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 

Fact or Fiction
Goto page 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
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:39 pm    Post subject: Fact or Fiction Reply with quote

Seshat mentioned in another thread that there are a lot of theories for which there is no real solid evidence, but are accepted as fact anyway by a lot of people. And I think the Amarna period is rather rife with those Very Happy

1. Aye is Nefertiti's father. Seems to be rather widely accepted and sometimes almost stated as fact. But there is NO inscription where Aye is specifically called Nefertiti's father. The title it-netjer is usually brought up as an argument to bolster this theory. This is one of those where the theory may very well be true, but to my knowledge there is no conculsive evidence one way or the other.

2. Kiya is Tutankhamen's mother. Often stated, but no real evidence for it. Again, may very well be true, but there's no "smoking gun" that shows this mother-son relation. Alternative theories: Nefertiti is his mother, Meritaten is his mother.

3. Ankhesenpaaten-tesherit and Meritaten-tasherit are daughters of Ankhesenpaaten en Meritaten. These little girls mainly show up in scenes usurped from Kiya, so originally the girls were her daughter(s), but when the names changed, were there really daughters of the royal princesses?

4. Coregency between Amenhotep III and Akhenaten I have seen estimates ranging from no coregency, 2 years, 4or5 years, 9 years to 12 years. Going from memory here but the real point is that people seem to be all over the map here. And it seems the evidence is inconclusive at best?

I'm sure there must be many more.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 405
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

5a. Smenkhkare was Akhenaten's brother.
5b. Smenkhkare was Akhenaten's son.
5c. Smenkhkare was Nefertiti.
5d. Smenkhkare was an unrelated individual who married Meritaten
5e. Smekhkare was built by aliens.

Okay, the last one is a little far-fetched. But basically everything about Smenkhkare is either theoretical or contentious (other than the fact that the name appears in a few places, so someone was called by that handle).
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 Jan 08, 2010 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:

Smekhkare was built by aliens.

no, no, no, no, no that was Akhenaten!

LOL I wish I could find the link, but there was an actual site that stated that Akhenaten was an alien.

But you're right, I think Smenkhare may win the "most confusing person" sweepstakes Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 405
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To tell you the truth, I'm actually a little surprised that nobody (to my knowledge) has ever floated the idea that Smenkhkare was Tutankhaten. No real reason to suppose this that I know of, but "Tut" seems to be the only one that "Smenkh's" never been accused of being.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 985
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:

5a. Smenkhkare was Akhenaten's brother.
5b. Smenkhkare was Akhenaten's son.
5c. Smenkhkare was Nefertiti.
5d. Smenkhkare was an unrelated individual who married Meritaten
5e. Smekhkare was built by aliens.


and
5f. Smenkhkare was a Hittite prince. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1028
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:
5a. Smenkhkare was Akhenaten's brother.
5b. Smenkhkare was Akhenaten's son.


However,

5b.1: KV 55 (if Smenkhkare) IS related to Tutankhamun - either as son or brother (Harrison, Connolly, et al. 1969)). This tends to disprove 5 d (below), IMO.

Montuhotep88 wrote:
5d. Smenkhkare was an unrelated individual who married Meritaten).

==========
Montuhotep88 wrote:
5c. Smenkhkare was Nefertiti.


Allen (1994) has somewhat disproved this by a combination of logic and self-evidence, to wit:

ONE PHARAOH OR TWO?

In addition to their association with Merit-aton, the two sets of king's names also share the element anx-xprw-ra in their prenomen (no other elements of the full five-name royal titulary are known for either set). This has led Egyptologists unanimously (with the partial exception of Krauss) to conclude that the two sets belong to two phases in the career of a single individual, with disagreement only about the sequence of the two phases and the identity (and sex) of the king in question.

The Nefer-neferu-aton set is the only one associated with Akhenaton, either in the epithets of the names themselves or in conjunction with Akhenaton's cartouches. It seems likely that the individual to whom these names refer is a woman. Her sex is clearly indicated by the feminine variants of the prenomen (A2a and B) and seems to be shown on the "Coregency" stela as well.

