Читать книгу Akhenaten - Ronald T. Ridley - Страница 13

3	Akhet-Aten: “The Horizon of the Aten”

Foundation

The best-documented events in Akhenaten’s reign are, appropriately, those associated with the foundation of Akhet-Aten, modern Tell el-Amarna. This fact derives from the survival of the boundary stelae, fifteen of them known to date.¹ They reveal much about the mentality of Akhenaten.

Their texts give four dates:

Year 5, IV prt 13: the foundation of the city;

Year 6, IV prt 13: the first anniversary;

Year 8, I prt 8: repetition of the oath of Year 6, when inspecting the stelae; and

Year 8, IV 3ḫt 30: another oath on establishing boundary stelae.²

The stelae are of three types:

i. simply a tablet with text in a niche, without statuary (X and M), at the northern and southern limits on the east bank;

ii. the niche has been widened to include statues on the left: Akhenaten and Nefertiti and two daughters (A, H, J, and R); these are all at the extremities of the site (fig. 23);

iii. there are statues on both sides (B, N, P, Q, S, U, V, and K—fig. 24): since this type has the “repetition of the oath,” they

Fig. 23. Amarna Boundary Stela R, at Tuna el-Gebel.

belong to Year 8. Some stelae of this third type have a third princess (P, Q, and U). Latest of all is B because it (like A from the second type) has an added colophon.

Stela S had been found and copied by Prisse d’Avennes’s companion George Lloyd (‘of Brnestyn’ – 1815–43) at the beginning of the 1840s, who also drew A and P. Richard Lepsius discovered K, M, N, and R in 1845, Flinders Petrie found B, F, J, L, P, and V in 1892, and Percy Newberry located Q in 1893. The editio princeps was by Norman de Garis Davies in 1908,³ with a modern edition by William Murnane and Charles van Siclen in 1993. Stela H was found by Helen Fenwick during 2005/6.⁴

Fig. 24. Amarna Boundary Stele S, in the southeastern part of the city, as seen early in the twentieth century; it has now been largely destroyed.

What has been called the “Early Proclamation” (the city’s foundation text) is represented on stelae X and M, the latter of which deteriorated early on and was replaced by K. Akhenaten appears with his new name, the narrative telling of his arrival at Akhet-Aten in his great electrum chariot. The site was chosen because it was the “place of the primeval event,” that is, the creation of life, and the “horizon” where the Aten’s “circuit comes into being.” Rich offerings (bread, beer, cattle, fowl, wine, fruits, and incense) were made to the Aten. Akhenaten then summoned “the royal companions, the great ones of the palace, the supervisors of the guard, the overseers of works, the officials, and all the court.” He announced that the Aten desired a monument and emphasized two things: that it was the king alone who was told this, and that the site had no buildings and had belonged to no deity or king. It was to be a memorial to either him or Nefertiti. The courtiers replied with total approval, praising both the king and the god. This is a variation on the common motif of the king’s council, from which he seeks advice that he generally does not follow.⁵

Akhenaten offered his own short hymn to the Aten before returning to the city. He promised not to go past the southern or northern stelae. The most interesting part of the text follows: “Nor shall the King’s Chief Wife say to me, ‘Look, there is a nice place for Akhet-Aten some place else,’ nor shall I listen to her.” The same applied to all officials, although it is surely harder to imagine any of them daring to say any such thing.

Vital for the understanding of the topography of the new city is the following list of buildings which Akhenaten stated that it was his intent to construct:

At Akhet Aten in this place shall I make the House of Aten [the Great Temple] for the Aten, my father.

At Akhet-Aten in this place shall I make the Mansion of Aten [the Small Temple] for the Aten, my father.

At Akhet Aten in this place shall I make the sunshade of the [King’s Chief] Wife [Neferneferuaten Nefertiti] for the Aten, my father.

In the “Island of the Aten, whose jubilees are distinguished” [the central city?] at Akhet Aten in this place shall I make the “House of Rejoicing” for the Aten, my father.

In the “Island of the Aten, whose jubilees are distinguished” at Akhet Aten in this place shall I make the “House of Rejoicing in [Akhet] Aten” for the Aten, my father.

At Akhet Aten in this place shall I make all revenues that [are] in [the entire land] to belong to the Aten, my father.

At Akhet Aten in this place shall I mae oblations overflowing for the Aten, my father.

[And] at Akhet Aten in this place shall I make for myself the residence of Pharaoh, l.p.h., (and) I shall make the residence of the King’s Chief Wife.⁶

The list ends with the Royal Tomb, which was to be not only for Akhenaten, but also for Nefertiti and their daughter Meryetaten. And it should be noted that Akhenaten recognized that he might die away from the city: there is no suggestion that he will be a prisoner or recluse here for the rest of his life.⁷ There is to be a tomb also for the Mnervis Bull (the sacred bull of Re)⁸ and for the chief priest of the Aten and other priests.

From this point, unfortunately, the text is very damaged, precisely where it deals with intriguing matters. Something terrible is stated to have been heard—something worse than anything heard during Akhenaten’s first four years, or under Amenhotep III or Thutmose IV (his father and grandfather), worse than anything heard by any king of the White Crown. It is hard to make any sense of this, especially as a motive for the founding of the new city. What could possibly have been so ‘offensive’ that it required such an unprecedented and costly action? Kings had been assassinated, but capitals had not been moved.

This reference to the terrible things heard is generally taken to refer to opposition by the Amunists (for example, rejection of Atenist doctrine) or disputes with the priests of Amun.⁹ Cyril Aldred, by contrast, has argued that there is no evidence that Akhenaten quarreled with the priesthood of Amun or left Thebes “in a mood of bitter resentment.” Priesthood and kingship were “indissolubly linked”: the kings had built up the cult of Amun and could therefore take its wealth away again, and they appointed the priests. Aldred immediately admitted, however, that in the redistribution of wealth to the Aten, Amun would have suffered most.¹⁰

Wolfgang Helck had earlier suggested that the reference was to the opposition by the administrative class to the move to the new capital. Donald Redford took the “things heard” to be simply “vocal and unremitting opposition to his projects,” and declared that it all bespeaks “an underlying lack of confidence.”¹¹ Helck and Aldred thought that a rumor had circulated that there would be no tombs for courtiers.¹² Murnane noted that this section does indeed follow the section on the new burial arrangements. It would have been a heavy blow to all those employed in Theban cemeteries. James Hoffmeier would go no further than something ‘evil’ (bỉn) or something ‘offensive’ (mr).¹³ Some have suggested something as serious as “counter movements” (Gegenbewegungen) of the “traditionalists,” or even an attempt to assassinate Akhenaten.¹⁴

Agnes Cabrol, on the other hand, thought that the argument related to foreign relations: the next reference is to Nubia.¹⁵

On the choice of site, Aldred offered an invaluable insight. Sailing down the river, he observed that the plain formed a bay, with the wadi in the center—which leads to the Royal Tomb—forming a “natural silhouette” of the 3ḫt (horizon) hieroglyph (fig. 25). From this the Aten appeared every day, and to it the king flew on his death.¹⁶ This has stimulated Hoffmeier to make the overlooked but attractive suggestion that the foundation of the new capital was the result of some sort of theophany experienced by Akhenaten.¹⁷

Fig. 25. Small Aten temple, with the dip in the cliffs marking the entrance to the Royal Wadi to the right. This may have been seen as a natural 3ht (horizon) hieroglyph.

