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 

What about Akhenaten's grand-children?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a known FACT, ELISE, that a baby in ancient Egypt was named by the mother. In fact, she usually gave the child two names--one that was known to everyone else, and one that only she knew. Proof of this is shown in one of the attributes of Isis--She "who knows all", meaning that no curse performed by Isis could be couter-manded by not knowing a persons name--Isis knew it. This is demonstrated, not by some blog, but by a lecture-series put out by The Teaching Company's "Great Courses" series, and taken from a lecture he gave at Long Island University.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ELISE
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Posts: 169

PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Osiris II wrote:
It's a known FACT, ELISE, that a baby in ancient Egypt was named by the mother.


Where on earth have I said that the mother doesn't pick the name?!

It doesn't follow that the mother always names the baby after herself though does it? Nor does the absence of a name automatically indicate death of the child or mother - it could just as easily be a lost or damaged inscription. Getting angry with people because they don't immediately accept a theory, (however well-thought or interesting) as absolute fact is pointless.

Everyone is entitled to formulate their own opinion on what happened in times past - but it's not really on to 'correct' someone who offers alternatives to your theory. I can accept your point of view on this that the tasherits might be Meritaten and Ankhesenpaatens children and that the two fans might indicate two royal personages - so why can't you accept my observation that in both cases, equally, they might not!?

I'm not going to continue debating with people that misquote me, can't be bothered to read what I've written - or even think before responding. Thats my final comment
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gerard
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 106
Location: France

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ELISE wrote:
Meritaten is nursing a child' - how do you know it's her!!!!?
Look at U.Bouriant's book.

ELISE wrote:
Sorry to be pedantic, but it's the scientist coming out in me - we are taught never to make a claim without backing it with evidence, or making it clear that a hunch or a feeling is exactly that and nothing more.
'Meritaten-jr daughter of Meritaten' is what the egyptian text said. On which ground the scientist you are is rewritting that text ?

ELISE wrote:
Also, someone writing a blog or putting together a website saying 'so and so is so and so's daughter/son/husband wife' doesn't make it fact!
I fully agree with this comment. It can only be a research direction. Even one say what we thought we still have to return to the egyptian facts.
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 Aug 15, 2006 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerard wrote:
ELISE wrote:
Meritaten is nursing a child' - how do you know it's her!!!!?
Look at U.Bouriant's book.


Reading Allen's paper, that's a bit of an overstatement to say that it is clear that this is Meritaten. The text is extremely damaged and for the name apparently only a "t" remains. The reconstruction is thought by some to be Meritaten.
And in the area of Amarna, having one or even two scholars agree on a theory doesn't mean it is so Very Happy From what I have read of the arguments, they fall rather short of proving anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The text in the tomb has been reconstructed as possibly saying that. Some may fervently believe it, but if you look at what text remains, then it's pretty far from conclusive.

The hieroglyphs pertaining to the nurse (or is it the baby?) are:
[King's Daughter of his body, his desired, Meri]t[aten] born of [Chief Queen ..] Neferneferuaten Nefertiti, alive forever continually.

The idea that they refer to the nurse comes from the direction in which the glyphs are written.
And as you can see only the
[...]t[..] born of [...] Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti, alive forever continually
is still visible. The rest is a reconstruction based on titles as they appear elsewhere.

I have also read the theory that the text refers to the baby and would have named the baby as a child of Nefertiti. Some have even speculated it's Tutankhaten Very Happy I think that was originally mentioned by Gabolde?

It comes back to the issue that I have with the grand-daughters. All the evidence either seems to come from very badly damaged reliefs and inscriptions which are open to interpretation or are from momuments that were usurped from others. On the usurped monuments the parentage seems to really point to the juniors being daughters of the eldest surviving princesses.

Having said that, I do personally think the evidence we have points to Meritaten-tasherit and Ankhesenpaaten-tasherit being daughters of Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten respectively. And it seems more likely that they were fathered by Akhenaten than someone else.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gerard
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 106
Location: France

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
The text is extremely damaged and for the name apparently only a "t" remains. The reconstruction is thought by some to be Meritaten.
Not only the "t" but more important also the B1/B7 sign. "some" are Bouriant/Legrain/Jéquier/ when the text was still visible and their reconstruction is Meritaten. Anybody who want to work on this text must used their book. M.Gabolde does an important job on Amarna issues but on this one he is weak, everything is unusual in his reconstruction, direction of text, the "t" of Tut at the end, the sceptre that his saw for a male when Bouriant saw it for an Amarna princess, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gerard
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 106
Location: France

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

U.Bouriant's book is available on this site http://www.yare.org/egypt/
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 Aug 15, 2006 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the info Gerard.

If it is Meritaten depicted, then this is a really rare depiction. There are so many references to nurses and tutors etc, that it would be really interesting to have a depiction of a royal woman nursing her own baby.
(I'm not arguing the point, just noting that this is a rather interesting and rare scene if interpreted as Meritaten.)

