1

Jacquelyn Williamson ACLS/Mellon New Faculty Fellow and Lecturer

UC Berkeley

Hieroglyphic Inscriptions from Kom el-Nana: Finding the rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn and Reconstructing the Titles in the Sunshade Temple Complex

At the site of Tell el-Amarna, scholars have identified the locations of some of Akhenaten’s structures by correlating the foundation texts on the Boundary Stelae with the site’s archaeological remains. From mid-1980 though the 1990s, Barry Kemp and the Egypt Exploration Society excavated Kom el-Nana, in the southern suburb of the ancient city. By correlating Kom el-Nana’s archaeological evidence with the Boundary Stelae, Kemp suggested in 1995 that Kom el-Nana was the Sunshade Temple of Nefertiti, but this assignment remained tentative. In 2008, I ultimately proved that a sunshade temple was located at Kom el-Nana by reconstructing several fragments of inscription from the site that preserved the name « sunshade temple of Re».1 The Boundary Stelae do not list all of the buildings erected at Akhetaten. Inscriptions found on items discovered insitu have identified some structures, but many sites lack firm identification. Unidentified sites can be understood as buildings lacking explicit inscriptions, such as the northern desert altars, or they can be structures mentioned in inscriptions without provenance. For example, hieratic dockets or fragmentary mentions on stone inscriptions can refer to structures not yet located at the ancient city, such as the Sunshade temple of Tiye or the Mnevis Bull cemetery. The epigraphic evidence for another structure not preserved on the Boundary Stelae, called the rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn, proved the existence of another « lost» structure on the Amarna plain. This article is written to review the evidence for this structure and to argue that newly examined material from Kom el-Nana indicates that the rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn was located there. Combining these findings with supporting epigraphic and archaeological evidence allows portions of the title of the temple at Kom el-Nana to be reconstructed by incorporating an essential element of the site: the rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn. The best-known mention of the sunshade temple of the royal wife is on the Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten.2 It is mentioned in association with the « Earlier Proclamation» on the first set of Boundary Stelae—K, M, and X—where Akhenaten reveals his plans for building the city Akhetaten.3 The proclamation describes Akhenaten’s intention to build three separate buildings:

1 B.J. KEMP, «Outlying Temples at Amarna », AmRep VI, 1995, p. 411-462; J. WILLIAMSON, « The Sunshade of Nefertiti. » EgArch 33, 2008, p. 5-7. Also note that the author’s forthcoming book, TBA, will focus on reconstructions and further analysis of the sunshade temple. 2 It should be noted that Nefertiti is not mentioned by name on the boundary stelae or on the docket from Tell el-Amarna 24/114. However it is likely these inscriptions refer to her. For a review of the inscriptional evidence from Amarna: H.W. FAIRMAN, «The Inscriptions» in J.D.S. PENDELBURY, et al. The City of Akhenaten III, Vol. 1, EES, London, 1951 p. 201-202, noting in particular hieratic docket (e): 24/114. 3 N. de G. DAVIES, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna Part V, London, 1908, p. 28-31; H. W. FAIRMAN, «Topographic Notes on the Central City, Tell El-Amarnah», JEA 21, 1935, p. 136-7; W.J. MURNANE,

2

ỉr.ỉ4 pr ỉtn n pȝ ỉtn pȝy.ỉ it m ȝḫt itn m tȝy [st] ỉr.ỉ tȝ ḥwt pȝ ỉtn n pȝ ỉtn pȝy.ỉ ỉt m ȝḫt ỉtn m tȝy st ỉr.ỉ tȝ šwt rʿ [n]ḥmt [nsw]n pȝ ỉ[t]n n pȝy.ỉ ỉ[t] m tȝy st5

« I will make a6 House of the Aten for the Aten my father in the Horizon of the Aten in this place I will make the Mansion of the Aten for the Aten my father in the Horizon of the Aten in this place I will make the Sunshade of Re (for) the (royal) wife for my father the Aten in the Horizon7 in this place»8: The first two buildings listed are the Great and Small Aten temples in the central city and the third is the Sunshade of Re of the Great Royal Wife (Nefertiti).9

First will be discussed the evidence that indicates a sunshade temple was located at Kom el-Nana. Two inscribed fragments from Kom el-Nana preserve the words « sunshade of Re.» Block s-2570, figure 1, preserves part of the head of a royal woman and bears a fragmentary inscription, a portion of which is restored, reading šwt rʿ.

