Posted by Kate Phizackerley on Friday, July 02, 2010



I found this while browsing for somebody else and thought you might like to see it. As the artist says:

I'M NOT HERE TO MAKE THE SKULL LOOK LIKE AKHENATEN'S MONUMENTS. If that were the case, I would have sketched it straight and not bothered with the skull. I had a curiosity, however morbid, about what the skull could tell us about the MAN, not the statue. As it turns out, Akhenaten's sculptors put in a lot of overtime to make him look the way he seemed to the rest of the world and to history.
He also adds:
Midway through the reconstruction, I found a digitally restored version of Akhenaten's skull with the bridge of the nose rebuilt, and when I implemented those changes, it completely changed the configuration of the nose and lip, which is why the face dramatically changes halfway through the video.

Of course, since this is based on the skull from tomb KV55 in the Valley of the Kings, I think this is a representation of Smenkahare rather than Akhenaten!

47 comments:

Stuart Tyler said...

"Of course, since this is based on the skull from tomb KV55 in the Valley of the Kings, I think this is a representation of Smenkahare rather than Akhenaten!"

We are seeing this whole KV55 is Akhenaten quite often now. It seems like a lazy thing to say unless accompanied by the usual "probably, possibly, potentially", etc.

Either way- i will have a look at the reconstruction tonight- thanks for the heads- up,

Stuart

Marianne Luban said...

I did an artistic reconstruction of that skull years ago and got nothing that resembled Akhenaten as we know him from his portraits with his long jaw, but it still was somehow resembling the face of Tutankhamun. Funny thing, the configuration of the skull fit very well to a large photo I have of the face on the canopic jar stoppers from KV55--one in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. These are supposed to have belonged to Kiya. I am frustrated that I can no longer show most of my work since my old website disappeared.

Really, though, one can hardly blame people for believing this person to be Akhenaten because everything about the coffin belonging to the skeleton screams Akhenaten, including the changes to the text on the foot, which indicates someone addressing a father.

Marianne Luban said...

Here is what I believe to correspond to the basic configuration of the face of the KV55 skeleton.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/30.8.54

That of the artist of the video agrees with this configuration, although making it appear much more robust. So did my reconstruction, although mine was far from "robust" appearing and I think this is right because the bones of the KV55 individual are gracile.

By the way, it is important to write the name of Smenkhkare correctly as, in transliteration it looks like this "smnx-kA-ra".
How does the face of one who is supposed to be Kiya get to look like the KV55 individual? That is the mystery.

Stephanie said...

I think that the resemblance of Kiya`s representation to KV55 and other Amarna royals can be explained. Either she truely resembled them and may have been related to them via the Tuya/Tiye line (without being Kings daughter herself). Or it was done according to a fashion that many people who were close to the king (such as high courtiers) had themselves depicted with facial features very close to those of their reigning king.

Not everything regarding KV55 points to Akhenaten though.
There is an interesting article in the latest KMT issue after which it is attested that the goldfoil lining the inner coffin basin displayed a cartouche with the name of Smenkhkare. The basin was returned from Munich to Cairo a few years ago and is now kept in storage there (why is it not on display?).
The part of the goldfoil which has the inscription "wa-en-Re" on it comes AFAIK from the lid which may have belonged to Kiya. And it might well refer to her as part of a "beloved of Wa-en-Re" inscription.

But one thing in this article is very surprising, almost shocking:
It says " A source "close to" the Egyptian Supreme Council of (for) Antiquities has recently -since the 2/17/10 announcement of the Family of Tutankhamun Project`s findings- told this writer (Dennis Forbes) that no one will admit to having seen a Smenkhkare cartouche".

Is it possible that the identity of KV55 is taken that seriously that even some sort of blackmailing is going on?
I hope not, but it does sound like it.

Adrienne Giacon said...

I would like to see one such as one done for the KV35YL mummy. I do wonder why Discovery didnt give this mummy the same treatment, considering who it is purported to be.

Marianne, I have been wondering what you thought of the identification of the KV35Yl mummy, after the dna analysis etc. Knowing that you wrote a paper on her possible identification as Nefertiti?

Marianne Luban said...

