THE DEATH AND BURIAL OF SMENKHKARE' DJESERKHEPRURE'
By Marshall F. Johnson
| Return To
Egypt Index | Return
To PotPourri Index |
Introduction: Early in what is likely to have been his fourth year
of rule, SMENKHKARE' died, quite possibly yet another victim of the pestilence
which had already claimed the lives of so many of his close relations. As all
pharaohs had done before him, SMENKHKARE' had begun upon his accession to
prepare for his death. However, despite being co-regent of Akhenaten for some
three years, there is no indication that SMENKHKARE' prepared his funerary
furnishings and equipment in the style of the Atenist cult. His ability to
decline to follow the Atenist teachings provides a major clue to the events of
the years between AKHENATEN's Year 15 and the final abandonment of Akhet-Aten
about Year 4 of TUT'ANKHAMUN.
During Year 15 of the Pharaoh AKHENATEN, a sixteen-year-old youth was
crowned as co-regent over all of Egypt, and almost everything about this
individual has been mired in controversy and conjecture since the first
scholarly article attempted to draw together the few known strands of his life
. Even the names he adopted at various points during his final five years
have caused considerable confusion, not the least of which being a rather rare
feminine variant! He was able to decide for himself because he was the only
legitimate heir to the throne, and he must have enjoyed considerable backing.
His repeated use of the epithets "beloved of Akhenaten" may
well have been a case of protesting too much so as to minimise the obvious
divergence of interest between the two brothers, both religiously and
politically. SMENKHKARE' had been raised at the Malqata Palace, and cannot have
been heavily influenced by Atenist thought. In fact, he was only nine years old
when his brother moved to Akhet-Aten with his court and, although he may well
have visited the new capital, he is unlikely to have resided there for any
length of time before his accession. With the death of Amunhotep III about Year
12, the political equation in Egypt became seriously unbalanced. Akhenaten's
legitimacy to the throne was solely based on his father's (and mother's)
determination that he be the next pharaoh, and was not based on his being either
the son of the current pharaoh by the God's Wife of Amun or the husband of the
There are two major interlinked factors which can be seen to have been
crucial to the decision to make SMENKHKARE' the heir-apparent of Akhenaten:
SMENKHKARE's superior claim to the throne, and the extremely high death-toll in
Egypt due to the plague. By Year 15, the thirty-year-old Akhenaten had sired at
least eight daughters and no known sons, and the likelihood of his siring a male
was probably considered by all (including himself) to be remote. The claim by
some scholars that Tut'ankhuaten -- certainly the only male known to have been
born in the final seventeen years of the dynasty -- was Akhenaten's son by a
minor wife can be discarded with hardly a second thought, as it is impossible to
conceive of a pharaoh passing up his son in favour of his younger brother.
AKHETATEN was abandoned about this time,  but at any rate early in
the reign because only one letter addressed to TUT'ANKHATEN has been found at
Amarna . Note Kitchen's remarks  about the fallacy of considering that the
Pharaoh's court would permanently move and make another city the capital of
Egypt . Pharaoh (and his court with him) moved about the country for numerous
reasons including festivals, the weather (hot months in the cooler Memphis,
winter at Thebes?), or the personal preferences of Pharaoh. Further, "the
notion of a return from Amarna to Thebes and so on is a modern myth; it was from
Amarna to Memphis (whence Tutankamun's restoration-edict was proclaimed"
The death of MERITATEN had followed soon after SMENKHKARE's accession to
sole-rule, and she was probably buried at THEBES where he may have been
preparing his tomb .
SMENKHKARE' then married 'ANKHESENPAATEN as the last (?) remaining
heiress , but he soon died after . The death of SMENKHKARE' happened
possibly quite early in Year 4 (hence no dockets for this year can be attributed
to him -- much as AKHENATEN can be said to have died after the wine harvest of
Year 17 but before the harvest of Year 18). He may have been assassinated at
THEBES, and "death occurred in the 20th year" , he was 5'7"
tall and had good teeth . After apparently being accorded the full 70-day
embalming procedure , SMENKHKARE' was buried in full Pharaonic trappings
complete with traditional texts from the "Chapter of the Heart"13 --
gold ornamentation which was later removed from his burial and used for the
funeral of TUT'ANKHAMUN . Probably at the same time as most of his gold was
removed, he was re-buried rather hastily in the Valley of the Kings tomb KV55
with part of the funeral equipment of QUEEN TIYE and in the coffin originally
prepared for his wife MERITATEN  (or, alternately, originally made for him
as a prince by AKHENATEN and later altered upon his death to reflect his royal
status as his coffin had not been completed, though some of his funerary objects
were ) as were the alabaster canopic jars.
