The Amarna Triad

Home , Hemhem crown, Huya (noble), Kiya, Meryre, Panehesy

THE AMARNA TRIAD

[PLANCHES I-IV/CAHIER COUL. PL. 1]

CHRISTIAN J. BAYER & MARIANNE EATON-KRAUSS Institut für Ägyptologie und Koptologie – Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster Schlaunstr. 2 48143 MÜNSTER / Riehlstr. 2 14057 BERLIN

On December 11, 1932, the limestone block illustrated in figure 1 (pl. I) was recorded by the Egypt Exploration Society mission to Tell el-Amarna.1 It did not elicit much attention, perhaps not only because the surface with the figures was severely damaged; it may well have already been broken in two. In the published excavation report there is no illustration, only a terse description in the list of objects recovered from the Great Aten Temple.2 The find-spot is not specified beyond simply the Per-hai – described by the archaeologists as two gigantic platforms, each provided with a double row of four columns, within an enclosure in the precinct of the Great Aten Temple.3 The dimensions of the block given in the excavation report – 50 by 25 cm – are clearly approximate, but they conform to the standard size of the talatat employed in the construction of temples at Tell el-Amarna, which were also approximately 25 cm thick. From the photograph it is clear that the figures on the surface which we shall designate the obverse were worked in sunk relief. There can be little doubt that the frieze and inscription on the other side were also executed in sunk relief, even though no photograph was apparently made of it, nor did the excavators comment on the technique. Not only were such blocks seldom decorated with raised relief;4 similar friezes at Amarna (see immediately below) are all decorated in sunk relief. The present whereabouts of the block are not known. The summary description of the relief in the publication is not supplemented by citation of a city to which it was alloc- ated following the excavations, nor is the block mentioned in the distribution list.5 If, because of its poor state of preservation, the block was left on site and thus exposed to

1 This block and key thoughts on its potential subject-matter were first brought to our attention by Nicholas Reeves who generously ceded his prior publication rights to us. 2 CoA III, p. 18 (find no. 32/50). 3 CoA III, p. 14; plans on pls. III and IV. 4 G. Roeder, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis, 1969, p. 20; cf. the comment made in passing by J.D. Cooney, Amarna Reliefs from Hermopolis in American Collections, 1965, p. 96. 5 CoA III, p. 253-254.

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 21 23/01/13 11:48 22 CHR. J. BAYER & M. EATON-KRAUSS

the elements, it may well have salted away to nothing in the interim.6 It is unlikely that it ended up in the storage facility of the Supreme Council of Antiquities at Ashmunein which is now known from press reports7 and from the latest television ‘documentary’ dealing with Tutankhamun’s ancestry,8 to house a number of blocks from Tell el-Amarna, excavated by the German expedition to Hermopolis in the 1930s, but lost track of in the interim.9 However, until such time as an inventory of the facility’s contents is accessible, this poss- ibility cannot be categorically ruled out. The design across the top on the reverse is summarily rendered in the sketch made at the time of excavation (pl. I, fig. 2), but it is nonetheless recognizable as a tripartite frieze of lotus leaves, bordered above and below by a series of alternating lotus blossoms and buds. The motif will have been schematically rendered in the original, as comparison with several examples of the same kind of frieze on blocks from Hermopolis, illustrated by Roeder,10 suggests. The tops of five columns of hieroglyphs below the frieze preserve elements of the easily reconstructed, standard text identifying the Aten, familiar from countless examples, which read: Great living Aten who is in jubilee lord of all that Aten encircles, lord of heaven, lord of earth who is in the house of Aten in Akhet-Aten. The orientation of the signs is congruent with the remains of the disc itself, preserved at the right hand edge of the block. The indication of the break running vertically through the text to the right of center in the sketch of the reverse is difficult to reconcile with the position of the break to the right of center on the obverse, unless it is presumed that the block had been snapped in two not straight across, but diagonally.11 When this occurred is anyone’s guess. Perhaps the block was broken in the process of dismantling the structure of which it formed a part; or it could have been dropped when workmen were loading the disassembled blocks for transport to Hermopolis for reuse and so left behind, as were many other fragments subsequently

6 An alternative suggested by Nicholas Reeves. We also wish to thank Kristin Thompson for exchanging emails with us about the block and, in particular, for discussing suggestions about the disposition of fragments of relief and statuary from the earlier EES campaigns at Amarna. 7 Z. Hawass, “Dig Diary”, Al-Ahram Weekly No. 929 (Jan. 8-14, 2009; on-line, June 20, 2010). 8 Aired in two, 120-minute episodes on Feb. 21 and 22, 2010; see the commentary of Dennis Forbes, “Tutankhamen’s Family Ties – Full of Knots!”, KMT. A modern journal of ancient Egypt 21 (summer 2010), p. 19-35, passim. 9 Among them, the so-called Hermopolis block with an inscription calling Tutankh(u)aten a King’s Son: G. Roeder, Amarna-Reliefs, pls. 105-106; cf. D. Forbes, KMT 21, p. 35 n. 18. For a recent study of the inscription see, e.g., M. Gabolde, “La parenté de Toutânkhamon”, BSEG 155 (2002), p. 32-38. 10 G. Roeder, Amarna-Reliefs, pls. 42, 110, 213, etc. Roeder (ibid., p. 253-254) called the frieze a Lotus-Blüten- Knospen-Band. Its use was not limited to architecture; for example, it decorates the rim of a stone vessel from KV 47, the tomb of Siptah: Th. M. Davis et al., The Tomb of Siphtah, the Monkey Tomb, and the Gold Tomb, 1908, pl. 23, and the head-rail of the armchair CG 51112 from KV 46: J.E. Quibell, The Tomb of Yuaa and Thuiu (CGC), 1908, pl. 35. 11 Cf. the ‘Hermopolis block’ cited n. 9, supra, which was also broken through diagonally, but not as obliquely as the sketch in the EES records suggests for our block.

