Amarna, Before and After

[Wepwawet]

I thought I would make a list of the use of the kheper element in a king's throne name up to the Third Intermediate Period. It is blindingly obvious that the 18th Dynasty stands out in the use of kheper, with only three known examples from the previous 17 dynasties. What also stands out, to me, is that in the three examples from before the 18th Dynasty, all of them are stating that in some form Ra has come into being. What I wonder is just what did they mean by this, was it just a statement that Ra has come into being, though of course he already existed, or that the king is saying that he is Ra come into being when he became king. I don't know.

What stands out in the throne names of the 18th Dynasty kings is that all of them refer either a single or multiple manifestations of Ra, not that he has come into being. As I mentioned in my previous post, does this mean that the king believes himself to be a manifestation of Ra, or is it just a sort of general statement. I'm trying not to read to much into all of this, but it does seem to me that there is a clear difference in emphasis between the pre 18th Dynasty names and those used in the 18th Dynasty and after, where it really does seem that the king is saying that he is a manifestation of Ra. Note the wording in some of these names as examples, Thutmose II, "The great one is the manifestation of Ra", Akhenaten, "The perfect one of the manifestations of Ra" and Tutankhamun, "Lord of the manifestations of Ra". The kings were already the living horus and son of Ra, and now, from Thutmose I they seem to say that they are a manifestation of Ra, multiples thereof in some cases. It could be that there is nothing more to seen in this than, say, in the name Thutmose itself, because nobody is suggesting that anybody with that name was actually "born of Thoth", but I think the throne names are a bit different.

Easy to dismiss it all as their normal pompousness, but, even though he is not on this list, by the time we get to Amunhotep III, it does seem that they are actually believing their own hype. And the question, asked before, is why did this come about, and why, disregarding the three pre 18th Dynsaty kings, did it start with Thutmose I.

12th Dynasty - two out of eight
Senusret I - Kheperkare = The ka of Ra is created
Senusret II - Khakheperre = The soul of Ra comes into being

14th Dynasty - one out of twentynine known names.
Sekheperenre, no other name, He whom Ra causes to come into being

18th Dynasty - eleven out of fifteen
Thutmose I - Aakheperkare = Great is the manifestation of the Ka of Ra
Thutmose II - Aakheperenre = The great one is the manifestation of Ra
Thutmose III - Menkheperre = Lasting is the manifestation of Ra
Amunhotep II - Aakheperure = The great one of the manifestations of Ra
Thutmose IV - Menkheperure = The established one of the manifestations of Ra
Akhenaten - Nefer-kheperu-Re, wa-en-Re = The perfect one of the manifestations of Ra, the unique one of Ra
Smenkhkare - Ankhkheperure = Living are the manifestations of Ra
Neferneferuaten - Ankhkheperure = Living are the manifestations of Ra
Tutankhaten/Amun - Nebkheperure = Lord of the manifestations of Ra. Other translations of his name exist, but they ignore the neb, lord, and also ignore the plural rendering of kheper, which is kheperu.
Ay - Kheperkheperure–Irimaat = Everlasting are the manifestations of Ra, who does what is right
Horemheb - Djeserkheperure Setepenre = Holy are the manifestations of Ra, the chosen one of Ra

19th Dynasty - one out of eight
Seti II - Userkheperure Setepenre = Powerful are the manifestations of Ra, the chosen one of Ra

20th Dynasty - two out of ten
Ramesses V - Usermaatre Sekheperenre = Ra is rich in Maat, he who Ra has raised
Ramesses X - Khepermaatre Setepenre = Manifestation of the Maat of Ra, the chosen one of Ra

From the Third Intermediate Period the kheper element becomes quite common, too common to add them to this list, for instance five out of the seven kings of the 21st Dynasty have the kheper element in their throne name

 

[atalante]

11 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

What stands out in the throne names of the 18th Dynasty kings is that all of them refer either a single or multiple manifestations of Ra, not that he has come into being. As I mentioned in my previous post, does this mean that the king believes himself to be a manifestation of Ra, or is it just a sort of general statement. I'm trying not to read to much into all of this, but it does seem to me that there is a clear difference in emphasis between the pre 18th Dynasty names and those used in the 18th Dynasty and after, where it really does seem that the king is saying that he is a manifestation of Ra. Note the wording in some of these names as examples, Thutmose II, "The great one is the manifestation of Ra", Akhenaten, "The perfect one of the manifestations of Ra" and Tutankhamun, "Lord of the manifestations of Ra". The kings were already the living horus and son of Ra, and now, from Thutmose I they seem to say that they are a manifestation of Ra, multiples thereof in some cases. It could be that there is nothing more to seen in this than, say, in the name Thutmose itself, because nobody is suggesting that anybody with that name was actually "born of Thoth", but I think the throne names are a bit different.

