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 

Nefertiti Documented in Year 16 of Akhenaton
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4178
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now also the English version of the catalogue is available over the page of the Berlin Museum Shop :

In the Light of Amarna - 100 Years of the Nefertiti

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


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
... Nefertiti seems to have shared in Akhenaten's 'prophethood' or whatever you want to call it from an Atenist perspective that might have made her the most desirable successor to her husband. She was also in a good practical position to seize power in Akhetaten upon his death. Smenkhkara could have been the figurehead of a faction favoring a move back to center, away from strict Atenism but without wishing to destroy the cult. A trend which would continue under Tutankhamun, Smen's son.

Robson wrote:
In this case, Nefertiti claims only would make sense as longer as Atenist ideology remains settled, which was not exactly the case, while Smenkhkare, if he really is KV55 mummy, is the son of the Pharaoh himself.

Nefertiti's claim to the throne only has to be valid in her mind and/or Akhenaten's. But by the start of Year 17, I suspect the bulk of the kingdom might be more concerned with the long term succession and the implications of a woman on the throne than Atonism.


There are about 10-12 months between the new inscription and the end of Akhenaten's reign, or the end of his 17th year anyway. That's plenty of time for her to be elevated and the various co regency type stelae to be produced. OTOH, after so many years at the center of the cult of personality, it is not too far fetched that she simply seizes power at the end, and the stela are well, lies. I tend to think there was a coregency because the stela scenes are more personal/intimate rather than something like a coronation or divine intervention - and at least one is a private commission.

Smenkhkare as rival king though has a problem (so what else is new!). The depiction in Meryre II associates him amicably with the house of Nefertiti. So, maybe Neferneferuaten immediately marries him to Meritaten and promotes him to coregent as a way to provide continuity for the royal line: he is there to provide an heir to secure succession, Nefertiti is there to secure the survival of Atonism and herself at the center of the cult. Things collapse though when Smenkhkare and Meritaten die soon after leaving only Tut. If she were elevated soon after the new inscription, her third year would be about year 2 of Tut. Stealing from Dodson, her death then allows Tut to change his name and the reformation to begin in earnest.

I dont like that this version for numerous reasons (like 2 kings named Ankhkheprure at the same time!) but it does explain the Meryre depiction, Meritaten is not in opposition to her mother and is a way King Neferneferuaten could have been providing for an acceptable succession thus preventing resistance.
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Throne War Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
the epithets are neferneferuaten's right to rule. they are showing her legitimacy comes from her husband, as you have said above i think...

Thats were you loose me - it is not that I disagree, I dont understand what you are saying. If Neferneferuaten is Meritaten, then how does "Neferneferuaten the chosen one of Akhenaten" say anything at all about her husband, Smenkhkare??

kylejustin wrote:
i think it was neseret in one of her posts that said she was a regent for tutankhamun, or there was evidence for it.

I suspect the "evidence" for the regency comes from Amarna Sunset. Dodson mentions:
Quote:
Potential support for the co-rule of Tutankaten and Neferneferuaten is provided by the fact that at Tell el-Borg in Sinai was found a group of jar handles which bore stamps of each of her cartouches (the nomen with the epithet /3ht n hi.s/) as well as others with Tutankaten's prenomen. (pp 45-46)

A. "Potential support" not proof. Just because their names are found in the same place does not mean they were left there at the same time.
B. What Dodson doesnt say, is that inscriptions of the same sort for Tiye, Akhenaten, Horemheb are also found there. See 'New Light on the Amarna Period From North Sinai' p197 There is also a doorjamb with the name of Amenhotep II on it, is he coregent too?
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 1009
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VBadJuJu wrote:
The depiction in Meryre II associates him amicably with the house of Nefertiti. So, maybe Neferneferuaten immediately marries him to Meritaten and promotes him to coregent as a way to provide continuity for the royal line: he is there to provide an heir to secure succession, Nefertiti is there to secure the survival of Atonism and herself at the center of the cult. Things collapse though when Smenkhkare and Meritaten die soon after leaving only Tut.