RdE 63 (2012)

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 22 23/01/13 11:48 THE AMARNA TRIAD 23

recorded by the EES. Alternatively, but perhaps less likely, the break may have occurred in modern times. While the decoration of the reverse is unexceptional, the partially preserved scene on the obverse is quite unusual. Two similarly proportioned figures face each other below the radiant sun disc which is positioned remarkably close to them; one hand at the end of several very short sun beams holds an ankh-sign to the nose of the leftwards oriented person. Other beams, their hands palm downwards, extend behind the head of the figure facing rightwards. An ankh-sign is looped as usual around the disc’s ubiquitous frontal uraeus. The crown of the head of the figure at the right is slightly higher than that of the figure to the left whose face seems to be tilted ever so slightly backwards to glance up at the other. (These details are not accurately rendered in the excavators’ sketch; compare pl. I, fig. 2 with our rendering, pl. II, fig. 3a.) A hand belonging to the right-hand figure cups the head of the figure opposite. This person wears a disc earring that is partially concealed beneath a meticu- lously detailed, short round echelon-curled wig. The damage to the wig is anything but random. Its outlines preserve the form of the features it was intended to obliterate: an uraeus, pendant from a diadem, wound round with another uraeus whose hood projected at the forehead. This ensemble is exactly paralleled by the headgear of the queen depicted kissing her daughter on a block from Hermopolis now in The Brooklyn Museum (pl. III, fig. 4).12 When Cooney initially published the Brooklyn relief, he remarked that the damaged inscription in the first column of text had named Meritaten, and from this, he deduced that the royal lady kissing the princess ‘…can hardly be anyone other than Nefertiti’.13 The traces of hieroglyphs in the second and third columns can be confidently restored to labels naming Akhenaten and Nefertiti’s second and third daughters, Maketaten and Ankhesenpaaten, as shown in figure 4 (pl. III). The latter’s name displays an unusual, though not unique, orthography; aten is written first, by contrast to its normal position at the end of the princess’s name. In all likelihood, the standard orthography of her older sisters’ names in the preceding columns resulted in the precedence given the aten-element in Ankhesenpaaten’s name here.14

12 Brooklyn 60.197.8; 22.2 by 44.5 cm; as with the other reliefs in Cooney’s publication, the ‘more interesting’ surface was sawn off, presumably to facilitate transport and eventual sale; the reverse probably bore some purely decorative motif and/or stereotypical inscription, like our block, which led to its being discarded, if it had not already been damaged irrepar- ably or destroyed in the process of separating the more marketable surface. 13 J.D. Cooney, Amarna Reliefs, p. 20-22 (no. 12). 14 Another example of this unusual orthography is found in the label identifying the princess in a scene in the tomb of Panehesy: N. De Garis Davies, The rock-tombs of el-Amarna, II, 1905, pl. VII. A third occurs on one seal impression discussed below, with fig. 6 (pl. III). Ankhesenpaaten’s name was subject to a number of orthographic variations. On Boundary Stela A, the pa-element is omitted (see W.J. Murnane – Ch.C. Van Siclen III, The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten, 1993, p. 175 with pl. 18B) whereas the ‘s’ is omitted in the labels of her figure, once in the tomb of Meryra (I) and a second time in that of Panehesy: see, respectively, N. De Garis Davies, The Rock-Tombs of el-Amarna, I, pl. XIX, and vol. II, pl. V. For the transposition of the aten-element in the names of Ankhesenpaaten’s sisters, see the examples Bayer provided in E. Graefe, “Ursprung der Maat ist Re”, in W. Claes – H. De Meulenaere – S. Hendrickx (eds.), Elkab and Beyond. Studies in Honour of Luc Limme (OLA 191), 2009, p. 316 n. 7.

RdE 63 (2012)

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 23 23/01/13 11:48 24 CHR. J. BAYER & M. EATON-KRAUSS

The original composition incorporating the Brooklyn block must have been quite com- plex, showing all three daughters in association with their mother; presumably their father sat alone opposite or ‘in front’ of them.15 A damaged scene in the tomb of Tutu seems to have once been comparable; it depicts the queen sitting ‘behind’ rather than opposite her spouse: the legs of two daughters on Nefertiti’s lap and texts naming Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten are preserved. The section of the relief cut out by thieves in modern times is large enough to have accommodated a figure of Princess Maketaten on her mother’s lap and a text identifying her, as well as the crowned head and upper torso of the queen which are missing today.16 Cooney suggested in passing that a relief fragment from the Great Palace recorded by the EES could possibly derive from the same scene as the Brooklyn block.17 It preserves the face of a large-scaled figure wearing an echelon-curled wig with uraeus, bending over slightly to kiss a child. The child’s head is bent backwards impossibly to touch its lips to those of the larger figure. The hand of a sun beam extends an ankh towards the group. It is difficult to understand why Cooney was tempted to associate the Cairo fragment with the relief in Brooklyn; despite the small size of the published photograph of the for- mer, it is clear that it differs stylistically from the latter. Furthermore, the remains of the text though meagre are adequate to restore the child’s name: she is Ankhesenpaaten (see pl. III, fig. 5). Because the younger daughter(s) are not normally associated with their father whose attention focuses on Meritaten, the larger figure here should be their mother, Queen Nefertiti. The identity of the queen depicted in the Brooklyn relief has been questioned since Cooney argued in favor of Nefertiti, the alternative being Akhenaten’s ‘other wife’ Kiya.18 The short round wig is indeed one of the two coiffures typical for representations of Kiya19 whereas it is documented with certainty for Nefertiti only once, in the tomb of

15 The three columns of text identifying the princesses prohibit a composition showing Nefertiti on the king’s lap, as in the scene on the fragmentary family stela in the Louvre E 11624: D. Arnold, The Royal Women of Amarna. Images of Beauty from Ancient Egypt (exh. cat.), 1996, fig. 93. For such scenes, see further, infra. 16 N. De Garis Davies, Amarna, VI, 1908, pl. XVII. 17 J.D. Cooney, op. cit., p. 22; CoA III, p. 72 (36/19), pl. LXX, fig. 7 (19); now in Cairo, JE 66715. Thanks again to Kristin Thompson for information about this relief, and especially to Chris Naunton who diligently searched the EES archives for documentation of it and provided scans for study and use in the preparation of fig. 5. We are also indebted to Rolf Krauss for supplying the JE number; the fragment has been provisionally assigned number 12554 for a volume of the Catalogue général devoted to objects from Tell el-Amarna. 18 See, e.g., the caption that the editors (not the author, N. Reeves) supplied for fig. 63 in R.E. Freed – Y.J. Markowitz – S.H. D’Auria (eds.), Pharaohs of the Sun. Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Tutankhamun (exh. cat.), 1999; cf. also, most recently, H.A. Schlögl, Nofretete. Die Wahrheit über die schöne Königin, 2012, p. 93. 19 R. Hanke, Amarna Reliefs aus Hermopolis. Neue Veröffentlichungen und Studien (HÄB 2), 1978, p. 176, 180, with pls. 60 and 61 illustrating how sculptors modified this wig (a runde Löckchen-Perücke, in Hanke’s terminology) to change figures of Kiya into depictions of a princess.

