Amarna Sunset:

the late-Amarna succession revisited

Aidan Dodson
University of Bristol

When considering a topic to offer as a token of one’s appreciation to Barry Kemp, one is
inevitably pulled towards the site of Tell el-Amarna, to which he has dedicated over thirty
years of his life. Having arrived there, a topic that was the subject of my first venture into
print three decades ago suggested itself, particularly since recent research has shown that
most of my long-held conclusions on that subject are certainly completely wrong!1

T hat at least one individual was interposed between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun in
the late Eighteenth Dynasty succession has been apparent from the early days of
Egyptology, when a number of the early travellers recorded a pair of cartouches accompa-
nying a scene in the tomb of Meryre ii (TA2) at Amarna (Porter and Moss 1934: 213–14; our
fig. 1).2 The prenomen read ‘Ankhkheperure’, while the nomen was variously copied as Zn-
kA-Ra-Dzr-xprw, Z-HqA-kA-Ra-Dzr-xprw and Z-aA-kA-Ra-Dzr-xprw (see Newberry 1928: 6). They were
accompanied by a queenly cartouche naming Mery(et)aten. Then, in the 1890s, Flinders
Petrie recovered a number of ring bezels at Gurob and Amarna, which included not only
examples with these names (fig. 2, the core nomen being read by him as Z-mnx-kA-Ra), but
also of a more elaborate prenomen cartouche, with the additional epithet mry-Nfr-xprw-Ra
(Petrie 1890: pl. xxiii; 1894: pl. xv; see our fig. 3). 3
Additionally, in 1893 Urbain Bouriant had published his copy of a graffito in the tomb
of Pairi at Thebes (TT139: Porter and Moss 1960: 253[5]),4 which was dated to the third
year of a king whose names were initially read as aA-xprw-Ra-mr[...] Nfr-nfrw-Itn-mr[...], with
the prenomen later interpreted as Nfr-xprw-Ra[...] (fig. 4). Against the background of the
latter reading, the general view was that this was an interim name adopted by Amenhotep
IV before becoming Akhenaten. Then, in 1922, Howard Carter found in the tomb of
Tutankhamun fragments of a box naming together Akhenaten, King Ankhkheprure-mery-
Neferkheperure Neferneferuaten-mery-Waenre and Queen Meryetaten (now Cairo
JE61500 – see Beinlich and Saleh 1989: 4[1k]), leading Percy Newberry to bring together
the evidence to produce a reconstruction that would be the basis for orthodoxy for some
five decades (Newberry 1928). This was that Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten were names
of the same person, although there was little unanimity as to which name was the earlier.
The consensus began to be broken in 1974, when John Harris produced the first of a
series of papers in which he argued that Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten was actually a

1
This paper is thus in many ways a public repudiation of much of what I have written in the past
arguing for a single male owner of the names Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten, in particular
Dodson 1981, 1992, 1993b, 1994, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005: 37.
2
The cartouches, plus two pairs of those of the Aten and other columns of text, were cut out during
the 1880s, and have never been seen since: Newberry 1928: 5.
3
See also Nicholson 2008: 286, 305, 311, 319’.
4
Gardner Wilkinson had made a copy of the beginning of the text half a century earlier, but which
remained unpublished.

S. IKRAM & A. DODSON (eds), Beyond the Horizon: Studies in Egyptian Art, Archaeology
and History in Honour of Barry J. Kemp (Cairo, 2009).
 AMARNA SUNSET

woman, and none other than Queen Nefertiti (Harris 1973a; 1973b; 1974; 1977). He was
supported in this by Julia Samson (1976; 1977; 1978; 1979; 1982a–d), but opposed by var-
ious researchers, including Cyril Aldred (1968; 1988), Frederick Giles (1970), Sayid Tawfik
(1975), Christian Loeben (1986) and the present writer (1981), to name but a few. Key is-
sues included the existence of versions of the ‘long’ prenomen that seemed to include the
feminine t-ending and images of a king that seemed to be feminine, against which could
be stacked Smenkhkare’s possession of a wife in TA2, differences between the queenly
and kingly orthographies of the name Neferneferuaten, a queenly shabti of Nefertiti, and
the existence of the body of a young Amarna Period (male) king in KV55 in the Valley of
the Kings, which many simply could not accept as being that of Akhenaten. A middle way
was, however, proposed by Rolf Krauss in 1978, in which he suggested that while Smenkh-
kare/Neferneferuaten was a man, his wife Meryetaten might have ruled briefly with the
feminised prenomen ‘Ankhetkheperure’ between Akhenaten’s death and her husband’s
accession (Krauss 1978: 43–47).
It was in 1988 that James P. Allen published a paper in which he proposed cutting the
Gordian Knot by separating Smenkhkare from Neferneferuaten, recognising that the ‘sim-
ple’ and ‘extended’ versions of the Ankhkheperure cartouche belonged to different kings.
A key observation was that there were no occasions when the ‘long’ version of the
prenomen occurred alongside the nomen Smenkhkare, nor the ‘short’ version with the
name Neferneferuaten. There was by no means universal acceptance of this, the present
writer arguing against this as late as 2003. 5
However, in 1998, Marc Gabolde had brought out a book in which he argued that a
number of cartouches of Neferneferuaten that had been read as having the epithet ‘mry-Ax-
n-Itn’ actually bore the epithet ‘Axt-n-hA.z’ – ‘Ax of her husband’. This was confirmed beyond
any doubt in by exhaustive re-assessments of the palimpsest inscriptions on the Nefer-
neferuaten/Tutankhamun coffinettes, which showed quite clearly that wherever the epithet
could be detected, it was indeed ‘Axt-n-hA.z’ (Allen 2006 and unpublished; Gabolde 2008:
17–23). The femininity of Neferneferuaten was thus proven beyond doubt.
Nevertheless, this by no means resolved the problems of the late Amarna succession,
merely removing one of the previous variables from the equation. Neferneferuaten may
have been a woman, but who was she? What was her relationship to Smenkhkare? Which
was the earlier of the two names?