An attempt has been made to calculate this fundamental date in Akhenaten’s reign: the foundation of Akhet-Aten, as recorded in the boundary stelae. Ronald Wells suggested that the “foundation day” on stelae M, X, and K—IV prt 13 in Year 5—would have corresponded with the appearance of the sun to the east, exactly in the center of the opening of the Royal Wadi, as observed from the axis of what became the Small Aten Temple. Taking into account the known problems of the Egyptian calendar, Wells calculated Year 5 as 1351 bc and the actual day in the Gregorian calendar as 20 February.

Murnane, the expert on the boundary stelae, also reconsidered the damaged texts of the stelae that specified the exact location of the foundation ceremony: “in front of the mountain of Akhet-Aten,” namely the Royal Wadi. The location would therefore be the “Chapel Royal,” beside the Royal Residence.¹⁸ The two contributions are thus complementary.

The discovery of Amarna

The first Europeans to note the site that was to become known as Tell el-Amarna came there in the early eighteenth century. The Jesuit Claude Sicard (1677–1726) copied boundary stela A as early as November 1714.¹⁹ Bonaparte’s expedition mapped the ruins of the city in 1798, but did not apparently notice the rock tombs and other features of the cliffs behind; Edme Jomard (1777–1862) described in the resulting Description de l’Égypte the great sandy plain, surrounded on three sides by mountains, the site of a “large city” to be found on no map, of which scarcely the foundations survived. He noted the many brick houses, the gates, the main street. He paid much attention to the Great Temple, its pylons still seven meters high, but could not guess its purpose. Opposite was another large building: palace, temple, fortress, or grain store?²⁰ The tombs were first recorded by John Gardner Wilkinson (1797–1875) in 1824. In his opinion, their reliefs were:

of a very peculiar style. . . . Some have supposed that the kings whose names were found here belong to the dynasty of the shepherds, but their era does not agree with the date of the sculptures. They may, however, have been later invaders, and there is reason to believe that they made a change in the religion . . . which would agree with the erasure of the names. From their features it is evident they were not Egyptians . . . the peculiar mode of worshipping and representing the Sun argues that their religion differed from the Egyptian.²¹

The Franco-Tuscan expedition led by Jean-François Champollion and Ippolito Rosellini made a brief stop in November 1828. The two leaders’ notes are short: the city was Psinaula, not Wilkinson’s Alabastron. “We traversed the whole city,” stated Champollion, noting the streets and the temple (not a grain store, as Jomard had suggested).²²

Nestor L’Hôte spent thirty-five days copying at Amarna in February 1839. He gave the first detailed description of the decoration in some six tombs that were accessible: he emphasized the richness of the decoration, such as scenes of driving to the temple, of rewards, and in the temple and palace. He noted the streets and northern suburb.²³ Robert Hay (1799–1863) also visited the area and copied the tombs in 1827.

The first extensive survey was carried out by the Prussian expedition under Richard Lepsius, which visited Amarna 19–21 September 1843 on its way upriver and 7–14 June 1845 on its return.²⁴ Lepsius’s letters from 1843 show that he already knew that the rulers here were “antagonistic kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty.” By the second visit in 1845, the tombs were assigned to the “fourth Amenophis, that royal Puritan who persecuted all the gods of Egypt and would only permit the worship of the Sun’s disc.”²⁵ The twelve volumes of plates of the great Denkmäler illustrating the expedition’s findings appeared between 1849 and 1858; those illustrating Amarna occur in the sixth volume (part of section III) with a selection of scenes in the “northern tombs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7,” and “southern tombs 1–3” (now numbered TA 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 25, 8, and 7 respectively), as well as two boundary stelae (N and K). The text meant to accompany these plates, drawn from Lepsius’s journal and notes, did not, however, appear until 1904,²⁶ long after Flinders Petrie’s excavations began the first modern uncovering of the city.

Petrie’s excavations 1891–92

The first modern excavation was conducted as a single season (November 1891–May 1892) by Flinders Petrie (fig. 26), who was assisted by Howard Carter (1874–1939), Francis Llewellyn Griffith (1862–1934),

Fig. 26. William Matthew Flinders Petrie (1855–1942).

and Archibald Sayce (1845–1933).²⁷ Why should interest have been shown in Amarna precisely at this time? It was four years since the discovery of the Amarna Letters.

The plain was “one of the most perfect sites that is possible for a great town.”²⁸ Petrie’s excavations concentrated on the Great Palace. Every stone of the walls had been removed, but Petrie traced the foundation trenches, noting to the south a great hall of 542 brick pillars surrounded by a double wall and covering an area of 130 × 71 meters. With his keen eye for architectural history, Petrie declared that such great pillared halls were previously unknown and that this was the prototype of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak. To the north, another four halls contained forty pillars each. In total, here were more than seven hundred pillars, made of mudbrick and plastered in white. One small hall contained many wine and oil jars, dated to Year 2, which is presumed to be of Tutankhamun: this, Petrie argued, showed that the site had been abandoned to become a storage depot.²⁹

Beyond the bridge across the north–south main road of the city (the so-called Royal Road, a name it retains in modern Arabic: Sikkat el-Sultan) and to the north, an open court contained finely ornamented and painted floors, high-quality stonework, and glazed decoration. The many “sleeping cubicles” opening off suggested to Petrie a queen’s pavilion or harem.³⁰

Decorative elements caught his eye: “it is remarkable how well the artists of Akhetaten succeeded with the horse.” And he was struck that “great inscriptions intended to be seen from a distance on the palace walls were blazoned out in gorgeous colored glazes set in the white limestone.”³¹

The pavements are probably the best-remembered aspect of Petrie’s excavations. The main one was preserved by having tapioca water applied to it by Petrie using his finger, over a total area of some three hundred square meters. Protective roofs were then erected, and raised boardwalks were installed to give access to visitors. The scenes showed the royal family (fig. 27), bound captives, tanks of fish, plants and animals, and bouquets of lotus. Shortly after Petrie’s clearance, a local farmer, enraged at the damage to his fields by the visitors, hacked the painstakingly preserved paintings to pieces (another version of the story attributes the destruction to jealousy regarding tips paid to the guards). The sections sent to England alone survive (now in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford).³²

Fig. 27. Part of a fresco of the royal family from the King’s House, showing two princesses, probably Neferneferuaten-tasherit and Neferneferure (Ashmolean AM1893.1.41).

