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 

Tutankhamen's family
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12
 
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: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RobertStJames wrote:


Does anyone know of any inscribed dates at Amarna between Year 13-17?

RstJ


yes quite a few jar labels dated to those years were discovered in Amarna.
There used to be a database available from the Amarna Project (by Barry Kemp) and there were quite a few labels mentioning for instance "wine from the estate of the queen, year 17" and things like that.

The database is not available anymore online, but it was basically an excel sheet with entries for finds from the 1920s.

This is most definitely not a matter of "just one label".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
RobertStJames wrote:


Does anyone know of any inscribed dates at Amarna between Year 13-17?

RstJ


yes quite a few jar labels dated to those years were discovered in Amarna.
There used to be a database available from the Amarna Project (by Barry Kemp) and there were quite a few labels mentioning for instance "wine from the estate of the queen, year 17" and things like that.

The database is not available anymore online, but it was basically an excel sheet with entries for finds from the 1920s.

This is most definitely not a matter of "just one label".


I'm finding that a lot of these higher year reign dates depend on wine labels (AIII 34,37 and Akh 13-17). I'm wondering why there is no public architecture, art, scarabs, stelae, tomb dates to support these dates. It's like these rulers just retreated into their palaces and ordered out. javascript:emoticon('Very Happy')

Seriously, tho, I think it's time to revisit these docket dates and find out what they really mean. I think they could be production dates, not regnal dates. Think of the US penny. It has a picture of Abraham Lincoln on it. Are we to assume from that picture that he's been in office for the last 145 years? Of course not. Even better, think of QEII, featured on currency all over the world. Do we really think that they'll stop printing her picture (and the mfg date of the currency) after she dies?

Wine (and other goods) could still be produced on estates that belonged to the previous ruler and were marked as such until the new ruler got his paws on them. There was a whole supply chain involved, and a lot of happy slag-bellies taking their cut along the way. Why change the way things are done? Especially if the de facto ruler is the dead king's wife.

It's dangerous to read a piece of pottery with a royal's name on it and a date number and automatically assume this means that royal was still on the throne.



RstJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

christphe wrote:
during XVIII dynasty kingship didn't pass from brother to brother but father to son. That"s probably why we hear about princess but not princes. this may explain why Ramses II introduced changes by promoting his sons.
The idea of Smenkhare bother of akhenaton brother of tuthankamon would appear out of tradition.
It seems that all was made to secure Tut accession to the throne in spite of his age, the same way they did with thoutmose III or Amenhotep III.


But If Akhenaten had no sons by any wife then it would be natural to look to his surviving brother and marry him to the eldest princess to regularize the situation. This is seemingly exactly what happened with Smenkhkara and Meritaten.

Or alternatively Smenkhkara was Akhenaten's *elder* son by a secondary wife (Kiya?) and Tutankhaten his son by a sister-wife, probably Baketaten since she is the only daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye attested to have been at Akhetaten. Whichever son of Amenhotep III was Tut's father Baketaten was most likely his mother.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As Neseret observes power politics can be very convoluted. The scenario I am currently favoring goes so:

Akhenaten has no sons by either Nefertiti nor Kiya nor any other wife. This does not perturb him but worries his mother Tiye. Around yr. 12 Tiye brings her two youngest children by Amenhotep III to Akhetaten, possibly Baketaten has already been married to Smenkhkara who Tiye wants Akhenaten to recognize as his heir. He may not have done so as there is no mention of a co-regent or recognized heir in the Amarna correspondence - unless perhaps 'Mayati'.

Upon Akhenaten's death Smenkhkara's claim is united with Meritaten's and all seems well. But Smen desires a reconcilliation with the old orthodoxy and Meritaten doesn't. Smen dies after a year or so on the throne and Meritaten assumes the position of Pharoah under the name Neferneferuaten she manages to hold onto power for a few years (at least three are recorded I believe) but is eventually displaced by Tut, son of Smenkhkara and Baketaten and now about nine years old.

It is possible that Meritaten-Nefernerferuaten is the Dahamzu of the Hittite letters, turning in desperation to foreign aid to help her maintain power.

Young Tut is married to his double first cousin Ankhesenpaaten. Meritaten's fate is uncertain. If she is KV21B at least she was allowed a royal burial - as a queen not king.

BTW does anybody else find the picture of Ankhesenamun as a cripple incapable of walking and perhaps suffering pain from her deformed feet as distressing as I do? It is so very far from her usual depictions in fiction and on Tut's tomb furnishings. Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khaemweset
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 17
Location: New York City

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RobertStJames wrote:
anneke wrote:
RobertStJames wrote:


Does anyone know of any inscribed dates at Amarna between Year 13-17?

