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 Previous  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
ImageOfAten
Priest
Priest


Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Posts: 604
Location: Horizon of the Aten

PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
My book is not handy, but I think that is a Male form of the name but with beloved of Akhenaten, implying feminity


What is it that you are currently reading?
_________________
"You made heaven far away just to rise in it, to see all you make, Being unique and risen in your aspects of being as 'living Aten' manifest, shining, far yet near".
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 Oct 09, 2005 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From what I read this means that these gold sequins belong to the female ruler Neferneferuaten, not Smenkhare.

Quote:
Is the Pere tomb even the feminine form?

The grafitti mentions the name Ankhkheperure, but does refer to Neferneferuaten.

I guess the confusion partially comes from the fact that she referred to herself by the male version of the name as well Very Happy

Quote:
I havent gotten there yet, BUT Giles maintains that Meriaten was almost certainly younger than Smenkhy. If he ascended at age 16, co ruled for 2-3 years and died at 20-23, he would need no regant. But there is a hint of a suggestion that Ankhessenamun 'ruled' for a year after Tut, before Ay.

I personally think that Neferneferuaten was regent for Tutankhamen, not Smenkhare. Smenkhare seems to have been an adult when he took the throne. It was Tut who was underage when he came to the throne and would have been in need of supervision.

My impression is that Nefernefruaten "ruled" after Smenkhare, not after Tutankhamen. It makes more sense to me to see Neferneferuaten as fitting into this period immediately after the Amarna period. There seems at least some sense in her borrowing the throne name of Smenkhare if she took care of state affairs right after Smenkhare died. In some sense ruling in his name for a while.

Does the idea of Ankhesenamen "ruling" for a while come from the idea that the Dahamunzu letter writing campaign took a while and that there is some indication that Aye did not take the throne immediately after the death of Tut? The sense one gets from the letters is that Aye did not take the throne until there had been a back and forth of some 4 letters which would have taken several months I think. But that belongs in another topic Very Happy

I couldn't find much information about the Amarna letter 41. (Only a summary), but then again I didn't look too hard.
The timeframe would make one expect to see some letters exchanged with both Smenkhare and Neferneferuaten.
I think there's one reference to Meritaten (Mayati) in the letters which indicated that she was recognized as an influential woman at court. But I thought that this letter dated to the time of Akhenaten?
_________________
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 Oct 09, 2005 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
From what I read this means that these gold sequins belong to the female ruler Neferneferuaten, not Smenkhare.
...or it is the reverse of the alternatives I offered to your post Akhenaten scenario: Smenkhy was coregent and changed his name to Neferneferuaten when Akhenaten died. The sequins then are merely another Smenkhare item appropriated by/for Tut.

The alternative is to sort thru all the stuff everywhere with the name Neferneferuaten on it and put them into Smenkhare and Neferneferuaten piles. The basis for doing so, being mostly a series of wax sealings from a bad impressment master.

Quote:
I personally think that Neferneferuaten was regent for Tutankhamen, not Smenkhare.
I agree, but I am not yet on board that they used the name Neferneferuaten. Besides the ages, you have the Atenist name.

I dunno if I mentioned it, but Giles has Ankessenamun in the list after Tut; and no Neferneferuaten - to him that is Smenkhare. The link, as it were, between the two names is Tut's coffin. Originally inscribed as 'Smenkhare mery Akhenaten' then changed to 'Neferneferuaten mery Waenre'. Rather than being usurped, the owner changed names.

Quote:
Does the idea of Ankhesenamen "ruling" for a while come from the idea that the Dahamunzu letter writing campaign took a while and that there is some indication that Aye did not take the throne immediately after the death of Tut?

Havent got there yet. As I mentioned, her name was in the list possibly just as a way of adding a year before Ay reigned to align with Asian kings.

Quote:
The sense one gets from the letters is that Aye did not take the throne until there had been a back and forth of some 4 letters which would have taken several months I think.

Yes, plus possibly the wrong season for the flowers buried with Tut. If there was a delay and Tut effectively lay in state, it might have been Ay's idea. When the Hittite prince was removed from the picture, he may have taken a more direct (hands-on) approach.