Easy to dismiss it all as their normal pompousness, but, even though he is not on this list, by the time we get to Amunhotep III, it does seem that they are actually believing their own hype. And the question, asked before, is why did this come about, and why, disregarding the three pre 18th Dynsaty kings, did it start with Thutmose I.

12th Dynasty - two out of eight
Senusret I - Kheperkare = The ka of Ra is created
Senusret II - Khakheperre = The soul of Ra comes into being

14th Dynasty - one out of twentynine known names.
Sekheperenre, no other name, He whom Ra causes to come into being

18th Dynasty - eleven out of fifteen
Thutmose I - Aakheperkare = Great is the manifestation of the Ka of Ra
Thutmose II - Aakheperenre = The great one is the manifestation of Ra
Thutmose III - Menkheperre = Lasting is the manifestation of Ra
Amunhotep II - Aakheperure = The great one of the manifestations of Ra
Thutmose IV - Menkheperure = The established one of the manifestations of Ra
Akhenaten - Nefer-kheperu-Re, wa-en-Re = The perfect one of the manifestations of Ra, the unique one of Ra
Smenkhkare - Ankhkheperure = Living are the manifestations of Ra
Neferneferuaten - Ankhkheperure = Living are the manifestations of Ra
Tutankhaten/Amun - Nebkheperure = Lord of the manifestations of Ra. Other translations of his name exist, but they ignore the neb, lord, and also ignore the plural rendering of kheper, which is kheperu.
Ay - Kheperkheperure–Irimaat = Everlasting are the manifestations of Ra, who does what is right
Horemheb - Djeserkheperure Setepenre = Holy are the manifestations of Ra, the chosen one of Ra

19th Dynasty - one out of eight
Seti II - Userkheperure Setepenre = Powerful are the manifestations of Ra, the chosen one of Ra

20th Dynasty - two out of ten
Ramesses V - Usermaatre Sekheperenre = Ra is rich in Maat, he who Ra has raised
Ramesses X - Khepermaatre Setepenre = Manifestation of the Maat of Ra, the chosen one of Ra

From the Third Intermediate Period the kheper element becomes quite common, too common to add them to this list, for instance five out of the seven kings of the 21st Dynasty have the kheper element in their throne name

 

Wepwawet,

I like the list you compiled for 18th dynasty pharaohs whose throne names contained the name Ra (and "manifestations" of Ra).  Perhaps the "manifestations" were a group of alter egos, such as:  Amon-Ra, Ra-Horakhty, Aten, and Amon-Ra-Kamutef.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_deities#Manifestations_and_combinations

 

Edited March 6 by atalante

[Wepwawet]

6 hours ago, atalante said:

Wepwawet,

I like the list you compiled for 18th dynasty pharaohs whose throne names contained the name Ra (and "manifestations" of Ra).  Perhaps the "manifestations" were a group of alter egos, such as:  Amon-Ra, Ra-Horakhty, Aten, and Amon-Ra-Kamutef.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_deities#Manifestations_and_combinations

 

Well I believe that all throne names are a solar name in that they end with "Ra", and perhaps it's a little odd though, to us, that it's the nomen that has the "Son of Ra" epithet and not the pre nomen, which is "King of Upper and Lower Egypt". I also believe that the Ra reference is specifically for Ra and not any of the syncreticisms, apart from one, at least to an extent, and that is of the king and Ra. What I don't understand is why with Thutmose I the nomen now describes one or more manifestations of Ra and exactly what or whom the manifestation/s are in. Are they just about manifestations of Ra in a general way, just showing that Ra can be manifest in many ways in many things, which is applicable to all gods, or that Ra is manifest within the king, and that the king has some authority over multiple manifestations. For instance with Tutankhamun, is he the "Lord of manifestations", or does this phrase only apply to Ra, it's not clear. Leprohon in his book specifically on the names of kings, "The Great Name", translates Tutankhamun's nomen as "Possesor of the the manifestations of Ra", which I think has the same sense as "Lord", but does not give an answer as to whether Tutankhamun, or any king with the "kheper" element to their nomen, were proclaiming themselves to be a manifestation of Ra, or have a "controlling" power over multiple manifestations of Ra.