From the largest house (his no. 13),³³ opposite the Great Palace, a wall fresco showing Akhenaten, Nefertiti, and the princesses was detached by cutting away the bricks at the back, then lowering the painting into a frame and coating the back with mud.

Petrie searched the rubbish heaps and found imported Aegean pottery (from Rhodes and Cyprus) and locally made glass. He also noted where the Amarna tablets were found in the 1880s (his no. 19, now the “Records’ Office”), in the southwest. He lamented that allegedly only half of those found had been preserved: it was believed that many had been ground to dust while being carried on donkeys. Petrie meticulously cleared for sixty meters around where they were found to be sure that no tablets had been missed.

The first evidence appeared for the religious observances of the inhabitants of the city of the Aten: amulets and pendants of Osiris, Shu, Hathor, Re, Maat, Bes, Taweret, and Hapi indicated that traditional deities were by no means excluded. Griffith studied dockets on wine jars and found that the king was known as Amenhotep IV until Year 5 and

Fig. 28. Ludwig Borchardt (1863–1938), in 1903.

that he reigned for seventeen years (his highest year known had previously been the twelfth).³⁴

In his report on the season, Petrie included a summary of his conclusions, most of which would serve as the basis for understanding and interpreting Amarnan history for many years.³⁵ Key points, some of which highlighted contemporary theories, included these: Amenhotep IV and Akhenaten were the same person; Akhenaten was not a female–male transvestite, nor was he a eunuch; he came to the throne aged twelve years under the tutelage of Tiye; Smenkhkare was coregent, sometimes with the epithet “beloved of Neferkheperure/Waenre”; Smenkhkare was then Akhenaten’s independent successor for two or three years and was himself succeeded by Tutankhamun, who was succeeded by Ay.

The German Oriental Society excavations: Borchardt 1907–14

After Petrie’s departure, no substantive work was done in the city for another seventeen years, although in that period Davies undertook the epigraphic documentation of the boundary stelae and of the private tomb chapels in the cliffs to the east.

Ludwig Borchardt (fig. 28) then conducted a preliminary survey during 1–20 January 1907 before beginning substantive work in 1911, after completing his work at Abusir. He worked in the name of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft (German Oriental Society), founded by James Simon (1851–1932), who paid 30,000 marks for each season. With Borchardt were Hans Abel (1883–1927), the architects Uvo Hölscher (1878–1963) and later Georg Möller (1876–1921), and the engineer Dietrich Marckus.

The Germans were to concentrate on houses, of which 530 were cleared over four seasons. A major innovation was the system of grids—two hundred square meters, identified by letters west to east and numbers north to south—which would be the basis for identifying houses and all other structures at the site.

The 1911 season lasted from January until 15 April. The expedition house at L50.9 was constructed in 1908 on the remains of an ancient one; it was also later used by the Egypt Exploration Society.³⁶ Work began on the eastern edge in squares L49–O51, clearing about eighty houses.

Fig. 29. The house of Pawah, High Priest of Re (O49.1).

Although 250 men were employed, work was slow. Borchardt concentrated on the street sixty meters wide, running southeast to northwest, parallel to the Nile, and instantly identified what remains a key feature of the city: the houses of the different social classes were all mixed together. Rich and poor lived alongside each other.

Borchardt’s system in these preliminary reports was to focus on a few examples of houses. The largest (O49.1), 75 × 125 meters, was that of the High Priest of the temple of Re, Pawah (fig. 29).

The second campaign lasted from 9 November 1911 until 28 March 1912. There were now three architects instead of two, so that a new studio had to be built. Borchardt made two major discoveries this year, concerning the pre- and post-Amarnan period: pre-Akhenaten levels were uncovered (although these were slight and remain undated), but the houses and palace or temple of late Ramesside period show that the city continued to be occupied, even though rich officials left under Horemheb.

Domestic features were a focus this year: the water supply was shown to rely on wells, with a laborious system of steps down to the top of the shaft between two and two and a half meters below ground, where water was raised by a shaduf. Great care was taken to drain away any overflow from the water jugs to prevent unhealthy stagnation.³⁷ Tremendous work had been undertaken to establish gardens in the desert by bringing in fertile soil, which fortunately allowed garden beds still to be distinguished.

Major additions to archaeological evidence in this year’s campaign were sculptures, mostly of the king, but also the famous unfinished relief showing Nefertiti pouring wine for her husband (fig. 83).³⁸

The third season lasted from November 1912 until March 1913. The staff was new: the on site director Breith, the architects Hollander and Honroth,³⁹ and the archaeologist Hermann Ranke (1878–1953). The aerial photography was undertaken by Major Paul Timme (d. 1928).

“High Priest Street” (as the Germans dubbed it, after his house) could be followed for two kilometers from M51 in the south to S42 in the north; it was forty-five meters wide. Borchardt emphasized again that the site was not virgin: predynastic wavy handled cylindrical vases had been found, and post-Amarnan evidence included a coffin of the Twentieth Dynasty. The overall picture did not change this year, but a clearer contrast emerged between main and minor streets; one of the latter, two meters wide, led from Q47.9 to Q46.2. The house of the overseer of cattle of the Aten, or the “Christmas House” (Q46.1), measured 76 × 60 meters, and had to the north a garden of 1,700 square meters, entered by a large pylon to the east, leading to a pool and garden kiosk (figs. 30, 31). Borchardt was still interested in sanitation: Q47.1 showed that waste was collected in huge earthenware vessels (a kind of cesspool).

A painted stela from Q47.16 showed Akhenaten and Nefertiti with three daughters, the eldest standing between her parents, with Akhenaten handing her an earring.⁴⁰ The most sensational find of this third season, however, was the studio of the sculptor Thutmose (P47.1–3) (figs. 32, 33). Finds included many statues and busts of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, as well as portraits of (presumably) leading inhabitants of the city, most spectacularly, the famous bust of Nefertiti (fig. 80) and the statue of her as a mature woman (fig. 85).⁴¹

The division of finds with the Cairo Museum was made on 20 January 1913, and the site was closed on 15 March of the same year.

Fig. 30. The house of an Overseer of Cattle of Aten—Borchardt’s “Christmas House” (Q46.1).

Fig. 31. The ruins of the “Christmas House” in the twenty-first century.

Fig. 32. The house of the sculptor Thutmose (P47.1-3).

Fig. 33. The ruins of the house of the sculptor Thutmose.

What turned out to be the last season, 1913–14, centered on the estates adjoining the studio of Thutmose. Borchardt commented on the fact that along the nearby wadi there was a difference in the levels of the houses of four and a half meters, inferring that torrents had swept away most of the houses here.

He estimated the full area of the ancient city to be seven kilometers north to south, but only one and a half wide. The planning was beginning to become clear: the south–north main street parallel to the river, with parallel streets to the east and smaller connecting cross-streets. Outside the city were desert paths that connected the tombs and boundary stelae.