Giles suggests that this need not mean opposition between Ay and Horemheb. H may have been happy to go to war and agreed to let Ay take the throne first. That doesnt comport with his later excising actions, but whats 1 more lose end?

Quote:
I couldn't find much information about the Amarna letter 41. (Only a summary), but then again I didn't look too hard. ... I think there's one reference to Meritaten (Mayati) in the letters
Others have suggested Smenkhare for Huria in EA41, Campbell offers it as a possibility. Giles simply shows how it is possible. It is also possible that one of the letters without an addressee or "To the King" is also to Smenkhy, but none seem so as to the contents.

To my knowledge, all of the Meriaten letters are in the time of Akhenaten. Burnaburiash goes to great length recounting how she didnt send a gift when he was sick. How petty these guys are!
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
On a slightly different topic: I can't figure out where Smenkhare would have originally been buried. My first impression was the royal tomb at Amarna, but wouldn't that tomb have been a tad full at this point?


In his view, it went like this: 1 or 2 daughters were buried in the Alpha suite and the rooms 1-6 off to the side were meant for Nefertiti. Amenhotep died unexpectedly (the mummy is not his partly based on age, but mostly the skin packing thing - I was not aware that was eveident in the AIII mummy) and was buried in Akhenaten's chamber in the back. In his view AIII was a participant in the Atenism movement, lived his later years in Neferville and thus Akhenaten would have given him an Atenist burial. When Tiye died, they put her in the pillared hall/room and work stopped on the tomb. Both were later moved to AIII's KV tomb.

AKhenaten and Nefertiti were never buried in the royal Armana tomb. His sarcophogus etc were just left there in part because it was obsolete with 3 sides bearing the early forms of Aten titles and iconography. Akhenaten commissioned a new one.

When Petrie was excavating in Neferville, the French had a concession to excavate the royal tombs. He notes that he clearly saw 2 other tombs in the wadi. Thus, there are other tombs in the Royal wadi yet to be explored (or found) where at least Nefer and Nefer were originally buried.

Smenkhy may be different. He specualtes that Smenkhy may have tried to walk the line and appeal to both Atenists and Amunists, and in so doing failed to please either. Part of that effort was a Amun type tomb elsewhere for which he offers evidence, the details of which ellude me just now. In any event with a very short reign not much progress would have been made on it and may have used one of the other Armana tombs.

I am still digesting the idea that A-III was basically a full Atenist, it being so closely associated with A-IV.
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
Quote:
there is a hint of a suggestion that Ankhessenamun 'ruled' for a year after Tut, before Ay.
Does the idea of Ankhesenamen "ruling" for a while come from the idea that the Dahamunzu letter writing campaign took a while and that there is some indication that Aye did not take the throne immediately after the death of Tut? The sense one gets from the letters is that Aye did not take the throne until there had been a back and forth of some 4 letters which would have taken several months I think.

I finally found the details on this, and yes that is essentially it. In addition to the time to exchange envoys and letters, there is also the element that she had the ability to write the letters and receive envoys at all.

There is also the issue of the time Tut "layed in state". If the Hittite accounts are accurate, he died in late summer, early fall, yet was buried with late spring flower petals and wreaths. This suggests quite a long time between his death and burial (to Reeves this is proof that Dahamunsu is Nefertiti).

So, since the next king cant ascend until performaing some of the burial rights of the former, there was some period of time where there was no king. Someone had to nominally be in charge then and Ankhesenamun is the best candidate given the actions she is carrying out and that she is the last royal we know about. Manetho then would be somewhat correct in the sister of a king ruling a while.

My speculation is that Aye played her and the situation. He let her send the letters, maybe suggested it and then let it be known what was going on to those antithetical to a foreign ruler coming to the throne. I dont think Aye and Horemheb conspired because of the way Horemheb treated Aye's burial and memory.