If it were not for Amunhotep III proclaiming himself to be a god, more than one of course, and the existance of Akhenaten, then this kheper thing would not be a thing at all. It's the end result, at least as far as Akhenaten goes, and seeing a progression from Thutmose I, that raises the question about these manifestations and just exactly what is meant.

[atalante]

On 3/5/2024 at 6:50 AM, Wepwawet said:

..... Easy to dismiss it all as their normal pompousness, but, even though he is not on this list, by the time we get to Amunhotep III, it does seem that they are actually believing their own hype. And the question, asked before, is why did this come about, and why, disregarding the three pre 18th Dynsaty kings, did it start with Thutmose I.

 

Wepwawet,

A major power shift in the 18th dynasty seems to occur at the point where the politico-religious cult of Menkauhor was revived.  I expect this is the time when 18th dynasty rulers identified themselves with the god Ra.  In particular Smenkare and Neferneferuaten seem to claim they are vicars of Ra.  But the cult-name Menkauhor suggests a power shift (during the reigns of Tutankhamun, Ay, and Horemheb) to Horus son of Osiris.

from your list of throne names:

Smenkhkare - Ankhkheperure = Living [people?] are the manifestations of Ra
Neferneferuaten - Ankhkheperure = Living [people?] are the manifestations of Ra
Tutankhaten/Amun - Nebkheperure = Lord of the manifestations of Ra. Other translations of his name exist, but they ignore the neb, lord, and also ignore the plural rendering of kheper, which is kheperu.
Ay - Kheperkheperure–Irimaat = Everlasting are the manifestations of Ra, who does what is right
Horemheb - Djeserkheperure Setepenre = Holy are the manifestations of Ra, the chosen one of Ra

 

Obviously, we need more archaeological finds to get more details about what happened.  But clearly, the 18th dynasty ended, and the 19th dynasty began while the cult of Menkauhor was revived.

from:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menkauhor_Kaiu#New_Kingdom

This [revived] cult is evidenced by reliefs showing Menkauhor in the tombs of the "Chief of the artisans and jewelers" Ameneminet and of the physician Thuthu in Saqqara-North, both of whom lived at the time of the late Eighteenth Dynasty (1550–1292 BC),[102] during the reigns of Tutankhamun, Ay, and Horemheb.  [103]

An inscribed block dating to the later Ramesside period (1292–1077 BC) and now in the Egyptian Museum of Berlin,[note 23] was uncovered by Lepsius in a house in Abusir[104] and shows Menkauhor enthroned beside four other deified kings of the Old Kingdom: the name of the first, partially lost, but probably Sneferu is then followed by Djedefre, Menkaure, Menkauhor and finally Neferkare. The owner of the tomb stands before the kings, in worship.[105] Another relief dating to the same period shows a similar scene. It was inscribed on the lintel of the tomb chapel of Mahy buried in Saqqara North. Four deified kings of the Old Kingdom are shown, all of whom built their pyramids at Saqqara: Djoser, Teti, Userkaf and Menkauhor.[104]

Edited March 7 by atalante

[Aldebaran]

