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 

Evidence for Neferneferuaten as well as Smenkhare
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:19 pm    Post subject: Evidence for Neferneferuaten as well as Smenkhare Reply with quote

Ok I read through 3 of my (many) resources and this summarizes what is known about Neferneferuaten (female, we will ignore if she's Nefertiti for now Smile ) and Smenkhare.

Evidence for Ankh(et)kheperure Neferneferuaten
1. A fragmentary coregency stela shows Akhenaten followed by Ankhkheperure Nefernefruaten.
2. A box from Tutankhamen’s tomb shows Akhenaten’s names followed by those of King of U and L Egypt Ankhkheperure Beloved of Waenre, Son of Re and Lord of Appearances Neferneferuaten Beloved of Waenre (plus a single cartouche of Chief Queen Meritaten)
3. Inscription in the tomb of Pere in Thebes. The inscription refers to year 3 of King Ankhkheperure Beloved of Aten (?), the son of Re Neferneferuaten beloved of Waenre.
4. A pectoral and the canopic cofinettes in Tutankhamen’s tomb originally belonged to Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten. These particular inscriptions show that Neferneferuaten used the epithet ‘effective for her husband’ (3kh-n-h.s). Showing that Neferneferuaten was a woman and that Neferneferuaten and Smenkhare are 2 different individuals.




Evidence for Ankhkheperure Smenkhare Djeserkheperure
1. Inscription in the tomb of Meryre II in Amarna, showing Smenkhare with Great Royal Wife Meritaten.
2. An Amarna Block reused in Hermopolis. No (surviving) image, but the names of Smenkhare and Meritaten appear together on this block.
3. A wine docket mentioning “Year 1: wine of the estate of Smenkh[ka]re”
4. A calcite Jar in the Tomb of Tutankhamen. The inscription was expunged but can be reconstructed and mentions Akhenaten as well as Ankhkheperure, the son of Re, Smenkhare holy-of-manifestations.

Ambiguous ‘evidence’:
Neferneferuaten

1. An Amarna relief reused in Hermopolis shows two identically dressed followed by a smaller woman. Another block, which may have been located above this one, may identify the second figure as Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten.


Smenkhare
The altered inscription on the coffin from tomb KV55 seems to refer to a man, and the text seems to indicate that this man was related to Akhenaten. It is entirely possible that this inscription referred to Smenkhare and that the inscription is a prayer by Akhenaten on behalf of this individual. Allen mentions that a possible reconstruction of the text includes:
King of Upper and Lower Egypt […?], son of (?) The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, living in order, Lord of the Two Lands [Neferkheperure Waenre].
Both the names of Akhenaten AND the name of the person buried were excised so the reconstruction is not 100% certain.

Either Neferneferuaten or Smenkhare:
1. The unfinished stela of the Soldier Pasi. This depicts two unnamed pharaohs. The pose would fit better with Akhenaten and a female co-regent than Akhenaten with Smenkhare, but the missing names do not allow for positive identification.
2. An unfinished relief in Berlin shows Akhenaten and another King (wearing a Khepresh crown) This King is pouring a libation in a cup held by Akhenaten.


From:
J.P.Allen Akhenaten’s ‘Mystery’ Coregent and Successor, from Amarna Letters Vol 1 (1991)
Murnane, Texts from the Amarna Period (1995)
Dodson and Hilton, The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt (2004) (footnote pg 285)
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For completeness, people have brought up objections against the Nefertiti as pharaoh scenario. Here are two with possible alternative explanations Very Happy (following James Allen's article)

1. A fragmented ushabti of Queen Nefertiti. There are several possible interpretations. The most problematic one would be that Nefertiti was buried as Great Royal Wife, and would have had to have pre-deceased Akhenaten for her to have been buried in the Royal tomb. An alternative explanation may be that this is a votive figure. There is a precedent for this in the form of an ushabti/votive figure of Queen Tiye which was interred with her husband in his tomb in the King’s Valley.

