Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

KV 55 = Smenkhare? Akhenaten?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As you say there may have been loads of males with a bit of royal blood in their veins but apparently no one had a claim strong enough to take over the throne at the end of the dynasty.
So being "just a bit " royal clearly wasn`t much use in those times.

As to Horemheb`s association with Tutmose III (which has been discussed on a separate thread) I think it is safe to say that it is a very tenuous one.
He never claims said connection in his pre-royal career nor in his coronation edict (which would have been just the right opportunity to do so).

Horemheb`s claim that Tutmose III was his ancestor appears only in an inscription on some monument of the latter which Horemheb had restored (correct me if I`m wrong) and thus it was probably only intended to bestow some of the former king`s glory onto Horemheb.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
...

As to Horemheb`s association with Tutmose III (which has been discussed on a separate thread) I think it is safe to say that it is a very tenuous one.
He never claims said connection in his pre-royal career nor in his coronation edict (which would have been just the right opportunity to do so).

Horemheb`s claim that Tutmose III was his ancestor appears only in an inscription on some monument of the latter which Horemheb had restored (correct me if I`m wrong) and thus it was probably only intended to bestow some of the former king`s glory onto Horemheb.


Do you know exactly where this other thread is, regarding "Horemheb`s association with Tutmose III"? I'd like to check it out. Wink
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kemetian
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 33
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:53 am    Post subject: Re: Smenkhkare Reply with quote

Kemetian wrote:
Have we got the actual 'form' of the name on these other items?


Yes, there are jar sealings with the name "Smenkhkare" as opposed to Ankhkheperure or Neferneferuaten. In full. If I knew how to insert an image I could show you. They were discovered by Pendlebury at Akhetaten and he published them in volume III of city of Akhenaten. Strangely Moseley doesnt appear to have read the excavation reports, which you would think were essential reading for someone contemplating a book on the period.

I would hope nobody would base their beliefs about Smenkhkare on Moseleys book. It is extremely poorly researched and she clearly has little in-depth knowledge of the period, or any period I suspect. More than that I would seriously question her ability with hieroglyphs.

She claims to have spent 8 years researching her book. I myself have spent over thirty years researching Egyptian history as a whole. Take it from me there is evidence of a Pharaoh who reigned during the Amarna period whose name was Smenkhkare Djeserkheperure. There is also evidence for a female ruler named Neferneferuaten. Both had the throne name Ankhkheperure. Neferneferuatens throne name included epithets which distinguish them from Smenkhkares throne name, which had none.

The only question is were they the same individual or two seperate individuals?

Incidentally, anyone who doubts Neferneferuaten was female would need to explain the epithet "effective for her husband" which is well attested on the co-regency stela in the Petrie museum, on two bracelets from Tutankhamens tomb, a pectoral from Tutankhamens tomb, the canopic coffinettes from Tutankhamens tomb and in inscriptions from the North Riverside palace at Akhetaten

I am currently writing a book on Ankhkheperure but as I have been writing it for about seven years already please dont hold your breath waiting for it Laughing

I am a newbie on this board but I have followed the debates on the Amarna period here for some time.

Once I discover how to post images I will be happy to show you the relevant sealings regarding Smenkhkare.[/img]



First try at image uploading
[img][/img]

Jar sealings from Akhetaten found by Pendlebury city of akhetaten vol III

Clearly showing the name smenkhkare in cartocuhes, on gives burth and throne names. Not much doubt there I feel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks like you figured out one way to post images, Kemetian. Good job. And it's a very clear example of the name Smenkhkare.

How's that book coming? Laughing

I've never read Moseley's book. Thanks to you, I don't think I ever will.
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
EgyptianRose
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 08 Mar 2012
Posts: 251
Location: Australia. Down Under.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:43 am    Post subject: Idea's Reply with quote

Call me lazy, though I do not find the time nor do I want to read all seven pages of posts about wether or not KV55 is Akhenaten or Smenkhkare. So there for I have no idea who has or hasn’t posted what.

In any case I would like to share my opinion, Sorry if I may seem like I'm intruding and like the original maker of this thread I am going to use logic. (Im not too good with Dna and evidence) So please don't get angered or hasty. I know some people feel very strongly about this topic, sometimes too strongly, and often come across rude and nasty, I don’t wish this to occur...

Though KV55 has 'apparently' been proven to be too young to possibly be Akhenaten, I still believe that Tutankhamun's father was in fact Akhenaten and seeming DNA has proven KV55 was Tutankhamun's father, I am lead to believe that KV55 is in fact Akhenaten.

