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 

Implications of DNA results + KV55=Akhenaten
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Toth
Account Suspended


Joined: 07 Jun 2010
Posts: 1781
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

herper wrote:
I know who did it! DR Hawass did it


Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing :lol:Now the other questions: Where, How and with what (Standard Cluedo questions Laughing Laughing Laughing )
_________________
[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/8fc1c47be2.png[/img]
[i][b][color=#0080FF]Toth[/color][/b][/i]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toth
Account Suspended


Joined: 07 Jun 2010
Posts: 1781
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:06 am    Post subject: Re: Did Neferiti commit adultary Reply with quote

dkessler wrote:
Sothis wrote:
Your mention of Kate Phizackerley implies that you have read her work on the subject which I much appreciate.
If you read it thoroughly then you must have noticed that she theorizes that KV55 is not Akhenaten but probably .
So the constellation is Ankhesenamun is the daughter of Nefertiti and the real Akhenaten. The whereabouts of both their bodies are unknown but their probable genetic data can be deducted from the published data assuming that both babies were Tut`s and Ankhi`s. It does not even matter if one of the bodies of KV21 is Ankhesenamun, the babies` data is sufficient for the purpose of reconstructing the genetics.

So you see, there are other more likely scenarios than yours.


I said I read Kate Phizackerley's excellent essay on the subject, but not that I agreed with her conclusions. I actually commented on Kate's blog with my theory and although she disagreed with me, she acknowledged that "That's far and away the most astute comment on this article IMO."

My own view is that the KV55 mummy IS Akhenaten and I subscribe to the theory of Nicholas Reeves et al that Smenkhkare was the prenomen of Neferiti as Pharoah.


Then this is also true?
Kate Phizackerley wrote:
]So yes, you are right. I think it's unlikely but I quite agree it's possible
Unlikely, but possible which brings us where? Back to square 2?

Dave, I use "square 2" deliberately to separate your theories from the ones we started with; I hope you don't mind. Although - to say it bluntly - we are not here to write any type of thriller for you, it would be nice to start thinking about possible scenario's; question regarding those two babies in KV62, who - in AE's royal circles - do we know with alleles 10 and 15 in that locus? At least you have to admit, that this is pointing somewhere (even if we don't know at present where it's pointing at), while your theory is - at least to me - pointing into thin air!

Richard, aka
_________________
[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/8fc1c47be2.png[/img]
[i][b][color=#0080FF]Toth[/color][/b][/i]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let us apply Occam's razor: which is more likely?

1. That a mummy which is rather younger than Akhenaten should be and cannot be the grandfather of Tut's fetuses is NOT Akhenaten.

2. That the mummy IS Akhenaten and we explain the DNA evidence against as being due to Nefertiti's cheating on her hubby? We also ignore the evidence of age.

I'd say the answer is pretty clear.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toth
Account Suspended


Joined: 07 Jun 2010
Posts: 1781
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Let us apply Occam's razor: which is more likely?

1. That a mummy which is rather younger than Akhenaten should be and cannot be the grandfather of Tut's fetuses is NOT Akhenaten.

2. That the mummy IS Akhenaten and we explain the DNA evidence against as being due to Nefertiti's cheating on her hubby? We also ignore the evidence of age.

I'd say the answer is pretty clear.

Meretseger,

3. If you are willing to accept Nefertiti's cheating and adultery, then is it so difficult to accept the possibility of a human error in modern times when the age of the Ahkenaten mummy was determined? If you dare to take this into consideration, then all over sudden the answer is not so clear anymore!

If you want to know what is more likely? I say option 3 is more likely

Richard, aka
_________________
[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/8fc1c47be2.png[/img]
[i][b][color=#0080FF]Toth[/color][/b][/i]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Austendw
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 34
Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Did Neferiti commit adultary Reply with quote

dkessler wrote:
My own view is that the KV55 mummy IS Akhenaten and I subscribe to the theory of Nicholas Reeves et al that Smenkhkare was the prenomen of Neferiti as Pharoah.

Noone suggests that Smenkhkare was the prenomen of Nefertiti as Pharaoh. Smenkhkare isn't a prenomen.

