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 

Did AIII die in Year 30?
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
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: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the damage to the other royal daughter may be coincidence? The statue of Nebetah (Nebti) also suffered damage. That could have to do with the fact that these girls were depicted at both ends?

I wouldn't be surprised if Sitamen, Henuttaneb, Nebetah and Isis ended up in Akhenaten's harem. Although one or more of them may have died young as well.

I had forgotten about the discussion you mentioned Smile
The fact that Nebetah's name was written in a cartouche is interesting as well. Isis and Henuttaneb's names are written in cartouches in Soleb, but are listed as king's daughters, not king's wives.


(Isis and Henuttaneb in Soleb; Note that Henuttaneb's name is copied wrong by Lepsius)

There are also other royal wives sometimes associated to the palace of Malqata:
Nebetnehat and Henut.

Nebetnehat: http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/thebes/archive/uc15808.jpg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Before I started looking to see what the daughters looked like I found a line drawing of a bas relief with the aten, an arm extending an ankh, a woman on the right either Nefertiti or Tiye and a figure chiseled out on the left described as a man. When I traced the left silhouette of the man, it had the same outline of the woman (with sashes and ties) and a pillbox shape on top of the head. I have no idea where I saw it, but it suggests to me that one of the daughters got herself deleted.

So Ahkenaten could have acquired a sister wife in year 34 or so, but it doesn't explain why Nefertiti took precedence and the sister remained in the background.

If he got her out of his harem, it still doesn't sound like an official alliance, but the mother of many of these Pharoahs is unknown and maybe marrying a sister formerly married to your father was trashy even for that time.

But she did get herself murdered and there should be some "noise" around that event.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
There's a big difference between observing rites before an ancestor and the sed festival. The running around the boundary stones, the raising of the djed pillar etc are part of the sed festival and are aimed to rejuvenation of the king. They show the king participating and not him being buried.


Who is that person (mummy?) on the pedastal with the pillar in place of his head? http://www.osirisnet.net/tombes/nobles/kheru/e_kherouef_04.htm
Someone apparently was reading this as a funerary panel, or at least some of the art in this tomb. I can't find who, tho.


Quote:

<...>
If the idea is that the deification of Amenhotep III in year 30 is a sign of his death then that does not work either as there is a statue of Amenhotep son of Hapu dated to year 31 of Nebmaatre. So he was definitely alive after the festival.


That points to the problem for me: if he's alive after Year 30, why is there such a paucity of evidence for it? A statue, some possible Amarna Letter dates, ostraca from Malkata. This guy was a major king with an ambitious building program. Strange he leaves so little behind for his third decade on the throne.

Quote:

I haven't seen any new results from the Malqata excavations, but how many year 34 and 37 labels do you need? Seems to me that there is plenty of reason to give a reign of at least 38 years to Amenhotep III. It's not clear if he may have made it as far as year 40 though.


More than just the ones from a pile of broken pottery at Malkata. If they matched up with other inscriptional, monumental, evidence, that would be one thing. But they seem to stand in isolation. I'm wondering if part of the "co-regency" problems are these Year 30+ dates which push AIII's reign into his son's.


I'm looking through Hayes to try to find out exactly what he's reading as dates on the ostraca.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is very interesting artwork. I see under (C) there were 8 daughters of AIII and from the pop-up line drawing at the top of the page one of them has her name chiseled out (I assume that's their name in front of them). Who were the extra princesses? And why was one exed out?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stephaniep wrote:
This is very interesting artwork. I see under (C) there were 8 daughters of AIII and from the pop-up line drawing at the top of the page one of them has her name chiseled out (I assume that's their name in front of them). Who were the extra princesses? And why was one exed out?


Interesting, yes. And Akh having a child who became the next ruler by what we have to assume is one of these daughters. Even stranger is that a panel including two of these children (just the heads) was carved out (by who?) and is currently at the Berlin Museum, even though there's no obvious reason why these two were more interesting than the rest.

More intriguing still is that this seems to be a group of four repeated twice. The upper hieros nearest the sistra are the same. But the longer hieros in the boxes are all different. Unfortunately, Osirisnet doesn't offer a translation for the daughters.

But they do offer one for the mother (Tiye): "The hereditary princess, great in favours, mistress of all lands, who fills the palace with love, the principal wife of the king, loved by him, Tiy, may she live and be youthful every day".

