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 

Which Pharaoh reformed religion from Atenism?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
J-Mak
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 06 Dec 2009
Posts: 127

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:26 am    Post subject: Which Pharaoh reformed religion from Atenism? Reply with quote

Was it Smenkhare or Tutankhamun?
And is there any written evidence of this restoration?

Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ranoferhotep
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 1197
Location: Ghent (Gent - Belgium)

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Around Smenkhare there a too many uncertainty’s whether he actually ruled or not. And it’s a discussion that I rather give away to our experts here on the Amarna period. But the reinstitution of the cult of Amun may be contributed to Tutankhamen. There are four points that lead to this:

A) He changed his birth name from Tutankhaton to Tutankhamon. On some of the goods Carter found in his tomb his original birth name is still present, on others there are clear signs his name was altered.

B) Around year 3 of his reign, he relocated the capitol from Achet Aton back to Thebes, that is to say at least the royal court. (on this point there a several theories and is until today speculative, in which year exactly and or whether he also moved e.g. the complete administrative

C) He had some walls decorated in the temple of Karnak, one of them showing him celebrating the Opet festival (later usurped by Horemheb). There is also a text in which he orders the restoration of the temple(s) and makes donations to the temple, which clearly shows, he not only reopened the temple but also reinstituted the old festivals.

D) He erected several statues of him, either depicting him as Amun, or as Pharaoh sitting next to Amun and he also had statues erected of him and Anchesenpaamun, were she represents Moet (Mut).

Note: Whether it was all Tutankhamen’s own idea, I leave in the middle.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ranoferhotep wrote:
Around Smenkhare there a too many uncertainty’s whether he actually ruled or not. And it’s a discussion that I rather give away to our experts here on the Amarna period. But the reinstitution of the cult of Amun may be contributed to Tutankhamen.


Aldred (1988) noted that the restoration of the Amun temple at Karnak was first undertaken by "King Neferneferuaten", and it appears some additional restoration took place by Smenkhkare (note these restorations are recorded by king's name (on this see Redford 1984: 188-189)).

So, I don't think you can make a flat statement that it was Tutankhamun alone which reinstated the cult of Amun: it appears to have been a process which took place over the reigns of several kings after Akhenaten, including "King Neferneferuaten," Smenkhkare (we do have independent verification of his existence, BTW, according to Allen (1994 and 2006/2009)), Tutankhamun, Ay, and Horemheb.

As for moving the capital, it's clear that Tutankhamun ruled from Akhetaten for at least the first 2 years of his reign (Murnane (1995) notes several stelae and monuments which verify this), and then possibly moved to Memphis (the administrative capital), where the Thutmosid clan's ancestral home was located. It is from here that he issued the Restoration Stela (later usurped by Horemheb).

The date of Tutankhamun's return to Thebes (which was the religious (and eventually royal) capital of the country) is unknown, and that is actually quite speculative, based on the number of royal entourage members' graves located near Memphis (IOW: did Tutankhamun actually return to reside in Thebes, or is this something simply attributed to him due to the proliferation of Tutankhamun monuments in the area? We actually don't have a palace in Thebes acknowledged textually as Tutankhamun's, as I recall, and so perhaps he resided elsewhere but came to Thebes simply for religious reasons).

The "Restoration Stela" is a fairly typical text where a new king comes to the throne and declares that he noted that the land wasn't in as good a shape before and that he plans to (or has) improve/d it, usually by giving homage and gifts to various gods. Most Egyptologists tend to think of the Stela as nothing spectacular except that it is the only text we have after the reign of Akhenaten which specifically mentions how temples of traditional deities were re-endowed by the royal house after the Amarna heresy.

Reference:

Aldred, C. 1988. Akhenaten, King of Egypt. London: Thames and Hudson.

