Egyptian Dreams - Ancient Egyptian Discussion Board :: View topic - Ankhesenamun - Tut's death etc. - Ancient Egypt

Click on the logo to visit the shop

Egyptian Dreams
Egyptian Dreams Discussion Board

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Ankhesenamun - Tut's death etc.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

anneke
Queen of Egypt

Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 7882
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:06 am Post subject:

chillie wrote:

Lesser of two evils? Do we actually know these people? I can pretty much be CERTAIN that a woman my age with wealth and power is not interested in marrying someone who could be her grandfather. But evil? Did you know either man to make that determination?
From what I have read of Horemhab, he fought pretty hard to stamp out corruption and upgrade the justice system. Sounds like a real prick, huh?

Assuming that Ankhesenamun really wrote the Dahamunzu letters, she did actually say that she did not want to marry a servant and that she was afraid.
Looking at "the lesser of 2 evils" (the quotation marks meaning something here), it does seem that she had to make a choice between some options that were not of her own choosing.
If the ring with Aye end her name is an indication of marriage, then she did end up marrying Aye. And if there was a choice involved with that we will never know.

For as far as Horemheb stamping out corruption and upgrading the justice system? Giving him the benefit of the doubt, then maybe he did actually accomplish that.
No clue if he would have gotten along with Ankhesenamen or not.
She clearly didn't run to him and put herself under his protection, or she would have been married to him. But who knows.

neseret
Scribe
Scribe

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 232
Location: United Kingdom

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:51 am Post subject:

chillie wrote:

I highly doubt anyone my age with as much wealth as she had would, uncoerced, climb into a marriage bed with a man of his years (especially then, 60 would be ancient to her), a man who is her servant, a man whose is scrambling to make himself look like the rightful heir tho he is not.
Ay also served Amunhotep. Now even if he started at 13, there were years of Amunhotep's reign, there were still 17 years of Akhenaten and ten of Tut. 48? Impossible.

No, not impossible: Ay was named as tutor (/it nTr/) by Amenhotep III while Akhenaten was being groomed for the throne, or just after he ascended the throne. This implies that Ay may have been between 18-20 when this was done, which was considered a mature adult with experience in Egyptian society. To this you add a total of 30 years of service (Akhenaten's reign (17 years), ephemeral post-Amarna kings (3 years), and Tutankhamun's reign (10 years)). At the least, he's 48 at the time of Tutankhamun's death, at the most, he's 50.

chillie wrote:

We're also talking about a girl who was a *** victim, who finally seemed to find a bit of happiness with Tut, only to lose him right away. It might be possible that the lady simply decided to follow after her love by her own hand.

You seem to romanticise the situation, which is your choice, but likely not the situation at all. Ankhsenamun was married to Tutankhamun not because she loved him (she was older than he was by about 8 years, as she's born in Year 4 Akhenaten (Smith and Redford 1976) and he's born about Year 12 Akhenaten) but because it's her duty to carry on the blood line of the Thutmosids. She's about 16-17 years of age when he's 9 at his accession, and she's about 26-27 to his 19 when he dies.

As for the relationship with her father, I'm afraid that you have bad information. To date, there's no real evidence that Ankhsenamun bore Akhenaten any children, as the individual identified as "Ankhsenamun-tasherit" are in fact usurped images and texts of Kiya shown with her children.

As Dodson and Hilton note (2004: 148), it's more likely these images are either Kiya's children, or, as Meritaten takes over most of Kiya's imagery, possibly Meritaten's children with Smenkhkare. As Dodson notes, "...indeed the names are very fictitious, replacing others." So, the original inscription had other names before 'Ankhsenamun-tasherit', which makes the whole idea that Akhenaten bore children with his own daughters very possibly not true at all.

chillie wrote:

I think in all probability, Horemhab remained behind in Syria, to tie up what he could, thinking that all would be well on his return, since he is the legal successor. It seems that Ay went out of his way to show himself to be Tut's heir when in fact he wasn't.

The only time Ay makes a case for being Tutankhamun's "heir" is in the Opening of the Mouth ceremony scene shown in Tutankhamun's tomb. It's a unique image, never before seen in a king's tomb (though usually found in noble tombs), and as only the "heir" of the deceased can perform the ceremony, the implication is clear.