RdE 63 (2012)

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 24 23/01/13 11:48 THE AMARNA TRIAD 25

Meryra I.20 But an uraeus, let alone a diadem decorated with uraei as shown in the Brooklyn relief, did not belong to Kiya’s iconography, and Aten did not proffer ‘life’ to her nose.21 Furthermore, as already noted above, the inscriptions name Nefertiti’s three older daughters. A depiction of Kiya with the offspring of Akhenaten’s union with his Great Royal Wife – indeed, even kissing one of them – would be unprecedented. Since the iconography of the queen depicted on the relief recorded in 1932 is closely comparable to that shown on the block in Brooklyn, she, too, must be Nefertiti. On the Per-hai block diagonal hacking behind the queen’s head suggests that there were once two straight, stiff ribbons pendant from the back of the diadem. In the tentative reconstruction of the composition’s original appearance (pl. II, fig. 3b), these have been elaborated with uraei.22 To employ Cooney’s wording, the man opposite her ‘can hardly be anyone other than’ her husband Akhenaten. Like the queen, he too wears a wig. Its contours as well as the detailing which is uniform over the preserved surface, is not compatible with the Nubian wig.23 Nor does the outline seem to mirror that of the rounded wig worn by the woman opposite him. Furthermore, no depiction of Akhenaten and Nefertiti together has yet come to light which shows them with the same wig.24 The length and patterning also exclude the ‘rounded Nubian wig’ which Tutankhamun wears in some scenes on the small golden shrine from his tomb.25 But the existence there and elsewhere of this variant shows that the draftsmen who designed depictions of the king could and did on occasion introduce hybrid forms. The drawing figure 3b (pl. II) tentatively reproduces the outline of the wig which Norman De Garis Davies supplied for the much damaged figure of Akhenaten in the scene of rewarding Meryra I in his tomb at Amarna.26

20 There are a number of royal figures wearing the short, round wig depicted among the reliefs from Hermopolis, but unfortunately none of them is identified by an inscription. However, in some cases where the neck of the figure is preserved (e.g., G. Roeder, Amarna-Reliefs, pl. 12: 485/VIIC and 323/VIIID; pl. 37: 108/VIIIA), its convex profile suggests Akhenaten. Particularly intriguing is the relief ibid., pl. 185: PC 94, showing a shebiyu-collar around the neck of a person wearing the short, round wig, which joins R. Hanke, Neue Veröffentlichungen, fig. 4:9. These pieces were acquired by the Egyptian Department of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Acc. No. 1991.240.1; see D. Arnold, “Relief Slabs from Amarna Temples”, Recent Acquisitions: A Selection 1991-1992 (= BMMA 50:2, fall 1992), p. 7, who identifies the figure as Amenhotep III. 21 The inevitable exception to the rule is provided by Hermopolis block 772/VIII (see G. Roeder, op. cit., pl. 32). 22 Cf. the ribbons pendant from the diadem worn by the king in the MMA relief mentioned supra n. 20. 23 For the Nubian wig, see now S. Drossart, “La perruque ‘nubienne’: usage et signification”, in Chr. Cannuyer (ed.), Varia aegyptiaca et orientalia: Luc Limme in honorem (AOB 23), 2010, p. 43-67. 24 Both the king and his Great Royal Wife wear the hemhem-crown in an offering scene in the tomb of Panehesy, but Nefertiti’s version is noticeably less elaborate that Akhenaten’s: N. De Garis Davies, Amarna, II, pl. VIII. A single scene in the decoration of the small golden shrine from KV 62, Obj. no. 108, shows both Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun in the Nubian wig: M. Eaton-Krauss – E. Graefe, The Small Golden Shrine from the Tomb of Tutankhamun, 1985, pl. VIII (scene AR1). 25 M. Eaton-Krauss – E. Graefe, Small Golden Shrine, pls. XIV (scene BR 2) and XVII (scene CR 4). 26 N. De Garis Davies, Amarna, I, pl. XXX. This was apparently a unisex coiffure, like the Nubian wig, for Nefertiti seems to wear it at least once, in a scene in the tomb of Huya: N. De Garis Davies, Amarna, III, pl. IV.

RdE 63 (2012)

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 25 23/01/13 11:48 26 CHR. J. BAYER & M. EATON-KRAUSS

Many of the blocks from Amarna with relief decoration on both sides derive from small roofless kiosks or shrines like those incorporating blocks reused at Hermopolis which Rainer Hanke was able to reconstruct.27 According to his study, the kiosks were erected not only in the Maru-Aten precinct to the south of the main city, but also, like the shrines, on the grounds of the Great Aten Temple, where emplacements of appropriate dimensions can be traced in the courtyards.28 The texts on some of the blocks which he studied also mention the Per-hai, the source of our block. However, the decoration of the kiosks and shrines seems to have been limited to scenes of a royal family – many of them depicting Kiya, subsequently altered to Meritaten or Ankhesenpaaten, with Akhenaten – worshipping the sun disc,29 which is not the subject matter of our block. Hanke reassembled other blocks to reveal an extensive scene, measuring at least 5 m in height, showing the chariot procession of the royal couple with their entourage, a theme well known from the non-royal tombs at Amarna.30 This did not come from a small shrine or kiosk, but represents the decoration of a major wall surface. Another of Hanke’s suggested reconstructions shows a queen attending the enthroned king, in a composition similar to the scene on the front of the backrest of the gold throne, Obj. no. 91, from Tutankhamun’s tomb.31 The existence of additional, comparable scenes is documented only by fragments of them on isolated blocks, many long known – such as JE 66715 (pl. III, fig. 5), discussed above – but inadequately studied. These are paralleled not just in the decoration of non- royal tombs at Amarna, but also by tableaux on the so-called family stelae, depicting what Egyptologists have traditionally described as private or intimate scenes featuring Akhenaten, Nefertiti, and their daughters.32 It should come as no surprise that the carved and/or painted decoration of temples and palaces – both public areas and those which Egyptologists have presumed, rightly or wrongly, to be private quarters of the royal family33 – drew from the same repertory of scenes. Some compositions are entirely new, such as the chariot procession and the representation of the king awarding deserving officials from the Window of

