Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Ancient and Archaeology  permalink

Smenkhare and Tut

• Message 1. 

  Posted by terakunene (U9761462) on Tuesday, 23rd October 2007

  The 1960s Liverpool medical team led by Prof. Harrison, estimated that the mysterious bones found in tomb 55 were most likely those of Smenkhare, also with the same blood group as Tut. Age of Smenkhare at death, was estimated at 25/26 yoa. The Professor finally concluded that they were also most likely brothers.
  
  Tut is usually quoted as being about 9 yoa when he became Pharaoh and died when he was 18 yoa. There was a recent mention on the History Channel that there is a "fudge" factor of approx ten years when identifying bodies and that Tut may have been 28 yoa on death.
  
  If so, this makes Smenkhare and Tut much closer in age than previously thought if Smenkhare was 26 yoa when he died and Tut 18 yoa on accession.
  
  A further thought might be that these ages make it unlikely that either of these, including Tut, can have been children of Ahkenaton, although several recent authorities have argued for Tut being a son of Akhenaton.
  
  Is any other information on this subject available?
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Smenkhare and Tut

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007

  when you typed about the "fudge" factor did you think to also apply that to Smenkhare's age also? Which would also throw his age up by 10 to 35/36 which would maintain the age gap between the two?

  Link to this forum: Smenkhare and Tut

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by terakunene (U9761462) on Saturday, 27th October 2007

  Yes I did think about applying the "fudge" factor to Smenkhare but Prof Harrisons report was quite specific in stating no more than 26 yoa on death and with more certainty than could applied to the badly damaged remains of Tut.
  
  For the moment the situation seems to be:-
  
  Smenkhare died aged 26
  
  Succeeded by Tut possibly when aged up to 18.
  
  Tut up to 28 on death

  Link to this forum: Smenkhare and Tut

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Monday, 29th October 2007

  The 'fudge factor' is not a constant but depends on age. Physical development during youth and early adulthood is traceable in the bones, but after growth has finally stopped and cartilage converted to bone, age becomes considerably more difficult to estimate. I think the estimate that Tutankhamun was about 18 at the time of his death is fairly robust. The bones from KV55 are much harder to evaluate.
  
  The identity of Smenkhare, as well as his existence as an individual, are the subject of considerable debate and a fairly extensive literature. Suggested relationships for the relation between Tutankhamun and Smenkhkare include the latter being the brother, sister, father, mother, step-mother, brother-in-law, and half-uncle of the former; besides a few others. Not to mention the suggestion that some of the titles usually identified as those of Smenkhare may have been used by several members of the 18th dynasty.
  
  Of course, if Tutankhamun had one elder brother not mentioned in the Egyptian records, he may have had others as well; so even if it if would be established that the remains in KV55 are those of an older brother of Tutankhamun, that would not precisely identify these as the remains of Smenkhare. There is no clue as to their real identity.
  
  My feeling is that Tutankhamun must have been a member of the royal family with a good claim to the throne; if not a son or direct descendant of Akhenaten, then at least a direct descendant of Amenhotep III. He was too young when he became pharaoh to be anything else than a straw man (child) for the powers behind the throne, and he would not have been a very useful straw man if he had not had a solid, legitimate claim.
  
  For Smenkhare that is less certain, because he was an adult when he became pharaoh and probably was co-regent of Akhenaten, which would have opened a wider range of options.
  
  The bones in KV55 must have belonged to a male member of the royal family, a relative of Tutankhamun: Not necessarily a reigning pharaoh known to us, considering the highly anomalous nature of the burial. Both Akhenaten and Tutankhamun can have had undocumented brothers or half-brothers who qualified for (re)burial in the Valley of the Kings after Amarna was abandoned.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Smenkhare and Tut

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by terakunene (U9761462) on Tuesday, 30th October 2007

  Thanks for excellent reply. Now as always, plenty of controversy and conjecture about Amarna.

  Link to this forum: Smenkhare and Tut

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Magus1971 (U13733388) on Tuesday, 9th December 2008

  I believe the age for the bones purported to be Smenkhare are now being put anywhere between 30-60!!!

  Link to this forum: Smenkhare and Tut

  Report message6

Back to top