| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4001
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Khuy-n-inpw
Scribe
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 257
Location: Greece
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:12 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Thank you, Lutz. This looks very interesting.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for sharing that. I have only had time to read the first couple of pages, but the explanations look very thorough. It's nice to read such a well thought out paper on such a complex question.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gerard.
Scribe
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 492
Location: France
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Those who have commented the earlier drafts (note 2) were those in favor of the conclusion. I looked at the paper when annouced on EEF, and found it light weight in several parts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rozette
Vizier
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 1186
Location: Belguim
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Lutz for posting the link to the article  ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Khuy-n-inpw
Scribe
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 257
Location: Greece
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This paper presents excellent textual and chronological evidence that the tahamunzu was Nefertiti, but seems to express uncertainty about whether this can possibly fit in with what we know or can infer about Akhenaten’s royal blood-line.
| Dr. Jared L. Miller (Altoriental. Forsch. 34 (2007) 2. p.261) wrote: | | The question is… not whether there were any ‘males of royal lineage’, but (1) whether there was a son of the king, and failing that, (2) whether there were males extant who could be considered by those in power as legitimate contenders for the throne, and whether their claims could outweigh the claim (and clout) of the tahamunzu that she and her husband had no son and that she therefore would rather marry a foreign prince than one of her ‘servants’. |
‘Outweigh’ suggests ratiocination, whereas to me it looks more like a fierce struggle for power (driven by very powerful social forces) between the Atenists (led by Nefertiti) and the traditionalists (grouped around the pliable figure of young Tutankhaten). In such historic conflicts, people tend to go to extremes, and the idea of ‘legitimacy’ is usually the earliest victim.
In this scenario, wouldn’t the Hittites have hesitated, eventually having to support the Atenists, whose offer was too good to refuse? Wouldn’t their opponents, naturally, have struck back, leading to a serious deterioration of Egypto-Hittite relations? Isn’t this, in fact, what most probably happened?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gerard.
Scribe
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 492
Location: France
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Khuy-n-inpw wrote: | | This paper presents excellent textual and chronological evidence that the tahamunzu was Nefertiti, |
If alive, Nefertiti was over 30 when Akhenaten died. She had given birth to six daughters. Zannanza was what 15-20 ? In such circumstances, I do not believe a woman would look forward to have more chidren with an unknown young man. To keep the control of Egypt, it would have been sufficient for Nefertiti to be the regent of an unmarried Tutankhamon; no need to go through the problems of pregnancy again.
The hittite defeat mentioned in EA17 do not tell us who was the hittite king at that time. If this one was Tudhaliya the younger, this could explain why he was murdered and why Suppiluliuma replaced him (Suppiluliuma in partnership with his father had restored the hittite kingdom). With this assumption Suppiluliuma became king of Hatti around the same time Akhenaten became king of Egypt.
Please note that no hittitologists have been asked to comment on this paper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4001
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gerard. wrote: | | Khuy-n-inpw wrote: | | This paper presents excellent textual and chronological evidence that the tahamunzu was Nefertiti, |
... Please note that no hittitologists have been asked to comment on this paper. |
Gerard is bringing it to the point. I also have my problems with that. In the last 20 years I looked at so many of such ground breaking news ... But often it lasted not very long and the next expert came and told with the same security and scientific conviction reverse ... 
So, would be nice to hear / read something from hittitologists about this new text interpretation / translation ?! And until than for me the " affair of tahamunzu " makes just sense when Anchsunamun was the queen of Egypt who wrote this letter.
Greetings,
Lutz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gerard.
Scribe
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 492
Location: France
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Page 253 (pdf 2) : ‘Arma’a = Haremhab, Egyptian Viceroy and Commander in Asia
AFAIK nobody ever had this title in Egypt. The text does not say that ‘Arma’a was in Syria at the time of the events. Further more there is a fair chance Mursili wrote to a king and not to a general. If Mursili’s scribe did not know Horemheb king’s name, he may have just called him by his name as general; after all this text (in hittite ?) was for hittite eyes only. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sesen
Vizier
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 1048
Location: Luxor
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm just over half way through it and I'm getting pretty annoyed at the insistant use of mini quotes from one group of authors then counter quotes from opposing authors. I know some writers justify statements on the grounds that other respected authors have also written said statement, but I just find it frustrating that less attention is paid to the actual texts and artifacts mentioned and furthermore others that are not (so far as I've read) been noted at all.
As yet, to me anyway, its far from a convincing theory but still a thought provoking read and thanks to Lutz for posting it. 
_________________
Priestess of Hathor, Superior of the Harem of Min, dedicated to Maat, beloved of Seshat and Nekhbet.
I enter as a hawk, I come out as a benu bird in the morning.-- Pert em-Hru, ch. 13 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Segereh
Pharaoh
Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sesen wrote: | | I know some writers justify statements on the grounds that other respected authors have also written said statement, but I just find it frustrating that less attention is paid to the actual texts and artifacts mentioned and furthermore others that are not (so far as I've read) been noted at all. |
Thanks for keeping my weary eyes from having to focus on writing the same, Ses.
Always a lifesaver, you! Just to say: what I was thinking.
A very intruiging, but equally frustrating read.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Gerard.
Scribe
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 492
Location: France
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bis, too many of these PhD are not trained historians. Most of the time to-day, they are civil servants busy with their own career and no experience in business, military and religious activities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
littleone
Citizen
Joined: 12 Feb 2009
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
learning from everyone here is helping me get through the flu so thank you... but
maybe I'm not so great at computers, I'm only getting this in German
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
