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 

The Drying Effect of the Sun’s Rays on the Sd-Festival’s...
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Nefertum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is usually considered the place of a person presenting a hypothesis to present such proof as there is. There is little to none present here.

There is no evidence the various Aten temples were anything other than temples.

As dehydration stations and storehouses for dried foodstuffs, they are hideously ill-designed, and would fail of their intended purpose.

At the time Ampenhotep III held his first sed festival, the last such jubilee was more than 60 years in the past. You seem not to have considered the possible implications of this, including the fact that anyone having knowledge either as participant or celebrant in the last festival would be long-since dead. Those who had participated in any of the jubilees prior to that would be even more dead.

The theme of restoration and renewal is fairly common throughout Egyptian history -- for example, the king who comes to the throne and says I found the land in chaos and I restored it to order type of thing.

There is no evidence whatsoever -- none -- that Akhenaten was other than the child of Amenhotep III and Tiye.

Lutz has already provided you with one answer regarding the point you harp on in the titular. You seem not to have looked at the original, where it clearly is present. You seem also not to have considered that someone intent on being a heretic and/or apostatizing from a particular belief system generally stops proclaiming his belief in that system after he leaves it. Your complaint on this point would be akin to discovering a group of Scots Presbyterians who gather at regular intervals to perform Ave Marias and not be at least somewhat surprised.

There is no evidence Tiye was other than his mother. While there has been some debate about whether the title King's Mother might ever mean mother-in-law, no-one has ever been able to come up with a single instance of that being so.

There is no evidence whatsoever of Akhenaten being some kind of Grand Vizier of Granola and other dried goodies, who derived his powers from being married to an "heiress". The "heiress" theory was long-ago debunked or disproved. Even if it still had any currency, it would be problematic in a number of ways. One would be that no-one to whom he was known to have married ever carried that particular title. Another would be that it opens a direct conflict with another of your claims: that Akhenaten was foreign-born.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Akhenaten was other than a native Egyptian. There is no evidence at any point in any of the Amarnan art work which would point to a foreign origin for him. It just isn't there. In some, he looks odd. There are many more where he is depicted as being perfectly normal. There are wall-scenes from East Karnak where he is shown to be no different to the other Egyptians by whom he is surrounded, allowing for incidentals, such as unique headgear. From that same location, and exactly contemporary to those normal images are some of the most bizarre, the colossi. Yet it has been shown that when photographed from what would approximate an ordinary human point of view, they appear perfectly normal.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with the thing about palanquin vs chariot. Travel by palanquin tends to be slow. For other than short distances, it tends to be interminable as a means of travel. It has one other noted drawback, in that it tends to be nausea-inducing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nefertum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is usually considered the place of a person presenting a hypothesis to present such proof as there is. There is little to none present here.

There is no evidence the various Aten temples were anything other than temples.

As dehydration stations and storehouses for dried foodstuffs, they are hideously ill-designed, and would fail of their intended purpose.

At the time Ampenhotep III held his first sed festival, the last such jubilee was more than 60 years in the past. You seem not to have considered the possible implications of this, including the fact that anyone having knowledge either as participant or celebrant in the last festival would be long-since dead. Those who had participated in any of the jubilees prior to that would be even more dead.

The theme of restoration and renewal is fairly common throughout Egyptian history -- for example, the king who comes to the throne and says I found the land in chaos and I restored it to order type of thing.

There is no evidence whatsoever -- none -- that Akhenaten was other than the child of Amenhotep III and Tiye.

Lutz has already provided you with one answer regarding the point you harp on in the titular. You seem not to have looked at the original, where it clearly is present. You seem also not to have considered that someone intent on being a heretic and/or apostatizing from a particular belief system generally stops proclaiming his belief in that system after he leaves it. Your complaint on this point would be akin to discovering a group of Scots Presbyterians who gather at regular intervals to perform Ave Marias and not be at least somewhat surprised.

There is no evidence Tiye was other than his mother. While there has been some debate about whether the title King's Mother might ever mean mother-in-law, no-one has ever been able to come up with a single instance of that being so.