RstJ


yes quite a few jar labels dated to those years were discovered in Amarna.
There used to be a database available from the Amarna Project (by Barry Kemp) and there were quite a few labels mentioning for instance "wine from the estate of the queen, year 17" and things like that.

The database is not available anymore online, but it was basically an excel sheet with entries for finds from the 1920s.

This is most definitely not a matter of "just one label".


I'm finding that a lot of these higher year reign dates depend on wine labels (AIII 34,37 and Akh 13-17). I'm wondering why there is no public architecture, art, scarabs, stelae, tomb dates to support these dates. It's like these rulers just retreated into their palaces and ordered out. javascript:emoticon('Very Happy')

Seriously, tho, I think it's time to revisit these docket dates and find out what they really mean. I think they could be production dates, not regnal dates. Think of the US penny. It has a picture of Abraham Lincoln on it. Are we to assume from that picture that he's been in office for the last 145 years? Of course not. Even better, think of QEII, featured on currency all over the world. Do we really think that they'll stop printing her picture (and the mfg date of the currency) after she dies?


The problem with this argument is that our dating system is different from theirs. For future archaeologists to be confused by our coins you'd have to assume they knew nothing of our dating system, and then thinking, wow this Lincoln ruled from 1900 to 2010. Then they'd fight over conflicting evidence of Lincoln ruling from 1861-5. If the jar says Year 17 it has to be some pharoah's seventeenth regnal year. The obvious choice is Akhenaten. If not him, then who? The year has to reference a king. Seventeen years of Neferneferuaten? Smenkhkare? Tut? No, I think we're stuck with 17 years of Akhenaten.

Quote:
Wine (and other goods) could still be produced on estates that belonged to the previous ruler and were marked as such until the new ruler got his paws on them. There was a whole supply chain involved, and a lot of happy slag-bellies taking their cut along the way. Why change the way things are done? Especially if the de facto ruler is the dead king's wife.

It's dangerous to read a piece of pottery with a royal's name on it and a date number and automatically assume this means that royal was still on the throne.



RstJ


Are you suggesting that Akhenaten died, his personal wine-makers kept counting years as if he were reigning, and only stopped until forced to do so by the next pharoah? That seems unlikely to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ELISE
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Posts: 169

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm getting really confused by all this.

Surely we should be referring to the familial relationships by reference to the mummy IDs (eg KV62 is the son of KV55) unless we have an unequivocal identification of a particular mummy.

For example, on one of the other threads there's a lot of speculation about which 'sister' Akhenaten must have fathered Tut by - but we haven't even established that Akhenaten definitely is his father, have we?

Is there any thread or individual post where the relationships have been mapped based solely on the DNA profiling, with no speculation at all about IDs of unamed mummies - I could really do with the heads-up! Embarassed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khaemweset
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 17
Location: New York City

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ELISE wrote:
I'm getting really confused by all this.

Surely we should be referring to the familial relationships by reference to the mummy IDs (eg KV62 is the son of KV55) unless we have an unequivocal identification of a particular mummy.

For example, on one of the other threads there's a lot of speculation about which 'sister' Akhenaten must have fathered Tut by - but we haven't even established that Akhenaten definitely is his father, have we?

Is there any thread or individual post where the relationships have been mapped based solely on the DNA profiling, with no speculation at all about IDs of unamed mummies - I could really do with the heads-up! Embarassed


Well taking names out of the discussion you'd get:

WV22--KV35EL
|
KV55&KV35YL
|
KV62

Not very interesting lol. Of course we know that WV22=Amenhotep III and that KV62=Tutankhamun. We also know that if KV35EL is the wife of WV22 since they had a son and daughter together, and it's not a stretch to say that KV35EL=Tiye. So the only names we're not sure about are Tut's mother and father, the latter of which could only be one of two men as I see it, Akhenaten or Smenkhkare. I think Zahi chose Akhenaten because Akhenaten is more "famous."
*As for KV21a, the DNA wasn't conclusive, though Zahi pretty clearly is thinking it's Ankhesenamun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khaemweset wrote:
<...>
The problem with this argument is that our dating system is different from theirs. For future archaeologists to be confused by our coins you'd have to assume they knew nothing of our dating system, and then thinking, wow this Lincoln ruled from 1900 to 2010. Then they'd fight over conflicting evidence of Lincoln ruling from 1861-5. If the jar says Year 17 it has to be some pharoah's seventeenth regnal year.


