Jaime O
Pharaohs and revisions
Thu Sep 1, 2016 10:08
95.95.208.52

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 the baby. Because Akhenaten didn't die as young as KV55 did, and unless you can argue that Nefertiti winded up in her brother-in-law's bed, we can't claim this baby was theirs or Tutankhamun. It could be a boy who died shortly after: we don't know.

"Oh, no? Your own example is not the most compelling. 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."

Nor is your argument that Tut was put away for his own safety. See more below.

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

Because Akhenaten wasn't aged so young at death like KV55, and if so, then he had a brother who likelier than not became king. You also missed the point of my remark: Neferneferuaten was her husband's coregent, thus his presumptive heir. See more below.

"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?"

I didn't say it started after the celebrations. I said it started some time after, and for number's sake, I dated his reign between Years 13-17. But I do get your point, especially when you write "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.". In this case, my dates for Smenkhkare can be revised.

I wrote: "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."

You replied: "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."

Did you see my preliminary dates? I had Smenkhkare becoming king aged 19, dying at the age of 23. In that scheme, this number can be raised to 24, give or take. He is fitting the forensic conclusions.

"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?"

If we want Akhenaten to be aged 23 at death with a daughter seven years younger than him, then yes, you can admit so.

"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?"

I don't know. I'm just following the consequences of my approach to Meryre II's tomb decorations and Carter 001k. If Smenkhkare's position is rethought, Smenkhkare can be Meritaten's second husband; it would make more sense at light of all the other daughter-wives of king, who appear to be married for the first time to their fathers (Amenhotep III and Ramses II are the main examples).

" 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? [...] Don't you think it makes more sense that there are two coregents there with Meritaten being the queen of Akhenaten?"

But this is exactly what I wrote afterwards. "Whatever the case, I believe she married her father, as indicated by the El Amarna letters". So yes, I think it makes more sense and I disregard the possibility of her having kept the title from her first marriage.

You 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."

To which I replied: ""Please mark that these are your words, not mine."

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

But if you assume Smenkhkare came after Akhenaten, there is no need to suppose he married Meritaten about Year 12, so there is no reason to assume he fathered a boy by his sister at age 14.

"That's it! My scenario is for Smenkhkare succeeding Akhenaten directly."

But what about Berlin 20716 and Berlin 17813? In it, Akhenaten is accompanied by a female king, who is clearly more than just his political partner. These depictions of a ruling queen are hardly memorials: the way these rulers are pictured shows them in an intimate motion. So Neferneferuaten was already a king when Akhenaten was still alive: Smenkhkare didn't came in between them. You continued: "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." This is not convincing at all. The crown prince would inherit the king: if he was too young, someone would act like his coregent; this is how the game goes and should be regarded as such until strong evidence point otherwise. We've seen this happening before, and after. I think I've shown we can affirm Neferneferuaten came after Akhenaten, not Smenkhkare. It still makes no sense as to why the crown-prince had to be hidden or put away, unless you can convincingly argue that something very wrong was happening. If Smenkhkare came after Akhenaten, he had to be king after Neferneferuaten, thus before Tutankhamun.

" 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."

Okay, but my point was that Meritaten was marrying inside her family, inscriptions show she did it at least twice. This was the norm of the period and totally expected from royal Ancient Egyptians.

On the coffin:

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

Wrong mummies wind up in the wrong coffins.

"I don't think the name "Smenkhkare" ever appears in KV62. I will have to confirm."

It doesn't, my bad here. It is Neferneferuaten's goods that are reused by Tutankhamun, and some by Akhenaten.


"You mean the vase."

Yes, thanks for the correction. I add my argument is lacking for the erasure of Smenkhkare's name: whatever happen, it can't be used against Smenkhkare fathering Tutankhamun, or it must be used to disregard Akhenaten as the father too.

Regards,
Jaime

  • 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 revisions — Jaime O, Thu Sep 1 10:08
      • 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
Click here to receive daily updates