New Evidence for Tutankhamun’s Parents Tawfik Thomas Hegenbarth Reichardt

New Evidence for Tutankhamun’s Parents Revelations from the Grand Egyptian Museum By Tarek Tawfik, Susanna Thomas and Ina Hegenbarth-Reichardt* Abstract During the preparation for the exhibition in the Tutankhamun Galleries at the Grand Egyptian Museum (GEM) new evidence occurred for Tutankhamun’s parents. The recent examination of the box strip with royal names, sequins from a robe and a previously untouched decayed tunic suggest a new interpretation of the family relationships at the post-Amarna period, including a new approach for the identification of the shadowy king/queen Ankhkheperure. Keywords Tutankhamun – Ankhkheperure – Grand Egyptian Museum (GEM) – Post Amarna period – Royal garment Compared to the enormous interest of both the public and scholars in the objects of the burial of king Tutankhamun, surprisingly little of this collection has previously been fully researched or published. Since 2011 objects from the tomb of Tutankhamun (KV 62) have been arriving at the Grand Egyptian Museum Conservation Centre (GEM-CC). This gives a great opportunity to study these amazing artefacts, many in superb condition, which give not only an insight into the technological and artistic achievements from a royal context in the late 14th century BC, but the tomb and objects also illustrate royal funerary customs and cast light on the religious ideology of the post-Amarna period. The long accepted view that there is nothing in the tomb which specifies who Tutankhamun’s mother and father were, although the loudest recent voices say that he was a previously unrecorded son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti1. The question has been compounded by uncertainty over the identities of Ankhkheperure, Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten, nebulous figures of the post-Amarna period. Are these different names for the same one, two or more people? Recent advances in DNA testing seem to have added more rather than less confusion, with conflicting identities assigned to other known bodies, including the skeleton from the royal coffin in KV 55 and two female bodies from KV 35, and identifications by Z. Hawass et al. are still being debated by others2. A huge amount of theories has been proposed by different scholars to try and explain the course of events3. These include that Nefertiti changed her * 1 2 3 Tarek Sayed Tawfik is associate professor of egyptology at Cairo University and director general of the Grand Egyptian Museum Project, Susanna Thomas and Ina Hegenbarth Reichardt are egyptologists and Irina Goryacheva is a graphic designer, all working for Hill International as consultants to the GEM project. Selected references: A. Dodson, Amarna Sunset. Nefertiti, Tutankhamun, Ay, Horemheb, and the Egyptian Counter-Reformation, Cairo 2009, passim (hereafter A. Dodson, Amarna Sunset), M. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, Lyon 1998 (hereafter M. Gabolde, Akhenaton), M. Gabolde, Les grands pharaons. Toutankhamon, Paris 2015 (hereafter M. Gabolde, Toutankhamon), Z. Hawass et al., Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family, in: Journal of the American Medical Association 303.7, 2010, pp. 638–647, D. Laboury, Akhénaton. Les grands pharaons, Paris 2010, passim (following M. Gabolde). Z. Hawass et al., Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family, in: Journal of the American Medical Association 303.7, 2010, pp. 638–647. See recently M. Eaton-Krauss, The Third International Grand Egyptian Museum Tutankhamun Conference. Focuses on Furniture & the Human Remains from KV 62, in: KMT 28.3, 2017, pp. 10–12. J. A. Belmonte noted truefully that N. Reeves, M. Gabolde, A. Dodson and R. Krauss have produced works that ‘include absolutely incompatible exclusive theories despite all of them MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 179 10.05.19 16:01 180 Tarek Tawfik, Susanna Thomas and Ina Hegenbarth-Reichardt name to become Smenkhkare, or that Smenkhkare was a male ruler who was succeeded by Nefertiti as Ankhkheperure, or that Smenkhkare changed his name to become Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten, or that Meritaten became ruler as Ankhetkheperure before Smenkhkare ruled as Neferneferuaten, or that Neferneferuaten was the princess Neferneferuaten Tasherit, or that Neferneferuaten was Meritaten while Smenkhkare was actually the Hittite prince Zananza4. For many modern scholars the particular curse of the Amarna period and its aftermath is that they seem to become eager advocates for a certain idea rather than objective judges. At the GEM we have tried to be guided by the available evidence alone. Through rigorous examination of material such as a box strip with royal names (GEM 354), sequins from a robe (GEM 15932) and a previously untouched, decayed tunic with at least one cartouche woven into it (GEM 16017), we have formulated a potential model for the different personalities, and a possible sequence of events during this obscure period. These are that: 1. Neferneferuaten was a queenly name created to express the feminine side of royal duality in Atenist theology, and was used both by Nefertiti and Meritaten. 2. Nefertiti remained Neferneferuaten Nefertiti until her death either before or after Akhenaten around year 175. 4 5 are supposedly based on the same facts and refer again and again to the same evidences’, J. A. Belmonte, DNA, Wine & Eclipses. The Dakhamunzu Affaire, in: Anthropological Notebooks 19, Supplement, 2013, pp. 419–441. See J. P. Allen for a round-up of theories pre-1987 in J. P. Allen, Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re, in: GM 141, 1994, pp. 7–17, also J. P. Allen, The Amarna Succession, in: P. J. Brand/L. Cooper (eds.), Causing his Name to Live. Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane, Leiden 2009, pp. 9–20 (hereafter J. P. Allen, Amarna Succession); see A. Dodson for a round-up of theories up to 2009 in A. Dodson, Amarna Sunset. The Late-Amarna Succession Revisited, in: S. Ikram/A. Dodson (eds.), Beyond the Horizon. Studies in Egyptian Art, Archaeology and History in Honour of Barry J. Kemp I, Cairo 2009, pp. 29–43; A. Dodson, Amarna Sunset, pp. 42– 46; see also R. Krauss, Eine Regentin, ein König und eine Königin zwischen dem Tod von Achenaten und der Thronbesteigung von Tutanchaten (= Revidierte Überlegungen zum Ende der Amarnazeit 4), in: Altorientalische Forschungen 34.2, 2007, pp. 294–318; M. Gabolde, Akhenaton, pp. 183–185; also M. Gabolde, Under a Deep Blue Starry Sky, in: P. J. Brand/L. Cooper (eds.), Causing his Name to Live. Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane, Leiden 2009, pp. 109–121; also M. Gabolde, Toutankhamon, esp. pp. 60–81. See the year 16 graffito naming ‘king’s great wife, his beloved, the lady of the two lands Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti, living for- 3. Ankhkheperure was a kingly name used first by Smenkhkare and then also by Meritaten always in association with epithets linking her with her father or husband. 4. Smenkhkare was Ankhkheperure and Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare Djeser Kheperu. 5. Meritaten was Ankhkheperure plus epithet and Neferneferuaten plus epithet, the epithets being either loved by Neferkheperure or Waenre (her father Akhenaten) or effective for her husband (Smenkhkare). 6. Smenkhkare may have been the son of prince Thutmose and one of his sisters or half-sisters, the daughters of Amenhotep III6. 7. Meritaten was the daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. 8. Tutankhamun was the son of Smenkhkare and Meritaten (with objects from both placed in the tomb) and the baby shown in scenes in the royal tomb at Amarna (no. 26) may be prince Tutankhaten or another child from this marriage7. 9. Akhenaten was succeeded by Smenkhkare and Meritaten together. 10. Smenkhkare then died and Meritaten ruled on behalf of her son Tutankhamun until her own death, at which point he ascended the throne. 6 7 ever and ever’ in A. van der Perre, Year 16 Graffito of Akhenaten in Dayr Abū Ḥinnis. A Contribution to the Study of the Later Years of Nefertiti, in: JEgH 7, 2014, pp. 67–108. Attractive but speculative in the extreme (cf. M. A. Littauer/J. H. Crouwel, Chariots and Related Equipment from the Tomb of Tutankhamun, TTS 8, Oxford 1985, p. 61 with pl. LXV, B where, in note 3 is stated, that the identification of the owner they propose is considered “questionable”), based on the inclusion of the ornamental whip handle with gold decoration and glass knob GEM 1038 (Carter 333b) found in association with the decorated chariot GEM 15661 (Carter 333) and the hunting chariot GEM 45629 (Carter 332) in the treasury. The whip (and perhaps even the chariots?) belonged to the ‘king’s son, captain of the troops, Thutmose’. This could also work with the (disputed) DNA identities of the male (?) body in KV 55 as the cousin or full brother to the younger lady from KV 35 if Tutankhamun’s paternal grandparents were full brother and sister and his parents were cousins twice. See M. Gabolde, L’ADN de la famille royale amarnienne et les sources égyptiennes, in: Égypte. Nilotique et Méditerranéen 6, 2013, pp. 177–203; see also M. Luban, The Family Ties of Nefertiti and Akhenaten – Contra M. Gabolde, <https://www.academia.edu/25351367/The_Family_Ties_of_ Nefertiti_and_Akhenaten_Contra_M._Gabolde> (03.12.2018). As proposed by G. T. Martin, The Rock Tombs of el-'Amarna VII. The Royal Tomb at el-'Amarna II. The Reliefs, Inscriptions, and Architecture, ASE 39, London 1989, pp. 38–40. Smenkhkare and Meritaten could also be the parents of the possible princesses Meritaten Tasherit and even Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit. Previous assertions (see e. g. J. P. Allen, Amarna Succession, pp. 9–20) that Akhenaten married his daughters Meritaten, Meketaten and Ankhesenamun in order to gain male heirs and that he had at least one daughter with each of them, but then rather than trying again he passed them on to other husbands, have always seemed to defy logic and remain unconvincing. MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 180 10.05.19 16:01 New Evidence for Tutankhamun’s Parents 181 B o x s t r i p (G E M 3 5 4 , C a r t e r 1 k ) Fig. 1 White painted box with inlaid strip, GEM 354 (Photos GEM) An inscribed strip from the lid of a broken wooden box found in the descending passage of the tomb has long been treated as a crucial piece of evidence. A hieratic note on the white-painted slightly vaulted lid states that the box was reused for storing clothes made of royal linen (byssus) in the tomb8. Coming from the middle of the lid, the strip itself is of painted wood with hieroglyphs incised and filled with greenish-blue pigment. The strip and two knobs each carry royal names. Some scholars have asserted that the strip shows the names of two kings and one great royal wife, meaning that they cannot be the same people, while others suggest that only two kings are mentioned here9. Therefore, one can ask who the second king is, 8 9 Described on the record card as ‘the broken parts of a wooden box with vaulted lid, covered with white gesso on exterior and interior surfaces’. The strip with knob, extra knob and the inscribed half of the lid were taken by H. Carter to the EMC. The rest of the lid, along with fragments from the box, remained in TT 33 in Luxor. At some point these pieces were moved to the storerooms at Luxor Museum (no. 116), where the box was reconstructed. The other pieces of the lid were stored inside the box, while a different, white painted flat lid was put on the box. After the box arrived at the GEM-CC, the director of the Wood Lab Dr. Medhat Abdalla realized that the assigned lid was not correct. In consultation with the director of the Special Unit (including Tutankhamun) Hassan Mohamed, they established that the box and the vaulted lid belonged together. All pieces from the lid have been