2. Neferneferuaten is depicted with Meritaten serving as Great Royal Wife. This would suggest that Neferneferuaten should be male. It should be noted that Queens could keep their titles even under the next pharaoh. Tiye was still depicted as Great Royal Wife in Amarna. The fact that Neferneferuaten was depicted alongside the Great Royal wife Meritaten does not necessarily mean that Neferneferuaten had taken Meritaten as a wife. Meriaten could have just fulfilled the function of Great Royal Wife at Court.


Well, those are the facts as I was able to dig 'em up on short notice.
I will leave it up to the individual to make up thier own minds...
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of Tut's inner coffins was apparently made for Smenkhare in kingly style. When the Big Picture is constructed, this would seem to make it incumbent on the Nefertiti advocate to work around Smenkhare.

Very nice list. I would note that the Theban tomb is not undistputed among the authorities as evidence for Ankh(et)kheperure.

Is there a picture of this anywhere?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I haven't found a picture yet. Reeves has only lines 19 - 33 in his book.

This is the text as given by Murnane:
Quote:
Regnal year 3, third month of Inundation, day 10. The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands Ankhkheperure Beloved of Aten, the Son of Re Neferneferuaten Beloved of Waenre. Giving worship to Amun, kissing the ground to Wenennefer by the lay priest, scribe of the divine offerings of Amun in the Mansion of Ankhkheperure in Thebes, Pawah, born to Yotefseneb. He says:

"My wish is to see you, O lord of persea trees! May your throat take the north wind, that you may give satiety without eating and drunkenness without drinking. My wish is to look at you, that my heart might rejoice, O Amun, protector of the poor man: you are the father of the one who has no mother and the husband of the widow. Pleasant is the utterance of your name: it islike the taste of life . . . [etc.]

"Come back to us, O lord of continuity. You were here before anything had come into being, and you will be here when they are gone. As you caused me to see the darkness that is yours to give, make light for me so that I can see you . . . 

"O Amun, O great lord who can be found by seeking him, may you drive off fear! Set rejoicing in people's heart(s). Joyful is the one who sees you, O Amun: he is in festival every day!" 

For the Ka of the lay priest and scribe of the temple of Amun in the Mansion of Ankhkheperure, Pawah, born to Yotefseneb: "For your Ka! Spend a nice day amongst your townsmen." His brother, the outline draftsman Batchay of the Mansion of Ankhkheperure. (Murnane, 1995).


It's a fairly recent transliteration/translation and Murnane is a noted Amarna Scholar.

From what I have read the original inscription is written in hieratic.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rozette
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 1186
Location: Belguim

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote Anneke : Evidence for Ankh(t)kheperure Neferneferuaten

There is a fragmentary stela that was found at Amarna, known un officialy as the "Co-regency Stela" which was actually recarved, with the original inscriptions still legible.

It is known that the stela originally portrayed three figures, identified as Akhenaten, Nefertiti, and Meritaten.

However at some point after the stela was made, the name of Nefertiti had been gouged out and replaced with the name Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten, and Meritaten's name had been replaced with the name of Akhenaten and Nefertiti's third daughter, Ankhesenpaaten.

Why Nefertiti's clearly" feminine figure "would be renamed with a name in the masculine spelling .

Originally

Lord of the Two Lands, Neferkheperure-Waenre, Lord of Crowns, Akhenaten, given life, great in the duration of his life.
Great King's Chief Wife, Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti, may she live forever continually.
Born to the King's Chief Wife, Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti, may she live forever, the King's bodly daughter, his beloved, Meritaten, may she live forever.

Recarved as

Lord of the Two Lands, Neferkheperure-Waenre, Lord of Crowns, Akhenaten, given life, great in the duration of his life.
The Lord who performs the Ritual, Ankhkheperure Beloved of Waenre, Unique Lord, Neferneferuaten Beloved of Akhenaten, given life forever, continually.
King's bodly daughter, his beloved, Ankhesenpaaten.

In the graffito in the tomb of Pere at Thebes , the king who is named is the one listed as "Beloved of Aten"(?) and Neferneferuaten, Beloved of Waenre. Names that are never associated with the name Smenkhkare. So it would seem that Nefertiti is the one who is attested to as attaining a year 3.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I looked for the info about the Thaban inscription. It's from TT139 the tomb of Pairi.

