My book, Searching for the Lost Tombs of Egypt came out in paperback yesterday, and I’m just beginning to think about going back to Egypt looking for ‘missing tombs’ with a fourth group this October. One of the individuals I talk about in Chapter 3 is a little-known pharaoh called Smenkhkare. He (or perhaps she…?) was a pharaoh of the Amarna Period and probably ruled either towards the end of Akhenaten’s reign as a co-regent, or after Akhenaten’s death as his successor (whether immediate or not).
Looking out across the desert plain where once Akhenaten’s capital city stood, taken from the area of the North Tombs
This pharaoh’s name is absent from all the kinglists however, and only came to light for the first time in the early nineteenth century in tomb no. 2 at Amarna, which belonged to a high official, Meryre (ii), the ‘Overseer of the Royal Harem of the Great Royal Wife, Nefertiti’.
The tomb is to be found among the northern group at the site (more info via The Amarna Project here), and preserves a number of important scenes showing Akhenaten ‘at home’, the tomb owner being rewarded by Akhenaten, Akhenaten receiving tribute from representatives of a number of foreign groups, and, most importantly for us here, the tomb owner being rewarded by Smenkhkare.
Egyptologists today still rely on the six volume series The Rock Tombs of El-Amarna by Norman de Garis Davies, the definitive publication of the decoration in the tombs. By the time de Garis Davies visited tomb no. 2 in the early twentieth century the scene had been badly damaged by robbers and the cartouches identifying the royal figures in the scene in question had been lost.
de Garis Davies’ image the scene of Meryre being rewarded by Smenkhkare and Meritaten. The cartouches (oval shapes enclosing royal names) of the king were originally present at the top right of the scene where de Garis Davies shows a large damaged area. Davies, N de Garis, The Rock Tombs of El-Amarna Part II. The Tombs of Panehesy and Meryra ii (Archaeological Survey of Egypt 14; London, The Egypt Exploration Fund, 1905)
Fortunately, however, the great expedition of Karl Richard Lepsius had visited the tomb in the summer of 1845 and copied the decoration before this vandalism had occurred.
The cartouches as they appeared in Lepsius’ monumental publication: Lepsius, C R Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien III, pl. 99a (Berlin, 1849-59)
The two largest cartouches, at the left hand end, are those of Akhenaten’s god, the Aten. They are read from top to bottom, right to left as follows: ‘Re, ruler of the two horizons, who rejoices in the Horizon, in his name of light, which is the Aten’ which is the later of two versions of the Aten’s full name. Of the other three smaller cartouches, that at the left, and the one in the centre are the names of Smenkhkare, the larger of the two figures in the centre of the scene. They are read from top to bottom, left to right: ‘The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Ankhkheperure, the son of Re, Smenkhkare Djeserkheperu’. The cartouche at the far right relates to the smaller of the two figures and reads ‘the Great Royal Wife, Meritaten.’
Although it’s possible that the figures had originally been carved as representations of Akhenaten and Nefertiti the cartouches make it clear that they were eventually intended to represent two different individuals.
Smenkhkare: male or female?
Since the tomb was recorded a number of further inscriptions with Smenkhkare’s name have come to light but it all amounts to relatively little, which seems strange given the Meryra scene makes it clear that this individual was Pharaoh of Egypt. We don’t know whether he reigned alongside or after Akhenaten, and the picture has been confused by the presence of the throne-name ‘Ankhkheperure’ in a number of inscriptions but as part of a longer, different royal name from that in the tomb of Meryra, which seems to have belonged to a female pharaoh. This other name included the element ‘Neferneferuaten’ which is known to have been a name held by Akhenaten’s famous queen, Nefertiti. For many, this makes for a straightforward conclusion: Smenkhkare was simply another name used by Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten/Nefertiti, and Smenkhkare was therefore a woman.
More recently however, as the evidence has been further scrutinised, many have come to conclude that there were in fact two individuals who both used the throne name ‘Ankhkheperure’, one called Smenkhkare who was male, and another called Neferneferuaten who was female.
Of course in this case the scene in the tomb of Meryra ii makes much more sense: the image gives no indication that Smenkhkare was not male and the presence of pharaoh’s wife at his side otherwise takes a bit of explaining.
