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 

Tut's Parentage
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:53 am    Post subject: Tut's Parentage Reply with quote

Has anyone considered the implications of the blood group results for Tut and Smenkhare (or KV mummy at any rate) on parentage?

The blood groups results indicate that Tut and Smenkhare were brothers or father-son. Using the sane age range for Smenkhare, he would have been 11 to 15 years old when Tut was conceived. This makes it possible for him to be Tut's father at the high end, but seems very unlikely at the low end. So it seems to me that it is more likely than not that they were brothers.

If thats true, then the favorite for Tut's mother, Kiya, is quite unlikely. She would have to also be Smenkhare's mother and by the time she shows up on the scene Smenky would have already been 10 or 11 years old. Pretty much the same reason Akhenaten isnt typically thought to be Smenkhare's father. Besides she is only depicted with a single daughter.

By process of elimination alone, A-III becomes a candidate, but Tiye was obviously having children up to the time of A-III's death. Assuming a long co-regency (which seems to insinuate itself in a multitude of topics), Tut would have been born about a year or two before Bekeaten.

Tut calls A-III his father on the Soleb Lion and supposedly all over the Karnak colonade usurped by Horemhab. These have often been dismissed as ways of distancing himself from the criminal. However, I've noticed that these dismissals seem to come from those vehemently opposed to the notion of a co-regency.

On balance, it seems to me that that A-III is a valid and plausible candidate particularly when so many momentoes in his burial come from the A-III/Tiye family and not Akhenaten/Nefertiti. Yes, there is the idea of stepping back from The Heresy, but Akhenaten wasnt vilified as such until quite sometime later.
_________________
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 Nov 22, 2005 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you're right in your analysis.
It's on the outside of possible that Smenkhare is Tutankamen's father.

If Smenkhare and Tut are brothers, then Amenhotep III becomes a serious candidate as the father.
The mother could be Tiye (giving some explanation for the lock of her hair in Tut's tomb). Another possibility for the mother may be Sitamen? (I agree with you that Tiye seems like the better candidate though).

It is interesting that even though Tut was removed from the Kinglist by the time of Seti I it seems, his monuments were treated far different from those of Akhenaten.

I think there's a temple in Nubia belonging to Akhenaten that was usurped by the Ramesside kings, but that seems to be about it. And this may only be because it was possibly also associated with Amenhotep III.

Tutankhamen's temples and monuments seem to have been usurped at quite a steady clip by Aye but also by Horemheb.
The people immediately following Tut may have given him some "slack" if he was the son of Amenhotep.

I keep forgetting who it is, but there is apparently a scene in a tomb of a male nurse showing 4 princes on his lap. In true Amarna fashion this is controversial and may or may not date to the reign of Amenhotep III Laughing (no surprise).

The eldest 3 have been suggested as depicting Tuthmose, Amenhotep (Akhenaten), and Smenkhare. Maybe the 4th one is Tut? The inscription is too damaged so we will never know.

I wish more was known about the inscriptions in the tomb of Tut's wetnurse Maia. Although if there was reference to his parents, it would have been made public I would think.
It's possible that there are indirect clues though.
_________________
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 Nov 22, 2005 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
If Smenkhare and Tut are brothers, then Amenhotep III becomes a serious candidate as the father.
The mother could be Tiye (giving some explanation for the lock of her hair in Tut's tomb). Another possibility for the mother may be Sitamen? (I agree with you that Tiye seems like the better candidate though).

I see it as more likely than not that A-III is the father. It is hard not to use a self sealing argument in which a putative coregency supports A-III as father and A-III as father supports a long coregency, but they do fit together well. The monuments sure make sense that way too.

I am a little less sure about Tiye as mother though. Arguing against Tiye is the fact that unlike A-III or A-IV both Smekhare and Tut married royal princesses as if they needed to consolidate their claim to the throne. This might mean they were from a minor wife.

