was sifted on a small grid (30 x 60 cm) and to a depth
of 70 cm until silt and clay substratum was reached at a
level of +72.71. A. Masson and M. Millet examined the very
few pottery shards that were found, which they tentatively
date, subject to further examination, to the end of Middle
Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period.
140
The thin plaster layer, observed by L. Gabolde and
J-Fr. Carlotti, in which the pebble fill was embedded, does
not exist to the south of the platform. The biggest pebbles
were deposited naturally by gravity on the bottom of the
casing. The pebble fill could have served both to drain water
flowing from the surface and to limit the capillary action
of the water table.
141
H. Chevrier, ASAE 47, p.177: “Sous l’assise inférieure
de la plate-forme, soit que toute l’infrastructure soit en
briques crues, soit qu’un muret ait été établi pour éviter
que le sable ne coule.”
142
Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 191-204.
Mud brick remains were observed around the courtyard,
below the sandstone foundations of the storerooms sur-
rounding the radier.
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
outer one was cut before the first course of the
radier was built (Figs. 34, 39).143
3.4. The Connection between the Radier and
the Platform (Fig. 39)
The first course of the radier carefully surrounds
the “roll” that appears to contain only the lower
part of the pebble fill on which the platform rests.
It is difficult to determine if the roll was already
this low before the construction of the radier or
if it had been planed down in order to place the
second course of the radier upon it. The limestone
blocks of this second course actually appear to be
embedded into the perimeter of the upper part
of the fill,144 although a thin sand layer separates
them. It is probably when this second course of
the radier was embedded into the fill that some of
the pebbles spilled over the low wall, into which
a few pebbles were compressed under the weight
of the upper couses of the radier. Although the
first two courses of the radier surround the three
visible sides of the pebble fill, they never pass
under it.145
To the north of the platform, the roll appeared,
although very levelled, beneath the two limestone
blocks of the radier’s first course, that were lifted
during the excavations. The roll also appears to
continue westwards below the first sandstone
course of Hatshepsut’s podium where poor ves-
tiges in mud brick appeared. However, the pos-
sible turning of the roll southwards at a right
angle, in order to form the west side of the casing
containing the pebble fill, was not accessible to
the excavators. The tight joint between Hatshep-
sut’s podium and the platform was cleaned to
examine the cut that was made by Hatshepsut
inside the pebble fill in order to set in the first
sandstone course of the podium. This pebble
fill appears to continue further west below the
podium. Three small quartzite foundation deposit
stones inscribed with Hatshepsut’s prenomen
Maatkare were discovered in this excision, and
were nearly plumb with Hatshepsut’s large gran-
ite threshold.
143
J. Lauffray, Karnak 6 (Paris: ERC,1980), p. 21.
144
The fill could have been cut to place the second course
of the radier. The pebbles may have been poured in two
stages: the first one flush with the top of the “roll,” and the
second one after the the second course was laid. There also
seems to be a thin layer of yellow sand inside the vertical
joint separating the course from the fill.
145
Gabolde, Carlotti, Czerny, BSEG 23 (1999), p. 38.
146
The micro-morphological analysis of the silt and clay
161
As one can see to the south and east of the
platform, the limestone blocks preserved around
it were superimposed in a corbelled fashion so
that the third and fourth courses of the radier are
contiguous with the first and second courses of
the platform. This layout indicates that the plat-
form could not have been built after the limestone
radier, which covers the platform. Instead, they
are contemporary. In fact, the space occupied by
the pebble fill under the platform corresponds to
the combined height of the first two courses of the
radier and of the layer of sand inserted between
them.
Thus the platform sealed a casing filled with
pebbles and surrounded by a mud brick “roll”
which appears to be the only visible remains of
an earlier settlement (Figs. 34-35). Everywhere
else below the radier, the elevations of the older
mud brick structures seem to have been planed
down to their lowest level.146
Although they are too few to be conclusive,
pottery shards were found by sifting the pebble
fill on which two of the limestone blocks, carefully
joined with plaster, that were lifted from plat-
form rested. These ceramics range in date from
the end of the Middle Kingdom to the Second
Intermediate Period, which seems to rule out a
Middle Kingdom date for the platform. We shall
see, moreover, that the whole radier, including the
platform, probably served as a reliquary for the
dismantled elements of an older sanctuary. This
same type of reuse of pre-New Kingdom archi-
tectural elements is found beneath the courtyards
of the 5th Pylon, where Tuthmosis I’s columns
are founded on the architraves and column drum
sections of a colonnade of Senwosret I (supra 2:
Senwosret I’s sandstone colonnade). Likewise, the
Osirian pillar n°11 of Senwosret I was discovered
alongside the south colonnade of Tuthmosis I at
the level of its foundations. Finally, in the court-
yard between the 4th and 5th Pylons, pre-New
Kingdom147 elements were carefully buried under
the 18th Dynasty foundations.
substratum will let us know whether or not it is made of
mud bricks compacted by the successive floods.
147
Larché, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), p. 493: Osirian
statues of sandstone and a limestone lintel of Senwosret I
were buried in the sand layer supporting the foundations
radier under the pavement of the south courtyard. A niche
with two statues of Neferhotep was also buried in the sand
layer north of the foundation of the obelisk in the north
courtyard.
162 françois larché
3.5. An Hypothetical Drainage System
Although the water table is very close to the
ground today, it is hard to know if such was
the case during the Antiquity. If it was high in
antiquity, the pebble layer should have served as a
drainage system to prevent the water from rising
too high.148
At Karnak, this implementation of a pebble fill
is unique, since sand is used everywhere else in
foundations. The use of pebbles under the plat-
form was a deliberate choice, since it would have
been easier to substitute the continuation of the
two first courses of the limestone radier in place of
the pebble fill. These pebbles seem, then, to give an
exceptional importance to this tiny surface, where
they could have only served to prevent the rise of
the water table. This underground drainage system
suggests there was a specific need to protect the
ancient ground which once existed beneath the
platform. This drainage system could be linked
to the use, on the surface, of wooden furniture,
a material sensitive to humidity. As the portable
bark inside its wooden naos149 would usually have
been protected from humidity by a hard stone
socle, a sounding near the socle located inside the
bark sanctuary of Philip Arrhideus would allow us
to discover if the pebble fill extends that far west-
wards. According to this hypothesis, the pebbles
would have served to drain the water used during
cult rituals, which could also explain why there is
a wide open joint between the bark socle and the
pavement of Hatshepsut’s Chapelle Rouge.150
4. Proposed Plan of Amenhotep I’s Monuments
Dating the radier to the beginning of the New
Kingdom opens up new prospects for the location
of Amenhotep I’s dismantled monuments. Since
Amun’s names and images were not attacked
on the king’s limestone blocks, his monuments
(Fig. 40) were torn down before Akhenaten’s
reign. The display of the recovered blocks from
148
In Amenhotep III’s temple at Kom al-Hetan, H. Sour-
ouzian has cleared a thick layer of pebbles inserted between
the lower and the intermediate foundation courses of the
walls and of the colonnades.
149
C. Graindorge, “Les monuments d’Amenhotep Ier à
Karnak,” Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 (2000): the decora-
tion carved on the inner faces of the walls R and R’ shows
a wooden naos sheltering the portable bark.
150
F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, 1.2.5.
Le dallage du sanctuaire.
151
The walls A, B, C, D, E, N, R are placed north of
these monuments on new mastabas built to the
south of the “Cheikh Labib” storeroom, where
they have been restored, permit their classification
into eleven sets of walls characterized by the let-
ters A, B, C, D, E, G, M, N, P, R, and S151 (Fig. 40).
Ten of these eleven sets were already described
by C. Graindorge152 while J. Fr. Carlotti has pro-
posed a sequence of three reconstructed plans.153
However, my examination of all the faces of these
blocks during their transport suggests to me that
they should be reconstructed according to a com-
pletely different plan, even though it uses the same
architectural elements. Two stages of construction
can be proposed, from east to west.
4.1. First Stage: the Monuments Built on and
around the Limestone Radier (in gold on the
plan, Fig. 40)
The sanctuary
Since no architectural elements in Amenhotep
I’s name have been identified, the sanctuary was,
perhaps, built by one of his predecessors. Its sche-
matic reconstruction relies solely on the location
of the four granite thresholds and of the calcite
socle.
The enclosure wall C+C’ (three cubits thick at
its base)
The thickest of Amenhotep I’s walls (Fig. 40)154
fits the traces incised astride threshold n°1 and
on the red sandstone block bordering the west
edge of the top face of the radier.155 The east side
of Hatshepsut’s suite abutted this enclosure wall
C (Fig. 41; Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 [2000],
p. 29, plan 2, N° 6 ). Around 50 blocks belonging
to the south half C’ of the enclosure are preser-
eved, along with seven more that are attributed
to its north half C.
A horizontal line of text in relief, topped with
a torus moulding and a cornice, runs along the
upper part of its outer battered face, while its
lower face is smooth and lacks decoration. The
battered face of four superimposed blocks of the
the axis while the walls A’, B’, C’, D’, E’, R’, S’ are placed
south of the same axis.
152
C. Graindorge, Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 (2000),
pp. 25-36.
153
Ibid., pp. 27, 29 and 34.
154
F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2,
p. 329.
155
The blocks of the structure 3 (Égypte, Afrique et
Orient 16 [2000], p. 29, plan 2) in fact come from wall C
(N° 6), from which they cannot be separated (see pl. 40;
ibid., Burgos, Larché, p. 329).
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
north half C (1C + 2C + 3C + 4C)156 shows super-
imposed registers with small scenes identical to
the antas of Senwosret I’s portico. Since the south
joints of these blocks are vertically aligned, they
could have abutted the north doorjamb, prob-
ably in granite, of the axial door (the ancestor
of the present “Door of the food offerings”). This
doorjamb was edged with a vertical torus mould-
ing as the vertical groove (1/4 cylinder shaped)
incised to the right of the west face of the four
superimposed blocks shows. This support is also
confirmed on the vertical inner face of the same
four blocks whose decoration stops along the
usual vertical frame. This inner face shows bulls
walking towards an abattoir and facing the axial
door on either sides C and C’ (block 1C).157
The inner face of the south half C’ is vertical
and, above a blank dado, is decorated in raised
relief with two registers on which the ritual lit-
urgies of Amun at Karnak unfold. On the lower
register, Amenhotep I pays homage to Amun and
consecrates new monuments, while on the upper
one he presents offerings to the Ennead and con-
secrates altars.
The wall D+D’ (two cubits thick at its base)
The outer face of wall D is battered and topped
with a line of text. Above a blank dado, the lower
register shows Amenhotep I running the ritual
race around boundary stones in the presence of
Amun-Kamutef, while the upper one depicts his
coronation by Amun. The wall’s inner face is
vertical and is also decorated with two registers
above a blank dado: the lower one represents an
episode of the Heb-Sed, and the upper one the
montée royale in front of Amun.
Wall D is clearly delimited (length: 4.78 m) on
both faces by two vertical frames bordering the
blank reveals of two door openings. Along the left
edge of the battered face, the reveal is cut with
a vertical groove which was very likely used to
embed a wooden doorpost.
This wall D cannot be placed as in Égypte,
Afrique et Orient 16 (2000), Fig. 34, plan 4, N° 3.
A new location is now proposed between the axial
sanctuary and the north wall of enclosure C. Only
a few blocks from a symmetrical wall D’, to the
south, are identified (1D’ to 4D’-240A1).
156
Ibid., p. 329.
157
Ibid., p. 329, Fig. c.
163
The wall A+A’ (81 cm thick at its base)
C. Graindorge considers wall A to be the facade
of an abattoir, pierced by at least three doorways,
of which some elements of doorjambs and lintels
were identified. One cannot say if these doors
gave access to the temple interior either for live
cattle coming from outside or for prepared cuts
of meat after the animals were butchered. The
outer battered face of the wall is decorated with
a single register carved in raised relief above a
dado, while its inner vertical face is blank except
for a horizontal line of text carved at mid-height
in sunk relief. Wall A is reconstructed to the
east of the limestone radier, plumbed with the
ancient foundation trenches reused for Tuth-
mosis I’s storerooms (Fig. 40; Égypte, Afrique
et Orient 16 [2000], p. 29, plan 2, N° 11). Block
4A (271A1) should abutt the north doorjamb,
probably in granite, of an axial door. This door-
jamb was framed with a vertical torus moulding
as the vertical groove (1/4 cylinder shaped) that
cut through the left edge of the battered face of
block 4A indicates. Six other blocks also come
from this north half A, while 19 blocks from the
south half A’ have been identified.
4.2. Second Stage: The Constructions Built to
the West of the Limestone Radier (in yellow on
the plan, Fig. 40)
The constructions built to the west of the lime-
stone radier were replaced, first by a monument
that has since vanished, the Netchery-menu and
its bark chapel in hard limestone, and later by
Hatshepsut’s podium and its superstructures.
The blocks from these dismantled constructions
were buried below the Cachette courtyard or
they may have been reused in the foundations
of Ptah temple, but this must be confirmed by
future excavations.
The bark chapel R+R’
This bark chapel consists of two parallel walls (R
and R’) with battered outer faces158 and vertical
inner ones.159 Both faces are entirely decorated
with two registers above a dado. Described by
C. Graindorge as “two screen walls surround-
ing a wooden bark shrine,” R and R’ do, in fact,
form the two side walls of a chapel opened at
158
Ibid., p. 328, Fig. a.
159
Ibid., p. 328, Fig. b.
164 françois larché
each end. The doorframe of the eastern facade
is decorated with two large columns of text. The
battered western facade has two doorjambs with
vertical reveals (width: 90 cm). Each side of the
doorframe is decorated with at least four small
registers (1R-5R),160 each one showing Amenho-
tep I facing the two alternate forms of Amun.
Three limestone blocks (175A1+249A1+
87CL56) are now joined on a mastaba161 next to
three other blocks from the facade’s doorframe
(87CL42, 87CL183, 183A1). Perpendicular to the
north doorframe, the outer face of R starts with a
blank surface (two cubits long) which was used to
fold back the doorleaf of a side door. This blank
surface ends near the west facade with a chis-
elled rough protuberance which looks more like
a destroyed rebate than the result of the removal
of a vertical torus moulding. On the other side
of the opening, the doorleaf could be fixed to the
doorpost embbeded inside the groove cut in the
south reveal of wall B, which is same width as the
blank surface (two cubits, Fig. 40).
The decoration of the inner faces of both walls
R and R’ starts alongside the two rebates of both
axial openings. Though there are no expected
blank surfaces to fold back the doorleaf, this is not
sufficient proof that these openings had none.
Six blocks from the upper course which sup-
ported the roof slabs were found: the four south-
ern ones are decorated with a Kheker-frieze carved
inside and painted outside, while the two northern
ones show a different pattern; outside, the painted
frieze is replaced by a horizontal line of text which
was topped by a course of cornice blocks having