A priori, it is likely that this woman is Nefertiti in the role of pharaoh and (probably) coregent with Akhenaton. Her pharaonic prerogatives already as Akhenaton's queen - culminating in the Pase stela and the unfinished Berlin stela - are well enough known, and she is the only woman in the Amarna and immediate post-Amarna period that can be shown to have such prerogatives. Nfr-nfrw-jtn is used by her as a title when she is queen, and only in her name is the jtn element reversed. Reversal does not occur in the name of the princess Nefer-neferu-aton the Younger, nor in other royal women's names compounded with jtn. Reversal does not appear in the prenomen nfr-nfrw-jtn plus epithet evidently because there is no determinative for it to face. In the one instance in which a determinative is present (C2c), there is (partial) reversal: the exception would seem to prove both the status of the orthography and the link with Nefertiti.

By contrast, the Smenkh-ka-re set is never linked with Akhenaton, either by epithet or by juxtaposed cartouches. No hard evidence exists as to the sex of the king who used these names. The scene from Meri-re's tomb is sketchy and could conceivably represent a female pharaoh; gay Robins has recently shown that association with a Chief Queen does not necessarily indicate that the king in question is male. Pictorial evidence for two male coregents is equally ambiguous. At the same time, however, there is also no evidence to indicate firmly that the king called Smenkh-ka-re "Holy of Forms" was a woman, since all feminine instances of the prenomen are linked with the Nefer-neferu-aton set of names.

Either, therefore, the Smenkh-ka-re set of names represents a later stage in the career of the female pharaoh Nefer-neferu-aton, or it belongs to a separate individual. Proponents of Nefertiti's kingship have argued vigorously for the first interpretation, claiming that "there is as yet no valid evidence that a youth called Smenkh-ka-re existed." But the evidence itself does not demand an identification of Smenkh-ka-re with Nefer-neferu-aton, and in fact the insistence that the two sets of names must belong to a single individual only weakens each case.

Arguments for a male Nefer-neferu-aton run into difficulty with the clear feminine variants of the prenomen. Krauss's solution, assigning these variants to Merit-aton as queen regnant, has no firm supporting evidence, and the evidence that does exist is much less compelling than that linking the Nefer-neferu-aton set of names as a whole with Nefertiti.

Arguments for a female Smenkh-ka-re, on the other hand, are based primarily on the use of anx-xprw-ra as prenomen. As shown above, however, there is a clear distinction between this use and that of the same name in the Nefer-neferu-aton set of names. Any other argumentation is essentially from silence - for example, that absence of the epithets using Akhenaton's names reflects that king's death. In any case, the burial in Tomb 55 must constitute a major impediment to any theory based on a single female pharaoh. While no inscriptional evidence remains to connect this burial with the king called Smenkh-ka-re, who else could it be?


Allen concluded:

When all the evidence is assembled, weighted, and analyzed without prejudice toward one or another opposing viewpoint, it seems clear that there is strong support for both the theory of Nefertiti's kingship and the existence of a male pharaoh between Akhenaton and Tutankhamun.

<...>

If King Nefer-neferu-aton served at all as Akhenaton's coregent, her rule may not have lasted much beyond the death of the senior king, since docket 279 from Amarna seems to link Akhenaton's last year (17) with Year 1 of another pharaoh. In that case, the Pawah graffito of Nefer-neferu-aton's Year 3 suggests a return to "normalcy" already at the close of, or immediately following , Akhenaton's reign. It is possible that the coregency represented a real division of powers: Akhenaton as pharaoh in Amarna and in foreign affairs (which would explain the coregent's absence - if not accidental - from the Amarna letters), and Nefer-neferu-aton ruling the rest of Egypt.

Smenkh-ka-re's accession probably took place within months of Akhenaton's death, if not immediately (certainly the case if "Year 1" of docket 279 is his). The new king took both Nefer-neferu-aton's throne name (without its reference to Akhenaton) and Merit-aton as Chief Queen. The reason for the choice of Nefertiti's throne name is a matter of conjecture. Like the marriage to Merit-aton, it undoubtedly reflected the line of succession. But even more, it may have been chosen to emphasize the legitimacy of Smenkh-ka-re's claim against that of Akhenaton's "chosen" (mr) coregent.