There is no evidence whatsoever of Akhenaten being some kind of Grand Vizier of Granola and other dried goodies, who derived his powers from being married to an "heiress". The "heiress" theory was long-ago debunked or disproved. Even if it still had any currency, it would be problematic in a number of ways. One would be that no-one to whom he was known to have married ever carried that particular title. Another would be that it opens a direct conflict with another of your claims: that Akhenaten was foreign-born.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Akhenaten was other than a native Egyptian. There is no evidence at any point in any of the Amarnan art work which would point to a foreign origin for him. It just isn't there. In some, he looks odd. There are many more where he is depicted as being perfectly normal. There are wall-scenes from East Karnak where he is shown to be no different to the other Egyptians by whom he is surrounded, allowing for incidentals, such as unique headgear. From that same location, and exactly contemporary to those normal images are some of the most bizarre, the colossi. Yet it has been shown that when photographed from what would approximate an ordinary human point of view, they appear perfectly normal.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with the thing about palanquin vs chariot. Travel by palanquin tends to be slow. For other than short distances, it tends to be interminable as a means of travel. It has one other noted drawback, in that it tends to be nausea-inducing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nefertum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is usually considered the place of a person presenting a hypothesis to present such proof as there is. There is little to none present here.

There is no evidence the various Aten temples were anything other than temples.

As dehydration stations and storehouses for dried foodstuffs, they are hideously ill-designed, and would fail of their intended purpose.

At the time Ampenhotep III held his first sed festival, the last such jubilee was more than 60 years in the past. You seem not to have considered the possible implications of this, including the fact that anyone having knowledge either as participant or celebrant in the last festival would be long-since dead. Those who had participated in any of the jubilees prior to that would be even more dead.

The theme of restoration and renewal is fairly common throughout Egyptian history -- for example, the king who comes to the throne and says I found the land in chaos and I restored it to order type of thing.

There is no evidence whatsoever -- none -- that Akhenaten was other than the child of Amenhotep III and Tiye.

Lutz has already provided you with one answer regarding the point you harp on in the titular. You seem not to have looked at the original, where it clearly is present. You seem also not to have considered that someone intent on being a heretic and/or apostatizing from a particular belief system generally stops proclaiming his belief in that system after he leaves it. Your complaint on this point would be akin to discovering a group of Scots Presbyterians who gather at regular intervals to perform Ave Marias and not be at least somewhat surprised.

There is no evidence Tiye was other than his mother. While there has been some debate about whether the title King's Mother might ever mean mother-in-law, no-one has ever been able to come up with a single instance of that being so.

There is no evidence whatsoever of Akhenaten being some kind of Grand Vizier of Granola and other dried goodies, who derived his powers from being married to an "heiress". The "heiress" theory was long-ago debunked or disproved. Even if it still had any currency, it would be problematic in a number of ways. One would be that no-one to whom he was known to have married ever carried that particular title. Another would be that it opens a direct conflict with another of your claims: that Akhenaten was foreign-born.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Akhenaten was other than a native Egyptian. There is no evidence at any point in any of the Amarnan art work which would point to a foreign origin for him. It just isn't there. In some, he looks odd. There are many more where he is depicted as being perfectly normal. There are wall-scenes from East Karnak where he is shown to be no different to the other Egyptians by whom he is surrounded, allowing for incidentals, such as unique headgear. From that same location, and exactly contemporary to those normal images are some of the most bizarre, the colossi. Yet it has been shown that when photographed from what would approximate an ordinary human point of view, they appear perfectly normal.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with the thing about palanquin vs chariot. Travel by palanquin tends to be slow. For other than short distances, it tends to be interminable as a means of travel. It has one other noted drawback, in that it tends to be nausea-inducing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nefertum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is usually considered the place of a person presenting a hypothesis to present such proof as there is. There is little to none present here.

There is no evidence the various Aten temples were anything other than temples.

As dehydration stations and storehouses for dried foodstuffs, they are hideously ill-designed, and would fail of their intended purpose.

At the time Ampenhotep III held his first sed festival, the last such jubilee was more than 60 years in the past. You seem not to have considered the possible implications of this, including the fact that anyone having knowledge either as participant or celebrant in the last festival would be long-since dead. Those who had participated in any of the jubilees prior to that would be even more dead.

The theme of restoration and renewal is fairly common throughout Egyptian history -- for example, the king who comes to the throne and says I found the land in chaos and I restored it to order type of thing.

There is no evidence whatsoever -- none -- that Akhenaten was other than the child of Amenhotep III and Tiye.