The grandest house to be excavated was that of General Ramose (P47.19). The season’s success was capped by the discovery in December 1913 of two more Amarna Letters (EA 359, 379), but they are a grammatical and a literary text.

The account closed with an expression of dismay at the outbreak of war that rendered the work of “body and soul” so “unimportant and insignificant” and the hope that it might be resumed with peace. That was not to be.⁴²

John Pendlebury (1904–41), a later director of excavations at the site, was very critical of the German work:

Thanks to the fact that the Germans have only published their results in a most inadequate preliminary form, the objects which they found can only be regarded as so much loot from random excavations and the scientific knowledge acquired during the course of the work must be considered as lost.⁴³

These preliminary and summary reports may seem disappointing, but Jacobus Janssen stressed their “high quality.” And, as he noted, Borchardt’s notebooks, twenty and sixty years later, allowed Herbert Ricke to publish important studies of Amarna as a city.⁴⁴

Barry Kemp, another later director, and Salvatore Garfi praised the Germans for persevering with less lucrative areas, with the result that “Their demonstration that the pattern of housing remained more or less the same across a width of some 700m . . . is of enormous value in forming a general picture of the city as a whole.”⁴⁵

The Egypt Exploration Society:

Peet and Woolley, 1921–22

After the First World War, the concession at Tell el-Amarna was granted to the British. In 1921, the excavations were directed by Thomas Eric Peet (1882–1934) (fig. 34), and in 1922 by Leonard Woolley (1880–1960) (fig. 35), the same year in which he began his famous discoveries at Ur in Mesopotamia.⁴⁶

Special attention was devoted to town planning, and the German grid system devised by Timme was continued, as were some street names. Main streets running north–south were identified: High Priest Street (the German name), Street A (160 meters wide: surely deserving a more individual name), and Sekket al Sultan (Royal Street, the main one).

The houses that were uncovered varied enormously. The “ideal of the good Amarnan house,” in the view of the excavators, was that of the vizier Nakht (K50.1), 30 m × 26 m, consisting of thirty rooms (fig. 36). A middle house was O49.23, 12 m square with a dozen rooms, while a poor house was N50.16, 7 m × 10 m with eight rooms.⁴⁷ All houses were built of unbaked mudbrick, with stone for the thresholds and frames of outer doors and for the bases of columns in richer houses. Flooring in poor houses was mud plaster, in richer ones whitewashed or painted plaster.

Fig. 34. Thomas Eric Peet (1882–1934).

Fig. 35. (Sir) Leonard Woolley (1880–1960).

Fig. 36. The house of the vizier Nakht (K50.1).

Fig. 37. Plan of the Eastern Village.

Two underlying and persistent categories of evidence were revealed: the presence of Mycenaean ware, and the continuing worship of the old gods—Isis, Horus, Taweret, and most frequently Bes.

The eastern village (fig. 37) was identified as the home of the tomb builders, with their cemetery in the next wadi to the north and the shrines or chapels immediately outside the village wall. The village was regularly planned: all houses were of equal size, 10 m × 5 m. The entrance was on the south side, with the overseer’s house in the southeastern corner. The blocks were divided by north–south streets. All houses were identical: an

Fig. 38. Eastern Village: reconstruction of Chapel 525.

entrance hall, a living room, and two smaller back rooms—a bedroom and kitchen. Stairs led to a flat roof.

Not to be confused with the rock tombs for important people are the tomb chapels (fig. 38), consisting of an outer court, inner court, and shrine, with a burial shaft. No trace of human remains was found.

Apart from houses and the workers’ village, Peet paid attention to the Maru Aten (M3rw-’Itn, “Viewing place of the Aten”) (fig. 39), containing lakes, gardens, and buildings. This was originally identified as a royal pleasure resort, an interpretation now long since discarded. The Maru Aten was thought to reveal vital evidence regarding the fate of Nefertiti: a queen’s name had been almost everywhere erased and replaced by that of Meryetaten, and the queen’s features had also been recut. Peet identified the expunged queen as Nefertiti, creating a misunderstanding that was to have disastrous results for almost half a century.

A major contribution to our understanding of the Maru Aten was made in 1956 by the architectural historian Alexander Badawy (1913–86). He adduced as comparative evidence the ancient description of the “Maru” constructed for Amun by Amenhotep III at Western Thebes:

Fig. 39. Plan of the Maru-Aten.

a place of flourishing for my father at his beautiful feast. I created a great temple in the midst like Re when he rises in the horizon. It is planted with all flowers; how beautiful is Nun (the primeval water) in his pool at every season; more is its wine than water, like a full Nile, born of the lord of Eternity. Many are the gods of the place, the import of all countries is received, much tribute is brought here before my father, being the offering of all lands.⁴⁸

This accords very closely with the buildings in the “Maru” at Amarna. The northeastern complex seems to have been the viewing area. The kiosk on the island may have been a ‘Sunshade’ and the ‘front temple’ contained the ‘Window of Appearance.’ In the northwestern corner is a ‘temple palace,’ where many dockets from offerings were found. It was thus not a “royal pleasure resort,” as Peet described it, but a structure for ritual purposes.

Griffith and Newton 1923–25

Following Woolley’s shift to the excavations at Ur in Mesopotamia, the direction passed first to Francis Llewelyn Griffith, then to Francis Newton (1878–1924), who was taken ill on site and died of encephalitis at Asyut. Other members of the team were Thomas Whittemore (1871–1950), Stephen Glanville (1900–56), Walter Emery (1903–71), Rosalind Moss (1900–90), Duncan Greenlees (1899–1966), and H.B. Clark.

The House of Panehsy, Chief Servitor of the Aten (T41), was discovered, with the famous stela showing Amenhotep III and Tiye (fig. 40). One hundred and fifty houses in the south along High Priest Street were then excavated, to link up with the area excavated by the Germans.

The most important focus, however, was the North Palace (fig. 41, 42), in the North City, away from the residential quarters in the center that had hitherto been the focus of excavation. Its heavy external walls

Fig. 40. Amenhotep III and Tiye from the house of Panehsy (BM EA 57399).

were two meters wide and preserved up to two meters high. The main entrance was on the west side, facing the river. Everywhere Meryetaten’s name was found replacing an earlier name—which gave rise to further baleful theories, compounded by the finding of rings with the names of Nefertiti and Tutankhamun. The area contained water courts, gardens, living quarters, a hypostyle hall, and a throne room. Indifference and haste in the construction, according to the excavators, were found everywhere, but the frescoes were as fine as any others found in the city.⁴⁹

In their later survey of Amarna, Kemp and Garfi summed up the North City as the “main residence for the royal family and for an intimate circle of court officials.” It consisted of a palace, but not a temple, and a residential area marked by “the unusual degree of coherence and regularity of the core group of large houses.”⁵⁰ Further excavations showed that it measured 115 m × 148 m, oriented east to west, with the entrance on the west, opposite the throne room, which had a large basin in the middle. It included accommodation for staff and servants, animal houses, and a small chapel.⁵¹

Fig. 41. The North Palace.

