1/21/2019 EVIDENCE FOR LENGTH OF REIGNS OF AKHENATEN'S SUCCESSORS BY MARIANNE LUBAN © Unfortunately, such evidence is all too rare in primary sources, which is the handicap with which I must begin. At least there are satisfactory indications of the last year of Neferkheperure Akhenaten at Tell el Amarna. However, if one had the chance to tour the tombs of his courtiers there in antiquity, one would have seen no later date in them than Year 12, II Prt, Day 8. 1 This was the time of what is known as the Great Durbar, when persons from various places came to pay homage to the Egyptian king on what was deemed “the birthday of the Aten”, but one can certainly see why an ancient historian might have simply deduced that the city was abandoned to ruin after that because its sun-worshipping pharaoh had died. In modern times archaeology told the true story. It was the labels of wine jars found at Amarna that revealed the terminus of Year 17 for Akhenaten. A few instances of a Year 1 also surfaced but there nobody quite knew what to conclude due to a king named Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare and the brevity of his duration. For instance, a jar that had contained honey in Year 17 had been re-labelled for wine in Year 1. It is entirely possible that this Year 1 referred to the advent of Smenkhkare, but no one knew exactly when the latter had become a king. Some strongly believed that he had been made a coregent with Akhenaten around his Year 12 but had died soon after. Therefore, in that scenario, the Year 1 of Smenkhkare would not have followed the Year 17 of Akhenaten. It being clear that Smenkhkare had predeceased Tutankhaten [later Tutankhamen] there was nothing to prevent a container that had been filled with honey in Year 17 of Akhenaten 2 not being re-used until the Year 1 of Tutankhaten―or even that of another ruler. A calcite jar from KV62, the tomb of the pharaoh who had become known as Tutankhamen by his Year 4, appears to show the mostly erased cartouches of 1 Tombs of Huya and Meryre II. 2 The bee-keeping season in Egypt is from March through November--a long time but the Egyptian winters are quite mild. So, if Akhenaten's Year 17 turned in the season of summer in the 10th month, there is no problem. In his time the natural seasons were in sync with the civil calendar as it was nearly time for a new Sothic Cycle to occur. 1 Neferkheperure Akhenaten and Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare side by side. This was viewed as strong evidence for a coregency of these kings, in addition to a trial piece that Akhenaten at left and Smenkhkare at right and alone, below 2 showed Akhenaten with another youthful-appearing pharaoh. The author feels sure that this can be no one other than Smenkhkare, a male. It is definitely not a case of one king having been carved twice. The faces are quite different.3 And yet, to complicate matters very much more, there is evidence discovered at the ruins of the city of Akhetaten and elsewhere that there was yet another ruler with the prenomen of Ankhkheperure―this time a female who was usually styled “beloved” of Akhenaten under one of his names. As James P. Allen has pointed out, this was not the case with Smenkhkare, although some had believed the Ankhkheperures were the same individual, regardless―although one of them was called “Neferneferuaten”, which was also part of the name of Akhenaten's principal wife, Nefertiti. Only when it was determined that this Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten had included the epithet “Effective for her husband” it became obvious that this must have been a woman ruler who also preceded Tutankhamen. There is no doubt in the mind of the present writer that Smenkhkare was a male. As usual, when there is a paucity of archaeological evidence one turns to Manetho, an Egyptian scholar who lived about 300 BCE and wrote a history of his country in the Greek language. There is no extant copy of his Aegyptiaca, [written in three books] but only some excerpts included in the writings of Flavius Josephus and others. I have dealt with the many problems in interpreting these excerpts and epitomes in my own book, Manetho Demystified, which is in its third edition as more puzzles have been solved. A primary difficulty with the epitomes seems to be that Julius Sextus Africanus [and Eusebius, who copied him] was following the history of Egypt written by Ptolemy of Mendes, believing this author to be the same person as Manetho. Ptolemy of Mendes lived much later than Manetho and, because the latter was considered a great authority, followed him to some extent. The only actual kinglist supplied by Josephus and also by Theophilus [who mostly agrees with Josephus] is that of the 18 th Dynasty. However, one can readily see how this differs from the Dynasty 18 roster conveyed by Africanus and Eusebius. Josephus, the earliest quoter of Manetho by far, is more helpful because he not only gives the lengths of the reigns of the New Kingdom pharaohs in years but also the very month of the Egyptian calendar in which he believed they ended. And yet, for some unfathomable reason, the years of some of his reigns are off by *exactly* a decade, either more or less. For instance, it is now thought that Horemheb ruled for 14 years [from archaeological evidence] but he, as “Harmais”, is assigned only 4 by Josephus and Theophilus. Therefore, the same mysterious flaw can have applied to the reigns