Aye knew Horemheb wouldnt let that happen and knew killing the Hittite prince would result in all out war. This would put Horemheb in the field with the army and open the way for Aye to take the throne. Aye couldnt immediately take the throne because Horheb would likely respond in the same way to an usurper.

Anyway, thats the theory of how Ankesenamun 'ruled' for about 8 months to a year - though certainly the royal court and Aye were involved.
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VBad wrote:
My speculation is that Aye played her and the situation. He let her send the letters, maybe suggested it and then let it be known what was going on to those antithetical to a foreign ruler coming to the throne. I dont think Aye and Horemheb conspired because of the way Horemheb treated Aye's burial and memory.


Things like that make me wonder who else was involved. Aye could not work alone if he did this. There must have been a faction at court that supported him. Must have been a powerful one to if he was able to take the throne.

The destruction of Aye's burial always puzzled me.
Horemheb would have been in charge of Aye's burial as his successor.
It seems the tomb was quite nice and what they have found of the funerary equipment, that must have been quite elaborate as well.
So first he buries him with full pharaonic honors, and then he orders the tomb to be desecrated?

He could of course do something like this in a passive aggressive way by not having the west valley patrolled, thereby making it easier for tomb robbers to ransack the tomb.

What actually points to Horemheb going after Aye's memory?
Could it have been the Ramesside kings instead?

Or did Horemheb become more vengeful after several years on the throne? It seems a bit odd to me that he had the burial destroyed that he himself provided.
_________________
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: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
So first he buries him with full pharaonic honors, and then he orders the tomb to be desecrated?

He could of course do something like this in a passive aggressive way by not having the west valley patrolled, thereby making it easier for tomb robbers to ransack the tomb.

What actually points to Horemheb going after Aye's memory?
Could it have been the Ramesside kings instead?
I dunno what precisely indicates it was Horemheb, but everyone seems in agreement on that.

Speculating an answer: I would think that a pharonic burial would be a state affair and as such it would be very unseemly for Hormheb to act out against Aye beforehand. Secondly, he'd have to go thru with a diginified funeral in order to perform the opening of the mouth to recieve the spirit of Horus. Even it Aye was an usurper, he'd snatched the spirit from Tut. Finally, untl he was properly and fully enthroned after the burial, there was a chance some faction could intercede - perhaps on technical grounds of not recieving the spirit - if the typical rights werent performed.

Then later, sending out a few delegates to desecrate the burial ultimately denies Aye an afterlife without any witnesses and without risking outrage from courtiers, priests, the Aye faction etc etc. A dash of plausible deniability is there.
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nefertiry Merymut
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:14 pm    Post subject: Neferneferuaten Reply with quote

I've been reading the threads about Nefertiti/ Smenkhkhare/ Neferneferuaten for several months now. What surprises me is that no one seems to talk much anymore about the original theory made by archaeologists of Cyril Aldred's era, namely the idea that Smenkhare was Akenaten's lover (and probably brother or half brother). This would account for why he might share the name Neferneferuaten with Nefertiti, especially if she was already dead. It would also, IMO, explain the gender confusion with the spelling, since he'd essentially be playing a feminine role. Certainly it would be a situation without precedent in Egyptian society...like the entire Amarna era.

Even though I was raised in a feminist era, and would love to believe Nefertiti ruled as pharaoh, I find it hard to believe, or at least I believe that if she'd done so the evidence would be unambiguous. Her face, titles, etc were so distinctive and well known, they would be impossible to disguise, and why bother? From what I understand, the few depictions that might be the Pharoah called Smenkhkare look nothing at all like her. Certainly the small mummiform coffins in Tut's tomb, thought to adapted from those for Smenkhkare, do not.

Also, as queen she seems to have had a status virtually equal to Pharaoh. Akhenaten seems to have gone out of his way to emphasize that she was no mere "Great Wife" (example, showing her in the traditional pose of slaugtering the enemy). Why the need to give herself a "sex change"? Why not simply rule as Nefertiti?

