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 ... 9, 10, 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
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As for it being on sequins, there are just a few of them and they are in the Nelson-Atkins museum (but never on display any time I have been there).

Moran (Amarna Texts) reports the "The Ruler" epithet, and maybe the source. Allen is who linked the reed reversal to the seated person determinative, I think it was 'Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re' but could be 'Two Altered Inscriptions'.

I've thought the reversal argued strongly for Nefertiti as King N for a while because it is so unique. But I dont know what she is trying to say. Facing the seated king makes sense: it seems like underlining it: [I am] The Ruler. But facing the seated woman? Of course you are female....

HTH
_________________
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
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh! Also Murnane has written about the reversal (somewhere).

Oh, Oh! Dodson mentions the sequins too in "Sunset" p 46. Then in Appendix 3 he shows the names.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, to triple post, but here is a link to a photo of the sequins. It is not Hi Res by any means so it is hard to make much out. I have to take Murnane and Allen's word for it.

Who would wear this sort of thing? Is it for her? How insecure is it to adorn yourself in something that says 'I am the Ruler, I am the Ruler, I am the Ruler.' And how effective is the epithet if (mainly) only you see it. Maybe it was by or for someone at court.
_________________
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
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VBadJuJu wrote:
Sorry, to triple post, but here is a link to a photo of the sequins. It is not Hi Res by any means so it is hard to make much out. I have to take Murnane and Allen's word for it.

Who would wear this sort of thing? Is it for her? How insecure is it to adorn yourself in something that says 'I am the Ruler, I am the Ruler, I am the Ruler.' And how effective is the epithet if (mainly) only you see it. Maybe it was by or for someone at court.


LOL Not sure if it's a sign of insecurity or just a need to proclaim ones power. Kinda like Ramesses II added his names umpteen times to all his monuments? That is done to a level that one feels like somewhat sarcastically asking: "Gee, wonder who built this?"

Are the sequins thought to be part of an everyday object, or part of a funerary object? If it's funerary, then the "ruler" part could be part of a way to make it clear for eternity that this referred to a ruler?
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
That is done to a level that one feels like somewhat sarcastically asking: "Gee, wonder who built this?"

Answer: Amenhotep III, LOL

anneke wrote:

Are the sequins thought to be part of an everyday object, or part of a funerary object? If it's funerary, then the "ruler" part could be part of a way to make it clear for eternity that this referred to a ruler?

As it is gold, funerary is a good bet.

I get sidetracked by how gaudy some of this stuff sounds...like the garment with 40+ gold daisies engraved with Smenkhkare's prenomen and Meritaten's name. Redford didnt call it the vainglorius 18th Dynasty for nothing (at least I think it was him).
_________________
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
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VBadJuJu wrote:
anneke wrote:
That is done to a level that one feels like somewhat sarcastically asking: "Gee, wonder who built this?"

Answer: Amenhotep III, LOL

Very Happy Good point. I do have this image of Ramesses as Daffy Duck running through the treasury yelling "Mine, Mine, Mine!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fU6VLVbA2A)

VBadJuJu wrote:

I get sidetracked by how gaudy some of this stuff sounds...like the garment with 40+ gold daisies engraved with Smenkhkare's prenomen and Meritaten's name. Redford didnt call it the vainglorius 18th Dynasty for nothing (at least I think it was him).

Conspicuous consumption was the name of the game it seems. No such thing as understated elegance. I figure that in those days one had to flaunt one's wealth and show it as a sign of power.

And for the afterlife, writing something made it so.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3757
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:33 am    Post subject: Re: Anen Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
If Anen was Nefertiti's father than he would have been married to the daughter of his mother's sister or another female relative of Thuya. The DNA of Tut's foetusses shows they have a link with Thuya's female line other than through Queen Tiye. ...