However, Ay never claims he was named as heir by Tutankhamun, but simply holds onto his /it nTr/ title which he had had since Akhenaten and as tutor/advisor to Tutankhamun. These were his two symbolic connections to the king, and in conjoining his name with Ankhsenamun, which may have indicated marriage, or simply a political alliance, Ay had the legitimacy to assume the throne. His claim was as strong as that of Horemheb, IMO, who claims he was named "Deputy Regent" by "the king" (unnamed), but no other monument or records independent of Horemheb states this.

chillie wrote:

I think if Ankhes was pregnant with Tut's child, that wouldn't have been allowed. Wouldn't have fit too well, especially with two commoners who wish to call themself Pharaoh and Great Royal Wife. What would happen if she birthed a son of REAL royal blood? Could have caused big problems.

As I have said, this is my personal theory, but you have again missed the point. My theory runs that IF Akhsenamun was pregnant with a child at the time of Tutankhamun's death, all that pregnancy gave her was time to make the 'Egyptian Queen' correspondence, along with possibly hiding the death of Tutankhamun at the same time (Murnane 1990), such that the final interment was put off for almost a year, Ankhsenamun gained time to acquire the Hittite prince.

If later the queen miscarried and survived, with Zannanza now dead, she was of no threat to Ay at all, but was a potential political ally via marriage. She may have seen marriage to Ay as politically in her favour, and as I said before, as has been theorised, particularly if he was her grandfather. Ay may have been the best and friendliest ally she had.

chillie wrote:

I would never say for certain she was murdered. I hope she just grabbed a sack of gold and ran off, actually. I dunno about plague. I believe there was plague in Amarna (at least) after the year 12 Durbar, but I've heard nothing about plague in Malkata or Memphis at the end of Tut's reign.

I did give citations on the epidemic nature of plague in Egypt at the time. Perhaps it's best you read what I gave before dismissing it.

chillie wrote:

My evidence for a murder theory is only this: Tey should NOT have been GRW, I don't care how many years/kids she gave Ay. GRW is for the creation of heirs ALONE, Tey was most likely past the proper age for that, while Ankhes was a young girl of royal blood who had served as GRW under Tut and married her father... she knew the ropes. There would be NO REASON that she would have been passed over... I doubt Tey threatened divorce if he didn't give the title to her!!!

Hold on a darned minute: who said anything about "Great Royal Wife title is for the creation of heirs alone"? There's no such thing. Every king has a Great Royal Wife, but in the case of the 18th Dynasty, it's apparent that Great Royal Wives did not always equal children.

Cases in point:

Satkamose - Daughter of Ahmose I and Ahmose-Nefertari, sister-wife of Amenhotep I - holds title of GRW, but no children.

Mutnefret - daughter of Ahmose I and Ahmose-Nefertari - married to Thutmose I and mother of Thutmose II - BUT never GRW.

Satioh - Daughter of the nurse of the god, Ipu; married to Thutmose III, holds title of GRW, but no children.

Nefertere - married to Thutmose IV, holds title of GRW, but no children.

Iaret - daughter of Amehotep II, married to Thutmose IV, holds title of GRW, but no children.

There are more examples I could give, but you get the point: like many things in the royal house, accumulation of titles was granted by boon, and were hierarchical (Troy 1986). So, the "Great Royal Wife" was a title that could be granted to a specific wife, or taken away, mainly by decision of the king. It had nothing to do with being fertile or making new heirs for the throne.

chillie wrote:

Therefore.... the ONLY reason to make Tey GRW would be to support Nakhtmin's claim to the throne!!!

Come again? What evidence do you have which says Nakhtmin was even a child of Ay and/or Tey's? All indications are that Nakhtmin, if indeed he was chosen as king's heir (and this is now quite doubtful), it was done as a decision of the king only, and not due to direct relationship with Ay via the family line.

chillie wrote:

Now, he could not make this claim if Ankhes was GRW (and certainly not if the REAL king's baby was in her belly). Therefore, Ankhesenamun stood smack in the way of Ay and Nakhtmin's dynastic ambitions. I doubt ANY of these people would shrink from doing what had to be done to get power, and what had to be done was getting rid of the royal widow.

So, if indeed Ay did not name Nakhtmin as his heir, which now seems most likely (who names a fellow as heir who just instituted a rebellion against you?), you can see that this implodes your theory.

If Ay was married to Ankhsenamun, and she were pregnant at the time (which is not part of my theory, mind you), then any child she bore would have been Ay's child, and he could have raised the child to be his heir. He would have done much better to keep her alive in such a situation, really.

chillie wrote:

Now, Neseret, I am curious to WHOM it is known that the descriptions of Tutankhamun's Syrian war are propaganda. I've heard much OPINION on this matter.

