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 

Tutankhamun not a son of Akhenaten
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
conorp
Priest
Priest


Joined: 09 Dec 2007
Posts: 513
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:02 am    Post subject: Tutankhamun not a son of Akhenaten Reply with quote

Well i always thought Tutankhamun was a son of Akhenaten but i just thought of this.

Why

He did not have a tomb at amarna, if he was the kings son one would be made for him.

Also to my knowledge ( I have not looked this up so might be wrong) there are not any enscriptions of him at amarna.

So is it possible he was a son of Aye or somebody else we dont even know of yet?

Conorp
_________________
How to start a blog

Photos And Information about Egyptian objects in Australia

Pompeii news and photos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There actually is a block from Amarna that mentions the king's son Tutankhuaten.

The fact that there was no tomb made for him in Amarna doesn't necessarily mean anything. There is no real evidence of where they planned to bury the royals who would not have fit into the royal tomb.
I think there is a find which refers to the "robing room of Neferneferure"?
She may have been buried in one of the other tombs in Amarna (I think tomb 29, but I'm going entirely from memory in this post Smile )

More interesting is the fact that there is also no evidence of a royal tomb for Smenkhare or Neferneferuaten.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't help it: I'm still with James P. Allen.
(I'm also with the KV55 mummy being Smenkhkare.)
I see the least holes in his theory:
Smenkh is Akh's brother.
Tut is Smenkh's son.

For more on this:
Euhm... Wait for my site to go up? Confused
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Going by way of what Tutankhamen himself said, his father was Amenhotep III. To my thinking, it's more than possible--probably likely. But caution must be used with that statement. The ignoring of Akhenaten may have already started by then, so Tut may have skipped back to AIII.
Also, it is a well known fact that many Pharaohs, to establish their right to rule, would refer to an "illustrious" ancestor.

I've always believed (in the face of scorn!) that both Tutankhamen and Smenkhara were sons, by lesser wives, of Amenhotep III, making them half-brothers of Akhenaten. There are many cases, up to this day, of an older man becoming a father.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Osiris II wrote:
Going by way of what Tutankhamen himself said, his father was Amenhotep III.
To my thinking, it's more than possible--probably likely.

Only when negating Akhenaten had a 17-year long reign.
And that there were other pharaohs between Akh and Tut.
If fathering Tut was AIII's last business in life, Akh's reign would have only been around 10 years at most.
I'd follow "the ignoring of Akhenaten may have already started by then" as well.
Same goes with Tut being AIII's son. It's not impossible, but unlikely.
It just doesn't quite fit in with Akh's length of reign and Tut's age.
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
conorp
Priest
Priest


Joined: 09 Dec 2007
Posts: 513
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The fact that there was no tomb made for him in Amarna doesn't necessarily mean anything


Personally i think it does meen a lot.
Quote:

The Royal Wadi (known locally as Wadi Abu Hassah el-Bahari) at Amarna is a where the Royal Family of Amarna were to be buried. It can be thought of as being an Amarna replacement for the Valley of the Kings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Wadi_and_tombs

I agree that wiki is not the best source, but it does back up what i was saying
_________________
How to start a blog

Photos And Information about Egyptian objects in Australia

Pompeii news and photos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
conorp
Priest
Priest


Joined: 09 Dec 2007
Posts: 513
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is also intresting

http://www.egyptology.com/kmt/fall97/endpaper.html
_________________
How to start a blog

Photos And Information about Egyptian objects in Australia

Pompeii news and photos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
conorp
Priest
Priest


Joined: 09 Dec 2007
Posts: 513
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just thought of something else.

To my knowledge they believe that tutankhamen was ment to be burried in Aye's
tomb and aye was ment to be burried in tutankhamuns tomb. But when tutankhamun died he got moved to aye's tomb. Since tutankhamun was ment to be burried in aye's tomb doesnt this so that he wanted to be burried in the same valley (West valley) as is father (amenhotep III) ?

If you understand what i meen?

