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
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
There is a growing tendency for King's Great Wives to use similar iconography to their husbands. Under Amenhotep III this included Tiye being represented as the same size as he and in scenes trampling the nine bows underfoot as a Tiye headed sphynx. This trend continued under Akhenaten with Nefertiti sharing in his religious duties and being worshiped alongside him as an intermediary with the Aten as well as crushing the heads of enemies in pharaonic fashion. There is no question that Nefer was a powerful queen before her probable death c. yr. 14. But as we see with Tiye that has everything to do with her husband's desire to give her prominence not with any 'right' to divinity she might have as a royal princess.


The "deification" of living kings starts under Amenhotep III: prior to that, Egyptian kings became deified as worshipped deities only after death (the cult of Amenhotep I and Ahmose-Nefertari being case in point).

Whilst we all know the epithet of the king as a "living Horus," he was not, during his lifetime, normally considered a living god on earth. The Egyptians were not so bound up in the mythology to not realise that their kings were mortal, after all. So, the best one can say is that a king, while living and ruling, was considered semi-divine, and unless a specific act or recording of his deification during his lifetime occurred, he was so considered until his death, when he entered the realm of the fully divine (see on the divinity of the pharaoh: Posener 1960; Tobin 1989).

Amenhotep III is progressively deified through his various jubilees; by his third jubilee, Tiye appears to jon the ranks of living deity as well, as his "divine counterpart."

The royal couple are mainly shown as living deities outside of Egypt in the beginning (in Nubia), but by the third jubilee, both were shown in Egyptian monuments as deities as well.

See on this phenomena:

Johnson, W. R. 1993. The Deified Amenhotep III as the Living Re-Horakhty: Stylistic and Iconographic Considerations. In, VI Congresso Internationale di Egittologia: Atti, II: 231-6. Turin: International Association of Egyptologists.

Johnson, W. R. 1998. Monuments and Monumental Art under Amenhotep III: Evolution and Meaning. In D. O'Connor and E. H. Cline, Eds., Amenhotep III: Perspectives on His Reign: 63-94. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

References:

Posener, G. 1960. De la divinité du Pharaon. Cahiers de la Société Asiatique XV. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

Tobin, V. A. 1989. Theological principles of Egyptian religion. American University Studies. Series 7, Theology and Religion 59. New York: Peter Lang.
_________________
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
Neteria
Account Suspended


Joined: 27 Feb 2010
Posts: 93

PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 4:45 pm    Post subject: Decanting theories about Akhenaten and Nefertiti Reply with quote

It is well known that I feel this thread ought to close sending out a definite note of
“Yes, Akhenaten and Nefertiti were indeed related, since they were half siblings, born to Amenhotpe III from two different Queens”.
However, this point may not be entirely clear to everybody, and has met with stiff opposition that merits some summing-up analysis before closure. The controversy has centered on defining which were the customs by which historical characters lived, at particular times.

All honest historical researchers, when analyzing any particular human group or historical period, must expend some effort to understand which were the rules by which this group abided, at that specific period. However, a very vocal group of non-researchers seems to be doing the exact opposite: expending untold mental efforts to shoehorn a few known facts into a set of favoured rules, which may actually pertain to a different human group, acting during a different historical period.

A case in point is the TAMNSI theory (named for “Tut’s Ancestresses Meritaten, Nefertiti, Sitamen, Iaret”), which sprang up as a direct corollary for the first set of DNA analyses. There is certainly nothing “theoretical” about DNA allele analysis, and all data properly collected from measuring chromosomal alleles is as “scientific” as it can get, so whatever gets allowed by the DNA must be taken seriously. All researchers with “actual egyptological training” must deal with such realities, and if they refuse, they have just crossed the line into “fringe”. Still, the TAMNSI theory has been accused of violating some cherished older rules about a supposed obligation to vaunt one’s royal titles, specifically referring to those which Nefertiti apparently possessed. It gets hard to understand why such a dubious “rule” should be formulated here, in direct opposition to facts that seem quite evident, more so when no coherent theory has been formulated to back it up.