A s already noted, the early proponents of the femininity of Neferneferuaten took the
same view as those who have regarded him as a man – Neferneferuaten and
Smenkhkare were one and the same person. This view left certain pieces of data sitting
somewhat uncomfortably, in particular the depiction of Smenkhkare alongside the Hmt-
nzw-wrt Meryetaten in the tomb of Meryre ii and a block at Memphis (fig. 5) that gave their
names together (Porter and Moss 1981: 8396). Attempts to explain this away through obfus-
cation (e.g. Samson 1977: 94; 1982a: 58) or to posit that Meryetaten might have become the

5
On the basis of his interpretation of a palimpsest cartouche on one of the canopic coffinettes of
Neferneferuaten which had been usurped for Tutankhamun. This suggested that one gave an
intermediate nomen, Smenkhkare-mery-Akhenaten, which would thus all but prove the identity of
the two (Dodson 1994; 2002; 2003); see further n.24.
6
See Malek 1996 for the need to reject a further (lost) block from the same group (Newberry 1928: 8,
fig. 3) as including a depiction of Smenkhkare in the train of Akhenaten: the original copy
apparently showed a non-regally attired woman (probably Meryetaten) following a king – probably
Smenkhkare.

30
 DODSON

nominal spouse of her mother remain distinctly unconvincing, and that Smenkhkare was
indeed a man seems impossible to doubt. 7 But did he precede or succeed Neferneferuaten?
The majority of scholars (whether accepting one or two kings, of whatever sex) have
leant towards the conclusion that the Smenkhkare titulary is the later of the two. 8 How-
ever, this conclusion is by no means definitive, and a good case can be made for
Smenkhkare being in fact the earlier of the two rulers. First, there is the jar from KV62
(JE62172) that bears the names of both Akhenaten and Smenkhkare (Loeben 1991, 1994).
While this can of course be explained away as a memorial, it can be used to reinforce other
data. Second, if placed on the wall after the death of Akhenaten, the relief in the tomb of
Meryre ii has to be dated half a decade or more 9 after any other known decoration in an
Amarna tomb. 10 If work continued on Amarna tombs after Akhenaten’s death, why do we
have no depictions, even initial sketches, of Neferneferuaten or Tutankhaten in any of
them? It would thus seem more likely that the Smenkhkare/Meryetaten depiction was
executed shortly after the completion of the Year 12 ‘durbar’ scene on the adjacent wall –
securely within the reign of Akhenaten. Indeed, the placement of the Smenkhkare scene
within weeks of the laying out of the ‘durbar’ scene is suggested by the tableaux’ position
in the tomb, directly above the sloping passage to the substructure. Until the artists had
adorned the whole right-hand side of the chamber and gotten out of the way, the builders
could not make progress in cutting the long corridor and chamber in which Meryre ii
intended to ultimately lay his mummy.
Third, when confronted by the respective prenomina of Smenkhkare and Neferneferu-
aten, one feels rather uncomfortable with the simple ‘Ankhkheperure’ following after the
more elaborate ‘Ankhkheperure + EPITHET’.11 The use of the same core cartouche-name
by two successive pharaohs is unusual prior to the late New Kingdom, but then when it is,
one finds epithets added to the previously-used core to distinguish the owner – not the
other way round. 12
A fourth consideration, which must, however, be used with care, concerns the graffito
of Year 3 of Neferneferuaten in the tomb of Pairi. In lines 4, 29 and 33, there are mentions
of the Hwt-nTr n Imn m tA Hwt anx-xhpw-ra and more simply Hwt anx-xhpw-ra (fig. 6). Although
the latter two cartouches are damaged, from that in line 4 it is clear that all three are com-
plete, and lack the epithet that is to be found in the Neferneferuaten prenomen in line 1
(for which, see below). Since all known examples of the prenomen of Neferneferuaten in-
clude an epithet – including that earlier in the same texts — the implication seems likely
that the simple ‘Ankhkheperure’ refers to Smenkhkare, who must therefore have preceded

7
Leaving for another time the issue of Smenkhkare’s origins; however, I must note that Gabolde’s
equation of him with the Hittite Prince Zannanza (1998: 221–24) seems to me wholly untenable (cf.
Murnane 2001).
8
Most recently in Allen 2006.
9
Depending on whether or not Neferneferuaten is given an independent reign.
10
While only the ‘durbar’ scenes are formally dated, to Year 12, other private tomb decoration can
be dated by either the form of the name of the Aten or by the presence of Princess Meketaten, who
would seem to have died not long after Year 12.
11
Either mry(t)-Nfr-xprw-Ra or mry(t)-Wa-n-Ra: the former seems to have been paired with the nomen
Neferneferuaten-mry(t)-Wa-n-Ra, the latter with Neferneferuaten-Axt-n-hA.z.
12
For example we have Rameses VI adding mry-Imn to Amenhotep III’s old ‘Nebmaatre’ and
Rameses VII adding the same epithet to Rameses II’s ‘Usermaatre-setpenre’. Besides similar
additions to historic prenomina in the late Twentieth Dynasty, we also find the accretion of epithets
to nomina during the mid Twenty-second Dynasty (cf. Dodson 1993a: 55). This is only reversed
towards the end of the Third Intermediate Period with the archaising simplicity of the names of
Shoshenq V and his contemporaries.

