The Sunshade Chapel of Meritaten from the House-of-Waenre of Akhenaten 9781934536889

Citation preview

The Sunshade Chapel of Meritaten from the House-of-Waenre of Akhenaten

Frontispiece:  Map of Egypt with primary sites discussed.

museum monograph 144

The Sunshade Chapel of Meritaten from the House-of-Waenre of Akhenaten

Penn Museum E16230

By Josef Wegner university of pennsylvania museum of archaeology and anthropology philadelphia

library of congress cataloging-in-publication data Names: Wegner, Josef W. ( Josef William), author. | University of Pennsylvania. Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Title: The Sunshade chapel of Meritaten from the House-of-Waenre of Akhenaten / by Josef Wegner. Description: Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2016. | Series: University Museum monograph ; 144 | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2016038231 | ISBN 9781934536872 (hardback : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Stele (Archaeology)--Egypt. | Temples--Egypt--Heliopolis (Extinct city) | Temples--Egypt--Tell el-Amarna. | Aten (Egyptian deity)--Cult. | Egypt--Antiquities. Classification: LCC DT68.8 .W44 2016 | DDC 932/.014--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016038231

© 2017 by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Philadelphia, PA All rights reserved. Published 2017 Published for the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology by the University of Pennsylvania Press.

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper.

Contents List of Figures List of Color Plates

vii x

Acknowledgments xi 1. Introduction

1

2. Provenance and Object History

9

3. The Block and Its Decoration

15

4. The Aten Cartouches and Epithets

33

5. Architectural Inlay

41

6. Reconstruction of the Meritaten Sunshade Chapel

53

7. The Chapel of Meritaten and the Amarna Period Sunshades

77

8. The House-of-Waenre 107 9. A Heliopolitan Horizon-of-the-Aten? 119 10. Damnatio Memoriae 127 11. Ramesside Reuse at Heliopolis

131

12. Reuse of the Meritaten Sunshade Block in Islamic Cairo

141

13. Conclusions

147

References 155

This page intentionally left blank

Figures Frontispiece Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22

Map of Egypt with primary sites discussed The Meritaten Sunshade block from Heliopolis, Penn Museum E16230 xii Map showing the locations of ancient Heliopolis 2 The Wister family visiting the pyramids at Giza and frontispiece from Jones Wister’s Reminiscences (1920) 11 E16230 with the original Amarna Period decoration 16 The present configuration of E16230 19 Scene A 21 Detail views of Scene A 22 Scene B 23 Detail views of Scene B 24 Detail of Scene C, the lintel panel 26 Detail views of Princess Meritaten and Akhenaten in Scenes D and E 28 Detail of Scenes D and E 29 Alteration of the Aten cartouches in the inscriptions on Scene A 34 The Aten cartouches on Scene D (altered) and E (unaltered) 35 Changes in the name of the Aten and associated epithets 36 The prevalence of architectural inlay on E16230 43 Examples of architectural inlays of the Amarna Period 45 Scene in the tomb chapel of Panehesy at Tell el-Amarna and the comparable Scene B on E16230 46 Detail of the feet of Akhenaten in Scene B and inlay as seen on the Tutankhamun throne 47 Architectural rendering with reconstruction of the inlaid façade of the Sunshade chapel of Meritaten in the Per Waenre 48 Ashmolean 1922.141 from structure M.II in the Maru-Aten at Amarna 50 Remains of the recessed pivot mount from upper part of the doorway of the Amarna block 55

viii

Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33 Figure 34 Figure 35 Figure 36 Figure 37 Figure 38 Figure 39 Figure 40 Figure 41 Figure 42 Figure 43 Figure 44 Figure 45 Figure 46 Figure 47

figures

Detail of the scene of the Sunshade chapel of Queen Tiye in the tomb of Huya 56 The shrine of Panehesy 57 The suggested construction of the Meritaten chapel façade with E16230 60 Blocks showing Akhenaten as a recumbent sphinx from a Sunshade 62 Suggested reconstruction of Scene C 64 Projection of the approximate proportions of the doorjamb scenes (D and E) 66 Completed reconstruction of the left side of the Meritaten chapel 67 Reconstruction of the Meritaten chapel façade with 3:4 doorway proportions 69 Balustrade block (Cairo JE87300) from the Great Palace at Tell elAmarna; inlaid uraeus frieze from the M.II group in the Maru-Aten 71 Elevation view showing the suggested reconstruction of the Meritaten 72 chapel as a single-chamber shrine atop a podium CAD model reconstruction of polychrome inlay of the Meritaten chapel 74 Isometric view of single-chamber Meritaten Sunshade chapel 75 Map of Tell el-Amarna with locations of major royal buildings that 79 housed Sunshades Queen Tiye being led to her Sunshade from the tomb chapel of Huya 82 The Maru-Aten 86 Granite statue base naming the Sunshade of Meritaten in the Per-Hay 89 (British Museum 1000) The Great Palace at Tell el-Amarna 91 The North Palace at Amarna with the recarved doorjamb with the 95 name of Princess Meritaten (Penn Museum E518) Tripartite altar groups at Amarna 96 Amarna blocks from Abydos 99 Offering list of Akhenaten from Karnak 100 Composite statue head (Cairo JE45447) of an Amarna Period 101 royal woman The identification of the pr Wc-n-Rc on the Meritaten Sunshade block 107 The pr (n) Wc-n-Rc m Iwnw occurring in the titles of May 108 (Amarna tomb 14) Potential origin of E16230 as part of the primary chapel in the Altar 115 Court of the North Palace at Tell el-Amarna



Figure 48 Figure 49 Figure 50 Figure 51 Figure 52 Figure 53 Figure 54 Figure 55 Figure 56 Figure 57 Figure 58

figures

Cairo 34175, fragment naming the wos-Rc m Iwnw of Akhenaten Possible institutional organization of Heliopolitan and Memphite Horizons-of-the-Aten Bifurcation of the prenomen (Neferkheprure-Waenre) in palace-estate names at Amarna and Heliopolis Detail of the targeted erasure of the name and titles of Meritaten and Nefertiti on Scenes D and E E16230 reused as the base for a sphinx of Merenptah The Merenptah inscriptions Plan of Heliopolis with major features relating to Merenptah The modern provenance of the Meritaten Sunshade block lies in the Mousky district of Cairo The Heliopolitan block forming the threshold of the eastern gate of the Qusun Wikala Meritaten shown as great king’s wife (jmt nswt wrt) of king SmenkhkareDjeserkheperu in the tomb of Meryre II at Tell el-Amarna Cairo JE61500a with the occurrence of Meritaten as great king’s wife (jmt nswt wrt) alongside the titulary of Akhenaten and Nefernefruaten

ix

122 123 125 129 132 134 136 143 144 150 151

Color Plates (appear between pages 76 and 77)

Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 Plate 6 Plate 7 Plate 8

Overall view of E16230 Upper half of the block showing Scenes A, C, and D Detail views of Scene A Lower half of the block showing Scenes B and E Details of the figure of Akhenaten and ritual equipment in Scene B The back and sides of E16230 Architectural rendering with color reconstruction of the inlaid façade of the Meritaten Sunshade chapel Three dimensional rendering showing the suggested architectural configuration of the Meritaten chapel

Acknowledgments

T

his publication of the long-neglected Sunshade chapel of Princess Meritaten, Penn Museum E16230, has occurred with the generous assistance of a number of individuals. My principal thanks are owed to Dr. Jennifer Houser Wegner, Associate Curator in the Egyptian Section, Penn Museum, for her considerable assistance in the epigraphy, photography, and analysis of the challenging and previously unread inscriptions on E16230. I am also indebted to the late Dr. Brigit Crowell for discussions on architectural inlay during the Amarna Period, for which E16230 provides the most significant surviving monument. Dr. Stephan Pasquali of the Université Paul Valéry, Montpellier contributed many useful comments on the Amarna block, particularly regarding the issue of its altered cartouches and in tracing the modern provenance in the Mousky district of Cairo. A preliminary discussion of the block and its origin in the palatial complex named the Per Waenre of Akhenaten was included in the 2011 conference in Montpellier, Les édifices du règne d’Amenhotep IV-Akhenaton: Urbanisme et Revolution. I would like to thank Dr. Marc Gabolde of the Université Paul Valéry for his insightful comments during that meeting. At the Penn Museum, I would like to thank Alessandro Pezzati, Senior Archivist, for assistance in locating documents regarding the initial acquisition of E16230 and its subsequent exchange with the Philadelphia Museum of Art; and Dr. Kevin Cahail for his useful suggestions on the manuscript as well as his assistance with the Reflectance Transformation Imaging of E16230. Two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on the manuscript in its later stages. Finally, thanks are due to Dr. James Mathieu and Penn Museum Publications. I am indebted to Dr. Page Selinsky for her efforts in editing and design of this volume on the Meritaten Sunshade chapel.

Fig. 1.  The Meritaten Sunshade block from Heliopolis, Penn Museum E16230 (see also Plate 1).

1 Introduction

I

n 1900, the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania acquired a magnificent quartzite architectural fragment decorated with scenes and inscriptions dating to the reign of the 18th Dynasty pharaoh Akhenaten (ca. 1353–1336 BCE). Measuring 2.38 m in height, 0.69 m wide, and 0.27 m in thickness, this block is one of the largest surviving fragments of royal architecture from Egypt’s Amarna Period (Fig. 1 and Plate 1). As preserved, the block weighs approximately 1100 kilograms and is carved from a single piece of reddish brown quartzite. The stone derives from the ancient Egyptian stone quarries of the Gebel Ahmar (Klemm and Klemm 1993:283–89): the uw-dzr or “Red-Mountain” located just south of the city of Heliopolis, ancient Iwnw (Fig. 2).1 The primary decoration preserved on the block—two larger scenes on the left and three smaller scenes on the right—shows Akhenaten accompanied by a woman offering to the solar deity: the Aten. Often referred to as an “Amarna stela” due to its round-topped appearance, the object originated as a gift by the prominent Wister family of Philadelphia to the Pennsylvania Museum and School of Industrial Art. Shortly after acquiring it in 1900, the Pennsylvania Museum transferred the piece to the University Museum where it was placed on permanent loan. In 1931, the block was formally accessioned as E16230 into the Egyptian collection of the University Museum. The “Amarna stela” has remained on display in the Museum’s Coxe Wing since that time. Well over a century has elapsed since the acquisition of E16230. During that time, a handful of scholars, including Hermann Ranke and Cyril Aldred, published brief notes on this important object (Ranke 1950; Aldred 1973). However, the block has remained largely unstudied until the present. Consequently, despite its impressive size and evident date in the reign of the much-debated pharaoh Akhenaten, E16230 has attracted a surprisingly limited degree of interest and comment by Egyptologists. Part of the reason for this lack of attention may lie in the fact that the block’s original decoration was intentionally defaced in antiquity as part of the wider damnatio memoriae that occurred in the aftermath of the Amarna Period. This damage severely affected many of the monument’s original inscriptions. Then, during the Ramesside

2

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 2.  Map showing the locations of ancient Heliopolis, where the Amarna block was reused during the reign of Merenptah, the quartzite stone quarries at Gebel Ahmar where the block was quarried, and its modern provenance in the center of Medieval Cairo.

introduction

Period and a century after Akhenaten’s reign, significant alteration occurred when the block underwent a secondary stage of reuse. As several earlier scholars observed (Daressy 1899:149; Ranke 1950:98), the rounded “top” and present stela-like shape resulted from the recutting of the block to serve as the base for a sphinx belonging to the 19th Dynasty pharaoh Merenptah (ca. 1213–1204 BCE). At that stage the remaining Amarna decoration was relegated to the bottom face of the newly fashioned statue base which was secondarily inscribed around its edges with the titulary of Merenptah (Sourouzian 1989:207). As a result of the ancient defacing of the Amarna monument and the subsequent Ramesside Period reuse, the original inscriptions are badly battered and not easily readable. The difficulty presented by the effaced inscriptions has led to a general lack of interest, as well as erroneous statements on the piece. However, as shown in this volume, this object is one of the largest and most significant surviving remnants of Amarna Period royal architecture. The damaged inscriptions are, in fact, readable and offer a unique insight into both the religious building program of Akhenaten, as well as the role of the royal women during his reign. As presented here, E16230 is in all likelihood the sole surviving architectural element from a palatial building complex named the Per Waenre, the “House of the Unique-one-of-Re.” This palace may have been located at the royal capital of Akhetaten (modern Tell el-Amarna) in Middle Egypt. More likely, however, this palace stood at Heliopolis, the ancient cult center of the solar deity Re. In 1950, Hermann Ranke—then curator of the Egyptian Section at the University Museum—identified E16230 as possibly belonging to a stela that had stood in the Great Aten temple at Tell el-Amarna (Ranke 1950:98 and fig. 60). His suggestion was based in part on the size of the object and his realization that it is only part of an originally larger block. Ranke implied that the block might, in fact, have been part of the “great stela”: a round-topped feature depicted in scenes of the Great Aten Temple in the decorated private tombs at Tell el-Amarna but never identified archaeologically (Kemp 2012:82–84). Although Ranke noted the recutting of the slab for a sphinx of Merenptah he was still influenced by the accidental stela-like appearance of the piece. Consequently, he considered it to be an “Amarna stela” and stated the royal figures to be Akhenaten and Nefertiti. In a brief note in his 1973 catalogue of Amarna art, Akhenaten and Nefertiti, Cyril Aldred corrected this error and observed that the royal woman accompanying Akhenaten on E16230 is not Nefertiti, but rather a princess whom he thought to be “probably Merytaten” (Aldred 1973:57 and fig. 35). Aldred dated the piece to his “later phase” of Amarna art, a stylistic period which dates post Year 8 of Akhenaten’s reign. Aldred offered no further insight on the content of the scenes or inscriptions. Given the lack of detailed examination, the fundamental misidentification of E16230 has persisted and even as late as 1979 the piece was still incorrectly identified as an “Amarna stela” (O’Connor and Silverman 1979:36). Despite the general lack of meaningful scholarly attention to E16230, substantive observations on the object have been presented in the context of two doctoral disser-

3

4

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

tations. In her 1994 thesis on the broken-lintel doorway in Egyptian temple architecture, Diane Larkin correctly identified the nature of E16230, not as a stela, but rather as part of a wall or façade of an Amarna Period cult building (Larkin 1994:364–68 and fig. 60). Larkin established that the upper sections of E16230 incorporate an engaged “broken-lintel” doorway, a form which predominates in Amarna religious architecture. The “broken lintel” or “interrupted lintel” is an architectural feature in which the lintel of a doorway does not span the entire width of the door opening. The lintel in this case projects symmetrically from each side but terminates before the middle of the opening. The broken-lintel is a significant element in Egyptian religious architecture particularly connected with the axial entrances of cult buildings where the architecture is meant to evoke the physical form of the solar horizon: the Akhet. Although still a sizeable piece of masonry, E16230 is substantially reduced from an originally wider and taller quartzite slab that once formed part of an Amarna Period royal cult building. Larkin’s observations on the piece have been born out by the present analysis, which integrates and expands on her comments. More recently, a second thesis, Brigit Crowell’s 2007 study of architectural inlay in the Amarna Period, has discussed the role that inlay plays on E16230. The Meritaten Sunshade block is, in fact, the largest extant fragment of an inlaid Amarna Period cult building. Crowell’s observations help to situate E16230 within the prominent development of inlaid religious architecture during the reign of Akhenaten (Crowell 2007:678–79). In 2007, E16230 was moved, cleaned, and reinstalled as part of a temporary exhibition at the Penn Museum entitled Amarna: Ancient Egypt's Place in the Sun. At that time, I completed a detailed study of the inscriptions and decoration of the piece and included preliminary observations on E16230 and its identity as part of a Sunshade chapel of Meritaten in the book that accompanied that exhibit (Silverman, Wegner, and Wegner 2006:89–91 and figs. 81 and 127). The present volume forms the final product of that study and is intended to address the need for a detailed publication of this important and unique fragment of Ancient Egyptian religious architecture. Although the original texts on the block are badly defaced, with some effort and the aid of a raking-light, the majority of the inscriptions are readable. Enough is preserved to identify the names of the royal figures as well as the name of the cult building to which E16230 once belonged. The hieroglyphic labels identify the royal woman as sCt nswt n ;t.f mrt.f Mrt-Itn, “the king’s daughter of his body, his beloved, Meritaten.”2 Therefore, the princess who accompanies Akhenaten in these scenes is, as Aldred had initially speculated, Meritaten: the eldest and most prominent of the six daughters of Akhenaten and Nefertiti.3 Even more significantly, the preserved texts on E16230 record the name of the actual cult building to which the block once belonged. One of the primary scenes includes a full label which states: m tC zwt-Rc n sCt nswt n ;t.f mrt.f Mrt-Itn m pr Wcn-Rc m Cxt-Itn; “in the Sunshade-chapel of the king’s daughter of his body, his beloved, in the House-of-Waenre in Akhet-Aten.” The building in question is, therefore, a Sunshade chapel, Egyptian (zwt-Rc), which is a particular form of solar cult structure that

introduction

became increasingly prominent during the reign of Akhenaten.4 During the Amarna Period, Sunshades were commemorative cult buildings that expressed the links between the royal family and the solar deity. These structures are particularly associated with the royal women during Akhenaten’s reign. One Sunshade chapel dedicated to Princess Meritaten is known to have been located in the capital city at Tell el-Amarna located m pr-j™y n pC |tn m pr-|tn m Cxt-|tn, “in the House-of-Rejoicing of the Aten in the House-of-the-Aten in Akhet-Aten.” A second Sunshade of this same princess was housed within the archaeologically preserved complex known as the Maru-Aten (p3 mCrw n p3 Itn), also at Tell el-Amarna. Adding to these two structures, the inscriptions on E16230 show the existence of a third Sunshade chapel dedicated to Princess Meritaten. But, where was this particular Sunshade located? In this volume, I consider the implications of the dedicatory texts on E16230 and the statement that this Sunshade of Meritaten stood inside a building named the House-of-Waenre (pr Wc-n-Rc), which itself was located in “Akhet-Aten” (Cxt-|tn ). At first glance this statement appears to imply that E16230 originates from a third Sunshade of Meritaten in Akhenaten’s capital city: Akhetaten.5 However, consideration of the uses of the term Cxt-|tn, “Horizon-of-the-Aten,” complicates the notion that it refers exclusively to the city at Tell el-Amarna in Middle Egypt. Textual evidence from a variety of sources suggests there may have been Aten cult precincts at a number of major cities employing this same designation: “Horizonof-the-Aten.” Moreover, administrative titles of one of the senior-ranking officials of Akhenaten’s reign, the high-steward May (owner of Tomb 14 at Amarna), record the existence of a building called the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc m Iwnw, “the House-of-Waenre in Heliopolis.” The texts on E16230 present a fascinating archaeological conundrum. The block derives from a chapel housed within a larger entity called the Per Waenre. There was a House-of-Waenre belonging to Akhenaten at Heliopolis, yet, the Amarna Period texts on E16230 associate the Per Waenre with Akhet-Aten and do not specifically name Iwnw. Mention of Iwnw on E16230 does, however, occur on the later texts added during Merenptah’s reign. Were there two different establishments both named the House-of-Waenre, one at Heliopolis and one at Tell el-Amarna? Here I examine two primary options for the original location of the Sunshade of Meritaten: (1) the possibility that it derives from a Sunshade chapel that once stood at Tell el-Amarna, one of a group of at least three at the royal capital dedicated to Meritaten; or (2) this Sunshade originally stood at Heliopolis, part of the extensive Amarna Period buildings at that important northern cult center, which was so fundamental to Akhenaten’s solar theology. There the block was later reused during the reign of Merenptah. The implications of the second possibility are significant and may imply the existence of a separate Aten cult area, also designated Akhet-Aten, the “Horizon-of-the-Aten,” at Heliopolis. Although there are merits to the possible location of the Meritaten Sunshade at Tell el-Amarna, it appears more probable that it was in the northern city that the House-of-Waenre once stood and the Sunshade of Meritaten within it.

5

6

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

The Meritaten Sunshade block E16230 is, in many respects, a unique surviving element of Amarna Period architecture. The block is the finest known exemplar of the use of architectural inlay during the reign of Akhenaten. It was once encrusted with a astonishing volume of polychrome inlay, in faience but likely also other materials: semiprecious stones and metal. The use of inlay occurs both in its figural and inscriptional elements, a decorative technique that defines this chapel as a focal point within the architectural program of the Per Waenre in which it stood. This was a monument that would have resembled an architectural jewel box, literally glittering in the sunlight with reflective materials of different colors. As such, E16230 can be appreciated now as a surviving fragment of the decorated façade of the same type of elevated solar chapel that has long been known from a scene in the tomb chapel of the steward Huya at Amarna which depicts the Sunshade of Akhenaten’s mother, Queen Tiye. In addition to its architectural significance, E16230 preserves important inscriptions that have not previously been examined for what they tell us about the history of the Amarna Period. Although it was originally decorated with the “Early” form of the name of the Aten, the monument underwent alteration during the reign of Akhenaten. Some elements of the inscriptions are, in fact, palimpsests, showing a change from the Early name of the god, to the rarely attested “Intermediate” form of the Aten’s name. This evidence helps to define the chronological framework for the original construction and completion of the Meritaten Sunshade. Additionally, the texts on E16230 were subject to a systematic program of desecration, which provides a valuable index of the extent of the political backlash against Akhenaten and members of his family in the aftermath of the Amarna Period. Subsequent to its original function as part of a Sunshade chapel dedicated to Meritaten, the block was cut down and reworked during the 19th Dynasty. Approximately a century after Akhenaten’s reign, the slab was modified to form the base for a sphinx of King Merenptah. Fortunately, the preserved inscriptions on the blocks’ edges provide clear indications on the location of its later reuse. Epithets on the rounded “top” of the 2.4 m tall block state Merenptah to be mry Rc-Jr-Cxty Iwnw, “beloved of Re-Horakhty of Heliopolis.” Therefore, during the 19th Dynasty this block formed part of Merenptah’s extensive monumental constructions at Heliopolis. Based on the king’s association with Re-Horakhty, we can identify this reuse by Merenptah as part of the 19th Dynasty additions to the temple area of the Heliopolitan deities Re-Horakhty and Re-Atum. The phenomenon of reuse of Amarna architecture in the Ramesside Period is well attested and, although the movement of masonry to new building sites certainly occurred, it appears less likely that the massive quartzite block—today weighing 1100 kg, but once part of an even larger block—made the journey from Tell el-Amarna to Heliopolis purely for reuse. The evidence suggests the possibility that this monument belongs to the once-extensive Aten cult precinct at Heliopolis. For example, it was in Heliopolis that Akhenaten built a ceremonial palace called the pr Wc-n-Rc within which E16230 may have stood, part of the façade of an ornately decorated

introduction

Sunshade chapel dedicated to the king’s eldest daughter. The fact that ancient Heliopolis has survived so poorly only heightens the significance of this rare example of Amarna Period royal architecture that perhaps can now be considered in the context of Amarna Period remains excavated at Heliopolis proper. This volume explores the unique importance of this long-displayed, but little understood, remnant of the building program of King Akhenaten.

notes 1.1.  The color of E16230 is brown with a slight reddish hue: Munsell 5YR 5/4. 1.2.  Throughout this volume the name of the princess is rendered in its simplest variant: Meritaten. In the monumental record, the hieroglyphic orthography of her name varies, often including a dual reed leaf (y) element, Mryt-Itn, meaning “one (fem.) who loves the Aten,” and is, therefore, also commonly rendered as Merytaten or Meryetaten. Less frequently her name appears as Meretaten. 1.3.  The six daughters of Akhenaten and Nefertiti discussed throughout this volume are: (1) Meritaten, (2) Meketaten, (3) Ankhesenpaaten, (4) Nefernefruaten-Tasherit, (5) Nefernefrure, and (6) Setepenre. Meketaten, Setepenre, and probably Nefernefrure predeceased their parents and sisters. Meritaten herself disappeared at the end of Akhenaten’s reign while Ankhesenpaaten married Tutankhaten (Tutankhamun) and changed her name to Ankhesenamun (for a summary overview of the royal women see Arnold [1996:7–16]). 1.4.  The Egyptian term zwt-Rc can be translated alternatively as “shade of the sun” or “shadow of Re,” depending on whether rc is taken generically as “sun” or rendered as the solar deity Re. Some scholars have preferred use of the term “sunshade-of-Re” (see discussion in Chapter 7). Here I translate the term as “Sunshade,” with capitalization to denote its identity as a specific type of Egyptian solar cult building. 1.5.  Throughout this book I use Akhetaten (rendered as a single word) to refer to Akhenaten’s capital city at Tell el-Amarna. Akhet-Aten will be used in the text translations for E16230 and where the connotation of the text suggests the term may have a different meaning, perhaps referring to Aten cult precincts in locations other than Tell el-Amarna.

7

This page intentionally left blank

2 Provenance and Object History

A

degree of uncertainty has existed for some time regarding the provenance of E16230. Fortunately, sufficient detail exists in archival records and a handful of published sources to reconstruct the key aspects of the block’s history. E16230 is a piece of pharaonic masonry that was collected during 1899 by the Egyptian Service des Antiquités. Stored briefly at the Giza Palace Museum (at that time the primary archaeological museum in Cairo), it was offered for sale in 1900 and purchased by Mr. Jones Wister of Philadelphia during a visit to Egypt. Broadly speaking, the sale of this piece by the Service was part of the deaccessioning and sale of unwanted objects occurring during the period of construction of the new Egyptian Museum in Qasr elNil, today the Egyptian Museum on Tahrir Square. Wister’s acquisition of this impressive architectural fragment also represents one example of the frequent sale of archaeological objects organized by the Egyptologist Émile Brugsch, then chief conservator of the Giza Palace Museum. Brugsch is well documented to have actively organized transactions with wealthy individuals for both institutional and personal gain. Although it remains unknown precisely when and why the Service des Antiquités collected the block, the modern provenance of the Meritaten block can be established to be the Mousky district of Cairo. Shortly before 1899, the Egyptologist Georges Daressy observed a large architectural fragment in a dead-end street near the Mousky area. His description published in 1899 in the Bulletin de l’Institut Egyptien reads as follows: “Le culte du disque rayonnant, Aten, a été parfois considéré comme dépendant des croyances héliopolitaines, rien d’étonnant donc à ce qu’on ait trouvé des monuments de Khou-n-aten au Caire. Plusieurs pierres portant le nom de ce souverain sont encastrées dans les mur de la mosquée El Hakem; dans une impasse près du Mousky j’ai vu aussi un grand bloc de granit qui avait été sculpté sous Khou-n-Aten et fut ensuite retaillé sous Merenptah pour former un socle de sphinx.” (Daressy 1899:149) Although in this statement Daressy identifies the stone as granite rather than quartzite, his description of the block, including its reuse as a sphinx plinth by King

10

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Merenptah, leaves no doubt that he had encountered the Meritaten Sunshade fragment just shortly before its removal by the Service des Antiquités. The block’s findspot in the Mousky district lies at the heart of Medieval Cairo. The Mousky neighborhood (see Ch. 12 for more details) is an area within the walls of Islamic Cairo immediately south of the city’s main north-facing gates: the Bab el-Futuh and Bab el-Nasr. The Mousky is traditionally known for its workshops, including goldsmiths, and immediately abuts the western side of the well-known Khan el-Khalili market. It lies adjacent to el-Mu’izz Li Din Illah Street, the main axis of the Qasaba, or commercial district of Islamic Cairo. This area includes many of the Fatimid (969–1171 CE) and Ayyubid Period (1171–1250 CE) buildings from the Medieval development of Cairo (el-Qahira) in the centuries after its foundation in 969  CE. Many structures in this central part of the city contain pharaonic masonry transported from the ruins of nearby Heliopolis (a distance of only 10 km) as well as Memphis and the Memphite necropolis, to be reemployed in the city walls, mosques, and other buildings of Cairo. In connection with E16230, Daressy also noted the existence of reused Amarna Period masonry in the mosque of el-Hakem (built ca. 990–1013 CE) not far from its 1899 findspot. Daressy’s statement that the piece was sitting in a dead-end street implies that by the late 19th century it was no longer part of any standing building. As discussed later, E16230 bears distinctive wear patterns indicating its post-pharaonic reuse as a threshold. The piece was almost certainly incorporated into a building during the Islamic Period after having been brought to Cairo from the ruins of Heliopolis as evidenced by the substantial erosion of the threshold surface. However, by 1899, the building in which it had been reused must have been destroyed leaving the piece loose and visible at street level where it was collected by agents of the Service des Antiquités. The acquisition and transport of the block to Philadelphia occurred shortly after Daressy observed the object in 1899. Mr. Jones Wister (1865–1917) of Germantown, a prominent Philadelphian, purchased the piece in Cairo around March or April of 1900 (Fig. 3). Details of the acquisition occur in Jones Wister’s memoir, Jones Wister’s Reminiscences, published posthumously in 1920. Wister, along with his wife, Sabine J. d’Invilliers Weightman Wister (Mrs Jones Wister), and their three daughters traveled to Egypt between March 3 and late April, 1900 where they spent several weeks in Cairo residing at the Shepheard’s Hotel.1 While visiting Cairo, they made the acquaintance of a number of influential individuals including the United States representative in Egypt, Judge Somerville Tuck, and perhaps most significantly Émile Brugsch, then head of conservation for the Service des Antiquités under Gaston Maspero. It was Brugsch who was primarily involved at that time in the selection and transport of objects from the Giza Palace Museum to the new Cairo Museum then under construction at Qasr el-Nil. Brugsch also had near autonomy over the disposition of archaeological collections and often single handedly selected objects for sale (Forbes 1996:14–16). The Giza Palace Museum (attached to the palace of the former Khedive Ismail) at that point still functioned as a clearing house for antiquities. It was standard procedure to

provenance and object history

Fig. 3.  Above: The Wister family visiting the pyramids at Giza. Jones Wister is third from right on donkey (Image courtesy of the Owen Wister and Family Collection, La Salle University, Connelly Library, Department of Special Collections). Inset right: Jones Wister, frontispiece from Jones Wister’s Reminiscences (1920).

offer duplicates and other unwanted pieces for sale, thereby raising funds to support the efforts of the Service des Antiquités.2 Jones Wister stated in his Reminiscences: “We were fortunate enough to purchase a rare and splendid bas-relief, about seven feet in height, of Amenophis IV, Eighteenth Dynasty, and his family worshipping the sun from Tell el-Amarna. We presented it to the Philadelphia Museum at Memorial Hall, and they, in turn have loaned it to the Egyptian section of the University Museum, as a precedent fixed for mutual loans. These specimens are rare and this is a better and larger example than any we saw at the Ghizeh Museum.” (Wister 1920:308) Although Wister did not specify that he purchased the Amarna block directly from the Giza Palace Museum, later in his account he describes the separate purchase of a Middle Kingdom stela also deriving from unwanted holdings at the Giza Palace

11

12

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Museum.3 For that reason, the Wisters almost certainly purchased the Amarna block from the same source. Between the information contained in the Daressy and Wister statements, it appears in all likelihood the block had been removed from its location in the Mousky district shortly after Daressy had observed it in 1898 or 1899. It was then stored temporarily at the Giza Palace Museum whereupon Émile Brugsch offered the piece to Wister. It may have been that the damaged condition of the block made it a less desirable item for the new Egyptian Museum which was envisioned as a showplace for the finest pharaonic antiquities. Brugsch may have viewed the funds to be acquired through sale to be more beneficial at that juncture than retaining a damaged piece recently collected from the streets of Cairo. Following their visit to Egypt, the Wister family continued traveling in the Levant, and the block was shipped separately to Philadelphia. Upon arrival in the United States, Mrs. Jones Wister organized the donation of the block to the Pennsylvania Museum and School of Industrial Art at Memorial Hall, Fairmount Park in West Philadelphia (the forerunner to the Philadelphia Museum of Art). However, given the Pennsylvania Museum’s emphasis on modern art, the block was never displayed there. Instead, on June 13, 1900, the block was placed on permanent loan at the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Hence, within just three months of its purchase in Cairo, the Amarna block had been installed in the recently completed (1898) Fitler Pavilion of the University Museum (now the Penn Museum). In 1926, the block was transferred into the Museum’s newly completed Coxe Wing where it was installed in the Upper Egyptian Hall. It remained officially on loan until 1931 when, shortly after the completion of the new building of the Pennsylvania Museum of Art (now the Philadelphia Museum of Art), the Amarna block was formally transferred to the University Museum. In a letter dating to 1931, Fiske Kimball, Director of the Pennsylvania Museum of Art, informed Horace Jayne, curator of the Department of Eastern Art, of the permanent exchange of the object. Kimball states the Museum’s Trustees had: “resolved to authorize the transfer to the University Museum, in exchange for a bronze Coptic cross offered by it, an Egyptian quartzite stele (scene of Aten worship) which has been on deposit at the University Museum since June 13, 1900 ” (letter dating to October 13, 1931, Penn Museum Archives). Three decades after its arrival in Philadelphia the Amarna block, was formally accessioned into the Museum’s Egyptian Section collection as E16230. As of 2016, the Meritaten Sunshade block forms part of the gallery installation focused on the Amarna Period, Amarna: Ancient Egypt's Place in the Sun. Although this important monument from the reign of Akhenaten has remained on public view in Philadelphia for 115 years, it has never been properly published and its historical significance has been neglected. This volume places it into its historical framework for the first time.

provenance and object history

notes 2.1.  An album including photographs of the Wisters’ 1900 trip to Egypt is held in the archives of the Connelly Library at LaSalle University, Philadelphia. The album belonged to Jones Wister’s daughter, Ethel Langhorne Wister Chichester. A digital form of the album is available at: digitalcommons.lasalle.edu. 2.2.  Relevant to Jones Wister’s purchase of the Amarna block is the Drexel collection, another Egyptological collection assembled by a wealthy Philadelphian. Like the Amarna block, this collection was purchased by Anthony J. Drexel from Emil Brugsch in Cairo. It was donated in 1895 to the Drexel Institute, now Drexel University (Harer 2008:111–19), but was later sold and is now dispersed. 2.3.  The location of the Middle Kingdom stela purchased along with the Meritaten Sunshade block is unknown. That object was not included in the donation of the Amarna block to the Pennsylvania Museum and School of Industrial Art.

13

This page intentionally left blank

3 The Block and Its Decoration

B

ecause E16230 is such a large architectural fragment, the block provides a considerable amount of information on its multiple phases of decoration and use. In its original architectural context, it was part of an Amarna Period cult building. Two phases of reuse occurred subsequent to the reign of Akhenaten: firstly as the base for a sphinx at Heliopolis during the Ramesside period and secondly as the threshold for a building in Medieval Cairo. This chapter summarizes the combination of architectural and decorative features that characterize the block as it currently exists and what we may infer about its original Amarna Period characteristics. Later chapters examine reuse of the block during the Ramesside and Islamic Periods. As presently preserved, E16230 measures 2.38 m in height and 0.69 m. in width. The block is cracked at its lower end with a complete break through the stone approximately one half meter up and cutting through the two lower scenes.1 One face of the block is decorated with five Amarna Period scenes (Fig. 4). The human figures in the scenes are all oriented facing towards the right. The decoration begins 31 cm from the block’s base above an undecorated dado. The Amarna Period scenes include two larger-format scenes on the left side, SCENE A (Fig. 4: top) and SCENE B (Fig. 4: bottom), each measuring 112.5 cm in height. These occupy a raised panel which projects 1.2 cm beyond the smaller format scenes to the right. The three smaller format scenes decorate a recessed frame, inset relative to the main surface of Scenes A and B. The smaller scenes on the block’s right side are: SCENE C (Fig. 4: upper right), which measures only 20.5 cm in height. This scene, of which only part of the label is preserved, represents a narrow lintel panel that once decorated the face of an engaged broken-lintel doorway. Therefore, in the ensuing discussion, I will refer to Scene C as the “lintel panel.” Below Scene C are SCENE D (Fig. 4: center right) and SCENE E (Fig. 4: lower right), each measuring 76.5 cm in height. All three scenes on the block’s right side are partially preserved, having been substantially trimmed away by the Ramesside Period reworking of the block. Above Scene C, are the remains of an engaged torus (half-round) molding and cavetto cornice. The torus is 6 cm in width. It projects slightly from the top of Scene C

16

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 4.  E16230 with the original Amarna Period decoration.

the block and its decoration

17

18

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

into the right side of Scene A where it terminates. There the engaged cornice ends and the raised panel bearing Scenes A and B continues upwards, adjacent to the cornice. Both the torus and cornice above it were extensively hammered away in order to flatten the block’s surface, presumably during its later adaptation during the reign of Merenptah. The edges of the block are inscribed with the titulary of Merenptah. On the right edge of the block, centered on Scene C, is a shallow rectangular recess that measures 8 by 11 cm. This feature ends in the center of the block. The lower edge of the recess has an outward angled profile. The recess certainly belongs to the original Amarna Period architectural context of E16230 and, therefore, must have been fitted with a, now missing, patch-stone at the time of the Ramesside reworking of the block. The face opposite that bearing the Amarna scenes (the back of the block) bears no remains of decoration and is heavily worn. The block’s preserved thickness at its widest point (lower right corner) is 27 cm. However, extensive erosion that evidently post-dated the Ramesside Period has destroyed much of the upper parts of the Merenptah edge inscription on the left. This differential erosion created a block with a tapering cross section that was not original. At its base, we may conclude that the block was originally 27 cm, or more, in thickness. E16230 also preserves a distinctive inward-leaning vertical batter. On the better preserved right side, the block’s thickness narrows from 27 cm at base to 24 cm at the top. On the eroded left side, the thickness narrows from 24 cm to 21 cm at the top. The existence of this slight inward angle (which measures two degrees off vertical) to the main face of E16230 is consistent with the block’s original use in the façade of a cult building that had a slight upward batter to its walls: a typical architectural format for Egyptian shrines and chapels. A key issue regarding the original configuration of E16230 as part of an Amarna Period cult building is understanding what was removed during the block’s Ramesside Period alteration. In order to create a slab of uniform thickness with rounded end to serve as a base for a sphinx, the original block was narrowed and simplified through removal of the projecting architectural elements. In this process, a major part of the block’s right side was trimmed away. This includes much of Scenes C (the lintel), D, and E, as well as the engaged cornice that crowned the right side (Fig. 5). What is less certain, is to what extent the block was also trimmed on its left side and above. As suggested here, it appears possible the left side may have once included an engaged corner torus-molding that was cut away, along with other projecting elements of the original block. Remains of the engaged cornice on the upper right side suggest the block may have once risen to a greater height than is currently preserved. These architectural issues will be examined in further detail below regarding the reconstruction of the Sunshade chapel of Princess Meritaten.

