Akhenaten (Box, Carter Archive 001K)

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
26,207
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Some words about the existence of a female version of Ankhkheperure ... Ankhetkheperure or similar.

Actually we cannot make a comparision with the Sedge and Bee name of Hatshepsut: it's difficult to imagine a female form of Maatkare [overall because it wasn't necessary: Maat was a Goddess, so it's name is female]. Anyway we can note that the former female Sovereign didn't disdain to use male and female forms. She used both. We can see Son of Ra like Daughter of Ra or Good Goddess, Good God ...

So, keeping in mind that Ankhkheperure is actually a neutral name as for gender and that we have seen Ankhkheperure with epithets as well ... I would tend to consider Ankhetkheperure a variant of Ankhkheperure more than a different name. And we have already also seen that they used variants of the Royal Names.
 
Likes: Kyla

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,145
Bendigo
There is who underlines that Hatshepsut was Hatshepsut from the beginning [that was her name]. So that she used her birth name as Son of Ra [or, as sometime she wanted to be written "Daughter of Ra"] name. Checking around it seems that this is the case. Noting this, someone has remarked that Nefertiti was Nefertiti at the beginning of her Royal "career". Neferneferuaten had added later.

The point could be relevant [and I guess that who thinks to Neferneferuaten Tasherit as Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten considers also this aspect], but "Neferneferuaten" became part of the birth name of Nefertiti in such a way that the daughter had to be called Neferneferuaten Tasherit. So that, it's just the existence of a Neferneferuaten Tasherit to prove that Neferneferuaten became part of the Royal birth name of Nefertiti.

So we can follow a kind of "path of names" ...

Like Hatshepsut Nefertiti Neferneferuaten would have used her own birth name as Son of Ra name, just preferring the part with the dedication to the Aten [there was nothing better than that].

Great Royal Wife Nefertiti Neferneferuaten
Lord of Sedge and Bee Ankhkheperure Son of Ra Neferneferuaten
[Akhenaten is still alive and Monarch]
[Meritaten becomes Great Royal Wife]
Lord of Sedge and Bee Ankhkheperure Son of Ra Smenkhkare
[Akhenaten is no more]
[Meritaten remains Great Royal Wife]

The other evident aspect, object of infinite discussions, is that the Monarch doesn't change in the passage from Neferneferuaten to Smenkhkare [even in the other order the matter is the same ...]. Same Throne Name = same Monarch. This is the point which has generated the greatest number of explanations why a successor should keep the Throne Name of a predecessor. Personally I find those explanations a bit culturally oriented, probably influenced by modern perspectives.
For me - and for probably at least the next five minutes - Nefertiti is inescapably both Ankhkheperures.

I have been reading Sir Alan Gardiner’s essay “The so-called tomb of Queen Tiye’.

He thinks thinks the coffin was always Akhenaten’s. I agree.
There is Re-Horatky referenced on the coffin. Early Aten.
The uraeus on the coffin, late form of the Aten!
He thinks Smenkhkare may have buried Akhenaten. Yes, he is correct. But it was female pharaoh called Smenkhkare. Nefertiti in fact. More to follow at bottom of this page...
The female on the bottom-end of the coffin is usually Isis. In this case, it is Nefertiti as protective goddess, just like on the sarcophagus at Amarna.
The reworked hieroglyphs on the coffin that make no reasonable sense. According to Gardiner, they are nonsensical the way they are put on the coffin. And maybe they were ‘meant’ to make no sense. There was petty mockery involved, and maybe even a further shot in the direction of preventing any hope of his having an afterlife.
Inscriptions of Akhenaten’s name removed. Consignment to eternal oblivion.
Penis missing. Petty mockery. He had been unmanned.
The pectoral removed and bent around his head to look like a Queen. More petty mockery.
The female on the bottom-end of the coffin altered from male to female. Not exactly. It was changed from female to horo. Just like a Hatshetsup might have done in the same set of circumstances. Nefertiti has buried Akhenaten. She did do to affirm her status as horo. Queens can’t bury Pharaohs, only the next pharaoh can.

