Talk:Smenkhkare

Transliteration

Good call on the name transliteration. I checked on Google, and found the following counts for various variants:

• Smenkare - 100
• Smenkhare - 1030
• Smenkhkare - 1390
• Shmenkare - 2 (1 from Wikipedia)
• Shmenkhare - 1 (Wikipedia only)
• Shmenkhkare - 0

Also, most of my Egyptian books now use the Smenkhkare version too. Noel 21:30, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hieroglyphs

Any thoughts on the hieroglyphs? This page shows two name rings.

The second seems to be

, which reads like Semerkare-Djeserkheperu to me. Gareth Hughes 14:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that there is confusion about one sign only. The sign between < s > and <kA> should be <mnx> (Gardiner U22). It seems to be wrong both on the wikipedia info page (where it is written aA, giving Saakare-Djeserkheperu) and on the discussion page, where it is written <mr> and the cartouche reads "Semerkare", as Mr. Hughes correctly pointed out. So, the name Smenkhkare actually consists of signs s-mnx-kA-ra, and the whole cartouche therefore:

. 194.251.240.116 07:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Turo Vartiainen, University of Helsinki

In the original works about the scene where we see Saakare rewarding Meryre II, with the presence of the Great Royal Spouse Meritaten, the cartouche of the Sa Ra Name shows the version on the left This page. Davies, reporting Lepsius (Lepsius - Saakare) reads Saakare. And also this French work reports the same cartouche. Cartouches of Saakare and Meritaten.

While the first ring can be associated with a Monarch [we have got his Royal cartouches] the second one cannot. It can belog to someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlpinLuke (talk • contribs) 07:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Tutankhamun death mask

Is Tutankhamun's death mask probably the face of Smenkhare? The ref provided by User:Andropolis on Talk:Tutankhamun is "Treasures of Tutankhamun," The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1976. ISBN: 0-87099-156-6. I'm happy to accept it as I've read before in some relevant book or other that this was "widely accepted among Egyptologists" since probably the 60s. It does of course contradict the Smenkhare=Nefertiti theory, but then it is a minority one AFAIK. Rd232 16:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleted the image. This is simply incorrect.[1] deeceevoice 09:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

From a deeceevoice edit summary: "This is incorrect. It is the inner-coffin image that is thought to be that of Smenkhare -- not Tut's death mask." - so do we have the inner-coffin image? At least as an external link? Rd232 09:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I seem to recall that it's the second coffin, not the inner (solid gold) coffin, which is thought to be that of Smenkhkare. Noel (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

POV dispute: Heretic?

Do we really need to call Akhenaten a heretic? What one may call a heretic, others might call a reformer. I think this gets to be a POV violation, even 3500 years later... Valley2city 19:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Its stretching POV abit (in my view), however I have removed the wording as it seems 'wrong' in this context. I think he was never referred to as a heretic, just the "Great Criminal" Markh 20:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Depiction

The opinion that we only have one depiction of him is based on theory and conjecture, yet presented as fact. If Smenkhare is the same person as Ankhenaten's co-regent, a theory which holds some credence, then we have several depictions of him/her/it. Wjhonson 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just flabbergasted...