a horizontal torus moulding.
The disposition of the west facade of Amen-
hotep I’s bark chapel between two openings was
later copied in the Chapelle Rouge and then later
in Tuthmosis III’s granite bark sanctuary. The
proposed location of Amenhotep I’s bark chapel
is on the site of the Philip Arrhideus chapel
(Fig. 40; Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 [2000], p. 27,
plan 1, N° 4 and p. 29, plan 2, N° 4).162
160
Ibid., p. 328, Fig. c.
161
Ibid., p. 328.
162
Ibid., p. 328.
163
Ibid., p. 324, Fig. b.
164
Ibid., p. 325, Fig. b.
165
Ibid., pp. 324-325.
The enclosure wall around the bark shrine
B+ E and B’+E’
– The two symetrical right corners of two per-
pendicular walls (B+E and B’+E’) are decorated in
raised relief with small scenes similar to the reliefs
on Senwosret I’s portico. Three blocks163 form the
corner (north-west) of the walls B and E while
four other blocks and two fragments164 belong to
the symmetrical corner (south-west). Three details
prevent the reconstruction of a portico with free
standing supports linked by architraves between
these corners (Fig. 40; Égypte, Afrique et Orient
16 [2000], p. 29, plan 2, N° 8):165
* The small size of the blocks, as well as their
irregular bonds, do not permit the seatting of
architraves whose soffits should be lined up
between both corners of the portico;
* The horizontal frame, carved under the upper
line of text, seems incompatible with the decora-
tion of an architrave on which this frame might
possibly have been painted but never carved;
* The decoration on the face bordering the
superimposed small scenes differs from Senwos-
ret I’s portico, which shows only the king facing
Amun. The remains of tiny, superimposed female
figures suggests that this was a much longer scene
whose right end is carved on a block from wall
B, on which there appears the foot of a figure on
an equally small scale (13B).
– Wall B (two cubits thick at its base): both
faces are decorated in raised relief. Battered, its
outer one has a single register showing, on its right
half, a large figure of Amenhotep I smitting his
Asiatic enemies, and topped with a horizontal line
of text.166 Like the large figure of Tuthmosis III
carved on the 6th Pylon’s west face, Amenhotep
I faces away from the temple’s axis. Block 19B
(87CL384) being placed on the wall’s left half, the
raptor’s direction indicates a king moving right-
wards, in the opposite direction of the smitting
king. Vertical, its inner face is decorated with
two registers showing the king, the god’s wife
Ahmes-Nefertari, and the priests entering the
166
It seems impossible to assign to wall B the two small
limestone blocks which were reused inside the north wing
of the 5th Pylon, and which belonged to the frame of a
flagpole niche. Other niches had probably decorated the
eastern face of the 5th Pylon’s ancestor.
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
temple. They are purified in basins before moving
towards the courtyard where they sing in front
of the Ennead, accompanied by Thoth. Both per-
pendicular ends of wall B are preserved:
* the south end of wall B (to the right of the
outer face) is dressed as a smooth reveal (87CL
477+355+123+497). A vertical groove is cut
into the angle of the reveal with the outer face,
probably to fix a wooden doorpost. A doorleaf
allowed the passage that opened on both sides of
the west facade of the bark chapel to be closed off
(Fig. 40).
* the north end of wall B (left of the outer face) is
framed on both sides of the corner with superim-
posed registers of small scenes167 which are dupli-
cates of those on Senwosret I’s portico. Wall B is
reconstructed north of the bark shrine R, aligned
with its west facade, and separated from it by an
opening whose doorleaf must have been fixed to
a wooden doorpost (Fig. 40; Égypte, Afrique et
Orient 16 [2000], pl. 34, plan 4, N° 2).
– Wall B’ (2 cubits thick at its base): eight
blocks from this wall, reconstructed south of the
bark shrine’s wall R’, were identified (two blocks
are still not placed).168 In particular, an assembly
of three blocks shows:
* On its battered face,169 a fragmentary hori-
zontal text is carved under the horizontal torus
moulding;
* On its vertical face,170 the remains of two
successive scenes separated by a vertical frame.
In the left scene, the king moves leftwards in
the direction of the south-west corner, while in
the very fragmentary scene on the right, only
a brief segment of a horizontal frame where it
meets the vertical frame remains. This horizontal
frame is topped with a Kheker-frieze. Below it, a
skyline surmounts a Nekhbet-glyph, indicating
the raptor’s position and that the scene was very
narrow.171
The north cross joints of both superimposed
blocks line up vertically and are perfectly smooth.
These two anomalies prove that these cross joints
once abutted a monolithic element that was
already standing here. This may have been an
Osiran pillar of Senwosret I, whose two paral-
lel faces have the same depth as wall B’. Indeed,
167
F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2,
pg. 324.
168
Ibid., p. 325, Fig. c.
169
Ibid., p. 324, Fig. b and p. 325, Fig. b.
170
Ibid., p. 325, Fig. a.
171
Observation made by Ch. Van Siclen.
165
the face of one such pillar stored in the “Cheikh
Labib” storeroom has been recarved twice
(Fig. 6): on the first occasion, the new king was
placed much higher, in front of a wAs-sceptre held
by a figure of Amun that was partly carved on an
adjoining wall; in the second edition, a lone king
is shown with a highly arched eyebrow character-
istic of Amenhotep I’s relief portraits, although
the nose is shorter. Because the orientation of this
second king is incompatible with the inner face
of wall B’, this pillar (Fig. 6) was probably incor-
perated into the symmetrical wall B. Given the
difficulty in reusing these pillars, it seems likely
that they were still in place when walls B and
B’ were constructed.
– Wall E (two cubits thick at its base and 95 cm
under the torus): both its faces are decorated in
raised relief. The inner one is vertical, and carved
with two registers depicting the daily ritual of
Amun. Battered, the outer one is smooth except
for the line of text carved under the horizontal
torus moulding supporting the cornice (block
87CL 483). 172 Block 87CL 84 (CFEETK neg.
109364) forms a reflex right angle, whose one face
has no vertical frame. This wall E (N° 9) cannot
be placed symmetrically to wall C (N°6) as was
proposed (see Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 [2000],
pl. 29, plan 2, N° 9), since wall E (N° 9) is thin-
ner at its base (2 cubits) than the wall C (N°6) (3
cubits). Wall E is, in fact, perpendicular to wall B
at the level of the corner previously described, viz.
the one with decoration which duplicates that of
Senwosret I’s portico.173 This wall E constitutes,
then, the north wall of the courtyard located north
of the bark chapel R+R’ (Fig. 40).
– Wall E’: only one top block of this wall E’,
which formed the south continuation of the enclo-
sure C’, was identified.174
The two lines N+S of 16 niches, the predecessor
of the 6th Pylon
These two series of eight niches were lined up
on both sides of an axial door (Fig. 40; Égypte,
Afrique et Orient 16 [2000], p. 29, plan 2, N° 13),175
each one (height: 4 cubit) likely sheltered a royal
statue.176 On both side faces of each niche, Amen-
hotep I sits enthroned in front of an offering list
172
F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2,
pg. 324, Fig. b.
173
Ibid., p. 324, Fig. b.
174
Ibid., p. 325, Fig. b.
175
Ibid., pp. 326-78.
176
These niches are not high enough (4 cubits) to have
166 françois larché
and a table laden with offerings, while a priest
carries out the cult ritual. Both lines N and S seem
to come from the east face of a Pylon which is
reconstructed as the ancestor of the 6th Pylon and
its western enclosure (Fig. 40; Égypte, Afrique et
Orient 16 [2000], p. 29, plan 2, N° 5).
At its base, the width of the Pylon reached six
cubits, a figure computed through the addition
of the niche depth (2.5 cubit) to the depth of the
headers (125.5 cm) which form, at their top, the
back face of the niches. The visible faces of both
headers (87CL 404 and 405) show that the bat-
tered outer one is blank, while the vertical inner
one is decorated. Two blocks belonging to the
facade of the niches have vertical torus mouldings
marking the end of the decoration. This particular
feature allows them to be placed at the extreme
ends of each wing:
– In the north wing, it is possible to place block
357A1 (CFEETK neg. 115996) between the axial
door and the first niche. Unlike the other vertical
ones, the torus moulding of block 357A1 is not
carved alongside the doorframe of the niche, but
is set 15.5 cm apart. To the left of the torus, the
face of the block is smooth, probably as far as the
doorframe of the axial door. Two superimposed
blocks, 63A1 (CFEETK neg.115705) and 288A1,
are placed to the right of the last niche. To the
left of the vertical torus, the face is decorated with
the right doorframe of the niche while to its right,
the face is smooth, probably until the north-east
corner of the Pylon.
– In the south wing, block 87CL 465 (CFEETK
neg. 104987) is placed to the left of the niche, at
the farthest point from the axial door. To the
right of the vertical torus, the face is decorated
sheltered the sandstone Osirian statues (6 are preserved,
height: 3.15 m, CFEETK neg.1720) which were reused in
the foundations of the south courtyard between the 5th
and the 4th Pylon.
177
R. Mensan in La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, pp. 137-141:
7.2.3. La chapelle occidentale de Thoutmosis III: opération
161 with Fig. pg. 294.
178
F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, pg. 326.
It is also possible that this door comes from Amenhotep I’s
Pylon that was replaced by the 5th Pylon. According to this
last hypothesis, Amenhotep I probably reused Senwosret
I’s lintel in its original location.
179
Chr. Wallet-Lebrun, 18/2C (in press by Soleb): “[Ame]
n[ho]tep Ier doué de [vie] qui [compte parmi son oeuvre en
faveur de son père] Amon, seigneur-des-trônes-des-deux-
terres, la construction de son domaine, l’agencement de
son temple et l’érection de la porte Sud Seqa-hotep de vingt
coudées en [belle pierre blanche de calcaire]…”
180
The direction of this lintel from an axial door is very
likely defined by the position of the heraldic plants crushed
with the left doorframe of the niche, while to its
left the face is smooth probably until the south-
east corner of the Pylon.
– Flagpole niche: the existence of at least one
flagpole niche in each wing is proved by the thin
depth (60 cm) of header 1S5-6 (345A1) which
belongs to the back of the fourth niche of the
southern range. Smooth and vertical, the outer
face of this block is set ~ 65 cm back from the
west face of the Pylon. This layout is characteristic
of a flagpole niche facing west.
– Decoration: a few limestone fragments in
sunk relief were found in the foundation trench
reused for the 6th Pylon and its west enclosure
wall.177 They belonged to a line of text similar to
the one topping the walls of the open air passages
delimiting the small chapels P. It is possible that
the original trench was dug under Amenhotep I
to receive the foundations of a thin Pylon with
battered faces (Fig. 40). The west face was blank
but maybe have been topped by a line of text
while its east face had 16 niches.
– An axial door: this door separated the two
rows of eight niches. It is possible that a limestone
lintel of Amenhotep I,178 with texts that men-
tionned construction work in Karnak temple179
and which consists of blocks reused from a hard
limestone lintel of Senwosret I, was placed here.
Seven reused fragments come from the upper half
of the original doorframe and from the face above
it which shows Senwosret I sitting enthroned
between Horus and Seth.180 These blocks were
cut up and rotated before Amenhotep I reused
them as a lintel embedded in a battered stone
wall, as their perfectly flat cross joints indicate.
On the lintel, the doorframe was wider under
Amenhotep I (width: 3.46 m, projection: 7 cm)
by the feet of the divinities. Seth, here referred to as the god
of Ombos, is the Lord of Upper Egypt. He is placed to the
left, on the lilly of the South, while Horus is placed to the
right, on the papyrus of the North. This allows the lintel to
face east, and not west as one might think even though the
king’s red crown faces Amun, behind Seth. Unfortunately,
behind Horus, the crown of the symmetrical king facing
Amun has disappeared. The missing crown may have also
been red, as one can see in the representation of Karnak’s
3rd Pylon, shown in a relief from the walls of the Colon-
nade Hall at Luxor temple (see Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs
and Inscriptions from Luxor Temple, Volume 1: The Fes-
tival Procession of Opet in the Colonnade Hall [Chicago:
The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1994],
pl. 100). Indeed, on the lintel of the axial door, (which is
supposed to face west here), the opposing kings running
towards Amun both wear the red crown. This strange sym-
metry of identical crowns does not seem to be a sculptor’s
mistake since another relief, to the south of this one on the
same wall, the exit gateway of Luxor temple is shown with
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
than under Senwosret I (width: 3.10 m). The few
blocks belonging to the inner and outer door-
jambs (passage: 3 cubits) show different widths
of the vertical doorframes:181
* The narrowest doorframes (77.5 cm)182 have
a slightly battered face that belonged to the inner
doorframe.183 They are decorated with a column
of text consisting of large hieroglyphs which per-
mits the height of the passage to be reconstructed
as nine cubits. One reveal is smooth, in order to
fold the single doorleaf, while the other one is
decorated with two columns of text which prob-
ably preceded a figure of the king striding into
the temple (now missing).184
* The widest doorframes (96 cm)185 are more
battered than the former ones and come from
the outer doorframe.186 They are decorated with
several superimposed scenes showing the king
facing Amun. The door rebate seems to be pre-
served on block 156A1.
* The counter-lintel: two blocks187 in hard
limestone, very likely belonged to the counter-
lintel of the earlier doorway of Senwosret I,188
since one block (87CL 122) is clearly reused. Its
top face shows an excision made at a right angle
with reliefs depicting stars which is typical of the
decoration on the soffit of a lintel.189 From the
dimensions of the lintel and of the doorjambs, it
is possible to reconstruct the doorway as being
~9 cubits high with a passage three cubits wide.
Amenhotep I wears the red crown on the left side
of the lintel, and the white one on the right, indi-
cating that his door faced either south or west.
The chapels G and P for the royal cult
Foundations perpendicular to the western
enclosure of the 6th Pylon also supported the
north and south side chapels of Amenhotep I that
Tuthmosis III and Hatshepsut later replaced.
– The long chapels G and G’ (~ 67 cm thick,
two vertical faces): at least six long chapels have
scenes depicting the offering ritual made to the
the scene on its lintel showing the two kings run towards
Amun but wearing different crowns this time: red to the left
(North) and white to the right (South). Epigraphic Survey,
RILT 1, pl. 56.
181
F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2,
pp. 326-327.
182
Ibid., p. 327. South doorjamb: 97CL 125 (CFEETK
neg. 109227), 190A1 (CFEETK neg. 115851)—b. North
doorjamb: 182A1 (CFEETK neg. 115851), 298A1+67A1.
183
Ibid., p. 327.
184
Ibid., p. 327d. Reveal of the doorway: 298A1 (CFEETK
neg. 116016).
185
North doorjamb: 126A1 (CFEETK neg. 115836),
167
royal statue and its ka, by priests who are dis-
played on two registers. A few blocks from the
side walls still retain partial projections of the
back walls of these chapels. This bonding con-
firms that the main back wall (north for G, south
for G’) was dismantled at the same time as the
chapels. Their proposed reconstruction is in the
same location as the later chapels of Tuthmosis
III, which border the north and south sides of
the Hatshepsut suite (Figs. 40-41; Égypte n°16,
p. 27, plan 1, n° 3).
– The short chapels P and P’ (~ 59 cm thick,
two vertical faces): at least five short chapels have
decoration on their side walls nearly identical to
that of the long ones, but without the ka behind
the royal statue. A few blocks of the side walls have
kept the projection of the facade, but never of the
back wall, as though the back walls had stayed in
place when the rest was dismantled. Their pro-
posed reconstruction is in the same location as
Tuthmosis III’s chapels which border the north
and south courtyard of the 6th Pylon (Figs. 40-41;
Égypte n°16, p. 29, plan 2, n° 1).
– The chapels at the extremities surrounding