reconsolidated and the inscribed knob replaced onto the box. Currently, they are registered as box GEM 21080, lid GEM 502, strip and knob GEM 354. J. R. Harris, Nefernefruaten regnans, in: Acta Orientalia 36, given that there are clear cartouches for Akhenaten in the beginning of the text. The inscription, transliteration and translation are as follows: ncwt-bjt anx(.w) m MAa.t nb tA.wj Nfr-xpr.w-Ra Wa-n-Ra sA-Ra anx(.w) m MAa.t nb-xa.w Ax-n-Itn aA(.w) m aHa.w=f ncwt-bjt nb-tA.wj anx-xpr.w-Ra mry Nfr-xpr.w-Ra sA-Ra nb-xa.w Nfr-nfr.w-Itn mry Wa-n-Ra Hm.t wr.t ncwt Mry.t-Itn anx.tj D.t King of Upper and Lower Egypt, living in Truth, lord of the two lands, Neferkheperure Waenre, the son of Re, living in Truth, lord of crowns, Akhenaten, long in his lifetime. King of Upper and Lower Egypt, lord of the two lands, Ankhkheperure, beloved of Neferkheperure, the son of Re, lord of crowns, Neferneferuaten, beloved of Waenre, the great royal wife Meritaten, alive forever. The first part of this strip should not give any problems in reading and identifying the names of king Akhenaten with their usual epithets10. Nevertheless, 10 1974, p. 13, also J. R. Harris, Akhenaten and Nefernefruaten in the Tomb of Tut’ankhamûn, in: C. N. Reeves (ed.), After Tutankhamun. Research and Excavation in the Royal Necropolis at Thebes, London 1992, pp. 57–59, J. P. Allen, Amarna Succession, pp. 9–20; M. Gabolde, Akhenaton, pp. 162–166, 178–183 and pl. 24a. E. g. R. J. Leprohon, The Royal Titulary in the 18th Dynasty. Change and Continuity, in: JEgH 3.1, 2010, pp. 7–45, also R. J. Leprohon, The Great Name. Ancient Egyptian Royal Titulary, Atlanta 2013, pp. 104–105. MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 181 10.05.19 16:01 182 Tarek Tawfik, Susanna Thomas and Ina Hegenbarth-Reichardt Fig. 2 Inscription from the tomb of Ay (N. de G. Davies, The Rock Tombs of el Amarna VI. Tombs of Parennefer, Tutu, and Aÿ, ASE 18, London 1908, pl. XXXII) it is of great importance for the interpretation of the following names as it has significant meaning for the formal layout of the inscription as well as for the understanding of the whole text. The following discussion is about the names Neferneferuaten as one specific name of Nefertiti as queen or great royal wife to Akhenaten, and Ankhkheperure as the name of either king Smenkhkare or a female king who always connected her name with several epithets11. As the cartouches in this text have epithets, it seems likely that king Smenkhkare can be excluded from consideration. The most probable interpretation is that of M. Gabolde12, who believes that the three names – all written in cartouches – belong to Meritaten, daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti and great royal wife to Smenkhkare. He considered her as the female ‘king’ who ruled directly before Tutankhamun. In this context he pointed out that it was not unusual for a king to have three names and gave examples of two kings of the Middle Kingdom while concentrating his arguments on the reign and special position of Hatshepsut13. The strip most likely shows in its upper half14 the royal titles and names of Akhenaten followed by the stative aA(.w) m aHa.w=f ‘long in his lifetime’, and the name or cartouche of the great royal wife Meritaten, which is also followed by the stative anx.tj D.t ‘alive forever’. Interestingly, the ‘king’ who is mentioned between Akhenaten and Meritaten has no epithet at all15 – his name ends with the epithet to his ‘birth name’ in his second cartouche. There are many examples from the Amarna period with almost the same wording16, but none of these texts show the names without an epithet following the person’s name or the royal cartouche. The wording of the text of the inscription on the west architrave in the tomb of Ay in Amarna may serve here as a parallel17. The two texts have the same structure and even the same wording, with the difference that Nefertiti is mentioned in the second part of the Great Hymn text while the strip has the royal throne and birth name of a king with the cartouche of Meritaten following at the end. This suggests either that the text of the strip is missing something after the second king, or that the two cartouches of that king are part of the name of Meritaten with all three cartouches having the same epithet anx.tj D.t18. Assuming this possibility, it is logical to conclude that Meritaten and the second king are one and the same person – the female king called Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten to be identified as the great royal wife Meritaten. Given that the names on the two knobs of this box name the owner of the box it seems likely, that this box belonged to Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten19. One knob shows the cartouche containing anxxpr.w-Ra mry Nfr-xpr.w-Ra ‘Ankhkheperure, beloved of Neferkheperure’. The second one has the other cartouche with Nfr-nfr.wItn mry Wa-n-Ra ‘Neferneferuaten, beloved Fig. 3 Box strip text, GEM 354 (J. P. Allen, Amarna Succession, p. 7 , fig. 2) 11 12 13 14 15 J. P. Allen, Two Altered Inscriptions of the Late Amarna Period, in: JARCE 25, 1988, pp. 117–121, J. P. Allen, Akhenaten’s ‘Mystery’ Coregent and Successor. Were Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten and Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare Djeserkheperure One and the Same, or Two Different Kings?, in: Amarna Letters 1, 1991, pp. 74–85, J. P. Allen, Amarna Succession, pp. 9–20. M. Gabolde, Akhenaton, Lyon 1998, pp. 178–183; M. Gabolde, Toutankhamon, pp. 77–81. M. Gabolde, Toutankhamon, p. 79. This is interesting as the upper half of the space of the strip belongs to Akhenaten, while the lower half of the strip belongs to the other person(s). Strictly speaking there is an epithet inside the cartouche, namely mry Wa-n-Ra, but it is obviously considered to be part of the king’s name. 16 17 18 19 For various examples see N. de G. Davies, The Rock Tombs of el Amarna I–VI, ASE 13–18, London 1903–1908. N. de