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
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4154
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Osiris II wrote:
neseret has said:
(both KV 55 and KV 62 (Tutankhamun) are considered cache burials).

This statement confuses me--it is the first time I've heard of the burial of Tutankhamen referred to as a cache burial. ...

See Rosemarie Drenkhahn : Eine Umbettung Tutanchamuns?. - Mainz : von Zabern, 1983. - ISSN : 0342-1279. - Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo - MDAIK - 39. - p. 29 - 37.

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you know of an English translation, lutz?
(my German is non-existant!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4154
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Osiris II wrote:
Do you know of an English translation, lutz?
(my German is non-existant!)

I don`t know of an English one. I have read the article some years ago. Have to look for my copy again, do not find them at the moment, unfortunately ... Embarassed

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Solon
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 12
Location: london

PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:54 am    Post subject: How real is Smenkhare anyway? Reply with quote

The discussion of whether KV55 is the home of Akhenaten or Smenkhare begs the question of whether someone called Smenkhare ever actually existed. Having been a supporter of Smenkh for some years I have gradually come to the conclusion that there is no real evidence for him. I finally said goodbye to him after reading Sue Moseley's 'Amarna - The Missing Evidence' (Peach Pixel, Calshot 2009). There's plenty I disagree with in this book - and it could have done with a lot more checking and editing - but I think the core of her book - the sections dealing with the epigraphy surrounding Smenkhare are pretty definitive.

She examines the work of the four early explorers of Meryre II's tomb (the main source for 'Smenkhare'), Robert Hay, Nestor l'Hote, Prisse D'Avennes and Lepsius.
Robert Hay was the first to record the Meryre II cartouches in 1830 when the cartouches were still reasonably visible, (his drawings are probably the major 'source' of the name Smenkhare). Luckily his original drawings are still available at the British Library and Sue M re-examined them. It is clear from the drawings that the last two of the five cartouches were badly damaged even then. He did not claim to see the name Smenkhare. Two French explorers, Nestor L'Hote and Prisse D'Avennes recorded the cartouches in 1839 and 1843 respectively. Then Karl Lepsius (the first with an understanding of hieroglyphs) made a squeeze of the cartouches in 1845. None of them reported seeing 'Smenkhare'. Much later (long after the cartouches had disappeared) came the work of Davies, Petrie (with his two ring bezels of Smenkhare which suggested the later reconstruction), Newberry and others. She shows how the work of all these people influenced each other - even to the extent of replicating each other's 'enhancements' and mistakes. She summarises a very complex history thus: 'Robert Hay saw the cartouches on the North Wall of the Tomb of Meryre II before anyone else. Karl Lepsius visited about 15 years later, but enhanced his work for publication. Nestor L'Hote and Prisse D'Avennes altered their findings to fit Lepsius' enhanced findings. Davies followed Petrie, although Petrie's rings are not related to the tomb inscriptions'. In short 'Smenkhare' seems to been a bit of an epigraphic chimera. Perhaps someone can restore my faith in Smenkh? There may be some real evidence for his existence out there which I am ignoring.
_________________
solon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 323

PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I made some of the same points after reading this book on another forum about a year ago but was assured by Katherine that the writer was mistaken and that there is further evidence of the individual named Smenkhkare.

If I can I'll locate the link tonight.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:21 pm    Post subject: Re: How real is Smenkhare anyway? Reply with quote

Perhaps someone can restore my faith in Smenkh? There may be some real evidence for his existence out there which I am ignoring.[/quote Solon]

In Allen`s "Amarna Succession" there is the description of a jar from Tut`s tomb (jar 405) which displayed the cartouches of both Akhenaten and Semenkhkare (both nomen and prenomen) but which had been erased.

There is also a mention of an inscription from a wine jar "year 1 from the house of Semenkhkare", but I could not make out where it originated from.

There may well be more indications around, but that`s what I found so far apart from the contested representations in Merire II`s tomb.[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 323

PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thread below includes discussion of Moseley's arguments regarding Smenkhkare:

http://www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?6,504773,504894#msg-504894
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neferseshat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 212
Location: Kaohsiung, Taiwan

PostPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In this issue of KMT(21-2), an article about a piece of gold foil from the coffin of KV55 with a cartouche, inside the cartouche is the name Smenkare Djeserkheperu.(p36~37)

That foil is in Munich.

