Paqua, 'The Aten Desires That There Be Made For Him'. An Analysis of Amenhotep IV-Akhenaten's Temple Construction Activity Outside of Tell El-Amarna
Paqua, 'The Aten Desires That There Be Made For Him'. An Analysis of Amenhotep IV-Akhenaten's Temple Construction Activity Outside of Tell El-Amarna
Paqua, 'The Aten Desires That There Be Made For Him'. An Analysis of Amenhotep IV-Akhenaten's Temple Construction Activity Outside of Tell El-Amarna
“The Aten desires that there be made for him”: An analysis of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten’s
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts
In Egyptology
May
2015
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is with a sincere and profound gratitude that I acknowledge the support of the mentors,
colleagues, and family who made the completion of this thesis possible. First, to my supervisor
and advisor, Dr. Lisa Sabbahy. Her endless patience, advice, and enthusiasm were essential to the
completion of this work. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Mariam Ayad and
Dr. Fayza Haikal, for their invaluable insight into ancient Egyptian religious texts and rituals. Dr.
Salima Ikram, who helped me establish foundational knowledge in Egyptology, and whose
unflagging support made possible my entire graduate-level body of work
Many thanks are due to Dr. Anna Stevens not only for allowing me to work with the Amarna
Project for but also for her insight in our discussions of Amarna Period temples in Sudan as well as
to Dr. Dietrich Raue for generously allowing me access to both his excavation site and material.
Last, but certainly not least, I wish to thank my parents for their love, patience, and support in
allowing me to travel halfway across the world to pursue my studies.
2
ABSTRACT
The Amarna Period is one of the most widely studied periods of ancient Egyptian history, largely
due to the wide variety of cultural material available from the eponymous settlement Tell el-
Amarna, the ancient city of Akhetaten. However, there is a great deal of archaeological and textual
evidence for during the Amarna Period activity outside of the city of Akhetaten. This thesis
investigates the regional temples constructed by Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten throughout the course
of his reign. It establishes a set of criteria to evaluate the archaeological and textual evidence for
temple construction at different sites across Egypt in order to determine which structures constitute
an Amarna Period construction as opposed to later reuse of Amarna Period materials taken from
other sites. The thesis examines the regional temples first as a discrete group, to examine the
geographic scope of Amarna Period temple activity, and then places the regional sites in
comparison with the temples from Tell el-Amarna to assess the evolution of the architectural
layout and iconographic program, thus elucidating the trajectory of the corresponding changes
made to state theology throughout the Amarna Period. These transformations represent not only a
religious revolution, in which the orthodoxy of New Kingdom state religion is supplanted, but also
the acceleration of the pre-existing New Kingdom trend towards the solarization of state cults as
well as the centrality of the person of the king in his role as the main officiant of cult.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Literature Review ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Work ............................................................................................................................ 9
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 71
4
Introduction
The Amarna Period is arguably one of the best known and most commonly researched
epochs of Egyptian history. The idiosyncrasies of its art and religious expression are matched only
by the eccentricities of its progenitor, Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten. The anomalies of the historical
and archaeological record from this time have fascinated both scholars and amateur Egyptophiles
from the inception of the discipline of Egyptology. Akhenaten himself has been subjected to
analysis from an exhaustive number of academic as well as pseudo-scientific fields. 1 The Atenist
iconoclasm has led to Akhenaten’s identification as the “world’s first monotheist”, and much ink
has been spent examining his possible impact upon the theology of the Judeo-Christian religious
movements.2 The artwork of the period, which has been considered both refreshingly realistic and
horrifically transgressive in equal measure, has led to the proposal of numerous pathologies in an
attempt to explain his unorthodox depictions of the human form. Suggested explanations have
ranged from Akhenaten having an actual physical deformity to a desire to portray himself as
androgynous in honor of his asexual deity.3 This preoccupation with the pharaoh’s physicality
extends even further with attempts to retroactively exercise modern psychoanalytic methods to
explain the motivations for his seemingly unorthodox behaviors.
This fetishization of Akhenaten’s individuality and humanity4 is further extended to his
family members, in no small part due to the uncommonly intimate subject matter of the depictions
of the royal couple and their children. The notoriety of the iconic painted bust of Nefertiti
popularized an image of the queen that conformed to western aesthetics of beauty, and the scandal
surrounding its installment in Berlin only adds to her allure. The glamor of the dramatis personae
of the Amarna Period is responsible for a genre-transcending fascination for the period in popular
literature,5 exacerbated in part by their relationship to Tutankhamun.
The complexity and level of preservation of Tell el-Amarna offers a singular array of
research opportunities for scholars interested in pursuing settlement archaeology,
paleopathological and mortuary studies,6 investigations into ancient technologies and industries,7
1
For
an
extensive
discussion
of
the
“fringe”
studies
of
Akhenaten,
see
D.
Montserrat
2003.
Akhenaten:
History,
Fantasy,
and
Ancient
Egypt,
London
and
New
York:
Routledge.
2
S.
Freud,
1964.
The
Standard
Edition
of
the
Complete
Psychological
Works
of
Sigmund
Freud,
Volume
XXIII
(1937-‐1939),
“Moses
and
monotheism”.
London:
Hogarth
Press;
J.
Assmann,
1997.
Moses
the
Egyptian:
The
Memory
of
Egypt
in
Western
Monotheism.
Cambridge:
Harvard
University
Press;
D.
Redford,
1987.
“The
Monotheism
of
the
Heretic
Pharaoh:
Precursor
of
Mosiac
monotheism
or
Egyptian
anomaly?”
Biblical
Archaeology
Review,
May-‐June
edition.
3
For
a
detailed
discussion
of
the
various
pathologies
ascribed
to
Akhenaten,
see
L.
Manniche,
2010.
“Pathology”
The
Akhenaten
Colossi
of
Karnak,
Cairo:
The
American
University
in
Cairo
Press:
135-‐148.
4
Breasted
referred
to
Akhenaten
as
“The
first
individual
in
history”;
see
D.
Monteserrat
2003:
3
5
D.
Monteserrat
2003:
185-‐188
6
J.
Rose,
2006.
Paleopathology
of
the
commoners
at
Tell
Amarna,
Egypt,
Akhenaten’s
capital
city.
Memórias
do
Instituto
Oswaldo
Cruz
101
(Suppl.
2),
73-‐76;
B.
Kemp,
A.
Stevens,
G.
Dabbs,
M.
Zabecki,
and
J.
Rose,
2013.
Life,
death
and
beyond
in
Akhenaten’s
Egypt:
excavating
the
South
Tombs
5
art, and architecture. These fields of research are further enabled by a robust and relatively
conclusive foundation of knowledge established by the long history of excavation at the site.8 The
continued study of Akhenaten’s capital city in turn generates renewed interest in the man himself;
as Montserrat succinctly states, “Akhenaten is indivisibly associated with Amarna, and the
archaeological rediscoveries of his city go hand in hand with rediscoveries of him.”9
In an attempt to further the understanding of the reign of Akhenaten, an increasing amount
of scholarship has been dedicated to the study of the Amarna Period evidence found at sites
outside of Tell el-Amarna.10 Due to accidents of preservation, these remains largely tend to be
either religious or mortuary in nature. While analyses of Amarna Period remains at regional sites
have been carried out, the focus of these studies has been on the similarities between the regional
material and that found at Tell el-Amarna.
As a comprehensive study of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten's temple construction outside of
Tell el Amarna has not yet been carried out, the intent of this work is to produce an analysis of
these temple sites as a discrete category. It examines the patterns of building activity undertaken
by Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten throughout the course of his reign, and seeks to address the
following specific questions:
• Does the construction program of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten constitute a rupture or
continuity of the established building trajectory of the 18th Dynasty?
• What significance can be attributed to the sites selected for construction?
• What patterns can be discerned from this significance?
• To what extent are the regional temples comparable to equivalent constructions at
Tell el Amarna?
• What implications does the study of these temples have on his perceived status as an
iconoclast?
Cemetery
at
Amarna.
Antiquity
87
(335),
64-‐78;
J.
Rose
and
M.
Zabecki,
2009.
“The
commoners
of
Tell
el-‐Amarna.”
In
S.
Ikram
and
A.
Dodson,
eds,
Beyond
the
Horizon:
Studies
in
Egyptian
Art,
Archaeology
and
History
in
Honour
of
Barry
J.
Kemp,
vol.
2,
Cairo:
Supreme
Council
of
Antiquities,
408–22.
7
P.
Nicholson,
1992.
The
pottery
workshop
of
Q48.4
at
Tell
el-‐Amarna.
Cahiers
de
la
céramique
égyptienne
3,
61–70;
P.
Nicholson,
2007.
Brilliant
Things
for
Akhenaten:
The
Production
of
Glass,
Vitreous
Materials
and
Pottery
at
Amarna
Site
O45.1.
EES
Excavation
Memoir
80,
London:
Egypt
Exploration
Society;
M.
Eccleston,
2008.
“Metalworking
at
Amarna:
a
preliminary
report.”
Bulletin
of
the
Australian
Centre
for
Egyptology
19,
29–
47;
A.
Veldmeijer
and
S.
Ikram,
2012.
“Leatherworking
at
Amarna.”
In
F.
Seyfried,
ed.,
In
the
Light
of
Amarna.
100
Years
of
the
Discovery
of
Amarna.
Berlin:
Ägyptisches
Museum
und
Papyrussammlung,
Staatliche
Museen
zu
Berlin,
136–41;
B.
Kemp
and
G.
Vogelsang-‐Eastwood,
2001.
The
ancient
textile
industry
at
Amarna.
Sixty-‐eighth
Excavation
Memoir.
London:
Egypt
Exploration
Society
8
A
discussion
of
the
archaeological
literature
from
the
site
can
be
found
in
the
Literature
Review
section
of
this
chapter.
9
D.
Monteserrat
2003:
56.
10
For
an
overview
of
this
literature,
see
the
section
of
this
thesis
“Literature
Review”
6
Methodology
The approach of this thesis is primarily concerned with architectural material from the
archaeological record and draws supporting information from textual evidence. To facilitate a
thorough analysis of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten's building activity it is necessary to distinguish
temple construction sites from locations where Amarna Period material was later reused. While a
comprehensive review of a construction program would consider sites at which existing reliefs and
texts were modified, the post Amarna Period restoration of temples altered by the Atenist
iconoclasm makes it difficult to securely identify these sites.11 Beyond the issues of identification,
the intent of this analysis is to discern patterns in the enterprise of temple construction during the
Amarna Period. Thus, it is of greater utility to examine those sites that represent greater material
expenditure.
In order to assemble a study corpus, it was necessary to review Porter and Moss as well as
other secondary sources that discuss postulated regional temple sites. All sites at which there is
evidence that could potentially be indicative of Amarna Period temple construction were arranged
into a gazetteer. This evidence is evaluated on the presence of in situ architectural remains,
relevant temple names, the geographic location and accessibility of the sites in question, and the
availability of alternative local construction materials.
Next, the various motivations for establishing temples at these particular sites—political,
economic, and religious—have been assessed. These analyses are followed by an interpretation of
the pattern of Akhenaten’s temple building projects, the ideology behind his selection of the
specific locations and the proliferation of the Aten cult in Egypt and Nubia.
Literature Review
There is a staggering amount of scholarly literature dedicated to the Amarna Period. The
publications below represent the fundamental works on the socio-political history of the Amarna
Period, as well as the seminal archaeological reports from the main sites examined in this thesis.
As discussed above, a useful study of the Amarna Period is impossible without an understanding
of its historical context. Aidan Dodson’s research into the history of the period spans two
publications, Amarna Sunrise: Egypt from golden age to age of heresy (2014) and Amarna Sunset:
Nefertiti, Tutankhamun, Ay, Horemheb, and the Egyptian counter-reformation (2009) provides an
exhaustive examination of the chronology of the period, drawing on evidence from both
archaeological and textual sources. In both volumes, Dodson makes a cursory mention of the
11
For
a
complete
discussion
of
the
limitations
of
identifying
the
Atenist,
modification
sites,
see
Chapter
4
of
this
thesis.
7
regional temples, and in Amarna Sunrise provides a detailed description of the material from
Karnak. Donald Redford’s Akhenaten, the heretic king (1984) is a similar combination of
historical overview with an in depth discussion of the material from Karnak, which draws on
Redford’s extensive knowledge of the site from his work with the Akhenaten Temple Project.
Publications from this project, including Redford and Smith’s The Akhenaten Temple Project vol.
I (1976) and The Akhenaten Temple Project vol. 2 (1988), detail their analysis of the talatat and
the preliminary conclusions concerning the identification and description of the temples from the
Karnak complex. Further articles by Redford provide a greater historical context for the
development of the Aten cult: “The Sun-Disc in Akhenaten’s Program: Its Worship and
Antecedents” I (1976) and II (1980) examine the earliest usage of the term itn and trace its
evolution from word to deity over the course of Egyptian history up through the Amarna Period.
The Amarna Period temples at Karnak are easily the most extensively published of the
regional sites, and are often used as a standard of comparison alongside Tell el-Amarna when
discussing other regional temples. In his article “Akhenaten: New Theories and Old Research”
(2013), Redford gives an in depth overview of the building activity of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten
at Thebes. Projects from both Memphis and Heliopolis are discussed in addition to a brief
explanation of the earliest manifestations of the Aten cult. Other regional temple sites are given a
brief mention and a detailed bibliographic footnote. The Amarna Period material from Memphis
has been cataloged by Löhr (1975); this work was later expanded on by Angenot (2008), who puts
forward a proposed layout of the Memphite complex based on an archaeological and epigraphical
examination of the material. In this article, Angenot also provides a comparative analysis of the
material from Memphis, Karnak and Tell el-Amarna.
Dietrich Raue's Heliopolis und das Haus des Re: eine Prosopographie und ein Toponym im
Neuen Reich (1999) is the foundational text for understanding the archaeological record of
Heliopolis. His discussion of the Amarna Period archaeological evidence for Amarna Period
activity at Heliopolis has been updated with the initial findings from the latest excavations at the
site in Abd el-Gelil, et al. (2008). The later article includes some discussion of the temples at
Memphis but the focus of the work is primarily the Heliopolitan material.
W. Raymond Johnson’s excurses “Akhenaten in Nubia” from Fischer, et al. Ancient
Nubia: African Kingdoms on the Nile (2012) provides a succinct overview of the locations in
Nubia where Amarna Period material has been uncovered. The site of Doukki Gel has been
excavated and published by the Mission Archéologique Suisse au Soudan under the direction of
8
Charles Bonnet. The details provided by these preliminary site reports formed the foundation for
Kendall’s “Talatat Architecture at Jebel Barkal: Report of the NCAM Mission 2008-2009” (2009)
provides comparison between the material at Doukki Gel and the rediscovered Amarna Period
foundations at Gebel Barkal. This work is an initial summary of the known material thus far, but
gives an analysis of the architectural similarities between Gebel Barkal, Doukki Gel, and the
temples at Sesebi. The extant material from Sesebi consists of four preliminary site reports,
Blackman (1937), Fairman (1938), Spence and Rose (2009), and Spence, et al. (2011), which
describe the basic layout and decoration of the four temples at the site as well as the surrounding
settlement. The final major site that will be discussed in this thesis is Soleb; the Amarna Period
activity at Soleb is described by Murnane in Beaux’s Soleb III, Le temple (2002).
Due to the vast geographic range of these sites, there are few sources that address all of
them, and those that do are often reference works that do not detail the Amarna Period evidence
specifically. One source that has been invaluable in identifying sites with known Amarna Period
architectural material is the exhibition catalog Akhénaton et Néfertiti: soleil et ombres des
pharaons (2008) produced by the Musees d'Art et d'Histoire in Geneva. This catalog contains an
index with descriptions of known sites with Amarna Period material. While it is an invaluable
source to begin an investigation into the regional activities of the Amarna Period, there is no
critical analysis of the material, or the implications of this evidence on the scholarly discourse of
the Amarna Period.
9
material was transported and reused. Chapter Five is concerned with the analysis of the positively
identified construction sites and discusses the patterns and contexts of the sites in detail. Chapter
Five is followed by the Conclusions, which applies the results of the analysis to the current
understanding of Amarna Period theology and examines the implications of the findings on this
discourse.
10
Chapter I: Amarna Period Historical Overview
The hallmarks of the Amarna Period are the ways in which it differs from the overall course of
ancient Egyptian civilization. Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten is often viewed as a revolutionary figure
who reacted against the orthodox traditions of Egyptian religion, art, and expressions of
kingship.12 However, in order to gain a more nuanced understanding of the Amarna Period, it must
be examined within the greater historical context of the Eighteenth Dynasty.
Amenhotep IV inherited the throne at a moment in Egyptian history when the king enjoyed
an unrivalled level of international prestige. The boundaries of the Egyptian empire were at their
most expansive following decades of military campaigning in both the Levant and Nubia during
the early Eighteenth Dynasty. At the same time, pharaohs were also engaged in extensive temple
building campaigns within Egypt as well as the newly conquered Nubian territories.
Following the ascension of Thutmose IV, the religious discourse took on a decidedly solar
character. His so-called “Dream Stela” erected at the Sphinx of Giza early in his reign, established
his legitimate claim to the kingship via divine appointment from the god Horemakhet-Khepri-Ra-
Atum.13 This concept of divine investiture was common to the Eighteenth Dynasty kings, however
Thutmose IV’s complete exclusion of Amun in favor of a god from the Heliopolitan tradition was
atypical. Despite this early oversight of the Theban cult, Thutmose IV continued the tradition of
building at Karnak Temple14 with his construction of a peristyle hall in Thutmose III’s festival
hall, depicting the king making offerings to and being embraced by Amun. Additionally,
Thutmose IV erected an obelisk originally commissioned by Thutmose III to the east of the Amun-
Ra temple in the Karnak enclosure.15 This monument appears to have been the focus of a solar cult
at Karnak.16 Modifications to traditional iconography began to appear during the reign of
Thutmose IV that would be more fully actualized during the reign of his son, Amenhotep III.
12
There
are
many
works
focusing
on
the
historical
aspects
of
Akhenaten’s
reign,
e.g.,
C.
Aldred,
1988.
Akhenaten:
King
of
Egypt.
London:
Thames;
D.
Redford,
1984.
Akhenaten:
the
Heretic
King.
Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press;
M.
Gabolde,
1998.
D'Akhénaton
à
Toutânkhamon.
Lyon:
Collection
de
l'Institut
d'Archéologie
et
d'Histoire
de
l'Antiquité;
and
N.
Reeves,
2001.
Akhenaten:
Egypt's
False
Prophet.
London:
Thames
&
Hudson.
13
B.
Bryan,
2000.
“The
18th
Dynasty
before
the
Amarna
Period.”In
Shaw
(ed.),
The
Oxford
History
of
Ancient
Egypt,
207-‐264.
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press:
249
14
B.
Bryan,
1991.
The
Reign
of
Thutmose
IV.
Baltimore:
Johns
Hopkins
University
Press:141
ff.
15
L.
Bell,
2002.
“Divine
kingship
and
the
theology
of
the
obelisk
cult
in
the
temples
of
Thebes.”
In
Beinlich,
Horst,
Hallof,
Hussy,
and
von
Pfeil
(eds.),
5.
Ägyptologische
Tempeltagung:
Würzburg,
23.-‐26.
September
1999,
17-‐46.
Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz;
this
obelisk
is
now
standing
in
the
courtyard
of
St.
John
Lateran
in
Rome.
16
B.
Bryan
2000:
249
11
Thutmose IV is shown wearing armlets and a shebu-collar, accoutrements generally reserved for
deceased kings and indicative of his devotion to the sun cult.17
This solarization of traditional cults and cult spaces gained greater momentum during the
reign of Amenhotep III. In addition to his diplomatic successes, documented in the archives of
correspondence uncovered at Tell el Amarna, the new king was also a prolific builder, with
construction projects spanning from the Egyptian Delta to the Abri-Delgo Reach of Upper
Nubia.18 Many of these new temples were dedicated to the solar aspects of traditional deities and
were constructed in anticipation of Amenhotep III’s three heb-sed festivals. It is around the time of
his first heb-sed festival in Year 3019 that the portrayal of the kingship undergoes a transformation.
In his temples in Nubia, Amenhotep III begins to show himself and his wife being worshipped as
divinities during their lifetime. Around this time, the king’s name takes on a new form of rebus
writing on the jar sealings and labels from his palace at Malqata, where the king is shown in a
large solar boat inside of a sun disc.20 In his inscriptions, he takes on the epithet of “The Dazzling
Aten21,” which Johnson has interpreted as a declaration of the king’s status as a living god.
Amenhotep III would go on to celebrate two additional heb-sed festivals in rapid succession before
his death in Year 38 of his reign.
There has been a great deal of debate22 surrounding the possibility of a co-regency between
Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV. This is based on the large amount of Amenhotep III-related
archaeological material at Tell el-Amarna, especially letters from the Amarna archives that are
addressed to him. Additional inclusions of Amenhotep III in private stelae23 depicting the royal
family also confuse the issue. A graffito found at Meidum24 dating to Year 30 of Amenhotep III
has been taken as both an announcement of the co-regency as well as an indication that the king
has named his son Amenhotep as his heir-apparent, perhaps following the death of the original
crown prince. One model for the long co-regency has been put forward by Johnson to account for
the different trends seen in the art and building patterns for the Amarna Period. In this model,25
Amenhotep IV becomes his father’s coregent around Year 29, shortly before the first heb-sed of
17
B.
Bryan
2000:
251
18
For
an
in-‐depth
discussion
of
these
monuments,
see
A.
Kozloff
and
B.
Bryan,
1992.
Egypt's
Dazzling
Sun:
Amenhotep
III
and
his
world
.
Cleveland:
Cleveland
Museum
of
Art.
19
W.
Johnson,
1996.
“Amenhotep
III
and
Amarna:
some
new
considerations.”
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
82,
65-‐82:
81
20
W.
Johnson,
1998.
“Monuments
and
monumental
art
under
Amenhotep
III:
evolution
and
meaning.“
in
D.
O’Connor
(ed.),
Amenhotep
III:
perspectives
on
his
reign.
Ann
Arbor:
University
of
Michigan
Press:
88
21
J.
van
Dijk,
2000
“The
Amarna
Period
and
the
later
New
Kingdom
(c.
1352-‐1069
BC).”
In
Shaw
(ed.),
The
Oxford
history
of
ancient
Egypt,
272-‐
313.
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press:
268
22
For
an
in
depth
analysis
of
the
contested
material
and
a
summary
of
the
scholarship
of
this
question,
see
A.
