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 ... 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
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:51 am    Post subject: Re: Throne War Reply with quote

VBadJuJu wrote:
IF there were rival kings....
I see Smenkhkare ruling from Memphis.
B) Most of the evidence from Smenkhkare's reign comes from Memphis and that is where he is said to have died.


i have not heard of this before. do you have any evidence to show?


VBadJuJu wrote:
IF the Year 16 evidence holds up, Nefertiti as Neferneferuaten would be the legit ruler being Akhenaten's chosen successor, as her epithet's make utterly clear. The choice of her instead of at least 2 able males of some royal standing is the primary cause of the split or at least the last straw. Its not that they dont like her, but she is a dynastic dead end - bad for the family and bad for Egypt.


i think her epithet's are to strengthen her own right to rule. there is no way a patriarchal society will let a woman inherit the throne if there is a male heir. smenkhkare being a brother of the king and the son of the one before that pretty much assures his accession. like already been noted up thread, women only inherited the throne when they were the last option, and this is definently not the case here. neferneferuaten appears to be a regent for tutankhamun, and therefore ruled after smenkhkare, as the books at the moment agree on. only after did she rule as regent, it would appear she took the crown like hatshepsut.

VBadJuJu wrote:
That would make Smenkhkare "the usurper". That being the case, if it was a broader struggle I'd expect to see some sort of depiction of the gods selecting or blessing Smenkhkare ala Hatshepsut (particularly in the wake of the recent proscriptions by Akhenaten and Neferneferuaten nee Nefertiti).


smenkhekare is not a usurper, he is the next male in line, it would be hard to argue for him not getting the crown. there are inscriptions of gods bestowing him the crown because he did not need to legitimise his authority, like a woman would. as already stated, he is amenhotep III's son, and therefore would be recognised as heir. he also married meritaten, which would have strengthened his position.

now i don't know who neferneferuaten is, especially with evidence nefertiti was alive in year 16. but i'm not sold yet that this proves she was still alive. but the amarna episode makes more sense if the line is thus:

akhenaten succeeded by his brother smenkhkare, succeeded by his wife meritaten as neferneferuaten as regent then maybe sole ruler for her cousin/stepson tutankhamun.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I realize this is somewhat off topic but looking at the image Lutz posted of the striding figure of Nefertiti Neferneferuaten, focusing mostly on the face, I continue to be amazed by the talent of the ancient Egyptian sculptors. Much like the statue of Senusret, in this instance Nefertiti is shown as a vibrant human, aged and worn, so different, yet so clearly the same person as that of her youthful and vibrant earlier image; the famous Nefertiti Bust. These are, clearly, images of the same individual created over time, very likely by the same hand, one both ancient and masterful. The maturity of the represented image is indicative a culture that, in the Amarna period at least, was interested in the legitimacy of artistic representation. A unique moment in ancient history.
_________________
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
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Continuing my perusal of the inscription on the foot of the coffin from KV55--I find it increasingly odd. Although it begins "Words spoken by" someone whose name is enclosed in a single cartouche, the suffixes denoting "I" are all Gard. A2, which would normally be used for the speech of an ordinary man and not A41, which would be a proper suffix for the recitation of a king. In Line 6, the suffix sign becomes A40, that of a god, but that is an addition. There may even be the addition of a female seated suffix at the very end of Line 6, but that one may have been very difficult to read and a guess. After that, the suffix sign reverts to A2.

I think, if those words were originally to be spoken by Akhenaten, that would have been the height of informality. I can't think of another text where a pharaoh supposedly recited in the first person, except that from Dynasty XII, and then A41, a seated king, is used. One explanation could be is that the text is a poem that was known and therefore written as it normally would have been. However, at some later date, someone decided to personalize it to an extent and render some of it as spoken by an individual who was a god, but in a rather inconsistent fashion. The last four lines of the text contain the original usual epithets of Akhenaten. For some reason, "sA ra" was added at the very last.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 993
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe is because Akhenaten was then considered a god, following the example of texts wherein Amun, Ptah, Ra-Horakhty, etc, uttered blessings and prophecies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robson wrote:
Maybe is because Akhenaten was then considered a god, following the example of texts wherein Amun, Ptah, Ra-Horakhty, etc, uttered blessings and prophecies.