The Amarna-Period Scenes and Texts The surface of E16230 preserves the remains of five scenes, all oriented from left to right. Each scene is surmounted by a sunk pt (sky) border ( ). The predom-

the block and its decoration

Fig. 5.  The present configuration of E16230 showing the reduction of the block from an originally larger architectural block deriving from an Amarna Period cult building.

19

20

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

inant decorative approach on the block is the use of deep-sunk, recessed silhouettes indicating the locations of inlay for the figural elements: royal figures, Aten disks, and rays. For the large format Scenes A and B, the inlay technique also extended to the majority of the smaller scene elements, as well as the hieroglyphs and text borders of the scene labels. For the small format Scenes C, D, and E, the use of inlay was limited to the figural elements, while the text labels were cut in shallow, incised relief. Details of the preserved elements of each of the five scenes and accompanying texts follow.2

SCENE A Akhenaten faces the Aten and presents the disk with its own cartouches (the name of the Aten) atop a nb-basket (Figs. 6 and 7; see also Plates 2–3). The king wears a kilt and a bag-shaped wig: the Khat or Afnet (Eaton-Krauss 1977:21–39) with a flap extending from the back of the wig behind the king’s shoulders.3 The royal cartouches are inscribed on his chest. In front of the king, is a table piled with food offerings and flowers. The princess stands behind Akhenaten with an upraised sistrum in her right hand. Above the king occurs his titulary reading from right to left: nb t™wy (Nfr-xprw-Rc Wc-n-Rc) nb xcw (™x-n-|tn). “The lord of the two-lands Neferkheprure-waenre, lord of appearances Akhenaten.” Above the princess are vestiges of her name and epithets. The text here can be reconstructed to be the same as in the better preserved labels on Scenes C and D as follows (reading right to left): s™t-nswt n ;t.f mrt.f Mrt-Itn ms.n jmt nswt wrt (Nfr-nfrw-Itn nfr-ti.ti) cnx.ti ut. “King’s daughter of his body, his beloved, Meritaten, born of the great royal wife Nefernefruaten Nefertiti, may she live eternally.” Above the royal figures and their titulary are the names of the Aten. These occur both in larger format (reading left to right and following the orientation of the main scene label) immediately above the name of Akhenaten; and as a smaller label (reading right to left) on the far side of the Aten disk. These cartouches originally read (Rc Jr-™xty jcy m ™xt) (m rn.f m zw nty m Itn), “(Re-Horakhty who rejoices in the horizon ) (in his name of the light which is in the Aten),” but were secondarily altered to the rarely attested “Intermediate” form of the Aten name: (cnx-Rc jr ™xty jcy m ™xt) (m rn.f m rc it iy m Itn), “(the living sun upon the two horizons who rejoices in the horizon)(in his name as Re, the father, who has come as the Aten).”4 The Aten cartouches are followed in both cases by the epithet di cnx ut njj, “given life for eternity.” One small, but significant, compositional detail concerns the placement of the Aten car-

the block and its decoration

Fig. 6.  Scene A (see also Plate 2).

touches on the right side of the disk. These are positioned side by side and shifted downwards below the disk itself. Normally the cartouches directly abut the disk; a placement that occurs in Scene B on E16230. The lower position of the cartouches in Scene A resulted from the need to accommodate the engaged cornice which originally curved upwards into the upper right side of the scene terminating immediately adjacent to the Aten. Following the same orientation as the larger pair of Aten cartouches and reading left to right (symbolically as if the Aten was facing the two royal figures) occurs the main scene label: [Itn cnx wr imy] jbw, nb znn nb Itn, nb pt, nb t™, m t™ zwt-Rc n s™t-nswt n ;t.f mrt.f Mrt-Itn m pr Wc-n-Rc m ™xt-Itn.5 “[Living Aten, great one in] festivals,6 lord of all that the Aten encircles, lord of heaven, lord of earth, in the Sunshade of the king’s daughter of his body, Meritaten, in the House-of-Waenre in Akhet-Aten.”

21

22

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 7.  Detail views of Scene A (see also Plate 3).

the block and its decoration

Fig. 8.  Scene B (see also Plate 4).

SCENE B Akhenaten stands wearing the Blue Crown, or khepresh, and raises a censer to the Aten (Figs. 8 and 9; see also Plate 4). Whereas in Scene A he wears only a kilt, here the king is dressed in a more complex garment. The general profile of his vestment is preserved only in the form of the rectangular silhouette that once bore inlay depicting both the king’s body and clothing. The garment was a long linen robe draped over the king’s arms and shoulders and enveloping either side of his torso and kilt.7 As in Scene A, Meritaten stands behind with an upraised sistrum in her right hand. In front of the king are two stands supporting libation vases. The vases have spouts clearly rendered in the form of MCct feathers ( ) and oriented in a vertical position (preserved only on the left-hand vessel due to the damage on the right side of the block). Spouts of this form appear on other Amarna Period offering scenes (on the vessels see: Jeffreys 2006).8 These ritual vases appear linked with the idea that the

23

24

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 9.  Detail views of Scene B (see also Plate 5).

the block and its decoration

king offers Maat (divine truth or justice) to the deity. The liquid dispensed through these spouts was symbolically imbued with the properties of Maat. Indeed, the presentation of Maat became more common in the Amarna Period than it had been during the earlier 18th Dynasty (Teeter 1997:8–9). In a number of contexts, Akhenaten was specifically identified through his role in presenting Maat to the Aten.9 The inscriptions of Scene B are almost entirely obliterated. The vestiges show that the format would have closely followed that of Scene A. All that remains are parts of the Aten’s cartouches on the left side and the smaller format name of the Aten on the right. Here the Aten disk is slightly closer to the right-hand edge of the scene and the cartouches are stacked vertically rather than placed side by side as in Scene A. Unlike Scene A where the disk and its label had to be shifted to accommodate the engaged cornice, Scene B had a straight right edge and the Aten cartouches, therefore, begin adjacent to the top of the disk. However, due to the damaged state of Scene B, is not possible to discern whether the Aten cartouches were altered from the Early to the Intermediate form as occurs in Scenes A and D.

SCENE C (LINTEL PANEL) The panel in this location is a significant detail of the chapel’s decoration which, as we consider further below, is likely to represent the decorated front face of a “broken-lintel” (Fig. 10 and Plate 2). The orientation of the text is from right to left in vertical columns below the pt-band. This orientation matches that of the other scenes and, although no figure is present here, the composition of Scene C “faces” towards the right. Only the two final columns of text are preserved, recording again the name and epithets of Meritaten: s™t-nswt n ;t.f mrt.f Mrt-Itn ms.n jmt nswt wrt (Nfr-nfrw-Itn nfr-ti.ti) cnx.ti ut njj “king’s daughter of his body, his beloved, Meritaten, born of the great royal wife Nefernefruaten Nefertiti, may she live forever and ever.” A significant detail of the Scene C text is that there is enough preserved to show that the normal spelling of Meritaten’s name with Itn superimposed over mrt occurs here. The other locations preserving her name (Scenes A, D, and E) employ an unusual reverse order with mrt preceding Itn. Consequently, E16230 employs two different spelling variants of the princess’s name, although this aspect of the texts is not unlike other Amarna royal monuments where considerable variation in the orthography of Meritaten’s name occurs, even on the same structure (for instance, on Amarna Period talatat blocks from Hermopolis, see Roeder [1969: taf. 221]). Another detail worthy of note in the writing of the royal names occurs in the name of Nefertiti: Nefernefruaten Nefertiti. In Scene C and again in Scene D, we can see that the writing of the Itn

25

26

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 10.  Detail of Scene C, the lintel panel.

element (at the top of the cartouche) reverses orientation relative to the main text, as well as the signs within the cartouche. This reversal in the writing of Itn is almost uniformly used in Nefertiti’s name (Tyldesley 2006:130; Good 1992). A possible explanation is the desire to make the writing of the name of the Aten face the seated queen determinative at the bottom of the cartouche. The reversal would then symbolically mirror the orientation of an offering scene: the cartouche becomes in effect a miniature offering scene with the queen and god “facing” each other. The only other remaining element of Scene C decoration is not part of the hieroglyphic scene label. Rather, it is possibly part of a deep-sunk silhouette for a figural element that once lay to the right of the two preserved text columns. Projecting slightly inwards from the block edge, this element is not immediately identifiable. However, in position and form it corresponds with the projecting hindquarters and tail known from examples of recumbent sphinx figures of Akhenaten on broken-lintel panels on Amarna royal architecture. This element is discussed further below in considering the reconstruction of the three door-frame scenes (Scenes C, D, and E).

the block and its decoration

SCENE D Akhenaten wears the White Crown and offers to the Aten (Fig. 11, left and Fig. 12, left). He has a pair of streamers which hang down from his shoulders. Meritaten stands behind her father with sistrum in her right hand. The preserved texts follow the same general format as in Scene A, although with some variation in the epithets. Above the king is his titulary, badly effaced, but readable by comparison with the identical arrangement in Scene E: nb t™wy (Nfr-xprw-Rc Wc-n-Rc) di cnx, nb xcw (™x-n-Itn) c™ m cjcw.f “The lord of the two-lands, Neferkheprure-waenre, given life, lord of appearances, Akhenaten, great in his lifetime” Above Meritaten occur again her name and epithets: s™t-nswt n ;t.f mrt.f Mrt-Itn ms.n jmt nswt wrt (Nfr-nfrw-Itn nfr-ti.ti) cnx.ti ut njj “King’s daughter of his body, his beloved, Meritaten, born of the great royal wife Nefernefruaten Nefertiti, may she live forever and ever.” Above the royal figures and reading from left to right (again as if Aten is “facing” the royal figures) are the name and epithets of the disk and scene label as follows: (Rc jr-™xty jcy m ™xt) (m rn.f m zw nty m Itn) di cnx ut njj, Itn cnx wr imy jbw nb znn nb Itn, nb pt, nb t™, m t™ zwt-rc n s™t-nswt “(Aten cartouches), given life for eternity, the living Aten, great one in festivals, lord of all that the Aten encircles, lord of heaven, lord of earth, in the Sunshade of the king’s daughter.” The Aten cartouches in Scene D—like those in Scene A—were altered from the Early to Intermediate form of the Aten name reading: (cnx-Rc jr ™xty jcy m ™xt) (m rn.f m rc it iy m Itn).

SCENE E Akhenaten wears the Red Crown and offers to the Aten (Fig. 11, right and Fig. 12, right). Here, unlike Scene D, the king has a pair of streamers which billow behind him rather than hanging off his shoulder. Above Akhenaten are remains of his cartouches and epithets that help to identify the more eroded royal titulary in this same position in Scene D:

27

28

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 11.  Detail views of Princess Meritaten and Akhenaten in Scenes D and E.

the block and its decoration

Fig. 12.  Detail of Scenes D (left) and E (right).

nb t™wy (Nfr-xprw-Rc Wc-n-Rc) di cnx, nb xcw (™x-n-Itn) c™ m cjcw.f “The lord of the two-lands, Neferkheprure-waenre, given life, lord of appearances, Akhenaten, great in his lifetime.” Meritaten stands behind with her sistrum upraised in her right hand. The text elements appear to be identical here to those of Scene D above. A minor difference in Scene E occurs in the vertical text columns which lack the incised borders used else-

29

30

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

where. Despite being deeply gouged, the name and epithets of Meritaten are better preserved here than in the other scenes, particularly on the left hand side of the text: s™t-nswt n ;t.f mrt.f Mrt-Itn ms n jmt nswt wrt (Nfr-nfrw-Itn nfr-ti.ti) cnx.ti ut “King’s daughter of his body, his beloved, Meritaten, born of the great royal wife Nefernefruaten Nefertiti, may she live eternally.” The main scene label here begins in identical form to that of Scene D, but is entirely erased along the block edge. What remains is: (Rc jr-™xty j™y m ™xt) (m rn.f m zw nty m ™xt) di cnx ut njj, Itn cnx wr [imy jbw] “(Aten cartouches), given life for eternity, the living Aten, great one in festivals” The Aten cartouches in Scene E retain the Early form of the god’s name and, unlike Scenes A and D, were never recarved. The content of the damaged but readable hieroglyphic labels on E16230 provides considerable evidence on the identity of this chapel dedicated in honor of Princess Meritaten. One of the striking aspects of the texts is the effort invested in carefully altering the name of the Aten. Before proceeding to examine the name and location of the building, I will first discuss the cartouches and epithets of the Aten in more detail.

notes 3.1.  This crack appears to date to the 1899 extraction of the block from the ground in Cairo. Some additional small flakes have since broken along the edges of this crack on the block’s lower right side. In all likelihood, this damage occurred during the object’s transport to Philadelphia. The crack and associated flakes have only minor impact on the preservation of the images in the two lower scenes. 3.2.  The line drawings of E16230 are shown through a combination of solid black lines and grey lines. Black lines are areas where the hieroglyphs and figures are sufficiently preserved to make a direct tracing. Grey is used where the signs can be reconstructed through vestiges or reasonably extrapolated through preserved elements. 3.3.  This particular piece of royal headgear is attested already during the Old and Middle Kingdoms but became increasingly prominent during the Amarna Period when it was worn not only by Akhenaten, but also by Queens Nefertiti and Tiye. The Khat wig appears on one of the two sentinel statues outside the entrance to the burial chamber in the tomb of Tutankhamun. The statue wearing the Khat bears a text stating, “the royal Ka of Horakhty, the Osiris Tutankhamun” (Desroches-Noblecourt 1963:66 and fig. 32, 1967: cat. no. 28). Royal association with Re-Horakhty expressed through use of the Khat may be related to the solar theology of the Aten. The Khat is normally shown solid white in color (such as in the wall scenes in the burial chamber of Tutankhamun: Reeves 1990:72–73).

the block and its decoration

3.4.  For discussion of the cartouches of the Aten and the meaning of these names see the discussion below in Chapter 4. 3.5.  A grammatical detail visible on E16230 that conforms with other inscriptions naming royal Sunshades is the omission of the feminine t ending on the genitival n: t™ zwt-Rc n s™t-nswt n ;t.f mrt.f Mrt-Itn. While zwt-Rc is feminine and takes the feminine demonstrative, t™, it consistently is followed by a masculine n or nty (rather than feminine nt for the indirect genitive or ntt for the relative adjective). Perhaps this is due to the presence of the male deity Rc as second element of the compound term zwt-Rc. 3.6.  The initial part of the left column at the top of Scene A is damaged. However, in the label of Scene D is preserved a clear writing of imy jbw showing use of the earlier epithet on this chapel. Here one could potentially restore Itn cnx wr imy jbw, or Itn cnx wr nb jb-sd. The distinction is chronologically significant since imy jbw occurs primarily in texts before Year 8 of Akhenaten while the epithet nb jb-sd predominates in texts after Year 8. 3.7.  This scene type occurs also in the tomb of Panehesy at Tell el-Amarna with Akhenaten wearing the same format of garment (Davies 1905: pl. 8). Regarding the inlay and format of the royal figure see discussion in Chapter 5. 3.8.  A minor detail of Amarna ritual scenes is the placement of spouts in the form of m™ct feathers on ritual vessels. The spouts can project horizontally outwards from the vessel: for instance the scene on the well-known balustrade block, Cairo 30102612 (Aldred 1973: fig. 33). Alternatively they may be raised vertically as in Scene B, a format that also occurs on the shrine façade of Panehesy (Pendlebury 1951: pl. 31). 3.9.  In the rock tombs of Ay and May at Amarna, the king is described using the statement: sC.f jnk MCct n jr.k nfr, “His son (Akhenaten) who presents Maat to your (the Aten’s) beautiful face” (Davies 1908).

31

This page intentionally left blank

4 The Aten Cartouches and Epithets

O

ne of the significant aspects of the Meritaten chapel block is the evidence it provides for the process of alteration of the didactic name of the Aten (regarding the name of the deity: Sethe 1921:101–21; Gunn 1923:168–76; Gabolde 1998:105–7).1 The inscriptions on E16230 include the name of the Aten in seven locations. In the two larger scenes (Scenes A and B), the Aten’s cartouches and accompanying epithets occur in the main scene label above the royal figures and also as a separate label on the right side of the disk itself. Scene A has an additional cartouche pair in the center where Akhenaten presents the deity with its own name atop a nb-basket. In the two smaller format scenes to the right (Scenes C and D), the Aten’s cartouches occur in the upper left hand corner of each scene and directly below the pt-emblem (sky border) that surmounts each of these scenes. The Aten cartouches of Scenes A, D, and E are relatively well preserved, while those of Scene B are badly effaced, retaining only vestiges of the hieroglyphs. With the exception of the cartouche pair in Scene E, the Aten cartouches on E16230 are palimpsests. They were originally carved using a standard version of the “Early” name of the Aten: (Rc jr-™xty jcy m ™xt) (m rn.f m zw nty m Itn). This original form is preserved in Scene E, which was never recarved; probably due to the fact that it was small, relatively low down, and visually less prominent on the wall face. The other cartouches, however, were recut with the rare, transitional form of the Aten’s didactic name: the so-called “Intermediate” name. On E16230, the mechanics of this recarving appear clearly in the best preserved cartouches in Scenes A and D (Figs. 13 and 14). The changes were made as follows: First cartouche: the solar disk above the Horus falcon and the upper ™xt symbol were replaced by a new, larger solar disk preceded by a small cnx fronting the disk. The original cnx that had preceded the Horus falcon was now replaced by a larger phonetic j-glyph. Accompanying the erasure of the upper ™xt, a dual phonetic y-stroke was added below the second ™xt. The lower body of the Horus falcon was replaced with a phonetic r-mouth glyph. The jcy element was left untouched although later versions dispensed with the book-roll determinative.2 The extraneous parts of the original solar

34

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 13.  Alteration of the Aten cartouches in the inscriptions on Scene A.

disk, upper ™xt and Horus falcon, were likely all concealed by a plaster fill which has since fallen away.3 Second cartouche: the upper part of zw was covered by the circle of rc, the w-chick by reed-leaf i, and the solar disk of zw by the walking iy. The original nty below was partially covered by the feet of the walking iy and the dual strokes of nty were replaced with a t-loaf symbol for the writing of it. The extraneous parts of the zw feather, w-chick, and n and t of nty and disk would all likely again have been concealed by plaster. E16230 is significant in providing the most extensive evidence of any Amarna Period royal building for use of the Intermediate form of the Aten name. Since its initial identification by Kurt Sethe and further consideration by Herbert Fairman (Sethe 1921:113–14; Fairman, in Pendlebury 1951:183 and 231; and Samson 1978:102–3), the Intermediate form has been recognized to be a transitional variant of the Late form of the Aten name which retains the Horakhty element written in phonetic form (Fig. 15 shows the changes in the Aten name). Therefore, whereas the Late form of

the aten cartouches and epithets

Fig. 14.  The Aten cartouches in the inscriptions on Scene D (altered) and E (unaltered).

the Aten’s didactic name is (cnx Rc jû™ ™xty jcy m ™xt) (m rn.f m rc it iy m Itn), with the Intermediate form we have a phonetically written jr + ™xty in place of jû™ ™xty. The existence of the Intermediate form, however, has long remained a puzzling phenomenon. If there were a desire to replace the image and name of Horakhty with a more generic statement regarding the physicality of the disk, simply switching to a phonetic spelling of Horakhty would serve no logical purpose. Here, for that reason, I suggest that the long-standing interpretation of jr and ™xty as another writing for the solar deity Jr-™xty may be mistaken. Alternate readings appear more viable. One possibility is that the phonetically written jr may rather be a writing for the preposition, or nisbe, jr(y) (meaning “upon” or “one who is upon”) Although typically written with the biliteral human face glyph, variations do occur with phonetic j + r. It seems plausible that there was a purposeful avoidance of a glyph with a human representation in the Aten’s name. The connotation would, in this case, be similar to the more standard jû™ ™xty in the Late form of the name, instead stating the living sun to be simply “upon the two-horizons” or “one who is upon the two-hori-

35

36

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 15.  Changes in the name of the Aten and associated epithets: (1) Early; (2) Intermediate; and (3) Late forms of the name.

the aten cartouches and epithets

zons.” In that line of understanding the generic statement of the sun manifesting himself upon the dual horizons, jr(y) ™xty (rather than specifically taking the form of Re-Horakhty), would have briefly preceded the concept articulated in the Late name where the Aten is stated to be a “ruler of the two horizons,” jû™ ™xty. After a brief period of use, jr(y) ™xty was then replaced with jû™ ™xty to create the standard Late form of the name. Regardless of the nuances in meaning, it is clear the Intermediate form represents essentially a short-lived variant of the Late form of the Aten’s name. The number of examples of the Intermediate form is extremely limited implying it had a very brief period of use before inception of the standard Late form of the name. Apart from E16230, all known examples of the Intermediate form derive from monuments at Tell el-Amarna proper (Samson 1978). In addition to monuments carved solely with the Intermediate form, there are examples from Amarna with alteration of the Aten cartouches from the Early to the Intermediate form of the name, paralleling the evidence of E16230. The documented examples are not extensive: three small fragments excavated in the north-western extension of the Weben-Aten, a section of the Great Palace at Tell el-Amarna (Fairman in Pendlebury [1951:183–85 and pls. 101–2]). The recarving of the Aten cartouches on the Meritaten Sunshade is a feature of considerable interest, particularly in light of the rare use of the Intermediate name. Among the documented fragments from Tell el-Amarna, reworking of the Aten cartouches occurs only in a small minority of examples. In Amarna’s Central City, recutting of cartouches is limited to architectural fragments from the Broad Court of the Great Palace, particularly, the area identified as the Weben-Aten. Relief decoration associated with the Aten temples themselves employ either the Early or Late versions without alteration. The extensive group of Hermopolis talatat, many of which derive from Sunshade chapels of Amarna princesses possibly located in the Central City (Hanke 1978), also follow this pattern and employ either the Early or Late name with no recutting (Roeder 1969). Outside of the Central City, the Maru-Aten (discussed in Chapter 7) is the only documented building complex at Tell el-Amarna to employ recarving of the Aten cartouches. Although the Late version of the name predominates in the Maru-Aten complex as a whole, a small number of fragments exist with the Early name as well as versions with alteration of the Early to Late name (Peet and Woolley 1923:148–50 and pls. 34–35).4 Echoing the limited occurrence of recarving in the Central City, reworking in the Maru-Aten complex is confined to one structure: building M.VIII, located on the western side of the southern enclosure (Peet and Woolley 1923:112–13 and pls. 29 and 40). Consequently, in the case of both the Great Palace and the Maru-Aten, evidence suggests that recarving of the Aten cartouches was very selectively applied. There does not appear to have been any concerted program of retroactively altering the cartouches on already completed buildings. Tellingly, symbolically significant structures—like the already completed Small Aten Temple (jwt-Itn) or the Amarna boundary stelae— were never subject to alteration. While recarving of the cartouches might logically

37

38

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

have been associated with buildings in prominent locations, the limited occurrence of alteration of the Aten cartouches in the Central City at Tell el-Amarna suggests there may rather be a primarily chronological aspect to monuments where the name was changed. It appears that structures which had been fully completed prior to the name change were not altered. However, buildings which were still in the process of decoration bridging the period of the change in the Aten name may, in some cases, have been corrected during the final stages of their construction program. If that is the case, the Meritaten Sunshade chapel of E16230 was a building which was still under construction late in the period of use of the Early name but the completion of which occurred coeval with the brief period of use of the Intermediate form. Significantly, correlating with this relatively later construction date are the epithets that accompany the Aten cartouches on E16230. As described, the labels of Scenes A, C, and D have the epithet sequence: di cnx ut njj, Itn cnx wr imy jbw nb znn nb Itn, nb pt, nb t™.5 Epithet strings of the Aten (together with the cartouches forming the full protocol of the Aten), evolve alongside changes in the name itself. Roughly contemporary with the change in cartouches is a shift from the use of imy jbw, “one who is in festivals” to nb jb-sd, “lord of the Sed-festival.” On E16230, there is the use of imy jbw, as typically occurs in association with the Early name. However, the appearance of nb znn nb Itn, “Lord of all that the Aten encircles” is notable. This element is lacking in monuments from the early reign, but it becomes a characteristic epithet of the Aten almost always present alongside the Late form of the Aten name. The occurrence of nb znn nb Itn on a monument that initially employed the early form of the Aten cartouches corroborates a period of construction extremely late in the period of use of the Early name. Several authors, including Sethe, Gunn, Fairman and most recently Gabolde, have discussed the possible regnal time frame of the changes in the Aten’s name (Gunn 1923:168–76, and Aldred 1988:278). Key criteria include the last dated use of the Early name on the mid-Year 8 additions to the Amarna boundary stelae6 and the earliest demonstrable date for use of the Late form in the labels attached to the Year 12 tribute scenes (dated Year 12, Month 6 Day 8) in the tombs of Huya and Meryre II (Davies 1905: pl. 13).7 Within this Year 8–12 window, Sethe had initially suggested that the name change was approximately contemporary with the birth of princess Nefernefruaten at the latest in Year 9. Gunn further argued that the appearance of an abbreviated cartouche (cnx-Rc) on hieratic meat-jar labels dating to Year 9 in the Maru-Aten (Building M.IV) may reflect the shift to the Late name incorporating this same element, which must have occurred towards the end of Year 8 or early in Year 9 (Gunn 1923:172; see also Peet and Woolley 1923:67 and pl. 44, nos. 75–80). While he generally concurred with these observations, Fairman emphasized the meager set of data for dating changes to the Aten’s name and epithets (Pendlebury 1951:152–53). More recently, based on his analysis of the decoration sequence of the Royal Tomb at Amarna, Marc Gabolde has argued for a much later date for the name change at

the aten cartouches and epithets

some point during or subsequent to Akhenaten’s Year 12 (Gabolde 1998:110–18; Murnane 2001:11–23). This later dating hinges on the fact that all six princesses are depicted in attendance during the Year 12 tribute scene in the tomb of Meryre II (Davies 1905: pl. 20). This evidence combined with the form of the Aten’s didactic name in different parts of the Royal Tomb associates the name change with the successive deaths of princesses Nefernefrure, Setepenre, and Meketaten in the period between Year 12 and 14. The Early name, termed by Gabolde ‘protocole I’, occurs in chamber alpha, in the mourning scene associated with deaths of Nefernefrure and Setepenre. In chamber gamma, we have a shift to ‘protocole IIA,’ a variant of the Intermediate form of the Aten’s name, in the Meketaten mourning scene. The remainder of the tomb was then completed with the Late form of the Aten cartouches: Gabolde’s ‘protocole IIb’ and ‘III’. While direct dating evidence for use of the Intermediate form is lacking, logically this constitutes a relatively brief phase heralding the shift to the fully developed Late form, occurring mid–late Year 8 into early Year 9 (following the standard dating), or closer to Year 12 following arguments of Gabolde and the Huya and Meryre II evidence. Based on these criteria, the Meritaten Sunshade of E16230 is a cult building that was likely undergoing the final stages of its completion somewhere in the Year 8–12 window. Here, however, we must stress one crucial historical point. Clearly on E16230, we have Meritaten still referred to as s™t-nswt (king’s daughter) and ms.n (born of ) Nefertiti as jmt nswt wrt (great king’s wife) presumably during a time when the change to the Intermediate name had occurred. Meritaten is depicted as eldest daughter of the great king’s wife, Nefertiti, and not as royal wife as she appears to become during Year 12 and later in Akhenaten’s reign. On E16230, she is uniformly depicted with the side-lock wig emphasizing her youth and status as a princess. The extremely late date for the change in the Aten’s name which Gabolde has espoused would push the Late form of the Aten name to just the final five years of Akhenaten’s reign and contemporary with a period when it now appears likely that Meritaten had been promoted to become jmt nswt wrt, great king’s wife, firstly of Akhenaten’s short-lived male co-regent, Smenkhkare, and then likely of Akhenaten during the promotion of Nefertiti to co-regent (see discussion in Chapter 13). Was the Meritaten Sunshade chapel still being built and decorated on the cusp of the dramatic changes in Meritaten’s position that occurred during Years 12–17? The evidence provided by the Meritaten Sunshade chapel, with its commemoration of Meritaten as eldest daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, and the change in the Intermediate name during final stages of its decoration advocates for the earlier (Year 8–9) date for the shift in the name of the Aten.

notes 4.1.  The Aten was designated in inscriptions by a didactic name mirroring a royal titulary and consisting of a pair of cartouches accompanied by a set of associated epithets. The form of the Aten’s name

39

40

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

changed over the course of Akhenaten’s reign. For a recent overview see: Hoffmeier 2015:62–90, 204–6. 4.2.  The book-roll determinative does not normally appear in the writing of jcy in both the Intermediate and Late versions of the name of the Aten (Gunn 1923:173–74). No effort was made to remove it from E16230, which retained the earlier orthography for this element. 4.3.  Plaster filling the altered elements is not preserved on E16230 although Gunn notes the use of cement in-fill in the recarving of larger, deeper-cut Aten cartouches in the Maru-Aten (Peet and Woolley 1923:149). 4.4.  In his discussion of the inscriptions Gunn lists the following incidence for the Aten name at Tell el-Amarna: Early form (11 examples), Late form (54 examples), and recut (10 examples, all from Maru-Aten, Building M.VIII). 4.5.  The text is damaged on the upper part in Scene A and only partially preserved in Scene E, but fully readable in the Scene D label. 4.6.  Gunn cites the use of the Early name on the codicil of Boundary Stela A and B dated Year 8, Month 4, Day 30; and Stelae S, N, and R dated to Year 8, Day 8, Month 5 (Gunn 1923:172, note 2). 4.7.  An obvious problem with using the Year 12 tribute scene as a terminus ante quem for the change in name is that the decoration of the tombs of Huya and Meryre does not necessarily coincide with the date of the Year 12 offering event. Late form cartouches could have been used in these tombs’ decorative programs while commemorating an earlier event that had occurred while the Early name had still been in use.

5 Architectural Inlay

A

side from its significance as the sole surviving fragment of an otherwise unknown Amarna royal cult building, E16230 also bears the distinction of being the largest extant fragment of an inlaid building from the reign of Akhenaten. Although previous scholars have noted the use of inlay on the block, the nature and extent of inlay that characterizes this piece had largely been ignored until Brigit Crowell included discussion of the block in her comprehensive 2007 study of New Kingdom architectural inlay (Crowell 2007:678–79). Decorative inlay on E16230 is indicated by the characteristic deep-cut silhouettes used for the majority of the figural elements, as well as many of the inscriptional elements. Some of the deeper-cut areas preserve patches of gypsum mortar: the remnant of adhesive used in affixing the inlay. The gypsum mortar is particularly well-preserved in the deep-cut parts of Scene A: the Aten disk and upper parts of the solar rays. Small patches of gypsum are found in many other areas of the inlay recesses. One might speculate that the gypsum derives not from the original inlay but from mortar applied later during the reuse of the block as a sphinx base during the reign of Merenptah. However, the gypsum always occurs embedded in the crevices of the deep-cut scene and text elements suggesting it is, in fact, residue of the original adhesive for the inlay. The fact that the block was originally inlaid has certainly contributed to the overall preservation of its decoration, despite a concerted attempt to remove the Amarna Period scenes. The original decorated surface was heavily pounded resulting in erasure of much of the finer, shallow cut inscriptions and scene elements. Yet, the significant depth of the recesses for inlay rendered these silhouettes more difficult to remove. Consequently, the contours of the royal figures and many of the primary scene elements have survived in much better condition than they would if the monument had exclusively employed incised or painted relief decoration. The sheer volume of inlay employed on the Meritaten Sunshade block is remarkable. Although the deep recesses for the inlaid royal figures are immediately discernible, in point of fact, the vast majority of scene elements and the larger text elements were inlaid. The prevalence of inlay on the block can be appreciated simply by high-

42

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

lighting the inlaid components (Fig. 16). Elements that held inlay include: (1) the clothing, headgear, sashes, and neck streamers of Akhenaten and Meritaten in all four scenes, as well as the king’s sandal-strap in Scenes A and B; (2) the ritual equipment and offering items; (3) the Aten disk and its rays; (4) the cartouches and larger inscriptional elements in Scenes A and B; (5) the pt (sky) border at the top of all five scenes. Materials used for inlay of the monument likely included a combination of monochrome and polychrome faience in association with other materials including semiprecious stones and possibly glass and metal (see Fig. 17 for examples of Amarna Period inlay). Monochrome faience was almost certainly used for the individual hieroglyphs; fragments of faience inlay from Amarna indicate the probable color convention for some of these elements. The long, narrow shapes of the Aten rays and pt-bands were certainly filled as shown by remnants of gypsum still adhering in these elements. Possibly contiguous inlay segments were used also in this case, although use of colored paste or gold leaf over gypsum fill might also have been employed. Surviving examples of large format sun disks from inlaid architecture at Amarna are typically rendered in monochrome faience; the Aten disks on E16230 probably followed this convention. The sun disks may have occurred in different colors in the different scenes. Attested examples of sun disks as well as the solar horizon (akhet) from Amarna include yellow/gold (for the rising sun) and red (for the setting sun: Fig. 17:3–4 and 7–9). The replication of offering scenes in some cases is meant to evoke the temporality of the solar day. Possibly this may be the case on E16230 with two broadly similar scenes superimposed (Scenes A and B on the left and Scenes C and D on the right). Consequently, the Aten inlays on E16230 may well have made use of different colors, perhaps showing offerings of sunrise and sunset. Perhaps the most notable feature of E16230 is the extensive use of large-scale inlay for the royal figures and other scene elements. The deep-cut recesses encompass a number of contiguous components which must have been delineated through use of polychrome faience, or through use of composite inlay, to differentiate internal details. For instance, in Scene B, the presentation equipment involves two libation vessels depicted on tall stands. For each image the combination of vessel and stand is cut together as a single, 30 cm tall, recessed silhouette. Polychrome faience or composite inlay involving more than one material must have distinguished the offering vessels from their stands below. It is, however, the royal figures that stand out in terms of the scale and complexity of inlay. For the figures of Akhenaten the inlaid elements measure as follows (width and height)1: Scene A (Khat headdress): 10.5 x 10 cm. Scene B (Blue crown): 11 x 8.5 cm. Scene D (White Crown): 13(+) cm. Scene E (Red Crown): 13(+) cm.

Scene A (kilt): 12 x 25 cm. Scene B (king’s body and garments): 28 x 46 cm. Scene D (kilt): ca. 17 cm. Scene E (kilt): ca. 20 cm.

architectural inlay

Fig. 16.  The prevalence of architectural inlay on E16230. Highlighted areas are all silhouettes for now-missing inlay.