31
 AMARNA SUNSET

Neferneferuaten. The nature of the text means that care must be exercised in this, but
given the clear distinction between the simple ‘Ankhkheperure’ (Smenkhkare) and
‘Ankhkheperure + EPITHET’ (Neferneferuaten) in all other known examples, this conclu-
sion seems not unreasonable.
Accordingly, taking all the evidence together, it would seem most probable that
Smenkhkare was appointed coregent with Akhenaten some time around the latter’s thir-
teenth regnal year. As for the length of his reign, there is little direct evidence, but it is
likely to have been fairly short. Other than the TA2 depiction, and Memphis blocks, from
Smenkhkare’s lifetime we have only stamped mud-bricks from the so-called ‘Coronation
Hall’13 a sequinned garment found in Tutankhamun’s tomb, 14 plus ring bezels,15 moulds for
such and seal-impressions16 from Amarna. 17 On his death (for issues surrounding this and
his burial, together with posthumous references, see below, pp. 34–34), he was succeeded
as co-regent by Neferneferuaten, who adopted an extended version of his prenomen. It is
not unlikely that the ‘Ankhetkheperure’ version of the name dates to the very earliest days
of Neferneferuaten’s reign, and was employed but briefly.

H aving now verified Neferneferuaten’s gender, the next issue is clearly her origins.
Cases have been made for her being the former Nefertiti (Harris, Samson and oth-
ers), Meryetaten (Krauss 1978; Gabolde 1998) and most recently Neferneferuaten-tasherit,
fourth daughter of Akheneten (Allen 2006). Of these, Meryetaten’s candidature seems fa-
tally undermined by the existence of the KV62 box fragment JE61500, which gives the
names and titles of Akhenaten, Neferneferuaten and Meryetaten as clearly separate indi-
viduals (cf. Murnane 2001: 18, pace Gabolde 1998: 178–183).
Although Allen makes some interesting – but by no means decisive – points in favour of
Neferneferuaten-tasherit being the king (2006: 15), her extreme youth – and existence of
two elder surviving sisters — makes it difficult to accept such an equation. 18 This of course

13
Pendlebury 1951: 150, 194, pl. lxxxii[III]; on the nature of the building, cf. Traunecker 1984–85.
14
46gg = JE62654 (Beinlich and Saleh 1989: 20). The 47 sequins are each stamped with the
cartouches ‘Ankhkheperure’ and ‘Mery(et)aten’. Harris’s tentative suggestion (1992: 60–61) that the
omission of the feminine ‘t’ from the queen’s cartouche might mean that it is actually a variant
nomen of the king is highly unlikely, especially since the cartouche in question contains a seated-
person determinative – unknown for a king’s name. It is clearly simply Meryetaten’s name from
which the feminine ‘-t’ has been omitted – as it seems to have been in Meryre ii’s tomb.
15
Cf. Shaw 1984; Shannon 1987; the latter indicates that some 19% of examples from the
Workmen’s Village named Smenkhkare (Ankhkheperure), in contrast to 60% of Tutankhaten and
only 6% of Neferneferuaten (Ankhkheperure + EPITHET). Shaw’s analysis of Main City bezels
attribute 22.2% to ‘Smenkhkare’, but as much of the data from the work in this part of the site fails
to distinguish between Smenkhkare and Neferneferuten it is not possible to know what proportion
belonged to each of these two rulers: cf. n.17.
16
Pendlebury 1951: 75, pl. C[22, 23, 24].
17
Note that the data from the pre-1980s excavations invariably use the single term ‘Smenkhkare’ to
refer to the various nomina and prenomina used by both Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten: thus
unless a copy of a given piece is provided one cannot be certain today of its true ownership. For
example, Pendlebury 1951: 74 lists two ‘Smenkhkarc’ faience rings: checking the Type-codes
indicates that while one indeed refers to Smenkhkare (reading ‘Ankhkheperure’), the other actually
refers to Neferneferuaten (reading ‘Ankhkheperure-mery-waenre). Verifying this is not
straightforward, as the Types in question are not illustrated in any of the City of Akhenaten volumes.
Rather, they appear only in Petrie 1894, but under completely different reference numbers, which
can only be cross-referred by consulting one of the appendices of Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933!
18
Allen’s treatment of the daughters of Akhenaten is problematic, stemming in part from
continuing to view Meketaten’s death as being in childbirth, despite the recognition that the