His solid gold canopic coffinettes (which are 39 cm. in height )
appeared, re-inscribed, in the tomb of TUT'ANKHAMUN as did one of the gold
shrines (the second outermost) , and "a small box-lid with the picture
of ... Nefernefrure, in a crouching position, [was] part of SMENKHKARE's burial
treasure" . Englebach, referencing Carter , states that "there
is some doubt ... whether the mask was not originally made for Smenkhkare".
The arms of the mummy of SMENKHKARE' were arranged in the attitude of a royal
female: left arm bent on the breast and the right arm alongside the body, and
this has led Aldred  wonder if the embalmers had difficulty telling if they
were dealing with a male or female! His scenario,  that QUEEN TIYE was
buried here and then later removed (leaving her shrine behind when the removal
was still incomplete) appears reasonable, but leaves one wondering why she had
not been interred in the room apparently purpose-built for her in the tomb of
AMUNHOTEP III .
Englebach  supposes that AKHENATEN gave her the shrine (which he
says was made at AKHETATEN) when she visited there in Year 12, she took it back
with her to Thebes, it was stored with her other funereal furniture, not used at
her burial (presumably at her wish?), and finally put to rest (with "other
trivial objects of Tyi's [which] may have been overlooked at Tyi's burial and
found with the shrine") in Tomb 55 when SMENKHKARE' was interred. If so,
and part of Englebach's thesis has to do with the rush to claim the gold of
SMENKHKARE', why wasn't the shrine simply broken up for its gilt? It would
appear that if 1) SMENKHKARE' died at Thebes, and 2) his funerary furniture
(such as had been made in his short reign of three and a bit years) was at
Thebes, then he was certainly not given a proper burial by his eight-year-old
successor TUT'ANKHATEN  -- and this would have happened due to the decisions
of his advisors (read AYE and/or NEFERTITI). In any event, the funerary items of
SMENKHKARE' which later appeared in the tomb of TUT'ANKAMUN were likely never
used for the former's funeral (particularly the canopic coffinettes), and must
be considered to have been officially plundered by the new administration.
There has been speculation  that SMENKHKARE' built a mortuary temple
at Thebes, but there is no evidence of this. However, Martin's observation 
that there were actually two burial suites cut on the same pattern in the Royal
Tomb at AKHET-ATEN opens the possibility that the second one was cut for
Did AYE come back to power at this point after some period of eclipse
following Year 9? Or was he at Thebes during much of this period, and didn't
continue with the work on his tomb (did he suspect that further work on the tomb
would be wasted effort)? What was the court's position during the months of
SMENKHKARE's sole rule? If the position of SMENKHKARE' had been secure due to
the co-regency and his birthright, then TUT'ANKHATEN's position presumably would
have been reasonably secure also -- there being no other male heirs of the
Tuthmosid house. Or were there other claimants?
CONSIDERATION: The Amarna honey jar docket (No. 279) which is marked
both Year 1 and Year 17 . Is it possible that SMENKHKARE' began his
sole-reign with Year 1 to signify a clean break with the previous
administration? The change of his titulary certainly sends that signal. Also
note the docket which reads "Year 1, wine from the estate of Smenkhkare,
deceased"  --it being a fairly safe presumption that this refers to
As part of the preparations for the funeral of TUT'ANKHAMUN (if not done
earlier?), AYE caused the evacuation of all the burials in the Royal Tomb at
AMARNA and their consolidation into various tombs in the necropolis at THEBES.
The decrease in space available for these re-ordered burials allowed some of
their funerary furniture to be altered for use by TUT'ANKHAMUN: "the bulk
of his funerary furniture was requisitioned from that supplied for SMENKHKARE',
who had probably been buried at Thebes, as the reference to his funerary temple
there implies"  of particular note is the box inscribed with the names
of AKHENATEN, SMENKHKARE' ('ANKHKHEPRURE') and MERITATEN  Probably also
requisitioned were the gold statuettes standing on leopards , and possibly
the second golden shrine . However, one could wonder why if SMENKHKARE' was
buried at Thebes would his tomb be opened and his furnishings/remains moved to
different locations? But if he had been buried at Amarna, the breakup of the
royal tomb(s) there would have given a better opportunity. It would also explain
why his pantheistic furnishings, presumably located in Thebes where they were
made, were not used in the Atenist capital. However, he could have been moved to
Thebes for burial (surely not all XVIII Dynasty kings conveniently died at
Thebes) with little trouble, and the fact that he wasn't has to be considered
significant. In any event, the solid gold canopic caskets of SMENKHKARE' were of
the same style as TUT'ANKHAMUN's middle sarcophagus, which also bears
considerable resemblance to the coffin from KV-55 .