Figure 1 s-2570 The long upright of the fan is preserved in the viewer’s right column, which is over the sun hieroglyph and a logographic stroke. On this fragment, the vertical stroke next to the CH.C VAN SICLEN III, The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten, London, 1993, 40, 171-2; B.J. KEMP, «Outlying Temples at Amarna». AmRep VI, 1995, p. 411-462. 4 Initial prospective sdm.f J. ČERNY, S. I. GROLL, C. EYRE, A Late Egyptian Grammar, Rome, 1978, 4th ed., 1993, p. 329-334; F. JUNGE, Late Egyptian Grammar: An Introduction D. Warburton transl., Oxford, 2001, p. 141-144. 5 Transliteration after the collation of the three stelae in W.J. MURNANE, CH.C VAN SICLEN III, The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten, London, 1993, p. 24-25. 6 Ibid., p. 40. Murnane translates as « the House of the Aten. » However, it includes neither a definite nor indefinite article, as occurs in the next phrase introducing the ˙wt itn. I choose to use an indefinite article to indicate the difference between the two phrases here. 7 ibid.,40. Murnane translates as « the Horizon of the Aten. » However n pȝ itn is not present in either stelae K or X, the two stelae of the three that use this line. 8 Author’s translation. 9 Although she is not mentioned by name, the titles are clear.

3

pr hieroglyph extends too far beyond the upper boundary of that sign to have been a logographic stroke. The boundary of the column can be seen through the positioning of the final m, which would have marked the approximate width of the vertical signs above it. This indicates the vertical stroke had to be associated with a long and thin hieroglyph. The remaining space adjacent to that sign allows the inclusion of the t.10 This proves a Sunshade complex was located at Kom el-Nana. Directly below the inscription, the figure of Queen Nefertiti, identified by the single uraeus, indirectly suggests the original owner of the site.11 As this epigraphic evidence is not definitive in connecting the site by itself to the royal wife, the archaeological context of the site, as reviewed by Kemp, indicates Kom el-Nana is the same structure mentioned on the Boundary stelae.12 Also Nefertiti herself is depicted frequently in the art at Kom el-Nana, which makes this identification the most plausible solution.13 A second inscription on fragment s-2640, figure 2 reinforces the assertion that a sunshade was located at Kom el-Nana. Part of a sun disk is located to the right, with two fragmentary columns of inscription to the left.

10 Boundary Stelae K and X write šwt rʿ as or respectively. Stela K is more typical of the writing of the word in the Amarna period as it does not use the house determinative. The other inscriptions from Akhetaten that mention a šwt rʿ are uniform in their omission of this sign despite a variety of other arrangements of the hieroglyphs, as can be seen in P. SPENCER, The Egyptian Temple: A Lexicographical Study, London, 1984, p. 119-124. Only Boundary Stela X and this inscription use this sign. cf . W.J. MURNANE, CH.C VAN SICLEN III, The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten, London, 1993, p. 24-25. 11 Although she frequently wears the double uraeus in the Karnak talatat, the single uraeus is more frequently used in Nefertiti’s iconography while at Amarna. The iconography of Kiya did not include the uraeus. M. EATON-KRAUSS, « Miscellanea Amarnensia », ChronEg LVI, Fasc. 112, 1981, p. 245-364. Also note the representations of Tiye in the Tomb of Huya, where only Nefertiti is represented with a single uraeus; Tiye is shown with either a double uraeus or a Hathoric crown. N. de G. DAVIES, The Rock Tombs of el-Amarna, III London, 1905, pl. IV,VI, VIII. It should be observed that royal men wear the Nubian wig on occasion but examples are scarce, so it is much more likely this is Nefertiti than Akhenaten for example. Also, the archaeological evidence combined with this inscription makes a compelling case for this being the sunshade of Nefertiti. J. WILLIAMSON, « The Sunshade of Nefertiti. » EgArch 33, 2008, p. 5-7; B.J. KEMP, «Outlying Temples at Amarna». AmRep VI, 1995, p. 411-462. 12 B.J. KEMP, «Outlying Temples at Amarna». AmRep VI, 1995, p. 411-462. 13 The archaeological evidence from el-Mangara does not support it, but from a purely epigraphic standpoint el-Mangara should not be completely ruled out as a contender for this identification. Note, for example: Kestner Museum Hannover 1964.3, Museum of Fine Arts Boston 64.1944, Genève inv. 27804 and the talatat in the Thalassic collection. J.-L. CHAPPAZ, « Amenhotep IV à Karnak » in Akhénaton et l'époque amarnienne, Paris, 2005, p.65-83. Fig. 7-8; R. FREED, et al., Pharaohs of the Sun: Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Tutankhamen, Boston, 1999, p. 103, 231, figure 68, cat. no. 89, 90. D. ARNOLD, The Royal Women of Amarna: Images of Beauty from Ancient Egypt, New York, 1996, p. 23, fig. 14; J.D.S. PENDLEBURY, et al. The City of Akhenaten III, Vol. 1, London, 1951, p. 57, 70, 79.; J.D.S. PENDLEBURY, et al. The City of Akhenaten III Plates, London, 1951, pls. XLI 2,3 and LXVIII 3,4.