Hi Adrienne,

The mummy still resembles Nefertiti in all the same points of identification but who she is now depends, insofar as I can tell, on who the KV55 individual is--as they seem to be brother and sister. Is there anything preventing Nefertiti from being even a full sister of Akhenaten? No. So far, her parentage has consisted purely of conjecture. She is not styled "king's daughter" but neither is Ankhesenamun once she married Tutankhamun and we know she was a royal princess--if she is the same Ankhesenamun who was the third daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Nefertiti had a "sister" named Benretmut but the term was used loosely in ancient Egypt and can even have been a "milk sister" or "cousin". The nurse of Nefertiti was Ay's wife, Tey. In the earlier part of their reign, Nefertiti and Akhenaten presented themselves as Shu and Tefnut, twins who sprang from the sun-god, Ra, and formed a kind of "holy trinity" with him. Nefertiti was called "goddess" in the commoner tomb of Ay and Tey--something rather odd had she been a mere commoner, herself

Kate Phizackerley said...

I think the fact that neither this reconstruction nor Marianne's resembles the statues and reliefs of Akhenaten adds to the evidence that the KV55 mummy is not he.

rymerster said...

Marianne - when I saw the actual conapic jar stopper in the Met I was shocked that it looked very different to photographs - it seems very stylised and angular - almost in the same way some of the carved portraits of Nefertiti are at Karnak. Artistically they are outstanding but I'm not sure if anyone could look like that in real life. The image is just too beautiful.

Interesting that across from this image are a couple of the gypsum masks from Thutmose' studio - the "younger" of which does have some similarity to the canopic jar (and is I believe shown in the latest KMT as an image of Kiya). It's a much more "realistic" portrait of a young woman - very beautiful but not the otherworldly image of the conapic jar lid.

Stephanie said...

One important point in determining wether the YL could be Nefertiti is the fact that she gave birth to at least six children.
As I learnt on a discussion forum the Yl was after one of the examinations prior to the DNA-testing said to have not given birth at all. Now it seems she gave birth to at least one child.
I could reconcile the two statements with each other because only one birth might not leave so many obvious traces. But I have a hard time believing that the same body could have given birth to six or more children without leaving signs that would be instantly recognizable to the professional eye.
Unfortunately neither the JAMA report nor the TV show gives any information on this problem. Does anybody know of an "unofficial" statement of one of the experts on this topic?

IMO one should not argue that Nefertiti was in fact a king`s daughter but simply dropped this title after she became queen.
This "dropping" of an important title is an exception to the usual accumulation of titles such as Kings Daughter, King`s wife, King`s Sister etc.
Ankhesenamun presumably dropped her King`s daughter title because by the time she was queen there already was a trend to distance the royal family from Akhenaten.
But why should she not bear the title of King`s Sister which she would have been was the YL Nefertiti? There would have been no reason to keep silence about this relationship to the king to whom she was married and who`s Great Royal Wife she is called in many inscriptions. For me this is a very strong indication that Tut and Ankhesenamun were neither full nor half siblings.

Adrienne Giacon said...

Hi Marianne,
I did read Arthur Weigalls account of the skeleton in KV55. There was a lot of evidence for it being Akhenaton. AS for the Dna evidence, so much has been refuted, so many other theories made, it doesnt appear to have made anything clearer. It is still an option that KV35YL could be Nefertiti. Zahi Hawass even said they had not yet narrowed down who she was, Kiya, Nefertiti, or a sister.

If KV55 is Smenkhare, and if kv35YL and KV55 are siblings then KV35YL could not be Meritaten.Unless as KV55s parents were Amenhotep III and Tiye.

Adrienne Giacon said...

I was going to say unless Smenkhares parents were also Meritaten and Tiye and then remembered that the parents of KV55 had been identified as Amenhotep III and Tiye. I will have to go back and read the dna stuff you posted again Kate as I am sure you worked out that KV35YL could be Meritaten, but cant remember how. As she was not Smenkhares sibling and had different parents.

Adrienne Giacon said...

Goodness me, my words are all jumbled today. Got up too early this morning.
I meant to say above unless Smenkhares parents were also Nefertiti and Akhenaton. ( not Meritaten and Tiye!)

I have just read your blog about the dna results.
Mtna can only be passed through the Maternal line. You cannot get it through the father. So if the mtna of the KV35YL, Tutankhamen and KV55 all agree, then they are descended through the same females. Which would all have to be Tiye. This again rules out Meritaten as KV35YL.KV35YL cannot inherit mtna from her father (Suggested as possible line through Nefertiti from AY). It has to come from female to female. A son inherits his mothers mtna but does not pass it on.

Jane Richards said...

I enjoy the messages and comments on this site.

Marianne Luban said...