There are other ways to explain the marriages, of course. Among them, in the case of Smenkhare at least, the marriage may have been a prerequisite as a way of Akhenaten keeping his family and blood on the throne to some extent. This obviously doesnt work for Tut if Akhenaten and Nefertiti were dead. The marriages could also been to jump start more male heirs or a result of political divisions over Atenism in which each brother sought to seal off claims from cousins etc.

I think the lock of hair is telling, and there are many possible explanations for the marriages (except love, alas) but I remain a little less certain about Tiye than A-III.

BTW, the 'astronomical instrument' from Tut's tomb often attributed to Thutmosis IV according to Giles may more likely be from Crown Prince Thutmosis. If true, all the known core family of A-III is represented except Akhenaten (except for the resinscribed flail).

Quote:
It is interesting that even though Tut was removed from the Kinglist by the time of Seti I it seems, his monuments were treated far different from those of Akhenaten.

I think it is a bit telling that neither Aye nor Hormheb dug him up. They simply cannot have forgotten where they buried him (though that could be the case by the time of Ramesses).

Monument usurpation and dismantling is pretty common so I dont know what can be made of that. Maybe Tut's were usurped rather than dismantled because most were more traditional and thus usable. That is, his art was more the hunting-sporting type rather than goofy sun cult and ka-bobs with Mom type.

When it comes to the kings list, I suspect there is a political angle we dont know about. Akhenaten had to go because he was a state criminal. Maybe Aye had to go because he was involved in the attempted Ankhessenamun treason and/or the way he took over the throne. Thus when Horemheb went to edit the list, it was a matter of giving Tut a longer reign or himself (he certainly couldnt be a Grover Cleveland and take over Akhenaten's years while leaving Tut's alone). So (maybe) Tut's removal was simply collateral damage.

If they really thought he was evil by virtue of being Akhenaten's brother or having ruled from Armana for a while, it seems to me they would have desecrated his burial and stole all the stuff.
_________________
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
ELISE
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Posts: 169

PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm trying to remember (and failing dismally) the reference for the four princes relief. The guy they're sitting on is described as a 'tutor' I think rather than a nurse. Thutmose, Akhenaten, Smenkhkare and Tutankhamen initially seem likely candidates, but chronology surely makes it virtually impossible that all four were alive at the same time?

Moving on to the parentage issue, I've never understood why there's so much support for the Kiya-as-Tutankhamen's mother theory. Where is the evidence? Is the fact that she's described as a 'Favourite' enough to go on? The fact that she was made a Queen? It's not enough for me. I still think Amenophis III (assuming a 12-year coregency) or maybe even Smenhkhare /Meritaten. If Akhenaten is the father then I don't see an obvious candidate for mother. If it were Nefertiti, I'm sure she would have been depicted as such. I don't care about the usual practice of concentrating on daughters in art - in the exceptional conditions of the Amarna period I think Tutankhamen would have been depicted with Akhenaten/Nefertiti if they were his parents.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Elise wrote:
Thutmose, Akhenaten, Smenkhkare and Tutankhamen initially seem likely candidates, but chronology surely makes it virtually impossible that all four were alive at the same time?

You're right about that. Tutankhamen must have been born after Tuthmose died.


There's really no evidence for Kiya as Tut's mother. I think some people see it as a plausible scenario because it would explain the prominence of Kiya at court. On the other hand Smenkhare seems to have been the heir when she was alive, not Tut, so unless she's mother to both it's puzzling.

I'm not sure why, but I think Tut was thought to have grown up at the North Palace??? I don't know what that assumption would be based on.
I do think that people now think that Kiya actually lived in the North Palace. (That's based on inscriptions I think, but I'm not sure).

About Nefertiti as Tut's mother: Gabolde claims that the baby depicted in the royal tomb may actually be Tut, and based on that he may have been Nefertiti's son. Kinda shaky for an argument I think. There is some indication that the damaged inscription may have mentioned the name of the baby and that it had a male determinative.

There is only one other inscription mentioning Prince Tutankhuaten, and I don't think parents are mentioned at all.