32
 DODSON

leaves the option of Nefertiti, whose role even as queen had many pharaonic traits (cf.
Samson 1977; Ertman 1992). Although it has been argued that the existence of a shabti
naming her simply as Hmt-nzw-wrt indicates that she died as such (Louvre AF9904 + Brook-
lyn 33.51 — Loeben 1986, 1999; cf. Buvot 1999 and Allen 2006: 14), Nefertiti will have cer-
tainly had her principal items of funerary equipment made long before she could have
contemplated ending her life as a king. The ‘problem shabti’ should most likely be seen as
stray from some palace store-room, abandoned at Nefertiti’s change of status, rather than
from her burial (but cf. below, p. 36).
With the view that on Smenkhkare’s demise, perhaps around Year 14/15 of Akhenaten,
Nefertiti assumed kingly titles as Neferneferuaten, we must now try to define the extent of
her reign. That she ruled alongside her husband is made clear by the aforementioned
JE61500. The listing after them of Meryetaten as Hmt-nzw-wrt may simply reflect her status
as dowager of Smenkhkare or that with her mother’s elevation to kingship she now func-
tioned as such for Akhenaten – or perhaps both.
The crucial document for Neferneferuaten’s reign is of course the TT139 graffito, dated
as it is to a Year 3. The fundamental question is from which point she counted her reign.
Was it from her appointment as coregent, or from the death of Akhenaten? The former
has generally been assumed, particularly in light of the view that she was followed, rather
than preceded, by Smenkhkare. However, given her anomalous status as a female king, by
her names explicitly dependent on her husband, is this likely? Indeed, if the Year 3 is to be
counted from Akhenaten’s death, is it of Neferneferuaten alone, or might it have been
shared with the young Tutankhaten? Such a counting would be consistent with the jar-
docket from Amarna that has ‘Year 1’ written over ‘Year 17’ (Pendlebury 1951: pl. xcv[279];
cf. Krauss 1997 – our fig. 7). This has always been an obstacle to any view that has Nefer-
neferuaten beginning to count her years during Akhenaten’s lifetime, yet also having a pe-
riod of rule after his death. 19
The reasons behind Nefertiti’s accession become clearer if we posit that on Smenkh-
kare’s premature demise, Akhenaten, perhaps already ailing, was faced with the fact that
his heir was but a small child. To ensure the continuity of his revolution Nefertiti was
promoted both to share his own burden, but also to provide for an eventual senior co-re-
gent for Tutankhaten.

‘problem child’ in the death tableaux in chambers
and  in TA26 is unrelated to the actual death.
He cites the bower in which Meketaten is shown on wall B of chamber  as being related to birth,
and thus that her death was in childbirth – but surely this could equally be related to the princess’s
rebirth (cf. end of this note), rather than her own confinement? One has the strong suspicion that
had it not been for the presence of the nurseling close to the death-chamber, the aforementioned
interpretation of the bower (for which see Martin 1989: 46–48) would never have been mooted in
the first place. In any case, Egyptian tomb decoration never seems to relate to the circumstances of
a person’s death, and although the Amarna Period is of course unconventional in many things, it
seems unlikely that this would have changed. For an intriguing suggestion that the babies in rooms

and  are to be interpreted as the ‘reborn’ deceased, see van Dijk 2006.
19
This would have the further conclusion that all Year 1–4 dates at Amarna (for which see
Pendlebury 1951: 159) should be attributed to the reign of Tutankhaten, with at least the first three
attributable to his joint reign with Neferneferuaten. These include the two ‘Year 1’s of a pair of
hieratic dockets mentioning respectively an estate of ‘Smenkhkare, [tr]ue [of voi]ce’ and one of
‘Ankhkheperure[...]’ (Pendlebury 1951: pl. lxxxvi, xcviii[35], lxxxvi[36]; cf. 199). The first of these
must clearly be an establishment in the name of the deceased Smenkhkare (with the use of his
nomen rather than his prenomen to distinguish him from Neferneferuaten?); the second is less
clear, given the loss of the end of the text, although given that the reigning king is usually referred
to by a circumlocution such as ‘Hm.f’, the deceased Smenkhkare is more likely.

33
 AMARNA SUNSET

That the former criterion was ill-founded is clear from the content of the TT139 graf-
fito, a prayer to Amun written for Pawah, a wab-priest in the Hwt-nTr n Imn m tA Hwt anx-xhpw-
ra. That this sanctuary of Amun was within an estate of (on the view taken here) the de-
ceased Smenkhkare is intriguing: was this a mortuary establishment founded during his
short co-regency, or something brought into existence following Akhenaten’s demise? This
point will be returned to later.
Another point of interest in the graffito is the form of Neferneferuaten’s names (fig. 8).
Although damaged, there seems insufficient space at the end of the prenomen to include
the expected ‘Neferkheperure’, while the traces at the end of the nomen may, or may not,
contain ‘Waenre’. It has thus been suggested that the epithet in both cases could be the
simple epithet ‘mery(et)aten’ (Tawfik 1975: 166–67); this is certainly found in place of the
usual allusion to Akhenaten in Neferneferuaten’s prenomen on three gold sequins of un-
certain provenance (see Harris 1992: 60).20 On the other hand, given the mention of Amun
in the text, it is not impossible that he is the deity cited. Unfortunately, the state of the
graffito makes it impossible to resolve the issue.
If the aforementioned Amun-foundation of Smenkhkare was indeed established during
Smenkhkare’s own brief period of rule, and this is to be dated around Akhenaten’s thir-
teenth regnal year, it is highly significant from the point of view of the dating of the perse-
cution of Amun. Opinion has long been divided between those who would have the perse-
cution take place soon after the move to Amarna, and those who would put it in the very
last years of Akhenaten. Amongst more recent writers, Susanne Bickel has argued that the
proscription of Amun should be placed in or soon after Year 5 (Bickel 1997: 92–94).21 How-
ever, it should be pointed out that Amun’s consort, Mut, was still sufficiently regarded that
her name could be inscribed, as part of that of Nefertiti’s sister Mutnodjmet, in a number
of Amarna tombs some time after Year 5, albeit before the change in the name of the Aten.
In at least one case the Mut-vulture was apparently later erased, but in another three it re-
mained intact. 22 In addition, the door of the shrine of Queen Tiye from KV55 – which
bears the ‘Late’ form of the Aten’s names — seems to have had Amenhotep III’s original
nomen inscribed on it, although the ‘Amun’ element was later erased. 23
This would suggest that the proscription of Amun must be pushed later than Year 9
which is generally regarded as the most likely date for the change in the Aten’s names, and
by some as a possible trigger for the persecution. Another limitation may be placed on it
when one considers some of the re-used material found in Tutankhamun’s tomb. It is clear
now that the canopic coffinettes were originally made for Neferneferuaten, and then dir-

