Talk:Neferneferuaten

Untitled "start of talk"
Hi - is the existance of these monarch generally accepted ? Markh 13:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Markh,

The latest research indicates a clear Yes--there are 2 kings with the prenomen Ankhkheprure/Ankhetkheprure who are Smenkare and Neferneferuaten respectively. Only the female king Achencheres in Manetho's account is mentioned by name in Manetho's Epitome. I know that Dodson's book the Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt accepts that Neferneferuaten followed after the male king Smenkare--but I can't presently cite the page number. But I can cite the November 2006 book titled "Handbook of Egyptian Chronology' by E. Hornung, R. Krauss and David Warburton where the 3 editors, who have access to the latest scholarship, also cite Neferneferuaten's existence as a separate king on p.207--look at the article on Smenkhkare where I include a short excerpt from their book on the situation. Their chronology table for the 18th dynasty places Smenkhkare and then Neferneferuaten between the death of Akhenaten and the accession of Tutankhamun. (pp.492-493) Finally, James Allen's on-line paper on the Amarna Succession here--which will be published in a 2007 book in memory of W. Murnane--also distinguishes the male king Smenkare from the female king Neferneferuaten in its first two pages alone; he then discusses Smenkhkare's existence in pages 3 & 5. Neferneferuaten's proposed identity is discussed on pages 14-16 of Allen's paper. The age and gender of the KV55 mummy is certainly that of a young male aged 18-22 yrs (see page 6, Allen paper, second paragraph; the point here is that Neferneferuaten was certainly a woman since she is given the epithet "justified/effective for her husband" in several inscriptions whereas the KV55 mummy is a man--hence they cannot be identical) Anyone who suggests that Nefertiti pretended to be a male king would have to contend with the question of how this Amarna king died as a male instead! Pls note that Bob Brier, the famous New York anatomist also agress the KV55 body is that of a man in his 1998 book "The Encyclopedia of Mummies" on p.182 where he cites both Dr. Derry's older 1931 examination of the body as well as Dr. R. Harrison's mid-1960's X-rays of the mummy to prove this point beyond doubt. See Smenkhkare, the 'mummy in tomb KV55.' Hence, Smenkhkare was a man whereas Neferneferuaten was a woman; they are 2 different people which is why Dodson, Allen & Hornung/Krauss/Warburton all consisitently distinguish between these 2 kings in their latest publications.

The only question which you rightly raise is the line of succession--did Neferneferuaten directly succeed Akhenaten as Allen thinks or did she succeed Smenkhkare. If the latter is true, the odds are she was Meritaten, Smenkhkare's spouse--with Nefertiti Tasherit being as second viable possibility as Allen thinks. Leoboudv 20:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thats a fairly complete answer, however I'm still not sure that this is generally accepted, and the articles need to show this. having read Manetho, the 18th Dynasty is very confused, especially at the end and the identification of who is who in KV55 is uncertain. I'm also not saying any of the above is wrong either. I need to read through the documents, all of which look interesting. Markh 21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That fine Markh. May I call your attention to page 14, footnote 60 of James Allen's paper, The Amarna Succession It's not only James Allen, Rolf Krauss, Erik Hornung or myself who accepts that the king's daughter Akenkeres listed in Manetho's Epitome was a reference to Ankh[et]kheperure Neferneferuaten. The respected French scholar M. Gabolde also accepts this in his 1998 book 'From Akhenaten to Tutankhamun.' So, that is why I felt one needed to urgently create a separate page for Neferneferuaten. Contributors were tripping over each other arguing whether Smenkare was a man or a woman on the Smenkhkare article because no one realised that Ankhkheprure was actually 2 separate rulers who shared the same prenomen. Aidan Dodson has himself publicly repudiated his previous position that Smenkare was the same person as Neferneferuaten on page 285, footnote #111 of his 2004 book The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. Dodson states elsewhere in his book that "the latest evidence seems to point to a male [king] Smenkhkare, [being] succeeded by a woman Neferneferuaten." (p.150) So, both Dodson and Gabolde also accept that Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare are 2 different rulers. I cite Dodson's book because it may be more accessible to you. Regards, Leoboudv 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great stuff. I'm OK with what is Dodson and Allen (although I haven't read anything other than the conclusion). I'm not sure about Manetho, as it is less clear and at least second hand via Josephus, etc. If this is now more accepted, then that is great. There maybe a need to have an Amarna Succession article, just to clarify, or at least note, the uncertainty (there I go again). I read the Barbara Waterson book's chapter on KV55 last night and I may add some stuff from this later. Markh 07:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Most likely Smenkhare and Neferneferuaten are the same person! By year 6 of the reign of Akhenaten, Nefertiti showed her devotion to Aten by changing her name from Nefertiti to Nefernefruaten-Nefertiti. When her status was increasing she dissepeared and a new caracter appeared-Smenkhkare. It should be noted that the indications are that the queen and the co-regent are the same; co-regent not onely bears one of the Queen´S names, "Beloved of Akhenaten" but his nomen occurs on a number of faience ring bezels in the feminine form of Ankhetkheperure. Suddenly the name changed from Nefernefruaten-Nefertiti to Nefernefruaten-Smenkhkare, and finally to Ankhkheprure-Smenkhkare. This is not just a coincidence and does indicate that Nefernefruaten never ruled at all and should not be called a pharaoh, and first of all not be put after Smenkhkare. Nicholas Reeves puts Smenkhkare after Neferneferuaten. The mummy found in KV55 could be quite possibly that of Akhenaten himself. So why is Neferneferuaten placed as a predecessor and successor of Smenkhkare because he ruled (if he ruled at all) ,according to et least some scolars, most likely after him? Egyptzo 17:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Reeves forgot to mention Manetho's specific comment that 'a king's daughter' assumed the throne. Neferiti was many things but she wasn't a king's daughter. This means one of Akhenaten's and her daughters, either Neferneferuaten Tasherit or Meritaten, assumed power and ruled as a female king. I agree that the KV55 body could be Akhenaten but that is a different subject. Leoboudv (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I find some parts of this article highly suggestive and making assumptions on the correctness of specific views, which are still debated. For instance, the comment "this ruler here can only be the Smenkhkare" seems to state this as a fact, while it's not nearly established as such and the subject of much debate: this body could also be that of Ahkenaten himself. The articles on Ahkenaten and Smenkhkare are much more objective, stating the possibilities and the various arguments (or at least the references to such arguments) of experts in the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.224.57 (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