Dodson,
2014a.
Amarna
Sunrise:
Egypt
from
Golden
Age
to
Age
of
Heresy
.
Cairo:
American
University
in
Cairo
Press
23
A.
Dodson,
2014b.
The
Coregency
Conundrum.
KMT
252
,
28-‐35:
33-‐34
A.
Dodson,
2009b.
“On
the
alleged
Amenhotep
III/IV
coregency
graffito
at
Meidum.”
Göttinger
Miszellen
221:
25-‐28.
24
25
W.
Johnson
1996:
81
12
Amenhotep III. With his father’s deification in the Year 30 heb-sed, Amenhotep IV depicts
himself in the office of high priest in the cult of the deified Amenhotep III, who is depicted as the
Aten disc. Following with this chronology, Amenhotep IV changes his name to Akhenaten
concurrently with Amenhotep III’s second heb-sed, and it is around this time that Amenhotep III
instructs his son to build the new capital city at Tell el-Amarna. The foundation of Amarna would
coincide with the third heb-sed of Amenhotep III, who continues ruling jointly with Akhenaten
until his death in Akhenaten’s Year 11. The Year 12 festival known as the durbar would then
likely be depicting the celebration of Akhenaten’s sole rule, although he himself shortly afterwards
takes on his first co-regent, Smenkhare.
All of the evidence supporting this co-regency can also have alternative explanations that
would support Amenhotep IV coming to the throne only after the death of his father. Both Redford
and, more recently, Dodson have proposed this version of the Amarna succession. The first issue
with the idea of the co-regency is the proposed chronology. Unlike the confirmed co-regency of
Hatshepsut and Thutmose III26 there are no inscriptions with two sets of regnal years. The tombs
of Ramose (TT55) and Khereuef (TT192), officials who served both kings, could just as easily
have spanned the end of Amenhotep III to the beginning of Amenhotep IV as a co-regency
period.27 The Amenhotep III-era letters at Tell el-Amarna may have been brought from an older
archive to the new city when the administration moved.28 In the images of Amenhotep III from the
reign of Amenhotep IV, the elder king is always shown as the recipient of adoration of praise, not
interacting with any of the other individuals depicted in the scenes.29 Dodson has suggested that
these scenes be interpreted as showing the living royal family members honoring the deceased
Amenhotep III.
The only direct references to Amenhotep IV from his father’s reign are a jar sealing from
Amenhotep III's palace at Malqata30 and an inscription in the tomb of Parennefer, an Amarna
Period royal smsw who claims that he was "His Majesty’s servant since he (the king) was a young
boy.31” This almost complete lack of documentation runs contrary to the trend of increased
visibility of royal princes during the later Eighteenth Dynasty.32 By comparison, there are several
monuments to another son of Amenhotep III. Prince Thutmose is shown on a statuette in the
26
A.
Dodson
2014b:
34
Also
cite
tomb
publications
27
A.
Dodson
2014b:
34
28
A.
Dodson
2014b:
34
29
A.
Dodson
2014b:
34
30
In
reference
to
the
prince’s
apartments
in
the
palace:
"the
house
of
the
true
(?)
King's-‐son,
Amenophis
[Amenhotep]”
D.
Redford,
2013.
“Akhenaten:
New
Theories
and
Old
Facts.”
Bulletin
of
the
American
Schools
of
Oriental
Research
369,
9-‐34:13
31
D.
Redford
2013:
13
32
B.
Bryan
2000:
247
13
Egyptian Museum in Cairo wearing the traditional robes of a high priest of Ptah at Memphis and is
also depicted in the shrine of Apis I at Saqqara.33 Thumose’s appointment to this position may
have indicated that Amenhotep III originally intended for Prince Thutmose to be his successor.34
However, in the final years of Amenhotep III’s rule Thutmose disappears from the historical
record and Prince Amenhotep becomes his father’s successor.
Amenhotep IV's kingship began under the auspices of Amun and his priesthood in their
political stronghold at Thebes. One of his wives, Nefertiti, is present in his early iconography,
along with at least one of their daughters indicating that their marriage took place very early in his
reign or possibly before he ascended to the throne. Within the first three years of his reign,
Amenhotep IV celebrated a heb-sed festival in his new Karnak temple. While the exact date is not
preserved in any of the material uncovered from the Karnak complex,35 it was uncommonly early
in his reign. Proponents of a co-regency between Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV have
suggested that the festival depicted at Amenhotep IV’s temple was in fact one of the heb-seds
celebrated by Amenhotep III.36 Another interpretation is that the heb-sed served as the Aten cult's
official canonization37, and more radically that the celebrant of the festival was the Aten rather
than the king. It is at this time that the Aten’s name begins to be written in cartouches, with
accompanying epithets that otherwise were only given to kings.38 This departure from tradition
has been explained by the theory that the Aten was in fact the living, deified, Amenhotep III.39
Another possibility is that the Aten served as a divine, universal king, a cosmic counterpart to the
king on earth. This parallel would have been made clear by enclosing the names of the Aten within
a cartouche, just as one would for the name of a living king.40
It must have been shortly after this festival that planning began for the construction of
Amenhotep IV’s new capital city. The earliest boundary stelae inscriptions at Tell el-Amarna date
to Year 4 and it was likely that the city began to be settled in either Year 4 or Year 5.41 The Amun
cult appears to have still been somewhat active at this point in Amenhotep IV’s reign. A high
33
A.
Dodson,
2009a.
Amarna
Sunset:
Nefertiti,
Tutankhamun,
Ay,
Horemheb,
and
the
Egyptian
Counter-‐Reformation.
Cairo:
American
University
in
Cairo
Press:
4;
A.
Dodson,
1990.
“Crown
Prince
Djutmose
and
the
Royal
Sons
of
the
18th
Dynasty.”
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
76
,
87-‐96:
87-‐88;
It
is
possible
that
Thutmose
died
during
his
father’s
reign.
There
is
a
graffito
that
has
been
interpreted
to
describe
the
appointment
of
a
new
heir
in
AIII’s
regnal
Year
30;
A.
Dodson
2009:
6
34
Quirke
argues
against
this
theory,
but
rather
interprets
the
evidence
to
indicate
that,
as
high
priest
of
Ptah,
Thutmose
was
not
part
of
the
royal
succession;
S.
Quirke,
2001.
The
Cult
of
Ra:
Sun-‐worship
in
Ancient
Egypt.
London:
Thames
&
Hudson:152-‐153.
35
A.
Dodson
2014a:
98
36
The
depictions
of
the
heb-‐sed
festivals
of
Amenhotep
III
and
Amenhotep
IV
differ
so
dramatically
that
it
seems
unlikely
that
they
were
depicting
a
single
festival
celebrated
by
two
kings;
A.
Dodson
2014a:
99;
A.
Dodson
2014b:
33-‐34
J.
van
Dijk,
2000:
268
37
38
A.
Dodson
2014a:
91
39
W.
Johnson
1996:81
40
D.
Redford
1984:
178
41
W.
Murnane
and
C.
van
Siclen
III,
1993.
The
Boundary
Stelae
of
Akhenaten.
London
and
New
York,
Kegan
Paul
International
14
priest of Amun is known from a Year 4 inscription, where he has been sent to oversee a quarrying
expedition to the Wadi Hammamat.42
In Year 5 Amenhotep IV formally changed his name to Akhenaten,43 while Nefertiti added
the prefix Neferneferuaten to her name, reaffirming the allegiance of the royal family to the
Aten.44 It is unclear in what year the royal family and the rest of the court moved to Tell el
Amarna, but in Year 8 the boundaries of the city were renewed in a festival described on the
boundary stelae.45 These inscriptions provide the latest dates for the first form of the Aten’s
didactic name.46 While the exact date of this change is unclear, the changes may reflect a shift in
the Amarna Period theology, as most of the allusions to other deities were removed from the
Aten’s titulary.47
42
A.
Dodson
2009a:
8
43
The
latest
attestation
of
the
King
as
Amenhotep
IV
comes
from
a
letter
of
Ipy,
Steward
of
Memphis
found
at
Guroub;
see
A.
Dodson
2014:
102;
Murnane
1995:
50-‐51;
Petrie
UC
32682-‐3.
44
A.
Dodson
2009a:
8;
S.
Quirke
2001:
154
45
J.
van
Dijk
2000:
270
46
J.
van
Dijk
2000:
280
47
The
name
of
Ra-‐Horakhty
is
reduced
to
just
Ra,
while
the
name
of
the
god
Shu
is
replaced
with
the
word
for
“light”
48
R.
Wilkinson,
2003.
The
Complete
Temples
of
Ancient
Egypt.
London:
Thames
&
Hudson:
249
15
49
Figure 2. The Later Form of the Aten Cartouches
Between Years 8 and 12, there is little in the way of datable material. In Year 12,
Akhenaten’s viceroy of Kush carried out a military campaign against a group of raiders near the
Wadi al-Alaki.50 This event is recorded on two stelae, one at Buhen and the other at Amada and
was carried out by Thutmose, Akhenaten’s viceroy of Kush.
Another important event occurred in Year 12, the festival known in scholarship as the
durbar.51 It is depicted in two private tombs at Tell el-Amarna: those of Huya and Meryre II.52
From the textual and iconographic record, it appears that a series of foreign delegations gathered at
Tell el-Amarna, presenting goods in tribute to the king. Some scholars have interpreted this as a
celebration of the successful campaign in Nubia.53 Others, who favor the idea of a long co-regency
between Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten, believe that this marks the moment when
Akhenaten becomes the sole ruler of Egypt.
49
R.
Wilkinson
2003:
229
50
For
detailed
analysis
of
the
Nubian
campaign,
see
A.
Schulman,
1982.
“The
Nubian
war
of
Akhenaton.”
In
L’Égyptologie
en
1979:
axes
prioritaires
de
recherches
2,
299-‐316.
Paris:
Éditions
du
Centre
national
de
la
Recherche
scientifique
51
The
modern
designation
for
the
festival,
taken
from
the
tradition
of
Indian
and
African
rulers
hosting
formal
receptions
with
envoys
of
neighboring
polities.
52
N.
Davies,
1905.
The
rock
tombs
of
el
Amarna
IV:
Tombs
of
Penthu,
Mahu,
and
others.
Archaeological
survey
of
Egypt
13-‐18.
London:
Egypt
Exploration
Fund
53
D.
Redford,
1976.
“The
Sun-‐Disc
in
Akhenaten's
Program:
Its
Worship
and
Antecedents
I.”
Journal
of
the
American
Research
Center
in
Egypt
13,
47-‐61;
D.
Redford,
1980.
“The
Sun-‐Disc
in
Akhenaten's
Program:
Its
Worship
and
Antecedents
II.”
Journal
of
the
American
Research
Center
in
Egypt
17
,
21-‐38
16
While the question of Akhenaten’s co-regency with Amenhotep III is still debatable,
starting from year 12 or 13 Akhenaten began two successive co-regencies,54 both of which are well
represented in the textual sources from the final years of his reign. The first co-regent is an
individual known as Smenkhare, who first appears in the Year 12 durbar scenes in the tomb of
Meryre II as the husband of princess Meritaten. There are several instances of inscriptions55 with
both his cartouches as well as Akhenaten’s, such as blocks uncovered at Mit Rahina, wine dockets
from Tell el-Amarna, and artifacts from the tomb of Tutankhamun.56
After what must have been a short co-regency, Smenkhare disappears from the historical
record57 and an individual known as Ankhkheperure
Neferneferutaten became the second co-
regent. This ruler has been tentatively identified as Nefertiti based on an analysis of her names and
titles,58 which suggests that this co-regency must have begun after Akhenaten’s Year 16.59
Ankhkheperure
Neferneferuaten can be attested as late as her regnal Year 3 on a hieratic graffito
written by a draftsman named Batjay in the tomb of Pairi (TT139).60 The inscription is a prayer to
Amun for Batjay’s brother who served as a wab priest and scribe of Amun in the Temple of
Ankheperure61 in Thebes. While this cannot be taken as definitive proof of a major post-Amarna
religious reformation, it is clear that in the final years of Akhenaten or remarkably soon after his
death, the Amun cult was receiving state attention once again.
The changes to Ankheperure Neferneferuaten’s titulary62 suggest the possibility that
following Akhenaten’s death around Year 17, she continued to rule either alone, or possibly as a
regent for the child Tutankhamun. When Tutankhamun moved the court to Memphis, it is likely
that the majority of the Amarna population abandoned the city. There is evidence of occupation at
the Workmen’s Village into the reign of Tutankhamun,63 and inscriptions naming Horemheb, Seti
I, and Ramses II have been found in the main city.64 The dismantling of the stone buildings
54
A
re-‐evaluation
of
this
debate,
was
carried
out
by
A.
van
der
Perre
following
the
discovery
of
a
Year
16
attestation
of
Nefertiti
from
Deir
el-‐
Bersha
which
called
into
question
many
of
the
various
interpretations
of
these
co-‐regencies,
see
A.
van
der
Perre,
2014.
“The
Year
16
graffito
of
Akehanten
in
Dayr
Abu
Hinnis.
A
contribution
to
the
study
of
the
later
years
of
Nefertiti.”
Journal
of
Egyptian
History
7,
67-‐108:
89-‐93
55
These
include
blocks
found
at
Mit
Rahina,
56
For
a
full
overview
of
this
evidence,
see
A.
van
der
Perre
2014.
57
A.
Dodson
2010:
32
58
A.
van
der
Perre
2014:
94-‐95;
for
a
detailed
review
of
the
scholarship
devoted
to
the
identification
of
Ankhkheperure
Neferneferuaten,
see
A.
van
der
Perre
2014:
79-‐83
59
In
the
newly
discovered
graffito,
in
Year
16
Nefertiti
was
still
being
referred
to
as
the
“Great
Royal
Wife”;
A.
van
der
Perre
2014:
101
60
A.
Dodson
2009a:
43-‐44
61
A.
Dodson
2009a:
44;
Both
Dodson
and
van
der
Perre
state
that
when
the
name
Ankheperure
is
used
on
its
own
without
Neferneferuaten,
it
refers
to
the
throne
name
of
Smenkhare
rather
than
to
the
second
co-‐regent;
A.
Dodson
2009a:
31–32;
A.
van
der
Perre
2014:
86.
Thus,
while
the
regnal
year
in
the
graffito
belongs
to
Nefertiti
as
Ankhkheperure
Neferneferutaten,
Smenkhare
dedicated
the
Amun
Temple.
62
A.
van
der
Perre
2014:
101
63
A.
Stevens,
2006.
Private
religion
at
Amarna:
the
material
evidence.
Oxford:
Archaeopress:
14
64
For
examples
of
these
later
objects,
see
A.
Stevens
2006:
14
17
appears to have begun during the reign of Horemheb and continued into the Ramesside Period.65
Ceramics dating to the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty have been found near the South Tombs, and there
was a significant Roman Period occupation at the Kom el-Nana66 monastery and in the “River
Temple67” areas of the city.
65
A.
Stevens
2006:
14
66
B.
Kemp,
1995.
Amarna
Reports
IV.
London:
Egypt
Expolration
Society
67
The
erroneously
designated
River
Temple
was
actually
a
settlement
site.
18
Chapter II: Overview of the Aten Cult
68
For
an
in
depth
analysis
of
the
origins
and
various
incarnations
of
the
Aten
from
the
Old
Kingdom
through
the
reign
of
Akhenaten,
see
D.
Redford
1976,
1980
69
For
the
purposes
of
this
thesis,
“the
Aten”
refers
specifically
to
the
fully
developed
deity
worshipped
during
the
Amarna
Period;
itn
is
used
to
refer
to
the
logogram
as
it
transitions
from
basic
terminology
to
cult
object.
70
Wb.
I,
145:
1.
71
D.
Redford
1976:
47,
P.
Posener-‐Krieger
&
J.
de
Cenival
1968
72
D.
Redford
1976:48
73
D.
Redford
1976:
48
74
Sinuhe
213;
Redford
1976:
49
75
D.
Redford
1976:
49;
JE
71901
76
D.
Redford
1976:
49;
Urk.
IV,
54:
15-‐16
77
Urk.
IV
:
16,
l.
7
19
encircled.”78 Hatshepsut is given the title “Ra-et who shines like the itn, our mistress.”79 On a stela
dating to Year 25 of Thutmose III, the king is described as “King of kings, ruler of rulers, itn of all
lands, the son of Re.”80 The phrase “that which the itn encircles” as a designation of the boundaries
of the Egyptian empire continued to be used by Amenhotep II on two stelae from Elephantine and
Amada81.
The iconography of the itn increased further under Amenhotep II, as evidenced in a stela
uncovered at Giza. Originally published by Selim Hassan, the stela appears to show an Aten-disc
prototype as a winged solar disk with stylized human arms holding a cartouche in its hands. While
the text refers mostly to the god Horus, the king is described as “chieftain of what his eye encircles
and what itn illuminates every day.”82 A scarab dating to the reign of Thutmose IV bears an
inscription crediting the itn with the success of the king in his foreign campaigns. However, the
stylistic anachronisms of the piece have led some scholars to question its authenticity.83
The itn was also frequently mentioned in descriptions of the afterlife of the deceased king.
In an inscription from the tomb of Ineni, the dead Amenhotep I is said to have “gone forth to
heaven, he joined with the itn.84” In a similar vein, a text from the tomb of Amenemhab, officer of
Thutmose III, the text describes the death of the king as: “He [the king] went up to Heaven, joined
with the itn, the body of the god united with him who made him.”85 These phrases echo the
language of the story of Sinuhe, emphasizing the link between the deceased, and thus divine, king
with the itn.
While the moment of the itn’s transition from glorified natural phenomena to independent
deity is difficult to identify, the significance of the itn increased dramatically during the reign of
Amenhotep III. Following his first heb-sed festival in Year 30, Amenhotep III took on the titulary
“Nebmaatre is the Dazzling itn,86” assimilating the itn with the person of the living king.
The earliest incarnation of the Aten cult in its recognizable form occurred at the beginning
of Amenhotep IV’s reign, and is preserved on several talatat87 blocks from the tenth pylon at
Karnak. The fragmentary excursus from these talatat details the shortcomings of the traditional
78
Urk.
IV:
82,
pl.
13
79
D.
Redford
1976:
49;
Urk.
IV
332:
10-‐12
80
Urk.
IV:
887,
l.
14f.
81
Urk.
IV:
1293,
l.
6
82
F.
Giles,
1970.
Ikhnaton:
Legend
and
History.
Rutherford,
Madison,
Teaneck:
Farleigh
Dickinson
University
Press:
117
83
See
A.
Shorter,
1931.
“Historical
Scarabs
of
Thutmosis
IV
and
Amenophis
III.”
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
17,
23-‐25:
23
ff.
for
a
full
description
of
the
text;
a
discussion
on
the
current
debate
surrounding
the
scarab’s
authenticity,
see
A.
Dodson
2014a:
52-‐54.
84
F.
Giles
1970:
115;
Urk
IV:
54,
l.15.
;
See
Urk
IV
p.490,
l.7
for
an
almost
identical
text
from
the
Tomb
of
Ahmose
regarding
the
deceased
Hatshepsut.
85
F.
Giles
1970:
116;
Urk
IV,
p.
896,
l.
If.
86
A.
Dodson
2014a:
53
87
Talatat
blocks
were
the
ubiquitous
stone
building
material
of
the
Amarna
period.
The
modern
term
talatat
comes
from
the
Arabic
word
for
three,
which
is
said
to
have
been
used
to
describe
these
blocks,
as
they
were
three
hand
spans
long;
see
Kemp
2012:
60.
20
pantheon and emphasizes the supremacy of the Aten, who is identified as a form of Re-
Horakhty.88 The epithets, which accompany the name of the Aten, include “Re-Horakhty, he who
rejoices in horizon on his name ‘Light which is in the Sun Disc.”89 The iconography
accompanying these scenes show a falcon-headed man with a sun disc on his head facing the king,
both portrayed with the pendulous figures of early Amarna art,90 serving to emphasize the affinity
between the god and king. However, soon after these reliefs, the symbolism and mythos of the
Aten was modified; the standard divine name and epithets were unusually enclosed in royal
cartouches and later purged of all mentions of other gods. The Aten loses all of its
anthropomorphic traits once again, depicted only as a sun disk with radiating solar rays ending
with hands. Any access to the god had to be conducted through the person of the king, who acted
as both the son and the high priest of the Aten.
96
B.
Kemp
2012:
85
97
B.
Kemp
2012:
87
98
B.
Kemp
2012:
89
99
B.
Kemp
2012:
91
100
B.
Kemp
2012:
91-‐92
101
Kemp
estimates
that
in
the
Long
Temple
and
surrounding
area
alone
there
were
more
than
1,700
offering
tables.
102
B.
Kemp
2012:93
103
The
Sanctuary
is
approximately
30
by
47
meters
in
length;
B.
Kemp
2012:
93
104
J.
Williamson,
2008
“The
Sunshade
of
Nefertiti”.
Egyptian
Archaeology
33:
1-‐3
105
Boundary
Stela
K,
Line
15
22
pylons surrounds the enclosure. An internal wall appears to have bisected the structure along an
east-west axis. The focus of activity at the enclosure appears to have been two buildings known as
the North and South shrines, which are centrally located and aligned with the entrance pylons.106
The remains of another structure known as the Southern Pavilion, as well as garden plots, and
buildings used for baking and brewing have also been excavated at the site.
The scene reconstructed by Williamson shows the head of Nefertiti as well as the phrase
Sw.t ra; other inscriptions from this site mention a structure called the rwd anx itn. A second
epigraphic reconstruction carried out by Williamson suggests that the Sw.t ra of Nefertiti was a
subdivision of the larger rwd anx itn complex.107
A similar layout can be seen as the second outlying temple, the Maru-Aten. The enclosure
is also south of the main city and appears have had a Sw.t ra component. That Sw.t ra is associated
with Meritaten, although it appears that it was originally dedicated to either Nefertiti or Kiya and
re-carved for the princess.108 There are two structures within the enclosure, both consisting of
gardens, pavilions and pools. The larger of the structures has an artificial island in one of the pools
with an open-air shrine with an offering table.109 Neither the Sw.t ra of Meritaten nor the Maru-
Aten itself is mentioned on the boundary stelae inscriptions, although both names have been found
on inscribed architectural material from the site.110
The known temples at Tell el-Amarna do not follow the conventional layout of Egyptian
cult spaces. Although solar courts were often a feature of temples by the New Kingdom, the basic
architectural plan of a traditional New Kingdom temple was designed to get increasingly darker
and more enclosed moving from the pylons and courtyards towards the sanctuary space. It has
been suggested111 that the solar temples at Heliopolis may have inspired the very different open-air
temples at Amarna, but this is purely conjecture. Regardless of precedent, Akhenaten built the
temples at Tell el-Amarna deliberately for his carefully laid out new settlement. The design,
designation, and placement of these structures were thus an extension of his religious vision and
serve as the control group when examining his regional temple constructions.
