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 happened to Meritaten?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
On the positive side disappearance from monuments need not necessarily mean death. Not being a King's Mother Meritaten's importance would vanish as soon as Tut succeeded and she might have retired to her estates or a harem palace and there enjoyed a peaceful and lengthy retirement - though if she was Neferneferuaten such a tame ending is highly improbable.


After Zanannza (Smekhkara) got thrown to the crocodiles, Meritaten did reitre to the harim or her estates? Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

smenkhkare and zannanza are not the same individual. from what i've read of the amarna letters, it was ay who had to explain to the hittites that zannanza was nopt murdered. this implies ankhesenamun was dahamunzu, which makes sense. since there literally was no heir at tut's death. neferneferuaten does not fit, because she would not have been able to hide tut's existence.

and we know smenkhkare dissapears long before tut died, seemingly the year after akhenaten, then succeeded by neferneferuaten.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
smenkhkare and zannanza are not the same individual. from what i've read of the amarna letters, it was ay who had to explain to the hittites that zannanza was nopt murdered. this implies ankhesenamun was dahamunzu, which makes sense.


Where did you find the evidence that Ay replied? If so, was it as Pharaoh or as Vizier?

kylejustin wrote:
since there literally was no heir at tut's death. neferneferuaten does not fit, because she would not have been able to hide tut's existence.


Shocked
Hiding Royal personages, from what I've read so far, was a particular ability of the Amarna Rulers!

kylejustin wrote:
and we know smenkhkare dissapears long before tut died, seemingly the year after akhenaten, then succeeded by neferneferuaten.


How do we know? There are arguments for a co-regency with Akhenaten. Smenhkhare could have had his one year reign - within and during Akhenaten's 17 year reign. How can we be sure it was after it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:

Where did you find the evidence that Ay replied? If so, was it as Pharaoh or as Vizier?


According to an article by Dr Theo van den Hout in De zaak Zannanza. Een Egyptisch-Hettitisch brievendossier (Engl: "The Zannanza affair. An Egyptian-Hittite letter file.") , Phoenix, Leiden 39 (1993), 159-167, there is a last letter from a king who took the throne after the whole Zannaza affair.

One reference mentions:"Your accusations have no justification... You are simply spoiling for a fight against me... I seek peace and brotherhood with you. As for your son's death - of that I am entirely innocent!"

Supp quoting Aye indeed, from Keilschrift Urkunden aus Boghazk√i XIX 20 (CTH 154), ed. Hagenbuchner 1989, quoted by Bryce.
(from http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=165)

I cannot remember if the pharaoh is mentioned by name or not. But there is a letter from the pharaoh who reigned after the Dahamunzu affair.
I have to look at the article again to see what assumptions van den Hout was making when he wrote the article and what he was able to deduce from the letters.

I know I translate parts of van den Hout's paper from Dutch to English at some point, but I cannot find that post anymore Confused
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
kylejustin wrote:
smenkhkare and zannanza are not the same individual. from what i've read of the amarna letters, it was ay who had to explain to the hittites that zannanza was nopt murdered. this implies ankhesenamun was dahamunzu, which makes sense.


Where did you find the evidence that Ay replied? If so, was it as Pharaoh or as Vizier?

kylejustin wrote:
since there literally was no heir at tut's death. neferneferuaten does not fit, because she would not have been able to hide tut's existence.


Shocked
Hiding Royal personages, from what I've read so far, was a particular ability of the Amarna Rulers!

kylejustin wrote:
and we know smenkhkare dissapears long before tut died, seemingly the year after akhenaten, then succeeded by neferneferuaten.


How do we know? There are arguments for a co-regency with Akhenaten. Smenhkhare could have had his one year reign - within and during Akhenaten's 17 year reign. How can we be sure it was after it?


I think I noticed this elsewhere on Egyptian Dreams in recent weeks but I have to ask and clarify right here: where on earth is the Zanannza/Smenkhkare connection coming from? I don't see how that can possibly be corroborated.

In any case kylejustin is right that Smenkhkare long preceded the demise of Tutankhmaun. Even if Smenkhkare shared a brief coregency with Akhenaten--a possibility for which many people argue--I don't know of any evidence that would place Smenkhkare by or at the time of Tutankhamun's ascension to the throne. It was the death of both Akhenaten and Smenkhkare that led to Tut's ascension.

Elsewhere I've mentioned the article written by Aidan Dodson in which he argues the possibility that Nefertiti briefly shared a coregency with Tut, and I personally find the theory interesting and compelling. That doesn't mean I myself am convinced, but it bears consideration.

Since then I was able to track down the article. It was in the Fall 2009 issue of KMT (Volume 20, Number 3), if anyone's interested. But I would abandon any ideas that Smenkhkare lived into Tut's reign, and I would definitely discard making Zanannza and Smenkhkare the same person.

