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 

King Tut's death

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Miscellaneous
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Emilyclarinet
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 02 Jul 2014
Posts: 9
Location: Texas, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 4:16 pm    Post subject: King Tut's death Reply with quote

Recent studies show that king tut was killed in a chariot accident. there are several broken bones on the LEFT side of his body only. of course since King Tuts head fell off in the process of being removed from his tomb, we may not know the full story due to the damage done to his body. I think that he was murdered by Ay. by murdered I believe that Ay was invoved in the chariot accident, killed Ankhesenamun's to-be husband on his way to Egypt, Then quickly married Ankhesenamun. please correct me on any mistakes I made. im not an expert on King Tut, (or spelling and grammar) but please tell me your thoughts on my hypothesis. Very Happy
_________________
______
-Emily-
---------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1031
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:23 am    Post subject: Re: King Tut's death Reply with quote

Emilyclarinet wrote:
Recent studies show that king tut was killed in a chariot accident. there are several broken bones on the LEFT side of his body only. of course since King Tuts head fell off in the process of being removed from his tomb, we may not know the full story due to the damage done to his body.


That did not happen! Where did you ever get such an idea? Further, the only injury to the skull is a post-mortem embalming intrusion at the base of the atlas.

The removal of the skull from the rest of the body had to do with the use of resin oils during the burial process, which required "a hammer and a chisel to free" the body from the bottom of the coffin (Carter diary Nov. 16, 1925). Then hot knives were applied to the golden mask, also firmly welded to the coffin and the face of the mummy, in order to extract the head from the mask. This was during this examination and excavation that the head became separated from the rest of the body (On this, see Leek 1972).

Emilyclarinet wrote:
I think that he was murdered by Ay. by murdered I believe that Ay was invoved in the chariot accident, killed Ankhesenamun's to-be husband on his way to Egypt, Then quickly married Ankhesenamun. please correct me on any mistakes I made. im not an expert on King Tut, (or spelling and grammar) but please tell me your thoughts on my hypothesis. Very Happy


I doubt seriously that any of this occurred, and if you read this forum, you will see that I can show you that it was more likely that Ay either was assisting Ankhsenamun in acquiring the Hittite husband, who probably died of plague which was prevalent at the time (Panagiotakopulu 2004) when he came into Egypt, rather than murdered (Murnane 1990), or came to marry her with her consent, so she could avoid marrying Horemheb who was also attempting to take the throne after Tutankhamun's death.

Ay was of elite status, while Horemheb was not, and of the two, more likely it is Horemheb to whom she refers to as a "servant of mine" in her letters as the one whom she wishes to avoid marrying. Ay, on the other hand, was closely connected with the royal family, and has served both Akhenaten and Tutankhamun during their reigns. It is possible he was even related to Yuya, who had served as Amenhotep III's confidante and advisor, though this is not certain.

At any rate, we know that Ay succeeded Tutankhamun, and it is to him that the Hittite king, Suppiluliumas, writes upon hearing of the death of his son, asking him what had become of his son. This letter is called KUB XIX, 20, and exists today in the ancient Hittite letter collection. Ay is clear that the son has died, that he had nothing to do with the death, and asks that the Hittite king continue in the friendship that existed between kings. But Suppiluliumas mentions that his son was sent because "she" had asked for the son. He assumes that the new king did not know of this, but this is not how the king's reply is written: he just appears on the throne.

This is, as argued by Murnane (and myself), an indication that this new king, who could only be Ay, only assumed the throne when the Hittite prince died and there was no way to put off Horemheb any longer. Murnane (1990) argues that the interment of Tutankhamun was put off, possibly for as close to a year, while these marriage letters had been transmitting to one another, and when she could no longer put off interment and remarriage, Ankhsenamun chose Ay as the new king, when the Hittite prince did not live to take the throne. Ankhsenamun would have likely trusted Ay, as her husband's vizier, possibly more that Horemheb as head of the army. Then there is the Newberry Ring (now in the Berlin Museum), which shows the two cartouched names of Ankhsenamun and Ay together, indicating that, at least for awhile, the two reigned together.

Finally, no one can say how the chariot accident occurred: it as possible (as has ben postulated in some documentaries) that the king fancied himself as an athlete and drove his chariots so much that he fell prone to the accident which took his life. It's also possible, he could have been killed on his chariot during war, as it's now apparent that he led a campaign into Syria during his reign (Johnson 1992); it's possible he was killed in battle. What is clear is that his injuries were enough to kill him, basically due to the onset of gangrene in his left leg, which was shattered, and became infected (Williams 2005).

