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 

KV 55 = Smenkhare? Akhenaten?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

didn't the ramessides use the same throne names?
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4174
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
didn't the ramessides use the same throne names?

No.

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

quite a few used meryamun, and setepenre. if identifying them based on a fragment of if they just used the one, it would be difficult.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4174
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
quite a few used meryamun, and setepenre. if identifying them based on a fragment of if they just used the one, it would be difficult.

What does not change the fact that the full throne name was unique and clearly identifies the respective king.

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kemetian
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 33
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Hi Kemetian!

I don't suppose you could give us a bit of a list of niscription items, showing the 'forms' of Smenkhkare. Without wanting to seem disrespectful to anyone's statements here, my confidence increases when actual data is presented.

Hieroglyphs translated into their proper English equivilents would be appreciated. i.e. if it's "Ankheperure", it's "Ankheperure", and if it's "Ankhetperure" it's "Ankhetperure" and if it's "Smenkhkare" it's "Smenkhkare", if you know what I mean.

You know, sometimes I get something like "Smenkhkare" when it's actually "Ankhetperure" on the inscription. I don't really want someone's theory about who someone is, I want direct translations of names where possible. (Sorry if I've spelled names wrong - I'm ad-libbing here a bit!)

Anyhow, Cheers and Welcome.


Thanks for the welcome.

I always quote the name as written in hieroglyphs. Too much time has been lost in the study of this period due to the belief, mistaken in my opinion, that Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten were one and the same. This led to the unfortunate habit of naming smekhkare when the hieroglyphs said ankhkheperure or neferneferuaten.

I am at work at the moment but hopefully at the weekend I will have time to look how to post an image and I will produce the evidence you require. The jar sealings say Smenkhkare.

The list you want will be in my book. I started with a list of all known inscribed material relating to Ankhkheperure, Ankhetkheperure, Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten. Quite a task as there is more than you think. I have examined each occurence in detail which is why I am convinced they were two seperate individuals, possibly three Idea

As to the identity of the KV55 Mummy I feel the fact this mummy appears to have been Tutankhamens father is interesting. It does not necessarily follow that it is Akhenaten. Why not Smenkhkare as father of Tutankhamen? I see no evidence against that view.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kemetian
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 33
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
kylejustin wrote:
quite a few used meryamun, and setepenre. if identifying them based on a fragment of if they just used the one, it would be difficult.

What does not change the fact that the full throne name was unique and clearly identifies the respective king.

Lutz


If we are talking about Ankhkheperure then the two throne names probably were unique.

Neferneferuatens throne name always included an epithet. Smenkhkares throne name, where we have it, was always simply Ankhkheperure with no epithet.

There is perhaps not enough evidence to say with certainty but what evidence there is supports it. At least all the evidence i have studied.

If the birth name isnt present then there has to be an aussumption made based on the existence, or not, of the epithet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kemetian wrote:

Neferneferuatens throne name always included an epithet. Smenkhkares throne name, where we have it, was always simply Ankhkheperure with no epithet.

There is perhaps not enough evidence to say with certainty but what evidence there is supports it. At least all the evidence i have studied.

If the birth name isnt present then there has to be an aussumption made based on the existence, or not, of the epithet.


Yes, and I can't figure how a male ruler could add to his titulary the epithet "effective for her hurband" (3kh-n-h.s).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Styler78
Priest
Priest


Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 974
Location: Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I admire anyone who studies the Armana period. To me it will generally be the more patient person who delves in deeply.

I tend to leave it, as the Thutmoside's keep me busy enough- but well done for all of you who dig your heels in.

Stuart
_________________
Beloved of Hathor, Chief of Thebes, Not the Messiah just a Very Naughty Boy!

http://styler78hatshepsutproject.blogspot.com/

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, thank you Stuart! Very Happy
_________________
I've discovered that finding out what 'facts' actually exist and weighing them and thinking on what they might mean is more fun and challenging than pursuing my other hobby here - trying to form wild theories!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's funny when you think about it. I mean, place yourself in the shoes (sandals?) of an ancient Egyptian living by the time of Ramesses III, in Dynasty 20. How much of the Amarna interlude would even be remembered? Would anyone know much of anything about a boy-king borne Tutankhaten and renamed Tutankhamun? Now place yourself in the shoes (sandals?) of an ancient Egyptian living in the time of the Kushite rulers in Dynasty 25, or even later. I'm willing to bet that by that time, the Amarna interlude was forgotten.

This brief span of around 17 years when Akhenaten ruled was, in the greater scheme of things, probably of no relevance to Egyptians living a lot later. "Interlude" is indeed a good description for the Amarna Period. Certainly this period had immediate socio-political consequences and influences, but not, I should think, to the degree that it at all colored the rest of pharaonic history.