Smenkh-ka-re ruled at Amarna: his known monuments are all from there and from Memphis. His highest known date is Year 1 on a wine-jar docket from Amarna, but his reign may have lasted as much as three years. As for the fate of Nefertiti, it is possible that Smenkh-ka-re's accession reflects her death around the time of Akhenaton's. But if mention of her name in filiations from Karnak has any chronological significance, it is possible that she was simply deposed by Smenkh-ka-re and lived on, perhaps into the reign of Tutankhamun. In either case, she was not buried as a pharaoh: the funerary objects made for that purpose were eventually used by Tutankhamun. Evidence for her burial otherwise is sparse.
(Allen 1994: 14-16; underlining, mine)

One should also read Allen's follow up alternate theory (2009) that "King Neferneferuaten" was not Nefertiti, but was, in fact (tada! Very Happy) the Princess Neferneferuaten all grown up and taking over for her father and carrying on the Atenist religion and rulership. Interesting theory and quite plausible.

As for "Smenhkare was a Hittite prince", I think was also shot down by the Harrison and Connolly 1969 blood serology study, which clearly linked the KV 55 remains (assumed to be Smenkhkare by most) as a relation of Tutankhamun's.

Reference:

Allen, J. 1994. Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re. Göttinger Miszellen 141: 7-17.

Allen, J. P. 2009. The Amarna Succession. In P. Brand and L. Cooper, Eds., Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Volume 37. Leiden: Brill. (also online (PDF)).

Harrison, R. G. 1966. An Anatomical Examination of the Pharaonic Remains Purported to be Akhenaten. JEA 52: 95-119.

Harrison, R. G., R. C. Connolly, et al. 1969. Kinship of Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun Demonstrated Serologically. Nature 224/October 25, 1969: 325-326.

HTH.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 405
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:


Allen (1994) has somewhat disproved this by a combination of logic and self-evidence, to wit:

ONE PHARAOH OR TWO?

<< snip! >>

Either, therefore, the Smenkh-ka-re set of names represents a later stage in the career of the female pharaoh Nefer-neferu-aton, or it belongs to a separate individual. Proponents of Nefertiti's kingship have argued vigorously for the first interpretation, claiming that "there is as yet no valid evidence that a youth called Smenkh-ka-re existed." But the evidence itself does not demand an identification of Smenkh-ka-re with Nefer-neferu-aton, and in fact the insistence that the two sets of names must belong to a single individual only weakens each case.


Actually, that's about where I tend to stumble over Allen's argument... I don't see how name changes weaken the case, given that it's documented to have happened at least a few times to various Amarna-period individuals, notably Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Tutankhamen, and Ankhesenamun-- not to mention the Aten itself. ([i]side note... why did I just spell Tut's name "amen" and his queen's name "amun"? inconsistency! oh well...
) If anything, that strengthens the case IMHO.

But anyway, I wasn't so much championing a particular theory about Smenkhkare as I was noting that there are a number of disparate (and mutually-exclusive) theories about him which seem to be taken as "facts" by various individuals, when really what we're dealing with are sets of probabilities based on varying interpretations of rather scarce evidence.

Related thought...

One of the statements that most electrified me when I watched the program detailing Dr. Nicholas Reeves' ideas (which definitely went in favor of the Nefetiti-as-Smenkhkare hypothesis) was a statement to the effect that 'what we're digging for when looking for Nefertiti is not gold-- in fact, if Tut's treasure was recycled from Smenkhkare and if Smenkhkare was Nefertiti, then we already have the gold-- but the documents and information that weren't in Tut's tomb.' (Paraphrase mine-- it's been ten years since I've seen that program and it doesn't seem to be on DVD anywhere, alas.) I hope we strike a rich vein of papyri about the Amarna period sometime soon. Chances are vastly against it, but one can hope...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
christphe
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

we should not forget that untill Harris and Samson in the 70's discovered a female king in amarna, this was unknown! in a Desroche Noblecourt about TUT, she let us understand that Akhenaton and Smenkare were a gay couple!!! that was the explanation for the female occurences of Smenkare name.

It took at least a decade for the first egyptologist to understand Hatchepsout was a female pharao.

This is how things are, hypothesis untill the proof
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seshat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 132

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I recall reading somewhere a very simple and not at all scandalous explanation for the existence of Ankhesenpaaten ta Sherit and Merytaten ta Sherit: when the Maru Aten and other monuments dedicated to Kiya were usurped by Meritaten, there was the inconvenient presence of Kiya's daughter (whose name is unknown) in the reliefs. It was suggested that the person responsible for overcarving the names simply made up names for the unknown daughters based on the name of the lady he was usurping the monument for! They didn't exist at all or were child representations of the grown women whose names replaced those of Kiya. I like this explanation. It's simple, it fits the existing evidence. It probably can't ever be proven, though and it leaves the question...why not just carve one of the younger sisters' names over those of Kiya's daughter?