27 R. Hanke, Neue Veröffentlichungen. 28 R. Hanke, ibid., especially p. 70. 29 It is highly unlikely that the decoration of any given kiosk included both wives and their offspring. Akhenaten’s ‘families’ will have been clearly segregated, as was the rule during the Ramesside Period. In this connection we note that Kiya is not shown in the decoration of any non-royal tomb at Amarna. 30 R. Hanke, op. cit., p. 100 with pl. 28. 31 R. Hanke, op. cit., p. 11-13, pls. 4:9 and 5:6. This parallel should be added to those discussed by M. Eaton-Krauss, The Thrones, Chairs, Stools, and Footstools from the Tomb of Tutankhamun, 2008, p. 49-51. 32 M. Fitzenreiter, “Die königlichen Familienstelen und die religiöse Praxis in Amarna”, SAK 37 (2008), p. 85-89, provides a convenient catalogue of these monuments with measurements, material, provenance, present location, and short description. 33 Relief in the Great Palace; paintings in the King’s House, including the frequently illustrated fragments of the so- called Princesses Panel, a painting depicting the princesses and Nefertiti, who sit on patterned cushions at Akhenaten’s feet, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford 1893.1-41, for which see now F.J. Weatherhead, Amarna Palace Paintings (EES EM 78), 2007, p. 91-138 with fig. 62.

RdE 63 (2012)

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 26 23/01/13 11:48 THE AMARNA TRIAD 27

Appearances. Others, such as the scenes of Akhenaten and Nefertiti kissing one of their daughters, were adapted from depictions of earlier kings in association with the gods.34 The ingenuity of Akhenaten’s draftsmen is evidenced by their eclecticism which led them to appropriate material from a variety of sources, including even details from subsidiary scenes in non-royal tombs of the earlier Eighteenth Dynasty.35 The relief from the Per-hai could have represented Akhenaten and Nefertiti standing en face. Such compositions depicting the royal couple are not, however, common.36 The queen most often ‘follows’ or is shown ‘behind’ (= beside) her husband in scenes depicting them standing together. Even in those cases where a gesture unites them, as in the present case, both usually face in the same direction, and she is regularly depicted at a smaller scale. Three scenes showing the couple exchanging a kiss while sharing a single speeding chariot are indeed exceptional in this respect.37 The design of a carnelian plaque of uncertain provenance in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, apparently also showed the standing king and queen kissing, each with one arm around a princess.38 The piece has been described as unfinished.39 However, in some recessed areas there are incisions rendering the pleating of Akhenaten’s garments and those of the princess ‘behind’ him, suggesting that a lapidary was cutting down the surface of a finished gem, preparatory to reusing the stone.40 The gesture of Akhenaten’s hand, which cups Nefertiti’s head in our relief, is known from scenes decorating earlier temples as well as tombs. Here it is depicted in a very nat- uralistic manner – the hand unquestionably grasps the queen’s head – as elsewhere in the art of Amarna.41 The iconic renderings of earlier times show the hand behind rather than actually touching the head.42 For example, a scene in the temple of Tuthmose III at Amada

34 Cf. M. Müller, Die Kunst Amenophis III. und Echnatons, 1988, p. II-115, comparing the scene of Amun kissing Amenhotep III in the reliefs of the ‘Birth Room’, Luxor Temple: PM II2, p. 326 (152 II.5). 35 An example is the way one of Akhenaten’s feet is drawn with the heel raised in the scene on the fragmentary family stela in the Louvre (n. 15, supra); cf. one foot of a banquet guest in the tomb of Nebamun and Ipuky, TT 181: N. De Garis Davies, The tomb of two sculptors at Thebes, 1925, pl. VII (color detail of pl. V). 36 One such scene featuring Amenhotep III and Tiy embracing decorated one side of a small wooden stela formerly in Berlin’s Egyptian Museum (Inv. No. 17812; destroyed in World War II). The inscriptions which refer to the king as Osiris date the stela to the Amarna Period: L. Borchardt, Der Porträtkopf der Königin Teje im Besitz von Dr. James Simon in Berlin (WVDOG 18), 1911, p. 19-20 with fig. 26. 37 N. De Garis Davies, Amarna, III, pls. XXXII/XXXIIA; Amarna, IV, pls. XX and XXII. 38 1 E.G.A. 4606.1943; best illustrated (more than 2 ⁄2 times actual size) in E. Vassilika, Fitzwilliam Museum Handbook. Egyptian Art, 1995, p. 63. 39 E. Vassilika, ibid., p. 62, after C. Aldred, Akhenaten and Nefertiti, 1973, p. 192 (no. 123). 40 The king’s crown and the queen’s Nubian wig were added in another material, perhaps faience rather than gold. The king’s uraeus is rendered in the gemstone, while the queen’s was apparently formed in one with her wig. The presence of two daughters would seem to preclude the surmise that the figure depicts Kiya, despite the absence of an uraeus from the figure’s forehead. 41 For example, N. De Garis Davies, Amarna, VI, pl. XXVIII; R. Hanke, Neue Veröffentlichungen, fig. 4:6. 42 That Akhenaten’s draftsmen did not totally eschew iconic depictions of this type is shown by its use, for example, on the family stela Inv. 14145 in Berlin’s Egyptian Museum: C. Aldred, op. cit., p. 102 (no. 16).

RdE 63 (2012)

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 27 23/01/13 11:48 28 CHR. J. BAYER & M. EATON-KRAUSS

shows the goddess Isis cupping the king’s head in just this iconic manner.43 Hathor employs the same protective gesture in respect to Mutemwiya in the Birth Room at Luxor Temple.44 These are only two randomly chosen examples from many showing the gesture in compositions with figures standing opposite each other. A very fine depiction of the same gesture in association with seated, rather than standing, figures occurs in the tomb of Kenamun (TT 93); the scene shows the tomb owner’s mother, who was the ‘foster-mother’ of Amenhotep II, seated with her charge on her lap. One of her hands cups Amenhotep II’s head and the other, the king’s elbow.45 Compositions depicting one or more persons on the lap of another person figure promin- ently among the motifs created at Amarna, presumably with the intention of giving visual expression to the notion that Akhenaten’s family existed in an ambience of affectionate harmony. Scenes of this type occur in relief and painting, in royal and non-royal contexts. In the scene on the fragment of a family stela in the Louvre Akhenaten holds not only the queen on his lap, but two of their daughters as well.46 An unfinished limestone statue documents an attempt to translate this subject into three dimensions.47 It was excavated in a house on the grounds of the estate P 48, 2; the finds from the house led the German archaeologists to suggest that it once belonged to a sculptor associated with Tuthmose’s atelier.48 The statue depicts a female figure on the lap of a king wearing the Blue Crown.49 The group has been frequently described as a depiction of a princess on the lap of her father Akhenaten. The absence of an uraeus at the woman’s forehead would be appropriate for a daughter, rather than for Nefertiti who was regularly shown with an uraeus,50 but the Nubian wig the woman wears precludes her identification as a princess. These observations led to the suggestion that she is Kiya, Akhenaten’s ‘greatly beloved’ secondary wife.51 To propose in addition