Fig. 42. Plan of the North Palace.

Frankfort and Pendlebury 1926–31

The teams comprised Henri Frankfort (1897–1954) (fig. 43), Henriette Frankfort (his wife, née Groenewegen), Stephen Glanville, H.B. Clark (architect), Seton Lloyd (architect, 1902–96), Alan Shorter (1905–38), John Pendlebury (fig. 44) and his wife Hilda, Hilary Waddington (architect, 1903–89), (?) Burnett, Mary Chubb (1903–2003), Ralph Lavers

Fig. 43. Henri Frankfort (1897–1954).

Fig. 44. John Pendlebury (1904–1941).

(architect, 1907–69), Herbert (“Tommy”) Fairman (1907–82), and Stephen Sherman.⁵²

Work concentrated on the northern suburb, a later extension of the city; some houses, indeed, were constructed after the city had ceased to be the capital. The large estates bordering the main roads were laid out first. T36.11 was the most sumptuous house. Between “East Road” and “West Road” were very poor quarters, perhaps for the temple workers. The northwestern quarter was identified as “mercantile,” with magazines where boats landed after crossing from the west bank. It was declared that apart from this area, “Akhetaten lacked a sound economic basis as a city.”⁵³ T36.36 belonged to a Mycenaean merchant (the leg of a tripod bore a Mycenaean face). Much Late Helladic III pottery was found in the central-western and southwestern quarters. Important evidence for dating was provided by the numerous faience rings, among which those of Akhenaten are usually equaled by those of Smenkhkare, but exceeded by those of Tutankhamun.

Fig. 45. Plan of the Central City.

Pendlebury 1931–36

Pendlebury’s team comprised himself and his wife Hilda, Charles Orwell Brasch, Mary Chubb, Margaret Drower (1911–2012), Fairman (the epigrapher), Lavers, Sherman and Mrs. Sherman, and Waddington and Mrs. Waddington. These campaigns focused on the Central City (figs. 45, 46), previously worked by Petrie (the Palace, Royal Estate, Records Office, and Sanctuary of the Great Temple) and Frankfort (the Sanctuary, Hall of Foreign Tribute, and House of Panehsy).

Fig. 46. A restored view of the central part of the city

Fig. 47. A restored view of the sanctuary of the Great Temple.

Fig. 48. Restored plan of the Great Temple.

Fig. 49. The Great Temple: the House of Rejoicing and the House of the Benben.

At the Great Temple (figs. 47–49) the main entrance was located in the middle of the western wall, leading into a rectangular court. On the east–west axis, another door led into a larger three sided court, but access to the sanctuary was only along the main axis. Paper restoration was facilitated by the reliefs showing the building in many tombs (see below).⁵⁴

The ruins of the Hall of Foreign Tribute (fig. 50) were found to be very damaged. Eight flights of stairs led to elevated platforms on all four sides. This was identified with the scene in the tomb of Huya (TA 1), which shows the ‘durbar,’ and the inscription names the “Great Throne Room of Akhenaten for receiving the imposts of every land.” Akhenaten and Nefertiti are shown seated on the northern platform, while the tribute is loaded on the other three.⁵⁵

The official residence of Panehsy, Chief Servitor of the Aten (R44.2), was cleared.⁵⁶ His private house was in the city (T41).

The longest part of the third volume of the excavation reports was devoted to the Great Palace (fig. 51).⁵⁷ It extended seven hundred meters

Fig. 50. Restored plan of the Hall of Foreign Tribute.

Fig. 51. The “State Apartments” of the Great Palace (east at top).

Fig. 52. The King’s House.

along the western side of Royal Street, and occupied the whole space down to the river. It was divided into private quarters and state apartments. The former, in brick, were for servants, the harem, and magazines; the latter included the Wbn ’Itn (“Aten Shines”), the ‘Broad Hall’ (both in stone), and the “Coronation Hall” for Smenkhkare (bricks bear his name). These apartments were, noted the excavators, “the largest secular building in the ancient world,” and the only one in Egypt constructed of stone. The plan was quite innovative. “Whence came the idea we cannot say.”⁵⁸ Pendlebury’s antipathy to Akhenaten precluded his thinking of an obvious answer.

Other important clearances included the Royal Estate, more commonly known as the “King’s House” (fig. 52), the private residence of the king, across Royal Street, which Petrie had already entered.⁵⁹ Fran Weatherhead suggested in 1993 that the complex in the middle of the southern section was a throne room.⁶⁰ Kemp has now posited that this house was perhaps really the office of the vizier (Nakht, who lived at

Fig. 53. The area of the Records Office (Q42.21).

K50.1, and whose tomb was TA 12). One-third of the building was storerooms.⁶¹ Next door, to the south, was the Small Temple, or ‘Chapel Royal,’ measuring 110 m × 190 m.⁶²

Apart from the temples and palace, excavation work was devoted to the most famous building in Amarna, the “Records Office” (fig. 53), with the “Foreign Office” on the western side. At the southern end, the excavators placed the Bureau for the Correspondence of the Pharaoh: the Amarna Letters had been found in the main room to the east. To the south, more than seventy houses (Q43) were cleared, while on the extreme eastern edge of the city the police and military headquarters were found.⁶³

The Egypt Exploration Society excavations resumed

After a pause of half a century, the Egypt Exploration Society returned to Amarna under Barry Kemp in 1977 (the permit passed to the Amarna Trust in 2008). Following two years of survey, excavation recommenced in 1979.⁶⁴ As Kemp himself has emphasized, the purpose of the excavations changed completely in the 1970s, from revealing the structure of the city to reconstructing its life. The work has been much less sensational than before; there has been a great deal of reworking of old material, but techniques earlier unknown have also been employed. Major gaps in our understanding of the capital have in consequence been filled.