Getting back to queenly titles, I don't think there were any standards for them throughout pharaonic history. The basic one for the Chief Wife of the pharaoh was "Hmt nsw wrt", of course, and that was as near to "queen" as it got. At the early part of the 18th Dynasty, the royal ladies used every honor they had coming to them, king's daughter, king's sister, god's wife, king's mother--whatever. However, by the reign of Thutmose III these attestations of filiation become rare because the pharaoh began to marry non-royal ladies. Sometimes, after that, we don't even see "Hmt nsw wrt" until these ladies became dowagers or even postumously. Obviously Qeen Tiye could have no title except "Hmt nsw wrt" as she was not a king's daughter or sister. This is merely my opinion, but it's possible that, while she lived as a dowager queen, the situation became delicate. Was it proper for Nefertiti to have more titles than the great Tiye? At any rate, the fashion for proclaiming ones full heritage seems to have died out at this time--or one cannot explain why Ankhesenamun was only styled simply "Hmt nsw wrt".

Stephanie said...

I`ve tried to explain why Ankhesenamun misses other titles than GRW in my second post.
In brief my view ( and I know that I`m not alone with it) is that she dropped her King`s Daughter title because displaying her connection to Akhenaten was not deemed appropriate anymore. The political and religious climate had changed.
And the only reasonable explanation for her not being called King`s Sister is that she was not Tut`s sister, or why should she hide one connection to him when the other (GRW) is numerously displayed?
In the case of Tiye everyone deducts that she was not of royal birth because she is not called King`s Daughter. Why the need to find another reason why Nefertiti misses this title too only to make the YL Nefertiti?
Another problem I already addressed: Is the YL likely to have given birth at least six times? Up to now it did not appear so.

Marianne Luban said...

I don't think the title "king's daughter" would have been as damning as you think during the reign of Tutankhamun. After all, the words "sAt nsw" never mention the name of the king who was ones sire. Nor was Akhenaten really excoriated until the time of Horemheb and the 19th Dynasty. The main change during the reign of Tut was a reversion back to orthodoxy and this was a religious concession.

There were two persons, to our knowledge, called "Ankhesenpaaten" and one had appended to this name the words "ta sherit" or "the little one". The elder one was surely the daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti and the younger--who knows? Both were at Akhetaten and James Allen recently wrote, in an article that can be found online, that it was the younger one who was married to Tutankhamun. Well...the elder one can have been up to a decade older than Tut--but that doesn't necessarily preclude their having been married.

As to how many children the YL bore, I am no position to have any opinion. All I know is someone once insisted she couldn't have been Nefertiti because she had been declared "nulliparous" or never having given birth. Now, if she is the mother of Tut, that certain can't be the case! The fortunes of this mummy have certainly been variable. Once thought a male due to her baldness, Elliot Smith soon put paid to that assumption. Then the Egyptians insisted she was a male again, but retracted that since. Then she was nulliparous...now a mom. I have the "wait and see" attitude.

Adrienne Giacon said...

I had read some evidence earlier of the KV35YL being buried as a King due to the position of the arm that was broken off. This along with artefacts showing a female King.
I wondered what you thought of this Marianne? I know you wrote a paper on this mummy which has often been cited.
Could KV35YL have been buried as a King? Which could identify her as Neferneruaten and therefore a seperate ruler from Smenkhare?
Then we just have to work out who Neferneruaten was...

Stephanie said...

Marianne, can you give a source for this article of James Allen?
I know that the existence for both "Ta-sherits" has been contended by many.
It is thought they were probably Kiya`s children who were "renamed" after Kiya`s depictions were usurped for Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten. So they may not at all have existed.
AFAIK it is only from reinscribed monuments that we know of the Ta-sherits.

You are certainly right that much regarding the YL`s mummy is doubtful, the constant change of gender, age and so on. Establishing if she has given birth many times is surely difficult.
I think the problem if the bent arm or the straight arm is hers is not entirely solved either. But even if the bent arm belongs to her it does not mean that she was buried as king as kings usually have both arms crossed

It would rather point to her having been queen IMO.

Marianne Luban said...

James Allen's paper is the first one on this page:

http://history.memphis.edu/murnane/

Marianne Luban said...

James Allen's paper is the first one on this page:

http://history.memphis.edu/murnane/

Marianne Luban said...

Actually, it may be one of the other papers on this page

http://history.memphis.edu/murnane/

that proposed it as I could not find this theory in Allen's. Maybe the paper of Van Dijk? I'll have to check this out later when I get more time.