Visiting the tomb
I have been lucky enough to visit the North tombs at Amarna on several occasions in the last few years. The tombs are by no means all open to visitors; no. 2 is not among those that are regularly visited by tourists but on a recent trip I decided I had to do everything possible to see it and with the help of some friends and a very helpful guardian, I did. I thought we’d be able to walk there but that’s not how it’s done. Here’s what happened…
Once I realised what it was going to take to get there I understood why he was initially so reluctant. As you’ll see from the video the tomb lies a short motorbike ride away from the main group of tombs in the north, and at the top of a steep pathway which has been made a little easier in modern times by the installation of some steps, but is still a bit of an effort in the heat. The guardian started coughing at one point as we hiked upwards, getting slower with every step. “Enta kwayis?” (“Are you alright?”) I asked him. “Tammam” (“OK”) he said, and then “Cigaretta” – blaming his cough on the smoking not the climbing – which made me laugh.
I knew the scene had been badly damaged more than a century ago and didn’t expect to see very much but I hoped I might be able to make out the odd trace of what Lepsius, de Garis Davies and others had seen. There is almost nothing however. The rays of the Aten above the two figures were visible (see – if you squint perhaps – below), and perhaps with better lighting and more time it might have been possible to make more out, but in the circumstances it looked to me as though almost everything else had gone.
The pillared hall in the tomb of Meryre ii. The wall which once bore images of Smenkhkare and Meritaten lies beyond and inbetween the two pillars in the image on the left; the wall itself is on the right. Can you see the Aten’s rays at the top?
What a shame. Without the scene having been seen and recorded in the mid-1800s our knowledge of Smenkhkare would be so much poorer. And had de Garis Davies been the first to see it, the cartouches having been removed, he would probably have concluded that the figures were those of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, no different from the vast majority of the others at Amarna. It has come to be one of the most iconic scenes for the study of the period, and now it’s gone. A useful reminder perhaps that our knowledge of the ancient past can be transformed by a single piece of evidence. We must be thankful for what we’ve got, but how much more might there once have been?
Another copyist, and a new book…
Incidentally, since I first drafted this piece a few months ago I’ve been working on a new book which tells the story of the history of archaeology and discovery in Egypt through a series of ‘Egyptologists’ Notebooks’. While looking at the glorious, unpublished drawings of the Scottish explorer Robert Hay I decided to see if he had copied the cartouches of Smenkhkare and Meritaten in tomb no. 2 when he visited in 1827, almost two decades before Lepsius. The tombs at Amarna had only recently come to the attention of western explorers in 1824 when they had been ‘discovered’ by the pioneering English Egyptologist John Gardner Wilkinson. In fact Hay, who had arrived in Egypt the same year and was a close friend of Gardner Wilkinson’s, was very annoyed that the existence of the tombs was only revealed to him three years later when their mutual friend, James Burton took him there: “this piece of knowledge has been kept a secret, and has been guarded with as much care as ever miser watched and fondled the largest treasure ever told!”
A page of copies and notes made by Robert Hay during his visit to Amarna in 1827 and now in the British Library (Add MS 29847 f63). His copy of the cartouches of Smenkhkare and Meritaten from the tomb of Meryra ii are in the bottom right hand corner (see also below).
Although Hay and the artists he worked with were excellent copyists it seems they couldn’t see the signs as well as Lepsius’ team could – the coronation name Ankhkheperure is clear but the birth name, Smenkhkare and Meritaten’s name are not. Lepsius was one of the great pioneers of the study of the ancient Egyptian language and had the advantage of a much better understanding of Hieroglyphs than Hay could have had at a time when Champollion’s system of decipherment had only just been announced and was still only at a fairly rudimentary stage.
Detail of the cartouches from the Hay manuscript. The cartouches of the Aten, and name Ankhkheperure are clear, but those of Smenkhkare Djeserkheperu and Meritaten were clearly already damaged by this time. There was obviously enough remaining for Lepsius’ team to have read the names in full however. Interestingly, this was one of few pages in the massive Hay archive that had already been photographed digitally when I looked at them in June 2019 so I obviously wasn’t the first to take in interest in Hay’s record of this inscription – no surprises there!
Read more
You can be read more about Smenkhkare, Akhenaten, Neferneferuaten and Nefertiti and where they might have been buried in Searching for the Lost Tombs of Egypt – order your copy via Amazon or (in the UK) from your local bookshop via Hive.co.uk.
