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 

Tutankhamuns Palace
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:37 pm    Post subject: Tutankhamun`s palace Reply with quote

I fully agree with Chillie that we should be careful when we apply our standards of determining what is "great" and what is "minor" on ancient rulers. Besides, Tut`s contemporaries surely cannot have considered him to be minor because they would not have known how long he would live and what great deeds he would or would not do. ( A bit off-topic, but for the same reason I am always annoyed when I read the statement that Horemheb let Aye take the throne before him because he (Aye) would rule for only a short time. This is ridiculous because Horemheb could not have known that beforehand.)
I also think we must be a bit careful and not assume that everywhere where there was some kind of harim there would have been a royal residence, too. Regarding the harim at Sehotep-Netjeru in Nubia I have read that the term probably refers to the female staff of the temple dedicated to Neb-kheperu-Re. So it was probably just a religious site and no real residence. It would have been impractical,too, to rule from a place so far south in the country, especially for a longer period.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
anneke wrote:
chillie wrote:
I believe that Tutankhamen himself (AND Ankhesenamun) who tore down Amarna, but others believe it was Horemhab. I do not, and no one knows for sure.

The article by Johnson in KMT mentions that Tutankhamen did take down the Aten temples in Thebes. He reused the talatats in a temple of his own.
So it could be that Tut also tore down parts of Amarna.
But where would he have taken the building materials?
The dating to the time of Horemheb and more so even to the time of Ramesses II comes from the fact that they have found the materials from the Amarna site in other monuments from the reign of these pharaohs. ...

There is another problem : Why should Horemheb as king set up statues at the sanctuary of the Great Aton Temple in Amarna if the city was "tore down" by Tutanchamun around 15 years ago ?

See British Museum, London :

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_details.aspx?objectid=155134&partid=1&searchText=amarna+horemheb&fromADBC=ad&toADBC=ad&numpages=10&orig=%2fresearch%2fsearch_the_collection_database.aspx&currentPage=1

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_details.aspx?objectid=155132&partid=1&searchText=amarna+horemheb&fromADBC=ad&toADBC=ad&numpages=10&orig=%2fresearch%2fsearch_the_collection_database.aspx&currentPage=1

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_details.aspx?objectid=155133&partid=1&searchText=amarna+horemheb&fromADBC=ad&toADBC=ad&numpages=10&orig=%2fresearch%2fsearch_the_collection_database.aspx&currentPage=1

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_details.aspx?objectid=155129&partid=1&searchText=amarna+horemheb&fromADBC=ad&toADBC=ad&numpages=10&orig=%2fresearch%2fsearch_the_collection_database.aspx&currentPage=1

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_details.aspx?objectid=155131&partid=1&searchText=amarna+horemheb&fromADBC=ad&toADBC=ad&numpages=10&orig=%2fresearch%2fsearch_the_collection_database.aspx&currentPage=1

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_details.aspx?objectid=155130&partid=1&searchText=amarna+horemheb&fromADBC=ad&toADBC=ad&numpages=10&orig=%2fresearch%2fsearch_the_collection_database.aspx&currentPage=1
Greetings, Lutz.


I'm not sure why anyone is arguing that "Amarna was torn down by Tutankhamun and Ankhsenamun". That's simply not true.

Barry Kemp has shown that the Amarna city was still extant during the reign of Ramses II, due to artefacts found within the city, particularly in the workers' village. See Kemp's Amarna Reports on this evidence.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis... I believe Tut was in Faras for a while (I smell a whole new can of worms opening but oh well). If he was there, I think he certainly had his women with him... but I agree that it was totally impractical to have multiple harems everywhere. Maybe in the major cities of Memphis and Thebes? Perhaps some of these women traveled with him?