move to redirect page
i have recently been involved in heavy re-editing of the smenkhkare article which deals with all the possible theories surrounding akhenaten's co-regent(s) and successor(s), including the possibility of a female ruler besides a possible male one. given that one cannot separate the discussion of this possible female ruler from a discussion on the possible identity of smenkhkare, a separate neferneferuaten article therefore only contains unnecessary repetition. also it should be noted that:
 * 1) the existence of a female neferneferuaten besides a male smenkhkare is NOT a generally accepted theory. it is rather a speculation, just like the theory that smenkhkare=nefertiti (as put forward by harris, reeves and others), and as such it is best dealt with in an article about akhenaten's co-regent(s) and successor(s)... who for better or worse is most commonly known as smenkhkare.
 * 2) different authors postulate a different female neferneferuaten. for example: allen's neferneferuaten is NOT the neferneferuaten in hornung e.a. or the neferneferuaten suggested by harris/reeves/e.a., they might all be female late-amarna rulers but for the rest they are totally differently conceived.

i therefore would suggest to keep the smenkhkare article dealing with akhenaten's possible co-regent(s) and successor(s) under that title and to move the neferneferuaten page to a redirect (or merge the two articles, whatever works best). see also the note here --!linus (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Ankhetkheperure Neferneferuaten ruler can be confusing. However, we have a clear Year 3 date attested for her and Manetho recalls that an 'Akenkeres' ruled Egypt for 12 years & 1 month...which would be 2 years and 1 month if you remove the otiose 10 year error. (Manetho gives Merneptah 19 years rather than 9 years--again another 10 year error). Manetho does NOT mention Smenkhkare. I think she certainly existed and ruled Egypt for a while in the late 18th dynasty but whether it was in a coregency with Akhenaten or as Smenkhkare's wife, or had a brief 2 year independent reign at Amarna, is unknown. I propose that we let this issue lie dormant...until modern science can solve the issue one way or another. Smenkhkare was a male pharaoh whereas Neferneferuaten was a female pharaoh . They are not the same person. So, placing a redirect from Neferneferuaten to Smenkhkare is a serious error. It would be like merging Hatshepsut with Thutmose III--two rulers who were coregents for more than 2 decades...when they are 2 different peoples.
 * Even Aidan Dodson now concedes in his book "The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt" that the clear evidence that Neferneferuaten was female means she was not Smenkhkare...because Smenkhkare was a male king. Dodson basically says that his previous view that Smenkhkare was Neferneferuaten was now "impossible" given the new conclusive evidence concerning the female gender of Neferneferuaten as collated by JP Allen. (see page 285 of Dodson's book, footnote no. 111) With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not because I hold a particular view on the subject, but because I believe that the subject is up in the air academically-speaking. Despite Leoboudov's comments above (whom knowledge in this area I respect very much), I note from a recent article in the previous Ancient Egypt magazine (issue #51) that the head of the latest Amarna dig (Barry Kemp) has no problem reconciling Smenkhare with Nefernefruaten as one and the same. Regardless, it is a valid theory that has gained some academic followers (as !linus points out), and as such deserves its own page. One caveat: I would suggest adding a sub-section and wikilink from the Smenkhare page to this one that refers to the controversy. Captmondo (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * it is exactly because it is up in the air that makes having two (repetitive) articles problematic... because there is a danger that a theory is represented as fact.
 * to give an example: the Akhenaten article has the following:
 * If Smenkhkare outlived Akhenaten, and became sole Pharaoh, he likely ruled Egypt for less than a year. The next successor was Neferneferuaten, a female Pharaoh who reigned in Egypt for 2 years and 1 month.
 * and a bit further:
 * It has also been suggested that after the death of Akhenaten, Nefertiti reigned with the name of Neferneferuaten but other scholars believe that this female ruler was rather Meritaten. The so-called Coregency Stela, found in a tomb in Amarna possibly shows his queen Nefertiti as his coregent, ruling alongside him, but this is not certain as the names have been removed and recarved to show Ankhesenpaaten and Neferneferuaten.