The theory is that Nefertiti took the name Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti by year 5 of Akhenaten. She then became co-regent with the prenomen Ankhkheperure (+ epithets), and the nomen Neferneferuaten (+ epithets), she then retained the prenomen Ankhkheperure (minus epithets) but changed her nomen to Smekhkhare-Djeserkheperu.
It's this sequence of nomen changes that I find a little hard to credit. I can see why Nefertiti added Neferneferuaten: to give herself an Aten theophoric appropriate to the emphatic Atenism behind the move to Amarna. She adopted a new "fore-name" that sounded pretty like her original name. (Perhaps it isn't too fanciful to think that this similarity was consciously trying to suggest a sort of reverse etymology: that "Nefertiti" had always been a diminutive of Neferneferuaten). I daresay she became known by the name Neferneferuaten alone so that there would have been no confusion at all if she became King with the very same nomen Neferneferuaten, as king's usually did. So that seems entirely plausible to me.

But the change from Neferneferuaten to Smenkhkare doesn't possess the same clarity, the same "flow". The reason given by adherents to this theory is that Neferneferuaten wanted to dissociate herself from Atenism, but in that case why not revert to Nefertiti, or pick something like Neferneferure, much like other officials, who altered the theophoric element of their names but kept the same root, and so kept themselves essentially recognizable? Why adopt an entirely new name, causing untold confusion to.. well, everyone?

And anyway, it's not as if she needed to change her name again. After all, in her 3rd year King Neferneferuaten was already pretty accommodating to Amun, as the graffito from the tomb of Pere in Thebes makes clear, an intense prayer to "Amun, O great lord" and written by Pawah, "lay-priest and scribe of divine offerings of Amun in the temple of Ankhkheperure in Thebes." and a very un-Atenist pectoral reused for Tutankhamun has been made for her (Allen) Changing her name to Smenkhkare after she'd already gone this far to restore Amun to royal patronage seems a little pointless. Had the name in question contained an explicit reference to Amun, then I might have been convinced, but Smenkhkare-Djeserkheperu is too "weak" theologically (entirely congruent with Atenism if not explicitly) to have this sort of theological significance placed on it.

Anyway, none of this rules out the Reeves theory entirely, I suppose - the close association of King Smenkhkare and Queen Meritaten notwithstanding - but it weakens it terribly for me.

Ref:

Allen, J. The Amarna Succession, here, note 17
Dodson, A. Amarna Sunset , pp 44-45
Reeve, N. Akhenaten, Egypt's False Prophet, pp 162- 164
_________________
Call me Ishmael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dkessler
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 11 Aug 2010
Posts: 51
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Let us apply Occam's razor: which is more likely?

1. That a mummy which is rather younger than Akhenaten should be and cannot be the grandfather of Tut's fetuses is NOT Akhenaten.

2. That the mummy IS Akhenaten and we explain the DNA evidence against as being due to Nefertiti's cheating on her hubby? We also ignore the evidence of age.

I'd say the answer is pretty clear.


But my understanding is that the estimates for the age have been revised upwards. The latest estimates for the age make it entirely plausible that the KV55 mummy is Akhenaten.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dkessler
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 11 Aug 2010
Posts: 51
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Did Neferiti commit adultary Reply with quote

Austendw wrote:
The theory is that Nefertiti took the name Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti by year 5 of Akhenaten. She then became co-regent with the prenomen Ankhkheperure (+ epithets), and the nomen Neferneferuaten (+ epithets), she then retained the prenomen Ankhkheperure (minus epithets) but changed her nomen to Smekhkhare-Djeserkheperu.
It's this sequence of nomen changes that I find a little hard to credit. I can see why Nefertiti added Neferneferuaten: to give herself an Aten theophoric appropriate to the emphatic Atenism behind the move to Amarna. She adopted a new "fore-name" that sounded pretty like her original name. (Perhaps it isn't too fanciful to think that this similarity was consciously trying to suggest a sort of reverse etymology: that "Nefertiti" had always been a diminutive of Neferneferuaten). I daresay she became known by the name Neferneferuaten alone so that there would have been no confusion at all if she became King with the very same nomen Neferneferuaten, as king's usually did. So that seems entirely plausible to me.

But the change from Neferneferuaten to Smenkhkare doesn't possess the same clarity, the same "flow". The reason given by adherents to this theory is that Neferneferuaten wanted to dissociate herself from Atenism, but in that case why not revert to Nefertiti, or pick something like Neferneferure, much like other officials, who altered the theophoric element of their names but kept the same root, and so kept themselves essentially recognizable? Why adopt an entirely new name, causing untold confusion to.. well, everyone?