106
J.
Williamson
2008:
3
107
J.
Williamson
(forthcoming)
108
B.
Kemp
2012:119;
T.
Peet
and
C.
Woolley,
1923.
The
City
of
Akhenaten
I:
Excavations
of
1921
and
1922
at
el-‐‘Amarneh.
London:
Egypt
Exploration
Fund:
153
109
B.
Kemp
2012:
119
110
T.
Peet
and
C.
Woolley
1923:
271-‐273
111
J.
Hoffmeier,
2014.
Excavations
in
North
Sinai,
Tell
el-‐Borg
I.
Eisenbrauns:
176.
23
Table 1. Temples at Tell el- Amarna
112
J.
Pendlebury
1951:
191;
T.
Peet
and
C.
Woolley
1923:
pl.
LV;
H.
Frankfort
and
J.
Pendlebury,
1933.
The
City
of
Akhenaten
part
II:
the
North
Suburb
and
the
Desert
Altars:
The
Excavations
at
Tell
el-‐Amarna
during
the
seasons
1926-‐1932.
London:
Egypt
Exploration
fund:
LVIII
no.
17-‐23;
Tomb
of
Pentu
at
Tell
el-‐Amarna
in
Davies
1905c:
pl.
II,
III,
IV,
VI,
XI
113
J.
Pendlebury
1951:
191;
Boundary
Stela
K,
Line
15;
W.
Murnane
&
C.
van
Siclen
1993:
40
114
J.
Pendlebury,
1951.
The
City
of
Akhenaten
Part
III:
the
Central
City
and
the
official
quarters:
The
Excavations
at
Tell
el
Amarna
during
the
season
1926-‐1927
and
1931-‐1936:
191,
pl.
LVII
no.
5,
8;
pl.
CIII
no.
42,44,45,47
115
J.
Pendlebury
1951:
194,
pl.
CIII;
N.
Davies
1905c:
pl.
XXX
116
This
is
primarily
based
on
the
arrangement
of
the
temple
structures
and
their
subdivisions
known
from
the
enclosure
at
East
Karnak,
which
will
be
discussed
in
Chapter
3
and
4
of
this
thesis.
117
Boundary
Stela
K,
Line
16;
W.
Murnane
&
C.
van
Siclen
1993:
40
118
J.
Pendlebury
1951:
pl.
CI
no.
1,4,6,8,17;
pl.
XLI
no.
2,3;
pl.
LXVIII
no.
4
119
The
tomb
of
Tutu
mentions
“every
sunshade
in
Akhetaten”;
N.
Davies
1905:
pl.
XVI
120
N.
Davies
1903:
p.
VIII
121
Boundary
Stela
K,
Line
15;
W.
Murnane
&
C.
van
Siclen
1993:
40
122
T.
Peet
and
C.
Woolley
1923:
pl.
LVI
123
T.
Peet
and
C.
Woolley
1923:
pl.
LXXXVIII
no.
107-‐110.
24
Chapter III: Gazetteer
Introduction
In order to conduct a study of the sites where Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten constructed
temples, the postulated temple locations need to be identified. For the purpose of this thesis, a
gazetteer was determined to be the best format in order to present these locations. Each entry
includes the standard geographic information as well as relevant historical information.
Presentation of Sites
The postulated temple sites are listed in order of location from north to south. The division
of territory consists of Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt, Lower Nubia, Upper Nubia, with the site of
Tell el-Borg being designated as the Sinai to emphasize its position on the periphery of the
Egyptian empire.
Name Geographic Limits124
Sinai The triangular peninsula situated between
the Mediterranean and Red Seas, serving as
a land bridge between Africa and Asia.
Lower Egypt The Delta region of northern Egypt to the
east of the Sinai.
Upper Egypt The Nile Valley between modern Cairo and
the First Cataract at Aswan
Lower Nubia The area between the First and Second
Cataracts
Upper Nubia The area between the Second and Sixth
Cataracts
Site Background
As the following chapters focus on the social, historical and religious context of locations
chosen by Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten, this section will detail basic historical information regarding
each site and an overview of cultic activity, with a focus on constructions of Amenhotep
IV/Akhenaten’s predecessors in the Eighteenth Dynasty, as well as later building activity at the
site that may be indicative of the destruction or reuse of Amarna Period material.
126
Oriented
north.
127
Unless
otherwise
indicated,
these
coordinates
are
taken
from
J.
Baines
and
J.
Malek,
1980.
A
Cultural
Atlas
of
Ancient
Egypt.
New
York:
Checkmark
Books.
128
The
relative
dating
of
the
Amarna
Period
building
activities
will
be
discussed
later
in
this
paper,
but
the
absolute
chronology
of
Amenhotep
IV/Akhenaten’s
reign
used
in
this
thesis
is
taken
from
J.
Baines
and
J.Malek
1980
(c.
1353
BC-‐1336
BC).
Kemp
2012:
60-‐61.
129
26
TELL EL-BORG
Location: Sinai
GPS: 30.55 N 32.24 E130
Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten Evidence: Talatat were found re-used in the Nineteenth Dynasty
fortress foundations. Additionally, several jar seals dating to the Amarna period were uncovered,
including one possible reference to a pr-itn at the site131.
Site Background: Tell el-Borg was a New Kingdom fortified settlement that was most likely part
of the “Way of Horus”, the network of fortresses along Egypt’s eastern border. The earliest New
Kingdom evidence dates to the reign of Thutmose III, with a second fort being constructed during
the early Nineteenth Dynasty132. The site appears to have been continuously occupied in some
capacity through the Roman Period.
TELL BASTA
Location: Lower Egypt, Delta
GPS: 30.34 N 31.31E133
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten Evidence: A single granite slab with a damaged, partial inscription of
the early form of the Aten titulary was found at the site134.
Site Background: Tell Basta was the capital of the Eighteenth Lower Egyptian Nome. During the
New Kingdom Amenhotep III built a heb-sed festival chapel on the site. There is some Ramesside
material present at the site, but van Siclen believes that this was probably taken from other
settlements in the Delta and reused at a later period135. Tell Basta served as a Late Period cult site
dedicated to the goddess Bast.
130
J.
Hoffmeier
and
M.
Abd
El
Maksoud,
2003.
“A
new
military
site
on
"the
ways
of
Horus":
Tell
el-‐Borg
1999-‐2001:
A
Preliminary
Report.”
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
89,
169-‐197:
174
131
J.
Hoffmeier
and
J.
van
Dijk,
2010.
New
Light
on
the
Amarna
Period
from
North
Sinai.
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
96,
1-‐15;
J.
Hoffmeier
and
M.
Abd
El
Maksound
2003
132
J.
Hoffmeier
and
J.
van
Dijk
2010
133
J.
Baines
and
J.
Malek
1980:
235
134
É.
Naville,
1891.
Bubastis
(1887-‐1889).
-‐
London:
Kegan
Paul,
Trench,
Trübner:
34
135
C.
van
Siclen,
1999.
“Tell
Basta.”
in
Bard
(ed.),
Encyclopedia
of
the
archaeology
of
ancient
Egypt.
London;
New
York:
Routledge:
948
27
HELIOPOLIS
Location: Lower Egypt, East Bank
GPS: 30.08 N 31.18136
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten Evidence: A “significant number of talatat fragments137” were found
in the Suq el-Khamis area of the site. Some of the fragments are inscribed with the names
Akhenaten, Nefertiti, the Aten, and princess Meketaten, along with the fragments of monumental
statues of the royal couple.138 Seventeen inscribed blocks, most likely from the temple at
Heliopolis were found re-used in the Mosque of el-Haqim in Cairo139. An additional talatat
published by Labib Habachi has an inscription with a possible temple name: “Aten lives long in
heb-sed lord of all that the sun-disk surrounds, lord of heaven, lord of earth, and lord (of) (the
temple called) “which lifts-Re-in-Iwnw-of-Re.140”
Site Background: Heliopolis was the center of the sun cult and was one of the largest and most
important religious enclosures in Egypt. The main deities worshipped at Heliopolis were Re, Re-
Atum, Re-Horakhty, the Mnevis bull and Hathor. By the beginning of the Fifth Dynasty, the cult
of Ra was becoming the most politically influential religious institution on a national level. With
the growing prestige of the cult came the rise of political influence of the Ra priests as well. As a
result, the pre-existing belief of the relationship between the king and the sun god was used as a
legitimizing tool for the Fifth Dynasty kings. The implicit link between the kingship and the sun
cults was formalized with the construction of sun temples at the Memphite necropolis and the
consolidation of the Ra cult at Heliopolis. The temple complex continued to be modified
throughout the Eighteenth dynasty, during the reigns of Thutmosis III, Amenhotep II, and
Amenhotep III. Following the Amarna Period, both Seti I and Ramses II undertook a massive
construction projects at Heliopolis.141
136
J.
Baines
and
J.
Malek
1980:
235
137
More
precise
figures
have
not
been
specified
in
the
publication.
M.
Abd
el-‐Gelil,
R.
Suleiman,
G.
Faris
&
D.
Raue,
2008.
“The
Joint
Egyptian-‐
German
Excavations
in
Heliopolis.”
Mitteilungen
des
Deutschen
Archäologischen
Instituts
Abteilung
Kairo
64,
1-‐9:
4
138
Abd
el-‐Gelil,
et
al.
2008:
5
139
L.
Habachi,
1971.
“Akhenaten
in
Heliopolis.”
Beträge
zur
Ägyptischen
Bauforschung
und
Altertumskunde
12:
35-‐45
140
L.
Habachi
1971:
36
141
L.
Kákosy,
1977.
“Heliopolis.”
In
Helck
and
Otto
(eds.),
Lexikon
der
Ägyptologie
2:
1111-‐1113
28
MEMPHIS (MIT RAHINA)
Location: Lower Egypt, Left Bank142
GPS: 29.51 N-31.15E143
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten Evidence: Talatat were uncovered in structures dating to Ramses II
in
the Ptah enclosure at Kom el-Fakhry as well as at Kom el-Rabia. Additional stelae and statue
fragments have been uncovered at Kom el-Qala.144 There are also several titles attesting to
Amarna Period temples at Memphis that have been uncovered from tombs of the temple personnel
in the Memphite necropolis.
Site Background: Memphis is believed to have been settled at the beginning of the dynastic
period with the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt. The settlement served as its administrative
and political center for the duration of Pharaonic history. During the Eighteenth Dynasty,
Amenhotep III built a complex known as “Nebmaatre united with Ptah,145” although the
architectural remains of this temple have not yet been located. Following the end of the
Eighteenth Dynasty, Seti I and Ramses II both built at the Ptah enclosure at Kom el-Fakhry.146
MEDINET EL GUROB
Location: Upper Egypt, Faiyoum
GPS: 29.12 N 30.57 E147
Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten: Amarna period artifacts as well as a single re-used talatat were
found near Medinet al Gurob at el-Lahun. These included several rings and a letter dated to
Amenhotep IV.148
Site Background: Medinet el-Gurob appears to have been the location of an Amenhotep III palace
complex. Artifacts primarily relating to the royal women of Amehotep III’s family have been
uncovered, including the carved head of Queen Tiy149 now housed in the Ägyptisches Museum
Berlin.
142
The
focus
of
New
Kingdom
activity
at
Memphis
appears
to
have
been
focused
to
the
southeastern
section
of
the
settlement,
near
the
‘Enclosure
of
Ptah’
temple
at
modern
day
Kom
el-‐Fakhry.
143
J.
Baines
and
J.
Malek
1980:
235
144
V.
Angenot
2008:
9
145
A.
Kozzloff
and
B.
Bryant
1992:
75
146
D.
Jeffreys,
1999.
“Memphis”
in
Bard
(ed.),
Encylopedia
of
the
Archaeology
of
Ancient
Egypt:
589.
147
Digital
Egypt
for
Universities
“Gurob”
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/gurob/;
University
College
London
2001
148
B.
Fay,
2004.
“The
wooden
statue
of
Nebetia
from
Kom
Medinet
Ghurab.”
Mitteilungen
des
Deutschen
Archäologischen
Instituts,
Abteilung
Kairo
60,
41-‐45
149
ÄM
21834
29
ASHMUNEIN
Location: Upper Egypt, Left Bank
GPS: 27.47 N 30.48 E150
Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten Evidence: Approximately 1200 talatat were found reused at the
site151.
Site Background: Ashmunein was the center of the Hermopolitan creation myth, which included
the mythology of the Ogdoad. The oldest architectural remains at Ashmunein are part of a Middle
Kingdom Amun Temple dating to the reign of Amenemhat II. Amenhotep III built extensively at
the site, including a temple dedicated to Thoth.152 Another large scale construction at the site was
a shrine dedicated to the gods Amun and Thoth, which was started by Ramses II and finished by
Merenptah and Seti II.153
MANQABAD
Location: Upper Egypt, Left Bank
GPS: 27.20 N 31.11 E156
Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten Evidence: A single limestone talatat with a partial Aten cartouche
inscription was found within the Graeco-Roman necropolis site.157
150
J.
Baines
and
J.
Malek
1980:
234
151
A.
Spencer,
1999.
“El
Ashmunein.”
In
Bard
(ed.),
Encylopedia
of
the
Archaeology
of
Ancient
Egypt,
147-‐150.
London:
Routledge
152
A.
Kozzloff
and
B.
Bryant
1992:
75
153
A.
Spencer
1999:
149
154
J.
Baines
and
J.
Malek
1980:
236
155
G.
Rosati
2007.
“Amarna
reliefs
from
el-‐Sheikh
'Abadah.”
In
Goyon,
and
Cardin
(eds.),
Proceedings
of
the
Ninth
International
Congress
of
Egyptologists:
Grenoble
6-‐12,
septembre
2004
vol.
2,
1613-‐1620.
Leuven:
Peeters:
1615
156
Geohack,
“Manqabad”
http://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack
157
A.
Kamal,
1911.
“Rapport
sur
les
fouilles
exécutées
dans
la
zone
comprise
entre
Deirout
au
nord
et
Deir
el
Gandalah
al
sud.
Annales
du
Service
des
Antiquités
de
l'Egypte
11,
3-‐39:
3-‐4
30
Site Background: Manqabad is a modern village northwest of Asyut with the remains of a
Graeco-Roman necropolis158.
ASYUT
Location: Upper Egypt, Left Bank
Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten Evidence: Approximately 15 talatat and 4 column fragments were
found re-used at the site159. The blocks were located in the same area as material from a temple
dedicated to Wepwawet dating to Ramses II was uncovered160.
Site Background: Asyut was the ancient capital of the Thirteenth Upper Egyptian Nome and cult
center of the jackal-deity Wepwawet. Although the site was in use from the Old Kingdom through
to the Roman period, it is best known for the First Intermediate Period necropolis.
MATMAR
Location: Upper Egypt, Right Bank
GPS: 27.06 N 31.20 E161
Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten Evidence: Talatat made of both limestone and sandstone were
found re-used in the Ramses II temple dedicated to Seth.162
Site Background: Matmar was the site of a non-elite New Kingdom necropolis as well as a Seth
temple dedicated by Ramses II.163
AKHMIM
Location: Upper Egypt, Right Bank
GPS: 26.34 N 31.45 E164
Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten Evidence: C. Wilbour initially uncovered two limestone blocks at
Akhmim that he dated to the Amarna Period. Another thirteen limestone blocks, slightly larger
than standard talatat were uncovered at the site by Marc Gabolde and published by Yehia El-
Masry165. They were identified as Amarna Period material based on the remaining relief, which
158
A.
Kamal
1911:
3
159
J.-‐l.
Chappaz,
2005.
“L'Horizon
d'Aton.”
In
Begerot,
Akhénaton
et
l'époque
amarnienne,
65-‐83.
Paris:
Khéops;
Centre
d'égyptologie:
74-‐76.
160
S.
Gabra,
1931.
“Un
temple
d'Aménophis
IV
à
Assiout.”
Chronique
d'Égypte
6
(12),
237-‐243:
240
161
Digital
Egypt
for
Universities,
“Matmar.”
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/matmar/
University
College
London
2001
162
G.
Brunton,
1948.
“Matmar.”
British
Museum
Expedition
to
Middle
Egypt
1929-‐1931:
60-‐65.
163
G.
Brunton
1948:
61.
164
J.
Baines
and
J.
Malek
1980:
234
165
Y.
El-‐Masry,
2002.
“New
evidence
for
building
activity
of
Akhenaten
in
Akhmim.”
Mitteilungen
des
Deutschen
Archäologischen
Instituts,
Abteilung
Kairo
58,
391-‐398
31
appears to be depicting the King standing before an offering table, worshipping the Aten166. A
final block, now located in a Ministry of Antiquities storage facility at Athribis shows a cartouche
with the word itn.167
Site Background: The site of Akhmim was a cult center for the god Min as well as an important
political center for the Ninth Upper Egyptian nome.168 Several important late Eighteenth Dynasty
people such as Tiy and Ay are believed to be from Akhmim.
ABYDOS
Location: Upper Egypt, Left Bank
GPS: 26.09 N 31.53 E 169
Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten Evidence: Twenty-seven talatat were found re-used in a pylon built
by Ramses II170.
Site Background: Abydos was and important religious and political center in the pre-Dynastic
and Early Dynastic periods throughout Egyptian history. Although the necropolis at the Um el-
Qab section of the site dates back to Dynasty I, the settlement appears to have been founded later
in the Old Kingdom.171 By the Middle Kingdom, Abydos had become a major cult site for the god
Osiris.172 Ahmose constructed a series of shrines early in the Eighteenth dynasty, and a larger
temple was constructed at the site during the reign of Seti I, although it was finished by Ramses
II.173
KARNAK TEMPLE
Location: Upper Egypt, Right Bank
GPS: 25.43 N 32.40 E174
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten Evidence: Approximately 80,000 to 90,000 talatat have been
uncovered at Karnak to date. The work carried out by the Akhenaten Temple Project has led to the
identification of eight structures built by Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten in the eastern area of the
Karnak enclosure, although only the Gm (t)-pA-Itn has been located.
166
El-‐Masry
2002:
397-‐398
167
El-‐Masry
2002:
398
168
K.
Kuhlmann,
1983.
Materialien
zur
Archäologie
und
Geschichte
des
Raumes
von
Achmim.
Sonderschrift,
Deutsches
Archäologisches
Institut,
Abteilung
Kairo
11.
Mainz:
Zabern
169
J.
Baines
and
J.
Malek
1980:
234
170
D.
Silverman
1985,
vol.
2:
274
171
B.
Kemp
1977.
“Abydos.”
in
Helck
and
Otto
(eds.),
Lexikon
der
Ägyptologie
I:
28
172
B.
Kemp
1977:
32
173
B.
Kemp
1977:
32
174
J.
Baines
and
J.
Malek
1980:
235
32
Site Background: Karnak Temple or ipt-iswt “the most select of places” was the main cult site of
the Theban Triad. The earliest extant architecture dates to the Middle Kingdom, while the main
sanctuaries were continuously built and modified from the New Kingdom onwards. The New
Kingdom Amun precinct was “ideologically and economically the most important temple
establishment in all of Egypt.175”
MEDAMUD
Location: Upper Egypt, Right Bank
GPS: 25.43 N 32.39 E176
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten Evidence: Approximately 50 talatat were uncovered re-used in the
foundations of Coptic period structures.177
Site Background: The earliest architectural remains at Medamud are a First Intermediate Period
mud brick sanctuary, which was incorporated into later Middle Kingdom structures during the
reign of Senusret III.178 The Middle Kingdom temple dedicated to Montu was incorporated into
the New Kingdom sanctuary built by both Thutmose III and Amenhotep II, although few details of
this structure are known. The site continued to be used into the Coptic Period.
LUXOR TEMPLE
Location: Upper Egypt, East Bank
GPS: 25.42 N 32.38 E179
Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten Evidence: There is intentional destruction of the names and images
of Amun, Mut, Khonsu, and Hathor.180 In the 1890s, hundreds of talatat fragments were
uncovered at the site by Georges Daressy.181
Site Background: Luxor temple, ipt-rsyt, was dedicated to the ithyphallic incarnation of Amun
known as Amenmenope, as well as to the cult of the royal ka.182 Amenhotep III built extensively at
the site throughout his reign, including modifications to the extant Amun temple, the construction
of a solar court, and a colonnade, which was later, completed during the reign of Tutankhamun183.
175
J.
Baines
and
J.
Malek
1980:
90
176
GeoHack,
“Medamud”
http://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack
R.
Cottevieille-‐Giraudet,
1936.
Les
reliefs
d'Aménophis
4
Akhenaton
(Vol.
12).
Fouilles
de
l'Institut
Français
d'Archéologie
Orientale
du
Caire:
177
ARMANT
Location: Upper Egypt, Left Bank
GPS: 25.37 N 32.32 E188
Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten Evidence: Talatat were found re-used in the foundations of the
Ptolemaic Montu temple.189
Site Background: Armant was an important cult center of the god Montu. The earliest remains
are a pre-Dynastic necropolis, although the earliest dynastic cult space dates to the Middle
Kingdom.190 Thutmose III also constructed a temple to the god Montu at the site. A later Ptolemaic
period structure has been uncovered at the site, with reused blocks from the older cult structures
within its foundations.191
TOD
Location: Upper Egypt, Right Bank
GPS: 25.35 N 32.32 E192
184
GeoHack,
“Mortuary
Temple
of
Amenhotep
III”
http://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack
185
G.
Haeny,
1981.
Untersuchungen
in
Totentempel
Amenophis
III
Beiträge
zur
ägyptischen
Bauforschung
und
Altertumskunde
II.
Wiesbaden:
Franz
Steiner;
S.
Bickel,
1997.
Tore
und
andere
wiederverwendete
Bauteile
Amenophis
III
Untersuchungen
im
Totentempel
des
Merenptah
in
Theben
III.
Wiesbaden:
Franz
Steiner
186
A.
Kozzloff,
et
al
1992:
90
187
The
remaining
extant
statues
are
now
known
as
the
‘Colossi
of
Memnon’.
188
J.
Baines
and
J.
Malek
1980:
234.
189
A.
Farid
1983:
60
190
K.Bard,
1999.
“Armant.”
