Smenkhkare and Merytaten, shown as man and wife, are pictured in the tomb of Meryre ii at Amarna, and were once shown on a relief at Memphis.
Nefertiti would hardly have married her daughter!
The "never seeing the two names together" just re-enforces the concept that they were two people, and not Nefertiti with two names
The biggest stumbling block, in my opinion, is WHY? Tell me why, in any concept, Nefertiti would have changed her name to Smenkhkara?
I thin it is possible, even likely, that she co-ruled with her husband. But I don't think she "pulled a Hapshepsut" and took the throne as a Pharaoh. I think the throne went from Akhenaten to Smenkhkara to Tutankhamen to Aye.

You are indeed correct, Osiris. And that information has to be considered alongside the fact that Smenkhkare Djeserkheperu Ankhkheperure, to give him/her the full name, sometimes had the Ankhheperure (which is the name that resembles Nefertiti's) written in the female form. and the info from Tut's chair showing that person to be i) "beloved of Waaenre"(Akhenaten) and ii)most likely co-ruling, although that again is an interpretation, albeit a reasonable one.

And then of course there is the issue of the appearance of the mummy of KV55, both skeletally and by way of the presentation of the mummy. And the move to Thebes and then back to Amarna by Smenkhkare

As I said, I do not think there is one theory which can successfully narrate all these issues, although a number of people have tried. The whole episode was evidently one of flux and factions with differing agendas.

But going back to the original post of Ankh-of-life, I would repeat that one of the problems in studying history is the application of mindsets, dynamics, or moral judgments which might seem reasonable to us but which have no bearing on the period or culture in question.

In ancient Egypt there was a very different mindset concerning gender, sexuality, promoscuity, and sexual maturity. So our classifications cannot apply.

Scribe2

PS. I mentioned Unas in the previous post, and must correct myself - it was Pepi II who was alleged to have bedded one of his generals.

To me it seems like Ahkenaton could have been transgender or something like that. I have not looked into it much though.

Modern Egypt has a different view on behaviour than us Westerners - I have been told you can see heterosexual male Egyptians walking along holding hands.

The use of the feminine form of Ankhkheperure used to be quite a stumbling block, but recently an unusual, but very logical, explanation has been bantered about.
It would seem that after his death, Smenkhkara's widow, Meryaten, disappeared from all mention in carvings and inscriptions mentioning the Royal family. A new theory has arisen. Perhaps Meryaten took the name of her dead husband, in a mark of respect for him. This would explain the feminine ending, and also the appearance of the name after his death.
This period of Egyptian history is called the "Amarna Tar Pits". It's quite understandable. It seems that the more questions that are answered, the more questions arise!

Uhhh, people here are concerned about Ahkenaten being gay (and one who hopes he wasn't!) because....

I heartily agree, bradmowers!
I can't really see what can be of the least importance WHAT Akhenaten's sexuality was to us.
This on-going discussion has, at times, become very silly. At one point, someone posted--"he couldn't have been gay. He was married and had children"! Believe me, being gay and living in Utah for quite some time, my experience proves to me that having children and being married has NOTHING to do with being gay!
I thought this board was for serious. Egytological discussion. This laughable thread should be deleted!

You have my vote Osiris II

I'd like to say something from my POV.



Of course, it's not so important as the understanding of some basic matters (like what happened to Nefertiti etc.), but it still may be interesting, because it would create new possilbilities to the hierarchy (for example Hatshepsut was involved with Senenmut and he was quite importent person in his times). It would make those times even more complicated than they already are (I don't say we need it, 'cause it's complicated enough, but still...).




I don't consider this topic as "laughable", because we don't discuss to make fun of the king; we want to consider some possibilities. So, IMO, it's serious discussion. Hovewer, I agree that the explanation about having wife etc. was too simplified.

The last thing I want to mention is about pro and cons of the hypothesis. We shouldn't forget that homosexualism was, if I remember correctly, one of egyptian main sins. He wouldn't show off with it. Personally, I think of him as a straight man, because we have no evidences whatsoever.

If Akhenaton had done something Egyptians dissaproved (other than religeous reform & neglect of Empire) of I think it would have been widly publicised by horemheb. which we know of

I'm not sure if I understood you correctly. Are you saying that Horemheb would show and tell loud about Akhenaten from a bad side (his sins etc.)? If this is what you meant, I can't agree. He was trying to do everything to make Akhenaten disappear in the people's memory (he was removing cartouches which included his name etc.), so I don't see a reason he would telll us how bad was Akhenaten in, for example, some inscriptions. I mean, I would see it as an action being in opposite of what he was doing so far.

He was refered to but not by name but in derrogatory terms. I can not remember exactly -what it would be easy to add 'who did xxxx' after the references.