small passageways: altogether, there are six pas-
sageways, three on the north and three on the
south. On the north side, from west to east:
– the first passageway separates the wall with
the range of niches S and N from the western-
most chapel of P
– the second passageway separates the range
of chapels G from the range of chapels P
– the third passageway separates the eastern-
most chapel of G from the two parallel walls
surrounding the limestone radier. Blocks from
three walls (P1, P5, G0) have a different decora-
tive scheme on one face, which is blank except
for a horizontal line of text carved at its top in
sunk relief. These particular faces were adjacent
to small passageways which gave access to the
outside (Fig. 40).
87CL 439 (CFEETK neg. 105214), 87CL 3+354A1 (CFEETK
neg. 109065), Ibid., p. 326a. South doorjamb: 274A1, 87CL
190 (CFEETK neg. 105166), 94A1 (CFEETK neg. 115813),
Ibid., p. 326b.
186
F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2,
p. 326.
187
See pl. 50d. A lintel in hard limestone, reused
from an earlier lintel: 87CL 122 (CFEETK neg. 109230),
237A1 (CFEETK neg. 11583).
188
F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2,
p. 327.
189
Larché, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), p. 417 and
pl. XCII: block 87CL122.
168 françois larché
The chapel of Ahmes-Nefertari
At least 13 blocks of the M-series have the same
thickness. The salts covering them indicates that
they lay buried under the groundwater table,
probably below the Cachette courtyard. The
Kheker-friezes which are found on both sides of
one block are not at the same level, indicating
that the roofs on each side of the wall were at
different levels. A corner block with a vertical
torus moulding is decorated with two cartouches
of Ahmes-Nefertari. There is no clue as to the
original location of this structure anywhere within
the sanctuary.
The copy of Senoswret I’s White Chapel
More than 30 blocks (architraves, pillars, low
walls, dados, roof slabs) come from a chapel
whose dimensions and decoration are identical to
Senwosret I’s White Chapel. The low walls placed
in between the pillars are slightly thinner (35 cm)
than those of the White Chapel (44 cm).
On all these monuments, the facial features of
Amenhotep I appear remarkably consistent, with
a long curved nose, a falling chin and, most of the
time, a highly arched eyebrow joining the tip of
the eye. These portraits differ from the profiles of
Amun, which have a much shorter nose above a
flatter mouth and smaller chin, and are astonish-
ingly similar to the profile of Senwosret I.
4.3. The Stages of Deconstruction
All these blocks of Amenhotep I were found
in several locations at Karnak: in the so-called
Montu Temple at north-Karnak,190 below the
Cachette courtyard,191 in the 3rd Pylon,192 in the
foundations of the storerooms surrounding the
limestone radier and, very likely, in the founda-
tions of the Ptah temple. Because of these many
findspots, three successive stages of the disman-
tling of Amenhotep I’s monuments can be envis-
aged.193
190
FIFAO 19, p. 16, pl. 41-44; FIFAO 25, pp. 23-65,
62.
191
ASAE 4, pp. 1-40, 193-226; ASAE 5, pp. 1-43, 265-
280.
192
ASAE 22, pp. 235-260; ASAE 23 pp. 99-138; ASAE
24, pp. 53-88; ASAE 26, pp. 119-130; ASAE 28, pp. 114-
128; ASAE 29, pp. 133-149; ASAE 31, pp. 81-97; ASAE 32,
pp. 97-114; ASAE 37, pp. 173-200; ASAE 38, pp. 567-608;
The first stage of deconstruction under
Tuthmosis I
This first destruction concerned the two parallel
enclosure walls (inner enclosure wall: 2 cubits
thick, outer enclosure wall: 3 cubits thick) that
were successively built by Amenhotep I around
the limestone radier on which the main sanctuary
rested (Fig. 40). Continued probably by Tuthmo-
sis II and certainly by his successor, the disman-
tling process included the north and south ranges
of short and long chapels P/P’ and G/G’ (Fig. 40)
which were eventually replaced by similar chapels
of Tuthmosis III, of which vestiges still stand.
The only preserved foundations of Amenhotep
I were discovered below the westward exten-
sion of the outer enclosure wall against which
Tuthmosis III and Hatshepsut abutted the south
chapels of the 6th Pylon. These foundations con-
sist of five courses, in green sandstone, built in
the same manner as the courses of the limestone
radier. Elsewhere around the radier, and below
the north extension of the outer enclosure, this
foundation of five courses was removed by Tuth-
mosis I. He replaced them by one made of two or
three thin courses, in green sandstone, set on a
very thick sand layer poured into Amenhotep I’s
original trench. The sand thus replaced the two
first courses of the original foundation. A few
of Amenhotep I’s limestone blocks194 were also
reused in this new foundation, at its connection
joint with the old one.
The second stage of deconstruction, during the
coregency of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III
The second stage of the destruction of Amenhotep
I’s monuments was the removal of his narrow
Pylon with 16 niches (S+N). Its western founda-
tions (Fig. 41) were reused in the construction of
the 6th Pylon and its western enclosure.
The third stage of deconstruction under
Amenhotep III
The third phase of destruction removed nearly
everything that Amenhotep I had built on the
ASAE 39, pp. 553-570; ASAE 46, pp. 147-161; ASAE 47,
pp. 161-183; ASAE 49, pp. 1-15, 241-267; ASAE 50, pp. 429-
442; ASAE 51, pp. 549-572; ASAE 52, pp. 229-242; ASAE
53, pp. 7-19, 21-42.
193
Larché, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 487-488:
8.4.
194
F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, pp. 235,
238, 247-251.
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
eastern foundations, that is to say at the loca-
tion of the so-called “Middle Kingdom” court-
yard. Amenhotep III preserved the storerooms
of Tuthmosis I which surround the limestone
radier. Later restorations to these magazines
prove that they remained in use until the cult
stopped. Since the east face of Hatshepsut’s suite
has remained very rough, it would seem natural
that Amenhotep III kept in place the enclosure
wall built along the perimeter of the limestone
radier, against which this rough face abutted.
However, the reconstruction of wall C+C’ as the
195
H. Chevrier, ASAE 47 (1947), p. 177: “La thèse
généralement admise de l’exploitation du calcaire pour la
169
west side of this enclosure and the reuse of its
blocks in the 3rd Pylon invalidates this hypothesis.
It is difficult to imagine what Amenhotep III had
planned to do in the so-called “Middle Kingdom”
courtyard, since it seems to have remained nearly
empty until today.195 Like Amenhotep I, Amen-
hotep III would thus have been the instigator of
vast disruptions inside the temple of Amun by
simultaneously dismantling all the monuments
built west of the 4th Pylon as well as part of the
sanctuary of Amun that occupied the so-called
“Middle Kingdom” courtyard.
fabrication de la chaux semble ici être en défaut, car de nom-
breux blocs de ces matériaux sont restés sur le terrain.”
170 françois larché
Addendum:
La destruction comparée des temples du Moyen
Empire à Tôd, Médamoud et Karnak
Au temple de Tôd, de nombreux détails ren-
dent bien improbable la chronologie des étapes
de construction du temple telle que l’a proposée
Bisson de la Roque1. S’il a bien remarqué le mur
en calcaire de Sésostris Ier (h : 3,87 m), qui a été
partiellement conservé dans le vestibule ajouté par
Ptolémée Évergète II, il n’a pas vu que la fonda-
tion en calcaire de ce mur était indépendante du
radier, celui dont le démontage a révélé un trésor
d’Amenhemat II, le fils2 de Sésostris Ier, ainsi que
de nombreux remplois du Moyen Empire. Pour
faciliter la description des éléments d’architecture,
l’orientation du temple sera simplifiée par rapport
au Nord géographique : l’entrée ptolémaïque sera
dite à l’ouest, le naos supposé à l’est, le trésor au
nord et l’accès moderne au sud.
1. Les quatre déconnections visibles entre le radier
et le mur de Sésostris Ier
La porte détruite au sud du mur en calcaire de
Sésostris Ier
Une ancienne porte a été partiellement détruite à
l’extrémité sud du mur en calcaire3 de Sésostris Ier
afin d’y appuyer l’angle sud-ouest de l’ajout ptolé-
maïque. Le jambage sud de cette porte a disparu
alors que son jambage nord est resté intact à l’ex-
ception de la feuillure de butée du vantail, qui a
été soigneusement arasée (l : 36 cm) de façon à
pouvoir y appuyer les assises ptolémaïques. La
destruction partielle de ces assises en grès a fait
apparaître l’embrasure lisse du jambage nord ainsi
que l’orifice du loquet4 aménagée le long de la
feuillure arasée.
En restituant une largeur minimale au passage
disparu de cette porte, le jambage sud aurait dû
se trouver au moins 2 coudées plus au sud, ce qui
le place bien au-delà de l’alignement du radier
démonté par Bisson de la Roque. L’angle sud-
ouest du temple de Sésostris Ier devant être alors
1
F. Bisson de la Roque, Tôd (1934 à 1936), FIFAO 17
(Le Caire: IFAO, 1937).
2
Que le trésor soit au nom d’Amenhemat II rend aber-
rant l’attribution, par Bisson de la Roque, du radier à son
père Sésostris Ier.
3 7
F. Bisson de la Roque, Tôd (1934 à 1936), p. 13, fig.
9 et Pl. I.
4
Observation d’Antoine Garric. Un orifice semblable
restitué encore plus au sud, tout semble indiquer
que la fondation du mur en calcaire est complète-
ment indépendante du radier comme le montre
d’ailleurs son appareil beaucoup plus soigné.
Les photographies publiées montrent que cette
fondation est placée uniquement à l’aplomb du
mur en calcaire sans aucun lien apparent avec
le radier5. La marque de l’appui d’un dallage est
nettement ravalée sur le parement visible des par-
paings en calcaire de cette fondation. On peut y
restituer de minces dalles en calcaire d’épaisseur
constante et parfaitement ajustés sur un remblai,
identiques à celles du temple de Sésostris Ier à Élé-
phantine où une dizaine ont été réutilisées, sous
Hatshepsout et Thoutmosis III, dans la fondation
du temple de Satet.
Le dallage en grès du radier
Le schéma6 de Bisson de la Roque indique qu’un
dallage en grès recouvrait le radier. Le sol du
temple le plus récent est ainsi placé 37 cm au-
dessus de celui qui était associé au mur conservé
de Sésostris Ier, ce que montre la trace de l’appui
du dallage contre l’assise de réglage en calcaire.
Comme le constate très justement Bisson de la
Roque, le dallage en grès est ainsi postérieur au
mur de Sésostris Ier. Cependant, il fait l’hypothèse
que le dallage associé au mur de Sésostris Ier aurait
été l’assise en calcaire qui supporte le dallage en
grès alors que les photographies montrent que
cette assise est construite de blocs remployés
(même s’ils ne sont pas décorés), plus ou moins
bien appareillés, et dont le lit d’attente n’est pas
assez bien ravalé pour avoir été un sol7. Ces blocs
n’ont rien en commun avec les belles dalles en
calcaire du temple de Sésostris Ier à Éléphantine.
Rien n’assure donc que cette 3e assise du radier
ait fait office de dallage au Moyen-Empire.
L’alignement du côté ouest du radier
Le plan et une photographie8 montrent claire-
ment que le côté ouest du radier, en particulier
son angle nord-ouest , n’est absolument pas aligné
avec la fondation du mur de Sésostris Ier, cette
est visible sur un jambage de la porte de Médamoud recon-
struite au musée en plein air de Karnak. Ibid., F. Bisson
de la Roque, pl. III.
5
Ibid., p. 6, fig.4 et Pl. XIV.
6
Ibid., p. 11, fig. 7.
Ibid., p. 12, fig. 8 et Pl. XIV-1.
8
Ibid., pl. I et XIV-1.
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
dernière étant installée beaucoup plus à l’ouest.
Cet indice montre que, encore une fois, le mur et
le radier sont structurellement déconnectés.
Le sectionnement de la fondation du mur en
calcaire de Sésostris Ier
Toujours visible, l’assise de réglage de cette fonda-
tion est construite d’épais parpaings traversants,
en calcaire, parfaitement joints et débordant de
part et d’autre du mur épais de 2 coudées. Un
sondage permettrait de mieux étudier cette fon-
dation et d’en compter les assises. L’extrémité
sud conservée du mur de Sésostris Ier tourne à
angle droit vers l’est ce qui est confirmé égale-
ment sur l’assise de réglage de la fondation. Ce
mur perpendiculaire ne conserve qu’une très
petite surface de son parement nord où l’on voit
la bordure segmentée du décor et la queue d’un
personnage, probablement le dieu si l’on reste
cohérent avec la décoration du parement perpen-
diculaire. Comme l’indique les traces de coins
éclateurs, la fondation du refend a été sectionnée
à moins d’un mètre de l’angle avec le mur con-
servé. La logique constructive imposant que cette
fondation ait été démantelée après les assises en
élévation qu’elle supportait, il est certain que ce
refend a été volontairement détruit à un moment
de l’histoire du temple. Aucun sondage stratigra-
phique n’ayant été réalisé entre le radier et cette
fondation, il n’est alors possible d’estimer la date
de cette destruction que par un raisonnement sur
les vestiges architecturaux.
2. L’élévation conservée du mur en calcaire de
Sésostris Ier
Le mur conservé de Sésostris Ier a été largement
découpé dans sa partie médiane sous Ptolémée
Évergète II qui y fit installer une nouvelle porte
axiale. La décoration primitive de Sésostris Ier a
alors disparu de la partie centrale des deux pare-
ments mais les vestiges conservés des parties laté-
rales, au nord et au sud de cette nouvelle porte,
permettent de la reconstituer partiellement.
Le parement ouest
Une grande inscription gravée en creux, en colon-
nes, couvrait la partie du parement actuellement
au sud de la porte axiale. Le sommet du mur con-
servé correspond au haut du texte qui aurait dû
9
Observation de Ch. Van Siclen.
171
logiquement être couronné d’un tore surmonté
d’une corniche. Cependant, la frise de Khekerou,
gravée à ce niveau sur le parement opposé, cou-
ronne une décoration en creux qui n’incite guère
à y poser une couverture. Peut-on alors imaginer
une assise supplémentaire sculptée d’un tore sur-
monté d’une corniche sur ses deux parements
opposés ?
L’extrémité sud de l’inscription en colonnes est
bordée par le motif vertical du cobra s’enroulant
autour de la tige centrale d’une plante héraldique9,
ce motif décorant ainsi le chambranle gauche de
porte démantelée qui a été décrite plus haut. Au
nord de la porte axiale, le parement en calcaire
est beaucoup moins lisible mais on observe10, au
niveau du dallage ptolémaïque, un alignement de
ankh et de was, surmonté d’un lion couché qui
pourrait fort bien avoir supporté le trône du roi
assis sous son dais, comme on le voit à Karnak
deux fois sur le mur du texte de la Jeunesse et
également sur l’angle du portique de Sésostris Ier.
On aurait alors ici l’habituelle scène du roi assis
devant un grand texte en colonnes.
Le parement oriental
Il y avait au moins six scènes sur lesquelles le
roi Sésostris Ier se dirige vers le nord. Ces scènes
sont couronnées d’une frise de Khekerou indi-
quant le sommet du mur mais la décoration en
creux n’incite pas à y faire reposer une couverture.
Seules quatre scènes sont partiellement conservées
dont deux de fondation :
– sur la scène 1, à gauche, coupée par une petite
porte ouverte à l’époque ptolémaïque, seules les
jambes du roi apparaissent ;
– sur les scènes 2, le roi face au dieu creuse la
fosse de fondation du temple ;
– sur la scène 3, le roi face au dieu jette des
grains dans la fosse ;
– les scènes 4 et 5 ont été détruites par la nou-
velle porte axiale, à l’exception de la queue du
dieu de la scène 5 ;
– sur la scène 6, le roi consacre des offrandes
au dieu ;
– on ne sait si d’autres scènes suivaient, le mur
étant détruit. Il faudrait faire un sondage vers le
nord, dans l’alignement du mur, pour observer
les vestiges d’une éventuelle fondation ou de sa
tranchée.
10
Observation de Ch. Van Siclen.
172 françois larché
La direction du roi
Au sud de la nouvelle porte axiale, le sens de la
marche de Sésostris Ier est à l’inverse de celle de
Ptolémée Évergète II sur les assises en grès ajou-
tées au-dessus du mur en calcaire : Sésostris Ier
se dirige vers la porte comme pour sortir alors
qu’il devrait aller dans le sens contraire, vers le
sud. Curieusement, il se dirige vers le nord de
part et d’autre de l’axe est-ouest, ce qui proscrit
l’existence d’une porte axiale sous son règne.
Cette disposition indique que, au Moyen Empire,
Sésostris Ier arrivait du sud pour se diriger vers
le nord où devait se trouver le naos. Cependant,
ce dernier aurait pu aussi être à l’est car aucun
indice d’architecture ne permet encore d’affirmer
que le naos se trouvait à l’aplomb du trésor
d’Amenhemat II découvert dans le radier.
Le refend perpendiculaire aux assises en grès
Les assises en grès, ajoutées sur la partie sud du
mur en calcaire, possèdent l’accroche d’un refend
perpendiculaire dont aucune trace n’existe sur
le mur de Sésostris Ier puisque la décoration des
scènes de fondation 2 et 3 est continue à l’aplomb
du refend disparu. Invisible sur le mur en calcaire,