References:

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). The University of Chicago: Chicago.

Leek, F. F. 1972. The Human Remains from the Tomb of Tut'ankhamun. Tut'ankhamun Tomb Series. J. R. Harris. Oxford: Griffith Institute/University Press.

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.

Panagiotakopulu, E. 2004. Pharaonic Egypt and the origins of plague. Journal of Biogeography 31/2: 269-75.

Williams, A. R. 2005. Modern Technology Reopens the Ancient Case of King Tut. National Geographic June 2005: 2-19.

HTH
_________________
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
Emilyclarinet
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 02 Jul 2014
Posts: 9
Location: Texas, USA

PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:24 pm    Post subject: neseret Reply with quote

I am certain that the head fell off of Tut's body when he was removed. I was told this 3 days ago by a highly regarded museum curator. As for the rest, I think that it is fairly odd how Ay was there the entire time and how these events all came to benefit him becoming Pharoh. King tuts death, Ankhesenamun's future husbands death, but I am probably way off track and your statements are very accurate. And a report from 2013 shows that King Tut was kneeling with the left side of his body In front of the wheel and the right side is away from the wheel. He was then ran over. Thus crushing the left side of his body. Thank you for your response! I appreciate it very much!
_________________
______
-Emily-
---------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
herper
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 229
Location: New Haven,CT USA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2014 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can you show info on the report of Tutankhamen kneeling by the wheel?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Emilyclarinet
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 02 Jul 2014
Posts: 9
Location: Texas, USA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2014 6:37 pm    Post subject: Herper Reply with quote

http://www.historicalhoney.com/tutankhamun/

This is the link. There is a paragraph explaining his death by kneeling by a chariot and being ran over in battle
_________________
______
-Emily-
---------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1031
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:05 pm    Post subject: Re: neseret Reply with quote

Emilyclarinet wrote:
I am certain that the head fell off of Tut's body when he was removed. I was told this 3 days ago by a highly regarded museum curator.


By whom did you hear this? You can private message me with your answer if you don't want to make the name known publicly, but I know of NO curator who would have legitimately said such a thing.

Emilyclarinet wrote:
As for the rest, I think that it is fairly odd how Ay was there the entire time and how these events all came to benefit him becoming Pharoh. King tuts death, Ankhesenamun's future husbands death, but I am probably way off track and your statements are very accurate.


As Ay was the king's vizier, he is the closest advisor the king has at any time. Of course, when royal lines die out, it's not unknown in Egyptian history that viziers take over the reins to become king. Horemheb's vizier Ramses, became king after the predecessor died without issue and became Ramses I. Amenemhat was vizier to Mentuhotep II in the Middle Kingdom, who also died without issue, leaving the vizier to become Amenemhat I and create the 12th Dynasty.

Emilyclarinet wrote:
And a report from 2013 shows that King Tut was kneeling with the left side of his body In front of the wheel and the right side is away from the wheel. He was then ran over. Thus crushing the left side of his body. Thank you for your response! I appreciate it very much!


Again, this fits in with my (and others') theory that the king was most likely killed in battle. I cannot imagine a situation where a king would have been beside his chariot only to be hit head on by another unless one is talking about a battle situation. Had Naunton's theory said that the king went head over heels off the chariot, one could argue for an accident, but if kneeling beside his chariot, it argues (IMO) a war scenario.
_________________
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
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The war scenario also seems to resolve some of the other inconsistencies of the period immediately following Tutankhamun's death:

1) Treatment of his body after death and the questions surrounding the time it took for him to be interred as well as the condition of his body

2) The absence of Horemheb from the tomb - if the conflict was continuing, Horemheb as the head of the military will have been occupied throughout the period.

3) The letters from the un-named queen to the Hittites - presumably to strengthen Egypt's position it was agreed to approach a foreign power with significant military capacity in an effort to gain a powerful ally.

4) A country without a King may have been seen as weak so therefore it was essential following the failure of the earlier strategy to have a credible leader on the throne.

5) A bad military situation during the end of Tutankhamun and during Ay's reign also gives credibility to Horemheb's claims that he restored the country to order. Although this was a common thing for pharaohs to claim, in this instance there may have been some substance to his proclamations.

