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 

Nefertiti Documented in Year 16 of Akhenaton
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A body is pretty good evidence I'd say. DNA says the Young Lady is the mother of Tut by a full brother. Given that in all the many inscriptions dedicated to Nefertiti there is NOT ONE that calls her 'King's Daughter' she's out. Kiya too is never called 'King's Daughter' but has a title relating her solely to Akhenaten as his 'Greatly Beloved Wife'. Making HER pretty much a non-starter too. Giving the fragmentary nature of evidence after Akhi's year 12 or so it is not particularly surprising that Smen is an elusive figure but enough has survived to make it clear he DID exist. POSSIBLY Akhenaten is KV55 but my money is still on Smen given the biological evidence of age - which some scholars admittedly prefer to ignore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
A body is pretty good evidence I'd say. DNA says the Young Lady is the mother of Tut by a full brother. Given that in all the many inscriptions dedicated to Nefertiti there is NOT ONE that calls her 'King's Daughter' she's out.


The archives show that this has been discussed here at length, but I would like to see one queen (not princess) from the Amarna and post-Amarna periods who was called "King's Daughter" before I reach the "she's out" conclusion. In the tomb of Meryre II, where there is Smenkhkare and Meritaten as pharaoh and consort, there is no "King's Daughter", either. So perhaps it is not correct to conclude that this title was absolutely mandatory for a queen who had been sired by a king at this time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
The archives show that this has been discussed here at length, but I would like to see one queen (not princess) from the Amarna and post-Amarna periods who was called "King's Daughter" before I reach the "she's out" conclusion. In the tomb of Meryre II, where there is Smenkhkare and Meritaten as pharaoh and consort, there is no "King's Daughter", either. So perhaps it is not correct to conclude that this title was absolutely mandatory for a queen who had been sired by a king at this time.


well you have an issue there don't you. a) you know this has been discussed, so you know the arguments already. b) there is not one principal queen from tiye down to nefertari excepting meritaten and ankhesenamun who actually was a king's daughter. amenhotep III's daughters all bore that title, after being 'elevated'. meritaten is mentioned as king's daughter on numerous occasions. and once there were king's daughters for the 19th dynasty, they also used the titles. so it's pretty obvious it was the done thing.

as for the age of the kv 55 body, you must have seen those threads too. there is no evidence that suggests the body is any older than 25, and even then there is a stretch to make it that old. add the fact it is the biological father of tut, and an inscription confirms he was the son of the king. you have the body of a young male pharoah who is the son of amenhotep III and tiye. the only contender is smenkhkare.

what do you think ct scans of bones can show that x rays and the naked eye can't? hawass did not employ anthropoligists, and he was famous for claiming things he had no evidence for.
_________________
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: 4188
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
... hawass did not employ anthropoligists, ...

I think Professor Albert Zink, European Academy (EURAC) in Bolzano, since 2007 Director of the Institute for Mummies and the Iceman, would be interested to know what he then has, following your opinion, to give as his professional designation on his business card?

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: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

what i meant tpo say was hawass had an agenda and the word should be spelled anthropologist! can't spell that one.

havn't seen what he himself has thought of the mummy lutz. i bet hawass scanned through his findings and reported what suited his agenda. most anthropologists have said the mummy is no older than 23. so when says otherwise, he ususally works for hawass.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="kylejustin"]
SidneyF wrote:
The archives show that this has been discussed here at length, but I would like to see one queen (not princess) from the Amarna and post-Amarna periods who was called "King's Daughter" before I reach the "she's out" conclusion. In the tomb of Meryre II, where there is Smenkhkare and Meritaten as pharaoh and consort, there is no "King's Daughter", either. So perhaps it is not correct to conclude that this title was absolutely mandatory for a queen who had been sired by a king at this time. [\quote]

well you have an issue there don't you. a) you know this has been discussed, so you know the arguments already. b) there is not one principal queen from tiye down to nefertari excepting meritaten and ankhesenamun who actually was a king's daughter. amenhotep III's daughters all bore that title, after being 'elevated'. meritaten is mentioned as king's daughter on numerous occasions. and once there were king's daughters for the 19th dynasty, they also used the titles. so it's pretty obvious it was the done thing.


I said "queens", not princesses. Meritaten is not attested as "king's daughter" in her scene with Smenkhkare and neither is Ankhesenaumun while the queen of Tutankhamun. So it's not that obvious, really.