But look at us now. I confess that the Amarna Period is not nearly as big a deal to me as it is to many posters here, but I fully understand its appeal. Few periods of pharaonic history--if any--generate such heated debates to us modern people looking back upon the millennia. This is as true, I think, for the professional historians as it is for us amateur historians and enthusiasts.

I think the Amarna Period has had a greater effect on us modern folks than it had on the greater scope of pharaonic history.

I write all of this with the hope that all you Amarna enthusiasts will not hunt me down and do horrible things to me. I'm very delicate. It's merely an idle observation of mine that I've long entertained but have only now put to paper, as it were.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I now click "Submit" with the understanding that this will be my 7,000th post.

What do I win? Very Happy
_________________


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: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How dare you, Kmt_sesh..... blob6

Well, you're off my Christmas List...


"Certainly this period had immediate socio-political consequences and influences, but not, I should think, to the degree that it at all colored the rest of pharaonic history."

As an Amana enthusist I find that assertion deeply offensive! argue
_________________
I've discovered that finding out what 'facts' actually exist and weighing them and thinking on what they might mean is more fun and challenging than pursuing my other hobby here - trying to form wild theories!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kemetian
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 33
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
It's funny when you think about it. I mean, place yourself in the shoes (sandals?) of an ancient Egyptian living by the time of Ramesses III, in Dynasty 20. How much of the Amarna interlude would even be remembered? Would anyone know much of anything about a boy-king borne Tutankhaten and renamed Tutankhamun? Now place yourself in the shoes (sandals?) of an ancient Egyptian living in the time of the Kushite rulers in Dynasty 25, or even later. I'm willing to bet that by that time, the Amarna interlude was forgotten.

This brief span of around 17 years when Akhenaten ruled was, in the greater scheme of things, probably of no relevance to Egyptians living a lot later. "Interlude" is indeed a good description for the Amarna Period. Certainly this period had immediate socio-political consequences and influences, but not, I should think, to the degree that it at all colored the rest of pharaonic history.

But look at us now. I confess that the Amarna Period is not nearly as big a deal to me as it is to many posters here, but I fully understand its appeal. Few periods of pharaonic history--if any--generate such heated debates to us modern people looking back upon the millennia. This is as true, I think, for the professional historians as it is for us amateur historians and enthusiasts.

I think the Amarna Period has had a greater effect on us modern folks than it had on the greater scope of pharaonic history.

I write all of this with the hope that all you Amarna enthusiasts will not hunt me down and do horrible things to me. I'm very delicate. It's merely an idle observation of mine that I've long entertained but have only now put to paper, as it were.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I now click "Submit" with the understanding that this will be my 7,000th post.

What do I win? Very Happy


To steal from/paraphrase Bill Shankly, former liverpool manager - The Amarna period is not life or death, its more important than that Laughing

To be fair, without the problems of the Amarna interlude and the power vacuum that followed General Horemheb would not have come to the throne and so it follows that the Ramessides would never have reigned at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kemetian wrote:

To be fair, without the problems of the Amarna interlude and the power vacuum that followed General Horemheb would not have come to the throne and so it follows that the Ramessides would never have reigned at all.


I can't see any evidence that the Thutmosid dynasty was abruptly cut off from the throne. Maybe just there were no longer Pharaoh material male members of the family and, if we consider seriously the physical appearence of the Bolton Museum mummy, there were a possible dynastic continuity among the Ramessides. Could by any chance Thutmosid blood flow, for example, in Nefertari's veins?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kemetian wrote:

To steal from/paraphrase Bill Shankly, former liverpool manager - The Amarna period is not life or death, its more important than that Laughing


Wow, that is hilarious. And so true. Our own Egyptian Dreams is proof of that.

Quote:
To be fair, without the problems of the Amarna interlude and the power vacuum that followed General Horemheb would not have come to the throne and so it follows that the Ramessides would never have reigned at all.


This is always a good point, and I do keep it in mind. Seti I and Ramesses II are considerably more interesting to me than Akhenaten, and a far sight more accomplished as kings. I wouldn't like to think of an ancient Egypt without them.

It's also interesting to think what might have happened had Prince Tuthmose lived to become king, instead of little brother Amunhotep. It's possible the Ramessides never would've ruled, if not likely, but still, one must wonder how Egypt would've developed from that direction.
_________________


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


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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i should think the ramessides had some collateral royal blood, the 20th dynasty very obviously has ramesside blood, and the succeeding 21st and 22nd dynasties also had some droplets. i think of the rammesides and their successors like the plantagenets and their offshoots: york, lancaster, tudor and every noble line since descends from the plantagenets.

so i find it very hard to believe after 250 years on the throne, the thutmoside dynasty had no heirs. maybe no males from amenhotep III, but surely there were families descended legitimately and illegitimately from the thutmoside line. horemheb may have descended from thutmose III, and maybe ramses I was a relative and good comrade of horemheb's? if ancient egyptian noble mariages were anything like modern european ones, the sky is the limit for courtiers being related!
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
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, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 
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