ce refend contre lequel le mur ptolémaïque en grès
s’est appuyé, s’il est obligatoirement postérieur à
Sésostris Ier, ne peut être qu’antérieur à Ptolémée
Évergète II. De nombreux blocs épars de la 18e
dynastie ayant été découverts, souvent remployés
dans les fondations ptolémaïques, il est probable
qu’au Nouvel Empire un temple avait déjà rem-
placé celui du Moyen Empire. Ce remplacement
n’a pu intervenir qu’au moment de la construc-
tion du radier.
3. Nouvelle datation du radier
Bisson de la Roque a publié un inventaire précis
des remplois qu’il a découvert au moment du
démontage du radier. Ainsi, il a décompté 28 blocs
aux noms de Montouhotep III et Montouhotep
V. Du premier, il a des éléments en grès (frag-
ments de colonnes octogonales Ø 45 cm, trois
portes avec deux linteaux), en calcaire (parements
en relief dans le creux et un élément de porte)
et un socle de statue en granite. Du second, il
décrit les éléments de deux monuments en cal-
caire décoré en relief, dont une dalle de plafond
permettant de restituer une chapelle large de 3
11
F. Bisson de la Roque, Tôd (1934 à 1936), p. 64 et
104, inv. 2138.
coudées. Il a également extrait une architrave en
calcaire d’Amenhemat Ier, ce qui lui fait conclure
que le radier est l’œuvre de son fils Sésostris Ier. Ce
dernier aurait ainsi remployé les éléments déman-
telés des monuments de ses prédécesseurs, dont
son père, dans un radier de fondation sur lequel
il aurait construit son nouveau sanctuaire.
Cependant de nombreuses incohérences
apparaissant dans cette hypothèse, il est indis-
pensable d’évaluer à nouveau la date de con-
struction du radier qui, s’il n’est certainement
pas l’oeuvre de Sésostris Ier pour les évidentes
raisons d’architecture qui viennent d’être expli-
quées, peut difficilement lui être antérieur pour
plusieurs raisons :
– d’abord, le trésor découvert sous le côté nord
du radier est au nom d’Amenhemat II, le fils de
Sésostris Ier, et il semble bien en place, soigneuse-
ment enfoui sous une dalle en calcaire ;
– ensuite, comme le radier ne peut être l’oeuvre
de Sésostris Ier, comment expliquer le remploi
dans le radier de deux blocs au nom de son père
Amenhemat Ier sans ajouter un remaniement
intermédiaire entre les deux règnes. En effet, il
faut bien qu’un roi ait remployé, dans l’assise
inférieure du radier11, l’architrave en calcaire
d’Amenhemat Ier (h : 40cm, L : 174cm) et posée
sur l’assise inférieure la base d’une statue en gran-
ite de ce roi ;
– enfin, rien n’empêche les éléments des 12e et
e
13 dynasties découverts sous l’église ou dans son
dallage de provenir du radier. Ainsi, les jambages
et le linteau en granite d’une porte de Sésostris
Ier (h : 4,10m L : 2,80m, l passage: 1,35 m) ont été
remployés dans le dallage de l’église avec de nom-
breux fragments en calcaire et granite au nom de
ce roi. Deux fragments seraient peut-être même
au nom d’Amenhemat II (calcaire inv. 1337 et
granite inv. 1647).
– un fragment en calcaire est remployé en fon-
dation d’un mur ptolémaïque12.
Il semble désormais beaucoup plus logique de
dater ce radier du Nouvel Empire et, dans cette
perspective, il serait intéressant d’examiner à nou-
veau l’outil en fer trouvé dans le sable de fondation
(inv. 2108) avec un petit taureau en calcaire prob-
ablement doré. D’autre part, le tracé du temple
observé par Bisson de la Roque, dessiné dans le
limon et répété sur les assises du radier, semble
bien trop ténu pour ne pas être subjectif.
12
Ibid., fig. 65.
 senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak
Une hypothèse plus raisonnable serait de pro-
poser une clôture (en raison de la décoration en
creux sur ses deux parements) en calcaire constru-
ite par Sésostris Ier pour entourer un ensemble de
petites chapelles construites par ses prédécesseurs.
La porte en granite serait alors restituée dans l’axe
du mur perpendiculaire à celui encore en place.
L’accès principal au temple pourrait être la porte
dont le jambage nord est encore en place dans le
mur conservé de Sésostris Ier. Le temple de Satet
construit par ce roi à Éléphantine possède une
disposition identique, sa porte d’accès n’étant
pas axiale mais placée à droite de la façade, après
un grand texte en colonnes. À Tôd, la clôture
et ses chapelles auraient alors été détruites à la
18e dynastie, à l’exception du mur toujours en
place, et un nouveau temple avec une nouvelle
orientation vers le Nil aurait été construit comme
le laisse supposer les nombreux blocs épars de
cette période. Le radier aurait ainsi été construit
au Nouvel Empire avec le trésor d’Amenhemat
II pieusement conservé à l’aplomb probable de
l’ancien naos.
13
F. Bisson de la Roque, Medamoud, FIFAO 8, (Le Caire: IFAO, 1931), pl. IV
173
4. Conclusion
Une situation similaire existe à Médamoud où
deux radiers de fondations ont été identifiés par
Bisson de la Roque13. Celui du Moyen Empire a
conservé sa première assise posée sur un lit de
sable et l’angle sud-est de la seconde et dernière
assise ainsi qu’une porte en granite au nom de
Sésostris III, dont le seuil est encore en place.
Ce radier est constitué de blocs en calcaire dont
aucun ne semble être en remploi, contrairement
au radier du Nouvel Empire dont les blocs con-
stitutifs sont tous des blocs du Moyen Empire
remployés. Comme à Tôd, le temple du Nouvel
Empire à Médamoud s’ouvre à l’ouest vers le
Nil alors que celui de Sésostris III s’ouvre au
nord, c’est-à dire à l’inverse de celui de Sésostris
Ier à Tôd, comme si les naos des deux temples
tournaient le dos à Karnak. Cette inversion est
peut-être liée à la position de Karnak entre Tôd
et Médamoud, sur la rive orientale du Nil, Tôd
étant au sud et Médamoud au nord.
Grâce aux exemples des radiers des trois tem-
ples de Karnak, Tôd et Médamoud, on peut con-
clure que les radiers et les fondations supportant
les temples du Moyen Empire étaient faits de blocs
en calcaire sans aucun remploi, alors que ceux du
Nouvel Empire n’étaient faits que de blocs prove-
nant du démontage de sanctuaires plus anciens.
174 françois larché
 the land of ramesses
THE LAND OF RAMESSES
Donald B. Redford
Pennsylvania State University
It is with a sense of great personal loss that I dedi-
cate this short piece to the memory of one who
was more than a colleague—a friend with whom
I shared so many interests, not least the love of
opera. May his soul find eternal rest.
The appearance of the name “Raamses” in
the Biblical account of the Sojourn and Exodus
presents us with a conundrum.1 The original
pronunciation, Ri-a-ma-se-sa, betrays an N(1)
+ N(2) syntactic pattern, viz. Re-it-is-that-has-
fashioned-him.2 The active participle in N(2) posi-
tion bears a stressed long -a- between the first
and second radicle, thus CVCCe.3 In the 19th
Dynasty the ayin is strong and was reinforced
by a pathah furtive, as well as, in one case, a pre-
formative -alif.4 But Greek transcriptions, such
as Ραμεσσῆ, ΡαμέσσηϚ, ΡαμεσήϚ and ΡαμεσσήϚ5
show that by the mid-First Millennium bc the
accent had shifted from the participial form to
1
The commentaries are legion. Most take it for granted
that the name, whether applied to a city or a “land,” derives
ultimately from Pi-Ramesses. See in particular J. Vergote,
Joseph en Égypte (Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, 1959),
pp. 183-87; C. Westermann, Genesis 37-50 (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1982), pp. 190-92; M. Bietak,
“Comments on the ‘Exodus,’” in Egypt, Israel, Sinai, ed.
A.F. Rainey (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1987),
pp. 163-71; C. Houtman, Exodus I (Kampen: Kok Publishing
House, 1993), pp. 126-27; J.K. Hofmeier, Israel in Egypt. The
Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus tradition (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 117-19; J.D. Currid,
Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1997), pp. 125-29; R. Krauss, Moïse le Pharaon (Paris: Edi-
tions du Rocher, 2005), pp. 196-99.
2
H. Ranke, Die altägyptische Personennamen I (Gluck-
stadt: Verlag J.J. Augustin, 1939), p. 218:6.
3
A. Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian. A Linguistic Introduction
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 87.
sy, “the Southerner”),
4
E. Edel, Der Vertrag zwischen Ramses II von Ägypten
wt-pA-n
sy, “the Mansion of
und Hattusili III von Hatti (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag,
1997), p. 18 and n. 4.
wt-pA nsw, “the king’s mansion,” [but perhaps
5
See W.G. Waddell, Manetho (Cambridge: Harvard
mt-nsw, “king’s-wife”]), ‫( חנס‬Isa. 30:4;
University Press, 1948), pp. 108, 112, 148, 236.
6
K. Sethe, “Die Vokalisation des Ägyptischen,” ZDMG
77 (1923), p. 190.
7
Cf. Ραμψής: Waddell, Manetho, pp. 150, 244; Ραμψίvιτoς
in Herod. ii.121, on which see A.B. Lloyd, Herodotus Book
II, a Commentary II (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988), p. 52.
8
Cf. KAš > ‫ ;כוש‬zššn > ‫ ;שושן‬Tsy > ‫( תחש‬Gen. 22:24);
skἰwt >‫( שכיות‬Isa. 2:16);
175
word-final position with the resultant reduction
of the -a- to a shewa, “ĕ”.6 Moreover the gravi-
tation of the stress has reduced the secondary
stress on the first syllable, and has occasionally
introduced a euphonic–p–.7 This is the distorted
vocalization which the Hebrew reflects, not that
of the original Bronze Age pronunciation. In the
Bronze Age the equivalence of Egyptian š/s with
West Semitic ‫ ש‬is standard, as one would expect;
and the entry of loanwords into the dialects of the
latter can be virtually dated by the adherence to
this standard.8 The rendering of Egyptian ś (sin)
by ‫( ס‬samekh), however, demonstrates that the
form of the name R-ms-sw entered Hebrew and
other West Semitic languages no earlier than the
end of the 8th Cent. bc,9 as no certain examples
of the equivalence ś/š with Hebrew samekh occur
before this time.10
Su-si-in-qu > ‫ ;שישק‬Sheshy (?) > ‫( ששי‬Num. 13:22); šsr
> ‫ ;שש‬Š-r > ‫ שיחור‬cf. From the root NS > ‫ ;נחשתן‬if the
PN ‫ משה‬does derive from the Egyptian root msἰ, the choice
of the sibilant is an interesting criterion of date of entry.
9
The interchange of Egyptian č and West Semitic s
(samekh) survives into the 25th Dynasty (J. Hoch, Semitic
Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third
Intermediate Period, [Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1994], p. 368 no. 548); but thereafter samekh is
used to render Egyptian ś (R. Zadok, BiOr. 48 [1991], 38):
cf. C.R. Krahlmalkov, Phoenician-Punic Dictionary (Lou-
vain: Peeters, 2000), pp. 65, 67 (‫ =אס‬Isis; ‫=אסר‬Osiris);
J.B. Segal, Aramaic Texts from North Saqqara (London:
Egypt Exploration Society, 1983), no. 6, 61a, (‫=חרסיס‬
r-sA-’Ist; ‫= פטובסת‬PA-dἰ-BAst); H. Ranke, Die altägyptische
Personennamen, 272:4 ‫=ענחחבס‬n-A-bA.s; the appearance
of the equivalence Egyptian s = Hebrew ‫ ס‬in the second
quarter of the First Millennium helps date the fixing of
the following forms: ‫( פינחס‬PA-n
‫( תחפנחס‬Jer. 43:7-9 etc; TA-
the southerner”), ‫( סוא‬2 Ki. 17:14; SAw, “Sais”), ‫( תחפנס‬1 Ki.
11:19-20; TA-
a garbling of TA
wt-nn-nsw, “Mansion of the king’s child”), ‫( סתרוס‬Gen.
10:14, Isa. 11:11 etc.; pA tA rsy, “the Southland”), ‫( סין‬Ezek.
30:15, Sin, “Syene [Pelusium]”), ‫( פיבסת‬Ezek. 30:17, Pr-BAst,
“House of Bast”). The continued vacillation between the
two sibilants in Biblical Aramaic (cf. J.D. Bing, American
Journal of Ancient History 10 [1985], 118 n. 54) shows that
the distinction had been lost.
10
J. Hoch, Semitic Words, p. 270; cf. pp. 432-33.
176 donald b. redford
In Exod. 1:11 the name is applied to a city;
in Gen. 47:11 to a land. While there is nothing
inherently impossible in a royal name occurring
in the designation of a settlement—in fact it is
extremely common—the result is a name com-
pounded with another element in a bound con-
struction, e.g. nw, “residence,” pr, “house,” wt,
“mansion, plantation,” ἰnbw, “walled fort,” and so
on. In the case of Pr-R-ms-sw A-ntw, “The House
of Ramesses, Great of Victories,” with which the
city of Exod. 1:11 is often identified,11 one would
expect pr, “house,” to survive in the pronuncia-
tion, and in the vast majority of cases in which
the town is cited this is indeed the case. It used
to be maintained12 in defense of the identification
with Pἰ-R-ms-sw that the latter dropped out of
usage after the Ramesside era; and that therefore
its presence in the Exodus tradition must prove
historical authenticity. But that is not strictly true:
“Ramesses” does appear sporadically in the 22nd
Dynasty and later.
Occurrences fall under three heads: (a) in the
expression “King’s-son of Ramesses,” (b) in the
compound Pr-R-ms-sw, “House of Ramesses,”
and (c) in the expression “God X of Ramesses.”
In the first it is not immediately apparent, nor
necessary to conclude, that the allusion is to a
(Pr)-R-ms-sw. The dozen or so examples of this
title occur in the epithets of military officers,13 but
they are too few and isolated to permit us to see in
their bearers the literal descendants of Ramesses
the Great. Might it be that the Ramesside war
11
See Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, pp. 116-19 and
passim.
12
H.H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1950), p. 33, n. 1.
13
P-M. Chevereau, Prosopographie des cadres mili-
taires égyptiennes de la Basse Époque (Paris: n.p., 1985),
pp. 258-59.
14
S.C. Heinz, Die Feldzugsdarstellungen des neuen Reiches
(Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften, 2001); cf. E. Feucht, Das Kind im alten Ägypten
(Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1995), pp. 446-47.
15
See the extended discussion with references in
P. Collombert, “Les ‘fils royaux de Rameses’: une nouvelle
hypothèse,” GM 151 (1996), pp. 23-36.
16
Cf. A. Moret, Annales du Musée Guimet XXXII (1909),
p. 142, pl. 64.
17
Berlin 6764 (Günther Roeder, Aegyptische Inschrif-
ten aus dem Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, [Leipzig:
J.C. Heinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1924], p. 307).
18
Ibid.
19
P. Tresson, “L’inscription de Chechanq Ier au Musée
du Caire : un frappant exemple d’impôt progressif en mat-
ière religieuse,” Mélanges Maspero I (Cairo: IFAO, 1934),
p. 820, line 28.
reliefs which give prominence to royal sons on the
battlefield,14 has given birth to an honorific mili-
tary title?15 “God X of Ramesses”16 occurs with Re,
Amun17 Ptah, 18 and Arsaphes.19 A text of the early
4th Century BC locates temples of Re of Ramesses
and Ptah of Ramesses on the eastern river, i.e.
the Pelusiac branch of the Nile.20 One inscription
of the same period significantly links “Amun of
Ramesses” with Pr-R-ms-sw.21 Archaeologically
it is impossible that the reference here is to the
19th Dyn. Residence; but the god’s qualification
“... of Ramesses” shows a surviving cult form, of
royal patronage which may well go back to the
city of Ramesses the Great, and the specific divine
forms honored within it.
The presence of “Ramesses” in a compound
indicating a place is of some importance. In the
Late Period Pr-R-ms-sw does indeed occur with
the variant wt (nsw) R-ms-sw “the Mansion
(i.e. temple) of King Ramesses.”22 It is uncer-
tain whether a specific cult seat dedicated to the
memory and worship of the king existed some-
where in Egypt in the Late Period, or whether the
king enjoyed a “guest cult” in several temples.
The fact is that TA wt R-ms-sw, “the Mansion of
Ramesses,” was a known form in the six centuries
from the 24th Dynasty to Ptolemaic times. Now
during this span of time tA wt yielded a pronun-
ciation θω,23 while “land,” tA in Egyptian was pro-
nounced to in Sahidic, θo or θω in Old Coptic and
Bohairic.24 What has happened is clear: an original
TA wt R-ms-sw, “The Mansion of Ramesses,” has
20
E. Naville, Bubastis (London: Kegan Paul, 1891),
pl. 46B.
21
Chevereau, Prosopographie des cadres militaires égyp-
tiennes de la Basse Époque, 166f, no. 239; C. Zivie-Coche,
Tanis. Statues et autobiographies de dignitaires (Paris, 2004),
pp. 114-16 (n).
22
Cairo 22054 (= A. Kamal, Stèles ptolemaïques et
romaines, [Cairo: IFAO, 1904-05], pl. 17). For wt R-ms-sw
alone, see E. Brugsch, Dictionnaire géographique de l’Égypte
ancienne (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1879), p. 1135; M.-L. Buhl,
The Late Egyptian Anthropoid Stone Sarcophagi (Copenha-
gen: Nationalmuseet Skrifter, 1959), pl. V and Fa 16 (from
Abydos and Saqqara), and the “Athens” stela of Tefnakhte:
J. Yoyotte, “Les principautés du Delta au temps de l’anarchie
libyenne (Études d’histoire politique),” Mélanges Maspero
IV (Cairo: IFAO, 1961), end plate.
23
Cf. Wb. III, 1; W. Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar
(Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1954), p. 284; W. Wes-
tendorf, Koptisches Handwörterbuch (Heidelberg: Carl Winter
Universitätsverlag , 1977), p. 352; A. Calderini, Dizionario
dei nomi geografici e topografici dell’ Egitto Greco Romano
Suppl. 2 (Bonn: Habelt, 1996), p. 74: Θῷλθις (< wt-A-
dwy), Θῷσβις (< tA wt-ἰsbt): P. Wilson, Ptolemaic Lexikon,
[Louvain: Peeters, 1993], p. 627).
24
Westendorf, ibid., 219.
 the land of ramesses 177

