SOURCE: Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 14 (1928). OCR text from archive.org item in.ernet.dli.2015.70987 (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.70987), retrieved 2026-09-14. Contains: P. E. Newberry, 'Akhenaten's eldest son-in-law Ankhkheprure', JEA 14, 3-9; A. H. Gardiner, 'The graffito from the tomb of Pere', JEA 14, 10-11 (with pls. v-vi). OCR is imperfect; the key passages were checked against the page scans where cited. 4 PERCY E. NEWBERRY ce prince le fils de Thoutmes IV que Lepsius signale dans son Konigsbuch (No. 370) et qui porte, lui aussi, le nom de ® .Q,-” In 1894 SclieiP published copies of most of the hieroglyphic inscriptions in Pere’s tomb, but referred only briefly to the graffito, and made no effort to copy it. He simply says that it was written “par le pretre et scribe Atef-senb” (thus repeating the error of Bouriant), and that it was dated in the third year “d’un roi Nefer-nefru-Aten (® l ^ C ^ foot-note to the reading of the first cartouche, he remarks, “M. Bouriant lit 0# je crois ma lecture certaine.” Maspero ^ accepted Schell’s reading and stated that it seemed to him to represent a transitional form of the protocol of Amenophis IV, and not the name of a new king. Petrie® also agrees with Scheil and says “probably this is an early variant of Akhenaten’s name which he after- wards transferred to his queen on marriage.” In Gauthiee, Lime des rots, ii, 344, is the following entry: No query-mark is given to any of the signs, but in a footnote we read, “ Bouriant avait lu le cartouche-prenom | rapprochait ce roi du fils de Thoutmfisis IV . La correction de | en | par P. Scheil est surement exacte, car, en hieratique, le signe ^ n’est jamais ecrit verticalement^.” Gauthier continues “plusieurs hypotheses sont suggerees par le second cartouche; nous avons la, ou bien un roi nouveau, Atonou- nofir-nofru-mer-Atonou, different d’Amenhotep IV (Bouriant), ou bien une masculinisation de la reine, femme d’Amenhotep IV, analogue a celle qui nous est connue pour Hatshepsouit, ou bien enfin une forme intermediaire du protocole d’Amenhotep, entre I’ancien et le nouveau protocole (Maspero). C’est cette derniere opinion qui me parait etre la bonne. Plus tard le roi transfera ce nom, abandonne par lui, a la reine Tadoukhipa, son epouse (Petrie, History, n, 227).” Davies in this Journal (ix, 132) alludes to the graffito, and points out that Gauthier’s addition “meryaten'’ seems “totally unfounded,” and the “grounds for the rejection of the reading | quite untenable.” He further notes that “Schell’s reading is out of the question, the wish having been father to the thought.” Gardiner supported Davies in reading | with Bouriant, and Davies further notes “perhaps might be read if one was pushed to it, but the other reading is certainly the prima facie reading.” The clue to the correct reading of the first cartouche was given last year by Howard Carter. We were discussing certain problems relating to the family of Akhenaten when he drew my attention to the inscriptions upon a box that he had found in the tomb of Tutrankhamun. These inscriptions he has kindly allowed me to publish here from copies made by Gardiner in 1923. On the top of the box is a vertical line of hieroglyphs reading as shown on p. 5: 1 Scheil, Mmioires de la Mission areheologiqiie franmise au Caire, tome v, partie ii, 588. - Maspero, , 'Struggle of the Nations, ed. 1896, 317, ii. 2. 