Marianne Luban said...

Actually, it may be one of the other papers on this page

http://history.memphis.edu/murnane/

that proposed it as I could not find this theory in Allen's. Maybe the paper of Van Dijk? I'll have to check this out later when I get more time. The most striking thing about Allen's paper is his assertion that Meritaten, herself, is depicted in the royal tomb suckling her child. But I cannot reconcile a princess being dressed as a nurse with her hair worn in the typical style of female servants at Amarna.

Stephanie said...

I read the Van Dijk paper quickly but there`s nothing about the Ta-sherit problem in there.
But even without heaving read the paper I`ve thought of another problem in identifying A.ta-sherit with Tut`s wife which are the ages of both Ankhesenpaatens:
AFAIK it is generally agreed that Akhenaten`s third daughter was born around years 4 or 5. This would make her 12 or 13 at the end of his reign.
If she really had a child it cannot have been born much earlier than that due to her young age.
Given another 3 or 4 years at the most for the reigns of Neferneferuaten/Smenkhkare the child Ankhesenpaaten Ta-sherit would have been 3 or 4 years old when she became GRW to Tutankhaten.
That`s virtually impossible because even in those times nobody would have chosen a toddler or nursery child to be queen. She could not have fulfilled the ceremonial and ritual duties and besides it would have been quite a long time until she could have children herself.
Therefore I think the "older" Ankhesenpaaten is the only possible candidate to be Tut`s wife. No-one would have cared that she was several years older than him just as long as she could bear children (that`s what the queen`s job mostly was about).

Kate Phizackerley said...

Stephanie,
I looked at the timings sometime ago too and decided that Ankehsenpaaten cannot be Tut's wife if the standard chronology is accepted. We would need longer between the death of Akhenaten and the acession of Tut.
Kate

Marianne Luban said...

Kate, that is a problem--how long were the interim reigns between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun. No one really knows. There was Smenkhkare [the consensus for him is one year]and then a woman king from whom some of Tut's funerary equipment was appropriated. According to Manetho, an Egyptian historian of the Late Period, her name was "Akencheres" [Ankhetkheperure?] and she reigned for 12 years. The next king was supposed to have been her brother, "Ratothis", who reigned for nine years. Whether there is any truth here as far as the duration of the woman-king cannot be known, either. The thing is, though, Tutankhamun should really have had a regent if he was only nine when he came to the throne. In fact, as depicted on his actual throne from KV62, he is "crowned with the atef" [the type of crown he wears there] looking quite a bit older than nine. The lady that stands before him, dabbing some perfume on his collar is Ankhesenamun in her cartouche, but this has been altered from another name. Her headdress has also been altered. Was she perhaps Tut's former female regent?

Also, in the tomb of Yuya and Thuya there is mention of only one more child for Thuya--and that is Aanen. He became second prophet of Amun and that is his highest office as far as we know. Ay is not mentioned in the tomb, although he could certainly have been a relative.

Kate Phizackerley said...

Marianne,
That's why I mentioned it and why I would love the full DNA results of the tested mummies. If we could piece together the family tree then we might be able to fix the chronology. For me that is *much* more important than whether Tut died of malaria or not.
Kate

Adrienne Giacon said...

So we now have another possiblity for YL perhaps? She could be the one from Manethos list. Ancencheres, a female who ruled for 12 years and 1 month.
Some suggest this is Smenkhare and taken from his name Ankhkheperure.
But the dna shows Tutankhamen ( possibly Rathotis) as YLs son, not her brother.

Or there is another tomb yet to be discovered with the female king interred within?
I always thought Nefertiti was the most likely contender for the female King shown in the figures.
However if Achencheres was the daughter of Orus, it would have to be one of Akhenatens daughters, followed by Tutankhamen- her brother.
I have read a suggestion that there may have been two rulers at the same time. i.e Amarna rulers existing at the same time as others in Memphis. Which could account for the extra reigns time in Manethos list.

Marianne Luban said...

Hi Adrienne,

There is an attested "Ankhetkheperure", definitely a female. I suggest to anyone who hasn't already done so to read Allen's paper, "The Amarna Succession", URL in this thread of comments. He explains all the attestations.

Adrienne Giacon said...