43

44

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

For the figures of Meritaten, the entirety of the princess’s dress, as well as her upper body and hair/headgear, are cut in a single unbroken silhouette. The only non-inlaid elements of the princesses body are her face, forearms/hands, and feet. The inlaid elements of the figures of Meritaten measure as follows (width and height): Scene A (head to hem of dress): 9.5 x 42 cm. Scene B (head to hem of dress): 10 x 44 cm. Scene D (head to hem of dress): 7.5 x 29.5 cm. Scene E (head to hem of dress): 7.5 x 29.5 cm. The inlay for these large-scale elements almost certainly made primary use of polychrome faience, although use of faience in association with other materials such as semiprecious stone and glass appears possible (Ertman 2013); as suggested, for instance, by the stone inlay components recovered from the Maru-Aten (Peet and Woolley 1923: pl. 35). Despite the fact that abundant fragments of polychrome faience inlay have been recovered from Amarna (for illustrated examples: Samson 1973:47–59; Friedman 1998), there appear to be no surviving examples approaching the scale and complexity employed on E16230. Measuring nearly half a meter in length, the body and clothing of Akhenaten in Scene B is the largest individual inlaid section. This particular area must have incorporated a combination of materials to depict the torso, lower body and legs of the king as well as various components of his clothing.2 The overall appearance of this inlaid section is indicated by the similar, although itself damaged, scene in the tomb of Panehesy at Tell el-Amarna where the king wears a kilt, bull’s tail, and uraeus-frieze sporan with linen garments draped from his arms and shoulders (Fig. 18). Similar internal complexity also must have defined the inlay for the figures of Meritaten in Scenes A and B. The inlaid elements of Meritaten are nearly the same length (42 and 44 cm respectively) as that of Akhenaten in Scene B. Again, these must have had an intricate interior composition since the inlay encompasses the princess’s dress, head/sidelock, and other elements of her body. No other preserved building of the Amarna Period remotely compares with E16230 in its volume of inlay. In terms of complexity and figural scale, the closest parallel to this type of inlay occurs on the golden throne of Tutankhamun with its largescale figures composed of composite inlay. Interestingly, while the throne is a piece of royal furniture rather than a royal building, its decorated back mimics contemporary architectural forms. The inlaid scene on the throne depicts a Window of Appearance with the Aten appearing above the royal couple: Tutankhamun seated and Ankhesenamum standing beneath a broken-lintel doorway surmounted by a uraeus-frieze cornice. The materials and techniques on the Tutankhamun throne are closely related to royal architectural inlay of that era. In addition to the use of faience supplemented perhaps by selective use of stone and glass, it appears likely that the decoration on E16230 would have been highlighted in some areas through use of metal inlay as occurs on the throne of Tutankhamun.

architectural inlay

Fig. 17.  Examples of architectural inlays of the Amarna Period in a variety of materials.

45

46

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 18.  Scene in the tomb chapel of Panehesy at Tell el-Amarna (left, after Davies, The Rock Tombs of el-Amarna II, 1905: pl. 8) and the comparable Scene B on E16230 showing the internal complexity of the inlaid body and garments of Akhenaten.

Crowell has suggested that the sandal straps of Akhenaten in Scenes A and B were likely rendered in metal, probably silver, as occurs on other instances of Amarna Period inlay and on the throne of Tutankhamun (Crowell 2007:678–79). The technique occurs on the inlaid throne of Tutankhamun for the sandals of both king and queen, and also is attested for the sandal strap of a composite statue from Amarna (Aldred 1973:177, no. 104). Inlays of the ritual equipment, notably the king’s censer and the two purification vases in Scene B, might also have used metal inlay, thereby effectively simulating the actual materials of these objects. Moreover, it appears possible that the garments of Meritaten and Akhenaten, if not inlaid with polychrome faience, might have been composed of repoussé metal—likely silver—as occurs again on the throne of Tutankhamun. Use of this particular technique would have facilitated modeling of the texture and pleating of the fabric as well as the shape of the body below the fabric (Fig. 19). However, stone inlay fragments of the garments of royal figures have been recovered from Amarna and use of other materials than metal may be more likely in this case (Fig. 17:20). While inlay predominates in the figural elements and large-scale hieroglyphic texts of the Meritaten Sunshade block, the adjacent non-inlaid scene and text ele-

architectural inlay

Fig. 19.  Detail of the feet of Akhenaten in Scene B (above). The sandal straps are recessed for use of inlay, possibly in this case rendered in metal, as occurs in sandals on the throne of Tutankhamun. Inlaid garments on E16230 may also have made use of repoussé metal inlay as seen on the Tutankhamun throne (right).

ments must certainly have been painted in order to articulate with the vibrant coloration of the inlaid components. Whether the background was also painted is less clear; no extant paint is discernible on the block’s heavily worn surface. Visually, the impression would have been an overwhelmingly colorful décor in which the viewers’ attention was drawn to the numerous inlaid elements encrusting the surface. The inlay would have glittered, jewel-like, through use of predominantly reflective materials, set against the adjacent flat-painted scene components (Fig. 20, see also Plate 7). The next chapter provides a sense of the striking multicolored façade of the Meritaten chapel by reconstructing the building’s architecture in combination with its accompanying inlay. The use of extensive inlay on the Meritaten Sunshade situates this monument as part of the significant development of the tradition of architectural inlay that occurred during the reign of Akhenaten and that is particularly visible in the decoration of the royal buildings at Amarna. Numerous fragments deriving from inlaid

47

48

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 20.  Architectural rendering with color reconstruction of the inlaid façade of the Sunshade chapel of Meritaten in the Per Waenre (see also Plate 7).

architectural inlay

stone architecture, particularly from the areas of the Great Palace and Maru-Aten are indicative of the application of this technique in the decorative program of Amarna Period ritual buildings. Due to the near total destruction of the actual architecture in question, the evidence primarily takes the form of shattered inlay fragments. It is in this regard that E16230 is particularly valuable through providing a large fragment with multiple scenes and texts of an inlaid building. As Crowell has observed, this emphasis on architectural inlay, particularly using the increasingly sophisticated technologies of polychrome faience and glass, is inherently connected with developments in royal ideology, especially tied to the newly formulated solar theology focused on the Aten. The extensive use of faience for the inlay on E16230 is connected with the close relationship between faience and solar symbolism. The word for faience, ojnt, “gleaming (material)” is derived from the verb ojn, “to gleam” or “glisten” which is prominently used in references to the Aten during the reigns of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten.3 At the same time, however, even while the royal buildings of Amarna employed extensive decorative programs in a variety of materials as well painted ornamentation (Weatherhead 2007), inlaid stone architecture was a labor-intensive and specialized technique that Amarna Period architects would have necessarily applied in a selective way. Statistically this form of decoration would have been far in the minority relative to more standard carved and painted relief that covered the bulk of Amarna Period decorated buildings. Architectural inlay was likely limited to locations of particular ritual significance or visual focal points within wider architectural programs. One of these locations was certainly the Great Palace where Petrie (1894:10–12) recovered evidence of large-scale inlay elements that had once decorated parts of that building. Many of these elements derive from ritual scenes of the type that occur also on E16230 and mark the probable use of architectural inlay in a group of focal structures that were involved in royal rituals to the Aten. By virtue of its extensive inlay, E16230 belonged to a relatively small-scale shrine or chapel that formed a visual and symbolic focus within the larger precinct, the pr Wc-n-Rc, within which it stood. Among the few excavated fragments, the style of inlay used on E16230 is most closely paralleled at Amarna in the quartzite fragment of a screen wall from the Maru-Aten which is now in Oxford: Ashmolean 1922.141 (Peet and Woolley 1923: pl. 34, 1–2). This object (measuring 15 x 36 cm and 6 cm in thickness) displays the same technical approach as E16230 in which primary figural and scene elements such as crowns, clothing, and ritual equipment are cut as silhouettes and highlighted through use of inlay. Based on its narrow thickness and decoration on both faces, Ashmolean 1922.141 represents a relatively low-standing architectural element: a parapet or screen wall (Shaw 1994:110–12; 122, and pl. 10; Samson 1973:49). The Ashmolean fragment is not only less well-preserved (only the uppermost part is intact) but also is of considerably smaller scale than E16230 (Fig. 21). The block, however, has an archaeological context associated with the group of buildings composing M.II: the island-shrine located adjacent to the “water court” in the north-east-

49

50

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 21.  Ashmolean 1922.141 from structure M.II in the Maru-Aten at Amarna displays a similar approach, although at smaller scale, to the use of architectural inlay on E16230 (after Peet and Woolley, City of Akhenaten I, 1923: pl. 34).

ern corner of the Maru-Aten precinct in the southern end of the Amarna bay. Woolley and Newton originally reconstructed this building group as a central shrine flanked by two identical rectangular buildings, both composed of a series of parapet walls set between pilasters. Kemp has more recently questioned this reconstruction preferring a phased development of the structures centered on an initial fully-open format shrine. Although the original location of Ashmolean 1922.141 within this building group is uncertain, I suggest it was part of a small cluster of ornately decorated structures centered on a probable solar shrine that formed a focal point of the wider precinct of the Maru-Aten. Not coincidentally, the central shrine of the M.II group at the Maru-Aten can be identified specifically as a zwt-rc or Sunshade dedicated at least in its final stage to Princess Meritaten. As with Ashmolean 1922.141, Philadelphia E16230 derives from a small and ornate building, a free-standing structure, a sanctuary or chapel. Whether standing alone or forming part of a group of associated structures as occurs in the case of M.II at the Maru-Aten, the solar chapel of Meritaten forms a sub element of a larger Aten cult precinct. This is reflected in the Scene A label which refers to the zwt-rc of Meritaten within (m) the pr Wc-n-Rc m ™xt-Itn. What form might this building have taken and are there other sources of evidence that illuminate it? Below I present the architecture of the Meritaten Sunshade itself before continuing on to examine the possible characteristics and location of the pr Wc-n-Rc that housed it.

notes 5.1.  For the Akhenaten figures in Scenes C and D, the measurements are the approximate length of inlay; the full dimensions of these elements are not preserved since the block edge cuts through the right side of the royal figure. 5.2.  Polychrome faience inlay from Amarna is attested with textile design, some associated with royal garments (Crowell 2007:581–97, and figs. 17–23), see here Fig. 17:14–15.

architectural inlay

5.3.  For instance in the name of the barque of Amenhotep III at Malqata, “the gleaming sun-disk” (Urkunden IV:1737, 16), and the reference to Amenhotep III himself as a royal personification of the gleaming sun-disk, Nb m3ct-Rc ojn, “Nebmaatre, the gleaming sun-disk” (Urkunden IV:1679, 6).

51

This page intentionally left blank

6 Reconstruction of the Meritaten Sunshade Chapel

T

he format of E16230 as a tall, vertically-oriented slab of quartzite is a significant indicator of the type of structure from which it derives. Unlike the common construction technique of stacked talatat blocks used for many Amarna Period cult buildings,1 this object belongs to a limited class of structures that employed construction in large format masonry. Use of this type masonry would have been uneconomical for most elements of the rapidly constructed Amarna Period religious architecture, but well-suited to selective applications in the various shrines, kiosks, and free-standing cult buildings found within larger architectural complexes. The rationale behind this form of quartzite slab construction is also likely to be a function of the architectural setting and the decorative technique applied to it. E16230 is ornately decorated with extensive inlay. Talatat construction would be technically less practical for a building employing extensive inlay, which would then be required to cut across numerous block seams. Slab construction on the other hand is ideal for creating an unbroken, hard-stone surface suited to cutting an array of complex silhouettes for architectural inlay. The combination of quartzite slab construction with use of ornate inlay betrays the probable location of E16230 as part of the zwt-Rc from which it derives. This block was so extensively encrusted with architectural inlay that it is certainly a surface that formed a visual focal point, and not likely an internal space or secondary wall surface. For those reasons, it seems virtually certain the block was part of the main façade of the Meritaten Sunshade chapel. In this context, the use of quartzite for the façade of a zwtRc chapel may have been particularly appropriate given the solar connotations of that building material. Quartzite (Egyptian biCt, meaning “wondrous”) was a stone that had a distinct set of solar associations prior to the Amarna Period. The sparkling quality of quartzite and variant shades of the stone appear to have been symbolically linked with the solar passage (Quirke 2001:76–78). The manipulation of quartzite for its solar symbolism became increasingly visible in royal art and architecture during the reign of Amenhotep III (Kozloff and Bryan 1992:132–35, 138–42). The prominent tradition of royal quartzite statuary during the reign of Amenhotep III continued during the

54

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

reign of Akhenaten. Use of quartzite articulates with the solar symbolism embodied in such a cult building, symbolism further amplified by the extensive use of faience as discussed above. The marriage of material, construction technique, and inlay, therefore, demonstrates that this block formed part of the façade of the Meritaten chapel.

Architectural Configuration of the Chapel Pylon Features preserved on E16230 allow the reconstruction, with some degree of confidence, of the essential configuration of the chapel façade. As Diane Larkin has noted, the block preserves the remains of an engaged cornice which originally extended to the right over Scene C (Larkin 1994:364–68 and fig. 60). This cornice caps the recessed frame decorated with the smaller format scenes (C, D, and E). Depictions of chapel doorways in Amarna scenes invariably show chapel entrances with framing panels on either side and surmounted on both sides by the broken-lintel. A clear indication to the presence of a lintel on E16230 is the shallow height (20.5 cm) of Scene C just below the cornice. As a consequence of its low, presumably elongated proportions, this scene represents a panel that decorated the face of the broken-lintel itself. Due to the right-facing orientation of scenes on E16230, the block must derive from the left side of the chapel doorway (i.e., with the scene program facing the chapel entrance). E16230 then represents an originally wider block that was trimmed away on its ‘irregular’ right side, thereby removing the projection of the engaged lintel and most of the lintel panel (Scene C), as well as a substantial part of the doorframe scenes (Scenes D and E). An additional element on E16230, which further confirms the presence of doorjamb and lintel, is the remains of the upper mount hole for the door leaf. On the right edge of the block and approximately centered relative to the position of the lintel panel (Scene C) is a carefully cut recess that angles up and away from the doorjamb (Fig. 22). Although the lintel and much of the doorframe have been cut away, this location is consistent with a mount hole positioned on the underside of the lintel and concealed behind the doorframe. The outward angle is consistent with sockets designed for installing door leafs by sliding the door’s upper pivot into position at an angle and then fastening the door leaf into place at a matching mount on the floor. Most of the mount has been cut away leaving only a small part of the outer edge of the hole. During the block’s reuse, this recess must have been fitted with a, now missing, patchstone since the Merenptah inscription passes over the cutting. In addition to this evidence for the configuration of the doorframe, is the significant fact that the panel bearing the larger scenes (A and B) extends upwards, rising adjacent to the cornice. This aspect of the block suggests the chapel employed a pylon-type façade. As mentioned above E16230 is characterized by a slight inward batter. This feature is also consistent with a pylon-type entryway. Although it is clear that the right side of E16230 once extended to form the jamb and broken-lintel of the chapel’s doorway, what occurred on the left side of the block?

reconstruction of the meritaten sunshade chapel

Fig. 22.  Remains of the recessed pivot mount from upper part of the doorway, cut down during the Ramesside reworking of the Amarna block.

It is conceivable that the block originally extended to the left with additional, now missing, scenes. There is also a possibility there were additional blocks forming a wider façade. However, the fact that the edge of the recut Merenptah sphinx plinth corresponds neatly with the edge of Scenes A and B implies the block was trimmed only slightly, if at all, on its left side. It appears probable there originally would have been an engaged torus molding which ran up the edge of Scenes A and B. The reworking of the block may have involved cutting away the left side following the inner edge of the corner torus, thereby removing that unwanted projection of the torus but leaving the decoration of Scenes A and B intact. On the right side, the inset door panel and broken-lintel were then cut away to achieve the desired width (69 cm) to accommodate the Merenptah sphinx. Consequently, it appears probable that E16230 is part of a façade block that originally spanned the full width of the left side of the Meritaten Sunshade chapel, recut slightly on its left, but more substantially on its right. In reconstructing the architecture of a chapel pylon of this form, there are two particularly useful comparative sources from Tell el-Amarna. One is the well-known scene depicting another royal Sunshade: the zwt-Rc dedicated to Queen Tiye, mother of Akhenaten. This scene—discussed further in the next chapter—shows Akhenaten conducting Tiye into her newly completed Sunshade. Housed at the inner end and

55

56

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

forming the focal point of an elaborate architectural complex is a free-standing, elevated chapel (Fig. 23). This chapel is a single-chambered, unroofed building fronted by a small pylon with broken-lintel doorway. The hypaethral chapel (open to the sky) sits elevated on a podium, access to which occurs via a stepped ramp. The fact that this elevated chapel is the focal element of the zwt-Rc of Tiye is emphasized by the fact that royal family is shown ascending the ramp to enter this building. The juxtaposition of chapel and human figures gives an approximate sense of the relative scale of humans and the building’s façade. I would suggest that the Meritaten Sunshade in the Per Waenre is the physical surviving element of a freestanding solar chapel of the same type depicted in the tomb of Huya. Like other depictions of architecture in Amarna Period art, the sanctuary of Tiye in the Huya scene is schematized. Fortunately, augmenting the iconographic evidence there is also an actual model of a solar chapel of this format: a miniature hypaethral chapel excavated in 1926 in the official residence of Panehesy located on the south side of Great Aten Temple (Fig. 24). Excavated in the main hall of Panehesy’s official residence, the model chapel appears to be associated with Panehesy’s functions as chief

Fig. 23.  Detail of the elevated sanctuary in the scene of the Sunshade chapel of Queen Tiye in the tomb of Huya.

reconstruction of the meritaten sunshade chapel

priest of the Aten in the temple of the Aten in Akhetaten, as well as second prophet of the Lord of the Two-Lands (Frankfort 1927:209–18; fig. 2 and pl. 47). It has a pylon-style façade decorated with polychrome painted scenes of Akhenaten, Nefertiti, and Meritaten offering to the Aten and a broken-lintel doorway with doorframe bearing standard elements of the titulary of Akhenaten. The doorway preserves mounts for original double leaf wooden doors that were not preserved. Although likely representing a simplification of full-scale Amarna religious architecture, details of the architecture and proportions of this structure are informative in reconstructing the Meritaten chapel façade and the way that E16230 may have originally been mounted into a small pylon of this form. I will now examine specifically how E16230 may have been incorporated architecturally into a small pylon of the format seen in the Tiye scene and Panehesy chapel. I have already suggested that the original block from which E16230 was cut likely formed the full width of the left side of the chapel pylon. Would this block also have reached the full height of the chapel façade, or were there additional masonry components that rested above this block completing the upper sections? Here some obser-

Fig. 24.  The shrine of Panehesy (showing preserved and reconstructed elements) from his official residence on the south side of the Great Aten Temple at Tell el-Amarna.

57

58

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

vations on the possible configuration of the engaged cornice are germane. There are clear remains on E16230 of the torus and cavetto belonging to the top of the engaged lintel. However, it appears probable that the top of the lintel would have been completed by an additional element: the uraeus-frieze that forms a standard element of the doorways into Amarna religious buildings. Remains of inlaid uraeus-frieze elements were recovered from building M.II in the Maru-Aten precinct at Tell el-Amarna, a structure which can also be identified as a Sunshade chapel dedicated to Meritaten (Peet and Woolley 1923:122, pl. 33:5 and photograph in Freed 2000:226, fig. 73). Although a uraeus frieze might have been constructed by a separate block attached to E16230, more likely it would have been engaged, carved as part of the same block. Structurally, it would make sense if the main façade block rose to the height of the uraeus-frieze. In order to compose a pylon-type entrance, the building’s façade must still have risen substantially beyond the height of the lintel and cornice. Based on comparanda such as the model chapel of Panehesy and images of chapel pylons in Amarna tomb scenes, the façade was in all likelihood completed with symmetrical pylon towers, each side capped by its own cornice. Conceivably this format of chapel façade might have been achieved at a modest height by this single block if it originally rose perhaps a further meter beyond its current height. However, the size and complexity demanded from this one block becomes prohibitive if extended to the full height of the chapel. It appears more likely that the original block included the top of the lintel frieze, extending somewhat above its current height of 2.4 m. From there additional masonry would have composed the upper part of the chapel pylon with its own cornice at the top. An additional reason for concluding that E16230 was originally capped by additional masonry forming the top of the pylon tower derives from a consideration of how E16230 may have articulated structurally as part of a chapel façade. Slab construction set vertically is well-suited to relatively small scale structures in which adjacent blocks could be bonded and supported by the close proximity of features set at right angles: piers, buttresses, or pylons. Engagement of the block in a pylon structure that had additional masonry elements behind the façade would have provided lateral stability through bonding the vertically oriented slab to masonry behind and above. One of the noteworthy aspects of the block is its significant thickness (27 cm at the base) paired with the lack of any evidence for decoration on what would be the interior of the chapel. Certainly interior decoration may well have been removed as part of the Ramesside reworking of the block. However, it appears rather to be the case that E16230 does not represent a chapel wall that would have borne decoration on both exterior and interior. More likely, E16230 abutted one or more additional blocks behind it that formed the back of a square or rectangular pylon. Evidence provided by the Panehesy shrine is relevant to reconstructing the possible construction of the Meritaten chapel pylon. The Panehesy shrine has pylon blocks in which the ratio of width to thickness is 5:3 (i.e., the façade of each side of the pylon measures 1.6 times its depth). Scaled up to the dimensions proposed for the façade of

reconstruction of the meritaten sunshade chapel

the Meritaten Sunshade this would suggest a pylon approximately 60 cm in depth. Interestingly, placement of one similarly proportioned block (i.e., ca. 27 + cm in thickness) directly against the back of E16230 would create the same pylon proportions in the Panehesy shrine. Structurally, these blocks could have been battered slightly inwards (as E16230 preserves) resting against each other. Alternatively, multiple blocks forming the interior of the pylon could have provided the structural support needed for the outer facing slabs on each side. Whether the façade slab was backed by a single matching block or multiple stacked masonry elements, the use of stonework above spanning the full dimensions of the pylon would then have been a logical structural approach to bonding the façade to the masonry behind. For that reason it appears probable the upper parts of the pylon towers were separate blocks which completed the pylon towers with a cornice capping each side—as seen in both the Tiye Sunshade chapel and the Panehesy shrine. The height of the pylon remains a matter of speculation but one possibility is the façade above the height of Scene A would have had another panel of the same height as Scenes A and B (i.e., 112.5 cm). Other viable scenarios exist for the way the façade block articulated with adjacent masonry but this configuration appears to represent the best explanation for the full set of features preserved on E16230 (Fig. 25). Having a working model for the basic architectural configuration of the Meritaten chapel façade, the more complete reconstruction of the decoration and format of the chapel entrance can be considered.

Reconstruction of the Doorframe Scenes As explained above, the three recessed scenes on the right side of E16230 originally flanked the main doorway into the Meritaten chapel. The uppermost of these, Scene C, is a narrow, elongated scene that decorated the face of an engaged broken-lintel. Scenes D and E decorated the front of the recessed frame on the door’s left side. These scenes are all substantially cut-through as a result of the Ramesside reworking of the block. Despite the loss of the majority of the three scenes, there are vital clues in their format and iconography which permit the reconstruction of, with some degree of confidence, the approximate proportions and basic content of the scenes.

The Lintel Panel (Scene C) Scene C is the least well-preserved of the five scenes on E16230. Only its final two columns of text remain. At first glance, there appears to be little basis for substantial inferences on the nature of this scene. A close examination, however, furnishes a number of important clues that suggest the original decorative format and approximate scale of Scene C. Firstly, one may pose the question: was the lintel panel, in fact, properly a scene with inclusion of figural elements or was it exclusively a text panel comprising a series of parallel columns of which only the final two columns

59

60

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 25.  The suggested construction of the Meritaten chapel façade with E16230 deriving from the facing block of the pylon on the left side of the entrance bonded to masonry behind and above.

remain? The probability that this was a scene panel in which the text columns function as labels (like the other scenes on E16230) is suggested by the use of the border with pt ( ) sky band framing the top of the panel. Although the pt-band can occur over text panels devoid of figural elements, it does not seem likely this would have been the case for two balanced scenes in such a focal location on the façade of the Meritaten chapel. The panel format in Scene C and its matching scene on the opposite lintel appears consistent with the doorframe scenes below it where the lightly incised texts are labels for ritual scenes involving royal figures. Although the area to the right of the two text columns is essentially lost, there remains a small but important clue along the corner of the block. Halfway up the scene is a distinctive, deep-cut, rounded element projecting from the right and terminating adjacent to the column border of the scene label. Due to its well-formed edges, this feature appears not to be the result of damage, but rather belongs to original figural

reconstruction of the meritaten sunshade chapel

decoration that once extended to the right. This element is certainly not a hieroglyph since Scene C employs shallow, incised text. Rather, it represents the vestige of a deepcut figure that would originally have been inlaid like the other scenes on E16230. The implied format of Scene C follows that of Scenes D and E: inlaid figural scene elements accompanied by lightly incised text labels. This conclusions leads to a second question: what form of scene may have been accommodated in such a narrow space measuring just 20.5 cm in height? Given its presumably long, narrow proportions, Scene C certainly could not have accommodated standing figures. This location necessitates use of a primarily horizontal figural composition. Given the position and size of the rounded element, it seems likely that Scene C employed one of the common motifs of doorway lintels in Egyptian religious architecture: a recumbent sphinx. Indeed, the use of recumbent sphinxes on the broken-lintel form is a well-established aspect of Amarna Period religious architecture. The position and shape of the rounded figural element on E16230 corresponds with the format of the posterior and backward-protruding tail of sphinx images of Akhenaten. There exist nine preserved examples of Akhenaten sphinx panels, many demonstrably from broken-lintel doorways. The sphinx panel appears, in fact, to have been a favored decorative element of Amarna royal architecture due to the inherent solar connotations of the sphinx image. Amarna Period sphinx panels show a variety of scale and internal details. The scene type depicts Akhenaten in sphinx form presenting cartouches or ritual vessels to a heavily-rayed image of the Aten.2 The disk typically surmounts a standard offering table or offering stand. The sphinx itself usually appears on a plinth although it can also be placed directly on the ground line. In most instances, the posterior of the sphinx abuts the outer end of the panel. However, in several examples, the text columns continue behind the body of the sphinx: the format suggested here for Scene C. The sphinx offering scenes typically include labels in the following sequence: (a) Aten cartouches adjacent to the disk; (b) epithets and building name above the Aten rays and extending over sphinx body; followed by (c) titulary of the king and royal family as relevant to the particular building. The final two columns naming Meritaten on the lintel panel of E16230 follow with that standard label sequence. The majority—if not all—of the Amarna sphinx panels derive from the decorated faces of broken-lintel doorways. Pendlebury excavated four sandstone examples in the South Section of the Great Palace at Amarna (Pendlebury 1951: pl. 41:2 and 3 [in situ] and pl. 48:3 and 4).3 Their location suggests these blocks had fallen in or near door openings and “clearly formed part of broken lintels” (Pendlebury 1951:57, 79). In addition, there are five examples with no provenience. One of these, Louvre E15589, Larkin has suggested might also derive from the Great Palace (Larkin 1994:373–74, cat. no. 13 and fig. 68).4 The remaining four unprovenanced blocks all derive from a single cult building designated in the scene labels as: t™ zwt-rc m ûdw.f-™xt-n-Itn m ™xt-Itn; “the Sunshade in the (building named) He-fashions-the-Akhet-of-Aten in Akhet-Aten.”5 This enigmatic building, which lacks a specified owner in the text, could be a Sunshade

61

62

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

belonging to Akhenaten himself (Fig. 26) located in the otherwise unknown cult precinct called the ûdw.f-™xt-n-Itn (Aldred 1973:99 with a photograph of the Koutoulakis Collection relief ). The sole reason for attributing this Sunshade to Akhenaten is the lack of another specified royal owner and the appearance of Akhenaten alone in the scenes. The adaptation of the sphinx motif on the doorways of cult buildings was not unique to Akhenaten’s reign. Use of the recumbent sphinx on lintels developed prior to the Amarna Period. Subsequent to the New Kingdom the “sphinx interrupted lintel” became a widespread component in Late Period and Ptolemaic temple architecture (for general comments on the development see Larkin [1994:169–75]). However,

the form was one particularly relevant to Akhenaten’s solar theology and appears to have been prevalent in primarily unroofed religious structures of the Amarna Period. Use of the broken-lintel was driven by the intention to open the axis of the cult building to an uninterrupted view of the sun from within the structure. The parallelism of the broken-lintel doorway with the solar horizon (the akhet) appears to have resulted in the near exclusive dominance of that particular entrance format in Amarna religious architecture. The sphinx panel then is a decorative element that evolves hand in hand with the broken-lintel form. Geometrically, the low-slung image of the recumbent sphinx was well-suited to the typically elongated panels that decorated door lintels. More significantly, the solar symbolism embodied in the sphinx form made it an appropriate icon emphasizing the notion of the pylon or entryway as a solar akhet. Akhenaten seems to have embraced and enhanced that symbolism. Although it is likely that other types of imagery may have appeared on broken-lintels, the sphinx panel seems likely to have been a standard element, particularly for the

reconstruction of the meritaten sunshade chapel

63

small- and medium-sized doorways where the smaller scale of lintels would not have permitted more elaborate compositions with full-scale standing figures. Turning back to E16230, even if we were to discount the evidence that the block provides for a possible sphinx tail projection, the overall nature and proportions of the scene are in close accord with the known sphinx panels of the Amarna Period. These sphinx scenes are generally enclosed within an independent rectangular panel with a pt-band forming the upper border and single incised lines on the other three sides of the scene frame; exactly as occurs in Scene C. Sphinx panels from the Great Palace measure ca. 25 cm in height by approximately 70 cm in length. The Louvre example, E15589, is only slightly smaller with a panel measuring 23 x 64 cm. With a height of

Fig. 26.  facing and left: Blocks showing Akhenaten as a recumbent sphinx from a Sunshade within the building designated: He-fashions-the-Akhet-of-Aten in Akhet-Aten.

20.5 cm, Scene C is marginally smaller than the Great Palace and Louvre examples. The four examples from the Sunshade chapel in the ûdw.f-™xt-n-Itn are ca. 50–55 cm in scene height, possibly deriving either from larger scale doorways or conceivably some other element flanking the building’s entryway.6 Given the nature of the evidence presented by E16230 and the prominence of sphinx broken lintels in Amarna religious architecture, it would be highly surprising if the Meritaten Sunshade did not employ this particular decorative element. If the arguments that Scene C is a sphinx offering scene are accepted, the scene proportions of the complete examples can be applied to extrapolate the approximate size of the lintel panel for E16230. The Great Palace and Louvre lintel scenes are the closest in size to E16230. Both Louvre E15589 and the Great Palace examples have height to width proportions of 1 to 2.8. Following those proportions, Scene C would have measured 20.5 by ca. 55 cm wide. Adding 2.5 cm on either side for the borders of the panel brings the estimate for the entire area of Scene C to approximately 25

64

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

x 60 cm (Fig. 27 shows the suggested configuration). The sphinx figure itself, scaled from these same comparanda, would measure on the order of ca. 15 by 38 cm. I suggest that the décor of Scene C follows that of the adjacent doorframe Scenes D and E (i.e., royal figures in inlay accompanied by lightly incised text labels). The possible remains on E16230 of a deep-cut tail end would be consistent with an inlaid sphinx and the overall emphasis on inlaid figural ornamentation that characterizes the rest of the façade of the Meritaten Sunshade. On that basis, two inlaid sphinx figures may be tentatively added, each approximately 15 x 38 cm, to the roster of inlaid elements that decorated the façade of the Meritaten zwt-Rc chapel.7

Fig. 27.  Suggested reconstruction of Scene C: the lintel panel forming base of a broken-lintel doorway.

Scenes D and E Unlike the lintel panel, enough remains of Scenes D and E on E16230 that the nature of both compositions is clear. Both are offering scenes showing Akhenaten and Meritaten facing the Aten, which occupies the now-missing area to the right. The principal issue here regards the possible width of the two scenes. The preserved details pro-

reconstruction of the meritaten sunshade chapel

vide several key iconographic indicators allowing extrapolation of the approximate scale of Scenes D and E and to reconstruct the probable width of the chapel’s recessed doorframe. The basis for this is the extremely high angle of the Aten-rays, which are well-preserved in Scene D (only extremely faintly preserved in Scene E). Projection of the Aten rays upwards in Scene D shows the position of the Aten disk within the composition. The sun disk is located ca. 16 cm from the left extremity reached by its rays, and ca. 20 cm from the edge of the scene proper. Mirroring this same angle for the Aten’s outer rays onto the missing right side establishes a minimum width for the entire scene. Accommodating the Aten in Scene D provides for an estimated scene width of ca. 32 cm, with an estimate of 40 cm for the entirety of the panel to the doorjamb (Fig. 28). There is some leeway for a wider format. If the scene were reconstructed with further figural elements and inscriptions to the right of the Aten, the width could be increased. However, since the figures of Akhenaten and Meritaten occupy the left side of the composition it appears unlikely that there were additional figural elements to the right of the Aten. The probable scene format is essentially similar to that of Scenes A and B where the Aten surmounts ritual offerings directly below it and is accompanied on its right only by its identifying cartouches and epithets. Moreover, as already established, these scenes flank a doorway leading into the interior of the Meritaten Sunshade chapel. The orientation is meant to evoke the direct interaction between the royal figures and the Aten emanating from within the solar chapel. Consequently, it is improbable that there were further iconographic elements intervening between the disk and the doorjamb. Hence, the narrower dimension of ca. 32 cm for the scene itself appears likely although additional architectural elements, such as an engaged door-frame molding (torus) could have easily augmented the total width of the doorframe. The combination of evidence for the original proportions of Scenes D and E relative to the lintel panel provides the basis for reconstructing the overall doorway configuration of the Meritaten chapel. The decorated doorframe had the two superimposed scenes, each 76.5 cm in height placed above the 31 cm high undecorated dado, the entire frame measuring approximately 40 cm in width. Above this, the face of the broken-lintel measured approximately 25 x 60 cm. The main rectangular face of the lintel therefore would have projected ca. 28 cm beyond the doorframe scenes. The base of Scene C equates with the position of the bottom of the lintel and top of the door opening. The doorway height is a relatively modest 184 cm (6' 2")—falling perhaps slightly above average head height in ancient Egyptian terms (see Kemp 2012:227).8 However, the relatively low placement of the lintel is appropriate in view of the use of the broken-lintel format where the doorway passage is effectively open in the middle (Fig. 29). This opening must have contained a double-leaf doorway with the door leaves attached immediately under the projection of each side of the broken-lintel as indicated by the mount hole discussed above. The evidence for the position of this pivot mount necessitates that the reveal (thickness) of the doorframe itself must have narrowed to half of the block width of 27 cm (i.e., the actual decorated jambs of the door were only

65

66

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 28.  Projection of the approximate proportions of the doorjamb scenes (D and E) based on position and angle of the Aten rays.

reconstruction of the meritaten sunshade chapel

ca. 13.5 cm thick above which the lintel was wider, and door leaves were mounted behind the doorframe). This same configuration occurs on the model chapel pylon from the house of Panehesy, which I have discussed previously as a possible template for the configuration of the Sunshade façade.

An Architectural Model of the Meritaten Chapel Although E16230 is the sole surviving architectural fragment from the Sunshade chapel of Meritaten, the substantial size of the block furnishes sufficient data to reconstruct some of the crucial architectural and decorative aspects of the chapel’s façade. Armed with the inferences just discussed, I will now construct a three dimensional

Fig. 29.  Completed reconstruction of the left side of the Meritaten chapel showing the original placement of E16230 as part of the left side of a chapel façade with reconstruction of lintel and doorframe scenes.

67

68

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

model to visualize what this building may have looked like. Extrapolation of the larger block prior to its Ramesside reworking permits the reconstruction of the left side of the chapel façade, which may then be mirrored with a matching right side. Although it remains ultimately uncertain whether the façade might originally have extended further with use of adjacent slabs, this latter possibility seems less likely. As already noted, the architectural approach appears to have been use of a single masonry block that spanned the full width of each side of the chapel providing a seamless surface for accommodating the extensive inlay that encrusted the building’s façade. The proportions that occur in the most informative comparative source—the chapel of Panehesy—would also accord with a single block width on either side of the doorway. Fortunately, E16230 precisely establishes the height of the chapel door: 184 cm. Significantly, this figure equals exactly 3.5 cubits and suggests that major dimensions of the architecture of the Meritaten chapel followed a system of cubit and half-cubit multiples.9 An estimate of the width of the door can be made based on the parallel with the model chapel of Panehesy. The door of Panehesy’s chapel has width to height proportions of 3:4. Extrapolated to the scale of the Meritaten chapel doorway those same proportions would suggest a door width of approximately 138 cm. It is likely the door width also followed cubit and half-cubit measures as occurs with the height. A marginally smaller width of 131 cm. would make the doorway exactly 2.5 cubits and close to the 3:4 proportions of the Panehesy parallel. For the purpose of reconstruction, I propose a 131 cm wide doorway (Fig. 30). The façade of the building then has a minimum width of 85 cm (the width of E16230) from the doorjambs to the corners based on the reconstructed width of the doorframe Scenes D and E. Inclusion of a few centimeters for removed masonry as well as a modest corner torus on both sides suggests a total width for the façade of 3.15 m or 6 cubits. Alternatively, it is possible that the dimensions of the two sides of the chapel from doorjamb to corner measured around 2 cubits or 105 cm. This would permit a slight widening of the façade and a slight gap between the scenes and torus; the resulting façade would then be 3.4 m. or 6.5 cubits. For the purpose of reconstruction here, I employ the more conservative 3.15 m. overall width as shown in Fig. 26. The essential appearance of the façade of the Sunshade of Meritaten can be reconstructed with a high degree of certainty based exclusively on the information supplied by E16230 itself. Beyond the façade, however, additional inferences regarding the building’s architecture rests on iconographic and archaeological parallels. What occurred behind the small, but intensively decorated pylon of the Meritaten Sunshade? With an estimated width of some 3.15  m, the small scale of the building effectively necessitates only a single-room chapel. The chapel should have been hypaethral, probably with a cornice-capped curtain wall that extended from the back of the pylon on either side as seen in both the cases of the Tiye scene and Panehesy example. The chapel of Panehesy had a relatively low curtain wall with its outer face displaced slightly beyond the corners of the pylon.10 The wall reaches half of the height of the pylon.

reconstruction of the meritaten sunshade chapel

Fig. 30.  Reconstruction of the Meritaten chapel façade based on 3:4 doorway proportions.