The tomb itself is very small and not at all of comparable size or
embellishment of other pharaonic tombs of the 18th Dynasty, and certainly out of
proportion to tombs constructed by Pharaohs who had even less time on the throne
. "Despite the return to the traditional cults after the Amarna schism,
there was no return to the traditional room order in the royal tombs" .
Also found in the tomb was a wooden coffin about 30" long "gilded with
bands of formulae pertaining to guardian divinities and genii of the dead"
and nestled one inside the other were three more coffins, the second of
gesso-gilt wood. Inside this second coffin was a solid gold statuette of
AMUNHOTEP III (which some have identified tentatively in recent years as
AKHENATEN38 ) and a wooden third coffin. Inside of that was a wooden coffin
bearing the titles and name of QUEEN TIYE, and a lock of her hair  -- for
which reason it had "received the prerogative of a royal burial." The
Generalissimo NAKHTMIN  donated five shabtis for the funeral . For the
hurried aspects of the burial of TUT'ANKHAMUN . AYE, pictured as Pharaoh in
the painting in the tomb, performed the obligatory "Opening of the Mouth"
ceremony for TUT'ANKHAMUN, an act which may have in itself served to legitimise
his succession . A wine jar label dated Year 31 was also found in the tomb
- 1 P.E. Newberry, JEA 14 (1928), 3-9.
- 2 Along with this would have come the removal of the royal burials,
and Aldred, Pharaoh (1968), chapter IX, believes that KV-55 was the site of the
reburial of QUEEN TIYE, AKHENATEN and SMENKHKARE', that the tomb was opened in
Ramesside times, and at that point QUEEN TIYE was removed to the tomb of
AMUNHOTEP III, the burial of AKHENATEN was destroyed, and that of SMENKHKARE'
was desecrated. The heavy sarcophagi at the Amarna Royal Tomb were left behind
at the time of the removal to be smashed later under the Ramessides (CAH II, 2
, p. 68).
- 3 Aldred, King (London, 1988), 296. Further, "it is unlikely
that any dockets from el-'Amarna postdate the third or fourth year of
Tut'ankhamun" (Harris, JEA 54 , 95).
- 4 JEA 53 (1967), 180.
- 5 "from at least the time of Tuthmosis III, Thebes was not the
'permanent' or 'main residence' of the Pharaohs, but Memphis" (Kitchen, CdE
43 (1968), 316).
- 6 Kitchen, CdE 43 (1968), 317. Samson, Nefertiti and Cleopatra
(London, 1990), 23, perpetuates this "myth" when she says that
Tut'ankhamun "returned to Thebes from Amarna...."
- 7 Aldred,King (London, 1988), 292.
- 8 Aldred, CAH II, 2 (1975), 64 n. 6: "it should be noted,
however, that she is not given a queen's titles; nor is her name enclosed in a
cartouche like Merytaten's, which could suggest that she filled a subsidiary
role while her elder sister was still chief queen".
- 9 Aldred, King, 292. Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies (1977),
179, says that "taken cumulatively the evidence may indicate that Akhenaten
died during SMENKHKARE''s second year...."
- 10 Harrison, JEA 52 (1966), 111.
- 11 Aldred, JEA 47 (1961), 52. Some scholars, Samson (Nefertiti and
Cleopatra [London, 1990], 94) being a notable example, continue to refuse to
admit anything at all about this mummy including its sex: "the only factual
evidence registered by the excavators was that the body was laid out like a
woman, with one arm across the chest and the other by the side, instead of both
being folded across the chest like a king." This statement completely
avoids the point that this has been classified as one of the worst excavations
in the history of modern Egyptology, so the fact that the report of this find
did not reach a conclusion about the remains being of a male or female hardly
has any bearing on the considerable study that has been done on the mummy in the
- 12 Aldred, JEA 47 (1961), 57 n. 4.