Chris Naunton 
I really enjoyed your lecture on Imhotep, Chris, and I’ve just started to read your new book. Fascinating stuff and, as you say, how much more would have been available before the vandals, tomb robbers, treasure seekers and ancient tourists arrived.
One question if I may? In her 2009 book: ‘Amarna – The Missing Evidence’ Sue Moseley suggests that Amanhotep III remained in power, in Thebes, alongside his son who moved to his new city of Akhetaten. I’m not convinced by her arguments but I would be interested your comments.
What is the latest view on the person of Smenkhkare?
Hi Mike, Thanks so much for joining the talks, I’m really glad you’re enjoying them, and the book!
I do have a copy of sue Moseley’s book but not with me during the lockdown so I can’t immediately check. But in general the idea of a co-regency between Amenhotep III and Akhenaten is now mostly out of fashion. Several important works on the period have appeared since that book, including those by Kozloff on Amenhotep III and Dodson on the beginning and end of the Amarna Period (Amarna Sunrise and Amarna Sunset). I’d recommend these for an alternative view (again, though, with the caveat that I can’t check any of them for exactly what each says just at the moment!).
Hope to see you at another talk soon!
Chris
Thanks Chris
A late reply but I’ve been putting the finishing touches to my book, ‘Never at the Office’, about my experiences as an RAFofficer working in a NATO post in Naples during the Cold War. Then it was the preparation of two lectures, one on Turankhamun’s early life, family and the discovery of his tomb; and another on the Roman Games – gladiators and chariot racing.I’ve purchased Dobson’s books and will read them with interest.
Thanks again.
Mike
Thank you for your extremely interesting research which fills a considerable gap for those of us needing our Ancient Egypt online fix. Regarding the king figure in the de Garis Davies’ image, the trailing sash and translucent garment are garments of a style traditionally favoured by Nefertiti – and I am sure I have heard other opinions explain that the Great Royal Wife figure could acceptably have been Meritaten as presumably the oldest surviving girl child of Ahkenatven. Very tempting to apply our own modern western values to Ancient Egypt but given their emphasis on matters of suscession, however strange it might seem to us, I think it is quite possibly what is says on the tin. Nefertiti as pharaoh Smenkhare, backed up by Great Royal Wife, her daughter Meritaten – a symbolic pairing rather than a physical one. Thanks again for your great work and keep the Egypt fix coming – there really is a shortage of credible online fora for (hopefully well informed) amateurs to discuss this fascinating subject.
Thanks for this, fascinating thoughts! I agree the clothing worn by the main figure in the scene you refer to is a puzzle in that it does appear feminine, and I agree also that it is possible that a pharaoh, even a female one, might still have required a female ‘great royal wife’. I’m going to keep thinking about this… Thank you, for your thoughts and for your kind comments!
In the Meryre scene, if you had not stated the central figure was a king, my immediate reaction would otherwise have been that it was Nefertiti. A key differentiator for me in that image (as in others) is that the ‘king’ figure, in addition to the style of clothing, is also wearing a shawl. In other scenes where both Nefertiti and Akhenaten are thought to be present, she is most often shown wearing a light shawl. He, on the other hand, is not. In such scenes, particularly the one where they are seated opposite each other and he is holding one of the royal children.
Many thanks again! You’ve clearly studied this aspect of Amarna iconography more closely than I have! Very interesting thoughts and I can absolutely see what you mean. Following a quick trawl through some images I’d agree that Nefertiti is more often shown with her upper arms covered by a shawl or similar, while Akhenaten’s arms are generally bare. The tomb of Ramose in Thebes seems to provide an example of Akhenaten with upper arms covered (albeit not with exactly the same type of garment? It’s a bit difficult to say…), however, as does the scene of the mourning of Meketaten from the royal tomb. In both cases, Akhenaten is wearing the blue crown, as in the the case of the larger figure in the tomb of Meryre, which would I think(?) be a reason to identify the figure in that case as male. It’s absolutely not clear, I agree, and no doubt the debate will continue to rage. Thanks again!
