Joe Baker
re: Evidence for the Length of Reigns of Akhenaten's Success
Mon Feb 4, 2019 22:22
1.159.182.132

Hi Marianne

For instance, in the tomb of Tutankhamen, KV62, there was a container which Reeves called The Painted Box. Among its contents was a child-sized glove and what Carter termed a "tiny garment" decorated with gold sequins on which the names of King Ankhkheperure and his queen, Meritaten, had been incised ... So the little prince wore his fancy garment during the sole reign of Smenkhkare

A drawing of the cartouches on the sequins (labelled 46gg) can be seen here
http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/046gg-c046gg.html

I again refer back to those long since 2000 Amarna list posts by Marc Gabolde. Gabolde observed that the arrangement of the signs within the two cartouches is not that found for the praenomen of a king and the name of his queen. He noted that when their occurs two cartouches, side by side, with the first containing the praenomen of a king and the second containing the name of his queen, the the orientation of the signs within the cartouches face each other. (Of course he notes the only doubtful case is with Tuthmose 4 since his praenomen, Mn-ḫpr.w-Rꜥ, is symmetrical). However on these sequins the cartouches are facing the same direction and so should be read as a single ruler with the praenomen followed by the nomen. So we have (Ꜥnḫ-ḫpr.w-Rꜥ)| (Mr-ỉtn, female determinative)| – that is King (/queen) Ankhkheperure Mer[it]aten . The lack of the feminine “t” in the praenomen is not unusual for the female Ankhkheperure Neferneferure (which latter nomen was adopted by Meritaten in honour of her deceased mother). Nor is it unusual for a lack of the feminine “t” in her birth name, Meri(t)aten, for it was not pronounced, as is also evident from Mayati, the Akkadian spelling of her name.

Dodson was sticking to the theory that Smenkhkare had become a coregent with Akhenaten around the latter's Year 12--a scenario I never much liked. Dodson bases this on the way things look to him in the tomb of Meryre II, where Smenkhkare was supposed to be depicted but nothing was completed except the outline drawing.

Here is my last comment on the Smenkhkare and “dubar” scenes in the tomb of Meryre II (Amarna tomb 2), back on 14 September 2016.

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.

Regards Joe


  • Since I began to concentrate on Smenkhkare, a whole new world of understanding has opened up. For instance, in the tomb of Tutankhamen, KV62, there was a container which Reeves called The Painted... more
    • re: Evidence for the Length of Reigns of Akhenaten's Success — Joe Baker, Mon Feb 4 22:22
    • I agree that the "tiny garment" is important, see may mails 12 and 13 April 2010 under this heading. Concerning the statement "Tut's parents were a brother and a sister", I talked to Pääbo a few... more
      • Werner wrote: "Concerning the statement "Tut's parents were a brother and a sister", I talked to Pääbo a few months ago about the pharao DNA analysis by Pusch and Zink. Pääbo thought that it is... more
        • re: Zink and PuschRich McQuillen, Tue Jan 29 19:04
          It looks like this is the study being discussed, from 2010. I'm playing catch up. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41451669_Ancestry_and_Pathology_in_King_Tutankhamun's_Family
Click here to receive daily updates