It has long been of interest to me why Seti II elected to revive the "kheper" element in his prenomen.  Who was this man, anyway?  It was pointed out by his examiner in the early part of the 20th Century how little he resembles his predecessors, the early Ramessides, including King Merneptah, who is supposed to be his father.  But there is now a tool that is much more meaningful than any commentary on a lack of physical resemblance--DNA.  In fact, unless it is applied to the late 19th Dynasty rulers, there is little chance of ever finding out how they were related.  However, I don't blame the Egyptians at all for having lost interest in pursuing DNA testing because their efforts so far have been badly mistreated and misused by arrogant Egyptologists who really never bothered to learn anything about how the science works.  Anyway, it's not that I don't think the actual Seti II was a true son of Merneptah because Dynasty 20 accepted him as a rightful ruler--but is the mummy accepted as his really his?  Prof. Smith wrote that there were only "faint traces of the name written in hieratic" on the shroud.  I swear I read somewhere that this name could barely be made out as "Seti" and not a prenomen, as was usual.  Wish I could quote directly.  Maybe it was Maspero who had some additional comment about this.  Kenneth Kitchen wrote that he had calculated Seti II should have been around 60 years old by the time he died--and the mummy is that of a young male.  Of course, Kitchen also believes that Amenmesse never interrupted the reign of Seti but somehow managed to succeed Merneptah before him--yet I don't think that can matter much as regards the age of Seti II at death due to the short duration of Amenmesse.  Since Merneptah exists, DNA should decide the question of whether one mummy is really the father of the other.

In addition to using the "kheper" element with regard to Re in his prenomen, Thutmose I had a devotion to Atum--as most commoner pharaohs did.  This is because Atum was depicted as the first man-god in the pantheon.  On the stela of Setnakht. it immediately says that he arose like Atum.  I wish Egyptology would relinquish this notion of placing Ahmose I at the head of Dynasty 18.  Even if Thutmose I had been a son of Ahmose by one of his wives, that would still be absurd as Ahmose is clearly a scion of Dynasty 17.  Just because Ahmose inaugurated the age of the New Kingdom doesn't make him or his son, Amenhotep I, part of the 18th Dynasty.  Even Manetho, according to Josephus,  put a Thutmose at the head of a house that is Dynasty 18.  Also, according to Josephus, he did not know where Amenhotep I belonged. places him after the first Thutmose rather than before-- and says nothing about Ahmose in that dynasty.  Per Josephus [his earliest quoter by far] Manetho did not distinguish the Dynasty 17 rulers but lumped them together as Theban princes who battled the Shepherds [Hyksos].  Therefore, Egyptology follows Africanus, another historian who lived about 300 years later than Josephus and probably didn't even have Manetho as his source.  Africanus places Ahmose at the head of his version of Dynasty 18 because he, following Egyptian writer Ptolemy of Mendes [who flourished in the reign of Caesar Augustus] in believing that Ahmose drove out the Hebrews led by Moses;  But another author, Syncellus, who lived  about 800 years after Josephus [who was born in 37 CE] also put Ahmose at the top of Dynasty 18 but dissented about an exodus, saying that it was thought Moses was still young in that pharaoh's reign. 

[Wepwawet]

6 hours ago, atalante said:

But clearly, the 18th dynasty ended, and the 19th dynasty began while the cult of Menkauhor was revived.

All I can see here that may be pertinent is that Menkauhor sits on the border between Ra being the single most important god in the 5th Dynasty, to the introduction out of the blue of Osiris with Unas, at least as far as extant religious texts go, at the end of the dynasty. The possible relevance is that Tutankhamun, in whose reign it seems that the cult of Menkauhor was revived, also sits on the border between a change of importance in gods, the demise of the Aten, the visible Ra essentially, and the return of Amun.

If the two are linked, then it would be tempting to equate Thutmose I with Userkaf at the start of the 5th Dynasty and rise of the importance of Ra, and perhaps because Userkaf may have previously been Greatest of Seers at Heliopolis.

So we have some bookmarks in the religious history of Egypt, Userkaf and the rise of Ra as state god, Menkauhor where the emphasis changes from Ra to Osiris, at least as far as afterlife beliefs go, Thutmose I as the start of the road to Akhenaten, and Tutankhamun at the end of that path.

I had never considered looking at things this way before, so thanks for bringing up Menkauhor and this potential "long cycle". It does beg the question of just how much they knew of their own history that has been lost to us, and also the question of why these changes occurred, sometimes rapidly, from our perspective in their far future.

 

Edited March 7 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

The idle thought came to me that maybe, just maybe, the kheper element used so often by the Thutmosids in their prenomen has some sort of bearing on why Smenkhkare, used only once before by a king in the MK, and as his prenomen, has been used as a nomen. It's almost as if he, or the person who gave him his birth name, was doubling down on their devotion to Ra. It suggests that in his nomen he is proclaiming that Ra is, or does XY or Z, and then in his prenomen that he is a manifestation of Ra. However, this would suggest, if even only remotely near the truth, and I don't  claim it to be, that Smenkhkare at birth was expected to be the next king, so probably not a brother of Akhenaten. This then raises the question of if Smenkhkare was his birth name, or a name change on becoming king, and thus could be a brother of Akhenaten. Still does nothing to explain why Neferneferuaten uses the same prenomen though.