20
Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, 67-21/5 and 67-21/6 and National Museum of
Scotland, Edinburgh, 1959.451. The nomen is in these cases the otherwise-unique
‘Neferneferuaten-HqA’; while this certainly is not possible in TT139, where the mr-sign at the end of
the nomen is absolutely certain, the sequins indicate that there was a breakdown in the standard
forms of Neferneferuaten’s names, presumably after the death of Akhenaten.
21
It should be noted, however, that her evidence, from a gateway of Amenhotep III’s mortuary
temple, concerns Amun’s figure being replaced by that of Amenhotep III, rather than the erasure
without re-carving that is characteristic of the persecution.
22
Mut’s name is still intact in one scene in TA25 (Ay – Davies 1903–08: VI, pl. xxvi) and two in TA14
(May — Davies 1903–08: V, pl. iii, v), while it has been erased in TA7 (Parennefer — Davies 1903-08:
VI, 4, pl. iv); in TA6 (Panehsy – Davies 1903–08: II, pl. v, viii), TA8 (Tutu: Davies 1903–08: VI, 10, pl.
xvi) and TA20 (anonymous — Davies 1903–08: V, pl. xv) Mutnodjmet’s names and titles have been
largely destroyed, leaving the status of the Mut-vulture unknown in these cases.
23
Davis et al. 1910: 14; unfortunately this section of the text is only available in hieroglyphic type,
no extant drawing or photograph allowing it to be verified.

34
 DODSON

ectly taken over for Tutankhamun.24 They have often been seen as forming a set with the
second coffin used for Tutankhamun, whose face is very different from that on that king’s
other monuments and also shows signs of having had its cartouches replaced. 25
While similarities have been seen between the faces of the coffinettes and the coffin, on
closer inspection – and the realisation that the coffinette visages were intended to be those
of a woman – this seems to be illusory. Rather, the second coffin’s face is certainly that of a
man, and of quite a different aspect, even allowing for the difference in scale. With no re-
semblance to Akhenaten to be seen, the only option would seem to be Smenkhkare.
The coffin is wholly traditional in its conception and theology, and while the footboard
was replaced completely when usurped, 26 the inlaid texts of the rest of the piece are (apart
from the cartouches) certainly original. If the view taken above on the placement of
Smenkhkare’s floruit is correct, this would place the manufacture of this distinctly un-
revolutionary monument around Year 13. The fact that it was available for reuse by
Tutankhamun (quite possibly with an intermediate usurpation by Neferneferuaten) indi-
cates, however, that it was not used for Smenkhkare’s burial, 27 presumably on the orders
of Akhenaten. While not wishing to venture too far into the controversies surrounding
Valley of the Kings tomb KV55 on this occasion,28 this scenario would explain well how the
mummy of a young man, who can realistically only be Smenkhkare, came to be placed in
the adapted former coffin of Kiya 29 that ultimately found its way to KV55.
Given the fact that the primary object of the persecution was Amun, rather than the
various gods of burial invoked on the Tutankhamun second coffin, the fact that such a
piece could be manufactured as late as Year 13 would suggest a level of religious tolerance
that would sit uncomfortably with a simultaneous active attack on Amun. Indeed, if the
Amun-establishment of Smenkhkare in the TT139 graffito was indeed one actually
founded by the king, the dating of the persecution to after Smenkhkare’s death becomes a
certainty.
With the persecution placed after Smenkhkare’s death, the view that it began in the
very last years of Akhenaten and that its end was coeval with Akhenaten’s demise becomes
by far the most attractive option. It also remains the most credible way of explaining the
persecution’s limitations. Although much damage was done, it seems to have been entirely
restricted to the images and names. One would have thought that the erasure of the god’s
names and figures would have been but a precursor of the demolition of his sanctuaries.
However, there is no evidence for this happening, which surely would have been the logi-
cal outcome of an early-onset persecution, against the background of the increasingly aus-
tere monotheism indicated by the change of the Aten name.

24
Allen unpublished; I withdraw my previous suggestion (Dodson 1994: 213, 2002: 276) that the Ra-
sign seen under the beginning of one of Tutankhamun’s nomina on the interior of JE60690 should
be seen as a relict of them having originally been manufactured for Smenkhkare: I accept Allen’s
view that those adapting the piece for Tutankhamun had on this occasion departed from what
seems to have been their usual practice of replacing a prenomen with a prenomen and a nomen
with a nomen.
25
This is particularly clear when looking at the cartouches on the front of the lid, which are sunk an
appreciable depth below the rest of the inlaid texts: see further Dodson forthcoming.
26
The names on this are as one with the rest of its texts.
27
Scenarios that see a tomb being stripped to furnish Tutankhamun’s tomb (e.g. Fairman 1961: 39)
do not seem particularly credible.
28
Cf. n.31, below. For a convenient summary of the myriad discussions up to 2001, see Grimm and
Schoske (eds.) 2001: 121–36.
29
Pace Allen’s remarks (2006: 6), Grimm and Schoske (eds.) 2001: 101–120 does not make a
definitive case for the KV55 coffin having been an original confection for Akhenaten himself.