2 Petrie, History, n, 227. * This, of course, is inaccurate, for the |-sign is very often written vertically in hieratic, especially in cartouches, e.g., in the prenomen of TuthinosLs I (Petrie, Medvin, PI. sxxiii, line 7) and in the jirenomen of Amenophis II (Proe. Soc. Bibl. Arch., xxx, 272, with plate). AKHEN ATEN’S ELDEST SON-IN-LAW ''ANKHKJIEPLURE^ Here we have (1) the full titulary of Akhenatcn followed by (2) that of Ankhkhepruref with the nomeii Nefernefruaten Mery-Uanrei", and (3) the name and titles of the Great King’s-Wife, ilerytateu. On a knob on the top of the box there is the prenomen of I O ^ “ Ankhkheprurei", beloved of Xeferkhepruree.” On another knob on the adjoining side of the box is his nomeji ' Nefernefruaten, beloved of Uanrei"." 4C f n, ru 4 1 i i 1 \ t 'A 1 / kN' H ( :■ ■ ' ri / h 1, Immediately I saw this inscription I recognizer I that Nefernefruaten “beloved of Uanree” must be the king of the graffito of Tomb No. 139 at Thebes; he was, therefore, not a new Pharaoh, but the well-known luis- band of Akhenaten’s eldest daughter Herytaten. and the brother-in-law of Tutrankhamun. This young king with his consort is figured in the tomb of lleryrec II at El-‘Amarnah^, and bezels of finger -rings bearing one or other of his cartouches were found by Petrie- in 1892 on the site of the city Akhetaten. The prenomen is the name Ankhkheprurec, sometime.s without epithet and sometimes with an epithet “beloved of Uanrec,” or “beloved of Neferkheprurec.” The nomen or Son-of- Ref-name has, as it now appears, two forms. At El-‘Amarnah the form is Semenkhkarer- Zeserkhepru. At Thebes, on the box from Tutrankhamun's tomb and in the graffito from the tomb of Pere, the form found at El-‘Amarnali is replaced l)y Nefernefruaten “beloved of Uanrer.” The epithets connecting the young king with Akhenaten, and tlie association with that king’s daughter Mervtaten, leave not the slightest doubt that the two forms of the nonien belong to one and the same Pharaoh, namely the obscure successor of Akhenaten and predece.s.sor of Tutrankhamun, the son-in-law of the former, and brother-in-law of the latter. There has been some dispute about the correct reading of the nomen in what is apparently its earlier form. Unfortunately the cartouches in the tomb of i\I<‘rvrer II at El-‘Amarnah were destroyed by native robbers in the eighties of last century. Davies 3, who has published the scenes and inscriptions of this tomb, writes, “For the King's (cartouches) we must have recourse to the four copies, which unfortunately give as many readings for the personal name. There i.s little doubt, however, that the reading of Lepsius, Se-aa-ka-ra-zeser-kheperu. must be adopted, as the others are only imperfect readings of this. A squeeze exists among the papers of L’Hote [Papiers, xviii, 1), and though the third sign is broken, aa (Cf) is much the most satisfactory reading. It appears that the state of the cartouche was due to time and rough cutting, not to mutilation, and that it was fairly legible to a practised eye. The two rings of this king (Pf.trik. Tell el Amarna, PI. xv, 103-4) cannot shake this evidence, since each suggests a different hieroglyph.” In spite of these remarks of Davies I cannot admit the reading c/ in the cartouche in the tomb of Mervrer II, nor do I agree that the copies of the cartouches of ’ Davikm, t'/ a iiiiii-iia, II, I’l. xii. - Petrie, T< /1 el AiiKirim, PI. xv. ' D.win-i, op. rit., II, 44, 11. 1. 6 PERCY E. NEWBERRY f the finger-rings suggest different readings. I give in Fig. 1, a-d, the four existing copies of the cartouches in MeryreC’s tomb. The sign | , it will be seen, exists only in the copy of Lepsius 1 (made in June, 1845), and as his fifth sign is obviously wrong (he gives v-o in place of %J), his copy cannot be depended upon for accuracy. Hay’s copy^ (a), made about 1830, is quite indefinite. Nestor L’Hote® (1839) blunders badly (6), giving Prisse d’Avennes* (1843) gives the hieroglyph |, which shows that the sign appeared to c Fig. I. d him to be broader above than below (c). Lepsius’s | might easily be a careless copy of a 'i'-sign {mnh) with a long blade (d). But the