1. If Tutankhamun was Akhenaten's son he was not depicted in any monuments or artefacts which would suggest that his mother may have been a minor wive of Akhenaten. Kiya who coincidently disappeared the same year of Tutankhamun's birth? As a result of her death he was left with no paternal mother, so of course he needed a wet nurse, Maia, who he obviously held a lot of affection for, if the depiction of Maia and Tutankhamun in Maia's tomb isn’t enough evidence of his affection towards her and the fact he built a tomb for her, Just a coincidence?

2. Isn’t there a brick or stone which suggest that Akhenaten was in fact Tutankhamun's father?

3. I saw someone else mention this, I am not sure if it's on this thread or if the question has been answered. Though KV55 was not found mummified, correct? Is there any evidence showing he was ever mummified? Because if not wouldn’t that suggest it may be Akhenaten for the mere fact that Akhenaten did not exactly please the Ancient Egyptian Gods or people. So what better way to punish a heretic King , no mummification, no afterlife?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, Thankyou.
_________________
It is of course the hieght of irony that, after this intensive campaign to expunge them from the annals of Egypt, the Amarna pharaohs are today probably the most recognized of all the country's ancient rulers!

Quote 'Amarna Sunset' by Aidan Dodson.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the kv 55 mummy was damaged by water, so any mummification has rotted away, and left the skeleton behind.

all kings had wet nurses regardless of whether parnets were alive or not.

tutankhamun is known to be a king's son, but no inscription says which king is his father.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kemetian
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 33
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
Looks like you figured out one way to post images, Kemetian. Good job. And it's a very clear example of the name Smenkhkare.

How's that book coming? Laughing

I've never read Moseley's book. Thanks to you, I don't think I ever will.


Thanks, my typing went a bit off though.

My book is a bit of a labour of love. I dont get to spend much time on it unfortunately because of work etc.

I began writing it because I was frustrated that it didnt already exist, if you know what I mean. It is a catalogue of all the evidence for a king, or kings, named Ankhkheperure. It frustrated me greatly that I couldnt find one source that explained what names were actually present because of the habit of writing smenkhkare when either of the names came up. It grew from a catalogue when I started to use the evidence to form theories.

I felt that every other theory I had read about the identity of Ankhkheperure had holes in and I always felt the authors had to leave evidence out that they couldnt explain.

My aim is to produce a book which includes all the evidence without having to bend or shape it to fit.

Surely, I thought, if I take all the evidence and present it in a way that is easily accessible there will only be one answer that fits?

Not that simple but the attempt is thoroughly enjoyable.

If there is actually a decent book at the end of it all so much the better but its the process of researching it that I am enjoying.

As for Sue Moseleys book I personally found it patronising and badly researched but that is only my opinion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Idea's Reply with quote

EgyptianRose wrote:
[snip]
Though KV55 has 'apparently' been proven to be too young to possibly be Akhenaten, I still believe that Tutankhamun's father was in fact Akhenaten and seeming DNA has proven KV55 was Tutankhamun's father, I am lead to believe that KV55 is in fact Akhenaten.

<...>

2. Isn’t there a brick or stone which suggest that Akhenaten was in fact Tutankhamun's father?


No, there is no stone or stela that specifically states that Akhenaten is Tutankhamun's father. This has been mainly speculation. Here's what the stone says:

Tutankhamun is attested before his accession as zA-nswt n Xt.f mry.f twt-anxw-jtn “king’s son of his body, his desired, Tutankhuaten,” on a block found at Hermopolis. No specific king as the father is named on the block.

James Allen noted:

In general use, the term zA “son” can denote not only a first-generation male child but also a grandson, great-grandson, or son-in-law. The inscription could have referred to Tutankhamun as “son-in-law” of Akhenaten if he had already been married to Akhenaten’s daughter, Ankhesenpaaten, before his accession. (Allen 2006:7)

EgyptianRose wrote:
3. I saw someone else mention this, I am not sure if it's on this thread or if the question has been answered. Though KV55 was not found mummified, correct? Is there any evidence showing he was ever mummified? Because if not wouldn’t that suggest it may be Akhenaten for the mere fact that Akhenaten did not exactly please the Ancient Egyptian Gods or people. So what better way to punish a heretic King , no mummification, no afterlife?


The KV 55 remains were found in an almost skeletal condition: original discoverers describe some features to the face, but with the movement of the remains, this flesh fell to dust. As such, we have no indicators of mummification (embalming incision, for example), so we cannot say anything about how the body was embalmed.

The fact that the remains survived as well as it did until 1907, however, argues that the body was embalmed. One to two layers of wrappings were found on the remains, in an advance state of decay, such that they crumbled away upon touch. Bell (1990) argues that some rewrapping was done to the remains, and so that act could mean that the body was more exposed than before.

