www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:08:19 +0100, Lutz Franke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in sci.archaeology.moderated, wrote the following:
>Hello to everybody, > >are there any findings or inscriptions on which the names "Semenchkara" >and "Neferneferuaten" together appears (I don`t mean the combination >"Anchcheperura" or "Djesercheperura" and "Neferneferuaten")? >Thanks for your assistance.
The prenomen of "Ankhkheperure" appears for both Nefernferuaten and Smenkhare Djeser-kheperure, but solid facts to connect the two as one person have been lacking.
An analysis of the name /anx-xprw-ra/ by Dr. James Allen of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in the publication, Goettinger Miszellen (GM)141, noted the following problems:
"...Either, therefore, the Smenkh-ka-re set of names represents a later stage in the career of the female pharaoh Nefer-neferu-aton, or it belongs to a separate individual. Proponents of Nefertiti's kingship have argued vigorously for the first interpretation, claiming that 'there is as yet no valid evidence that a youth called Smenkh-ka-re existed.' But the evidence itself does not demand an identification of Smenkh-ka-re with Nefer-neferu-aton, and in fact the insistence that the two sets of names must belong to a single individual only weakens each case.
Arguments for a female Smenkh-ka-re, on the other hand, are based primarily on the use of anx-xprw-ra as prenomen. As shown above, however, there is a clear distinction between this use and that of the same name in the Nefer-neferu-aton set of names. Any other argumentation is essentially from silence - for example, that absence of the epithets using Akhenaton's names reflects that king's death. In any case, the burial in Tomb 55 must constitute a major impediment to any theory based on a single female pharaoh. While no inscriptional evidence remains to connect this burial with the king called Smenkh-ka-re, who else could it be?"
"Smenkh-ka-re's accession probably took place within months of Akhenaton's death, if not immediately (certainly the case if 'Year 1' of docket 279 is his). The new king took both Nefer-neferu-aton's throne name (without its reference to Akhenaton) and Merit-aton as Chief Queen. The reason for the choice of Nefertiti's throne name is a matter of conjecture. Like the marriage to Merit-aton, it undoubtedly reflected the line of succession. But even more, it may have been chosen to emphasize the legitimacy of Smenkh-ka-re's claim against that of Akhenaton's 'chosen' (mr) coregent.
Smenkh-ka-re ruled at Amarna: his known monuments are all from there and from Memphis. His highest known date is Year 1 on a wine-jar docket from Amarna, but his reign may have lasted as much as three years. As for the fate of Nefertiti, it is possible that Smenkh-ka-re's accession reflects her death around the time of Akhenaton's. But if mention of her name in filiations from Karnak has any chronological significance, it is possible that she was simply deposed by Smenkh-ka-re and lived on, perhaps into the reign of Tutankhamun. In either case, she was not buried as a pharaoh: the funerary objects made for that purpose were eventually used by Tutankhamun. Evidence for her burial otherwise is sparse."
Allen argues the name variations require two regents, _primarily_ due to the feminine /t/ ending shown with anxt-xprw-ra mrt wa-n-ra (in one cartouche) set in some seal impressions. Since, as he points out, the remains in KV 55 are almost certainly male, this individual must be associated with Smenkhkare as anx-xprw-ra, smnx-kA-ra Dsr-xprw, while a prenomen with a feminine -t seems to argue for a female regent. However, as Allen points out, above, this may reflect a deviation in the succession line, with eventual deposal by Smenkhkare, and Nefertiti not considered a "true" pharaoh, further saying
"...If King Nefer-neferu-aton served at all as Akhenaton's coregent, her rule may not have lasted much beyond the death of the senior king, since docket 279 from Amarna seems to link Akhenaton's last year (17) with Year 1 of another pharaoh [Smenkhkare]."
However, as Allen mentioned, this theory is made more complex due to the finding of male remains in tomb KV 55 by Theodore Davis in the King's Valley in 1907. The remains, found in an Amarna styled coffin (created for a female, and revised for a royal male) which has excised royal cartouches, due to post-burial desecration, were first thought to be those of a woman by Davis (who thought he had found the remains of Queen Tiye). However, anatomical examinations of the remains done in 1912 (Smith), 1931 (Derry), 1966 (Harrison), and most recently, in 2000 (Filer), all confirm the remains to be those of a male, and of these examinations, the last three attribute the remains to that of a _young man_, with the most recent examination by Joyce Filer, stating she would assess the male's age was between 20-25 years old at death, but "veering towards the lower end of the age range."
As you can see, the short length in the reigning periods of the two regents (following heard upon the death of Akhenaten, which may have also been unexpected) appears to argue that funerary equipment, which may have been made for them while living in preparation for death, would have been unfinished upon their actual deaths after their respective short reigns.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon) Member, International Association of Egyptologists American Research Center in Egypt, ASOR, EES, SSEA
Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] Oxford University Oxford, United Kingdom
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