The tombs of the nobles definitely only show Akhenaten and Nefertiti with thier daughters. It is interesting that not all the girls are allways shown.
The depictions seem rather selective.
In the scene where Akhenaten and Nefertiti are having a banquet with Queen Tiye for instance Davies mentions that there are 2 Princesses depicted and they may be Mertaten and Neferneferuaten-tasherit. The other two (Meketaten and Ankhesenpaaten) are not shown at all.

[Just to be complete: The second Princess was identified in an inscription which was destroyed, and his identification is based on her size. So this is debatable. - 'Cause why would we expect anything to be straight forward, right? Confused]

I'm tired, so I hope I'm not rambling too much Cool
_________________
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: Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ELISE wrote:
Moving on to the parentage issue, I've never understood why there's so much support for the Kiya-as-Tutankhamen's mother theory.
Sometimes things like that seem to come about simply from a lack of evidene it seems to me. Rather like: "well, here is a minor wife and we know her name, so maybe she is Tut's mother...yea!!! That explains why she is so favored". Sort of a self sealing argument.

I think that is also the impetus behind Nefertiti as the foreign wive (I forget her supposed foreign name). Its simply _A_ name of a foreign wife and we dont know where Nefertiti comes from so 'heeeeeyyy! Maybe...'. This is in contrast to the fact that foreign wives never achieved much prominence.
_________________
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: Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
I'm not sure why, but I think Tut was thought to have grown up at the North Palace??? I don't know what that assumption would be based on.
I do think that people now think that Kiya actually lived in the North Palace. (That's based on inscriptions I think, but I'm not sure).


I have COA coming and want to look into that, but as I recall from the characterization by others, there is an abundance of Tut inscriptions, dockets and sealings from that area. As well, there is a concentration of Nefertiti stuff as well, which contributed to the notion that she was in seclusion/estranged and hold up with Tut there.

I hadnt heard Kiya lived there too. Sort of a 18th D version of _Three's Company_ ? Wink

I wish we knew some of the intracies of succession. That way we could surmise and extrapolate assumotions. I find it very odd that A-III marries a commoner and brags about it. Akhenaten marries a virtual nobody. But Tut and Smenkhare both marry royalty.

Perhaps it is just to seal out contenders in a time of religious-political turmoil OR maybe it has to do with their parantage.
_________________
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
Sesen
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 1048
Location: Luxor

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've had a bit of a pet theory that Smenkhkare is possibly a brother of Nefertiti - there's no evidence of that of course. He's not given as a Kings son, unlike Tutankhamun yet he manages to marry the Kings eldest daughter. Just seemed to me that being family to the Kings Wife would be a handy foot in the royal door and would explain his lack of earlier royal title.

Tutankhamun (or Tutankhaten) was a Kings son yet his blood type and skull indicate a very close relationship to the mummy of KV 55/ Smenkhkare(?).
So if he were 9yrs on becoming king, less 3yrs for the reign of Ankhkheperure takes us back to somewhere like Yr 11 of Akhenatens rule. Top of the time range for those who favour a long coregency and Amen III as dad.

It wouldn't be the first time a king was crowned who came from a previously unknown minor wife. I also don't see why it has to be Kiya.

There is a letter from Tushratta to Akhenaten (EA28) where Tiye is asked after, his daughter Tadu Heba, Akhenatens wife, his other wives, his children etc etc.
This would suggest other now unknown wives of Akhenaten, or else is just referring to Nefertiti and Kiya. Has anyone read a good commentary on this letter and can elaborate a bit on the 'wife' situation here?