References:

Allen, J.P. 2006/2009. The Amarna Succession. In Causing His Name to Live. Leiden:Brill. (Online PDF)

Bell, M. R. 1990. An Armchair Excavation of KV 55. JARCE 27: 97-137.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What interests me is the nature of the coffin in KV55. I guess it was the inner coffin, if indeed it was ever part of a set. I don't dispute that there were cartouches on this coffin, though why is it so much less grand than Tutanhkhamun's. Now of course we know that some of his coffins are re-used, though the inner coffin is his. Why would any other king at that time have anything less than a splendid solid gold coffin, why is the KV55 coffin only a quite good coffin, not a wow!!. The only explanation I can think of is that this was a coffin made for a person who had been king for only a very short period of time, maybe less than a year, or was a coffin adapted for them. I very much doubt this would ever have been the original coffin for Akhenaten, even if the skeleton inside is his, or not Rolling Eyes

I read the earlier posts here about how old people lived to. I strongly believe they lived longer than we are told. Baring violent death or terminal disease, once you managed to get out of early childhood I see no reason for not living to our four score and ten. Our genes predispose us to this, there is no good reason for us to live to only half this age. Unless we are not overburdened by very heavy work year after year, which I admit our hunter gatherer ancestors would have been free of.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:
I read the earlier posts here about how old people lived to. I strongly believe they lived longer than we are told. Baring violent death or terminal disease, once you managed to get out of early childhood I see no reason for not living to our four score and ten. Our genes predispose us to this, there is no good reason for us to live to only half this age. Unless we are not overburdened by very heavy work year after year, which I admit our hunter gatherer ancestors would have been free of.


I think, if you will read some of the archaeological bio-medical reports that go with excavations in Egypt, you will find that life - even for the royals - was much harder than what modern man experiences today. The age of 35 was considered somewhat "elderly", and if you got to two generations' length in age (60 and above), you were considered almost magical due to your longevity.

For example, Ramses II was known to have severe tooth abcesses: he lived into his 80's, so no surprise. However, the teeth of Amenhotep III were equally bad, if not worse, than Ramses II's, and he lived to (at best) 45 years of age.

Both men experienced mainly the same problem: the bread they ate, no matter how well-prepared, contained huge amounts of grit from the stone mill that rendered the wheat into flour. Combined with this, sand also made its way into most of the food supply, and the combination of stone grit and sand does not work well with one's teeth.

Most people in ancient Egypt usually started getting arthritic symptoms as early as their 20's, although there is evidence of arthritis in children in some cases. This is because loads of materials (food, sand, stone, etc.) had to be carried by hand because, while the chariots used the wheel, wagons were not used by people in ancient Egypt. Further, the camel, which is the modern beast of burden in Egypt today, did not arrive for common use in Egypt until after the Ptolemaic period.

So life was extremely physically demanding, the food - if available - was often poor nutritionally. This led to succumbing to disease, for which there were quite a number that affected ancient Egyptians: silicosis (respiratory disease caused by breathing in (inhaling) sand), schistosomasis (a parasitic disease caused by several species of trematodes (platyhelminth infection, or "flukes"), a parasitic worm of the genus Schistosoma (that lived in the Nile); aka bliharzia), as well as roundworm and tapeworm; tuberculosis, polio, bubonic plague, and so on, all affected the lives of the ancient Egyptians.

In addition, as the ancient Egyptian medical papyri tells us, injury and trauma, as well as animal/reptile bites were a constant danger to the everyday Egyptian. It was not easy to live in ancient Egypt for this and many other reasons, which is why we know, from the remains we do have, that the people of ancient Egypt just did not live as long as modern man does today.

If you have any verifiable proof to contest what is known on this subject, please present it: however, the ancient Egyptians had to work very hard all of their lives, which also shortened their lives as well.

On the issue of diet, disease, and medical conditions in ancient Egypt, see:

Breasted, J. H. 1930. The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus. Published in Facsimile and Hieorglyphic Transliteration with Translation and Commentary. (2 Vols.) Oriental Institute Publications 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brothwell, D and B. Chiarelli (eds.) 1973. Population Biology of the Ancient Egyptians. London: Academic Press.

Bryan, C. P. 1974 (1930). Ancient Egyptian medicine: The Papyrus Ebers. Chicago: Ares Publishers.

David, R., Ed. 1978. Mystery of the Mummies: The Story of the Manchester University Investigation. London: Book Club Associates.

___________. 1979. The Manchester Museum Mummy Project. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Ebeid, N. L. 1999. Egyptian medicine in the Days of of the Pharaohs. Cairo: General Egyptian Book Organization.