Edited March 9 by Wepwawet

[Aldebaran]

On 3/9/2024 at 12:47 PM, Wepwawet said:

On 3/9/2024 at 12:47 PM, Wepwawet said:

This then raises the question of if Smenkhkare was his birth name, or a name change on becoming king, and thus could be a brother of Akhenaten. Still does nothing to explain why Neferneferuaten uses the same prenomen though.

 

Just to be clear that the first Smenkare, 13th Dynasty ruler of Memphis, and the second, Smenkhkare, male coregent of Akhenaten, were spelled differently.  Probably, they sounded much alike, anyway.  The first name means "Establish the Ka of Re" and the second means "Adorn the Ka of Re".  They should both involve s-causative verbs--s-mn and s-mnx.  

That's all one can know for sure about Smenkhkare, whether in the second instance it was a name assigned at birth or chosen.  I look at the Ankhkheperure prenomen problem this way:  It was original to Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten as a female coregent of Akhenaten, intended to be temporary.  Kings who were meant to be permanent didn't have "beloved" of another king in their cartouches.  The permanent ones were only beloved of the gods in their style.  Besides, if the first Ankhkheperure coregent was Nefertiti, there was no way a pharaoh would make his wife his intended permanent successor while he had children to succeed him.  

I am not one who believes that Akhenaten made Smenkhkare a co-king with him as early as Year 12 or so.  Why?  But, as all now know, by Year 16 Nefertiti was back to being just a queen consort--and "Ankhkheperure" was up for grabs.  No one thought Nefertiti would require it again.  One of Akhenaten's daughters was grown up and married.  Now one looked to her and her husband as the royal couple for the future.  But Nefertiti was still the GRW and she had a small son who, by virtue of being her male child, was first in line for the throne.  And that is why Akhenaten made Meritaten's husband his coregent prior to his death in order to nominate the future pharaoh and bypass little Tutankhaten.  This doesn't help with whose son Smenkhkare actually was.  All that mattered was that he was an adult [in oriental terms, at least] and could be counted on to continue the religious policies of Akhenaten in the opinion of the latter.  There is nothing to indicate that Smenkhkare didn't do just that while he lasted, which wasn't long. 

With Smenkhkare dead without his own son, it was now the turn of Tutankhaten.  However, he was still very young, so Nefertiti once again became Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten on his behalf.  She would be the place-holder on the throne until her son grew to manhood.  And, really, in those times there was no guarantee that he would grow up.  Even if he died while still a prepubescent child, there would be a king on the throne, albeit a woman.  But it was the pharaoh pro tem who died, instead, so it was decided that he should take the throne while still eight or nine years old with his advisors now running the show. The reign of Smenkhkare was now considered  a false interlude even though Akhenaten had chosen him.  That's why his cartouches were all but erased on the calcite vase placed in KV62.

As for Neferneferuaten--even though she wisely accepted the old gods again, she did not plan to repeat the mistake of Hatshepsut and try to hang on longer than was necessary.  Or attempt to build a huge mortuary temple in her own honor or even a modest one.

 

Edited March 11 by Aldebaran

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

Just to be clear that the first Smenkare, 13th Dynasty ruler of Memphis, and the second, Smenkhkare, male coregent of Akhenaten, were spelled differently.  Probably, they sounded much alike, anyway.  The first name means "Establish the Ka of Re" and the second means "Adorn the Ka of Re".  They should both involve s-causative verbs--s-mn and s-mnx.  

Yes, you're right on the 13th Dynasty Semenkhare.

The point I was making, and I think it still stands anyway, is that Smenkhkare is constructed like a prenomen, and though Semenkhare has a different meaning to Smenkhkare, it is similar in that it contains the elements "ka" and "ra", and is of course a prenomen.