69

70

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

The more schematically rendered image of the elevated sanctuary of Tiye suggests a somewhat taller wall reaching to a height just below the cornice capping the upper parts of the pylon towers. Although the full height of the Meritaten pylon is unknown, these parallels may be used to tentatively reconstruct chamber walls at the same height as the cornice of the broken-lintel doorway. This would create an openair chamber that rose slightly above head height and perhaps half or somewhat above half the overall height of the chapel’s pylon. Adapting the proportions indicated by the Tiye scene allows tentative reconstruction of a ca. 2.5 by 4 m chamber bounded by a ca. 2 m high, cornice-capped curtain wall. Certainly the chapel’s inner architecture may have incorporated more elaborate elements than this basic format, but in the absence of other direct evidence the simplest form of solid curtain wall provides a sense of the basic scale and appearance of the chamber. The internal architecture of the Meritaten chapel must have been extensively decorated and continued the decorative program initiated on the façade. In all probability, the exterior walls would not have been blank but also were likely decorated possibly with further use of architectural inlay. Regarding the format of the wall tops I propose, minimally, a standard cavetto cornice of the type indicated in the image of Tiye’s Sunshade sanctuary. However, a more elaborate inlaid format consistent with the richly decorated façade preserved by E16230 is more likely. As mentioned previously, extensive remains of inlaid, quartzite uraeus-frieze cornice elements were excavated in 1922 from the main chapel in the M.II building group in the Maru-Aten at Tell el-Amarna. That structure, identified on the basis of Ashmolean 1922.141 as a Sunshade of Meritaten, appears to have had its wall tops, not just the door lintels, completed by a quartzite uraeus frieze with cobra heads of inlaid grey granite (Peet and Woolley 1923:122), as well as other materials for the serpent bodies (Fig. 31 right). In view of the small size of the chamber and the elaborate inlaid ornamentation preserved on the building’s facade, use of an inlaid cornice frieze of comparable complexity to that documented in the Maru-Aten would appear a reasonable supposition. Like Tiye’s elevated sanctuary and the model chapel of Panehesy, the Meritaten chapel almost certainly stood atop an elevated podium, access to which was provided by a stepped ramp. The ramp ascending to a free-standing chapel of this type is likely to have been edged with a variant of the decorated balustrades that occur prominently among the remains of royal buildings in the Amarna Period. Fragmentary balustrades occur in a variety of different stones, particularly from the Great Palace at Tell-el Amarna. Large balustrade segments, such as Cairo JE87300 (Fig. 31 left), or Cairo T 30.10.26.12,11 provide an indication of the standardized repertoire of Aten offering scenes that decorated the faces of these balustrades. Numerous fragments have been recovered from the balustrades’ decorated handrails, cut with deeply incised hieroglyphic texts, as well as elements of engaged newel-posts that fronted the balustrades. The use of the balustraded ramps is indicated also in the scenes in the decorated tomb chapels at Amarna. This evidence reflects the predominant use of decorated ramps for elevated chapels and altars in Amarna religious architecture (Shaw 1994:109–27).

reconstruction of the meritaten sunshade chapel

Fig. 31.  Example of a balustrade block (Cairo JE87300) from the Great Palace at Tell el-Amarna (left, after Roeder, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis, 1969: taf. 1–2); and example of inlaid uraeus frieze from cornice elements in the M.II group in the Maru-Aten (right).

There is also a fragmentary balustrade element from Memphis, probably deriving from an elevated Sunshade chapel of Princess Ankhesenpaaten (Pasquali 2011:216–22; and discussed further in the next chapter). Consequently, it is a reasonable inference that the intricately decorated pylon of the Meritaten Sunshade chapel would have been matched by a richly decorated axial ramp leading up to its entrance. Together, the elaborate polychrome façade of the Meritaten chapel and other elements should have visually defined the building as a focal structure within the architecture of the Per Waenre, paralleling the emphasis seen on the elevated sanctuary in the scene of Tiye’s Sunshade. Beyond the features inferred from the parallels, it becomes increasingly speculative what additional elements there may have been. The fragmentary remains of the rich ornamentation of floor and secondary architectural fittings in the main chapel of the M.II group in the Maru-Aten provide a sense for the type of rich ornamentation associated with one Sunshade chapel of comparable scale to the Meritaten chapel. The chapel façade would be only part of this heavily embellished royal cult building within the Per Waenre. Based on the preceding analysis, the essential appearance of the façade of the Meritaten Sunshade can be reconstructed with some degree of confidence (Fig. 32). Here is the building as an elevated quartzite chapel standing atop a raised platform and entered via a stepped ramp edged with balustrades. The broken-lintel entrance is fitted with double door leaves. The height of the pylon towers remains hypothetical

71

72

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 32.  Elevation view showing the suggested reconstruction of the Meritaten chapel as a single-chamber shrine atop a podium reached by a ramp flanked by decorated balustrades.

reconstruction of the meritaten sunshade chapel

but uses a total height that permits one additional scene panel on each side matching the height of Scenes A and B (112.5 cm). These proportions make the appearance of the building very close to the image of the elevated chapel of Queen Tiye. Expanding on the discussion of the chapel’s architecture and inlaid ornamentation, I create a computer-generated reconstruction of the chapel façade through addition of polychrome inlay using the range of materials discussed in Chapter 5. Here (Fig. 33; see also Plate 7) a visualization of the left side of the chapel (from which E16230 derives) is made using a Computer Aided Design (CAD) program in which inlay materials have been added to simulate the range of colors and reflectivity of the building’s elaborate ornamentation.12 For a visualization of the full chapel façade see Plate 7. Finally, behind the façade the basic appearance of the Meritaten zwt-Rc chapel can be envisioned through the addition of a single unroofed offering chamber. Figure 34 (see also Plate 8) is a three-dimensional CAD rendering of the building standing on a raised platform with the entrance ramp framed by decorated balustrades. The chapel walls are shown capped with a uraeus cornice rising somewhat above head height, as suggested by the parallels provided by the Tiye scene, Panehesy model chapel, and the fragmentary evidence from the Maru-Aten. Beyond the main chapel building atop its raised platform, it is likely that the Meritaten Sunshade in the Per Waenre was not just a single structure but likely included an ensemble of additional elements. Archaeological evidence from Tell el-Amarna suggests that Sunshade chapels included ancillary structures, the main functions of which may have revolved around royal commemoration and performance of a statue cult for the individual to whom the Sunshade was dedicated. The fragmentary archaeological evidence for Sunshades at Tell el-Amarna suggests a central zwt-Rc chapel like that of Meritaten would have been part of a group of associated elements. In the case of E16230, the wider comparative body of evidence for Amarna Period Sunshades gives a sense of the possible setting of the building.

notes 6.1.  The well-known talatat (Arabic: “threes”) of Amarna Period architecture are masonry blocks, usually of limestone or sandstone, measuring three hand lengths (equaling one cubit of 52.5 cm) in length (see particularly discussion of Vergnieux 1999: part 1). Their small scale and standardization of dimensions facilitated speed of construction. Use of talatat masonry predominates in the more voluminous architectural features at Karnak, Tell el-Amarna, as well as Memphis and Heliopolis. Larger masonry blocks in harder stones, such as E16230, were more selectively employed. 6.2.  The sphinx panels typically depict the Aten with fifteen or more rays, contrasting with the more modest typically eight-rayed images of most types of offering scenes. See, for instance: Geneva 027804 (22 rays); MFA, Boston 64.1944 (20 rays); Koutoulakis block (19 rays); Hannover, Kestner 1964.3 (17 rays); Paris, Louvre E15538 (17 rays); Cairo JE.65926 (16 rays). References are listed in the following discussion.

73

74

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 33.  CAD model with reconstruction of the polychrome inlay of the Meritaten chapel (see also Plate 7).

reconstruction of the meritaten sunshade chapel

Fig. 34.  Isometric view showing the suggested single-chamber format of the Meritaten Sunshade chapel. Behind the pylon the specific details of the chapel are hypothetical (see also Plate 8).

6.3.  Two of these blocks are in museums: Cairo JE.65926 (Pendlebury 1951: pl. 41:3) and Brooklyn 36.881 (Pendlebury1951: pl. 48:3). Larkin believes Brooklyn 36.881 may not derive from a lintel. The other two blocks appear to have been abandoned on the site. 6.4.  Larkin suggests Louvre E15538 (only 3 cm in thickness and donated to the Louvre in 1938) might have been cut from one of the blocks left on site following Pendlebury’s 1935–36 work at Amarna, although this identification is tenuous. 6.5.  These blocks, all purchased around 1964, are: Boston 64.1944; Kestner Museum 1964.3; Geneva Musée d’Art et d’Histoire 027804 (formerly Koutoulakis Collection); and a similar block in the Halkedis Collection (Larkin 1994:374–77, cat. no. 14, and figs. 69–71). 6.6.  Larkin has identified the sphinx scenes on this group of blocks as all deriving from broken-lintel doorways. She has also noted that all appear to have been cut in modern times from larger blocks. The

75

76

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

very thin format, however, has led others to suggest a possible use as orthostats (Lacovara in Freed (ed.) 2000:231, catalogue nos. 89–90). 6.7.  All of the preserved sphinx lintels are painted sunk relief. E16230 would be the only example of an inlaid sphinx. The Koutoulakis fragment preserves paint: Aten and rays in red, sphinx in blue (Aldred 1973:99), leading to the likelihood that a sphinx image on the inlaid façade of E16230 would have been in blue faience. 6.8.  The doorway could have been slightly higher if the block’s base was cut or altered at the time of the Ramesside reuse. The architectural reconstructions here assume that the base (which later became the front face of the sphinx plinth) was not significantly altered. 6.9.  Using standard cubit measures: 1 cubit = 52.5 cm. 6.10.  This wall was not preserved in the chapel’s remains in the official residence of Panehesy. However, the articulation between the shrine’s wall and the back of the pylon blocks, as well as impressions of wall positions on the remaining surface permit reconstruction of the wall’s height and dimensions (Frankfort 1927:213 and sectional view shown in fig. 2). 6.11.  This example is one of the best-known images of Aten worship (Freed 2000:226, pl. 72 with bibliography). 6.12.  The architectural models shown here were constructed using the CAD program Vectorworks Architect.

C-1

Plate 1.  Overall view of E16230.

C-2

Plate 2.  Upper half of the block showing Scenes A, C, and part of D.

C-3

Plate 3.  Detail views of Scene A.

Plate 4.  Lower half of the block showing Scenes B and E.

C-5

Plate 5.  Details of the figure of Akhenaten and ritual equipment in Scene B.

Plate 6.  The back and sides of E16230 (for dimensions and orientations see Fig. 5)

C-7

Plate 7.  Architectural rendering with color reconstruction of the inlaid façade of the Meritaten Sunshade chapel.

C-8

Plate 8.  Three dimensional rendering showing the suggested architectural configuration of the Meritaten chapel.

7 The Chapel of Meritaten and the Amarna Period Sunshades

O

ne of the crucial results of properly reading the inscriptions on E16230 is the identification of the building as a zwt-Rc: “Sunshade” or “solar chapel” (for discussion of this building type see particularly: Stadelmann 1969:159–78; Spencer 1984:119–25; Konrad 2006:188–205). The term ( ) is composed of the word zwt, “shadow” or “shade” written with the fan hieroglyph, compounded with rc, “sun,” or more specifically Rc/Re the primary solar deity.1 The zwt-Rc is a specific form of solar cult building that merged solar veneration with the identity and divine associations of a royal personage. Also significant may be the religious notion of the zwt or shadow as a spiritual element of both humans and gods. Akhenaten placed significant emphasis on this particular building type in his monumental program (Pendlebury 1951:203–8). The development of the zwt-Rc may be traced during the earlier 18th Dynasty perhaps deriving from pre-New Kingdom antecedents (Janák, Vymazalová, and Coppens 2011:438–41). In origin, this building form was closely associated with veneration of the sun in the form of Re-Horakhty: “Re-Horus of the Two-Horizons,” associated with solar movement and particularly the diurnal rising and setting of the sun on its eastern and western horizons. That specific divine relationship is likely to have propelled the accentuated role of Sunshades during the reign of Akhenaten. Re-Horakhty had a fundamental role in the identity of the Aten and was central to the early iconography of the Aten. Re-Horakhty was not only integrated into the Early name of the Aten but the deity appears iconographically as the falcon-headed Re-Horakhty particularly visible in the Karnak structures from the early reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten (Redford 1984; Vergnieux 1999; Van Dijk 2008:246–61; Hoffmeier 2015: 71ff). This relationship between Re-Horakhty and the Aten is made explicit in the well-known depiction on Berlin 2072 showing Akhenaten venerating the falcon-headed form of the Aten (Schäfer 1919). The possibility has been raised that Re-Horakhty at this stage was a manifestation of the deified king Amenhotep III (Johnson 1990:26–46). Therefore, it appears probable that the religious role of Re-Horakhty in the formulation of the Aten cult is a primary factor in Akhenaten’s adaptation of the zwt-Rc temple form. Despite their emergence from pre-Amarna

78

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

models, Sunshades in the Amarna Period took on a unique set of attributes. The zwtRc became a primary vehicle for commemorating royal women within the theological framework of the Aten cult. It is conceivable that the building form was adapted also for Akhenaten himself, though less likely for other male royalty.2 Many of the royal women possessed Sunshade chapels: at Tell el-Amarna itself (Fig. 35), as well as, likely, other centers of Aten worship. The fact that the city of Akhetaten included a plurality of royal buildings designated as zwt-Rc is stated in the short version of the Hymn to the Aten where the rising of the Aten is greeted with rejoicing: m wsxt nt jwt-bnbn zwt-Rc nb m Cxt-Itn, “in the broad-hall of the temple of the Benben, and every Sunshade in Akhet-Aten” (Pendlebury 1951: pl. 202).3 The textual and archaeological evidence for these buildings remains highly fragmentary and open to multiple lines of interpretation. Attested Sunshade chapels at Tell el-Amarna include buildings dedicated to Tiye,4 Nefertiti,5 Meritaten,6 Ankhesenpaaten,7 and possibly a Sunshade chapel of Nefernefruaten-tasherit.8 Hieratic dockets from Amarna indicate the existence of Sunshades that cannot be certainly linked with any specific individual. These sources include several referring to the Sunshade of (cnx-Rc), a royal epithet or name written in a cartouche but of unclear reference (Pendlebury 1951:201–2 and pl. 88, nos. 107–10). The Sunshade of (cnxRc) is in one case stated to belong to tC jmt nswt cnx.ti jr rsy, “the queen, may she live, in the south.”9 It appears probable that all of the royal women who reached sufficient maturity had Sunshade chapels erected in their name.10 Additionally, however, there is a likelihood of selective rededication of existing Sunshade chapels from one royal woman to another. Attested among the physical remains of the Amarna Sunshades is recarving of earlier chapels that had been dedicated to the minor queen Kiya.11 Consequently, the overall system of Sunshade chapels was responsive to changes in status (demotion, promotion, or death) of members of the royal family. E16230 may now be added to the corpus of evidence for zwt-Rc chapels during the reign of Akhenaten. Being the largest surviving architectural fragment of a Sunshade chapel belonging to a royal woman of the Amarna Period, the block illuminates the architectural form, decoration, and function of these buildings. A number of authors have examined the attributes of zwt-Rc chapels, addressing both the chronological evolution of this form of religious building and its particular significance during the reign of Akhenaten. Because the predominant association of the Sunshades is with royal women, one of the themes expressed in buildings of this type may be the female procreative role. Rainer Stadelmann has noted, in some respects Sunshades appear comparable to the mammisi, or “birth houses” of the Greco-Roman period (Stadelmann 1969:159–78). Jacquelyn Williamson has investigated the possible expression of female symbolism in her analysis of the architecture of the Kom el-Nana structure possibly attributed to Nefertiti (Williamson 2008a, 2008b). Regarding the Sunshades at Tell el-Amarna, Barry Kemp has proposed a correlation of individual Sunshade chapels with particular royal women that may have repli-

Fig. 35.  Map of Tell el-Amarna showing the locations of major royal buildings that housed Sunshades.

80

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

cated the pattern of royal mortuary temples at Thebes: each woman possessed a chapel in which veneration of the Aten cult was linked with her own postmortem offering cult (Kemp 1995:460–61). While it is likely that the offering cults maintained in Sunshades were intended for an open-ended time frame and may incorporate elements of a personal offering cult, it is clear that zwt-Rc chapels of individual women existed at multiple locations. There does not appear to have been a pattern of a single chapel per royal woman. Hence, the chapels’ role as royal mortuary temples appears to inadequately account for their variety and range of functions. Moreover, Sunshade chapels appear to occur primarily integrated within the architectural program of precincts that maintained a range of other functions. Consequently, this provided royal women with the potential for a multiplicity of Sunshade chapels. Sunshades do not appear to have been exclusively limited to the “garden” complexes exemplified archaeologically by the Maru-Aten and other outlying complexes in the Amarna bay discussed further below (see comments of Kemp 2012:119– 21). The evidence for the multiple Sunshades dedicated to Princess Meritaten may, therefore, not be an aberration but a reflection of the importance placed on these commemorative buildings within the wider framework of the Aten cult. A fundamental role of the royal Sunshades appears to be articulation of a direct association between the Aten and members of the royal family through the mechanism of a statue cult. As such, Sunshades appear at their core to have been multi-component entities comprised of architectural elements for display of royal imagery and maintenance of the associated offering rituals to the deity and the specific royal family member commemorated. During the reign of Akhenaten, it is clear the royal family itself was an object of direct veneration performed in both domestic and official contexts (Ikram 1989:89–101; Stevens 2006). Many of the well-known royal family stelae originate from shrines in private residences at Tell el-Amarna. Royal Sunshades represent an institutionalized form of the cult of the royal family. In the case of the Sunshades of the royal women, the status and role of the royal women is articulated through association with Akhenaten as royal intermediaries with the Aten, while the woman herself is venerated through her own offering cult appended secondarily to that of the Aten. Consequently, the functions of royal Sunshades of the Amarna Period extend beyond being purely mortuary offering cult structures. They were structures where cults of the royal family were established and maintained during the lifetime of the individual and ideally maintained in perpetuity. To a significant extent, embedding the royal cult within that of the god’s cult may have acted to legitimize cults of the royal family.12 Certainly, in addition to their religious functions there may have been important economic and institutional dimensions to the way the Sunshades operated vis-à-vis the primary cult of the Aten. The most significant piece of representational evidence for Sunshades at Tell el-Amarna is the well-known scene in the tomb chapel of Huya, discussed in the previous chapter. This scene shows Akhenaten introducing his mother, Queen Tiye, to her newly completed Sunshade. Akhenaten leads Tiye into an elaborate temple com-

the chapel of meritaten and the amarna period sunshades

plex which includes a sequence of pylons and a succession of statue courts (Fig. 36). In the inner end of this architectural complex, four royal figures appear, two male and two female, ascending a ramp to reach a free standing, single-chamber sanctuary with its own pylon and broken-lintel doorway (see Fig. 18 for a detail of the elevated sanctuary). Tiye’s Sunshade has never been identified archaeologically. As a result, considerable uncertainty has surrounded the interpretation of this scene and what it implies about the nature, scale, and location of Tiye’s zwt-Rc. A basic question that arises is whether the Sunshade of Tiye includes the totality of the architecture in the scene (an interpretation adopted recently by Gabolde and Vergnieux, forthcoming); evidently then, a temple complex of considerable scale that has never been identified on the Amarna landscape. Alternatively, is the Sunshade proper a constituent element housed within the larger temple complex shown, which may rather be a generic visualization of an Aten temple?13 Perhaps Tiye’s zwt-Rc is limited to the raised sanctuary, along with the immediately flanking courtyards, which the royal family enters at the culminating end of the scene? One of the aspects of the Tiye scene that may visually parallel the evidence for other Sunshades during the Amarna Period is an overwhelming pattern whereby zwt-Rc structures are not large-scale, independent solar complexes, but rather situated within other architectural complexes. This is a pattern that echoes evidence for Sunshades in other eras.14 The terminology preserved for the Amarna Period includes the following series of zwt-Rc structures contained within specific, named complexes: 1. tC zwt-Rc n sCt nswt Mrt-Itn m pC MCrw-n-pC-Itn m Cxt-Itn. “the Sunshade of the king’s daughter Meritaten in the Maru-Aten in Akhet-Aten.”15 2. tC zwt-Rc n sCt-nswt n ;t.f mrt.f Mryt-Itn m pr-jcy n pC Itn m pr-Itn m Cxt-Itn. “the Sunshade of the king’s daughter of his body, his beloved, Meritaten in the House-of-Rejoicing in the Aten, in the House-of-the-Aten in Akhet-Aten.” 3. tC zwt-Rc n sCt-nswt n ;t.f mrt.f cnx.s-n-pC-Itn m pr-jcy n pC Itn m pr-Itn m Cxt-Itn. “the Sunshade of the king’s daughter of his body, his beloved, Ankhesenpaaten in the House-of-Rejoicing in the Aten, in the House-of-the-Aten in Akhet-Aten.” 4. tC zwt-Rc m ûdw.f Cxt n Itn m Cxt-Itn. “the Sunshade in He-builds-the-Horizon-for-the-Aten in Akhet-Aten.” 5. tC zwt-Rc m rwd-cnxw-Itn m Cxt-Itn.

81

82

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

“the Sunshade in Enduring-is-the-Life-of-the-Aten in Akhet-Aten.” Indeed, apart from the generalized mention of the goal of constructing a Sunshade for Nefertiti in Akhenaten’s Year 5 foundation decree (where no actual building name occurs), all inscriptional evidence relating to the Sunshades of Amarna royal women show they were integrated as subentities within some larger complex. It is certainly no coincidence that this same pattern applies to the Meritaten Sunshade named on E16230:

the chapel of meritaten and the amarna period sunshades

83

Fig. 36.  Queen Tiye being led to her Sunshade on the east wall of the tomb chapel of Huya (after Davies, The Rock Tombs of el-Amarna II, 1905: pl. 8). The tapering effect to the right reflects the fact that the actual tomb chapel is not straight.

t™ zwt-rc n s™t-nswt n ;t.f mrt.f Mrt-Itn m pr Wc-n-Rc m ™xt-Itn. “the Sunshade of the king’s daughter of his body, Meritaten, in the House-of-Waenre in Akhet-Aten.” The fact that royal Sunshades were frequently embedded within larger cult complexes does not exclude the possibility that they may, in some instances, have been enlarged to constitute more expansive architectural entities, perhaps assuming the

84

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

full scale of an Aten temple dedicated to one specific royal family member. However, apart from the complexity of the Huya scene, this does not appear to be the predominant pattern. Many of these zwt-Rc structures should be envisioned as more modestly-scaled cult buildings whose significance lay in the nuanced mode in which they were integrated within specific, larger temple establishments. Returning to the depiction in the tomb of Huya, there appears to be a possibility that what is represented is not a royal Sunshade expanded to the scale of a fully-articulated Aten temple. Rather the queen’s Sunshade is visually defined within its broader architectural setting. This full rendering was significant to the tomb’s decorative program due to the emphasis placed on Huya’s official role in the ceremonial visit to view the structure (among other functions Huya was superintendent of the house or estate of Queen Tiye (imy-r pr n jmt-nswt wrt Tiy). At the inner end of the architectural sequence is an elevated chapel entered by four royal figures. Two males and two females, all unlabeled, are shown ascending the entrance ramp. The artistic device of showing the four figures ascending to the elevated chapel is significant and may be intended to mark either: (1) the elevated chapel as the actual zwt-rc of Tiye within a larger Aten cult precinct; or (2) to highlight the chapel as the main sanctuary or focal point of the broader architectural ensemble that comprised the zwt-rc of Tiye. In relation to E16230, the scene of Queen Tiye’s Sunshade is further intriguing because the two male figures wear the Khat headdress and Blue crown, just as occurs in the two main scenes (Scenes A and B) on the Meritaten Sunshade. The two female figures wear tall, plumed Hathor crowns of the type only worn by Queen Tiye and Nefertiti during the reign of Akhenaten (Arnold 1996). The fact that the female figures are wearing Hathor crowns may not be accidental in the context of the Sunshade chapel where there may be an emphasis on divine parallelism with Hathor. This group of four could include Akhenaten along with Tiye, Nefertiti, and a second king, perhaps Amenhotep III depicted in reality or symbolically. However, why are Akhenaten and Tiye shown entering the complex alone, but then four royal figures ascend to the innermost chapel? Alternatively, the figures depict not two separate kings, but rather dual images of Akhenaten accompanying Tiye in both instances wearing the Hathor crown. The royal figures in this case would not be a group of four, but Akhenaten wearing two different crowns in connection with distinct rituals performed within the elevated solar chapel. These could be rituals meant to express different aspects of Akhenaten’s divine associations. Or, there may be an evocation of temporally distinct rituals, such as rites of morning and evening (as suggested in Chapter 3 regarding Scenes A and B). The correlation of Khat and Blue crowns in the Tiye scene with the ritual scenes on E16230 suggests there may be a standardized set of iconography tied to the royal rituals and associated clothing and regalia in Amarna Period Sunshade chapels. In whatever fashion the Huya scene is interpreted, it is certainly no coincidence that the raised sanctuary of Queen Tiye is a two-dimensional image of the very type of solar chapel actually preserved in E16230. Moving now from the textual and

the chapel of meritaten and the amarna period sunshades

representational evidence, I examine what physical evidence survives for Sunshades at Amarna and other sites during Akhenaten’s reign.

Sunshades at Tell el-Amarna Archaeological evidence from Tell el-Amarna provides physical remains of two of the royal Sunshades and their location within larger Aten cult complexes. One of these is the Sunshade of Meritaten, reallocated to her from a queen, most likely Kiya, and housed within the precinct of the Maru-Aten at the extreme southern end of the Amarna bay. The second is the recently identified remains of a Sunshade likely attributed to Nefertiti in the heavily denuded Kom el-Nana site, also in the southern end of the Amarna bay. A discussion of these two sites follows before considering the wider body of evidence for Sunshades at Tell el-Amarna.

The Maru-Aten The Maru-Aten complex, excavated in 1921 (Peet and Woolley 1923:109–24 and pls. 30–35) and no longer preserved due to expansion of the modern town of el-Hawata, was an expansive multi-component complex consisting of two contiguous walled enclosures (Fig. 37). The northern enclosure contained a large, artificial lake surrounded by plantings and a flanked by series of separate buildings, designated M.I, M.II, M.III, and M.IV. Inscriptional fragments provided the excavators with the name of the complex: pC MCrw-n-pC-Itn m Cxt-Itn “the Viewing-Place-of-the-Aten in Akhet-Aten.” The M.II building group, in the north-east corner of the northern enclosure, included an ensemble of ornately decorated structures centered on an elevated sanctuary that stood atop an island-like platform. Two symmetrically placed kiosks also stood on this island platform flanking the axial approach to the main structure. To the immediate south of the island platform was a multi-chambered entrance building with a dais or altar oriented east-west. Beyond the island platform, on the north and extending to the main enclosure wall was an area designated as M.I by the excavators but evidently part of the overall M.II building group. Here were remains of garden plantings and a plastered courtyard containing a series of T-shaped basins framed by painted pavements depicting marsh plants. Fragments of a decorated screen wall (Ashmolean 1922.141) found in the area of the antiposed kiosks on the elevated island provided the identification zwt-Rc n sCt nswt Mrt-Itn m pC MCrw-n-pC-Itn m Cxt-Itn, “the Sunshade of the king’s daughter Meritaten in the Maru-Aten in Akhet-Aten” (Peet and Woolley 1923:121–22 and pl. 34:1–2). Significantly, evidence for recarving shows the Sunshade was originally dedicated to a queen, almost certainly the minor Queen Kiya, and secondarily altered with the name of Princess Meritaten. The M.II building group can be identified as a series of associated features together comprising the Sunshade, with the focal element being the elevated chapel on the island-platform. This feature,

85

86

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

the chapel of meritaten and the amarna period sunshades

87

Fig. 37.  The Maru-Aten (after Peet and Woolley, City of Akhenaten I, 1923: pl. 30).

88

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

although reconstructed by the excavators as a roofed building, was certainly an hypaethral chapel containing an altar for offerings, as several authors have observed (Spencer 1984:123–24; see also archaeological discussion of Kemp 1995).

Kom el-Nana Like the Maru-Aten, the more recently investigated Kom el-Nana site includes a bipartite complex composed of a northern and southern enclosure (Kemp 2012:117– 21). Inscriptional fragments from the Kom el-Nana provide the building name rwdcnxw-Itn m Cxt-Itn, a compound term that is difficult to render satisfactorily in translation but may be approximately translated as: “Enduring-is-the-life-of-the-Aten in Akhet-Aten.” While carved relief fragments naming the rwd-cnxw-Itn occur in both the northern and southern enclosures, the fragments naming a zwt-Rc, and more specifically the zwt-Rc m rwd-cnxw-Itn m Cxt-Itn, “the Sunshade in Enduring-is-the-lifeof-the-Aten in Akhet-Aten,” have been recovered only from the northern enclosure. This suggests the two enclosures together constitute the rwd-cnxw-Itn complex but that the Sunshade itself stood within the northern enclosure. Interestingly, unlike most scene labels which specify ownership of Sunshades, the Kom el-Nana Sunshade is anonymous, at least in the preserved fragments. Identification of the owner of the Sunshade in the rwd-cnxw-Itn depends on a relief fragment which shows the wig of a royal woman, presumably the Sunshade owner, immediately below the building designation and rays descending from the Aten. The wig has a single uraeus. Since Queen Tiye typically appears with a double uraeus, this suggests the building may have belonged to Nefertiti. The building, therefore, corresponds to the zwt-Rc mentioned in Akhenaten’s Year 5 Early Proclamation (Williamson 2008a:5–7, confirming Kemp’s earlier conclusion that Kom el-Nana was the location of the Nefertiti Sunshade: Kemp 1995:433–38, 452–61). Hundreds of architectural and relief fragments suggest a series of ornately decorated structures with the stone-built northshrine being the probable location of the Sunshade proper. The heavily denuded nature of the Kom el-Nana precludes a detailed architectural reconstruction of the Nefertiti Sunshade, but remains of garden plantings and elevated platforms suggest an organization broadly similar to that of the M.II group in the Maru-Aten.

Sunshades of Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten in the Per-Hay While the archaeological remains from the Maru-Aten and Kom el-Nana have provided physical remains and inscriptional evidence for Sunshades at Tell el-Amarna, the locations of the other textually attested Amarna Sunshades remains more problematic. Talatat blocks originating in Amarna but reused in the foundations of Ramesside construction in the Thoth temple at Ashmunein have furnished the other primary inscriptional and architectural evidence. Amarna blocks from Hermopolis record the

the chapel of meritaten and the amarna period sunshades

89

Fig. 38.  Granite statue base naming the Sunshade of Meritaten in the Per-Hay (British Museum 1000, after Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae in the British Museum VIII, 1939: pl. 24).

Sunshade of Princess Ankhesenpaaten located m pr-jcy n pC Itn m pr-Itn m Cxt-Itn, “in the House-of-Rejoicing in the Aten, in the House-of-the-Aten in Akhet-Aten.” Numerous blocks from the same context at Hermopolis commemorate Meritaten without specification of a Sunshade. However, a black granite statue base (BM 1000, see Edwards 1939:27–28 and pl. 24) of appropriate scale to support a life-sized statue names a zwt-Rc of Meritaten with the same terminology (m pr-jcy n pC Itn m pr-Itn m CxtItn), and must derive from her Sunshade associated with the Per-Hay (Fig. 38).16

Fig. 39.  The Great Palace at Tell el-Amarna. Top is the reconstruction of the entire complex. Bottom is a detail of the excavated areas of the main building including the courtyards that may have contained Sunshade chapels of Meritaten, Ankhesenpaaten, and possibly other royal women (after Pendlebury, City of Akhenaten III, 1951: pl. 13–14).

92

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

The location of these Sunshades of Ankhesenpaaten and Meritaten is explicitly within the establishment named the pr-jcy, “house of rejoicing.” While significant uncertainty exists regarding the meaning and identity of the pr-jcy (Kemp and Garfi 1993:77–79), the inscriptional evidence strongly suggests the large complex termed the Great Palace was identified as the pr-jcy, albeit perhaps encompassing other adjacent elements of Amarna’s Central City. Inscribed material from the ruins of the Great Palace consistently bears the label m pr-jcy n pC Itn m pr-Itn m Cxt-Itn. Moreover, a group of relief fragments excavated from the north-east sector of the Great Palace, employ the more specific designation wbn-Itn m pr-jcy n pC Itn m pr-Itn m Cxt-Itn—terminology that may signify a specific component within the larger building complex of the prjcy. The meaning of the term pr-jcy appears consistent with the primary religious and ceremonial functions of the Great Palace linked with the periodized rejuvenation and celebration of the divinity of kingship (Kemp 2012:137–46). It is in this context that several scholars have sought to situate the Sunshades of Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten, as well as the Sunshade of Queen Tiye, as depicted in the tomb of Huya. In his analysis of the architecture of the Great Palace, Eric Uphill discussed the complex of rooms in the south-east corner of the building centered on a raised platform housed within a peristyle court. He theorized the architectural remains in this area may accommodate the architecture of the Tiye Sunshade as depicted in the tomb of Huya (Uphill 1970:151–66). The suggestion that the Tiye Sunshade was housed within the Great Palace has been doubted by many who would prefer to see that building as an independent complex. Yet, the fact that Sunshades of both Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten should be located within the Great Palace suggests they may have comprised portions of this part of the building. Patricia Spencer has noted the symmetrical character of the inner end of the Great Palace (Spencer 1984:122–23) and suggested the Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten Sunshades (rather than that of Tiye) occupied these balanced courtyards that form focal points of the building (Fig. 39). A notable feature of the eastern peristyle courtyard in the Great Palace is the fact that in situ remains of decorated lintels from doorways leading from the main hypostyle hall into these flanking courtyards show Akhenaten in the form of a recumbent sphinx. This same motif occurs on the group of unprovenanced architectural fragments associated with yet another Amarna Sunshade already discussed: tC zwt-Rc m ûdw.f Cxt n Itn m Cxt-Itn, “the Sunshade in He-builds-the-Horizon-for-the-Aten in Akhet-Aten.” This anonymous Sunshade could indicate common use of the sphinx motif on broken-lintel doorways associated with these zwt-Rc structures. As discussed, the Meritaten Sunshade façade block E16230 bears indications of having had a sphinx panel on its now cut-away lintel. If the Sunshades of Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten were integrated into the Great Palace, then considerable prominence was placed on Sunshades of two of the royal daughters within one of the principal ceremonial buildings of the Central City of Amarna. In contrast to the idea that the Great Palace contained the Sunshades of these princesses, Kemp has argued that the Maru-Aten and pr-jcy Sunshade buildings of

the chapel of meritaten and the amarna period sunshades

Meritaten are actually one and the same structure. Seemingly motivated to circumvent the need to link the term pr-jcy with any specific building at Amarna, Kemp prefers a “picturesque” reading of the term (Kemp 1995:458; Kemp and Garfi 1993:76–79). Pr-jcy should in his view be read to denote the entire assemblage of temples and other cult buildings that stood within the Amarna bay. In this case, the pr-jcy would be a generalized term that encompassed the Maru-Aten (as well as, for that matter, every other temple that stood on the Amarna plain!). This particular suggestion appears highly doubtful for a number of reasons. Firstly, ritual labels on Amarna reliefs and statuary are invariably initiated with the name and epithets of the Aten and then proceed to identify the location of the god’s veneration within specific cult buildings. We see this pattern, for example, on the Maru-Aten screen wall already discussed (Ashmolean 1922.141). This same convention applies to the naming of the pr-jcy. Moreover, the notion that pr-jcy is a vague term encompassing a broad range of institutions and buildings denies the relevance of administrative records, such as hieratic wine dockets, in which the pr-jcy is marked as a specific institution.17 Further, Kemp’s suggestion does not account satisfactorily for the Hermopolis talatat blocks which indicate an ensemble of closely connected royal cult structures that appear to have been moved en masse presumably from a specific location at Amarna: evidently a building or building complex named pr-jcy. Although the zwt-Rc of Meritaten in the pr-jcy is not named in the talatat themselves (occurring only on a statue base BM1000), Meritaten is the most frequently named of the royal daughters in those inscriptions. Consequently, architectural elements of the actual pr-jcy Sunshade of Meritaten may belong to this same group. Meritaten certainly possessed two different Sunshades within the monumental landscape at Tell el-Amarna: one in the pr-jcy and a second rededicated to her from an earlier queen in the Maru-Aten. Did she, however, possess more Sunshades?