35
 AMARNA SUNSET

One thus espouses Cyril Aldred’s view that far from reflecting the beginning of the
revolution, the persecution of Amun represented its last gasp: ‘the last great act of Akhen-
aten’s reign [reflecting] a mental collapse on the part of its author’ (Aldred 1968: 246).
What is particularly remarkable against the background of such an upheaval, and given
her key role in the Aten cult, is the way that Nefertiti, now as King Neferneferuaten, is
seen in the TT139 graffito presiding over a Thebes in which Amun’s cult is apparently
flourishing as before, with a wholly traditional set of funerary equipment in production. 30
On the other hand, the reuse of so much of this equipment in the tomb of Tutankh-
amun suggests that her status at some point – whether at death or other withdrawal from
office – became problematic. That this was linked in some way with the change of the
names of Tutankhaten and Ankhesenpaaten to their Amun-forms is as yet un-provable but
seems not-unlikely. Perhaps she was buried as a queen-consort after all, and that, rather
than some store-room, may be the source of the queenly shabti mentioned above.
The notion of who was ‘legitimate’ in the post-Amarna destruction of names and images
is unlikely to have been based purely on ‘fact’. The re-writing of history at the end of a
time of ‘troubles’ is rarely ‘fair’. Generally, the attempt is made to draw a line under the
problematic period with all protagonists expunged from the record. Ultimate devotion to
Amun was clearly no barrier to the wholesale usurpation of Tutankhamun’s monuments;
similarly, Nefertiti’s later role as an Amun-tolerating (if not Amun-devoted!) King Nefer-
neferuaten was no barrier to her names and figures sharing her husband’s fate.
Smenkhkare very much fell into the same category as Tutankhamun, with his un-naming
in KV55 part of a nuanced damnatio that left his body intact at a time when Akhenaten’s
may have been destroyed. 31

T hus, in conclusion, one would propose that Smenkhkare became co-regent with Akh-
enaten around Year 13 of his reign, marrying Meryetaten, but dying fairly soon after-
wards. As the next heir (Tutankhaten) was but a child, Nefertiti took on kingly titles. It is
likely that the persecution of Amun was carried out during the very last part of Akhen-
aten’s reign, and ended with his death, and Tutankhaten’s accession, with Neferneferuaten
as his senior co-regent. Both counted their regnal years from Akhenaten’s demise, with an
almost immediate rapprochement with orthodoxy. It was, however, on Neferneferuaten’s
death that the young king and queen changed their names and quit Amarna, paving the
way within a few years to the excision from history of not only Akhenaten, but Nefertiti-
Neferuneferuaten, Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun as well.

30
On the other hand, history is replete with examples of dramatic volte faces as apparently
‘principled’ individuals rapidly adjust themselves to political reality!
31
Cf. Dodson 1992; 1993b; 1994; 2001. I am now, however, moving away from the view that
Akhenaten’s body was destroyed at Amarna to one where the body was indeed for a period in
KV55, on the basis of the presence of his magic bricks, in a scenario akin to that of Aldred 1968:
140–62, albeit with substantial modifications. I will return to the mysteries of KV55 on another
occasion.: cf. Gabolde 2008, which points out flaws in my previous arguments, above and beyond
the issues addressed in the current paper.