Lutz has already provided you with one answer regarding the point you harp on in the titular. You seem not to have looked at the original, where it clearly is present. You seem also not to have considered that someone intent on being a heretic and/or apostatizing from a particular belief system generally stops proclaiming his belief in that system after he leaves it. Your complaint on this point would be akin to discovering a group of Scots Presbyterians who gather at regular intervals to perform Ave Marias and not be at least somewhat surprised.

There is no evidence Tiye was other than his mother. While there has been some debate about whether the title King's Mother might ever mean mother-in-law, no-one has ever been able to come up with a single instance of that being so.

There is no evidence whatsoever of Akhenaten being some kind of Grand Vizier of Granola and other dried goodies, who derived his powers from being married to an "heiress". The "heiress" theory was long-ago debunked or disproved. Even if it still had any currency, it would be problematic in a number of ways. One would be that no-one to whom he was known to have married ever carried that particular title. Another would be that it opens a direct conflict with another of your claims: that Akhenaten was foreign-born.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Akhenaten was other than a native Egyptian. There is no evidence at any point in any of the Amarnan art work which would point to a foreign origin for him. It just isn't there. In some, he looks odd. There are many more where he is depicted as being perfectly normal. There are wall-scenes from East Karnak where he is shown to be no different to the other Egyptians by whom he is surrounded, allowing for incidentals, such as unique headgear. From that same location, and exactly contemporary to those normal images are some of the most bizarre, the colossi. Yet it has been shown that when photographed from what would approximate an ordinary human point of view, they appear perfectly normal.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with the thing about palanquin vs chariot. Travel by palanquin tends to be slow. For other than short distances, it tends to be interminable as a means of travel. It has one other noted drawback, in that it tends to be nausea-inducing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nefertum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 2:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aaaack!

My apologies for whatever it was that happened there. It was refusing to take the post, and I eventually went away in frustration ... only to come back and find all that.

Sorry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joe S
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 11
Location: Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Joe S wrote:
... I am unclear on what your intentions were in posting this info on the harvest and sed festivals. Was there anything in these texts that was somehow intended to counter anything in my cites from Aldred and Redford about the unique features of the Amenhotep III/Akhenaten Sed-Festival, and/or, its association with especially good harvests? …Please, if you think I have made any errors in my research, or the logic applied, let me know specifically what I wrote that you think is incorrect.

Since you quite obviously ignore that the sedfest since predynastic time (and also under Amenhotep III & IV) should fulfill a very specific meaning and purpose.


Okay, I will assume that your posts were not intended to challenge the validity of any specific argument and will look for a different context. So, let me restate here the only argument that I made that involves the Sed Festival. It goes like this:

Corresponding to reports of bountiful harvests, Amenhotep III and Akhenaten went out of their way to identify and resurrect an ancient form of the holiday which they: a) believed to be different from the normal celebrations, and, b) to have had some connection with especially good harvests; and, c) celebrated it by moving to a palace called the ‘Gathering-Up Place’. I offered these citations in support:
  1. Aldred says, “The jubilees of Amenophis III were… a result of antiquarian research into aspects of the rites in the remote Archaic period.” (p.266) He also says, “…a text in the tomb of Khereuf tells us that the king celebrated it according to ancient writings, for generations of men since the Time of the Ancestors had never observed such traditions.” [emphasis added] (p.161-162)

  2. Redford says, “All rites were performed, so Amenophis proudly declares, in conformance with the most ancient order of service, prescriptions that the king had found on dust-covered ‘writings of the ancients’ in the archives.” (p.52) Redford also says, “The sd-festival was a very ancient ritual… with roots in prehistoric times…. Some evidence suggests an early connection with an especially high Nile flood, and therefore the fertility resulting in an especially good harvest….” [emphasis added] (p.124-125)

  3. Redford says that they moved to Thebes in about his 29th year of Amenhotep III's reign (p.59), and that he resided there during the celebration of his three sd-festivals. Redford says, “All took place at Thebes ‘in [his] palace, [the “House-]of Rejoicing”’ i.e., the new Malqata* palace…” (p.51) In his glossary, Redford defines Malqata as being from the Arabic and meaning the “place of picking up” (p.238) Descroches-Noblecourt says, “Today this royal compound is called Malkata, which in Arabic means ‘the place where things have been gathered’...” (p.115)

So, given that you apparently accept the validity of these citations, I remain perplexed as to why you think I need to not “ignore that the sedfest… should fulfill a very specific meaning and purpose.”