- 13 Carter, Tomb II, 84-5, pl. xxvii, b.
- 14 But he never used his gold canopic cofinettes, and it is likely
that his viscera were initially installed in the canopic jars (KIYA's?) where
they were ultimately found.
- 15 Fairman, JEA 47 (1961), 31-39. Fairman, however, declines the
possible nomination of KIA as the original owner of the coffin primarily due to
space considerations comparing how the names of NEFERTITI were supplanted by
those of MERITATEN at Amarna, an argument which holds less interest now that it
is known that it was KIA's names which were replaced, at least on the sunshade
of the MARU-ATEN [the names of NEFERTITI were removed in numerous places
elsewhere, howeversee Pendlebury, JEA 17 (1931), 243; Griffith, JEA 17
(1931), 183; Pendlebury, JEA 19 (1933), 116-7; Samson, JEA 57 (1971), 222].
Further, Fairman suggests that the body of MERITATEN may have been removed from
the coffin, the text changes made, and the body of SMENKHKARE' insertedall
done by AYE because the equipment for the burial of TUTANKHAMUN was incomplete
at the time of his death (p. 39). But, having suggested this, Fairman rejects
Englebach's original proposal that the second gold shrine of TUT'ANKHAMUN was
originally made for SMENKHKARE'. If so, then did they dump MERITATEN's mummy
somewhere, and what happened to the royal coffin originally made for
SMENKHKARE'? Seele, JNES 14 (1955), 173 n. 40, advances MEKETATEN as the
coffin's original owner. Aldred, JEA 47 (1961], 47, deftly refutes this and (pp.
41-9) advances the view that the coffin (and its matching set of alabaster
canopic jars) were originally made for MERITATEN as a princess in the earlier
period of the reign of AKHENATEN (as the word "ma'at" is spelled with
the determinative of the goddess MA'AT rather than phonetically). As the
queen/wife of SMENKHKARE', a new set of full-sized (the one used may have been "the
second coffin of the princess as an infant" [p. 48]MERITATEN would
have been about seven when the linguistic changes came about Year 9) furnishings
would have been made for her to reflect her new status, and the one finally
found in KV-55 would have been put into storage unused. Though the coffin dates
from the early years of AKHENATEN's reign ("certainly before his regnal
year 9" [Aldred, JEA 47 (1961), 48]), "a gilded bronze uraeus engraved
with the late form of the name of the Aten was fixed to the brow" of the
coffin (Ibid. 49)[the sentence about the gold uraeus has since been
refuted]. Also, Aldred queries whether "the cartouches were left intact
bearing the prenomen of Akhenaten, or whether they too were cleared out and
refilled with the name of SMENKHKARE'" (Ibid.) but says that this was "a
proper interment and not a makeshift arrangement until more adequate provisions
could be made (Ibid. 58). See pages 57-58 for a full description of the burial.
Regarding the body, however, Aldred (at least as late as JEA 47 , 53)
still held that it was that of AKHENATEN. Englebach, ASAE 40 (1940), 151-2,
while admitting that he was unsure of much relating to this burial, was sure of
two things: 1) "the coffin was undoubtedly begun for a non-royal woman and
adapted for use by a king. The canopic jars give absolute proof that they were
made for a non-royal person and somewhat clumsily converted for use by someone
who was royal", and 2) the body "must be SMENKHKARE'; there is no
- 16 Englebach, ASAE 31 (1931), 112-3. Most unlikely is the thought
that "there is no reason to believe that the coffin ever belonged, or was
ever intended to belong, to anyone other than Akhenaten" (Gardiner, JEA 43
, 22)an opinion he later changed (see JEA 45 , 107-8). Were
this to be the case, then we are asked to accept that AKHENATEN never used his
coffinand it is unlikely in extremis that whomever might be presumed to
have succeeded him (SMENKHKARE', or TUT'ANKHATEN under the regency of either
NEFERTITI or AYE) would not have accorded him a proper burial even to the
dictates of his own rites. Gardiner does, however, conclude that the coffin was
tailored for SMENKHKARE''s final use (to trace Gardiner's logic: NEFERTITI took
the place of ISIS on the footplate of a coffin built for AKHENATEN. When she was
disgraced or died, SMENKHKARE' had the coffin revised, but ended up in it
himself). See 23-4 for Gardiner's reconstruction of the events.