Quote:
as for the age of the kv 55 body, you must have seen those threads too. there is no evidence that suggests the body is any older than 25, and even then there is a stretch to make it that old. add the fact it is the biological father of tut, and an inscription confirms he was the son of the king. you have the body of a young male pharoah who is the son of amenhotep III and tiye. the only contender is smenkhkare.

what do you think ct scans of bones can show that x rays and the naked eye can't? hawass did not employ anthropoligists, and he was famous for claiming things he had no evidence for.


He did none of the testing, himself. As for me, I am not an anthropologist, forensic or otherwise, so I leave it to them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4188
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
... i bet hawass scanned through his findings and reported what suited his agenda. ...

A claim that you can not prove with anything. It comes in my view solely from the prejudices of your thinking on this topic. Zink was not an "employee" by Hawass at any time. He was a leading member of the DNA team.

kylejustin wrote:
... most anthropologists have said the mummy is no older than 23. so when says otherwise, he ususally works for hawass.

Most but not all, and regardless of their employer. Assertions to the contrary you would have to prove...

kylejustin wrote:
... what do you think ct scans of bones can show that x rays and the naked eye can't? ...

And what do you think why CT-Scanning was developed and is used extensively in modern medicine when "x rays and the naked eye" are enough?

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: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
And what do you think why CT-Scanning was developed and is used extensively in modern medicine when "x rays and the naked eye" are enough?


i'm talking about determining age here lutz. you don't need ct scans to see when bones have not fused. this is the whole point on ageing mummies. they have factors that happen at certain times. especially since the kv 55 body has no soft tissue or skin.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
And what do you think why CT-Scanning was developed and is used extensively in modern medicine when "x rays and the naked eye" are enough?


i'm talking about determining age here lutz. you don't need ct scans to see when bones have not fused. this is the whole point on ageing mummies. they have factors that happen at certain times. especially since the kv 55 body has no soft tissue or skin.


I thought the Spitalfields Experiment proved once and for all the difficulty of aging skeletal remains. Even the younger ones, just from examination, can't be determined without considerable leeway. One thing is textually certain and that is Tutankhamun was the son of a king. Since Amenhotep III is out of the running, that leaves only two we know about there at Amarna. Previously, it was suggested by some that Smenkhkare was the son of Akhenaten, which made him considerably the latter's junior. Was that a factor in prejudicing some experts to place his age on the lower end of the spectrum? I don't know! But now we know that KV55 individual is the son of Amenhotep III and, if not Akhenaten, then his brother. In that case, how do we know he wasn't only around a year younger than Akhenaten or even a twin who arrived second? We know nothing about any brothers of Akhenaten except that one called Thutmose died. So anyone's agenda for making KV55 "Smenkhkare the 20-year-old" doesn't stand on the firmest ground when Akhenaten, himself, needn't have been any older than in his early 30's when he died. We have no idea when he came to the throne or even what his position was in the order of the children of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye, except that, presumably, he was the eldest surviving son upon the death of his father.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two words; Tooth wear. AE diet with its stone and sand particles was MURDER on the teeth as we see from innumerable examples. Older AES have badly worn teeth. KV55 does not. So - either he was on a very special diet (why?) or he's not very old. I gather that the older than 25 argument is based on evidence of spinal degeneration which is attested to even in children. Not a very good indicator then.

In many ways it would be much simpler for KV55 to be Akhenaten. But I am not willing to ignore the forensic evidence to make it so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Two words; Tooth wear. AE diet with its stone and sand particles was MURDER on the teeth as we see from innumerable examples. Older AES have badly worn teeth. KV55 does not. So - either he was on a very special diet (why?) or he's not very old. I gather that the older than 25 argument is based on evidence of spinal degeneration which is attested to even in children. Not a very good indicator then.

In many ways it would be much simpler for KV55 to be Akhenaten. But I am not willing to ignore the forensic evidence to make it so.