I wonder if at this time a prince could still hold the title kings son after the death of the kings whose son he was, and another king was on the throne?
In Dodson and Hiltons book they state that "... until the Ramesside Period the title of Kings son was only used officially during the lifetime of the pharaoh to which it referred" (ref pg 25).
If that were to hold true during the Amarna period then perhaps his father could be the shadowy Ankhkheperure.
Wink Just to murky up things a bit more...
_________________
Priestess of Hathor, Superior of the Harem of Min, dedicated to Maat, beloved of Seshat and Nekhbet.
I enter as a hawk, I come out as a benu bird in the morning.-- Pert em-Hru, ch. 13
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 Nov 27, 2005 4:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

About the North Palace, "the Amarna Project" has some info.
This is a project of the Egypt Exploration Society under direction of B. Kemp.

http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/Projects/Amarna/home.htm

They have a page about the North Palace.

http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/Projects/Amarna/guidebook/Places%20of%20Interest/np.htm

On this page they actually mention the following:
Quote:
Many inscriptions found in the North Palace show that, whilst it may have been originally made for Nefertiti or Kiya, a queen prominent in the earlier part of Akhenaten's reign, it was later converted into a palace for the eldest daughter and heiress, Princess Meritaten.


I found that rather interesting Very Happy

I was looking at the inscription in the tomb of Meryra showing the year 12 tribute. Most books only show Akhenaten and Nefertiti with thier six daughters behind them, but the larger scene is rather interesting.
The left side is made up of the Asiatics both bringing gifts and being brought in as prisoners.
Right behind the kiosk showing the royal family there are 2 groupings that caught my interest:
On the second register from the top we see three egyptian women right behind the kiosk. They are not part of the tribute (or at least they don't look like that to me). They look to me like they could be attendants of the royal family. The governesses are shown below the kiosk though and are dressed different. These 3 ladies are dressed exactly like the royal princesses.
There are no inscriptions to identify them. Would be interesting if they represented Kiya and her daughters Very Happy

Two registers below that are two youths. They again look like they should be egyptian. They look like they have their hair in a side-lock of youth. They are depicted totally different from the Asiatics behind them. They look like they may be wearing fillets?
In a more fanciful moment I wondered if these could be the royal princes Smenkhare and Tutankhuaten Very Happy
I know: no inscription, no proof. But they do look like individuals seperate from the foreigners depicted.

I could not easily find these individuals in the inscription in the tomb of Huya. The tribute is also depicted in that tomb. The royals are shown traveling to the site of the tribute in a sedan chair. Only 4 of the princesses are definitely shown attending in Huya's tomb. But there are other court attendants featured.
_________________
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 Nov 27, 2005 5:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sesen wrote:
I've had a bit of a pet theory that Smenkhkare is possibly a brother of Nefertiti - there's no evidence of that of course.
That makes some measure of sense in several ways. A) It fits with the way Akhenaten is seen as family oriented B) Another way for Akhenaten to put/keep (extended) family members on the throne and involved C) Might explain the Neferneferuaten name usage

Sesen wrote:
So if he were 9yrs on becoming king, less 3yrs for the reign of Ankhkheperure takes us back to somewhere like Yr 11 of Akhenatens rule. Top of the time range for those who favour a long coregency and Amen III as dad.

The most thorough treatments of this seem to give Smenky more like 6 months of sole reign, if any. Allowing 1 for Smenky puts conception within the last 2-3 years of A-III (depending on the assumption of his age and length of coreign).

Sesen wrote:
There is a letter from Tushratta to Akhenaten (EA28) where Tiye is asked after, his daughter Tadu Heba, Akhenatens wife, his other wives, his children etc etc.
I cant remember who, maybe Giles, points out that wives from diplomatic marriages simply never rise to great import. Their purpose was diplomatic not to produce royal heirs.

Sesen wrote:
I wonder if at this time a prince could still hold the title kings son after the death of the kings whose son he was, and another king was on the throne?

In Dodson and Hiltons book they state that "... until the Ramesside Period the title of Kings son was only used officially during the lifetime of the pharaoh to which it referred" (ref pg 25).
I am not sure that is limited to the Ramesses. Children born after the death of the king - as Bekeaten may have been - seem to be less royal than the others.
_________________
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: Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Might explain the Neferneferuaten name usage

There is no instance where the names Smenkhare and Neferneferuaten are ever used to describe one individual. The whole Smenkhare being named Nefernefruaten appears a bit of a chimaera.

