Joe Baker
Re: Wine Jar Labels
Sun Dec 16, 2018 19:06
2001:8003:901e:6900:6dd0:100d:788e:a2e

Hi Marianne

There is one from Year 1 that reads "from the estate or house [pr] of Ankhkheperure". But another from "Year 1, month 1" [I Akhet when the vintage became ripe] says "from the estate or house of Smenkhkare, justified"--meaning this person was deceased.

The first wine label you refer to is Am 139 which reads
“Regnal year 1, 1st month, Wine of the estate of the One who Pacifies Aton. Western river. through Paḥw”.
There are 7 wine labels coming from this estate named after Akhenaten.

The second wine label you refer to is actually two different wine jar labels, Am 63 and Am 64. Am 63 reads
“Regnal year 1. Wine of the estate of Smenkh⸢ka⸣re. ⸢Djeserkheperu⸣, The western river, Vintager supervisor Sakaia”.
Am 64 reads
“Regnal year 1. Wine of the estate of Ankhkheperure ...”.

Also the erased honey jar label you refer to originally mentioned “Regnal year 17. Honey ...” then beneath the erasure was written “Regnal [year] 1. W[ine ...]”

I remember the debates on the old erased Amarna@egroups.com when Marc Gabolde first showed up with his Amarna theory. I kept and print out many of them. One of your posts (as UrHekau) made mention of this as “Year 1, wine of the estate of Smenkhare, deceased.”. You also suggested that the use of only the nomen Smenkhare was because he was considered a usurper. Gabolde replied on 23 Oct 2000 by stating

the reading “mAa-xrw”, “true voice” = deceased after the name of Semenekhkare on this docket is a misreading of the hieratic signs and R. Krauss has corrected as “Djeser-kheperu” and I agree with him (but I also believe that it is a posthumous mention of Semenekhkare). The fact that it is the nomen and not the praenomen which is used is not an exception. There is a good proportion of dockets mentionning an estate of Akhenaten (and not Neferkheperure) ... So there is no reason to suppose that Smenekhkare was considered as an usurper through this document.

So after Smenkhkare’s name the docket does not have the epithet mꜣʿ-ḫrw (“true of voice”), which would denote that he was dead) but rather ḏsr-ḫprw (“sacred of manifestations”), the usual epithet that followed Smenkhkare‘s name. Yet Gabolde still thinks that this is a posthumous reference but did not explain why.

Regards Joe


  • re: Wine Jar LabelsMarianne Luban, Tue Dec 11 13:35
    Another thing--of the couple of wine labels that were derived from the reign of Amenhotep III and were found at Amarna and KV62, nobody has indicated that they were re-used and had more recent dates... more
    • Re: Wine Jar Labels — Joe Baker, Sun Dec 16 19:06
      • Re: Wine Jar LabelsMarianne Luban, Mon Dec 17 11:08
        Joe Baker wrote: I wrote: "There is one from Year 1 that reads "from the estate or house [pr] of Ankhkheperure". But another from "Year 1, month 1" [I Akhet when the vintage became ripe] says "from... more
        • Re: Wine Jar LabelsRich McQuillen, Sat Jan 5 20:02
          "I lean most toward Smenkhkare being a son of Akhenaten now, one by a wife other than Nefertiti." -- I read the paper, Bringing Smenkhkare into focus. These articles are pure gold. So we know that... more
          • Re: Wine Jar LabelsMarianne Luban, Sun Jan 6 12:31
            Rich McQuillen wrote: I wrote: "I lean most toward Smenkhkare being a son of Akhenaten now, one by a wife other than Nefertiti." Rich: "-- I read the paper, Bringing Smenkhkare into focus. These... more
          • re: AnkhkheperureRich McQuillen, Sat Jan 5 20:46
            In the hypothetical scenario described earlier, let's make "Ankhkheperure" a new person of royal blood. How about a prince and younger brother of AM3. In this scenario, Smenkh is neither the son of... more
    • re: Wine Jar LabelsMarianne Luban, Tue Dec 11 15:31
      I wrote: "Really, I can see no indication of a co-regency between Akhenaten and Smenkhkare except for that calcite jar from KV62 that bore both their cartouches, all attempted to be erased."... more
Click here to receive daily updates