And anyway, it's not as if she needed to change her name again. After all, in her 3rd year King Neferneferuaten was already pretty accommodating to Amun, as the graffito from the tomb of Pere in Thebes makes clear, an intense prayer to "Amun, O great lord" and written by Pawah, "lay-priest and scribe of divine offerings of Amun in the temple of Ankhkheperure in Thebes." and a very un-Atenist pectoral reused for Tutankhamun has been made for her (Allen) Changing her name to Smenkhkare after she'd already gone this far to restore Amun to royal patronage seems a little pointless. Had the name in question contained an explicit reference to Amun, then I might have been convinced, but Smenkhkare-Djeserkheperu is too "weak" theologically (entirely congruent with Atenism if not explicitly) to have this sort of theological significance placed on it.

Anyway, none of this rules out the Reeves theory entirely, I suppose - the close association of King Smenkhkare and Queen Meritaten notwithstanding - but it weakens it terribly for me.


Is there any evidence that a separate person called "Smenkhkare" existed? Whilst their is a paucity of evidence for Tutankhamun's beginnings, their is an abundance of evidence of how he ended up - i.e. his mummy, his intact tomb, etc. The same cannot be said for "Smenkhkare." In "his" case, both his beginnings and his end are obscure. This can certainly justifying the questioning of "his" very independent existence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
herper
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toth, ok here goes. Dr H and Nefertiti at the North Palace of Amarna, the normal ways, and with his royal aaaaaahhhh scepter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toth
Account Suspended


Joined: 07 Jun 2010
Posts: 1781
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:28 am    Post subject: Re: Did Neferiti commit adultary Reply with quote

dkessler wrote:
Austendw wrote:
The theory is that Nefertiti took the name Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti by year 5 of Akhenaten. She then became co-regent with the prenomen Ankhkheperure (+ epithets), and the nomen Neferneferuaten (+ epithets), she then retained the prenomen Ankhkheperure (minus epithets) but changed her nomen to Smekhkhare-Djeserkheperu.
It's this sequence of nomen changes that I find a little hard to credit. I can see why Nefertiti added Neferneferuaten: to give herself an Aten theophoric appropriate to the emphatic Atenism behind the move to Amarna. She adopted a new "fore-name" that sounded pretty like her original name. (Perhaps it isn't too fanciful to think that this similarity was consciously trying to suggest a sort of reverse etymology: that "Nefertiti" had always been a diminutive of Neferneferuaten). I daresay she became known by the name Neferneferuaten alone so that there would have been no confusion at all if she became King with the very same nomen Neferneferuaten, as king's usually did. So that seems entirely plausible to me.

But the change from Neferneferuaten to Smenkhkare doesn't possess the same clarity, the same "flow". The reason given by adherents to this theory is that Neferneferuaten wanted to dissociate herself from Atenism, but in that case why not revert to Nefertiti, or pick something like Neferneferure, much like other officials, who altered the theophoric element of their names but kept the same root, and so kept themselves essentially recognizable? Why adopt an entirely new name, causing untold confusion to.. well, everyone?

And anyway, it's not as if she needed to change her name again. After all, in her 3rd year King Neferneferuaten was already pretty accommodating to Amun, as the graffito from the tomb of Pere in Thebes makes clear, an intense prayer to "Amun, O great lord" and written by Pawah, "lay-priest and scribe of divine offerings of Amun in the temple of Ankhkheperure in Thebes." and a very un-Atenist pectoral reused for Tutankhamun has been made for her (Allen) Changing her name to Smenkhkare after she'd already gone this far to restore Amun to royal patronage seems a little pointless. Had the name in question contained an explicit reference to Amun, then I might have been convinced, but Smenkhkare-Djeserkheperu is too "weak" theologically (entirely congruent with Atenism if not explicitly) to have this sort of theological significance placed on it.

Anyway, none of this rules out the Reeves theory entirely, I suppose - the close association of King Smenkhkare and Queen Meritaten notwithstanding - but it weakens it terribly for me.


Is there any evidence that a separate person called "Smenkhare" existed? Whilst their is a paucity of evidence for Tutankhamen's beginnings, their is an abundance of evidence of how he ended up - i.e. his mummy, his intact tomb, etc. The same cannot be said for "Smenkhare." In "his" case, both his beginnings and his end are obscure. This can certainly justifying the questioning of "his" very independent existence.


I think that before nov. 1922 it was quite the same for Tutankhamen and it turned out that he was very real. We really don't know what is still hidden in the sands of Egypt, the only thing I have seen so far from you are assumptions and guesses. Can you prove that "Smenkhare" never existed? I mean real and rock-solid proof? If you have this proof, I am sure we all would love to see it... If you don't have this proof, then let us continue the discussion as before...