It’s all so obvious when you know. I am not even joking this time. The coffin was and always was meant for Akhenaten.

To reiterate:
The coffin was made quite some time before his death in preparation for the inevitable.
Nefertiti was his protective goddess on the bottom-end where Isis normally was.
When he died, Nefertiti became pharaoh in her own right and performed the correct procedures, and she changed from her female form to her horo (male) form on the bottom-end in accordance with correct procedure. She was always the female speaker there. The incoming pharaoh (male form now) buried the last.
As Smenkhkare, she reigned only a short time. Sometime after her death, Tut, under supervision, had Tiye and Akhenaten (and Smenkhkare?) moved to KV55.
When Tut died, Ay buried him.
In Year 3, Ay had Tiye and Nefertiti removed to WV22, along with their coffins and furnishings. Akhenaten’s coffin had inscriptions removed and replaced in nonsensical forms. His name was removed from cartouches. A pectoral was bent around his head to make him look like a Queen. His desecrators consigned him to oblivion with some angry petty mockery spread on top. Who? An old and embittered Ay, that’s who. He who also wanted Tiye and Nefertiti (Sitamun) to be entombed with Amenophis III. Just like that old king had wanted.
Ay arranged to be buried near to Amenophis and Tiye and his foster child (so to speak). That’s why he commandeered that tomb in the Western Valley.
Tomb robbers had the next say... but KV55 had long ago been buried and hidden by Stephen Cross’s flood. That’s why Akhenaten got to keep his coffin.

NB If you chance to read this post, Tammuz. I think you might be right about Yuyas heavy involvement in the early days of the Atenism. His beloved granddaughter, Sitamun, was also heavily involved from the start. She changed her name to Nefertiti Neferneferuaten around Year 3 of her husband-brother.

And, no, I have not proved anything. But I reckon I’m onto something with all this. 😎
 
Last edited:
I'm now totally in the camp that identifies Nefertiti as Smenkhkare - it all fits, especially given the lists of evidence in the last few posts, and there's a lot more out there, thanks to Horemheb dismantling the temples and using them as filler for the pylon he built. Nefertiti being a ruler also tallies well with the histories written by Josephus and Menetho - who said that there was a female ruler Akenkheres - so close to Ankhkheperure. Unfortunately the ancient writers were pretty confused about the Amarna period and things don't tally up that well - none of them seem to include Ay for example - and I do think that there was some confusion between Akhenaten and Ankhkhepurure.

This page is worth a look - Comparing King lists of Manetho
 
Likes: Kyla

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,145
Bendigo
I'm now totally in the camp that identifies Nefertiti as Smenkhkare - it all fits, especially given the lists of evidence in the last few posts, and there's a lot more out there, thanks to Horemheb dismantling the temples and using them as filler for the pylon he built. Nefertiti being a ruler also tallies well with the histories written by Josephus and Menetho - who said that there was a female ruler Akenkheres - so close to Ankhkheperure. Unfortunately the ancient writers were pretty confused about the Amarna period and things don't tally up that well - none of them seem to include Ay for example - and I do think that there was some confusion between Akhenaten and Ankhkhepurure.

This page is worth a look - Comparing King lists of Manetho
Just one of my my posts (#7005) on this topic. Manetho clearly knew stuff, but his sources are clearly confused. (Haven’t had time to really think about if what I say here is what I still think. But it is a subject of definite interest still). [NB I think I wrestled much more specifically with the Acencheres issue somewhere, but could not find it just now. I have forgotten a lot of what I speculated about on the issue. Anyway, I don’t think we can dismiss Manetho out of hand. He definitely had sources, however unreliable. He knew about Hatshetsup and a female pharaoh around the time of Amarna. That is clear and for mine inescapable].

Oh! Apologies. Thank you.