I dont find Allens argument for the younger daughter to have been Neferneruaten very convincing. It does not seem to make sense to make a younger daughter King over the elder daughters.
It would have to have been one of his sisters- Perhaps as you suggest Marianne- named her as King so she could be regent for Tutankhamen until he was old enough.
Or was it one of his sisters that finally produced the heir he had been wanting. Isis or one of the others renamed.

I am sure there is a piece missing.
One fine piece still to be dug up. ( one can only hope!).
I had hoped the dna would be that piece. It just seems to have thrown more curveballs then straight lines.

Adrienne Giacon said...

Marianne, is the paper you wrote on the KV35Yl available online anywhere now?

Marianne Luban said...

Adrienne, yes

http://www.uned.es/geo-1-historia-antigua-universal/NOTICIAS/AKHENATON_NEFERTITI_OTRA_VEZ.htm

There may be other sites, too. Watch the wrap on the one above.

Marianne Luban said...

Adrienne, yes

http://www.uned.es/geo-1-historia-antigua-universal/NOTICIAS/AKHENATON_NEFERTITI_OTRA_VEZ.htm

There may be other sites, too. Watch the wrap on the one above.

Adrienne Giacon said...

Thank you Marianne, I have been wanting to read that for ages, but the link I had seen it mentioned on didn't work.I must say I am very pleased to be able to see it at long last. Who better to get the low down from then someone who has been there and seen it in person.

I have always thought it was Nefertiti as the coregent pictured with Akhenaton.
It is also often suggested she could have changed her regnal name to Smenkhare after Akhenaton died. I did read in the Oxford guide to Ancent Egypt (published 2000) an assertion that Neferiti was Smenkhare. Written by Jacobus van Dijk.
I quote here
"
The latter's influence ( Nefertiti) increased even further during the later part of the reign, when she became the official co-regent of her husband as Neferneferuaten with the throne name Ankh(et)Kheperura; her role as queen consort was taken over by her eldest daughter Meritaten. What prompted Akhenaten to appoint a co-regent, a step only taken in exceptional circumstances is unknown. Perhaps opposition to his regime elsewhere in the country ( that is in Thebes) was threatening to get out of control, making it necessary to have someone who could act as KING and perhaps even take up residence outside Amarna.; at any rate a Theban graffiti dated to her regnal year 3 reveals that Nefereferuaten owned a "mansion of Ankheperura in Thebes' that employed a scribe of divine offerings to Amun, a clear indication that an attempt at reconciliation with the old cults was undertaken. Most of this text consists of the scribes prayer to Amun, with a poignant appeal to the god to come back and dispel the darkness that had descended upon his followers.

Whether or not Nefertiti survived Akhenaten, who died in regnal year 17, is uncertain. An ephemereal king Smenkhara with virtually the same throne name as Nefertiti/ Neferneferuaten appears in some inscriptions from the end of the Amarna period; in one or two rare representations he is accompanied by his queen Meritaten. The identity of this Smenkhara is
uncertain.any scholars continue to see him as Nefertiti's male successor, perhaps a younger brother or even another son of Akhenaten, but there is a strong possibility that "he' was actually none other than Nefertiti herself who, like Hatshepsut before her, had assumed a male persona and ruled alone for a brief period after the death of Akhenaten
with Meritaten in the ceremonial role of "great royal wife'. "

Also Nicholas Reeves was of the opinion Nefertiti was Smenkhare.
http://www.nicholasreeves.com/item.aspx?category=Archaeology&id=274
And KV55 was Akhenaton.

How amazing to have measured the skull yourself Marianne. I wonder why the shape was so unusual. I had assumed that was just another artistic interpretation. But your article states this was not the case.
I know will have to have another look at the reconstructions Kate posted. Did Amenhotep III have the same shape skull?

The Mayans of course had elongated skulls, which they went to great lengths to achieve.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_6ctimes1.htm

I wonder if there was some spiritual significance/ or gift thought to be imbued in one by such a practice. Or is it just cosmetic? When you think of all the trouble we go to with braces for teeth these days.

I do think that the identification of Ankhesapaaten, could resolve this. If she is the mother of the foetus, and Tut is the father, then if KV35YL is her Mother it has to be Nefertiti.
This would leave Zahi with two options. 1) to embrace it and celebrate another royal mummy coup for the museum
2) Weighed against the allegations it wasnt her after the Joan Fletcher book.

Still it is more interesting to watch than TV these days.

Adrienne Giacon said...

Thank you Marianne, I have been wanting to read that for ages, but the link I had seen it mentioned on didn't work.I must say I am very pleased to be able to see it at long last. Who better to get the low down from then someone who has been there and seen it in person.