But you are selecting your "forensic evidence". I did a check to see if CT-scan has become the preferred method of examining ancient skeletal remains and it seems to be the case. See here (not to quibbel about "first"): http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_32379.shtml

That's an example. As to the teeth wear, I can't tell you how many times I have read how misleading that can be, but here's one glaring instance, the case of the so-called mummy of Thutmose I (which is no longer accepted as such). When Elliot Smith first examined this mummy before 1912, he decided the individual was of advanced age because the teeth were worn. However, sometime in the '70's, the mummy was x-rayed and this was discussed in a book "Xraying the Pharaohs". From x-ray, the person was now judged to have died at around the age of 18!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, yes, I forgot about Queen Tiye. She was probably close to 50 when she died and her teeth were judged to be only "moderately worn", according to the "Xray Atlas". Some people's teeth are tougher than those of others and that can he inherited.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Throne War Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
neseret wrote:
Further, my comments were made before the 2010 DNA studies. So, let's examine this, now that we know that Nefertiti is not the mother of Tutankhamun, as KV 35YL (a daughter of Amenhtotep III and Tiye) and KV 55 (a royal male, son of Amenhtotep III and Tiye, who died in his 20's) are in fact the parents of Tutankhamun.


However, the ones who published the DNA studies in JAMA did not reach those conclusions. I think it's only fair to point that out.


Excuse me, but they did in fact so state:

Quote:

The statistical analysis revealed that the mummy KV55 is most probably the father of Tutankhamun (probability of 99.99999981%), and KV35 Younger Lady could be identified as his mother (99.99999997%).

<...>

The allele constellations in all short tandem repeat markers tested indicate that the KV35 Younger Lady is a full sister of the KV55 mummy, and is unlikely to be Nefertiti or Kiya, neither of whom is attested as a daughter of Amenhotep III. This leaves Nebetiah and Beketaten, daughters of Amenhotep III not known to have married their father and who therefore might have married their brother, as the most likely candidates for the KV35 Younger Lady.


Hawass, Gad, 2010 (eAppendix. Details of Methods, Results, and Comment): 2; 4

SidneyF wrote:
That paper stated that the KV55 remains were probably those of Akhenaten. Evidently, those experts who, after all, in addition to the actual DNA testing, subjected the skeleton to a method of investigation that no one had previously been able to do (CT scan) did not see evidence that restricted the deceased to having been in his twenties.


For which they gave no definitive evidence for the conclusion. They merely spoke of degenerative elements in the spine as indicating that KV 55 was older: no other examination of KV 55 has ever noted any degeneration in the spine of KV 55, BTW (Smith 1912, Derry 1931, Harrison 1966, Filer 2000).

As Kyle has noted, this issue has been discussed on this list, ad infinitum. Spinal degeneration by no means an aging technique, as remains of ancient Nubian children as young as 9 years of age have been shown to have the same spinal degeneration, as was noted on EEF, when the 2010 JAMA report came out.

SidneyF wrote:
Also, these remains were found in a coffin that was meant for Akhenaten and bore his unique epithets.


The coffin is a reused coffin, most likely created for a royal female, revised for a royal male, and it is Akhenaten who is being addressed, not identified as the inhabitant of the coffin.

SidneyF wrote:
It was accompanied by "magic bricks" that also said "Akhenaten" and probably did not come from Akhetaten but were provided for the reinterment in the Valley, just as were the words "mAa xrw" on the coffin foot in the manner of other (traditional) VOK burials.


Only two of the 4 bricks had Akhenaten's name, which was expunged from the bricks prior to their placement in KV 55. As such, this is by no means a form of identification of the remains, as Amarna funereal equipment was reused over more than one burial, including Tutankhamun's.

SidneyF wrote:
It seems to me that it is an Egyptological tradition to accept new findings unless one can offer evidence in refutation. That, of course, is difficult under the circumstances, even impossible.


I am all open to accepting "new findings" but here it appears it is you who are not up to date. The 2010 DNA study accepts that KV 55 is the father of Tutankhamun and that KV 35 YL is his mother: as she is a full daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye, and KV 55 is a full brother of KV 35 YL and a full son of Amenhotep III and Tiye, then KV 35 YL is a King's daughter.

Amenhotep III had 3 queens, Tiye (who is the acknowledged daughter of Yuya and Thuya), Satamun (who is acknowledged as a King's daughter, at the same time she is acknowledged as as Amenhotep III's GRW (Troy 1986: 18.35/4, 5, 6, 7; 166)), and his daughter Isis [II], who is also acknowledged as both his daughter and wife on a statue now located in the Netherlands (on this, see also van den Walle 1968).

At the Gem-pa-Aten at Karnak, one daughter of Akhenaten is given the title of /Hmt nsw sAt nsw n Xt.f/, "Wife of the king, Daughter of the king of his body" (Smith and Redford 1976: 84). The daughter's name is now lost, but as only one daughter was show beside Nefertiti in this scene, it could be argued that she was in fact Meritaten, as she was shown most often with Nefertiti at the Gem-pa-Aten.