Of course, I know Hatshepsut did it, and that *might* be precedent enough, but from what I understand there was never real confusion about Hatshepsut's gender, that depictions of her as Pharaoh were indeed her and not some obscure male. She didn't, for example, take the name of Thothmes, but used her own in a masculine version. In the Smenkhkare/Nefertiti issue, you would have to assume some kind of disguising of gender. And why, for a woman as visible and famous in her time as Princess Diana was in ours?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What surprises me is that no one seems to talk much anymore about the original theory made by archaeologists of Cyril Aldred's era, namely the idea that Smenkhare was Akenaten's lover (and probably brother or half brother).


From what I have read, the indications for that theory are very ambiguous.

It is interesting to see how the theories have changed over the years though.

I also visit another forum and one of the experts there gave a really nice recap of the history of this issue.
I asked her permission to share it with all of you and this is her write up.

She did make this comment:
Quote:
..please note, as a caveat from this Author, that this information is how we understand the situation as of this moment. Much of this can be re-examined depending upon new discoveries, such as the KV 63 find, which is hoped to shed some light on the Amarna/post-Amarna period. As in the case of any theory, it’s only as good as the information known at the moment.



Quote:
The identification of the KV 55 remains as Smenkhkare has been
around since at least 1931, when Derry and Engelbach issued
publications which associated the remains with Smenkhkare, as
opposed to Akhenaten, which had been Weigall's theory from his
publication in 1910 (and later in his revised edition in 1934).
This pretty much remained the case until the late 1970's.

However, in the late 1970's, there appear to have been a number of
publications which first questioned the very existence of
Smenkhkare. The first was James Harris' two articles,

Harris, James R. 1973. Nefernefruaten. GM Heft 4: 15-17.

and

____________. 1974. Nefernefruaten regnans. AcOr [Copenhagen] 36:
11-21.

which suggested that the Nefer-nefru-aten Smenkh-ka-re, who suddenly
appeared as co-regent in the thirteenth year of King Akhenaten, was
actually identical with Queen Nefer-nefru-aten Nefertiti, who
disappeared from the records at about the same time.

This was followed up by Julia Samson's 1978 work

Samson, J. 1978. _Amarna. City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Nefertiti
as Pharaoh_. Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd.

These comprise the main "King Neferneferuaten" theories. For those
who adhere strictly to these theories as laid out, the reasoning
goes like this: since the prenomen of 'Ankheperure' was held by
King Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare, they are the same person.
However, this presumption was questioned in the 1990's by James
Allen, in the article

Allen, J. 1994. Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re. GM 141: 7-17.

who stated, in regards to the "single pharaoh" theory (this is
quoted at some length to explain Allen's analysis):

"The Nefer-neferu-aton set [of "Akhkheperure" prenomens - KGG] is
the only one associated with Akhenaton, either in the epithets of
the names themselves or in conjunction with Akhenaton's cartouches.
It seems likely that the individual to whom these names refer is a
woman. Her sex is clearly indicated by the feminine variants of the
prenomen (A2a and B) and seems to be shown on the "Coregency" stela
as well.

A priori, it is likely that this woman is Nefertiti in the role of
pharaoh and (probably) coregent with Akhenaton. Her pharaonic
prerogatives already as Akhenaton's queen - culminating in the Pase
stela and the unfinished Berlin stela - are well enough known, and
she is the only woman in the Amarna and immediate post-Amarna period
that can be shown to have such prerogatives. /Nfr-nfrw-jtn/ is used
by her as a title when she is queen, and only in her name is
the /jtn/ element reversed. Reversal does not occur in the name of
the princess Nefer-neferu-aton the Younger, nor in other royal
women's names compounded with /jtn/. Reversal does not appear in the
prenomen /nfr-nfrw-jtn/ plus epithet evidently because there is no
determinative for it to face. In the one instance in which a
determinative is present (C2c), there is (partial) reversal: the
exception would seem to prove both the status of the orthography and
the link with Nefertiti.

