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 and Akhenaten related???
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Naunacht
Priest
Priest


Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 515
Location: U.S. NJ

PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2011 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hathorhotep wrote:
Off course, we don't know even who are parents of Iaret and Sitamun.


Where facts are few all we are left with is speculation.

What fascinates me about this period is there are so few established facts and endless questions and every time we find the answer to one of those questions all it does is open up more questions.

In another post I likened it to a jigsaw puzzle which has a lot of pieces missing, some in soft focus and some nice and clear. Every once in a while some evidence comes in and one of those soft focus pieces comes into focus but at the same time other soft focus disappears and sometimes something we thought was established fact becomes soft focus and questionable.

At any rate thanks, Hathorhotep for reviving some of these old threads. It's been fun reading.
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 May 26, 2011 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hathorhotep wrote:
Off course, we don't know even who are parents of Iaret and Sitamun.


We unless know that Iaret was Amenhotep II's daughter, once she is depicted in Thutmose IV's stela from Konosso as Great Royal Wife, King's Daughter, and King's Sister.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Styler78
Priest
Priest


Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 974
Location: Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2011 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naunacht wrote:
Hathorhotep wrote:
Off course, we don't know even who are parents of Iaret and Sitamun.


Where facts are few all we are left with is speculation.

What fascinates me about this period is there are so few established facts and endless questions and every time we find the answer to one of those questions all it does is open up more questions.

In another post I likened it to a jigsaw puzzle which has a lot of pieces missing, some in soft focus and some nice and clear. Every once in a while some evidence comes in and one of those soft focus pieces comes into focus but at the same time other soft focus disappears and sometimes something we thought was established fact becomes soft focus and questionable.

At any rate thanks, Hathorhotep for reviving some of these old threads. It's been fun reading.


Hi Naunacht,

Spot-on with the comments. The jigsaw idea is exactly how i see things throughout the Pharonic Dynasties. Although it can be fun looking into the "darker areas" of our knowledge, it can also be a very frustrating time sifting through the facts. And even more frustrating when "fiction and facts get confused.

Stuart Very Happy
_________________
Beloved of Hathor, Chief of Thebes, Not the Messiah just a Very Naughty Boy!

http://styler78hatshepsutproject.blogspot.com/

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2011 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hathorhotep wrote:
Off course, we don't know even who are parents of Iaret and Sitamun.


We can however make a darn good guess. Iaret bears the title King's Daughter and is Great Royal Wife of Thutmose IV meaning she was almost certainly Amenhotep II's daughter though her mother remains unidentified (probably not Tiaa). Sitamun is also a King's Daughter and she left tributes in the tomb of Yuya and Thuya suggesting she was the daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neteria
Account Suspended


