Click on the logo to visit the shop |
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sothis
Priest
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| anneke wrote: | I have always wondered if it was more of a gradual transition. The Aten is already mentioned under Tuthmosis IV, and in year 10 of Amenhotep III he mentions a royal ship called Aten-tjehen which sailed on a lake dug for Tiye.
In the first 5 or so years of his reign Akhenaten builds several temples in Thebes dedicated to the Aten:
Gempaaten ("The Sun Disc is Found in the Estate of the God Aten")
Hwt benben ("The Mansion of the Benben stone")
Rud-menu (en-Aten-er-neheh) ("Sturdy are the Monuments of the Sun Disc Forever")
Teni–menu (en-Aten-er-neheh) ("Exalted are the Monuments of the Sun Disc Forever")
If there was a coregency between Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, then Amenhotep III would have known about this building project and presumably agreed with it?
The claim on the boundary stela is that Akhenaten went out and found the site of Akhetaten in year 4, and that they moved to the new capitol in year 5. No word on how much of the site had been constructed at that point. |
We can be fairly sure that before year 5 nothing had been constructed on the site of the capital-to-be.
The first boundary stela is dated year 5, month 8 day 13 and sets out the boundaries and contains Akhenaten`s oath that the city will be exactly on this spot and that he himself, Nefertiti and Meritaten are to be buried there.
Later still in year 6 it is said in other stelae how the king returned and stayed in a tent-like construction because the main buildings were still far from complete.
The complete move of the court to Akhetaten only happened in year 7 or maybe even 8. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Orwell
Scribe
Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sothis wrote: | | anneke wrote: | I have always wondered if it was more of a gradual transition. The Aten is already mentioned under Tuthmosis IV, and in year 10 of Amenhotep III he mentions a royal ship called Aten-tjehen which sailed on a lake dug for Tiye.
In the first 5 or so years of his reign Akhenaten builds several temples in Thebes dedicated to the Aten:
Gempaaten ("The Sun Disc is Found in the Estate of the God Aten")
Hwt benben ("The Mansion of the Benben stone")
Rud-menu (en-Aten-er-neheh) ("Sturdy are the Monuments of the Sun Disc Forever")
Teni–menu (en-Aten-er-neheh) ("Exalted are the Monuments of the Sun Disc Forever")
If there was a coregency between Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, then Amenhotep III would have known about this building project and presumably agreed with it?
The claim on the boundary stela is that Akhenaten went out and found the site of Akhetaten in year 4, and that they moved to the new capitol in year 5. No word on how much of the site had been constructed at that point. |
We can be fairly sure that before year 5 nothing had been constructed on the site of the capital-to-be.
The first boundary stela is dated year 5, month 8 day 13 and sets out the boundaries and contains Akhenaten`s oath that the city will be exactly on this spot and that he himself, Nefertiti and Meritaten are to be buried there.
Later still in year 6 it is said in other stelae how the king returned and stayed in a tent-like construction because the main buildings were still far from complete.
The complete move of the court to Akhetaten only happened in year 7 or maybe even 8. |
Did that Temple building under Akhenaten necessarily occur after he was King? Wouldn't they take several years to build? Could they have begun when Amenophis III was alive, but not ccmplete before he died, and completed under Akhenaten? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kylejustin wrote: | | the block from hermopolis that had the inscription naming tutankhamun a king's son, was not on the same block naming a king's daughter. and her name was not complete either, they had part of a name, and i think the only known princess it corresponded too was ankhesenamun. ... |
The blocks 56 VIII - A and 831 VIII - C (Roeder, Hermopolis II, 1969, Pl. 105 & 106) belong together. This proves their back (56 VIII - C and 831 VIII - A). Here we see a floral motive which fit smoothly together like in a puzzle. See Marc Gabolde : La parenté de Toutânkhamon. - Bulletin de la Société Française d'Egyptologie - BSFE - 155. - 2002. - pp. 32 - 48, fig. 7.
| kylejustin wrote: | | ... and i don't know if they are aware from whose reign the block was from ... |
Further blocks Roeder already assigns to one group together with these two show clearly the cartouche of the Great Royal Wife Neferneferuaton Nefertiti (see for example 451 VII - A).
So we have the inscription to a scene, containing the names GKW Neferneferuaton Nefertiti, Kings son Tutanchaton, Kings daughter Anchesenpaaton, born from Nefertiti. The name Nefercheperura seems also possible (following from rests of hieroglyphs on 56 VIII - A).
Greetings, Lutz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sothis wrote: |
Later still in year 6 it is said in other stelae how the king returned and stayed in a tent-like construction because the main buildings were still far from complete.