The TAMNSI theory in particular has thus aroused a few hatemonger detractors, where some developed the bad habit of turning very rabid, running quite fanatical aggressive attacks while simultaneously complaining about “being sick” (apparently just to make opponents seem more despicable). However, in spite of intense efforts, not one of them has yet been able to provide a single example of a misfit between this theory and reality. Nor have them been able to provide a different theory, one that would satisfy them yet also fit the available data. So the conclusion begins to light up as a “bright inevitable”: with no rival theories visible within the horizon, and in the absence of any leaks to be detected in the TAMNSI theory, the fact is that it keeps just floating on ahead, safe and sound so far, in quest of further historical explanations that it may eventually provide.
_________________
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: Tue Sep 06, 2011 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The dissention to the theory “Tut’s Ancestresses Meritaten, Nefertiti, Sitamen, Iaret” (TAMNSI) must be dealt with, however unfair it may be, in order to present all aspects of each case clearly to the public. So, we may now examine some consequences of the TAMNSI theory, as compared to its older rivals.

As an aside, some have suggested that TAMNSI is too feminist a name, going up the family tree only through the dynasty’s matrons. As a form of reply, there is of course an alternative denomination, the TASAT theory (for “Tut’s Ancestors Smenkhkare I, Amenhotpe III, Thutmes IV”), but it seems too heavily dynastic and omits mentioning among male ancestors the truly interesting Akhenaten (who in this theory was Tut’s maternal grandfather). So the theory remains matronly, and thus TAMNSI.

Now, which should be the necessary rival theory, whose usefulness could be tested against TAMNSI? A search around the field does not come up with anything coherent: if you personally know of any such theory, please show us a proper specification. There are indeed some isolated older assumptions that seem to carry a lot of weight among the detractors of TAMNSI, and could be useful as a basis. It is possible to put together a viable theory (one that may be “considered as fact”) by joining these assumptions to each other, through the incorporation of pertinent reasoning, but they inevitably incur in one or more of the standard “theory blemishes” that in the long run end up making theories untenable.

To quote the most blatant example of such mishaps, the assumption of a “non-royal Nefertiti” creates a need to define Nefertiti’s parents as an influential Egyptian couple of quite unknown provenance, name, achievements or destiny. They have to be important enough to make Nefertiti a "goddess" even as a baby, as her nurse Tey later put it. This actually constitutes the best-known of the usual blemishes: postulating unknowable local characters with the only purpose of making a theory fit some part of reality. Similarly, a conjured-up “First Wife of Ay” (as a postulated mother of Nefertiti) creates an assumed real person out of convoluted fiction. Theories may still survive this type of tampering, but they are much better off (and more believable) if such blemishes are avoided. The TAMNSI theory incurs in no such defects, since both of Nefertiti’s parents are quite well specified: King Amenhotpe III and Queen Sitamen, both royal children of King Thutmes IV. This makes Nefertiti very royal indeed, from birth.

The assumption of a “non royal Nefertiti” can be made to fit loosely into a larger set of assumptions also espoused by the same people. One way of presenting these is the previously mentioned “Tiy-As-Mother-Of-Everyone” theory (maybe TAMOE for short?). In it, Tiy is not actually made up to be the “mother of really everyone” (which is merely a satirical exaggeration), but at least the mother of considerably more historical characters than her due:
1.- Akhenaten (who is considered her son in all known theories) - by most appearances, correctly so
2.- KV55 (whose real mother should be Sitamen) – previously referred-to as “assumption 2010-1”
3.- KV35YL (whose real mother should be Nefertiti) - previously referred-to as “assumption 2010-2”
4.- Smenkhkare (whose real mother should be Sitamen) – as an elaborate way to allow for his royalty
5.- Tutankhamen (whose real mother should be Meritaten) – a rather outdated assumption, mostly dropped after evidence accumulated that in all likelihood had Tut’s mother to be KV35YL
_________________
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: Tue Sep 06, 2011 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A great deal has been made of comparing Nefertiti’s goddess attributes to certain titularies of Tiy that appear similar, apparently supportive of the TAMOE theory in opposition to the TAMNSI theory: the implication would be that more queens than Nefertiti were styled as goddesses, thus assuming that her veneration as such would have no meaning concerning her royalty. Still, a simpler conclusion derived from these comparisons could just imply that Tiy, even if never personally called a “goddess”, was not a mere “commoner” as she is usually portrayed, but considerably above that level: she could well have been of royal lineage herself.