Neseret... Perhaps it was necessary that certain parts of Amarna were left standing, while those most troublesome, hurtful, irritating, inconvenient or what have you were demo'ed. I think this because in those days, everything was a resource belonging to the king, including the stones, the talatat, the cropland and vineyards, and don't forget the royal tombs (unless the group burial in VK also occured at this time). Tut would not have allowed such valuable material to be unguarded, which means that some sort of administration would have to be present in Amarna until every last stone set by Akhenaten was dragged off. Tut was extremely busy and far-stretched and so he probably couldn't commit his men (as Akhenaten had) to such a task when there were temples to be restored and crumbling borders to be shored up.

Minor king, I think not. A shame he died so young. Textbooks might be quite different. This boy was forged in a sort of hell, if you will forgive the dramatic tone. I bet he would have been one of the great ones.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Styler78
Priest
Priest


Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 974
Location: Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always thought that the term "minor Pharaoh" was given to Tutankhamuun due to his relatively short reign. Being compared to Thutmoses III and Ramesses II, even Hatshepsut- the reigns show much more on the lines of trade routes, conquering troublesome enemies, building projects on a large scale, etc.

My initial idea of the post was to determine what Tut's life consisted of- residences, the hunting lodge idea, etc. I asked due to the short reign and i had not heard of an official palace of Tut.

So back to the original post- did he have a Mortuary temple built like Hatshepsut, Amenhotep III, etc? if so i would like to know more.

Thanks for all the input so far...
_________________
Beloved of Hathor, Chief of Thebes, Not the Messiah just a Very Naughty Boy!

http://styler78hatshepsutproject.blogspot.com/

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: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I always thought that the term "minor Pharaoh" was given to Tutankhamuun due to his relatively short reign.

I completely agree. The major rulers from the new kingdom include people like Ahmose, Tuthmosis III and Hatshepsut, Amenhotep III, Ramesses II and III and to some degree even Akhenaten and Merneptah.
Tutankhamen is more like rulers such as Tuthmosis II, Tuthmosis IV and maybe Sety II and Siptah. These rulers only held the throne for a shorter time and had less of an opportunity to shape the history of Egypt. It does not make them unimportant in any sense. They all played their own role in history, but due to either youth, duration of their reign, or both, they did not have quite the same impact as some of the major players did.

There is mention of a mortuary temple for Tutankhamen and I think that there are some statues which would have been meant for that temple which have been found. There is a big statue which originally belonged to Tut in the Oriental Institute in Chicago. I think that was is thought to have been from his mortuary temple.

I'm not sure what happened to the mortuary temple. I think it could have been usurped by Aye? I'm not entirely sure where it would have been located either? West bank?, Medinet Habu?

I will have to look through my books to see if I can find more.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have heard that his mortuary temple was usurped by Aye, then by Horemheb. But it seems that finally it (or its pieces) ended up in the Luxor/Karnak blockyards to be rediscovered by Johnson. He theorizes in his KMT article that this temple probably stood on the west bank as a mortuary temple should, due to the orientation of the reliefs depicting Asiatic/Nubian battle scenes. Furthermore he states that there are similarities between this structure and other mortuary temples, such as those of Thutmosis II (erected by Thutmosis III), Horemheb and Ramses III (the bull hunt scene). He points out that Tut`s temple must have been located near Horemheb`s, so in that case there must have been two different structures. The fact that the blocks were found to be re-used within the 9th pylon at Karnak which was built by Horemheb makes a usurpation even more unlikely, because Horemheb would hardly have dismantled his own (usurped) mortuary temple to build the pylon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm pretty sure he had a mortuary temple at Medinet Habu. It is certain he would have resided in Memphis, and at Tehen Aten (Malkata) palace in Thebes. It is also possible he stayed in Fort Faras and perhaps other strategic forts in Egypt based on his military needs. He had a military training sight at Giza (which must have been incredibly inspiring) along with a villa there. There were certainly places of resort and retreat which we may never find, your "country villas" so to speak.

He built in Thebes and surely elsewhere. He built at least one temple that we knew of in Nubia. I think it was to Hathor. Time will bring more to light. The reason he might not have as much as other kings is because he spent so much simply restoring that which Akhenaten damaged.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Styler78
Priest
Priest


Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 974
Location: Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Medinet Habu has been mentioned.