The complete move of the court to Akhetaten only happened in year 7 or maybe even 8. |
From Redford's description in Akhenaten: Heretic King I surmised that the reference to tent like structures meant that the royal family moved to Akhetaten and stayed in temporary structures until the buildings were finished.
Wine jar labels from Akhetaten/El Amarna go back to about year 5 for instance, so that a move in year 6 is possible. Cyril Aldred seems to have believed that the move took place in year 6.
I had never heard the theory that the move was as late as year 7 or 8. But given the likelyhood of differing theories I would not be surprised at all if someone proposed such a timeline. 
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meretseger
Priest
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lutz wrote: | | Meretseger wrote: | Whichever King was buried in KV55, which may quite likely have been Smenkhkara.
Round and round we go...  |
Its name unfortunately generally dips only very rarely during the 18. Dynasty in Amarna, and in KV 55 not at all. No object from KV 55 does point only basically to this king.
Lutz |
Except possibly the body. The age remains a serious stumbling block - nor is there anything odd about a body being reburied in a coffin not its own. As somebody observed that's practically par for the course with reburials. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orwell
Scribe
Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Meretseger wrote: | | Except possibly the body. The age remains a serious stumbling block - nor is there anything odd about a body being reburied in a coffin not its own. As somebody observed that's practically par for the course with reburials. |
It wouldn't be if the 'age' has been got wrong. A re-adjusted age would leave the last plank of the Smenkhkare theory fall away.
(Except, of course, if Smenhkhare is Akhenaten.  )
I'm curious about Kiya and her child. Are there mentions of her and child on any inscriptions other than in tombs?
The reason I ask is, would Akhenaten have been promoting the existence of a lesser wife at the same time that Nefertiti was in the early years of child bearing? (It appears from my limied knowledge that Kiya and Nefertiti were largely contemporary in his affections). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meretseger
Priest
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | Meretseger wrote: | | Except possibly the body. The age remains a serious stumbling block - nor is there anything odd about a body being reburied in a coffin not its own. As somebody observed that's practically par for the course with reburials. |
It wouldn't be if the 'age' has been got wrong. A re-adjusted age would leave the last plank of the Smenkhkare theory fall away. |
Which is why people with a theory keep trying to re-adjust the age to something in Akhenaten's possible range.
| Quote: | I'm curious about Kiya and her child. Are there mentions of her and child on any inscriptions other than in tombs?
The reason I ask is, would Akhenaten have been promoting the existence of a lesser wife at the same time that Nefertiti was in the early years of child bearing? (It appears from my limied knowledge that Kiya and Nefertiti were largely contemporary in his affections). |
He wasn't exactly 'promoting' Kiya's existence. She does not figure in official reliefs anywhere but her own sunshade (a sort of private oratory that seems to have been enjoyed by royal ladies close to the King) and her own properties like Maru-Aten. Nefertiti on the other hand was highly visible on the walls of public temples and palaces and assuming more and more traditionally pharaonic iconography like smiting foreigners.
I've wondered if maybe the beautiful Nefertiti was a bit high maintenance and Kiya was a restful alternative. Nefer probably would not have felt threatened unless Kiya bore a son but her only known children seem to have been daughters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Meretseger wrote: | | Lutz wrote: | | Meretseger wrote: | Whichever King was buried in KV55, which may quite likely have been Smenkhkara.
Round and round we go... |
Its name unfortunately generally dips only very rarely during the 18. Dynasty in Amarna, and in KV 55 not at all. No object from KV 55 does point only basically to this king.
Lutz |
Except possibly the body. The age remains a serious stumbling block ... |
From my point of view still an unsettled question. Also the advocates of a age around 20-25 (starting with Smith) must lately always admit that 30 is quite in the possible framework...
| Meretseger wrote: | | ... nor is there anything odd about a body being reburied in a coffin not its own. ... |
Which would be to be proven...
Lutz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orwell
Scribe
Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Meretseger wrote: | | Which is why people with a theory keep trying to re-adjust the age to something in Akhenaten's possible range. |
Maybe because a re-adjustment is entiorely plausible... 
| Meretseger wrote: | | He wasn't exactly 'promoting' Kiya's existence. She does not figure in official reliefs anywhere but her own sunshade (a sort of private oratory that seems to have been enjoyed by royal ladies close to the King) and her own properties like Maru-Aten. Nefertiti on the other hand was highly visible on the walls of public temples and palaces and assuming more and more traditionally pharaonic iconography like smiting foreigners. |
Found this care of the Armarna Project on net.
The inscribed stonework preserved the name of the place as Maru-Aten, identified it as an example of a solar temple (‘Sunshade’), and recorded the name of Akhenaten’s eldest daughter and heiress, Meritaten. Her name had, however, been carved over an earlier female royal name. At first this was thought to have been Nefertiti. It is generally concluded now that the original name was that of Kiya, an earlier queen of Akhenaten.