43 M. Aly – F. Abdel-Hamid – M. Dewachter, Le temple d’Amada. Dessins, index, tables de concordance (CEDAE IV), 1967, pl. C4. Another similar scene in the temple (ibid. C8) depicts the king vis-à-vis Hathor. 44 PM II2, p. 326 (152 III.1): H. Brunner, Die Geburt des Gottkönigs. Studien zur Überlieferung eines altägyptischen Mythos2 (ÄA 10), 1986, pl. 1. 45 TT 93, PM I2, p. 192 (16): N. De Garis Davies, The Tomb of Ken-Amun at Thebes, I, 1930, p. 19, pl. IX; v. II, pl. IXA. Davies interpreted the gesture, which is duplicated in both earlier and later compositions showing male ‘tutors’ as well as female ‘nurses’ with royal children, as supporting the head of the king “as though he were still an infant”. 46 E 11624; see note 15, supra. 47 Cairo JE 44866; ht. 40 cm: D. Arnold, Royal Women, p. 104, fig. 96. 48 L. Borchardt – H. Ricke, Die Wohnhäuser in Tell el-Amarna (WVDOG 91), 1980, p. 217-221, find no. 12/13 1. The find-spot was initially mentioned by L. Borchardt, Die Porträts der Königin Nofret-ete (WVDOG 44), 1923, p. 25. 49 L. Borchardt, ibid., p. 25, mentioned in passing that “Bruckstücke aus grau-weißem Granit” from P 47, 3 in the neighboring compound of the master sculptor Tuthmose suggested that a two-thirds life-sized version of the same composition was being sculpted there. 50 Apparently L. Borchardt, Nofret-ete, p. 25 n. 8, was the first to make this observation. Cf. also the remarks supra, n. 40, on the absence of the uraeus at the queen’s brow in the composition of the Fitzwilliam Museum plaque. 51 M. Eaton-Krauss, “Miscellanea Amarnensia”, CdE LVI/111-12 (1981), p. 257-258.

RdE 63 (2012)

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 28 23/01/13 11:48 THE AMARNA TRIAD 29

that the composition was intended as an encoded depiction of sexual intercourse, a hieros gamos,52 is however by no means convincing, especially since the king sits on a high- backed chair. The relief cited in comparison depicts Amun-Re and Queen Mutemwiya sitting together on a bed.53 A group showing one figure on the lap of another was even used at Amarna on a minute scale for seals, as two fragmentary seal impressions document (pl. III, fig. 6).54 Both were also excavated by the DOG expedition at Amarna during the 1912/13 campaign. One of them came to light in P 47, 2, apparently Tuthmose’s own house, and the other, in one of seven dwellings among the so-called Kleinhausgruppe in the adjoining P 47, 4.55 In the Tagebuch of the excavators, Herman Ranke56 expressed the opinion that both impressions were made by the same seal, but this is not the case, since the relationship of the backrest of the chair to the figure sitting on it, just inside the ring bordering the impression, differs. In the case of Inv. No. 36546, the arm of the figure is shown between the torso and the tall backrest with the hand placed on the seat,57 whereas in Inv. No. 36557, the arm seems to overlap the low backrest where it terminates. Ranke’s description of the design clearly refers to Inv. No. 36557; he wrote that it shows ‘den König, in langer Perücke auf einem Stuhl sitzend, seine Frau, die er zu küssen scheint auf dem Schoss’. He identified the woman as ‘…die zweite [sic] Tochter Echnatons’, having read the hieroglyphs above the figure on the sealing ‘Ankhesenpa…’,58 concluding that the complete design once depicted her with her husband Tutankhaten, in a composition of a type known for her parents. But Ranke also noted the absence of an uraeus at the forehead of both figures, a detail confirmed on the original. The equally

52 D. Wildung – S. Schoske (eds.), Nofret, die Schöne – die Frau im Alten Ägypten (exh. cat.), 1984, p. 84. 53 PM II2, p. 326 (152 III.4): H. Brunner, Geburt des Gottkönigs, pl. 4. Cf. too, the vignette among the Karnak talatat which shows Akhenaten leading Nefertiti to the conjugal bed. The scene may have represented one episode in a series or cycle of scenes with a sacred marriage as its subject; see Cl. Traunecker, “Aménophis IV et Néfertiti: Le couple royal d’après les talatates du IXe pylône de Karnak”, BSFE 107 (1986), p. 35-38, fig. 11. Its invention early in the reign and relegation to a sub-register suggests a one-off experiment; to date, nothing comparable has come to light at Amarna. 54 For mention of the impressions in passing, see G. Roeder, “Thronfolger und König Smench-ka-Re (Dynastie XVIII)”, ZÄS 83 (1958), p. 48. 55 Fundjournal nos. 12/13 306 and 12/13 641; Nile mud; preserved height of the larger fragment 13 mm; L. Borchardt – H. Ricke, Wohnhäuser, p. 95 and 102, respectively. Both impressions are in the collection of the Berlin’s Egyptian Museum, Inv. Nos. 36546 and 36557. Our thanks to Wolfgang Müller, director of the museum from 1965 until 1987, who gave M. Eaton-Krauss permission to consult both the Tagebücher and Fundjournale of the DOG excavations on several occasions between 1980 and 1983. We also want to express our sincere indebtedness to Klaus Finneiser for arranging that M. Eaton-Krauss could examine both impressions on August 6, 2010, and that Sandra Stieß, the museum photographer, produce the images illustrated here. 56 Identified on the basis of his handwriting. 57 Cf. the seated figure of Tutankhamun in scene CR2 in the decoration of the small golden shrine from his tomb: M. Eaton-Krauss – E. Graefe, Small Golden Shrine, pl. XVI. 58 For the unusual writing of the princess’s name giving precedence to the god’s name, see the comments p. 24 with n. 14, supra.