Strikes a chord (Nefertiti at Karnak)
Heiress of great favor, possessor of charm, sweet [of love,...], mistress of Upper and Lower Egypt, Great royal Wife, his beloved, Lady of the Two Lands, (Nefertiti)|, may she live forever continually.

Sheset mentions Sitamun is referred to as "heiress" in Amarna Letter #4 but I can't find that reference.


RstJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Robson
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 1009
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RobertStJames wrote:

More intriguing still is that this seems to be a group of four repeated twice. The upper hieros nearest the sistra are the same. But the longer hieros in the boxes are all different. Unfortunately, Osirisnet doesn't offer a translation for the daughters.


Curiously the young (?) women are not literally referred as "King's Daughters" (sAt.w nswt) but as "of royal birth" (mssW nswt). Were they really AIII's daughters or just women of the Royal family. Anyone here know this protocol?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Robson
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 1009
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:


Nebetnehat:


Gosh, another 'Great Royal Wife who "he" loves'!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"The hereditary princess, great in favours, mistress of all lands, who fills the palace with love, the principal wife of the king, loved by him, Tiy, may she live and be youthful every day".


I see she's wearing the debated red sash as well. I think she's the only one that wasn't "God's Wife" but the thought is she was married at 7 or so and was too young.

First Meritaten was, then Ankespaatan so Sitamun, as eldest would pretty much have to be the heiress. It seems pigish (and odd) that AIII got her too.

Quote:
That points to the problem for me: if he's alive after Year 30, why is there such a paucity of evidence for it? A statue, some possible Amarna Letter dates, ostraca from Malkata. This guy was a major king with an ambitious building program. Strange he leaves so little behind for his third decade on the throne.


I do think the key here is the transformation to god. I would imagine he was not so interested in governing as being worshipped. A long overlap here makes so much sense to me. He was off being god while Ahkenaten's running (down) the govt. There is a plaque of him and Tiye (presumed her head's missing) from Amarna. They say it's posthumous. As the living Aten, he was pretty much ubiquitous, represented by the Aten with the extended arms on just about everything. Possibly he was more interested in sculpture since there seems to be a link between pieces from the end of his reign and the late Amarna style, or he could have been building the new city.

Since in the beginning, the new religion didn't plan for the afterlife, as they were all going to live forever, it would have to be argued that he was still alive for quite a while. And he was the architect of his own godhead, not his son.

Maybe the various festivals of the two reigns do line up somehow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stephaniep wrote:

I see she's wearing the debated red sash as well. I think she's the only one that wasn't "God's Wife" but the thought is she was married at 7 or so and was too young.


If we accept the current dates, yes. If we accept what I feel is a more realistic timeline we'd have her married around 15, +30yr of AIII's reign, +9yrs of Akh, which would have her around 54 when she died, consistent w/the age estimates for KV34EL.

Quote:

First Meritaten was, then Ankespaatan so Sitamun, as eldest would pretty much have to be the heiress. It seems pigish (and odd) that AIII got her too.


I think it's time to throw that idea out as rubbish. We know for certain now that Tut is not his. And there's no point in "marrying" your daughters. As for the presumably required male heirs, he had them.


Quote:

I do think the key here is the transformation to god. I would imagine he was not so interested in governing as being worshipped.


As the god-king of Egypt, he could have both. But he couldn't cheat the reaper any more than anyone else could. Or ignore political realities. I don't see him taking a decade off.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If we accept the current dates, yes. If we accept what I feel is a more realistic timeline we'd have her married around 15, +30yr of AIII's reign, +9yrs of Akh, which would have her around 54 when she died, consistent w/the age estimates for KV34EL.


I thought he came to the throne at around 9 already married to her. The main reason that Tiye was not accepted as herself was she looked too young I thought. Compressing the two reigns gets her to a younger age at death. Akh isn't the only one that suddenly got an age change.

Quote:
I think it's time to throw that idea out as rubbish. We know for certain now that Tut is not his. And there's no point in "marrying" your daughters. As for the presumably required male heirs, he had them.