I have always thought it was Nefertiti as the coregent pictured with Akhenaton.
It is also often suggested she could have changed her regnal name to Smenkhare after Akhenaton died. I did read in the Oxford guide to Ancent Egypt (published 2000) an assertion that Neferiti was Smenkhare. Written by Jacobus van Dijk.
I quote here
"
The latter's influence ( Nefertiti) increased even further during the later part of the reign, when she became the official co-regent of her husband as Neferneferuaten with the throne name Ankh(et)Kheperura; her role as queen consort was taken over by her eldest daughter Meritaten. What prompted Akhenaten to appoint a co-regent, a step only taken in exceptional circumstances is unknown. Perhaps opposition to his regime elsewhere in the country ( that is in Thebes) was threatening to get out of control, making it necessary to have someone who could act as KING and perhaps even take up residence outside Amarna.; at any rate a Theban graffiti dated to her regnal year 3 reveals that Nefereferuaten owned a "mansion of Ankheperura in Thebes' that employed a scribe of divine offerings to Amun, a clear indication that an attempt at reconciliation with the old cults was undertaken. Most of this text consists of the scribes prayer to Amun, with a poignant appeal to the god to come back and dispel the darkness that had descended upon his followers.

Whether or not Nefertiti survived Akhenaten, who died in regnal year 17, is uncertain. An ephemereal king Smenkhara with virtually the same throne name as Nefertiti/ Neferneferuaten appears in some inscriptions from the end of the Amarna period; in one or two rare representations he is accompanied by his queen Meritaten. The identity of this Smenkhara is
uncertain.any scholars continue to see him as Nefertiti's male successor, perhaps a younger brother or even another son of Akhenaten, but there is a strong possibility that "he' was actually none other than Nefertiti herself who, like Hatshepsut before her, had assumed a male persona and ruled alone for a brief period after the death of Akhenaten
with Meritaten in the ceremonial role of "great royal wife'. "

Also Nicholas Reeves was of the opinion Nefertiti was Smenkhare.
http://www.nicholasreeves.com/item.aspx?category=Archaeology&id=274
And KV55 was Akhenaton.

How amazing to have measured the skull yourself Marianne. I wonder why the shape was so unusual. I had assumed that was just another artistic interpretation. But your article states this was not the case.
I know will have to have another look at the reconstructions Kate posted. Did Amenhotep III have the same shape skull?

The Mayans of course had elongated skulls, which they went to great lengths to achieve.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_6ctimes1.htm

I wonder if there was some spiritual significance/ or gift thought to be imbued in one by such a practice. Or is it just cosmetic? When you think of all the trouble we go to with braces for teeth these days.

I do think that the identification of Ankhesapaaten, could resolve this. If she is the mother of the foetus, and Tut is the father, then if KV35YL is her Mother it has to be Nefertiti.
This would leave Zahi with two options. 1) to embrace it and celebrate another royal mummy coup for the museum
2) Weighed against the allegations it wasnt her after the Joan Fletcher book.

Still it is more interesting to watch than TV these days.

Adrienne Giacon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Adrienne Giacon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Adrienne Giacon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Adrienne Giacon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Adrienne Giacon said...

Thank you Marianne, I have been wanting to read that for ages, but the link I had seen it mentioned on didn't work.I must say I am very pleased to be able to see it at long last.

Thank you.

I thought it was Nefertiti as the coregent pictured with Akhenaton.
And that KV35YL was here. The fact she may be a sister of Akhenaton does not really change that.

It is often suggested she could have changed her regnal name to Smenkhare after Akhenaton died. DO you think this is the case, or that he was another?
I did read in the Oxford guide to Ancent Egypt (published 2000) an assertion that Neferiti was Smenkhare. In a piece written by Jacobus van Dijk.
I quote here
" when she [Nefertiti] became the official co-regent of her husband as Neferneferuaten with the throne name Ankh(et)Kheperura; her role as queen consort was taken over by her eldest daughter Meritaten... at any rate a Theban graffiti dated to her regnal year 3 reveals that Nefereferuaten owned a "mansion of Ankheperura in Thebes' that employed a scribe of divine offerings to Amun, a clear indication that an attempt at reconciliation with the old cults was undertaken. Most of this text consists of the scribes prayer to Amun, with a poignant appeal to the god to come back and dispel the darkness that had descended upon his followers.

