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
 
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: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not in KV55 or KV62? It's almost like one can't positively associate Smenhkhare witj either tomb.

Lutz, is it possible to place "Kya" in the tomb in any positive way?

Lutz, do you have a handy list of all the inscriptions regarding "Smenhkhare"? I should like very much to see it if you have.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3733
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
... is it possible to place "Kya" in the tomb in any positive way? ...

Only over the deleted inscriptions on the canopic vases.

Orwell wrote:
... Lutz, do you have a handy list of all the inscriptions regarding "Smenhkhare"? I should like very much to see it if you have.

No I do not have. But it would be interesting to list them all here? And I mean the proofs were the name "Semenkh-ka-Ra" or "Semenkh-ka-Ra Djeser cheperu" really appears.

Greetings, 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: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No direct suggestion Akhenaten had his name on the bands then. Only a suggestion a name might have been cut out which Weigall thought was Akhenaten. Damn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
No I do not have. But it would be interesting to list them all here? And I mean the proofs were the name "Semenkh-ka-Ra" or "Semenkh-ka-Ra Djeser cheperu" really appears.


I agree 100%, Lutz. It might help clear up a few issues I have in my head about him/her.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

See http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=1279&start=0

This is a thread from 2005 listing the evidence for Neferneferuaten and Smenkhare.

(Wow that's alsmost 7 years ago, and I have been on this board for 8 years now. Time flies!)
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
Did Nefertiti get a Maru Aten of her own? For all we know yes. Nefer was FAR from neglected. Her image is ALL over Akhenaten. Like her husband she was an object of worship to the citizenry and she assumed at least some of the iconography normally associated with the Pharaoh like the 'smiting enemies' scene.


I would have given her a Maru-aten. Very Happy


Akhenaten seems to have given her pretty much everything possible. Like I said she may have been a bit diva-like and high maintenance.

Quote:
Meretseger wrote:
Maru Aten may have been a way of getting and keeping Kiya out of the Chief Wife's way. She certainly maintained a profile so low as to be almost subterranean during Nefertiti's lifetime, one of the reasons why the lady is so elusive.


That sounds like neat speculating - but it does still seem very speculative.


You betcha it is. Speculating is what the tarpits are all about given the fragmentary nature of the evidence.

Quote:
Meretseger wrote:
The original owner of the North palace has not been identified. Formerly assumed to be Nefertiti Kiya has also been suggested. I wonder if possibly it belonged to Baketaten and its take-over by Meritaten indicates a hostility between the two women. Or perhaps merely a real estate deal.


My spot of 'neat' speculating: Maybe it was Nefertiti's Palace, and when she died, it was handed on to Meritaten. Idea


That was the original theory. I don't know why it lost favor.

Quote:
Meretseger wrote:
Aldred cites two indications Kiya survived Nefertiti: Firstly a wine docket from Kiya's estate possibly (it's broken) dating to year 17 and far more conclusively talatat from Hermopolis depicting Kiya and her daughter worshiping the Aten alongside Akhenaten and his two elder surviving daughters (who are given precedence). Neither princess is wearing a queenly crown - militating against Meritaten being crowned by her father - and there is no trace of Nefertiti, or for that matter Smenkhkara as co-regent.


There is something very odd about this, Meretseger (probably only to me, of course). Akhenaten's 'Favorite Wife' seems to be 'prominent' but, yet, not 'prominent'. Nice short name to put on a wine docket (easier than putting Nefertiti's name, maybe?


Not no much. Wine dockets exist from the estate of Neferneferuaten (so labelled) strongly implying they are two separate women. Kiya's position would appear to be that of an indulged but essentially private favorite. It is Nefertiti who is presented as the King's consort and female counterpart. Possibly Kiya when public after Nefertiti's death, hence the talatat, though Aldred believes it came from one of the Favorite's private chapels not a public monument.


Quote:
Meretseger wrote:
The buriers and reburiers of the dead of KV55 seem to have played a regular game of musical coffins with the bodies.