4

Figure 2 s-2640 As is often the case for carvings from Kom el-Nana, an unskillful sculptor executed the signs imprecisely. Reading the hieroglyphs becomes less laborious if we recognize that the sculptor departed stylistically from traditional methods of carving in rigidly straight lines. The upper « fan» of the šw is partially preserved in the lower half of the left column. The remaining space below this sign provides the needed area for the « pole,» with space for only a thin, upright, hieroglyph. The elements beside the proposed šw are more enigmatic. The first sign could be read as either a half-circle bread loaf t or a circular r, but raking light indicates no lower curve, so it appears to be a t. In the second vertical column next to the sun disc, the sign n in the word itn is carved in a similar slipshod fashion to the postulated t. If the context were less clear, the sign could even be mistaken for the canal, or mr, sign. The rectangular sign in the first vertical column is to be read as pr. The rectangular sign in the first vertical column is to be read as pr. Here, it is being used as a determinative similar to the morphology used on block s- 2570 figure 1, to write the words šwt rʿ.14Again this haphazard carving is characteristic of the majority of the stone relief preserved from the site of Kom el-Nana. After examining s-2570 in figure 1, Dr. Mark Gabolde kindly shared his thoughts with me regarding the remainder of the inscription. He suggested the traces in the second column preserved evidence for a second structure called the rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn. This structure is mentioned in the Tomb of Ay as well as on several talatat and hieratic dockets, listed below.15 I am also indebted to Dr. Jean-Luc Chappaz, who further assisted in compiling inscriptional comparanda for this structure. Below is the evidence for an rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn, which, as stated above, was known only through these inscriptions:

14 Additional fragments preserved from the site show evidence for šwt rʿ, but they are more fragmentary and less illustrative than these two objects. 15 I am grateful to Dr. Gabolde for the assistance and information he provided regarding evidence he has compiled on this building as well as for his sage observations in the early draft of this article.

5

1. Two Hieratic Dockets from the British Museum: BM 58890 and 59884.16 2. A talatat discovered at Assiyut, likely from Kom el-Nana originally.17 3. Block discovered at Abydos, also likely from Kom el-Nana originally.18 4. Fragments supposed to belong to the sarcophagus of Akhenaten.19 5. A talatat allegedly from Hermopolis, also likely from Kom el-Nana.20 6. A block from the Musées d’art et d’histoire, Geneva, inv. 22011, likely from

Kom el-Nana.21 7. The Tomb of Ay at Tell el-Amarna.22

The structure’s title is difficult to render in translation, as rwd could either be the subject or the predicate.23 The highest profile mentions of the site derives from the Tomb of Ay and the supposed sarcophagus of Akhenaten, but all of these items mention the rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn as a specific place, some in association with economic transactions. However, its location within the ancient city was unknown until s-2570 was published and the second half of the inscription was discovered as containing remnants of the name rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn; see figure 3.24