Joined: 27 Feb 2010
Posts: 93

PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hathorhotep wrote:
Is this really true? That Nefertiti was Akhenaten's sister? Because most men thinks this is an old theory and there is no evidence for it.
Old theories may or may not make a comeback, after suffering a lapse of out-of-fashionhood, provided there are sufficient reasons for dusting them up. But the reasons for their re-appearances (or disappearances) are very seldom related to how old or how young the theories were.
How do theories really behave and how do they connect to the concept of "evidence"?
To become a full-fledged theory, any proto-theory (such as assumptions, hypotheses, speculations are) must meet a couple of simple tests, like being consistent with known facts, being able to explain unclear or disconnected facts, and maintaining internal self-consistency. This "old theory" was reasonably OK in such regards.
Supporting evidence may help along in providing consistency to a theory, but could never be construed as a requirement for it. A theory may eventually disappear due to different causes, but lack of evidence is never the same as a lack in the theory itself.
The usually quoted way in which a theory gets "blown away" is the emergence of destroying evidence against it, making it clear that the theory simply "cannot be".
However, a theory also disappears in the opposite case, when evidence favouring the theory piles up beyond a certain limit, thus providing a watertight case for its believabilty. In this second case, the theory is considered "proven" and becomes known fact, fully supported by the evidence.
Therefore, no one should require "evidence" for a theory as such, unless devoted to the chore of making it become a "fact". Once that happens, the previous caterpillar can no longer be found, since it has turned into a new butterfly: the theory as such has disappeared.
Nefertiti as half-sister of Akhenaten is of course a theory, self consistent, supported by known evidence and useful to explain known facts. It has not yet turned into a real fact, and significantly more evidence will be needed to eventually achieve that success. As this is part of a larger theory, self-consistency requires all such parts to support each other and to never contradict the existing evidence. The larger theory is, of course, fully implemented in this fashion, as I have previously explained in several threads.
Hathorhotep wrote:
She didn't have titles of king's sister and daughter.
Nefertiti is neither the first nor the last case of somebody who may have been denied the right to vaunt legitimate titles. There are many possible reasons for this to happen, which are easy to enumerate. Therefore, just assuming that the titles never existed can only be considered as the most simplistic of comfortable responses. Absence of evidence is, again, not evidence of absence.
Obviously, assuming the actual non-existence of any titles is also a theory, concocted to explain the verifiable non-appearance of them. This is fine, as theories go. However, when better reasons for the non-titles are postulated, the only motivation for such a theory gets swept away.
To quote one of such reasons, the personal attitudes of Queens Tiy and Sitamen (of Amenhotpe III) may have developed family complexities which remain basically unknown to History, and this environment surely rubbed on their princely children, conditioning their future behaviour. The Nefertiti titles may have been just an ancient case of being "politically incorrect".
_________________
Truthfulness may be relative, but can be kept very high when faithfully recording past events just how they would be seen from a visiting time machine, or as close as possible
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 Jun 09, 2011 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neteria wrote:
Nefertiti is neither the first nor the last case of somebody who may have been denied the right to vaunt legitimate titles.


And the other examples are...?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nefertiti is neither the first nor the last case of somebody who may have been denied the right to vaunt legitimate titles.


I, also, would like to know of any other queen denied this right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neteria
Account Suspended


Joined: 27 Feb 2010
Posts: 93

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
...in order for neteria's theory to work:

1) thutmose IV and iaret are the parents of sitamun. iaret is not known to have any children.

2) amenhotep III and sitamun are siblings and have children. ...