 * the first of those statements is erroneous in representing a theory as fact, the second statement then adds confusion by giving two other theories on akhenaten's co-regent(s)/successor(s) without referring back to the first statement and by misrepresenting one of them (i.e. one of those theories is that nefertiti reigned after the death of akhenaten as smenkhkare, not neferneferuaten (which was the name she adopted as akhenaten's co-regent))... someone who is unfamiliar with the debate surrounding the co-regent(s)/successor(s) of akhenaten will be left out of the blue by this. that section needs re-editing to clarify the issue and that can be done best by linking to one article dealing with all the different theories surrounding akhenaten's co-regent(s)/successor(s).
 * whether it is justified or not, this co-regent/successor is most commonly known as smenkhkare which (if i understand wiki naming-conventions) means an article dealing with this issue is best titled smenkhkare. placing all the different theories in such an article does not negate the possibility that there were two distinct individuals (one male, one female), this possibility is made explicit in the lead of the smenkhkare article (which contains the following: Related to this is the ongoing debate about whether or not Akhenaten's co-regent and successor are in fact the same person.)
 * regarding leoboudv statement above: Smenkhkare was a male pharaoh whereas Neferneferuaten was a female pharaoh. They are not the same person... that only works if one sees smenkhkare as male, which is not generally accepted. as he says on my talk page we know very little about the late 18-dynasty, that is very true indeed and especially so where akhenaten's co-regent(s)/successor(s) is/are concerned: the hard evidence we have for this/these individual(s) is pretty much restricted to several sets of royal names, one of these sets is beyond doubt exclusively female the other two sets are neither exclusively male nor female (i.e. they can both apply to either gender). on the basis of this extremely scanty evidence several theories are build, none of them are generally accepted, all should be dealt with equally, which works best if they are all gathered together into one article and i think the smenkhkare article does exactly that. --!linus (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * the first of those statements is erroneous in representing a theory as fact, the second statement then adds confusion by giving two other theories on akhenaten's co-regent(s)/successor(s) without referring back to the first statement and by misrepresenting one of them (i.e. one of those theories is that nefertiti reigned after the death of akhenaten as smenkhkare, not neferneferuaten (which was the name she adopted as akhenaten's co-regent))... someone who is unfamiliar with the debate surrounding the co-regent(s)/successor(s) of akhenaten will be left out of the blue by this. that section needs re-editing to clarify the issue and that can be done best by linking to one article dealing with all the different theories surrounding akhenaten's co-regent(s)/successor(s).
 * whether it is justified or not, this co-regent/successor is most commonly known as smenkhkare which (if i understand wiki naming-conventions) means an article dealing with this issue is best titled smenkhkare. placing all the different theories in such an article does not negate the possibility that there were two distinct individuals (one male, one female), this possibility is made explicit in the lead of the smenkhkare article (which contains the following: Related to this is the ongoing debate about whether or not Akhenaten's co-regent and successor are in fact the same person.)
 * regarding leoboudv statement above: Smenkhkare was a male pharaoh whereas Neferneferuaten was a female pharaoh. They are not the same person... that only works if one sees smenkhkare as male, which is not generally accepted. as he says on my talk page we know very little about the late 18-dynasty, that is very true indeed and especially so where akhenaten's co-regent(s)/successor(s) is/are concerned: the hard evidence we have for this/these individual(s) is pretty much restricted to several sets of royal names, one of these sets is beyond doubt exclusively female the other two sets are neither exclusively male nor female (i.e. they can both apply to either gender). on the basis of this extremely scanty evidence several theories are build, none of them are generally accepted, all should be dealt with equally, which works best if they are all gathered together into one article and i think the smenkhkare article does exactly that. --!linus (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * regarding leoboudv statement above: Smenkhkare was a male pharaoh whereas Neferneferuaten was a female pharaoh. They are not the same person... that only works if one sees smenkhkare as male, which is not generally accepted. as he says on my talk page we know very little about the late 18-dynasty, that is very true indeed and especially so where akhenaten's co-regent(s)/successor(s) is/are concerned: the hard evidence we have for this/these individual(s) is pretty much restricted to several sets of royal names, one of these sets is beyond doubt exclusively female the other two sets are neither exclusively male nor female (i.e. they can both apply to either gender). on the basis of this extremely scanty evidence several theories are build, none of them are generally accepted, all