Anyway, it wouldn't be the case of Neferneruaten to be depicted at Meryre II's instead or inclusive?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robson wrote:
Anyway, it wouldn't be the case of Neferneruaten to be depicted at Meryre II's instead or inclusive?

I absolutely agree! If Neferneferuaten(=Nefertiti) were still around, I'd fully expect her to situate herself in the scene. That passage was just thinking out loud as to how to explain that depiction and/or its date which is a problem for many interpretations of events. If it is not that depiction, it seems the 'mortuary docket' from Year 1 seems to be in the way.


Back to the actual new inscription: The PR says the graffito is in the context of a new building project in Amarna. Most building and work stopped after year 13, so might this project be the construction of the "Coronation Hall" which is said to have been built hurriedly and started after or around year 15?
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4178
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VBadJuJu wrote:
... Back to the actual new inscription: The PR says the graffito is in the context of a new building project in Amarna. Most building and work stopped after year 13, so might this project be the construction of the "Coronation Hall" which is said to have been built hurriedly and started after or around year 15?

An interesting idea. Unfortunately Athena Van der Perre says nothing in her essay in the catalog about the content. She only refers in this respect to the future full publication of the entire inscription (which incidentally was presented still in November 2011 at the Egyptologists day in Leiden).

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


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was going by this blurb in from the link in your initial post:

Quote:
The inscription occurs in a limestone quarry and it mentions a building project in Amarna, the capital where Akhenaten and Nefertiti lived. It begins with a date in year sixteen of king Akhenaten, his highest certain date.


Its just a PR thing, not publication of the graffito, so yes caution is due.

The Hall is supposed to have had from 500-1000 pillars, so even if it is "hurried" it would still take some time to build. It could just be a new Aton temple.
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4178
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dietrich Wildung : The Many Faces of Nefertiti. - Ostfildern : Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2012. - 128 pp., col. ills. - ISBN : 978-3-7757-3485-1. - EUR 9.95

"A decade of familiarity with the Nefertiti bust has allowed the author, who was director of the Egyptian Museum in Berlin from 1989 to 2009, to trace the modern history of this world-famous, 3,300-year-old sculpture - from its discovery and its reception in art and literature of the twentieth century to current reevaluations - and to present his findings. He turns a pretty cover girl into a profoundly touching masterpiece, an exemplar of one of the most interesting epochs of Ancient Egyptian art and history."

Greetings, 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: Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VBadJuJu wrote:


The Hall is supposed to have had from 500-1000 pillars, so even if it is "hurried" it would still take some time to build. It could just be a new Aton temple.


Barry Kemp calls this hall invariably the Smenkhkare Hall but gives no specific reason for it.
Have inscriptions with his name been found there or is it just conjecture because it was built late in Akhenaten`s reign?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4178
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
... Barry Kemp calls this hall invariably the Smenkhkare Hall but gives no specific reason for it. ...

Peet : The City of Akhenaten III. - London, 1951. - EES 44-1. - p. 60 :
Quote:
"... (g) The Coronation Hall (PIs. XIII C; XLIV. 1, 2).

This is a later addition to the Palace. Its east wall is set back 3,50 metres from the east wall of the rest and some of the bricks, unfortunately none in situ, were stamped with the name of Smenkhkare and presumably with that of the building which has in no case survived. Below the floor are quantities of earlier rubbish-pits and pits for trees. A good deal of levelling had evidently been necessary, for many of the walls are built on debris. This levelling had been very badly done, and clearly the whole affair was a "rush-job" for a special occasion. ..."


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


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
Barry Kemp calls this hall invariably the Smenkhkare Hall but gives no specific reason for it.
Have inscriptions with his name been found there or is it just conjecture because it was built late in Akhenaten`s reign?