3) that sitamun is the mother of nefertiti and smenkhare. nowhere does nefertiti proclaim her heritage. ...
Well, I certainly appreciate this brave effort to summarize some of the theory's main points, particularly when they are not shared! It must have been hard to advance through such a set of utterly disliked statements (Maybe with a pinched nose?) This open attitude is to be commended and worthy of being followed.
However, in the melee of exposed ideas, some points of competing theories also got thrown in, and since these are rival theories, that contradict mine, the result is a mixture of conflicting concepts.
kylejustin wrote:
neteria's theory gets shot down quite simply and quickly...
No wonder! If you paint zebra stripes on a donkey, and then "shoot it down", you have only killed a donkey, not a zebra. A consistent new theory has been painted here right on top of the usual set of older standard theories, that are known to contradict it. Whatever "gets shot down quite simply and quickly" by this analysis is only the inconsistent mixture of both sets (the "false zebra" of the analogy).
There are indeed many instances of this invalid mixing, so only a few of the more blatant ones need be exposed.
Lutz wrote:
kylejustin wrote:
... so as usual neteria has no evidence for their theories.
There is nothing to add ... Cool
Lutz
This little empty sentence seems to be attempting to score points in an aggressive stance, maybe fully believing in some self-perceived cleverness. In actual fact, if we are to advance the forum discussion, it would be a lot better to avoid such attitudes, as there is still plenty to add.
The lack of supporting evidence (so far) is, of course, purposeful and fully intentional, as I have explained before. Theories that get verified just cease to be, as the caterpillar does. This "sublime" end-purpose (the butterfly) is definitely sought, but should not lead us into paralysis.
No one who has a theory ought to wait for it to have become fact, before showing it off to others. This unnecessary delay might take forever, and withdrawing such information from other participants would deny the reason for having any forum in the first place. So please quit complaining of theories that are precisely that: theories. I suggest trying to prove them wrong or trying to prove them right, and to avoid sternly accusing them of being what they are. Such useless attacks will never advance any train of thought. And everyone else, do come forth expounding your own theories if you feel they are needed, as soon as they fit the consistency requirements. Disregard naysayers and act freely, you are needed here so speak up!
kylejustin wrote:
iaret is not known to have any children.
Iaret's known story is reduced to origin and wedding, so she may have died in childbirth. If so, the orphaned Sitamen could have been brought up by Thuya (her wetnurse, aunt, adoptive mother, all three?) as a younger sister of Tiy, to eventually become a secondary wife of Prince Amenhotpe.
kylejustin wrote:
sitamun is attested as 'king's daughter, king's great wife'. possibly sitamun is a daughter of one king and wife of another. except she does not use 'king's sister'.
Getting places! This fits the theory. Now, not using the expected titles may be just another case of psychological imposition, on the part of adoptive parents who were advancing the case of their non-royal daughter Tiy
kylejustin wrote:
sitamun is the daughter of amenhotep III,
In some publications, this person is called the "second Sitamen", as the first one would have been a daughter of Thutmes IV. The repeated name may imply that Sitamen had already died when her namesake was born, but I have not encountered any support for her existence.
kylejustin wrote:
we do not have the mummies of nefertiti, or her 6 daughters. at least not proven.
What needs to be "proven"? This is a theory, remember? Our coroners lack Nefertiti's body, yes, but have her mother, her father, her brother and two of her daughters. Less than everything, certainly, but still plenty to go through most of the DNA tests, and they do work in support of the theory!
kylejustin wrote:
there is no archeological or biological evidence to suggest amenhotep III had children by a daughter.
This is part of the "donkey under the zebra stripes", not a theory at all but apparently simple nonsense. You're all welcome to shoot it down at will.
kylejustin wrote:
...and obviously a child when she donated chairs to grandparents burial.
Why obviously? By all appearances Sitamen was not a child at all, and just returned the jewel thrones given to her in childhood by Thuya, as a memento to accompany her foster mother in her tomb. Now Tiy may have also received thrones that were just as nice (or nicer!) but not having made funeral oferings of them, eventually threw them into the busy little hands of her cavorting granddaughters.
But this thread is about Sitamen's daughter Nefertiti and her nephew Akhenaten. What is said here about them?
kylejustin wrote:
there is no reason to assume she did not want to associate with amenhotep III either
Nefertiti did want to be associated with Amenhotpe III as he was deified to incarnate the Aten itself. In this she fully coincides with Akhenaten about glorifying their common father. Why would anyone assume the opposite?
kylejustin wrote:
mutnofret does not use royal titles if she is the same individual as horemheb's queen and nefertiti's sister
Some spellings have changed but not by that much. Presumably you mean the queen called Mutodjemet/Mutbenret, who is not part of the theory, nor does she fit into this thread.
kylejustin wrote:
this means mutnofret is sitamun's child as well
Maybe, but not one of the two children in this theory.
kylejustin wrote:
except sitamun never had children, and her body has never been found
Sitamen had at least two royal children who ascended the throne: Queen Nefertiti and King Smenkhkare, in that order. Her required DNA fits the known analysis of mummy KV21B and is most likely to be her, so she has been found.
kylejustin wrote:
the kv55 mummy, which is proven to be amenhotep III's son by queen tiye.
This is just another theory, so make sure you avoid saying that it is "proven". The DNA shared by many family members does allow KV55 to be a son of Tiy (as well as some different combinations) but this theory contradicts other data. KV55 as Smenkhkare is actually the son of Sitamen and the DNA evidence supports this better.
kylejustin wrote:
we do not have proof that the kv 21 mummies are the mothers of the babies buried with tut.
No, no proof, but KV21A fits the required DNA for Ankhesenamen, and KV21B fits the required DNA for Sitamen.
kylejustin wrote:
what they could sequence showed they belonged to the 18th dynasty royal line.
No, it never showed that, but it did suggest that there could be some family relationships. All of these had to be first postulated and then tested, leading to the identifications I have mentioned. No rival identifications have been accomplished after 16 months.
kylejustin wrote:
...and that they seemed to maternally be related to thuya.
No, nothing in the DNA layout indicates whether any individual allele provenance is fron the paternal or maternal line. Thuya is indeed the maternal grandmother of Ankhesenamen, but not an ancestor of Sitamen, although she shares many alleles with her mother Iaret.
kylejustin wrote:
the bodies of queens iaret and sitamun have not been identified.
In this theory, Sitamen has been. Iaret's required DNA seems to fit Thuya best, sugesting a close family relationship between both women.
kylejustin wrote:
iarets dna will be very different to sitamuns
Nothing ventured, nothing lost? Will it really be? How different? Such a bold statement with no basis in any fact, need or theory? Iaret's DNA (when and if it is ever found) must differ from Sitamen's DNA only as much as a mother's alleles may differ from those of her daughter.
This "shooting down theories" sport can be extenuating, but statements considered utterly wrong cannot be left just lying around if the truth is really being sought. I hope others are encouraged to also put their own theories in clear terms and thus make them part of the fruitful multilateral discussion. Thanks for providing the grounds for going there.
_________________
Truthfulness may be relative, but can be kept very high when faithfully recording past events just how they would be seen from a visiting time machine, or as close as possible
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neteria
Account Suspended