should be dealt with equally, which works best if they are all gathered together into one article and i think the smenkhkare article does exactly that. --!linus (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Aidan Dodson and M. Gabolde accept that Smenkhkare is a male king while Ankhetkheperure Neferneferuaten was a female king. Hornung and Krauss make the same distinction...and they are serious scholars. This is not WP:OR theory anymore in Egyptology. They also accept that Smenkhkare was not Neferneferuaten so I would suggest you refrain from equating the two together...especially since Manetho makes a distinction for the female king while ignoring Smenkhkare. I should note there are 2 contemporarry attestations for Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten...so they cannot be the same person. The late 18th dynasty is still problematic and we shouldn't merge articles unless we have conclusive proof here. Even Horemheb's reign length is now in the air. I should note that in Krauss, Hornung & Warburton chronology table, the scholars separate Ankheperure Smenkhkare and Ankhetkheperure Neferneferuaten; they place Akhenaten at 1353-1336; Smenkhkare at 1336-1334 and Neferneferuaten at 1334-? This is based on Tut's accession at 1324 BC and Horemheb having a reign of 27 yrs. The chronology reference is on page 493 of the Hornung, Krauss & Warburton book. But now if Horemheb's reign was only 14 years as Jared Miller proposes in his important paper and as a major cache of wine labels in his VOK tomb suggests, then everything is in the air again. Pls consult Miller's on-line paper which you can save. It pretty much shows that Ankhesenamun was not Dahamanzu. IMO, Neferneferuaten is distinguished from Smenkhkare. Someone had a 2 year reign at Amarna after Akhenaten--the question is whether it was Smenkhkare or Neferneferuaten--or was Neferneferuaten this male king's coregent. It might be the latter based on the Year 3 date but it is just a supposition at present just as your proposal is a supposition...because no one has the answers. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "so I would suggest you refrain from equating the two together" i do not... but neither do insist they are different persons... i say that at this moment, with the evidence we have both possibilities are open
 * "Manetho makes a distinction for the female king while ignoring Smenkhkare" interestingly enough that can mean two things: either m. didn't known about smenk. or the female king and smenk. are the same individual. but having said that, relying to much on a garbled source such as m. (both because of the distance of time between the 18th d. and the time of m. and because of the way m. came down to us) is perhaps not wise... i think it best to go with allen's for what it is worth or reeves's one must seriously question the extent to which Manetho excerptus is to be taken at face value
 * "It pretty much shows that Ankhesenamun was not Dahamanzu" purely personally speaking here, but i find the traditional equation dakhamunzu=ankhesenamun quite incredulous, there is enough valid argumentation which indicates nibhururiya=akhenaten (see my edits/expansion on the Dakhamunzu article). but that implies two things: 1. the traditional chronology for egypt (as in kraus ea.) is off by some 14 years or so (cause akhenaten's death needs to be close to suppiluliuma's) and 2. dakhamunzu can be either nefertiti or meritaten, and nefertiti would be the more likely candidate... which would support the harris/reeves theory
 * "IMO, Neferneferuaten is distinguished from Smenkhkare" that is very clear... but does it follow from there that it should be represented as encyclopaedic fact?
 * "but it is just a supposition at present just as your proposal is a suppposition...because no one has the answers" exactly what i am saying, and exactly why we need ONE article on ALL current theories regarding akhenaten's co-regent(s)/successor(s) --!linus (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you wish to call Neferneferuaten as a possible coregent of either Akhenaten or Smenkhkare who could have had an independent reign late in the 18th dynasty, I can support that idea because she could just be a coregent. But why are people dating their deeds under her reign? This would hint at perhaps (one must be cautious here) an independent reign of some kind. She surely had some power. Dates are important and cannot be wished away. But just redirecting Neferneferuaten with Smenkhkare is not acceptable . They are not the same people. If Egyptologists of the stature of Dodson, Hornung, Krauss, Gabolde and Warburton can make a clear distinction between the two, why don't you, too? I gave you published sources here. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * CommentSuch a merge would be in effect making an editorial decision on what is still a debate within Egyptology, and would thus be original research. Unless a clear consensus develops (which would mean some people changing their positions) we shouldn't consider a merge. dougweller (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