I has previously thought (incorrectly?) that this name was the sole name of the Mortuary Temple of Ramesses III.

Is it more of a collection of buildings, which just- so- happens to include Ramesses III's Mortuary Temple?

Thanks
_________________
Beloved of Hathor, Chief of Thebes, Not the Messiah just a Very Naughty Boy!

http://styler78hatshepsutproject.blogspot.com/

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4160
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

chillie wrote:
... material to be unguarded, which means that some sort of administration would have to be present in Amarna until every last stone set by Akhenaten was dragged off. ...

Again, Haremhab let at least one statue of itself as king establish in the sanctuary of the Great Temple of the Aton (see links to British Museum). That means really far more than "some sort of administration" or guarding a stone quarry ...

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4160
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Styler78 wrote:
Medinet Habu ... I has previously thought (incorrectly?) that this name was the sole name of the Mortuary Temple of Ramesses III. ...

It is the modern name for the south part of the Theban necropolis. In that area we find the so called "Small Temple of the 18th Dynasty", the archaeologically at the moment not occupy temples of Thutmosis I. and Tutanchamun and the temple of Aja / Haremhab. There is also a small temple for Thot from Ptolemaic times.

From the 18th Dynasty we know the name "jat-nt-jmntt" ("The western area") for the small temple and around, from 21st Dynasty on "jat-tamet", later "damet" is the name for the whole settlement until Der el-Medineh. Maybe the Greek "Thebai" comes from that.

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

U really cannot know Horemhab's motive for doing this, or what was there at the time.

But I think it's quite obvious that Amarna would not have been completely abandoned, simply because of the resources the city contained. Everything belonged to the current Pharaoh. There is indication that Tutankhamen himself began the process of dismantling the city. There was no reason to leave it standing, and many many reasons to bring the city down. As I said, if Tutankhamen did begin the process, it probably wasn't a national priority and his reign was quite short, which meant that Horemhab could have completed for him.

Amarna was not the capital of any nome, it had zero significance in the old religion, was a brand new place built on virgin earth by Akhenaten, specifically to glorify his version of Aten worship (and likely to put some distance between himself and the aristocracy and ex-theocracy of Thebes). Once Akhenaten's religious policies, reforms, isolationism and other doctrines were quite violently rejected by the Egyptian people, it would have been a political ball and chain for Tutankhamen and his advisors. Whatever his personal reasons were, the smart choice was to leave Amarna as a capital. Without the administration there, the city served no purpose other than fill for Tutankhamen's building projects.

I would bet a great deal of money that there was some sort of Overseer of Royal Works there, complete with his own bureaucracy and labor force, to oversee the "repurposing" of Amarna resources. There would be men to guard the tombs (which we know were looted-and some destroyed-at least once during this time), and eventually a crew to move the remains of Tutankhamen and Ankhesenamun's family to the Valley.

I sincerely doubt that Amarna was a functioning city in Tutankhamen's reign. It benefited him more to distance himself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4160
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, but there are to much "believe" in your argumentation. I do not discuss faith. I am more orientated on facts, on archaeologically finds.

I can see only one reason for a king to dedicate a statue of his own to the sanctuary of a temple. If you know more, you should give them !

As neseret still wrote "... Barry Kemp has shown that the Amarna city was still extant during the reign of Ramses II, due to artefacts found within the city ...". The "Amarna Object Database" gives, beside pieces with the name of that king, with number 1079 also a palimpest inscription on a wall relief : the name of Ramses III. over Aton.

You always talk about protecting Amarna resources. Which before whom ? In a country were even the palace of the king was build from mud brick it is hard to believe for me that there was a kind of "black market" for the stones from the buildings from Amarna ...

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had heard of the fragments mentioning Horemheb. I'm still a bit puzzled by these finds.