RdE 63 (2012)

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 29 23/01/13 11:48 30 CHR. J. BAYER & M. EATON-KRAUSS

noteworthy absence of a cartouche would also seem to preclude the identification of either figure as a king or queen. Ranke’s ‘lange Perücke’ is actually an enveloping wig of the type characteristic for nurses, while the other figure’s head is shaved. In other words, the design of the seal, which made the seal impression depicted Princess Ankhesenpaaten on the lap of her nurse. Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt proposed that one of the finest reliefs from Hermopolis depicts Nefertiti on the lap of her nurse, Ay’s wife Tiy (pl. IV, fig. 7 and col. pl. 1).59 The piece, which the Egyptian department of the Louvre acquired in 1976,60 is only 3 cm thick, having been sawn off a talatat-size block, like the relief in Brooklyn. Roeder was the first to describe the scene;61 in his terse characterization of the composition he queried his own identification of the larger person (to the left) as the king by remarking the ‘almost’ feminine breast and garment of the figure. In his description, this person carries a two-strand shebiyu collar and draws the woman opposite towards ‘him’. For Roeder, the partially preserved object at the lower right-hand edge represented the top of an ointment cone in a dish resting on a stand. Desroches-Noblecourt, by contrast, described this item as the upper part ‘d’un petit coussin-matelas recouvrant le montant d’un lit ou d’un can- apé’ on which the figures sat. In the most recent detailed discussion of the relief,62 Dorothea Arnold prefers Roeder’s interpretation of it as an ointment cone, and in this we concur.63 Arnold goes on to identify the larger figure as Queen Nefertiti, but the absence of the sash knotted under her breasts, a salient feature of the Great Royal Wife’s costume, effectively excludes her from consideration. Desroches-Noblecourt’s description of the composition as showing a younger person on the lap of an older woman is convincing, and her identification of the woman at the left as a nurse, rather than Nefertiti is persuasive. She called attention in particular to the woman’s heavy breast and the way the sculptor emphasized the nipple as intentional references to a wet-nurse’s role of nourishing the child in her charge.64 Desroches-Noblecourt also argued that the presence of the shebiyu favors the identification of the figure as a nurse, rather than the queen. In 1978 when she published her article, she could cite representations in Ay’s tomb at Amarna showing his wife Tiy as a recipient of the shebiyu;65 in the interim, the discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun’s nurse Maia at Saqqara has provided another

59 Chr. Desroches-Noblecourt, “Une exceptionnelle décoration pour ‘la Nourrice qui devint reine’ ”, RevLouvre 28 (1978), p. 20-27. 60 E 27150 = G. Roeder, Amarna-Reliefs, pl. 198 (PC 185A). We thank our colleagues in the département des Antiquités égyptiennes at the Louvre for helping us to obtain permission to illustrate this piece. 61 G. Roeder, ibid., p. 156. 62 Royal Women, p. 91-93. 63 Cf. G. Roeder, Amarna-Reliefs, pl. 156: 432-VIIIA. There is a direct join of this fragment to another showing a shebiyu displayed (ibid., pl. 156: 42-VIIIA). 64 Chr. Desroches-Noblecourt, RevLouvre 28 (1978), p. 23 and 25. 65 N. De Garis Davies, Amarna, VI, pl. XXIX.

RdE 63 (2012)

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 30 23/01/13 11:48 THE AMARNA TRIAD 31

example of a nurse awarded the shebiyu.66 By contrast, the shebiyu does not belong to Nefertiti’s accessories nor can Desroches-Noblecourt’s identification of the ‘younger’ woman as Nefertiti be accepted, since her costume, like that of the larger figure, is missing the sash which is diagnostic for depictions of the Great Royal Wife. Desroches-Noblecourt wrote that the necklace ‘ornaments’ the older woman’s neck, but does she actually wear it? Arnold describes the figure’s gesture as balancing the necklace on her hand,67 and in fact the shebiyu is draped rather low onto the shoulder, not worn high up around her neck. Figure 8 (pl. IV) illustrates a reconstruction of the relief to show the figure at the right in the process of tying the shebiyu around the neck of the nurse. The choice of the enveloping wig as the coiffure for the older woman in the reconstruction is in conformity with its regular use for depictions of nurses. Banqueting scenes of the earlier Eighteenth Dynasty which show servants tying garlands around the necks of guests provide parallels for the way one hand of the younger figure ‘disappears’ under the tresses of the older woman’s wig.68 What Arnold identifies as the minimal remains of two lotus blossoms at the damaged edge of the block above the ointment cone are better understood the tassels at the ends of the cord used to tie on necklaces and broad collars.69 It remains only to identify the actor in this tableau. The figure’s breast with its pert nipple contrasts with the sagging breast opposite.70 The flowing garment, which falls open in graceful folds from a knot tied above three discretely rendered fat folds to reveal a small tummy with a round navel, certainly seems to be female attire, even if there is one depiction of Akhenaten wearing it.71 But he is shown with the so- called Amarna navel whereas the figure on the Louvre block has a round one. On balance it seems much more likely that the figure is female, rather than male. Akhenaten is accompanied by a woman with a round navel wearing just this sort of garment in other reliefs from Hermopolis;72 however, since her costume does not include the sash of the Great Royal Wife