G. Davies, The Rock Tombs of el Amarna VI. Tombs of Parennefer, Tutu, and Aÿ, ASE 18, London 1908, pl. XXXII. An almost identical text with similar cartouches (still visible beneath but now changed to Tutankhamun) without any epithet following after the second cartouche, but followed directly with the great royal wife Meritaten (now changed to Ankhesenamun), is written on the lid of the bow fronted (semi-circular) box GEM 12720 (Carter 79+574). J. R. Harris, Akhenaten and Nefernefruaten in the Tomb of Tut’ankhamûn, in: C. N. Reeves (ed.), After Tutankhamun. Research and Excavation in the Royal Necropolis at Thebes, London 1992, pp. 57–59. MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 182 10.05.19 16:01 New Evidence for Tutankhamun’s Parents 183 of Waenre’. Both of the royal names are consisting of and referring to Akhenaten’s names. This leads on the one hand to the conclusion that the cartouches of Akhenaten are set there with the purpose to emphasise the connection between the first and the second king (father and daughter) and to refer to Akhenaten as a divine entity (legitimation), the adored ancestor who became himself godlike. On the other hand it shows that the box belongs to the second (female) king only, Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten. The question is then why – if not as a matter of clarification regarding her name respectively person – should the great royal wife Meritaten be mentioned on this box 20? As already implicated, Akhenaten was already dead when the text and the box were made. This is likely as the epithet mAa xrw ‘justified’ was seldom used during the Amarna period to signify Akhenaten as a dead person21. Instead the epithet aA m aHa.w=f ‘long in his lifetime’, seems to have been used especially for Akhenaten, probably marking his divine existence in life and death. Noticeably it appears on most of his shabtis as a substitute for the mAa xrw. C o r o n a t i o n Tu n i c (G E M 1 6 0 1 7 , C a r t e r 5 4 f ) The excavation notes say this is ‘an elaborate tapestry woven robe. This garment all bunched together (with a large Nebkheperure in stones, gold framed, on the breast). Not opened out yet for fear of damaging’22. More recently, G. Vogelsang-Eastwood has called it the lotus tunic, describing ‘a border of lotus buds worked in blue, red and natural yarn. The main ground of the tunic is covered in a scattered 20 21 22 For a different interpretation of this text see R. Krauss, Eine Regentin, ein König und eine Königin zwischen dem Tod von Achenaten und der Thronbesteigung von Tutanchaten (= Revidierte Überlegungen zum Ende der Amarnazeit 4), in: Altorientalische Forschungen 34.2, 2007, pp. 294–318, esp. pp. 312 and 314, who argues against M. Gabolde, pointing out that the male form of Ankhkheperure + epithets belongs to Smenkhkare, while Meritaten is considered as this king’s great royal wife only. For the references to the mAa xrw on three of Akhenaten’s shabtis see R. Krauss, Zur Chronologie der Nachfolger Achenatens unter Berücksichtigung der DOG-Funde aus Amarna (= Revidierte Überlegungen zum Ende der Amarnazeit 3), in: MDOG 129, 1997, pp. 225–250, esp. p. 242. A large scarab with Nebkheperure was found on top of the tunic (GEM 21584), but H. Carter established that it had no connection to the robe: ‘It lay across folds, had a large suspension ring at back and bead loops were continuous, not for fastening’. Fig. 4 Akhenaten’s shabti with aA m aHa.w=f, GEM 51404 (Photo GEM) pattern made up of four lotus flowers in the same colours as used by the border’23. After many years in storage at the Egyptian Museum Cairo (EMC), the tunic and other textiles arrived at the GEM in 2012. In 2015, the staff in the Organics Laboratory decided that it warranted further investigation. Under the leadership of the lab director Mrs. Eman Shalaby, conservator Nagm Eldeen began the elaborate task of untangling and conserving the carbonised tunic. While examining the decayed tunic in autumn 2017 the authors found, next to a very interesting woven pattern of lotus flowers, shen rings and falcon wings, a text naming the epithets of the cobra goddess Wadjet from Buto24. This text was part of a royal title, which is on both sides of the tunic’s collar, 23 24 G. Vogelsang-Eastwood, Tutankhamun’s Wardrobe. Garments from the Tomb of Tutankhamun, Rotterdam 1999, p. 57. C. Leitz, Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen IV. Nbt– h, Leuven 2002, p. 55 (hereafter LGG IV). MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 183 10.05.19 16:01 184 Tarek Tawfik, Susanna Thomas and Ina Hegenbarth-Reichardt Fig. 5 The tunic on arrival at the GEM, GEM 16017 (Photo GEM) Fig. 6 Piecing together the tunic, GEM 16017 (Photo GEM) reading downwards from each shoulder to the right respectively left chest. Despite the fact that these parts of the tunic are most interesting as well as badly damaged, it is possible to identify an almost destroyed cartouche on the left chest with traces of a deleted (cut out) cartouche on the right chest. Although the tunic section with the still existing cartouche is darkened and almost destroyed, from the hardly visible details, it is still possible to recognise the remains of two or three hieroglyphs and the detailed shape of the cartouche. The remaining hieroglyphs show a sun disc in the upper part and an ankh sign on the right hand side, directly under the sun disc. It is also possible to recognise traces of a third sign next to the ankh. Regarding the leftovers of this cartouche it becomes very obvious that this cartouche does not belong to king Tutankhamun, but to another king or even queen. While wondering why this tunic formed part of the burial equipment of Tutankhamun, caused us to remember a similar garment now in the EMC (JE 46526) from the tomb of king Thutmose IV (KV 43)25. 