Object 22/273: fragment of red granite stela showing Akhenaten adoring the Aten. The hieroglyphic text records the name of the place ‘the Sunshade of the King’s daughter Meritaten in Maru-Aten in Akhetaten’. Meritaten’s name replaces another name.
It's only appears to be a big assumption that the name over-carved was 'Kiya.'
Note: If Meritaten replaced Nefertiti (after the latter's death), then maybe "Nefertiti's' name was removed to make way for her dauighter's. Seems logical.
Maybe irt was "Kiya's" name afterall, that's if Kiya and Nefertiti are one and the same.
| Meretseger wrote: | | I've wondered if maybe the beautiful Nefertiti was a bit high maintenance and Kiya was a restful alternative. Nefer probably would not have felt threatened unless Kiya bore a son but her only known children seem to have been daughters. |
Maybe Kiya (Nefertiti) had Meritaten before she had her name changed to Nefertiti? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orwell
Scribe
Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lutz wrote: | | From my point of view still an unsettled question. Also the advocates of a age around 20-25 (starting with Smith) must lately always admit that 30 is quite in the possible framework... |
| Meretseger wrote: | | ... nor is there anything odd about a body being reburied in a coffin not its own. ... |
Which would be to be proven...Lutz[/quote]
Can't but agree with you on both points, Lutz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kylejustin
Vizier
Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
let's get something straight. smith believed the kv55 body was no older than 25. he was pressured by his contemporaries to identify the body as akhenaten, that's why he pushed the age up. every serious authority since smith has also stated the body was 25 tops, but all agreed the body was younger than that, mostly around 20. you don't see anyone trying to push tutankhamun's age up do you? no. they used the same points on both bodies to arrive at their conclusions. anyone hoping the body is around 30 years old needs to read the literature.
and yes, ageing skeleton's is difficult, the exceptions being younger people. the younger the body the more accurate the age. hence if someone says an individual is probably no more than 22, i'm inclined to accept that fact.
kiya is not the same person as nefertiti. smenkhkare is not the same person as akhenaten. and those blocks were never proven to have been the same. the same scene maybe, but no conclusive proof of that.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orwell
Scribe
Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kylejustin wrote: | let's get something straight. smith believed the kv55 body was no older than 25. he was pressured by his contemporaries to identify the body as akhenaten, that's why he pushed the age up. every serious authority since smith has also stated the body was 25 tops, but all agreed the body was younger than that, mostly around 20. you don't see anyone trying to push tutankhamun's age up do you? no. they used the same points on both bodies to arrive at their conclusions. anyone hoping the body is around 30 years old needs to read the literature.
and yes, ageing skeleton's is difficult, the exceptions being younger people. the younger the body the more accurate the age. hence if someone says an individual is probably no more than 22, i'm inclined to accept that fact.
kiya is not the same person as nefertiti. smenkhkare is not the same person as akhenaten. and those blocks were never proven to have been the same. the same scene maybe, but no conclusive proof of that. |
I've been busily looking into stuff, kyle, and while you may in fact perfectly correct, I still haven't found evidence to prove things one way or the other. I'm even warming to the co-regency idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutz
Pharaoh
Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kylejustin wrote: | | let's get something straight. smith believed the kv55 body was no older than 25. he was pressured by his contemporaries to identify the body as akhenaten, that's why he pushed the age up. ... |
Pure speculation. Is there a report from contemporary witnesses this statement confirms? Or did you participate?
| kylejustin wrote: | | ... and those blocks were never proven to have been the same. the same scene maybe, but no conclusive proof of that. |
As still said, see Marc Gabolde : La parenté de Toutânkhamon. - Bulletin de la Société Française d'Egyptologie - BSFE - 155. - 2002. - pp. 32 - 48, fig. 7. To make it easyer, a drawing from both sides of the two blocks in question :
Lutz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meretseger
Priest
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lutz wrote: | From my point of view still an unsettled question. Also the advocates of a age around 20-25 (starting with Smith) must lately always admit that 30 is quite in the possible framework..
Lutz |
Lutz, we are in TOTAL agreement about the question being 'unsettled'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meretseger
Priest
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kiya is attested fairly late in Akhenaten's reign, year 9 and after as I recall. Meritaten took over Maru Aten possibly after Kiya's death or disgrace but more probably after the death of Akhenaten put her - Meritaten - on the throne and sent Kiya into retirement at one of the 'harem palaces'. Kiya was once believed to have died bearing Tutankhamun but we now know that cannot have been the case and there are some indications (a wine docket and a fragment of relief) indicating she survived into Akhenaten's final years and survived Nefertiti who disappears from view circa year 13 or 14. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