given rise in the Delta to a false back-formation alleged “Land of Ramesses” in Genesis has no
through Hörfehler, viz. tA R-ms-sw, “the Land of more historicity than the “Land of Oz.”
Ramesses,” both pronounced T(h)o-Ramesses. The
178 donald b. redford
 bibliography of william j. murnane
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WILLIAM J. MURNANE
1969
With E. Brovarski. “Inscriptions from the Time of Nebhep-
etre Mentuhotep II at Abisco.” Serapis 1: pp. 11-33.
1970
“Further Light on the Conspiracy of Sejanus: Suet Tib xlviii,
2.” Serapis 2: p. 36.
“The Hypothetical Coregency Between Amenhotep III and
Akhenaton: Two Observations.” Serapis 2: pp. 17-
21.
1971
“Once Again Dates for Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep II.”
The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of
Columbia University, New York 3: pp. 1-7.
1972
“The ‘King Ramasses’ of the Medinet Habu Procession of
Princes.” JARCE 9: pp. 121-131.
1975
“The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with
Sety I.” JNES 34: pp. 153-190.
“A Note on the Personnel of the Sinai Expeditions in the
Reign of Amenemmes III.” GM 15: pp. 27-33.
1976
“The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II: Two Addenda.” GM
19: pp. 41-43.
“A Hitherto Unpublished Funerary Cone.” GM 19: pp. 39-
40.
“The Accession Date of Sethos I.” Serapis 3: pp. 23-33.
1977
Ancient Egyptian Coregencies. SAOC 40. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
“On the Accession Date of Akhenaton.” In Studies in Honor
of George R. Hughes. January 12, 1977, eds. J.H. John-
son and E.F. Wente, pp. 163-167. SAOC 39. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
“Tutankhamun and the Fall of the Eighteenth Dynasty.”
Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 48.4 (April
1977): pp. 6-18.
Review of E. Edel and S. Wenig. Die Jahreszeitenreliefs aus
dem Sonnenheiligtum des Königs Ne-user-re. JNES 36:
p. 76.
Review of G.T. Martin. The Royal Tomb of El-Amarna. Vol.
1. The Objects. JNES 36: pp. 306-308.
Review of P.H. Schulze, Herrin beider Länder, Hatschepsut.
BiOr 34: pp. 177-178.
1978
Review of J.L. Foster. Love Songs of the New Kingdom. JNES
37: pp. 363-365.
Review of L. Habachi. The Second Stela of Kamose and
His Struggle against the Hyksos Ruler and His Capital.
JNES 37: pp. 277-278.
1979
“The Bark of Amun on the Third Pylon at Karnak.” JARCE
16: pp. 11-27.
Review of K.A. Kitchen. Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical
and Biographical. JNES 38: pp. 140-141.
179
Review of M. Vallogia. Recherches sur les “messagers”
(wpwtyw) dans les sources égyptiennes profanes. JNES
38: pp. 305-306.
Review of R.D. Anderson. Catalogue of the Egyptian Antiqui-
ties in the British Museum. Vol. 3. Musical Instruments;
L. Manniche. Musical Instruments from the Tomb of
Tutankhamūn; and L. Maniche. Ancient Egyptian
Musical Instruments. JNES 38: pp. 304-305.
Review of W. Helck. Das Bier im alten Ägypten. JNES 38:
pp. 137-138.
1980
United with Eternity: A Concise Guide to the Monuments at
Medinet Habu. Cairo: American University in Cairo
Press.
“Unpublished Fragments of Hatshepsut’s Historical In-
scription from Her Sanctuary at Karnak.” Serapis 6:
pp. 91-102.
Review of E.A. Ibrahim. The Chapel of the Throne of Re of
Edfu. JNES 39: p. 326.
Review of R. Hanke. Amarna Reliefs aus Hermopolis. BiOr
37: pp. 47-50.
Review of E. Hornung. Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im
Westen (Sonnenlitanei) nach den Versionen des Neuen
Reiches. JNES 39: p. 174.
1981
With H.H. Nelson. The Great Hypostyle Hall in the Temple
of Amun at Karnak, Volume I, Part 1. The Wall Reliefs.
OIP 106. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
“In Defense of Middle Kingdom Double Dates.” BES 3:
pp. 73-82.
“Paintings from the Tomb of Nakht at Thebes.” Field
Museum of Natural History Bulletin 52, No. 10
(November 1981): pp. 13-25.
“The Sed Festival: A Problem in Historical Method.”
MDAIK 37: pp. 369-376.
Review of D. Wildung. Egyptian Saints: Deification in Phara-
onic Egypt. JNES 40: pp. 142-143.
Review of H. Rosellini. Monumenti dell’Egitto e della Nubia.
JNES 40: pp. 67-68.
Review of Oriental Institute. The 1905-1907 Breasted Expe-
ditions to Egypt and the Sudan: A Photographic Study.
JNES 40: pp. 68-69.
1982
With L. Bell, and B. Fishman. “The Epigraphic Survey
(Chicago House).” NARCE 118 (Summer 1982):
pp. 3-23.
With L. Bell and B. Fishman. “The Epigraphic Survey (Chi-
cago House). Part 2: The Institute Function of Chicago
House (With Special Reference to the 1980-81 Field
Season).” NARCE 119 (Fall 1982): pp. 6-13.
“Opetfest.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 4, ed. W. Helck,
pp. 574-579. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Review of B. Van de Walle. La Chapelle funéraire de
Neferirtenef; G.T. Martin. The Tomb of Hetepka and
Other Reliefs and Inscriptions from the Sacred Animal
Necropolis, North Saqqara, 1964-1973; and M. Bietak
and E. Reiser-Haslauer. Das Grab des Anch-Hor, Ober-
sthofmeister der Gottesgemahlin Nitokris, Vol. 1. JNES
41: pp. 236-237.
180 bibliography of william j. murnane
Review of H. Goedicke. The Protocol of Neferyt (The
Prophecy of Neferti). JNES 41: pp. 144-146.
Review of H.D. Schneider. Shabtis: An Introduction to
the History of Ancient Egyptian Funerary Statuettes
with a Catalogue of the Collection of Shabtis in the
National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden. JNES 41:
pp. 237-238.
Review of J. Samson, Amarna, City of Akhenaten and
Nefertiti: Key Pieces from the Petrie Collection; and
H.M. Stewart, Egyptian Stelae, Reliefs and Paintings
from the Petrie Collection. JNES 41: pp. 141-146.
Review of S. Ratié, La Reine Hatchepsout, sources et
problèmes. BiOr 39: pp. 54-56.
Review of W. Decker. Annotierte Bibliographie zum Sport
im alten Ägypten. JNES 41: p. 237.
1983
The Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Review of A. Barucq and F. Daumas. Hymnes et prières de
l’Egypte ancienne. JNES 41: p. 78.
Review of D. Wildung. Fünf Jahre: Neuerwerbungen der
Staatlichen Sammlung Ägyptischer Kunst München,
1976-1980; A. Niccacci and G. Kloetzli. Hyksos Scar-
abs; and J. Bulté. Catalogue des collections égyptiennes
du Musée National de Céramique à Sèvres. JNES 42:
pp. 322-323.
Review of K. Martin. Reliefs des Alten Reiches, Teil 1;
E. Martin-Pardey. Plastik des Alten Reiches, Teil 2;
and K. Martin. Reliefs des Alten Reiches, Teil 2. JNES
42: pp. 232-233.
Review of K.A. Kitchen. Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical
and Biographical. Vol. 2, 24 fascs.; Vol. 3, 28 fascs.;
Vol. 4, 15 fascs. JNES 42: p. 323.
Review of R. David. The Mysteries of the Mummies. JNES
42: p. 78.
Review of R. David. The Macclesfield Collection of Egyptian
Antiquities. JNES 42: pp. 156-157.
Review of R. Krauss. Das Ende der Amarnazeit. Orientalia
52: pp. 274-284.
Review of R.A. Parker, J. Leclant, and J.-C. Goyon. The
Edifice of Taharqa by the Sacred Lake of Karnak. JNES
42: p. 233.
1984
“The El-Amarna Boundary Stelae Project: A Preliminary
Report.” NARCE 128 (Winter 1984): pp. 40-52.
“The Princess Who Never Was.” Oriental Institute News
and Notes 93: pp. 1-4.
Review of A. El-Sayed Mahmud, A New Temple for Hathor
at Memphis. JEA 70: pp. 168-169.
Review of E.B. Pusch. Das Senet-Brettspiel in alten Ägypten,
Teil 1.1-2. JNES 43: p. 168.
Review of H.M. Stewart. Egyptian Stelae, Reliefs and Paint-
ings from the Petrie Collection. Pt. 2. Archaic Period to
Second Intermediate Period. JNES 43: pp. 167-168.
1985
The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the
Battle Reliefs of King Seti I at Karnak. SAOC 42. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
“False Doors and Cult Practices Inside Luxor Temple.”
In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar II, ed. P. Posen-
er-Kriéger, pp. 135-148. Cairo: Institut Français
d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire.
“Tutankhamun on the Eighth Pylon at Karnak.” VA 1:
pp. 59-68.
Review of D. Valbelle. Satis et Anoukis. JNES 44: p. 244.
Review of E. Martin-Pardey, Eingeweidengefässe; and
K. Martin. Reliefs des Alten Reiches und Verwandte
Denkmäler. Vol. 3. JNES 44: p. 163.
Review of S. Amer el-Fikey. The Tomb of the Vizier Re-wer
at Saqqara. JNES 44: p. 244.
1986
“Colossal Statue of Tutankhamun from West Thebes (Ori-
ental Institute 14088).” Oriental Institute Museum Fea-
tured Object 5 (Pamphlet series). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Égypte: Louqsor Temple du Ka Royal. Dossiers Histoire
et Archeologie 101 (January 1986): “La grande fête
d’Opet,” pp. 22-25; “Pour Visiter le Temple,” pp. 12-16;
“Redecouverte et degagement du temple,” pp. 16-20;
“Les cartouches trompeurs du temple de Louqsor,”
pp. 48-49; “Le mystere de la naissance divine du roi,”
pp. 54-57; with L. Bell. “La presence divine à Louqsor,”
pp. 60-61.
“James Henry Breasted.” In Dictionary of Literary Biog-
raphy, Volume 47: American Historians, 1866-1912,
ed. C.N. Wilson, pp. 53-64. Detroit: Gale Research
Company.
Review of D. Arnold. The Temple of Mentuhotep at Deir
el-Bahari; and D. Arnold. Der Tempel des Königs Men-
tuhotep von Deir el-Bahari. Vol. 3. Die königlichen
Beigaben. JNES 45: pp. 307-308.
1987
With B. Williams and T.J. Logan, “The Metropolitan
Museum Knife Handle and Aspects of Pharaonic Imag-
ery Before Narmer, Appendix C: The Gebel Sheikh
Soleiman Monument: Epigraphic Remarks.” JNES 46:
pp. 282-285.
“The ‘First Occasion of the Discovery’ of Akhet-Aten.” SAK
14: pp. 239-246.
Review of C. Andrews. Catalogue of the Egyptian Antiqui-
ties in the British Museum. Vol. 6. Jewellery I: From
the Earliest Times to the Seventeenth Dynasty. JNES
46: pp. 143-144.
Review of H.M. Stewart. Egyptian Reliefs and Paintings from
the Petrie Collection. Pt. 3. The Late Period, with a
Supplement of Miscellaneous Inscribed Material. JNES
46: p. 160.
Review of H. Wild. La Tombe de Nefer-hotep (I) et Neb-nefer
à Deir el Medina [No. 6] et autres documents les con-
cernant. Vol. 2; and A.-P. Zivie. La Tombe de Pached
à Deir el Medineh [No. 3]. JNES 46: pp. 236-237.
1988
Review of D.B. Redford. Akhenaten: The Heretic King. JNES
47: pp. 47-48.
Review of H. Jaritz, H. Maehler, and K.-T. Zauzich. Ele-
phantine. Vol. 3. Die Terrassen vor den Tempel des
Chnum und der Satet: Architektur und Deutung. JNES
47: p. 48.
Review of H. Ricke, L. Habachi, and G. Haeny. Untersu-
chungen im Totentempel Amenophis’ III. BiOr 45:
pp. 119-120.
Review of J. Osing, M. Moursi, D.O. Arnold, O. Neugebauer,
R.A. Parker, D. Pingree, and M.A. Nur-el-Din. Denk-
mäler der Oase Dachla aus dem Nachlass von Ahmed
Fakhry. JNES 47: p. 51.
Review of J. van Seters. In Search of History: Historiography
in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical His-
tory. JNES 47: pp. 131-133.
Review of K. Sethe and W. Helck. Urkunden der 18. Dynas-
tie. JARCE 25: pp. 243-244.
 bibliography of william j. murnane
Review of K.P. Kuhlmann. Materialien zur Archäologie
und Geschichte des Raumes von Achmim. JNES 47:
pp. 50-51.
Review of M. Bietak, E. Reiser-Haslauer. Das Grab des
Anch-Hor. JNES 47: p. 48.
Review of K.P. Khulmann. Materialien zur Archäologie
und Geschichte des Raumes von Achmim. JNES 47:
pp. 50-51.
1989
“Rhetorical History? The Beginning of Thutmose III’s
First Campaign in Western Asia.” JARCE 26:
pp. 183-189.
Review of A.J. Spalinger. Aspects of the Military Documents
of Ancient Egypt. JEA 75: pp. 259-261.
Review of B.G. Trigger, B.J. Kemp, D. O’Connor, and
A.B. Lloyd. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. JNES 48:
pp. 226-227.
Review of M.-A. Bonhême. Les livre des rois de la troisième
periode intermédiaire I, XXIe Dynastie. BiOr 46:
pp. 52-53.
Review of W.A. Ward. Essays on Feminine Titles of the
Middle Kingdom and Related Subjects. JNES 48:
pp. 225-226.
Review of L. Balout, C. Roubet. La momie de Ramses II. JNES
48: p. 74.
1990
The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle
Reliefs of King Seti I at Karnak. 2nd Edition, Revised.
SAOC 42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Review of Centre Franco-Égyptien d’Études des Temples
de Karnak. Cahiers de Karnak VIII, 1982-1985. BiOr
47: pp. 89-90.
1991
With M. Eaton-Krauss. “Tutankhamun, Ay, and the Avenue
of Sphinxes Between Pylon X and the Mut Precinct at
Karnak.” BSEG 15: pp. 31-38.
“Amenhotep, called Huy, Son of Hapu, Servant, Seer, Saint.”
KMT 2.2 (Summer 1991): pp. 9-13, 56-59.
Review of C. Aldred. Akhenaten, King of Egypt. JAOS 111:
pp. 388-390.
Review C. Hobson. The World of the Pharaohs: A Complete
Guide to Ancient Egypt. JNES 50: pp. 159-160.
Review of G.T. Martin. Corpus of Reliefs of the New Kingdom
from the Memphite Necropolis and Lower Egypt. Vol.
1. JNES 50: p. 306.
Review of H. Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak Nord IV: Le trésor de
Thoutmosis Ier. La décoration. BiOr 48: p. 482.
1992
With F. Yurco. “Once Again the Date of the New Kingdom
Pylon at Edfu.” In The Followers of Horus: Studies
dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman, 1944-1990, eds.
R. Friedman and B. Adams, pp. 337-346. Oxford:
Oxbow Press.
“Taking It With You: The Problem of Death and Afterlife
in Ancient Egypt.” In Death and Afterlife: Perspec-
tives of World Religions, ed. H. Obayashi, pp. 35-48.
Contributions to the Study of Religion 33. New York:
Greenwood Press.
“Two Stelae from Nubia.” In Oriental Institute Nubian
Expedition, Vol. VI, New Kingdom Remains from
Cemeteries R, V, K, S, and W at Qustul and Adindan,
ed. B.B. Williams, pp. 103-109. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
“Egypt, History of the New Kingdom.” In Anchor Bible
181
Dictionary vol. 2, ed. D.N. Freedman, pp. 348-353.
New York: Doubleday.
Review of L.L. Giddy. Egyptian Oases: Bahariya, Dakhla,
Farafra and Kharga during Pharaonic Times. JNES
51: pp. 304-305.
1993
With C.C. Van Siclen. The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten.
London: Kegan Paul International.
“Dans le domaine d’Amon: l’oeuvre d’Amenophis III a
Karnak et à Louxor.” Amenophis III: L’Égypte à son
apogée. Dossiers Histoire et Archeologie 180 (March
1993): pp. 28-39.
Review of D. Jones. A Glossary of Ancient Egyptian Nautical
Titles and Terms. JNES 52: pp. 234-235.
Review of K.A. Kitchen. Ramesside Inscriptions, Historical
and Biographical. JNES 52: p. 235.
Review of L. Manniche. The Wall Decoration of Three Theban
Tombs (TT 77, 175, and 249). JNES 52: pp. 235-236.
1994
With J.P. Allen and J. van Dijk. “Further Evidence for the
Coregency of Amenhotep III and IV. Three Views
on a Graffito Found at Dahshur.”Amarna Letters 3:
pp. 26-31, 152.
“Egyptian Monuments and Historical Memory.” KMT 5.3
(Summer 1994): pp. 15-24, 88.
“Nature of the Aten: Akhenaten and his God, Problems
and Perspectives.” Amarna Letters 3 (Winter, 1994):
pp. 33-40.
“Too Many High Priests? Once Again the Ptahmoses of
Ancient Memphis.” In For His Ka: Essays Offered in
Memory of Klaus Baer, ed. D.P. Silverman, pp. 187-
196. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Review of B. Davies. Egyptian Historical Records of the Later
Eighteenth Dynasty. JARCE 31: p. 225.
1995
Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt. Society of Biblical
Literature Writings from the Ancient World 5. Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
“Ramesses I and The Building of the Great Hypostyle Hall
at Karnak Revisited.” Iubilate Conlegae: Egyptological
Studies in Memory of A.A. Sadek. VA 10: pp. 163-
168.
“The History of Ancient Egypt: An Overview.” In Civiliza-
tions of the Ancient Near East vol. 2, ed. J.M. Sasson,
pp. 691-717. New York: Scribners.
“The Kingship of the Nineteenth Dynasty: A Study in the
Resilience of an Institution,” In Ancient Egyptian King-
ship, eds. D. O’Connor and D. Silverman, pp. 185-215.
Probleme der Ägyptologie 9. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Review of J. Vercoutter. L’Égypte et la vallee du Nil, Vol. 1:
Des origines à la fin de L’Ancien Empire, 12000-2000
av. J.-C. JAOS 115: pp. 528-529.
1996
The Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt. 2nd edition revised.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
“Medinet Habu.” In The Dictionary of Art vol. 30, ed.
J. Turner, pp. 695-696. London: Grove Press.
“Thebes.” In The Dictionary of Art vol. 30, ed. J. Turner,
pp. 688-690. London: Grove Press.
Review of M. Schade-Busch, Zur Königsideologie Amenophis’
III. BiOr 52: pp. 340-341.
1997
“‘Overseer of the Northern Foreign Countries’: Reflections
on the Upper Administration of Egypt’s Empire in
182 bibliography of william j. murnane
Western Asia.” In Essays on Ancient Egypt in Honour
of Herman Te Velde, ed. J. Van Dijk, pp. 251-258.
Groningen: Styx Publications.
“Reconstructing Scenes from the Great Hypostyle Hall in
the Temple of Amun at Karnak.” In Essays in honour
of Prof. Dr. Jadwiga Lipińska, eds. A. Niwinsky and
A. Majewska, pp. 107-117. Warsaw Egyptological Stud-
ies vol. 1. Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences.
“Three Kingdoms and Thirty-Four Dynasties.” in Ancient
Egypt, ed. D. Silverman, pp. 20-39. London: Duncan
Baird.
Review of C. Obsomer. Les campaignes de Sésostris dans
Hérodote. JNES 56: pp. 304-305.
Review of J. Zandee. Der Amunhymnus des Papyrus Leiden
I 344, Verso. Vols. 1-3. JNES 56: p. 306.
Review of R. Chadwick, First Civilizations: Ancient Mesopo-
tamia and Egypt. Biblical Archaeologist 60.3: pp. 187-
188.
1998
“The Organization of Government.” In Amenhotep III: Per-
spectives on His Reign, eds. D. O’Connor and E. Cline,
pp. 173-221. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Review of C. Vandersleyen. L’Egypte et la vallee du Nil
vol. 2. De la fin de l’Ancien Empire à la fin du Nouvel
Empire. JNES 57: pp. 294-298.
1999
“Luxor, Temple of.” In Encyclopedia of Egyptian Archaeol-
ogy, ed. K. Bard, pp. 449-453. London: Routlage.
“Medinet Habu.” In Encyclopedia of Egyptian Archaeology,
ed. K. Bard, pp. 481-485. London: Routlage.
“Thebes, Royal Funerary Temples.” In Encyclopedia of Egyp-
tian Archaeology, ed. K. Bard, pp. 814-818. London:
Routlage.
“Observations on Pre Amarna Theology During the Earliest
Reign of Amenhotep IV.” In Gold of Praise: Studies
on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente, eds.
E. Teeter and J. Larson, pp. 303-316. Chicago: Oreintal
Institute.
“The Return to Orthodoxy.” In Pharaohs of the Sun, eds.
R. Freed, Y. Markowitz, and S. D’Auria, pp. 177-185.
Boston: Museum of Fine Arts.
Review of Centre Franco-Égyptien d’Études des Temples
de Karnak. Cahiers de Karnak IX; and idem. Cahiers
de Karnak X. BiOr 56: pp. 83-84.
Review of B.G. Davies. Egyptian Historical Records of the
Later Eighteenth Dynasty. Fasc. 4-6; and K.A. Kitchen.
Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated. Vol.
2. Ramesses II: Royal Inscriptions. JNES 58: pp. 210-
212.
Review of P. Grandet. Le Papyrus Harris I (BM 9999). JAOS
119.4: pp. 679-680.
2000
“Imperial Egypt and the Limits of Power.” In Amarna Diplo-
macy: The Beginnings of International Relations, eds.
R. Cohen and R. Westbrook, pp. 101-111. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
“Soleb Renaissance: Reconsidering the Nebmaatre Temple in
Nubia.” Amarna Letters 4 (Fall 2000): pp. 6-19, 160.
Review of S. Bickel. Untersuchungen im Totentempel des
Merenptah in Theben. III: Tore und andere wiederver-
wendete Bauteile Amenophis’ III. BiOr 57: pp. 59-61.
Review of S. Ikram and A. Dodson. The Mummy in Ancient
Egypt: Equipping the Dead for Eternity. JAOS 120:
pp. 97-98.
2001†
“A Forest of Columns: The Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall
Project.” KMT 12.3 (Fall 2001): pp. 50-59.
“The End of the Amarna Period Once Again.” OLZ 96:
pp. 9-22.
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, ed. Donald
B. Redford. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press:
“Battle of Kadesh,” pp. 166-167; “Coregency,” pp. 307-
311; “Kadesh,” pp. 219-221; “Luxor,” pp. 309-312;
“Medinet Habu,” pp. 356-358; “New Kingdom: An
Overview,” pp. 519-525.
Review of A.A. Amer, The Gateway of Ramesses IX in the
Temple of Amun at Karnak. JNES 60: pp. 300-305.
2003†
“Millennium Debate: Response to D.B. Redford.” In
Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century:
Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of
Egyptologists Cairo 2000, Vol. 2, History and Reli-
gion, eds. Z. Hawass and L.P. Brock, pp. 15-19. Cairo:
American University in Cairo Press.
Review of R. Caminos. Semna-Kumma. JNES 62: pp. 52-
53.
2004†
With P.J. Brand, J. Karkowski, and R. Jaeschke. “The
Karnak Hypostyle Hall Project (1992-2002).”ASAE
78: pp. 79-127.
In Preparation†
With P.J. Brand. The Great Hypostyle Hall in the Temple
of Amun at Karnak, Vol. 1, Part 2. The Wall Reliefs:
Translations and Commentary.
With P.J. Brand. The Great Hypostyle Hall in the Temple
of Amun at Karnak, Vol. 2. The Gateways.
PLATES
184 william j. murnane, 1945–2000

