In a recent book, Dodson (2009) has presented an updated impression of the Amarna period, in heavy contrast to the one lately defended by Krauss (2008) and other authors such as Reeves (2002) or Gabolde (2005), where Dodson uses the recent archaeological and epigraphical sources to offer an state of the art version of this fascinating historical period where he defends Ankhesenamon as the Dahamunzu of the Hittite texts (the Egyptian queen writing king Suppiluliuma asking for a husband), the filiation of Tutankhamon as a son of Nefertiti and Akhenaton and keeps on the old chronology situating the ascent to the throne of this latter king c. 1553 BC. However, in the last few years there has been a crucial revolution of the period on many aspects. These include new evidence from Hittite sources which make Tutankhamon a contemporary of Mursili II (Miller 2007), a new length for the reign of Horemheb (van Dijk 2008), or the important data yielded by DNA analysis of the Amarna period family (Hawass et al. 2010). All this new information has been gathered together with the astronomical evidence of the period: the hypothetical solar orientation of Akhetaton main temple at the moment of the foundation of the city and a possible eclipse of the Hittite sources, to implement a new theory which offers a complete different picture of the period and a new chronology for the late 18th Dynasty, as stressed in Belmonte (2012).