This assumption, if formulated formally, might be supported by the strong possibility that Thuya’s DNA could be very similar to that of Queen Iaret, opening up the chances that both women might be sisters, even if their fathers were not Kings. More mummies must be tested to solve this. However, there is also a different assumption related to the TAMOE theory, which postulates that the royal relationship for Tiy came not from her mother Thuya, but arose through her father Yuya instead, in spite of his totally foreign, non-Thutmosid appearance. There are specialized threads devoted to this idea and its implications.

The TAMOE theory, whether true or false, still accumulates blemishes for every instance where it differs from TAMNSI:
- KV55 is assumed to be some undefined prince/King, instead of Smenkhkare
- KV35YL is assumed to be some undefined princess/Queen, instead of Meritaten
- Yuya and his daughter Tiy are assumed to have been uninterested in dynastic affairs, and exerted no palace influence to remove Queen Sitamen and her children from the limelight
- Tut’s parents were wrongly attributed until the DNA evidence discarded the ancient theory “KV55-is-Akhenaten”
- Kiya’s identity, which many keep bringing up, remains an uncertain issue, but may be clarified if her mummy is found

In the TAMNSI theory, not only is Nefertiti royal, but also her mother Sitamen and her brother Smenkhkare. They all share the “no-title-vaunting” prohibition imposed probably by Amenhotpe III in homage to Tiy (save for the earlier Sitamen little jewel thrones, which were probably received from Thuya, Tiy’s mother, before Amenhotpe’s time). The childhood “chairs-exception” seems to just confirm the local rule, since there are no Sitamen titles to be found in her adulthood (when at least Nefertiti and Smenkhkare were conceived).

By all appearances, people holding nobility titles used them extensively (as they always do) when it was convenient to them, and definitely omitted them whenever it became necessary. As has been rightly pointed out:
neseret wrote:
Such titles are status enhancing, and show hierarchical importance in the status of royal women (Troy 1986).

neseret wrote:
had Nefertiti possessed such titles, she would have clearly stated them as they convey prestige and standing for her, not only as wife but as a royal female of distinct lineage.

Obviously, Tiy (as the affected party) must have been well aware of all this, and if the junior branch Sitamen, Nefertiti and Smenkhkare didn’t already know of these evident dangers, they were made to learn very quickly. The extension to Mutbenret/Mutnodjemet also fits in nicely. In the light of such strong logic it becomes quite hard to postulate a Nefertiti obligation to vaunt her origin, if by doing so she would be treading on the toes of the greater powers. A strict prohibition of any offensive vaunting thus much more likely than even a soft authorization, not to mention any assumed “duty”. And everyone should remember that, save for some unfound ostraca, authorities never wrote the inscriptions of the day, only workmen under the orders of the greater authorities. The true “rules” of the times ought to be understandable to be believable. The assumption underlying TAMOE, that there were no insider power struggles within the dynastic families, may be theoretically taken to be acceptable, but it still flies in the face of logical considerations applicable to any important royal court.