- 17 Aldred, JEA 47 (1961), 44.
- 18 Englebach, ASAE 40 (1940), 137, points out that the usurpation of
these coffinettes was done "sometimes in so slovenly a manner that the name
of Smenkhkere', called 'Ankh-khepru-re' Mer-en-wa'en-re' Nefer-nefru-Aten (+
epithet?) can be distinctly traced". Although Englebach notes that due to
the anthropomorphic deities represented hereon "they cannot have been made
under the Atenistic regime at El-'Amarna must have been made at Thebes",
he doesn't point out that (due to the reference to Waenre') they were definitely
made during the co-regency, not after. Regarding the second outermost shrine,
Englebach says that "a close examination ... reveals the fact that in the
inside and front ... every cartouche, which originally must have been of
Smenkhkere', has been changed to that of Tut'ankhamun" (p. 138).
- 19 Desroches-Noblecourt, Tutankhamen (Boston, 1963), 135.
- 20 Per Englebach, ASAE 40 (1940), 135 n. 7, who references: "Carter,
The Tomb of Tut-ankh-amen, II, Pl. LXXIII. ... (see footnote 1. p. 139)".
This may be a spurious footnote, and not refer to Carter but to Englebach's own
articlethat note reading simply "there is no trace of usurpation on
Tut'ankhamun's gold coffin".
- 21 Find reference!! This remark must have been made facitiously.
- 22 Aldred, JEA 47 (1961), 55-6, and see 56-60 for his proposed
reconstruction of the events surrounding KV55 (which, with the exception of his
then-insistence that AKHENATEN was buried therein, appear very sound).
- 23 Hayes, Royal Sarcophagi (XXXX), 29. The only logical reason
appears to be that she was first interred at AKHETATEN in the burial equipment
made for her by AKHENATEN (but what happened to the equipment which must have
been made for her during the 39-year reign of AMUNHOTEP III?). She was later
moved to KV55, then (possibly) to the tomb of AMUNHOTEP III, and finally to the
cache of queens found in the tomb of AMUNHOTEP II. Cf. Aldred, JEA 47 (1961),
- 24 ASAE 40 (1940), 137 and 139.
- 25 According to Desroches-Noblecourt, Tutankhamen (1976), 284, "At
Karnak, ... there was ... a commemorative monument ... of Tutankamen wearing the
leopard-skin and standing before the god Amun in the attitude of a sovereign who
had just buried his father according to the funerary ritual", and this
statue was savagely destroyed upon the orders of HOREMHEB.
- 26 CITATION? Mortuary temple re Pere Graffito.
- 27 RT VII (1989), II, p. 50.
- 28 Martin says that it "was almost certainly intended for a
sovereign or consort. The obvious candidate is Nefertiti...," a suggestion
eagerly accepted by Samson, Nefertiti and Cleopatra (London, 1990), 92. She also
quotes the Illustrated London News for September 1981 to the effect that Martin
"suggests that this second big tomb was begun for Nefertiti perhaps late in
the reign when she was accorded 'additional status as Regent' (to Tutankhamen)
'or even sovereign'" (p. 93). In fact, Martin specifies in his scholarly
publication of the tomb that "there is no evidence to indicate when during
the reign of Akhenaten the work on this second Royal Tomb was started" and "no
evidence remains to prove that she was interred here" (p. 50 and 50 n. 5).
There is, however slender, a thread of evidence that the main room was hastily
gotten ready for a burial (pp. 49-50). SMENKHKARE'was likely buried somewhere
before being moved to KV-55, and this is a possibility IMPLICATIONS!
- 29 See Aldred, King, 293. Regarding docket No. 279 see COA III,
158-9. Seele, JNES 14 (1955), 172, believes that this graffito refers to AK-17 =
S-1 and the first year of the co-regency. Cf. Giles, Ikhnaton (1970), 97. But
more interestingly is why would a honey jar which was already filled (during
Year 17) be re-docketed? It would appear more likely that it this was a record
of the jar's re-use, or less likely that it had been docketed and not yet
filled. By the time it was filled (or re-filled), it was then Year 1 and had to
be re-docketed. Thus Year 17 does not necessarily equal Year 1 (of whichever
Pharaoh, SMENKHKARE' or TUT'ANKHAMUN).