Sir Alan Gardiner in 1928 already translated the hieratic text and yes it does refer to Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten (not Ankhkheperure Smenkhare).
The mistake of identifying this individual as Smenkhare comes from the problem that there are 2 Ankhkheperures and it seems that for a while scholars just assumed any mention of Ankhkheperure referred to Smenkhare, which has now been shown to be incorrect.
This is nicely illustrated in a book by Tyldesley. She refers to the inscription as being about Smenkhare, but then quotes Gardiner and it is clear that the text refers to Neferneferuaten Smile


Quote:
One of Tut's inner coffins was apparently made for Smenkhare in kingly style. When the Big Picture is constructed, this would seem to make it incumbent on the Nefertiti advocate to work around Smenkhare.

Nice try Wink The visceral cofinettes were definitely made for Neferneferuaten and depict a pharaoh. So maybe this makes it incumbent on the Smenkhare advocate to work around Neferneferuaten? Wink
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's an article about a co-regency relief from memphis which may not be what it seems.

See: http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf%20library/festschrift_simpson/39_malek.pdf

I'm not sure which of the above mentioned reliefs this may refer to (if any).
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
I looked for the info about the Thaban inscription. It's from TT139 the tomb of Pairi.

Sir Alan Gardiner in 1928 already translated the hieratic text and yes it does refer to Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten (not Ankhkheperure Smenkhare).
... and it is clear that the text refers to Neferneferuaten Smile


I hestitate to re-engage because it sort of looks like I stumbled upon the the main coven of the cult of Nefertiti Smile . But for clarity, the issue raised in the other thread is not the name or titles but glyph arrangement.

According to Redford, who is no slouch at the Armana period having been involved in the Akhenaten Temple Project and in the excavation at Karnak (Next on the History Channel - Battle of the Armana Experts!), the arrangement is one only associated with Smenkhare. It is as if it were Nefertiti's signature...but in Smenkhare's handwriting Wink .

I do not think this makes it dispositive of Nefertiti or some major point in favor of Smenkhare. Rather it is simply less than proof positive in favor of the Nefertiti position. The explanation you added is helpful and plausible, but ultimately the evidence remains a bit questionable.


That is what bugs me about advocacy books and materials: the one-sided approach in presenting the evidence. Too often, they dont even tell you what the evidence is, simply what they think it means (and what you think it should mean), using their credentials as camoflauge.

For the general public that might be fine, but for some of us it would be nice to see depictions of certain key evidence to at least be given an opportunity to decide which side might be making a mountain out of a molehill.


Quote:

Nice try Wink The visceral cofinettes were definitely made for Neferneferuaten and depict a pharaoh. So maybe this makes it incumbent on the Smenkhare advocate to work around Neferneferuaten? Wink


Sorry, what I meant by that was that ultimately the Nefertiti advocacy tends to ultimately deny Smenkhare even existed let alone was king ala Reeves (conversely, no one denies there was a Nefertiti). My comment was sort of in anticipation of that.


YMMV, and I am sure it will, LOL
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I hestitate to re-engage because it sort of looks like I stumbled upon the the main coven of the cult of Nefertiti


Actually in all of this I'm not trying to claim the Ruler Nefernefruaten IS Nefertiti. I carefully said in all the posts in this thread that I'm referring to Neferneferuaten, whomever that person may be.

I have speculated about the identity of Neferneferuaten in other threads, but I don't consider her identity as a given. [The name does make me lean a bit more towards Nefertiti, but I think there's an outside possiblity that it's someone else]
There seems to be some female ruler, and whether this is Nefertiti as co-regent , Nefertiti as sole ruler, or even someone entirely different is just not determinable from the info I have for as far as I'm concerned.

All I have tried to do is to figure out when there's a reference to Neferneferuaten, when to Smenkhare. And the latest research (2004) seems to show pretty conclusively (using an analysis of epithets) that Smenkhare was not referred to as Neferneferuaten.