The North Palace One of the best preserved royal buildings at Tell el-Amarna is the North Palace, originally excavated by the Egypt Exploration Society in 1923–25 (Newton 1924:289– 98; Whittemore 1926:3–12; Frankfort 1929) with more recent selective investigation in 1998–99 (Spence 1999; Kemp 2012). The building, located in the north end of the Amarna bay and positioned on the east side of the north-south Royal Road, is an independent structure, although its proximity to the North Riverside Palace suggests it may be a satellite component of that larger palatial complex. The North Palace combines features of royal residential architecture with ceremonial and cultic components. Despite the overall preservation of the building’s footprint and complete excavation of its interior architecture, the ancient name of the building remains unknown. The North Palace displays common design elements with the Maru-Aten, including the presence of its sunken garden occupying the Central Court and features for maintenance of plants, animals, and birds. The North Palace appears to have been a more

93

94

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

formal and substantially constructed architectural complex than the Maru-Aten. The ceremonial and religious functions of the building are emphasized by a once ornately decorated pylon that may have included a Window of Appearance flanked by largescale royal statuary. Evidence on the configuration of the Central Court and pylon has come from the renewed Egypt Exploration Society work on the building (Spence 1999:14–16, 2009:165–87). The North Palace has not been included in prior discussion of Sunshades at Tell el-Amarna principally because there is no inscriptional evidence to indicate the presence of a Sunshade in this building.18 Moreover, the lack of an ancient name for the building introduces the problematic issue of its royal associations. However, the layout of the building suggests that one or more royal Sunshades could have stood in the North Palace. The primary royal association that can be established is based on a partially preserved, decorated doorjamb excavated in 1921 and now in the Penn Museum (E518). This jamb preserved the name of Princess Meritaten: /// s™t-nswt MrtItn cnx.ti, “…the king’s daughter Meritaten, may she live.” As occurs in the Maru-Aten complex, Meritaten’s name may have been recut over an earlier name which had been removed.19 This doorjamb comes from the entrance to one of a series of chambers that flank the west side of a large courtyard, the Altar Court, which forms the north-west corner of the building and is entered from the building’s Outer Court that fronts the decorated central pylon (Fig. 40). Whittemore mentioned the occurrence of the name of Meritaten “throughout the edifice” (Whittemore 1926:4). However, no fragments other than Penn Museum E518 have been published. The planned Egypt Exploration Society publication of the North Palace (in The City of Akhenaten IV) may provide further clarification of this issue. The Altar Court and findspot of Penn Museum E518 is of considerable interest to the present discussion. Entered through a formal stone gateway from the building’s Outer Court, the Altar Court contains the foundations of a symmetrically arranged building group composed of a central chapel or shrine, flanked on either side by two smaller raised platforms. On either side of the central structure are eight small rectangular platforms. The superstructures of the entire group are destroyed, only the gypsum foundations for the stone podia remained at the time of excavation (for recent aerial photographs of the Altar Court see Spence 1999:14, 16). Regarding the possible appearance of the group, Newton originally observed: “Every vestige of these buildings has now gone and nothing was found in the sand covering them to give any indication as to what they were, but their shape which is imprinted on the concrete suggests a small temple or kiosk in the center, with an altar on either side, each of them having a flight of steps leading up to a raised floor. It is possible that this was the private chapel of the palace for the worship of the Aten” (Newton 1924:295). In 1999, after the Egypt Exploration Society had reexposed the area, Kemp stated: “Although the smaller, flanking features do appear to have been solid ‘altar’ platforms, the foundations of the larger central structure show internal articulation which suggests that it was almost certainly an enclosed shrine” (Kemp 1999:17).

the chapel of meritaten and the amarna period sunshades

Fig. 40.  The North Palace at Amarna with tripartite chapel courtyard and the recarved doorjamb with the name of Princess Meritaten (Penn Museum E518).

While much ambiguity exists in the limited publications available for the North Palace’s Altar Court, this tripartite altar group at the North Palace is an example of an architectural arrangement encountered elsewhere at Amarna: notably the M.II group in the Maru-Aten and also the central building group of the Desert Altars site near the cliffs in the north end of the Amarna bay (Fig. 41). Whittemore originally noted the distinct similarity between the North Palace altar group and building group M.II in the Maru-Aten. Although the reconstruction of M.II has been debated, the recovery of the decorated parapet, Ashmolean 1922.141, which names that structure as tC zwtRc n sCt-nswt n ;t.f mrt.f Mrt-Itn m pC mCrw-n-pC-Itn m Cxt-Itn, leaves little doubt that M.II itself comprised a zwt-Rc associated with Meritaten within the Maru-Aten precinct. On the other hand, the architectural setting of M.II and the North Palace altar group differ. M.II stood on an island-like platform, whereas the North Palace structures form the focal point of a courtyard with flanking room blocks separated by a walkway and low wall. Nevertheless the essential footprint, as well as the scale of these structures, is closely comparable. On that basis, the altar group of the North

95

96

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 41.  Tripartite altar groups at Amarna including the North Palace, Maru-Aten Group M.II, and the Desert Altars.

Palace appears likely to represent an architectural ensemble of comparable function to the M.II group in the Maru-Aten. Particularly noteworthy in the North Palace’s Altar Court is the north-south orientation: paralleling the configuration in the Maru-Aten and Desert Altars. This orientation runs counter to the primary east-west orientation of the main Aten temples. Therefore, it appears less likely the structures represent a small version of an official Aten temple as Newton first hypothesized. Kemp has noted the similarity in northsouth orientation between the North Palace’s Altar Court and the M.II structures in the Maru-Aten and suggested the tripartite altar group may have supported statues of the royal family or a throne dais for the owner of the North Palace (Kemp 2012:148– 49 and figs. 4.24–4.25). This latter possibility seems unlikely in view of the presence of a throne room in the inner end of the North Palace. It appears more likely that the central podium would have once supported a solar chapel of the zwt-Rc type. Moreover, in light of the inscribed doorjamb E518 naming Meritaten, it appears possible that the shrine that once formed the center of the North Palace altar group may have been a zwt-Rc associated with Meritaten.20 If so, the structures in the Altar Court would comprise a third Sunshade dedicated to Meritaten at Tell el-Amarna. In addition to those associated with the Maru-Aten and the pr-jcy, there may have existed yet

the chapel of meritaten and the amarna period sunshades

another Sunshade for Meritaten housed in this palatial complex of still unidentified name. The North Palace figures further in considering the possible location of the building named pr Wc-n-Rc m ™xt-Itn that housed the Sunshade of Meritaten from which E16230 derives; an issue returned to in the next chapter.

The Anonymous Sunshade in He-Builds-the-Horizon-for-the-Aten Aside from the inscriptional and archaeological evidence for Sunshades of royal women at Amarna, there exists a substantial number of architectural fragments, including the sphinx-interrupted lintels examined in the previous chapter, recording a building named “the Sunshade in He-builds-the-Horizon-for-the-Aten in Akhet-Aten.” These blocks, of unknown provenance but probably originating in Tell el-Amarna, include Hannover 1964.3, Boston 64.1944 and a piece in the Koutoulakis collection (see the discussion in Chapter 6). These depict Akhenaten alone in sphinx form presenting offerings to the Aten. The identifying labels state: Itn cnx wr imy jb-sd, nb pt, nb t™ jry-ib t™ zwt-Rc m ûdw.f Cxt n Itn m Cxt-Itn “The living Aten, great one who is in jubilee, lord of heaven, lord of the earth, inside the Sunshade in He-builds-the-Horizon-of-the-Aten in Akhet-Aten.”21 On these blocks is the attestation of an Aten cult complex named He-builds-the Horizon-of-the-Aten. Within this structure stood a zwt-Rc from which these particular blocks derive. Boston 64.1944 and the Koutoulakis block specify the Sunshade to be a subentity within (m) the larger cult precinct. Hannover 1964.3 omits the preposition m but the wording of the scene label is otherwise identical. The text on these fragments displays a commonality with the elements recovered from the Kom el-Nana in that the identifying labels do not specify ownership of the Sunshade. Due to the fact that ownership of the Sunshade in He-builds-the Horizon-of-the-Aten is anonymous, but the texts are associated with recumbent sphinx images of Akhenaten, several authors, including Aldred, have speculated that this Sunshade may belong to Akhenaten himself (Aldred 1973:99 and Pasquali 2011:220, note 17). In addition to the architectural fragments displaying Akhenaten as a recumbent sphinx, there is a group of twenty-six limestone Amarna Period talatat blocks excavated at Abydos in the area of the Portal Temple of Ramesses II. At Abydos, these blocks had evidently been reused in foundations during the 19th Dynasty in a mode similar to the larger numbers of talatat beneath the Thoth temple at Ashmunein (Simpson 1995:76–77). Two of these fragments refer to the same complex as occurs on the sphinx blocks: ûdw.f Cxt n Itn m Cxt-Itn, although without mention of the zwt-Rc that occurs in the scene labels of the recumbent sphinx blocks (Fig. 42 left). David Silverman has proposed that these blocks might derive from a small Aten temple built

97

98

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

at Abydos during Akhenaten’s reign (Silverman 1985:271–77). However, he does not note the crucial fact that this very same building name occurs on the recumbent sphinx blocks (a lack of association repeated since by other scholars [e.g., Hoffmeier 2015:170]). It is essential to address the possible implications that this complex housed a zwt-Rc and also the use of the statement m Cxt-Itn. It appears probable that the ûdw.f Cxt n Itn m Cxt-Itn was not a small cult structure, but rather an Aten cult complex of considerable scale that housed, as one subcomponent, a zwt-Rc belonging to a member of the royal family. In all likelihood this was not located at Abydos. Rather it was a major precinct at Tell el-Amarna. In view of the anonymous nature of the scene labels, it is an attractive possibility that this may be a Sunshade related to Akhenaten himself. Unfortunately, the impetus for this association rests primarily on the occurrence of the labels on scenes depicting Akhenaten as a recumbent sphinx.22 Because this scene type is a generic one—typically used for broken-lintel doorways on Amarna religious buildings—the presence of Akhenaten does not necessitate his ownership of the zwt-Rc in question. Although zwt-Rc buildings are most frequently attested in connection with royal women, there appears no reason to exclude an adaptation of this form of ritual building in connection with the king. However, I would suggest ownership of the Sunshade housed within the ûdw.f Cxt n Itn m Cxt-Itn is not clarified by the occurrence of the text alongside sphinx images of Akhenaten. The location of the building named He-buildsthe-Horizon-of-the-Aten remains archaeologically unknown. Based on the meaning of the name, it would appear likely to have been located at Tell el-Amarna, perhaps a building visually or symbolically linked to the royal wadi and the solar Cxt. If not a Sunshade dedicated to Akhenaten himself, one alternative to be considered is that the Sunshade in the ûdw.f Cxt n Itn m Cxt-Itn might, in fact, be the Sunshade of Queen Tiye that is depicted in the tomb of Huya but without specification of its name or context within any larger precinct. Interestingly, among the Amarna blocks from Abydos, is one fragment (NK 44) showing a pillared statue court with standing statues of Akhenaten and a woman wearing the Hathor headdress as is worn by both Tiye and Nefertiti (Fig. 42, right). Although Simpson states this to represent merely a generic “Aten temple,” he also cites the scene from the tomb of Huya depicting the zwt-Rc of Queen Tiye as the closest parallel. It appears likely that the architectural depiction on this talatat block was meant to represent the building named in the scene labels, the ûdw.f Cxt n Itn m Cxt-Itn, and the actual cult complex from which the block derives. Conceivably this anonymous zwt-Rc is that of Tiye, which, like other royal Sunshades, was integrated within a larger cult precinct, in this case named ûdw.f Cxt n Itn m Cxt-Itn. Never identified archaeologically, that complex was evidently destroyed and its masonry elements dispersed beyond Amarna. Locations of destroyed and little-investigated complexes on the Amarna landscape include the El-Mangara site in the desert south-east of Kom el-Nana, as well as the Lepsius Building and the River Temple both close to the Nile in the south end of the bay (Kemp 1995:411–62). Conceivably any of these sites could be possible locations for the enigmatic ûdw.f Cxt n

the chapel of meritaten and the amarna period sunshades

Fig. 42.  Amarna blocks from Abydos. Left: naming the cult precinct called ûdw.f Cxt n Itn m Cxt-Itn. Right: depicting a statue court with figures of Akhenaten and a royal woman with Hathor headdress (after W.K. Simpson, Inscribed Material from the Pennsylvania-Yale Excavations at Abydos 1995: NK 42 and NK 44).

Itn m Cxt-Itn, although the Lepsius Building and River Temple are particularly viable options due to those sites’ proximity to the Nile and evidence for the wide-ranging dispersion of the masonry deriving from the ûdw.f Cxt n Itn m Cxt-Itn.

Royal Sunshades in Northern Cult Centers While the archaeology and texts associated with Tell el-Amarna furnish the primary set of evidence on Sunshade chapels during the reign of Akhenaten, additional sources indicate that the construction of zwt-Rc chapels was occurring contemporaneously in other parts of Egypt. A significant statement regarding the emphasis on these buildings occurs in inscriptions dating to the early years of Akhenaten’s reign when the king initiated a comprehensive revision of the existing economic structure to support new temple construction focused on the Aten cult. Among the talatat blocks from Karnak dating to this era, is one with reference to reallocation of wealth to support the establishment and maintenance of Sunshades in the Delta (Traunecker 2005:145–82; and Williamson 2013:151–52). Evidently zwt-Rc buildings were part of a broader program to replace existing cults with reorganized Aten cult establishments. Embedded within this monumental program were Sunshade chapels that served as ritual structures articulating the role of the royal family within the theology of the Aten. Physical evidence for Sunshade chapels beyond Amarna is meager; however, fragmentary remains do hint at the existence of a multiplicity of Sunshades that must have been strategically located in certain prominent religious centers. Two major northern sites which provide indications of cults associated with the Amarna royal family are Memphis and Heliopolis. Both sites included extensive construction aimed at replacing the existing religious framework with Aten cult facilities. Memphis is likely to have housed multiple Sunshade chapels dedicated to the royal women within an extensively reorganized temple precinct. Several decorated blocks and statue fragments suggest the existence of royal Sunshades at Memphis. Two inscribed fragments which Stephan Pasquali has discussed recently may derive from a Sunshade of Princess Ankhesenpaaten, third daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti

99

100

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

(Pasquali 2011:216–22). One of these blocks, Brussels MRAH 4491, is part of a decorated balustrade of the type associated with elevated chapels as depicted in the tomb of Huya. The specific mention of a zwt-Rc occurs on another block, a talatat from Memphis. These remains from Memphis itself may relate to the mention of a solar cult building, possibly a zwt-Rc, on an offering list recovered from the reused Amarna blocks in the Ninth Pylon at Karnak. This block, part of a group relating to the reallocation of temple offerings, addresses provisioning of solar sanctuaries in northern Egypt (Saad and Manniche 1971:72, note 1; Helck 1973:97–98). The text specifies the region extending from Memphis to the 17th nome of the Delta and may mention (column 13), daily offerings in a Sunshade chapel or chapels (Fig. 43).23 The Amarna Period remains from Memphis also include one of the most significant remnants of a composite royal statue of the reign of Akhenaten: a half life-size quartzite head excavated in 1915 by Clarence Fisher of the University of Pennsylvania (Fig. 44). The head (Cairo JE45547) has usually been identified as Nefertiti and is comparable to some of the other composite statuary of the reign of Akhenaten including examples from the house of the sculptor Thutmose at Tell el-Amarna (Arnold 1996:41–46 and fig. 31). While the Memphite head was excavated in a disturbed context (Fisher 1917:228, fig. 88), in all likelihood it is a piece of statuary originally associated with an Amarna Period royal cult installation at Memphis. Such composite statuary may have decorated any of a number of building types, but the half life-sized figure would be particular suited to form a cult image associated with a royal cult structure dedicated to one of the royal women. There is a significant possibility the statue may have belonged within a royal Sunshade chapel at Memphis. The likelihood that Sunshades included a central offering sanctuary flanked by courtyards including

Fig. 43.  Offering list of Akhenaten from Karnak addressing provisioning of solar sanctuaries in northern Egypt (after Saad and Manniche 1971: pl. 21).

the chapel of meritaten and the amarna period sunshades

Fig. 44.  Composite statue head (Cairo JE45447) of an Amarna Period royal woman excavated in 1915 in the area of the palace of Merenptah at Memphis. Height: 18 cm. (Image courtesy of the Penn Museum, image no. 38325)

statuary is indicated in the scene of the Tiye Sunshade in the tomb of Huya and the physical remains of the M.II complex at the Maru-Aten include architectural settings where three-dimensional images of the owner of the Sunshade may have stood. Extensive but highly fragmented remains show that Heliopolis—like Memphis— was the location of a major Aten cult complex. Apart from the evidence provided by E16230, there are no textual sources mentioning the existence of Sunshades at Heliopolis. Nevertheless, the remnants of Akhenaten’s building program at Heliopolis prominently incorporate the royal women within the context of a newly developed Aten cult precinct. Given the fact that Sunshade temples were a primary vehicle for institutional commemoration of the royal family, it appears virtually certain that Sunshades composed part of the monumental redevelopment that Akhenaten undertook at Heliopolis. Princess Meketaten, second daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, appears on the best known Amarna Period block from Heliopolis, Cairo 34175, deriving from the cult building named wos-Rc m Iwnw-n-Rc, “That-which-lifts-up-Re in Heliopolis” (for further discussion see Chapter 9 and Fig. 48). While Habachi attempted to associate Meketaten’s appearance on the wos-Rc monument with her illness and early death as documented in the Royal Tomb at Amarna, it seems probable that other princesses would have similarly appeared in scenes on this same structure. Meketaten’s seemingly sole appearance is likely to be a matter of the accidental preservation of this one particular block from a large and complex cult structure. Indeed, Akhenaten’s eldest

101

102

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

daughter, Princess Meritaten was recorded on blocks observed at Heliopolis in 1881 by Charles Edwin Wilbour and published in part by Gaston Maspero. These blocks again mention the wos-Rc temple. Habachi has discussed these blocks in relation to another Heliopolitan fragment, Smithsonian 1421, which also preserves a writing of wos-Rc. This fragment appears to have been reused in the city walls of Cairo and is not the same as the blocks recorded on site by Wilbour and Maspero (Habachi 1971:35– 45). Taken together, however, these fragments corroborate the commemoration of both Meritaten and Meketaten in the context of the building complex named wos-Rc. Recent excavations at Heliopolis have exposed fragmentary royal statuary and other depictions of the Amarna royal family suggesting an ensemble of Aten cult buildings; the wos-Rc m Iwnw-n-Rc may have formed one component within a larger Aten cult precinct, the pr-Itn m Iwnw, which is referred to in personal titles and inscriptional sources (Löhr 1974:33–38; Raue 1999:118–19). Given the evident scope of Akhenaten’s monumental program at Heliopolis, paired with evidence for commemoration of royal women including the royal daughters within this program, it appears that Sunshades would have been as integral at Heliopolis as they were at Tell el-Amarna. Is E16230 the sole remaining architectural fragment from a Sunshade of Meritaten at Heliopolis? The following chapter will explore this question.

The Sunshades of Princess Meritaten In view of this survey of the inscriptional and archaeological evidence for Sunshades during the reign of Akhenaten, E16230 may be appreciated as the largest surviving architectural fragment of any zwt-Rc chapel or Sunshade of the Amarna royal women. The fragmentary nature of the evidence leaves many questions open regarding these prominent buildings. However, E16230 helps to illuminate some key aspects of the comparative corpus of Amarna Sunshades. Notable is the common mode of incorporation of royal Sunshades within larger precincts. This is attested archaeologically at Tell el-Amarna in the examples of the Sunshades housed within the Maru-Aten, the Kom el-Nana complex, and possibly also the Great Palace and North Palace. Inscriptions corroborate this physical evidence, typically embedding royal Sunshades within royal precincts with which they must have been thematically linked. E16230 follows this pattern with its inscriptions stating it to be a component within a larger institution named the pr Wc-n-Rc m ™xt-Itn, the “House-of-Waenre in Akhet-Aten.” The lavish polychrome inlay that once encrusted E16230 appears to represent a mode of ornamentation that may have characterized other Sunshades and, perhaps, this class of cult building as a whole. The best parallels to the use of architectural inlay on E16230 occur in the M.II structures associated with the Sunshade of Meritaten in the Maru-Aten. As presented in previous chapters, this emphasis on architectural inlay may have articulated with the particular solar themes developed in royal Sunshades. Enhancing the color, reflectivity, and overall interplay of light and shadow over the course of the day may have been a common approach of these buildings. In general,

the chapel of meritaten and the amarna period sunshades

the Sunshades appear to have been relatively modestly scaled cult structures where concomitant attention was devoted to manipulation of materials, color, and decoration. Such ornate decor may have extended to the portable fittings of these cult buildings and it appears that many examples of the inlaid royal statuary during the Amarna Period may have been specifically intended for use in zwt-Rc chapels. Among the corpus of evidence for Sunshades during the reign of Akhenaten, it is the depiction of the Sunshade of Queen Tiye in the tomb of Huya that offers the most significant comparative evidence relevant to E16230. The focal point of that scene is the image of four royal figures ascending to the pylon-fronted chapel set atop a raised platform. With its use of pylon, broken-lintel doorway, and single-room offering chamber, the sanctuary building of Tiye’s Sunshade appears to represent precisely the type of building from which E16230 derives. Consequently, the Sunshade chapel of Meritaten housed in the Per Waenre appears to have closely resembled the elevated cult building dedicated to her grandmother. More specifically, it is intriguing that the two male figures shown ascending to Tiye’s chapel pylon wear the Khat-crown and the Blue-crown, just as in the two main scenes (Scenes A and B) on the façade of the Meritaten Sunshade chapel, and suggesting a correlation between the iconography on E16230 and that used to depict Tiye’s Sunshade. Fundamentally, the chapel façade preserved in E16230 offers an unparalleled glimpse into the intensely decorated chapel architecture that characterized the zwt-Rc chapels of the Amarna royal women and should be appreciated as the only actual physical remnant of a solar chapel like that of Queen Tiye shown in the tomb of Huya. With its inscriptions properly read, E16230 now provides the name of a third documented zwt-Rc of Meritaten. Like the two already known from Amarna, in the Maru-Aten and pr-jcy, this Sunshade was housed within a larger building called the pr Wc-n-Rc m Cxt-Itn. Where was this solar chapel located? Was it yet another Sunshade of Meritaten at Tell el-Amarna? Or, as the block’s later reuse by Merenptah in Heliopolis might imply, is it the remnant of an Amarna Period Sunshade that once stood at ancient Iwnw? The nature and location of the institution named pr Wc-n-Rc that housed the Meritaten Sunshade is key to examining this question.

notes 7.1.  Jacquelyn Williamson has proposed use of the translation “Sunshade of Re” which emphasizes the inclusion of the Re element (Williamson 2013:143–52). Here, as noted in the Introduction, I use the single word “Sunshade.” 7.2.  There is no certain attribution of a Sunshade chapel to Akhenaten. As already discussed, based on the occurrence of images of Akhenaten alone on the series of decorated lintels naming the zwt-Rc m ûdw.f Cxt n Itn m Cxt-Itn, “the Sunshade in He-builds-the-Horizon-for-the-Aten in Akhet-Aten,” it is possible he was the sole owner of this particular Sunshade. It has been proposed that prince Tutankhaten possessed a Sunshade (Grimm and Schlögl 2005:37 and pl. 48). However, the block bearing the name of this structure may be a forgery (Pasquali 2011:220).

103

104

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

7.3.  The text is worded as such in the tomb of Meryre; in tombs of Api and Tutu there is textual variation with use of the generic term jwt-nor, “temple,” instead of zwt-Rc. 7.4.  This structure is depicted in the scene in the tomb of Huya at Amarna, but has never been identified archaeologically. The Tiye Sunshade has been argued to have been part of the Great Palace (Uphill 1970:156–59) or to form one of the outlying cult precincts of the Amarna bay, perhaps the ‘Lepsius Building’ or River Temple (Kemp 1995:411–62). 7.5.  The plan to dedicate a zwt-Rc to Nefertiti is referred to in Akhenaten’s boundary stelae and the structure named has recently been associated with a complex at Kom el-Nana (Williamson 2008a:5–7, 2008b). While the identification of a Sunshade for Nefertiti at the Kom el-Nana appears convincing, it would also appear probable that Nefertiti (like Meritaten) could have possessed multiple Sunshades at Tell el-Amarna and elsewhere. 7.6.  Meritaten possessed two textually documented Sunshade chapels at Amarna: in the Maru-Aten and another probably in the Central City (see discussion and references below). Archaeological evidence from the North Palace Altar Court may imply the existence of at least a third zwt-Rc for Meritaten. 7.7.  The Ankhesenpaaten Sunshade is recorded on blocks from Hermopolis (Spencer 1984:123–24). The blocks are 207-VIIIA, 338-VIA, and 450-VIIA. 7.8.  The name of this princess occurs on a parapet block now in Cairo (Gabolde 1998:285–86, note 2028). 7.9.  Fairman suggested this Sunshade might be that known archaeologically in the Maru-Aten precinct in Amarna’s south bay (Pendlebury 1951:201), but the name shows no similarity with the inscriptions recovered from that complex. This should indicate some other Sunshade. 7.10.  Meketaten, second daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, is curiously absent from the evidence for zwt-Rc chapels at Tell el-Amarna, although her death post-Year 12 (as depicted in room “gamma” in the Royal Tomb at Amarna) would suggest a substantial time frame during which Sunshade chapels associated with her might have been erected. 7.11.  Alteration of monuments originally bearing Kiya’s name has been argued for three main structures: (1) the Maru-Aten, (2) talatat blocks relating to the pr jcy in Hermopolis, and (3) the North Palace (Harris 1974a:25–30; Hanke 1975:79–93, 1978; Thomas 1983:5–13). In particular, Hanke argues for an original Sunshade of Kiya in the pr jcy evidenced in the Hermopolis blocks paralleling erasure and replacement of her name with that of Meritaten in the Maru-Aten (see critique of Spencer 1984:123–24). It is possible that a similar process of erasure of Kiya’s name occurred at the North Palace (Reeves 1988:91–101). 7.12.  This aspect of the linked veneration of royalty and deity echoes the way in which royal offering cults in the New Kingdom were embedded within direct veneration of Amun-Re; illustrated best in the royal mortuary temples, the Mansions-of-Millions-of Years, on the Theban west bank. However, this similarity does not necessitate an exclusively mortuary role for the Amarna Period zwt-Rc temples. 7.13.  In the case of the Tiye Sunshade scene, the expansive architecture of the surrounding courtyards would presumably have made use of the voluminous talatat construction of the Amarna Period. The talatat blocks reused at Hermopolis including inscriptions and scenes relating to Sunshade of Princess Ankhesenpaaten probably derive from the type of large-scale colonnaded architectural spaces represented in the Huya scene and could be taken as independent indication that the scene as a whole constitutes the wider zwt-Rc of Tiye.

the chapel of meritaten and the amarna period sunshades

7.14.  During the Ramesside Period (reign of Ramesses V) Papyrus Wilbour I includes mention of several Sunshade structures as part of a land survey in Middle Egypt. The chapels were maintained by specific endowments and land holdings. In most cases, the Sunshades are cult establishments contained within larger religious precincts (Gardiner 1941). 7.15.  The longer Egyptian name pC MCrw-n-pC-Itn (the “viewing place of the Aten”) is normally abbreviated in the literature to “Maru-Aten.” 7.16.  The Meritaten statue base measures 30 cm in height, 55 cm wide, and 90 cm in length. It was discovered in a private garden in Cairo and acquired in 1875 from Selima Harris (Porter and Moss 1968:70; Parkinson 1999:141 and fig. 54). 7.17. The pr-jcy as an institutional designation occurs among wine dockets naming a variety of Amarna estates and cult buildings. Such an administrative usage on hieratic dockets would be unlikely unless pr-jcy represents a specific administrative entity (Pendlebury 1951:164–65 and pl. 88). 7.18.  For instance, Kemp’s (1995) important survey of the outlying buildings at Tell el-Amarna that include royal Sunshades makes no mention of the North Palace. 7.19.  Due to a clear concavity to the area occupied by Meritaten’s name on this block it seems probable her name has been carved over an earlier, erased name. Unfortunately, the recarving was complete and there are no vestiges of the original name on E518. This may represent another instance of reattribution to Meritaten of a building originally dedicated to Queen Kiya. However, it is conceivable the recarving could result merely from a correction to the inscription or revision to the orthography of the princess’s name at the bottom of the text column. 7.20.  One caveat here is, as noted above, the Meritaten doorjamb block (Philadelphia E518) from the North Palace Altar Court may include a palimpsest inscription implying earlier dedication of this part of the palace to some other individual (Silverman, Wegner, and Houser-Wegner 2006: figs. 68 (plan) and 74 (photo). Other palimpsest inscriptions from the North Palace suggest original ownership of Kiya (Reeves 1988:91–101). A chapel erected on the central podium in the North Palace’s Altar Court, in theory, might have had the same pattern of alteration of the royal name, presumably from Kiya to Meritaten. E16230 has alteration applied to the Aten cartouches but not the royal names. 7.21.  Fully preserved on Kestner Museum, Hannover (1964.3), and Boston Museum of Fine Arts (64.1944), see Freed (2000: cat. 89 and 90, p. 231). Note the translation “within the Sunshade of the Fashioner of the Horizon of the Aten” in Freed (2000) must be corrected to account for alternate use of a sum.f construction (ûdw.f) as occurs on Boston 64.1944 and Hannover 1964.3. Only the Koutoulakis piece is lacking the f suffix after ûdw.f which could then be read as a participle suggested first by as Aldred (1973:99). 7.22.  Independent of the sphinx motif, a male association and connection with Akhenaten specifically could be indicated by the name of this temple complex: “He-builds-the-Horizon-for-the-Aten in Akhet-Aten.” The reference here appears to be to the king’s building activities in honor of the Aten. 7.23.  The text in columns 12–13 reads: the divine offerings instituted by his majesty to his father Rehorakhty-who-rejoices-on-the-horizon-in-his-name-of-light, who is in the sun’s disk, as daily offerings in the ///. The next word has a fragmentary hieroglyph which resembles the fan sign employed in writings of zwt-Rc.

105

This page intentionally left blank

8 The House-of-Waenre

O

ne of the crucial pieces of information provided in the scene labels on E16230 is the statement that Meritaten’s zwt-Rc chapel stood within a larger establishment, the pr Wc-n-Rc m Cxt-Itn. This name is preserved in the label of Scene A (Fig. 45). The same statement would have occurred in all the scene labels and denotes the architectural setting of the rituals, as well as the physical location of the Meritaten chapel proper. Pr Wc-n-Rc, , the “House-of-Waenre,” is an institution explicitly linked with pharaoh Akhenaten. The name is formed by the use of the second part of Akhenaten’s prenomen: (Nfr-xprw-Rc Wc-n-Rc), “(Beautiful-are-the-manifestations-of-Re, Unique-one-belonging-to-Re).” The generic term pr, “house,” occurs frequently in Egyptian institutional names to designate both royal and divine “houses.” It is a standard component in the nomenclature of temple and palace names (Spencer 1984:14–21). Depending on context of usage, pr can indicate the economic and administrative elements of royal power (Lehner 2000) and can have the connotation of “estate” or “domain.” In this case, bound to the prenomen of Akhen-

Fig. 45.  The identification of the pr Wc-n-Rc on the Meritaten Sunshade block.

108

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

aten, the term implies a palace, palace complex, or palace institution, symbolically linking the king and the sun-god Re. Significantly, this pr Wc-n-Rc “House-of-Waenre,” is stated on E16230 to be located within a larger entity: Cxt-Itn, the “Horizon-of-the-Aten.” This information provides a key issue of analysis. Is the Cxt-Itn named here the royal capital city, Tell el-Amarna, designated with that same term? Did Meritaten’s solar chapel, therefore, stand within a royal palace complex, the pr Wc-n-Rc, that once formed part of Akhenaten’s capital at Tell el-Amarna? Or, was the pr Wc-n-Rc located elsewhere? E16230 is not the only monument to record a palace of Akhenaten in his guise as Wc-n-Rc. The tomb chapel of a high-ranking official named May (Tomb 14 in the southern group of rock-tombs at Tell el-Amarna) documents the existence of a similarly named pr (n) Wc-n-Rc, “house of the Unique-one-of-Re,” in this case located not at Amarna but rather at Heliopolis (Davies 1908:1–5 and pl. 4). Among May’s titles (Fig. 46) are two denoting him as a steward (imy-r pr) of two different institutions, one named pr n Sjtp-Itn, “house of the one-who-satisfies-the-Aten,” and the second named pr (n) Wc-n-Rc m Iwnw, “house-of-Waenre in Heliopolis.” One distinction to be noted is that May’s titles names the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc m Iwnw twice. In one instance the name is written with a direct genitive (pr Wc-n-Rc: Fig. 46 right) and in the second instance using an indirect genitive (pr n Wc-n-Rc: Fig. 46 left). E16230 uses only the direct genitive (pr Wc-n-Rc).1 Due to this distinction, I shall refer to the institution as named in May’s titles as pr (n) Wc-n-Rc. Immediately following the reference to his role in the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc, May lists an additional Heliopolitan title: imy-r ijw n pr Rc m Iwnw, “overseer of cattle of the Per-Re in Heliopolis.” The pr Rc was the primary temple precinct at Heliopolis which, as considered further below, continued to function through the Amarna Period, albeit as part of a restructured Heliopolitan cult area augmented by new additions

Fig. 46.  The pr (n) Wc-n-Rc m Iwnw occurring in the titles of May (Amarna tomb 14).

the house-of-waenre

commissioned by Akhenaten. This Heliopolitan context for the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc in May’s titles is particularly intriguing in view of the documented post-Amara reuse of E16230 at Heliopolis. Before addressing whether the pr Wc-n-Rc of E16230 and the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc of May represent the same or different institutions, consider briefly the possible connotations of this designation. The generic term pr, “house,” or “estate,” is one that occurs in connection with a wide range of buildings including temples, palaces, and other structures. The meaning of the term in compound names is governed by the succeeding specifier, be it a god’s name, king’s name, or some other element. In the case of the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc, the institution is characterized by use of Wc-n-Rc, “Unique-oneof-Re,” the second component of Akhenaten’s bipartite prenomen. Selection of this element of the prenomen explicitly highlights the king’s association with the principal Heliopolitan solar deity. Implied here is a building—and its associated economic domain—connected physically and at a symbolic level with the king in his role as intermediary with the solar deity. While one might posit a Heliopolitan temple focused on Akhenaten, the term appears most likely to be a specific variant of the concept of the pr-nswt, “house-of-the king” (i.e., palace or royal domain). The nswt in question is Akhenaten in his guise as Wc-n-Rc. It is pertinent here that May held the identical role of steward in another royal establishment, pr n Sjtp-Itn, “the house of the one-who-satisfies-the-Aten.” This institution is not specified as being in Heliopolis and, therefore, may be the same as the pr Sjtp-Itn attested frequently in the hieratic records at Tell el-Amarna.2 Fairman proposed the pr Sjtp-Itn to be a palace of Akhenaten at Amarna on the basis of the extensive corpus of inscribed material (hieratic dockets, ostraca, and jar stoppers) excavated at Tell el-Amarna that name this institution.3 Insofar as May held the identical title in both the pr n Sjtp-Itn and pr (n) Wc-n-Rc, the two institutions may be broadly similar. In view of the nature of the name it appears highly probable that pr (n) Wc-n-Rc represented in May’s titles is a palace complex of Akhenaten at Heliopolis.4 It is debatable whether Akhenaten himself visited Heliopolis after the foundation of Tell el-Amarna since, in his Year 5 foundation decree, he declares his intention never to leave the boundary of the city (Aldred 1988:44–52; Murnane and van Siclen 1993). Presumably, however, a palace there may have been initiated early in his reign with construction spanning the period of the change of name and foundation of Amarna. Given the centrality of Akhenaten to the Aten cult, any group of solar cult structures, such as are known to have existed at Heliopolis, should logically have included a palace wherein Akhenaten and the royal family were present symbolically, when not actually in attendance. I would tend to think the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc would be classified primarily as a “ceremonial palace” rather than a functional, living residence. However, provisions for royal residency may have been equally integral to such a building. This may have been a complex, hybrid building combining royal residential architecture with elements tied to the Heliopolitan aspects of the Aten cult.

109

110

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Whatever form and scale the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc may have assumed, the physicality of the designation (i.e., as an actual building name and not simply a general term for the royal estate) is emphasized by May’s administrative role. Turning to the case of E16230, the name pr Wc-n-Rc is clearly being employed as an actual building name. The Sunshade chapel of Meritaten is housed inside the larger entity of the pr Wc-n-Rc. Implied in this case is a complex building that aside from its primary association with the king, contained subsidiary cult structures connected with other members of the royal family. Again, it appears highly probable that the type of building represented in the term pr Wc-n-Rc is a composite, multi-functional royal residential and religious building. In all likelihood, the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc in Heliopolis was a palace complex that was linked to the main temple precinct of that site. However, here there is an intriguing conundrum. On E16230 (pr Wc-n-Rc) and in the tomb of May (pr (n) Wc-n-Rc ) at Amarna there is a similarly named institution. In the case of May’s titles, this building or precinct is explicitly stated to be m Iwnw, “in Heliopolis.” In the case of E16230, however, the pr Wc-n-Rc is stated instead to be m Cxt-Itn; a statement made all the more confounding since the block was reused in monumental construction at Heliopolis during the Ramesside Period. Are these two similarly named but different building complexes, one at Heliopolis, and the other at Tell el-Amarna? Or, was there a single pr (n) Wc-n-Rc at Heliopolis despite the use of the specification m Cxt-Itn on E16230? The remainder of this chapter builds upon the earlier discussion of royal buildings at Tell el-Amarna and considers the possibility that the Meritaten Sunshade comes from a palace named Per Waenre located at Amarna. The next chapter investigates the Heliopolitan option.