Joined: 27 Feb 2010
Posts: 93

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oops! Blunder committed:
neteria wrote:
Thuya is indeed the maternal grandmother of Ankhesenamen
I was somehow tongue twisted with hyperbolae in the keyboard. This should read:
Thuya is the maternal grandmother of Akhenaten. The maternal grandmother of Ankhesenamen is Sitamen, while her paternal grandmother is Tiy.
Sorry for the misstep, but let's try to keep close to the truth!
_________________
Truthfulness may be relative, but can be kept very high when faithfully recording past events just how they would be seen from a visiting time machine, or as close as possible
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neteria wrote:
Well, I certainly appreciate this brave effort to summarize some of the theory's main points, particularly when they are not shared! It must have been hard to advance through such a set of utterly disliked statements (Maybe with a pinched nose?) This open attitude is to be commended and worthy of being followed.


i don't know why your getting so excited. i was merely pointing out what your theories were, and after each one, i explained why it couldn't work, using ACTUAL evidence. i did not agree with you. and a lot won't until you give actual EVIDENCE for these crack pot theories.

Neteria wrote:
The lack of supporting evidence (so far) is, of course, purposeful and fully intentional, as I have explained before.
No one who has a theory ought to wait for it to have become fact, before showing it off to others. So please quit complaining of theories that are precisely that: theories. I suggest trying to prove them wrong or trying to prove them right, and to avoid sternly accusing them of being what they are. Such useless attacks will never advance any train of thought.


you contradict yourself. the whole point of discussing theories or presenting them is to have others agree with you. it is also customary with any theory to have some evidence to back up the claims being made. you have no evidence. no inscriptions, funerary equipment, paintings, everyday objects, etc. all you keep saying is that the DNA says....well the DNA does not give any conclusions you are getting. for starters, half the people in your theories do not have mummies that we know of. and if we have them, we certainly havn't tested them.

you also asked people to prove your theories right or wrong. what do you think i have been posting to every theory you present? i tell you everytime why your theories do not work and you ignore it everytime. now i honestly don't care what you believe, but when you are stating your theories as FACT, when they are not correct, people may get the wrong idea and pass on your erroneous information. now i only denounce your theories as being nothing more, when yet again, i have already explained why they do not work.

Neteria wrote:
In some publications, this person is called the "second Sitamen"...


i'm thinking your sources may be old and outdated. please give some titles and or authors that people can use to verify this point.

Neteria wrote:
What needs to be "proven"? This is a theory, remember? Our coroners lack Nefertiti's body, yes, but have her mother, her father, her brother and two of her daughters. Less than everything, certainly, but still plenty to go through most of the DNA tests, and they do work in support of the theory!


well if it does not need to be proven, stop going around stating as fact nefertiti is sitamun's daughter by amenhotep III. because without nefertiti, her daughter's and a plausible parent you cannot prove anything. now your theory is she was amenhotep III's daughter. we have his mummy, we have tiye's mummy, and we have the bodies of two of their children. we do not have nefertiti, sitamun, iaret or the 6 daughters. so without their bodies, how can you claim the DNA fits for them to be related the way you claim?