My personal unsubstantiated theory about Tutankhamun is that his dad was Akhenaten, who had a fling with the maid, a lady named Maia, who then got pregnant. Bam! Tutankhamun, *** son. Of course, not having had a male heir, Nefertiti got all angry about this so, Maia had to settle for the title King's Wetnurse. Nefertiti, not about to yield the throne to *** son when she considered her scion the legit heirs tried to establish herself as king like Hatshepsut had when the next in line was the son of a minor wife. BAM! Ankheperure!
Like that theory? I just made it up off the top of my head!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice theory, but not convincing me (you weren`t serious about everything, were you?).
Akhenaten as King would not produce ***children, if he really had a crush on a certain woman he simply would have married her as it was probably tha case with Kiya. Nobody could have prevented him from doing so, not even Nefertiti. Besides I cannot take Maia for Tut`s real mother because she would not have gone to her tomb without a proper "King`s Mother" title on the walls.

I like the Theory that Queen Tiye is Tut`s real mom much better ( Iknow it`s not very popular anymore). I base it on the legendary hairlock and the fact that this hairlock was encased in 4 (!) coffins altogether, in two coffinettes on its own and then together with a wrapped gold statuette in two more coffins. In my view this great care being taken with what is a part of her body after all could point to a substitute burial of her in Tut`s tomb.
And who was ever closer to the egyptians that their mother (apart from their wives, of course)? On the other hand no mention of Kiya and nothing very special of Meritaten or others.
Does anyone think similarly?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 985
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:

I like the Theory that Queen Tiye is Tut`s real mom much better ( Iknow it`s not very popular anymore). I base it on the legendary hairlock and the fact that this hairlock was encased in 4 (!) coffins altogether, in two coffinettes on its own and then together with a wrapped gold statuette in two more coffins. In my view this great care being taken with what is a part of her body after all could point to a substitute burial of her in Tut`s tomb.


It isn't a bad theory at all. The problem is that there's no her very cherished title "King's Mother" on the coffinette and the hair very likely belongs to a person (the "Older Lady") who has nothing to do with Yuya and Tjuia (different blood group from both them). I particularly believe that the "Great Royal Wife Tiy" written in the coffinette would be Tey, or "Tiy II", the wife of Ay who, at the height of Tut's was already a king's wife, once Ay himself is depicted as pharaoh on Tut's tomb walls.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 985
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I mean:

"...at the height of Tut's funeral..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Seshat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 132

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I totally wasn't serious about the Maia theory. I just pulled it out of my **** word for "bum"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 985
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Talking about palatial gossip...

I also enjoy the "little sis" theory. Nefertiti was raised to the uppest position for a woman in the kingdom and took to the palace her younger sister, Mutbenert to be her lady in waiting, to chat, play and also for the youngest girl die envious because of the eldest good luck (all normal girlie stuff). However, Nefertiti gave birth to a sequence of other girls. Her royal mate was became a bit upset after the birth of the fourth and look after consolation in the arms of the sis-in-law, and bick-a-boom: we have a male heir!!!

Nefertiti angry like a leopard from the South banished the girl and the baby prince from the palace (is where Mutbenert simply disappeared from the records) and she raised the boy in Memphis with a removed assistance of the royal dad. When Nefertiti herself died or fell in disgrace, Tut and his mom were brought back to Akhetaten when the new co-regent, Meritaten (to whom Nefertiti was always very jealous and had Mutbenert as her role model and best friend) officially named him the heir and married him to Ankhesenpaaten.

When Akhenaten also died, Meritaten managed to associate her husband Smenkhkare to the power, but he also died, and she renounced, for deep sorrow, to perform power publicly and gave to herself a precocious (she was on her 16!) retirement and embraced only the honorable title of royal tutor, slightly changing her own name to the nickname she actually was addressed privately, to stress that she became a private person.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally I like the idea of Merytaten trying to hold on to power as Pharaoh NeferNeferuAten. I would also assigne the 'Dahamzu' corespondance with the Hittite court to her desperate efforts to retain power. Note she doesn't say the King left no son, or there is no royal prince available only that SHE has no son.

My experience with dynastic infighting in much later eras demonstrates that not being in the legitimate line of succession does not necessarily stop people from trying for a crown.

Personally I find a Merytaten giving up her royal titles to be a mere wet-nurse to the king highly improbable.
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  Next
Page 1 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