Therefore, with no better theories to explain known facts, the TAMNSI theory remains the only one available so far which does not deviate from the logic of the times and whose fit to the published DNA data can be certified.
From the looks of the current research in AE, the probability is now high that new evidence will sooner or later turn this theory into fully
_________________
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: Tue Sep 06, 2011 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My humble apologies, the ending in my previous post somehow got truncated, but still left the meaning mostly understandable. The final sentence should finish with
"will sooner or later turn this theory into fully accepted fact."
Sorry about that, but at least it's not a different point of contention.
More controversy may arise from the peripheral theories to TAMNSI, which should now be jump-started by it.
One of these, already mentioned in Evidence from Amarna, is the interpretation of the entire Amarna period as a sequence of precedent-setting co-regencies, which will help to explain most of the more puzzling royal succession enigmas.
_________________
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
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We have already explained to you several times that your theory does not hold water. There is not one good reason to believe Nefertiti was a daughter of Amenhotep III. There is no evidence that Sitamun ever had a child and CLEAR evidence that she was the daughter of Tiye and Amenhotep III. There is no evidence that Iaret was the mother of a child either.

But of course none of that matters as far as you are concerned. There is therefore absolutely no good reason for continuing this conversation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And to top it all off you invent a totally imaginary feud between Tiye and Iaret's descent line to explain why Nefertit never uses her King's Daughter title. Of course one can prove anything if one is allowed to invent evidence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
We have already explained to you several times that your theory does not hold water. There is not one good reason to believe Nefertiti was a daughter of Amenhotep III. There is no evidence that Sitamun ever had a child and CLEAR evidence that she was the daughter of Tiye and Amenhotep III. There is no evidence that Iaret was the mother of a child either.

But of course none of that matters as far as you are concerned. There is therefore absolutely no good reason for continuing this conversation.


Before you end this thread, you should take a better look at the Tutankhamun Family Tree on the National Geographic website posted on this thread. For that lady who is called KV21A to be Ankhesenamun, her mother has to be a daughter of Amenhotep III, according to the alleles that are present.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
We have already explained to you several times that your theory does not hold water. There is not one good reason to believe Nefertiti was a daughter of Amenhotep III. There is no evidence that Sitamun ever had a child and CLEAR evidence that she was the daughter of Tiye and Amenhotep III. There is no evidence that Iaret was the mother of a child either.

But of course none of that matters as far as you are concerned. There is therefore absolutely no good reason for continuing this conversation.


Before you end this thread, you should take a better look at the Tutankhamun Family Tree on the National Geographic website posted on this thread. For that lady who is called KV21A to be Ankhesenamun, her mother has to be a daughter of Amenhotep III, according to the alleles that are present.


As Nefertiti is never styled as a "King's Daughter," and she is the acknowledged mother of Ankhsenamun, then either a) she is not KV 35 Younger Lady, or b) KV 21A, if a daughter of KV 35 Younger Lady, is not Ankhsenamun.
_________________
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
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AFAIK it has never been suggested, nor do I see any compelling evidence, that KV21 A`s (or B`s) mother has to be a daughter of Amenhotep III (in order to make her Ankhesenamun or else).

The two ladies certainly share some alleles with him, but that points only to some sort of relationship between them, their genetic mother and him.
What kind of relationship cannot be said for sure given the fact that both KV21 A`s and B`s DNA sets are incomplete and given that the obvious inbreeding in the family can relationships between individuals make appear closer than the really are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
AFAIK it has never been suggested, nor do I see any compelling evidence, that KV21 A`s (or B`s) mother has to be a daughter of Amenhotep III (in order to make her Ankhesenamun or else).

The two ladies certainly share some alleles with him, but that points only to some sort of relationship between them, their genetic mother and him.
What kind of relationship cannot be said for sure given the fact that both KV21 A`s and B`s DNA sets are incomplete and given that the obvious inbreeding in the family can relationships between individuals make appear closer than the really are.


It doesn't matter that the DNA profile of KV21A is not complete. Look at the first marker. If it is Ankhesenamun represented by that mummy, she got one allele from each of her parents. Whether she got the 16 at the first marker or the 10 from Akhenaten, she had to get the other from Nefertiti. Both numbers at the locus come from Amenhotep III. If it's Ankhesenamun, there's no way around it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
SidneyF wrote:
.