Further, the same title, /Hmt nsw sAt nsw n Xt.f/, "Wife of the king, Daughter of the king of his body" is associated with Akhenaten's fourth daughter, Neferneferuaten(-tasherit), as can be found in the tomb of Meryre (de Garies Davies 1903: pl. 19). There are other examples of the title of /Hmt nsw/ being associated with Akhenaten's daughters while maintaining their status as king's daughters (on this, see Desroches-Noblecourt, 1963; van den Walle 1968; Helck 1969, and te Velde 1971).

So, I think there are sufficient examples of queens retaining the title of /sAt nsw/ "King's daughter" while also possessing the title of /Hmt nsw/ or /Hmt nsw wr.t/, even during the Amarna period.

The fact that Ankhsenamun drops her "king's daughter" title may have more to do with the distancing of the royal house of Tutankhamun from that of his Atenist predecessor: at Amarna, Ankhsenamun is referred to as /sAt nsw/ extensively. Hers is the only example we have of a known king's daughter dropping the /sAt nsw/ title in her adult life.

Nefertiti is never acknowledged as a /sAt nsw/ "King's daughter" at any point in her life, which argues, in most Egyptologists' opinions, that she was not of royal blood, as titles for royal women were usually accumulative and promoted status in the royal harem (Troy 1986).

SidneyF wrote:
However, the alternative speculation as to whose bones those might be pretty much leaves one with Smenkhkare as a candidate, a man who is little more than a ghostly figure at Akhetaten and whose actual age no one knows, either. For his spouse, then, and the mother of Tutankhamun, since she cannot be Meritaten, one has to accept a woman of whose existence there is not one shred of evidence at all.


Smenkhkare is not that ephemeral, as we do have specific evidence of his reign and thus his existence. Smenkhkare attested in the following areas:

Akhetaten:

Tomb of Meryre II, North wall, east side, portrayed alongside Meritaten:

Inscription:

"King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Ankhkheperure, Son of Ra, Smenkhkare Djeseru ('Holy of Manifestations'), given life always and forever."

(See also De Garies Davies 1905)

Wine docket:

Inscription:

"Regnal Year 1. Wine of the House of Smenkhkare Djeseru [of] the western river. The chief of the basin [= master, vintner] Sakaia."

Ring bezels (found by Petrie at Amarna)

Thebes:

Calcite jar, found in KV 62 (Tutankhamun), with erased decoration and inscription, but retored on the basis of extant traces, in two pairs of royal cartouches:

Inscription:

(Cartouche 1):

"King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Neferkheperure Wa-en-ra, given life, Son of Ra, Akhenaten, long in his lifetime."

(Cartouche 2):

King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Ankhkehperure, Son of Ra, Smenkhkare Djeseru, given life like Ra."

(Murnane and Meltzer 1995: 209-210)

As James Allen has noted (2006/2009: 10), the fact the two cartouches are beside one another is not evidence of a co-regency, or that Smenkhkare directly succeeded Akhenaten. As Allen notes, this inscription may show only that a votive offering was made to the deceased Akhenaten by Smenkhkare.

Reference:

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: 9-20. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Volume 37. Leiden: Brill. (2006 version online).

Derry, D. E. 1931. Notes on the Skeleton hitherto believed to be that of King Akhenaten. ASAE 31: 115-119.

de Garies Davies, N. 1903. The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, Part I: The Tomb of Meryra. Archaeological Survey of Egypt. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

________________. 1905. The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, Part II: The Tombs of Panehesy and Meryra II. Archaeological Survey of Egypt. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

Desroches-Noblecourt, C. 1963. Tutankhamen: Life and Death of a Pharaoh. New York: New York Graphic Society.

Filer, J. 2000. The KV 55 body: the facts. Egyptian Archaeology 17/Autumn: 13-14.

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

Hawass, Z., Y. Z. Gad, et al. 2010. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family. (eSupplement). Journal of the American medical Association 303/7: 1-12.

Helck, W. 1969. Die Tochterheirat ägyptischer Könige. CdE 44: 22-26.

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

Smith, G. E. 2000 (1912). Catalogue Général de Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. No. 60151-61100. The Royal Mummies. Service des Antiquités de L'Égypte: Catalogue Général de Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. London: Duckworth.