Such a marriage within the immediate relatives would be well within the normal in Ancient Egypt and imaginable... I think he's still a candidate for the paternity of Nefertiti. His early death (between the 20th and 30th year in the reign of Amenhotep III) leads to the inclusion into the family of Aja, his wife Ty is educator for Nefertiti. The reverse reed leaf is (also) a reminiscence to the deceased father (?).

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Anen Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
If Anen was Nefertiti's father than he would have been married to the daughter of his mother's sister or another female relative of Thuya. The DNA of Tut's foetusses shows they have a link with Thuya's female line other than through Queen Tiye. ...


Possibly, but not necessarily. Persons within the same population can have the same allele at a given marker without being related, especially if it is a common allele. I'll ask someone I know about the frequency.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Anen Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
Thieuke wrote:
If Anen was Nefertiti's father than he would have been married to the daughter of his mother's sister or another female relative of Thuya. The DNA of Tut's foetusses shows they have a link with Thuya's female line other than through Queen Tiye. ...


Possibly, but not necessarily. Persons within the same population can have the same allele at a given marker without being related, especially if it is a common allele. I'll ask someone I know about the frequency.


Thanks to the magic of Face Book IM, I got a quick response. Foetus 1 at D7S820 has the number 13, not seen in the generations at that locus since Thuya. 13, while present in the modern Egyptian population at that marker, is the lowest one at .032 frequency.

But I still don't know what to conclude. For one thing, Yuya and Thuya, who, from the 8 markers we have from them, don't seem so closely related, both have the blood type of A2MN, very rare in modern Egypt. So was that allele 13, even though quite low among modern Egyptians, so low in ancient Egypt? Also, do we really know that the two tiny babies were the children of Tutankhamun? It seems logical that they would be, but many alleles are missing from them, so there must be some question there. I had hoped they would show better values, as things could be learned from them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3757
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's something for stamp collectors...



Greetings, Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 212
Location: District of Columbia, USA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, lutz, that's awesome! The bust of Nefertiti set the standard for beauty from the time of her first exhibition. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to bone up on the history of Beauty as a political tool. Plus, I would LOVE to get one of those stamps!
_________________
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured
~Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3757
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ankhetmaatre wrote:
... I would LOVE to get one of those stamps!

Then you should send me a mailing address!? Cool

Greetings, 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: Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
kylejustin wrote:
... simply because the bricks are the sole undisputed objects belonging to akhenaten found in that tomb does not mean he was buried there.

Yes, exactly and only that it means. And it is the only logical explanation for, that they are there. Its material value goes to zero, they can be produced quickly and easily, a high artistic value to them would probably not be able to assume, they are no objects from the private of the king for daily use or family keepsakes or offerings. Not the best conditions to be among the objects that have been selected to be brought from Amarna to Thebes...? But they were, and the reason is there ritual significance (for the burial of the person they were made for). They were needed for doing a ritual complete royal (re-)burial. Once again, I advise dealing with the theme magic bricks in kings tombs.

Lutz


Hi Lutz,

It strikes me that whilst the bricks may be evidence that Akhenaten was once buried there they cannot on their own prove that the body found in the tomb, when it was rediscovered in modern times, is Akhenaten. We know the tomb was opened and re-sealed at least twice, if memory serves. We suspect that Tiyes body was once interred there. Perhaps At one time Tiye, Smekhkare and Akhenaten were all in the tomb but at some point in the past two of them were removed. Another, perhaps less likely, possibility is that the bricks were inscribed with the cartouche of the surviving King who was responsible for the burial of his deceased co-regent. My point is that there can be more than one logical explanation. The magic bricks are just one piece of evidence which prove nothing by themselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3757
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kemetian wrote:
It strikes me that whilst the bricks may be evidence that Akhenaten was once buried there they cannot on their own prove that the body found in the tomb, when it was rediscovered in modern times, is Akhenaten. ... The magic bricks are just one piece of evidence which prove nothing by themselves.

You are right, they are one, but they are not the only one... In fact we have only 3 kings names on objects primarily from KV 55 : Amenhotep III, Akhenaton and Tutankhamun. In addition, we find the name of Queen Tiy and the deleted name of Kiya on the canopic jars.