Chillie, I DO give citations for what I write: may I suggest you track down these articles and publications and read them for yourself?

chillie wrote:

To me, it seems far more likely that he did what he said he did. Remember, the WHOLE THEME of his reign was a return to traditional values... Consider his closeness with the general

Show me one instance of Tutankhamun's "love" of Horemheb, and give me a valid citation for it.

As for why Tutankhamun would not have gone to war: as I said beforek, his daybook and annals (that is, the schedule fo what the king did on days of his reign), shows he did not leave Egypt (Johnson 1992). In short, Tutankhmun didn't go to war.

As for reasons why he wouldn't go to war, there are several:

A) Kings of any age rarely go to war when they have no male heir left behind to take over their throne should they die in battle. Tutankhamun had no male heir;

B) The nature of the interaction between King and country and their belief that he was the person who controlled ma'at says that, unless the whole land was being threatened from without, a king's first duty was to his people and no fulfilling some macho dream of being a warrior. Tutankhamun had to keep people fed and clothed, working during the Inundation period, and basically running the country through a combination of law-making and religious ceremonies. he was required to honour gods and keep them happy so that the land would be belssed by said deities, and finally

C) There is his relative inexperience as a warrior. Tutankhamun showed a great deal of imagery of how much he loved hunting, but few images of himself as a warrior (in fact, I can think only of the painted box image and his standard iconic smiting images on his shields). Further, there were only 2 swords in Tutankhamun's tomb, one with an unsharpened blade (Carter No. 582a), and a total of 2 daggers, both found on the body of the king, one very decorative, with no wear, and the other, also unused, made of irion. This appears to be an extremely small collection of weaponry, while Tutankhamun's hunting equipment was far more extensive (48 bows, 365 arrows, 7 throw-sticks and 7 sword-sticks).

Note that I did not mention Tutankhamun's age as a factor: that is because, under the culture of the times, Tutankhamun was considered an adult and able to go to war as an adult since he was about 13 or so, which is the age of adulthood in ancient Egypt (Janssen and Janssen 2007). So, if he did not go to war, it was not becuase of his age, but because of his responsibilities to his people to be their leader, and also for the very practical reason that he had no male heir to succeed him.

chillie wrote:

And the Italian who worked on the case, whom I quoted, is not the only one who said it was sheet metal, not thread. I can understand being mistaken, what I cannot understand is how a retraction of the statement that it was gold with birds on it can state that there were no birds on gold metal, but pieces of string. Also, I have never seen any case where any of the Italians (who, BTW ANNOUNCED the armor to the Bolenza (sp) university) came out and said what you said you read.

As I have said, now numerous times, the article later came of that said the images of gold birds were done in gold thread embroidery and that it is on the fabric embedded in the leg of Tutankhamun. The same fellow who claimed the original statement upon which you rely (Vigl) is the same person who later announced the "riding accident" conclusion at the 2006 Radiology Association conference. Therefore, Vigl no longer believed that a sword or any weapon harmed Tutankhamun's knee. Even experts can change their minds.

I am getting personally very tired of repeating this, BTW. I also am getting the distinct impression you are accusing me of lying and I really don't appreciate it.

chillie wrote:

I am intrigued by your info on Nakhtmin!! Would you please share your sources and info on this little rebellion??? I've never heard this!

I gave the citations earlier: please look them up if you want more information.

Reference:

Dodson, A. and D. Hilton 2004. The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames and Hudson.

Janssen, R. M. and J. J. Janssen 2007. Growing Up and Getting Old in Ancient Egypt. London: Golden House Publications.

Johnson, W. R. 1992. An Asiatic Battle Scene of Tutankhamun from Thebes: A Late Amarna Antecedent of the Ramesside Battle-Narrative Tradition. Ph.D (Unpublished). Chicago:The University of Chicago.

Murnane, W. J. 1990. The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Sety I at Karnak. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations. SAOC 42. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Smith, R. W. and D. B. Redford 1976. The Akhenaten Temple Project. Vol. I: Initial Discoveries. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.

Troy, L. 1986. Patterns of Queenship: in ancient Egyptian myth and history. BOREAS 14. Uppsala: ACTA Universitatis Upsaliensis.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom

Naunacht
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 29
Location: U.S.

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:47 am Post subject:

Quote:

Pure speculation, really shooting into left field at that. Lesser of two evils? Do we actually know these people? I can pretty much be CERTAIN that a woman my age with wealth and power is not interested in marrying someone who could be her grandfather

"Power is the best aphrodisiac" Henry Kissinger Wink

Sorry, couldn't resist.