For instance the Amarna Project website (Barry Kemp?) mentions
Quote:
The king died in his seventeenth year of reign. What happened immediately afterwards is obscure, although it involved an enigmatic person called Smenkhkara who appears as a consort to Akhenaten's eldest daughter, Meritaten. But within a short time the young king Tutankhamun had ascended the throne. Perhaps after only two years he had left Akhetaten to reign from Memphis, and Akhenaten's cult was abandoned utterly. For a city dependent upon the court for a large part of its existence this was a death blow. Apart from an area beside the waterfront at the southern end, the city appears to have been rapidly abandoned. In later reigns Akhenaten's temples and palaces were thoroughly demolished to provide cheap building stone. Many thousands from Amarna were shipped across the river for a new temple at Hermopolis.

From http://www.amarnaproject.com/pages/amarna_the_place/index.shtml
(bold face is mine)

I originally brought up a possible dismanteling by Tutankhamen. I just want to clarify that the Johnson article in kmt journal mentions that Tutankhamen started dismanteling the Aten temples in Karnak.
My intention was merely to ask a question about a possible breaking down of structures at Amarna during the same time. I'm not suggesting this must have happened. I was however somewhat surprised to see the actions of Tut in Karnak.

It seems clear Tut never wholesale tore down Amarna for the plain reason that there were still structures there under Horemheb and Ramesses. There was more than enough to cart off to Hermopolis.
And I'm not aware of any building projects nearby during the reign of Tutankhamen that could have benefitted from the use of building materials.

The website I mentioned above mentions that there were some areas near the riverfront that remained inhabited. Not sure what the nature of the settlement was at that point. Harbor that served passing merchants maybe?

If the Aten temples at Amarna were still in use as suggested by the statues and inscriptions mentioning f.i. Horemheb, then we would expect some priests to have remained there to take care of the grounds. Maybe they lived in the south of the city?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chillie wrote:

Neseret... Perhaps it was necessary that certain parts of Amarna were left standing, while those most troublesome, hurtful, irritating, inconvenient or what have you were demo'ed. I think this because in those days, everything was a resource belonging to the king, including the stones, the talatat, the cropland and vineyards, and don't forget the royal tombs (unless the group burial in VK also occured at this time). Tut would not have allowed such valuable material to be unguarded, which means that some sort of administration would have to be present in Amarna until every last stone set by Akhenaten was dragged off. Tut was extremely busy and far-stretched and so he probably couldn't commit his men (as Akhenaten had) to such a task when there were temples to be restored and crumbling borders to be shored up.


Again, I urge you to read Kemp's reports rather than spin theories from nothing. It is established from Kemp's archaelogical work that houses, residences, administrative buildings, and even temples at Amarna continued to operate through Horemheb's reign (though Atenist temples ceased operations during the early part of Horemehb's reign). However, other housing and administrative buildings at Amarna continued to be used through the early Ramesside period. It's just that Tutankhamun abandoned Amarna as a ruling capital and went first to Memphis (to the Thutmosid ancestral home, from where he issued the Restoration Stela), and then to Thebes as his ruling capital.

It is theorised (repeat: theorised) that Tutankhamun's only other contact with Amarna thereafter was to possibly remove his family's coffins for reinterment closer to him in the Valley of the Kings. KV 55 seems to argue for such a move, for example, but until other Amarna reinterments in the VoK are found, it remains only a theory.

However, archaeologically, Kemp was able to trace that the workers village was briefly abandoned and then reused by military guards through the early Ramesside period for many years (hence the ring bezels of later kings being the artefacts I mentioned earlier) (Kemp 1984). Materials flowed in and out of the Amarna port and work appeared to carry on at Akhetaten for some years. There is evidence, for example, of an early Ramesside burial within the Amarna cemetery area, implying residence within the city area (Giddy, Jeffreys, Bourriau, et al. 1996).

By the time of Ramses II, the Amarna port on the Nile, which had been in continuous use since the city was created in Akhenaten's day, ceased to operate, mainly due to the waterway silting up and becoming unusable. This was the time of the real end of Akhetaten, as the city would surely be abandoned if materials and goods could not reach it, and the town fell into disuse and was slowly dismantled from thereon.

