Joe Baker
Re: the age of kv55
Fri Sep 2, 2016 05:15
1.122.74.199

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 close proximity of these two scenes in the tomb of Meryre means they were executed about the same time - but after the death of Akhenaten, Nefertiti and Mekitaten. The “dubar” scene is a anachronistic rendition while the Smenkhkare/Meritaten scene is a contemporary scene with both scenes intended to depict important moments in Meryre’s career. They are thus from the one year period following the death of Akhenaten while his queen/daughter Meritaten was waiting for the arrival of Smenkhkare - that is the name that the Egyptian had provided for the Hittite prince Zannanza (which itself is a Hittite rendition of Egyptian zȝ-n-nzw, “son of the king”). Yes I am not one who dogmatically holds to the notion that an Egyptian princess/queen could not marry a foreigner because the whole Taḫamunzu (the Hittite rendition of Egyptian tȝ-ḥmt-nzwt, “the king’s wife”) incident proves that such a notion is wrong.

The “dubar” scene in Meryre’s tomb is dated to year 12, but it has several anachronistic features

  • The six daughters are all shown as the same sized adults, whereas the same scene in the tomb of Huya (also dated to year 12) shows only Meritaten and Mekitaten with Mekitaten being about 25% smaller.

  • The later form of the Aten name is used but this came into use later than year 12. Actually it was this scene with the later form of the Aten name which used to be taken as the earliest dated reference to the new form. However since this scene is an anachronistic the earliest dated reference to the new name is the recently discovered year 16 document (see next point).

  • In Huya’s tomb Nefertiti is only ever given the title “King’s Chief Wife” (ḥmt nzwt wr). However in the dubar scene in Meryre’s tomb she is given the title “King’s Great Wife” (ḥmt nzwt ʿȝt) but this was only a posthumous title as the year 16 inscription and her ushabti shows that she died and was buried having only the title “King’s Chief Wife” (ḥmt nzwt wr). The other occasion she is given the title “King’s Great Wife” is on stele UC 410 but again this stele text is posthumous.

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.

Berlin 20716, which is not inscribed, and Berlin 17813, where the cartouches are blank, were posthumous stelae supporting Meritaten’s claim to kingship as ḥmt-wife (not sꜣt-daughter) of Akhenaten. The triple cartouche intended for Meritaten on BM 17813 is the same form she used on the posthumous Carter 001k - see my post
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=177754

Tutankhamun wasn't also the only baby around in Amarna, don't forget about Meritaten Tasherit and Ankhsepaaten Tasherit

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 daughter’s of Akhenaten. Since neither Meritaten or Ankhesepaaten had a child the original accompanying child was named after the newly labelled women. They do not exist or are even mentioned outside these reinscribed scenes.

Note that the coffin where the mummy was found wasn't even meant to be for Akhenaten ... AFAIK, the coffin is considered to have been reused from a female to fit Akhenaten, although I haven't read Perepelkin.

You need to read the work of Grimm and Schoske who examined the original bands and inscriptions (unknown to Perepelkin) on the Munich fragments (before they were returned to Cairo). As I said in my recent post, they concluded that the coffin was specifically made for Akhenaten and underwent no major modification. (However sometime after Tutankhamun reburied it in the Valley of the Kings, someone ordered Akhenaten’s names to be chiseled out of the inscriptions).

But Smenkhkare's name appears some times in the tomb by his own, or with Meritaten's, or his possessions are reused.

No the (erased) name Smenkhkare only appears on that vase. Since Akhenaten’s name was not erased on other inscriptions in Tutankhamun’s tomb, clearly the erasure was due to the presence of the name Smenkhkare and particularly its use in the combination Akhenaten/Smenkhkare. Do not confuse the presence of the name Ankhkheperure as proof of the presence of Smenkhkare. This incorrect juxtaposition (especially in almost all older literature and even in recent literature) is why his name appears over and over again, even thought its actually attestation is quite rare in monumental inscriptions. Whenever you see his name in the literature you have to be very careful. Almost 99 times out of 100 the inscription will say only Ankhkeperure or (less common) Neferneferuaten. I find your position that Smenkhkare was the father of Tutankhamun and the mummy in KV 55, quite strange in that Tutankhamun would have reburied his father but failed to record his name or give him any grave goods that contained his name and in Tutankhamun’s own tomb he erased his name.

Whatever the case, one can't disregard forensic results, or else we'd have a 25 year old Akhenaten at death

Agree. Therefore, like you I make a choice. I choose the most recent CT scan and previous X-ray studies and even those physical examinations which concluded 30+ (although not the one that said up to 60).

Regards Joe


  • 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 kv55 — Joe Baker, Fri Sep 2 05:15
      • 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 kv55Marianne Luban, Wed Aug 31 21:19
      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 ... more
      • 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