That proposition seems very dubious to me. Didn't the ancient tomn worker people 'honour' the dead?

Meretseger wrote:
One POSSIBLE scenario among the many is that Smenkhkara was originally buried in the Second coffin of King Tut and when that was taken for his son he was placed in a coffin modified for Akhenaten whose body was then destroyed.


Destroy an "Heretical" King's body and bury another Pharaoh's in it? Sounds a bit cheap and nasty. Judging by the tomb goods in KV62, the Egyptians were surely not that cash-strapped. And what about "Heretical King" germs left in the coffin? Wouldn't that suggest some kind of disreaspect (or damning) of ther next mummy put in. Why not, if that was the caase, just burn said second muumy too?


Because burning was a form of damnation destroying the burnee's immortal soul. Akhenaten may have inspired that degree of hatred but Smenkhkara probably did not and was considered worthy of reburial. Ancient priests and necropolis officials seem to have been decidedly slapdash in their reinterments of the violated dead. Judging by the number of reused coffins alone taking equipment from the dead was not regarded as problematic.

Quote:
Meretseger wrote:
Or as Lutz holds the coffin may have been made fora Akhenaten and Smen placed in it after the king's body was destroyed and his own coffin taken for Tut.


Did Lutz really suggest that somewhere? Shocked


No. But he does argue that the coffin was originally meant for Akhenaten.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Aldred cites two indications Kiya survived Nefertiti: Firstly a wine docket from Kiya's estate possibly (it's broken) dating to year 17 and far more conclusively talatat from Hermopolis depicting Kiya and her daughter worshiping the Aten alongside Akhenaten and his two elder surviving daughters (who are given precedence). Neither princess is wearing a queenly crown - militating against Meritaten being crowned by her father - and there is no trace of Nefertiti, or for that matter Smenkhkara as co-regent.


That could be a wine docket from Nefertiti's estate, you know, with her and Meritaten on it in the early days. There is quite some doubt about the "Year" too, or at least that's what a little bird told me (if it's proper to call Anneke a 'little bird'! Shocked )


Meretseger wrote:
... Aldred... it came from one of the Favorite's private chapels not a public monument?
Quote:


Maybe where Neferiti's nickname might have been used, it being a non-public private place known only to intimants of the court.

Meretseger wrote:
Because burning was a form of damnation destroying the burnee's immortal soul. Akhenaten may have inspired that degree of hatred but Smenkhkara probably did not and was considered worthy of reburial. Ancient priests and necropolis officials seem to have been decidedly slapdash in their reinterments of the violated dead. Judging by the number of reused coffins alone taking equipment from the dead was not regarded as problematic.


Still doesn't wash with me. Why the need to reuse an old (and tainted) coffin for a Pharaoh buried by his own family?

Meretseger wrote:
Or as Lutz holds the coffin may have been made fora Akhenaten and Smen placed in it after the king's body was destroyed and his own coffin taken for Tut.


Did Lutz really suggest that somewhere? Shocked


No. But he does argue that the coffin was originally meant for Akhenaten.


But he did not pose it as evidence of Smehkhare being put there later, you naughty Lady, you! Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the name 'ankhkheprure' appears frequently in tut's tomb. it is not 'ankhetkehperure' and it does not have the name 'neferneferuaten' on the same objects. so it seems clear to me that items marked with the name neferneferuaten refer to that pharaoh, and 'ankkheperure' refer to smenkhkare.

other names listed on objects found include: thutmose III, akhenaten, meritaten, tiye, neferneferure (akhenaten's daughter?) an nefertiti's name appears once.

source is reeves' complete tutankhamun.

orwell, with the amount of questions you have on the mummy caches, it it easier if you google them, their is a site literally called 'royal mummies musical chairs' which discusses the identities of the mummies. dylan bickerstaffe has a good book that details the mummies, the equipment found with them and who ended up in whose coffin. read the materials, it is interesting, and then you will have a better picture of the facts.
_________________
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: Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
orwell, with the amount of questions you have on the mummy caches, it it easier if you google them, their is a site literally called 'royal mummies musical chairs' which discusses the identities of the mummies. dylan bickerstaffe has a good book that details the mummies, the equipment found with them and who ended up in whose coffin. read the materials, it is interesting, and then you will have a better picture of the facts.