I've spent some time going through both Baker's "The Encyclopaedia of the Pharaohs" and Leprohon's "The Great Name" for any instance of a king having both the ka and ra elements in his nomen, and found only one, and that is Userkara from the 6th Dynasty. But, there is an issue here as it is the only name known for him, so was it his nomen or prenomen, Leprohon and Baker state that it was his nomen, so I'll accept that it was. Therefore Userkara and Smenkhkare stand out as the only known kings with the ka and ra elements in their nomen. Userkara from the start of the 6th Dynasty is not really an issue I think due to it being his only known name, and in an era where not all of a king's names were known, and it was only in the 5th Dynasty that we have them using a prenomen and nomen anyway. On the other hand, Smenkhkare comes from a period where names are known, and he stands out like a sore thumb just on his nomen alone.

So no matter who he was, is his nomen his birth name, and a unique one, or a change of name, presumably when being made joint king. Amunhotep IV changing his nomen to Akhenaten is simple compared to this, in fact there is no issue here at all, and then there is Smenkhkare and Ankhkheperure and very thick fog.

[docyabut2]

In 1978, it was proposed that there were two individuals using the same name: a male king Smenkhkare and a female Neferneferuaten. Neferneferuaten has since been identified as a female pharaoh who ruled during the Amarna Period and is generally accepted as a separate person from Smenkhkare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smenkhkare#:~:text=In 1978%2C it was proposed,a separate person from Smenkhkare.

[docyabut2]

She was then succeeded by Tutankhamun. It seems less possible that Nefertiti disguised herself as a male and assumed the male alter ego of Smenkhkare. According to Van Der Perre, Smenkhkare is thought to be a co-regent of Akhenaten who died before Neferneferuaten assumed the kingship.? 

was  Smenkhka really a man ?

Edited March 11 by docyabut2

[Wepwawet]

9 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

was  Smenkhka really a man

Yes. Firstly let's deal with the prenomen, throne name, used by Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten, which is Ankhkheperure. When this name is used in conjunction with the nomen, birth name, Neferneferuaten it can, but not always, have a female "t" determinative, which is transliterated as Ankhetkheperure. When this name is found with Smenkhkhare, only once btw, it does not have the female determinative. Secondly, when we see the name Ankhetkheperure Neferneferuaten, it comes with a number of epithets, such as "Effective for her husband", clearly indicating that this is a female co-ruling with a man, and it is of course Nefertiti with Akhenaten. This is not a full name change as such by Nefertiti as she always had the full name of Nefertiti Neferneferuaten, and she has added the prenomen Akhetkheperure on becoming co-ruler and dropped the name Nefertiti.

Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare is shown in the tomb of Meryre II with his great royal wife Meritaten, so just on that evidence alone it can be seen that Smenkhkare is a man.

When instances of just the prenomen are found, if it does not have the female determinative, then it can be worked out which king it refers to by whether it has an epithet or not, if it does and it indicates that this is a woman, then it refers to Neferneferuaten, if not, then it is Smenkhkare.

The image below shows Smenkhkare with Meritaten in the tomb of Meryre II, if this did not exist, or if the cartouches were not copied when found, as they have now vanished, we would not know the name Smenkhkare and the mystery would be even deeper.

 

There are five cartouches in a box at the bottom right, from left to right the first two are the names of the Aten, then King of Upper and Lower Egypt (Ankhkheperure) - Son of Ra (Smenkhkare-Djeserkheperu) - Great Royal Wife (Meritaten)

It can be seen that Smenkhkare does have an epithet, Djeserkheperu - Holy of Manifestations, but it is a purely theological epithet and does not indicate gender or relationship to another person.

 

Edited March 12 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

14 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Double post

 

 

 

Edited March 12 by Wepwawet

[docyabut2]

Has Akhenaten's body been found..?

https://www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/cairo museum/cm, burials/pages/egpytian_museum_cairo_2066.htm

[docyabut2]

I remember reading some where a male body was  found near  Akhenaten some think it was Akhenaten`s brother  some think the body was  Smenkhka?

[Wepwawet]

23 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

Has Akhenaten's body been found..?

https://www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/cairo museum/cm, burials/pages/egpytian_museum_cairo_2066.htm

That would depend on if you believe that the human remains found in KV55 are, or are not, Akhenaten's.

There are pros and cons, and I'll be brief as this subject is complicated and hotly debated.