At the wall 1: Bill Murnane collating the Opet Festival reliefs of Tutankhamun in the
Colonnade Hall of Luxor Temple.

Bill Murnane reading a newspaper in the courtyard

of Chicago House in Luxor.

At the wall 2: Bill Murnane collating inscrip-

tions in the Colonnade Hall of Luxor
Temple.
 marc gabolde 185

Fig. 1. An inlay fragment of the ‘sky’-sign discovered among the finds from KV 55 (Egyptian Museum in Cairo).

Fig. 2. Original inscription from the canopic jars of KV 55 with the titulary of Kiya (drawing by the author based upon
the reconstruction of Krauss, MDAIK 42 (1986), p. 72, Abbildung 7).

Fig. 3. First step of the erasure of the name of Kiya. Her titulary is hacked out and the ‘sky’ sign is cut.
186 marc gabolde

Fig. 4. Second step of change: the right corner of the ‘sky’-sign is moved to the left and a calcite fragment is inserted
in its place.

Fig. 5. Reconstruction of the inscribed panel of the canopic jars from KV 55 in accordance with the identity of the
last owner.
 marc gabolde 187

Fig. 6. Last step of change, the remaining royal cartouches are erased and the ‘sky’-sign removed. Part of the calcite
inlay is broken during the process. The names of the god were removed as well to prevent any confusion (the Aten
could not have viscera).

Fig. 7. View of the panel after the last change. A fragment of the ‘sky’-sign was left in the tomb and recovered later
by the excavators.
188 marc gabolde

Fig. 9. Nomen from pectoral Carter 261 p 1: top, from left to right: enlarged detail scanned from the photography of
T.G.H. James and A. De Luca, Toutankhamon (Paris: Gründ, 2000), p. 227; traces of defaced and re-engraved car-
touches; traces of re-engraved cartouche; traces of defaced cartouche; bottom, from left to right, drawing of traces of
both defaced and re-engraved cartouches; traces of re-engraved cartouche; traces of defaced cartouche; reconstruction
of original cartouche.

Fig. 10. Cartouche in Selkis coffinette (Carter 266g = JE 60691) line 7: top: scan from catalogue The Treasures of
Tutankhamun, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1976, cat. no. 45, between plates 26 and 27; middle left: traces of both
first and second engraved names; bottom left: traces of second engraved name; middle right: traces of first engraved
name; bottom right: reconstructed first name taking advantage of the reading of Carter 261 p 1.
françois larché 189