25 G. Vogelsang-Eastwood, De kleren van de farao, Leiden 1994, p. 47, also G. Vogelsang-Eastwood, Tutankhamun’s MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 184 10.05.19 16:01 New Evidence for Tutankhamun’s Parents 185 Fig. 7 The cartouche of Ankhkheperure on the tunic, GEM 16017 (Photos GEM) Discovered by H. Carter in 1903, the excavation of that tomb brought to light, beside many other funerary goods, a fragment of a royal garment showing the cartouche of king Amenhotep II26. The pattern and concept of this garment is very similar to that of the GEM tunic. It shows woven lotus flowers and papyrus buds next to royal titles with a cartouche containing Aakheperure, the throne name of Amenhotep II. The KV 43 tunic shows alternately papyrus buds and lotus flowers in a row, whereas the GEM tunic shows one line of lotus flowers arranged in cross-like forms and another line of garlands of papyrus buds. The tunic from KV 43 shows the cartouche flanked by the two crown goddesses of Upper and Lower Egypt, Wadjet of Buto and Nekhbet of Nekhen or Elkab. Both goddesses are depicted as Uraei guarding the king’s name which is positioned on the finely woven hieroglyph for ‘gold’. The GEM tunic, however, has even more to offer: apart from the light blue coloured wings around the cartouches on the front of the tunic there is a stunning hawk holding shen rings in his claws spread along the back. As the front of the tunic is full of depictions, patterns and texts we will focus on these and give an impression of the work on this fascinating garment. On the right front side of the tunic a group of woven hieroglyphs depict the name and the epithets of the Lower Egyptian cobra goddess Wadjet, mistress of Buto. The fragmentary27 text says: […]28 WAD(.t) py.t dpy.t29 nb.t pr-nw30 di(.w) anx […] snb nb […] Wadjet, the one belonging to Pe and Dep (Buto), the mistress of the Nu shrine, given life […] all health (?) The text mentions the common epithets of the goddess Wadjet as the patron and protector of Lower Egypt together with the receiving of life and health – it is all that is understandable or left of the text, which would have originally contained more hieroglyphs. This text is directly above the remains of a pair of blue wings belonging to a finely elaborated uraeus sitting on a neb basket with a chequered pattern. The cobra has a serpent head crowned with the deshret crown of Lower Egypt. There is no doubt that the text is related to this snake goddess, who personifies the goddess Wadjet guarding the king’s name. Unfortunately she is “guarding” the section 27 28 26 Wardrobe. Garments from the Tomb of Tutankhamun, Rotterdam 1999, pp. 24–25. H. Carter/P. E. Newberry, The Tomb of Thoutmôsis IV, London 1904. 29 30 We would like to thank M. Gabolde for identifying wAD in the beginning of the text and the rest of the n in snb. The missing text might have referred to the king, who ‘is beloved’ etc. by the goddess, as the text finishes with a masc. ‘given life’. LGG IV, p. 55. LGG IV, p. 55. MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 185 10.05.19 16:01 186 Tarek Tawfik, Susanna Thomas and Ina Hegenbarth-Reichardt Fig. 8 Garment from KV 43 with the cartouche of Amenhotep II (H. Carter/P. E. Newberry, The Tomb of Thoutmôsis IV, London 1904, frontispiece) with the cut out cartouche, which shows beside a beautifully woven shen ring only the remains of the cartouche’s knot and different pieces of cloth sewn into the vacancy. These pieces of cloth, however, do not show another cartouche but traces of different woven hieroglyphs, perhaps showing the papyrus plants for mHw ‘Lower Egypt’ and a neb basket carrying two nefer signs flanking an ankh sign. Looking closer at other loose, smaller pieces of the very decayed tunic it was possible to identify some more fragments of other hieroglyphs – includ(Gardiner sign list O 29), (Gardiner sign ing (Gardiner sign list S 34)31. list O 49) and 31 The fragments we could clearly identify are mentioned here – there might be more fragments of hieroglyphs but the cloth is MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 186 10.05.19 16:01 New Evidence for Tutankhamun’s Parents 187 Fig. 9 The blue coloured hawk (Photo GEM) Fig. 10 GEM tunic hawk on the back of the garment (Drawing I. Goryacheva) These might belong to the name of another god(dess), most likely showing the remains of the epithets or the name of the vulture goddess Nekhbet, mistress of the shrine in Nekheb and of Nekhen (Elkab), patron of Upper Egypt32. This becomes even more plausible as on the left front of the tunic another pair of blue wings and a shen ring are visible. They are flanking the still intact, but very decayed cartouche. Given that these wings belong to another Uraeus – maybe even with the head of a vulture33 – we suggest that these front sections of the tunic 32 33 so darkened that it is very difficult to distinguish stains from actual woven elements. For the name of the goddess Nekhbet written with the ‘village’ hieroglyph O 49 see LGG IV, pp. 301–302. For the epithet of this goddess as ‘mistress of Nekhen’, see LGG IV, p. 82 (no instance for the NK yet, but already for the MK). We have neither found another head of a cobra nor that of a vulture, yet. are showing the two goddesses Wadjet and Nekhbet guarding the cartouches with the royal birth and throne name back to back – almost comparable to Tutankhamun’s Osiris pectoral where the god is flanked by Isis and Nephthys in a very similar manner but with the two goddesses facing each other. Like the KV 43 tunic, the GEM tunic shows important markers related to Upper and Lower Egypt. Both tunics seem to be directly connected to signs associated with Egyptian kingship. The special tunic found in KV 62 was probably worn by the king during important occasions, festivals and the like and may even be linked to the most important occasion of all, the coronation ceremony. Amenhotep II was the father and predecessor of Thutmose IV and it therefore seems likely that his tunic had not only an important purpose for Amenhotep II himself but for his son Thutmose IV. He might have related it to heredity and legitimation, but also considered