Whether or not Nefertiti survived Akhenaten, who died in regnal year 17, is uncertain. An ephemereal king Smenkhara with virtually the same throne name as Nefertiti/ Neferneferuaten appears in some inscriptions from the end of the Amarna period; in one or two rare representations he is accompanied by his queen Meritaten. The identity of this Smenkhara is
uncertain.Many scholars continue to see him as Nefertiti's male successor, perhaps a younger brother or even another son of Akhenaten, but there is a strong possibility that "he' was actually none other than Nefertiti herself who, like Hatshepsut before her, had assumed a male persona and ruled alone for a brief period after the death of Akhenaten
with Meritaten in the ceremonial role of "great royal wife'. "

Also Nicholas Reeves was of the opinion Nefertiti was Smenkhare.
http://www.nicholasreeves.com/item.aspx?category=Archaeology&id=274
And KV55 was Akhenaton.

How amazing to have measured the skull yourself Marianne. I wonder why the shape was so unusual. I had assumed that was just another artistic interpretation. But your article states this was not the case.
I know will have to have another look at the reconstructions Kate posted. Did Amenhotep III have the same shape skull?

The Mayans of course had elongated skulls, which they went to great lengths to achieve.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_6ctimes1.htm

I wonder if there was some spiritual significance/ or gift thought to be imbued in one by such a practice. Or is it just cosmetic? When you think of all the trouble we go to with braces for teeth these days.

I do think that the identification of Ankhesapaaten, could resolve this. If she is the mother of the foetus, and Tut is the father, then if KV35YL is her Mother it has to be Nefertiti.

Still it is more interesting to watch than TV these days.

Adrienne Giacon said...

Thank you Marianne, I have been wanting to read that for ages, but the link I had seen it mentioned on didn't work.I must say I am very pleased to be able to see it at long last.

Thank you.

I thought it was Nefertiti as the coregent pictured with Akhenaton.
And that KV35YL was here. The fact she may be a sister of Akhenaton does not really change that.

It is often suggested she could have changed her regnal name to Smenkhare after Akhenaton died. DO you think this is the case, or that he was another?
I did read in the Oxford guide to Ancent Egypt (published 2000) an assertion that Neferiti was Smenkhare. In a piece written by Jacobus van Dijk.
I quote here
" when she [Nefertiti] became the official co-regent of her husband as Neferneferuaten with the throne name Ankh(et)Kheperura; her role as queen consort was taken over by her eldest daughter Meritaten... at any rate a Theban graffiti dated to her regnal year 3 reveals that Nefereferuaten owned a "mansion of Ankheperura in Thebes' that employed a scribe of divine offerings to Amun, a clear indication that an attempt at reconciliation with the old cults was undertaken. Most of this text consists of the scribes prayer to Amun, with a poignant appeal to the god to come back and dispel the darkness that had descended upon his followers.

Whether or not Nefertiti survived Akhenaten, who died in regnal year 17, is uncertain. An ephemereal king Smenkhara with virtually the same throne name as Nefertiti/ Neferneferuaten appears in some inscriptions from the end of the Amarna period; in one or two rare representations he is accompanied by his queen Meritaten. The identity of this Smenkhara is
uncertain.Many scholars continue to see him as Nefertiti's male successor, perhaps a younger brother or even another son of Akhenaten, but there is a strong possibility that "he' was actually none other than Nefertiti herself who, like Hatshepsut before her, had assumed a male persona and ruled alone for a brief period after the death of Akhenaten
with Meritaten in the ceremonial role of "great royal wife'. "

Also Nicholas Reeves was of the opinion Nefertiti was Smenkhare.
http://www.nicholasreeves.com/item.aspx?category=Archaeology&id=274
And KV55 was Akhenaton.

How amazing to have measured the skull yourself Marianne. I wonder why the shape was so unusual. I had assumed that was just another artistic interpretation. But your article states this was not the case.
I know will have to have another look at the reconstructions Kate posted. Did Amenhotep III have the same shape skull?

The Mayans of course had elongated skulls, which they went to great lengths to achieve.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_6ctimes1.htm

I wonder if there was some spiritual significance/ or gift thought to be imbued in one by such a practice. Or is it just cosmetic? When you think of all the trouble we go to with braces for teeth these days.

I do think that the identification of Ankhesapaaten, could resolve this. If she is the mother of the foetus, and Tut is the father, then if KV35YL is her Mother it has to be Nefertiti.

Still it is more interesting to watch than TV these days.