16 H.W. FAIRMAN, «The Inscriptions» in J.D.S. PENDLEBURY, et al. The City of Akhenaten III, Vol. 1, EES London, 1951, p. 192, n. 5. 17 S. GABRA, « Un temple d’Aménophis VI à Assiout », ChronEg, VI/12, 1931, p. 238- 239, fig. 3. 18 W.K. SIMPSON, D. O’CONNOR, Inscribed Material from the Pennsylvania-Yale Excavations at Abydos, New Haven, 1995, p. 76-77, no. NK 41, fig. 135, pl. 23, no. 23c. 19 Due to the curved cross section of the fragment in question, no. 346, Marc Gabolde has suggested it derives from a balustrade originally from the central city rather than the sarcophagus. G.T. MARTIN, The Royal Tomb at el-Amarna I: Objects, London, 1974, pl. 13, no. 346. Also possibly associated: Nos. 624, 656, plates 13, 14. 20G. ROEDER and R. HANKE, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis, Hildesheim, 1969, pl. 200, pc 167. 21 J.-L. CHAPPAZ, « Amenhotep IV à Karnak » in Akhénaton et l'époque amarnienne, Paris, 2005, p.65, fig. 1. 22 N. de G. DAVIES, The Rock Tombs of el-Amarna VI, London, 1908, p 35, pl. XXXIII, lines MID. 23 A. ERMAN, H. GRAPOW, Wörterbuch der Agyptischen Sprache, II, Berlin, 1971, p. 412, ln.10: Strong (of a building). 24 J. WILLIAMSON, « The Sunshade of Nefertiti. » EgArch 33, 2008, p. 5-7; B.J. KEMP, «Outlying Temples at Amarna». AmRep VI, 1995, p. 411-462.

6

Figure 3 s-2570 reconstruction25 This inscription is certainly not the better-known Amarna-period building title rwd mnw ỉtn; the title is more fully preserved on the fragment in figure 4.

Figure 4 Ashmunein Fragment no. 58 In the 1960s, the local inspector Osiris Gabriel conducted a series of test excavations in the southern half of the Amarna enclosure at Kom el-Nana. In 2008, I relocated the material he had excavated, which had been moved into the main talatat magazine at the site of Ashmunein. With Gabriel’s notes, I photographed and cross-referenced the 263 fragments from his excavations. Number 58 from this corpus of material is in figure 4. The full title of the rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn is clearly preserved and demonstrates that it is not the rwd mnw ỉtn.26 These items of evidence show that both an rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn and a šwt rʿ were located at Kom el-Nana. As a rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn is mentioned infrequently at Tell el-Amarna, probably only one area had that name and it was at Kom el-Nana, specifically as part of the complex of the sunshade temple of Nefertiti. The relationship between these two structures was significant. Figure 3 demonstrates how closely related both the words rwd ʿnḫw and šwt rʿ are in the inscription. The m placed after šwt r suggests a prepositional relationship to the rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn to read more fully tȝ šwt rʿ m rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn.27

25 The plural is rendered here as an due to the precedent set by the other examples mentioned above where this word’s morphology is rendered without the more usual papyrus roll and three plural strokes. 26 Several other fragments preserve further evidence for this structure: s-708 and Ashmunein Fragments 171, 175, and possibly 70. Note that Gabriel’s notes were not fully available at the time of cataloging, so his original numbers were later cross-referenced with my own, which I use in this article. 27 This reconstruction assumes a short height for these two vertical columns of inscription on s-2570. Although it is the most logical use of space, nevertheless, future evidence may nuance this conclusion.