There is, of course, absolutely no evidence that Aye was as much of a studmuffin as old Henry here. (Actually, despite the former Secretary of State's considerable reputation as a babe magnet back in the 70s this was the only picture I could find of him with a young woman--aside from Sara Palin.)

Seriously though, I doubt that an individual royal woman's personal preferences were much taken into account. They were high stakes political players just as much as their menfolk. Marriage for them was not about romance. It was all about dynastic preservation. Ankhesenamon might very well have made a rational, if reluctant, choice to hitch her future to Aye.

Vangu Vegro
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 1

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:23 pm Post subject:

Segereh wrote:

As for that, I'd like to recommend W. Benson Harer's article
"Chariots, Horses or Hippos: what killed Tutankhamun"
in Minerva vol. 18 nr. 5 (2007).

Got to love the title... Rolling Eyes

Sadly enough not online, but a good clear read.

Actually...

http://archaeologyrocks.com/cultures-countries/ancient-egypt/12

neseret
Scribe
Scribe

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 232
Location: United Kingdom

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:00 pm Post subject:

anneke wrote:

chillie wrote:

Assuming that Ankhesenamun really wrote the Dahamunzu letters, she did actually say that she did not want to marry a servant and that she was afraid.

I have yet to have anyone show me any statement in the Damahamzu/Egyptian Queen correspondence which stated that she was "afraid" of her servants or of anyone.

It should be noted that the only literature which states this claim of anyone being "afraid" is the Mursili Annals and the Mursili Plague Prayer (which are written some 10+ years after the incident), and even that doesn't say that the queen was afraid, but the general statement that the "Egyptians" were afraid.

This is political spin by the Hittites (mainly to put a good face on a situation which as a political fiasco for them, as noted in KUB XIX, 20), because if you read the actual letters from the queen (and we do have an copy of the letter, as I noted before (Edel 1978)), the "Egyptian Queen" basically doesn't say she's "afraid," but that she's in a political bind:

- her husband is dead,
- she has no sons,
- one (or more) of her servants wants to marry her (she doesn't want to do this, as she makes clear), and
- she'd rather have a Hittite prince for a husband.

There is NO statement of being "afraid" of Suppiluliumas, the 'servant' - nothing.

In the second letter she's actually angry at Suppiluliumas for questioning her request and her intent. She admits she's humiliated to ask the request, but she mocks Suppiluliumas with this statement:

You do not trust me and tell me even such a thing. (5) He who was my husband died and I have no sons. Shall I perhaps take one of my servants and make him my husband? I have not written to any other country, I have written (only) to you....(ANET: 319)

This is not a queen who's afraid of this "servant" business - she uses is as a bargaining chip to get what she wants.

Assuming the "Egyptian Queen" is Ankhsenamun (which seems more likely than any other theory presented thus far), she's banking on the amity between fellow royals, which was why they would call each other "brother" and sister" in their correspondece. They felt that rulers of the ANE were basically an exclusive club and only royals were allowed.

Ankhsenamun knows that Suppiluliumas will not want a prize like Egypt (including herself as its queen) ruled over by someone who isn't royal, and if that royal who does rule Egyptian could be a Hittite prince, well, so much the better.

Savvy political bargaining, I'd say.

Reference:

ANET = Pritchard, J. B., Ed. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Edel, E. 1978. Ein neugefundenes Brieffragment der Witwe des Tutanchamun aus Boghazköy (Nova najdba dela pisma Tutanchamonove vdove iz Bogazkoja). Orientalistika 2: 33-35.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom

anneke
Queen of Egypt

Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 7882
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:22 pm Post subject:

neseret wrote:

I'm basing that statement on the article by Theo P.J. van Hout.
De Zaak Zannanza: Een Egyptisch-Hettitisch Brievendossier
Bulletin uitgegeven door het Vooraziatisch-Egyptiscch genootschap.
Page 159-167 (I think I have seen you refer to this publication before).

This is a translation of the Mursili Annals / Letters.

On page 159 in the very last paragraph of the first quote it says in Dutch:
"Mijn man is gestorven, een zoon heb ik niet, maar ze zeggen, dat jij wel zoons hebt. Als jij mij nu een zoon van jou geeft, dan kan die mijn echtgenoot worden. Een onderdaan van me wil ik niet uitkiezen en tot mijn echtgenoot maken. ... Ik ben bang!''

That translates to:
My husband has died, a son I do not have, but they say you have many sons. If you give me one of your sons, then he can become my husband. A subject of mine I do not want to choose and make my husband. ... I am afraid!

The very last comment in that translation definitely has the Queen proclaiming she is afraid.