Paul
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Emilyclarinet
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 02 Jul 2014
Posts: 9
Location: Texas, USA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 12:10 am    Post subject: neseret Reply with quote

I have changed my mind entirely on King Tut's death. After seeing several responses and reading up on the matter I have come to the common conclusion that he was killed in battle. I am going to read several more books about King Tut. Thank you for your response. I have completely changed my opinion.
_________________
______
-Emily-
---------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
herper
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 229
Location: New Haven,CT USA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Glad to hear that Emily. Best thing you can do if your into anything Amarna era is read, read and keep your own database. We jokingly refer to this period as the tarpits. But its fitting since for every 'fact' thats discovered, at least a dozen new questions or conflicts with yesterdays 'facts' occur. Egyptology is in severe need of a time machine viewing app for computers Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Emilyclarinet
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 02 Jul 2014
Posts: 9
Location: Texas, USA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:56 pm    Post subject: herper Reply with quote

I haven't heard anything more true! (About needing a time machine) I just went to half price books today and purchased several more books Smile theories are always changing. Which is why we need to keep searching for evidence.
_________________
______
-Emily-
---------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
herper
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 229
Location: New Haven,CT USA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Real problem is winners in a dispute destroyed records and artifacts then rewrote history.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also this all happened 3000 years ago. The British government can't even keep track of records going back 30 years (referring to the current news coverage of missing files at the Home Office). Given the timescales involved and the amount of historical revisions that may have occurred, the best we can ever hope for with the post-Amarna period is a best guess that fits what little evidence we have.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1031
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:06 pm    Post subject: Re: neseret Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
Emilyclarinet wrote:
IAnd a report from 2013 shows that King Tut was kneeling with the left side of his body In front of the wheel and the right side is away from the wheel. He was then ran over. Thus crushing the left side of his body. Thank you for your response! I appreciate it very much!


Again, this fits in with my (and others') theory that the king was most likely killed in battle. I cannot imagine a situation where a king would have been beside his chariot only to be hit head on by another unless one is talking about a battle situation. Had Naunton's theory said that the king went head over heels off the chariot, one could argue for an accident, but if kneeling beside his chariot, it argues (IMO) a war scenario.


The documentary, Ultimate Tutankhamun, a PBS work to which Emily referred, was aired this morning on National Geographic channel: I had heard about Naunton's documentary, but not seen it in full. So, let's summarise:

a) Naunton believes (as do I) that Tutankhamun died in battle while in a kneeling position and was struck head on by a chariot wheel (he was knot "kneeling by his own chariot" as Emily was led to believe). The forensic reconstruction (done modernly by a moderns forensic reconstruction company) shows that such a collision would have hit the left side of the body, demolishing ribs, pelvis and legs alone the left side (all damage still present on the body today), while leaving the left clavicle and head undamaged.

b) Tutankhamun's body shows a non-standard style of embalmment and burial (the heart is missing (says the documentary) due to damage on the left side, but the use of borrowed burial equipment, burial in what appears to be a noble tomb, etc. argued to Naunton that the burial was hasty. This is one area I would disagree, as I will explain below.

c) Naunton next examined the "charring" effect on the body and came to understand from fire forensic experts that if one covers a body with oils, such as linseed, and then wrap the body up, with, say, bandages as in mummy wrappings, internal heat of the oil mixed with oxygen over the large area of the body will begin to smoulder and eventually char. The conclusion reached in the documentary is that this occurred after interment, although oxygen within the tomb would have dissipated after a few days, the theory was it was enough to cause the charring.

d) The last section of the documentary discussed how Tutankhamun's burial was hidden over the millennia, due to detritus material (rocks and boulders in this case) borne in by flash flowing in the wadis which define the topography of the Valley of the Kings. Even today, one can see the levels of these detritus build-ups at KV 55, which are about 12-18+ inches deep.

As for the hasty burial theory: one has to assume (as did Naunton and his crew in the documentary) that Tutankhamun was most likely killed in battle. This would possibly have been the Syria campaign I noted earlier. So, if that is the case, then immediate embalming that would have been done would not have been of standard style. We do have examples of other battle damage in the mummy of Seqenere Tao (one of the kings of the late 17th Dynasty). Here, Smith notes that this body is basically in the form as the king fell (retracted hands in agony, lips pulled back, etc.) but the manner of the embalming was done in a hasty manner similar to Tutankhamun.