I agree that Redford is a noted Amarna scholar.
But the book you mentioned is rather old. I was working from sources that post-date his book. I actually have some of Redford's excavation reports.
The excavation report from the Rud-menu from Karnak really only deals with the earlier time period of the rule of Akhenaten. The only Neferneferuaten referred to there is Nefernferuaten-Nefertiti, not Akhkheperure Neferneferuaten.
And I'm not sure Akhkheperure Smenkhare has left any lasting marks in Karnak.

I'm not sure that any different spelling of the name Neferneferuaten would carry much meaning.
They actually have a list of more than 12 inverted glyphs from the talatats from this site alone, and there is also quite a long list of of scribal errors.
Furthermore, looking at other indivuduals, there are quite a few people whose names were spelled in slightly different ways (Yuya, Tuya, Sennefer, Nefertiti, Nebmaatre, etc.)

Quote:
Sorry, what I meant by that was that ultimately the Nefertiti advocacy tends to ultimately deny Smenkhare even existed let alone was king ala Reeves (conversely, no one denies there was a Nefertiti). My comment was sort of in anticipation of that.

I think that in your dislike of Reeves you kinda missed the point of some of what I wrote Wink
According to Dodson, Allen, etc the latest research (as of 2004) shows that there are definitely two individuals. No one is denying the existence of Smenkhare. It is clear that both ruled in some way shape or form. And I mean Smenkhare and some female ruler referred to as Neferneferuaten (and we do not have enough info to identify any of the royal ladies as this ephemeral queen). They have to absolutely both fit into any timeline. It is not clear in what order they ruled or if they were co-regents with Akhenaten or anything like that.

I think it seems like some progress though that they have somehow established that both people played a role in the end game of the 18th dynasty. They seem to have found some evidence that they are NOT in fact the same person.

Quote:
That is what bugs me about advocacy books and materials: the one-sided approach in presenting the evidence. Too often, they dont even tell you what the evidence is, simply what they think it means (and what you think it should mean), using their credentials as camoflauge.

That's true. I have found it very hard to just ferret out the underlying facts so that I can see if their arguments seem to make sense, and how all of the evidence stacks up.

That's actually why I even started this thread. Just to see if I could figure out what just the latest known facts are. I'm not sure it's possible without having access to some of the technical journals. What we so often end up with is the "pop" version where everything is already "analyzed for us".
Oh well Very Happy

Quote:
YMMV, and I am sure it will, LOL

I think our opinions may be closer than you think Wink

Edited Once
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

According to Rose (in March/April 2002 issue of Archeaology magazine), the four miniature visceral coffins of Tutankhamun were first inscribed for Smenkhkare, then for Nefernefruaten, and finally for Tutankhamun. The middle coffin in which Tut was interred was definitely originally inscribed for Smenkhkare (Dodson, Ikram, Rose). There's no doubt Smenkhkare existed, and there's no doubt Nefernefruaten existed, but the problem is figuring out exactly who was whom. This is a thorny, ongoing, elusive mystery. The experts debate it just as vigorously as we folks do...and often much more so.

I agree with the earlier sentiment that too many writers use a one-sided approach in presenting their evidence. You read a different theory with practically every author and scholar. It can be quite the challenge for people such as we to put all of the pieces together into some coherent form. Confused

Some scholars completely gloss over any possibility that Nefertiti may have been in a co-regency. For instance, Stephen Quirke goes from Neferkheperure-Waenre Akhenaten to Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare to Nebkheperure Tutankhamun (all three definitively male names) ; Nefertiti or Nefernefruaten is not even mentioned, though Nefernefruaten could be argued as either male of female.

KV55 was a hodgepodge of artifacts, all of which more than likely were rescued from the Amarna royal necropolis and stored in this tiny private tomb for safekeeping. Most of you probably know this much already, but in summary the large gilded shrine that Davis and his team trampled to dust belonged to Tiye (I only recently learned of this; evidently there was enough of it that survived to identify an inscription); two of four clay bricks found on the floor were inscribed with the name of Akhenaten; the four canopic jars belonged to Kiya but the human-headed stoppers most likely belonged to one or more of Akhenaten's daughters; the heavily defaced coffin belonged to Kiya as well, as still-decipherable inscriptions attest, but was reworked for a male. Then there was the body itself, almost certainly that of a man and probably between 20 and 25 years of age at death--the remains of Smenkhkare (in my opinion), but no one is certain.

