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 

Smenkhkare
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kharis
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Posts: 78
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:46 pm    Post subject: Smenkhkare Reply with quote

Now that modern investigation seems to indicate that the mummy in KV55 is that of Akhenaten, what is the latest academic view of Smenkhkare? Did he exist? Was he actually female? Was he another son of Akhenaten or someone else?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meyers
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 10 Feb 2021
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apparently, Smenkhkare was a woman so it is a she. Following Chris Naunton: the picture has been confused by the presence of the throne-name ‘Ankhkheperure’ in a number of inscriptions but as part of a longer, different royal name from that in the tomb of Meryra, which seems to have belonged to a female pharaoh. This other name included the element ‘Neferneferuaten’ which is known to have been a name held by Akhenaten’s famous queen, Nefertiti. For many, this makes for a straightforward conclusion: Smenkhkare was simply another name used by Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten/Nefertiti, and Smenkhkare was, therefore, a woman. Which is an incredible discovery if you ask me. Not only she was a woman but she was a Nefertiti herself!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
irt-akhu
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Nov 2019
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Was there some recent announcement that KV55 was definitely shown to be Akhenaten? And that Smenkhare was Nefertiti? Must have missed that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kharis
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Posts: 78
Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The identification with Akhenaten seems to be associated with the scanning of the royal mummies and DNA analysis which shows the mummy to be the father of Tutankhamun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irt-akhu
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Nov 2019
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kharis wrote:
The identification with Akhenaten seems to be associated with the scanning of the royal mummies and DNA analysis which shows the mummy to be the father of Tutankhamun.

I agree that it appears KV55 is the father of Tut, but where was it settled that Akhenaten is Tut's father? We had several threads on that last year or before and it is still unsettled unless I missed some announcement by Dodson, Man in the Hat, MoTA, or somebody in charge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kharis
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Posts: 78
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have Dodson's recent book on Nefertiti - in it he says that Akhenaten is the father and Nefertiti is the mother of Tutankhamun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irt-akhu
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Nov 2019
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2021 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

True, that is Prof Dodson's opinion. Other Egyptologists have a differing opinion. Would be exciting for some new evidence to come along to resolve this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kharis
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Posts: 78
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dodson bases his opinion, in part, on three generations of first cousin marriages creating a DNA profile resembling a brother/sister relationship for the parents of Tutankhamun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 434

PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tutankhaten was a King's Son - that's not in doubt as the block originally at Amarna confirms it - sadly it does not say which king.

KV55 is Tutankhaten's father - proven I think. So KV55 has to be one of two kings - Akhenaten or Smenkhkare.

Smenkhkare, if KV55, is too old to be a son of Akhenaten based on current consensus. That mummy has never been identified as being younger than age 20, with the majority of the several examinations coming in older. The 2010 research estimated 35. So if Smenkhkare is KV55 he must be a male relative of Akhenaten, possibly a brother. There we have problems because no younger brothers of Akhenaten are known.

Remember with Akhenaten himself and Tutankhaten we DO have evidence naming them as princes. King's Son Amenhotep is named at Malkata on wine jar sealings from the dumps of the first Sed Festival of Amenhotep III in year 30. With Tutankhaten we have the block from Amarna.

The case for Akhenaten as KV55 is much stronger. The age of 35 or even slightly younger is possible, if he came to the throne aged 16 to 18. Akhenaten was not a child king, but his earliest depictions are with his mother Tiye and Nefertiti is not shown until Year 2. So it's totally plausible that he was as young as 14 or 15 when king, married and having children slightly after.

Second, the magical bricks in KV55 name Akhenaten, and the defaced coffin can be reconstructed to be referring to that king.

So, I don't think KV55 is Smenkhkare.

The only true existing evidence for the king is the depiction in the tomb of Meryre II - undated - with ambiguous clothing and body. There is also I think 2 inscriptions on items from Tut's tomb, which are different to those naming Neferneferuaten (or Ankhepurure with epithets indicating a female). There are also some ring bezels found at Amarna but these vary in type and spelling, and are not cast-iron proof that a ruler is named in my view.

Some of the study heads from Amarna (presumed Tuthmose studio) do show other males that are not Akhenaten; none are named.

The evidence for Neferneferuaten is much more numerous and compelling. So I'm left on the fence on this one at the moment, unwilling to state definitvely one way or the other.

The scenario that makes most sense to me today (I reserve the right to change my mind later) is that Smenkhkare is NOT KV55 but was an older son that Akhenaten had, similar age to Meritaten, and the two were married and made co-regents of Akhenaten towards the end of the reign. Smenkhkare died before Akhenaten and then Neferneferuaten was made co-regent - or may have been the only adult in the family alive - and became an interregnum ruler until Tutankhaten was older. Somehow she then died which is why you have Horemheb and Ay effectively running the country.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
William57
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 19 Feb 2021
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have you read Michael E Habicht's latest book Smenkhkare. The enigmatic predecessor of Tutankhamun? You can find it on researchgate and other sources. Has anyone read it yet? Here's the description for it. I'm certainly interested in it and want to buy it soon.

The book presents the various theories on the phantom-like Amarna-ruler Smenkhkare. His or her identity and sex and rule are still unclear and debated. It starts with the name Smenkhkare Djeser Kheperu Ankh-Khepru-Ra which are in fact not one birth- and one throne name - but two throne names. This point to the possibility, that Smenkhkare is a constructed identity and someone else is behind it: He or she may be the Hittite Prince Zananza, or Queen Nefertiti as successor of Akhenaton, or a younger and never mentioned son of Amenhotep III or another, unknown member of the royal family in Amarna. The mummy in KV 55 is a vital element of the great enigma of Egyptology. The electronic version includes the updates on the theory of Nicholas Reeves published in summer 2020.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 434

PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, I have read some other papers by the same author but maybe not this one. I’ll do that then comment here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 434

PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, I have read some other papers by the same author but maybe not this one. I’ll do that then comment here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irt-akhu
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Nov 2019
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just received the new issue of KMT Journal. Looks like Dennis Forbes has a book coming out on this topic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irt-akhu
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Nov 2019
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks like the Forbes book is out

https://www.amazon.com/Bones-Basket-Seeking-Identity-Egyptian/dp/B08KHGDVBT/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=basket+of+bones+dennis+forbes&qid=1613801554&sr=8-1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 419

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The books by Habich and Forbes are both excellent, with Habich managing to be very succinct in a subject that suffers a lot of bloat. He's very good at presenting the competing ideas, and how opinions based on examination of the KV55 bones have swayed back and forth. It's helpful to be able to look at a table with all that laid out, and it stands out that Akhenaten is by far the prime candidate.

Forbe's book is very similar in style to his others, the royal caches for instance. Large format and covers everything very clearly, and lots of good size photos of relevant objects, something missing from most other books which just describe that obect XY or Z shows this that or the other, here you can see what is meant and why an author has come to a conclusion on meaning.

There's lots of books out there, but I would say that anybody would have a very good understanding from these two books and from Ridley's, which also cuts through the nonsense.
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 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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