Most of the buildings in the city were of mudbrick, but stone was also used. The obvious question was the location of the quarries. The limestone came from the “Quarry of Queen Tiye” at Amarna and from Deir al-Bersha, 15 kilometers to the north; sandstone from Gebel Silsila, 450 kilometers to the south; red granite from Aswan, on the southern border; quartzite also from Aswan and Gebel Ahmar, near Cairo, 270 kilometers north; basalt and dolerite from Gebel al-Teir al-Bahari, 60 kilometers north; and alabaster (or travertine) from Hatnub, 16 kilometers east.⁶⁵

Important work was resumed on understanding the Great Temple. Kemp divided the temenos or sacred area (300 m × 800 m—most of which was empty) into three equal areas from the entrance (west to east): the Gm(t) p3 ’Itn; the open middle area; and the Sanctuary. Kemp later preferred to call the first the “Long Temple,” with a colonnade in front, then six courts with another colonnade between the third and fourth of them. They contained the remains of the bases of nearly eight hundred offering tables. The middle space (230 m × 270 m) was the puzzle: perhaps it was for large festivals and huge crowds. The Sanctuary, 30 m × 47 m, was 340 meters behind the Long Temple. To the southeast, the House of Panehsy, Superintendent of Cattle, was associated with great quantities of animal bones, while closer to the southwestern corner were large bakeries (one hundred ovens). There was a clear distinction between the 150 stone offering tables in the sanctuary and the 920 brick offering tables outside the southwestern corner. The latter would seem to indicate some popular participation in the rituals.⁶⁶

Further discoveries about the history of the building were made in 2014. There were two levels: an earlier and a later temple, the latter perhaps dated about Year 12. The earlier had only a mud floor, and its architectural elements, even royal statuary, had been treated as rubble in the rebuilding. This second phase included a huge colonnade, but most importantly, it had buried the great fields of offering tables and seemed to feature platforms surrounded by basins.⁶⁷

Excavation at the Small Temple was resumed in 1987. The work revealed hitherto overlooked phases in its construction, the first of which was simply a brick altar, until a more grandiose sanctuary could be built farther back. It was also noted that there had originally been open ground between this temple and the river, before the “Coronation Hall” was built.⁶⁸

Further work on the Great Palace clarified that the entrance was on the north side, whereby one entered the huge courtyard (the “Broad Hall”), 160 meters square, with red granite statues of Akhenaten and Nefertiti and other family members in front of limestone walls with colored scenes. Kemp suggested that the purpose of this huge space was for the assembly of large crowds and for feasts, because there followed three areas to the south, the central one of which was a hall of state with a throne room connected to the great court by a ‘Window of Appearances.’⁶⁹

Given the previous excavators’ poor opinion of the quality of the building, one of the most important of Kemp’s observations is about the “exceptional care devoted to the finish. This is visible in the faience moldings and tiles, the inlaid hieroglyphs carved from separate pieces of hard stone, the stelae and balustrades in travertine, the inlaid and gilded columns in a variety of plant forms. The building would have been ablaze with color and shiny surfaces and the dull glitter of gold leaf.”⁷⁰

The Northern Riverside Palace was identified as the main royal residence, two and a half kilometers from the Great Palace. It had a gateway toward the south side and was enclosed in a battlemented wall. Most of it has, however, been eroded by the river, save for a northern fragment. “There is nowhere in the center of the city where one can seriously imagine the royal family permanently residing,” Kemp observed. The basic feature of the city is the ‘Royal Avenue,’ forty meters wide, linking the North Riverside Palace to the Maru Aten in the south. This explains why Amarnan art features the royal family traveling in chariots, which would have made no sense if the king had to travel only within the central city. The ordinary population of the city lived in the northern and southern suburbs (the vizier Nakht lived in the south), so that the central city “may have been largely deserted at night.”⁷¹

The most famous single location in the city is the ‘Window of Appearances.’ It could not, Kemp realized, be where the earlier excavators placed it: on a bridge between the “King’s House” and the “House of Rejoicing.” The kiosk was on a podium, with a balustrade and ramps. Rewards for officials would not be given publicly in a street. They would have taken place rather in an inner court of the palace (Ricke) or the Northern Palace (Whittemore).⁷² Kemp noted that this window is shown in some ten tomb reliefs, but survives in only one example, that of Rameses III at Medinet Habu.⁷³ He proposed to locate the window in the northeastern corner of the “King’s House” in the “Royal Estate,” opposite the great garden courtyard with the northern entrance, through which the official who was to be honored would have approached.⁷⁴

The Society had cleared in the 1930s only some thirty seven houses in the Workmen’s Village;⁷⁵ it was reexcavated between 1970 and 1986. The village was square (seventy meters) and walled and comprised seventy-two houses. The inhabitants seem to have been mainly laborers who excavated the tombs; perhaps the artists who decorated them lived in the main city. The villagers grew their own food and raised animals: here were found growing pots and animal pens, and perhaps abattoirs—bones suggest pigs. There may also have been a small police contingent, perhaps twenty men. Not to be overlooked was the evidence for painting, even in this most basic residential compound. The village was marked, however, in Kemp’s words, by “the bleakness of the environment and the necessity to import all water and most foodstuffs.”⁷⁶

The chapels of mud brick were also reexamined and new ones cleared, notably the “Main Chapel” to the east of the village: two halls (the walls of the outer lined with benches), then a sanctuary with three shrines, oriented west to east. The structure of the chapels showed marked uniformity, but also provided evidence for different religious practices in the various family groups that used each one. Kemp judged that “for people living in the tightly packed village, the chapels offered a periodic escape to a more salubrious setting.”⁷⁷

William Stevenson Smith (1907–69) put the Workmen’s Village in context: “We have here again one of those projects on a united plan with a repetition of the individual structures such as in the Middle Kingdom town of Kahun and the artisans’ village at Deir el-Medina.”⁷⁸

Important new ground was cleared in Q48.4 in 1987. This area was, in fact, connected with the Workmen’s Village. It was first used for pottery and jewelry manufacturing before becoming a domestic area. Both these phases dated to the reign of Tutankhamun, providing vital evidence for the post-Akhenaten occupation at Amarna.⁷⁹

Without doubt, however, the most exciting new discovery, beginning in 2003, has been the cemeteries of ordinary Amarnans. Only notables’ tombs had previously been known. Southeast of TA 25 (Ay), the bones of seventy bodies were discovered: fifty-three adults, fourteen aged between five and seventeen years, and three infants. For the first time, we are face to face with ordinary Amarnans. Kemp observed that “life for the common residents of Amarna appears to have been satisfactory, with no extremes of work or stress.”⁸⁰ Appearances can be deceiving. Further analysis showed that anemia rates for children were as high as 23 percent, indicating “a significant problem with diet and iron deficiency.”⁸¹ The proportion of infants is unexpectedly small (30 percent would be normal), suggesting that they were buried elsewhere. And later analysis of the adult remains revealed that only 13 percent were over thirty-five years of age, indicating now “conditions of high stress.”⁸²

Excavation proper began in 2006, revealing some three thousand bodies. Most of them had been brutally robbed shortly after burial, resulting in severe disarticulation. They seem to have been buried in an extended position. Some were covered with matting, others were in “stick coffins” (strips of wood bound with rope). Two grave stelae were discovered, but they were without inscription. One grave was a vaulted brick chamber. By the fourth season in 2009, the excavation reached lower levels with more wooden coffins and stelae, suggesting greater affluence. There were many more infant burials, while the average age at death was early thirties, with few older than fifty years.⁸³

Second to the cemeteries in importance as a new discovery was a stone village to the east of the southern city, already noticed in the 1970s. It is uncertain whether it was a military outpost or a village for tomb workers. It was an enclosure that measured 67 m × 80 m. Perhaps it supplied food for workers in the desert, but some people certainly lived here. It was also linked to stone quarrying.⁸⁴

Important advances have been made concerning our understanding of the economy of the city. An ‘industrial quarter’ has been revealed south of the Small Temple (O45.1). The Amarna Glass Project is investigating this. Kilns were found here and reconstructed to answer the question of whether the Amarnans were simply molding glass or making it: the latter requires temperatures of 1,100 degrees Celsius. Experiments showed that this temperature was easily reached. This area also produced pottery and faience.