Are you saying that the translation here is not quite correct? As phrased by van Hout, it definitely mentions she is afraid, not Egypt. (Dutch is my native language btw, so there's no misinterpretation of the statement on my part due to language problems)

Or are there other (maybe more recent) translations that give a slightly different interpretation?

Or are you saying that we cannot really read too much into this because it's a recollection of events written 10 years after the fact by the Hittites, who might like to portray a queen as expressing fear?

neseret wrote:

Assuming the "Egyptian Queen" is Ankhsenamun (which seems more likely than any other theory presented thus far), she's banking on the amity between fellow royals, which was why they would call each other "brother" and sister" in their correspondece. They felt that rulers of the ANE were basically an exclusive club and only royals were allowed.

Ankhsenamun knows that Suppiluliumas will not want a prize like Egypt (including herself as its queen) ruled over by someone who isn't royal, and if that royal who does rule Egyptian could be a Hittite prince, well, so much the better.

Savvy political bargaining, I'd say.

LOL It's definitely a powerplay on the part of the Queen. She does specifically say she doesn't want an egyptian subject, but would like a royal son.

I wonder if it's straight up snobbery though, or if there are other factors at play. I cannot imagine this would go over well with the native Egyptians. And somehow she must have had some people's support because the letter exchange seems to have taken place over some time and she was free to conduct her business and her servants and diplomats seem to be doing her bidding.

Although by the time of a 6th letter there's a new pharaoh on the throne.

Wouldn't it be nice if some of these people had kept diaries? Very Happy

anneke
Queen of Egypt

Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 7882
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:46 pm Post subject:

I was just reading through van Hout's article and he refers to work by the egyptologist Elmar Edel. The same one you referred to in your references, I'm sure. Van Hout talks about an actual small fragment of one of the letters by the Queen which was found. Edel reconstructed the letter that was written (partially) That translation I really found surprising. See, I have now become a wi[dow without children. Send me one of your sons and the two great nations will become] one land. You shall bring me [your presents, and I will be pleased,] and I will similarly [bring my gifts to you, and you will be pleased by] it. And I shall be pleased when I send t[o you a beautiful gift in the hands of my envoys, and you will be pleased when you send] to me a beautiful gift [in the hands of your envoys. So I had written to you. Now] you have sent Hattusaziti. .[.. (pg 162, van Hout, de Zaak Zannanza) If the reconstruction is correct and one takes the translation literally, then wouldn't that amount to high treason? She basically suggest they merge the two countries. Unless one interprets the piece to suggest that by this marriage they create ties between the two lands that could lead to long lasting diplomatic relations. In This case it could be a way to solve the enmities between the countries through a diplomatic marriage.

neseret
Scribe
Scribe

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 232
Location: United Kingdom

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:42 pm Post subject:

anneke wrote:

I was just reading through van Hout's article and he refers to work by the egyptologist Elmar Edel. The same one you referred to in your references, I'm sure.

Van Hout talks about an actual small fragment of one of the letters by the Queen which was found. Edel reconstructed the letter that was written (partially) That translation I really found surprising.

See, I have now become a wi[dow without children. Send me one of your sons and the two great nations will become] one land. You shall bring me [your presents, and I will be pleased,] and I will similarly [bring my gifts to you, and you will be pleased by] it. And I shall be pleased when I send t[o you a beautiful gift in the hands of my envoys, and you will be pleased when you send] to me a beautiful gift [in the hands of your envoys. So I had written to you. Now] you have sent Hattusaziti. .[..
(pg 162, van Hout, de Zaak Zannanza)

If the reconstruction is correct and one takes the translation literally, then wouldn't that amount to high treason? She basically suggest they merge the two countries.

Unless one interprets the piece to suggest that by this marriage they create ties between the two lands that could lead to long lasting diplomatic relations. In This case it could be a way to solve the enmities between the countries through a diplomatic marriage.

There would have been little doubt that was the "Egyptian Queen's" intent that if she married Suppiluliumas' son, this would have ended conflict between the two countries. In short, she ends the pronouncement of Amenhotep III that there would never been a princess of Egypt married to a foreign potentate of any kind (recall this from the Amarna letters).

Diplomatic marriages seem to have been one of the many ways the Egyptians ended conflicts - recall that Amenhotep III marries various foreign princesses to secure peace with his foreign neigbours, while Ramses II accepted a Hittite princess as part of his actual peace treaty.

So, I can see why Ankhsenamun - again, assuming she is the "Egyptian Queen" of the corespondence - could see this as a viable option.