Yes, and these "god" personal suffixes and "my father, Ra-Horakhty" were later additions to the original text. One can only suppose they were added as some sort of piety by another person, who viewed Akhenaten as a father. Previously, I mentioned a statue plinth of Meritaten (?), depicted in Richard Wilkinson's "Cracking Codes". (I can't give the page right now.)
It is a rectangular gray granite base of a statue, now lost, was discovered in a garden in Cairo. The sculpture, probably of Princess Meritaten, once stood at Akhetaten in a “sun-shade shrine” dedicated to her. A double line of hieroglyphic text, written in Neo-Egyptian, is incised on the plinth. Because of the form of the Aten names, the monument must be dated to no later than Year 8 of the rule of Meritaten’s father.

The dedicatory inscription of the plinth contains Nefertiti’s cartouches, which have been deliberately erased. Richard Parkinson, in his translation of the glyphsiii, underlines the erasures:

"May live my father Harakhte rejoicing in his horizon, in his name of Shu who is in the sun-disk, given life for all time and eternity! The dual-king, who lives in Truth, Lord of the Two Lands, Neferkheperure-waenre, given life…..Akhenaten, great in his lifetime; the king’s bodily daughter whom he loves, Meritaten, born of the Great Royal Wife, Neferneferuaten Nefertiti, may she live for all time and eternity! Etc…"

On the statue-base, it appears clear that the glyph that stands for the possessive suffix, following “it” (father), is in the form of a seated female. That means that Meritaten refers to her biological father, Akhenaten, as being a sun-god.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Throne War Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
VBadJuJu wrote:
IF there were rival kings....
I see Smenkhkare ruling from Memphis.
B) Most of the evidence from Smenkhkare's reign comes from Memphis and that is where he is said to have died.

i have not heard of this before. do you have any evidence to show?

It is not like he left a lot of evidence given his short reign. It boils down to a couple of temple inscriptions or dedications, and some fragmentary blocks. Aside from that there is the tomb he started in Thebes and thats about it. His death there comes from a passing comment in Giles' book (2001?), where it is passed off like a fact everyone knows - I'd like to know what it is based on as well. They stuck in my head because so much of what is written about him is all conjecture about dual identity, gender issues etc, that something factual about him was noteworthy.
Quote:
i think her epithet's are to strengthen her own right to rule. there is no way a patriarchal society will let a woman inherit the throne if there is a male heir. smenkhkare being a brother of the king and the son of the one before that pretty much assures his accession.

I agree, women did not normally have the right inherit the throne. But the topic under discussion was not normal succession, but the conjecture for rival kings, which is why I capped the IF. I didnt repeat the entire premise though, which apparently mislead you. That said, I dont agree with some of your other comments.

A) Many of epithets Neferneferuaten uses strongly associate her with Akhenaten: 'Ankhkheprure, desired of Neferkheprure'; 'Neferneferuaten, chosen of Wa-en-Re'; '...chosen of Akhenaton'. They do not make a statement of her independent right to rule, they are closer to a proclamation that she (whomever she is) is legitimate because Akhenaton chose her. The others, "effective for her husband", certainly do not make a case for legitimacy - they underscore that royal authority flows from her husband, not her. Aside from those there are but 3 epithets that do try to establish her as an independent King: "desired of the Aten", "the incarnation of Akhetaten," and "The Ruler".

B) Smenkhkare would be the most logical and most acceptable choice of successor to both us and the AEs, but that doesn't grant him any birthright to the throne. The throne was not actually inherited but bequeathed. "King's son, of his body" was not a statement of fact or parentage, but a title given by kings to recognize their sons as heir. Smenkhkare is nowhere attested with that title, that I know of, giving him no real natural right. If it was inherited by the eldest male alone, then Thutmose III as the eldest, if not only son of Thutmose II should have had a stronger claim than Smenkhkare, but the throne didnt automatically go to him without gyrations.

Quote:
neferneferuaten appears to be a regent for tutankhamun, and therefore ruled after smenkhkare, as the books at the moment agree on.

As there are no books yet dealing with the prospective Year 16 inscription, any "agreement" hardly matters. Dodson's current theory (2009?) now dismisses Smenkhare as a short lived coregent starting about year 13 or 14 with Neferneferuaten (Nefertiti) as Akhenaton's successor. But what is the evidence for her as regent to Tut?

VBadJuJu wrote:
Quote:
That would make Smenkhkare "the usurper". ...
smenkhekare is not a usurper, he is the next male in line, it would be hard to argue for him not getting the crown. <snip> he is amenhotep III's son, and therefore would be recognised as heir.

I called him the "usurper" explicitly using quotes because he would be the more traditional and more acceptable choice.