to put the issue very simple:
 * there is clear evidence for a co-regency at the end of akhenaten's reign. that is a fact
 * there is evidence for at least one ruler inbetween akhenaten and tutankhamun. that is a fact
 * there are several sets of royal names associated with the two points above. that is a fact
 * these names share similarities between them (and with names of other amarna royals) but also have differences. that is a fact
 * one set of names is emphatically feminine, the others are gender neutral. that is a fact
 * based on those facts some serious scholars maintain that there are two distinct individuals involved, one female and one male. that is a theory (or more precisely: a collection of theories that all subscribe to that basic premise)
 * based on those same facts some other serious scholars maintain that there is only one (female) individual involved. that is another theory

saying that is neither an editorial decision nor original research, it is simply stating the current state of affairs in this matter, saying otherwise WOULD however be those things and more importantly it would also go against WP:NPOV. reasons one and two given at WP:MERGE are good grounds to merge articles that deal with these theories (likewise reasons three and four are good grounds for merging this article as well) and WP:NAME provides good ground for naming such an article smenkhkare. --!linus (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hypotheses, not theories. I simply do not see the good grounds that you see - but I do see good reasons to keep separate articles at least at the moment, and probably adopting Captmondo's suggestion. As for as most easily recognised name, I think Egyptologists easily recognise either, and not many people who aren't interested in Egyptology will recognise neither. dougweller (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not many people who don't have access to the best books on Egyptology can distinguish between Ankheperure Smenkhkare and Ankhetkheperure Neferneferuaten with the feminine 't'. Given the similarity of their prenomens and their separate attestations in the archaeological record, it is not too much to ask that they share separate wiki articles. In my opinion, the biggest questions to ask is 1. did Neferneferuaten have an independent reign (she may or may not depending on whether she was Akhenaten's coregent) if whe wrote the desperate Dahamanzu letters or if she was Smenkhkare's spouse and 2. who was Neferneferuaten. I think (this is only speculation) she may be Meritaten but we can't be 100% sure since so much of the evidence of the late 18th dynasty is problematic right now. If you equate Neferneferuaten wih Smenkhkare, you would be imposing an editorial decision for a POV which is not accepted by many mainstream Egyptologists. I hope you can find grounds for compromise here...and let things be until conclusive evidence is found.
 * Dear Llinus,
 * As an aside, the 4 years and 1 month which Manetho gives to Horemheb *can actually belong to Horemheb (not Ay) if you add a decade to the figure. (a similar academic exercise was done for Manetho's figures for Siamun: 9 to [1]9 yrs) Then Horemheb rules Egypt for 14 years and 1 month or just barely into his 15th regnal year (as the Yr 13 & Yr 14 wine labels from his VOK tomb suggest--they were made only in the wine harvest season anyway) Then only Ay's reign is missing from Manetho's Epitome. There are many holes in the late 18th dynasty and no one person has all the answers...at present. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just want to reiterate that I support keeping this article, and move the debate/info that has appeared here re: Smenkhare/Neferneferuaten where it really belongs, in the currently anemic little article called the Amarna succession. What's there is basically a stub, and taken together, l!nus' and Leoboudv's comments here could be the basis of a decent article on the subject.
 * I'd also like to point out that there is precedent for "fictitious" pharaohs on Wikipedia; see Nitocris as an example. I argue that this page ought to be retained (and not redirected) as a landing page for anyone interested in this particular (ephemeral?) pharaoh, hopefully with links leading to an expanded Amarna succession article as well as to the Smenkhare article. Captmondo (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * @captmondo: my first thought when i found there was a stub article on the amarna succession was to expand it as you suggest, but after considering how to proceed there i realised it would mean more or less repeating what i was already doing with the smenkhkare article with the end result of having two largely overlapping articles... and i am not sure what the benefit is in that.
 * @leoboudv: i am well aware of the possible confusion caused by the similarities in names, i think the smenkhkare article (as it stands atm, it needs some further working) makes the matter clear enough.
 * however, mind you, it is not simply a case of distinguishing between a female neferneferuaten and a male smenkhkare... there are in fact rather important differences between different authors