finger-ring bezels are quite conclusive (see Fig. 2). Davies had only the two examples published by Petrie before him, but I have notes of seven, and they all clearly give V mnh, not | c/. There can be no ques- tion that this Son-of-Re<'-name should be read Semenkhkarec, not Saakarec. The graffito in Tomb No. 139 at Thebes is important in other ways. It records the Fig. 2. Scale J , highest, indeed, the only, date of the king’s reign — the year three — and it proves that the cult of Amun was flourishing at Thebes when the graffito was written. Further it shows that Ankhkhepruref was then a devotee of Amun, for the wf^-priest Pawah, for whom the hymn was written, bore the interesting titles (1) “Scribe of the Divine Offerings of Amun in the temple of Ankhkheprurec at Thebes,” and (2) “Scribe of the temple of Amun in the (mortuary?) temple of Ankhkheprurgr.” Pawah’s brother, the scribe who actually wrote the hymn, was also attached to the same temple. Of this building no other record has yet been brought to light. 1 L., B., Ill, 99. 2 British Museum Add. MS. 29,847, foil. 63, 64. 3 See his Fapiers, tome xi, f. 14, in the Bibliotheque Natinnale, Paris, ■* Prisse d’Avenxes, Monuments egyptiens, .3. AKHENATEN’S ELDEST SUN-IN-LAW "ANKHKllEPUUKE^ 7 In 1891 Petrie {Tell el Amarna, 12) suggested that Akheiiaten’s successor Semeiikh- karer “appears to have been associated in the kingdom with his fathcr-iu-law,” basing this supposition on the fact that the young king bore the epithets "beloved of Neferkheprurei" ” and “beloved of Uanref,” and on another page (op. cit., -13) he speaks of Akhenaten’s son-in-law as the “probable co-regent."’ Maspero, two years later, referred to the scene of Semenkhkarec and Merytaten in the tomb of Meryrec II, saying that the young king and his wife “are represented by the side of Akhenateii with the protocol and attributes of royalty,” and speaks of "this double reign” {Struggle of the Nations, ed. 1896, 331, ii. 1). But he is inaccurate in his description, for Akhenateii is not figured bg the side of the young king and his consort, but on a different wall of the tomb. The inscrijitiou on the box discovered by Carter in the tomb of Tutfankhamun is really the first definite evidence relating to a co-regency that had long been suspected. Carter has also drawn my attention to a remarkable stela in the Berlin Museum (Xo. 17,813) (see PI. iv) which has always been supjiosed to represent Akhenateii and his t^ueen Xetertiti, but, as Carter points out to me, the double crown worn by the one figure and the hprs-ciown worn by the other make it clear that we have here two kings, and not a king and his consort. The two royal personages here are undoubtedly Akhenaten and his co-regent Semenkhkarer. The intimate relations between the Pharaoh and the boy as shown by the scene on this stela recall the relationship between the Emperor Hadrian and the youth Antinous. The epithets "beloved of Uanrec” and “beloved of Neferkheprurer” are also remarkable^, and so is the name Xefernefruaten, “Beauty of the Beauties of Aten,” which, originally borne by Akhenateii's queen Xefertiti, was afterwards given to the boy-king. In regard to this love of Akhenaten for the youth it may be pointed out that Gunn- and Woolley noticed a very remarkable fact about Queen Xefertiti at El-Hawatah which perhaps has some bearing on this intimate relationship between the king and the youth. At El-Hawatali, says Woolley “ as nowhere else, the queen's name has in nearly every case been carefully erased and that of her eldest daughter, Merytaten, written in palimpsest U 2 >on the stone, her distinctive attributes have been blotted out with cement, her features re-cut and her head enlarged into the exaggerated skull of the princess royal. This alteration is most