I was reading Reeve's Egypt's false prophet, and he actually thinks Smenkhkare was nefertiti. Now, Reeves isn't a crackpot, so I'm quite flabbergasted that a real scholar would say somthing like that. He quoted another source I could try to get my hands on too... If anyone else said this, I'd say it shouldn't be in the article, but he is a scholar of repute, and this should probably get a nod... I just didn't want to add anything outright without running this past people here first... I would have never thought anyone of repute would say somthing like this. Thanatosimii 03:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I know this type of speculation has been around for a long time, and I seem to remember a piece in KMT where the same point was brought to light (can't find it at the moment, but will look for it). From what I have read though, it seems very likely that the skeletal remains that were found in KV55 were in fact a brother (rather than a sister or aunt) to Tutanhkamun, based on cranofacial features from X-ray analysis done in the 70s. Will make a point of adding citations that back up that assertion. Cheers! Captmondo 18:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not familiar with the analysis of mummies and how that bears upon the history of the period, but I get the feeling that most historians don't trust such analyses very far due to the fact that they all seem to have been confused by 20th and 21st dynasty priests and workmen. I think I need to get my hands on some more histories of the period, and see if they have anything to say about this. Redford's Heretic King and Aldred's Pharaoh/King of Egypt might adress such issues, although they are older than the thesis Reeves quoted. Thanatosimii 18:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The analysis of the mummies is a fascinating topic in and of itself. I was lucky this past Xmas to get a copy of Forbes' Tombs, Treasures, Mummies which is a solid (and heavy!) piece of scholarly work. For a nice summary of this issue in general (the identity of Egyptian mummies, not Smenkhare per se) take a look at the book excerpt that Forbes published on the KMT Web site called: Mummies Musical Chairs: Cases of Mistaken Identities? It does reference Smenkhare in passing (which is relevant here) and interestingly enough, also points out that the mummy attributed to Ahmose I may in fact not be him at all. Am kicking myself for not having picked up a used copy of the x-ray analysis that Forbes' mentioned in his article that I once saw in a bookstore, but I may now have to go back and track it down. Cheers! Captmondo 19:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Akhenaton's Froelich's Syndrome

It is unlikely that Akhenaton suffered Froelich's Syndrome as this causes retarded sexual development, atrophy or hypoplasia of the gonads, and sterility. We know that Akhenaton was not sterile, he had at least 6 daughters, and also children by Kiya, (probably Tutankhamon). If he suffered any deformity it is possible that it was Marfan's Syndrome, associated with artiodactly, elongation of the face, hooded eyelids, a sunken chest and bulging abdomen, the tendency to greater height, difficulty with sight and a weakened heart. Marfan's syndrome has a 50% chance of being inherited by offspring. Tutankhamon shows no evidence of it although it would appear his daughters may have suffered from the condition, but there is also evidence that images of Nefertiti were also drawn to show her with the condition. Althernatively the supposed condition of the Pharaoh was to emphasise his "god-like" character. John D. Croft 13:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the stylistic differences of Amarna-era imagery (and of Ahkenaten's appearance specifically) is more thought to be just that, rather than related to any specific disease. Indeed, there is a known change in the Amarna style from the early years to mid-point of his reign, which you can see in the respective images at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:AmarnaRelief-Nefertiti-EarlyReliefImage_BrooklynMuseum.png vs. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:AmarnaRelief-Nefertiti-LateReliefImage_BrooklynMuseum.png, the latter being softer and less angular in style. The reason for the change is style is thought to be the appointment of a new Royal Chief Sculptor, who was also likely responsible for the famous image of Nefertiti that now resides in the Egyptian Museum in Berlin.

If you wanted to add your material to the article (with proper citations, of course), I will make the effort to corroborate on the artistic side from the sources I have. Cheers! Captmondo 17:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case the "This finding also eliminated the possibility that the KV 55 mummy was Akhenaten since some scholars had believed that this pharaoh suffered from Froelich's syndrome" part needs reworking. "Since" is clearly not correct. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Marfan's syndrome has a 50% chance of being inherited by offspring." - no. It is autosomal dominant. Given that Nefertiti was protrayed the same way as her husband, she would have had the same medical condition (if such it was) and for Marfan's (if such it was) this would mean a 75%-100% chance for each offspring of having Marfan's. Simply make a Punnett square, or actually you need 3 - for hetero/heterozygous, hetero/homozygous and homo/homozygous. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Family section of Smenkhkare

The Family section of the Smekhkare article says "Since Akhenaten fathered six daughters but no known sons in his 17 year reign . . ." but Akhenaten is almost certainly considered to the be the father of King Tut (along with his lesse wife Kiya).

