Marianne Luban
re: the age of kv55
Wed Aug 31, 2016 21:19
174.23.185.15

I wrote:

"However, I do not believe that Akhenaten [Tutankhamun, per Post 17018] was born to Nefertiti until after Year 12. I am with Gabolde in thinking that the child, shielded by fans and attended by nurses, in the royal tomb scenes at the time of the death of Meketaten is the long-awaited heir, Tutankhamun."

Jaime:
"There is no way to know who the baby was, or who were his parents. Nefertiti's name appears, but that's all. She might have borne a child who died shortly after, as infant mortality was the norm until the past century. We also don't know what relationship Nefertiti had to this child: Tutankhamun wasn't also the only baby around in Amarna, don't forget about Meritaten Tasherit and Ankhsepaaten Tasherit."

I doubt those would have been portrayed as being so important--fans and all. And why kill off that baby? Just because Nefertiti can have been its mother?

I wrote:
"So, obviously, Tut would not have been old enough to rule on his own when his father, Akhenaten, died in Year 17. So others took his place in a chaotic time. "


"But others simply didn't take his place. If a king had a boy to succeed, the boy would succeed. See Thutmose III: he was a baby when he became king and his stepmother became his regent. Nobody could take the place of the crown prince."

Oh, no? Your own example is not the most compelling, as look what happened to Thutmose III. There is no such thing as "nobody can". Somebody pushed aside Thutmose III for nearly 20 years, put him in second place even though he had already been made king. Things happened that were not according to the rules of the game. Pharaohs were even murdered. I feel sure that Akhenaten was not a popular ruler at all. Maybe it was for Tut's own good that he did not succeed right away. At any rate, he couldn't have. See below.

" Plus, if Tut was Akhenaten's son, his place wasn't taken, it was given: Neferneferuaten was crowned Akhenaten's coregent at some point late in his reign, which inevitably made her his proclaimed heir. What else a co-ruler will do when his fellow monarch dies?"

Okay--taken, given--but what about Smenkhkare? What makes you so sure he wasn't an unlawful successor of Akhenaten?


I wrote:

"Myself, I don't believe Smenkhkare was ever a coregent with Akhenaten as there were no reason for that at any point. If you insist that he was, then when? Are you sure you want to stick with around Year 12? Because you said: [that Smenkhkare was concurrent with Akhenaten...]"

"First of all, one needs to think about the gap in decoration of Meryre II's tomb. Smenkhkare appears after Akhenaten's Year 12, so he didn't become king much time later."

That's an assumption. The unfinished scene with Smenkhkare and Meritaten is right around the corner from the durbar scene in the tomb of Meryre II. And why wasn't it finished when if it was started right away after that celebration? My point is--if there is a blank wall, decoration can resume at any time provided the owner still needs the tomb. Perhaps the workforce was needed elsewhere at Akhetaten and Meryre had to wait.


" To have 5 years (Years 12-17) plus whatever more years a second king could have reigned between Akhenaten and Smenkhkare, enlarges the gap."

That's only assuming that Smenkhkare was actually there around Year 12. He could have showed up at any time, even after Akhenaten was gone.


"Meketaten died shortly after Year 12, so to have Smenkhkare as king between Years 13-17 is not unreasonable. Note also that Meritaten is away shorter than Smenkhkare in Meryre II's tomb, which in my preliminary chronology as given in the last post is corroborated by the fact she was around 12 at the time and her husband was about to enter his 20s."

In Year 12? Then he has to die four years later in order to fit to the forensic conclusions of your modern examiners of choice.

I wrote:
"So you must think that Smenkhkare was married to his own sister, had a child with her, Tut, and then became the husband of Meritaten in Year 12."

"I argue he married a sister, likely before he married his niece. I'm interpreting the genetic facts available to us. But the opposite could have happened. We frankly can't know for sure. If he didn't have a wife by the time he married niece, he could be a widower (of his sister, Tut's mother); on the other hand, he could have conceived a bigamous marriage with his sister after marrying Meritaten. This is totally possible and expected from a pharaoh, but it doesn't match the numbers I gave last post."

Wouldn't it just be easier to admit that nobody knows just when and how Smenkhkare fits into the picture and that there is every possibility that the KV55 person could be Akhenaten after all?

"Again, when do you think that Meritaten became the wife of her own father--because that is what happened."

"I've already answered: "In my scheme, she married her father after Smenkhkare died. I have her aged about 11 years old when Smenkhkare became king, and aged 16 when her father died."