Pro KV55 being Akhenaten is that four "magic bricks" were found in KV55, two of which bore his name. To be clear, these are protective "bricks" placed at generally the four cardinal points of the burial chamber walls. Therefore, if the body was not that of Akhenaten, why are they there. The wording of the text on the coffin the remains were found in suggest that the occupant could be Akhenaten, though I'll point out that this is disputed, everything is, and the coffin was origianlly made for a female, and Kiya is suggested. All the names of the deceased had been cut out, something that would certainly have been done if the body was Akhenaten, and maybe not if it were Smenkhkare as he was only a very short lived co-ruler.

Contra is simpler, but the most hotly debated, and that is the presumed age of the bones. The "official" verdict by Zahi Hawas and Sahar Saleem in their book "Scanning the Pharaohs" gives an estimate of 35 to 45 years old. This is the highest estimate of all those put forward by professionals, with the majority putting the age at less than 30, mostly at 25 max. An unknown is the age at which Akhenaten died, and the best that can be done is to estimate it by looking at what we do know. He died in his year 17, so we need to try to work out how old he was when he became king. This is a bit like asking how long is a piece of string, but as he was not married when he became king, based on his mother queen Tiye appearing with him in a scene on a tomb wall, when it could be reasonably expected that he would be with his Great Royal Wife, in this case Nefertiti. His first known child, princess Meritaten, first appears on a temple wall in Karnak with Nefertiti. This in itself causes disputes with her age in this depiction being debated. I will point out though that this temple dates from some time in his year 2, and as he does not appear to be married at the start of his reign, then Meritaten, IMO, is still an infant, no matter how she is depicted.

In those days they tended to marry young, this could indicate that Akhenaten may have been in his teens when he became king. Realistically to father a child he needs to be no less than fourteen, and I very much doubt he was much older than that. So, add the 17 years of his reign to the age he may have been on becoming king, let's say for the sake of argument 15, and he is 32 at death. This is below the lower estimate of Hawass and Saleem, but only by three years. Again, it's a matter of what you want to believe on the age of the bones, the minority, but authoratative postion of Hawass and Saleem, or the majority position, and still of experts, that the bones are too young to be Akhenaten.

So the answer is, maybe, but without clear enough undisputed evidence to state this as a fact.

[Wepwawet]

35 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

I remember reading some where a male body was  found near  Akhenaten some think it was Akhenaten`s brother  some think the body was  Smenkhka?

The only human remains found in KV55 were those in the coffin as mentioned above. No other remains have ever been found that could be Akhenaten, or a brother of his, unless the KV55 remains are actually those of Smenkhkare, which some think is the case due to the debated age.

[docyabut2]

  Some think the male bones were  Nefertiti (c. 1370 - c. 1336 BCE) was the wife of the pharaoh Akhenaten ?

[docyabut2]

Some are so wrong Nefertiti Akhenaten were a male and female and had children:)

[Wepwawet]

3 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

  Some think the male bones were  Nefertiti (c. 1370 - c. 1336 BCE) was the wife of the pharaoh Akhenaten ?

Which male bones.

[Aldebaran]

All the bones/mummified remains are still difficult to assign very precise ages at death.  I think sometimes the examiners concentrate on one aspect that appears most significant to them.  Unerupted wisdom teeth means extreme youth for one and a degenerated hip means an older individual for others.  However, not everyone's wisdom teeth emerge and some young males get hips that are degenerated appearing from motorcycle accidents [or chariot mishaps in antiquity],

A few here may be interested to know that, barring any new development, archaeological or microbiological, I have written my last word on Nefertiti.  The name of the paper is "Some Nefertiti Logic".

https://www.academia.edu/116274849/Some_Nefertiti_Logic

It is partly in response to Huber and Belmonte [2024].  As for Fletcher, insofar as I am aware she has done nothing to defend an idea she claimed as her own in 2003.  Has she even written a single paper by herself since then?  At Academia they seem to me to have been co-authored with others, particularly her husband, Stephen Buckley.  I don't enjoy watching Fletcher on YouTube but did see a mummy forensics episode where she attempted to put a dead Egyptian into historic context and was contradicted by Buckley, himself.🌝