198.151.13.10 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of Mummy

Are there any pictures of the whole mummy that was found in KV55, because, out of curiosity, I would like to see them.--Lionheart Omega 01:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• No. The mummy quickly broke into dust and fragmented when it was touched. Only the skull remains. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not true. " some researchers have suggested that the skeleton is incomplete and in poor condition. It is immediately obvious that this is not the case. Apart from a few missing teeth, and hand and foot bones boxed separately, the skeleton is almost complete and is in good condition except for some damage that occurred after death to some of the vertebrae and the tip of the left pubic bone." - Joyce Filer in "Anatomy of a Mummy"; Archeology 55/2002; her report after examining the KV55 mummy. Plutonix (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

smenkhkare/neferneferuaten

is there really any need for two articles here, one on smenkhkare and another on neferneferuaten?

both pretty much deal with the same issues throughout and can easily be merged into one article. the way these two articles stand now creates a confused mix of facts and speculation without much organisation or structure... surely this can be improved. best way to deal with this topic would be a single article which follows a structure like this:

short lead/discussion on nomenclature/discussion on gender/discussion on number of individuals/discussion on possible candidates (i.e. which of the known (late) amarna individuals could match with this individual/these individuals) --!linus (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

i have now more or less finished revising this article, see also questions raised here and here --!linus (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes there is a need for 2 separate articles on Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten. Smenkhkare was a male king of Egypt whereas Neferneferuaten was a female king of Egypt. Both ruled from Amarna prior to the accession of Tutankhamun. This position is endorsed by prominent Egyptologists such as Erik Hornung, Rolf Krauss and David Warburton. Moreover, M. Gabolde and Aidan Dodson today agree that they are 2 separate rulers. So, a separate article for them is not only justified...but needed. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

New DNA Evidence

According to the following article from National Geographic, new DNA evidence has been found which affects the information on this page: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100216-king-tut-malaria-bones-inbred-tutankhamun/

Specifically, the KV55 mummy mentioned on this page as a candidate for being Smenkhkare has, according to the article, been confirmed instead to be Akhenaten, and also confirmed to be Tutankhamun's father.

Should this be added to the article? I'm a newbie, and not really familiar with how things work around here. Krig the Viking (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

DNA

Apparently DNA testing or blood grouping cannot specify whether two individuals were brothers or father and son. After careful medical examination of the remains found in KV55 Professor Harrison identifies these remains as Smenkhare. He concluded that Akhenaton was the son of Amenhotep III and Tiyi with Smenkhare and Tutankamen as the sons of Amenhotep and Kiya. Tutankamen is the half brother of Akhenaton.AT Kunene (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a generalization. DNA sibling identifications can be made but require other correlations between parents and the children, in question. In any event, the recent identification of KV35YL (The Younger Lady) as the mother of Tutankhamen and either a daughter or granddaughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye renders R.G. Harrison's non-DNA conclusion that Tut is the son of Kiya, incorrect. However, while the identity of KV35YL excludes Kiya it is far from conclusive due to the complications of inbreeding/incest.

One such possibility is that KV35YL is Akhenaten's daughter, Meritaten, the wife and niece of Smenkhare, thereby making Tut the son of Smenkhare and the maternal grandson (paternal nephew) of Akhenaten. But as the mother of Tut, she would have to be a descendant of Tiye or Tiye's mother Thuya. If the latter, then this raises the possibility that Nefertiti, Meritaten's mother, was the younger sister of Tiye and, therefore, Akhenaten's maternal aunt. Given KV35YL as Meritaten, such an aunt/nephew marriage is also possible between Tut and his wife, Ankhesenamun, since she was the younger sister of Meritaten; in which case, Tut's marriage would have been in the tradition of his grandparents, i.e. Akhenaten's marriage to Nefertiti. Pvsalsedo (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Complexity

To become pharaoh Akhenaton had to be the eldest surviving son of the previous pharaoh. Assuming Smenkhare and Tutankamun to be the next potential heirs these must have been also sons of the preceeding pharaoh.

The mother of Akhenaton seems to be firmly established as Tiye but prof Harrison concluded that Smenkhare and Tutankamun were sons of the pharaoh by another more junior wife. The only known name seems to be Kiya although another unamed/unknown candidate is always possible.

Reverting to the simple story, Akhenaton has six daughters and no son. His half brother Smenkhare is groomed to be the next pharaoh and is married to Akhenatons daughter Meritaton to secure accession.

After the death of Akhenaton, Smenkhare becomes pharaoh complete with consort Meritaton. Smenkhare reigns for no more than three years. After his death, Meriaton is the royal widow if she survived him. Exactly what did happen then seems to be the matter of considerable debate.

