Marianne Luban
re: the age of kv55
Thu Sep 1, 2016 08:03
174.23.185.15

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."

I can't recall all the details about this tomb, as I haven't studied it lately, so must rely on Nicholas Reeves. On page 169 of his "The Complete Tutankhamun", he wrote: "Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing from the tomb inscribed with the nomen of Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare-djeserkheperu."

In the back of my mind, there lurks a notion that some more study has been done on some sequins, but I must check on that. In his list of "heirlooms", Reeves mentions the sequins and his attribution there is "Ankhkheperure,Meritaten [?]".

But, if there really is nothing mentioning Smenkhkare in KV62 and his name was even erased on that calcite jar, there would argue against that king having been the father of Tutankhamun. And that is what caused me to decide that Smenkhkare was an usurper of the kingship of the true heir--while he lasted. Since there are a number of items with the name of Neferneferuaten or just "Ankhkheperure", that must be meaningful, as well. The reason it was thought at one time that Smenkhkare was attested in KV62 is that, for some time, he was considered to have been the only Ankhkheperure. That was changed by James Allen years ago, who separated the male from the female by certain indicators.

People also used to believe that there was mention of Smenkhkare in the KV55 coffin, but that proved not true, either. The dedication on its foot, sometimes called "the prayer" started out with someone referring to Akhenaten as either "my husband" or "my lord" and ended, via changes, with this salutation being changed to "my father". That is the only reason anyone believed the coffin to have been fashioned for a woman--this text. But then it was realized that the text had always been intended for the benefit of Akhenaten and the coffin had always been his. I believe it to have been a dialogue between that king and a woman, probably Nefertiti, with Akhenaten speaking first, and the lady responding. I also think Nefertiti was the first to become persona non grata at Akhetaten. Her name is more excoriated there than that of Akhenaten. On a statue plinth, made for Meritaten, for example, Nefertiti's name is erased while that of Akhenaten was allowed to remain. Such things caused scholars to suspect that Nefertiti fell out of favor with her husband, but the recently discovered Year 16 text mentioning Nefertiti as queen makes that highly unlikely. My conclusion then is that Nefertiti became the enemy of the next king, then, who was Smenkhkare--and the enemy of Tutankhamun, only a little child. But that theory requires further study.

I have not formed any certain opinion on exactly how the succession after Akhenaten progressed, but, as this is a chonology forum, I will say that I am totally convinced of an eight-year coregency at this point between Amenhotep III and Akhenaten by that name or another. That shortens the chronology there considerably, and I can't see too much possibility of it being compensated for within the 18th Dynasty by reigns with uncertain durations. Manetho presumably having assigned only four years to Horemheb seems an improbable length for that king and, now that 14 years have been settled on due to jar docket dates, that might have been the original number of Manetho, too. But modern schools have not paid attention to those four purported years, anyway, so no harm done there.


  • 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 kv55 — Marianne Luban, Thu Sep 1 08:03
      • 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
Click here to receive daily updates