Akhenaten’s celebrations had characteristics that were clearly different from the norm – like his starting in Year 3; celebrating it in an on-going, daily manner to the exclusion of nearly all other concerns; hurriedly building open-air facilities in every major town and filling them with an ever-expanding forest of heavily-laden offering tables; changing titles to become the ‘Lord of the Jubilee’ for the later phase and then conducting barter exchanges, etc. It would seem that documenting the normal “meaning and purpose” of the sedfests would neither negate the fact that Akhenaten’s had these differences, nor be of any help in explaining why his had these differences. I think I have offered a reasonable explanation for his behavior, and, I don’t see anyone claiming that they can offer one that is more compelling.

Lutz wrote:
Wich of the rituals in this fest has, in your view, to do with an "especially good harvest"?


It depends on how you define “rituals”. In the strictest use of the term, that would seem to be limited to “making the Great Oblation” or the food offering so often shown. In the broader use of the term, I think that would mean all of the supporting activities that are required to support this process, as shown in the murals. The difference between a festival for ‘regular harvests’ and ‘especially good harvests’, I propose, would have been similar to how we would handle the difference today whenever we harvest an excess amount that would be at risk of spoiling. They, like we, would have been likely to take steps to preserve it using the technologies available, rather than let it go to waste.

Some of the obvious steps involved in handling the food offerings in the pre-Jubilee period would seem to be a variety of planning activities which led to having the courtiers in each part of the country assemble work details for the construction and staffing of new facilities for collecting, processing, and storing the gatherings. During the Jubilee seasons the activities would include: encouraging, accepting, and tracking the offerings, having bakers and butchers take the offerings to their workspaces where they milled, baked, slaughtered, etc. the produce into a form suitable for rapid dehydration; taking the processed foodstuffs and stacking them on the rows and rows of tables filling the complexes and their courtyards; keeping the birds away during the drying process; inspecting the stored produce; and, continually adding additional storage capacity and table space throughout the period to accommodate the ever-expanding supply. During the post-Jubilee period the primary efforts would include accepting barter in exchange for the foodstuffs, and, maintaining a secure treasury in which to guard and store the valuables being received in exchange.

Lutz wrote:
Why should the excessive number of offering tabels in the Great Aton Temple in Achetaton (your pictures) be a document for the conversion of its sedfest at Karnak, held years before the tempel in Achetaton was build???


The pictures were not intended to document anything. I wrote text for that purpose. These pictures were not the ones I had chosen originally, but, BBCode forced me to pick from what I could find on the internet having its own URL. If you are looking for an equivalent picture from Karnak, I would recommend seeing Plate 7.11, “The Jubilee Processional”, an artist’s rendering which shows “a veritable forest of offering tables” in the background that are of the same type as in Akhetaten. (Redford, pg.118)

Here are the citations that I offered which describe the extent of storage at Akhenaten’s facilities in Karnak:
  • Redford says of the Tni-mnw and Rwd-mnw complexes at Karnak, “A detailed examination of the reliefs by temple…. Tni-mnw, for example, displayed substantial sections of wall decorated with scenes… such as baking bread and storing wine….. Numerous other scenes that once adorned the same building show the king engaged in the usual offering ceremony…. Rwd-mnw likewise featured scenes of cultic import, though now the offering scene is carried on in a series of roofless kiosks, with which we shall become familiar in the context of Gm(t)-p3-itn. Also displayed on the walls of Rwd-mnw were lengthy scenes showing the king and his court riding out to visit open-air installations comprising row upon row of ten-foot-tall offering stands, each laden with offerings of fowl, bread, and wine. On other walls, row upon row of domestic servants advanced, each with a container of foodstuffs on his head…. (p.71-72)

  • Aldred says of the temples, “The immense extent of the temple with its forest of offering-tables… heaped with consecrated food… is an indication of its importance to the cult." (p.247) Aldred states, "The talatat from the other Aten temples at Karnak, the Rud-menu and the Teni-menu… are still being assembled and studied. The purpose of these temples is obscure at present, but…. There is also an immense display of viands heaped on altars and brought by phalanxes of servants to the palace or temple.” (p.265)

  • Redford also describes, "A number of talatat, mainly from the 2nd pylon, yield an insight of sorts into the riches of the new Theban temples. In broken contexts they seem to list the assets of the establishment: …Elsewhere the totals seem staggering: 400,000 of an unspecified commodity, 22,000 great white loaves, 260 plus storage jars (of wine), and so forth. It is quite likely that here we have the provisions assembled for the jubilee.” He then goes on to refer to the “sheer mass of foodstuffs brought together”. (p.135-136)