The next survivng male heir is Tutakhamun, brother of smenkhare and half brother of Akhenaton, and married to Akhenatons third daughter Ankhesenaton. After the death of Tutankamun and no survivng issue, the experienced politician Ay becomes the next pharaoh.AT Kunene (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahkenaton

Interesting how original analysis done by quite qualified persons is perverted to fit current conventional theories. That MALE body is NOT Akhenaton by any stretch of scientific measure. It is far too young. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.140.130 (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• That unfortunately stems from the conclusions published in JAMA regarding Tut et al. They did not release any evidence for the finding that KV55=Akhenaten only their conclusion that it probably or most likely was he and older than previously estimated by Smith (1912), Derry (1931), Harrison (1966), and Filer (2000). They cited the spine had "...significant degenerative changes associated with age." as "proof" of an age. The problem is they also reported KV55 mummy to have scoliosis which results in the same spinal degeneration whether age 16 or 60. Unfortunately, the way wiki works, if it can be cited, it can be used (no critical thinking required...or allowed!). Plutonix (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Year 16 Graffito

I have some issues with the way the Y16 graffito is presented. First, I cleaned up the grammar and made it a new para, as it is of some importance on its own. As to content, I have some issues:

• More caution is due in characterizing the graffito. It is badly damaged and unpublished and unverified, all the info about it comes from a press release only. Egyptological history is rife with misreadings like Year 12 becoming Year 2 (or possibly 16 becoming 6 in this case!)
• Similarly, more eyes on it might uncover an epithet like "true of voice"
• The terms 'discredits' or 'discards' seriously overstates the case since no one has vouched for it or studied it (not being harsh, just clear)

" it is more likely that Smenkhkare had an independent reign at Amarna after Akhenaten's death instead"

• It is unpublished. The conclusion is personal opinion.
• Gabolde makes the observation that it argues for Nefertiti over Meritaten quite strongly.

It is a decent conclusion, but not the only conclusion. If verified, it certainly indicates Nefertiti is alive - which has been the main counter argument to her candidacy since the 1970s. The date still allows about a year for the start of a coregency, and far from rules her out. I handled it more cautiously in the Neferneferuaten revision:

“ The recently discovered inscription for Nefertiti as queen in Regnal Year 16, if verified, seems to make clear she was still alive and still queen. What Egyptologists will make of it remains to be seen, but with proof of her alive in Year 16, it could be seen as supporting her candidacy as Neferneferuaten. On the other hand, advocates for Smenkhkare could make the argument that since she attested as queen just before the start of Akhenaten's final regnal year that Smenkhkare is more likely to be Akhenaten's successor. ”

I propose the para be revised Plutonix (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Update/Revision

The previous version had several problems.

• The narrative was fractured. Some long rambling paragraphs seemed to have 4 authors.
• Facts and factoids were inserted here and there. One section would seem to dismiss a theory, only to raise it later
• Needless commingling with Neferneferuaten making it very confusing (see reader comments)
• Numerous misleading statements; not all were actually wrong, just misleading
• Very reliant on a single source, leading to a tilted POV

Expanded several previous sections, added some new ones

• Expanded the evidence discussion to present Smenkhkare separate from Neferneferuaten
• Expanded Dakhamunzu section to present the case for each candidate
• Expanded discussion of the debate over 2010 Genetic tests
• Added a section on the 'Temple of Ankhkheperure'

• Added some imagesPlutonix (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The gender of Neferneferuaten still seems to be confusing

In the article, in ¨Temple of Ankhkheperure¨ the inscription clearly states: ¨Son of Re Neferneferuaten¨. How can this mean a female? I doubt that the inscription in the tomb 139 means two pharaohs. It was not a custom to present pharaohs that way. Two pharaohs would not be buried in the same tomb in ANY circumstances. Another part is confusing also. In the article, in ¨Neferneferuaten¨ the inscription in Tutankhamun's box inscribing the names Akhenaten, Neferneferuaten and Meritaten as Great Royal Wife. If it mentions Meritaten as Great Royal Wife, it can't mean Tutankhamun's wife, but in this case, the only possibility to be the husband would be Neferneferuaten.