Modern scientific techniques can also be employed to analyze ancient crops and vegetation; thousands of fragments of textiles; charcoal, to discover the original species of wood; and animal bones, of which sheep, goats, deer, pigs, horses, and dogs have been identified; and to identify sources of disease, notably the housefly, which is the spreader of much contagion.

The tombs

The tomb chapels in the eastern hills, one group in the north and the other in the south (figs. 54, 55), were, as noted above, first studied by L’Hôte, Hay, and Lepsius. Some, however, especially in the southern group, were found to be largely untouched when they were surveyed during the 1880s and 1890s, and published in 1903 by Urbain Bouriant (1849–1903), Georges Legrain, and Gustave Jéquier (1864–1946). They also gave valuable historical notes: TA 13 had been opened by Robert Hay in 1830, and TA 9, 10, and 14 discovered by Bouriant in 1883. TA

Fig. 54. The Northern Tombs at Amarna.

Fig. 55. The Southern Tombs at Amarna.

11 was discovered and cleared by Gaston Maspero and Bouriant in the same year. TA 12, 23, and 24 were discovered by Alexandre Barsanti (1858–1917) in 1892.

The rock tombs were finally comprehensively copied in exemplary fashion by Norman de Garis Davies (fig. 56), and published in six volumes, 1903–1908. Tribute must here be paid to years of backbreaking work, requiring the highest skill and providing the dossier of the single most important archaeological source for the site. These painted reliefs

Fig. 56. Norman de Garis Davies (1865–1941).

have been vulnerable to damage since the Amunist reaction, and not least in modern times; Davies’s copies allow us now to view them as they were more than a century ago. Davies recorded eighteen tombs, all six from the northern series (TA 1–6) and twelve from the southern (TA 7­–14, 16, 19, 23, and 25).The Amarnan tombs, Davies observed, revealed a striking innovation: “The king’s figure, family and retinue dominate everything.” It is difficult even to distinguish the deceased, the tomb’s owner. This was, however, perhaps because Akhenaten had bestowed these tombs on favorites—a costly gift. The wife of the deceased usually does not appear, and never his children, which is a major departure for Egyptian tombs.⁸⁵

There was a change in the plan of the tombs between the two cemeteries. In the south, the tomb was either small with a narrow transverse chamber (the “small T shaped” as Davies called it), or a long corridor, or a spacious columned hall. In the later northern tombs, there were some of the small T shaped and several corridor-style, but the majority used the hall reduced to two or four columns.⁸⁶

The southern group of tombs seemed to be the earlier foundation; the inception of the northern ones was dated by Davies to Years 8 and 9, based on the presence of the Later form of the Aten’s name, the detailed plans of the Aten temple, the new plan of the palace, the showing of the deceased rather than the king in the doorway, and the absence of Nefertiti’s sister, Mutnedjmet.⁸⁷

Finally, Davies identified a significant feature: there were only a few stock designs for the decorations of these tombs; for example, the tombs of Ahmose, Pentju, Panehsy, and Meryre i were very similar in decoration.⁸⁸ Dimitri Laboury added another observation: none of the tombs seems to have been finished. And forty-three in total was far from sufficient for all the important officials of the city. It seems that many must have made arrangements to be buried elsewhere, perhaps in their ancestral cemeteries.⁸⁹

Chronology of the tombs

Davies declared that the only firm criterion for dating the tombs was the number of the princesses in the reliefs.

The tombs show:

one daughter: tombs of Mahu (TA 9) and Ramose (TA 11);

two daughters: Any (TA 23);

three daughters: Ipy (TA 10), Ay (TA 25), Tutu (TA 8), Ahmose (TA 3), and Pentju (TA 5);

three or four daughters: Panehsy (TA 6);

four daughters: Meryre i (TA 4) and Huya (TA 1);

five or six daughters: Meryre ii (TA 2).

He suggested that the first three daughters were born in Years 4, 6, and 8. This would fit the position of the tombs: the northern cemetery (tombs 1–6) is later in date. It would also fit the form of the Aten name: the Later form was dated by Davies to Year 10, and the Earlier is invariable in the southern tombs.⁹⁰

There are various cautions. In the tomb of Huya (TA 1), which includes the ‘durbar’ of Year 12, two daughters are shown in the banquet scene with Queen Tiye, while four seem to be in the ‘durbar,’ and in the famous ‘double family’ scene. Yet all six princesses are shown in the other ‘durbar’ scene, in the tomb of Meryre ii (TA 2) (fig. 57). In the tomb of Mahu (TA 9), a southern tomb which uses the Later form of the Aten name, the royal family is shown sacrificing at an altar, with only Meryetaten present. Davies suggested that this was due to lack of space.⁹¹ In the tomb of Panehsy (TA 6), similarly, scenes on the entrance portal show three princesses, while those further inside show four.⁹² This could perhaps be accounted for by the progression of the tomb’s decoration.

Jean Capart noticed another important caution: if the daughters appeared on monuments from their birth, they would have been babies in cradles, but they are immediately shown as little women.⁹³ In any case,

Fig. 57. Akhenaten and Nefertiti, with all six princesses depicted behind them; from the durbar scene in the tomb-chapel of Meryre ii (TA 2).

the dates of the princesses’ births have been much contested. We do not understand the criteria for the way they are shown in the tombs. In sum, we cannot reliably date the tombs this way.

The royal family in the tomb decoration

There are six main themes:

1. The royal family worshiping the Aten. This is shown in eight tombs: TA 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 25 (fig. 58).⁹⁴

2. Royal visits to temple (fig. 59). This is shown in five tombs: TA 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6.⁹⁵

Apropos of this very impressive theme in Amarnan decoration, Kemp pondered “to what extent the royal family did live and move as a single unit, and if any of them ever remained still for very long, or was always about to leave for somewhere else, for another elaborate station along a corridor of travel, forever the object of attention in a highly structured lifestyle.”⁹⁶

Laboury offered theological insights: Egyptian cities were designed for processions of the gods. Amarna was designed for processing by Akhenaten. Aten moved from east to west, but the king moved from north to south, as Amun at Thebes, except that the god’s bark was replaced by the more mobile chariot.⁹⁷ He then went too far in suggesting that the main activity of the royal family seemed to be religious ritual⁹⁸—forgetting that these scenes came from tombs, where religious scenes would be most appropriate.