Ok so who married Sitamun (would she have needed an Atenish name change because of the amun)? If Akh did (and one or two other sisters as well) then she is acting as his chief queen and he has married at least two heiresses. Nefertiti was a legitimate heiress. I wonder what the possibility is that Sitamun was offed at a young age? She would have to at least lived until year 9 Akh, whenever that was. I did wonder if she could have been the original owner of the Maru-Aten and the takeover by Meritaten could have been a transfer of property from one heiress to another rather than a hostile takeover.

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

She pretty much looks like this in all her images I found and could well be depicted on this yellow jasper fragment I an using which is quite beautiful in person. The mouth would be the same as her niece Ankhespaaten.

http://www.worldvisitguide.com/oeuvre/photo_ME0000042681.html

Quote:

As the god-king of Egypt, he could have both. But he couldn't cheat the reaper any more than anyone else could. Or ignore political realities. I don't see him taking a decade off


I think he thought he could cheat the reaper. That was the issue. He had some kind of religious conversion & healing and thought he/they would all live forever.

One of the roles of Pharoah was to be the chief creative director of art and architecture. What better than building a brand new city from scratch? And developing the eternally beautiful sculpture from the late Amarna style? He did sent letters from there. I think he was gone before it all really deteriorated politically and people who suddenly think they are a god are slightly unhinged usually. In any case that might have been Akh's job as official ruler.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stephaniep wrote:

I thought he came to the throne at around 9 already married to her. The main reason that Tiye was not accepted as herself was she looked too young I thought. Compressing the two reigns gets her to a younger age at death. Akh isn't the only one that suddenly got an age change.


I don't think we should throw out age estimations made after examination of the mummies (although Hawass' guy is really pushing Akh out too far). If the age estimates don't fit the interpretations of the inscriptional evidence, then we should look t the possibility that our iterpretations of the evidence are wrong.


Quote:

Ok so who married Sitamun (would she have needed an Atenish name change because of the amun)? If Akh did (and one or two other sisters as well) then she is acting as his chief queen and he has married at least two heiresses. Nefertiti was a legitimate heiress. I wonder what the possibility is that Sitamun was offed at a young age? She would have to at least lived until year 9 Akh, whenever that was. I did wonder if she could have been the original owner of the Maru-Aten and the takeover by Meritaten could have been a transfer of property from one heiress to another rather than a hostile takeover.


We're kind of stuck on this one for the moment. Until Zahi decides to release more info, we don't which of the daughters of AIII/Tiye Akh married. Anneke was saying (was it her?) that they probably all ended up in Akh's harem. That seems a good guess.

As for takeovers and the Maru-Aten, I don't know. My suspicion is that the Maru-Aten (and a lot of other things at Amarna) were Tiye's property up until her death.



Quote:

I think he thought he could cheat the reaper. That was the issue. He had some kind of religious conversion & healing and thought he/they would all live forever.

One of the roles of Pharoah was to be the chief creative director of art and architecture. What better than building a brand new city from scratch?


I gotta admit, if I had to choose between AIII and AIV as builder, I'd go with the old man because he was a monument-building freak, and definitely had the resources. And there are Amarna Letters written to him, and subsequently his wife. However, at least for the moment, based on all the horn-blowing Akh did on those boundary stelae of his, I'm going to stay with the idea that he built the city.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
As for takeovers and the Maru-Aten, I don't know. My suspicion is that the Maru-Aten (and a lot of other things at Amarna) were Tiye's property up until her death.


Makes sense. She was supposed to be the original owner I thought before other names came into play. I wonder why the granddaughter chiseled her name out though.

Quote:
However, at least for the moment, based on all the horn-blowing Akh did on those boundary stelae of his, I'm going to stay with the idea that he built the city


The son was the front guy. The father was in the background (much like the Amun he abandoned). Most (or all?) of the boundaries include the Aten, so he's got his symbol in. And would the son be old enough to be flying solo without advisors? One similarity of 18th dynasty rulers was the co-regent, who tended to appear at the end of a long reign. How old was AKH when the Gemspaatan was built? 13-15?

I came across this explanation of the heiress:

Quote:
In an unspecified year of his reign Amosis conferred upon Ahmose-Nefertari, or sold to her, the office of Second Prophet of Amun at Karnak, to be hers and her descendants' to all eternity.


It seems after Hatshepsut they got away from the full sister marriage (as dangerous) and went with queens from ??? I would assume x number of families were capable of furnishing a heiress. It seems to me logical that the hottest one of the group of the right age got the job.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stephaniep wrote:

Makes sense. She was supposed to be the original owner I thought before other names came into play. I wonder why the granddaughter chiseled her name out though.