But, *IF* Akhenaten selected Neferneferuaten as his "chosen" coregen and legitimate successor, then Smenkhkare is usurper, though probably with a larger following. Smenkhkare would only be 'next in line' for the throne if he bore the title 'king's son of his own body' which he did not (ahhh, found the link - see here).


Quote:
now i don't know who neferneferuaten is, especially with evidence nefertiti was alive in year 16. but i'm not sold yet that this proves she was still alive. but the amarna episode makes more sense if the line is thus:
akhenaten succeeded by his brother smenkhkare, succeeded by his wife meritaten as neferneferuaten as regent then maybe sole ruler for her cousin/stepson tutankhamun.

Which book is this theory from? It certainly doesn't match Dodson's latest premise, nor does it match anything by Reeves. They both argue for Nefertiti, as does Joyce Tyldesley and Julia Samson, and combined they account for a large number of the titles dealing with the topic.


That order doesnt seem to get much support from the epigraphic evidence. Aside from the close association with Akhenaton from the repeated 'Chosen of ...' epithets, there are the 3 or 4 stelae depicting what is generally accepted as Akhenaten with another king. In one case the other person is apparently Nefertiti (based on the headgear) but with 4 cartouches sufficient for the names of 2 kings (Reeves sees this as a sort of snapshot of the moment Nefertiti became King - when the stela was started she was queen with flat top headpiece, but then was elevated to coregent, so a 4th cartouche needed to be squeezed in).

Following Allen (link to his summary posted 2ce), Neferneferuaten as coregent is the logical conclusion and becomes Akhenaten's successor. Whether that results in a rival king put on the throne, is total conjecture. But Nefertiti is certainly more likely indicate on the basis of gender, power and name, if she is alive. I don't even know why we suspect Meritaten survived Smenkhkare by much. As the eldest living royal daughter, wouldn't tradition and such mean that she should have been married to Tut (much as Ankhesenamun was later married to Aye)?

The main thing that made Meritaten a plausible candidate is the "effective for her husband" epithets which no longer uniquely favor her if Nefertiti is alive.
_________________
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
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 993
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does the eldest daughter of the king need to be legitimate by marriage claims?

Nefertiti, by her turn is who would need it more, once she was a non-royal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Consider the case of Catherine II of Russia (or Catherine I for that matter). Legitimacy is not always the deciding factor in succession. Nefertiti seems to have shared in Akhenaten's 'prophethood' or whatever you want to call it from an Atenist perspective that might have made her the most desirable successor to her husband. She was also in a good practical position to seize power in Akhetaten upon his death. Smenkhkara could have been the figurehead of a faction favoring a move back to center, away from strict Atenism but without wishing to destroy the cult. A trend which would continue under Tutankhamun, Smen's son.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 993
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In this case, Nefertiti claims only would make sense as longer as Atenist ideology remains settled, which was not exactly the case, while Smenkhkare, if he really is KV55 mummy, is the son of the Pharaoh himself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 993
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nefertiti would need the supporting of the country's "strong men", as happened to Catherine I and II and, apparently, to Hatshepsut. Maybe she had it for a while, but the opposite side probably waved with a compromise proposal. Aye could be a key figure in this arrangement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The fog surrounding the period from Year 16 to Horemheb's reign is starting to clear for me as a result of this discovery.

Horemheb and Ay's positions are key to this - they represent different factions at court, working in partnership to keep the throne stable following the Amarna period, with Tutankhamun their hope to continue the dynasty.

I say that because Horemheb is unknown at Amarna ergo he built his career elsewhere - but he and Maya (promoted under Horemheb) are already in senior positions at the start Tut's reign - I believe they may have been working with Smenkhkare, who I think is a younger son of Amenhotep III.

As I see it, following Akhenaten's death, Smenkhkare became king and was married to Meritaten. However, he also had a child, Tutankhamun, with an unknown sister (KV35YL). Smenkhkare and his queens die, leaving Tut a child heir. At the same time (or in opposition to Smenkhkare immediately following her husband's death) Nefertiti becomes Queen Regnant - claiming she is chosen by Akhenaten - but either dies or is deposed, or eventually retires for Tut to take the throne (after it seems around 3 years). This allows time for Tut to be born very late in Akhenaten's reign, and not his son, explaining his initial absence at Amarna. It also could account for his re-use or adaptation of treasures made for Neferneferuaten, rather than them being destroyed, and also Ay's survival. The move away from Akhetaten and name changes also appear to have happened at around year 3, which could fit with a change in administration following Nefertiti's role ending. Anyway, by this point Ay and Horemheb are working together and Tut is being moulded into a traditional Pharoah.