it – in a more basic function – as a MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 187 10.05.19 16:02 188 Tarek Tawfik, Susanna Thomas and Ina Hegenbarth-Reichardt Fig. 11 Wadjet epithets on the right front of the garment (Photo GEM) Fig. 12 Osiris pectoral with Isis and Nephthys, GEM 10737 (Photo GEM) MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 188 10.05.19 16:02 New Evidence for Tutankhamun’s Parents 189 Fig. 13 The remains of the two titular goddesses on the front of the GEM tunic (Photos GEM) personal memento34. Thus given the presence of the GEM tunic in Tutankhamun’s tomb it suggests that this tunic served the same purpose. As the KV 43 tunic shows the cartouche of Amenhotep II, the predecessor and father of the tomb owner Thutmose IV, it seems also very likely that the GEM tunic in Tutankhamun’s tomb shows the cartouche of his predecessor/s and perhaps his father and/or mother. Thoughts on the possible reconstructions of the cartouche The most intriguing parts of the GEM tunic are without doubt the two sections with cartouches on its front left and right side. The cartouche on the right part of the chest –guarded by the goddess Wadjet – was deliberately deleted by cutting it out and replac34 See for the possible ideas of heirloom behind this tunic and the other three scraps of cloth (JE 46527–29) R. M. Janssen, The “Ceremonial Garments” of Tuthmosis IV Reconsidered, in: SAK 19, 1992, pp. 217–224. ing it with another piece of cloth. The cartouche on the left part of the chest, however, is still in place and gives – although in bad condition – remarkable information (see fig. 7). As mentioned before, the remaining hieroglyphs show a sun disc in the upper part and an ankh sign on the right hand side, directly under the sun disc. Regarding the traces of the sign next to the ankh one can only guess its shape. The lower part of the cartouche is so destroyed that even by looking closely at the tunic in the laboratory it was almost impossible to decide if the darker parts show a hieroglyph or not. The shadows on the right hand side and at the bottom might be stains and not part of a hieroglyph at all – but there seems to be a little chance to identify a hieroglyph by comparing the colour and the remains of a ‘shape’ to other hieroglyphs from the tunic. As stated above the leftovers of this cartouche make it very clear that it cannot belong to king Tutankhamun, but to another king or even queen. The question is how to reconstruct a royal name that matches the rest of the decayed hieroglyphs within the cartouche. There are three royal persons (two kings and one queen!) at the end of Dynasty 18 who show an ankh together with a sun disk in their cartouches – these MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 189 10.05.19 16:02 190 Tarek Tawfik, Susanna Thomas and Ina Hegenbarth-Reichardt Fig. 14 GEM tunic reconstruction of the front (Drawing I. Goryacheva) are king Amenhotep III Nebmaatre35, king Smenkhkare Ankhkheperure and queen Neferneferuaten Ankhkheperure to be identified as the great royal wife Meritaten. Immediately one might frown and ask where to find an ankh in both the throne and birth name of king Amenhotep III. The answer is simple as well as sur- prising because the ankh sign is part of the (hieroglyph for the) goddess Maat being the element in the middle of the throne name Nebmaatre. Beside the monumental inscriptions there are a lot of objects (seals, scarabs, vessels, etc.)36, as well showing the name written with a sitting goddess Maat wearing the obligatory feather on her head and carrying a quite large ankh on her knees. Most of the cartouches with Nebmaatre show, however, a slightly tilted ankh sign which can also 35 36 King Amenhotep III Nebmaatre It was M. Gabolde who first got hold of this option by uttering some reservations against the other two options (E-Mails from 24.04.2018 and 07.05.2018 with attachments). For reference see A. P Kozloff/B. M. Bryan (eds.), Egypt’s Dazzling Sun. Amenhotep III and His World, Cleveland 1992, passim. MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 190 10.05.19 16:02 New Evidence for Tutankhamun’s Parents 191 Fig. 15 The cartouche of Nebmaatre on a piece of granite, GEM 45216 (Photo GEM) Fig. 16 The reconstruction of the hypothetical cartouche with Nebmaatre (Drawing I. Goryacheva) vary in size and form. The ankh sign of the GEM tunic is straight and relatively large. There are some examples of the Nebmaatre cartouche which actually could match these requirements37 – so an illustration of this hypothetical cartouche was made. The result looked quite reasonable, but the ankh had to be made a little bit smaller than in the original cartouche of the GEM tunic. This was necessary because of proportional and spatial considerations. Given that the illustration is a reasonable match for the GEM tunic’s remaining cartouche, the problem still remained of the deliberately cut out cartouche on the right front side of the tunic (see fig. 11). One reason why this part of the tunic had been cut out could always be destruction of that part by moths or insects. As there are several pieces38 of cloth sewn into different parts of the tunic it is a possibility, but a rather banal solution. Another, more interesting solution could be that Amenhotep’s III birth name was deleted during the reign of his son Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten who ordered the cartouche to cut out because it contained the hateful god Amun. In this case the tunic would have survived as a kind of family heirloom from the times of Amenhotep III to the reign of Tutankhamun, when it finally became part of his burial. There are many arguments for and against this proposal. Tutankhamun obviously connected his claim to the throne by naming Amenhotep III in his monuments39. Furthermore there are other objects in the tomb that formerly belonged to his great ancestor and the great royal wife Tiye40. However it cannot be denied that there are some question marks still remaining – especially 37 38 See e. g. A. P. Kozloff/B. M. Bryan (eds.), Egypt’s Dazzling Sun. Amenhotep III and His World, Cleveland 1992, pp. 73, 372. In the cartouche section we could identify two or even more pieces and several seams. 