Neteria wrote:
Nefertiti did want to be associated with Amenhotpe III as he was deified to incarnate the Aten itself. In this she fully coincides with Akhenaten about glorifying their common father. Why would anyone assume the opposite?


then where are her titles which proclaim she is royalty? if she is amenhotep III's daughter, why is there no title saying 'king's daughter' and 'king's sister'?

Neteria wrote:
Sitamen had at least two royal children who ascended the throne: Queen Nefertiti and King Smenkhkare, in that order. Her required DNA fits the known analysis of mummy KV21B and is most likely to be her, so she has been found.


here is an example of you stating as FACT a part of your 'theory'. for starters how could you know smenkhare was younger than nefertiti? now if it is simply a theory, stop parading it as if you have actual evidence. now let me explain something: the kv 21 mummies had fragmentary DNA, therefore not enough was able to be tested. all they could say, using the results of the DNA was they belonged to the 18th dynasty royal line, by birth, and they COULD be the mother/s of tut's babies. now they could not say which mummies if any they had tested against were family. so you cannot claim that they are sitamun and ankhsenamun as the DNA was not clear enough to make those assumptions.


kylejustin wrote:
the kv55 mummy, which is proven to be amenhotep III's son by queen tiye.
Neteria wrote:
This is just another theory, so make sure you avoid saying that it is "proven". The DNA shared by many family members does allow KV55 to be a son of Tiy (as well as some different combinations) but this theory contradicts other data. KV55 as Smenkhkare is actually the son of Sitamen and the DNA evidence supports this better........ but KV21A fits the required DNA for Ankhesenamen, and KV21B fits the required DNA for Sitamen.


how can kv 55 not be the son of amenhotep III and tiye? he has tiye's mitochondrial DNA which sitamun would also have considering she is their daughter. iaret will not have DNA in common with tiye. yes ankhsenamun is the only known wife of tut, so it is obvious to assume one of the kv 21 mummies may be her. especially if the DNA could fit the profile. what is this about required DNA for sitamun? as far as i know, the DNA extracted from both mummies make it more likely the are sisters than mother and daughter, and the DNA was fragmentary at best. i suggest you go back and look at the DNA charts from the JAMA article.


kylejustin wrote:
what they could sequence showed they belonged to the 18th dynasty royal line.
Neteria wrote:
No, it never showed that, but it did suggest that there could be some family relationships. All of these had to be first postulated and then tested, leading to the identifications I have mentioned. No rival identifications have been accomplished after 16 months.


another point where you contradict yourself. you say they are members of the 18th dynasty royal line, then you say they will not have DNA in common with the pharoahs of the dynasty. now, the JAMA report had information in it concerning the DNA of the kv 21 mummies in their graphs with the others tested. from the DNA they could extract, they were able to say with confidence that both mummies are descended in the male line from the 18th dynasty pharoahs, as they had DNA in common with amenhotep III. how can they not be related if they have DNA which proves it??


Neteria wrote:
No, nothing in the DNA layout indicates whether any individual allele provenance is fron the paternal or maternal line. Thuya is indeed the maternal grandmother of Ankhesenamen, but not an ancestor of Sitamen, although she shares many alleles with her mother Iaret.


the JAMA paper reported that the babies of tut, had alleles inherited from their mother, from thuya. tutankhamun did not inherit these alleles and they were not present in the kv 55 mummy or the younger lady, so they could not get it from their paternal grandparents, only their mother's mother until you get back to thuya or a female line relation. you are right in saying iaret is not thought to be related to thuya. therfore her DNA will not have much if any in common with thuya's. but sitamun was thuya's granddaughter by queen tiye, so therefore she has thuya's mitochondrial DNA, as does kv 55 and the younger lady, and tutankhamun. nefertiti's origins are not clear, but if ankhsenamun is one of the kv 21 mummies, then nefertiti's mother will be a sister of queen tiye, at the simplest explanation. nefertiti's mother may have been a niece to thuya through a sister of thuya's. however those babies have mitochondrial DNA found in thuya they DID NOT inherit through tutankhamun. therfore descent from sitamun as a daughter of iaret is not possible.