Dodson writes specifically that Allen has shown conclusively that Neferneferuaten is female. I.e NOT Smenkhare.
He (Dodson) goes on to point out that this makes his reconstruction, which viewed Smenkhare and Neferneferuaten as the same, impossible.
(Page 285 of "the complete royal families").

Evidence must be pretty conclusive if a researcher withdraws a long held belief. Dodson has published articles on this specific topic, so I would say he's an expert on this particular issue.
_________________
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 Nov 27, 2005 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Allen has shown conclusively that Neferneferuaten is female. I.e NOT Smenkhare.

The problem for me is that the evidence is so sparse relating to any and all Ankhkheprures that I have a hard time accepting the conclusion as absolute, conclusive or convincing. A single master impressor that makes 7 AnkhET impressions and one other femine form inscription seems a bit scant to be either conclusive or convincing.

Giles in his very recent work offers that after the death of Nefertiti, Smenkhare as coregent may have picked up some religous duties and as such adopted the Neferneferuaten name. His section on Smenkhare is fairly extensive (considering) and counters various opposing theories.

If that were all there were to it, I'd be inclined to deduce that the ET evidence are "typos" and there was but one Akhkheprure and it was male given the 30:1 ratio of male to female inscriptions. However, the epithets like 'beloved of Waenre' seem a bit too intimate for me to discard the idea completely.

Most of the stuff I have seen, like from Samson, goes something like 'AnkhET was obviously female, and Akhkh is the same person therefore A-N was not A-S". The problem is the disconnect in the second clause - there is nothing to support it other than the similarity in names. It seems more likely a typo was involved.

There are some scenarios I can accept however. For instance during a Smenkhare sole reign Meriaten may have used the name AnkhET-Nefer. for Atenistic ceremonial reasons as well. If Smenkhy had but a 6-9 month reign it would comport well with the sparcity of AkhET inscriptions.

Unlike things like the coregency, I think there is so little to corroborate who Neferneferuaten was that it will remain decidedly INconclusive. Maybe Reeves will find something astounding in his dig to clear up some issues (more likely it will resolve 1 thing but open 2 other Big Questions, LOL ).
_________________
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: Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's definitely true that there's no good indication who Neferneferuaten was. Very Happy

Quote:
A single master impressor that makes 7 AnkhET impressions and one other femine form inscription seems a bit scant to be either conclusive or convincing.

That argument does not feature all that prominently in why Neferneferuaten is female Wink
(There's also the fact that some of the figures in Tut's tomb depict a female ruler. )

It still remains true that the names Smenkhare and Nefernefruaten never appear together.

Quote:
Giles in his very recent work offers that after the death of Nefertiti, Smenkhare as coregent may have picked up some religous duties and as such adopted the Neferneferuaten name. His section on Smenkhare is fairly extensive (considering) and counters various opposing theories.

Actually, the findings that I mentioned do not really contradict the main thesis of Giles' work. I found a review of the book which mentions:
"Chapter 2 is entitled 'Smenkhkare'. The chapter examines the previous scholarly assessments of this individual and argues against the notion that this king is to be equated with Queen Nefertiti. The author makes an analysis of the representational evidence for Smenkhkare and textual sources from his short reign."

The new findings support rather strongly the notion that Smenkhare and Nefertiti are not the same person.
It just adds the observation that Smenkhare is not Neferneferuaten either. And there is no attempt at all to identify who Neferneferuaten was. Dodson says actually that it's just not known who she was or even how she figured into the equation. Co-regent? Regent? Before of after Smenkhare? All those remain open questions.

I think these points rather strengthen their argument. They are not trying to find evidence for some "pet theory". They are examining the evidence and find out what information is contained in the inscriptions.
And in a very real way they also strengthen Giles' thesis, namely that Smenkhare is not Nefertiti Very Happy
It seems to me that there's a very real possiblity that Smenkhare, Neferneferuaten and Nefertiti are actually 3 distinct people.
Just because Nefertiti was also referred to as Nefernefruaten-Nefertiti does not mean these two female characters are identical.