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

________. 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. (2006 version of this article here (PDF)).

Murnane, W. J. 1995. Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt. Society of Biblical Literature: Writings from the Ancient World 5. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Redford, D. B. 1984. Akhenaten, the Heretic King. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
_________________
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
J-Mak
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 06 Dec 2009
Posts: 127

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the replies, this helps!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dkessler
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 11 Aug 2010
Posts: 51
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The initial counter-revolution began under Tutankhamen. But this was was almost certainly under the influence of Horemheb, whom he named as his successor.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dkessler wrote:
The initial counter-revolution began under Tutankhamen. But this was was almost certainly under the influence of Horemheb, whom he named as his successor.


From where do we know that Tutankhamun named Horemheb as his successor?

As far as I know, Tutankhamun did not name a successor, and the only statement that Horemheb was "named" as Deputy Regent comes, from, quelle surprise, Horemheb's own Coronation Decree, and even there, Horemheb does not name the king who it is claimed had elevated him.

The reversion to the old religion may have begun as early as "King Neferneferuaten", most certainly by the time of Smenkhkare's reign, due to inscriptions on renovations to Amun's temple at Thebes (see, on these inscriptions, Aldred 1988 and Redford 1984). Tutankhamun may have issued the Restoration Stela (later usurped by Horemheb), and thus we have a formal statement of the reinstitution of the traditional religious cults, but he was merely carrying on a programme that had begun under his royal predecessors.

References:

Aldred, C. 1988. Akhenaten, King of Egypt. London: Thames and Hudson.

Redford, D. B. 1984. Akhenaten, the Heretic King. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
_________________
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
emmaraft
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 31 May 2011
Posts: 11
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Due to his young age alone at this time it is quite clear he was being manipulated by adults around him at this time, possibly Ay or Horemheb. He couldn't have made such a significant and drastic change on his own. Although as Akhetaten had already failed there were probably few other options open to him at the time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

emmaraft wrote:
Due to his young age alone at this time it is quite clear he was being manipulated by adults around him at this time, possibly Ay or Horemheb. He couldn't have made such a significant and drastic change on his own. Although as Akhetaten had already failed there were probably few other options open to him at the time.


Under the rules of Egyptian soceity of the time, Tutankhamun was not a child. He may have been young (9-10) by modern terms, but by 10 years of age, many young men in ancient Egypt were already married and were heads of households. One has to remember this when assuming that Tutankhamun was always "controlled" by others.

Of course he did rely upon his advisrers - ever king does to an extent. They are the one who give him information, advice on the situation, and perhaps a favouited nudge of action he should take, but a royal male would have, by the time he took the throne, been trained in reading, calculations, and been mentored by not only his royal parents, but also by a variety of statesmen appointed by his kingly father. He would have knowledge of the political situation in Egypt, and probably also with international relations, and so on.

Remeber that Tutankhamun issued the Restoration Stela in Year 2 of his reign (while he stilled ruled from Akhetaten): yet he was savvy enough to declare the Stela as being issued from his ancestral home in Memphis ("House of Aakheperkare"), showing he was not connected to the previous regime at Akhetaten*. Whether he was advised to do this, the point is that he made that choice to issue the announcement from Memphis, which gave his rule a distinct separation from the Amarna kings.

Tutankhamun did restore the previous cults and reoutfitted their temples - this was a significant change from his predecessors, who had merely done piecemeal restorations at Thebes, mainly to Amun's temple.

* Tutankhamun's announcement specifically says the king took this judgment himself, saying

/wnn.xr Hm=f Hr wAwA sH Hna jb=f/

Then His Majesty took counsel with his heart

/Hr Dar sp nb mnx Hr HHj Axt n jt jmn/

seeking every excellent deed, searching what was beneficial to (his) father Amun,

/Hr mst tjt=f Spst m Dam mAa Dj.n=f HAw Hr jryt Dr/

fashioning his noble image of real electrum. He surpassed what had been done before.