Was There a Pr Wc-n-Rc at Tell El-Amarna? There are two good points of evidence for placing E16230’s origins at Heliopolis. First, the fact that the block was definitely reused in Heliopolis under Merenptah. Second, is the confirmation in May’s titles of the existence of a building of similar name at Heliopolis. Are these together enough to offset the lack of specification of m Iwnw on the Amarna Period inscriptions of E16230? Regarding the issue of the block’s reuse at Heliopolis, this does not itself form an insurmountable barrier to the possibility of the block’s earlier monumental setting at Tell el-Amarna. Certainly significant investment would be involved in the transport of such a substantial piece of masonry (weighing ca. 1100 kg in its reused form, but cut down from an originally larger and heavier block). Nevertheless, the majority of the once massive stonework of Amarna was stripped and transported elsewhere for reuse. Some of this material was not transported far, as occurs in the well-documented case of the reused Amarna talatat blocks in the foundations of the Horemheb pylon of the Thoth temple at Hermopolis (Spencer 1983:23–24, 64–65; Roeder 1969). As shown in the last chapter, it appears talatat from Amarna may have been taken much further to sites such as Abydos. Unlike the small and architecturally less useful talatat, E16230

the house-of-waenre

represents a high quality piece of quartzite that could have been taken far afield to a site such as Heliopolis. Where did large masonry elements culled from Tell el-Amarna go if not into the substantial Ramesside building activities at major sites like Memphis and Heliopolis? Of course, these are sites that themselves were extensively denuded of their New Kingdom architecture during the post-pharaonic periods tending to further erase evidence for reused architecture from the Amarna Period. Furthermore, the existence of a building named pr (n) Wc-n-Rc at Heliopolis does not a priori necessitate that this must be the same building recorded on E16230. The replication of nomenclature for royal and religious institutions is a pronounced aspect of the reign of Akhenaten. I have already commented on the use of the term pr-Itn in reference to Aten cult precincts at Thebes, Amarna, Memphis, and Heliopolis. As discussed in detail in this volume, there is also the possibility that the broader designation Cxt-Itn may have applied to Aten cult zones in multiple different locations. Specific designations for cult structures also clearly were replicated in a variety of sites. For instance, the triplicate use of the term Gm (pC) Itn for buildings at Karnak, Tell el-Amarna proper, as well as at Kawa in Nubia (Breasted 1902:106–13; Blackman 1937:145; Hoffmeier 2015:97–107, 142–43). The term pr Wc-n-Rc is in essence a relatively straightforward statement: a “House-of-Waenre” with pr and the second part of the king’s prenomen in juxtaposition or separated by a genitive n, as occurs in May’s titles: pr (n) Wc-n-Rc. The identity of the king as Wc-n-Rc, “unique one of Re,” is certainly apropos in the context of Heliopolis. Logically, however, this designation could equally well have applied to more than one of the palaces of Akhenaten. In this case, May could have served as steward of the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc m Iwnw, while E16230 originated, as the texts suggest, from an entirely different building, the pr Wc-n-Rc m Cxt-Itn. To accept the possibility that the Meritaten Sunshade of E16230 might once have stood at Amarna, what options are there for the location of the pr Wc-n-Rc within which it was housed? Tell el-Amarna was the location of a extensive array of temples, palaces, and other structures expressing the relationship of Akhenaten and the royal family to the Aten (Spence 2009; Kemp 2012:79–154). The evidence includes excavated buildings, as well as institutional names occurring on ostraca, wine-jars, jar stoppers, and clay seal impressions (see the overview by Fairman in Pendlebury 1951:143– 212). The royal buildings at Amarna remain far from well understood. For some of the archaeologically well-preserved structures (such as the North Palace), there is no known ancient designation. Similarly, there remains an extensive set of institutional designations on inscribed artifacts that cannot be correlated with any archaeologically documented royal building. It is perfectly plausible that a palace named the pr Wc-n-Rc could have been entirely lost to archaeology. However, since Amarna furnishes a series of royal buildings, the names of which have never been identified, are there possible candidates for a pr Wc-n-Rc m Cxt-Itn? This involves searching for structures that include aspects of royal residential or palatial architecture paired with ceremonial and religious components. I would suggest that among the known royal buildings at Amarna, there are three lo-

111

112

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

calities that might be placed under scrutiny as potential locations for a pr Wc-n-Rc: (1) the Great Palace; (2) the North Riverside Palace, and (3) the North Palace.

The Great Palace Tell el-Amarna’s “Great Palace” flanking the great Aten temple on the western side of the Royal Road represents the type of large-scale ceremonial building that integrated substantial elements of the Aten cult and may have included subsidiary cult structures such as royal Sunshade chapels. Two aspects of the Great Palace conform with the décor and inscriptional details of E16230. One is the remarkable volume and scale of architectural inlay that once characterized the Great Palace, evidence for which has survived primarily in the form of inlay elements rather than the actual architectural features once inlaid (Crowell 2007). Secondly, the Great Palace is the only other currently known location where palimpsest Aten cartouches occur with the specific change from Early to Intermediate forms of the Aten name, just as on E16230.5 The extensive stone-built format of the Great Palace and the presence of remnants of raised platforms and decorated balustrades indicate a building that may have contained a series of raised solar shrines of the type that E16230 represents. Indeed, it appears highly likely that the Great Palace once included Sunshade chapels of royal women as discussed in the preceding chapter. Although the ancient name of the Great Palace and its component elements has been debated, one of the features of the Great Palace is the consistent use of the specification m pr jcy m pr Itn m Cxt-Itn on inscribed stone elements associated with the building. This designation occurs on inscriptions relating to individual sub-components of the Great Palace: the wbn-Itn n Cx-n-Itn and the wsxt-Itn. This led to Fairman’s original suggestion that pr hcy was the name of the Great Palace, a conclusion which Barry Kemp has since doubted preferring a ‘picturesque’ reading of the term pr hcy (Kemp 1995:458; Kemp and Garfi 1993:76–79). However one interprets the terminology, correlation of the statement m pr jcy m pr Itn m Cxt-Itn with the Great Palace is consistent enough that one would expect inscribed buildings within this complex to have been similarly designated. Consequently, the Great Palace is a good candidate for the location of the other known royal Sunshades from Amarna: those of Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten that are, in fact, designated as m pr jcy m pr Itn m Cxt-Itn. Despite the occurrence of palimpsest cartouches and architectural inlay, the Great Palace appears to be a less viable location for the pr Wc-n-Rc m Cxt-Itn.

The North Riverside Palace One of the most important, but least well preserved, of the ensemble of royal buildings at Tell el-Amarna is the North Riverside Palace. Although the eastern side of its enclosure wall and gateway flanking the Royal Road were excavated, the bulk of the interior of the building has been claimed by the Nile’s alluvial plain. The North

the house-of-waenre

Riverside Palace has been categorized as a residential or living palace and a counterpoint to the ceremonial spaces of the Great Palace and King’s House of the Central City (Lacova1997:31–33). The link between the residential and ceremonial palaces was expressed physically in the north-south oriented Royal Road which served in the symbolically-charged daily event of the chariot progression of king and royal family (Kemp 2006:284–91). Unlike the Great Palace, there are absolutely no identified building name(s) associated with the North Riverside Palace. If properly a residential palace used by Akhenaten, it is not unreasonable that the name of this building might have included the term pr paired with some element of the king’s titulary. Although classed broadly speaking as a “residential” palace, the notion of a strict dichotomy between habitation buildings and religious/ritual structures in Amarna royal buildings is manifestly an artificial one. This may have also been a building that had substantial internal structures associated with the Aten cult. One of the primary elements of the North Riverside Palace to survive is the heavily decorated gateway that abutted the Royal Road. The gateway was adorned with extensive scenes focused on the Aten cult and imagery depicting the key royal event of the chariot drive (Gabolde 1998:153–58). There is no reason to presume that functional royal palaces may not have integrated key elements of Aten worship, just as the private residences incorporated shrines to the royal family (Ikram 1989). Furthermore, like the Great Palace, the position of the North Riverside Palace in close proximity to the Nile would have facilitated the demolition and dispersal of masonry components during the post-Amarna Period. The North Riverside Palace therefore could be considered a potential candidate for the pr Wc-n-Rc m Cxt-Itn. Although the limited physical remains surviving from the North Riverside Palace make it difficult to assess the possibility that it could be the Per Waenre of E16230, a major obstacle is encountered when considering this building complex in the wider evidence for royal institutions at Akhetaten. The North Riverside Palace is evidently a top tier institution within the system of royal buildings at Tell el-Amarna. One would expect the name of a palace of this importance to be reflected among institutional documents represented at Amarna. It would appear more probable that the North Riverside Palace correlates with one of the actual unassociated palace names from the site (such as pr Cx-n-Itn, pr Sjtp-Itn, or pr Nfr-xprw-Rc), rather than a pr Wc-n-Rc, which is unattested among the sizeable sample of administrative dockets and labels from Tell el-Amarna.

The North Palace In searching the archaeological remains of Amarna for a viable candidate for the pr Wc-n-Rc m Cxt-Itn, another option is the North Palace. Previously, consideration of the archaeological evidence from the building’s Altar Court suggests that this area housed a solar shrine of the same type as attested in the Maru-Aten complex in south Amarna.6 Not only does the central podium in the Altar Court match the approxi-

113

114

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

mate scale of building implied by E16230, but the inscribed doorjamb (E518) now in the Penn Museum identifies Princess Meritaten’s association with this particular part of the North Palace. Apart from the Altar Court itself, the wider characteristics of the North Palace suggest a ceremonial palace that might have had its primary associations with Akhenaten while maintaining a strong association with one or more royal women. As several authors have noted, the building’s primary associations appear to be with Meritaten, apparently replacing an earlier association with Queen Kiya (Reeves 1988:91–101; Kemp 2012:146–51). Textual sources including hieratic dockets show there was a specific palace or royal domain associated with Meritaten at Tell el-Amarna: the pr MrytItn (Pendlebury 1951:199). In particular, two letters sent from Amarna (P. Robert Mond 1 and 2) are communications from Ramose, unguent preparator of the house of Meritaten, to his brother, the treasury scribe Meh (Wente 1990:94–96). However, it might seem doubtful that the North Palace as a whole should be specifically identified as the palace of Meritaten or pr Mryt-Itn merely because her name occurs there. It appears more likely this was one of the system of royal buildings that bore their primary links with the king but integrated female commemoration in the form of zwtRc chapels or other symbolic elements including relief decoration and royal statuary.7 Consequently, it could be a building that bore a designation linking it to the king while incorporating a highly visible emphasis on the role of Meritaten. In this connection, a small but intriguing result of the renewed Egypt Exploration Society work at the North Palace is the recovery of stone fragments, evidently the remnants of statuary that decorated the front of the north subsidiary gate of the pylon. Kate Spence describes this material as follows: “Brown quartzite chippings found in post-holes around these suggest that they may have supported a pair of statues flanking the gate.” The varieties of quartzite used at Amarna display a distinct set of color varieties, most common being the purple and reddish grades documented especially for statuary in the Great Palace.8 The Meritaten Sunshade block E16230 is rather a distinctive brown with slight reddish tinge. Although systematic comparison with the North Palace fragments would be necessary to confirm a relationship, it appears this might represent the same material used for E16230. Is it possible the Meritaten Sunshade was constructed of a grade of quartzite that was also used for other masonry elements and statuary in the North Palace at Amarna? The possibility that the Altar Court of the North Palace may have housed a zwt-Rc of Meritaten combined with the common use of brown quartzite are clues to a potential association of the E16230 Sunshade fragment with that building. Beyond these considerations, the possible scale of the chapel is relevant. Although the details of the more recent work of the Egypt Exploration Society have not been published, the original plan shows the rear part of the central platform measuring approximately 7 m square. The flanking platforms—considerably smaller—measure some 2 by 2.5  m. Although it is not possible to conclusively reconstruct the absolute dimensions of the Meritaten Sunshade of the pr Wc-n-Rc m Cxt-Itn on the basis of E16230 alone, the

the house-of-waenre

block furnishes considerable information on the scale of the building’s main doorway. This permits extrapolation of a structure that was at minimum some 3.1 m wide. The Meritaten chapel was certainly too large to be accommodated on the smaller platforms, but may have been of scale commensurate to the central platform of the North Palace Altar Court (Fig. 47). The intensively inlaid façade of E16230 would appear to fit well with the evidence for the ornate and colorful ornamentation of the North Palace. The 1998–99 excavations of the monumental gateway on the east side of the Outer Court confirmed that this was a lavishly decorated structure with painted and gilded masonry. It was flanked by two subsidiary doorways fronted by statuary. Similarly, the symmetrically positioned gates that led from the Outer Court to the Altar Court and South-West Court were evidently elaborate, formal masonry constructions. The central shrine in

Fig. 47.  The potential origin of E16230 as part of the primary chapel in the Altar Court of the North Palace at Tell el-Amarna.

115

116

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

the Altar Court would have formed a focal element visible from the Outer Court. In this sort of elaborately decorated architectural context, a chapel with intricately inlaid polychrome façade would appear to be perfectly suited. Unlike the Great Palace, the North Palace appears to have no preserved fragments of architectural inlay, although such a technique may have been present in a large and complex building with only partial preservation of a rich decorative program. Beyond this set of observations, it does not appear possible to prove or refute a potential association of E16230 with the North Palace. It is to be hoped that future publication of the building might shed further light on this intriguing possibility. Regardless, I would observe at this juncture that the North Palace, at the least, furnishes an indication of the type of hybrid residential and ceremonial palace building that may be represented by the pr Wc-n-Rc m Cxt-Itn. A form of royal palace in which residential architecture is combined with a suite of prominent ceremonial elements perhaps including a Window of Appearance. Integrated within this building was likely another example of a royal Sunshade chapel. It is worth observing that if the North Palace once housed a Sunshade in its Altar Court—presumably dedicated to Meritaten—this would be a third Amarna Sunshade of this woman. However, if E16230 does not relate to the North Palace, but derives from some other building at Amarna, then we may be confronted with the remarkable scenario of four different zwt-Rc chapels of Meritaten existing at Tell el-Amarna. Discounting the possibility of an original Heliopolitan context for the E16230 and presuming that the block must have originated at Tell el-Amarna prior to its Ramesside reuse at Heliopolis, the North Palace provides the best fit in terms of archaeological evidence, not just indicating the presence of a Sunshade, but more specifically one that should have been dedicated to Meritaten. The overall design of the North Palace appears appropriate to the type of hybrid palatial and ceremonial structure hypothesized for the pr Wc-n-Rc m Cxt-Itn. Consequently, there is a reasonable possibility that E16230 could originally have come from that building. If so, it would be an absolutely remarkable coincidence that one large architectural fragment (E16230), came to Philadelphia in 1900 as the final stage in a complex history of reuse that led from Amarna to Heliopolis and then to Medieval Cairo, while another fragment from the same location (E518) also came into the same museum but as the result of direct excavation on the building itself in 1925. Despite inconclusive evidence, the North Palace provides the strongest candidate at Tell el-Amarna for the original setting of the pr Wc-n-Rc m Cxt-Itn.

Assessing Tell el-Amarna as the Origin of E16230 This brief survey of possible candidates for the pr Wc-n-Rc m Cxt-Itn at Tell el-Amarna has framed some of the characteristics of the palatial building complex that must once have housed the Meritaten solar chapel. Particularly in the case of the North Palace, the Altar Court helps to define the type of architectural setting in which the

the house-of-waenre

E16230 Meritaten Sunshade chapel might have been located. I would conclude this discussion, however, with a return to the issue raised in regard to the North Riverside Palace as a viable candidate for the pr Wc-n-Rc m Cxt-Itn. The evidence of the textual sources is problematic. It is striking that there is an absolute lack of mention of an institution named pr Wc-n-Rc anywhere in the extensive corpus of hieratic dockets, ostraca, wine jars, jar stoppers, and impressed jar handles excavated at the site (Pendlebury 1951:164–65, 197–200). Admittedly, this material is unlikely to document the totality of institutions, building names, and toponyms associated with Amarna. Nevertheless, these sources provide a representative cross section of the major, economically-active institutions at Tell el-Amarna. Names of a broad array of palaces and royal estates occur, including several explicitly linked with Akhenaten himself, such as the pr Cx-n-Itn, “house of Akhenaten,” and pr Nfr-xprw-Rc, “house of Neferkheprure.”9 Prominently represented in this set of evidence is the other institution in which May might have served as steward: the pr Sjtp-Itn, “house of the one-who-satisfies-the-Aten.” If there was a pr Wc-n-Rc at Tell el-Amarna, why is it so conspicuously absent from this set of evidence? Beyond the lack of attestation of an institution named pr Wc-n-Rc at Amarna is the issue of the meaning of the term Cxt-Itn, , itself and the presumption that any monument designated as m Cxt-Itn must necessarily have stood at Tell el-Amarna. A number of scholars have examined the connotations of this term, both in reference to Tell el-Amarna and to Aten-cult precincts at other sites in Egypt (Kemp and Garfi 1994:76–79; Angenot 2008). Significantly, Cxt-Itn—even where used in reference to Amarna proper—never occurs with a city or town determinative (the niwt hieroglyph, ). Consequently, Cxt-Itn never appears to have had the connotation of a city name and may have fundamentally lacked geographical exclusivity. The primary reference lay in the notion of Aten worship directed towards the physical phenomenon of the solar ascent and daily passage (Laboury 2010: 237ff; Hoffmeier 2015:141–64). The term Cxt-Itn may have had an essentially multivalent toponymic identity that did not exclude its application to other locales with Aten-cult precincts. Appearing first at Thebes and used in reference to the Aten-cult areas built at Karnak (in the form Cxt-n(t)-Itn), it was then applied to Amarna during its foundation in Akhenaten’s Year 5. Even while referring to the royal capital, Cxt-Itn appears increasingly likely to have been a designation applicable to Aten cult locations beyond Tell el-Amarna. In view of the various difficulties in associating E16230 with Tell el-Amarna, another hypothesis is presented: that use of the term Cxt-Itn does not necessitate that the Meritaten chapel stood at Amarna. I will now consider the alternative scenario: that the Meritaten Sunshade in the pr Wc-n-Rc m Cxt-Itn stood instead at Heliopolis, the city of Re, where it was part of an extensive Aten-cult precinct developed during Akhenaten’s reign.

notes 8.1.  There is a slight possibility a small n-glyph could be present on the eroded inscription of E16230 making it pr (n) Wc-n-Rc like in the tomb of May. However, there is not much available space making it

117

118

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

highly improbable E16230 has a genitival n. 8.2.  In May’s titles, the institution is named pr n Sjtp-Itn whereas in the hieratic records at Amarna the institution is consistently written as pr Sjtp-Itn. This parallels the use of the genitival n in one of the writings of pr (n) Wc-n-Rc. 8.3.  Fairman cites Sjtp-Itn as an epithet of Akhenaten—“the one who propitiates Aten”—on the basis of its occurrence with the king’s nomen on a scarab of Akhenaten. Most importantly there is an ostracon mentioning delivery of gypsum, presumably as a construction material for the pr n Sjtp-Itn (Pendlebury 1951:61, 198–99). This ostracon, paired with the sizeable corpus of hieratic inscriptions naming the institution makes it virtually certain that pr n Sjtp-Itn was a building complex at Amarna itself. 8.4.  Aldred considered the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc in May’s titles to be the name of a Heliopolitan palace of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten (Aldred 1988:260). He implied this palace may have dated to the king’s early reign (prior to Year 5). Use of the statement Wc-n-Rc occurs both in Akhenaten’s early titulary (as Amenhotep IV), as well as in his altered titulary, as Akhenaten (von Beckerath 1999:230–31). There is no reason to conclude that the palace did not exist through the entire reign of Akhenaten. 8.5.  Recarving of Aten cartouches on Amarna Period royal buildings is a relatively rare phenomenon and primarily takes the form of alteration from Early to Late versions of the name. The protocol I to IIa (Early to Intermediate) recarving is to my knowledge only known on E16230 and fragments from the area of the Weben-Aten, on the north side of the Broad Court of the Great Palace (Pendlebury 1951:193 and pls. 101–3). 8.6.  Badawy commented briefly on similarities between the North Palace and the Maru-Aten (Badawy 1954:90–92). 8.7. Spence doubts the suggested ownership of the North Palace by Meritaten, preferring a more complex mode of royal identification with this as well as other royal palaces at Tell el-Amarna (Spence 2009:186–87). 8.8.  A comprehensive survey of the hard stones used for statuary by Kristin Thompson is ongoing. 8.9.  A palace name using the first part of Akhenaten’s bipartite prenomen in the same way that pr Wcn-Rc uses the second element.

9 A Heliopolitan Horizon-of-the-Aten ?

A

ttestation of an institution named pr (n) Wc-n-Rc at Heliopolis in the tomb of May presents the attractive possibility that E16230 belongs to a solar chapel of Meritaten that originally stood inside the same precinct. Such a context for the Meritaten Sunshade would accord comfortably with one crucial aspect of E16230, namely that the Ramesside Period reuse of the block occurred at Heliopolis. However, if this zwt-Rc of Meritaten were originally set up at Heliopolis, why it is that the scene labels do not specifically employ the statement pr (n) Wc-n-Rc m Iwnw, as occurs in May’s titles? The texts on the Meritaten Sunshade chapel intentionally avoid use of the specification m Iwnw in favor of m Cxt-Itn. One potential explanation might be that scene labels on a Heliopolitan Sunshade chapel could refer notionally to ritual acts meant to take place in Tell el-Amarna/ Akhetaten, even while commemorated on a building at Heliopolis. This possibility, however, would run counter to the established use of building names in ritual scenes. The labels attached to cultic scenes are intended to identify their setting within the particular building which they decorate. Their purpose is to symbolically activate the rituals depicted on the walls of specific religious buildings. Another possibility might be that m Cxt-Itn in this text is acting as an epithet of Akhenaten’s abbreviated prenomen: Wc-n-Rc. In that case, Pr Wc-n-Rc m Cxt-Itn might be rendered “the house of the Unique-one-of-Re (who is) in Akhet-Aten.” This usage, however, would again be unparalleled and runs counter to standard nomenclature where cult buildings are defined in a ranked sequence situating them within a wider institutional context and linking them to a specific toponym (see Angenot 2008:17–18, who presents the useful analogy of Russian matryoshka dolls; and Williamson 2013:147–49). Rather, if E16230 originally belonged to the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc at Heliopolis, then the statement m Cxt-Itn may instead form another acceptable designation that was applicable to the wider group of solar cult structures at that site. This would imply that there may have existed an independent Heliopolitan Cxt-Itn: a notional extension of the concept of the solar horizon articulated at Tell el-Amarna proper. Perhaps the

120

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

statement m Cxt-Itn on E16230 is to be understood as an abbreviation for m Cxt-Itn [m Iwnw] with the element m Iwnw dropped due to: (a) limitations of space on the building’s façade, and (b) the fact that the Heliopolitan context may have been implicit in the chapel’s context within the architectural program of the pr Wc-n-Rc. In this case, should the scene labels on E16230 be read as identifying tC zwt-Rc nt sCt-nswt n ;t.f mrt.f Mrt-Itn m pr Wc-n-Rc m Cxt-Itn [m Iwnw]? Valerie Angenot has recently persuasively argued the case for use of the term CxtItn in reference to the Aten cult precinct at Memphis (Angenot 2008:7–26). It has long been clear that Memphis housed an Aten temple or domain under the generic term pr Itn m Mn-nfr: “the house of Aten in Memphis.” Beatrix Gessler-Löhr had previously reviewed the Amarna Period fragments deriving from contexts in and around Mit Rahina, suggesting an Aten precinct that may have included a palace and other structures located to the south-east of the known Ptah temple enclosure (Löhr 1975:139–87). Based on this set of evidence along with a reinterpretation of the titles of Amarna Period officials at Saqqara, Angenot has argued cogently that the main Aten precinct at Memphis was itself located within a wider Aten cult zone named the Cxt-Itn m Mn-nfr, “the Horizon-of-the-Aten in Memphis,” possibly located in the Middle Birka, appended perhaps to a preexisting temple of Amenhotep III, Nebmaatre-United-with-Ptah (Angenot 2008:3–4). The situation of the Memphite pr-Itn within Cxt-Itn m Mn-nfr explains the occurrence of priestly titles in Saqqara tombs associated with the pr Itn m Cxt-Itn m Mn-nfr. Noting the pre-Amarna occurrence of the term Cxt-n-Itn at Thebes in the early reign of Akhenaten, her thesis implies that any Aten cult precinct outside of Amarna proper could represent an independent Cxt-Itn. If an Cxt-Itn m Mn-nfr existed at Memphis then the evidently extensive ensemble of Amarna Period cult structures at Heliopolis may also have been collectively designated: as the Cxt-Itn m Iwnw. Let us adopt, as a working hypothesis, that the Meritaten Sunshade belonged to the ceremonial palace named pr (n) Wc-n-Rc at Heliopolis known from May’s tomb inscriptions, and that this palace itself was located within a Heliopolitan Cxt-Itn. If this is the case, can a structural framework for this Heliopolitan Cxt-Itn be assembled? One aspect that sets Heliopolis apart from other cult centers, even a major religious and administrative center like Memphis, is the instrumental role that Heliopolis and its deities evidently played in the broader conceptual formulation of solar religion under Akhenaten. Re, Re-Horakhty, as well as other members of the Heliopolitan Ennead, are prominently embedded within the theology of the Aten, appearing both in the didactic names of the Aten and the name of Akhenaten himself. The continued veneration of the Heliopolitan Mnevis bull (Mn-wr [Quirke 2001:109–10]), and Akhenaten’s stated provision for burial of the solar bulls in a necropolis (smt) at Amarna, merged the religious practices of both sites (Raue 1999:119, 226 [Rc-ms] and 181–82 [PC-njsy]; Murnane and van Siclen 1993:41, 69). Beyond this, the adaptation of the Heliopolitan priestly title wr-m3w, “greatest of seers,” is added into the Aten priesthood during the Amarna Period. It was during Akhenaten’s reign that the

a heliopolitan horizon-of-the-aten ?

designation Iwnw n Rc, “Heliopolis of Re,” began to be used (Raue 1999:118–19). In this context, there is clear evidence for the continued existence of the pr Rc, the temple or domain of Re at Heliopolis. Additionally, May (Amarna Tomb 14) held an administrative role in the pr Rc alongside his appointment as steward in the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc m Iwnw. A number of other officials connected to the pr Rc occur both at Amarna and Heliopolis suggesting the continuation of religious and administrative organization of this preexisting Heliopolitan institution. Alongside references to the pr Rc occur distinct designations for Aten cult institutions that must in some way have been grafted onto the existing organization of Heliopolis forming a reconfigured solar cult center at Heliopolis. These include prominently the use of the term pr Itn, “house of the Aten,” which occurs at all other major sites (Thebes, Amarna, Memphis) but specified now in connection to its Heliopolitan setting as pr Itn m Iwnw n Rc (Raue 1999:118–19, 440–41). Evidence for this Heliopolitan pr Itn occurs on impressed jar handles and jar stoppers from the Central City and North Suburb of Amarna perhaps reflecting economic links and commodity distribution amongst institutions. Specifically in what ways the designation pr Itn related to the preexisting pr Rc during Akhenaten’s reign appears ambiguous but implied is the integration of these institutions as part of a broader Heliopolitan solar cult. Linked then to the pr Rc and/or the pr Itn are the other physically and textually documented Amarna Period buildings at Heliopolis. One of these—also incorporating the Rc element in its name—is the cult structure named wos-Rc m Iwnw, “Thatwhich-lifts-up-Re in Heliopolis.” Recorded on two different blocks, Cairo 34175 (Fig. 48; see Lacau [1909:214–16 and pl. 65]) and Smithsonian 1421, Labib Habachi has suggested that wos-Rc m Iwnw was the name of the principal Aten temple in Heliopolis (Habachi 1971:35–46). This name, which does not specify the Aten itself, is more likely to represent some constituent building that was part of a wider grouping of solar cult structures in a reconfigured Heliopolis. Another candidate for inclusion in a restructured Heliopolis would be the temple of Re-Horakhty. Mention of the pr Rc-JrCxty, occurs, albeit without specification of its location in Heliopolis during the Amarna Period (Pendlebury 1951:164 and pl. 86: nos. 43–46). Moreover, Re-Horakhty is a Heliopolitan deity that remained integral to the formulation of the identity of the Aten and was embedded in the name of the Aten implying the centrality of the preexisting Heliopolitan solar cult to Akhenaten’s formulation of the theology of the Aten. Finally, also m Iwnw, “in Heliopolis,” there is the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc recorded in May’s titles. The fact that May held titles in both the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc and the pr Rc may reflect the physical proximity and administrative connection between these two institutions. As stated above, a tangible expression of Akhenaten as Wc-n-Rc, “unique one of Re” would be construction of a ceremonial palace complex linked to the reorganized Heliopolitan pr Rc. On the basis of the textual evidence, Dietrich Raue has concluded that during the Amarna Period three parallel establishments: the pr Rc, pr Itn, and the royal domain (pr nswt) existed together at the center of a reconfigured Heliopolis (Raue 1999:119).

121

Fig. 48.  Cairo 34175, fragment naming the wos-Rc m Iwnw of Akhenaten, secondarily reused by Horemheb at Heliopolis.

a heliopolitan horizon-of-the-aten ?

Consequently, if E16230 derived originally from the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc in Heliopolis, this suggests a new line of evidence that these various temple and palace components may have been subsumed under a broader conceptual designation: a Heliopolitan Cxt-Itn. In exactly the same way that the pr-Itn at Amarna was m Cxt-Itn and the pr Itn in Memphis (following Angenot’s arguments) was m Cxt-Itn m Mn-nfr, so too the Heliopolitan institutions of the pr Rc, pr Itn, and pr Wc-n-Rc would have together constituted the broader entity of the Cxt-Itn m Iwnw. On that basis I assemble a tentative framework of the known ensemble of Heliopolitan institutions shown alongside the parallel case of Memphis (Fig. 49). The creation of these other “Horizons-of-Aten” would have been fundamental to linking the long-established cult centers at Memphis and Heliopolis with the main Cxt-

Fig. 49.  Schematic diagram showing the possible institutional organization of Heliopolitan and Memphite Horizons-of-the-Aten.

123

124

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Itn at Amarna. More than just localized manifestations of the concept of the horizon of the disk, they would have been a mechanism for tangibly binding the ritual life—and at Heliopolis the existing solar theology—into the newly constituted cult of the Aten. The Cxt-Itn at Tell el-Amarna and the institutions of the Cxt-Itn at Heliopolis emerge as being inextricably linked in terms of theology, ritual, and economic functions. This further elucidates the dual Heliopolitan and Amarnan responsibilities reflected in some of the official careers of the period such as May and the chief priest Pawah. It is an attractive possibility that E16230 is a remaining architectural fragment from the extensive group of temples and royal buildings that composed Heliopolis during the Amarna Period. The block could be our single physical remnant of the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc in which May served as steward; part of a zwt-Rc chapel dedicated in honor of Meritaten within Akhenaten’s ceremonial palace at Heliopolis. Given the mere handful of talatat and other fragments that have survived from Akhenaten’s Heliopolis (Bakry 1972:55–67), the attribution of E16230 to the site would be a welcome addition to such a frustratingly small corpus of material. Accepting the possibility that E16230 is the sole surviving architectural element from the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc in Heliopolis, analysis of the block and the possibility of a Heliopolitan Cxt-Itn highlights an additional intriguing aspect of Akhenaten’s buildings at Tell el-Amarna and Heliopolis. Multiple royal palaces are recorded in the textual evidence originating at Amarna. These include two entities explicitly associated with the king in which the term pr is compounded with some element of the titulary of Akhenaten. One of these was the pr Cx-n-Itn, “House-of-Akhenaten,” employing the king’s nomen. Also attested at Amarna is the pr Nfr-xprw-Rc. “House-of-Neferkhprure,” employing the first part of the king’s prenomen. Linked exclusively with Heliopolis through May’s titles is the pr (n) Wc-n-Rc, “House-of-Waenre” employing the second part of the prenomen and a component of the king’s titulary that explicitly associates him with Re and the Heliopolitan solar cult. Could these naming patterns among the palace institutions at Amarna and Heliopolis not be accidental but part of a structured system intended to express Akhenaten’s fundamental role as intermediary with the solar deity in ways that unified the religious centers at Heliopolis and Amarna? The Cxt-Itn at Tell el-Amarna contains the pr Nfr-xprw-Rc while the Aten precinct, Cxt-Itn, at Heliopolis contains the second element of Akhenaten’s identity as intermediary with the solar deity: pr (n) Wc-n-Rc. In that way the identity of the king is expressed in a programmatic way that embeds aspects of royal identity, economic institutions, and the array of physical palaces structures and associated cult buildings within the fabric of the Aten cult at both sites (Fig. 50). Evidently, Akhenaten’s establishment at Tell el-Amarna should be viewed not so much in the predominant mold that it tends to—as a city in isolation—but as the center of a wider network of royal and religious institutions that overlaid and subsumed the preceding religious framework of Egypt. As compelling as this evidence appears, there must remain a level of uncertainty concerning the original Amarna Period context of the E16230 Meritaten Sunshade.

a heliopolitan horizon-of-the-aten ?

Fig. 50.  Bifurcation of the prenomen (Neferkheprure-Waenre) in palace-estate names at Amarna and Heliopolis, and tentative location of other palace/royal estate institutions associated with Akhenaten.

It remains a fact that the admittedly few other instances of Amarna Period buildings so far known at Heliopolis all employ the specification m Iwnw. Apart from its Merenptah inscriptions, E16230 does not do so. Moreover, it provides the sole monumental use of the term m Cxt-Itn that might be linked to Akhenaten’s building program at Heliopolis. The realities of the evidence still leave room for differing interpretations. Having examined the possibility that E16230 derives from an extensive Aten cult precinct at Heliopolis I consider in more detail the evidence for the demolition of Meritaten’s Sunshade and Merenptah’s subsequent usurpation of E16230 at Heliopolis.

notes 9.1.  Administrative titles in the Amarna Period tombs of Merire/Merneith (sz n pr Itn m Cxt-Itn m Mnnfr) and Raiay/Hatiay (sz pr-hu n pr Itn m Cxt-Itn m Mn-nfr) at Saqqara have been interpreted alternatively as denoting dual or sequential appointments at Amarna and Memphis. According to this theory, these officials’ titles denote “the estate of Aten in Akhetaten (and) in Memphis” (for Merire/Merneith see Raven et al. [2001-2:71–89]; and for the tomb of Raiay/Hatiay see Zivie [2004:223–31]).

125

126

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

9.2.  Prominent among the sources are inscribed doorjambs of Pawah from Amarna bearing his title wrm3w n Itn m pr Rc, “great seer of the Aten in the house of Re” and the stela of Panehesy from Heliopolis, titled, like May: imy-r ijw n pr Rc (Raue 1999:180–81). 9.5.  A significant number of impressed amphora handles with the stamp of the pr Itn m Iwnw n Rc derive from the Central City (Pendlebury 1951:182 and fig. 23 A–B). Statistics are not provided but statement that “of these most common by a long way is A” suggests the bulk of impressed amphora handles in Amarna name the pr Itn m Iwnw n Rc. Also they occur as jar stoppers in the North Suburb (Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933:108 and pl. 57.AA [from houses N.50.25 and O.48.11]). 9.4.  Pawah is known from the inscribed doorjamb in his house at Amarna (O.49.1), his title wr-mCw n Itn m pr Rc, “greatest of seers of Aten in the Per-Re,” may denote his association with the Heliopolitan Re precinct, although potentially a temple of the same name could have existed at Amarna or elsewhere. D. Raue considers Pawah to be the primary wr-mCw associated with Heliopolis (Raue 1999:118, 180).