  • Redford says of the offerings, “Parennefer was put in charge of the offerings in the new temples. Already large quantities of offerings were being diverted to the Disc at the expense of other temples, and Parennefer notes…: ‘…the corn-imposts of every other god are measured (merely) by oipe, but for the Disc they are measured in superabundance!’" (p.60)

As to your reference to the ones held “years before”, I assume that you are referring to AIII’s celebrations, of which Aldred says of their similarities, “one wonders, in fact, whether the two jubilees did not coincide.” (p.266) Obviously though, Akhenaten’s on-going, daily celebrations were of a different nature from AIII’s recurring celebrations. But, if they were concurrent, then AIII’s could be seen as marking the start, middle, and end of a Jubilee period of similar length to the period when Akhenaten was said to be one “Who is in Jubilee”. But, regardless, AIII’s Sed-Festivals also involved massive amounts of foodstuffs of their own, and, he did move to the palace of ‘gathering up’ to celebrate, which is also shown to have been a place of food storage.
  • Redford says of Amenhotep III’s festivals, “the food was present in superabundance”. (p.52)
  • See Figure 15, Palace and temple with food, (p.121) & Figure 16, Palace with food, (p.124)


Regards,
Joe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joe S
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 11
Location: Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:41 pm    Post subject: Error #1: Akhenaten’s titles were NOT unique! Reply with quote

Joe S wrote:
... the unique qualifier on his Ruler of Thebes title.[41] Apparently, Akhenaten is the only pharaoh in history to not use the standard form of this title. ...


As Lutz has pointed out, it was an error on my part to claim that Akhenaten’s title was unique. The citation I provided only referred to his title being different from Amenhotep III’s. I had no basis for making this statement. I withdraw it. Mea culpa!

I will make a correction in my paper and re-write that argument so as to remove this statement. While it was a good hook to use as an attention-getter, the impact on the strength of the argument will be minimal. The resulting argument looks like it will still represent a potentially much more compelling interpretation for the nature of his rule than those currently available. The corrected version will be labelled “Second Draft”.

Naturally, I’m embarrassed by this mistake, but, glad that it got caught. My purpose here is to learn more and correct any misunderstandings that I may have about the period. I don’t know how many times I looked at that text and failed to notice that what it said was different from the citation. Hopefully, if there any other errors out there, they too will be identified. If anyone is interested in finding any other discrepancies like this, I would certainly be greatly appreciative!


Thanks,
Joe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joe S
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 11
Location: Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Joe S wrote:
Lutz wrote:
If someone wants seriously assert (against any archaeological evidence) that Amenhotep IV / Akhenaten was not a son of Amenhotep III and Teje (and a king in his own right after his fathers death) then he should explaine why Teje bears this title...

I did offer an explanation for why Akhenaten called Tiye his ‘Mother’. It was a significant piece of evidence that I used in constructing that argument. ...

Where / in which inscription another governing king of the 18th Dynasty calls his mother, when he is talking about her, oneself as "of / from her body"?

Here is what I was wrote in my paper explaining why Akhenaten could call Tiye his ‘mother,’ even if he wasn’t her biological son:

“The filial terms used by vassals for their suzerains are all that is required to explain why Akhenaten would have referred to Amenhotep III and Tiye only as ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’.”

Here is the citation I provided to back it up:
  • Redford says, “…there were ‘great kings’ and ‘lesser kings.’ Great kings were very few in number… and if such relations were particularly close… the two monarchs were said to be ‘brothers.’… ‘Lesser kings’ were often vassals of great kings, and the relationship was spoken of in filial terms: the lesser king was the ‘son,’ his suzerain his ‘father.’” (p.40)

As much as I have tried, I remain completely unable to understand the logic of your reply. I think what I wrote clearly provided the explanation that you had requested. Perhaps you did not understand that this was the citation I was referring to? Please explain.


Regards,
Joe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joe S
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 11
Location: Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nefertum wrote:
...lots of stufff...

Based on the tone of your comments, I kind of have to assume that it was not your intention to open a dialog with me. Let me know if I was wrong about that.

Joe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1028
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 2:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joe S wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Joe S wrote:
Lutz wrote:
If someone wants seriously assert (against any archaeological evidence) that Amenhotep IV / Akhenaten was not a son of Amenhotep III and Teje (and a king in his own right after his fathers death) then he should explaine why Teje bears this title...