Hi Chris we have debated this a bit but Hatshepsut did the same , she changed her name on becoming a sole ruler , dressed as a King , and allowed her daughter to assume a queenly role. I think Nefertiti did the same probably copying the previous example, I think you now favour the Mummy of KV55 as Smenkhkare because of the upper age being estimated in his 20’s. But there is contradictory evidence suggesting it could be into his 40’s and examples of dating older remains is said to be difficult. Smenkhkare rise and almost immediate disappearance is very consistence with “him” being Nefertiti for a very short time after she ruled as a co regent and before she died ?
I don’t man to be argumentative but Hatshepsut didn’t *change* her name as such, she continued to use ‘Hatshepsut’ but also added the prenomen ‘Maatkare’ on accession to throne as all kings did. If Nefertiti became pharaoh, it seems she stopped using the name ‘Nefertiti’ altogether, so there is a difference there I think. I also think it’s worth remembering that there appear to have been two pharaohs who took the name ‘Ankhkheperure’ during the Amarna period: one of them also used the name ‘Smenkhkare’, and whose names show no sign of any femininity; the other also used the name Neferneferuaten (a name used by Nefertiti during Akhenaten’s reign of course), and in this case the name Ankhkeperure was accompanied by the feminising ‘t’ sign (Ankhetkheperure), and she was also referred to as beloved of ‘Waenre’ and ‘Neferkheperure’ – both names of Akhenaten – and also ‘effective for her husband. On the KV 55 mummy the idea that it could be that of an individual older than his early 20s – allowing for the possibility of it being Akhenaten who must have been older than that when he died – that mainly rests not so much on evidence that the individual *was* older, than on the possibility that the remains might not allow the specialists to make an accurate judgement; but almost all, if not all, those specialists agree that the mummy is that of an individual too young to have been Akhenaten.
Late coming tomthis, but I agree. My view is Nefertitinis Smenkhkare. Your views on the clothing just add another detail,in the direction of affirmation.
Cheers! The other indicator for me is the inner coffin in KV52, Tutankhamun, which doesn’t resemble his childlike chubby cheeks at all, and where even orthodoxy now admits the overwritten cartouche referred to ‘Ankhkheperure’. The faience wing pattern on that coffin was, I think, indicative of a female occupant – at least originally…..
Hi Chris, I am merely an interested amateur but I have a question. I don’t follow your translation of the middle smaller cartouche in the Lepsius figure. The Sa Re portion looks to me as: s-ah-ka-re not s-menkh-ka-re, which would be written as shown in the second cartouche here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Smenkhkare What am I missing?
Thanks for your comment and yes, I know what you mean! According to the way the Lepsius expedition drew the cartouche the name does ook like ‘Sa3-k3-Ra’ and not ‘Smnx-k3-Ra’ – I agree. This has been noted elsewhere and I should perhaps have mentioned it in my text. The likelihood is that the inscription was worn or damaged, and the sign in question – a3 or mnx – extremely difficult to read so the artist restored what he thought he could see (this is the job of the epigrapher). It’s perhaps not clear but it’s worth noting that the copy made for the Hay expedition (some 20 years or so before the Lepsius mission) shows the signs in this area – a3 / mnx and also k3 – to have been illegible. Of the two possibilities, Smnx-k3-Ra is far more likely – this is a known royal name which appears alongside the second cartouche (anx-khprw-Ra) in numerous other instances whereas Sa3-k3-Ra would be an otherwise unattested name. So in other word, although the Lepsius copy makes it seem as though the sign is ‘a3’ it seems very likely that this is a mistake and the name is indeed Smnx-k3-Ra. Hope that answers the question!
To pose another question…kv55 mummy may be Smenkhkare and if so, he and the younger lady have been tentatively been identified as parents of tut…but if the younger died from a possible accident, and they have been linked as brother and sister, could it not have been possible for Smenkhkare to have married again to Meritaten to cement his accession as Pharoah and thusly been portrayed as Pharoah and great wife. He and the younger lady would never have been portrayed at all, no reason to do that. What is your thought about this possibility?
Dear Joselyn, Yes, I think you’re right – there could have been a union between Smenkhkare and a daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye. I still prefer to see the KV 55 mummy as being Akhenaten myself but there is no way to be certain. Thanks, interesting thought!!
The fact that the KV55 mummy was not over 25 years old, and Akhenaten was in his early 40s when he died, proves to me that they cannot be the same.
