Abstract
The chronology of the Amarna Period in the late Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty contains many perlexing problems and little agreement exists among the various theories proposed to resolve them. The latest crucial point in forming a reasonable chronology for this period is the socalled coregency hypothesis of Amenophis III and Akhenaten. So in this article I will examine all the evidence at present available and try to get a possible solution.
These twenty-two data for the coregency are as follows: (1) description of Manetho; (2) a scene in the tomb of Surer; (3) offering-table from Amarna; (4) fragments of a granite bowl from Amarna; (5) stela found in the house of Panehesi; (6) rock relief at Aswan; (7) a scene in the tomb of Kheruef; (8) lintel scenes in the tomb of Huya; (9) relief s from the temple of Soleb; (10) sarcophagus of Meketaten; (11) small stela dispicting Semenkhkare and Akhenaten; (12) various representations of Amenophis III and Akhenaten as example of filial piety; (13) two wine-jar dockets from Amarna; (14) names of estates compound with Amenophis III's. praenomen from Amarna; (15) hieratic dockets from Malqata; (16) scenes of “coronation-tribute” (and sed-festivals of Aten); (17) tomb of the vizier Ramose; (18) block from Athnibis; (19) Meidum graffito; (20) Kahun papyri; (21) hieratic docket of EA 27; (22) age and parentage of Tutankhamen (and a mummy from tomb No. 55).
The investigation of these data convince me of the difficulty in accepting the hypothetical coregency. Almost all the arguments depend for their validities upon the particular interpretations and most of these interpretations are invalid or with no decisive proofs for supporting these assumptions. Furthermore, there exists some obstacles to the coregency. First of all, the length of the coregency is mutually incompatible among data. In the next, the hypothetical coregency must explain how two religious systems in open conflict with one another and two overlapping and yet separate systems of burocracy had been able to coexist, and especially why Amenophis III had been able to escape from the persecutions of anti-Atonists. Finally, the length of the time during which Akhenaten received the Amarna Letters is too long to accept the coregency.
In short, there are little possibility of the coregency. The plausible explanation of the occurences of Amenophis III's name during the Amarna Period is that Amarna is the short-lived capital and it well preserved the expressions of the close family loyalty to the immediate predecessor without missing most of these memories like Thebes.
