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 

Could Kia be Sitamun?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


Meretseger, I just noticed this reading back through the posts here. Very Happy

So could there be a more 'private' Kiya as well as a less 'private' Kiya (perhaps under another name and in more formal settings) in the inscriptional record?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
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. Smile


Were references to Kiya mainly in the early days of Akhenaten - maybe of Akhenaten in his Amenophis IV or Crown Prince says, or even his Co-regency (?) days?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
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.


There is something about this 'changeover' that seems odd. We have no notation anywhere abbout 'Kiya's' important role - other than being a Beloved secondary Queen. Doesn't the 'over-carving' of Meritaten's name suggest she took over a more important role than mere King's Favorite Wife?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Were there instances of Nefertiti and Kiya's names being over-carved with that of Meritaten? I seem to remember there were.

If I'm remembering correctly, Meritaten became 'Favorite Wife' on some inscritions and then (sometime later) 'Chief Wife" on others. I presume it would have to be in that order. Was 'Favorite Wife' an official position?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
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.


Meretseger, I just noticed this reading back through the posts here. Very Happy

So could there be a more 'private' Kiya as well as a less 'private' Kiya (perhaps under another name and in more formal settings) in the inscriptional record?


It doesn't seem likely. And why would there be? We have wine dockets from estates belonging to both Neferneferuaten and 'the Favorite' it seems pretty certain they are different women.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Orwell]

Were references to Kiya mainly in the early days of Akhenaten - maybe of Akhenaten in his Amenophis IV or Crown Prince says, or even his Co-regency (?) days?[/quote]

No. They most emphatically were not. Kiya surfaces at Akhetaten AFTER the move. Nefertiti on the other hand is prominent on Amehotep IV's temples at Luxor, one seems to have been built specifically for her. It is here she is depicted offering to the Aten attended by a tiny Meritaten.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:


There is something about this 'changeover' that seems odd. We have no notation anywhere abbout 'Kiya's' important role - other than being a Beloved secondary Queen. Doesn't the 'over-carving' of Meritaten's name suggest she took over a more important role than mere King's Favorite Wife?


No just that she was presented by her royal spouse with some very nice real estate. Maru Aten was a pleasure garden cum shrine to the Aten. Maybe it's where Akhenaten and Kiya fraternized. After Akhi's death Kiya would most probably have been expected to retire to her estates or a harem palace, she would certainly no longer be a favorite. Possibly Smenkhkara regifted the Favorite's pleasure ground to his queen or perhaps Kiya herself gave it to Meritaten as an investment in the future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
No just that she was presented by her royal spouse with some very nice real estate. Maru Aten was a pleasure garden cum shrine to the Aten. Maybe it's where Akhenaten and Kiya fraternized. After Akhi's death Kiya would most probably have been expected to retire to her estates or a harem palace, she would certainly no longer be a favorite. Possibly Smenkhkara regifted the Favorite's pleasure ground to his queen or perhaps Kiya herself gave it to Meritaten as an investment in the future.


Did Nefertiti get a Maru-aten of her own? Tiye got spoilt by Amenophis III. Why not Nefertiti by Akhenaten? And Akhenaten and Nefertiti are everywhere shown in very intimate family loving adoring scenes. To all extents and purposes, Nefertiti is clearly his Favorite Wife.

Nefertiti and Kiya both had their names over-carved with Meritaten's. Is that part of what I say true?

If Kiya is attested on the coffin in KV55 (??) and not Nefertiti, would this suggest that Kiya may have outlived Nefertiti?

Actually, another thought, could we be saying (for the sake of the argument) that 'Smenhkhare' took over a coffin originally made for Kiya then altered for Akhenaten but at last given to him as his final resting place? ('Young bones' might seem to support that idea?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did Nefertiti get a Maru Aten of her own? For all we know yes. Nefer was FAR from neglected. Her image is ALL over Akhenaten. Like her husband she was an object of worship to the citizenry and she assumed at least some of the iconography normally associated with the Pharaoh like the 'smiting enemies' scene.

Maru Aten may have been a way of getting and keeping Kiya out of the Chief Wife's way. She certainly maintained a profile so low as to be almost subterranean during Nefertiti's lifetime, one of the reasons why the lady is so elusive.

The original owner of the North palace has not been identified. Formerly assumed to be Nefertiti Kiya has also been suggested. I wonder if possibly it belonged to Baketaten and its take-over by Meritaten indicates a hostility between the two women. Or perhaps merely a real estate deal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aldred cites two indications Kiya survived Nefertiti: Firstly a wine docket from Kiya's estate possibly (it's broken) dating to year 17 and far more conclusively talatat from Hermopolis depicting Kiya and her daughter worshiping the Aten alongside Akhenaten and his two elder surviving daughters (who are given precedence). Neither princess is wearing a queenly crown - militating against Meritaten being crowned by her father - and there is no trace of Nefertiti, or for that matter Smenkhkara as co-regent.