I could - and indeed might just do that. Save me asking so many questions. Very Happy

You guys have got me started and I'll come back when I've put it all together. Cheers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3733
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
the name 'ankhkheprure' appears frequently in tut's tomb. it is not 'ankhetkehperure' and it does not have the name 'neferneferuaten' on the same objects. so it seems clear to me that items marked with the name neferneferuaten refer to that pharaoh, and 'ankkheperure' refer to smenkhkare. ...

This is of course free to you. But it does not change the fact that the name "Semenkh-ka-Ra" does not appear in KV 62. In my view, premature assumption "Ankh-kheperu-Ra" is always "Semenkh-ka-Ra" is not tenable. Rather, it is the cause of much confusion and complexity of the discussion.

And, if so, why was the name "Semenkh-ka-Ra" on a rather unimportant object (multiple entries for vases like this) removed very carefully while the name of Akhenaton was not? Specifically if "Semenkh-ka-Ra" is the body from KV 55, then he is the father of Tut-ankh-Amun. The name of his bodyly father was deleted and the name of Akhenaton and Nefertiti not? Seems to me very hard to understand, sorry.

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:


Quote:
Meretseger wrote:
The original owner of the North palace has not been identified. Formerly assumed to be Nefertiti Kiya has also been suggested. I wonder if possibly it belonged to Baketaten and its take-over by Meritaten indicates a hostility between the two women. Or perhaps merely a real estate deal.


My spot of 'neat' speculating: Maybe it was Nefertiti's Palace, and when she died, it was handed on to Meritaten. Idea


That was the original theory. I don't know why it lost favor.

.


Barry Kemp mentioned in one of his latest reports on Amarna that Meritaten`s name now much more often appears to be the original name rather than a recarved name than previously thought. This might point to Meritaten as the original owner.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
Aldred cites two indications Kiya survived Nefertiti: Firstly a wine docket from Kiya's estate possibly (it's broken) dating to year 17 and far more conclusively talatat from Hermopolis depicting Kiya and her daughter worshiping the Aten alongside Akhenaten and his two elder surviving daughters (who are given precedence). Neither princess is wearing a queenly crown - militating against Meritaten being crowned by her father - and there is no trace of Nefertiti, or for that matter Smenkhkara as co-regent.


That could be a wine docket from Nefertiti's estate, you know, with her and Meritaten on it in the early days. There is quite some doubt about the "Year" too, or at least that's what a little bird told me (if it's proper to call Anneke a 'little bird'! Shocked )


Meretseger wrote:
... Aldred... it came from one of the Favorite's private chapels not a public monument?
Quote:


Maybe where Neferiti's nickname might have been used, it being a non-public private place known only to intimants of the court.

Meretseger wrote:
Because burning was a form of damnation destroying the burnee's immortal soul. Akhenaten may have inspired that degree of hatred but Smenkhkara probably did not and was considered worthy of reburial. Ancient priests and necropolis officials seem to have been decidedly slapdash in their reinterments of the violated dead. Judging by the number of reused coffins alone taking equipment from the dead was not regarded as problematic.


Still doesn't wash with me. Why the need to reuse an old (and tainted) coffin for a Pharaoh buried by his own family?

Meretseger wrote:
Or as Lutz holds the coffin may have been made fora Akhenaten and Smen placed in it after the king's body was destroyed and his own coffin taken for Tut.


Did Lutz really suggest that somewhere? Shocked


No. But he does argue that the coffin was originally meant for Akhenaten.


But he did not pose it as evidence of Smehkhare being put there later, you naughty Lady, you! Laughing


I guess I should have made it clearer that he last part of the sentence was MY idea. Sorry, Lutz. Crying or Very sad
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
Page 10 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