I should add that Giles did not have access to this information when he wrote the book. It would be interesting to see his take on things Very Happy


Personally, I find it rather unbelievable that Smenkhare would have used two completely different names, and used one set with female epithets. That just doesn't make much sense to me.

To me there's another point that comes forward from all these discussions.
We have no idea where Smenkhare was originally buried!
He was a Pharaoh in his own right. My guess is that he died in Amarna, but I guess it's possible he died elsewhere.
Pharaohs had their own tombs, so I don't think he was ever interred in the royal tomb in Amarna.
I'm not sure there's another candidate for a second royal tomb.

All the items found in Tut's tomb actually refer to Neferneferuaten. There is not a single piece of funerary equipment out there with the name Smenkhare on it.


Don't you think that's a tad peculiar? Shouldn't the name at least show up once in a while?

Even the most persecuted kings did not have 100% of their funerary equipment destroyed. There are shabtis with Akhenaten's name on it and there are other pieces of funerary equipment with Akhenaten's name on it. The same is true for Aye.
But the name Smenkhare doesn't appear. We definitely know he existed and ruled, even if for a short time. But there's no fragment of a shabti, no piece of a vase, nothing.
I'm staring to wonder if his tomb is still out there somewhere.

Which also begs the question if the body in KV 55 is really Smenkhare, or if it's some other royal relative. There's no inscription identifying the body as Smenkhare's. There are no funerary goods with his name on it.
The individual was also not buried in the "king's pose" (his arms were not crossed over the chest).

I don't know who the individual would be though Laughing
Akhenaten just doesn't seem to fit (body is too young).
I have to say that if Smenkhare is Akhenaten's son, then a slightly younger age would just fit better. (Smith's autopsy allows an age as young as 16 if I remember correctly).
Still, the absence of any items with the name Smenkhare on it is strange.

Quote:
Unlike things like the coregency, I think there is so little to corroborate who Neferneferuaten was that it will remain decidedly INconclusive.

Her identity would be very difficult to ascertain. There are too many candidates and there is no good indication of when and how she played her role in history.
Barring the discovery of some inscriptions that shed light on this situation, I agree that we just don't have enough info.
_________________
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 Nov 27, 2005 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
Quote:
A single master impressor that makes 7 AnkhET impressions and one other femine form inscription seems a bit scant to be either conclusive or convincing.

That argument does not feature all that prominently in why Neferneferuaten is female

The scant feminine Ankh evidence leads me to think that it is about as likely as not that there was no female Ankhy; and that possibly they are one and the same. It really isnt a Giles theory. Unlike some authors who just summarize the evidence and/or tell you what they (or you should) think, he lays it out allowing you think for yourself if you are so inclined.

It isnt just the 2 unique ET occurances, but the paucity in general. If over a scant 3 years Smenkhare inscriptions etc overwhelm ET occurances 30:1 I am left with the impression that ET is much much more elusive than Smenkhy. On that basis I think that very little can be "conclusive" or certain about Nefernefer or AnkhET.

I cant/wouldnt rule it out an AnkhET, simply because with the religio-politico turmoil that may have followed the demise of Akhenaten, it is entirely possible (IMO) that someone made a stab at the throne.

Quote:
It still remains true that the names Smenkhare and Nefernefruaten never appear together.
Right. But there are plausible theories out there which Smenkhy is using the name. Not knowing who Nefer is, it can be neither certain nor conclusive that it isnt Smenkhy. It is a little out there, and my own concoction, but it almost seems like Neferneferuaten was (or became) some sort of title for the second in charge of the Atenist movement. The #2 person would use it at times without actually adopting it as a name; this would explain much of the confusion with Nefertiti, Smenkhare, Meriaten and who knows who else using it at various times. While unusual, I find it a bit more plausible that yet another unknown King/let squeezed in the succession.