39 40 Soleb (on one of the granite lions in the British Museum) and in Luxor, cf. W. R. Johnson, Honorific Figures of Amenhotep III in the Luxor Temple Colonnade Hall, in D. P. Silvermann (ed.), For His Ka. Essays Offered in Memory of Klaus Baer, SAOC 55, Chicago 1994, pp. 133–144. Especially the miniature coffins inscribed with queen Tiye’s name which contained her hair (GEM 190–194) and the storage vessels and model adze (GEM 29, 12954 and 14308). MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 191 10.05.19 16:02 192 Tarek Tawfik, Susanna Thomas and Ina Hegenbarth-Reichardt Fig. 17 The reconstruction of the hypothetical cartouche with Ankhkheperure (Drawing I. Goryacheva) regarding the size of the tunic’s cartouche as we had some space problems with the size and the positioning of the hieroglyphs. Another aspect is that the throne name Nebmaatre is only one option out of three and the other options are not less interesting and actually have a certain interrelationship which is connected to the second, deleted cartouche. King Smenkhkare Ankhkheperure and queen Neferneferuaten Ankhkheperure When examining the remains of the GEM tunic’s still ‘intact’ cartouche for the first time we instantly drew the conclusion that the still visible ankh sign and the sun disc in combination with the given space and traces of other hieroglyphs were significant enough to reconstruct the throne name of either king Smenkhkare or queen Neferneferuaten. These two hieroglyphs are the main components of both their throne names Ankhkheperure41. There are numerous theories about this name, as it occurs with and without epithets42. 41 42 J. P. Allen, Two Altered Inscriptions of the Late Amarna Period, in: JARCE 25, 1988, pp. 117–121. See an overview in A. Dodson, Amarna Sunset, pp. 27–52 with literature. Regarding the fact that there are still ‘remains’ of other hieroglyphs which could simply be stains in the cloth and that the lower part of the cartouche is so badly damaged it seemed to be very difficult to present a reasonable reconstruction of the names in the end. However we have the outlines/size of the cartouche, and considering the size of the visible hieroglyphs the remaining space for following hieroglyphs is very limited. Every epithet occurring in the cartouches with Ankhkheperure that is presently known would take more space than is available. This has led us to surmise that only the three plural strokes of the word kheperu were formerly shown here43. As there is a consensus that the name Ankhkheperure without epithets is identified with the throne name of king Smenkhkare, we suggest that this tunic was originally made for this shadowy king. In the following we will give further thoughts to the possible reasons, why the tunic originally belonged to king Smenkhkare and why it was altered after his death and changed the owner. As shown above this reconstruction of the cartouche on the left front side leads again to the question, why the cartouche on the right front side of the tunic was cut out and different pieces of cloth were sewn into the hole(s). Ignoring the possible destruction of the tunic by moths and insects, we actually propose a sequence of possible events with king Smenkhkare as the first protagonist and queen Meritaten as the second protagonist after her husband’s death. 1. The tunic was made for king Smenkhkare, showing his birth name on the right front side and his throne name Ankhkheperure on the left front side, guarded by the crown goddesses Wadjet and Nekhbet, respectively. 2. King Smenkhkare died. 3. After his death the great royal wife Meritaten became the female ruler Neferneferuaten Ankhkheperure. 4. When she became king, she inherited not only the throne name of her dead husband, but also the obviously very important and precious tunic. 5. She left the cartouche with the throne name Ankhkheperure in place and gave the order to cut out the cartouche naming Smenkhkare. 43 One might frown and say that there is more than enough space to fit the epithets of queen Neferneferuaten in, but firstly the space is also too narrow to fit all the hieroglyphs next to each other and secondly the three strokes as components of Smenkhkare’s throne name are always written with ‘large space’ (see e. g. N. de G. Davies, The Rock Tombs of el Amarna II. The Tombs of Panehesy and Meryra II, ASE 14, London 1905, pp. #, pl. #). MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 192 10.05.19 16:02 New Evidence for Tutankhamun’s Parents Fig. 18 Reconstructed tunic inscriptions (Drawing I. Goryacheva) 6. We don’t know the exact text of the “new” piece of cloth filling the gap between the wings of the goddess Wadjet, but it is definitely not another cartouche. The text may be royal epithets of the new ruler also called Ankhkheperure. 7. Meritaten/Neferneferure Ankhkheperure died. 8. The tunic remained an important heirloom to king Tutankhamun. When he died the tunic became part of his burial. Assuming that the GEM tunic served the same purpose as the tunic in KV 43 showing the cartouche of the predecessor(s) of the tomb owner, it seems a very attractive – though speculative – idea that Tutankhamun considered it a special personal memento, because the tunic shows the cartouche of his predecessor/s and perhaps his parents. S e q u i n s (G E M 1 5 9 3 2 , Carter 46gg) Described on the record card as a ‘Linen garment decorated with gold sequins’, the excavators said ‘this must have been a tiny garment, but nothing of shape or size could be made out. Garment with a series of rows, both ways, of applied braid 1 wide. This made up of widths of 8 of different colours, green & red. Between the tapes, not on them, rows of sequins about 3.5 apart’44. 