10 Damnatio Memoriae

A

s occurs with many Amarna Period monuments, the surface of E16230 was purposefully effaced. The backlash against Akhenaten’s religious program and the wider 18th Dynasty royal family, particularly prevalent following the reign of Tutankhamun’s successor, King Ay, resulted in a process of destruction and dismantling of Akhenaten’s monuments that spanned several reigns. Due to its size, the Meritaten Sunshade block provides a valuable glimpse into how one specific Amarna Period royal building was attacked and defaced in the aftermath of Akhenaten’s reign. The particular damage to this block is the product of a series of changes spanning several thousand years. The damage includes: (a) intentional erasure of the images and names of Amarna Period royalty, followed by (b) the later adaptation of the block for its reemployment as a statue base during the 19th Dynasty; and (c) wear and erosion associated with the blocks tertiary reuse as a threshold in Cairo during the Islamic Period. Here I examine firstly the significant patterns associated with the purposeful post-Amarna defacing of the Meritaten Sunshade chapel. The damage to E16230 that occurred during the immediate post-Amarna Period is extensive. The once elaborately inlaid decoration was obviously the target for a concerted program to remove the imagery and inscriptions related to Akhenaten and the Amarna royal family. A primary step in the defacing of the Meritaten chapel involved stripping the chapel of its lavish inlay. Some of the materials used in the building, particularly metals as discussed above, would have been valuable. However, the principal motivation appears not to have been scavenging of materials but rather the politically-motivated removal of the images of Akhenaten and Meritaten. Significantly, the program to deface the monument extended well beyond removal of inlaid elements to a surprisingly comprehensive erasure of inscriptions and other scene elements. Surface damage includes dense patches of hammer-marks that are likely to have been achieved through a combination of chisels and stone pounders. Some important patterns are observable in the surface damage. Firstly, a notable feature of the block is the attention paid specifically to removing the names of Akhenaten, Nefertiti, and Meritaten (Fig. 51). Tellingly, whereas the royal names are badly

128

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

damaged in all scenes, the names of the Aten itself—with the exception of the Aten cartouches atop the nb-basket in Scene A—remain largely intact. Preference lay in erasure of the royal names rather than that of the deity. The implication is a program of damnatio memoriae the primary goal of which was expunging the identity and memory of the Amarna royal family. The patterns of erasure visible in the scene labels demonstrate that the Meritaten Sunshade chapel must have been a still-standing monument during this initial phase of defacement. Therefore the primary damage can be attributed to the immediate post-Amarna period. Important in this connection is the difference in damage visible between Scenes A and B. The upper parts of Scene A, which fall above head height, are in considerably better condition than the other scenes. The inscriptions on Scene B, which range between waist and chest height, are almost completely obliterated. It is clear that the inscriptions at easily accessible height were pounded away with fervor, but those at the top of Scene A that were harder to reach were left nearly intact. This evidence indicates a royal building that was entered by a workforce whose directive was to strip standing monuments of the images and inscriptions of Akhenaten and the Amarna royal family. Only later was the building dismantled and its masonry removed for reuse elsewhere. This defacement of the still-standing Meritaten Sunshade chapel can be compared with evidence of a similar process in other Amarna royal buildings including the Hermopolis talatat blocks originally deriving from Tell el-Amarna. Although the overall spatial patterns are harder to characterize in the case of the Hermopolis blocks, a wide-scale but selective defacement certainly occurred prior to dismantlement of those structures. The Hermopolis blocks show chiseling away of both royal figures and inscriptions that include names of the Amarna royal family, which was applied to the standing monuments rather than the individual blocks once disassembled (Roeder 1969). The evidence for patterns of erasure on E16230 runs counter to suggestions, such as that of Kemp (1995), that demolition of Amarna Period buildings was essentially “unemotional.” Here the large-scale decorated surface provides compelling indications for a targeted and vicious desecration of the identity of the royal family. The probable period for such systematic erasure of still-standing Amarna royal buildings is the long (ca. 23 year) reign of Horemheb (ca. 1319–1292 BCE). The removal of Amarna Period names and the wider phenomenon of damnatio memoriae aimed at Akhenaten certainly persisted well into the Ramesside Period (Hari 1984:95–102). However, the fact that Horemheb actively initiated the dismantling of Amarna Period buildings at Heliopolis is demonstrated by the other major Amarna Period architectural block associated with Heliopolis: Cairo 34175.1 That block derives from a specific ritual building named the wos-Rc m Iwnw, likely a component of a wider Aten cult precinct at Heliopolis that may also have included the pr Wc-n-Rc named on E16230. Horemheb reused Cairo 34175 and its back surface was recarved with inscriptions dedicated to Atum and Hathor of Heliopolis. The wos-Rc structure does not appear to have undergone standing damage in the same way as the Meritaten

damnatio memoriae

Fig. 51.  Detail of the targeted erasure of the name and titles of Meritaten and Nefertiti on Scenes D (left) and E (right) while leaving the Aten cartouches untouched.

129

130

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

chapel, however, the process of reuse of Amarna masonry already occurring during his reign at Heliopolis is clear. The damnatio memoriae that characterizes E16230 appears likely to date to this same historical context as Cairo 34175. However, unlike Cairo 34175 which underwent near-immediate reuse, demolition of the Meritaten solar chapel appears to have been a two stage process: initial defacing of the royal names, followed by later reuse of the block under Merenptah. Without the benefit of more specific contextual information on the Meritaten solar chapel it is difficult to explain why one Amarna block at Heliopolis, Cairo 34175, was reused immediately under Horemheb, while another, E16230, was not repurposed until substantially later in the reign of Merenptah. Possibly the wos-Rc formed part of the central Aten cult buildings and may have been targeted immediately for removal. Other components of the, no doubt extensive, Amarna Period constructions at Heliopolis may have been subject to a multi-phased sequence of defacing, demolition, and eventual reuse that spanned decades and lasted well into the 19th Dynasty. If the pr Wc-n-Rc was a substantial building complex, of which the Meritaten chapel is only one element, then the process of razing the building and repurposing its masonry may have continued over a lengthy time frame. Stonework that saw no immediate reuse could have been relegated to marginal areas of the site and ultimately only became useful during resurgent phases of royal building activity. The reign of Merenptah represents a period of extensive building activity at Heliopolis. Moreover, Merenptah’s construction at the site includes other examples of repurposing of earlier masonry from disused or abandoned structures. It was during the reign of Merenptah that E16230 underwent the next phase of its complicated history.

notes 10.1.  Like E16230, Cairo 34175 was later reused as a threshold in the construction of Cairo during the Middle Ages. The block was retrieved from a mosque near the Cairo citadel (Porter and Moss 1968:70; Quirke 2001:95–96).

11 Ramesside Reuse at Heliopolis

D

uring its post-Amarna history, the Meritaten chapel block was reused multiple times due to its value as a large fragment of dressed quartzite that was easily adaptable for other purposes. The most significant stage of secondary reuse occurred in the 19th Dynasty when the block was usurped to serve as the base for a statue of Merenptah at Heliopolis. Based on the proportions of the altered block, this statue was almost certainly a sphinx. The block was cut down from its originally wider format to match the dimensions required for the statue base. The irregular profile of the recessed doorjamb and projecting lintel with engaged cornice above was trimmed, thereby removing most of the lintel panel (Scene C), as well as the right side of the doorway scenes (Scenes D and E). Along with reconfiguring the block’s proportions, vestiges of the engaged torus and cornice that once had surmounted the chapel doorway were removed, flattening the block to create a smooth lower surface for the statue base. Dense patches of pounding marks indicate the process of smoothing of this area which likely post-dated the initial defacement of the decoration (inlay and royal titulary) that had already occurred while the chapel was still standing. Possibly the left side of the block also was trimmed removing an original, engaged corner torus. Also in preparation for reuse of this block, there appears to have been fine-dressing of the surface that once formed the opposite face to the inlaid façade of the Meritaten Sunshade chapel. There are absolutely no vestiges of decoration preserved on this surface. However, on the block’s lower end there are dense pounding marks that indicate the surface could have been carefully dressed specifically to remove any Amarna-era decoration. For this reason, as noted above, it is conceivable that parts of the opposite face once also bore decoration. However, if the block was mounted in a chapel pylon with additional masonry behind it then it may originally have been only roughly dressed on this inward-facing surface. Dressing marks there may not be indicative of any substantial reworking of a once-decorated interior surface, but rather a fine-dressing during the Ramesside Period to finish what had formerly been an unexposed surface concealed behind adjacent masonry in the original Meritaten chapel.

132

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

After narrowing, flattening, and with the Amarna Period decoration limited to the block’s base, the resulting slab was reworked with a rounded end, giving it the accidental stela-like appearance.1 The sides were cut with sunk inscriptions recording the titulary and epithets of Merenptah indicating use of the block as the plinth for a statue. This reuse of a preexisting block for a sphinx plinth accords generally with the pronounced patterns of reuse of earlier statues in the monumental program of Merenptah (Sourouzian 1989, 1991:226–49). The Merenptah inscriptions are symmetrically organized. The texts begin on the block’s flat end and terminate on the rounded end. Although a variety of forms of royal statuary employ elongated plinths with one convex end, in most statue types the convex face equates with the statue front. Sphinx plinths, however, invariably have the rounded end forming the statue’s posterior. Inscriptions on sphinx bases begin on the flat front, ending at the rounded end. This is precisely the format present on E16230. Consequently, the nature of the recutting paired with the direction of the inscriptions demonstrates that the block served as the plinth for a sphinx of Merenptah.2 Based on the 2.4 m length of the block the sphinx can be estimated to have been approximately one meter in height, the entire figure when mounted on the base being ca. 1.25 m (Fig. 52). This was a sphinx of modest scale, probably one of a group erected in front of one of Merenptah’s constructions at Heliopolis.3 The block’s surface preserves no indications of the actual statue that was once mounted on it. The sphinx may have been mortared and/or pinned to the plinth. In the center of the block there is a notable circular depression that might represent the vestiges of a hole for a mounting pin, although the eroded state of the surface makes this unclear. Post-pharaonic reuse of

Fig. 52.  E16230 reused as the base for a sphinx of Merenptah.

ramesside reuse at heliopolis

the block certainly resulted in considerable abrasion to the upward facing surface and obliterated any surface evidence that might otherwise have survived for the mounting of the sphinx figure.

The Merenptah Inscriptions The Merenptah inscriptions begin on the flat face of the plinth and extend symmetrically along both of the long sides terminating at the midpoint of the rounded end. The text register measures 16.5 cm wide with upper and lower border lines containing a text of hieroglyphs 12 cm high. The register is offset vertically with its upper border being 2.5 cm below the top of the originally 27 cm wide block. The text is well preserved on the block’s left side, although badly damaged on the right side, where abrasion of the block’s surface has led to significant loss of the upper parts of the hieroglyphs. The inscriptions begin with independent, vertically-oriented writing of Merenptah’s nomen and prenomen on the center of the front face.4 Flanking these are symmetrical writings of Jr cnx initiating the Horus name, the beginning of the king’s titulary, which then continues on either side of the plinth. The titulary comprises standard variants of Merenptah’s Horus-name, nomen and prenomen (the Golden Horus and Nebty names are omitted).5 The inscriptions read as follows (Fig. 53):

Front Face Nb t™wy (B™-n-Rc mry-norw) nb xcw (Mr-n-Ptj jtp jr-M™ct). “Lord of the Two Lands (Baenra, beloved of the gods), lord of appearances (Merenptah, peaceful before Maat).” Jr cnx…(twice, symmetrically arranged, initiating the titulary that continues on either side): “The living Horus…”

Left Side KC-nxt jcy-m-M™ct jnk-sw-n-Rc m-jrt hrw n-swt-bity nb t™wy (B™-n-Rc mry norw) s™-Rc nb xcw (Mr-n-Ptj jtp-jr-M™ct) Rc-Jr-™xty mry (m) Iwnw. “Strong bull, joyful on account of Maat, which he offers to Re daily. King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands (Baenra, beloved of the gods), Son of Re,

133

134

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 53.  The Merenptah inscriptions.

Lord of appearances (Merenptah, peaceful before Maat), beloved of Re-Horakhty (in) Heliopolis.”

Right Side KC-nxt jcy-m-M™ct jnk-sw-n-Rc m-jrt hrw n-swt-bity nb t™wy (B™-n-Rc mry norw) s™-Rc nb xcw (Mr-n-Ptj jtp-jr-M™ct) /// mry Iwnw. “Strong bull, joyful on account of Maat, which he offers to Re daily. King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands (Baenra, beloved of the gods), Son of Re, Lord of appearances (Merenptah, peaceful before Maat), beloved of /// (in) Heliopolis.”

ramesside reuse at heliopolis

The most important element of the Merenptah inscriptions occurs in the terminal epithets on the plinth’s rounded end where there is clear evidence on the location of the block’s reuse. On the right side, the king’s titulary ends with the statement Rc-Jr™xty mry, “beloved of Re-Horakhty.” On the left side, is an identical formula in which the royal titulary is followed by the name of a deity and the epithet mry, “beloved.”6 However, the writing of the god’s name on the right side is quite eroded. There appears to be a falcon as occurs in the writing of Re-Horakhty but, contrary to the left side, there is another element intervening between the cartouche and the falcon. What follows between the falcon and the word mry is unclear. It appears feasible that there is a parallel statement to that on the left side but with a variant spelling. Terminating the inscription on the center of the rounded end is the place name Iwnw: Heliopolis. The orientation of the word (facing left) suggests it primarily relates to the text on the plinth’s right side, but because the texts are symmetrical Iwnw may have done double duty also for the left side text. There is no preposition linking the edge texts with Iwnw suggesting there may be an understood preposition m, “in,” for Rc-Jr-™xty mry (m) Iwnw, “beloved of Re-Horakhty (in) Heliopolis.” Alternatively, the text may be rendered as a direct genitive with honorific transposition of the god’s name: Rc-Jr™xty mry Iwnw, “beloved of Re-Horakhty (of ) Heliopolis.” A similar use of Iwnw directly following the name of a deity occurs on the model temple gateway from Heliopolis of Seti (Brooklyn Museum 49.183 [Badawy 1972]): “Atum, lord of the TwoLands (of ) Iunu, the great god, lord of heaven.”

The Heliopolitan Context of the Merenptah Sphinx Despite the uncertainty in reading the god’s name on the left side, the citation “beloved of Re-Horakhty (in) Heliopolis” provides direct evidence for the association of this sphinx with Merenptah’s monumental additions at the great solar cult center. Heliopolis was a religious center that underwent extensive development during the Ramesside Period (Saleh 1983; Raue 1999:122–23, 318–91). The archaeological remains of Heliopolis include two walled precincts (Fig. 54): (1) a southern or main enclosure, which appears to have housed the primary temple complex dedicated to Re in his two principal forms, Atum and Re-Horakhty, and (2) a north enclosure, which may have contained a mix of religious and administrative buildings associated with the broader Heliopolitan temple, the pr-Rc, or domain-of-Re. The two adjacent enclosures are located on the eastern side of the ancient Ity canal which ran in a north-easterly direction close to the area of the modern Tawfiqiya canal.7 At the center of the main enclosure is a substantial platform-like mound, ca. 400 m across and covering an area of some 16 hectares, which has been suggested to represent the focal point of the temple complex. This temple mound may be equivalent with a sanctuary called the “high-sand of Heliopolis” in the Late Period (Ashmawy and Raue 2015:8–11). Major architectural remains are associated with this

135

136 the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 54.  Plan of Heliopolis with major features relating to the building activity of Merenptah.

ramesside reuse at heliopolis

elevated feature suggesting that from early times it developed as the location of the principal solar temple at Heliopolis. By the New Kingdom, however, the mound was enclosed within the approximately 450 x 1200 m main enclosure with further monumental development particularly on the western side of the enclosure. Archaeological evidence shows that Merenptah was extremely active in aggrandizing the monumental fabric of Heliopolis. Interestingly, Egyptian tradition recorded that Merenptah had been born at Heliopolis. Papyrus Anastasi III includes the statement that Merenptah “descended from heaven and was born in Heliopolis” (Gardiner 1937:21–23). Building activity of Merenptah includes alterations to a preexisting temple of Horus that may date back to the Middle Kingdom, restored under Amenhotep III (18th Dynasty) and again under Merenptah and other Ramesside Period kings (Bakry 1967:53–59). Merenptah also commissioned significant new buildings such as a decorated columned hall at the southern edge of Tell Arab el-Hisn. This latter structure includes inscriptions celebrating Merenptah’s Year 5 Libyan victory and is associated with a major gateway that connected the north and south enclosures (Bakry 1973:3– 21; Tawfiq, al-Hazam, and Raue 1995:41–47; Raue 1999:368–71). The probable setting of the sphinx as part of Merenptah’s additions to the temple of Re-Horakhty suggest it once stood somewhere within the southern enclosure. Despite the extremely limited archaeological picture of the arrangement of religious buildings through time, recent archaeological evidence from the main enclosure helps illuminate some of the issues regarding Merenptah’s reuse of the Meritaten Sunshade block. Excavations of the joint Egyptian-German expedition at Heliopolis during the last decade have exposed an area at the western side of the southern enclosure in east-west alignment with the still standing obelisk of Senwosret I.8 Recent exposure at ‘Site 200,’ located 600 m west of the obelisk of Senwosret I, has revealed remains of demolished Amarna Period Aten cult structures overlain by extensive 19th Dynasty construction. The disposition of architectural remains suggests that Ramesses II completed a statue courtyard in this area decorated with both newly commissioned as well reused statuary including colossal figures originally belonging to Senwosret I (Abd el-Gelil et al. 2008:6–7 and pls. 5a–b). The statuary links Ramesses II with Re-Atum and Re-Horakhty and suggests this area may have been a monumental statue court fronting the inner temple that lay further to the east in the area of the elevated mound. Significantly, it is just west of this area where the axial approach into the main enclosure would have led from the Ity canal. Descriptions of the site in the 18th and early 19th centuries suggest there were visible remains of colossal statuary, including sphinxes, directly west of this probable statue courtyard (Abd el-Gelil et al. 2008:1, with discussion of the early observations of Fourmont published in 1755). Just to the west of Site 200, a fragment of a colossal quartzite sphinx of Merenptah was found, corroborating the early modern descriptions of colossal statuary in this area (Abd el-Gelil et al. 2008:7 and pl. 7b). The location of Site 200 is slightly south-west of the Year 5 columned gateway building of Merenptah suggesting that the king may

137

138

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

have completed works of Ramesses II and augmented the monumental construction in this front part of the temple enclosure. The Year 5 gateway building may belong to extensive redevelopment of the front parts of the temple of Atum and Re-Horakhty akin to Ramesses II and Merenptah’s massive rebuilding program in the Ptah temple at Memphis or the 19th Dynasty additions to the front of Karnak and Luxor temples. The Merenptah sphinx base formed by E16230 is not colossal in scale, but rather represents a sphinx of moderate dimensions. Consequently, it is not likely to belong to a grouping of colossal sphinxes marking the temple’s axial entrance. Rather, it should derive from the internal architecture of the 19th Dynasty rebuilding of the Heliopolitan temples of Atum and Re-Horakhty. Sphinxes of a variety of scales could have flanked doorways, especially axial entrances at a number of locations in what was, undoubtedly, a complex architectural ensemble. The stratigraphic evidence from Site 200 now provides some direct evidence on the development of this area and reworking of Amarna Period masonry under Ramesses II and Merenptah. Remains of Amarna Period buildings at Site 200 included substantial use of limestone talatat construction for walls as well as palm-capital columns composed of talatat blocks (Ashmawy and Raue 2015:9). Also attested is statuary of the Amarna royal family. At least one fragmentary statue base of an Amarna royal figure was carved from Gebel Ahmar quartzite. The excavators see evidence for extensive leveling of the Amarna buildings in this area that was then rapidly sealed beneath the 19th Dynasty constructions. While the exposure in Site 200 provides only a limited window into a large and complex site, the superimposition of 19th Dynasty construction dedicated to Atum and Re-Horakhty over dismantled Amarna Period buildings may represent the archaeological situation that led to reuse of E16230. Characteristic of Merenptah’s reign is the substantial repurposing of preexisting masonry as well as recarving of statues of earlier kings. The appropriation of the Meritaten Sunshade block fits squarely with this aspect of Merenptah’s building activity, as well as within the sequence of deconstruction and selective reuse that may have occurred at Heliopolis as it did at other sites. Despite the extensive evidence for demolition and reworking of Amarna Period buildings at Heliopolis, is it possible that E16230 does not derive from the actual Aten cult structures at the site; instead was it transported to that site secondarily during the 19th Dynasty? Was masonry originating in Amarna being used during Merenptah’s reign to augment the building materials at Heliopolis—including potentially significant volumes of masonry from demolished Aten structures already at the site? Masonry from the royal buildings at Tell el-Amarna was transported in substantial volumes for reuse in the 19th Dynasty. At Hermopolis (20 km from Amarna) talatat blocks were used as pylon fill in the Ramesside additions to the Thoth temple. Smaller quantities of talatat blocks associated with the Amarna Period cult building named ûdw.f Cxt.f n Itn m Cxt-Itn went as far as Abydos, ca. 200 km to the south. Unlike the small and less adaptable talatat blocks that comprised the numerical bulk of the Amarna Period cult buildings, architectural blocks such as E16230 would have

ramesside reuse at heliopolis

been attractive as large, pre-cut masonry easily modified for use in royal building projects of the Ramesside era. It is clear that major architectural complexes, at Amarna, such as the Great Palace, were extensively denuded of their stonework during the early Ramesside Period. Dispersal of more valuable stone like the Meritaten chapel block would, therefore, appear to be viable. It is instructive to note here the transport of another Meritaten block, the large granite statue base British Museum, EA1000, originating from the Sunshade of Meritaten in the Per-Hay at Tell el-Amarna but found in the 19th century in a garden in Cairo (Parkinson 1999:141). As part of the Ramesside dismantling of building materials from Tell el-Amarna, it is certainly feasible that E16230 was taken the ca. 300 km distance to Heliopolis during the century following Amarna’s demise.9 While the origin of E16230 in Tell el-Amarna remains a possibility, the archaeological evidence from Heliopolis lends a certain amount of weight to what appears to be another viable scenario: that E16230 is part of the extensive building activity of Akhenaten at Heliopolis and it is there that the block was ultimately reused in the reign of Merenptah. In that case, the over 1100 kg block was not taken 300 km simply to be recut as a statue base, but appears to represent one remnant of the once extensive Heliopolitan Aten cult buildings that Merenptah’s architects had at their disposal and opportunistically reworked. Moreover, the independent textual evidence for the existence at Heliopolis of a pr (n) Wc-n-Rc—the building named on E16230 within which the Meritaten Sunshade once stood—supports the Heliopolitan origin and reuse of E16230. It is a remarkable possibility that E16230 may represent an architectural survivor of the extensively denuded site of Heliopolis and provides evidence both on Akhenaten’s building program there and the mode in which Amarna Period buildings were repurposed during the early Ramesside Period. Wherever it originated, however, the history of the Meritaten Sunshade block from the Per Waenre did not end at Heliopolis. The block underwent yet another stage of reuse some two millennia later.

notes 11.1.  As stated here in the Introduction, Ranke made this mistake stating that “the block probably formed part of a stela, which was erected in the Great Aten Temple at el-Amarna” (Ranke 1950:98). The incorrect term “Amarna stela” has long continued in reference to E16230. 11.2.  Few actual sphinxes of Merenptah exist; those that are identified are predominantly usurpations (Sourouzian 1991:235). 11.3.  The architectural placement of this medium sized sphinx of Merenptah was probably in a statue grouping similar to that depicted in the 19th Dynasty model gateway of a temple of Seti I at Heliopolis. The block (Brooklyn Museum 49.183) was discovered in Tell el-Yahudiya, but depicts a temple gateway at Heliopolis as indicated by the text. The gateway is fronted by a staircase flanked by sockets for statuary including four sphinxes (Badawy 1972:1–20). 11.4.  This face is not normally visible as the block is mounted standing on this face in order to display the Amarna-period scenes.

139

140

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

11.5.  The Horus-name equates with variant N.3 of von Beckerath, nomen with variant T.7, and prenomen with variant E.2 (von Beckerath 1999:156–159). 11.6.  On the right side the word is written in full with two i (reed leaf ) hieroglyphs, whereas on the left it is written in the abbreviated form with the mr hieroglyph alone. 11.7.  In ancient times the Ity canal seems to have formed the water-front of Heliopolis. The canal appears to have departed the main Nile somewhere west of Gebel Ahmar, passed by the front of the Heliopolis temple enclosures, and then rejoined the Pelusiac branch of the Nile at Tell el-Yahudiya, some 20 km north of Heliopolis. Today the modern Ismailiya canal follows the same north-easterly orientation although at Heliopolis its course runs further west of the Ity canal. 11.8.  The obelisk of Senwosret I is generally considered to mark the approximate center and main axis of the temple complex of Re-Atum and Re-Horakhty (Petrie 1915:5–6 and pl. 4–5). Other obelisks (Habachi 1984:30–31) discovered in the vicinity including those of Teti (6th Dynasty) and Thutmose III (18th Dynasty) corroborate this general conclusion although the details of the core of the temple in all periods remain unclear. 11.9.  The interval between the abandonment of Amarna (ca. 1335 BCE) and the reign of Merenptah (ca. 1225 BCE) was slightly over a century.

12 Reuse of the Meritaten Sunshade Block in Islamic Cairo

T

he post-pharaonic history of Heliopolis presents, perhaps, the classic case of the progressive dismantlement of the immense masonry structures that once composed the greatest of ancient Egyptian temple complexes (Quirke 2001:73–76). The temple enclosures of Heliopolis together encompass a tremendous area: some 1.2 km2. The main enclosure, containing the remains of the elevated mound that may have formed the core of the complex, covers twice the area of the enclosure of Amun at Karnak. Indeed, Heliopolis was regarded as the prototypical Egyptian temple and a model for other temples at sites such as Karnak. Yet, beginning in the Roman Period these great buildings began to be dismantled. Obelisks from Heliopolis were relocated to Alexandria during the Roman Empire (now in London and New York) and directly to Rome where five Heliopolitan obelisks still stand.1 The deconstruction of Heliopolis continued during the Byzantine and then the Islamic Periods where the proximity of Heliopolis firstly to Fostat (founded 641–642 CE) and then to Cairo proper (el-Qahira: the Fatimid royal city founded in 969 CE) made the site an ideal source for precut building stone. Much of what remained of the architecture of Heliopolis was siphoned away into the architecture of Islamic Cairo as that city expanded a short distance to the south. Heliopolis is located a mere 10 km from the walls of Cairo’s Fatimid city core. The ease with which large masonry blocks could be transported this short distance, either overland or by barge over canals, rendered Heliopolis a prime target for high-quality masonry during the Islamic caliphate: the Fatimid (969–1171 CE) and Ayyubid (1171–1260 CE) Periods; as well as the subsequent Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517 CE).2 With so much Heliopolitan masonry later appropriated as stone fittings for buildings in and around greater Cairo, it is not at all surprising that E16230 bears distinct evidence of an additional post-pharaonic period of use: this time as the threshold for a building in Islamic Cairo. The cross section of the block is distinctively worn. Although the edge which composed the left side of the Merenptah sphinx plinth is close to its original thickness (27 cm), the block tapers significantly from left to right. The right side is reduced to a

142

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

thickness of approximately 20 to 21 cm along most of its length (Figs. 5 and 49). The Merenptah inscription on this same face has lost the upper quarter of the text register and the hieroglyphs are badly eroded. The wear patterns demonstrate that the right edge of the block served as the exposed front face of a threshold for a lengthy span of time. During this period, the block would logically have been placed, as it had during its use as the base for a sphinx, with the Amarna scenes face down. The reason would be simply that the top of the block, after removal of the sphinx, would have constituted a flat and desirable surface for a smooth stone threshold. The lower surface was still marred by the deep recesses of the Amarna inlay. As mentioned, the description by Georges Daressy records the findspot of Amarna block E16230 in a dead-end street within the Mousky district of central Cairo.3 The Mousky is located on the immediate north-west side of the el-Azhar mosque (970 CE) and in the area once occupied by the original Fatimid Period caliphal palaces.4 This part of Cairo overlays the well-known Medieval district known as the Bayn el-Qasrayn, “between the two palaces,” an area that lay between the Fatimid palaces, and part of what became the great north-south thoroughfare, al-Mu’izz Street (Abd el-Salam 2010), that once ran from the Bab el-Futuh gate southwards between the palaces (Fig. 55). Today the Mousky forms the western side of the Khan el-Khalili bazaar and is traditionally associated with metal workshops and goldsmiths. The area underwent extensive development in the Fatimid and Ayyubid Periods. Subsequent to the end of the caliphate, the Fatimid palaces were abandoned and then destroyed during the Mamluk Period The city center underwent a phase of expansion during the Mamluk Period with new construction filling in areas formerly occupied by the Fatimid royal city. What had been a walled palace city now was redeveloped as the Qasaba (commercial high street) and al-Mu’izz Street emerged as the commercial spine of Cairo. Apart from the palaces, much of the Fatimid royal cemetery (to the east of the palace area) was largely destroyed5 and replaced by a caravanserai in the 14th Century which developed into the Khan el-Khalili still in existence today. The modern provenance of the Meritaten Sunshade block lies at the heart of early Medieval Cairo. Many buildings in this area of Cairo made use of reused pharaonic masonry. Pharaonic blocks from Heliopolis have been documented in numerous locations in still-standing Fatimid Period buildings such as the el-Hakem mosque (Habachi 1971:37–41), as well as the city fortifications that were completed in the Ayyubid Period: the northern gates of Cairo (Bab el-Futuh and Bab el-Nasr), the Bab el-Tawfiq, and the Medieval city walls.6 Some of the pharaonic masonry taken to Cairo was probably subject to multiple phases of local reuse, initially occurring in Fatimid or Ayyubid structures, which were then demolished, and later in new construction during the Mamluk and subsequent Ottoman Periods (for a useful list of pharaonic blocks in Cairo see Porter and Moss [1968:69–73]). There are a significant number of buildings in central Cairo which specifically used pharaonic blocks as door sills or thresholds (Williams 1993). Among the various Islamic Period buildings that employed reused blocks in this fashion are: the

reuse of the meritaten sunshade block in islamic cairo

Fig. 55.  The modern provenance of the Meritaten Sunshade block shown here in the Mousky district of Cairo relative to main structures in the original Fatimid royal city.

143

144

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Khanqah of Sultan Baybars al-Gashankir (1306–1310 CE); the Khanqah of Amir Shakhu (1355 CE); the tomb complex of Farag ibn Barquq (1400–1411 CE); and the mosque of Khayrbak (1502–1520 CE). The other large Amarna Period block from Heliopolis examined in earlier chapters (Cairo 34175, deriving from the building named wos-Rc m Iwnw), also underwent reuse as a threshold in a mosque near the Citadel (Daressy 1904:103–4). Perhaps the best example of the type of post-pharaonic reuse that characterizes the Meritaten Sunshade block occurs in the Qusun Wikala, located in the Gamaliya district just south of the mosque of el-Hakem (Warner 2005:88, no. 11). With extensive development occurring during the Mamluk Period, the Gamaliya district came to include markets (wikala) and storage buildings connected with the commercial and trading functions of what was formerly the royal center of Medieval Cairo. The Qusun Wikala (dating ca. 1341 CE, built under the Mamluk Sultan al-Nasir Muhammed) contains substantial reused masonry deriving from Heliopolitan temples belonging to Ramesses II and Merenptah (Bakry 1967:53–59 and pl. 16). The eastern gate into the

Fig. 56.  The Heliopolitan block forming the threshold of the eastern gate of the Qusun Wikala provides a parallel to the reuse of E16230 in the Islamic Period in Cairo (Image courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Asteilung Kairo).

reuse of the meritaten sunshade block in islamic cairo

Qusun Wikala employed as its threshold a reused granite block, 2.2 m wide and 25 cm in thickness (Fig. 56). The block originated in Heliopolis and bears inscriptions of Ramesses II,7 with the hieroglyphic text oriented upwards (Meinecke-Berg 1985:133–35 and pl. 12c; Lorand 2013:270–72). Inside the Qusun Wikala were further reused column elements, also originally from Heliopolis bearing texts of Merenptah cut over earlier texts of Amenhotep III.8 With its evidence for long-term use as a threshold the Meritaten block would have been mounted in similar fashion to that of the nearby Qusun Wikala and numerous other buildings in Islamic Cairo. Caroline Williams has suggested a similarly placed block in the Khanqah of Sultan Baybars al-Gashankir was purposefully positioned so that people entering the building would step upon the pagan imagery incised on it (Williams 1993:210); such a disposition could apply also to E16230 in its reused architectural setting. The doorway reemploying the Meritaten block must have been of comparable, or larger, scale to that of the eastern gate of the Qusun Wikala as E16230 is both longer (2.4 m) and thicker (27 cm at its maximum) than the Qusun Wikala threshold. Certainly E16230 must have seen reuse in a residential, religious, or commercial building of substantial scale. The extensive wear patterns to the front of the block indicate the hieroglyphs were long exposed just as occurs in the Qusun Wikala. This was a building that may have stood for many centuries, perhaps well into the 19th Century. Its specific identity remains unknown at the present time. Given the scope of reuse of masonry from Heliopolis in Medieval Cairo, the Mousky district and surrounding areas of Medieval Cairo are likely to contain many additional fragments. Documentation of reused pharaonic masonry through archaeological research in Cairo has recently augmented the existing evidence. Ongoing work such as the UNESCO, World Heritage Property project initiated in 2010 or archaeological work by the Institute Français d’Archéologie Orientale (IFAO) and Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI) on the city walls and gates of Cairo (Pradines 2005:60–73; Pradines and Talaat 2007:229–75; Pradines et al. 2009:177–219), have high potential for locating further evidence for reused Heliopolitan monuments. It may be hoped that future discoveries in Islamic Cairo could illuminate both the Amarna Period royal buildings that originated in Heliopolis, as well as Ramesside Period buildings that themselves repurposed architecture from the reign of Akhenaten. There seems little doubt that other elements originating from the Per Waenre of Akhenaten must exist somewhere, reused like E16230, among the buildings of Medieval Cairo.

notes 12.1.  Heliopolitan obelisks in Rome are the Flaminio obelisk (Piazza del Popolo), Solare obelisk (Piazza di Montecitorio), Macuteo obelisk (Piazza della Rotunda), Dogali obelisk (Baths of Diocletian), and Matteiano obelisk (Villa Celimontana). Most were taken to Rome during the period of the Roman Empire and have since been relocated within the city (Wirsching 2000:273–83). 12.2.  Cairo in the Middle Ages was flanked on its western side by a canal, the Khalij Masry, which left

145

146

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

the Nile just north of Fostat and ran north-east towards Heliopolis. Much of the reused masonry in Medieval Cairo likely arrived by barge along this watercourse. 12.3.  The Mousky district takes it name from the Izz el-Din Musk, one of the followers of the Ayyubid caliph Salah el-Din/Saladin (Williams 1993:179). 12.4.  Cairo was founded as a palace city by the Fatimid caliphs, originating from Tunisia, in 969 CE. North of the el-Azhar mosque were the palaces built by el-Muizz (953–975) and his successor, al-Aziz (975–996). The palaces were abandoned after the fall of the caliphate and destroyed in the 15th Century. 12.5.  The mosque of el-Hussein (1154 CE), today marking the front of the Khan el-Khalili partially covers the Fatimid royal cemetery 12.6. Amarna talatat and other pharaonic material from Heliopolis occur in the original Fatimid city wall built by Jawhar al-Sikilli in 969 CE (Bakry 1972:61–65). Recent work has revealed additional evidence for reused pharaonic masonry in the Medieval fortifications of Cairo (Heiden 2001:59–72, 2002:257–75; Postel and Régen 2005:229–93, 2006:193–218). 12.7.  The text as preserved reads: wcf(w) xCswt sC-Rc (Rc-ms-sw Mry-Imn) mry Rc-Jr-Cxty: “who makes the foreign countries bow, the son of Re Ramesses-Meryamon, beloved of Re-Horakhty” 12.8.  The Qusun Wikala was largely demolished in the 1950s. The pharaonic elements of the building's inner architecture were relocated to the Egyptian Museum. The façade with its reused threshold of Ramses II was moved and rebuilt and still stands close to the building's original location (Bakry 1967:51; Lorand 2013).

13 Conclusions

T

his volume has examined the many ways in which the unassuming brown quartzite slab, which has stood in the Egyptian galleries of the Penn Museum for over a century, represents such an important remnant of the architectural program of the heretic pharaoh Akhenaten. Based on the analysis of the inscriptions, E16230 may now, for the first time, be identified as part of a Sunshade chapel dedicated to Princess Meritaten once housed inside a larger building called the Per Waenre in Akhet-Aten. This evidence opens the window onto two equally fascinating possibilities. E16230 may be the sole surviving remnant of a Sunshade chapel dedicated to Meritaten that once stood at the great solar religious center of Heliopolis. In this case, the dedicatory inscriptions on the monument indicate that it was a zwt-Rc chapel housed within the ceremonial palace named Per Waenre at Heliopolis, of which it is the only known extant architectural element. A further implication would be that use of the term Akhet-Aten on the chapel may relate to the existence of an independent “Horizon-of-the-Aten” at Heliopolis: a broader designation for an Aten cult zone that Akhenaten may also have developed concurrently at Memphis. If this is the case, E16230 is a block that underwent a limited geographical itinerary prior to its transport to Philadelphia in 1900. The block was first quarried at the Gebel Ahmar, installed just ten kilometers away in the zwt-Rc of Meritaten in the Per Waenre at Heliopolis. That building was defaced and pulled down in the aftermath of the Amarna Period. Subsequently Merenptah’s architects adapted the block during the 19th Dynasty for use as a sphinx plinth at Heliopolis. Finally, approximately two millennia later, this block shared the fate of so much of the pharaonic architecture of ancient Heliopolis when it was reused during the Islamic Period in Cairo. The last stage of the block’s use was as a threshold in central Cairo where its modern provenience in the city’s Mousky neighborhood suggests it was once part of the buildings that flanked Cairo’s early Medieval palace area: the Bayn el-Qasran and the commercial thoroughfare known as Al-Mu’izz li Din Illah Street. The quartzite block first quarried on behalf of Meritaten, in this case, underwent an impressive range of reuse spanning thousands of years, but a history that unfolded over a narrow geographical area.