Some bricks were found bearing the cartouche of 'Ankhkheprure' which at the time meant Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten. Julia Samson claims that some of the bricks include feminine traces (she worked the site and saw them first hand). Most of the bricks had been liberated for use as fertilizer by the 1950s, so there are just a few extant today.


"Ankhkheprure('s?) House of the [something] Aton"#

Even though there arent any epithets (=Smenkhkare), in light of the Yr 16 inscription, I don't see why it couldn't be referring to Neferneferuaten.
* If Akhenaten elevated her, a "Coronation Hall" for the occasion seems at least as likely as one for Smenkhkare. As 2 peas in a single pod, he had a Durbar, she gets her own celebration and another chance to be the center of attention.

* If they are Neferneferuaten they would surely be among the first uses of the prenomen and may predate the addition of epithets. If the epithets are taken as proclamations of legitimacy (Allen) rather than anticipatory, they might have been added later when they started to feel resistance to his choice.

* If he only lived a year or so, Smenkhkare could be dead by the time of the Y16 inscription.

# Ankhkheprure's House of the Rising Sun...he was well known to orefer the Animals version to that of Frijid Pink Laughing
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Throne War Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:

VBadJuJu wrote:
That order doesnt seem to get much support from the epigraphic evidence. Aside from the close association with Akhenaton from the repeated 'Chosen of ...' epithets, there are the 3 or 4 stelae depicting what is generally accepted as Akhenaten with another king. In one case the other person is apparently Nefertiti (based on the headgear) but with 4 cartouches sufficient for the names of 2 kings (Reeves sees this as a sort of snapshot of the moment Nefertiti became King - when the stela was started she was queen with flat top headpiece, but then was elevated to coregent, so a 4th cartouche needed to be squeezed in).


the epithets are neferneferuaten's right to rule. they are showing her legitimacy comes from her husband, as you have said above i think. but it does not prove that she ruled first. i think it was neseret in one of her posts that said she was a regent for tutankhamun, or there was evidence for it.


Uhm. no, I never said that.

What I did say is that IF (note: Really huge IF) Nefertiti survived the reign of Akhenaten to serve as "King Neferneferuaten" and Tutankhamun was in fact a son of Akhenaten (but too young to serve as king), she could rule as interregnum queen, who, like Hatshepsut, later ruled as a pharaoh. So, Nefertiti would have served legitimately as a ruler (as an interregnum queen), who later usurped the throne for herself.

My statement came up as a part of the "Egyptian Queen correspondence" discussion, in which some were arguing that Nefertiti was the "Egyptian Queen" of the correspondence. My argument was that one still had to overcome the fact that a royal male (Tutankhamun) was extant, which meant that Nefertiti - unless she served as an interregnum queen - could not legitimately rule. However, let's be clear: there's NO evidence that this actually occurred.

Further, my comments were made before the 2010 DNA studies. So, let's examine this, now that we know that Nefertiti is not the mother of Tutankhamun, as KV 35YL (a daughter of Amenhtotep III and Tiye) and KV 55 (a royal male, son of Amenhtotep III and Tiye, who died in his 20's) are in fact the parents of Tutankhamun.

So, if Nefertiti is "King Neferneferuaten," she might have ruled right after Akhenaten, but possibly not as an "interregnum queen," but taking her legitimacy simply as /mr n wA-n-ra/, "chosen of/by Wa-en-ra (Akhenaten)." She would have to do this as she had no specific standing to act as interregnum queen (all precedent interregnum queens have been the mothers of the juvenile royal male).

However, Nefertiti is (IMO) still not the "Egyptian Queen" of the correspondence, as Tutankhamun's existence as a possible royal heir would have been known to Suppiluliumas, ruler of the Hittites, through his spies and through his ambassador to Egypt, Hattuzitis. The correspondence indicates that he had discerned no princeling in waiting, before sending Zannanza.