Three times appeared the Early Aton name (before Year 9) in golden cartouches:

JE 39633 (SR 2700) - Gold necklace bead shaped as a single (early) Aton cartouch, and JE 39633 (SR 2701) - Gold necklace bead in the shape of a single cartouche. At least one of them was found in the debris of the mummy.

JE 39636 (SR 2698) - Gold foil bead or "sequin" in shape of double cartouche, with five punched suspension holes perhaps torn
from its backing. Seems identical to the "gold foil with the early Aten name found with the mummy" (Weigall, The Mummy of Akhenaton, JEA 8, 1922, p. 199).

At the same time for the discovery of KV 55 mentions Howard Carter that "quite a number of pieces of jewelry bearing Akhenaten's name and the Aten cartouches were in the dealers' shops in Luxor, within a few days of the discovery." (Thomas, Royal Necropoleis of Thebes, 1966, p.154).

Kemetian wrote:
... Another, perhaps less likely, possibility is that the bricks were inscribed with the cartouche of the surviving King who was responsible for the burial of his deceased co-regent. ...

With regard to the ritual-magic function of the bricks that is not possible. There are also no parallels known to me, neither in royal nor in private funeral ritual.

Greetings, Lutz.

Maarten J. Raven : Egyptian Concepts on the Orientation of the Human Body. - In: JEA 91. - 2005. - pp. 37 - 53.
Ann Macy Roth / Catharine H. Roehrig : Magical bricks and the bricks of birth. - In: JEA 88. - 2002. - pp. 121 - 139.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
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: Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Three times appeared the Early Aton name (before Year 9) in golden cartouches:

JE 39633 (SR 2700) - Gold necklace bead shaped as a single (early) Aton cartouch, and JE 39633 (SR 2701) - Gold necklace bead in the shape of a single cartouche. At least one of them was found in the debris of the mummy.

JE 39636 (SR 2698) - Gold foil bead or "sequin" in shape of double cartouche, with five punched suspension holes perhaps torn
from its backing. Seems identical to the "gold foil with the early Aten name found with the mummy" (Weigall, The Mummy of Akhenaton, JEA 8, 1922, p. 199).

At the same time for the discovery of KV 55 mentions Howard Carter that "quite a number of pieces of jewelry bearing Akhenaten's name and the Aten cartouches were in the dealers' shops in Luxor, within a few days of the discovery." (Thomas, Royal Necropoleis of Thebes, 1966, p.154).

Kemetian wrote:
... Another, perhaps less likely, possibility is that the bricks were inscribed with the cartouche of the surviving King who was responsible for the burial of his deceased co-regent. ...

With regard to the ritual-magic function of the bricks that is not possible. There are also no parallels known to me, neither in royal nor in private funeral ritual.

Greetings, Lutz.

Maarten J. Raven : Egyptian Concepts on the Orientation of the Human Body. - In: JEA 91. - 2005. - pp. 37 - 53.
Ann Macy Roth / Catharine H. Roehrig : Magical bricks and the bricks of birth. - In: JEA 88. - 2002. - pp. 121 - 139.[/quote]

Thanks Lutz, it is interesting and the lack of objects bearing smenkhkares name is difficult to explain. I dont feel the tomb as it was found in modern times is the same as the tomb as it was left after Tutankhamen sealed it so who knows what was or wasnt there originally. To be fair I dont think there is enough evidence to safely conclude the mummy found in kV55 is Akehnaten or Smenkhkare. It would seem certain that it must be one or the other but unless further evidence is found which tips the balance either is possible.

My concern is that identifying the KV55 mummy as Akhenaten seems to lead people to conclude that Smenkhkare didnt exist. The old theory that Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare were one and the same is seriously flawed in my opinion. I dont believe it is a name change, why would Neferneferuaten change her name from an Aten name for so called political reasons yet the next Pharaoh is crowned with an Aten name? It makes no sense.
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 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 10 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