Richard, aka
_________________
[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/8fc1c47be2.png[/img]
[i][b][color=#0080FF]Toth[/color][/b][/i]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dkessler
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 11 Aug 2010
Posts: 51
Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:01 am    Post subject: Re: Did Neferiti commit adultary Reply with quote

Toth wrote:
I think that before nov. 1922 it was quite the same for Tutankhamen and it turned out that he was very real. We really don't know what is still hidden in the sands of Egypt, the only thing I have seen so far from you are assumptions and guesses. Can you prove that "Smenkhare" never existed? I mean real and rock-solid proof? If you have this proof, I am sure we all would love to see it... If you don't have this proof, then let us continue the discussion as before...

Richard, aka


It is impossible to prove a negative. I cannot prove that Smenkhare did NOT exist as a separate person. And no one else can prove that Nefertiti didn't commit adultary. What we do know is that if the fetuses in KV62 were the children of Tutankhamun (as their placement suggests) and if he had only one wife (as the written record suggests) and if both fetuses came from this one wife, then the mummy in KV55 though almost certainly the paternal grandfather of the Fetuses, could not be the maternal grandfather of same.

If we accept those assumptions, then the possibility of adultery by Nefertiti is at least on the table, side by side with the possibility that the mummy in KV55 is not Akhenaten. If others are free to speculate on the latter, then I am free to speculate on the former.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Toth
Account Suspended


Joined: 07 Jun 2010
Posts: 1781
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:59 am    Post subject: Re: Did Neferiti commit adultary Reply with quote

dkessler wrote:
Toth wrote:
I think that before nov. 1922 it was quite the same for Tutankhamen and it turned out that he was very real. We really don't know what is still hidden in the sands of Egypt, the only thing I have seen so far from you are assumptions and guesses. Can you prove that "Smenkhare" never existed? I mean real and rock-solid proof? If you have this proof, I am sure we all would love to see it... If you don't have this proof, then let us continue the discussion as before...

Richard, aka


It is impossible to prove a negative. I cannot prove that Smenkhare did NOT exist as a separate person. And no one else can prove that Nefertiti didn't commit adultary. What we do know is that if the fetuses in KV62 were the children of Tutankhamun (as their placement suggests) and if he had only one wife (as the written record suggests) and if both fetuses came from this one wife, then the mummy in KV55 though almost certainly the paternal grandfather of the Fetuses, could not be the maternal grandfather of same.

If we accept those assumptions, then the possibility of adultery by Nefertiti is at least on the table, side by side with the possibility that the mummy in KV55 is not Akhenaten. If others are free to speculate on the latter, then I am free to speculate on the former.


Dave let's see what the coming years will bring; I have the strong feeling that the research into this is not over... yet. SO I guess your thriller filled with sex, adultery and incest in Ancient Egypt would have to wait a bit longer, unless you'd like to make it a totally fictional story.

Richard, aka
_________________
[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/8fc1c47be2.png[/img]
[i][b][color=#0080FF]Toth[/color][/b][/i]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dave, I have no problem whatsoever with you making your thriller as interesting as you please. Nefer's cheating may not be probable but of course it is 'possible'. IMO it is far more likely that KV55 is Smenkhkara, whose existence IS attested by a wine docket among other things, especially as the only people arguing for an older age are those committed to the 'KV55 is Akhenaten' school of thought.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toth
Account Suspended


Joined: 07 Jun 2010
Posts: 1781
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RobertStJames wrote:
neseret wrote:

As we know so very little about Smenkhkare, the idea that he is a brother of Akhenaten, who is joined as king to Meritaten as queen (per the Meryre tomb at Amarna), but produced Tutankhamun with another royal Amenhotep III/Tiye royal sister is very possible, IMO.


When it comes to a choice between positing the existence of Egyptian royals based on a few hieroglyphs and pictures, and the possibility that we're seeing the same people with different names, I'm going with mistaken identity every time. Especially when I see a picture of a guy using a crutch being identified as "Smenkhare" when I've already got another guy with a tomb full of crutches named "Tutankhamun."

I don't have to theorize Tut's existence. I don't have to speculate that he used at least two different forms of his name during his lifetime. I don't have to guess about who his father is. I don't have to explain why both his immediate predecessor and immediate successor have tombs and funerary goods while he (Smenkhare) has neither. I just have to follow the bread crumbs pictorial that lead me to "Smenkhare"=Tut. He married his oldest sister Meritaten, just as his father married a sister. His sister Meriaten was known as Neferneferuaten once she became queen. Prior to that I think she was known as "Kiya" Akhenaten's non-existent 2nd wife. She died at Amarna, Tut married the next oldest surviving sister Ankhesenamun, and the scene shifted back to Thebes.