Had it worked, it's very possible she would habe been hailed as a peacemaker in her time, and if she had been able to bring Zannanza over to Egyptian ways - a technique that worked well in the /kAp/ with the children of foreign potentates, she would have been able to have an ally in the heart of Hatti as well. It would have secured her position as an Egyptian queen holding sway over a foreign ruler to the country's benefit, possibly.

anneke wrote:

(in reference to the van den Hout translation)

Are you saying that the translation here is not quite correct? As phrased by van Hout, it definitely mentions she is afraid, not Egypt. (Dutch is my native language btw, so there's no misinterpretation of the statement on my part due to language problems)

Or are there other (maybe more recent) translations that give a slightly different interpretation?

Most of the trasnlations I have seen, and I've read about 5 different versions, do not end with a statement where the queen says "I am afraid!" As you note in the Edel translation, there's little indication there is fear driving the queen: she is making a diplomatic proposal as well as a marriage proposal: Join with me, have your son be my consort, and we can rule this area together.

anneke wrote:

Or are you saying that we cannot really read too much into this because it's a recollection of events written 10 years after the fact by the Hittites, who might like to portray a queen as expressing fear?Or are you saying that we cannot really read too much into this because it's a recollection of events written 10 years after the fact by the Hittites, who might like to portray a queen as expressing fear?

Oh, yes, I am absolutely saying that Hittite face-saving is going on here. The KUB XIX, 20 letter assures it, for me. Referring back to the same van den Hout article, we have this weasly explanation of Suppiluliumas in KUB XIX, 20 about why his son was sent:

[Concerning that what you wrote:] "Your [so]n (for?) you not [..] I did not know at all [..] ...not yet [...But now] you write again and again as King of Egypt ...[However when one] asked [me he]re for a son as hu[sband...] I kne[w] not. I was willing to send my son or the [kin]gship, [but that you already were se]ated [on the throne],that [I knew] not. [Concerning that what you] wrote: "Your son has died [but] I have done [him no ha]rm" .
[....]"

(verso)
"[When the queen of E]gypt wrote again and again, you(?) not [...] was you/she(?). But if you [in the meanwhile? had seated yourself on the throne, then] you could have sent my son back home. [...] Your [serva]nt Chani held us responsible [...] What [have you done] with my son?!"

To me, here's Suppilulimas saying basically, "Don't blame me about this, King of Egypt. It was this woman, the queen, who asked for my son as husband: I didn't know you were there...but once you were on the throne and you knew it was my son, you could have sent him back to me."

Now, this implies, if the letter is to be believed as written, that Ay has informed Suppilulliumas that his son died as he travelled to Egypt, but he didn't know he was coming, but he did not harm to him to cause the son's death.

Suppiluliumas is hysterical over the loss of the son, and questions why this has happened: the son travelled there because he was asked for - by the queen of Egypt. He had no idea that a new king had ascended Egypt's throne (and the annals of Suppiluliumas (by Mursili) says Suppiluliumas had checked for such possible contenders).

Suppiluliumas suspects it's a political killing by the Egyptian king - but he's also not sure (this is Murnane's 1990 interpretation, but makes sense to me), which is why he asks most of his queries about the son in the conditional "if" and "perhaps." Suppiluliumas has courtiers in his court who claim that the son was killed by the Egyptians and he's confused: Wasn't the son asked for? Did he not do the right thing as requested? Now here's the king of Egypt telling me my son is dead, and the court wants blood for it. But is this also the right information? Heavens knows, I've gotten it wrong before.

Mursilis II, writing the Plague Prayer some 20 years later, while putting a pro-Hittite spin on the story, says basically that the death of Zannanza caused his father let his temper get away from him and attacked again at Amka, and roundly defeated the Egyptians.

But there was a cost: in bringing back the Egyptian prisoners to Hatti, Suppiluliumas brought the bubonic plague into Hatti, which cost both Suppiluliumas and his crown prince, Arnawanda II, their lives, and the lives of Hittites for over 20 years.

It has always seemed to me that once the second letter was sent, the Hittites seem to have hesitated for awhile about whether to send the royal son or not. Eventually they do, and are incredible happy about it: Güterbock (1956:98 ) notes that Suppilulumas is to have specifically noted the Kuruštama treaty as being in effect at the time of the "Egyptian Queen" correspondence when, apparently delighted at the turn of events which had an Egyptian queen asking for his son, the king reiterated its conditions before his court saying, 'Of old, Hattusha and Egypt were friendly with each other and now this, too, on our behalf, has taken place between t[hem]! Thus Hatti and Egypt will continuously be friendly with each other!' To the Hittites' point of view, this was a matter where the treaty between Egypt and themselves had finally paid off.