44 193 <http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/046gg-c046gg.html> (03.12.2018). There are three different sequin designs that H. Carter believed were sewn on in different rows. The first two were daisies with small and large central discs. The third sequin is a small disc engraved with the two names Ankhkheperure and Meritaten, both written inside a cartouche. The most likely conclusion is that this small ceremonial robe – probably worn by Tutankhaten as a child – was decorated with the names of his parents. Proposed Sequence of Events ȃ Akhenaten comes to the throne and year 1 begins, already married to Nefertiti and already with at least one daughter Meritaten. With growing emphasis on the holy pair aspect of Atenism, around year 5 Nefertiti is given the added title Neferneferuaten. ȃ In about year 9 the extended royal family moves to Amarna. This includes Akhenaten, Nefertiti and the daughters Meritaten, Meketaten (born years 3–6), Ankhesenpaaten (born years 6–8), Neferneferuaten Tasherit (born between years 6–9), Neferneferure (born around year 9) and Setepenre (born after year 9). ȃ The rest of the royal household also moves to the new capital, perhaps to the Northern Riverside Palace. This includes Akhenaten’s mother Tiye with (her youngest daughter?) Beketaten, possibly also other daughters, plus the child/children from a marriage between one of her daughters (perhaps the eldest daughter ‘king’s chief daughter’ Sitamun, who may or may not still be alive) and her deceased son prince Thutmose (elder brother of Akhenaten). These children include a boy Smenkhkare. MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 193 10.05.19 16:02 194 Tarek Tawfik, Susanna Thomas and Ina Hegenbarth-Reichardt Fig. 19 The three different types of sequins from a small robe found in KV 62 (Photo GEM) Fig. 20 Proposed Tutankhamun family tree MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 194 10.05.19 16:02 New Evidence for Tutankhamun’s Parents ȃ Between years 7 and 11 Akhenaten’s eldest daughter Meritaten is married to her cousin Smenkhkare and they have at least one male child called Tutankhaten. ȃ Sometime soon after year 12 a number of royal figures die including Tiye and Meketaten. ȃ Sometime after year 12 Smenkhkare and Meritaten are promoted45, with Smenkhkare gaining junior pharaoh status as Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare and Meritaten as Neferneferuaten beloved of her father and useful to her husband46. ȃ Akhenaten and Nefertiti both die around year 17. ȃ Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare rules from Amarna for at least one year47, the holy pair aspect continuing with his wife now being called Ankhkheperure/ Ankhetkheperure Neferneferuaten Meritaten beloved of her father and useful to her husband. ȃ Smenkhkare dies, and Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten Meritaten, with the epithets ‘beloved of Neferkheperure’, ‘beloved of Waenre’ or just ‘ruler’ (HqA) Meritaten, rules alone from Amarna for at least 3 years48. ȃ At some point during the reigns of Smenkhkare and Meritaten, Tutankhaten is married to Ankhesenpaaten. ȃ Meritaten dies, and Tutankhaten becomes king, the holy pair aspect initially continuing with him and his wife Ankhesenpaaten. ȃ Tutankhaten and Ankhesenpaaten move away from Amarna. ȃ After year 3 they change their names to Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun. 45 46 47 48 Perhaps at ceremonies conducted in the large columned Coronation or Smenkhare Hall added to the southern end of the Great Palace where bricks stamped with the name Ankhkheperure were found, see J. D. Pendlebury, The City of Akhenaten III. The Central City and the Official Quarters. The Excavations at Tell el-Amarna During the Season 1926–1927 and 1931–1936, Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Society 44, London 1951, pp. 150, 194. However, see also C. Traunecker/F. Traunecker, Sur la salle dite ‘du couronnement’ à Tell-el-Amarna, in: BSFE 9–10, 1984–1985, pp. 285–307, who suggest that this was the location of a vineyard. See Smenkhkare and Meritaten in the tomb of Meryre II (chief steward of Nefertiti) after year 12: N. de G. Davies, The Rock Tombs of el Amarna II. The Tombs of Panehesy and Meryra II, ASE 14, London 1905; and most recently in A. Dodson, Amarna Sunset, p. 40. After the jar label where the date year 17 has been changed to year 1: J. D. Pendlebury, The City of Akhenaten III. The Central City and the Official Quarters. The Excavations at Tell el-Amarna During the Season 1926–1927 and 1931–1936, Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Society 44, London 1951, pp. #. See A. H. Gardiner, The Graffito from the Tomb of Pere, in: JEA 14, 1928, pp. 10–11. 195 Conclusion The interpretation of the GEM tunic (GEM 16017) as an important garment most probably bearing the cartouche of Tutankhamun’s mother and/or father Ankhkheperure, respectively, suggests a new order of the royal family tree of late Dynasty 18, also reviewing previous evidence (the strip of the white box GEM 354 and the sequins GEM 15932). The tomb becomes rich in allusion to Tutankhamun’s parents Smenkhkare and Meritaten. The often-unremarked placement of Meritaten’s palette49 between the paws of the Anubis figure in the Treasury (wrapped in a tunic from his grandfather/great uncle) becomes a significant memento of his mother, while parts of his burial equipment can be reinterpreted as significant family heirlooms relating to his other relatives. Tutankhamun was the last king of Dynasty 18, who was directly derived from the royal family of that dynasty. Although the Amarna time was considered an ‘illness’ and the protagonists had become subjects of contempt at that point – their memory was preserved by their successor in KV62. Tarek Sayed Tawfik Director General of the Grand Egyptian Museum Project [email protected] Susanna Thomas Egyptologist ### Ina Hegenbarth-Reichardt Egyptologist ### 49 GEM 208 (Carter 262). MDAIK 74 – 2018 205138-MDAIK74.indb 195 10.05.19 16:02