In
Bard
(ed.),
Encylopedia
of
the
Archaeology
of
Ancient
Egypt:
162-‐
165
191
K.
Bard
1999:
162
192
F.
Gomaa,
1999.
“Tod”
in
Bard
(ed.),
Encylopedia
of
the
Archaeology
of
Ancient
Egypt:
1026
34
Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten Evidence: Approximately 45 talatat and 3 statue fragments were
uncovered from the Ramesside temple.193
Site Background: Tod was a cult site dedicated to the god Montu194 and is attested to as early as
the Middle Kingdom. During the New Kingdom, Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, and Seti I all added
to the pre-existing temple at the site. Later building activity can be dated to the Ptolemaic Period.
WADI EL-SEBUA
Location: Lower Nubia, Left Bank
GPS: 24.45 N 32.34 E195
Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten Evidence: There appears to be intentional modifications to the
reliefs from the Amenhotep III temple dating to the Amarna Period,196 although Ramses II later
repaired this damage.
Site Background: The temple at Wadi el-Sebua was originally built by Amenhotep III and
dedicated to the gods Amun and Horus. During the reign of Ramses II, the temple was rededicated
to Amun-Re and Re-Horakhty.197
AMADA
Location: Lower Nubia, Left Bank
GPS: 22.43 N 32.15 E198
Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten Evidence: There are references in the initial site reports to images of
Amun-Re being intentionally damaged.199
Site Background: The temple at Amada was constructed by Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, and
Thutmose IV200 and dedicated to Amun-Re and Re-Horakhty in honor of their successful Nubian
campaigns. Akhenaten erected a commemorative stela at Amada following his military victory at
the Wadi el-Allaqi.201
193
C.
Traunecker,
2005.
“Néfertiti,
la
reine
sans
nom.”
In
Bergerot,
Akhénaton
et
l'époque
amarienne.
Paris:
Kheops:
117-‐134.
Paris:
Kheops
194
F.
Gomaa
1977.
“Tod”
in
Helck
and
Otto
Lexikon
der
Ägyptologie
VI:
614-‐615
195
J.
Baines
and
J.
Malek
1980:
236
196
M.
Fisher,
2012.
“Wadi
el-‐Sebua.”
in
M.
Fisher,
P.
Lacovara,
S.
Ikram
and
S.
D'Auria,
2012.
Ancient
Nubia:
African
Kingdoms
on
the
Nile.
Cairo:
American
University
in
Cairo
Press:
378;
L.
Török,
2009.
Between
two
worlds:
the
frontier
region
between
ancient
Nubia
and
Egypt
3700-‐
AD
500.
Leiden:
Brill:
244
197
M.
Fisher
2012:
378
198
J.
Baines
&
J.
Malek
1980:
234
199
H.
Gauthier,
1910.
“Quelques
fragments
trouvés
à
Amada.”
ASAE
10:
122-‐123;
A.
Schulman
1982;
the
reports
do
not
go
into
greater
detail
concerning
the
figures
that
were
destroyed
or
the
extent
of
the
damage
done.
200
H.
Gauthier
1910:
122-‐24.
201
JE
41806;
A
matching
stela
with
an
identical
description
was
also
uncovered
at
Buhen;
A.
Schulman
1982
35
ELLESIYA
Location: Lower Nubia, Right Bank
GPS: 22.37 N 31.57 E202
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten Evidence: There is evidence of intentional damage to the Thutmosid
reliefs that was later repaired during the reign of Ramses II.203
Site Background: The original temple structure at Ellesiya was a rock shrine built by Thutmose
III. The temple was dedicated to mixture of traditional Egyptian gods such as Amun-Re, and
Nubian deities such as Horus of Aniba and Dedwen, as well as the deified Senusret III.204
FARAS
Location: Lower Nubia, Left Bank
GPS: 22.13 N 31.29 E205
Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten Evidence: Hathor’s names and titles were intentionally damaged206
inside the early Eighteenth Dynasty temple.
Site Background: The remains of two early Eighteenth Dynasty temples were uncovered at the
site.207 The first, dedicated to an aspect of Hathor, identified as Hathor of Abeshek dates to the
reign of Hatshepsut. The second temple was built by Amenhotep II and dedicated to Horus of
Buhen. Following the Amarna Period, the chapel of Hathor was enlarged and restored by
Tutankhamun and later by Rameses II.208
SAI
Location: Upper Nubia, Nile Island
GPS: 20.24 N 30.20 E209
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten Evidence: There is evidence of intentional destruction of Amun’s
name and images.210
202
GeoHack,
“
Temple
Ellesiya”
http://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack
203
L.
Török,
2009:
226-‐7
204
L.
Török
2009:
226
205
J.
Baines
&
J.
Malek
1980:
234
206
J.
Karkowski,
1981.
The
Pharaonic
Inscriptios
from
Faras.
Éditions
scientifiques
de
Pologne:
67,
69,
73-‐74.
207
Porter
&
Moss
VII:
126.
208
R.
Wilkinson
2000:
228
209
J.
Baines
and
J.
Malek
1980:
236
210
A.
Minault-‐Gout,
2006-‐2007.
“Les
Installations
du
début
du
Nouvel
Empire
à
Saï:
un
état
de
la
question
.”
In
Mélanges
offerts
à
Francis
Geus:
Égypte-‐Soudan,
275-‐293.
Lille:
Universite
Charles
de
Gaule:
288
36
Site Background: Sai Island shows evidence of being inhabited throughout Nubian history,
beginning with the Upper Paleolithic through the X-Group. During the New Kingdom the
Egyptians established a walled settlement on the Island, although there was a large Kerma culture
population as well, making Sai an important trade center. A temple dedicated to Amun was
constructed on the island by Thutmose III.211
SEDEINGA
Location: Upper Nubia, Left Bank
GPS: 20.33 N 30.17 E212
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten: The images of Amun were intentionally destroyed. However, all of
the depictions of Queen Tiy as the Eye of Re goddess were left intact.213
Site Background: Amenhotep III built the temple at Sedeinga, Hwt -tj, in conjunction with his
temple project at Soleb. The focus of cult activity at Sedeinga was the deified Queen Tiye in her
guise as the Eye of Re, taking the form of both Hathor and Tefnut.214
SOLEB
Location: Upper Nubia, West Bank
GPS: 20.27 N 30.20 E215
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten Evidence: It appears that the Amenhotep III temple was either
finished or modified by Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten. His cartouches are present on the first pylon,
although they underwent a series of changes. The earlier Amenhotep IV cartouches were changed
to the king’s new name before later being hacked out and replaced with Amenhotep III’s name in a
post-Amarna restoration effort. Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten is also shown on the temple pylons
offering to Amun-Re and Nebmaatre, Lord of Nubia. There appears to be only one instance of
Atenist defacement of Amun’s images or names.
Site Background: Amenhotep III constructed the temple at Soleb.216 It was intended to be a
companion structure to his temple at Sedeinga, where the deified Tiy was worshipped. The temple
211
D.
Edwards,
2004.
The
Nubian
past:
an
archaeology
of
the
Sudan.
London:
Routledge:
83-‐84
212
J.
Baines
and
J.
Malek
1980:
236
213
J.
Leclant,
1984.
“Sedeinga.”
Helck
and
Otto
(eds.),
Lexikon
der
Ägyptologie
V:
780-‐782
214
A.
Labrousse,
1994.
“Sedeinga,
état
des
travaux.”
In
Bonnet
(ed.),
Études
nubiennes.
Conférence
de
Genève:
actes
du
VIIe
Congrès
international
d'études
nubiennes,
3-‐8
septembre
1990
2,
Genève:
Charles
Bonnet
:
131-‐133
215
C.
Rocheleau,
2008
Amun
temples
in
Nubia:
a
typological
study
of
New
Kingdom,
Napatan
and
Meroitic
temples.
BAR
International
Series
1850.
Oxford:
Archaeopress:
83
216
M.
Schiff
Girogini,
1965.
Soleb
I:
1813
-‐
1963.
Firenze:
Sansoni
37
appears to have been connected with Amenhotep III’s heb-sed festival, based on the layout and
decoration. He also appears in his deified guise as Nebmaatre, Lord of Nubia.
SESEBI
Location: Upper Nubia, Left Bank
GPS: 20.08 N-20.33 E217
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten Evidence: Four temple structures dating to Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten
have been found at Sesebi. Three form part of a religious complex that has been tentatively
identified with the worship of the Theban triad218 as well as the deified Amenhotep III as
Nebmaatre, Lord of Nubia.219 A fourth temple was uncovered to the north of the main temple
complex, and followed a layout similar to Akhenaten’s smaller sun shrine structures. Four
foundation deposits from the main temple complex contain a variety of objects inscribed with the
early form of Amenhotep IV’s name.220 None of the four temples are attested to on any
architectural inscriptions or other contemporary records from the site.
Site Background: The Egyptian settlement at Sesebi appears to have been established during the
early Eighteenth Dynasty. The only temple structures on Sesebi that have been identified thus far
date to the reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten. The temples at Sesebi were linked to the adjacent
temple at Soleb via a procession route, similar to those attested at the various temple precincts in
Thebes.221
217
C.
Rocheleau
2008:
20.
218
H.
Fairman,
1938.
“Preliminary
report
on
the
excavations
at
Sesebi
(Sudla)
and
Amarah
West,
Anglo-‐Egyptian
Sudan.”
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
24
,
151-‐156:
154
219
K.
Spence,
et
al.
2011.
“Sesebi
2011.”
Sudan
&
Nubia
15,
34-‐38:
34;
A.
Blackman,
1937.
“Preliminary
Report
on
the
Excavations
at
Sesebi,
Northern
Province,
Anglo-‐Egyptian
Sudan.”
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
23,
145-‐151:
148.
220
A.
Blackman
1937:
148.
221
M.
Schiff
Giorgini,
2002.
Soleb
III:
le
temple.
Description.
Bibliothèque
générale
23.
Florenz:
Sansoni:
239
222
C.
Rocheleau
2005:
84
38
Site Background: Doukki Gel is an area of Kerma, the ancient capital of the Kerma state. It is
located approximately 1 kilometer north of the Great Deffufa. Thutmose I first established the
Egyptian settlement at the site,223 although it does not appear to have been fully occupied until the
reign of Thutmose III. The remains of several temples dedicated to Amun have been found in the
Egyptian settlement at Doukki Gel.
KAWA
Location: Upper Nubia Right Bank
GPS: 19.07 N 30.30 E224
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten Evidence: The ancient name of Kawa was Gm(t)-pA-Itn,225 which was
also the name given to several Amarna period temple structures.
Site Background: Kawa was a settlement in the Dongola Reach of Nubia to the South of Kerma.
It appears to have been a center of power of a local ruler serving in the Egyptian government. The
earliest extant monument at Kawa was a temple dedicated to Amun constructed by Tutankhamun.
Later occupation of the site dates to the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty and continued on into the Nubian
Meroititc Period.226
GEBEL BARKAL
Location: Upper Nubia, Right Bank
GPS: 18.32 N, 31.49 E227
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten Evidence: There is extensive re-use of talatat in multiple temples and
shrines at Gebel Barkal.228 Talatat blocks were also found in situ
in the foundations of temples
B300, B200, and B1100.229 Additionally, the nearby gubba of Sheikh Ahmad Koursani is built
almost entirely out of talatat. The worship of a deity known as Aten of Napata can be attested at
the site through the Napatan period.230 To date, the known instances of Atenist iconoclasm at the
site are the removal of Amun’s image from a Thutmose III stela, and Amun’s name from a statue
of Amenhotep III from temple B700.
223
C.
Bonnet
and
D.
Valbelle,
2007.
The
Nubian
Pharaohs:
Black
Kings
of
the
Nile.
Cairo:
American
University
in
Cairo:
49
224
J.
Baines
and
J.
Malek
1980:
235
225
M.
Macadam,
1949.
The
Temples
of
Kawa
I.
The
Inscriptions.
London:
Oxford
University
Press
226
R.
Morkot,
2012.
“Kawa.”
in
Fisher,
et
al.
(eds.),
Ancient
Nubia:
African
Kingdoms
on
the
Nile:
296
227
T.
Kendall,
1999.
“Gebel
Barkal.”
In
Bard
(ed.),
Encylopedia
of
the
Archaeology
of
Ancient
Egypt:
366
228
Talatat
were
found
reused
in
B500,
B350,
B700,
B700
sub
1
&
sub
2,
B520,
B522,
B904,
and
in
shrines
south
of
pylon
B501.
229
Buildings
at
Gebel
Barkal
are
assigned
numbers,
with
a
prefix
“B”
in
the
archaeological
literature
and
site
reports.
230
FHN
I:
233,
254.
39
Site Background: The site of Gebel Barkal was known to Egyptians from the reign of Thutmose
III231 as PA Dw-wab, or “the Pure Mountain”. The main Amun temple at the site was given the same
name as the temple at Karnak, ipt-iswt, as the sanctuary was believed to be the residence of the
god Amun in Nubia.232 The site appears to have carried a great deal of significance for the New
Kingdom Egyptian pharaohs, as almost every king between Thutmose III to Ramses II built at the
site in some capacity.233
231
Although
there
is
evidence
for
Nubian
occupation
of
the
site
beginning
in
the
Neolithic
period
through
to
the
rise
of
the
Kerma
culture;
see
J.
Haynes
&
M.
Santini
Ritt,
2012.
“Gebel
Barkal.”
in
Fisher,
et
al.
(eds.),
Ancient
Nubia:
African
Kingdoms
on
the
Nile:
286
232
J.
Haynes
&
M.
Santini
Ritt
2012:
285
233
J.
Haynes
&
M.
Santini
Ritt
2012:
287;
Notably,
Amenhotep
III
appears
to
be
the
exception
to
this
rule.
40
Chapter IV: Identification of Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten Temples
Following the death of Akhenaten, successive pharaohs began dismantling his
construction projects, particularly his stone temples. This is due in part to the reformation and
restoration of the Amun cult in the wake of the Atenist iconoclasm. However, the nature of the
Amarna temples, particularly the relatively portable talatat blocks, allowed for easy
deconstruction and reuse of architectural material in later structures. As a result, Amarna period
remains have been found at numerous sites across Egypt and Nubia, which have been discussed
in the preceding chapter. In order to examine the locations chosen by Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten
for the purpose of temple construction, the study corpus needs to be narrowed to the
conclusively identified construction sites.
For the purposes of this thesis, a positive identification of a site as a temple construction
location is based on an evaluation of the following criteria: the presence of in situ architectural
remains, epigraphic evidence linking an Amarna period cult space to the location, and the
presence of non-architectural archaeological remains indicating Amarna period activity on the
site234. Special consideration is given to the remoteness of the locations as well as the
availability of alternative building materials.
The damnatio memoriae carried out by Akhenaten’s successors resulted not only in the
defacement of his own names and images but also the concealment and repair of his iconoclasm
in extant temples. This later damage has made identifying intentional Amarna period
modifications difficult and the corpus of such sites remains incomplete. Due to these
limitations, the temple sites that only show evidence of Atenist iconoclasm are not part of the
analysis of this thesis. Additionally, for the purposes of more accurately identifying re-use sites,
an evaluation has been made of the availability of local building materials and the proximity of
these locations to positively identified temple construction sites. Several sites have compelling
evidence in one of the three evidence categories, but do not meet the criteria for positive
identification for this study. They have been labeled as inconclusive and are discussed and
analyzed separately.
234
The
most
common
objects
being
ceramics
and
small
objects,
especially
ring
bezels
or
inscribed
scarabs.
41
Positively Identified Temple Construction Sites
Heliopolis
Little is known about the exact layout and location of the Amarna Period construction at
Heliopolis due to the poor level of preservation at the site overall. Excavations at a location
designated in the excavation reports as Site 200,235 revealed a compact layer of limestone chips in
the eastern portion of the excavated area. Some of the fragments were decorated with imagery and
texts dating to the Amarna Period,236 which has led the excavators to believe that the fragments
originated from an Amarna Period temple structure in this area of the Heliopolis enclosure.
Additional intact talatat associated with this temple have been uncovered both at the site237 as well
as re-used in the Mosque of el-Hakim in Cairo.238 Several statue fragments have also been
uncovered at the site.239
Despite the rather fragmentary nature of the architectural evidence, the name of the
Amarna Period temple at Heliopolis has been preserved on surviving talatat, as well as on a
partially re-inscribed stela. This stela240 was re-used during the reign of Horemheb by the high
priest of Re at Heliopolis, Paremhab. The unaltered face of the stela depicts the Aten above an
altar covered with offerings, with king and queen to the right of the altar.241 The inscription on the
stela uses the early form of the Aten titulary and Habachi’s translation of the piece gives the full
name of the Aten temple at Heliopolis as follows: “Aten lives long in the heb-sed, lord of heaven,
lord of earth, and residing in (the temple called) ‘the One which Lifts Re in Iwnw (Heliopolis).242”
Additional evidence supporting the presence of Amarna Period activity at the site includes
examples of Atenist iconoclasm, particularly the destruction of Amun’s name when used as an
element of royal names or titles found within cartouches.243
While the re-use of this stela from the reign of Horemheb indicates that some of the
Amarna Period material was being dismantled at Heliopolis during his reign, the biography of
May244 indicates that major construction projects were started at Heliopolis during the reign of
Ramses II, which more likely than not led to the complete destruction of the Aten temple and reuse
of the talatat.
235
Site
200
lies
to
the
west
of
the
main
“Domain
of
Re”
enclosure
at
Heliopolis;
M.
Abd
el-‐Gelil
et
al.,
2008.
The
Joint
Egyptian-‐German
Excavations
in
Heliopolis.
Mitteilungen
des
Deutschen
Archäologischen
Instituts
Abteilung
Kairo
64,
1-‐9:3
236
M.
Abd
el-‐Gelil
et
al.,
2008:
3
237
D.
Raue,
1999.
Heliopolis
und
das
Haus
des
Re:
eine
Prospographie
und
ein
Toponym
im
Neuen
Reich.
Cairo:
Achet:
109-‐112
238
L.
Habachi
1971:
38
239
M.
Abd
el-‐Gelil,
et
al.
2005:
8.
240
CG
Cairo
34175;
L.
Habachi
1971:
42
241
L.
Habachi
1971:
43
242
L.
Habachi
1971:
43
243
D.
Raue
1999:
89-‐90
244
May
served
as
the
“Overseer
of
all
works
in
the
temple
of
Re”
during
the
reign
of
Ramses
II;
D.
Raue
1999:196–198;
M.
Abd
el-‐Gelil
et
al.
2008:
5.
Table
2.
Selected
Evidence
of
Amarna
Period
Activity
at
Heliopolis
Context Imagery Inscriptions Additional Bibliographic
Location Notes References
Mosque of el- Talatat built Offering table N/A N/A Habachi 1971:
Hakim into N. wall of laden with food (Fig. 18b)
Minaret and lotus flowers
Mosque of el- Talatat built in The king standing N/A N/A Habachi 1971:
Hakim N. wall of below the rays of (Fig. 18c)
Minaret the Aten
Mosque of el- Talatat built ---- Aten lives long Early form of the Habachi 1971:
Hakim into crenellated in the jubilee Aten cartouches (Fig. 19)
parapet of the of Lord of all that as well as the
the mosque of is surrounded by name of the
El-Hakim the sun-disk, temple at
lord of heaven, Heliopolis
lord of earth,
and residing in
the temple
called “which-
lifts--Re-in-
Iwnw”
Site 200 limestone ---- ---- Early form of the Abd el-Gelil et
fragment Aten cartouches al 2008: 5
Site 200 Limestone Aten with food --- --- Abd el-Gelil et
fragment offerings al: 2008 5; Pl.
3b.
Site 200 Quartzite statue --- “[Aten]….in his Early form of the Abd el-Gelil et
fragment jubilees” Aten cartouches al: 2008: Pl. 3d
Unknown Stela The King, “Aten lives Early form of Habachi 1971:
Queen, and long in the the Aten (fig. 20); Raue
Princess jubilee Lord of cartouches as 1999: 310
Meketaten all that is well as the
shown surrounded by name of the
worshipping the the sun-disk, temple
Aten lord of heaven,
lord of earth,
and residing in
the temple
called which-
lifts- Re-in-
Iwnw”
Unknown Statue fragment “Aten lives long Early form of the Raue
1999:
in the jubilee Aten cartouches 311
--- Lord of all that along with the
is surrounded by name of Princess
the sun-disk, Meretaten
lord of heaven,
lord of earth,
and residing in
43
the temple
called which-
lifts-Re-in-Iwnw
the king's
daughter, whom
he loves,
Meritaten
Memphis
Four Amarna period temples can be identified from the archaeological record at Memphis.
The precise locations of these structures at the site remains unknown, as the temples themselves
appear to have been completely destroyed by the reign of Ramses II. The talatat from the Amarna
Period temples were then reused in Ramses II’s Ptah enclosure at Kom el-Fakhry.245 The four
temple names may refer to separate buildings or to multiple areas of a single cult space.
The best attested temple structure is the pr-Itn, which had counterparts at both East Karnak
and Tell el Amarna. The pr-Itn is known from the titles of temple personnel. Ptahmay, who is
buried in the Giza necropolis, held the title “goldsmith in the pr-Itn.246” Meryre/Meryneith, who
held several titles associated with the Aten cult, is named as a “scribe in the pr-Itn” on a statue
from his tomb at Saqqara.247 In the tomb of Hatiay, also at Saqqara, a staff was found with an
inscription mentioning “pr-Itn-m-Mnnfr.248”
The second temple name associated with Memphis is Hw.t-pA-Itn, which has counterparts at
both Amarna and Thebes. The Memphite structure is referenced in the funerary stela of Huy from
Saqqara,249 the titles of Hatiay and the P. Rollins 213. This papyrus dates to the reign of Seti I,
indicating that the temple continued to function well past the end of the Amarna period.250
Angenot believes this indicates that the Hw.t -Itn at Memphis may have been part of a greater
enclosure, the pr-Itn.251 However, it is also possible that these temples were two discrete structures.
The third temple associated with Axt Itn-m-Mnnfr Memphis is also mentioned in the titles
of Hatiay and Meryre/Meryneith. Angenot has proposed a number of different interpretations for
this temple name. While it is possible that the title of both Hatiay and Meryre/Meryneith relate to a
245
V.
Angenot
2008.
“A
Horizon
of
the
Aten
in
Memphis?.”
Journal
of
the
Society
of
the
Study
of
Egyptian
Antiquities
35,
7-‐26:
10
246
A.
Zivie,
1975.
Hermopolis
et
le
nome
de
l'ibis.