However, with each day that passed, and no word being sent to the "Egyptian Queen" about her request by the Hittites, Ankhsenamun may have decided to head for a Plan B situation, which may have meant marrying Ay instead - or at least form some form of political alliance with him. The Newberry Ring does state something of this type occurred:

Newberry Ring, Berlin 34316

So, while we can speculate about whose translated version is the most accurate, I find it more interesting when the actual letters between the parties are read, as opposed to editorial comment from third parties not present at the time (i.e., Mursili II) no indication of 'fear' on the part of the queen is there. Ankhsenamun appears an adept negotiator - offering a way into Egypt for Hatti's king which does not require expediture of troops and war, but a peaceful solution.

Indeed, had it succeeded, we'd probably be talking about the unique way that Queen Ankhsenamun resolved the Hitto-Egyptian wars rather than if she was "afraid" for her life because some "servant" wanted to marry her. Wink

Reference:

Güterbock, H. 1956. The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by his Son, Mursili II. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 10: 41-68; 75-98; 107-130.

Murnane, W. J. 1990. The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Sety I at Karnak. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations. SAOC 42. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

van den Hout, T. 1993. De zaak Zannanza. Een Egyptisch-Hettitisch Brievendossier. Phoenix 39/3: 159-167.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom

chillie
Scribe
Scribe

Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 246
Location: New Jersey

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:32 pm Post subject:

I'm not romancing a thing. Looks like they loved each other. and were close relations, so either way, the loss is most likely devastating. I think if anyone is adding their own feelings it is the people saying one person was "evil" or that Tut would never have fought in a war. Some say Ay was 50, some 60, either way too old for a woman in her 20s. I'm sure He didn't mind, but there are words for men who like women who are too young for them, and none of them are nice. _________________ festina lente

anneke
Queen of Egypt

Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 7882
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:47 pm Post subject:

neseret wrote:

Diplomatic marriages seem to have been one of the many ways the Egyptians ended conflicts - recall that Amenhotep III marries various foreign princesses to secure peace with his foreign neigbours, while Ramses II accepted a Hittite princess as part of his actual peace treaty.

So, I can see why Ankhsenamun - again, assuming she is the "Egyptian Queen" of the corespondence - could see this as a viable option.

Had it worked, it's very possible she would have been hailed as a peacemaker in her time, and if she had been able to bring Zannanza over to Egyptian ways - a technique that worked well in the /kAp/ with the children of foreign potentates, she would have been able to have an ally in the heart of Hatti as well. It would have secured her position as an Egyptian queen holding sway over a foreign ruler to the country's benefit, possibly.

It would have been an interesting solution. You also mentioned the plague. Some of the courtiers must have been supporting the Queen. I think otherwise there could have been no correspondence.
With an eye on these kind of possible internal problems, a diplomatic solution seems like a smart move.
Thinking of it that way the decision makes bit more sense to me.

I had always had a hard time getting past the idea that this would have been some way of committing treason. Putting the country in the hands possibly of a foreign prince would be odd.

But if you are dealing with disease and are trying to avoid war, then finding a diplomatic way out makes sense and that scenario works with the information we have from the time.

neseret wrote:

Most of the translations I have seen, and I've read about 5 different versions, do not end with a statement where the queen says "I am afraid!" As you note in the Edel translation, there's little indication there is fear driving the queen: she is making a diplomatic proposal as well as a marriage proposal: Join with me, have your son be my consort, and we can rule this area together.

Even van Hout mentions a sense of irritation on the part of the Queen.
The difference in translations is interesting though. Although maybe not that surprising considering that the tablets were rather seriously damaged and they had to do some serious reconstructions here and there.

neseret wrote:

It has always seemed to me that once the second letter was sent, the Hittites seem to have hesitated for awhile about whether to send the royal son or not. Eventually they do, and are incredible happy about it: Güterbock (1956:98 ) notes that Suppilulumas is to have specifically noted the Kuruštama treaty as being in effect at the time of the "Egyptian Queen" correspondence when, apparently delighted at the turn of events which had an Egyptian queen asking for his son, the king reiterated its conditions before his court saying, 'Of old, Hattusha and Egypt were friendly with each other and now this, too, on our behalf, has taken place between t[hem]! Thus Hatti and Egypt will continuously be friendly with each other!' To the Hittites' point of view, this was a matter where the treaty between Egypt and themselves had finally paid off.

However, with each day that passed, and no word being sent to the "Egyptian Queen" about her request by the Hittites, Ankhsenamun may have decided to head for a Plan B situation, which may have meant marrying Ay instead - or at least form some form of political alliance with him.