I suggest you reread the JAMA paper and look at the DNA results again, because the conclusions you are drawing do not fit the DNA given. I also suggest you provide evidence for these outlandish theories, as i in my post have asked and twice you have been asked by posters in this thread to give evidence or why Nefertiti and other queens were not allowed to use royal titles.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neteria wrote:
Bla, bla, bla ...
Lutz wrote:
kylejustin wrote:
... so as usual neteria has no evidence for their theories.
There is nothing to add ... Cool
Lutz
This little empty sentence seems to be attempting to score points in an aggressive stance, maybe fully believing in some self-perceived cleverness. In actual fact, if we are to advance the forum discussion, it would be a lot better to avoid such attitudes, as there is still plenty to add. ... Bla, bla, bla

Theories based on theories based on the theories have in turn are theoretically ... For a novel or screenplay writer forum maybe of interest, but not here, as far as I know, and not for me.

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Styler78
Priest
Priest


Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 974
Location: Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I posted a thread on formulating theories and the etiquette involved, which may be useful here:

http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=5644&highlight=formulating

General Discussion is the area used for theories as i understand it. The issues we seem to see on a large-scale level is that non-theory related threads turn into General Discussion topics.

We then loose all credible information gathering and can end up believing fiction as fact. I have been a victim to this and its frustrating. For the newer members we owe it to them to be able to be afforded facts and allow them to browse the general section if they see fit for more fictitious material

Stuart
_________________
Beloved of Hathor, Chief of Thebes, Not the Messiah just a Very Naughty Boy!

http://styler78hatshepsutproject.blogspot.com/

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Horushotep
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 51
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I once watched a movie on the new. It was about Nefertiti and her one friend who might not know. He was very handsome and older than Nefertiti and he began to like it, and it is only concerned with the crown of the hide in a special chest, I think you have to watch my brother and my sister.
Idea Smile Yet there was Nefertiti all nicer and prettier
_________________
Beloved of Horus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Horapollo
Banned


Joined: 23 Jul 2011
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:12 am    Post subject: Nefertiti and Akhenaten Related??? Reply with quote

Ankhesenamun is never styled "king's daughter" once she was married to Tutankhamun. But who can deny that this woman was the daughter of a king? Amenhotep III had a number of daughters and we don't know all of their names. Perhaps Nefertiti was one of them. As for Ay--he had every chance to proclaim himself the father of Nefertiti in his Amarna tomb, but says nothing to that effect. Only his wife, Tey, claims to have been her nurse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Horapollo
Banned


Joined: 23 Jul 2011
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:22 am    Post subject: Re: Nefertiti and Akhenaten Related??? Reply with quote

Horapollo wrote:
Ankhesenamun is never styled "king's daughter" once she was married to Tutankhamun. But who can deny that this woman was the daughter of a king? Amenhotep III had a number of daughters and we don't know all of their names. Perhaps Nefertiti was one of them. As for Ay--he had every chance to proclaim himself the father of Nefertiti in his Amarna tomb, but says nothing to that effect. Only his wife, Tey, claims to have been her nurse.


By George no! How could a commoner like Ay say he was the father of Nefertiti when his wife said she was "the nurse of the goddess"? Ane that is what Nefertiti represented early in the reign of her husband--the goddess Tefnut. Now Shu (Akhenaten) and Tefnut were twins who sprang from Ra and became a part of him and his godhood. That's the other side of the coin. How could Nefertiti be the twin/sister counterpart of Shu (as he styled himself) unless she was his actual sister? This kind of theological fiction would not work with the daughter of a commoner. Therefore, Nefertiti had to be a daughter of Amenhotep III--the same as Akhenaten.
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, ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 2 of 12

 
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