Adrienne Giacon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Adrienne Giacon said...

Thank you Marianne, I have been wanting to read that for ages, but the link I had seen it mentioned on didn't work.
I must say I am very pleased to be able to see it at long last.

Who better to get the low down from then someone who has been there and seen it in person.

It is often suggested Nefertitiwas also Smenkhare, What do you think?
I did read in the Oxford guide to Ancent Egypt (published 2000) an assertion that Neferiti was Smenkhare. Written by Jacobus van Dijk.
I quote here
"
She [Neferitit]became the official co-regent of her husband as Neferneferuaten with the throne name Ankh(et)Kheperura; her role as queen consort was taken over by her eldest daughter Meritaten... at any rate a Theban graffiti dated to her regnal year 3 reveals that Nefereferuaten owned a "mansion of Ankheperura in Thebes' that employed a scribe of divine offerings to Amun, a clear indication that an attempt at reconciliation with the old cults was undertaken. Most of this text consists of the scribes prayer to Amun, with a poignant appeal to the god to come back and dispel the darkness that had descended upon his followers.

Whether or not Nefertiti survived Akhenaten, who died in regnal year 17, is uncertain. An ephemereal king Smenkhara with virtually the same throne name as Nefertiti/ Neferneferuaten appears in some inscriptions from the end of the Amarna period; in one or two rare representations he is accompanied by his queen Meritaten. The identity of this Smenkhara is
uncertain.any scholars continue to see him as Nefertiti's male successor, perhaps a younger brother or even another son of Akhenaten, but there is a strong possibility that "he' was actually none other than Nefertiti herself who, like Hatshepsut before her, had assumed a male persona and ruled alone for a brief period after the death of Akhenaten
with Meritaten in the ceremonial role of "great royal wife'. "

Also Nicholas Reeves was of the opinion Nefertiti was Smenkhare.
http://www.nicholasreeves.com/item.aspx?category=Archaeology&id=274
And KV55 was Akhenaton.
I wonder why the shape of the skull was rendered so.Did Amenhotep III have the same shape skull?

The Mayans of course had elongated skulls, which they went to great lengths to achieve.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_6ctimes1.htm

I wonder if there was some spiritual significance/ or gift thought to be imbued in one by such a practice. Or is it just cosmetic? I do think that the identification of Ankhesapaaten, could resolve this. If she is the mother of the foetus, and Tut is the father, then if KV35YL is her Mother it has to be Nefertiti.
Still it is more interesting to watch than TV these days.

Adrienne Giacon said...

Thanks Marianne. I have been wanting to read that article forever! At last I have done so.

I wonder why they rendered their skulls so. The Mayans did the same thing.Perhaps it was thought to imbue some spiritual gift, or perhaps for cosmetic reasons.
I have been trying to post something I read in the Oxford guide to Ancient egypt, but having problems posting a comment.

Adrienne Giacon said...

Oh my goodness how strange, I can see now why you keep double posting, it says that you are navigating away from the page and the whole post disappears! So I posted again, and again. Hopefully Kate can delete some of them.
Sorry Kate!

Kate Phizackerley said...

Actually the strange thing is that there aren't multiple comments on the article itself, just in the RSS feed from it. RSS feeds take time to refresh so hopefully it will sort itself out shortly.

Adrienne Giacon said...

The multiple comments are on the post Kate, in fact there is 10 of my last one :(
Regards

Lanh Tran Van said...

http://xemtuvitrondoionline.blogspot.com/
http://xemtuoiphongthuy.blogspot.com/
http://tonghopanhdep.blogspot.com/
http://chuyenthamkinhangngay.blogspot.com/
http://chuongtrinhtourdulichvft.blogspot.com/
http://phongcanhdatviet.blogspot.com/
http://diadiemmuasamquanaogiare.blogspot.com/
http://chedodinhduongchobabauthangthu.blogspot.com/
http://taisaocongaithich.blogspot.com/
http://xemnotruoi.blogspot.com/
http://xemchitaybiet.blogspot.com/
http://xemtuvichoconsinhnam.blogspot.com/
http://xemngaytotkhaitruongtrongthang.blogspot.com/
http://cachdattenhay.blogspot.com/
http://nhungdauhieu.blogspot.com/
http://cacphuongphapxuly.blogspot.com/
http://chedodinhduongchophunumangthai.blogspot.com/
http://xemngaygiotot.blogspot.com/

Search

Admin Control Panel