Well, that's a novel approach. Akhenaten marries the widow of his own brother, who happens to be his own daughter. Why would he have done that? Why not just find her another husband since he had married her off already?

"There is nothing spelled out more clearly than on the box element from KV62."

"If you're reffering to Carter 001k, then yes, she is Great Royal Wife, but she could be retaining her title from her marriage with Smenkhkare."

That would have been a first. The daughter of a king being called "queen" of a dead king in the same row as two other living rulers. In that case, Jaime, where is the queen of Akhenaten? Everywhere at Amarna, Akhenaten has a wife, but not on that box? Don't you think it makes more sense that there are two coregents there with Meritaten being the queen of Akhenaten? King Neferneferuaten didn't require a queen because she was a woman.

"Whatever the case, I believe she married her father, as indicated by the El Amarna letters (I doubt a Babylonian king would address a teenaged widow as 'mistress of the house' when her mother was still around, let alone sending her gifts, something strange because kings send gift to kings, not to princesses)."

I wrote:
"But, okay, let's say Smenkhkare married Meritaten in around Year 12 and already had a son by another woman, who was Tut.
Let's say the boy was three years old then. Five years pass, Akenaten dies, and Smenkhkare succeeds for a year. Then Tut comes along in the succession--age 9. Very neat, indeed, but based entirely on supposition."

"Please mark that these are your words, not mine."

Well, Smenkhkare could have done all that and still be only about 24 when he died--if he had the son at age 14.


" Evidences point out that Akhenaten was succeeded by a woman, Neferneferuaten, and nothing points out for Smenkhkare succeeding her or Akhenaten directly. May I ask you how you interpret the Amarna succession?"

That's it! My scenario is for Smenkhkare succeeding Akhenaten directly. I think there is a possibility that Nefertiti and her son left Akhetaten to live at Memphis and that it was she who ruled after Smenkhkare. But there is no way to know. There is more than one way to interpret the succession because none is better than the other, IMO.

I wrote:
"By Year 12, Meritaten, herself, could have been the heir of Akhenaten at any time as his eldest daughter. She did not need to marry an uncle who already had a wife and a son. I can really see no reason why Akhenaten would rather have a brother and a nephew succeed him than his own child."

"But as a princess, Meritaten needed to marry and keep the lineage on."

She married her own father as a widow, according to you. Many pharaoh's daughters married their fathers. I don't think we can get anywhere with this, so let's move on to the coffin.

I wrote:
"However, if Tut was the son of the short-lived Smenkhkare, why did he give him absolutely nothing in his reburial in KV55 with his own name on it--not so much as on a magic brick, easily produced? Why did a calcite vase, discovered in KV62, whose cartouches have been reconstructed by a German scholar [his name escapes me just now] as those of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare, side by side, have both cartouches subjected to erasure? You can choose whichever forensic examiner you prefer when it comes to the age-at-death of the KV55 remains, but you have to admit that the coffin belonged to Akhenaten in that tomb and the only name on any magic brick was his."

"Let's see then:

a) Don't know. When did the reburial occurred? Note that the coffin where the mummy was found wasn't even meant to be for Akhenaten."

I think that's an old theory, no longer held. Anyway, the coffin belonged to Akhenaten.


" And note also that most of Tutankhamun's stuff in his burial wasn't his even, but Neferneferuaten's.
b) But Smenkhkare's name appears some times in the tomb by his own, or with Meritaten's, or his possessions are reused. So, Tut knew his existence and didn't disregard it at all."

I don't think the name "Smenkhkare" ever appears in KV62. I will have to confirm. Regardless, there is still KV55, whose earliest door seals bear the name of Tutankhamun--so in his reign.


" Can't see how his name and Akhenaten's got erased from that specific box, but it may have something to do with association with the heretic king;"

You mean the vase.


"But how did Akhenaten, having his own family tomb in Amarna, have his coffin back in Thebes? There can be many reasons why a pharaoh wasn't buried in his own coffin."

Akhenaten's coffin and anything else that came from Amarna was transported on the river to Thebes. That's the best answer.