Smith, R. W. and D. B. Redford 1976. The Akhenaten Temple Project. Vol. I: Initial Discoveries. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.

Troy, L. 1986. Patterns of Queenship: in ancient Egyptian myth and history. BOREAS 14. Uppsala: ACTA Universitatis Upsaliensis.

te Velde, H. 1971 Some Remarks on the Structure of Egyptian Divine Triads. JEA 57: 80-86.

van de Walle, B. 1968. La princess Isis, fille et éspouse d'Amenophis III. CdE 43: 36-54.
_________________
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
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Throne War Reply with quote

[quote="neseret"]
SidneyF wrote:
That paper stated that the KV55 remains were probably those of Akhenaten. Evidently, those experts who, after all, in addition to the actual DNA testing, subjected the skeleton to a method of investigation that no one had previously been able to do (CT scan) did not see evidence that restricted the deceased to having been in his twenties.


Quote:
For which they gave no definitive evidence for the conclusion. They merely spoke of degenerative elements in the spine as indicating that KV 55 was older: no other examination of KV 55 has ever noted any degeneration in the spine of KV 55, BTW (Smith 1912, Derry 1931, Harrison 1966, Filer 2000).


Because the examinations did not include CT-scan. And can you be so certain that the age estimate was not based on a composite of factors?


SidneyF wrote:
Also, these remains were found in a coffin that was meant for Akhenaten and bore his unique epithets.


Quote:
The coffin is a reused coffin, most likely created for a royal female, revised for a royal male, and it is Akhenaten who is being addressed, not identified as the inhabitant of the coffin.


That is not the most recent opinion, however, as Lutz pointed out just within the last couple of days.

SidneyF wrote:
It was accompanied by "magic bricks" that also said "Akhenaten" and probably did not come from Akhetaten but were provided for the reinterment in the Valley, just as were the words "mAa xrw" on the coffin foot in the manner of other (traditional) VOK burials.


Quote:
Only two of the 4 bricks had Akhenaten's name, which was expunged from the bricks prior to their placement in KV 55.


How do you know that they were expunged prior to placement?

SidneyF wrote:
It seems to me that it is an Egyptological tradition to accept new findings unless one can offer evidence in refutation. That, of course, is difficult under the circumstances, even impossible.



Quote:
Amenhotep III had 3 queens, Tiye (who is the acknowledged daughter of Yuya and Thuya), Satamun (who is acknowledged as a King's daughter, at the same time she is acknowledged as as Amenhotep III's GRW (Troy 1986: 18.35/4, 5, 6, 7; 166)), and his daughter Isis [II], who is also acknowledged as both his daughter and wife on a statue now located in the Netherlands (on this, see also van den Walle 1968).


Fine! But I specified "Amarna and post-Amarna". Do you have any evidence to place those daughters of Amenhotep III in the unusual and even iconoclastic Amarna period?

Quote:
At the Gem-pa-Aten at Karnak, one daughter of Akhenaten is given the title of /Hmt nsw sAt nsw n Xt.f/, "Wife of the king, Daughter of the king of his body" (Smith and Redford 1976: 84). The daughter's name is now lost, but as only one daughter was show beside Nefertiti in this scene, it could be argued that she was in fact Meritaten, as she was shown most often with Nefertiti at the Gem-pa-Aten.

Further, the same title, /Hmt nsw sAt nsw n Xt.f/, "Wife of the king, Daughter of the king of his body" is associated with Akhenaten's fourth daughter, Neferneferuaten(-tasherit), as can be found in the tomb of Meryre (de Garies Davies 1903: pl. 19). There are other examples of the title of /Hmt nsw/ being associated with Akhenaten's daughters while maintaining their status as king's daughters (on this, see Desroches-Noblecourt, 1963; van den Walle 1968; Helck 1969, and te Velde 1971).


Oh, my goodness, those have come up here before and have been acknowledged to be very spurious writings--and not just by people on this forum-- Ms. Griffis-Greenberg, as you should know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
Wine docket:

Inscription:

"Regnal Year 1. Wine of the House of Smenkhkare Djeseru [of] the western river. The chief of the basin [= master, vintner] Sakaia."


Is this a different docket than the "mortuary" docket ('Year 1 House of Smenkhkare (deceased)'? For a long time that was the only one ever cited, now you hardly ever see it mentioned. I am wondering if the text was originally misread or if there are 2.


Thanks!
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
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 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 5 of 13

 
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