It's very interesting that so far I have learned that the coffin bears no name of any king. I think this can also be a proof that king Smenkare did actually exist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 323

PostPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

However, the foil inscription is very much an extrapolation - as the article makes clear.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Solon
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 12
Location: london

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:57 pm    Post subject: Did Smenkhare really exist? Reply with quote

I read the thread recommended by Karnsculpture with great interest. Some good points were made but on the whole I felt that we were still left with rather thin pickings where Smenk was concerned. It would be good to have one irrefutable and unambiguous piece of evidence re his actual existence.
I noticed in the thread that J Allen in his book 'Nefertiti and Smenkare' made the point; ''While no inscriptional evidence remains to connect the burial with the king called Smenkhare, who else can it be?" Of course that was written long before the Hawass et al DNA study threw up an entirely different age range for the body - 35-45 years compared to previous estimates of about 20/30 - which I had also previously accepted as being strongly indicative of the existence of Smenk. (Incidentally, I notice Hawass' article in Ancient Egypt in April 2010 - and the Discovery programme - gives an age estimate of 45-55 for the mummy compared with the JAMA report which gives 35-45. Let's ignore that discrepancy for the moment!)
Which raises the whole thorny problem of ageing ancient remains.
In this respect, it is worth having a look at Aidan Dodson's article in Ancient Egypt magazine (October/November 2009, No 56) about the ageing of deceased ancient Egyptians. He cites the Spitalfields study of the mid-1980s which looked at the half thousand or so coffins that still bore the precise age at death of the deceased. "There was a systematic error which depended on the age of the individual, those under forty being over-aged, those over seventy being under-aged...., Less than 30% of the sample were correctly aged - ie to within five years of the real age; but 50 % were assessed to within 10 years, and three-quarters to within fifteeen years .....". He notes that if that kind of error was possible with bodies only 200 years old, then the room for error with with bodies thousands of years old must be even greater. He points out that if the Spitalfields' results could be repeated directly the number of deaths in old-age could increase considerably: "Certainly the under-aging of the over-seventies would account for the case of Ramses II, whose apparent X-ray age in his fifties sits uncomfortably with his reign length of sixty-seven years!". In fact we would probably find that ancient populations lived, on average, longer than we commonly suppose!
Of course, that error would not seem to apply in this particular case where a middle aged-aged body has traditionally been under-aged. Even so I think we have to accept that the recent DNA testing and scanning of the body has given the best estimate of age available to us so far and that it would be difficult to argue for it being Smenkhare.
_________________
solon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As Katherine Griffis-Greenberg has pointed out Hawass et.-al. base their older estimate on deterioration visible in the spine. Unfortunately this is NOT at all a reliable sign as even children under certain circumstances can show such deterioration and it is extremely common in people suffering from a scoliosis.

We must also remember that a theory wrecks havoc with scholarly detachment and Zahi definitely has a theory. Heck he is apparently still dedicated to Nefertiti or Kiya being Tut's mother in spite of the improbability of either being KV35YL.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aromagician
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 97
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
As Katherine Griffis-Greenberg has pointed out Hawass et.-al. base their older estimate on deterioration visible in the spine. Unfortunately this is NOT at all a reliable sign as even children under certain circumstances can show such deterioration and it is extremely common in people suffering from a scoliosis.

We must also remember that a theory wrecks havoc with scholarly detachment and Zahi definitely has a theory. Heck he is apparently still dedicated to Nefertiti or Kiya being Tut's mother in spite of the improbability of either being KV35YL.


Why is it improbable?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aromagician wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
As Katherine Griffis-Greenberg has pointed out Hawass et.-al. base their older estimate on deterioration visible in the spine. Unfortunately this is NOT at all a reliable sign as even children under certain circumstances can show such deterioration and it is extremely common in people suffering from a scoliosis.

We must also remember that a theory wrecks havoc with scholarly detachment and Zahi definitely has a theory. Heck he is apparently still dedicated to Nefertiti or Kiya being Tut's mother in spite of the improbability of either being KV35YL.


Why is it improbable?


In case of Nefertiti the age of KV35YL is too low. I think that makes it highly improbable that this is Nefertiti.

Identifying KV35YL as Kiya would mean she would have a relation to the royal family by birth that does not show up at all in her titles.
Personally i would say that the identification of this mummy as Kiya is not immediately impossible, but other than wishful thinking I'm not sure what the reason would be?

All we really know is that per DNA evidence KV35YL is closely related to the royal family. Her DNA is consistent with being a daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye. And of course with being Tut's mother.
Kiya being Tut's mother is a rather speculative assumption in and of itself. Tut is never shown with his mother and Kiya is never shown with a son. So there is no evidence that ties Kiya to Tutankhamen.

So I would say it may be possible but there is not a shred of evidence?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Austendw
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 34
Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
In case of Nefertiti the age of KV35YL is too low. I think that makes it highly improbable that this is Nefertiti.

I don't think that particular point is correct. As I understand it, the CT scans suggest "between 25 and 35" for KV35YL. If Nefertiti were dead by year 14 (assuming she didn't become King Neferneferuaten, which still remains to be proven and is anything but generally accepted) then, at the top end of this range, she would have been 21 when Akhenaten came to the throne, which is entirely feasible. That's not to say I think that KV35YL is Nefertiti, as I feel sure she isn't. It's just that her estimated age at death isn't a factor.
_________________
Call me Ishmael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had seen an age estimate of 16-25 ish.

Very Happy Not sure which one is correct.
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, 8  Next
Page 2 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