So do we see Smenkh-cheres here? I’m trying to wrangle this together.... Ankh = acen, maybe? Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare djeserkheperu... Might there be something in the order of hieroglyphs? Ankh-kare Smen-kheperu? Just occurred to me to throw in Ankh-sen-pa--Aten.... not sure why.... though could we have a mix up and confusion in names here? Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare djeserkheperu, Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten, Ankhesenpaaten.... Horos and Queens, but which one was which, with the records of the time so scanty and suppressed and all? Was Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare djeserkheperu a msn or a woman? Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten was both a man and a woman (just like Hatshetsup)! Was Ankhsenpaaten -Ankhsenamun a queen or coregent with her (younger?) husband, Tut? And then throw ‘Akhen-aten’ into the mix... I can easily imagine Manetho trying to rationalise confusing evidence from conflicting sources, or scanty bits from different sources.

The three ‘Acencheres’ variants for three Pharaohs, one male, two males, to me is a garbled account of a single pharaoh who ruled for 12 years. In the end, I think we have Nefertiti and her 12 years at Akhetaten. She acted as an equal of Akhenaten for that whole period IMO. Easy to see her as Coregent for that period. She was ‘Effective for her husband’ from the get go until he died, then ruled a very short time afterward as sole ruler. Incidentally, I suspect Orus (36 years) and Amenophis (30 years) as a doubling up of Amenophis III. We may never know, but maybe one of those Acencheres may end up being Akhenaten, who ruled at Akhetaten for about 12 years.
 
Last edited:

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,145
Bendigo
Some words about the existence of a female version of Ankhkheperure ... Ankhetkheperure or similar.

Actually we cannot make a comparision with the Sedge and Bee name of Hatshepsut: it's difficult to imagine a female form of Maatkare [overall because it wasn't necessary: Maat was a Goddess, so it's name is female]. Anyway we can note that the former female Sovereign didn't disdain to use male and female forms. She used both. We can see Son of Ra like Daughter of Ra or Good Goddess, Good God ...

So, keeping in mind that Ankhkheperure is actually a neutral name as for gender and that we have seen Ankhkheperure with epithets as well ... I would tend to consider Ankhetkheperure a variant of Ankhkheperure more than a different name. And we have already also seen that they used variants of the Royal Names.
Absolutely. I never thought of it as a different name, just a female variant. Like Smenkhkare is likely a female variant of Menkhkare. I have suspected something like it for a long time, and why I didn’t hassle you more about it much earlier, I don’t know. Too many mysteries to solve here. That’s what it is. 😕
 
Likes: rymerster
I always think that Manetho will have been depending to some extent on oral history as well as written sources. Stories about famous or infamous kings and queens are passed down in any society, to the point where some aspects become iconic, however far from the truth they might be. I think of my own country's history, with differing theories about Richard III, the varying images and stories about Henry VIII and the whole Tudor period which a bit like Amarna saw several rulers in just a few decades. Luckily we know the order of things now, but there is still a lot of debate about their lives and motivations, plus the way that Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were portrayed was propagandistic and meant to signify power and strength, so they are just as unreal as the depictions of pharoahs.

Some curious paralells between Amarna and the Tudor period - a long-lived king with many wives and obesity (AIII and Henry VIII), a religious revolution taking place over several reigns, a young boy king who died early (Edward VI and Tutankhamun), female rulers, controversial proposed marriages with rival states, and ending with no heir from the male royal line.
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,145
Bendigo
I always think that Manetho will have been depending to some extent on oral history as well as written sources. Stories about famous or infamous kings and queens are passed down in any society, to the point where some aspects become iconic, however far from the truth they might be. I think of my own country's history, with differing theories about Richard III, the varying images and stories about Henry VIII and the whole Tudor period which a bit like Amarna saw several rulers in just a few decades. Luckily we know the order of things now, but there is still a lot of debate about their lives and motivations, plus the way that Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were portrayed was propagandistic and meant to signify power and strength, so they are just as unreal as the depictions of pharoahs.