It does seem that Ankhesenamen may have given up on the idea after it looked like the Hittites were not ready to act.

Aye seems to try to claim that he did not know that Zannanza was on the way, and didn't really know what happened to him. I guess the time frame allows for multiple scanarios. Either time ran out due to some reason and they had to move to plan B, or Aye got ambitious and took the throne just because he somehow could.

It's also possible that as the possible grand father of Ankhesenamen (if he was really Nefertiti's father), he took the role of Pharaoh so he could protect her. With the plague maybe she fell sick at this time. Then again we can't really tell what happened.
There are quite a few possibilities.

LOL It's the fun part of these stories: just enough information so we know something really interesting happened, but not quite enough to tell us exactly what that interesting event would be in some detail.

I have to say though that if it had not been for these letters and annals I may not have believed any of this. The story seems rather fantastic.

neseret wrote:

So, while we can speculate about whose translated version is the most accurate, I find it more interesting when the actual letters between the parties are read, as opposed to editorial comment from third parties not present at the time (i.e., Mursili II) no indication of 'fear' on the part of the queen is there. Ankhsenamun appears an adept negotiator - offering a way into Egypt for Hatti's king which does not require expediture of troops and war, but a peaceful solution.

Indeed, had it succeeded, we'd probably be talking about the unique way that Queen Ankhsenamun resolved the Hitto-Egyptian wars rather than if she was "afraid" for her life because some "servant" wanted to marry her. Wink

Yes, it really is interesting that she chose to play such a prominent role in international diplomacy. And she must have had at least one faction at court who supported her. It would be too easy to isolate her from the diplomats and keep an eye on her to make sure she wouldn't do anything silly.

It sure would have potentially changed the course of history. There may have been no Horemheb or Ramesses as King. They would have only been high ranking officials at most.

And who knows what the political landscape in the middle east would have looked like back then.

chillie
Scribe
Scribe

Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 246
Location: New Jersey

Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:03 pm Post subject:

How old were Thutmose 3's heirs when he was 22, Hatshepsut died, and he went off to battle in Meggido? _________________ festina lente

anneke
Queen of Egypt

Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 7882
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:20 pm Post subject:

Thutmosis went to battle in the 23rd year of his reign. We do not knnow how old he was when he became king. Estimates range between 3 and 10 I think. So he was between 26 and 33 when this happened. In year 24 a son named Amenemhat was was appointed Overseer of Cattle. (mentioned at Karnak - south side of Festival Hall). So he did at least have one son and possible heir.

kylejustin
Priest
Priest

Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 543
Location: victoria, australia

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:11 am Post subject:

is it possible that ankhsenamun was going to marry zannanza, but use him as a puppet king? i know they would have taught him egyptian government, and cultural ways, but what if anhksenamun was going to pull hatshepsut's routine? and have the prince as pharaoh in name only? i think the reason she married ay, was because he was in politics since amenhotep III's reign, so he was most likely the best person to run egypt. it was probably a political alliance. and the fact that the dahamunzu letters have ay replying to the hittites, does this mean ankhsenamun is out of the picture by then, or that we dont have her letters surviving? _________________ heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....

neseret
Scribe
Scribe

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 232
Location: United Kingdom

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:34 am Post subject:

kylejustin wrote:

and the fact that the dahamunzu letters have ay replying to the hittites, does this mean ankhsenamun is out of the picture by then, or that we dont have her letters surviving?

It's most likely that Ay initiated the letter to Suppiluliumas to either say his son had died ("but I have done him no harm..."), or it's a reply to Suppiluliumas' letter to the queen, inquiring about his son, which was answered by the ruling head of state, as would have been proper protocol at the time.

In either case, the fact Ankhsenamun does not reply to Suppiluliumas, but rather Ay, does not indicate in any way whether she was alive or not. Ay would have replied properly even if the letter was sent to the queen, since he would have been the ruling head of Egypt, while previously it would have been Ankhsenamun.

As for "pulling a Hatshepsut" as you put it, I think that's pretty much what Anneke and I were discussing earlier. Ankhsenamun would have had to teach Zannanza all the form of protocol, rites and custom for an Egyptian ruler, which would have given her enormous power in Court - far more than she could have had with an Egyptian male, noble or commoner, as ruler.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom

kylejustin
Priest
Priest

Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 543
Location: victoria, australia

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 6:05 am Post subject:

thank you for that neseret. very interesting _________________ heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....

Display posts from previous:

	Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 7 of 8

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