Rose lists three of the most common scenarios devised to explain the Amarna royal names regarding this mysetry (and which further help to explain Nefertiti's disappearance around year 13):

1. Nefertiti dies in year 13 or later; Smenkhkare (as Neferneferuaten) becomes male co-regent during the last three years of Akhenaten's reign, but predeaces Akhenaten; Tutankhamun succeeds Akhenaten.

2. Smenkhkare, as male co-regent, predeceaces Akhenaten, who is succeeded by Nefertiti as Nefernefruaten; Tutankhamun succeeds her.

3. Nefertiti becomes co-regent in year 12 or 13 as Nefernefruaten; after Akhenaten's death she rules as Smenkhkare; Tutankhamun succeeds her.

In summary Rose favors the first scenario. I must admit I do, too. He describes the second scenario as needlessly complex and mentions it is apparently disproven by the miniature coffins in Tut's tomb (by the nature of their inscriptions and revised inscriptions). And Rose views the third scenario as the least likely because evidence exists for a royal male and there's a body to go with it (KV55); equating Nefertiti with Smenkhkare as heir leaves the body in KV55 unexplained.

The notion of Nefertiti as Smenkhkare used to be common and was popular for a time, but I'm finding in the literature that fewer scholars are taking this seriously. But this leaves the precise identity of Nefernefruaten open to debate, and I don't know that it will be solved anytime soon.

You've got to love the Amarna Period--more twists and turns than my colon. Very Happy
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
Rose lists three of the most common scenarios devised to explain the Amarna royal names regarding this mysetry:

1. Nefertiti dies in year 13 or later; Smenkhkare (as Neferneferuaten) becomes male co-regent during the last three years of Akhenaten's reign, but predeaces Akhenaten; Tutankhamun succeeds Akhenaten.

2. Smenkhkare, as male co-regent, predeceaces Akhenaten, who is succeeded by Nefertiti as Nefernefruaten; Tutankhamun succeeds her.

3. Nefertiti becomes co-regent in year 12 or 13 as Nefernefruaten; after Akhenaten's death she rules as Smenkhkare; Tutankhamun succeeds her.


I think #3 has some very serious problems in Akhenaten acting against his own interest.

A fourth possibility is that Smenkhare dies and Nefertiti briefly acts as co-regent as Neferneferuaten. I am not sure how much more Ay or Horemheb may have wanted to endure from the Armana clan, but some people of note have offered it as a possibility. It incorporates the new Nefertiti name without explaining why she might need to use it.


I too favor #1.
a) When most people disappear, they are just dead, so it is not atypical

b) She disappears about the time several others do and when the Armana letters indicate a plague was about in the lands

c) The shawabti bearing her name indicates she was queen and not co-regent etc. It was found in the area of the tombs, not the workshop, which strikes me as more than coincidence.

Smenkhare predeceasing Akhenaten - never ruling alone - might also explain the fairly shabby treatment in his burial. (Ahhhh! They Buried me in a GIRLS coffin!!!!).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt-sesh wrote:
Quote:
According to Rose (in March/April 2002 issue of Archeaology magazine), the four miniature visceral coffins of Tutankhamun were first inscribed for Smenkhkare, then for Nefernefruaten, and finally for Tutankhamun. The middle coffin in which Tut was interred was definitely originally inscribed for Smenkhkare (Dodson, Ikram, Rose). There's no doubt Smenkhkare existed, and there's no doubt Nefernefruaten existed, but the problem is figuring out exactly who was whom. This is a thorny, ongoing, elusive mystery. The experts debate it just as vigorously as we folks do...and often much more so.


They are definitely two mysterious figures. Is there any evidence of a prince Smenkhare anywhere? The only one I have heard is some prince in a tomb of a tutor, but there's no clear concensus even as to what period the tomb belonged to.