When Tutankhamun died their partnership seems to have been affected with Ay somehow gaining power. Ay being omitted from the Abydos king list when he was a recent Pharoah (feasibly king when Seti I were a youth) indicates he did something to incur hate despite playing a major role in re-establishing the status quo following Akhenaten. This, to me, shows he can't have ended his days on good terms with Horemheb or the establishment.

Paul
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:38 am    Post subject: Re: Throne War Reply with quote

VBadJuJu wrote:
As there are no books yet dealing with the prospective Year 16 inscription, any "agreement" hardly matters. Dodson's current theory (2009?) now dismisses Smenkhare as a short lived coregent starting about year 13 or 14 with Neferneferuaten (Nefertiti) as Akhenaton's successor. But what is the evidence for her as regent to Tut?


dodson's book was written before the revealing of the DNA in 2010. so i think it's safe to say his book would be clearly different if he'd waited.

VBadJuJu wrote:
Which book is this theory from? It certainly doesn't match Dodson's latest premise, nor does it match anything by Reeves. They both argue for Nefertiti, as does Joyce Tyldesley and Julia Samson, and combined they account for a large number of the titles dealing with the topic.


that theory isn't in anything i can remember. dodson was discussed above. reeves is an idiot, blinded by his obsession for kv 55 to be akhenaten he doesn't see evidence. i don't think tyldesley has written anything recently? and i am unfamiliar with julia samson.

VBadJuJu wrote:
That order doesnt seem to get much support from the epigraphic evidence. Aside from the close association with Akhenaton from the repeated 'Chosen of ...' epithets, there are the 3 or 4 stelae depicting what is generally accepted as Akhenaten with another king. In one case the other person is apparently Nefertiti (based on the headgear) but with 4 cartouches sufficient for the names of 2 kings (Reeves sees this as a sort of snapshot of the moment Nefertiti became King - when the stela was started she was queen with flat top headpiece, but then was elevated to coregent, so a 4th cartouche needed to be squeezed in).


the epithets are neferneferuaten's right to rule. they are showing her legitimacy comes from her husband, as you have said above i think. but it does not prove that she ruled first. i think it was neseret in one of her posts that said she was a regent for tutankhamun, or there was evidence for it.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

from the smenkhkare page on wikipedia:

Quote:
While he was traditionally seen as one of Akhenaten's immediate successors, today some Egyptologists such as Aidan Dodson consider him to be the immediate predecessor of Neferneferuaten and a junior co-regent of Akhenaten who did not have an independent reign.


the source for that quote is given as dodson's amarna sunset.

the article also quotes hornung, krauss and warburton 2006 as suggesting smenkhkare was succeeded by meritaten as neferneferuaten.

in 2011 the metroplitan museum of art presented evidence that neferneferuaten reigned before smenkhkare. though so far i do not know what evidence they presented. there is a video on youtube, the lecture was about horemheb.

an argument for meritaten as neferneferuaten: though not considered reliable, it is interesting manetho said a king's daughter reigned at the end of the 18th dynasty.
_________________
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: 3748
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:40 am    Post subject: Re: Throne War Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
... reeves is an idiot, blinded by his obsession for kv 55 to be akhenaten he doesn't see evidence. ...

The Australian layman rejects not a little far out of the window? Not to mention civility and respectful towards an internationally recognized scientist who does nothing more than all his colleagues : interpret the existing evidence. And these are now not so clear and allow different interpretions. Otherwise we would have probably a more uniform opinion.

Reeves is clearly an authority when it comes to the Valley of Kings and the Amarna Period. One can agree or not with his theories, stamped him as an "idiot" and "blinded" just shows one's own limitations.

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:


I say that because Horemheb is unknown at Amarna ergo he built his career elsewhere - but he and Maya (promoted under Horemheb) are already in senior positions at the start Tut's reign - I believe they may have been working with Smenkhkare, who I think is a younger son of Amenhotep III.



The time of Smenkhkare`s kingship was probably not enough to build a career out of nothing.
And the problem with Horemheb`s pre-Tut career is that we have no evidence for it from anywhere in Egypt, at least nothing that would point to him without any doubt.

I think that maybe or better probably Horemheb became influential during Akhenaten`s reign, but just as he later began to erase Akhi`s traces he might also have erased his own so that he could not be associated with the heretic.

Besides, I think there is no need to put Tut`s birth to very late in Akhi`s reign. The virtual invisibility of Akhi before he became king and the crown prince Tutmose`s absence from "family representations" sufficiently explains Tut`s almost-absence at Amarna, regardless of who`s son he was.
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 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 3 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