66 See now A. Zivie, La tombe de Maia, mère nourricière de roi Toutânkhamon et grande du harem, 2009, pls. 21, 25, 26, etc.; and especially color pls. 52-53. Cf., too, the chapter on women and the shebiyu in S. Binder, The Gold of Honour in New Kingdom Egypt (ACE-Stud 8), 2008, p. 232-236, although the Louvre relief goes unmentioned. 67 Roeder described the action as carrying the necklace. 68 To cite but two tombs with scenes of this type: TT 100 (N. De Garis Davies, The Tomb of Rekh-Mi-Re at Thebes, 1943, pls. LXIV and LXVI) and TT 38 (K. Lange – M. Hirmer, Ägypten. Architektur Plastik Malerei in drei Jahrtausenden, 1975, pl. XXV). Even the hand of a main figure can be obscured by an enveloping wig as is shown by a scene on a pier in the tomb of Sennefer, TT 96: Sennefer. Die Grabkammer des Bürgermeisters von Theben (exh. cat.), 1986, p. 50 (illustration). 69 The reconstruction shows them attached to a broad collar, but a shebiyu is also possible; cf. the shebiyu-collars with cords ending in tassels for tying them around the neck in, e.g., Amarna, IV, pl. IX, and Amarna, VI, pls. III-IV. Cf. also the cords with tassels in scenes showing Ankhesenamun tying a shebiyu around Tutankhamun’s neck (M. Eaton-Krauss – E. Graefe, Small Golden Shrine, pl. XVII) and Nefertiti tying a broad collar about Akhenaten’s neck on the fragment of a family stela (Berlin Inv. 14544: K.-H.Priese [ed.], Ägyptisches Museum Berlin, 1962 gegründet, 1991, p. 105). 70 Cf. the contrasting rendering of the breasts of a woman and her daughter in the reliefs of the Old Kingdom false door CG 1414: M. Eaton-Krauss, “An Offering Table Scene in The Art Institute, Chicago”, GM 219 (2008), p. 21, pl. II. 71 On the fragment of a family stela in Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum ÄS 8038 (ex. Egyptian Museum, Berlin, Inv. 22264): M. Huttner – H. Satzinger, Inschriftsteine und Reliefs aus der Zeit der 18. Dynastie (CAA Wien 16), 1999, p. 137-139. 72 E.g., two examples: J.D. Cooney, Amarna Reliefs, p. 8-9.

RdE 63 (2012)

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 31 23/01/13 11:48 32 CHR. J. BAYER & M. EATON-KRAUSS

she should be Kiya. On the Louvre block, the woman tying the shebiyu around her nurse’s neck is, however, most likely to be a daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, not Kiya; in fact, Ankhesenpaaten’s nurse is named on another block from Hermopolis,73 and Ankhesenpaaten is the princess depicted on her nurse’s lap in the seal impression discussed above. Our reconstruction shows the figure wearing a princess’s modified Nubian wig with side-lock, rather than with a bald head, because she is not nude but wearing a pleated dress. The attack in antiquity on the ‘younger’ figure and the columns of inscription, which in all probability named her, is noteworthy. The arm which passed in front of her torso was chiseled away and apparently the breast of the nurse, which had nourished the princess, was knocked off as well. The motivation for this attack remains unclear, since until now no in-depth study has been attempted of the desecration which depictions and mentions of Akhenaten and members of his family suffered in the post-Amarna Period.74 Detailed analysis of the royal nurses’ importance during the Amarna Period is beyond the scope of this article. But it should not go unmentioned that they seem to have been more prominent than their admittedly conspicuous counterparts of the earlier Eighteenth Dynasty.75 The nurse’s role was attributed to Aten: in the Great Hymn the god is described as ‘nurse in the womb, who gives breath to animate all he makes’,76 and it is Aten’s rays which ‘nurse every field’.77 At Tell el-Amarna nurses were depicted in the reliefs of the palace78 and in the temple (the presumed origin of the Louvre relief), as well as in chambers a and g of the Royal Tomb.79 The role played by goddesses shown nursing the future king in the cycle of the ruler’s divine birth80 will have provided the precedent. Based on the information available at present, it is not possible to determine whether the scene on our relief depicted Nefertiti sitting on Akhenaten’s lap or whether they stood facing

73 Now in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, MMA 1985.328.5: J.D. Cooney, ibid., p. 19; C. Aldred, op. cit., p. 196 (no. 129). 74 Nor for that matter, of the equally significant restoration of Eighteenth Dynasty, pre-Amarna, non-royal as well as royal monuments which were defaced during the iconoclastic phase of Akhenaten’s reign; cf. the remarks of Eaton-Krauss, “Restorations and Erasures in the Post-Amarna Period”, Z. Hawass (ed.), Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo, 28 March – 3 April 2000, 2, 2003, p. 194-202. 75 See, in general, C.H. Roehrig, The Eighteenth Dynasty Titles Royal Nurse, Royal Tutor and Foster Brother/Sister of the Lord of the Two Lands, Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1990. 76 W.J. Murnane, Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt, 1995, p. 114; cf. Maj Sandman, Texts from the Time of Akhenaten (BiAeg III), 1938, p. 94: 12. 77 W.J. Murnane, op. cit., p. 115; Maj Sandman, op. cit., p. 95:9. We thank Kristin Thompson for calling our attention to this passage. The ‘breast’ determinative used here and in the foregoing context is the same as employed in the title ‘nurse’ of Ay’s wife Tiy. 78 E.g., the fragmentary limestone relief from the ‘State Apartments’, Brooklyn 37.405; ht. 10.3 cm: C. Aldred, op. cit., p. 119 (no. 35) showing a nurse suckling a princess. 79 For discussion of these depictions in the Royal Tomb, see now G.T. Martin, “The Dormition of Princess Maketaten”, D. Aston et al. (eds.), Under the Potter’s Tree. Studies on Ancient Egypt Presented to Janine Bourriau on the Occasion of her 70th Birthday (OLA 204), 2011, p. 633-644. 80 H. Brunner, Geburt des Gottkönigs, pl. 12.

RdE 63 (2012)

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 32 23/01/13 11:48 THE AMARNA TRIAD 33

each other. Both alternatives are feasible, depending on the height of the wall and whether there were two registers of relief or only one. However, the size of the sun disc is unexpect- edly smaller than the heads of the figures below, and, as remarked initially, its proximity to the royal couple is very unusual. Normally some distance is interposed between the sun disc at the very top of a scene and the figures below. In offering scenes, for example, the disc is regularly placed high and directly above the stand or table, piled high with offerings, in front of the king;81 the hand at the end of each sun beam reaches out to grab the goodies on display. In the absence of offerings, the disc is customarily shown above the king82 although at some distance from him, with a few beams reaching out beyond him towards the queen. A third composi- tional alternative centered the disc between the king and queen in antithetical scenes, including those showing them sitting opposite each other.83 On our relief from the Per-hai, even though the disc is centrally placed, almost no distance at all remains between Aten and the couple below. This arrangement is very exceptional and can hardly be coincidental. The royal couple forms the focal point of the composition but the ambience of intimacy encompasses the disc as well: the god’s participation in this intimacy is expressed visually through scale and proximity to the heads of the king and queen. Thus the composition as a whole proclaims the unique ideological bond of the god and the king, which countless texts from Amarna charac- terize in terms of a father-son relationship,84 with Akhenaten’s protective gesture incorporating the queen to create an inimitable image of the holy triad of Amarna.85

Post-scriptum: We are greatly indebted to W. Raymond Johnson for advising us that the relief which is the subject of this article was presented in 1934 by the EES to the Brooklyn Museum’s Dept. of Egyptian, Classical, and Ancient Near Eastern Art (Inv. No. 34.6052) where it remains in storage.