People still argue over the origin of the letter sent to the Hittite king. There is no universal agreement, but I personally feel Ankhesenamun is a much better fit. Any way you look at it with Nefertiti, after the death of Akhenaten there were still male heirs: if not Smenkhkare, then Tutankhaten.

The substance and tone of the letter written by the queen the Hittites recorded as Dahamunzu, basically confirms that for this particular queen, there was no male heir left. That's why this Nibhuruiya was loathe to the idea of having to marry a servant (commoner) and would prefer to marry a royal, even if he was a Hittite. Moreover, the letter preserves the name of the deceased king as Nibhuruiya, which is an awfully close match to the throne name of Tutankhamun: Nebkheperrure.
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
Orwell wrote:

Where did you find the evidence that Ay replied? If so, was it as Pharaoh or as Vizier?


According to an article by Dr Theo van den Hout in De zaak Zannanza. Een Egyptisch-Hettitisch brievendossier (Engl: "The Zannanza affair. An Egyptian-Hittite letter file.") , Phoenix, Leiden 39 (1993), 159-167, there is a last letter from a king who took the throne after the whole Zannaza affair.

One reference mentions:"Your accusations have no justification... You are simply spoiling for a fight against me... I seek peace and brotherhood with you. As for your son's death - of that I am entirely innocent!"

Supp quoting Aye indeed, from Keilschrift Urkunden aus Boghazk√i XIX 20 (CTH 154), ed. Hagenbuchner 1989, quoted by Bryce.
(from http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=165)

I cannot remember if the pharaoh is mentioned by name or not. But there is a letter from the pharaoh who reigned after the Dahamunzu affair.
I have to look at the article again to see what assumptions van den Hout was making when he wrote the article and what he was able to deduce from the letters.

I know I translate parts of van den Hout's paper from Dutch to English at some point, but I cannot find that post anymore Confused


Thanks Anneke. Sounds really fascinating. It would be really cool if we could safely identify who sent this letter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
I think I noticed this elsewhere on Egyptian Dreams in recent weeks but I have to ask and clarify right here: where on earth is the Zanannza/Smenkhkare connection coming from? I don't see how that can possibly be corroborated.


Just a bit of idle speculating on if the 'ephemeral' Smenkhkare could be one and the same as that dirty Hittite, Zanannza. (YOu know, the Zanannza that got fed to the crocodiles!)

kmt_sesh wrote:
In any case kylejustin is right that Smenkhkare long preceded the demise of Tutankhmaun.


Was it ever in dispute? Shocked

[quote="kmt_sesh"]Even if Smenkhkare shared a brief coregency with Akhenaten--a possibility for which many people argue--I don't know of any evidence that would place Smenkhkare by or at the time of Tutankhamun's ascension to the throne.{/quote]

Nor me, neither.

kmt_sesh wrote:
It was the death of both Akhenaten and Smenkhkare that led to Tut's ascension.


You mean, 'eventually' don't you? What about Pharoah Neferneferuaten?

kmt_sesh wrote:
Elsewhere I've mentioned the article written by Aidan Dodson in which he argues the possibility that Nefertiti briefly shared a coregency with Tut, and I personally find the theory interesting and compelling. That doesn't mean I myself am convinced, but it bears consideration.


What about Meritaten and Tut? Nefertiti (and Kiya) had their names replaced by Meritaten after all, suggesting he came afterward! Idea

kmt_sesh wrote:
Since then I was able to track down the article. It was in the Fall 2009 issue of KMT (Volume 20, Number 3), if anyone's interested. But I would abandon any ideas that Smenkhkare lived into Tut's reign, and I would definitely discard making Zanannza and Smenkhkare the same person.


I'm lost - who suggested Smenkhkare lived into Tut's reign? I wouldn't definitely discard Zanannza from being Smenkhkare.

[quote="kmt_sesh"]People still argue over the origin of the letter sent to the Hittite king. There is no universal agreement, but I personally feel Ankhesenamun is a much better fit. Any way you look at it with Nefertiti, after the death of Akhenaten there were still male heirs: if not Smenkhkare, then Tutankhaten.

kmt_sesh wrote:
The substance and tone of the letter written by the queen the Hittites recorded as Dahamunzu, basically confirms that for this particular queen, there was no male heir left.


Least ways, not a suitable 'servant.' If Meritaten, she may have believed any of the 'junior' lines to be unsuitable 'servants.' A strapping Hittite Prince might have seemed a good political option. I've already previously suggested (as a hypothesis) that Meritaten (Nefereneneferuaten-Acenchres) wanted to keep her rule. A foreign Prince would have been under her thumb. The alternative, a male of the Tuthmossid line, would have used her as an imprimatur for ruling themselves. This is why when Zanannza became co-regent Power Brokers got angsty and fed him to the crocodiles and sent Meritaen back to the harim. (I haven't got absolute proof yet of this hypothesis yet though, Kmt-sesh, so please don't get too excited!)

kmt_sesh wrote:
That's why this Nibhuruiya was loathe to the idea of having to marry a servant (commoner) and would prefer to marry a royal, even if he was a Hittite. Moreover, the letter preserves the name of the deceased king as Nibhuruiya, which is an awfully close match to the throne name of Tutankhamun: Nebkheperrure.