By contrast, the Smenkh-ka-re set is never linked with Akhenaton,
either by epithet or by juxtaposed cartouches. No hard evidence
exists as to the sex of the king who used these names. The scene
from Meri-re's tomb is sketchy and could conceivably represent a
female pharaoh; gay Robins has recently shown that association with
a Chief Queen does not necessarily indicate that the king in
question is male. Pictorial evidence for two male coregents is
equally ambiguous. At the same time, however, there is also no
evidence to indicate firmly that the king called Smenkh-ka-re "Holy
of Forms" was a woman, since all feminine instances of the prenomen
are linked with the Nefer-neferu-aton set of names.

Either, therefore, the Smenkh-ka-re set of names represents a later
stage in the career of the female pharaoh Nefer-neferu-aton, or it
belongs to a separate individual. Proponents of Nefertiti's kingship
have argued vigorously for the first interpretation, claiming
that "there is as yet no valid evidence that a youth called Smenkh-
ka-re existed." But the evidence itself does not demand an
identification of Smenkh-ka-re with Nefer-neferu-aton, and in fact
the insistence that the two sets of names must belong to a single
individual only weakens each case.

<...>

Arguments for a female Smenkh-ka-re, on the other hand, are based
primarily on the use of /anx-xprw-ra/ as prenomen. As shown above,
however, there is a clear distinction between this use and that of
the same name in the Nefer-neferu-aton set of names. Any other
argumentation is essentially from silence - for example, that
absence of the epithets using Akhenaton's names reflects that king's
death. In any case, the burial in Tomb 55 must constitute a major
impediment to any theory based on a single female pharaoh. While no
inscriptional evidence remains to connect this burial with the king
called Smenkh-ka-re, who else could it be?

SOME CONCLUSIONS

When all the evidence is assembled, weighted, and analyzed without
prejudice toward one or another opposing viewpoint, it seems clear
that there is strong support for both the theory of Nefertiti's
kingship and the existence of a male pharaoh between Akhenaton and
Tutankhamun."

More recently, Marc Gabolde (1998) has suggested that "King
Neferneferuaten" is actually the named used by Meritaten as regent,
which is an expansion of a theory first proposed by Rolf Krauss in
1978. However, Gabolde appears to also hold, as does Allen, that
Smenkhkare was a male and existed as a separate regent.

The other publications which hold that the KV 55 body is not that of
Smenkhkare are those of Nicholas Reeves, who argues, from the
inclusion of several items of funereal equipment (magic bricks,
coffin, etc.) that the body within KV 55 is that of Akhenaten, which
is a reversal to Weigall's theory of 1910. However, I have pointed
out some issues that are taken with this as identification,
including, most importantly, the forensic examinations which
determiend the age of the remains to be that of a male in his early
20's (Derry 1931, Harrison 1966, and Filer 2000). Reeves'
explanation of his Akhenaten/KV 55 theories can be found in

Reeves, C. N. 1981. A Reappraisal of Tomb 55 in the Valley of the
Kings. JEA 67: 48-55.

____________. 1982. Akhenaten after all? GM 54: 61-71.

Reeves, N. and R. H. Wilkinson 1996. _The Complete Valley of the
Kings: Tombs and Treasures of Egypt's Greatest Pharaohs_. London:
Thames and Hudson.

Davis, T. M. and N. Reeves, Eds. 1990 (1910). _The Tomb of Queen
Tiyi_. Second Ed. San Francisco: KMT Communications. (Reeves
expounds his theory in the Introduction to this edition)

A very good overview of the various theories - forensic,
archaeological, and inscriptional - about the KV 55 remains and
burial, see

Helck, W. 2001. _Das Grab Nr. 55 im Königsgräbertal. Seine Inhalt
und seine historische Bedeutung_. Sonderschrift/Deustches
Archäologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo 29. Mainz: von Zabern.

Other references:

Derry, D. E. 1931. Notes on the Skeleton hitherto believed to be
that of King Akhenaten. ASAE 31: 115-119.

Engelbach, R. 1931. The So-called Coffin of Akhenaten. ASAE 31: 98-
114.

Filer, J. 2000. The KV 55 body: the facts. Egyptian Archaeology 17/
(Autumn): 13-14.