Recherches
sur
la
province
du
dieu
Thot
en
Basse
Égypte
I:
introduction
et
inventaire
chronologique
des
sources.
Bibliothèque
d'étude
66
(1).
Le
Caire:
Institut
français
d'Archéologie
orientale:
285-‐310;
V.
Angenot
2008:
20;
PM
III:
303
247
B.
Löhr,
1975.
“Axanjati
in
Memphis.”
Studien
zur
Altägyptischen
Kultur
2,
139-‐187:
172
248
A.
Hassan,
1976.
Stöcke
und
Stäbe
im
Pharaonischen
Ägypten
bis
zum
Ende
des
Neuen
Reiches.
Münchner
Ägyptologische
Studien
33.
München;
Berlin:
Deutscher
Kunstverlag:
155.
249
Cairo
Museum
CG
34182
250
B.
Löhr
1975:
146-‐7;
V.
Angenot
2008:
14.
251
V.
Angenot
2008:
14.
44
temple estate in Memphis that provides for temples in the new capital city, present day Tell el-
Amarna, Angenot proposes that the temple complex at Memphis bore the designation Axt Itn.
Murnane theorized that this title was used throughout the Amarna period to designate any religious
precinct that contained temples and shrines dedicated to the Aten.252
The final proposed temple name has been reconstructed by Pasquali from inscriptions
taken from two talatat uncovered at Memphis.253 The first of these blocks was uncovered in the
Middle Birka of Kom el-Qala254 and mentions a Sw.t-Ra. The second block is in the Brussels
Museum255 and was uncovered by Petrie from the Ptah enclosure in 1912. The partially preserved
Anx group following the Aten titles on this block is most likely a temple name or a royal name. The
possible reconstructions for this phrase would be either the name of a temple type known as the
Rwd anxw256 or the name of princess Ankhensenpaaten, who is known to have a sunshade at
Amarna, Pasquali’s proposed reconstruction combines both the text from both blocks:
Sw.t-Ra n (y.t) sA.t nsw.t anx=s-n-pA-Itn257
Further architectural evidence of the Amarna Period uncovered at Memphis has been
published in great detail by Löhr.258 The preserved decoration shows the usual Amarna milieu of
offerings, Aten rays, chariots, fragments of the royal couple and their courtiers. As mentioned
above, the inscriptions from these blocks almost always use the early form of the Aten name. This
indicates that the temples at Memphis were built between the end of Year 5, as a letter to the King
from the Steward of Memphis, Amenhotep Huy does not mention any new constructions in his
overview of the Memphite temples, but before Year 12, which is the earliest dated attestation of
the new Aten titulary.259
252
V.
Angenot
2008:
21-‐22.
253
Pasquali’s
argument
for
basing
her
reconstruction
on
these
two
blocks
is
that
they
are
the
only
two
inscriptions
uncovered
at
Memphis
that
use
the
late
form
of
the
Aten
titulary
and
thus
are
likely
to
be
part
of
the
same
scene
or
structure.
S.
Pasquali,
2011.
“A
Sunshade
Temple
of
Princess
Ankhesenpaaten
in
Memphis?”
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
97,
216-‐222
254
S.
Pasquali
2011:
219
255
S.
Pasquali
2011:
216-‐219
256
J.
Pendlebury
1951:
183;
S.
Pasquali
2011:
219
257
“Sun-‐shade
temple
of
the
king’s
daughter
Ankhesenpaaten”;
S.
Pasaquali
2011:
220
258
B.
Löhr
1975
259
M.
Verner,
2013
Temple
of
the
World:Sanctuaries,
Cults,
and
Mysteries
of
Ancient
Egypt.
Cairo:
American
University
in
Cairo
Press:
95
45
Table 3. Selected Evidence of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten Activity at Memphis
Location Context* Imagery Inscriptions Additional notes Bibliographic
References
Memphis; Re-used Talatat Libation jar, “in the temple Inscription shows Nicholson 1870,
at Ptah enclosure Aten rays early names of Aten, pls. 1 [Nos. 2a, 7]
(eastern side) Akhenaten and Nicholson Mus.
Nefertiti R. 1143
Löhr II 8
Memphis; Re-used Talatat Figure of ------ Inscription shows the Nicholson 1870,
at Ptah enclosure human leg early names of the pl. 1 [No. 2 and
(eastern side) Aten 3]
Memphis; Re-used Talatat Lower part of N/A ---- Nicholson 1870,
at Ptah enclosure the figure of a pl. 1 [No. 2]
(eastern side) courtier
Memphis; Blocks Talatat A king and a N/A ----- Nicholson 1870,
found near the fan-bearer pl. 1 [No. 5] ;
Ptah enclosure by Malek 1996.
J. Hekekyan, July
1854
Memphis; Blocks Talatat N/A ---- Inscription shows the
found near the later name of the Hekekyan MSS.
Ptah enclosure by Aten and possibly 37452, 261,
J. Hekekyan, July mentions a sunshade 37454, 59;
1854 temple. Mariette 1872, pl.
27; PM III, Part 2,
850.
Memphis; “The Possible Fingers of a ---- ----- British Museum
Palms” south east- talatat hand carved in EA 66023
of the hypostyle fragment the “Amarna
hall of larger Ptah style”
Temple
Memphis; Blocks Talatat Chariot and ----- Possibly depiction of Petrie 1915, 32,
found in the Ptah men before Aten temple structure pl. liv [10]; PM
enclosure by F. altars III, Part 2, 850
Petrie, 1913
Memphis; Blocks Talatat Upper part of ---- ---- London, UC 73;
found in the Ptah a queen, Petrie 1915, 32,
enclosure by F. probably pl. liv [9]; PM III,
46
Petrie, 1913 Nefertiti Part 2 850
47
Karnak
At the beginning of his reign, Amenhotep IV completed the decoration on Pylon III and
Pylon X, originally constructed by Amenhotep III.260 The scenes themselves are fairly traditional,
with Amenhotep IV shown smiting enemies and making offerings to the gods, in particular a
zoomorphic, falcon-headed incarnation of the Aten.261 This decoration however was only a small
portion of an extensive building project at the Karnak precinct that took place within the first five
years of his reign. Approximately 80,000 to 90,000 talatat have been uncovered from the site of
Karnak itself, but blocks from this building project were taken and widely reused throughout the
Theban area.262 The names of eight structures associated with the Aten have been found on these
blocks.263
Based on the frequency with which the names appear on the blocks it seems that there were
four main temple structures in the East Karnak complex—Gm(t)-pA-Itn, Hwt-bnbn, Tni-mnw-n itn,
and Rwd-mnw-n-itn.
Table 4. Names of the Main Amarna Period Structures at Karnak
Transliteration Translation264
Gm(t)-pA-Itn
“The is Itn found”
Hwt-bnbn
“The Mansion of the bnbn”
Tni-mnw-n itn
“Exalted are the monuments
of the Itn”
Rwd-mnw-n-itn.
“Sturdy are the monuments
of the Itn”
Redford has suggested that the earliest construction from the reign of Amenhotep IV was a
structure known as the pr Itn, or “house of the Itn”, which is depicted in the tomb of Parennefer
(TT188).265 Parennefer’s titles in his tomb name him as the “overseer of all royal construction in
the pr-Itn” and “establishing his monuments in the pr-Itn.266” When Amenhotep IV began
preparations for his heb-sed festival, four major additions were built within the pr-Itn267; it was
during this time, that the structure became known as the Gm(t)-pA- Itn.268 These new architectural
260
D.
Redford
1984:
62
261
D.
Redford
1984:
62-‐3
262
See
full
re-‐use
discussion
below.
263
S.
Tawfik,
1979.
“Aten
and
the
Names
of
His
Temple(s)
at
Thebes.”
In
Smith
&
Redford
(eds.),
The
Akhenaten
Temple
Project:
Vol.
1
Initial
Discoveries,
58-‐63.
Warminster:
Aris
&
Phillips:
61-‐62
264
S.
Tawfik
1979:
62.
265
D.
Redford,
2013.
Akhenaten:
New
Theories
and
Old
Facts.
Bulletin
of
the
American
Schools
of
Oriental
Research
369,
9-‐34
266
D.
Redford
1984:
56
267
D.
Redford
2013:
10;
268
The
t
is
not
always
included
in
the
inscriptions
naming
the
temple.
Tawfik
has
suggested
that
the
t
was
intended
to
indicate
that
the
verb
gmt
was
in
the
infinitive,
see
S.
Tawfik
1979
48
elements consisted of heb-sed festival reliefs scenes on the portico,269 a series of colossal quartzite
statues of the king,270 granite offering tables or altars,271 and the construction of open roofed
shrines in the first court.272 The structure was built along the same east-west axis as the Amun
enclosure, as well as the Thutmose IV obelisk. The Gm(t)-pA-Itn is the only structure that has been
located and partially excavated. The decoration of the Gm(t)-pA-Itn appears to have been
exclusively focused on the rituals and preparation of the heb-sed festival.273 The next most
commonly attested Amarna Period temple at Karnak is the Hwt-bnbn, however its location has not
been identified. Epigraphical evidence suggests that this temple may have been built in the vicinity
of the Thutmose IV obelisk. This theory is based on the form of the determinative used when
writing the word bnbn. While the determinative varies on other Amarna Period inscriptions,274the
term relating to the Karnak temple structure always uses an obelisk. Amenhotep IV is not present
in any of the iconography associated with this temple. Rather, the main officiate of the cult is
Nefertiti, sometimes accompanied by her three eldest daughters. The locations and functions of the
final two structures, the Tni-mnw-n-itn and Rwd-mnw-n-itn remain unknown. The relief decoration
associated with these temples is more widely varied than either the Gm(t) pA Itn or the Hwt-bnbn,
and includes temple offerings, pastoral scenes, rewarding of officials, and the business of
collecting taxes.275 Redford points out that in the Rwd-mnw-n-itn many of the scenes depict
various types of military personnel accompanying the king.276 The temples at Karnak do not
appear to have survived beyond the reign of Horemheb, who reused the dismantled talatat blocks
for fill in pylons II and IX; further re-use was carried out during the Ramesside period.
Soleb
Construction at the temple of Soleb began during the reign of Amenhotep III, although it appears
that Akhenaten completed the construction. The majority of the scenes of Akhenaten are found at
the entrance to the temple on the first pylon.277 There has been some debate as to the date of these
scenes. In the cartouches present, it is possible to make out the names of both Amenhotep III and
Akhenaten. Some scholars have suggested that perhaps Akhenaten usurped an earlier construction
269
D.
Redford
1984:
102-‐104
270
L.
Manniche
2010;
the
statues
were
possibly
of
both
Nefertiti
and
Akhenaten
271
D.
Redford
2013:
20
272
D.
Redford
2013:
20.
273
For
a
detailed,
in
depth
analysis
of
the
decoration,
see
D.
Redford
1984:
110-‐128
as
well
as
Chapter
5
of
this
thesis.
274
S.
Tawfik
1979:
61;
the
variations
include
a
mound,
a
stela
and
a
pyramidion.
275
D.
Redford
1984:
72
276
D.
Redford
1984:
72;
Redford
also
points
out
that
these
depictions
are
interesting
in
light
of
the
pervasive
theme
in
Amarna
Period
scholarship
that
a
degree
of
enmity
existed
between
the
King
and
his
army.
277
W.
Murnane
2002
in
Schiff
Giorgini,
Soleb
III:
le
temple.
Description:
103-‐116
49
by Amenhotep III and replaced his father’s names with his own. An alternative theory that has
been proposed is that Akhenaten completed the pylon in honor of his father following the death of
Amenhotep III, which would explain why the cartouches would have been originally inscribed or
changed to Akhenaten’s names. Murnane conducted a comprehensive analysis278 of Akhenaten’s
images and titles at the temple and concluded that the pylon itself was likely constructed by
Amenhotep IV, following the death of Amenhotep III. Amenhotep IV later re-inscribed his own
earlier cartouches to reflect changing his name to Akhenaten. Murnane then proposes that
following Akhenaten’s death, his cartouches were re-inscribed a second time, this time with the
name of Amenhotep III.279
The imagery on the first pylon seems to be primarily concerned with aspects of the royal cult.
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten is shown being crowned by a variety of deities, who are also shown
offering life to the king. The king is also shown offering to both Amun-Re and Amenhotep III as
Nebmaatre, Lord of Nubia.280 This imagery serves to emphasize Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten’s
unquestionable right to the kingship, as both the literal son of Nebmaatre as well as the spiritual
son of Amun-Re.281
There is only one instance of Amun’s image being destroyed by the Atenists, on the northern
doorway of the pylon façade. The other divine figures at the temple do not show any evidence of
being defaced during the Amarna period, a challenge to the long-held idea that Akhenaten did not
allow for any degree of religious pluralism.282 The images of Amenhotep III as Nebmaatre, Lord of
Nubia would have been easily assimilated into the new religious iconography as the deified
Amenhotep III was worshipped throughout the reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten.
Following the end of the Amarna period, there seems to have been two different phases of
vandalism and restoration at the temple site. The first was likely disorganized and not officially
sanctioned. The king’s figures were only partially hacked out, with the higher-register images
escaping damage entirely. At some point after this first attempt, an official decision was made to
repair the scenes to continue cult activity at the temple. Murnane proposes that this decision led to
the cartouches of Akhenaten being recut for Amenhotep III.283 The complex at Soleb was
connected via a processional route to the Amarna-period temple complex at Sesebi.284
278
W.
Murnane
2002:
104
279
W.
Murnane,
2003.
“Response
to
D.
B.
Redford.”
In
Hawass
and
Pinch
Brock
(eds.),
Egyptology
at
the
dawn
of
the
twenty-‐first
century:
proceedings
of
the
Eighth
International
Congress
of
Egyptologists,
Cairo,
2000
2,
15-‐19.
Cairo;
New
York:
American
University
in
Cairo
Press:
19
280
W.
Murnane
2002:
113.
281
W.
Murnane,
2002:
114.
282
W.
Murnane
2002:
108;
115.
283
W.
Murnane
2002:
109.
284
W.
Murnane
2002:
114.
50
Sesebi
Four Amarna Period temples have been identified at Sesebi from the architectural remains.
The main temple complex is composed of three adjacent temple structures. From the remains of
this decoration, it is possible to detect three phases of work on the columns, which likely reflects
adjustments made to decoration of the rest of the temple. The first phase is similar to that of the
later Eighteenth Dynasty, with finely modeled low relief figures; these earlier scenes were later
reworked, probably post-Year 6, to include sunken relief of the king and queen offering to the
Aten. The final phase consists of Seti I’s attempts to erase the Akhenaten material, plastering over
the scenes with depictions of himself worshiping Amun, Mut, and Khonsu.285
In the central temple, the pedestal for the barque shrine remains in situ, however it has been
re-inscribed with the name of Ramses II. The deep cuts of the inscriptions indicate that it once
bore the name of another pharaoh, most likely Amenhotep IV.286 In a room to the north of the
hypostyle hall in the central temple, a lower doorway provided access to a crypt within the
substructure.287 This feature is highly unusual for a temple of its time. In the majority of Egyptian
temples, crypts were not added until the Later and Ptolemaic periods.
The reliefs on the walls of the crypt were damaged in antiquity.288 However, it is still
possible to discern the identities of the figures. They appear to portray Amenhotep IV and Nefertiti
alongside a variety of deities, including Geb, Shu, Osiris, Atum and Nebmaatre, Lord of Nubia.
The stylistic details on the reliefs show that although they were originally worked in a very
delicate low-relief, typical of the later Eighteenth Dynasty, pre-Amarna period, a few were later
re-worked in the later Amarna style.289 Mostafa has noted that the foundation walls of the entire
complex were constructed to carry the weight of a roof.290
A fourth temple was established to the north of the main temple complex. It was laid out in
a similar fashion to most of Akhenaten’s smaller sun temple structures. The temple consisted of a
courtyard, 11.7 meters square, on top of a platform that is raised 2 meters high. Talatat blocks
were inscribed with the early form of the Aten’s name. At least two phases of construction at the
285
R.
Morkot,
2012.
“Kings
and
kingship
in
ancient
Nubia.”
In
Fisher
et
al.
(eds.)
,
Ancient
Nubia:
African
Kingdoms
on
the
Nile,
Cairo:
American
University
in
Cairo
Press:
316.
286
A.
Blackman,
1937:
147.
287
D.
Mostafa,
1993.
“Architectural
development
of
New
Kingdom
temples
in
Nubia
and
the
Soudan.”
In
Leclant
(ed.),
Sesto
Congresso
internazionale
di
egittologi,
141-‐152.
Torino:
International
Association
of
Egyptologists:
146.
288
K.
Spence,
et
al
2011:
34.
289
K.
Spence,
et
al.
2011:
34.
290
D.
Mostafa
1993:
146.
51
temple can be identified, the original design with the western staircase built by Akhenaten and the
later addition of the eastern staircase by Seti I.
The major finds from the Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten temples at Sesebi come from four
foundation deposits, which were discovered by the Egypt Exploration Society team during the
1937 season. They were found under the northwest and southwest corners of the main temple
complex, with four ceremonial bricks installed in conjunction with the deposits.291 A small number
of blue faience objects were uncovered, including two plaques and two scarabs, all of which were
inscribed. The deposits also included models of a brick mold with three bricks, all made of wood,
models of harpoons, two axes, two knives, one adze, copper tools, approximately one hundred
ceramic vessels, and an assortment of colored beads.292 The following year, the team uncovered an
additional two intact foundation deposits, in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the settlement
enclosure wall.293 The pits containing the deposits were covered with stone slabs. As in the original
four foundation deposits, faience plaques and scarabs were included, inscribed with the early form
of Amenhotep IV’s name.
None of the temples at Sesebi are attested in jar sealings or labels outside of the site itself.
Inscriptions from the four foundation deposits at the main temple complex are found on two
plaques and one scarab. All three texts bear the name Imn-Htp-nTr-HqA-WAst,294 the first incarnation
of Amenhotep IV’s name. Another large faience scarab was inscribed with Amenhotep IV’s
praenomen, also in its original form: Nfr-xprw-Ra.295
An offering scene from the northern temple contains an inscription relating to Nefertiti. Six
columns of the text are preserved, although the majority of the scene was erased during the reign
of Seti I.296 The text reads “Hereditary princess, greatly favored, sweet of love, lady of Upper and
Lower Egypt, […in the] palace, who bears witness to the horizon and ascends (?) to […], the
king’s chief wife, his beloved, [Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti] may she live continually.297” Also in the
debris from the Northern temple, the Egypt Exploration Society team found a dislodged block with
a partially preserved inscription bearing the original version of the Aten’s dogmatic name.298
291
A.
Blackman
1937:
148.
292
A.
Blackman
1937:
148.
293
Fairman
1938:
153.
294
Blackman
1937:
148.
295
Blackman
1937:
148.
296
W.
Murnane,
1995
Texts
from
the
Amarna
Period
in
Egypt.
Meltzer
(ed.),
Writings
from
the
Ancient
World
5.
Atlanta:
Scholars
Press:
41.
297
Translation
done
by
Murnane.
Original
Egyptian
inscription
recorded
by
Breasted.
298
A.
Blackman
1937:
147.
52
Table 5. Selected Evidence of Amarna Period Activity at Sesebi
Transcription Translation Location Associated Object
Imn-Htp-nTr-HqA-WAst Amenhotep, the god Foundation deposits; two blue faience
who rules Thebes Main temple complex plaques, one blue
faience scarab
Nfr-xprw-Ra ------- Foundation deposits, one blue faience
Main temple complex scarab
Nfr-nfrw-Itn-Nfr-ty-ty Beautiful are the Offering scene, architectural element
Beauties of the Aten, northern temple
the Beautiful One has
come
N/A inscription of original Debris, northern architectural element
form of Aten’s name temple
Doukki Gel
The Amarna Period temple at Doukki Gel was built on top of a pre-existing Amun temple
dating to the reign of either Amenhotep II or Thutmose IV.299 The basic plan of the temple was
preserved, although it appears that the majority of the temple was dismantled in order to re-cut the
blocks into talatat. Most of these talatat were later re-used in Napatan structures, although a least
one course of talatat foundation blocks is visible in parts of the temple area.300 The temple itself
followed a traditional tripartite floor plan, although three main modifications301 were made in the
Amarna Period incarnation of the building. The proportions of the pylon appear to have been
changed to seven by eight meters, consistent with other Amarna Period temple pylons. The second
courtyard of the structure appears to have been filled with a field of offering tables, again a
common Amarna solar temple feature. The lateral passageways on either side of the portico
courtyard indicate that peripheral chapels were included in the main structure as well.
The inscriptions on the re-used blocks302 show haphazard and inconsistent evidence of
intentional modification; the only target appears to have been the name of Amun.
299
C.
Bonnet
et
al.,
2003
Kerma:
“Preliminary
Report
on
the
2001-‐2002
and
2002-‐2003
Seasons.”
Kerma
51,
1-‐26:
4
300
C.
Bonnet
&
D.
Valbelle
2006:
57-‐58;
C.
Bonnet
et
al
2003:
19.
301
C.
Bonnet,
2004
Le
temple
principal
de
la
ville
de
Kerma
et
son
quartier
religieux.
Paris:
Éditions
Errance:
109-‐110;
302
A
full
index
or
detailed
publication
of
the
amount
of
architectural
material
or
the
iconography
of
the
surviving
talatat
has
not
yet
been
published;
for
examples
of
the
talatat
from
the
Doukki
Gel
sanctuary,
see
D.
Welsby
and
J.
Anderson,
2004.
Sudan:
ancient
treasures.
An
exhibition
of
recent
discoveries
from
the
Sudan
National
Museum.
London:
British
Museum
Press:
113,
objects
SNM
31107
and
31108
53
Gebel Barkal303
Over 40,000 talatat blocks have been uncovered at Gebel Barkal, the majority of which are
undecorated, save for a few with the name of Ramses II.304 The largest concentration of the blocks
comes from B500, the main Amun temple of the site. There are talatat walls and foundations in
the sanctuary as well as in the first and second courtyards, which Kendall has identified as the
original foundations of the structure. There appear to have been five phases of construction in this
section of B500 overall, three of which can be attested to the Amarna Period.305 In the first phase,
the sanctuary,306 first court and pylon were constructed, along with the structure B522, which
would later be incorporated into a Napatan temple. B522 was likely unroofed, based on the width
of the sandstone walls, which would have been too thin to support a roof.