 * harris and reeves: they see only one female individual with a sequence of changing names related to changing roles at the amarna court
 * neferneferuaten-nefertiti (as akhenaten's queen) >ankhkheprure/ankhetkheperure neferneferuaten (as akhenaten's co-regent) >ankhkheprure smenkhkare (after akhenaten's death)
 * krauss: two individuals, female and male, the later has a sequence of changing names related to his changing relation to the female individual
 * female: ankhetkheperure neferneferuaten (identified as meritaten)
 * male: ankhkheperure smenkhare > ankhkheperure neferneferuaten (after his marriage to ankhetkhperure n.)
 * allen: two individuals, female and male, no changes in their respective names
 * female: ankhkheprure/ankhetkheperure neferneferuaten (identified as neferneferuaten t.) as co-regent to her father
 * male: ankhkheprure smenkhkare (sole ruler after akhenaten's death)
 * gabolde: two individuals, female (with different names) and male
 * female:ankhkheprure/ankhetkheperure neferneferuaten/meritaten (identified as meritaten)
 * male: ankhkheprure smenkhkare
 * (note: i am not sure how exactly he views the alternate female names, nor in what sequence he places both individuals)
 * dodson: don't know, i am not am able to get my hands on his work


 * as you see the mater is more complicated than female=neferneferuaten male=smenkhkare: for starters harris/reeves do not recognise a male individual at all, but even if you leave their theory out of the equation there is still krauss's ankhkheperure smenkhkare=ankhkheperure neferneferuaten (together with is reverting the neferneferuaten>smenkhkare sequence) ... the result is that you cannot separate discussion treatment of "smenkhkare" and "nefernferuaten" (or if you do you duplicate the discussion). in conjunction to what i say regarding captmondo's comment above: you could consider renaming the article as "the amarna succession" cause that is essentially what is dealt with... but then again, what are the chances that someone will search for "the amarna succession" (or for that matter "neferneferuaten") compared to one searching for smenkhkare?


 * the question perhaps is: do you need separate articles for separate individuals if and when discussion on them overlaps to such a great extent? compare with dakhamunzu/nibhururiya... there is no article for the latter, and there is no need for such an article, both individuals (and there is no question that they are two distinct individuals (unlike smenkhkare/neferneferuaten)) are dealt with in one article cause discussing one of them automatically means discussing the other as well --!linus (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dodson's book primarily deals with the Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. However, he writes an exceptionally long footnote (which I gave you-#111) discussing JP Allen's 2003 identification of the gender of the king Neferneferuaten based on 'palimpest inscriptions' attached to her name on objects which refer to her with epithets such as 'effective for her husband.' Dodson then says that Allen's dscovery renders "impossible" all his previous suggestions that Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare were one and the same person. Hence, Dodson accepts now there were 2 separate kings; whether Neferneferuaten had an independent reign is a question that no one can answer because the evidence is so unclear at Amarna. However, there is the clear Year 3 date for her. Does the date refer to Neferneferuaten in her capacity as sole king of Egypt or as the junior coregent of either Akhenaten or Smenkhkare instead? I don't know...and don't pretend to have the answers. But I tend to be open to Erik Hornung's suggestion that the shadowy king Neferneferuaten was the wife of Smenkhkare in "Handbook of Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Handbook of Oriental Studies), Brill, 2006" as edited by Krauss, Hornung & Warburton. Hornung writes (p.207):
 * Dear Llinus,
 * "It is now certain that not only a man 'Ankhkheprure' but also a woman 'Ankhetkheprure' ruled between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun. The king is known as 'Ankhkheprure' (throne name) Smenkare (personal name), later as 'Ankhkheprure mrjj/Neferkheprure/Waenre/ and Neferneferuaten mrjj Waenre.' The two names of the queen, ie. 'Ankhetkheprure' mrjj/Neferkheprure'/Waenre/ and Nefernefruaton are nearly the same as the king's later set of names and epitheta. The "funerary" epitheton (beneficial for her husband) is hers alone and indicates that she succeeded her husband 'Ankhkheprure.'" (ie. Smenkare)