7

The use of the preposition m departs from the method used in most archaeological inscriptions that generally mention a šwt rʿ. Whether the queen or someone else owned the structure, a šwt rʿ is more typically followed instead by a genitival n and the name of the owner. This can be seen on Ashmolean 1922.141: tȝ šwt rʿ n sȝt nsw mr.t-itn or « the sunshade of re of the king’s daughter Meritaten.» That is not the case on s-2570, where a preposition follows tȝ šwt rʿ. A translation suggested for tȝ šwt rʿ m rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn could be « the sunshade of re in the rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn» which recalls the conventional understanding of the title of the sunshade of the princess Meritaten, more commonly called the « Maru Aten». The academic literature dubs the sunshade of Meritaten the Maru Aten because of the inscription on Ashmolean 1922.141.28 Her sunshade’s full title is written: tȝ šwt rʿ n sȝt nsw mr.t-itn m pȝ mȝrw ỉtn, which is conventionally translated as « the sunshade of re of the King’s daughter, Meritaten, in the Maru Aten.» Although not an exact match for the text on s-2570, the similarity appears obvious. Both texts imply the sunshade is located in m, another structure. This follows the pattern laid out by epigraphic evidence preserved on other blocks that mention another sunshade in relationship to a different structure, in particular the blocks that depict Akhenaten as a sphinx and mention the ḳd f ȝḫt n ỉtn.29 On the Museum of Fine Arts Boston 64.1944 for example the titles and cartouches of both Akhenaten and the Aten are followed by ḥr(y)-ỉb tȝ šwt rʿ ḳd f ȝḫt n ỉtn m ȝḫt ỉtn. However on two items from Abydos, a different pattern emerges when the šwt rʿ is not discussed: ḥr(y)-ỉb ḳd f ȝḫt (n ỉtn).30 In short, if one structure is discussed ḥr(y)-ỉb is followed by the place name, followed by m and the name of the relevant royal family member. If more than one structure is discussed the pattern usually followed is an initial ḥr(y)-ỉb followed by a series of buildings linked by the preposition m. Using this model blocks s-2640 and Ashmunein 58 can be proposed to appear as in figure 5. In 5a s-2640 mentions the sunshade temple, and in 5b Ashmunein 58 does not, but they may have consisted of the same basic elements.

28 T. E. PEET, C.L. WOOLEY, The City of Akhenaten I, London, 1923, pl. XXXIV, nos. 1-2. 29 I am again grateful to M. Gabolde for reminding me of this format, suggesting the final reconstructions proposed in figure 5. Kestner Museum Hannover 1964.3, Museum of Fine Arts Boston 64.1944, Genève inv. 27804 and the other so called sphinx block in the Thalassic collection. J.-L. CHAPPAZ, « Amenhotep IV à Karnak » in Akhénaton et l'époque amarnienne, Paris, 2005, p.65-83. Fig. 7-8; R. FREED, et al., Pharaohs of the Sun: Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Tutankhamen, Boston, 1999, p. 103, 231, figure 68, cat. no. 89, 90. Similar blocks may be found in: D. ARNOLD, The Royal Women of Amarna: Images of Beauty from Ancient Egypt, New York, 1996, p. 23, fig. 14; J.D.S. PENDLEBURY, et al. The City of Akhenaten III, Vol. 1, London, 1951, p. 57, 70, 79.; J.D.S. PENDLEBURY, et al. The City of Akhenaten III Plates, London, 1951, pls. XLI 2,3 and LXVIII 3,4. 30 W.K. SIMPSON, D. O’CONNOR, Inscribed Material from the Pennsylvania-Yale Excavations at Abydos, New Haven, 1995, p. 76-77, NK 42, NK 43, fig. 136, 137.

8

Figure 5 A and B Conclusions and Observations: At this time it appears we can confidently state that, like the sunshade of Meritaten, which is m the Maru Aten, so can we say that the sunshade temple at Kom el-Nana is also m the rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn. This inscription and the division between the two areas at Kom el-Nana also explain why the sunshade and the rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn are not mentioned in association with each other except at the site. For example, on the Boundary Stelae the sunshade is not mentioned with the rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn. And similarly, the rwd ʿnḫw ỉtn is not mentioned in association with the sunshade in any of the examples listed above. This suggests that the occupants of

9

Amarna understood them as distinct entities, and thus rarely referred to them at the same time. Evidence from both sunshade complexes indicates that these regions were periodically refurbished.31 Possibly they were constructed at different times and underwent several changes to their ground plans. Based on this, we may postulate that Akhenaten had not yet selected a location for the sun temple of Nefertiti when he first commissioned the Boundary Stelae. He may have omitted the full title and location of the structure on the Stelae because he had not yet finished the final plans.

31 B.J. KEMP, «Outlying Temples at Amarna». AmRep VI, 1995, p. 411-462.