Belmonte was [or maybe still is] a follower of mine at Academia.  Did he ever write a paper on an Egyptian topic [not his field] until inspired by my ones on DNA?  I don't recall any.  When I asked him why he did not cite me in his "Revenge of Nefertiti"  {or whatever it's called] his answer was that it was because I did not agree with him that KV55 was Smenkhkare.  I don't think that's how it works.  In this 2024 paper Belmonte cites only himself and doesn't mention me, although he agrees with my 2019 paper that Meritaten was not very likely to be the the KV35YL.  But he doesn't explain why, like I did--except maybe at the bottom of his page 3 where his DNA rationale is just inscrutable.  You can find his paper with Huber cited in mine.  And, BTW, this paper characterized the 2020 paper of Gad et al as "face-saving".  How?  This kind of thing is what I meant when I recently commented here that I wouldn't blame the Egyptians for going out of the DNA business.

As I have written here before, the identity of the mother of Tutankhamun stands at an impasse now.  Will it ever be resolved?  Never say never, I suppose.  All current candidates have factors that can be used against them.

 

 

Edited March 19 by Aldebaran

[Wepwawet]

On 3/19/2024 at 6:31 PM, Aldebaran said:

The name of the paper is "Some Nefertiti Logic".

Without revisiting those elements where we disgagree, I will certainly agree with you on arm positions of mummies. I really don't think that we can make any proclamations on the royalty, or not, of a mummy based on the position of it's arms. You point out the mummies of previous queen consorts from the late 17th Dynasty on have their arms by their side, as does the Younger Lady. But then GRW Tiye has her left arm positioned over her chest, as does the purported mummy of Hatshepsut, a monarch at the time of her death, so just what does this arm position mean, queen or queen consort, or personal preference, or preference of whoever was responsible for this after death. Then there is the non royal Yuya with both his arms over his chest, looking very much like Ramesess II, so that arm position cannot really be taken as proof of royalty. Tutankhamun with his arms over his belly I think shows that there is not really a hard rule on this.

[Wepwawet]

Some news on the DNA. Hawass had a conference a few days back, primarily it seems on explorations in the Queens Chamber of G1, and a poster on another forum was present. I asked him if Hawass said anything about DNA or Amarna, and he said that while Hawass spoke very fast, and it seems not too clearly, results will be announced this September. Let's hope so, and that they will be clear results.

[Wepwawet]

Surely if he is going to make an announcement in September, then it would be about a real result, otherwise if no further progress had been made since 2022, he would just keep quiet and hope everybody forgets the farce.

[Aldebaran]

On 4/14/2024 at 2:08 AM, Wepwawet said:

Some news on the DNA. Hawass had a conference a few days back, primarily it seems on explorations in the Queens Chamber of G1, and a poster on another forum was present. I asked him if Hawass said anything about DNA or Amarna, and he said that while Hawass spoke very fast, and it seems not too clearly, results will be announced this September. Let's hope so, and that they will be clear results.

Hawass again.  What does he have to do with DNA-testing these days?  By "clear" do you mean at least a full set of eight markers, such as some females didn't yield?  Did you know that it was admitted in "Scanning the Pharaohs" that KV20 A  consists of the body parts of more than one individual?  Makes one wonder.  I know [from a contact] that there is some interest in the remains recently discovered at Amarna of a person who actually had some jewelry and was not just placed into a common grave or shallow grave.  Most interesting is that the female had a ring with the words "sAt nbt tAwi" on the bezel meaning "daughter of the queen" as only the chief wife was known as "Mistress of the Two Lands".  Of course, "sAt" could also stand for "granddaughter".  I think the DNA of this person is worth a shot.  Why was the individual not mummified?  Well, once the king and the court/administration left Akhet-aten, what embalmers remained?  Yet some people probably stayed on there for awhile.  It's true, also, that the royal tomb can have been robbed after that and the jewelry of the royal children redistributed.  What happened to their mummies?  Still, it's unlikely that "sAt nbt tAwi" was an actual personal name, so....

Here is the newsletter one can download to find out more.  "Tombs and a teratoma..." is the article.

Downloadable Resources - Amarna Project

Even though the article states that the bezel reads "sAt nb tAwi", I think that's not a correct reading.  There are clearly two /t/ signs.

 

Edited April 20 by Aldebaran