So, Hornung believes that these 2 people were Amarna era kings and the wife ruled after the husband due to the closeness of the prenomens. Since Krauss & Warburton (not Hornung) were in charge with editing the chronology table, this implies they also accept Hornung's interpretation. It is interesting is it not....that Manetho records the female ruler's prenomen. I strongly believe that Neferneferuaten should Not be merged or 'redirected' to Smenkare. You are talking about a new Amarna era ruler who is attested by Manetho and the Year 3 date from Pere's tomb. Is Hornung's idea a theory? Certainly, but it at least makes some sense and jibes well with the known facts about the female king Neferneferuaten....such as the fact that she reached an accomodation with the Amun priesthood prior to Tutankhamun's reign. In the end, scholars may have different takes on Neferneferuaten but lets not equate Smenkare with Neferneferuaten as you are trying to do. Most scholars today concur they are 2 separate Amarna era kings. BTW, you cite Reeves' views (that Smenkare was Neferneferuaten) from his May 2001 book on Akhenaten but this was written before it was conclusively proven that Neferneferuaten was a female ruler. It has now been proven wrong by JP Allen's evidence. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * in the harris/reeves theory smenkhkare is female (and so i am not sure what you imply by referring to the publication date of reeves book, see also the points below)
 * the idea that somehow a woman must be fitted into the amarna succession is not new. it dates from the 70s when it was realised that the name ankhkheperure neferneferuaten sometimes appears as the emphatically feminine ankhketkheperure n. allen's evidence builds on this: he maintains that the epithets that accompany both varieties of the a.n. name implies this name is always feminine, regardless whether it is written ankhet or ankh. (if true that would mean krauss's theory is wrong)
 * in the 70s the discovery of the feminine ankhet name led to two main theories, namely that of harris and krauss as in my post above. hornung in your quote above merely reiterates krauss's theory (first published in his german book das ende der amarnazeit from '78)
 * the year 3 graffito is associated with ankhkheperure neferneferuaten (i.e. not ankhet...): to krauss this refers to "smenkhkare", his "neferneferuaten" has a max reign of 2 years 1 month as attested in the manethonian tradition. for allen/gabolde/and others this year 3 refers to their "neferneferuaten" (as a consequence the manethonian tradition is not of great importance to these scholars), to harris/reeves it indicates the max length of the co-regency with akhenaten of their single individual
 * (again) i do not equate smenkhkare and neferneferuaten --!linus (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this has probably gone on long enough. Clearly there is no consensus for a redirect, so that should not take place, and talk pages aren't meant to be used for arguing the subject although this discussion was needed to see if there was consensus. The discussion has veered over to repetition and OR, so can we please drop it? dougweller (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No consensus at present This discussion can't go on forever. IIRC, Reeves in his biography of Akhenaten quoted a 1973 GM paper by Harris where Harris tried to show how Nefertiti changed her name to Neferneferuaten and then to Smenkare. Harris was right in noting that the Dahamanzu could not be Ankhesenamun--wrong time of death--but on the Neferneferuaten topic, if Dodson can change his mind here, then this tells me that the issue of Neferneferuaten's identity and reign/timeline is still very unsettled. Its time to end this discussion as "no consensus" for now. If it makes you feel better, we can blame the Egyptologists for this problem. They still haven't resolved the mystery of the identity of the KV55 mummy either...though I think many now think it belongs to Akhenaten rather than Smenkhkare. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * it is indeed pointless to carry on atm. it is also very frustrating, especially when reading this the issue of Neferneferuaten's identity and reign/timeline is still very unsettled... which is the point i have been making from the start! --!linus (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nefer-neferU-aten
An easy way to understand the meaning of names, etc, or translating is understanding the ending "u" of words. They can be made with a "Quail chick", or "coil" hieroglyph.

(Also Akhenaten used the plural, as 3 of one hieroglyph, the "nfr-nfr-nfr" specifically in Nefertiti's name.(Beauty-nefer))(total of 4 nfr's)

Using a capital U leads to understanding that the second syllable is the plural: neferU. The translation becomes, easy, and obvious: (The) Beauty (of the) Most Beautiful (of) Aten.

Many versions can be made of this: "Aten's Beauty of the Most Beautiful."....(i.e. neferU is the Superlative)... ("Beauty of Beauties" is the direct translation, but does not convey the superlative.).... (from the SonoranDesert,.. ArizonaUSA).....Mmcannis (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Original Candidates
Cit #7 probably ought to be closer to the "the first 8 minutes of this May 2011 Metropolitan Museum presentation" phrase. I first thought it was a missing ref. (nit)

NPOV
Under "Candidates for Neferneferuaten's original identity" JP Allen's 15 page paper is summarized and dismissed in 2 sentences betray a NPOV. Consider: "However, she will have been no more than ten years old by the time that Neferneferuaten appears as king, making her perhaps a less likely option that her adult and already-powerful mother." A) The quote misrepresents and omits a key part of the paper. Allen spends several pages illustrating how N. Jr may have been as old as 13 by regnal year 17. Characterizing an age of 10 as fact contradicts the source cited. (she is generally seen as about 10, but that is his point - maybe she is older).