The father-daughter marriages seem to have originated with Amenhotep III? I don't know of other 18th dynasty examples. It seems to have been (enthusiastically) adopted by Ramesses II.

Getting back to an earlier point: Akhenaten may have raised Meritaten, Ankhesenpaaten and Neferneferuaten-tasherit to the position of King's Wife and the first one to Great Royal Wife?
There's no evidence showing Meketaten ever being called King's Wife I think.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 1007
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In an article I read couple of months ago from BBC website informs that the above mentioned image would have alongside the text
[King's Son of his body, his desired, Tu]t[ankhaten] born of [Chief Queen ..] Neferneferuaten Nefertiti, alive forever continually.

Otherwise, why Meritaten would be depicted in the same room with and without (in that case) the royal infants' sidelock???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Gerard
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 106
Location: France

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/amarna_04.shtml
This is just M.Gabolde reconstruction we were mentionning above.

Meritaten in room Gamma is wearing wigs. The question why a different one on wall A & B. I'm waiting for a reply from J.Allen. IMO wigs are not associated with a person as such, but with his/her duty. On wall A
Meritaten wears a common wig because she is acting as a nurse for her sister's child. On wall B she wears the traditional Amarna princess wig. If you look at Amarna princesses you will notice that what you call a sidelock is on a different side if the girl is facing left or right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gerard
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 106
Location: France

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

About the BBC link, the text in grey was lost in antiquity. The black part was lost in the XX century. M.Gabolde's drawing is made from a 1893-4 U.Bouriant's photograph.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gerard
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 106
Location: France

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
The father-daughter marriages seem to have originated with Amenhotep III?
This is what I thought too, but C.Desroches-Noblecoourt mentions Mykérinos, Amenemhat III (La femme au temps des pharaons , poche ed., p55).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gerard
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 106
Location: France

PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
Dodson and Hilton (pg 154):
Ankhesenpaaten-tasherit: Perhaps a daughter of Akhenaten and Kiya or Smenkhare and Meryetaten. Named on blocks from Hermopolis, originally deriving from Amarna.
They appear on blocks that were usurped from Kiya. This makes some think that they were daughters of Kiya, not the royal princesses.
I have a xerox copy of G.Roeder 1969 Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis Tafel 106 where there is a photograph of bloc 451. Ankhesenpaaten-tasherit and Ankhesenpaaten are partially visible, however I do not see any sign of usurpation. Nefertiti cartouche is in a column between the two names and on the next one. I guess usurpation were made on inscriptions at the Maru-Aten, but not on those of the Great Aten Temple.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for finding that! I had wondered if there was some independant evidence that shows the junior princesses. That to me really strengthens the idea that Ankhesenpaaten (en then likely Meritaten) had daughters during the reign of their father.

I'm assuming that all the inscriptions would show the later version of the Aten name (would have to really).

The fact that Ankhesenpaaten then had a child before her marriage to Tut makes one wonder why she was not able to conceive again.
Almost makes one wonder of these early pregnancies did some damage? But that is pure speculation of course.

It is interesting that Meritaten-tasherit and Ankhesenpaaten-tasherit are never heard of again after the Amarna period. Unless it is Ankhesenpaaten-tasherit who really married Tut. But I don't know how we would tell the difference between mother and daughter from the inscriptions we have.

If we go with the traditional assumption and Ankhesenpaaten married Tut, then I wonder what the status of her daughter would have been at court?
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gerard
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 106
Location: France

PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On bloc 234 on which there is no usurpation as far as I can tell, G.Roeder reconstruction of the text with the missing part gives : King’s daughter Ankhesenpa[aten-tasherit] daughter of King’s daughter Ankhesenp[aaten of King ]Neferkheperurê waenrê given life f[or eternity].
Here IMO there is no doubt the father is Akhnenaton. In addition this sentence may mean Nefertiti is not around anymore as Ankhesenpaaten is normaly called daughter of the great wife Nefertiti.
Ankhesenpaaten-tasherit, which is not seen at all on that bloc, hold some type of spear with two feathers that she presents to the Aten. IMO to be seen in that task, Ankhesenpaaten-tasherit is at least 3 years old.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No King's Wife title for Ankhesenpaaten?


Gerard wrote:
In addition this sentence may mean Nefertiti is not around anymore as Ankhesenpaaten is normaly called daughter of the great wife Nefertiti.

It may mean that. But the born of Neferneferuaten Nefertiti is sometimes left out if space didn't permit it.

Gerard wrote:
Ankhesenpaaten-tasherit, which is not seen at all on that bloc, hold some type of spear with two feathers that she presents to the Aten. IMO to be seen in that task, Ankhesenpaaten-tasherit is at least 3 years old.

Interesting, that would mean the inscription would date to the last 2 or 3 years of Akhenaten's reign. And depending on which theory one goes with could fall within the co-regency with Nefernefruaten and/or Smenkhare?
LOL But that's a whole other can of worms.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/


Last edited by anneke on Sun Aug 20, 2006 1:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
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  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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