Gabolde, M. 1998. _D'Akhenaton à Tutânkhamon_. Collection de
l'Institut d'Archaeologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquite 3.
Lyon/Paris: Universite Lumiere-Lyon 2, Institut d'Archaeologie et
d'Histoire de l'Antiquite/Diffusion de Boccard.

Harrison, R. G. 1966. An Anatomical Examination of the Pharaonic
Remains Purported to be Akhenaten. JEA 52: 95-119.

Krauss, R. 1978. _Das Ende der Amarnazeit. Beiträge zur Geschichte
und Chronologie des Neuen Reiches_. Hildesheimer Ägyptologische
Beiträge 7. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag.

Weigall, A. 1934/1910. _The Life and Times of Akhnaton, King of
Egypt_. Second Ed., Rev. London: Thorton Butterworth, Ltd.

HTH.

Regards --

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon)

Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom

http://www.griffis-consulting.com



Copyright:
the original posting was made on the Forum of Amun
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nefertiry Merymut
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anneke-
Thanks for this. Should make interesting reading.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Smartie
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Posts: 250
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So either way by the time Tut got the throne everyone else was dead! it just seems so weird, that all these people seem to just die. I've heard there was a plague around this time, but isn't a child more likely to die from this than an adult? Then what of Tiye? did she die before Tut came to the throne? or did she outlive him? (concerning the lock of hair that is supposidly her's). No doubt it's possible, but it just seems weird. My great-grandma was one of 5 girls, and only her and one of her sisters actually made it to adulthood. Though my great-grandma and the sister that lived were the oldest, which still makes me question how just two kids (Ankhesenamun being the oldest at 10 12 years old) survived this? If the mummy in KV 55 is Smenkhare then how did he die? I remember watching that Nefertiti special on the DSC channel, and they mentioned something about a stab wound by the ribs Confused
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
queencleopatra
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 336
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

okay I know this is off topic, but what is that promo in you signature Smartie?

And by the way, I think that there was a lot of murder in this family, after all, Tut's father was waging war against the priests, and to do that you have got to have a death wish.
_________________
Cleopatra's Picture

Cleopatra's Note
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ImageOfAten
Priest
Priest


Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Posts: 604
Location: Horizon of the Aten

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I've heard there was a plague around this time, but isn't a child more likely to die from this than an adult?


I have also wondered about the same thing from time to time. Usually you would expect the young and elderly to be among the first to suffer from some kind of plague. Things happen though and some people are probably more resistant to health threats than others depending to their individual immune systems. Of course I really do not know what I am talking about, but it seemed somewhat logical at the time I thought about it Laughing
_________________
"You made heaven far away just to rise in it, to see all you make, Being unique and risen in your aspects of being as 'living Aten' manifest, shining, far yet near".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ImageOfAten
Priest
Priest


Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Posts: 604
Location: Horizon of the Aten

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A priori, it is likely that this woman is Nefertiti in the role of
pharaoh and (probably) coregent with Akhenaton. Her pharaonic
prerogatives already as Akhenaton's queen - culminating in the Pase
stela and the unfinished Berlin stela - are well enough known, and
she is the only woman in the Amarna and immediate post-Amarna period
that can be shown to have such prerogatives.


Does anyone know about which year the Pase stela was created? I remember reading something about it a while back, but I cannot recall it for the life of me.
_________________
"You made heaven far away just to rise in it, to see all you make, Being unique and risen in your aspects of being as 'living Aten' manifest, shining, far yet near".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rozette
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 1186
Location: Belguim

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote ImageOfAten :
Does anyone know about which year the Pase stela was created?

http://www.egiptologia.net/isis/rgp-03.html

Do you mean the stela on the link that I provided?
The king to the right wears the Double Crown, the one to the left the khepresh, which is never worn by a regular queen.
-
Probably the later years of the reign of Akhenaten .

Pase was a soldier of Kha-em-maat ("Appearing in Truth" ), was this not the name of one of the barges of Amenhotep III?

Maybe there was at Amarna also a regiment with the name Kha-em-maat ("Appearing in Truth").
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 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