B) Text rendering judgement on its overall credibility ought to be done on its own merits or against accepted evidence, not in comparison to some other theory ('her already-powerful mother'). A proponent of Meritaten or N. Jr. could make the reverse non NPOV that 'the youthful Meritaten is a more likely option than her aging and  her elderly mother'.  Working on a more expansive and neutral version...Plutonix (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Revised, Expanded
I thought the original article was pretty good in dealing with the historiography (mostly from Sunset) but presenting evidence as needed for the subsequent theories seemed sub optimal.


 * Added a presentation of what the evidence is separate from what it means (except for 2 stela key to some theories). This was to make the narratives flow better and hopefully make it easier for the reader just entering these tarpits to understand the issues/evidence.  Additionally, by not mixing evidence with what it (might) means, the Smenk. entry could reference the same sections.  Otherewise, these sections are largely the same as before.

I tried to be mindful of the sentiments in the long talk arguments offered in the "move to redirect page" discussion by rereading them several times. Some of the args there are tortured, split fine hairs, just plain wrong or are related to pet theories. But it seems that some have an emotional investment. I expanded the sections on theories for the above reasons and to treat the main ones with more detail:
 * Added a section on Manetho. I dont find Manetho of much probative value, but a few seem quite invested in him.
 * Added a focus on Gabolde's Smenkhkare==Zannanza theory since he is such a staunch supprter of Neferneferuaten=Meritaten.
 * Added a sub section focused on Amarna Sunset. Mainly because it is so recent and the most comprehensive presentation to appear in several decades with almost half the book dedicated to the issue.
 * Expanded coverage of Allen's tasherit theory as it is represents the lone truly new idea to come our way in 30 years. The main changes were in criticizing it on its own merits rather than in comparison to the Nefertiti theory.
 * Maybe the expansions will help the entry loose it's B/Start-Class ratings


 * Added some graphics


 * Added a section on 'Smenkhkare and the Amarna Succession' NOT to try and settle with the issue, but to 'remove' Smenkhkare from the Summary where I wanted to try and detail what little is known about Neferneferuten in a clear manner without a bunch of conditionals. I later figured out how to do that in one sentence, but sort of liked the points made in the Succession section.

Finally, readability for those with mininal knowledge about Egypt was a priority. To wit, "throne name" vs prenomen; and "Akhet-en-hyes" vs зht-n-h.s (content should be understandable without knowledge of transcription codes); Amarna vs Akhetaten (to avoid confusion with the King); shabti vs ushabti and always Ankh-et-kheperure instead of Ankhetkheperure for clarity. Plutonix (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment to Plutonix. Overall You did a great job on expanding the context of Neferneferuaten, her identity, gender and possible reign. I myself have never read Dodson's recent Sunset book sadly since my University doesn't carry it. So, I can't comment but the Amarna period is very vague and frustrating anyway (if one talks about Neferneferuaten or Smenkhkare)...until the recent Year 16 of Akhenaten date was found mentioning Nefertiti being alive. But I think your version here is more balanced. Here are my pictures on Commons There is almost no Egyptian art in Vancouver, Canada. Only in the University of Toronto in Eastern Canada. Kind Regards from Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Neferneferuaten. 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 ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Picture
Hi everyone, There are a number of pictures that I have recently added into the body of the article that are definitely Neferneferuaten (for instance, there is no doubt in the academic community that I am aware of that the figurines of a female Pharaoh in Tut's tomb are Neferneferuaten). There is also the carving of Akhenaten and "Smenkhare" (Many believe this to be Nefertiti) that was uploaded to the Italian wikipedia, and it displays an image of Akhenaten caressing this female sovereign, who is wearing a khepresh (Berlin's Stele 17813). I personally feel that this archeological evidence is overwhelming enough to place an image of her in the infobox. More experienced Wikpedians please feel free to disagree, but I think the evidence for her reign is overwhelming and that these images of a female pharaoh are almost definitely her, whether her identity is Nefertiti or not. Neddy1234 (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neferneferuaten. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301142642/http://cassian.memphis.edu/history/murnane/Allen.pdf to http://cassian.memphis.edu/history/murnane/Allen.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012051415/http://cassian.memphis.edu/history/murnane/M_Gabolde.pdf to http://cassian.memphis.edu/history/murnane/M_Gabolde.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"the central assumption that Nefertiti was mother to Tutankhaten, has since been proven false"
I don't see how this precludes a coregency. A prior 18th-Dynasty female Pharaoh, Hatshepsut, served as coregent for her husband's secondary wife's son (Tutmoses III) for decades. Like Nerfertiti, she was not the heir's mother, but WAS the deceased's king's primary wife.

Or am I missing something? Tabbycatlove (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)