Fig. 1.
190 françois larché

Fig. 2.
françois larché 191

Fig. 3.
192 françois larché

Fig. 4.
françois larché 193

Fig. 5.
194 françois larché

Fig. 6.
françois larché 195

Fig. 7.
196 françois larché

Fig. 8.
françois larché 197

Fig. 9.
198 françois larché

Fig. 10.
françois larché 199

Fig. 11.
200 françois larché

Fig. 12.
françois larché 201

Fig. 13.
202 françois larché

Fig. 14.
françois larché 203

Fig. 15.
204 françois larché

Fig. 16.
françois larché 205

Fig. 17.
206 françois larché

Fig. 18.
françois larché 207

Fig. 19.
208 françois larché

Fig. 20.
françois larché 209

Fig. 21.
210 françois larché

Fig. 22.
françois larché 211

Fig. 23.
212 françois larché

Fig. 24.
françois larché 213

Fig. 25.
214 françois larché

Fig. 26.
françois larché 215

Fig. 27.
216 françois larché

Fig. 28.
françois larché 217

Fig. 29.
218 françois larché

Fig. 30.
françois larché 219

Fig. 31.
220 françois larché

Fig. 32.
françois larché 221

Fig. 33.
222 françois larché

Fig. 34.
françois larché 223

Fig. 35.
224 françois larché

Fig. 36.
françois larché 225

Fig. 37.
226 françois larché

Fig. 38.
françois larché 227

Fig. 39.
228 françois larché

Fig. 40.
françois larché 229

Fig. 41.
230 françois larché

Fig. 42.
 index 231

INDEX

Abu Simbel 53 n. 19, 130 Amarah West 132

Abydos 51, 176 n. 22 Amarna. See under Akhetaten (El-Amarna)
Temple of Ramesses II, 54-55, 130, 143 Amarna Letters 3, 71
Temple of Seti I 53, 55, 130, 143 n. 28 Amen-(Re). See under Amun (Amun-Re)
Accho 133 Amenemhab (official) 132
Aegean 133 Amenemhat. See under Amenemhet
Ahmes. See under Ahmose Amenemhet I 4, 103-107, 155, 156 n. 16, 172
Ahmes-Nefertari. See under Ahmose-Nefertari Amenemhet II 170, 172-173
Ahmose 122 Amenemhet III 70
Ahmose-Nefertari (Queen) 116, 123, 164, 168 Amumherkhepeshef (Prince) 53 n. 15
Ahmosis. See under Ahmose Amenhotep I 4, 116, 144 n. 35
Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) 1-3 deification 67, 123
accession date 3 Karnak monuments 144, 146, 147, 149-150, 163-169
age at accession 13 topographical lists 130
artistic styles & iconography 18 n. 56, 64 n. 78, 75, 78, 80, Amenhotep II 20 n. 71, 116, 122, 131
82, 89-94, 111 n. 17, 116 n. 60 Amenhotep III 3, 14, 39, 74-75, 116, 129-130, 144 n. 35, 105,
Barraquer & Simon’s Syndrome 116 n. 60 111 n. 20, 112 n. 22, 116 n. 60, 121 n. 9, 122, 125-126
burial 13 & n. 26 age at death 116
chronology 65-66, 68-72, 75, 77-78, 80, 82 artistic styles & iconography 3, 51-54, 70 n. 22, 71, 80,
coregency with Amenhotep III 3, 14, 65-82 89-90, 93-94
coregency with Neferneferuaten 12, 15, 19 n. 66 brothers 20 n. 74
coregency with Nefertiti 18 cartouches usurped by Akhenaten 81, 112 n. 20
coregency with Smenkhkare 9-10, 12 chronology of reign 69-72, 74, 78-79, 81-82
death 10, 12
coregency with Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten 3, 14, 65-82
epithets
cult of 66-67, 76 n. 55
waenre 9, 111, 112 n. 20, 113, 117
death 68, 71, 75 n. 53, 79
“great in his lifetime” (aA m aHaw=f) 79 n. 70, 111-112
deification & deification iconography 50 n. 4, 66-67,
father of his own granddaughters 14-15
iconoclasm 71-72, 74 nn. 43 & 49 69-70, 71 n. 30, 72-73, 76 n. 55, 78-81, 126
& KV 55 coffin 13 n. 26 deconstruction of older monuments 156 n. 116, 168-169
proscription of Amun 71-72, 74-76, 79, 149, 155 highest regnal year date 69, 78-79
receipt of foreign tribute (durbar) 9, 17 honorific figures of 126-127
royal tomb. See under Akhetaten (royal tomb) monuments usurped by Akhenaten 81-82
shabtis 117 n. 64 mortuary temple. See under Kom el-Heitan
succession 3, 9-20 mummy 116
usurpations by 81-82 nomen changed to Nebmaatre by Akhenaten 76
See also: Akhetaten (El-Amarna); Amenhotep III; Nebmaatre, Lord of Nubia 67, 76 n. 55
Amun (Amun-Re); Ankhesenpaaten (Princess); sculpture 52, 72 n. 22
Aten; Baketaten (Princess); coregency; Karnak (Aten Sed festivals (jubilees) 54, 65, 68-74, 77-82
Temples); Kings Valley (KV 55); Kheruef (official); & Smenkhkare 20
Kiya (Wife of Akhenaten); Meketaten (Princess); topographical lists 129-134
Meritaten (Princess); Nefertiti (Queen); Smenkhkare; & Tutankhamun 14, 20, 125-126
Soleb; Tiy/Tiya/Tiye (Queen); Tutankhamun See also: Akhenaten; coregency; Karnak; Kom el-Hettan;
Akenkherēs 18 Luxor; Nebmaatre; Soleb; Tiy; Tutankhamun
Akhetaten (El-Amarna) 9, 10, 12, 14-15, 53, 70 n. 22, 71, 74 Amenhotep IV. See under Akhenaten
n. 46, 76, 78, 82, 91, 112 n. 20, 117 Amenmesse 4, 30-34, 37-39, 45-48, 89
boundary stelae 1-2, 5 See also: Karnak; Luxor; Merenptah; Seti (Prince); Seti II
earlier proclamation 13, 17, 71 Amenophis. See under Amenhotep
later proclamation 9 n. 2 Amnisos 133
plaster portraits from 116 n. 60 Amon. See under Amun (Amun-Re)
royal tomb 3, 12-13, 16 n. 43, 83-88, 115 Amun (Amun-Re) 4, 12, 26, 36, 45 n. 54, 55, 61, 68, 70,
room alpha 84, 88 74, 80, 95 nn. 2-3, 96, 107, 114, 118, 121, 126, 133, 141,
room gamma 16, 83-84, 86, 88 146-149, 163-168, 176, 180
sarcophagi 13 n. 26, 16 n. 43, 83 n. 1, 115 n. 44 barge 127-128
vandalism 84 bark 122, 126
studio of sculptor Thutmose 93 festivals 121-122
See also: Akhenaten; Aten; Ay/Aya (official); Huya Kamutef 126, 163
(official); Meryre II (official) proscription by Akhenaten 71-72, 74-76, 79, 122, 148-149,
Akkadian, 3 155-156
Aksha 131-132 See also: Karnak; Khonsu; Luxor; Mut
Alalakh 132 Anatolia. See under Asia Minor
Alasiya 133 Ankhesenamun (Queen) 19 n. 66
Aleppo 133 See also: Ankhesenpaaten (Princess)
232 index

Ankhesenpaaten (Princess) 9, 10 n. 5, 13-20, 86 Seti (Prince) 42-45

Ankhesenpaaten Jr. (Princess) 15-18 Tutankhamun 33
Ankh(et)kheperure (Royal Prenomen) 12, 117-129 See also: usurpation
See also: Akhenaten; Neferneferuaten; Smenkhkare Deir el-Bahari 121
Antef II 159 n. 130 Hatshepsut Temple 29, 52, 61, 101 n. 24, 142-144
Anubis 74, 143 Monthuhotep II Temple 159 n. 130
Apopi 105 Deir el-Medina 123
Apy (steward) 70 Djehuty. See under Thoth
Aram 133 Djeme 101 n. 29
Ardukka 133 Durbar 9, 17
Armant 103-104, 106
Arsaphes 176 Elephantine 103 n. 3, 104, 170
Arzawa 133 Ennead 163, 165
Asasif 66, 76, 177 Epagomenal days 69
Asia Minor 133 Epigraphic Survey (Chicago House) 1-6, 39 n. 41, 42 n. 45,
Assur 133 51, 55 n. 22, 56, 61, 68 n. 13, 77-79, 103 n. 1, 107, 125-126,
Asy 133 131
Aten/Aton 10 n. 10, 12, 74, 88, 90, 93, 106 n. 20, 111 Eritrea 132
didactic name Ermant. See under Armant
cartouches of 10, 71 n. 33, 72, 74 nn. 43 & 46, 110, 111, Ethiopia 132
117 Euphrates 132, 134
changes to 15, 76, 117 nn. 62-63
earlier form 15 n. 33, 73, 79 Galilee 133
later form 9, 71, 76 Geb 53
earliest appearance 71 & n. 30, 74 n. 45 God’s Wife of Amun 99 n. 17, 101 n. 24, 164
iconography 71, 73 See also: Ahmose-Nefertari; Nitocris I
jubilees of 71 Gurnah 1, 61
Karnak temples of 3, 19 n. 65, 73-74, 82, 93, 116 n. 60 Great Hypostyle Hall Project. See under Karnak Great
Ra-Horakhty-Aton 66, 74 Hypostyle Hall Project
See also: Akhenaten; Akhetaten; Ra/Râ/Re
Atum 72-74, 90, 160 n. 135 Hammath 133
See also: Ra/Râ/Re Haremhab. See under Horemheb
Ay/Aya (official, later King) 14, 33, 35, 123, 126 Hathor 53 n. 15, 74, 90, 97, 142, 155
Hatshepsut 2, 14, 29, 61, 114, 121 n. 9, 141, 143, 170
Baketaten (Princess) 15 n. 33, 85, 87 coregency with Thutmose III 19, 168, 121 n. 9
Bast 175 n. 9 damnatio memoriae 33 n. 20
Barga 133 Karnak monuments 32 n. 16, 106, 143-144, 150, 153, 156,
Behdetite 147 161, 167-168
Beth-Shan 133 Chapelle Rouge 2, 138, 141 n. 13, 142, 144-145, 154,
Blessing of Ptah 129 159, 162, 164
Bohairic (Coptic) 176 obelisks 106, 144 n. 34, 150 n. 68, 156, 161 n. 146
Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten. See under Akhetaten podium 138-141, 144-145, 150-154, 157-161, 163
(El-Amarna) (boundary stelae) suite 138-141, 144, 145 n. 40, 151, 153, 158-159, 162,
167, 169
Canaan 133 Punt expedition 132
Carchemish 132-133 Re-burial of Thutmose I 114
Chariots 43-44, 49, 52 n. 11, 58-59, 130 See also: Deir el-Bahari; Karnak; Thutmose I; Thutmose II;
Cheikh Labib. See under Karnak Thutmose III
Chicago House. See under Epigraphic Survey Hatti (Hittites) 3, 19, 38, 133
Coptic 58, 176 Hazor 133
Coregency 2, 5 Hebrew 4, 175
Amenhotep III & Akhenaten 3, 14, 65-82 Heb-Sed. See under Sed Festival
chronology 65, 66, 68-72, 75, 77-78, 80, 82 Herakleopolis 105
contradictions 74, 79, 82 Herihor 47 n. 61
Akhenaten & Neferneferuaten 12, 15, 19 n. 66 Hermel 134
Akhenaten & Smenkhkare 9-10, 12 Hermopolis 13-15, 87
coregency stela 10 n. 12 Hittites. See under Hatti
Hatshepsut & Thutmose III 19, 168 Horemheb 3, 123
Crete 133 damnatio memoriae & usurpations of Tutankhamun & Ay
Cydonia 133 29, 33, 35, 126-127
Cythera 133 topographical lists 130-133
Hor (King) 148
Daxamunzu 19 n. 66 Horus 52, 114, 117 & n. 63, 146, 166 & n. 180
Dalat-Silul (Door of the Locusts) 134 Huya (official) 15 n. 33, 71 & n. 27, 76, 112 n. 20
Damnatio Memoriae 33, 36, 38, 42-48, 115 n. 44 Hypostyle Hall Project. See under Karnak Great Hypostyle
Ay 33, 35, 126 Hall Project
Amun (Amun-Re) 12, 71-72, 76 nn. 54 & 60
Hatshepsut 33 n. 20 Ikhnaton. See under Akhenaten
Kushite kings 95-101 Ineni (official) 114 n. 35
Merenptah 38, 42-48 Intef II. See under Antef II
 index 233

Irem 130-132 Pylon V 138, 139 n. 4, 142-144, 146-148, 150 & nn. 68,
Isis 12 n. 18, 53 n. 15, 74, 175 n. 9 72 & 75, 152, 155-157, 161, 164 n. 166, 166 n. 178
Pylon VI 30, 32 n. 16, 106 n. 26, 129-130, 139, 142,
Jezreel 133 146, 150, 157-158, 164-168
Jubilee. See under Sed festival Pylon VII 21, 129-130, 148 n. 58, 148
Pylon VIII 2, 148, 149 n. 62
Ka (kA) 87 n. 14, 88 & n. 16, 119, 126, 148, 167 Pylon IX 106, 145
Kadesh 132-134 Pylon X 106, 116 n. 60
Kamose 147 radier 138-140, 146, 149-163, 167-169, 173
Karnak 1-2, 4-5, 70, 105 Ramesses III temple 23, 55, 61
Akhmenu 32 n. 16, 106, 138-139, 142-143, 149, 152, 154 Temple A 98-101
Amenemhat I’s constructions 103-107, 155, 156 n. 116 Thutmose I monuments 4, 121-123, 138, 139 n. 4,
Amenhotep I’s monuments 4, 130, 144-147, 149-150, 143-144, 150, 157, 159, 161, 168-169
163-169 Thutmose III granite barl chapel 164
Annals of Thutmose III 3, 132-133, 135, 139, 141 Thutmose IV bark chapel 142
Aten temples 3, 19 n. 65, 73-74, 82, 93, 116 n. 60 Treasury of Thutmose I 4, 121-123, 155
Hwt-bnbn 73 WADyt-hall 32 n. 16, 142
Ra-Horakhty shrine 71, 74 White Chapel of Senwoseret I 145-146, 147 n. 53, 168
talatat 13, 89-94 See also: Akhenaten; Amenhotep I; Amenmesse;
Bubastite gate 129, 134 Amun-(Re); Hatshepsut; Karnak Great Hypostyle
calcite bark shrine of Amenhotep I 144 n. 35 Hall Project; Ramesses II; Senwosret I (Karnak
Chapelle Rouge bark shrine of Hatshepsut 2, 138, 141 n. monuments); Luxor; Thutmose I; Thutmose III;
Topographical Lists; Seti II
13, 142, 144-145, 154, 159, 162, 164
Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall Project 1-2, 4-7, 25 n. 32, 29,
“Cheikh Labib” storeroom 103 n. 2, 106 n. 18, 147 n. 54,
89, 139
149, 156, 160 n. 134, 162, 165
Kenset 130-131
Cour de la Cachette 23, 29-31, 33-34, 36-38, 42, 44-48, Khaemwaset (Prince)
145 n. 36, 146-147, 163, 168 Son of Merenptah 43 n. 49, 45 & nn. 53-54
Cour du Moyen Empire. See under Middle Kingdom Son of Ramesses III 53 n. 15
Court (so-called) Khepri 74
eastern temple of Ramesses II 31 n. 16 Kheruef (official) 3, 14, 65-69, 72-80, 89-92, 112, 116 n. 61
excavations 139, 150, 154-155, 158-159, 161 Theban Tomb 192:
flooding 145 acrostic hymn 68, 72
gateway of Amenmesse 32 n. 16 artistic style 77-78
Le Grand Château d’Amon 138-139, 142, 144, 147, 149 collapse of roof 72
Great Hypostyle Hall 1-2, 4-7, 25 n. 32, 29, 33 n. 18, 53 n. construction 68, 76-78
19, 89, 139 decoration of 66-69, 72, 74
architraves 21-28 Sed Festival scenes 68-69, 72-74, 77-80
columns 21-25 See also: Akhenaten; Amenhotep III; coregency
marginal inscriptions 47 n. 61, Khonsu 128
monuments reused in 145 See also: Karnak (Khonsu Temple)
topographical lists 131, 133 Kings’ Valley (KV) 31, 56, 89, 110
war reliefs of Ramesses II 38, 44 KV 8 (Merenptah) 56
war reliefs of Seti I 3 KV 9 (Ramesses VI) 56
See also: Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall Project; Rames- KV 10 (Amenmesse) 31
ses II; Ramesses IV; Ramesses VI; Seti I; Seti II KV 11 (Ramesses III) 55
Hatshepsut suite 138-140, 144, 151, 153, 158-159, 162, KV 14 (Sethnakhte) 56
167, 169 KV 15 (Seti II) 56
Hittite Peace Treaty Stela 38 KV 20 (Hatshepsut) 114
Khonsu Temple 5, 101 n. 24 KV 38 (Thutmose I) 114
Lake Edifice of Taharqa 101 KV 47 (Siptah) 56
Mansion of Nebkhepurure in Thebes 14, 33, 35 KV 55 (Amarna Cache) 3-4, 12-13
Middle Kingdom Court (so-called) 103 n. 6, 106, 138-140, age of mummy 115, 117, 119
148-150, 156 n. 116, 157-159, 169 canopic jars 109-111, 114
Mut Temple Precinct 4, 95-101, 121 n. 9 golden coffin 3, 13, 109-110, 112, 117, 119
crypt 95-99 identity of mummy 13 n. 26, 18 n. 55, 19, 114-115, 117
mammisi 100-101 magic bricks 13, 114, 117
Netchery-Menu 163 seals 114
obelisks I 29 n. 7, 106 shrine of Queen Tiy 111-112
origins of Karnak Temple 106-107, 144 n. 34, 148 n. 58, See also: Akhenaten; Kiya (Wife of Akhenaten)
150 n. 68, 156, 161 n. 147, Neferneferuaten; Smenkhkare; Tiy/Tiya (Queen)
Philipp Arrhideus bark shrine 158, 162, 164 KV 62 (Tutahkhamun) 118-120
portico of Senwosret I 138-145, 147-149, 163-165 Kiya (Wife of Akhenaten) 13, 15, 16 n. 39, 17, 110-111, 113
Ptah Temple 106, 121-122, 150 n. 72, 163, 168 burial equipment reused 13, 110-111, 113
Pylons See also: Kings Valley (KV 55)
Pylon I 22 Knossos 133
Pylon II 22-25, 29, 33 n. 18, 95-96, 130, 134, 142, 147 Kom el-Heitan/Kom al-Hetan (Amenhotep III Mortuary
Pylon III 2, 126, 139, 145-146, 150 n. 72, 157, 159, 166 Temple) 69, 75-76, 79, 129, 131, 133, 162 n. 148
n. 180, 168-169 Kuban 121 n. 9
Pylon IV 30, 32 n. 16, 106, 138, 146, 150, 152, 157, 161, Kush 95-102, 130-132
166 n. 176, 169 See also: Nitocris I; Shabaqo; Shebitku; Taharqa
234 index