Quote:
Actually, the findings that I mentioned do not really contradict the main thesis of Giles' work. I found a review of the book which mentions:
"Chapter 2 is entitled 'Smenkhkare'. The chapter examines the previous scholarly assessments of this individual and argues against the notion that this king is to be equated with Queen Nefertiti....
Thats only a small part of the Smenkhy chapter, not the main thrust. He does go thru and review what evidence there is and try to ascertain things like parentage, reltaitonships, length of reign etc. He expends more ink on everything else than the "Smenkhare = Nofertity?" section.

Quote:
And there is no attempt at all to identify who Neferneferuaten was. Dodson says actually that it's just not known who she was or even how she figured into the equation.
Right, that is very much how Giles approaches it only without the presupposition that AnkhET was female or even existed. There is so darn little to indicate who Smenkhy is, there is little beyond a brief coreign we can be even modestly sure of. With much less in evidence for Neferneferuaten, I am hesitant to embrace more than the possibility that N either existed or was female.

Quote:
I should add that Giles did not have access to this information when he wrote the book. It would be interesting to see his take on things
He sure wasnt shy about taking Samson, Reeves and Mel??? (the guy who tried to discredit the 'coregency relief') to task, sometimes by name.

Quote:
We have no idea where Smenkhare was originally buried!
He was a Pharaoh in his own right. My guess is that he died in Amarna, but I guess it's possible he died elsewhere.
Pharaohs had their own tombs, so I don't think he was ever interred in the royal tomb in Amarna.
I'm not sure there's another candidate for a second royal tomb.
Petrie claims to have seen a second royal tomb in the area the French were excavating and noted its location, but it has never been (re)found. You'd think there'd have to be one given the number of people that would be crammed into the first one if thats all there was.

Quote:
All the items found in Tut's tomb actually refer to Neferneferuaten. There is not a single piece of funerary equipment out there with the name Smenkhare on it.
Ok, Nick. Wink
_________________
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: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VBadJuJu wrote:
If over a scant 3 years Smenkhare inscriptions etc overwhelm ET occurances 30:1 I am left with the impression that ET is much much more elusive than Smenkhy.

I don't know where you're getting that statistic from, but from what I have read that is just not true.
The Neferneferuaten references far outnumber the Smenkhare occurances
You only get a lot of Smenkhare references if you identify Smenkhare with Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten and that's the whole problem.

VBadJuJu wrote:
Quote:
I should add that Giles did not have access to this information when he wrote the book. It would be interesting to see his take on things
He sure wasnt shy about taking Samson, Reeves and Mel??? (the guy who tried to discredit the 'coregency relief') to task, sometimes by name.

I don't see your point. The fact is that this new info comes from 2004. Several years after the publication of his work. It's not that he wouldn't use the argument. It just wasn't available yet.

Quote:
Petrie claims to have seen a second royal tomb in the area the French were excavating and noted its location, but it has never been (re)found. You'd think there'd have to be one given the number of people that would be crammed into the first one if thats all there was.

They are doing more work at Amarna according to Kemp's website. We can only hope they find it again Very Happy

Quote:
Quote:
All the items found in Tut's tomb actually refer to Neferneferuaten. There is not a single piece of funerary equipment out there with the name Smenkhare on it.
Ok, Nick. Wink

I'm not basing a single thing on what Reeves says FYI.
I find him a bit too invested in his theories.
My point of views come from the work of highly regarded researchers such as Dodson and Allen.
They have very impressive publication records and are considered Amarna specialists.

The comment about Tut artifacts is based on comments I read from another egyptologist who commented that work Dodson had done mentions Smenkhare, while the texts all actually refer to Neferneferuaten.
Which ties in with the fact that Dodson mentions that he had to revise previous reconstructions.

I guess for me the bottom line is that these are the ideas of Dodson and Allen and these are not people I will just dismiss.

I should also note that the comment about "Allen has shown conclusively that Neferneferuaten is female". Is actually not my opinion but a literal quote from Dodson Very Happy

I guess in short my view is that in my estimation Dodson and Allen are two pre-eminent egyptologists. This version is the latest iteration of their continually developing theories about this time period, and that's what I feel comfortable going with Very Happy
_________________
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, 7  Next
Page 1 of 7

 
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