The buriers and reburiers of the dead of KV55 seem to have played a regular game of musical coffins with the bodies. One POSSIBLE scenario among the many is that Smenkhkara was originally buried in the Second coffin of King Tut and when that was taken for his son he was placed in a coffin modified for Akhenaten whose body was then destroyed. Or as Lutz holds the coffin may have been made for Akhenaten and Smen placed in it after the king's body was destroyed and his own coffin taken for Tut. On the other hand the inscriptions on the second coffin seem to indicate it was intended for Pharaoh Neferneferuaten who might have taken it from Smenkhkara interring him in a modified coffin found in the royal stores. The possibilities are really endless.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Did Nefertiti get a Maru Aten of her own? For all we know yes. Nefer was FAR from neglected. Her image is ALL over Akhenaten. Like her husband she was an object of worship to the citizenry and she assumed at least some of the iconography normally associated with the Pharaoh like the 'smiting enemies' scene.


I would have given her a Maru-aten. Very Happy

Meretseger wrote:
Maru Aten may have been a way of getting and keeping Kiya out of the Chief Wife's way. She certainly maintained a profile so low as to be almost subterranean during Nefertiti's lifetime, one of the reasons why the lady is so elusive.


That sounds like neat speculating - but it does still seem very speculative.

Meretseger wrote:
The original owner of the North palace has not been identified. Formerly assumed to be Nefertiti Kiya has also been suggested. I wonder if possibly it belonged to Baketaten and its take-over by Meritaten indicates a hostility between the two women. Or perhaps merely a real estate deal.


My spot of 'neat' speculating: Maybe it was Nefertiti's Palace, and when she died, it was handed on to Meritaten. Idea

Meretseger wrote:
Aldred cites two indications Kiya survived Nefertiti: Firstly a wine docket from Kiya's estate possibly (it's broken) dating to year 17 and far more conclusively talatat from Hermopolis depicting Kiya and her daughter worshiping the Aten alongside Akhenaten and his two elder surviving daughters (who are given precedence). Neither princess is wearing a queenly crown - militating against Meritaten being crowned by her father - and there is no trace of Nefertiti, or for that matter Smenkhkara as co-regent.


There is something very odd about this, Meretseger (probably only to me, of course). Akhenaten's 'Favorite Wife' seems to be 'prominent' but, yet, not 'prominent'. Nice short name to put on a wine docket (easier than putting Nefertiti's name, maybe?

(Yep, I'm speculating - it is fun, you klnow! Very Happy )

Meretseger wrote:
The buriers and reburiers of the dead of KV55 seem to have played a regular game of musical coffins with the bodies.


That proposition seems very dubious to me. Didn't the ancient tomn worker people 'honour' the dead?

Meretseger wrote:
One POSSIBLE scenario among the many is that Smenkhkara was originally buried in the Second coffin of King Tut and when that was taken for his son he was placed in a coffin modified for Akhenaten whose body was then destroyed.


Destroy an "Heretical" King's body and bury another Pharaoh's in it? Sounds a bit cheap and nasty. Judging by the tomb goods in KV62, the Egyptians were surely not that cash-strapped. And what about "Heretical King" germs left in the coffin? Wouldn't that suggest some kind of disreaspect (or damning) of ther next mummy put in. Why not, if that was the caase, just burn said second muumy too?

Meretseger wrote:
Or as Lutz holds the coffin may have been made for Akhenaten and Smen placed in it after the king's body was destroyed and his own coffin taken for Tut.


Did Lutz really suggest that somewhere? Shocked

Meretseger wrote:
On the other hand the inscriptions on the second coffin seem to indicate it was intended for Pharaoh Neferneferuaten who might have taken it from Smenkhkara interring him in a modified coffin found in the royal stores. The possibilities are really endless.


But the truth of what occurred can only be 'one', Meretseger. The trick is finding the truth, methinks! I must I am going for the simplest answers first. Suits my simple-minded capacities - even if it's a method 9??) that offers no guarantee of establishing said truth... Very Happy

"....the inscriptions on the second coffin seem to indicate it was intended for Pharaoh Neferneferuaten..."

Can someone post that inscription (and in English would be good). Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Aldred cites two indications Kiya survived Nefertiti: Firstly a wine docket from Kiya's estate possibly (it's broken) dating to year 17 and far more conclusively talatat from Hermopolis depicting Kiya and her daughter worshiping the Aten alongside Akhenaten and his two elder surviving daughters (who are given precedence). Neither princess is wearing a queenly crown - militating against Meritaten being crowned by her father - and there is no trace of Nefertiti, or for that matter Smenkhkara as co-regent.