36
 DODSON

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALDRED, C. 1968. Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Egypt (London: Thames & Hudson).
—1988. Akhenaten, King of Egypt (London: Thames & Hudson).
ALLEN, J. P. 1988. ‘Two Altered Inscriptions of the Late Amarna Period’, JARCE 25: 117–
21.
— 1991. ‘Akhenaten’s ‘Mystery’ Coregent and Successor’, Amarna Letters 1: 74–85.
— 1994. ‘Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re’, GM 141 (1994): 7–17.
— 2006. ‘The Amarna Succession’, in P. Brand (ed.), Causing His Name to Live: Studies in
Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane
<http://history.memphis.edu/murnane/>.
— unpublished. ‘The Original Owner of the Tutankhamun’s Canopic Coffins’, paper
delivered at the Amarna Research Conference at Tucson, Arizona, in April 2004.
BEINLICH, H. and SALEH, M. 1989. Corpus der Hieroglyphischen Inschriften aus dem Grab
des Tutanchamun (Oxford: Griffith Institute).
BICKEL, S. 1997. Untersuchungen im Totentempel des Merneptah in Theben, III: Tore und
andere wiederverwendete Bauteile Amenophis’ III (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner).
BROCK, E. C. 1996. ‘The Sarcophagus of Queen Tiy’, JSSEA 26: 8–21.
BUVOT, J.-L. 1999. ‘Un chaouabti pour deux reines amarniennes?’, Égypte Afrique et
Orient 13: 31–34.
DAVIES, N. de G. 1905. The rock tombs of El Amarna II, The tombs of Panehesy and Meryra II
(London: Egypt Exploration Fund).
DAVIS, T. M. et al. 1910. The Tomb of Queen Tîyi (Westminster: Archibald Constable).
DODSON, A. M. 1981. ‘Nefertiti’s Regality: A Comment’, JEA 67: 179.
— 1992. ‘KV 55 and the End of the Reign of Akhenaten’, in VI Congresso Internazionale di
Egittologia (Turin): I, 135–39.
— 1993a. ‘A New King Shoshenq Confirmed?’, GM 137: 53–58.
— 1993b. ‘On the Origin, Contents and Fate of Biban el-Moluk Tomb 55’, GM 132 (1993):
21–28.
— 1994. ‘Kings’ Valley Tomb 55 and the Fates of the Amarna Kings’, Amarna Letters 3: 92–
103.
— 2001. ‘The Puzzle of Tomb 55’, in B.M. Fagan (ed.), The Seventy Great Mysteries of the
Ancient World (London: Thames & Hudson): 219–22.
— 2002. ‘The Canopic Coffinettes of Tutankhamun and the Identity of Ankhkheperure’, in
M. Eldamaty and M. Trad (eds.), Egyptian Museum Collections around the World:
Studies for the Centennial of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo (Cairo: Supreme Council of
Antiquities) I, 275–85.
— 2003. ‘Why did Nefertiti disappear?’, in W. Manley (ed.), Seventy Mysteries of Ancient
Egypt (2003): 127–31.
— 2005. ‘Akhenaten’, in K. Shillington (ed.), Encyclopedia of African History (New York:
Fitzroy Dearborn): 36–37.
— Forthcoming. The Coffins and Related Material from the Tomb of Tutankhamun.
EL-KHOULY, A. and MARTIN, G. T. 1987. Excavations in the Royal Necropolis at El-
‘Amarna 1984 (SASAE 33) (Cairo: EAO).
ERTMAN, E. L. 1992. ‘Is there visual evidence for a “King” Nefertiti?’, Amarna Letters 2:
50–55.
FAIRMAN, H. W. 1961. ‘Once again the so-called coffin of Akhenaten’, JEA 47: 25–40.
FRANKFORT, H. and PENDLEBURY, J. D. S. 1933. City of Akhenaten II: The North
Suburb and the Desert (London: Egypt Exploration Society).
GABOLDE, M. 1990. ‘Le droit d’aînesse d’Ânkhesenpaaton (À propos de deux récents
articles sur le stele UC 410)’, BSEG 14: 33–47.

37
 AMARNA SUNSET

— 1998. D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon (Lyon: Université Lumiére-Lyon 2).

— 2002. ‘La parenté de Toutânkhamon’, BSFE 155: 32–48.
— 2008. ‘Under a Deep Blue Starry Sky’, in P. Brand (ed.), Causing His Name to Live: Studies
in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane
<http://history.memphis.edu/murnane/>.
GARDINER, A. H. 1928. ‘The Graffito from the Tomb of Pere’, JEA 14: 10–11.
GILES, F. J. 1970. Ikhnaton: Legend and History (London: Hutchinson).
— 2001. The Amarna Age: Egypt (Warminster: Aris and Phillips).
GOLDWASSER, O. 1990. ‘A Cartouche of Semenekhkare from Canaan’, GM 115: 29–32.
GRIMM, A. and SCHOSKE, S. (eds.) 2001. Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges: Echnaton und
das Ende der Amarnazeit (Munich: Lipp Verlag).
HARRIS, J. R. 1973a. ‘Neferneferuaten’, GM 4: 15–17.
— 1973b. ‘Neferneferuaten Rediviva’, AO 35: 5–13.
— 1974. ‘Neferneferuaten Regnans’, AO 36: 11–21.
— 1977. ‘Akhenaten or Nefertiti?’, AO 38: 5–10.
— 1992. ‘Akhenaten and Neferneferuaten’, in C.N. Reeves (ed.), After Tut‘ankhamn
(London and New York: Kegan Paul International): 55–72.
KRAUSS, R. 1978. Das Ende der Amarnazeit (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg).
— 1989. ‘Neues zu den Stelenfragmenten UC London 410 + Kairo JE 64959’, BSEG 13: 83–
87.
— 1997. ‘Zur Chronologie der Nachfolger Achenatens unter Berücksichtigung der DOG-
Funde aus Amarna’, MDOG 129: 242–44.
LEPSIUS, C. R. 1849–59. Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, 6vv (Berlin/Leipzig:
Nicolaische Buchandlung).
— 1897. Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, Text (ed. E. Naville, L. Borchardt and
K. Sethe) (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs).
LOEBEN, C. E. 1986. ‘Eine Bestattung der großen königlichen Gemahlin Nofretete in
Amarna’, MDAIK 42: 99–107.
— 1991. ‘No Evidence of Coregency: Zwei getigte Inschriften aus dem Grab von
Tutanchamun’, BSEG 15: 82–90.
— 1994. ‘No Evidence of Coregency: Two Erased Inscriptions from Tutankhamun’s
Tomb’, Amarna Letters 3: 105–109.
— 1999. ‘Une inhumation de la grande épouse royal Néfertiti à Amarna? La figurine
funéraire de Néfertiti’, Égypte Afrique et Orient 13: 25–30.
MARTIN, G .T. 1974, 1989. The Royal Tomb at el-‘Amarna I, II (London: Egypt Exploration
Society).
MÁLEK, J. 1996. ‘The “coregency relief” of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare from Memphis’,
in P. Der Manuelian (ed.), Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson (Boston:
Museum of Fine Arts), II: 553–59.
MUNRO, P. 1969. ‘Die Namen Semenech-ka-Re’s. Ein Beitrag zur Liquidierung der
Amarna-Zeit’, ZÄS 95: 109–116.
MURNANE, W. J. 2001. ‘The End of the Amarna Period Once Again’, OLZ 96: 9–22.
NEWBERRY, P. E. 1928. ‘Akhenaten’s Eldest Son-in-Law ‘Ankhkheperur‘’, JEA 14: 3–9.
NICHOLSON, C. 1891. Aegyptiaca (London: Harrison).
NICHOLSON, P. 2008. ‘‘Keeper of the House of the Desert’’, in the present volume: 275–
324.
PEET, T. E. and WOOLEY, C. L. 1923. City of Akhenaten I: Excavations of 1921 and 1923 at
El-‘Amarneh (London: Egypt Exploration Society).
PENDLEBURY, J. D. S. 1951. City of Akhenaten III: The Central City and Official Quarters
(London: Egypt Exploration Society).