- 30 Giles, Ikhnaton (1970), 101. Note that the SMENKHKARE' name is
being used. This, apparently, is not the same docket which Cerny discusses in
JEA 50 (1964), 38, as Giles cites COA III, 164, No. 8, pl. LXXXVI, 35. By what
name is Pharaoh known after his death?
- 31 Aldred, King (London, 1988), 300.
- 32 Newberry, JEA 14 (1928), 4-5. The 'nk-hprw-R' mry(y) Nfr-hprw-R'
// Nfr-nfrw-itn mry w'-n-R' form is used, and the entire inscription is
translated in Giles, Ikhnaton (1970), 89.
- 33 Edwards, Tutankhamun: His Tomb and its Treasure (1976), No. 28.
- 34 Englebach, ASAE 40 (1940), 137. Also see infra, S-4.
- 35 As noted by Englebach, ASAE 31 (1931), 98, as well as Gardiner,
JEA 43 (1957), 15, the uraeus on the brow of the KV-55 coffin "bore the
name of the Aten in its later form". However, according to Reeves, JEA 67
(1981), 50 n. 6, "the coffin uraeus does not bear a cartouche. The
inscribed uraeus in Davis, pl. ii, is a separate item, probably originally from
a statue" -- but Reeves cites no reasons for saying this.
- 36 Englebach, ASAE 40 (1940), 136, examples given being RAMSES I,
SETNAKHT and SIPTAH. He believes, with some justification, that it is "almost
proof positive that the tomb in which Tut'ankhamun was found was not made for
him" and that he was buried "in the tomb that had been designated for
Eye during the nine years he had been all-powerful at Thebes". When
TUT'ANKHAMUN died, presumably, his tomb had been cut out to its full length and
his sarcophagus and lid were roughed outthese being the very minimum that
he would have insured had been accomplished amongst his construction projects.
Englebach (p. 141) presumes, however, that AYE gave TUT'ANKHAMUN is own Valley
of the Kings tomb because the young Pharaoh's wasn't completely cutwhich
is why the shrines did not quite fit the burial chamber and had to be adapted so
roughly. His suggestion that the sarcophagus lid in the tomb of TUT'ANKHAMUN was
that originally matched to the sarcophagus in the W.V. tomb has been shown to be
groundless with the discovery of its lid in the W.V. tomb. There was, however,
carpenter error also as the sarcophagus in TUT'ANKHAMUN's tomb was not long
enough inside to accommodate the outermost coffin (p. 142).
- 37 Schaden, JARCE 21 (1984), 40 n. 8.
- 38 Edwards, Treasures of Tutankhamun (1973), 46.
- 39 Carter & Mace, The Tomb of Tut-Ankh-Amen III, 86-88 & pl.
XXV. Harris, Science 202 (June 1978), 1151, reports the identification, through
this locket of hair, of the mummy of QUEEN TIYE (indicated to have died "in
her forties" [p. 1149-50]), which had been re-wrapped by priests in the
Twenty-first Dynasty and cached in the tomb of AMUNHOTEP II. How did the lock
come to be in the tomb of TUT'ANKHANUM some sixteen years after her death?
Surely the Queen Mother didn't cut the lock herself and say, "Please keep
this safe until my step-son Tut'ankhaten dies." Either it was a family
keepsake being buried with the last male of the line (which does not necessarily
imply that TIYE was a blood relation of the boy-king), or it was cut from QUEEN
TIYE's mummy which was conceivably moved from (or into?) KV-55 at this time
(which would be a stronger clue that she was a blood relationmainly
because the act would have been so deliberate).
- 40 Fakhry, ASAE 35 (1935), 52-61, recorded the tomb at Nag'Bog (about
35 km s. of Philae in Nubia) of a NAHKTMIN who was "high steward to the
queen", the tomb (specifically stated as being in his hometown) was quite
elaborate and decorated in parts "in a style which reminds us of the
'Amarna style" (p. 59) and which Fakhry dates "most probably between
the end of the eighteenth dynasty and the first half of the twentieth" (p.
53) -- with his preference appearing to be around the time of AMUNHOTEP III (p.
57). No wife is pictured and the deceased appears in a number of scenes with his
mother, who is named as MERGER (probably a scribal error for MERESEGER) (p. 59).
- 41 Dodson, JEA 76 (1990), 95.
- 42 Seele, JNES 14 (1955), 179.
- 43 Dodson, JEA 76 (1990), 90. See note in AM-31.
- 44 Harris, JEA 54 (1968), 96.