The foundation deposit material from this temple was removed, but the pit containing them
was resealed.307 Similarly, the burial deposit from the main sanctuary was also later disturbed, as
the cartouches on the artifacts were removed although the assemblage was then reburied.308 The
disturbed foundation deposits were likely intended to remove any connection between Akhenaten
and the structure, which continued to be used after the end of the Amarna Period.
The second phase of construction was the addition of a larger court and a second pylon,
503.309 Following this, the final Amarna Period alteration to B500 was an east facing chapel, which
was designated as building 504c, constructed and paved using talatat, with walls that were
approximately 789 mm thick.310 Kendall notes that a similar chapel is present at the Amarna Period
temple at Doukki Gel.311 Based on the epigraphic evidence, the later additions to B500 likely date
to the reigns of Seti I and Ramses II. These include a tripartite sanctuary and an additional chapel
partially constructed out of talatat.312
Four smaller shrines can also be dated to the Amarna Period. B520-sub retains a course of
its original talatat walls below the Napatan-era floor level. The architectural footprint of the
building reveals a small, rectangular structure with thin walls constructed out of the same brittle,
white sandstone used in B500’s second Amarna Period construction phase.313 This same type of
303
It
is
worth
noting
that
Dodson
questions
if
the
blocks
from
both
Gebel
Barkal
and
Doukki
Gel
are
re-‐used
material
from
Soleb,
but
does
not
elaborate
this
line
of
inquiry
further;
Dodson
2014:
72
304
T.
Kendall,
2009.
“Talatat
at
Jebel
Barkal:
Report
of
the
NCAM
Mission
2008-‐2009.”
Sudan
&
Nubia
13,
2-‐16:
2
305
T.
Kendall
2009:
4
306
Rooms
514
to
519
307
T.
Kendall
2009:
7
308
T.
Kendall
2009:
6
309
T.
Kendall
2009:
7
310
T.
Kendall
2009:
7
311
C.
Bonnet,
et
al.
2007:
197;
T.
Kendall
2009:
7
312
T.
Kendall
2009:
8
313
T.
Kendall
2009:
8
54
stone was used at all four of these shrines. B700-sub1also has a rectangular plan, with a pseudo
pylon. The talatat foundations are visible in places; the walls of this structure were approximately
530 mm to 600 mm, suggesting that the structure was roofless.314 B700-sub 2 lacked the pseudo
pylon, but the talatat foundations were similar to those of B700-sub 1. Additionally, a large,
natural, sandstone boulder was placed in the center of the structure, with a partial New Kingdom
inscription.315 B700-sub 3 is situated to the east of B700-sub 1 and B700-sub 2, and like the others
of the type is a thin-walled, rectangular structure with a pseudo-pylon.316
Another talatat structure, B1100 is built directly in front of the pinnacle of the mountain,317
and appears to be aligned with this natural feature. A small section of the talatat wall is visible and
in situ beneath later Kushite constructions. It appears to have followed the same plan as the other
small talatat shrines from the site. Kendall believes that the object of cult in this structure was
some incarnation of a uraeus goddess, symbolized by the mountain pinnacle.318 Additional talatat
have been found re-used beneath the Mut Temple of Taharqa, in a structure that has been
designated as B300-sub. This tripartite structure resembles the Ramses II additions to B500, and
Kendall believes that this temple dates entirely to his reign.319
There is evidence of Atenist iconoclasm on earlier monuments from Gebel Barkal. The
name and images of Amun from the Thutmose III stela uncovered by Reisner have been erased.320
The name of Amun was also removed on a statue of Thutmose, Akhenaten’s viceroy of Kush. A
fragment from B600 shows that the plural nTrw was modified to the singular nTr.
Inconclusive Sites
Tell el-Borg
While there is both archaeological material and textual evidence of Amarna period
occupation at Tell el-Borg, no in situ architectural remains or temple foundations have been
uncovered at the site to date.321 Thousands of crushed talatat fragments have been uncovered in
reuse contexts in three different areas of excavation.322 Field II consists of a stone lined pit with a
staircase. Intact talatat were used to form the stairs and to line parts of the wall. None of the
314
T.
Kendall
2009:
9
315
A
full
study
of
this
text
has
yet
to
be
carried
out.
316
T.
Kendall
2009:
8
317
For
a
description
of
the
layout
of
Gebel
Barkal,
see
J.
Haynes
and
M.
Santini-‐Ritt
2012:
285-‐293
318
Shrines
to
the
uraeus
goddesses
can
be
seen
on
reliefs
depicting
Amenhotep
IV’s
heb-‐sed
at
Karnak;
J.
Gohary,
1992.
Akhenaten's
Sed
Festival
at
Karnak.
London:
Routledge:
21-‐22;
T.
Kendall
2009:
12.
319
T.
Kendall
2009:
12
320
G.
Reisner
and
M.
Reisner,
1933.
“Inscribed
monuments
from
Gebel
Barkal.”
Zeitschrift
für
ägyptische
Sprache
und
Altertumskunde
69,
24-‐39,
73-‐78
321
J.
Hoffmeier
&
J.
van
Dijk
2010:
6
322
The
field
numbers
and
designations
are
those
used
by
excavators
in
their
publications.
55
blocks from this field were decorated and the feature appears to be part of a Ramesside
structure,323 contemporary with the second of the two forts present at Tell el-Borg. The second
location was inside of the Ramesside fort complex in Field IV, Area I, which was a v-shaped moat
with talatat foundations and crushed limestone fragments as fill.324 Three additional talatat blocks
were used in the foundations of the Ramesside Gate in Field V Square P, Locus 4.325 These three
blocks were found in situ but others were uncovered within the same area.326
None of the talatat uncovered at Tell el-Borg were decorated, but Hoffmeier has proposed
that some of the disarticulated painted plaster fragments uncovered at the site may have originally
come from these blocks. One in particular appears to show the head of a royal figure, possibly one
of Akhenaten’s co-regents.327 The names of several Amarna Period rulers can be attested to on
objects from Tell el-Borg, but none of the inscriptions uncovered thus far make any mention of an
Amarna Period temple structure.
323
J.
Hoffmeier
&
M.
Abd
el-‐Maksoud
2003:
pl.
ix.2;
J.
Hoffmeier
2006
343:
180-‐182;
J.
Hoffmeier
&
J.
van
Dijk
2010:
3
324
J.
Hoffmeier
&
M.
Abd
el
Maksoud,
2003:
pl.
xiii.
3-‐4:
J.
Hoffmeier
&
J.
van
Dijk
2010:
3
325
J.
Hoffmeier,
ASAE
80
(2006):
258
and
figs
5
and
6
326
The
exact
number
of
the
additional
talatat
is
not
provided.
327
For
full
analysis
of
this
fragment
and
the
identification,
see
J.
Hoffmeier
&
E.
Ertman
2007.
“Amarna
Period
Kings
in
Sinai.”
Egyptian
Archaeology
31:39-‐39;
J.
Hoffmeier
&
E.
Ertman,
2008.
“A
new
fragmentary
relief
of
King
Ankhkheperure
from
Tell
el-‐Borg
(Sinai)?”Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
94:
296-‐302
328
J.
Hoffmeier,
2004.
“Tell
el-‐Borg
on
Egypt's
eastern
frontier:
a
preliminary
report
on
the
2002
and
2004
seasons.”
Journal
of
the
American
Research
Center
in
Egypt
41,
85-‐111:
109
329
J.
Hoffmeier
&
J.
van
Dijk
2010:
7
330
J.
Hoffmeier
&
J.
van
Dijk
2010:
7;
This
has
been
identified
as
Smenkhare
by
Hoffmeier,
however
it
is
possibly
the
name
of
Neferneferuaten,
especially
given
the
presence
of
the
epithets,
see
Van
der
Perre
2014.
331
J.
Hoffmeier
&
J.
van
Dijk
2010:
7
332
J.
Hoffmeier
&
J.
van
Dijk
2010:
7
333
J.
Hoffmeier
&
R.
Bull
2005
“New
inscriptions
mentioning
Tjaru
from
Tell
el-‐Borg,
north
Sinai.”
Revue
d’égyptologie
56:
79-‐86
56
However, the nearby fort of Tjaru at Tell Hebua may have been the site of either a pr-Itn or an
estate of an Aten temple. A wine jar from KV62334 has a label dating to Tutankhamun’s Year 5,
which mentions the pr-Itn, and Tjaru. A second wine inscription, also dating to Year 5 of
Tutankhamun was uncovered in KV63335 and again attests to a pr-Itn or an estate of a pr-Itn at
Tjaru. Hoffmeier has suggested that this is the possible original location of the talatat found at Tell
el-Borg, although it is unclear why limestone would be relocated to a new site only to be used as
fill. The fortress and settlement at Tell el-Borg were clearly in use throughout the Amarna Period,
but there is currently not enough evidence to meet the criteria for a conclusive identification.
Akhmim
Charles Edwin Wilbour uncovered two Amarna Period blocks from Akhmim although
further details about their provenance are unknown.336 Marc Gabolde also discovered several
Amarna period limestone blocks re-used in the foundations of a Ramses II temple. When the
thirteen blocks uncovered by Gabolde were published by Yehia el-Masry, he noted that they
were likely made from local limestone and larger than standard talatat. Based on the decoration
preserved on the blocks el-Masry concluded that they form part of a single scene,337 which he
claims would be unusual if the blocks had been taken from elsewhere.338 El-Masry also mentions
a final block from the site, in a Ministry of Antiquities storage facility at Athribis, which has a
partially erased Aten cartouche.339
Due to the small amount of building material as well as the complete absence of any textual
references to a temple or temple personnel at the site, there is not enough evidence to
conclusively identify it as an Amenhotep IV building site.
Abydos
During his excavations at Abydos in 1903, Petrie uncovered the first talatat known from
the site. During the University of Pennsylvania excavations at the site 26 talatat were found
reused in a gateway of Ramses II. Epigraphical evidence from one of the blocks names a temple
334
J.
Cerny,
1965:22
no.
8;
J.
Hoffmeier
&
J.
van
Dijk
2010:
7
335
J.
Hoffmeier
&
J.
van
Dijk
2010:
7
336
Y.
el-‐Masry
2002:
397
337
The
scene
itself
appears
to
be
a
fairly
standard
for
the
Amarna
canon,
with
Akhenaten
and
Nefertiti
worshiping
the
Aten
and
making
offerings
on
a
large
offering
table;
el-‐Masry
2002:
395
338
Y.
el-‐Masry
2002:
397-‐398
339
Y.
el-‐Masry
2002:
398.
57
known as Rwd-Ankhw-n-Itn 340 as well as a structure called qd-f-axt-atn. It is still unclear where
these blocks originated, but there is no further evidence for an Aten temple at Osiris.
Kawa 341
The ancient name of Kawa, Gm (t)-pA-Itn, is the same name given to Aten temple enclosures at
both Karnak and Amarna. This has led scholars to believe that Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten
founded the site, although no architectural evidence remains pre-dating the reign of
Tutankhamun. Small finds with the name of Amenhotep III have been uncovered at the site, but
there is no evidence of any building activity from his reign. It is possible that an Amarna Period
structure at the site was completely demolished or that the settlement dates to the very beginning
of Tutankhamun’s reign before the return to orthodoxy. This is however entirely speculative and
the identification of Kawa as an Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten temple site is inconclusive.
Reuse Sites
Tell Basta342
Edouard Naville uncovered a granite slab with traces of the early form of the Aten’s
didactic name during his work at the site. It appears to have been partially erased and re-
inscribed with the name of Ramses II. A single slab is not enough evidence to even tentatively
identify the site as a potential Amarna period construction site.
Illahun/Medinet el-Gurob343
Illahun contained several Amarna period objects, likely moved from an original context
at Medinet el- Gurob, including several rings and a letter all dated to Amenhotep IV and
decorated talatat was also found reused in a tomb at Illahun. Despite this evidence, the extent of
Amarna Period activity at Illahun and Medinet el-Gurob is unclear.
340
A
temple
with
this
name
is
known
from
Tell
el-‐Amarna;
341
M.
Macadam
1949
342
É.
Naville,
1891.
Bubastis
(1887-‐1889).
London:
Egypt
Exploration
Fund:
34-‐35
343
B.Fay
2004;
Zecchi
2001:
177-‐194
58
Ashmunein344
The post-Amarna period construction at Ashmunein was a temple dedicated to Amun
begun by Horemheb and completed during the reign of Ramses II. During the excavations carried
out by Roeder at the site between 1929-1939, over 1200 decorated talatat were found reused in
the Ramses II temple. Over 300 more were found between 1969-1978. The close proximity of the
site to Tell el-Amarna as well as the lack of stone building remains left at that site indicate that
Ramses II took advantage of the pre-cut building material for his own constructions at
Ashmunein. One reused talatat from the site is of particular importance: it names Tutankhamun
as “son of the King’s [Akhenaten’s] body.”
Manqabad346
A single limestone talatat with human arms and partial Aten cartouche, with elements
of both the earlier and later versions of the didactic name was found in a Roman context. A
single block is not enough to even tentatively identify the site as a possible original
construction site.
Asyut347
The Amarna Period material found at Asyut consists of fifteen talatat and four column
fragments that had been reused in the basement of a modern home. Some of the blocks are
inscribed with the names of Nefertiti and her daughter Ankhesenpaaten, as well as the earlier form
of the Aten titulary. The inscriptions also reference a structure titled the Rwd-Anxw, which is also
344
G.
Roeder,1978.
Amarna
Reliefs
aus
Hermopolis
vol.
II.
Gersetenberg:
Hildesheim;
A.
Spencer,
1999:
147-‐150
345
G.
Rosati
2007
346
A.
Kamal
1911:
3-‐4
347
J-‐l.
Chappaz
2005:
74-‐76
59
attested to on blocks uncovered at Abydos. A building with this name is known from Tell el-
Amarna.348
Medamud349
The discovery of approximately 50 decorated talatat initially seemed to indicate that
there was an Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten temple at the site. However, following the Akhenaten
Temple Project’s extensive study of the Karnak talatat and their reuse, it has been concluded that
the blocks from Medamud were re-used from dismantled Karnak structures, although the date of
the reuse is unknown.
Armant350
Adel Farid recorded talatat in the foundations of the Armant temple during his excavations
in 1980. Little epigraphical evidence remains on the blocks, but the excavators concluded that the
blocks were most likely taken from Karnak.
Tod351
A series of excavation campaigns carried out by the Louvre have uncovered
approximately 45 talatat as well as three fragments of Amarna period statues. Epigraphical
evidence from the blocks indicates that they were dismantled from the Gm-pA -Itn at Karnak; no
other evidence is known to support the existence of an Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten temple at Tod.
Seti I carried out the restoration of the earlier Thutmose III shrine to Montu. He may have
originally brought the talatat from the Karnak, which were later reused in the temple dating to
the reign of Ptolemy VIII Eugertes II at the site.
348
See
chapter
2
of
this
thesis.
349
R.
Cottervielle-‐Giraudet,
1932.
Les
reliefs
d'Amenophis
4
Akhenaton
(Vol.
12).
Fouilles
de
l'Institut
Français
d'Archéologie
Orientale
du
Caire:
Institut
Français
d'Archéologie
Orientale
350
A.
Farid
1983:
60
351
G.
Pierrat,
M.
Étienne,
D.
Leconte,
and
C.
Barbotin
,
1995.
“Fouilles
de
musée
du
Louvre
à
Tôd,
1988-‐1991.”
Cahiers
de
Karnak
10,
405-‐503
60
Modification Sites
Luxor 352
Atenist destruction appears to have been focused on the monuments built by
Amenhotep III. The images and names of Amun, Mut and Khonsu were erased. Some
alterations to Hathor’s images were also made, but the destruction was inconsistent. Deities
depicted with solar disk headdresses were defaced, while the disks themselves left intact. There
does not appear to have been any deliberate damage to images or names of Atum or Re. Much
of the restoration of the temple was carried out at the end of the Amarna period during the
reigns of Tutankhamun and Ay. A large number of talatat and talatat fragments were found
in the pylon constructed by Ramses II as well as in Roman period structures around the
temenos wall. 353 Stylistic analysis of the blocks carried out by the Akhenaten Temple Project
determined that they belonged to the East Karnak Amenhotep IV temple complex, rather
than a building at Luxor.354
Kom el-Hittan355
Architectural elements from Amenhotep III’s complex were found reused in the pylon of
Merenptah’s temple, Medinet Habu, and the temple of Khonsu at Karnak. The decoration from
this material shows a systematic removal of Amun’s images, which were plastered and carved to
show the deified Amenhotep III in his guise of Nebmaatre. The Amun figures appear to have
been partially restored by Tutankhamen.
Wadi el-Sebua356
There appears to have been intentional damage done to the images of Amun in the
Amenhotep III temple at the site. These were later repaired during Ramses II’s rededication of the
temple.
352
L.
Bell,
1985.
“Luxor
temple
and
the
cult
of
the
royal
Ka.”
Journal
of
Near
Eastern
Studies
44
(4):
251-‐294
353
D.
Redford
1984:
66
354
D.
Redford
1984:
66
355
G.
Haeny
1981;
S.
Bickel
1997
356
E.
Morris,
2005.
The
Architecture
of
Imperialism:
Military
Bases
and
the
Evolution
of
Foreign
Policy
in
Egypt's
New
Kingdom.
Leiden,
Boston:
Brill.
61
Amada357
The Amada excavation reports reference Atenist destruction of several reliefs at Amada, 18
although little detail is given regarding the location or extent of the damage. The damage was
later restored during the reign of Seti I, who constructed a small kiosk at the site.
Ellesiya358
The images of Amun-Re from the Thutmose III temple appear to have been intentionally
damaged, but were later repaired by Ramses II.
Faras359
The names of the goddess Hathor appear to have been destroyed and later repaired by
Tutankhamun or Ramses II.
Sai360
The names and images of Amun were intentionally destroyed in the Thutmose III temple
on the island of Sai.
Sedeinga361
The Atenist iconoclasm at Sedeinga seems to have been limited to the images of the god
Amun. The iconography related to Queen Tiy and the Eye of Re goddesses was left undamaged.
357
Gautheir
1910:
122-‐123;
Schulman
1982
358
L.
Török
2009:
226
359
J.
Karkowski
1981
360
A.
Minault-‐Gout,
2006-‐2007.
“Les
Installations
du
début
du
Nouvel
Empire
à
Saï:
un
etat
de
la
question.”
In
Gratien
(ed.),
Mélanges
offerts
à
Francis
Geus:
Égypte-‐Soudan.
Lille:
Universite
Charles
de
Gaule
:275-‐293.
361
J.
Leclant
1984
62
Chapter V: Analysis
Despite the undeniable power of the king at the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty, there were
limits to even the crown’s resources. Temple construction, while an expected and anticipated
activity, amounted to a serious financial strain. Combining this with the foundation of a new
capital city at Tell el-Amarna, it seems likely that Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten would have had to
make very deliberate choices concerning the use of his remaining resources. The Boundary
Stelae362 at Tell el-Amarna lay out very clearly Akhenaten’s vision for his new city. This includes
not only the names of the temples, but also the stipulation that they be built on land that has not yet
been dedicated to any other god. Moreover, the temples at Tell el-Amarna are fairly uniform in
their layout and decoration. Due to this consistency, the Tell el-Amarna temples have served as a
control group for discussions of individual regional sites. However, taking the regional temples as
a discrete category in and of themselves is one of the research aims of this thesis. The analysis
below focuses on specific aspects of the regional temples in order to observe patterns between
these temples: the names of the temples, the locations of the temples within their respective sites,
the architectural layout of the temples, the surviving iconography, and the relative chronology of
temple construction. When relevant, comparisons have been drawn between this group of temples
and those at Tell el-Amarna.
Due to varying degrees of the preservation of the sites, it is difficult to provide a complete
analysis for any of these categories. To accommodate these gaps in the data, each discussion lists
the sites that are being included and which sites do not have the requisite surviving evidence.
Temple Names
The names of ten Amarna Period temples are known from the regional construction sites. The
names of the temples at Sesebi, Doukki Gel, and Gebel Barkal do not survive.
362
W.
Murnane
&
C.
van
Siclen
1993
63
Table 7. Names of Regional Amarna Period Temples
Corresponds
Site to Tell el-
Name Temple Name Amarna
One who lifts Ra in
Heliopolis Iwnw
Memphis pr-Itn m Mnnfr x
Memphis Hw.t pA Itn x
Memphis Axt Itn m Mnnfr x
Memphis Sw.t Ra x
Karnak Gm(t) pA Itn
Karnak Hwt-bnbn x
Karnak Tni-mnw-n itn
Karnak and Rwd-mnw-n-itn
Soleb Ka-m-MAat
None of the surviving temple names are used at more than one regional site, with the
possible exception of the pr-Itn. This name is used at both Karnak and Memphis, although it
appears that by the time the Memphite pr-Itn was constructed, the Karnak pr-Itn had been renamed
Gm(t) pA Itn .363 Four of the temple names match the names of temples from Tell el-Amarna, all of
which belong to temples located either at Karnak or Memphis; six temple names appear to be
unique for the period.
363
A
more
in
depth
chronological
analysis
of
all
of
the
temples
will
be
included
below.
364
The
only
temple
from
Karnak
that
has
been
identified
is
the
Gm-pA-Itn,
the
locations
of
the
others
remain
unknown
as
has
been
discussed
in
previous
chapters.
365
V.
Angenot
2008:
10
64
In cases where the temple location can be identified, it is possible to determine if the
buildings were constructed on previously unused land or if they were incorporated into earlier
temples. Only two of the temples appear to have been built on virgin soil: the Gm(t)-pA-Itn at
Karnak366 and B500 at Gebel Barkal.367 The remaining located temples all show evidence of pre-
existing temple foundations underneath the Amarna Period material. The entirety of Amenhotep
IV activity at Soleb appears to have been confined to the pre-existing Amenhotep III temple on the
site. At Sesebi, the triple temple enclosure has incorporated unfinished column drums from an
earlier Eighteenth Dynasty temple.368 The Amarna Period temple at Doukki Gel was not only built
on the same location as the pre-existing Thutmose IV temple to Amun of Pnubs, but used the
dismantled and recut stone from the earlier temple as well.
While it seems paramount that the city of Amarna was built on land that did not belong to
any other god, this emphasis on previously unconsecrated land does not appear to have been a
priority outside of Amarna.
Figure 3. Distribution of Regional Temple Locations
Location Unknown
366
D.
Redford
1999
56
367
T.
Kendall
2009:
3
368
K.
Spence
and
P.
Rose,
2009.
“New
fieldwork
at
Sesebi.”