You have to recall that Amarna is constructed of talatat, which is a small stone block, which, by name alone, indicates it's only 3 palms wide and thus very portable (this is why Akhetaten was built so quickly from Years 4-7 of Aktenaten's reign). Most of the city's demolition was not an ordered one, but natural attrition due to the elements (as much of the monuments were more mud-brick than stone) and the usual recycling of used stone and building materials amongst the local populace surrounding Amarna. Recall that a great deal of the important stonework we have from Amarna actually comes from Hermopolis (Modern: El-Ashmunein), where stones were moved there from Amarna for rebuilding purposes.

So, no, I don't buy into any theory of a systematic dismantling of the city of Akhetaten by Tutankhamun: there is simply too much archaeological evidence against it.

Reference:

Giddy, L., D. Jefferys, J. Bourriau, G. T. Martine, P. T. Nicholson, H.S. Smith, B. Kemp, P. French, V. A. Maxfield, D. Peacock and P. Rose. 1966. Fieldwork, 1995-6. [Memphis, Saqqara, North Saqqara, Tell el-Amarna, Buto, Gebel Dokhan, Qasr Ibrim]. JEA 82: 1-22.

Kemp, B. J. 1984. Amarna Reports I. Occasional Publications 1. London: The Egypt Exploration Society.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz I'm not talking about faith, except how it applies here: Amarna was a city built for one purpose only: to serve as the capital for a revolutionized Egypt where one god, Aten, was worshiped. If you know about Amarna, you will also know that Akhenaten and his family and officials were never to leave the city "Horizon of Aten" even in death. There was no other purpose for Amarna other than to glorify Aten.

Now we do not know when the city was dismantled, or how long it took, but we do know that eventually it was raised.
However, you need to understand that every single block within the city, every scrap of building material, belonged to Pharaoh. What is quarried and shaped today took weeks and months in the ancient world, thus giving it greater value. Anything unguarded would have been attractive to looters. That is why it is really certain that the city was not just abandoned by Tutankhamen after he was crowned. He would have left people to protect his assets. Not just stone: going by descriptions, and what we know of Egyptian royal and religious architecture, there could have been silver and gold laid into the ceilings, precious metals and stones inlaid in the walls, the doors would have been made of costly imported woods. After Pharaoh decided not to remain in Amarna, all of this would have been taken apart and used somewhere else. That requires laborers, and soldiers to protect such wealth.
Now we do not know how much of Amarna Tutankhamen had taken apart at the time of his death, but we do know he started the job because stones from Amarna were used as filler in Tutankhamen's building projects. Horemhab, also, used as filler. So NO, Amarna was not standing as a complete city during Ramses' time.

I don't know how much was left of Amarna after the reigns of Horemhab and Tutankhamen. Certainly there were buildings that were worthless; anything mud-brick was worthless. Also, I doubt anyone knows which buildings were dismantled first, which explains why there would be temples standing for Horemhab to plant his statuary in (and again, you have no idea of his motivation, and I DOUBT he was honoring Akhenaten).

It's all very well and good to read things in books and quote them over and over, but it is also very important to think for yourself and apply the things you learn, combining them with other bits of knowledge. I stand my ground with my belief that Tutankhamen had a Syrian war, and that he likely went (a thing considered ridiculous by many people, even in the face of growing evidence of this campaign), and I stand my ground that this dismantling of Amarna would have taken years, would have been politically wise, it would have created a good many jobs.
And Lutz, I used many FACTS to reach my conclusion... but the conclusion is mine alone, based on understanding of the value of resources, the time-consuming labor of creating and destroying a city, knowledge of the events of Tutankhamen's very busy reign, the customs of Egyptian society and the politics of the time.

You will not find an answer to this question in a textbook, because we have not yet uncovered direct evidence, such as a ledger dating and detailing the operation. However, this is the forum to advance theories and discuss ideas. We know enough about this time period to speculate on how Amarna went from a capital city to a ruin, which is what I am doing.

Now, based on what YOU know of Egyptian society, can you make your own hypothesis on who took down Amarna and when?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
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