of the successors of Akhenaten in the 18th Dynasty of Manetho via Josephus. The first time we see the name “Acencheres”, which surely must represent the prenomen “Ankhkheperure” [at least some of the time] is in the entry “then his daughter, Acencheres for 12 years 1 3 See my paper “Bringing Smenkhkare Into Focus” at Academia.edu. 3 month”. This royal lady follows directly after “Orus for 36 years 5 months”, which I hold to be a second mention of the previous “Amenophis for 30 years and 10 months”. My theory is that in the 10th month of the year, in his Year 30, Amenhotep III ended his sole reign at the time of his first heb sed. It was then that he elevated his son as a coregent under the nomen of Amenhotep [IV], later Akhenaten. These two ruled simultaneously for eight years until Year 38 of the older pharaoh. Manetho placed this coregency under the heading of “Orus” [Horus] but only allowed 36 years according to Josephus. But that Amenhotep III died in the 5th month of his Year 38, just as Manetho indicated, seems to be corroborated by the king who had changed his name to Akhenaten renewing the oath on the boundary stelae of the city of Akhetaten in his own Year 8―in the 5th month. The timing certainly appears right, the reason for the renewal being Akhenaten having become sovereign of all Egypt. Moreover, directly after the female “Acencheres” on the king list of Josephus there is “her brother Rathotis for 9 years”. This is one of the few instances in which Manetho apparently did not know in which month the reign ended―and also when the name of the ruler corresponds badly to anyone in that part of the dynasty. However, this “Rathotis” has been believed to represent Tutankhamen. The latter managed to reign into his 10th year according to the wine jar labels discovered in his tomb, KV62. But nobody in antiquity knew anything about this tomb and the monuments of Tutankhamen were usurped by his successors―so he may have been completely forgotten until modern times. While there were many labels in KV62 from Year 9, one with Year 10 exists to tell the story of the end of the time of the young pharaoh. He was still alive in the first month of this year at the time of the new wine and some have suggested he continued on throughout the winter months only to die in the spring.4 On the other hand, this “Rathotis” may have been some sort of nickname for Akhenaten, who really did have a sole reign of 9 years after 8 in tandem with his father, adding up to 17. The science of DNA has shown that two mysterious mummies, the individual from KV55 and the Younger Lady found in KV35 were a full brother and a sister, the children of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye. These mummies I believe to be Akhenaten and his chief wife, Nefertiti. Someone should have suspected they were siblings long ago since for eight years they were viewed as the living embodiments of the gods Shu and Tefnut, the children of the sun god, Ra.5 Also, it is the sister, the beautiful Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti, who remains the best candidate for Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten, the woman who might have become king―twice. Below is an altered inscription that shows the cartouches of Ankhkheperure Neferneferutaten beside those of Akhenaten in the manner of coregents. Prior to the alteration, there had been the name of Queen Nefertiti in a single cartouche and next to that perhaps one or more of her elder daughters in a longer row. Therefore, one could 4 Judging by the flora in KV62. 5 See my paper “The Deification of Akhenaten and Nefertiti and the Reason For It” at Academia,edu. 4 conclude that Nefertiti was, for an unknown period beginning in an obscure year, an actual coregent with her husband. The only clue as to that duration comes from the “12 years 1 month” of Manetho, which is much more likely to be reduced to 2 years and a month. Whenever this coregency occurred, and if it can have lasted for two years, it must have been before Akhenaten's Year 16, as new evidence has indicated that Nefertiti was a mere royal consort in that year.6 The actual successor of Akhenaten seems to have been Smenkhkare, very likely his eldest son by a wife other than Nefertiti―perhaps Kiya―who had been married to Akhenaten for approximately as long. There is a strong possibility that Kiya is the same person as Tadukhepa, the daughter of King Tushratta of Mitanni, at first given as a bride Akhenaten and Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten as coregents to Amenhotep III but then transferred to the heir. Whatever the background of Kiya, she was depicted as having status beyond that of a mere concubine if not an actual queen. That Akhenaten probably had sons of which we know nothing while they were growing up is indicated in a letter to the pharaoh from Tushratta, his father-in-law, wishing health to the sons of Akhenaten, among others. Since, in most scenes, Neferkheperure Akhenaten is shown with his chief wife, Nefertiti, and her children, it is very difficult to know what other offspring of the king there might have been. At any rate, it is doubtful that Nefertiti can have had a son of her own previous to Year 12. It is after this point in the reign of her husband that their second daughter, Princess Meketaten, died. Since a wine jar label was written in Year 13, indicating the 6 A text mentioning Year 16 of Akhenaten with Nefertiti as his queen was discovered a few miles from El Amarna in a quarry at the wadi Deir el Hinnis, written on a pillar at the back of the quarry. 