As Nefertiti is never styled as a "King's Daughter," and she is the acknowledged mother of Ankhsenamun, then either a) she is not KV 35 Younger Lady, or b) KV 21A, if a daughter of KV 35 Younger Lady, is not Ankhsenamun.


You forgot c) KV21A is not Ankhesenamun. There is no possible way that KV21A can be the daughter of either the Younger Lady or the KV55 person. Not if the allele 35 at the fourth marker is correct, as at least one of KV21A's parents has to have contributed it. No child of Amenhotep III with Queen Tiye could possibly have 35 at the locus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
Sothis wrote:
AFAIK it has never been suggested, nor do I see any compelling evidence, that KV21 A`s (or B`s) mother has to be a daughter of Amenhotep III (in order to make her Ankhesenamun or else).

The two ladies certainly share some alleles with him, but that points only to some sort of relationship between them, their genetic mother and him.
What kind of relationship cannot be said for sure given the fact that both KV21 A`s and B`s DNA sets are incomplete and given that the obvious inbreeding in the family can relationships between individuals make appear closer than the really are.


It doesn't matter that the DNA profile of KV21A is not complete. Look at the first marker. If it is Ankhesenamun represented by that mummy, she got one allele from each of her parents. Whether she got the 16 at the first marker or the 10 from Akhenaten, she had to get the other from Nefertiti. Both numbers at the locus come from Amenhotep III. If it's Ankhesenamun, there's no way around it.


Still KV21 A or B could be Ankhesenamun without Nefertiti having to be AIII`s daughter.
If we assume that KV55 is Akhenaten then KV21A cannot have got her 16 at the first marker from him as he like the YL has 10 and 12.
She (KV21A) could have inherited the 10 from KV55 and the 16 from her mother who`s mummy we most like;y do not have.
Her mother does not have to be AIII`s daughter to have a 16 just because among the tested mummies he is the only one with a 16 at this locus. She can have got the 16 from the same source AIII got his from, namely from Tutmose IV or Mutemwija.
It would have been very helpful if Hawass`s team had tested a few more mummies up the family tree so we could know where the 16 came from.
But as they haven`t we can assume that KV21A`s mother might have been a member of Mutemwija`s family ( which may or may not have been the famous Akhmim clan) or a member of the extended royal family via Tutmose IV.
It is not unthinkable that all the royal wives who did not sport the title of a king`s daughter (mutemwija, Tiye and Nefertiti) were chosen for practical reasons because they belonged to the same well-known family.

The other possibility is that KV55 is not Akhenaten in which case KV21A could have got her 16 directly from her father which appears to be much easier but not necessairily more likely.

Note, I do not say KV21A is Ankhesenamun but on the other hand currently nothing contradicts this assumption either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis, I don't have time to reply to you until tonight, but here is one comprehensive opinion of the situation

http://thetimetravelerreststop.blogspot.com/

You'll have to scroll down until you see the post about Tutankhamun's family tree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:


Still KV21 A or B could be Ankhesenamun without Nefertiti having to be AIII`s daughter.[/quote]

I'm only concerned with "A" right now and it's highly likely that both of her parents were children of Amenhotep III.

[/quote]If we assume that KV55 is Akhenaten then KV21A cannot have got her 16 at the first marker from him as he like the YL has 10 and 12.
She (KV21A) could have inherited the 10 from KV55 and the 16 from her mother who`s mummy we most like;y do not have.

Her mother does not have to be AIII`s daughter to have a 16 just because among the tested mummies he is the only one with a 16 at this locus. She can have got the 16 from the same source AIII got his from, namely from Tutmose IV or Mutemwija.[/quote]

At best, Nefertiti can have been the daughter of a brother or a sister of Amenhotep III. But, using a much-vaunted phrase on the site, "there is no evidence for the daughter of such a brother or sister being married to Akhenaten". KV21A certainly shares alleles with Amenhotep III, including 6 at the second marker if you have her as the mother of both the foetuses.
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 11 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