So, I think thinking of Tutankhamun as someone's "puppet" is not giving the young man much credit: by the time he died (at roughly 19 years of age), Tutankhamun would have been considered in the middle of his life (a lifetime was generally about 35-40 years), and he was definitely thinking on his own, ruling by his own means, and weighing out his own decisions. I do not believe he was at the mercy of others.
_________________
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
herper
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 229
Location: New Haven,CT USA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

excellent point. to often we forget to remember the life expectancy and ways of the ancients. they neither lived like us or had our values and ways.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neseret wrote:
Quote:
So, I think thinking of Tutankhamun as someone's "puppet" is not giving the young man much credit: by the time he died (at roughly 19 years of age), Tutankhamun would have been considered in the middle of his life (a lifetime was generally about 35-40 years), and he was definitely thinking on his own, ruling by his own means, and weighing out his own decisions. I do not believe he was at the mercy of others.

Then what do you make of Horemheb's claim that he was running the country under Tut?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
herper
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 229
Location: New Haven,CT USA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ego trip? he was probably a major influence and carried out the running of the country. dont forget, pharaohs like todays politicians knew the value of media manure spreading
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it goes beyond that.
http://www.jacobusvandijk.nl/docs/Horemheb_chapter.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emmaraft
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 31 May 2011
Posts: 11
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I accept your point that we shouldn't assume he had no opinions of his own. However, I teach 10 year olds and I can tell you that despite them having their own ideas they are HUGELY influenced by friends and families and certainly would not make strong house-hold rulers or husbands! Although cultural norms are vastly different now, I don't believe that cognitive, emotional and rational reasoning development was so significantly different in ancient times that he would have been acting entirely independently and without influence.

He must have been aware that the aten cult was far from popular and that it was necessary to break away from this to be a successful and popular ruler; we will never know the extent to which he made this decision alone or was led by others. We know that a lot of stele are propaganda so I don't think that we can assume that just because a declaration has his name on it, that is his voice speaking!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stephaniep wrote:
Neseret wrote:
Quote:
So, I think thinking of Tutankhamun as someone's "puppet" is not giving the young man much credit: by the time he died (at roughly 19 years of age), Tutankhamun would have been considered in the middle of his life (a lifetime was generally about 35-40 years), and he was definitely thinking on his own, ruling by his own means, and weighing out his own decisions. I do not believe he was at the mercy of others.

Then what do you make of Horemheb's claim that he was running the country under Tut?


Does Horemheb say he was running the country under Tutankhamun? He doesn't, you know. He merely says, "the king," which leaves open the question of which king he was supposedly named "deputy regent" under.

Horemheb himself held that much of his political position to a preceding (Amarna/post-Amarna) king who appointed him as /ra-Hry/ (Chief spokesman) of the entire land, and was (in Horemheb's words) "...(the) hereditary prince of the entire land; he was unique, without his equal." (Breasted 2001c (1906): 15; § 25; Murnane 1995: 231; No. 106).

In reality, the term "hereditary prince" is probably a mistranslation: the term is /Hry rpa.t/ - in short, a position probably in modern times called "Deputy Regent," a position where a non-royal person holds the highest administrative function, second only to a royal ruler.

Egyptologists have also questioned whether the /Hry rpa.t/ "Deputy Regent" title was added proleptically (after the fact) to give "justification" for Horemheb to assume the throne of Egypt. This is not an uncommon practice in Egypt as well, and is often done by kings who had no other direct right to be king. As far as is known, only Horemheb's Coronation Decree announces the /Hry rpa.t/ title for Horemheb: had the title been a public one (as indicated in the decree), one would think other monuments would show the title being associated with Horemheb throughout his career under Tutankhamun and Ay (but it is not).

So, for what it is worth, we have only Horehmeb's word that this "Deputy Regent" title actually existed and/or that he was so named by any king. As far as I am aware, Horemheb never uses this title in any statue or monument built by/for him before becoming king.
_________________
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
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is "hry rpa.t" the dame as "iry pa`t"?

In his essay on Horemheb`s tomb vanDijk points out that the title iry pa`t occurs frequently in his tomb, combined with other terms as well as standing on its own.

As the major part of the tomb was built during Tut`s reign these titles should refer his reign.
If the tomb was not exactly a public place, the inscriptions would have been known to many and could not have been executed without the king`s consent. So in other words, Horemheb had no opportunity to lie.

The only title from known from the coronation stela which is not paralleled in the tomg is "Eldest Son of Horus".
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  Next
Page 1 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