Some curious paralells between Amarna and the Tudor period - a long-lived king with many wives and obesity (AIII and Henry VIII), a religious revolution taking place over several reigns, a young boy king who died early (Edward VI and Tutankhamun), female rulers, controversial proposed marriages with rival states, and ending with no heir from the male royal line.
You made me think of that find of Richard III’s mortal remains, I remember reading a lot about him many many moons ago. And about all those Tudor lies about him having a hunchback. Well, they weren’t really lies in a way, lol. You know, when I read books on Ancient Egypt, I often wonder how often imaginative speculation is presented as well known fact. I keep thinking, the more I research the Amarna Period, it happens a hell of a lot. One trained Egyptologist calls another Egyptologist’s ideas ‘pure fantasy’, then proceeds to boldly state his/her own fantasy, except that their own fantasy is actually true - for no particularly well sourced reason. Nothing wrong with having fantastic speculations, I do it all the time, but I find it amusingly irritating reading books and articles by professional learned scholars and feeling I have to weigh up just about everything they publish to see if it has any ‘actual’ facts behind it at all, this before I can stick it in my ‘actual’ facts box. At least Tolkien knew he was writing ‘actual’ fantasies.

I am beginning to think police investigative method is not the same thing as Egyptological investigative method. I do not joke.

Edit: I just began to think of police investigations that sent innocent people to the executioner. Bad investigators make for poor investigations. 😎
 
Last edited:

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,145
Bendigo
Citing Wikipedia. KV55.
“It is also clear that the tomb was re-entered at a later time, almost certainly during the 20th Dynasty. At this time, any additional, hypothetical occupants of the tomb would have been removed and (possibly) relocated to KV35, while the remaining mummy and some of the other artefacts were desecrated and abandoned.”

I have been trying to get to the bottom of this. Yes, I am aware that some writers think this, but does anyone know where I can source how this is known? Stephen Cross’s flood (early reign of Ay) would not seem to allow for this. I have seen it written that workers working on one of the Ramesses tombs heard a hollow sound while working above KV55. (Is my bullshit metre tinkling just now?) The workers stopped digging and found the entrance of the tomb (I presume?) and entered the tomb and removed Tiye etc. etc. etc. I don‘t expect that anyone has a copy of a diary of a worker who was there that day, but I would like to know what this theory is based on. I suspect it might be one of those Egyptological facts everyone is aware of - you know, one of those ‘everyone knows, or are you Stupid?’ kind of things - while not being aware that it is actually not a fact at all. But my mind is open. Someone?
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
26,207
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Citing Wikipedia. KV55.
“It is also clear that the tomb was re-entered at a later time, almost certainly during the 20th Dynasty. At this time, any additional, hypothetical occupants of the tomb would have been removed and (possibly) relocated to KV35, while the remaining mummy and some of the other artefacts were desecrated and abandoned.”

I have been trying to get to the bottom of this. Yes, I am aware that some writers think this, but does anyone know where I can source how this is known? Stephen Cross’s flood (early reign of Ay) would not seem to allow for this. I have seen it written that workers working one of the Ramesses tombs heard a hollow sound while working above it. The workers stopped digging and found the entrance of the tomb (I presume?) and entered the tomb and removed Tiye etc. etc. etc. I don‘t expect that anyone hasn’t a copy of a workers diary, but I would like to know what this theory is based on. I suspect it might be one of those Egyptological facts everyone is aware of while not being aware that it is actually not a fact at all. But my mind is open. Someone?
I think it's a hypothesis related with the content of KVC [Jars which look from 20th dynasty]. From what I can learn around, the tomb got resealed in a not perfect way.
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,145
Bendigo
I think it's a hypothesis related with the content of KVC [Jars which look from 20th dynasty]. From what I can learn around, the tomb got resealed in a not perfect way.
Okay. But I want more. Can you point me in the right direction? I am quite suspicious about claims about anyone entering that tomb between the flood and Edward Ayrton. Kyla and I were chatting the pros and cons of the theory and she had the name ‘Bethamun’ or similar in the back of her mind for some reason. Maybe a priest in the 19th dynasty? She did not at all claim perfect recall on it. But it’s something at least to ask about and poke around for.
 

Similar History Discussions