The military escort in TA 4 is interesting: four men and a sergeant, then six men with axe and spear and a sergeant with a baton, and above them Nubian, Semite, Libyan, and Egyptian standard-bearers (fig. 60). Syrians, Nubians, and Libyans also appear in TA 4. Adolf Erman (1854–1937) saw sinister conditions behind the fact that the royal bodyguard was formed of Nubians and Asiatics.⁹⁹ It is far from exclusively so, and these foreigners may simply be representing a ‘universalist’ ideology of Atenism.

3. Domestic scenes in the palace (fig. 61). This is shown in four tombs: TA 1, 2, 3, and 5.¹⁰⁰

4. The ‘Tribute of the Nations,’ or ‘durbar,’ in Year 12 (fig. 62). This is shown only in the two northernmost tombs: TA 1 and 2.¹⁰¹

Fig. 58. The royal family worshiping the Aten, as shown in the tomb of Tutu (TA 8).

In the tomb of Huya (TA 1), tribute is specified as coming from Kharu (Syria), Kush (Nubia), and the islands; the tribute from the north is chariots and vases; from the south, slaves, skins, gold rings, ivory, spices, and animals. In the tomb of Meryre ii (TA 2), southern tribute includes metal,

Fig. 59. Akhenaten, Nefertiti, and four princesses driving to the temple, as shown in the tombchapel of Meryre i (TA 4).

Fig. 60. The military escort, in the tomb of Meryre i (TA 4).

Fig. 61. Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Meryetaten, and another daughter banqueting with Queen Tiye and Baketaten in the tomb-chapel of Huya (TA 1).

Fig. 62. The two phases of the “durbar” in year 12, as shown in the tomb-chapels of Huya and Meryre ii (TA 1 and 2).

Fig. 63. Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Meryetaten, Maketaten and Ankhesenpaaten reward Ay; tomb-chapel of Ay (TA 25).

Fig. 64. Dancers at the reward of Ay.

gold, arms, ivory, animals, and slaves; northern tribute includes arms, slaves, ivory, and animals, together with calves and grain or incense from Punt, Libyans with ostrich eggs, and Hittites (?) wearing pigtails with metalwork.

This ‘durbar’ has been interpreted in diametrically different ways: as a celebration of the marriage of Ay and Tey (Gaston Maspero); the accession of Akhenaten after twelve years of coregency (Aldred); the arrival of Aziru, the treacherous ruler of Amurru, summoned to Egypt (Redford); the ephemeral victory in the recapture of Sumuru (Eleanore Bille-de-Mot); a victorious Nubian war (Alan Schulman, John Darnell, and Colleen Manassa); even Nefertiti’s elevation as coregent (Joann Fletcher); or the completion of the new capital (Aidan Dodson).¹⁰² Whatever else it shows, it is, as James Allen described it, “the last clear view we have of the Amarna Period before the accession of Tutankhamun.”¹⁰³

5. Rewards for courtiers (figs. 63, 64). This is shown, not unexpectedly, in no fewer than eight tombs: TA 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 25.¹⁰⁴

What is important is the political and artistic influence of Amarna. As Redford noted, these scenes of reward were “in a style which was to become stereotyped for three and a half centuries.”¹⁰⁵

6. Investiture in office. This is obviously a special honor, shown in only three tombs: the installation of Meryre i as High Priest (TA 4), of Huya as steward of Queen Tiye (TA 1), and of Tutu as chief servitor of Akhenaten in the temple of the Aten (TA 8).¹⁰⁶

There are also unique scenes found in only one tomb, for example: an artist at work—Iuta in his workshop putting the last touches of paint to a statue of Baketaten (TA 1) (fig. 65), and in the same tomb, the funeral scene (fig. 66: the mummy of Huya is shown as Osiris); or Akhenaten, Nefertiti, and Meryetaten in a chariot going to inspect the defenses (TA 9), and in the same tomb a scene illustrating the policing of the capital, with Mahu drawing supplies for the guards, and the arrest of malefactors.¹⁰⁷

Fig. 65. The sculptor Iuta finishing a statue of princess Baketaten in the tomb of Huya.

In Amarnan tombs, the deceased is depicted less frequently than the royal family, who are generally shown worshiping the Aten or making visits to the temple. They are also shown banqueting, exactly as in pre- and post-Amarnan tombs where the deceased was always shown being nourished in the afterlife. The deceased is most often shown being rewarded by the king, although even these scenes seem to be more a celebration of the royal family than of the dead. This also appears to have been an honor granted for exceptional merit, since only one-third of the courtiers’ tombs have such scenes. Even rarer is the depiction of appointment to office—in only three cases. The tombs’ owners describe their cemetery as “the place of the favored ones” no fewer than four times.¹⁰⁸

Akhenaten’s detractors can, of course, find support for their theories even here. That all the tombs are unfinished, Nicholas Reeves declared, was evidence of “financial mismanagement.”¹⁰⁹

Fig. 66. The Osirian funeral of Huya.

What have excavations revealed of the conditions of the inhabitants?

Estimates of the population have varied wildly: from approximately twenty-five thousand persons (Kemp); twenty to fifty thousand (Reeves); forty-five thousand (Joyce Tyldesley); forty-five to fifty thousand (Laboury); and fifty to one hundred thousand (Janssen).¹¹⁰

The publication in 1980 by Herbert Ricke of Borchardt’s notes on the houses at Amarna allowed much more detailed analysis of the housing. Christian Tietze divided the houses into categories according to area, plan, thickness of wall, and so on. He discerned a three fold social structure: more than half the population lived in small houses (an average of forty-six square meters), one third in middle sized ones, and the rest in houses of remarkable size (between eight and twenty rooms): these last were for the religious, military, and administrative people closest to the king.¹¹¹ It is also striking that alongside the remarkable variation in the size of the houses, there is an uncharacteristic uninterrupted progression from most modest to most opulent.¹¹² The luxury of the royal quarters is undoubted, but equally luxurious was the housing of the upper classes in general. Grand houses could cover up to eight hundred square meters, in contrast to workers’ quarters comprising three rooms and fifteen square meters. The city certainly revealed Egyptian skills at this time in understanding of water supply and sewerage.

Tietze was able to elucidate another matter fundamental in the Egyptian climate: insulation. Houses had a central living area, complemented by rooms on one, two, three, or four sides: the more sides on which there were rooms, the more comfortable the living area would be. Domestic planning, however, was more sophisticated than mere number of rooms: the more rooms there were, the thicker the walls tended to be, and so the cooler or warmer the house. Walls varied in thickness: between 14 and 18 centimeters (54 percent of the walls discovered), between 30 and 38 centimeters (37 percent), and the significantly greater thickness of 49–118 centimeters (fewer than 10 percent). Overall, however, one can infer that living conditions in the city were comfortable.