5 wine belonged to “the house [pr]of Meketaten”, perhaps the girl was still alive in that year or at least for a part of Year 13. The royal tomb at Amarna showed scenes of the mourning of the dead princess. A baby was present, held by a nurse with a fan-bearer hovering. This was surely tiny Tutankhaten, the son finally borne by Nefertiti, who is nearby. It is highly unlikely that the son of another wife would have been included in these scenes with a grieving Nefertiti, or a very little daughter of that queen given so much prominence at the death of Meketaten. None of the six known daughters of Nefertiti were mere babies who needed to be carried by Year 12, as confirmed by the depictions of the durbar in the commoner tombs. It has been much suspected that Meketaten had died giving birth to her own father's child, this being the infant shown. However, while there was eventually a Meritaten Junior and an Ankhkhesenpaaten Junior at Akhetaten, there was no one named for Meketaten. Moreover, Tutankhamen cannot have been the son of Akhenaten and a daughter, as the DNA clearly mandates his parents were a brother and a sister, both children of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye. That Tutankhamen was the son of a king is certain; that is written in stone. For Tutankhamen to have been engendered by Smenkhkare is also very unlikely for that would mean that the latter sired a son by his own sister. While Smenkhkare could have been a child of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye, his only attested wife is Meritaten, who is almost guaranteed to have been the same lady as the eldest daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. In the minds of the ancient Egyptians, the Princess Meritaten would have been the perfect spouse for her half-brother [or perhaps her uncle], Smenkhkare. Preference should be given to the theory that Smenkhkare was the eldest living son of Akhenaten because there was yet another, Tutankhaten, by the time of Akhenaten's death. Among the Hittites, the eldest son of the queen was first in line for the throne but, she lacking a male child, one then looked to a son of a lesser wife of the king. One may imagine the protocol was the same among the royals of Egypt. However, even though Tutankhaten was probably the long-hoped-for son of Queen Nefertiti, he was 6 very young when his father passed from life, whereas Smenkhkare had reached manhood in oriental terms, at least. As it would appear that Akhenaten had made him a coregent, in any case, he was the designated king of Egypt for the future. This can have occurred even before Tutankhaten was born, the father having despaired of Nefertiti's ability to conceive a male child―according to the theory that has Smenkhkare becoming a coregent in Year 12. But I find that it makes more sense that this coregency was established very late in the reign of Akhenaten and was based on Smenkhkare's age and his suitability as a husband for Meritaten. If the prince had become co-ruler in Year 17, it can still have been Smenkhkare's Year 1 when the new vintage ripened in I Akhet and some wine jar labels can be attributed to his first year.7 There is nothing concrete to demonstrate at what point Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare Djeserkheperu became a co-king with Akhenaten or how long he lasted. Manetho, continuing after “Rathotis”, has “then his son Acencheres for 12 years 5 months”. Once again, this duration could likely be shortened to 2 years―or perhaps it's another reference to Akhenaten because the date in the two Amarna tombs is very nearly 12 years and five months. It is "Year 12, II Prt, Day 8"--which is five whole months into the year plus eight days into the next month. There was no archaeology in antiquity that found the jar labels showing an actual Year 17 as the terminus for Akhenaten. Alternatively, the male Acencheres can have been Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare for a total of 2 years and five months. While the 18th Dynasty according to Josephus has the rulers named “Acencheres” following “Rathotis” as “sons”, Theophilus leaves them without gender. The king lists of Africanus and Eusebius look different at this point. What is interesting, however, is that, after “Rathos” [Rathotis] Africanus has an “Acherres” for 32 years. Since it is not possible for any 18th Dynasty pharaoh after Amenhotep III to have occupied the throne for that long, can it be that Africanus supplied the man's age at death instead? Africanus is the same author who, in his Dynasty 19, has “Sethos” [Seti I] for 51 years, which is much more likely to have been that king's age at death than his duration. Insofar as it is known to Egyptology, the first Seti reigned for only about a decade and his mummy is that of a middle-aged individual. When the remains from KV55 were first given to the anatomist Professor Grafton Elliot Smith for analysis, he wrote to Arthur Weigall that his opinion was the person had died around the age of thirty. Can the “Acherres” possibly be Akhenaten, himself, and 32 years the precise length of his life according to some information known to Africanus from his Egyptian source? But, since Josephus, who surely followed Manetho, believed that “Sethos” reigned for 59 years, 8 the reason for these impossible regnal years must remain an enigma for the present. The next “Acencheres” on the roster of Josephus [there being three in all] is assigned “12 years 3 months” which, once more, should probably be reduced to 2 years―if 7 Since Akhenaten, himself, may have become a coregent wih his father in the tenth month of the year, his own Year 17 had already come about when the wine ripened in the late summer, I Axt at the time. 8 As told in his narrative of “The Polluted Ones”, the lepers. 