I have read conflicting suggestions - that Nibhuruiya is as likely to be Akhenaten.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:

Thanks Anneke. Sounds really fascinating. It would be really cool if we could safely identify who sent this letter.


I wonder if anyone remembered to check the return address?
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
I wonder if anyone remembered to check the return address?


I hope you're not trying to derail my investigation, Kmt? angry3
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:


One reference mentions:"Your accusations have no justification... You are simply spoiling for a fight against me... I seek peace and brotherhood with you. As for your son's death - of that I am entirely innocent!"

Supp quoting Aye indeed, from Keilschrift Urkunden aus Boghazk√i XIX 20 (CTH 154), ed. Hagenbuchner 1989, quoted by Bryce.
(from http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=165)



I`m pretty sure the pharao isn`t mentioned by name (wish it were).
I remember that ages ago someone (probably neseret) gave a really good link to van Hout`s translation (this again translated into English) of all six letters of this correspondence, but I could not find either the post or the link.

The best I could get my hands on is part of the text of a letter written by the Hittite king which seems to be the letter that provoked the reply by the Egyptian king as qouted by anneke;

Professor van de Hout, who translated this letter in 1993, renders it like this.

"Ö[When the queen of E]gypt wrote again and again, you(?) not [...] was you/she(?). But if you [in the meanwhile? had seated yourself on the throne, then] you could have sent my son back home. [...] Your [serva]nt Hani held us responsible [...] What [have you done] with my son?!"

It is obvious that the Hittite king is at a loss as to what had happened to his son and that things had not gone according to his plan at all.
He had expected that his son would find an empy throne but in fact it was already occupied by a new king who apparently had not had any intention to hand it over or share it with the Hittite prince.

These two letters are indeed not so well-known but nevertheless they give some clues to the outcome of the whole affair.

IMO it seems likely that the prince was indeed murdered because if he had died from the plague or another "unaided" death the new king would probably had mentioned this natural cause of death to support his claim of his own innocence.
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 19, 2012 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It would be great to see those letters with my own eyes! Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4019
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
I think I noticed this elsewhere on Egyptian Dreams in recent weeks but I have to ask and clarify right here: where on earth is the Zanannza/Smenkhkare connection coming from? I don't see how that can possibly be corroborated. ...

This comes from one of the Gabolde - Twins, more precisely Marc Gabolde: Das Ende der Amarnazeit (2001). I try to give in the next few days a brief summary of his reasons / clues.

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
It would be great to see those letters with my own eyes! Smile


Why, don`t you trust me? Smile

BTW I got the text from this site

http://biblicalarcheology.net/?p=249

and although it is something to do with biblical I think the translation adapted from van de Hout is still trustworthy.

Yeah, of course I know what you mean, I would also like to see once more the proper translations of all the correspondence, but as I said I couldn`t find anythng better.

Perhaps anneke would be so kind and translate a bit from Dutch little by little when she has the time?
Hope I`m not asking too much.
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 20, 2012 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
Why, don`t you trust me? Smile


I have no doubt you believe your interpretation is correct in all details, but I've noticed here that folk can sometimes interpret evidence different to each other. So, if I see those letters I'll know clearly if I agree wth your interpretation, or don't...

It's a tarpit kind of thing, Sothis. Laughing [/quote]



[quote="Sothis"]BTW I got the text from this site

http://biblicalarcheology.net/?p=249
Sothis wrote:
ng up post haste.


[quote="Sothis"] ...and although it is something to do with biblical I think the translation adapted from van de Hout is still trustworthy.

Yeah, of course I know what you mean, I would also like to see once more the proper translations of all the correspondence, but as I said I couldn`t find anythng better.

Perhaps anneke would be so kind and translate a bit from Dutch little by little when she has the time?
Hope I`m not asking too much.


I'm sure Anneke will have no reluctance to do that for us - no matter how time consuming it might be! Laughing
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 20, 2012 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From Biblical Arheology "Egyptian Queen Proposes" article"


Professor van de Hout, who translated this letter in 1993, renders it like this.

"Ö... ... gypt wrote again and again... was ... But if you ... ... .... you could have sent my son back home. ... Your .....nt Hani held us responsible ... What ... ... with my son?!"


I took out the bracketed stuff and anything with a ? after it.

Certainly leaves any interpretation open! Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
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