It's really amazing really that there is no clear understanding of who these two individuals really are. For Neferneferuaten I have seen Nefertiti, Meritaten, or even another unknown female brought up.

Smenkhare may be Akhenaten's son or brother or even someone else?

The order of inscriptions: first Smenkhare, then Neferneferuaten surprised me a little. At first this may look like Neferneferuaten following Smenkhare, but who knows how funerary equipment was assigned to individuals?

I had wondered if Neferneferuaten could have played some role as regent for Tutankhamen, but then I read that some scholars now think that Horemheb was actually appointed as regent for Tut.


Quote:
van DIJK, Jacobus, Horemheb en de strijd om de troon van Toetanchamon, Phoenix, Leiden 40 (1994), 62-78.

"Horemheb and the struggle for the throne of Tutankhamun"
The claim made by Horemheb in the coronation text from Turin, viz. that already under Tutankhamun he was designated as heir to the throne, is to be taken seriously. It is borne out by the inscriptions in his Memphite tomb and by the fact that no comparable monuments of Tutankhamun's successor Ay exist. The fact that Ay ascended the throne on Tutankhamun's death was a direct result of the defeat suffered by the Egyptians against the Hittites,shortly after Tutankhamun's death. It seems that Ay represented the party of the 'doves' whereas Horemheb headed the war faction. Ay ascended the throne while various attempts were being made to appease the Hittites, attempts that were probably instigated by himself. When Horemheb became king, Ay and his partisans fell victim to a damnatio memoriae.


But who knows. I don't know what other scholars think about this assesment.

LOL Maybe Horemheb was Neferneferuaten? Ruled as a cross-dresser for a while? (Just kidding of course)

The way it makes my head spin I would have been a good stand-in for Linda Blair in the exorcist Wink
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:

I had wondered if Neferneferuaten could have played some role as regent for Tutankhamen, but then I read that some scholars now think that Horemheb was actually appointed as regent for Tut.


Quote:
van DIJK, Jacobus, Horemheb en de strijd om de troon van Toetanchamon, Phoenix, Leiden 40 (1994), 62-78.

"Horemheb and the struggle for the throne of Tutankhamun"
The claim made by Horemheb in the coronation text from Turin, viz. that already under Tutankhamun he was designated as heir to the throne, is to be taken seriously. It is borne out by the inscriptions in his Memphite tomb and by the fact that no comparable monuments of Tutankhamun's successor Ay exist. The fact that Ay ascended the throne on Tutankhamun's death was a direct result of the defeat suffered by the Egyptians against the Hittites,shortly after Tutankhamun's death. It seems that Ay represented the party of the 'doves' whereas Horemheb headed the war faction. Ay ascended the throne while various attempts were being made to appease the Hittites, attempts that were probably instigated by himself. When Horemheb became king, Ay and his partisans fell victim to a damnatio memoriae.


But who knows. I don't know what other scholars think about this assesment.


I like when things fit into the larger context and the political angle might explain something.

I've always thought it odd that while they removed/altered/usurped all the other Armana monuments AND we can see what they did to the poor soul in KV55 that they left Tut's tomb alone. They cant have forgotten where he was buried after just 10-12 years.

The political angle allows for the excising to have been 2 different motivations: Akhenaten and KV55 (assuming it is his coregent Smenhare) were excised as criminals, traitors. Ay and Tut are then treated less harshly because it is a political action not a reaction to religious-treasonous actions. Taking over monuments and stela is not that uncommon once the prev king is dead - they arent always revenge oriented.

Motivations aside, the point is that the suppression of the 3-4 Armana kings could have been 2 or more separate acts for different reasons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VBadJuJu wrote:
Quote:
Smenkhare predeceasing Akhenaten - never ruling alone - might also explain the fairly shabby treatment in his burial. (Ahhhh! They Buried me in a GIRLS coffin!!!!).


LOL A girl's coffin! Ick! Girls have koodies!