  • re: the age of kv55Jaime O, Wed Aug 31 12:58
    Hi Marianne, Thank you for the reply. "Well, I'm sorry you would characterize my valid comment about "easy" as opposed to "compelling scenario" as a "rant"." My apologies here. English is not my... more
    • Re: the age of kv55Joe Baker, Fri Sep 2 05:15
      Hi Jaime Meryre II's tomb has the last appearance of the royal Amarna family dated to Year 12 and these representations are followed by Smenkhkare's debut with Meritaten by his side. I too think the... more
      • re: the age of kv55Jaime O, Sat Sep 3 07:52
        Hi Joe, thank you for your comments. I appreciate your remarks on Meryre II and they do make sense. To some extent. You and me seem to agree that Meritaten was likelier than not Ankhkhe(t)perure... more
        • re: the age of kv55Kim Sargerson, Mon Sep 5 07:59
          Hi Jaime, Joe I think too much is made of "erasure". There are not always political overtones to this. The calcite jar which apparently had the cartouches of Smenkhkare and Akhenaten side by side,... more
          • re: the age of kv55Marianne Luban, Mon Sep 5 12:23
            Kim: Just a few responses... "It should be remembered that most of Tutankhamun's gravegoods come from a small window of time at the end of the Amarna period. There is one winejar from Amunhotep III... more
            • re: the age of kv55Kim Sargerson, Mon Sep 5 19:05
              Hi Marianne Thank you for your comments. I wrote "(and no objects attesting to a coregency of Amunhotep III and Akhenaten)." Perhaps I could have phrased that better. What I am trying to say is that... more
              • re: the age of kv55Marianne Luban, Tue Sep 6 09:30
                I wrote: "So it is Neferneferuaten on that box element and she did not need a wife. Akhenaten did--and that Great Royal Wife was now Meritaten" Kim: "Yes it is Neferneferuaten, female pharaoh, which... more
                • re: the age of kv55Marianne Luban, Tue Sep 6 09:48
                  This site gives information as to how cranial sutures are used in determining age of skeletal remains:... more
      • Re: the age of kv55Marianne Luban, Fri Sep 2 10:17
        Hello Joe, Jaime "Meryre II's tomb has the last appearance of the royal Amarna family dated to Year 12 and these representations are followed by Smenkhkare's debut with Meritaten by his side." "I too ... more
        • CorrectionMarianne Luban, Fri Sep 2 10:47
          Joe: "Phantom children only ever depicted/mentioned in illustrations/texts from the Kiya dedicated Meru-Aten. Her original inscriptions were later reinscribed to represent the older surviving... more
    • re: the age of kv55 — Marianne Luban, Wed Aug 31 21:19
      • re: the age of kv55Marianne Luban, Thu Sep 1 08:03
        I wrote: "I don't think the name "Smenkhkare" ever appears in KV62. I will have to confirm. Regardless, there is still KV55, whose earliest door seals bear the name of Tutankhamun--so in his reign."... more
        • re: the age of kv55Marianne Luban, Thu Sep 1 09:34
          Anything that can be known about any sequins from KV62 can be found on page 60 of Reeves' "After Tutankhamun". Interesting chapter, but still nothing verifying Smenkhkare on those sequins.... more
          • Pharaohs and revisionsJaime O, Thu Sep 1 10:08
            Hi Marianne, "I doubt those would have been portrayed as being so important--fans and all. And why kill off that baby? Just because Nefertiti can have been its mother? " Because we know nothing of... more
            • re: the age of kv55Jaime O, Thu Sep 1 10:18
              Marianne, I was already writing my reply when you posted your 17027 and 17028. Thank you for your further comments. However, I still can't see why Smenkhkare can't be Tutankhamun's father, even if he ... more
              • Ankhkheperure MeritatenJaime O, Thu Sep 1 21:27
                The answer was in the link I send all along. Stupid me for not seeing all the items listed at once. http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/046gg.html Here, Meritaten is in clear association with the ... more
                • re: Ankhkheperure MeritatenMarianne Luban, Fri Sep 2 10:58
                  Jaime: "The answer was in the link I send all along. Stupid me for not seeing all the items listed at once. http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/046gg.html Here, Meritaten is in clear association... more
                  • Ankhkheperure MeritatenMarianne Luban, Fri Sep 2 11:12
                    Reeves wrote that there are 47 sequins of the same type and all from the same die that were on a garment. The sequins have a double cartouche, with one saying "Ankhkheperure" and the other... more
    • Yet another correctionJaime O, Wed Aug 31 12:59
      "c) AFAIK, the coffin is considered to have been reused from a female to fit Akhenaten" I meant to say "a male' instead of 'Akhenaten' Regards, Jaime
Click here to receive daily updates