Further, no matter how power-hungry Nefertiti (and you can also apply this same argument for Meritaten = "King Neferneferuaten," BTW) might have been, she most likely would not have called Tutankhamun - her royal stepson/stepbrother at best - as "my servant" with whom she was hesitant to wed.

As to the order of the kings, my feeling is that "King Neferneferuaten" most likely ruled first, taking on the throne name of "Ankhkheperure", followed by Smenkhkare, who assumed the same throne name - possibly as means of continuity of the rule, as throne names (along with some titulary) indicate the "theme" of a reign. Other scholars do not agree, but quite honestly, I am not so convinced by their arguments for Smenkhkare ruling first, only to be replaced by "King Neferneferuaten." The acts of their reign, in increasing the reversion to traditional religion, away from Atenism, seem to indicate the order as "King Neferneferuaten" --> Smenkhkare --> Tutankhamun.

I say this because "King Neferneferuaten" first continued Atenist rule, but then slowly reverted to traditional religious cults, evidenced by restoration of the Amun temple at Karnak. These revisions were then continued under the rule of Smenkhkare, and even further by the succeding king, Tutankhamun, who issued the Restoration Stela, which re-established all traditional cults and separated the royal house from Atenist predominance.

Sadly, we have no records at present which specifically indicate the order of these kings' rules, so theories and debate will abound and continue, in my opinion, for years to come.
_________________
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
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret,

i have never said nefertiti is neferneferuaten. i simply don't agree with that. but i was right, that you had speculated neferneferuaten could have ruled as regent for tutankhamun.

as for the egyptian queen correspondance, the only queen that it could be is ankhesenamun, so i agree with you on that front.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
As to the order of the kings, my feeling is that "King Neferneferuaten" most likely ruled first, taking on the throne name of "Ankhkheperure", followed by Smenkhkare, who assumed the same throne name - possibly as means of continuity of the rule, as throne names (along with some titulary) indicate the "theme" of a reign.

Maybe the lack of epithet was his way to be unique (as with Menkheperre...Menkheperure) while representing continuity. The epithets seem trivial to us, but may have been less so to them. However, that results in Smenkhkare adopting her name to show continuity and denying her a king's burial at the same time. Maybe that was the larger point: adopt a form of her name to signal acceptance of her recent steps while punishing her for her years at the helm of Atenism. The mixed signals seem risky or a bit too subtle but does offer a cohesive narrative.
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Throne War Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
Further, my comments were made before the 2010 DNA studies. So, let's examine this, now that we know that Nefertiti is not the mother of Tutankhamun, as KV 35YL (a daughter of Amenhtotep III and Tiye) and KV 55 (a royal male, son of Amenhtotep III and Tiye, who died in his 20's) are in fact the parents of Tutankhamun.


However, the ones who published the DNA studies in JAMA did not reach those conclusions. I think it's only fair to point that out. That paper stated that the KV55 remains were probably those of Akhenaten. Evidently, those experts who, after all, in addition to the actual DNA testing, subjected the skeleton to a method of investigation that no one had previously been able to do (CT scan) did not see evidence that restricted the deceased to having been in his twenties.

Also, these remains were found in a coffin that was meant for Akhenaten and bore his unique epithets. It was accompanied by "magic bricks" that also said "Akhenaten" and probably did not come from Akhetaten but were provided for the reinterment in the Valley, just as were the words "mAa xrw" on the coffin foot in the manner of other (traditional) VOK burials. It seems to me that it is an Egyptological tradition to accept new findings unless one can offer evidence in refutation. That, of course, is difficult under the circumstances, even impossible. However, the alternative speculation as to whose bones those might be pretty much leaves one with Smenkhkare as a candidate, a man who is little more than a ghostly figure at Akhetaten and whose actual age no one knows, either. For his spouse, then, and the mother of Tutankhamun, since she cannot be Meritaten, one has to accept a woman of whose existence there is not one shred of evidence at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 4 of 13

 
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