Egyptian
Archaeology
35,
21-‐24:
The
exact
date
of
the
pre-‐Amarna
Period
structure
is
still
unclear,
but
activity
at
Sesebi
has
been
attested
to
as
early
as
the
reigns
of
Thutmoses
III
and
Hatshepsut.
65
Temple Layout
By the Eighteenth Dynasty, certain features had become standardized in the free-standing
cult temples: approaches flanked with statues—usually sphinxes, enclosure walls, entrance pylons,
hypostyle halls and a main axis with a series of enclosed rooms—each getting progressively
smaller and darker.369 Open air solar courts, a feature of royal mortuary temples as early as the
Fifth Dynasty,370 began to be added to Eighteenth Dynasty temples starting with the reign of
Hatshepsut. These courtyards were a frequent component of Amenhotep III’s temple building and
modification program as well. The temples at Tell el-Amarna completely eschewed the traditional
architectural layout and symbolism associated with New Kingdom cult temples.371
Certain sites from the regional Amarna Period temple group cannot be considered in an
analysis of architectural plans due to the poor condition of preservation at their respective
locations. This includes all four Memphite temples, the temple at Heliopolis, and three of the four
temples at Karnak—although depictions of the Hwt-bnbn372 at Karnak give some suggestion as to
the basic layout of this temple.
There is a variety in design from the regional temples. Soleb, for example, follows a
traditional layout, which is unsurprising given that the temple was primarily constructed during the
reign of Amenhotep III. The three temples from the main temple enclosure at Sesebi are also
typical New Kingdom temples.373 Other temples take on intermediary forms and likely represent
structures that were originally traditional, enclosed temples built by Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten, but
later underwent modifications to fit with the new Amarna Period style. Doukki Gel was built on
the footprint of an Amun temple, but the proportions374 of the pylon and inclusion of numerous
offering tables are more in line with “Amarna-type” solar temples, although the excavators believe
the temple at Doukki Gel retained its roof.375 Temple B500 at Gebel Barkal also appears to have
been a tripartite enclosed structure, although the outlying chapels 522 and 504c had such thin walls
that they were almost certainly unroofed, as were the smaller shrines B1100 and B700 sub 1, sub
2, and sub 3.376
At Karnak, the Gm(t)-pA-Itn also followed a slightly atypical plan, likely due to its specific
369
M.
Verner
2013:
532
370
M.
Verner
2013:
520
371
M.
Verner
2013:
533
372
The
Hwt-bnbn is
shown
on
the
talatat
uncovered
from
Karnak
with
thin
walls,
and
a
tall
thin
pylon,
both
features
common
to
unroofed
Amarna
temples.
373
The
central
temple
from
this
group
contains
a
crypt
in
its
substructure,
which
is
highly
unusual
for
a
temple
before
the
Ptolemaic
Period;
K.
Spence
et.
al
2011:
36.
374
The
exact
proportions
of
this
pylon
do
not
appear
in
the
publications
from
the
Doukki
Gel
excavations.
375
C.
Bonnet
&
D.
Valbelle
2006:
57
376
T.
Kendall
2005:
9-‐12
66
role as a venue for the heb-sed festival. This temple consisted of an enclosure wall, pylon, and two
courts with offering tables. The first court also featured a series of open roofed shrines. Redford
has identified this first courtyard as a “court of the great ones,” an architectural feature associated
with heb-sed temples.377
The only regional temple that can be confidently compared with the Tell el-Amarna corpus
is the fourth temple at Sesebi—an open-air platform dominated by an offering table in the middle
of an enclosed courtyard. The basic outline of this temple evokes the sunshade temples found at
Tell el-Amarna, but lacks evidence of the accompanying gardens and water features associated
with these temples.
Iconography
Iconographic evidence is available for all of the temple sites, with the exception of Gebel
Barkal and the fourth temple at Sesebi.378 Although some of the iconography is still present on the
material from Memphis it is not possible to determine the specific structures at the site itself from
which the Memphite blocks originate. Thus, all of the notes on the Memphite iconography refer to
the site of Memphis as a whole. The types of scenes depicted vary somewhat from site to site; but
the most common types of scenes are well known from the Amarna artistic canon—the royal
family making offerings to the Aten, offering tables full of food, and attendants prostrating
themselves. This type of iconography is present at half of the regional temples. The next most
common are scenes of the king interacting with traditional deities, and will be discussed in more
detail below. Heb-sed festival imagery is only found in the Gm(t)-pA-Itn at Karnak.
Out of all of the deities shown in the temple iconography, the Aten is the most commonly
depicted god. If the falcon-headed figure identified as Aten, Lord of Nubia from Sesebi is counted
together with the Aten disk, the ubiquitous Amarna Period god appears at 80% of the regional
temple sites. Additionally, when the Aten disk appears in the iconography, it appears more
frequently at each site than any other deity, often to the complete exclusion of the other gods. The
remaining traditional gods appear at only one site each, often limited to a single representation
within those sites. The exceptions are the deified Amenhotep III/Nebmaatre, Lord of Nubia, and
Amun who are shown at both Soleb and Sesebi.
It is difficult to determine if there are any connections between the layout of the temples and
377
D.
Redford
2013:
20
378
Little
has
been
published
regarding
the
decoration
of
the
blocks,
other
than
the
note
that
they
were
covered
in
a
thin
layer
of
plaster ;
A.
Blackman
1937:
148
67
their corresponding iconography given the discrepancies in available architectural evidence. The
only clear pattern that emerges from this data is that temples that follow a traditional tripartite,
enclosed plan--specifically Soleb and Sesebi—are decorated with traditional deities. Doukki Gel,
which followed the footprint of a pre-Amarna Period temple structure but with visible
modifications, is the exception to this rule and is decorated in the typical Amarna style and only
shows the Aten disk. The remaining temples decorated with this type of iconography do not have
enough surviving in situ material to determine the architectural layout and the decoration from sole
confirmed example of an open-air sun temple from Sesebi has not been published, if indeed any of
it survives. The outlier in this group in both form and iconography is the Gm(t)-pA-Itn from
Karnak, which is decorated with imagery depicting the heb-sed festival. Some minor deities are
also shown in the Karnak material, but the expected major state gods are absent.379
Legend
x indicates that listed conditions are met
indicates that listed conditions are not met
379
As
has
been
mentioned
in
Chapter
4,
the
iconography
of
the
Hwt-bnbn from
Karnak
is
also
unique,
as
the
sole
participant
in
the
cult
appears
to
have
been
Nefertiti;
however,
as
the
focus
of
this
cult
is
the
Aten
disk,
it
was
counted
with
the
group
of
“missing”
Aten
temples.
68
Proposed Timeline of Regional Temple Building Activity380
The first construction projects undertaken by Amenhotep IV date to Years 1-5 of his reign.
Amenhotep IV finishes the decoration of Amenhotep III’s temple at Soleb, which includes a
standard iconographic program. The triple temple complex at Sesebi was likely built during this
time and intended to compliment the Amenhotep III temple at Soleb and the associated temple of
Queen Tiy at Sedeinga. The Sesebi enclosure was built on the foundations of an earlier Eighteenth
Dynasty temple structure and follows a typical tripartite, enclosed layout. The iconography from
these temples again features the expected state gods, but includes a depiction of a falcon-headed
anthropomorphic god who is identified in the texts as “Aten, Lord of Nubia.” The enclosure at
East Karnak dates to this period as well. However, they represent the first departures from temple-
building tradition. The Gm(t)-pA-Itn was built on previously unused land to the east of the Amun
enclosure and was constructed and decorated in anticipation of Amenhotep IV’s heb-sed festival.
The major state gods are absent from the iconography at the Gm(t)-pA-Itn as well as at the three
additional temples; in their place is first another falcon-headed proto-Aten figure and then the
introduction of the multi-armed sun disc that would become emblematic of the Amarna Period
religion.
The remaining temples were all constructed following the change of the king’s name in Year
5. The temple at Doukki Gel was constructed using the stone building material from a Thutmose
IV-era temple dedicated to Amun of Pnubs, which were first dismantled entirely and recut into
talatat before being reassembled over the architectural footprint of the original structure. Some
minor modifications were made to the overall layout and the decoration was entirely within the
typical Amarna Period milieu. While the temples at Gebel Barkal cannot be dated using textual
sources, the layout of B500 is stylistically similar enough to the temple at Doukki Gel that it can
be inferred that they were constructed contemporaneously. Also during this renewed period of
activity in Nubia, a fourth temple was constructed at Sesebi. Unlike the triple temple enclosure,
this temple was an open-air structure stylistically similar to the minor, outlying shrines from Tell
el-Amarna.
Within the borders of Egypt proper, the temples at Heliopolis and Memphis were also being
constructed apparently in tandem with the foundation of Tell el-Amarna. Little can be said about
the layout of these temples, but they are iconographically consistent with the other regional
temples from this time period as well as the temples from Tell el-Amarna. It appears that there was
380
The
regnal
year
range
here
is
determined
by
the
cartouches
found
in
inscriptions
at
the
site.
69
some activity at Memphis following the introduction of the second didactic Aten name post-Year 8
but pre-Year 12, and this is the latest datable construction from the regional sites.
The destruction of the regional temples does not appear to have been particularly
systematic. The bulk of the reuse of the temple architectural material dates to the reign of Ramses
II. With the exception of Memphis, which can be attested to in documentation from the reign of
Seti I, it is unclear how long after the end of the Amarna Period many of these temples continued
to function. It appears that the Karnak material began to be reused as early as the reign of
Tutankhamun381and continued into the reign of Horemheb. It appears that the original priority was
the restoration of preexisting temple that had been altered or damaged by the Atenists, with
widespread reuse and rededication dating mostly to the reigns of Seti I and Ramses II.382
381
A.
Dodson
2009:
69
382
A.
Dodson
2009:
70
70
Conclusions
It is impossible to conduct any study on the reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten without
taking the city of Tell el-Amarna into consideration. This holds especially true when examining
the temple building program of the Amarna Period. As has been discussed in the previous chapter,
the trajectory of regional temple construction undergoes a marked change following the founding
of the new capital city.
In the early years of his reign, Amenhotep IV’s building activities do not significantly
deviate from what would be expected; he finishes the decoration of his father’s temple at Soleb
and goes on to construct his own complex nearby at Sesebi. He begins work on a building at
Karnak, the pr-Itn, which does not at first appear to be radically different from traditional temple
types, especially given the highly solarized character of Amenhotep III’s construction projects.
However, at some point in the first five years of his reign, Amenhotep IV begins preparations for a
very early heb-sed festival of his own, perhaps in emulation of Amenhotep III’s series of heb-seds.
It is at this point that the pr-Itn is renamed the Gm(t)-pA-Itn. To execute this transition, the
temple was subject to deliberate modifications. For example, the layout was changed to include a
key component of heb-sed festival complexes, the open court flanked with a series of shrines,
known as the “court of the great ones.” Traditionally, in preparation for the heb-sed festival, cult
statues or images of different regional gods would be brought to this purpose built courtyard in
advance of the ceremonies. The king would then visit each shrine and make offerings; this likely
took several days, which could explain the high number of processions to and from the temple
recorded on the talatat from the Gm(t)-pA-Itn. In previous incarnations of this festival383 this
practice of homage to the regional gods demonstrated that the king of a unified Egypt was still
required to obtain legitimacy from the gods of both upper and lower Egypt. However, in a major
departure from tradition, it appears that the shrines from the Gm(t)-pA-Itn did not contain images of
the traditional deities, but rather depictions of the Aten disk.
This supplanting of the traditional gods with the Aten during this festival represents a key
deviation from tradition on the part of Akhenaten. This change in the theological grounding of the
festival is especially important given that the heb-sed festival itself was likely intended to show the
investiture of the king with the office of high priest of the gods. Bleeker has suggested that this
aspect of the ceremony is represented by the king wearing the ritual heb-sed vestments, sitting on
383
D.
Redford
1984:
125
71
the raised dais, wearing the red and white crowns and sitting on the two thrones.384 During the
festival of Amenhotep IV, the king is deliberately marking himself as high priest of the Aten
alone.
The remaining temples at Karnak appear to follow this same theme, all decorated in the
new artistic style and focused solely on the Aten. At some point around Year 5, perhaps during the
heb-sed festival itself, the Aten cult is officially inaugurated, with the king proclaiming the other
gods to be obsolete. While this proclamation is an intrinsic act of religious revolution, its
significance radiated even further: given the substantial economic power of the Amun priesthood
during the later Eighteenth Dynasty, the denouncement of the Amun cult likely produced profound
political fallout.
In Year 5, Amenhotep IV changes his name to Akhenaten. Following this change, there
was a second phase of building activity. The colossal expenditure of resources constructing Tell
el-Amarna did not prevent Akhenaten from building temples and temple complexes at Memphis,
Heliopolis, and Doukki Gel, in addition to a new temple at Sesebi. It is impossible to date the
construction projects at Gebel Barkal, but the stylistic similarities between the temples and shrines
at Gebel Barkal, Doukki Gel and Sesebi suggest that they were built around the same time. These
temples were all constructed using talatat blocks decorated with the imagery that has become
synonymous with Amarna Period art, again with the Aten as the sole object of cult. The only
temple that shows evidence of the second name of the Aten, implying that construction was taking
place there between Years 8 and 12, is the postulated sunshade temple at Memphis. It thus appears
that the time between the dedication of Tell el-Amarna and the durbar festival in Year 12
constitutes the bulk of regional temple building activity. These patterns indicate that Akhenaten
did not conserve his resources for a more measured expenditure, but instead chose to push through
a truly massive amount of construction all at approximately the same time.
It is possible that the wide-scale iconoclastic modifications of pre-existing cult temples
took place towards the end of Akhenaten’s reign. Certainly all of the regional temple sites show
evidence of iconoclasm from pre-Amarna Period structures. It is, however, uncertain when these
modifications were carried out in relation to the actual building activity. Given the apparent end of
regional temple construction around Year 12, it is possible that the iconoclasm was mostly carried
out at the end of the reign, due to constraints on resources. As has been discussed, Akhenaten’s
384
C.
Bleeker,
1967.
Egyptian
Festivals:
Enactments
of
Religious
Renewal.
Leiden:
Brill:
98,
122.
The
concept
of
the
king
sitting
in
on
a
raised
dais,
crowned
and
dressed
in
the
iconic
ceremonial
robe
is
known
from
the
Early
Dynastic
settlement
at
Nekhen,
and
is
present
in
all
three
of
the
major
heb-‐sed
festival
depictions,
spanning
from
Niuserra
in
the
Fifth
Dynasty,
Amenhotep
III
in
the
Eighteenth
Dynasty,
to
Osorkon
in
the
Twenty-‐
Second
Dynasty.
72
final five years were increasingly chaotic, with the deaths of several members of the royal family.
It is entirely possible as well that these modifications were intended to mark locations for future
temple constructions, but this is merely speculation. A full study of the modification sites is
needed in order to closely examine the relative chronology of the iconoclasm, and would prove to
be a useful companion to this thesis.
Returning solely to building activity, it appears that one of the principal aims of this
thesis—examining the regional temples as a discrete category—requires comparison of the whole
regional group to the temples from Tell el-Amarna to provide appropriate context. It logically
follows to some degree that the temples that were built before the founding of the city have little in
common with the temples that came after. That the complex at Karnak served as a prototype for
the buildings that would come later is not a new idea, but bears repeating to emphasize the linear
trajectory in the building pattern. However, once the plans for Tell el-Amarna began to coalesce,
the regional temples begin to be constructed with an awareness of the form and decoration used at
the new capital city. This is also logically cohesive, as Tell el-Amarna would become Akhenaten’s
microcosm for his new vision.
The temple design is not static, however. The emphasis of building on land that did not
belong to other gods—a feature present at Karnak and Tell el-Amarna—does not appear to have
been very strictly followed elsewhere. Whether this was seen as irrelevant at regional sites, where
worship of other gods far pre-dated the Aten cult, or if the idea was ultimately disregarded as the
theology evolved is unclear. The trend towards streamlining the theology of the Aten cult appears
to hold true at the regional sites as well. The Aten is the sole god shown being worshipped in these
temples.
Ultimately, what appears to have occurred between the Year 5 name change and the Year
12 durbar celebration is a flurry of building activity dedicated solely to the Aten cult and carried
out with the exemplar of Tell el-Amarna in mind. This indicates that while Tell el-Amarna was the
epicenter of the religious upheaval, Akhenaten intended to incorporate the rest of the country into
his new vision. While these changes were undeniably radical, they were also carried out with
deliberation and awareness. Akhenaten was not subverting all of the traditional sources of
legitimacy. Rather, he shifted the emphasis away from Amun, the Amun priesthood, and the city
of Thebes entirely, and refocused on the interconnection between the kingship and the solar cult.
The Heliopolitan priesthood had been a powerful entity in confirming the legitimacy of
kings since the Fifth Dynasty. Even as Heliopolis and Ra were eclipsed by Thebes and Amun(re),
73
the solar cult remained an essential part of the ancient Egyptian state religion. The latter half of the
Eighteenth Dynasty was a period of theological discourse amongst the elite classes; thus
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten’s initial experiments in cult development may not have appeared very
revolutionary at first. However, the population in the new capital city was likely aware that a series
of changes were being made to the state religious institutions—even if it did not directly affect
them.385
By carrying out these changes throughout Egypt and Nubia, Akhenaten was ensuring that
his empire would be incorporated into his new vision. A longstanding bias in Amarna Period
scholarship has produced the idea that once Tell el-Amarna was founded, the king retreated to his
new desert city and ignored the rest of the country to the point of ruin. This attitude is reinforced
by the text from the Restoration Stela of Tutankhamen,386 which describes the rather pitiful state of
Egypt at the time of Tutankhamun’s ascension to the throne. However, by building temples at sites
that were both religiously and politically significant and widespread, Akhenaten demonstrated his
awareness of the traditional roles of an Eighteenth Dynasty king, while simultaneously bringing
these regional sites into the new religious framework.
In this sense, the major disruptions to the status quo of the Amarna Period were
simultaneously examples of revolutionary thinking –the outright dismissal of the traditional state
gods as well as the essential disenfranchisement of the Amun priesthood—and an acceleration of a
religious trajectory that had been set in motion by his predecessors—the increased solarization of
religion and changing role of the itn from middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty onwards.
With this context in mind, the far-flung nature of the temple sites takes on a new symbolic
importance. While it is impossible to parse the ideological motivations of an ancient Egyptian
king, the geographic spread of the Amarna Period temples fits neatly into one of the main
attributes of the Aten—its universality. Thus rather than being a regional cult centered on the new
capital at Amarna, the worship of the Aten would have been celebrated throughout the Egyptian
empire, the natural dominion of a deity who was both a celestial phenomenon and a cosmic king.
385
Certainly
the
elites
would
have
been
aware
of
the
particulars
of
the
new
religion,
given
the
private
stelae
dedicated
to
the
worship
of
the
new
cult;
the
workmen
from
Tell
el-‐Amarna
likewise
would
have
come
into
contact
with
the
changes
to
the
art
and
iconography
at
the
very
least,
even
though
the
material
evidence
from
the
Workmen’s
Village
indicates
that
their
religious
beliefs
were
not
altered
by
the
new
state
religion.
386
Cairo
CG34183
Due
to
a
significant
overlap
in
subject
matter,
this
thesis
must
acknowledge
the
publication
of
J.
Hoffmeier’s
Akhenaten
and
the
Origins
of
Monotheism,
which
addresses
several
of
the
regional
Aten
temples
and
a
selection
of
the
sites
where
talatat
have
been
reused.
As
this
book
was
published
in
February
2015
after
the
initial
submission
and
defense
of
this
thesis,
this
work
does
not
feature
in
the
text
or
bibliography.
However,
upon
reviewing
the
publication,
I
am
pleased
to
note
that
my
analysis
of
Akhenaten’s
concern
for
expanding
his
new
theology
throughout
the
Egyptian
empire
via
the
construction
of
regional
temples—
is
consistent
with
Dr.
Hoffmeier’s.
74
Works
Cited
Abd
el-‐Gelil,
M.,
Suleiman,
R.,
Faris,
G.,
and
Raue,
D.
(2008).
“The
Joint
Egyptian-‐German
Excavations
in
Heliopolis.”
Mitteilungen
des
Deutschen
Archäologischen
Instituts
Abteilung
Kairo
64:
1-‐9.
Aldred,
C.
(1988).
Akhenaten:
King
of
Egypt.
London:
Thames.
Angenot,
V.
(2008).
“A
Horizon
of
the
Aten
in
Memphis?”
Journal
of
the
Society
of
the
Study
of
Egyptian
Antiquities
35:
7-‐26.
Baines,
J.,
and
Malek,
J.
(2000).
A
Cultural
Atlas
of
Ancient
Egypt.
New
York:
Checkmark
Books.
Bard,
K.
(1999).
“Armant.”
In
Bard
(ed.)
Encylopedia
of
the
Archaeology
of
Ancient
Egypt:
162-‐
165
Bell,
L.
(1985).
“Luxor
Temple
and
the
Cult
of
the
Royal
Ka.”
Journal
of
Near
Eastern
Studies
10:
251-‐
294.
Bell,
L.
(2002).
“Divine
kingship
and
the
theology
of
the
obelisk
cult
in
the
temples
of
Thebes.”
In
Beinlich,
Hallof,
Hussy,
and
von
Pfeil
(eds.),
5.
Ägyptologische
Tempeltagung:
Würzburg,
23.-‐26.
September
1999,
Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz:
17-‐46.
Bickel,
S.
(1997).
Tore
und
andere
wiederverwendete
Bauteile
Amenophis
III
Untersuchungen
im
Totentempel
des
Merenptah
in
Theben
III.
Wiesbaden:
Franz
Steiner.
Blackman,
A.
(1937).
“Preliminary
Report
on
the
Excavations
at
Sesebi,
Northern
Province,
Anglo-‐Egyptian
Sudan.”
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
23,
145-‐151.
Bleeker,
C.
(1967).
Egyptian
Festivals:
Enactments
of
Religious
Renewal.
Leiden:
Brill.
Bonnet,
C.
(2004).
Le
temple
principal
de
la
ville
de
kerma
et
son
quartier
religieux:
Mission
archéologique
de
l'université
de
Genève
à
kerma
(soudan).
Paris:
Éditions
Errance.
Bonnet,
C.,
Honegger,
M.,
and
Valbelle,
D.
(2003).
“Kerma:
Preliminary
Report
on
the
2001-‐
2002
and
2002-‐2003
Seasons.”
Kerma
51,
1-‐26.
Bonnet,
C.
and
Valbelle,
D.
(2006).
The
Nubian
Pharaohs:
Black
Kings
of
the
Nile.