thoroughgoing in the case of the little temple and the island kiosks — a group of buildings which seem to have been called the ’Shadow of EeC; in the entrance hall it is limited to the more conspicuous places, but the intention clearly is the same. The ownership or patronage of the precinct was transferred from mother to daughter either during the former's life- time or on her death. But Xefertiti, if alive, could hardly have agreed to so public an aiiront, nor would her death have been seized upon by so devoted a husband as an occasion to obliterate her memorials; are we to suppose that things were not so happy as they seemed in the royal household, and that a quarrel so serious as to lose the queen her position put an end to the idyll which had long been the standing theme of the court artists!” On another page® Gunn refers again to the same subject and remarks that “we are driven to one of two theories to exjilain the facts; (n) the queen died, and was no longer deemed to require her ‘Shade of Rec’..., or (6) she fell into dis- grace or in some other way ceased to play her previous part in the royal family, and ' A woman of this period Ixjrc the following interesting titles : 0 yy n. ; she was obviously a concubine of Akhenaten (Lei:, rain, Auiudes du Serrice, x, lUS). - Peet- Woolley, The City of AUteautca, 123. ^ Op. cit., loo. 8 PERCY E. NEWBERRY that the place was then handed over to her eldest daughter.” The exact date of the disappearance of Nefertiti from the scene of history is not known, but it must be placed some time after the twelfth regnal year of Akhenaten, for a scene in a private tomb at EI-‘Amarnah (Davies, El Amarna, ii, PI. 37; cf. iii, PI. 13) shows that she was then associated with the king in a state ceremonial. There is probably yet another monument which shows Semenkhkarec by the side of his father-in-law Akhenaten. In 18-54 Hekekyan Bey, while digging in the neighbourhood of the great prostrate figure of Ramesses II at Memphis, discovered some fragments of sculptures that dated from the time of the El-‘Aniarnah kings One piece, which is now in the Museum of the University of Sydney, Australia, has an inscription upon it which records a temple of the Aten at Memphis’. A second fragment of sculpture (see Fig. 3) shows the young king holding in his hand an ostrich feather fan and wearing the double ^ Sir Charles Xicholsox, Aegyptwcn, London, 1891, llTseg'. I had suppo.sed that all the blocks figured by Xicholson were in the Museum of the University of Sydney, N.S.W., but Professor Woodhouse of that University inform.^ me that only the fragment mentioning the temple of Akhenaten at Memphis (Nicholson, op. cit., 134, PI. 3) i.s pi-cserved there. I have to thank the Honble. H. D. McIntosh for sending me a photograph of the monument. - Nicholson, op. cit., 2. AKHENATEN’S ELDEST SON-IN LAW ‘’ANKIIKIIEl’LUKE'' D crown, his brow being surmounted by the uraeus: in front of him we see the tdrearni and part of the flowing garments of a much larger figure that obvioush- represented anotlu'r king. Borchardt^ has rightly interpreted this scene a.s showing Akhenaten and his co-regent Semenkhkarei'. A third slab of sculpture 2.12. 1 1 -H H ki X.¥ (HI 5t A^ffCs }(>it .0 <=^*, ' '///' 7 r . , , , / nj; 4///// LV ■ ^ ■> n I \ ■=!. 2. ii Xm 1 ^3 II 1 tx 4f 6 1 41- )-2 -f^r s Htt, 1 V- li\ 4 '<'■'<<, % ;- W;/.., Hieratic graffito from the tomb of Fere at Thebes, 11. i-i8. Sralr of hit •'•tto'. mfher more thou \. Plate VI. I 1 1 I □ a_ft o °^%^ZYi4}m,V>-^ !4 vo/on/^/ -9 U ;/xr li •?/!!. *9 ■ft f(l •^/v; " .. '“',r fif°XQZ(^fe“9~n[irh3> - -Z.T7.irCPi,illUX 3« f 1 37 -U ig>''oLl; 2^ '^"■■iinunA- Hieratic graffito from the tomb of Pere at Thebes, 11 . 19-33. Srnl*f of hicf'ftf i>\ t'ntht'r nmr*' thon i. THE (TUAEFiTO FROM THE TOME. oF FERE I 1