148

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

An alternative scenario offers a new window onto the archaeological and textual evidence for the royal buildings at Akhenaten’s capital at Tell el-Amarna. Interpreting the statement m Cxt-Itn “in Akhet-Aten” to indicate the original context of the Per Waenre at Tell el-Amarna, rather than Heliopolis, not only suggests a third Sunshade of Meritaten at Amarna, but also the name of a previously unknown royal building that should be located somewhere among the ensemble of royal buildings at Tell el-Amarna. Candidates for a palatial style building designated as the Per Waenre that housed a zwt-Rc of Meritaten are limited. One option that emerges is the North Palace: an excavated, but poorly understood and not yet fully published royal building, the ancient name of which has never been established. Significantly, the North Palace offers the type of hybrid royal residential and ceremonial architecture in which a Sunshade dedicated to Meritaten might logically be situated. Furthermore, the building includes extensive inscriptional remains associated with Meritaten as well as the likely location for a now-missing Sunshade chapel in the Altar Court. The sole surviving in situ inscribed element from that particular area of the North Palace is the doorjamb, also now in Philadelphia (Penn Museum E518) naming Meritaten and suggesting the central altar there could once have supported a chapel dedicated to the same royal woman. If the North Palace is the Per Waenre in Akhet-Aten and E16230 is part of a Meritaten Sunshade that originally stood in the Altar Court, this is an architectural block that was transported over significant distances during Egypt’s New Kingdom. Quarried at the Gebel Ahmar it would firstly have been taken 300 km southwards to Tell el-Amarna where it stood during the reign of Akhenaten. Defacement at the end of the 18th Dynasty or early Ramesside Period was then succeeded by the removal of the block 300 km back northwards to Heliopolis, returning it to within 10 km of its original quarry location at Gebel Ahmar. Subsequent to its incorporation in Merenptah’s constructions at Heliopolis, the block then underwent its tertiary phase of reuse in Medieval Cairo, leading ultimately to its discovery and removal in 1899–1900 by the Service des Antiquités. A rather astounding coincidence of this particular scenario is that E16230 would have been taken from the ruins of the Per Waenre in ancient times on a long journey of reuse through Heliopolis and Cairo. Then, in the 20th Century CE, the block was joined in Philadelphia by the inscribed door-jamb from the North Palace excavated in situ at Tell el-Amarna in 1923 by the Egypt Exploration Society. The probability seems infinitesimal that two fragments of architecture from a single location took such divergent routes, yet both ended up in the same North American archaeological collection after thousands of years. However, this does appear a possibility to be considered based on the evidence from Amarna and the currently available information regarding the archaeology of the North Palace. Situating E16230 at Tell el-Amarna, the North Palace is the best candidate among the known and excavated royal buildings. Fundamentally, the inscriptions on E16230, while specific in nature, leave an archaeological puzzle. Was the block part of Akhenaten’s constructions at Heliopolis or his capital city at Tell el-Amarna? It is difficult to say conclusively. Weighing the

conclusions

probabilities of the large block’s transport, necessitated in the second scenario, against the independent textual evidence from the tomb of May for the existence of a building named the House-of-Waenre at Heliopolis, it appears the odds may favor the Heliopolitan use and reuse of E16230. Regardless of the location of the Per Waenre, E16230 represents a remarkable architectural remnant of one of the Sunshade chapels that formed such a prominent category of royal cult building during the reign of Akhenaten. In view of the two previously documented Sunshades at Tell el-Amarna, those associated with the Maru-Aten and the pr-jcy, the Sunshade of the Per Waenre emphasizes the extent to which Meritaten was a central figure in Akhenaten’s monumental program. No other Amarna royal woman, not even Queen Nefertiti, is known to have had so many Sunshades dedicated to her. Identification of the Sunshade of Meritaten in the Per Waenre—ironically, “hidden in plain sight” for the last century in the Egyptian galleries of the Penn Museum—provides eloquent testimony to the prominent role held by Meritaten during the 17-year reign of Akhenaten. The eldest daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti certainly was a key figure in political dynamics of the period, particularly in the era following the so-called “disappearance” of Nefertiti, after Year 12 of the reign. During that time frame, it is known that Meritaten was elevated from sCt-nswt, “king’s daughter,” to become jmt nswt wrt, “great king’s wife.” Arguments have been advanced that Nefertiti died shortly after Year 12, upon which Meritaten assumed her mother’s position as royal consort (Aldred 1988:241–46; Dodson 2009:34–40). However, it has also long been clear that Meritaten was married to Akhenaten’s brief-reigning coregent or successor, Ankhkheprure Smenkhkare-Djeserkheperu (king Smenkhkare). In the tomb of Meryre II at Tell el-Amarna, Meritaten appears with Smenkhkare bestowing gifts on the high official Meryre (Fig. 57). Unlike on E16230 and other pre-Year 12 monuments, her name now appears in a cartouche and she bears the title jmt nswt wrt.1 Meritaten is likely to have born a daughter, Meritaten-Tasheryt (Meritaten the younger) through her marriage to Smenkhkare. However, when did this union to Smenkhkare take place and what is the time frame of Smenkhkare’s reign relative to that of Akhenaten? Recent discussion regarding the identity of Akhenaten’s elusive coregent, Ankh(et) kheprure Nefernefruaten (long mistakenly assumed to be a name of the male king Smenkhkare) confirms that this individual was indeed a female co-ruler (see particularly Allen 2009:9–20).2 Consequently, in addition to Smenkhkare there was another coregent. This individual was a female pharaoh, Nefernefruaten, who was also Akhenaten’s direct successor. In view of her prominence in the monumental program and status as eldest daughter, Meritaten might represent an ideal candidate for having become coruler alongside her father, as a number of scholars have advocated (Samson 1979:53–58; Krauss 1978, 1979:403–6). Marc Gabolde, in particular, has argued in favor of this possibility, as well as the identification of Meritaten with the Egyptian queen “Dakhamunzu” (Egyptian: tC jmt nswt, “the wife of the king”) in the Hittite Annals of Suppililiuma (Gabolde 1998:178–83).

149

150

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

Fig. 57.  Meritaten shown as great king’s wife (jmt nswt wrt) of king Smenkhkare-Djeserkheperu in the tomb of Meryre II at Tell el-Amarna (after Davies, Rock Tombs of Amarna II, 1905: pl. 41 with restoration of damaged text recorded by Lepsius).

However, there is a crucial object recovered from KV62, the tomb of Tutankhamun, which strongly militates against the possibility that Meritaten became the female pharaoh Nefernefruaten. The inscription from a fragmentary decorated box (Cairo JE61500a, [Beinlich and Saleh 1989:4, 1k]) found in KV62 bears the titulary of Akhenaten and Nefernefruaten together with queen Meritaten (Fig. 58). Rather than implying a correspondence between Nefernefruaten and Meritaten, this shows there are two different women, only one of whom was elevated to become coregent and then successor to Akhenaten. The correlation of the nomen Nefernefruaten with Nefertiti’s full name, Nefernefruaten-Nefertiti, suggests almost certainly that it was Nefertiti who became coruler with her husband, as Ankh(et)kheprure Nefernefruaten, while Meritaten remained jmt nswt wrt. The recent discovery of a hieratic quarry graffito near Deir el-Bersha dating to Year 16 of Akhenaten naming Nefernefruaten-Ne-

Fig. 58.  Cairo JE61500a with the occurrence of Meritaten as great king’s wife (jmt nswt wrt) alongside the titulary of Akhenaten and Nefernefruaten (Image copyright: Griffith Institute, University of Oxford).

152

the sunshade chapel of meritaten

fertiti as great royal wife (and disproving the “disappearance” of Nefertiti) suggests her promotion to coregent must have occurred only in the final year of Akhenaten’s reign (van der Perre 2014:67–108). This new find has confirmed the separate evidence of hieratic dockets from Tell el-Amarna also indicating that Nefertiti did not predecease Akhenaten (Krauss 1997:209–19). During the final years of Akhenaten’s reign and while her mother was still alive, Meritaten certainly was invested with considerable authority and political power. Meritaten appears in the content of several of the Amarna Letters—the Akkadian correspondence between Egypt’s vassal states in the Levant and kings Amenhotep III and Akhenaten. The Amarna Letters reveal that Meritaten was the object of diplomatic gifts such as those detailed in a letter from king Burna-Buriash of Babylon to Akhenaten (Amarna Letter EA 10 [BM29786] [Moran 1992:19–20]) enumerating raw lapis-lazuli, as well as elaborate finished jewelry for the king’s daughter ‘Mayati’ (Meritaten). A letter from Abi-Milku of Tyre to Akhenaten (Amarna Letter EA 155 [BM29814] [Moran 1992:241–42]) refers to Mayati (Meritaten) in a unabashedly subservient manner: declaring Mayati to be the “mistress of Abi-Milku” and Tyre to be “her city.” In another letter from Burna-Buriash of Babylon, it appears Mayati is mentioned again as “mistress of the house,” in reference to Akhenaten’s royal household (Amarna Letter EA 11 [VAT 151 and 1878] [Moran 1992:21–23]).3 If not intended in any pejorative sense (Burna-Buriash also complains of being ignored by Mayati, presumably through her lack of response to previous diplomatic gifts), this statement may indicate that Meritaten held not merely considerable power, but had achieved primary authority in running the royal household. As mentioned above, several scholars have used this evidence to bolster arguments in favor of her role as chief consort of Akhenaten, which may indeed have been the case, not after her mother’s death as originally presumed, but rather in the context of the elevation of Nefertiti to coregent. On current evidence, it appears that Meritaten had outlived her short-reigning husband, Smenkhkare, Akhenaten’s initial male coregent (and not his successor), who appears to have died substantially before Akhenaten (Dodson 2009:27–52). When Smenkhkare was then finally replaced by a female coregent, Nefernefruaten (Nefertiti), Meritaten still retained the title of jmt nswt wrt. Perhaps at this late stage of the reign and in tandem with Nefertiti’s elevation to coregent, Meritaten had indeed become chief consort of Akhenaten, a status that would accord with the way she is treated by Burna-Buriash and Abi-Milku in the Amarna Letters and explain her inclusion alongside Akhenaten and Nefernefruaten on the decorated box from the tomb of Tutankhamun. But, what happened to Meritaten after the death of Akhenaten? The female pharaoh Nefernefruaten (Nefertiti) appears to have lived on as coregent into the early reign of the newly crowned male ruler Nebkheprure Tutankhaten.4 It was likely upon Nefernefruaten’s death that the abandonment of the cult of the Aten occurred along with inception of the counter-reformation in which Tutankhaten changed his name to Tutankhamun. Unless Meritaten herself became pharaoh Nefernefruaten—a possibil-

conclusions

ity which appears remote due to the evidence of JE61500a—it is intriguing that the eldest royal daughter was passed over as a consort when Tutankhaten married Princess Ankhesenpaaten, the third daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Was Meritaten, like Meketaten the second eldest daughter, already dead at the point when Tutankhaten married Ankhesenpaaten or was she considered to be unsuitable for other reasons? Indeed, rather than ascending to become coregent or successor of her father as many have suggested, it is difficult to avoid the impression that Meritaten may have risen to the ultimate position of great king’s wife, but her status did not weather the period after Akhenaten’s death. The role of Meritaten in these waning years of Akhenaten’s reign emerges as a question of considerable historical interest. It is certainly no accident that, as eldest daughter and a woman commemorated so visibly by multiple Sunshade chapels, she was elevated to become jmt nswt wrt of Smenkhkare in the first instance and then possibly Akhenaten himself. The Sunshades of Meritaten are clearly a fundamental part of the intricate history of the Amarna royal family. The Sunshade block from the Per Waenre, E16230, helps to focus further light on a woman who’s evolving role during the Amarna Period appears to have been every bit as compelling as that of her more famous mother, Nefertiti.

notes 13.1.  The names of Smenkhkare and Meritaten had been damaged by the time that Davies documented the tomb of Meryre II (1905: pl. 41) but are supplied by earlier copies made by K.R. Lepsius (1849), included on Davies’ illustration. 13.2.  The idea was first proposed by J.R. Harris (1974b:11–21), although suggesting erroneously that Nefertiti and Smenkhkare were the same individual. 13.3.  This “mistress of the house” has also been argued to be Princess Ankhesenpaaten, third daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti (Moran 1992:23, note 22; and Aldred 1988:244). 13.4.  Leading to the recent proposal of Nicholas Reeves (2015) that the burial of Nefernefruaten (Nefertiti) is contained in inner chambers in KV62 that had been sealed and altered to accommodate the burial of Tutankhamun.

153

This page intentionally left blank

References

Abd el-Gelil, Mohammed, Reda Suleiman, Gamal Faris and Dietrich Raue. 2008. The Joint Egyptian-German Excavations in Heliopolis in Autumn 2005: Preliminary Report. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 64:1–9. Abd el-Salam, Farouk. 2010. Al-Mu’izz li Din Illah Street: The Great Street. Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities, Cairo. Aldred, Cyril. 1961. The Tomb of Akhenaten at Thebes. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 47:41–60. ———. 1973. Akhenaten and Nefertiti. New York: The Brooklyn Museum, The Viking Press. ———. 1988. Akhenaten King of Egypt. New York: Thames and Hudson. Allen, James. 2009. The Amarna Succession. In Causing his Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane, ed. P. Brand and L. Cooper, pp. 9–20. Leiden: Brill. Angenot, Valerie. 2008. A Horizon of the Aten in Memphis? Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 35:7–26. Arnold, Dorothea. 1996. The Royal Women of Amarna: Images of Beauty from Ancient Egypt. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Ashmawy, Aiman and Dietrich Raue. 2015. The Temple of Heliopolis: Excavations 2012–2014. Egyptian Archaeology 46:8–11. Badawy, Alexander. 1954. A History of Egyptian Architecture vol. III. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 1972. A Monumental Gateway for a Temple of King Sety I: an Ancient Model Restored. In Miscellanea Wilbouriana 1, ed. B. Bothmer, pp. 1–20. New York: Brooklyn Museum of Art. Bakry, Hassan S.K. 1967. Was there a Temple of Horus at Heliopolis? Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 22:53–59. ———. 1972. Akhenaten at Heliopolis. Chronique d’Egypte 47:55–67. ———. 1973. The Discovery of a Temple of Merenptah at Ōn. Aegyptus 53:3–21.

156

references

Banna, Essam Salah el- 2014. Le voyage à Héliopolis: descriptions des vestiges pharaoniques et des traditions associées depuis Hérodote jusqu’à l’Expédition d’Égypte. Recherches d’archéologie, de philologie et d’histoire 36. Cairo: Institute Français d’Archéologie Orientale. von Beckerath, Jürgen. 1999. Handbuch der Ägyptischen Königsnamen. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 49, Mainz: von Zabern. Beinlich, Horst and M. Saleh. 1989. Corpus der Hieroglyphischen Inschriften aus dem Grab des Tutankhamun. Oxford: Griffith Institute. Bergerot, Thierry-Louis, ed. 2005. Akhénaton et l’époque amarnienne. Paris: Khéops; Centre d’égyptologie. Bickel, Susanne. 2010. Heliopolis in Antiquity. In Heliopolis, ed. Anne van Loo and Marie-Cécile Bruwier, pp. 26–30. Brussels: Fonds Mercator. Blackman, Aylward M. 1937. Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Sesebi, Northern Province, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, 1936–37. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 23:145–51. Borchardt, Ludwig. 1907. Ein Onkel Amenophis’ IV als Hoherpriester von Heliopolis. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 44:97–98. Bothmer, Bernard, ed. 1972. Miscellanea Wilbouriana 1. New York: Brooklyn Museum of Art. Breasted, James H. 1902. A City of Ikhenaton in Nubia. Zeitschift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 40:106–13. Crowell, Brigit. 2007. The Practice and Significance of Inlay in New Kingdom Monuments. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. Philadelphia. Daressy, Georges. 1899. Les inscriptions antiques trouvées au Caire. Bulletin de l’Institut Égyptien ser. 3, no. 10:145–57. ———. 1900. Nouvelles inscriptions antiques trouvées au Caire. Bulletin de l’Institut Égyptien, quatrième série 1:129–32. ———. 1904. Inscriptions hiéroglyphique trouvées dans Le Caire. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 4:101–9. D’Auria, Sue, ed. 2008. Servant of Mut; Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini. Leiden: Brill. Davies, Norman de Garis. 1905. Rock Tombs of El-Amarna II: The Tombs of Panehesy and Meryre II. London: Archaeological Survey of Egypt, Egypt Exploration Fund. ———. 1908. The Rock Tombs of El-Amarna V. London: Archaeological Survey of Egypt, Egypt Exploration Fund. Desroches-Noblecourt, Christiane. 1963. Tutankhamen: Life and Death of a Pharaoh. New York: New York Graphic Society. ———. 1967. Toutankhamon et son temps. Paris: Musée du Louvre. Dodson, Aidan. 2009. Amarna Sunset: Nefertiti, Tutankhamun, Ay, Horemheb, and the Egyptian Counter-Reformation. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. Eaton-Krauss, Marianne. 1977. The Khat Headdress to the End of the Amarna Peri-

references

od. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 5:21–39. Edwards, I.E.S., ed. 1939. Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae in the British Museum VIII. London: British Museum. Ertman, Earl. 2013. A Blue Glass Face Inlay of King Akhenaten. Journal of Glass Studies 55:13–19. Fairman, H.W. 1961. Once Again the So-Called Coffin of Akhenaten. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 47:25–40. Fisher, Clarence. 1917. The Eckley B. Coxe Jr. Expedition: Memphis. The Museum Journal 8:211–30. Forbes, Dennis. 1996. Giants of Egyptology: The Brothers Brugsch. Kmt: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt 7(3):14–16. Fourmont, Claude Louis. 1755. Description historique et géographique des plaines d’Heliopolis et de Memphis. Paris: Briasson. Frankfort, Henri. 1927. Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell el-‘Amarnah, 1926–7. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 13(3-4):209–18. ———. 1929. The Mural Paintings of El-‘Amarneh. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Freed, Rita, ed. 1991. Fragments of a Shattered Visage. Memphis, TN: Memphis State. ———, ed. 2000. Pharaohs of the Sun: Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Tutankhamun. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Friedman, Florence 1998. Gifts of the Nile: Ancient Egyptian Faience. New York: Thames and Hudson and Rhode Island School of Design. Gabolde, Marc. 1998. D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon. Paris: Université Lumière-Lyon 2. Gabolde, Marc and Robert Vergnieux. Forthcoming. Le sanctuaire “Ombre de Re” de Tiyei. In The Buildings from the Reign of Amenhotep IV-Akhenaten: Urbanism and Renewal, ed. M. Gabolde. Montpellier: Les Cahiers Égypte Nilotique et Meditérranéene. Gardiner, Alan. 1937. Late Egyptian Miscellanies. Brussels: Fondation égyptologique Reine Élisabeth. ———. 1941. The Wilbour Papyrus I. Oxford: The Brooklyn Museum, Oxford University Press. Good, William. 1992. On the Reading of Nfr.nfrw.Itn Nfrti.ti. Discussions in Egyptology 23:13–14. Grimm, Alfred and Hermann A. Schlögl. 2005. Das Thebanische Grab Nr. 136 und der Beginn der Amarnazeit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gunn, Battiscombe. 1923. Notes on the Aten and his Names. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 9(3-4):168–76. Habachi, Labib. 1971. Akhenaten in Heliopolis. Beträge zur Ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde 12:35–46. ———. 1982. Die unsterblichen Obelisken Ägyptens. Mainz: von Zabern. Hanke, Rainer. 1975. Änderungen von Bildern und Inschriften während der Amarna-

157

158

references

zeit. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 2:79–93. ———. 1978. Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis: Neue Veröffentlichungen und Studien. Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 2. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg. Harer, W. Benson. 2008. The Drexel Collection: from Egypt to the Diaspora. In Servant of Mut; Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini, ed. S. D’Auria, pp. 111–19. Leiden: Brill. Hari, Robert. 1984. La “damnatio memoriae” amarnienne. In Mélanges Adolphe Gutbub, pp. 95–102. Montpellier: Institut d’Égyptologie, Université Paul Valéry. Harris, James R. 1974a. Kiya. Chronique d’Égypte 49:25–30. ———. 1974b. Nefernefruaten regnans. Acta Orientalia 36:11–21. Heiden, Désirée. 2001. Pharaonische Baumaterialien in der ayyubidischen Stadtbefestigung von Kairo: Projekt zur systematischen Untersuchung altägyptischer Spolien in der mittelalterlichen Architektur Ägyptens. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 57:59–72. ———. 2002. Pharaonische Baumaterialien in der mittelalterlichen Stadtbefestigung von Kairo. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 58:257–75. ———. 2009. Die Beschützerin der Pforten: zur apotropäischen Bedeutung pharaonischer Spolien am Beispiel der Moschee des ‘Utmān Kathudā (1147/1734) ˘ in Kairo. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 65:191–209. Helck, Wolfgang. 1973. Zur Opferliste Amenophis’ IV. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 59:95–99. Hoffmeier, James K. 2015. Akhenaten and the Origins of Monotheism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ikram, Salima. 1989. Domestic Shrines and the Cult of the Royal Family at el-Amarna. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75:89–101. Janák, Jiří, Hana Vymazalová, and Filip Coppens. 2011. The Fifth Dynasty ‘Sun Temples’ in a Broader Context. In Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2010, ed. Miroslav Bárta, Filip Coppens, and Jaromír Krejčí, pp. 430–42. Prague: Charles University. Jeffreys, David. 2006. An Amarna Period Relief from Memphis. In Egyptian Art in the Nicholson Museum, Sydney, ed. K. Sowada and B. Ockinga, pp. 119–33. Sydney: Mediterranean Archaeology. Johnson, W. Raymond. 1990. Images of Amenhotep III in Thebes: Styles and Intentions. In The Art of Amenhotep III: Art Historical Analysis, ed. L. M. Berman, pp. 26–46. Cleveland, OH: Cleveland Museum of Art. Karkowski, Janusz. 2003. The Temple of Hatshepsut, the Solar Complex. Deir el-Bahari 6. Varsovie: Éditions Neriton. Kemp, Barry. 1976. The Window of Appearance at El-Amarna and the Basic Structure of this City. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 62:81–99. ———, ed. 1995. Amarna Reports VI. Egypt Exploration Society, Occasional Publications 10. London: The Egypt Exploration Society.

references

———. 1995. Outlying Temples at Amarna. In Amarna Reports VI, ed. B. Kemp, pp. 411–62. London: The Egypt Exploration Society. ———. 1999. Fieldwork 1998–1999. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 85:1–20. ———. 2006. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. New York: Routledge. ———. 2012. The City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti: Amarna and its People. London: Thames and Hudson. Kemp, Barry and S. Garfi. 1993. A Survey of the Ancient City of El-‘Amarna. London: The Egypt Exploration Society. Klemm, Rosemarie and Dietrich Klemm. 1993. Steine und Steinbrüche im Alten Ägypten. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Konrad, Kirsten. 2006. Architektur und Theologie: Pharaonische Tempelterminologie unter Berücksichigung königsideologischer Aspekte. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Kozloff, Arielle and Betsy Bryan. 1992. Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and his World. Cleveland, OH: The Cleveland Museum of Art. Krauss, Rolf. 1978. Das Ende der Amarnazeit: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Chronologie des Neuen Reiches. Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 7. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg. ———. 1979. Meritaten as Ruling Queen of Egypt and Successor of her Father Nipkhuria-Akhenaten. In Acts of the First International Congress of Egyptology, ed. W. Reineke, pp. 403–6. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. ———. 1997. Nefretitis Ende. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institituts, Abteilung Kairo 53:209–19. Laboury, Dimitri. 2010. Akhénaton. Paris: Pygmalion, Département de Flammarion. Lacau, Pierre. 1909. Stèles du Nouvel Empire. Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiannes du Musée du Caire, 34001–34189, vol. 45, Cairo. Lacovara, Peter. 1997. The New Kingdom Royal City. London: Kegan Paul International. Larkin, Diana. 1994. The Broken-Lintel Doorway of Ancient Egypt and its Decoration. Ph.D. diss. New York University, vol. 1 (text), vol. 2 (catalog), and vol. 3 (illustrations). Lehner, Mark. 2000. The Fractal House of Pharaoh: Ancient Egypt as a Complex Adaptive System, a Trial Formulation. In Dynamics in Human and Primate Societies, ed. Timothy A. Kohler and George J. Gumerman, pp. 275–353. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Löhr, Beatrix. 1974. Ahanjāti in Heliopolis. Göttinger Miszellen 11:33–38. ˘ ———. 1975. Ahanjāti in Memphis. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 2:139–87. ˘ Loo, Anne van and Marie-Cécile Bruwier (eds). 2010. Heliopolis. Brussels: Fonds Mercator. Lorand, David. 2010. The Great Temple of Atum at Heliopolis: Glimpses of Vanished Glory. In Heliopolis, ed. Anne van Loo and Marie-Cécile Bruwier, pp. 31–34. Brussels: Fonds Mercator. ———. 2013. A Block of Ramesses II Reused as a Threshold in the Wakala of Qa-

159

160

references

wsun (Cairo). Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 99:270–72. Malek, Jaromir 1997. The Temples at Memphis: Problems Highlighted by the EES survey. In The Temple in Ancient Egypt: New Discoveries and Recent Research, ed. Quirke, Stephen, pp. 90–101. London British Museum Press. Meinecke-Berg, Viktoria. 1985. Spolien in der mittelalterlichen Architektur von Kairo. In Agypten: Dauer und Wandel: Symposium anlasslich des 75jahrigen Bestehens des DAI Kairo am 10. Und 11. Oktober 1982, ed. Anonymous, pp. 131–42. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Miller, Jared. 2007. Amarna Age Chronology and the Identity of Nibhururiya in the Light of a Newly Reconstructed Hittite Text. Altorientalische Forschungen 34:252– 93. Moran, William L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Murnane, William. 2001. The End of the Amarna Period Once Again. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 96/1:11–23. Murnane, Willam and Charles van Siclen. 1993. The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten. London: Kegan Paul International. Newton, Francis G. 1924. Excavations at El-‘Amarnah, 1923–24. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 10:289–98. Obsomer, Claude. 2010. Classical Accounts of Heliopolitan Obelisks. In Heliopolis, ed. Anne van Loo and Marie-Cécile Bruwier, pp. 48–53. Brussels: Fonds Mercator. O’Connor, David, and David Silverman. 1979. Special Issue: The University Museum in Egypt. Expedition 21(2):4–43. Ooghe, Bart. 2005. The High Sand of Heliopolis: A Revision of Raue. Göttinger Miszellen 204:105–10. Parkinson, Richard. 1999. Cracking Codes: The Rosetta Stone and its Decipherment. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pasquali, Stéphane. 2011. A Sun-Shade Temple of Princess Ankhesenpaaten in Memphis? Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 97:216–22. Peet, T. Eric and C. Leonard Woolley. 1923. The City of Akhenaten I. London: The Egypt Exploration Fund. Pendlebury, John D.S. 1951. The City of Akhenaten. Part III: The Central City and the Official Quarters. Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Society 44. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Petrie, William, M. F. 1894. Tell el-Amarna. London: Methuen and Co. ———. 1915. Heliopolis, Kafr Ammar and Shurafa. London: Publications of the Egyptian Research Account and the British School of Archaeology in Egypt, vol. 24. Porter, Barbara and Rosalind Moss. 1968. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings IV: Lower and Middle Egypt. Oxford: Griffith Institute. Postel, Lilian and Isabelle Régen. 2005. Annales héliopolitaines et fragments de Sésos-

references

tris 1er réemployés dans la porte de Bâb al-Tawfiq au Caire. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 105:229–93. ———. 2006. Réemplois pharaoniques à Bâb al-Tawfiq. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 106:193–218. Pradines, Stéphane. 2005. Les murailles du Caire: des califes fatimides aux sultans Mamelouks. Archéologia 418:60–73. Pradines, Stéphane, Diane Laville, Maia Matkowski, Julie Monchamp, Niall O’Hora, Magdi Sulayman, and Tarek Zurrud. 2009. Excavations of the Archaeological Triangle: 10 years of Archaeological Excavations in Fatimid Cairo (2000 to 2009). Mishkah 4:177–219. Pradines, Stéphane and Osama Talaat. 2007. Les fortifications fatimides du Caire: Bab al-Tawfiq et l’enciente en briques crues de Badr el-Gamali. Annales Islamologiques 41:229–75. Quirke, Stephen. 2001. The Cult of Ra: Sun-Worship in Ancient Egypt. New York: Thames and Hudson. Ranke, Hermann. 1950. The Egyptian Collections of the University Museum. University Museum Bulletin 15:5–109. Raue, Dietrich. 1999. Heliopolis und das Haus des Re: Eine Prosopographie und ein Toponym im Neuen Reich. Berlin: Akhet Verlag. Raven, Maarten. 2002. Meryneith: High Priest of the Aten. Minerva 13(4):31–34. ———. 2009. Aspects of the Memphite Residence, As Illustrated by the Saqqara New Kingdom Necropolis. In Egyptian Royal Residences: 4th Symposium on Egyptian Royal Ideology, ed. R. Gundlach and J.H. Taylor, pp. 165–87. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Raven, Maarten, Rene van Walsem, Barbara Aston, and Eugen Strouhal. 2001–2002. Preliminary Report on the Leiden Excavations at Saqqara, Season 2001: The Tomb of Meryneith. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 37:92–109. Redford, Donald. 1984. Akhenaten the Heretic King. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Reeves, Nicholas. 1988. New Light on Kiya from Texts in the British Museum. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 74:91–101. ———. 1990. The Complete Tutankamun: the King, the Tomb, the Royal Treasure. New York: Thames and Hudson. ———. 2015. The Burial of Nefertiti? Amarna Royal Tombs Project, Valley of the Kings, Occasional Paper 1. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Egyptian Expedition. Roeder, Günther. 1969. Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis: Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Hermopolis-Expedition in Hermopolis 1929–1939. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg. Saad, Ramadan and L. Manniche. 1971. A Unique Offering List of Amenophis IV Recently Found at Karnak. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 57:70–72. Saleh, Abd el-Aziz. 1983. Excavations at Heliopolis, Ancient Ounô. Cairo: Cairo Uni-

161

162

references

versity Faculty of Archaeology (vols. I-II). Samson, Julia. 1973. Amarna Crowns and Wigs: Unpublished Pieces from Statues and Inlays in the Petrie Collection. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 59:47–59. ———. 1978. Amarna, City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti: Nefertiti as Pharaoh. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. ———. 1979. Akhenaten’s Successor. Göttinger Miszellen 32:53–58. Sandman, Maj. 1938. Texts from the Time of Akhenaten. Brussels: Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca VIII. Schäfer, Heinrich. 1919. Die frühesten Bildnisse König Amenophis des IV: ein Beitrag zur Entstehung der Kunst von Tell el-Amarna. Berlin Museen 40:211–30, 283–86. Sethe, Kurt. 1921. Beiträge zur Geschichte Amenophis’ IV. Nachrichtungen der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Göttingen: Philologisch-historische Klasse. Shaw, Ian. 1994. Balustrades, Stairs and Altars in the Cult of the Aten at el-Amarna. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 80:109–27. Silverman, David. 1985. The So-Called Portal Temple of Ramesses II at Abydos. In Akten des vierten internationalen Ägytptologen-Kongresses, München, vol. II, pp. 271–77. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Silverman, David, Josef Wegner, and Jennifer Houser-Wegner. 2006. Akhenaten and Tutankhamun: Revolution and Restoration. University of Pennsylvaia Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. Simpson, William K. 1995. Inscribed Material from the Pennsylvania-Yale Excavations at Abydos. New Haven and Philadelphia: Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Abydos no. 6. Sourouzian, Hourig. 1989. Les Monuments du roi Merenptah. Deutches Archäologisches Institut Sonderschrift 22. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. ———. 1991. The Statues of King Merenptah. In Fragments of a Shattered Visage, ed. R. Freed, pp. 226–49. Memphis, TN: Menphis State. Spence, Kate. 1999. The North Palace at Amarna. Egyptian Archaeology 15:14–16. ———. 2009. The Palaces of el-Amarna; Towards an Architectural Analysis. In Egyptian Royal Residences: 4th Symposium on Egyptian Royal Ideology, ed. R. Gundlach and J.H. Taylor, pp. 165–87. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Spencer, Anthony J. 1983. Excavations at el-Ashmunein II: The Temple Area. London: The British Museum. Spencer, Patricia. 1984. The Egyptian Temple: A Lexicographical Study. London: Kegan Paul International. Stadelmann, Rainer. 1969. Zwt-rcw als Kultstätte des Sonnengottes im Neuen Reich. MDAIK 25:159–78. Stevens, Anna. 2006. Private Religion at Amarna: the Material Evidence. Oxford: Archaeopress. Tawfiq, Atef, Hany al-Hazam, and Dietrich Raue. 1995. Two Excavations at Arab el-

references

Hisn. Bulletin de la Société d’Égyptologie de Genève 19:41–47. Teeter, Emily. 1997. The Presentation of Maat: Ritual and Legitimacy in Ancient Egypt. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 57. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Thomas, Angela. 1983. Some Palimpsest Fragments from the Maru-Aten at Amarna. Chronique d’Égypte 57:5–13. Thompson, Kristin. 2004. Amarna Statuary Fragments. Egyptian Archaeology 25:14– 16. ———. 2012. Significant Composite Statue Fragments from Amarna. Egyptian Archaeology 41:32–33. Tietze, Christian. 2010. Das ‘Haus des Königs’ in Amarna. Kölner Jahrbuch 43:779–96. ———. 2012. Die Residenz des Echnaton in Amarna. Sokar 24:42–53. Traunecker, Claude. 1986. Aménophis IV et Néfertiti: le couple royal d’après les talatates du IXe pylône de Karnak. Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie 107:17–44. ———. 2005. Amenhotep IV, percepteur royal du Disque. In Akhénaton et l’époque amarnienne, ed. Thierry-Loius Bergerot, pp. 145–82. Paris: Editions Khéops. Tyldesley, Joyce. 2006. Chronicle of the Queens of Egypt: from Early Dynastic Times to the Death of Cleopatra. London: Thames and Hudson. Uphill, Eric. 1970. The Aten at Amarna. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 29(3):151–66. Van Dijk, Jacobus. 2008. A Colossal Statue Base of Nefertiti and Other Early Atenist Monuments from the Precinct of the Goddess Mut in Karnak. In Servant of Mut: Studies in Honor of Richard A Fazzini, ed. S. D’Auria, pp. 246–61. Leiden: Brill. Van der Perre, Athena. 2014. The Year 16 Graffito of Akhenaten in Dayr Abū H ․innis: A Contribution to the Study of the Later Years of Nefertiti. Journal of Egyptian History 7(1):67–108. Vergnieux, Robert. 1999. Recherches sur les monuments thébains d’Amenhotep IV à l’aide d’outils informatiques. Cahiers de la Société d’Égyptologie, 4. Geneva: Société d’Égyptologie. Warner, Nicholas. 2005. The Monuments of Historic Cairo. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Weatherhead, Fran. 2007. Amarna Palace Paintings. Egypt Exploration Society, Excavation Memoir 78. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Wegner, Josef. Forthcoming. Philadelphia E16230: Fragment of a Sunshade of Meritaten from the Palace of Akhenaten (Pr Wc-n-Rc) in Heliopolis? In The Buildings from the Reign of Amenhotep IV-Akhenaten: Urbanism and Renewal, ed. M. Gabolde. Montpellier: Les Cahiers Égypte Nilotique et Meditérranéene. Wente, Edward. 1990. Letters from Ancient Egypt. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Whittemore, Thomas. 1926. The Excavations at El-’Amarnah, Season 1924–5. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 12:3–12. Williams, Caroline. 1993. Islamic Monuments in Cairo: a Practical Guide. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Williamson, Jacquelyn. 2008a. The Sunshade of Nefertiti. Egyptian Archaeology 33:5–7.

163

164

references

———. 2008b. Reconstruction and Identity of Kom el-Nana at Tell el-Amarna: An Analysis of the Decorated Stone Fragments from Kom el-Nana and the Role of the Structures Called “Sunshades of Re” in the Amarna Period. Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, Dept. of Near Eastern Studies. Baltimore. ———. 2013. Two Names, One Compound: The rwd cnxw Itn and the Sunshade of Re at Kom el-Nana’ Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 49:143–52. ———. Forthcoming. Hieroglyphic Inscriptions from Kom el-Nana: Finding the rwd cnxw Itn and Reconstructing the Titles of the Sunshade Temple of Nefertiti. In The Buildings from the Reign of Amenhotep IV-Akhenaten: Urbanism and Renewal, ed. M. Gabolde. Montpellier: Les Cahiers Égypte Nilotique et Meditérranéene. Wirsching, Armin. 2000. How the Obelisks Reached Rome: Evidence of Roman Double-Ships. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 29(2):273–83. ———. 2013. Obelisken transportieren und aufrichten in Ägypten und in Rom: mit einem Exkurs zu den Memnonkolossen. 3rd revised ed. Norderstedt: Books on Demand. Wister, Jones. 1920. Jones Wister’s Reminiscences. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Zivie, Alain. 2004. Hatiay, scribe du temple d’Aton à Memphis. In Egypt, Israel and the Mediterranean World, Studies in Honor of D.B. Redford, ed. G. Knoppers and A. Hirsch, pp. 223–31. Leiden: Brill.