In fact, an other article in the net described the first issue better: A box discovered in the tomb of Tutankhamun, dating to Akhenaten's reign, bears the two names "King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Ankhkheperure Beloved of Neferkheperure (Akhenaten); Son of Re, Lord of Crowns, Neferneferuaten Beloved of Waenre" and "King´s Chief Wife Merytaten, may she live forever". As Ankhkheperure is the male form of the name, and Merytaten is named as Chief Wife, it is reasonable to assume that the king is Smenkhare.

Considering, that Nefernefertuaten is mentioned in this suviving evidence as a ¨Son of Re¨ together with his wife Merytaten, I would feel that this together with the inscription in the tomb 139 is a stronger evidence about the gender of Nefernefertuaten than the text: ¨Effective for her husband¨. If that's the only evidence based to what has been created the female pharaoh Nefernefertuaten, that evidence seems too weak alone. I don't know what could be the idea behind the text: ¨Effective for her husband¨, but since Akhetaten was not a widely accepted place in Egypt those days, based to the fact that it was fast abandoned and demolished and denied by all the rest of the pharaohs after Tutankhamun and Ay, I would assume that in it's days the atmosphere there also could not be very secured. Perhaps something like this, an error in writing, could have been written there. Or what if Neferneferuaten in Tutankhamun's tomb in the places where it reads:¨Effective for her husband¨ means Nefertiti? Didn't she also use that name? That would be somehow so logical.

Visually, the stele in Berlin looks more like two men, especially the faces. Wasn't it the style in Akhetaten to present men in slightly swelling breats like the left figure has? Also, they are nude. Women are not typiclly shown nude in the area of the breats especially in the ancient Egypt, where the art visually in depicting people was conservative. Then there is the canopic coffins in Tutankhamun's tomb said to be described with the name Neferneferuaten. Or is it the name Ankhkheperure. Anyway, the face in them as well as the face in the canopic chest clearly is different than that of Tutankhamun. It would make more sense that the face belonged to Smenkhare, which could still be the same as Neferneferuaten. The same face seems to be in the middle coffin. It had some importance to Tutankhamun. If Neferneferuaten was a female with a high importance, perhaps her face would appear in somewhere in the tomb.

Finally, using the ephitets in the name Neferneferuaten but not Smenkhare, doesn't neccessarily prove they were a different person. It could just as well be that Smenkhare used the ephitets in the name Neferneferuaten,for example out of piety, since it was applied later, and the name Smenkhare was used only in Akhenaten's reign.

I would feel, that in the article should be mentioned that the gender and identification of Neferneferuaten is not certain based to the evidence.

Jkaaria3 (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Right?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Smenkhkare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cassian.memphis.edu/history/murnane/Allen.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

On Garis Davies work I cannot find that depiction of Smenkhkare and Merytaten

I have just checked on archive.org the work by Garis Davies [The rock tombs of El Amarna, 1905] which is indicated as source of the image. Here you can see the reward of Meryra as in that work. Reward of Meryra

I have looked at all the plates related to the tomb TA2 [Meryre II] and I haven't found it.

Is this a wrong attribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlpinLuke (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Better word than "debunked"?

I couldn't think of a better word than "debunked" for the theories that are no longer accepted in the academic study of Smenkhkare but it's a bit jarring as a word. Does anyone have any suggestions about how to rephrase this? ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Differentiating Between Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten

The section on differentiating between the two pharaohs needs a lot of work. It's generally accepted that they are two different people, but the explanation needs to be fleshed out. The only resource I have access to on the topic is Amarna Sunset/Sunrise. Are there any other resources people could check to expand the section? Here and in the Neferneferuaten section both need some major work.ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@ForWhomTheSunShines: My usual strategy is to read other people's citations (and then their citation's citations) so to that end I have pulled out my copy of Amarna Sunset. The article does currently cite a lot of the sources cited by Dodson; the section just needs to be streamlined a bit I think to make it easier to understand. I might give it a go here and on the Neferneferuaten page. I always find editing larger existing works for clarity is something I struggle with! Merytat3n (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)