So, rather than argue (as did the documentary) that the hasty manner of embalming argued for political intrigue of Ay wanting to take over the throne, it is also just as feasible that the manner of the boy-king's death, on a foreign battlefield, argued against that embalming was done in a hasty manner because of political intrigue, but due to lack of proper conditions and embalming materials. Further, the interment in a noble's tomb - rather than an usurping by Ay - was done in such a manner as the tomb of Tutankhamun (later used by Ay, as has been claimed) indicates more likely that Tutankhamun's tomb was at his death unfinished.

Murnane (1990) argued that there was a lag between the death of Tutankhamun and his interment, possibly as long as a year, in which the "Egyptian Queen" correspondence took place, attempting to place a Hittite prince upon the throne married to the king's wife, Ankhsenamun. If Tutankhamun were killed in battle, it possibly would have taken this long to return the body back to Egypt from the front lines of battle, which would have given the courtiers and Ankhsenamun enough time to devise and carry out the "Egyptian Queen" correspondence. Why would this have been necessary?

Dr. Melinda Hartwig, of the University of Georgia (US), in this documentary states that Horemheb was probably Tutankhamun's chosen heir since he had to children (she bases this on the statement in Horemheb's Coronation Decree to the same effect, I gather). This is a hotly debated issue: Among the former scholars, Jacobus van Dijk (1993) argued that Tutankhamun appointed Horemheb as “Crown Prince” immediately after his accession, since Horemheb was /iry-pAt/, “Hereditary Prince,” chosen by the king according to Horemheb’s coronation inscription. On the contrary, Otto Schaden (1977) maintained that Ay was the regent of Tutankhamun, since on a gold foil from KV58 Ay was shown standing in front of Tutankhamun striking an enemy, and more significantly, it was Ay who became king before Horemheb. Kawai (2010) points out that Ay's titles which were found on scraps of gold leaf with titles from KV 58, which have been attributed to Ay. include "Hereditary noble, count, [Seal bearer] of the king of Lower Egypt. . . . (god’s) father, fan bearer (on the right of the king). . . ., vizier, one who does the truth, /Hm-nTr/-priest of Maat, one who unites the god’s hand. . . .” The other inscription reads: “[i]Hereditary noble, count. . . . Great. . . . of [His] Majesty. . . .” Moreover, the epithet /dmD Drt nTr/. . . . “one who unites the hand of the god . . .” seems to express Ay’s relationship as the god’s father with royal women, since the “hand of the god (Drt nTr)” was normally possessed by the God’s Wife of Amun or the queen. Gnirs assumed that Ay wanted to express his personal relationship to the royal women, such as Nefetiti and Ankhesenamun. However, they did not bear the title “hand of the god.” Thus, Ay’s title “one who unites the hand of the god” may represent his relationship with a queen in the role of “god’s father.” In fact, Ay had a finger ring bezel inscribed with the name of Ankhesenamun, Tutankhamun’s widow, and his name side-by-side (below). It is likely that Ay wanted to stress his relationship to Ankhesenamun before his accession.

If we go ahead and assume (as Hartwig does) that this claim is not a "justification" claim for Horemheb's eventual takeover of the Egyptian throne but was appointed during the king's life*, then you have the meaning behind the "Egyptian Queen" claim that she would "not marry a servant of mine." Horemheb was likely a clever warrior but while general of the army, all indications we have show that he was not of noble birth, and so the idea that Ankhsenamun would marry a man who had come up from the ranks would fit this claim of a "servant of mine."

Ay, on the other hand, was shown at Amarna and during Tutankhamun's reign to have been of elite status, which may explain why it is he that she does eventually marry Ay rather than Horemheb (i.e., the Newberry Ring, below).



Murnane thinks that the "Egyptian Queen" correspondence involved the active participation and assistance of Ay to succeed, as he suggested that Ay would take on the reins of power long enough to "train" the Hittite price into the ways of Egyptian government. However, Zannanza died on the way to Egypt - probably not by murder, but from plague (Panagiotakopulu 2004), and when the prince dies en route to Egypt, then Plan B - where Ay became king in fact - had to be implemented.

This would also explain why Ay does continue to maintain his most important title he held with Tutankhamun - /it nTr/, "father of the god (king)", which is a mentor/advisor position, more close to the king than that of advisor. This would also explain why it is his image in the tomb of Tutankhamun, as the /sm/ priest, who is usually the heir of the deceased, performing the Opening of the Mouth ceremony. What is less known by most readers of the Amarna period and post-Amarna period is that Ay continues to refer to Tutankhamun as "my son" throughout his own reign, noting this unusual relationship title several times on monuments, including Tutankhamun's mortuary temple.

