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 

Could Kia be Sitamun?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Horemheb and Smekhkare both had the name Djeserkheperura. What can that mean?

Nothing, because they had not.

Greetings, Lutz


Yep, thanks. (Saw your post on other thread! Very Happy )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the block from hermopolis that had the inscription naming tutankhamun a king's son, was not on the same block naming a king's daughter. and her name was not complete either, they had part of a name, and i think the only known princess it corresponded too was ankhesenamun. and i don't know if they are aware from whose reign the block was from. if it was from tut's reign, it does not prove he is akhenaten's son. but if it is after akhenaten's reign, it still does not prove it, unless we can conclusively identify the block being from smenkhkare's reign. 2 people on one inscription, or in one scene both being identified as a king's child does not mean it is one king the inscriptions refer too.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry kyle, but I don't know what your last post is in reference to....? It is late though, and I'm tired. Maybe I best read back through this thread come morning... Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Sorry kyle, but I don't know what your last post is in reference to....? It is late though, and I'm tired. Maybe I best read back through this thread come morning... Smile



Kylejustin is just referring to a now-infamous block mentioning Tut's name and the fact that he is a "king's son, of his body..." This proves that Tut was the son of an actual king and that the title "king's son" was more than just an honorific.

I searched and found this old thread started by our own anneke back in 2004. There's some good discussion in it. And if you scroll down the page, you will come to the following image, posted by Segereh:



The left column and top-middle of the center column state: "King's son, of his body, his beloved..." Or you could just say: "Beloved king's son, of his body..." The rest of the inscription, from bottom-middle to the right, gives the name Tutankhaten. There's no other extant information here.

So that's the problem. Evidence from the Amarna Period can be maddeningly fragmented. A lot of that may well have been deliberate, given the dismantling and defacement of so many of Akhenaten's monuments following his reign. We have Tut's name and the stated fact that he was literally borne of a king, but exactly which king?
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whichever King was buried in KV55, which may quite likely have been Smenkhkara.

Round and round we go... Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4181
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Whichever King was buried in KV55, which may quite likely have been Smenkhkara.

Round and round we go... Idea

Its name unfortunately generally dips only very rarely during the 18. Dynasty in Amarna, and in KV 55 not at all. No object from KV 55 does point only basically to this king.

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
Kylejustin is just referring to a now-infamous block mentioning Tut's name and the fact that he is a "king's son, of his body..." This proves that Tut was the son of an actual king and that the title "king's son" was more than just an honorific.

I searched and found this old thread started by our own anneke back in 2004. There's some good discussion in it. And if you scroll down the page, you will come to the following image, posted by Segereh:



The left column and top-middle of the center column state: "King's son, of his body, his beloved..." Or you could just say: "Beloved king's son, of his body..." The rest of the inscription, from bottom-middle to the right, gives the name Tutankhaten. There's no other extant information here.

So that's the problem. Evidence from the Amarna Period can be maddeningly fragmented. A lot of that may well have been deliberate, given the dismantling and defacement of so many of Akhenaten's monuments following his reign. We have Tut's name and the stated fact that he was literally borne of a king, but exactly which king?


Was a King's name originally on the block which was cut out/removed?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:

Was a King's name originally on the block which was cut out/removed?


I honestly don't know. This was one of many blocks found across the river from Akhetaten in a construction built by Ramesses II, so the original context is long lost. To my knowledge no possible adjoining fragments have ever been found.

The name Tutankhaten is not enclosed in a cartouche so he had not yet ascended to the throne. But the city of Akhetaten was still inhabited and used for a time after the death of Akhenaten, so Smenkhkare or Name-your-preferred-subsequent-Amarna-ruler still ruled from there. You can begin to see the problem with this extant fragment. Such inscriptions often do mention a specific king but, I believe, not necessarily always. Again, it would depend on the precise context.
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought 'Tutankhamen' was a throne name?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
I thought 'Tutankhamen' was a throne name?


Tutankhaten was Tut's birth name (nomen). It was changed to Tutankhamun after he ascended to the throne as a tot. Tut the tot. His throne name (prenomen) was Nebkheperure.