With granma dead, who was to stop her? Mortunary temples are fine, but this wasn't intended as a monument.


Quote:
And would the son be old enough to be flying solo without advisors?


He wouldn't be solo. Tiye and her whole family would be right there to supply him with guidance and, apparently, a wife capable of producing a son.

Quote:
In an unspecified year of his reign Amosis conferred upon Ahmose-Nefertari, or sold to her, the office of Second Prophet of Amun at Karnak, to be hers and her descendants' to all eternity.

It seems after Hatshepsut they got away from the full sister marriage (as dangerous) and went with queens from ??? I would assume x number of families were capable of furnishing a heiress. It seems to me logical that the hottest one of the group of the right age got the job.


If they were aiming to get away from full sister marriage, it didn't work. And it's very difficult to see any GRW pushing themselves in front of a Great Royal Sister especially when she had a son from early in the reign, as she must have. And her mother were still active in court life as Tiye was.

Nefertiti's prominence throughout Akh's reign is a strong argument for her being Tut's mother.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Naunacht
Priest
Priest


Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 515
Location: U.S. NJ

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The son was the front guy. The father was in the background (much like the Amun he abandoned). Most (or all?) of the boundaries include the Aten, so he's got his symbol in. And would the son be old enough to be flying solo without advisors? One similarity of 18th dynasty rulers was the co-regent, who tended to appear at the end of a long reign. How old was AKH when the Gemspaatan was built? 13-15?


I'm no expert on this period by any means but I have some problems with this line of reasoning.

If, as you're inferring, Amonhotep III sat behind the curtain like the Wizard of Oz, sort of passively engineering the Atonist revolution, overturning Egypt's traditional religion and essentially throwning his kingdom into chaos and above all defying Maat, then why wasn't he blamed for it and proscribed by Horemheb along with Akhenaton, Tutankhamon, and Ay.

Horemheb was around during the Armana period and would have known the truth. Yet, Amonhotep III continued to be honored while Horemheb went after every king that reigned after him with a vengeance.

It's much easier for me to believe that the old man was dead and gone before his son declared his revolution. Or was Amonhotep III sort of the AIG of late 18th Dynasty Egypt? Guilty as sin but too big (with his long reign and numerous large monuments) to take down?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If, as you're inferring, Amonhotep III sat behind the curtain like the Wizard of Oz, sort of passively engineering the Atonist revolution . . .


Not at all. I'm saying he is in plain sight but no one can see him, except artists. He actively engineered the Aten revolution which broke the back of (or crippled financially) every priesthood in Egypt except Re (his official father).

Quote:
and above all defying Maat


As I understand Egyptian, Maat means truth. The slogan of the AIII/Akh was "living in truth." Hence the weird looking portraits. They were depicting themselves as they really looked to a degree that never happened before. They introduced realism to the world for the first time ever. OK, Senwosret III had some exquisite pieces too.

http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/egyptian_art/face_of_senwosret_iii/objectview.aspx?collID=10&OID=100000398

Quote:
then why wasn't he blamed for it and proscribed by Horemheb . . .


He was arguably the most powerful 18th dynasty Pharoah. He built a huge oeuvre of monumental work in his Amun period and he had already scratched his name out. The Amun period was accepted, apparently, and why not, while the Aten period was deleted, but not for forever. Where the Amun was restored to his monuments it was probably in deference to Amun not AIII. And it was his son that was the front man (and ultimate fall guy). He was the God.

Going strictly by the new data, Akh needs to be younger than 40. Even if the Gempaatan was built when 17 and he reigned for 17 years, he's only 34, and it could have been built when he was as young as 14, I guess, and he could have ruled for only 12 years. In any case, if flying solo, he comes to the throne at a young age, too young to be able to pull off defying almost the entire priesthood, even with Tiye at his back. (I find it interesting that everyone has the same opinion about her.)

Horemhab seems to have a personal vendetta for some reason, and he did know them all. He was the heir to the throne but Ay kicked him out.

There are several disciplines corresponding here. People from art backgrounds invariably find that there has to be a co-regency. Science says not so fast. But we artists like to maintain that great art is eternal and speaks with a voice that rings through the ages, while science is just the fashion of the times.
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
Page 2 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