38
 DODSON

PETRIE, W. M. F. 1890. Kahun, Gurob and Hawara (London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trübner, and Co.).
— 1894. Tell el Amarna (London: Methuen).
— 1924. A History of Egypt, 7th edition (London: Methuen).
PORTER B. and MOSS, R. B. 1960; 1972; 1974–81; 1934; 1937; 1939; 1952. Topographical
Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings: I2, The
Theban Necropolis; II2, Theban Temples; III2, Memphis; IV, Lower and Middle Egypt; V,
Upper Egypt: Sites; VI, Upper Egypt: Chief Temples (excl. Thebes); VII, Nubia, Deserts,
and Outside Egypt (Oxford: Clarendon Press/Griffith Institute).
SAMSON, J. 1973. ‘Royal Inscriptions from Amarna’, CdE 48: 243–50.
— 1976. ‘Royal names in Amarna History’, CdE 51: 30–38.
— 1977. ‘Nefertiti’s Regality’, JEA 63: 88–97.
— 1978. Amarna, city of Akhenaton and Nefertiti: Nefertiti as Pharaoh (Warminster: Aris and
Phillips).
— 1979. ‘Akhenaten’s Successor’, GM 32: 53–58.
— 1982a. ‘Akhenaten’s Coregent Ankhkheprure-Nefernefruaten’, GM 53: 51–54.
— 1982b. ‘Akhenaten’s Co-regent and Successor’, GM 57: 57–59.
— 1982c. ‘Nefernefruaten-Nefertiti “Beloved of Akhenaten”, Ankhkheperure
Nefernefruaten “Beloved of Akhenaten”, Ankhkheprure Smenkhkare “Beloved of
the Aten”, GM 57: 61–67.
— 1982d. ‘The History of the Mystery of Akhenaten’s Successor’, in L’Egyptologie en 1979,
Axes prioritaires de recherches II (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique, 1982): 291–97.
SHANNON, E. 1987. ‘Ring Bezels with Royal Names at the Workmen’s Village 1979–1986’,
Amarna Reports IV: 154–159.
SHAW, I, 1984. ‘Ring Bezels at Amarna’, Amarna Reports I: 124–32.
TAWFIK, S. 1975. ‘Aton Studies: 3. Back again to Nefer-nefru-Aton’, MDAIK 31: 159–68.
TRAUNECKER, C. and F. 1984–85. ‘Sur la sale dite “du couronnement” à Tell-el-
Amarna’, BSEG 9–10: 285–307.
VAN DIJK, J. 2006. ‘The Death of Meketaten’, in P. Brand (ed.), Causing His Name to Live:
Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane
<http://history.memphis.edu/murnane/>.

39
 AMARNA SUNSET

FIG. 1
Representation of Smenkhkare and Meryetaten in the tomb of Meryre ii (Amarna TA2).
Davies 1905, with texts restored after Lepsius 1849—59: pl. 99a, 1897: II, 138, and Newberry 1928: 6.

FIG. 2
Ring bezels from Amarna giving the prenomen Ankhkheperure
and nomen Smenkhkare-djeserkheperu; right: Petrie Mus. UC23801 .
From Petrie 1894: pl. xv

FIG. 3
Amarna ring-bezels giving the prenomina Ankhkheperure-mery-Neferkheperure,
Ankhkheperure-mery-Waenre and, far right, Ankhetkheperure-mery-Waenre; inc.
Petrie Mus. UC23774, 47034.
From Petrie 1894: pl. xv

40
 DODSON

FIG. 4
The graffito from the tomb of Pairi (TT139).
After Gardiner 1928: pl. v—vi.

41
 AMARNA SUNSET

FIG. 5
Lost block from Memphis with cartouches that can only be restored as, from the right, the
late Aten cartouches, [Ankh]kheperu[re], [Smenkhkare-djeser]kheperu and [Meryetaten].
From Newberry 1928: 8, fig. 4, after Nicholson 1891.

FIG. 6
Details of the TT139 graffito showing the mentions of an estate of Ankhkheperure.
After Gardiner 1928: pl. v—vi.

FIG. 7
Jar-label from Amarna Q.41.11, with ‘Year 17’ washed off and replaced by ‘Year 1’.
After Pendlebury 1951: pl. xcv[279].

42
 DODSON

FIG. 8
Detail of the Year 3 dateline of Neferneferuaten in the TT139 graffito.
After Gardiner 1928: pl. v.

FIG. 9
The relationship of the reigns and regnal years of Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Neferneferuaten
and Tutankhaten proposed in this paper.

43