I know there are whole wings of libraries written saying otherwise, but none of those authors seem able to agree on much of anything past Year 12. They can't all be right. But they can certainly all be wrong. One thing Hawass has given us that's solid is an abilitity to use DNA to solve some of the big questions. So, at least for now, I'm following the bodies. And I don't have one ID'd (even theoretically) as Smenkhare.




Well then let me add to this confusion:

Did Smenkhare really exist?
reference: X-raying the Pharaohs (James E.Harris/Kent R. Weeks)
Excerpt taken from Chapter IV-5: (Translated from Dutch)

After a reign of sixteen year Ahkenaten appointed his nephew and son in law as co-regent The reasons for this are not clear. We do know that Smenkhare married Merit-Aten, Ahkenaten's favorite daughter who himself had married her a few years before his death. For reasons not known Nefertiti, the Great Wife of the King disappear mysteriously from the texts and from the reliefs from that time. We assume that had fallen out of grace. We also know that there were tight ties bonds of friendship between Ahkenaten and Smenkhare. So, perhaps one of these factors, or perhaps both factors Smenkhare reigned two years as a co-regent and after Ahkenaten death for another year.

The mummy which was supposed to be Ahkenaten, is in bad shape of conservation; only an incomplete skeleton and a broken skull are the remains that are left to us. But these pitiful remains show us a man who looks like one of the Thuthmosides, who's open set of teeth is that of a young man, who's skeleton doesn't give us any clue of any physical ailment ( The one proposed diagnosis was that he suffered from hydrocephalus is very uncertain and is not supported by the X-rays .)

Shortly after Smenkhare became the sole ruler Nefertiti, must have made a come-back and rather suddenly Smenkhare and Merit-Aten were no longer mentioned. It's very feasible that there was a conspiracy to lay hands on the throne, but the evidence for this is too sparse to be sure.What is certain though is that Nefertiti was involved in the events that lead to Tutankhamun becoming King in 1352 BC

If there was a conspiracy,and the King and his wife were killed, mummified and the mummies destroyed afterwards,we will never find any proof for the existence of King Smenkhare, but from history we know he existed! And, as long the names of the dead are spoken....
_________________
[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/8fc1c47be2.png[/img]
[i][b][color=#0080FF]Toth[/color][/b][/i]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Austendw
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 34
Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Did Neferiti commit adultary Reply with quote

dkessler wrote:
Is there any evidence that a separate person called "Smenkhkare" existed? Whilst their is a paucity of evidence for Tutankhamun's beginnings, their is an abundance of evidence of how he ended up - i.e. his mummy, his intact tomb, etc. The same cannot be said for "Smenkhkare." In "his" case, both his beginnings and his end are obscure. This can certainly justifying the questioning of "his" very independent existence.

When one is discussing a period three and a half millenia ago, I don't think the sort of profusion of evidence you are talking about is a realistic requirement for accepting someone's existence. In a vast majority of cases in the ancient world we start and end with inscriptional evidence, without ever getting anything more than that.

The prima facie evidence is that Queen Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti, King Ankhkeperure Neferneferuaten, King Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare-Djeserkheperu and Princess/GRW Meritaten were four different people, and the burden of proof is surely on someone who argues that any of these is the same person as one (or more) of the others.

I do happen to think that King Ankhkeperure Neferneferuaten was more than likely Queen Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti, for a number of reasons. But the most significant? Very simple: because she had the same name. (No-one, to the best of my knowledge, seriously doubts that GRW Meritaten is the same person as Meritaten, Akhenaten's daughter. Again, for the obvious reason: because she had the same name.)

Similarly, when given names were changed, the reasons are entirely self-evident, and (with the exception of Akhenaten himself, but he is in so many ways the exception) the names retain a certain transparency: Prince Tutankhuaten, King Tutankhaten, King Tutankhamun... this as less name-change than name-growth. So, as far as I am concerned, the idea that Neferneferuaten suddenly decided to compromise her very identity by becoming Smenkhkare, (or, similarly, that Meritaten suddenly took on the name Neferneferuaten) strikes me as far more problematic and implausible than that Smenkhkare didn't exist - dearth of evidence regarding his begining, middle or end notwithstanding.
_________________
Call me Ishmael
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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

heck if we say lack of a body and tomb means no proof of a king then a great percent of the kings didnt exist. we only have what about 50 kings bodies? I dont know how many kings tombs, but a lot are still mssing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
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  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
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