Germer, R. 1979. Untersuchung über Arzneimittelpflanzen im Alten Ägypten. Ph. D. Dissertation. Ägyptologie. Universität Hamburg.

Ghaliongui, P. 1963. Magic and medical Science in Ancient Egypt. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

___________. 1973. The House of Life, "Per Ankh": Magic and medical Science in Ancient Egypt. Amsterdam: B. M. Israel.

Nunn, J. F. 1996. Ancient Egyptian medicine. London: British Museum Press.

Panagiotakopulu, E. 2004. Pharaonic Egypt and the origins of plague. Journal of Biogeography 31/2: 269-275.

Sauneron, S. 1989. Un Traité Égyptien d'Ophiologie. Papyrus du Brooklyn Museum No. 47.218.48 et .85. Bibliothèque Générale 11. Cairo: IFAO.

Westendorf, W. 1999. Handbuch der altägyptischen Medizin. (2 Vols.) Handbuch der Orientalistik 36. Leiden: Brill.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
herper
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 229
Location: New Haven,CT USA

PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kmt-Sesh, your prize for 7000 posts/punishment for your comments on us amarnaholics is a complete set of all recordings of any type of Zahi Hawass. They are to be watched for at least 3 hrs a day till completed. May the Aten have mercy on your mind during viewing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
If you have any verifiable proof to contest what is known on this subject, please present it: however, the ancient Egyptians had to work very hard all of their lives, which also shortened their lives as well.


Oh, but I wrote this caveat.

Ikon wrote:
Unless we are not overburdened by very heavy work year after year, which I admit our hunter gatherer ancestors would have been free of.


Also, bad teeth do not cause early death, or death at all, unless of course there is infection that leads to sepsis, and this causes deaths even today in countries with first rate medical services.

Besides, I was more interested in any replies about my observation of the KV55 coffin. To my knowledge, not exhaustive, I don't remember any discussion about why this coffin would seem to be less than expected for a king at that period. For instance, would the occupant have originally had a solid gold inner coffin, as we must presume was normal at this period, and then been "downgraded" when they were interred in KV55.

It may be seen from my posts in this thread and the one about the unknown prince in KV35, that I take a slightly lateral view of these "mysteries". It's all very interesting, and essential, to go through the front door and discuss the hieroglyphs, the magic bricks and so on and so forth, but perhaps sometimes, it seems to me, obvious questions are not asked. If there are studies into the questions I have asked, then please point me to them, as I see no answers here, or anywhere else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

it's easily explained why the kv 55 coffin is not 'fit' for a king. it was not intended for one when it was made. it is obviously a woman's coffin. i have no trouble's thinking it was kiya's but i think lutz found something that said otherwise.

i don't know if anyone would have solid gold coffins like tut did. it was obvious they were not intended for him either, and anything as awesome as what he had would have been melted down in the the third intermediate period.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah yes, clearly it is not original to the occupant, though I ask the more difficult question as to why this person was put in this lesser coffin. If Tutankhamun's face mask and coffins have been adapted from another burial, which certainly seems the case, why eject the original occupant. Was Tutankhamun so much more important than the original occupant that they get a serious downgrade. If the skeleton in the KV55 coffin is actually Akhenaten, would he really be seen, before Horemheb became king, as being less deserving than Tutankhamun of a proper burial for a king. It seems to me that perhaps a very short lived king may have been evicted from his gold coffins for Tutankhamun, who at least ruled for ten years. Though the question arises, would there have been any more time for those who did such things, to make a full kingly funeral set for, presumably, Smenkhare. Tutankhamun's coffins may well have been third hand, as well as made for two different people. It is not so much about the results of these ancient events, it is about the why. And perhaps without a reliable chronology, or a time machine, we will only ever be able to guess at.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
it's easily explained why the kv 55 coffin is not 'fit' for a king. it was not intended for one when it was made. it is obviously a woman's coffin. i have no trouble's thinking it was kiya's but i think lutz found something that said otherwise.

i don't know if anyone would have solid gold coffins like tut did. it was obvious they were not intended for him either, and anything as awesome as what he had would have been melted down in the the third intermediate period.


Lutz presented pretty solid evidence from a thorough German analysis of the coffin that it was originally intended for Akhenaten. I was resistant to this idea at first, myself, but I have to admit Lutz's contributions of research material have swayed me.

However, this certainly doesn't mean the skeletal remains found inside the coffin were those of Akhenaten. Scientific and scholarly consensus on this subject weighs heavily against the body being Akhenaten's. This doesn't mean there is universal agreement, but review some of neseret's excellent posts on analyses of the skeletal remains and you will see why this was probably not the body of Akhenaten.
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group