My favourite theory is that KV55 is Smenkhkare, a younger brother of Akhenaten.
We know from the DNA that Tutankhamun’s parents were full siblings, and children of Amenhotep III. So if KV55 is Smenkhkare, he must have been Akhenaten’s brother.
Akhenaten had 6 daughters, no surviving sons. One of those daughters, Meritaten, was married to Smenkhkare. They were the parents of Tutankhamun (Smenkhkare mummy KV55, Meritaten mummy KV35YL or “the younger lady”).
Not having any sons of his own, Akhenaten’s crown passed onto his younger brother (and son-in-law) Smenkhkare, who died a year later in his 20s. Smenkhkare’s heir, Tutankhamun, was only 5 years old, so Nefertiti took the throne as Neferneferuaten and lasted another 4 or 5 years. The young Tutankhamun married her daughter Ankhesenamun, who was thus his aunt but only a couple of years older than him.
After Nefertiti, Tutankhamun took his place as rightful king, and died without heirs 10 years later.
His general, Horemheb, was in Syria at the time. Ay (father of Nefertiti and only male relative alive) was afraid he would take the throne, so he tried to secure his position as pharaoh by performing the opening of the mouth ceremony on Tutankhamun (usually done by the oldest son and heir), and hastily buried him in the tomb that was built for himself (KV62 seems to be very small for a royal tomb, it was most likely purposed for a nobleman like Ay, not a king).
This is also the time when Tutankhamun’s widow, Ankhesenamun, sought help from the Hittites to send her a husband so the throne would not be forcefully taken, but the Hittite prince died before arriving in Egypt. After this, Ay married his granddaughter to strengthen his own claim to the throne.
When Ay died, he was buried in the larger KV23, which might have been the tomb started for Tutankhamun but which remained unfinished upon his death.
Horemheb was married to Ay’s daughter Mutnodjmet, and took the throne. this marriage might have been a diplomatic compromise between Ay and Horemheb: Ay was already in his 60s, and it was clear that he would not last decades more. By accepting his claim to the throne as father of Nefertiti, and by marrying his daughter, Horemheb secured his future position lawfully, rather than being a military usurper.
I think we have to heed the fact that Smenkhare’s throne name (anx-khprw-Ra) was the same as Nefertiti’s but like you I do not think that KV55 was Akhenaten. (The KV55 incumbent was in a female coffin complete with female wig. IMO more likely to be Kiya – the wig was a close match to some of her depictions.) I wish Reeves would hurry up and get permission to pursue his lines of enquiry in the Valley.
Pingback: Nefertiti – an answer to the 3300-year-old Egyptian mystery?
I’ve read your book (Lost tombs…) Chris and is fascinating. I’ve always have been looking for this Smenkhkare character (even while in my Egyptology Certificate at Manchester Univ. My final paper was about him ( SMENKHKARE: EVIDENCE OF HIS KINGSHIP BETWEEN AKHENATEN’S AND TUTANKHAMUN’S, Academia.edu).
I’m sure you have been following the discovery of ” ATEN”, the Golden City in the west bank. Have you seen this article?: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2023/0125/In-Valley-of-the-Kings-dig-an-all-Egyptian-team-makes-its-mark (By Taylor Luck Special correspondent @taylor_luck January 25, 2023 LUXOR, EGYPT)
Within the Subtitle “Search for a Queen” there’s a small paragraph quote ” …“Smenkhkare,” the name of a mysterious pharaoh who ruled briefly between Aten (Akhenaten I suppose) and King Tut, was found on multiple inscriptions in Aten.”…
Do you know, or have heard about these multiple “Smenkhkare inscriptions”?? Is there any possibility to have access to the context of these inscriptions?
Thanks, Regards,
Marcelo
Hi Marcelo, I’m glad you enjoyed the book, thanks for reading! I didn’t know about these Smenkhkare inscriptions but I guess we will have to wait for them to be published before we know more. The big question, of course, would be whether they really give the name ‘Smenkhkare’ or rather ‘Ankhkheperure’ or one of the various held names held by the individual(s) of this name… It’s very intriguing in any case!
I agree. and in the context they bring the issue (¨Searching for the Queen¨) maybe is not specifically that word (e.g.: Ankhkheperure, Neferferuaten or any of the names that relates it to Nefertiti)…