In many cases, however, you'll see the epithet Heqa-iunu-shema ("Ruler of Southern Heliopolis") attached to his nomen.
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
In many cases, however, you'll see the epithet Heqa-iunu-shema ("Ruler of Southern Heliopolis") attached to his nomen.


Was this a mere honofific, a title on his acccession, or a suggestion of an active role prior to his accession?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
kmt_sesh wrote:
In many cases, however, you'll see the epithet Heqa-iunu-shema ("Ruler of Southern Heliopolis") attached to his nomen.


Was this a mere honofific, a title on his acccession, or a suggestion of an active role prior to his accession?


I doubt Heqa-iunu-shema carried a specific job description, per se. It's a reference to the great Karnak temple complex and, as I understand the title, expresses Tut's dominion over this temple and its environ, which was the religious capital of Egypt. At the same time it both reinforced Tut's direct association with the god Amun and his status as the religious leader of his people.

That's a lot of meaning behind a few words, but it was an important epithet. It was probably also expedient: to the real powers-that-be, Tut was useful in the restoration of orthodoxy following the Amarna interlude, and a critical part of the restoration was the re-establishment of the cult of Amun at Karnak.

Others might be able to clarify it better but as far as I know this epithet was not attached to Tut's name prior to his ascendency to the throne.
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
I doubt Heqa-iunu-shema carried a specific job description, per se. It's a reference to the great Karnak temple complex and, as I understand the title, expresses Tut's dominion over this temple and its environ, which was the religious capital of Egypt. At the same time it both reinforced Tut's direct association with the god Amun and his status as the religious leader of his people.

That's a lot of meaning behind a few words, but it was an important epithet. It was probably also expedient: to the real powers-that-be, Tut was useful in the restoration of orthodoxy following the Amarna interlude, and a critical part of the restoration was the re-establishment of the cult of Amun at Karnak.


So could Akhenaten already be involved in a move toward a changed religion years (and years?) before he actually took executive power as King?

Hey! What about Amenophis III's dotage. Wouldn't Tiye (with Akhenaten in tow) have been making changes too? She seemed big on Atenism herself... maybe (??)...

Somehwere I read that Akhenaten moved to his new city a few (?) years after his accession. Could he have been building it for many (?) years even before that?

If Baketaten was Amenophis III and Tiye's daughter (which seems a fair guess to me by now), could she have been called by an Atenist name well before any 'alleged' (official?) move toward a changed religion?

Was Amenophis III actually the Founder of Atenism, and Akhenaten it's First High Priest?

Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have always wondered if it was more of a gradual transition. The Aten is already mentioned under Tuthmosis IV, and in year 10 of Amenhotep III he mentions a royal ship called Aten-tjehen which sailed on a lake dug for Tiye.

In the first 5 or so years of his reign Akhenaten builds several temples in Thebes dedicated to the Aten:
Gempaaten ("The Sun Disc is Found in the Estate of the God Aten")
Hwt benben ("The Mansion of the Benben stone")
Rud-menu (en-Aten-er-neheh) ("Sturdy are the Monuments of the Sun Disc Forever")
Teni–menu (en-Aten-er-neheh) ("Exalted are the Monuments of the Sun Disc Forever")

If there was a coregency between Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, then Amenhotep III would have known about this building project and presumably agreed with it?

The claim on the boundary stela is that Akhenaten went out and found the site of Akhetaten in year 4, and that they moved to the new capitol in year 5. No word on how much of the site had been constructed at that point.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BobManske
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 350

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's an overt reference to the Aten on the base of Hatshepsut's obelisk, as I recall. I remember being struck by it when I translated it several years ago. Now whether the word simply refers to the disk of the Sun or the god I can't say, but neither can I say that in the ancient Egyptian mind, as we so imperfectly understand it, there would have been a differentiation between the two.

Bob
_________________
In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
- Douglas Adams

Good bye, Doug, thanks a lot, and you're welcome for all the fish. Stop by our way again.
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, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 6 of 10

 
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