* Kawai (2010: 270) argues that Horemheb's claim is not credible, saying "However, this theory is not plausible. If Horemheb was appointed as the “Crown Prince” already at the beginning of Tutankhamun’s reign, this means that the end of the royal bloodline was already arranged. If this arrangement was made, people like Ay, who were closely connected to the royal family, would not have accepted it." Kawai argues instead that Horemheb and Ay evenly split the power of the Two Lands between them after Tutankhamun's death (Ay, administrative and civil government, Horemheb, military and foreign affairs). This arrangement worked through the beginning of Ay's reign, but Horemheb began to usurp more power to himself, up to and including communicating directly with kings of foreign lands, a right usually held by the king alone (Kawai 2010: 279).

References:

Dijk, J. van. 1993. The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis. Historical and Iconographical Studies. Groningen: OBO.

Kawai, N. 2010. Ay vs. Horemheb: the Politcal Situation of the Late Eighteenth Dynasty Revisited. JEGH 3/2: 261-92.

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.

Panagiotakopulu, E. 2004. Pharaonic Egypt and the origins of plague. Journal of Biogeography 31/2: 269-75.

Schaden, O. J. 1977. The God's Father, Ay. Ph.D. Dissertation (Unpublished). Department of History. University of Minnesota: Minneapolis.

(Documentary) 2013. Ultimate Tutankhamun. PBS Originally aired: 10 July 2013.

HTH.
_________________
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
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent work Neseret, as always. I agree with all of your points as they fit all of the evidence to hand without contradiction.

About the Newberry ring, is it possible that this indicated a period of joint rule rather than marriage?

The reason I ask is that Ay is only ever shown with one wife, Tey, both before and after accession to the throne.

I'm also mindful of the king lists referred to by later writers such as Flavius and Africanus from the work of Manetho, who reference an apparently female ruler after Amenhotep III.

Also fascinating is the references given by Ay as Tutankhamun being his "son", indicating the possibility that he was a blood relation to the family. There must be some link through his relationship to Nefertiti.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1031
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:
Excellent work Neseret, as always. I agree with all of your points as they fit all of the evidence to hand without contradiction.

About the Newberry ring, is it possible that this indicated a period of joint rule rather than marriage?


Possibly, although there is the example of Amenhotep III and Tiye, who sometime showed their names conjoined, I understand. Marriage is usually the accepted interpretation as queen alone only wielded power through sons (as interregnum regents), but rarely alone. There is no doubt that a marriage between Ay and Ankhsenamun assisted his acceptance as king, however.

karnsculpture wrote:
The reason I ask is that Ay is only ever shown with one wife, Tey, both before and after accession to the throne.


As kings could have multiple wives, it doesn't really preclude a marriage to Ankhsenamun merely because only one wife is shown with Ay. Tey is Ay's "Great Wife", but he could have easily been married to a king's daughter who wasn't his "Great Wife," as this occurs in previous reigns.

karnsculpture wrote:
I'm also mindful of the king lists referred to by later writers such as Flavius and Africanus from the work of Manetho, who reference an apparently female ruler after Amenhotep III.


I think you mean after Akhenaten (Accheres in Manethian versions). That appears to have been "King Neferneferuaten." There is not a female regent after Rathotis (Tutankhamun), however.

karnsculpture wrote:
Also fascinating is the references given by Ay as Tutankhamun being his "son", indicating the possibility that he was a blood relation to the family. There must be some link through his relationship to Nefertiti.


To date, there is no reason to think that Ay is related to the royal family, and one would think he would have broadcast his familial relationship such as the way Anen, as a high priest, did with Tiye, or as Yuya and Thuya did with Tiye as well. the closest you have to any form of relationship is that Tey is sometime entitled as Nefertiti's nursemaid.

I suspect the "son" appellation is a means for Ay to justify his claim to the throne, and the fact that he was /it nTr/ to Tutankhamun during his life. This is a powerful position to hold - almost as close as family, but it is the position of a statesman mentor to a royal prince.

I suspect this is also why he continues to hold onto the title of /it nTr/ after he becomes pharaoh, as it's his strongest link to the former royal house.

HTH.
_________________
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
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Miscellaneous All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
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