Conorp
_________________
How to start a blog

Photos And Information about Egyptian objects in Australia

Pompeii news and photos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Daughter_Of_SETI
Divine Adoratrice


Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 2563
Location: Hull, UK

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

conorp wrote:
Since tutankhamun was ment to be burried in aye's tomb doesnt this so that he wanted to be burried in the same valley (West valley) as is father (amenhotep III) ?

Could be that he wanted to be close to his father, but I don't personally think that's the case. I think it's more likely that he was being buried in the West Valley to try to associate himself with the last pharaoh that worshipped the old gods. This could also be why Aye's and Tutankhamun's tombs got switched after Tutankhamun's death: so that Aye could be associated with Amenhotep III instead? Idea
_________________


In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this - Terry Pratchett.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Segereh stated:
Only when negating Akhenaten had a 17-year long reign.

Not necessarily. A co-regency between AIII and Akhenaten is one of my pet theories too.

And all the speculation on Tut's burial site is not necessary either. The smallness of his tomb, being crammed with objects, suggests a hasty burial. His death was quite unexpected, it seems, and a quick search was made for a completed, empty tomb. The one chosen was, most likely, a tomb that was constructed for Aye, before he was king.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Osiris II wrote:
Not necessarily. A co-regency between AIII and Akhenaten is one of my pet theories too.

It was a matter of time before someone brought that up.
Thank you immensely for that. Confused

But it's 0:38 over here and I'm sleepy: I promise to get back to it! Wink
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Osiris II wrote:
Segereh stated:
Only when negating Akhenaten had a 17-year long reign.
Not necessarily. A co-regency between AIII and Akhenaten is one of my pet theories too.

The thing about that theory is: there are less holes in the theory Nefertiti had a co-regency with Akh than in the one, where Akh had a co-regency with his father. This theory dates from the 30's and is based primarily on the absence of royal names alongside dated fragments from Malqata and Akhet-Aten, making it possible to attribute them to either AIII or AIV. That does not make it probable though. Shortening Akh's reign this way does make it technically possible seeing Tut and Smenkh as AIII's kids. The biggest problem I have with this theory is the lack of any direct evidence. Never are both kings shown side to side with regalia (of which even at least one example exists with Nefer and Akh), while it would be certain both kings are still alive at that moment, and even when both royal names occur next to each other, the context is largely useless. Also, outside two well known examples (coincidentally brought up in a parallel topic here: Click Me!) a full-blown acceptance of the revolutionary worship of Aten is never seen with AIII. As a matter of fact, those 2 examples are also most likely carved after AIII's death.

Osiris II wrote:
And all the speculation on Tut's burial site is not necessary either. The smallness of his tomb, being crammed with objects, suggests a hasty burial. His death was quite unexpected, it seems, and a quick search was made for a completed, empty tomb. The one chosen was, most likely, a tomb that was constructed for Aye, before he was king.

Couldn't say it any better.
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.geocities.com/eeflib/EEFLibrary1.html

Check these out, Segereh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conorp
Priest
Priest


Joined: 09 Dec 2007
Posts: 513
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was just looking in the small finds database at amarna:
http://www.amarnaproject.com/pages/recent_projects/material_culture/small_finds/database.shtml


There was 30 rings that came up on a search for his name. There was also this:

furnishing/decorative element knob
inlaid inscription: part of cartouche of Tutankhamun

I believe that he was born at the end of Akhenaten's reign. I believe that Akhenaten died soon after tut was born and didn't have a chance to make any monument etc for him. Then tut moved back to Thebes and abandoned amarna so nothing was made.



Conorp
_________________
How to start a blog

Photos And Information about Egyptian objects in Australia

Pompeii news and photos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

conorp wrote:
I believe that he was born at the end of Akhenaten's reign. I believe that Akhenaten died soon after tut was born and didn't have a chance to make any monument etc for him. Then tut moved back to Thebes and abandoned amarna so nothing was made.


Tut died at age 18-19 after a reign of about 10 years. Tut either followed Akhenaten on the throne immediately or at most 32-3 years later (If Smenkhare actually reigned ca 3 years).
The most likely interpretation seems to be that Tut followed immediately after Akhenaten. This means he was likely 8-9 years old when Akhenaten died and hence must have been born in ca year 9 of Akhenaten's reign.
_________________
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  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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