Why? What difference does it make to the wine-maker? If he gets paid, why should he care if his wine carries the stamp of a king 3 yrs dead? If the wine was made 17yrs from when Akhenaten ascended the throne, it doesn't imply that he still has to be on it. These are wine dockets, commercial documentation, not court paperwork.

Over and over I'm seeing entire regnal years speculated by art historians based on potsherds found in one location, regnal years that then do not match up with other, more solidly attested, dates. Instead of questioning the meaning of the long dates, we invent co-regencies to cover the gap.

Quote:

Are you suggesting that Akhenaten died, his personal wine-makers kept counting years as if he were reigning, and only stopped until forced to do so by the next pharoah? That seems unlikely to me.


Yes, exactly. They continued shipping wine to Amarna until they began making it for Tut, as we can see they actually erased Akh's year 17 mark in favor of Tut year 1.

I know years of official history have taught us to accept these dates w/o question. But when you go looking for the sources, you find they're very scarce. If this were some obscure king in the corner of Anatolia, then it might be acceptable evidence. But these people were huge public figures, with thousands of objects/buildings/tombs/etc traced to their reigns. You don't find it odd we should find so little information on Akh's activities after Year 12?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
khaemweset
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 17
Location: New York City

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You don't find it odd we should find so little information on Akh's activities after Year 12?


Not really. I can rationalize it as being thousands of years ago and we're lucky to find anything. And since there seems to have been quite a bit of chaos after Year 12, with a plague (or something, maybe flu?) killing a few members of the royals and who knows how many others, and then a succession of pharoahs who ruled only a few years, rejecting the new religion, and the high priests I assume having a field day of destroying Akhetaten...in short, just one "Year 17" is proof enough to me. We'll have to agree to disagree over vintners pretending someone was alive after they were dead. The simplest explanation of a "year 17" wine jar docket is that it was made in the 17th year of a king's reign. If one doesn't believe in a 17year reign I suppose one can make educated guesses as to other reasons it would say that, but there would be NO evidence for that theory. At least the 17 year reign theory has ONE piece of evidence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ELISE wrote:
I'm getting really confused by all this.

Surely we should be referring to the familial relationships by reference to the mummy IDs (eg KV62 is the son of KV55) unless we have an unequivocal identification of a particular mummy.


VERY TRUE! Excellent reasoning, Elise. It seems that Akhenaten has been so long presumed the father of Tut that the revelation that the KV55 mummy is said father it taken by many to mean it must be Akhenaten, conveniently brushing age issues under the carpet.

All we can really say is that Tut was the son of a son and daughter of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye. WHICH son and daughter is unfortunately completely open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sobek
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Posts: 113
Location: Maine, USA

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Surely we should be referring to the familial relationships by reference to the mummy IDs (eg KV62 is the son of KV55) unless we have an unequivocal identification of a particular mummy.


I agree. I have tried to do this in my recent posts, except when I am writing about the identity of a particular mummy. DNA doesn't come with names.
Quote:
Is there any thread or individual post where the relationships have been mapped based solely on the DNA profiling, with no speculation at all about IDs of unamed mummies - I could really do with the heads-up!


I have posted some bits under several topics. What would you like to know?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is only room for speculation about dates if the date is not accompanied by any king`s name. But if there is a king`s name one has to take it as a proof that this king has reigned in this year.
The suggestion that a vintner goes on dating his jars referring to a king who his already dead only makes sense if one implies that the following king himself (or herself if Nefertiti) includes his/her own reign in the reign of the previous king instead of starting another year 1. But I hardly think this has ever been the case, it was the traditional way of AE chronology to determine every new king`s reign by his "year 1".

And I believe that the current king`s name and date were common knowledge at least to those who had learned to write and were employed to create inscriptions or to put the dates on all sorts of items, so the risk that dating went accidentally wrong is really low.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Osiris
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear forum members. Neseret touched upon this early in this discussion but I was wondering if the three weeks the JAMA report has been available for examination has allowed anyone here to form a more informed opinion about earlier speculation that the WV-22 identified as Amenhotep III might actually be the remains of Akhenaten. If we allow for this possibility how well does it fit in with the historical record as we know it, or, on the other hand, how much violence would it do to that historical record to have the familial relationships fit the genetic data? As promising and exciting as this new technology is we are confronted with the problem that very few of the mummies examined in this study have been identified beyond a doubt.

Here is a link to the Wente and Harris article Neseret linked to earlier. This is a short history of the WV-22 tomb.[/url]
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 ... 10, 11, 12
Page 12 of 12

 
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