Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Tutankhamun not a son of Akhenaten
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
conorp
Priest
Priest


Joined: 09 Dec 2007
Posts: 513
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:


Tut died at age 18-19 after a reign of about 10 years. Tut either followed Akhenaten on the throne immediately or at most 32-3 years later (If Smenkhare actually reigned ca 3 years).
The most likely interpretation seems to be that Tut followed immediately after Akhenaten. This means he was likely 8-9 years old when Akhenaten died and hence must have been born in ca year 9 of Akhenaten's reign.


It comes back to this again..

In my opinion (I really have no evidence) but there are many images of Meritaten, and she is a female. In my opinion there would be a reason for tut not to have as many items.

If tut was a son of Amenhotep III it would explain why a few rings were at amarna, because many objects from his reign were brought there. Is it possible that tut was back at Thebes?
_________________
How to start a blog

Photos And Information about Egyptian objects in Australia

Pompeii news and photos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

conorp wrote:
In my opinion (I really have no evidence) but there are many images of Meritaten, and she is a female. In my opinion there would be a reason for tut not to have as many items.

The depiction of the daughters instead of sons may have religious reasons. The Aten is shown with rays, and apparently the rays have a name which is feminine in form. In the same way the King (embodyment of the son) is surrounded by his female rays - his daughters.
That's a simplified explanation of a theory I read about in the book "Tutankhamen's Army".

This depiction of royal princesses but not including any depictions of the royal sons goes back to Amenhotep III. The daughters of the Amenhotep are included in statues (his mortuary temple), in temples (shown in Soleb) and even in depictions in tombs (the rows of princesses shown in Kheruef's tomb).
I believe there is a grand total of 1 depiction of prince Tuthmosis (as a sem priest) and a mention of him on his cat's sarcophagus. The rest of the items we have for Tuthmosis, Amenhotep III's eldest son, come from funerary items.
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten is virtually unknown as a prince. I think there is a jar seal pointing to a prince Amenhotep, but that's it.

conorp wrote:
If tut was a son of Amenhotep III it would explain why a few rings were at amarna, because many objects from his reign were brought there. Is it possible that tut was back at Thebes?


The problem with Tut being Amenhotep's son is that it requires a rather long coregency between Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten.
And from what I mentioned above: you wouldn't expect sons of Amenhotep III to be mentioned either.

The parentage of Tutankhamen remains a bit of a mystery. I personally think Akhenaten is the most likely father. Can't say who the mother would be. Kiya is a possibility.

Dennis Forbes (editor/publisher) of KMT wrote a paper suggesting that Tutankhamen was the son of Smenkhare and Meritaten. That's another intriguing possibility Smile
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conorp
Priest
Priest


Joined: 09 Dec 2007
Posts: 513
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The problem with Tut being Amenhotep's son is that it requires a rather long coregency between Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten.
And from what I mentioned above: you wouldn't expect sons of Amenhotep III to be mentioned either.


that's the problem. I dont believe that he was a son Amenhotep III. I dont believe he was a son of Akhenaten ( As stated above) Going from this the only other person is Smenkhare and Meritaten. I think this is more likely. But for this to happen i believe that tut must have been born after amarna was deserted.



Conorp
_________________
How to start a blog

Photos And Information about Egyptian objects in Australia

Pompeii news and photos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found an interesting paper on the Co-regency debate here:
http://members.tripod.com/~ib205/co-regency.html

(be sure to click on the EEF site...)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's an article by Dennis Forbes proposing Smenkhare and Meritaten as the parents of Tut:
http://www.egyptology.com/kmt/fall97/endpaper.html

And the idea is that Smenkhare and Meritaten could have been old enough to be the parents of Tut by ca year 9 - 12 of Akhenaten.
This theory does not require Tut to have been born after the reign of Akhenaten.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gerard.
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 492
Location: France

PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old enough why not, but that does not fit with the position of Merytaten in the Amarna Letters. When this paper was written, Maya's tomb (Bubasteion I.20) was not yet discovered by A.Zivie. In this tomb Tut is on Maya's knees, both receive an homage from the noblemen (BSFE 162 p.38 ).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerard, you're Franch, no?
Aren't you supposed to be a slow bon-vivant?
Angry Belgian greetings from someone who got here yet again later than you did.

Sad
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Gerard.
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 492
Location: France

PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Segereh, what do you expect from people whose emblem is a coq (written in English it could be confusing Wink ). You know the French are always ready to show off. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerard. wrote:
Old enough why not, but that does not fit with the position of Merytaten in the Amarna Letters. When this paper was written, Maya's tomb (Bubasteion I.20) was not yet discovered by A.Zivie. In this tomb Tut is on Maya's knees, both receive an homage from the noblemen (BSFE 162 p.38 ).


Idea Tutors and nurses are sometimes shown with their royal charges on their lap. Tut is also shown as pharaoh on Maia's lap, so this could be referring to a time after Meritaten was already dead.

The only reference to Meritaten in the Amarna letters is the reference to "Mayati".

So I don't see why the scenes in Maia's tomb would be a problem?

Quote:
what do you expect from people whose emblem is a coq (written in English it could be confusing Wink ).


LOL I think the english translation could be both confusing and may even get bleeped.

Well, Segereh you have your work cut out for you. Stay on your toes!
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gerard.
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 492
Location: France

PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
So I don't see why the scenes in Maia's tomb would be a problem?
From memory Maya "wrote" she was loved by the Good God who can be no other than Tut. At a conference in Paris, Zivie said that he feel Tut never knew his mother because he is shown having a close relationship with Maya.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group