Second thought. If this is correct, then maybe Kiya is Meritaten?

(It's agreed by Egyptologists that Meritaten was still alive then, isn't it? Idea )

Is it defintely Kiya's name on those wine dockets in Year 17?
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 Mar 06, 2012 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:

Meretseger wrote:
The buriers and reburiers of the dead of KV55 seem to have played a regular game of musical coffins with the bodies.


That proposition seems very dubious to me. Didn't the ancient tomb worker people 'honour' the dead?


I would not be surprised at all if they played a bit of "musical coffins".
They definitely did in the later period when the caches were established in KV 35 and DB 320.

Amenhotep I may have been reburied in Thutmosis II's coffin, while Thutmosis II was given a new coffin. Thutmosis IV may have been reburied in a coffin of Ramesses V, who was reburied in a coffin of unknown origin, etc.

I think that as long as they changed the inscriptions they could rebury.

In KV 55 an attempt was made to change the ownership as well byt cutting out the name. So I do not find this idea very strange at all.
And comparing it to the reburials later it seems to fit with a pattern there.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
I would not be surprised at all if they played a bit of "musical coffins". They definitely did in the later period when the caches were established in KV 35 and DB 320.


To suggest that seems a bit disrespectful to the Priests who tried to save their beloved mummies, Anneke. You know, I won't have you saying they were playing 'musical mummies'. How rude! Shocked

The moves were to protect them from further pillage, weren't they? Idea

It seems to be clear evidence of well intentioned Priests trying to do the honorable thing in times when funding for a better outcome was possibly not forthcoming - and maybe when 'stealth' and 'speed' were the most important part of the plan... What was the point of moving them if every Tom, Dick and tomb robber knew where they'd been taken?

To play 'musical mummies' when plenty of cash was still around would seem contrary to the religious sensibility of the (Amarna) times, wouldn't it? I'll state it again: don't the tomb goods in KV62 indicate there was still some Pharaonic affluence going around in Tutankhamen's times?

anneke wrote:
Amenhotep I may have been reburied in Thutmosis II's coffin, while Thutmosis II was given a new coffin. Thutmosis IV may have been reburied in a coffin of Ramesses V, who was reburied in a coffin of unknown origin, etc.


Can you give a fuller explication of all this? Each situation would need to be assessed individually, I reckon, before anyone can work out if we're actually talking here about cheese and cheese, or chalk and cheese?

anneke wrote:
I think that as long as they changed the inscriptions they could rebury.


More info if possible, please. Very Happy

anneke wrote:
In KV 55 an attempt was made to change the ownership as well byt cutting out the name. So I do not find this idea very strange at all.


Name cut out, yes, but was another name added? If not, we're looking at someone's 'memory' having been removed aren't we, but not a new internment? Idea

anneke wrote:
And comparing it to the reburials later it seems to fit with a pattern there.


I definitely haven't got enough knowledge of the subject to be able to logically agree or disagree here, Anneke. But I'm dubious already about any particular pattern/s having formed?

Please set me straight on this if you can. I've been set straight on this forum a few times already, and call me a masochist if you want, but I actually don't mind it all! Definite Mr Plod I am - I just love 'the facts.' You know, 'established facts' sometimes appear to be as rare as hen's teeth in Egypological Studies, and so when one discovers them, I feel they're worth their weight in gold. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

orwell, i suggest reading some books on the royal mummies. most of the mummies were salvaged in the 21st dynasty, when tomb robbing was rife. the priest kings based in thebes were running out of gold and wealth in general and may even have had a hand in the tomb robbings themselves. after they entered the tombs, thye moved what remained of the mummies, and any wealth they were buried with. the mummies were then rewrapped, their funerary equipment stripped of gold and jewels and reburied in caches for safety. one cache was in the tomb of amnehotep II, kv 35. the other was at deir el bahri db320, where the priest kings buried themselves.

when discovered, most mummies were not in their original coffins. ramses III was found in the coffin of ahmose nefertari. pinudjem I appropiated the coffins of thumose I, but then seems tnot to have used them. those coffins were from his own second burial under thutmose III. it really is common practise to erase someone's name from something and use it for yourself. it happens all the time in inscriptions and statues, so burial equipment is no different.

as for tutankhamun's tomb, it is proved quite a lot of it was not made for his burial. reeves the complete tutankhamun has a list in it somewhere of the other amarna names mentioned in the tomb, and does say what was made for someone else and appropriated. since the egyptian empire langhuished under akhenaten, i would assume that the wealth of amenhotep III was a distant memory by tutankhamun's day. he does have funerary equipment made for smenkhkare, and nefneferuaten. i think even the gold mask is thought to have been made for someone else, with their face removed and his put in place.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
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, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 8 of 10

 
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