Cairo:
American
University
in
Cairo.
Brunton,
G.
(1948).
“Matmar.”
In
Brunton
(ed.),
British
Museum
Expedition
to
Middle
Egypt
1929-‐1931.
London:
British
Museum.
75
Bryan,
B.
(2000).
“The
18th
Dynasty
before
the
Amarna
Period.”
In
Shaw
(ed.),
The
Oxford
History
of
Ancient
Egypt.
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press:
207-‐264.
Bryan,
B.
(1991).
The
Reign
of
Thutmose
IV.
Baltimore:
Johns
Hopkins
University
Press.
Chappaz,
J.-‐l.
(2005).
“L'Horizon
d'Aton.”
In
Begerot
(ed.),
Akhénaton
et
l'époque
amarnienne.
Paris:
Khéops;
Centre
d'égyptologie:
207-‐264.
Coleman,
D.,
and
Manassa,
C.
(2007).
Tutankhamun's
Armies:
battle
and
conquest
during
ancient
Egypt's
late
18th
Dynasty.
Hoboken,
NJ:
John
Wiley
&
Sons.
Cottevielle-‐Giraudet,
R.
(1932).
Les
reliefs
d'Aménophis
4
Akhenaton
(Vol.
12).
Fouilles
de
l'Institut
Français
d'Archéologie
Orientale
du
Caire:
Institut
Français
d'Archéologie
Orientale.
Davies,
N.
(1905a)
The
Rock
Tombs
of
El
Amarna:
Panhesy
and
Meryra
(Vol.
II).
London:
Egypt
Exploration
Society.
Davies,
N.
(1905b).
The
Rock
Tombs
of
El
Amarna:
Huya
and
Ahmes
(Vol.
III).
London:
Egypt
Exploration
Society.
Davies,
N.
(1905c).
The
Rock
Tombs
of
El
Amarna
(Vol.
IV):
Tombs
of
Penthu,
Mahu,
and
others.
London:
Egypt
Exploration
Fund
Dodson,
A.
(1990).
“Crown
Prince
Djutmose
and
the
Royal
Sons
of
the
18th
Dynasty.”
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
76,
87-‐96.
Dodson,
A.
(2009a).
Amarna
Sunset:
Nefertiti,
Tutankhamun,
Ay,
Horemheb,
and
the
Egyptian
Counter-‐Reformation.
Cairo:
American
University
in
Cairo
Press.
Dodson,
A.
(2009b).
“On
the
alleged
Amenhotep
III/IV
coregency
graffito
at
Meidum.”
Göttinger
Miszellen
221:
25-‐28.
Dodson,
A.
(2010).
“Amarna
Sunset:
the
late-‐Amarna
succession
revisited.”
In
Ikram
and
Dodson
(eds.)
Beyond
the
Horizon:
Studies
in
Egyptian
Art,
Archaeology
and
History
in
Honor
of
Barry
J.
Kemp.
Cairo:
Publications
of
the
Supreme
Council
of
Antiquities:
29-‐43.
Dodson,
A.
(2014a).
Amarna
Sunrise:
Egypt
from
Golden
Age
to
Age
of
Heresy.
Cairo:
American
University
in
Cairo
Press.
Dodson,
A.
(2014b).
“The
Coregency
Conundrum.”
KMT
252,
28-‐35.
Edwards,
D.
(2004).
The
Nubian
past:
an
archaeology
of
the
Sudan.
London:
Routledge.
76
El-‐Masry,
Y.
(2002).
“New
evidence
for
building
activity
of
Akhenaten
in
Akhmim.”
Mitteilungen
des
Deutschen
Archäologischen
Instituts,
Abteilung
Kairo
58,
391-‐398.
Farid,
A.
(1983).
“Two
New
Kingdom
Statues
from
Armant.”
Mitteilungen
des
Deutschen
Archäologischen
Instituts
Abteilung
Kairo
39,
59-‐69.
Fairman,
H.
(1938).
“Preliminary
report
on
the
excavations
at
Sesebi
(Sudla)
and
Amarah
West,
Anglo-‐Egyptian
Sudan.”
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
24,
151-‐156.
Fay,
B.
(2004).
“The
Wooden
Statue
of
Nebetia
from
Kom
Medinet
Ghurab.”
Mitteilungen
des
Deutschen
Archäologischen
Instituts
Abteilung
Kairo
60,
41-‐45.
Fisher,
M.
(2012).
“Wadi
el-‐Sebua.”
In
Fisher,
Lacovara,
Ikram
and
D’Auria.
Ancient
Nubia:
African
Kingdoms
on
the
Nile.
Cairo:
American
University
in
Cairo
Press:
378-‐381.
Frankfort,
H.
and
Pendlebury,
J.
(1933).
The
City
of
Akhenaten
part
II:
the
North
Suburb
and
the
Desert
Altars:
The
Excavations
at
Tell
el-‐Amarna
during
the
seasons
1926-‐1932.
London:
Egypt
Exploration
Fund.
Gabolde,
M.
(1998).
D'Akhenaton
à
Toutankhamon.
Lyon:
Collection
de
l'Institut
d'Archéologie
et
d'Histoire
de
l'Antiquité.
Gabra,
S.
(1931).
“Un
temple
d'Aménophis
IV
à
Assiout.”
Chronique
d'Égypte
6
(12),
237-‐243:
240.
Gauthier,
H.
(1910).
“Quelques
fragments
trouvés
à
Amada.”
Annales
du
Service
des
Antiquités
de
l’Égypte
10:
122-‐123
Giles,
F.
(1970).
Ikhnaton:
Legend
and
History.
Rutherford,
Madison,
Teaneck:
Farleigh
Dickinson
University
Press.
Giorgini,
M.S.
(1965).
Soleb
I:
1813-‐1963.
Firenze:
Sansoni.
Giorgini,
M.S.
(2002).
Soleb
III:
le
temple.
Description.
Bibliothèque
générale
23.
Florenz:
Sansoni.
Gohary,
J.
(1992).
Akhenaten's
Sed
Festival
at
Karnak.
London:
Routledge.
Gomaa,
F.
(1992).
“Tod.”
In
Bard
(ed.)
Encyclopedia
of
the
Archaeology
of
Ancient
Egypt:
1025-‐1026.
Gomaa,
F.
(1977).
“Tod.”
In
Helck
and
Otto
(ed.)
Lexikon
der
Ägyptologie
VI:
614-‐615
Ikram,
S.
(1989).
“Domestic
shrines
and
the
cult
of
the
royal
family
at
el-‐'Amarna.”
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
75,
89-‐101:
89-‐101.
77
Ikram,
S.
(2009).
Ancient
Egypt:
an
Introduction.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Habachi,
L.
(1971).
“Akhenaten
in
Heliopolis.”
Beträge
zur
Ägyptischen
Bauforschung
und
Altertumskunde
12:
35-‐45.
Haeny,
G.
(1981).
Untersuchungen
in
Totentempel
Amenophis
III
Beträge
zur
ägyptischen
Bauforschung
und
Altertumskunde
II.
Wiesbaden:
Franz
Steiner.
Haynes,
J.
and
Santini
Ritt
,
M.
(2012).
“Gebel
Barkal.”
In
Fisher,
Lacovara,
Ikram
and
D’Auria.
Ancient
Nubia:
African
Kingdoms
on
the
Nile.
Cairo:
American
University
in
Cairo
Press:
285-‐
293.
Hoffmeier,
J.
(2002).
“Tell
el-‐Borg
in
North
Sinai.”
Egyptian
Archaeology
20:
18-‐20.
Hoffmeier,
J.
(2004).
“Tell
el-‐Borg
on
Egypt's
eastern
frontier:
a
preliminary
report
on
the
2002
and
2004
seasons.”
Journal
of
the
American
Research
Center
in
Egypt
41:
85-‐111.
Hoffmeier,
J.
(2006).
"The
Walls
of
the
Ruler"
in
Egyptian
Literature
and
the
Archaeological
Record:
Investigating
Egypt's
Eastern
Frontier
in
the
Bronze
Age.”
Bulletin
of
the
American
Schools
of
Oriental
Research:
1-‐20.
Hoffmeier,
J.,
and
Abd
el
Maksoud,
M.
(2003).
“A
new
military
site
on
"the
ways
of
Horus":
Tell
el-‐Borg
1999-‐2001:
A
Preliminary
Report.”
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
89:
169-‐197.
Hoffmeier,
J.
and
Bull,
R.
(2005).
“New
inscriptions
mentioning
Tjaru
from
Tell
el-‐Borg,
north
Sinai.”
Revue
d’égyptologie
56,
79-‐93.
Hoffmeier,
J.
and
Ertman,
E.
(2007).
“Amarna
Period
Kings
in
Sinai.”
Egyptian
Archaeology
31:
29-‐39.
Hoffmeier,
J.
and
Ertman,
E.
(2008).
“A
new
fragmentary
relief
of
King
Ankhheperure
from
Tell
el-‐Borg
(Sinai)?”
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
94:
296-‐302.
Jeffreys,
D.
(1999).
“Memphis.”
in
Bard
(ed.),
Encyclopedia
of
the
Archaeology
of
Ancient
Egypt.
New
York:
Routledge:
587-‐591.
Jeffreys,
D.,
and
Smith,
H.
(1988).
“Memphis
and
the
Nile
in
the
New
Kingdom.”
In
Zivie
(ed.),
Memphis
et
ses
nécropoles
au
Nouvel
Empire,55-‐66.
Paris:
CNRS.
Johnson,
W.R.
1998.
“Monuments
and
monumental
art
under
Amenhotep
III:
evolution
and
meaning.“
In
O’Connor
(ed.),
Amenhotep
III:
perspectives
on
his
reign.
Ann
Arbor:
University
of
Michigan
Press,
63-‐95.
78
Johnson,
W.R.
(1996).
“Amenhotep
III
and
Amarna:
some
new
considerations.”
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
82,
65-‐82.
Johnson,
W.R.
(2012)
“Akhenaten
in
Nubia.”
In
Fisher,
Lacovara,
Ikram
and
D’Auria.
Ancient
Nubia:
African
Kingdoms
on
the
Nile.
Cairo:
American
University
in
Cairo
Press
et
al.
(eds.),
Ancient
Nubia:
African
kingdoms
on
the
Nile.
Cairo:
American
University
in
Cairo
Press:
92-‐
93.
Kákosy,
L.
(1977).
“Heliopolis.”
in
Helck
and
Otto
(eds.)
Lexikon
der
Ägyptologie
vol.
2:
1111-‐
1113.
Kamal,
A.
(1911).
“Rapport
sur
les
fouilles
exécutées
dans
la
zone
comprise
entre
Deirout
au
nord
et
Deir
el
Gandalah
al
sud.”
Annales
du
Service
des
Antiquités
de
l'Egypte
11,
3-‐39.
Karkowski,
J.
(1981).
The
Pharaonic
Inscriptions
from
Faras.
Éditions
scientifiques
de
Pologne.
Kendall,
T.
(2009).
“Talatat
at
Jebel
Barkal:
Report
of
the
NCAM
Mission
2008-‐2009.”
Sudan
&
Nubia
13:
2-‐16.
Kendall,
T.
(1999).
“Gebel
Barkal”
in
Bard
(ed.),
Encyclopedia
of
the
Archaeology
of
Ancient
Egypt.
New
York:
Routledge:
386-‐390.
Kemp,
B.
(1995).
Amarna
Reports
IV.
London:
Egypt
Exploration
Society.
Kemp,
B.
(2012).
The
City
of
Akhenaten
and
Nefertiti:
Amarna
and
Its
People.
London:
Thames
&
Hudson.
Kozloff,
A.,
Bryan,
B.,
and
Berman,
L.
(1992).
Egypt's
Dazzling
Sun:
Amenhotep
III
and
his
world.
Cleveland:
Cleveland
Museum
of
Art.
Kuhlmann,
K.
(1983).
“Materialien
zur
Archäologie
und
Geschichte
des
Raumes
von
Achmim.”
Sonderschrift,
Deutsches
Archäologisches
Institut,
Abteilung
Kairo
11.
Mainz:
Zabern.
Labrousse,
A.
(1994).
“Sedeinga,
état
des
travaux.”
In
Bonnet
(ed.),
Études
nubiennes.
Conférence
de
Genève:
actes
du
VIIe
Congrès
international
d'études
nubiennes,
3-‐8
septembre
1990
vol.
2.
Genève:
Charles
Bonnet.
Leclant,
J.
(1984).
“Sedeinga.”
In
Helck
and
Otto,
Lexikon
der
Ägyptologie
V,
780-‐782.
Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Löhr,
B.
(1975).
“Axanjati
in
Memphis.”
Studien
zur
Altägyptischen
Kultur
2,
139-‐187.
79
Macadam,
M.
(1949).
The
Temples
of
Kawa
I:
The
Inscriptions.
London:
Oxford
University
Press.
Manniche,
L.
(2010).
The
Akhenaten
Colossi
of
Karnak.
Cairo:
American
University
in
Cairo
Press.
Minault-‐Gout,
A.
(2006-‐2007).
“Les
Installations
du
début
du
Nouvel
Empire
à
Saï:
un
état
de
la
question.”
In
Gratien
(ed.),
Mélanges
offerts
à
Francis
Geus:
Égypte-‐Soudan.
Lille:
Universite
Charles
de
Gaule
:275-‐293.
Mission
Michela
Schiff.
(1965).
Soleb
III:
le
Temple.
Firenze:
Sansoni.
Monteserrat,
D.
(2003).
Akhenaten:
History,
Fantasy,
and
Ancient
Egypt.
London
and
New
York:
Routledge.
Morkot,
R.
(2012).
“Kings
and
kingship
in
ancient
Nubia.”
In Fisher, Lacovara, Ikram and
D’Auria. Ancient Nubia: African Kingdoms on the Nile. Cairo: American University in Cairo
Press:
118-‐124.
Morris,
E.
(2005).
The
Architecture
of
Imperialism:
Military
Bases
and
the
Evolution
of
Foreign
Policy
in
Egypt's
New
Kingdom.
Leiden,
Boston:
Brill.
Mostafa,
D.
(1993).
“Architectural
development
of
New
Kingdom
temples
in
Nubia
and
the
Soudan”.
In
Leclant
(ed.),
Sesto
Congresso
internazionale
di
egittologi.
Torino:
International
Association
of
Egyptologists:
141-‐152.
Murnane,
W.
(1995).
Texts
from
the
Amarna
Period
in
Egypt.
Atlanta:
Scholars
Press.
Murnane,
W.
(1998).
In
Giorgini
(ed.),
Soleb
V.
Cairo:
Institut
français
d'archéologie
orientale:
103-‐116.
Murnane,
W.,
and
van
Siclen
III,
C.
(1993).
The
Boundary
Stelae
of
Akhenaten.
London
and
New
York:
Kegan
Paul
International.
Myśliwiec,
K.
(1982).
“Amon,
Atum
and
Aten:
the
evolution
of
Heliopolitan
Influences
in
Thebes.”
In
Barguet
and
Kurth
(eds.),
L'
Égyptologie
en
1979:
axes
prioritaires
de
recherches
2.
Paris:
Éditions
du
centre
national
de
la
Recherche
scientifique:
285-‐289.
Naville,
É
(1891).
Bubastis
(1887-‐1889).
London:
Egypt
Exploration
Fund.
Quirke,
S.
(2001).
The
Cult
of
Ra:
Sun-‐worship
in
Ancient
Egypt.
London:
Thames
&
Hudson.
80
Pasquali,
S.
(2011).
“A
Sunshade
Temple
of
Princess
Ankhesenpaaten
in
Memphis?”
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
97,
216-‐222.
Peet,
T.,
and
Woolley,
C.
(1923).
The
City
of
Akhenaten
I:
Excavations
of
1921
and
1922
at
el-‐
‘Amarneh.
London:
Egypt
Exploration
Fund.
Pendlebury,
J.
(1951).
The
City
of
Akhenaten
Part
III:
the
Central
City
and
the
official
quarters:
The
excavations
at
Tell
el
Amarna
during
the
season
1926-‐1927
and
1931-‐1936.
London:
Egypt
Exploration
Society.
Petrie,
W.
(1903).
Abydos.
London:
Egypt
Exploration
Fund.
Pierrat,
G.
Étienne,
M.
,
Leconte,
D.,
and
Barbotin,
C.
(1995).
“Fouilles
de
musée
du
Louvre
à
Tôd,
1988-‐1991.”
Cahiers
de
Karnak
10,
405-‐503
Posener-‐Krieger,
P.,
and
de
Cenival,
J.
(1968).
Hieratic
Papyri
in
the
British
Museum,
V
Series.
The
Abusir
Papyri.
London:
British
Museum.
Raaven,
M.,
van
Walsem,
R.,
Aston,
B.,
and
Strouhal,
E.
(1989).
“Preliminary
report
on
the
Leiden
excavations
at
Saqqara,
Season
2001:
the
tomb
of
Meryneith.”
Jaarbericht
van
het
Vooraziatisch-‐Egyptisch
Genootschaf
Ex
Oriente
Lux:
92-‐100.
Raue,
D.
(1999).
Heliopolis
und
das
Haus
des
Re:
eine
Prospographie
und
ein
Toponym
im
Neuen
Reich.
Cairo:
Achet.
Reeves,
N.
(2001).
Akhenaten:
Egypt's
False
Prophet.
London:
Thames
&
Hudson.
Redford,
D.
(1976).
“The
Sun-‐Disc
in
Akhenaten's
Program:
Its
Worship
and
Antecedents
I.”
Journal
of
the
American
Research
Center
in
Egypt
13,
47-‐61.
Redford,
D.
(1980).
“The
Sun-‐Disc
in
Akhenaten's
Program:
Its
Worship
and
Antecedents
II.”
Journal
of
the
American
Research
Center
in
Egypt
17,
21-‐38.
Redford,
D.
(1984).
Akhenaten:
the
Heretic
King.
Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press.
Redford,
D.
(2013).
“Akhenaten:
New
Theories
and
Old
Facts.”
Bulletin
of
the
American
Schools
of
Oriental
Research
369,
9-‐34.
Reisner,
G.,
and
Reisner,
M.
(1933).
“Inscribed
monuments
from
Gebel
Barkal.”
Zeitschrift
für
ägyptische
Sprache
und
Altertumskunde
69,
24-‐39,
73-‐78.
Revez,
J.
(1999).
“Medamud.”
in
Bard (ed.) Encyclopedia
of
the
Archaeology
of
Ancient
Egypt.
New
York:
Routledge
1999:
571-‐578.
81
Rocheleau,
C.
(2005).
Amun
Temples
in
Nubia:
a
typological
study
of
New
Kingdom,
Napatan,
and
Meroitic
temples.
PhD
Dissertation,
University
of
Toronto.
Rocheleau,
C.
(2008).
Amun
Temples
in
Nubia:
A
typological
study
of
New
Kingdom,
Napatan,
and
Meroitic
Temples.
Oxford:
Archaeopress
Roeder,
G.
(1959).
Amarna
Reliefs
aus
Hermopolis
vol.
II.
Gersetenberg:
Hildesheim.
Rosati,
G.
(2007).
“Amarna
reliefs
from
el-‐Sheikh
'Abadah.”
In
Goyon
and
Cardin
(eds.),Proceedings
of
the
Ninth
International
Congress
of
Egyptologists:
Grenoble,
6-‐12
septembre
2004
vol.
2.
Leuven:
Peeters:
1613-‐1620
Schulman,
A.
(1982).
“The
Nubian
war
of
Akhenaten.”
In
In
L’Égyptologie
en
1979:
axes
prioritaires
de
recherches
2,
299-‐316.
Paris:
Éditions
du
Centre
national
de
la
Recherche
scientifique
Shorter,
A.
(1931).
“Historical
Scarabs
of
Thutmosis
IV
and
Amenophis
III.”
Journal
of
Egyptian
Archaeology
17:
23-‐25
Spence,
K.,
Rose,
P.,
Bradshaw,
R.,
Collet,
P.,
Hassan,
A.,
MacGinnis,
J.,
Masson,
A,
and
Van
Pelt,
W.
(2011).
“Sesebi
2011.”
Sudan
&
Nubia
15:
34-‐38.
Spencer,
A.
(1999).
“El
Ashmunein.”
In
Bard
(ed.),
Encylopedia
of
the
Archaeology
of
Ancient
Egypt.
London:
Routledge:
147-‐150.
Stevens,
A.
(2006).
Private
religion
at
Amarna:
the
material
evidence.
Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Tawfik,
S.
(1976).
“Aten
and
the
Names
of
His
Temple(s)
at
Thebes”.
In
Smith,
and
Redford
(ed.),
The
Akhenaten
Temple
Project:
Vol.
1
Initial
Discoveries,
58-‐63.
Warminster:
Aris
&
Phillips.
Török,
L.
(2009).
Between
two
worlds:
the
frontier
region
between
ancient
Nubia
and
Egypt
3700-‐
AD
500.
Leiden:
Brill.
Traunecker,
C.
(2005).
“Néfertiti,
la
reine
sans
nom.”
In
Bergerot,
Akhénaton
et
l'époque
amarienne.
Paris:
Kheops:
117-‐134.
van
Dijk,
J.
(2000).
“The
Amarna
Period
and
the
Later
New
Kingdom
(c.1352-‐1069
BC)”.
In
Shaw
(ed.),
The
Oxford
History
of
Ancient
Egypt.
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press:
265-‐307.
van
de
Perre,
A.
(2014).
“The
Year
16
graffito
of
Akhenaten
in
Dayr
Abu
Hinnis.
A
contribution
to
the
study
of
the
later
years
of
Nefertiti.”
Journal
of
Egyptian
History
7:
67-‐108.
82
van
Siclen,
C.
(1999).
“Tell
Basta.”
In
Bard,
Encyclopedia
of
the
archaeology
of
ancient
Egypt.
London;
New
York:
Routledge:
946-‐949
Verner,
M.
(2013).
Temple
of
the
World:
Sanctuaries,
Cults,
and
Mysteries
of
Ancient
Egypt.
Cairo:
American
University
in
Cairo
Press.
Welsby,
D.
and
Anderson,
J.
(2004).
Sudan:
ancient
treasures.
An
exhibition
of
recent
discoveries
from
the
Sudan
National
Museum.
London:
British
Museum
Press
Williamson,
J.
(2008).
“The
Sunshade
of
Nefertiti.”
Egyptian
Archaeology
33:
5-‐7.
Wilkinson,
R.
(2000).
The
Complete
Temples
of
Ancient
Egypt.
London:
Thames
&
Hudson.
83