Levant 131, 133 death 1, 5-6, 29, 83, 109

Libya (Libyans) 50, 116, 130-131 education 5
See also: Tjehenu & Epigraphic Survey 1-4, 125-126
Louqsor/Louxor. See under Luxor Karnak Hypostyle Hall Project 1-2, 4, 6, 29, 139
Luxor Temple 4-6, 21 29, 31, 33, 52, 76 n. 55, 101 n. 24, 121 love of opera 1, 7, 125, 175
blockyards & magasins 103-107, 125 personal qualities 1, 5-6, 9, 21, 29, 49, 65, 89, 103
cachette of statues 52 professional service 6
Colonnade Hall 29, 39-43, 125-128 sayings 1, 5-7
colossi 33 n 23, 48 n. 62, 134 scholarship & intellect 1-3, 5-6, 29, 49, 65, 83, 89, 95, 103,
Merenptah’s inscriptions in 29, 31, 33, 38-43, 45, 47-48 125, 129
Opet festival reliefs sense of humor 1, 6-7, 125
origins 105-106 teaching & mentoring 1, 5-6, 29, 49, 125
Ramesside forecourt 38-40 See also: Akhetaten (Boundary stelae); Coregency;
reused blocks from 4, 103-107 Epigraphic Survey; Karnak (Great Hypostyle Hall);
solar court of Amenhotep III 39, 42, 44, 69, 126 Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall Project
Triple Shrine 2 Mut 61, 128
topographical lists from 133-134 See also: Karnak (Mut Precinct)
See also: Amenhotep III; Amun-(Re); Epigraphic Survey Mycenae 133
(Chicago House); Karnak; Merenptah; Tutankhamun
Lyktos 133 Naharin 133
Narmer Palette 63 n. 31
Ma’asara 151 Nebmaatre (Amenhotep III) 72, 76, 79-81, 112
Nebmaatre, Lord of Nubia 67, 76 n. 55
Maat 72, 89, 90, 92, 109, 112 n. 20
Neferhotep (official) 1
Malkata 69
Neferhotep I 144, 156, 161 n. 147
Mammisi 100-101
Neferneferuaten (King) 3, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 18-20, 113,
Manetho 18 117-120
May (High Priest of Amun) 70 burial equipment reused 12 n. 17, 19 n. 66, 117, 118-120
Maya (official) 65 n. 1 coregency with Akhenaten 9-12, 15, 18-19
Médamoud/Medamud 152, 155, 170-173 epithets 9, 12, 19, 113, 118-120
Medinet Habu 4-5 See also: Akhenaten; King’s Valley (KV 55); Meritaten;
Eastern High Gate 55, 133, 134 Neferneferure-ta-sheryt “Jr.”
Eighteenth Dynasty temple 121 n. 9, 159 n. 130 Neferneferuaten (epithet of Queen Nefertiti) 15, 18
iconography of Ramesses III 49-64 Neferneferuaten (Princess) 19 n. 62
temple of Ramesses III 49-56, 58, 60-63 Neferneferuaten-ta-sheryt “Jr.” (Princess) 9, 15, 19, 86
topographical lists 130, 132, 134 See also: Akhenaten; Akhetaten (Royal Tomb); Nefernefe-
war scenes 50, 52, 54, 58, 61-62 ruaten (King) & (Princess); Tiy/Tiya (Queen)
Medja 130-132 Neferneferure (Princess) 86 n. 12
Megiddo 132-133 Nefertari (Queen) 1
Meketaten (Princess) 3, 16 & n. 43, 17-18, 83-88, 115 n. 44 Nefertiti (Queen) 9, 10 nn. 5 & 12, 13 nn. 24 & 26, 15-18, 73,
Memphis (Egypt) 10 79
Memphis (Tennessee) 1-6, 29 artistic representations 3, 13 n. 26, 89-94
Mentouhotep III. See under Monthuhotep III coregency with Akhenaten 18
Merenptah 4, 56, 129-130 daughters 9, 15, 17, 83-87
cartouches usurped 29-48 death 19 nn. 62 & 64
damnation memoriae 33, 36, 46-48 mother of Tutankhamun 86
Merire/Meryra II (official) shawabtis of 18 n. 59
Amarna tomb 9-10, 12, 71 & n. 27, 76 See also: Akhenaten; Karnak (Aten temples)
Meritaten (Princess) 9-10, 13, 15-20, 83, 85, 87, 115, 118, 120 Nekhbet 105, 165
See also: Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV); Ankh(et)khepurure; Nesptah (official) 96 n. 9
Neferneferuaten; Smenkhkare Nile 80, 83, 129-130, 132, 145 n. 36, 173, 176
Meritaten Jr. (Princess) 15, 17-18 Nitocris I 101 n. 24
Merytaten. See under Meritaten Nubia
Mesopotamia 133-134 in topographical lists 129-132
Messenia 133 Nubian archers 53 n. 17
Min 74, 104 n. 11 See also: Abu Simbel; Irem; Kush; Nebmaatre, Lord of
Mitanni 132-133 Nubia: Soleb; Wawat
Moab 134 Nuhasse 133
Monthu/Montu 52 Nut 12 n. 17, 117
See also: Karnak (Monthu Temple)
Monthuhotep III-Seankhkare 104, 172 Onnophris 12 n. 17
Monthuhotep V 172 Opet Festival 28 n. 44, 121, 125-126
Montuemhat (official) 96 & n. 9 Oriental Institute (University of Chicago) 5, 51, 65, 103,
Murnane, William J. 1-7, 9, 21, 29, 31 n. 15, 33 n. 21, 37 n. 106-107
34, 38 n. 35, 95 n. 5, 107, 112 n. 20, 119, 125-126, 128, See also: Epigraphic Survey; Murnane, William J.
139, 175 Osiris 12 n.18, 74, 99 n. 20, 114, 117, 118 n. 71, 175 n. 9
academic career 1, 5-6 See also: Ptah-Sokar-Osiris
Amarna studies 2-3, 83 Oupouaout. See under Wepwawet
anecdotes about 1, 6-7
bibliography 179-182 Pahil 133
coregency studies 2, 65, 68, 72, 78, 81 Pairi/Pare (official) 12, 118
 index 235

Parennefer (official) 78 n. 64, 93 Seti II 56, 127 n. 7

Pelusiac (Nile branch) 176 Crown Prince of Merenptah 44
Pelusium 175 n. 9 usurpations by 4, 29-34, 36-39, 42-43, 46-48
Phaistos 133 See also: Amenmesse; Karnak; Luxor; Merenptah; Seti
Philipp Arrhideus 158, 162, 164 (Prince)
Phoenicia 133 Seti (Prince) 42-45
Pinudjem (High Priest) 39, 123 Sety. See under Seti
Pethor (134) Shabaqo 99-101
Prehotep (vizier) 133 Shebitku 99, 101
Proscription. See under Damnatio Memoriae Shebyu collar 70, 78
Ptah 70 n. 25, 74, 106, 121-122, 176 Shoshenq I 129, 134
See also: Karnak (Ptah Temple) Shu 117 n. 63
Ptah-Sokar-Osiris 69 Siptah 56
Ptolémée Évergète II 170-172 Smenkhkare 3, 9-10, 12-16, 18-20, 117-119
Punt 130-132 age at death 12
burial 13
Qadesh. See under Kadesh coregency with Akhenaten 9-10, 12
Qarmiyan 134 father of Tutankhamun 19-20
Qatana 133 length of reign 12
& Neferneferuaten 12, 19
Ra/Râ/Re 28, 39, 45 n. 54, 69 n. 19, 105, 109, 175-176 son of Amenhotep III 20
Ra-Horakhty 13 nn. 24 & 26, 71-74, 75 n. 50, 79, 89 See also: Akhenaten; Ankh(et)khepurure; coregency;
Ra-Horakhty-Aton. See under Aten Meritaten (Princess); Neferneferuaten (King)
See also: Amun-Re; Aten; Atum Sobekhotep I 156
Ramesses, Land of 175-177 Sobekhotep II 105, 107
Ramesses I 33 n. 18, 123 Sobekhotep III 156 n. 111
Ramesses II 31 n. 16, 40, 42, 44, 48 n. 62, 51, 53-56, 101, 123, Sobekhotep IV 156
147 Sobekhotep VII, 145 n. 36
alleged usurpation of his cartouches 30-31, 34, 37-38 Sokar Festival 50, 52
daughters 39 See also: Ptah-Sokar-Osiris
Karnak war scenes 2 n. 3, 30, 44 Soleb (Amenhotep III temple) 3, 67, 79-82, 112 n. 20,
sons 40, 45 130-132,
topographical lists 129-135 See also: Akhenaten; Amenhotep III; Nebmaatre, Lord of
usurpations by 29, 33 n. 18, 143 n. 27 Nubia
See also: Karnak; Merenptah; Ramesseum Sudan 132
Ramesses III 5, 23, 31, 49-55, 61, 166 Suppiluliuma I 133
topographical lists of 130, 132, 134 Syene 175 n. 9
See also: Medinet Habu (Temple of Ramesses III) Syria (Syrians) 53 n. 17, 129-130, 132-134
Ramesses IV 33 n. 18, 39, 42, 47 n. 61
Ramesses VI 33 n. 18, 56 Taharqa 95-96, 100-101, 130
Ramesseum 33-34, 45, 53 n. 14, 61, 101 n. 24, 130 Takhsi 133
Ramses. See under Ramesses Talatat 3, 13, 90-94, 106-107, 122
Ramose (official) 78 n. 64, 89-93, 116 Tauseret (Queen) 56
Re. See under: Ra/Râ/Re Tefnakhte 176 n. 22
Red Sea 132 Texte de la Jeunesse 140-141, 154 n. 92, 171
See also: Thutmose III
Saqqara 176 n. 22 Thoth 74, 123, 141, 165
Satet 170 Thutmose I 116 n. 56, 122, 134, 143
Sea Peoples 61, 134 treasury (Karnak) 4, 121-123, 152
Sed festival (jubilee) 53 n. 17, 79, 163 Karnak monuments 29 n. 7, 32 n. 16, 150, 155, 157, 159,
of Amenhotep III 54, 65, 68-74, 77-82 161, 163, 169
of Aten 71 dismantles older monuments 139 n. 4, 168
Semenkhkare. See under Smenkhkare reburials of 114-115
Sennucheri (official) 145 reuse of older monuments 139 n. 4, 144, 150
Senwosret I 4, 103-104, 106, 170-173 Thutmose II 114, 144 n. 33, 145, 168
Karnak monuments 138-150, 154-156, 160-161, 165-168 Thutmose III 3, 114, 121 n. 9, 122, 139-140
See also: Amenemhet I; Karnak age at death 116
Senwosret III 70 n. 22, 103 n. 1, 105, 155 n. 103, 173 coregency with Hatshepsut 19, 168
Sesostris/Sésostris I-III. See under Senwosret I-III damnation memoriae of Hatshepsut 33 n. 20
Setau (Viceroy) 130 Karnak monuments 141-143, 145, 148 n. 56, 149-150,
Setepenre (Princess) 9, 17, 86 n. 12 154, 157, 159, 164, 167-168
Séthi. See under Seti reburial of Thutmose I
Seth 43 n. 48, 45 n. 55, 146, 166 Texte de la Jeunesse 140-141, 154 n. 92, 171
Sethnakht 56 topographical lists 129-135
Sethos. See under Seti See also: Amenhotep II; Hatshepsut; Karnak; Thutmose I;
Seti (Prince) 42-45 Thutmose II
See also: Seti II Thutmose IV 20, 52, 115-116, 130, 142
Seti I 28, 45 n. 55, 53, 55, 61, 121-123, 126, 141, 143 n. 28 Thutmose (sculptor) 91 n. 15, 93
topographical lists 129-135 Thutmosis. See under Thutmose
war reliefs 3, 61 Tiberius 156
236 index

Tigris 134 Museum Objects

Tiy/Tiya/Tiye (Queen) 12, 15 n. 33
& Akhenaten 72-74, 89, 91-93, 112 n. 20 Berlin
Artistic representations 65-66 17813: 10 n. 12, 11
Mother of Smenkhkare 20 20716: 10 n. 12, 11
Sarcophagus 115 n. 44 21220: 91 n. 15
Statuary 101 n. 24 21263: 91 n. 15
& Tutankhamun 20 21299: 116 n. 60
See also: Akhenaten; Amenhotep III; Kheruef; Kings
Valley (KV 55) Brussels
Tjehenu 131 E 2157: 92
See also: Libya
Tod/Tôd 103 n. 2, 104, 106-107, 170-173 Cairo
Topographical Lists 129-135 Catalogue Général (CG)
Tourah/Tura 103-104, 151 259: 148 n. 59
Tunip 133 22054: 176 n. 22
Tutankhamun 2-4, 14-16, 35, 109 n. 5, 114-115, 117, 23009: 105 n. 15
122-123, 125-128 34013: 121 n. 3
accession 9, 12, 19 34183: 113-114
age at accession 12 n. 20 42008: 155
age at death 12 46097: 52 n. 11
& Ay 14
damnatio memoriae 33 Journal d’Entre (JE)
inscriptions usurped 29, 117, 119-120 30948: 148 n. 59
length of reign 12 n. 20 30969: 53 n. 17
parentage & ancestry 14-15, 19-20, 85-88, 114-115, 119 32169: 63 n. 31
restoration stela 113-114 32751: 155
tomb & burial equipment 9-11, 12 n. 17, 19 n. 66, 20, 72, 33740: 155
79 n. 70, 117-120 36652: 45 n. 54
See also: Ay/Aya (official, later King); Damnatio Memoriae; 36809: Larché fig. 5
Karnak (“Mansion of Nebkhepurure”); Kings Valley 42008: 155 n. 103
(KV 62); Tutankhaten 48851: 141, Larché fig. 4
Tutankhaten 13, 85-88 52344: 114 n. 39
See also: Tutankhamun 60691: 118, 119 n. 78, M. Gabolde fig. 10
Tuthmosis. See under Thutmose 61517: 119
Twoseret. See under Tauseret 61944: 118 n. 67
Tyre 133 62703: 72 n. 34
62705: 72 n. 34
Userhet (official) 91-92 64959: 10 n. 12
Usurpation of monuments 1, 3-4, 29, 33, 46 88802: 154 n. 96
by Akhenaten 81-82
by Amenmesse 30-32, 34 Special Register (SR)
of Ay 126 13959*: 45 n. 54
of Hatshepsut 29
by Horemheb 29, 126-127 Temporary Register (TR)
of Merenptah 29-48 16/2/25/8: 45 n. 54
by Nitocris I 101 n. 24 10/4/22/7: 155 n. 97
by Ramesses I 29, 33 n. 18
by Ramesses II 29, 33 n. 18, 34 n. 26, 143 n. 27 Luxor
of Ramesses IV 29, 33 n. 18 J838: 52 n. 11
by Ramesses VI 29, 33 n. 18
of Senwosret III 105 London, Petrie Museum
by Seti I 123 UC 410: 10 n. 12
by Seti II 29-48
by Tutankhamun 29, 117, 119-120 New York
of Tutankhamun 126-127 20.2.11: 15 n. 33
See also: Damnatio Memoriae 26.7.1396: 93 n. 21
Ullaza 133
Uzu 133
Oxford, Ashmolean Museum
Valley of the Kings. See under Kings’ Valley 1983.I-41: 53 n. 16

Wawat 130-132 Paris, Louvre

Wadi Hammamat 70, 76 n. 54 A.121: 156
Wadjet 79 AF 8969: 156
Wepwawet 74, 104 E 13482: 90
Wilios 133 E 7824: 156

Yenoam 133
 index 237

Tutankhamun’s Tomb Carter’s Object Numbers Theban Tombs

1k: 9, 11 TT 47 (Userhet) 91
48h: 118 n. 73, 119 TT 55 (Ramose) 93, 116 n. 60
256a-b: 118 TT 139 (Pairi) 12, 118
261p(1): 12 n. 17, 117-119, M. Gabolde fig. 9 TT 192 (Kheruef) 14, 65-78, 89-90
266g: 118, M. Gabolde fig. 10 TT 226 (Anonymous) 20 n. 71
281a: 72 n. 34,
291a: 72 n. 34,
405: 9-10
620 (41-42): 119
238 index
238 index
238 index