This scenario does make sense when you think about it. Smenkhkare has died, and it seems Akhenaten is soon to follow. Nefertiti died some time ago, leaving only the young boy Tutankhaten to ascend to the throne. There is a great advantage to this, from the perspective of men like Ay and Horemheb. The boy is very young and his mind still malleable: we can use him at this impressionable age to restore the old ways...to finish off the agenda of the heretic king for good.

Goodness, I was almost story-writing there, but you get the idea.

Quote:
I've always thought it odd that while they removed/altered/usurped all the other Armana monuments AND we can see what they did to the poor soul in KV55 that they left Tut's tomb alone. They cant have forgotten where he was buried after just 10-12 years.


This does seem a bit odd, but perhaps there's a certain logic to it. Maybe there was no desire or need to deface the little tomb where the boy king was interred. After all, he had been an effective tool in the restoration of the old ways, and as such deserved a modicum of respect. After what appears to be numerous successful campaigns into Kush, Libya, and the Levant, Horemheb may have even felt some affection for Tut and was appeased that the fortunes of Egypt were turning in their favor. I've always thought of Horemheb as stern and perhaps even harsh, but I see no evidence that he ever harbored ill will against Tut--the wall reliefs in his tomb at Saqqara would suggest a sense of respect of and duty to the young...but this could be just so much propoganda on Horemheb's part, playing his part of the loyal military commander. Confused

anneke wrote:
Quote:
It's really amazing really that there is no clear understanding of who these two individuals really are. For Neferneferuaten I have seen Nefertiti, Meritaten, or even another unknown female brought up.


That's right, Meritaten has been suggested by some scholars for this role. I'd forgotten that, and it wasn't mentioned in the article I cited. It's always possible there is yet more to be found, something that will enlighten us as to the historical record of this mysterious time. Of course, I could just be dreaming.

Quote:
LOL Maybe Horemheb was Neferneferuaten? Ruled as a cross-dresser for a while? (Just kidding of course)


Laughing Laughing Laughing

Careful, you might just start another theory that will circulate around the world. Horemheb will become another ancient Egyptian poster child for cross-dressers!

By the way, anneke, that one completely caught me off guard. I nearly spit out a mouthful of Diet Coke, I laughed so hard.

And thanks for translating that bit of article for us. I don't speak Dutch (LOL for shame, considering my family is Dutch!). I wasn't aware that Horemheb was appointed as Tut's regent. It must have disturbed the former general considerably when Ay next took the throne. Does Martin mention this fact in his book on Saqqara, do you remember? Based on what van Dijk writes, Ay was certainly a crafty statesman and no feeble old man.
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
..... Smenkhkare has died, and it seems Akhenaten is soon to follow. Nefertiti died some time ago, leaving only the young boy Tutankhaten to ascend to the throne.

I always thought there was some indication that Smenkhare actually followed Akhenaten on the throne? (Something to do with the wine dockets I think).
I thought it was Akhenaten-Smenkhare-Tutankhaten with Neferneferuaten mixed in at some unknown time.

kmt_sesh wrote:
By the way, anneke, that one completely caught me off guard. I nearly spit out a mouthful of Diet Coke, I laughed so hard.

LOL Job accomplished then... Laughing

kmt_sesh wrote:
And thanks for translating that bit of article for us. I don't speak Dutch (LOL for shame, considering my family is Dutch!). I wasn't aware that Horemheb was appointed as Tut's regent. It must have disturbed the former general considerably when Ay next took the throne. Does Martin mention this fact in his book on Saqqara, do you remember? Based on what van Dijk writes, Ay was certainly a crafty statesman and no feeble old man.

I didn't translate it. This was the summary of the article given at bibligraphy site I have mentioned before. Sometimes the summary is given by the author, and other times I think it is given by a reviewer.
It has the initials W.H. after it. I don't know who that is.

I don't remember what MArtin says about Horemheb in this regard. There are further exacavation reports (2 volumes I think) published by Leiden University: the group lead by Raven and van Walsem. It would be interesting to see what they have to say about it.
I think they have referenced van Dijk's work elsewhere?
I will have to look that up...
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
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