I did offer an explanation for why Akhenaten called Tiye his ‘Mother’. It was a significant piece of evidence that I used in constructing that argument. ...

Where / in which inscription another governing king of the 18th Dynasty calls his mother, when he is talking about her, oneself as "of / from her body"?

Here is what I was wrote in my paper explaining why Akhenaten could call Tiye his ‘mother,’ even if he wasn’t her biological son:

“The filial terms used by vassals for their suzerains are all that is required to explain why Akhenaten would have referred to Amenhotep III and Tiye only as ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’.”

Here is the citation I provided to back it up:
  • Redford says, “…there were ‘great kings’ and ‘lesser kings.’ Great kings were very few in number… and if such relations were particularly close… the two monarchs were said to be ‘brothers.’… ‘Lesser kings’ were often vassals of great kings, and the relationship was spoken of in filial terms: the lesser king was the ‘son,’ his suzerain his ‘father.’” (p.40)

-----
I hesitate to get caught up in this debacle, but I'm going to make this one statement. The 'greater/lesser king' refers to vassals and vassal states only. "Great" kings called each other 'brother', to be sure, and lesser kings refers to themselves as "sons, but they would NEVER have the temerity to refer to the King and Great Wife of Egypt as "Mother and Father."

Parental designations in Egyptian terms are set: in the 18th Dynasty, with a king distinguishing upon elder princes who may become later kings, the term /zA-nswt n Xt.f mry.f/, "king's son, born of his body" emerges. This becomes a common title particularly for the crown prince, who eventually becomes king.

However, this is NO corresponding title attached to ANY prince which refers to the Great Wife (or any wife of the king's harem) which is "born of her body." Even Hatshepsut, who ruled as a pharaoh, uses the term /Xt.f mry.f/ "born of his [the king's] body" when referring to her daughter, Neferure.

This does not preclude that such a prince is born from any particular named wife of a king, as they are named by kings after they ascend the throne. So, Thutmose III names his mother, Isis, as a "king's mother," only after he attains the throne, because before that she was known only as a concubine of Thutmose II. As Amenhotep III notes, his mother, Mutemwiya, is a "king's mother" after he attains the throne, but prior to that she is known only as "Great Wife," and so on. Titles are hierarchical in Egyptian nobility, and women attain (and lose) status based upon which titles they possess (Troy 1986), and usually based upon their relationship to a royal male.

So, there's NO evidence that any royal male ever linked his titles to a Great Wife, by claiming to be a "son of her body." His right, so to speak, to claim relationship to, and to become, a king is all related to his titles as granted BY said paternal king.

For more on relationship titles, see:

Baud, M. 1999. Famille royale et pouvir sous l'Ancien Empire égyptien. 2 Vols. Bibliothèque d'Étude 126. Cairo: IFAO.

Gitton, M. 1984. Les divine éspouses de la 18e dynastie. Centre de Recherches d'Histoire Ancienne 61/Annales Littéraires de l'Université de Besançon 306. Paris: Les Belles-Lettres.

Mertz, B. 1952. Certain Titles of the Egyptian Queens and Their Bearing on the Hereditary Right to the Throne. Ph. D. Dissertation (Unpublished), Oriental Languages and Literature, University of Chicago: Chicago. [NB: Mertz came to the conclusion there was NO female "hereditary right to the throne" by royal women].

Robins, G. 1983. The God's Wife of Amun in the 18th Dynasty in Egypt. In A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt, Eds., Images of Women in Antiquity: 65-78. Cranberra: Croon Helm.

________. 1983. A Critical Examination of the Theory of the Right to the Throne of Ancient Egypt Passed Through the Female Line in the 18th Dynasty. Göttingen Miszellen 62: 67-77. [NB: Robins reaches the same conclusion as Mertz.]

Taylor, J. A. 2001. An Index of Male Non-Royal Titles, Epithets & Phrases of the 18th Dynasty. London: Museum Bookshop Publications.

Troy, L. 1986. Patterns of Queenship: in ancient Egyptian myth and history. BOREAS 14. Uppsala: ACTA Universitatis Upsaliensis.

Ward, W. A. 1986. Essays on Feminine Titles of the Middle Kingdom and Related Subjects. Beirut: American University of Beirut.

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 -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
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