81 Or the queen, in the case of the so-called Nefertiti pillars where Nefertiti, accompanied by her daughter, officiates: see e.g., D.B. Redford, Akhenaten. The Heretic King, 1984, p. 76-78 with figs. 6 and 7. For their discovery and original location, see now L. Manniche, “Den 2. Pylon I Karnak, og Nefertitis piller”, Papyrus (Copenhagen) 6:2 (2006), p. 22-27, with references to the earlier literature. 82 In a few exceptional cases there is a disc above the queen, as well as one above her husband. One example is a scene in the tomb of Panehesy showing Akhenaten in his chariot followed by the queen in hers: Amarna, II, pl. XIII. In the fragment from a family stela in Berlin (see n. 69, supra), the sun disc also appears directly above the queen. Presumably the draftsman who designed that composition decided to place the disc approximately in the center, rather than above Akhenaten, in order to avoid relegating it to the very edge of the stela. 83 The disc is rarely centered between the couple unless they are seated vis-à-vis, as in the double scene in the tomb of Huya showing Akhenaten with Nefertiti and Amenhotep III with Queen Tiy (Amarna, III, pl. XVIII). Another of these exceptional scenes, found in the tomb of Parennefer (Amarna, VI, pl. IV), shows the king and queen standing at the window of appearances with Aten centered between them. 84 Akhenaten is the child who “issued forth from your [Aten’s] rays/limbs”: e.g., in the tombs of Ay, Mahu, and Meryre I (W.J. Murnane, Texts, p. 110: 58-B.3, 148: 69.1:C, and 162: 70.11, respectively). Aten’s “little son”, the ubiquitous epithet of the king, was even given expression in a statue: M. Eaton-Krauss, “Eine rundplastische Darstellung Achenatens als Kind”, ZÄS 110 (1983), p. 127-132. 85 J.G. Griffiths, Triads and Trinity, 1996, p. 56-79, provides a convenient overview of the concept during the Amarna Period.

RdE 63 (2012)

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 33 23/01/13 11:48 34 CHR. J. BAYER & M. EATON-KRAUSS

Résumé / Abstract

Au cours de la campagne hivernale 1932/33, la mission de l’Egypt Exploration Society de Tell el-Amarna inventoria un bloc décoré en bas-relief sur deux de ses faces. Sur un côté du bloc, les figures se faisant face sous le soleil rayonnant, toutes deux intentionnellement mutilées dans l’Anti- quité, peuvent être formellement identifiées à Akhénaton et Néfertiti. La discussion relative à des reconstructions possibles de la composition originale amène à reconsidérer les reliefs de Brooklyn et du Caire qui montrent la reine embrassant l’une de ses filles. Entre autres arguments mis en avant figure l’analyse du décor d’un sceau, documenté par une empreinte fragmentaire retrouvée en fouille par la Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft à Amarna: elle autorise une nouvelle interprétation de la scène du bloc Louvre E 27150 – partiellement préservée – où l’on voit une personne assise sur les genoux d’une autre.

During the winter campaign 1932/33, the Egypt Exploration Society mission to Tell el-Amarna recorded a block decorated with relief on both sides. The figures facing each other under the radiant disc on one side, both intentionally damaged in antiquity, can be positively identified as Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Discussion of alternative reconstructions for the original composition includes re- consideration of reliefs in Brooklyn and Cairo showing the queen kissing one of her daughters. Inter alia, analysis of the design on a seal, documented by a fragmentary impression excavated by the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft at Amarna, figures in arguments put forward to support a new interpretation of the scene partially preserved on the block Louvre E 27150 which shows one person sitting on the lap of another.

RdE 63 (2012)

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 34 23/01/13 11:48 REVUE D’ÉGYPTOLOGIE t. 63 (2012) Pl. I

Fig. 1. Tell el-Amarna, Find no. 32/50, obverse (Photo: Courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society, London).

Fig. 2. Sketch of Find no. 32/50; from the records of the EES excavation (Courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society, London).

Chr. J. Bayer & M. Eaton-Krauss, The Amarna Triad

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 35 23/01/13 11:48 REVUE D’ÉGYPTOLOGIE t. 63 (2012) Pl. II

Fig. 3a. Actual state of the relief on the obverse of Find no. 32/50 as recorded in the EES excavation photograph (Digital tracing: Christian Bayer).

Fig. 3b. Proposed reconstruction of the relief on the obverse of Find no. 32/50 (Drawing: Christian Bayer).

Chr. J. Bayer & M. Eaton-Krauss, The Amarna Triad

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 37 23/01/13 11:48 REVUE D’ÉGYPTOLOGIE t. 63 (2012) Pl. III

Fig. 4. The Brooklyn Museum of Art, Dept. of Ancient Egyptian, Near Eastern and Classical Art Acc. No. 60.197.8, with reconstruction of the text (Digital tracing and reconstruction: Christian Bayer).

Fig. 5. Egyptian Museum Cairo, JE 66715 (Digital tracing from the EES photograph with partial reconstruction of the text: Christian Bayer).

Fig. 6a-b. Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrus Sammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kuturbesitz Inv. No. 36546 (left) and 36557 (right) Fig. 6a. (Photos: Sandra Stieß. Courtesy of the museum). Fig. 6b.

Chr. J. Bayer & M. Eaton-Krauss, The Amarna Triad

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 39 23/01/13 11:48 REVUE D’ÉGYPTOLOGIE t. 63 (2012) Pl. IV

Fig. 8. Proposed reconstruction of the scene on Louvre E 27150 (Drawing: Christian Bayer).

Chr. J. Bayer & M. Eaton-Krauss, The Amarna Triad

95764_RdE_63_02_Bayer.indd 41 23/01/13 11:48 CHR. J. BAYER & M. EATON-KRAUSS – THE AMARNA TRIAD Pl. 1 Louvre relief E 27150 (© musée du / Christian Décamps).

95764_RdE_63_12_Planches-Kleur.indd 211 23/01/13 12:34