7 this king is also an “Ankhkheperure” and an interim ruler prior to the advent of Tutankhamen. If we postulate that the latter was an infant at the time of the death of Princess Meketaten and was born at the end of Akhenaten's Year 12 or the beginning of Year 13―and reigned for ten years, dying at a minimum of eighteen years of age―someone else had to be in charge for the few years until the boy's eighth birthday. Being the son of Akhenaten, little Tutankhaten was about four or five years old when his father passed from life. So two years for an interim ruler or rulers does not seem sufficient. The only actual date in the reign of a pharaoh called “Ankhkheperure” is from Thebes of the south, a graffito at the tomb of Pere [TT139] written in the hand of a priest named Pawah. It begins “Year 3, third month of Inundation, day 10”, the date belonging to “the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Ankhkheperure beloved of Aten[?] son of Re, Neferneferuaten beloved of Waenre [?]”9 Yet even this date is not free of problems and questions. Why did Pawah write the graffito? This man was a scribe of the “Hwt nTr n imn m tA Hwt anxxprwra”, which is significant in revealing that the worship of Amen, the god banned by Akhenaten, was allowed in this year of one of his successors. Pawah's lines are a plea to the deity, whose very name means “hidden”, expressing a wish to see him. But then there is the enigmatic “Come back to us, o lord of continuity! You were here before anything had come into being and you will be here when they are gone.” Who are “they”? Has something occurred that caused Pawah to think the god had deserted his city? There had been Akhenaten, the heretic, and his religious policies, but he was gone and things seemed to be returning to normal. Presumably, no one was preventing Pawah from performing his duties as a wab- priest and scribe of the divine offerings of Amen in a temple complex― the “Hwt nTr n imn” [temple of Amen] “m tA Hwt anxxprwra”, [within the temple of Ankhkheperure] where “Hwt” usually indicates the mortuary temple of a king.10 In this case it is probably Smenkhkare, who died before Neferneferuaten. One would not expect a shrine to Amen in the mortuary temple of an Atenist like Smenkhkare, yet we don't know what the situation had become. But there are signs that the woman-king, Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten, had opted for religious tolerance as the best means of safeguarding the throne for a little boy. It might even have been that the priest, Pawah, scrawled his supplication upon the rise of a new ruler, who had perhaps decreed that her reign begin with Year 3. 11 Possibly, knowing this person was the widow of the late Akhenaten, Pawah feared the proscription of Amen would begin anew with a vengeance. It may have been that “they” represented the royal couple who had initiated the troubles for the Amen priesthood a decade 9 A name of Akhenaten, if that is what is there. Also, the title “son of Re” does not necessarily imply a male ruler. 10 Not found by archaeology. 11 But that does not mean she did not reign for an actual two years as regent for her immature son. In fact, Nefertiti probably died after that, making Tutankhaten an orphan, or she would probably have reigned longer. Eight is still too young for a boy to take the throne. Much later, at the end of the 19 th Dynasty, a female ruler named Tawosret assumed the years of her male predecessor, Siptah. 8 previously. If the new Ankhkhperure was Nefertiti, as regent for Tutankhaten, her son, she may have already been a temporary king years before with Akhenaten for two years at some point in time. Even the prenomen of Ankhkheperure had been original to her. Or she may have believed that Smenkhkare, son of a lesser wife, had never been the true heir of her husband while Tutankhaten existed. This is all conjecture but, again, if the boy who became Tutankhamen by his Year 4 12 began his ten-year reign at the age of eight, one can only accommodate four years for interim rulers if he was born about Year 13 of his father's 17-year reign. Four plus four adds up to eight. That Tutankhamen was alive and still very young during the short span of Smenkhkare and his queen, Meritaten, seems indicated by an item that no longer exists. It was a tiny garment [Carter] covered with sequins bearing the names of this royal pair. In Year 12 of Akhenaten, one would not expect little Tutankhamen's clothing to exhibit such cartouches. Some would say the boy had been the true heir all along as the son of the Great Royal Wife, Nefertiti, whose brief reign[s] had always been intended to be provisional.13 12 Indicated by a wine label from KV62 with Year 4 “from the estate of Tutankhamen.” 13 The “Year 1” on the Restoration Stela [usurped by Horemheb] is a restoration in itself from a lacuna. There is no way Tutankhamen can have had that nomen in his actual first year as king as his golden throne still bears the name of “Tutankhaten”. 9