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 

Kv21a
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VBadJuJu wrote:
The notion of a hurried job comes from CoA III: "A good deal of levelling had evidently been necessary, for many of the walls are built on debris. This levelling had been very badly done, and clearly the whole affair was a "rush-job" for a special occasion. ..."

The name on the bricks includes no epithets, so the assumption is Smenkhkare. If the estimate of Year 15 for the hall is accurate, and the Year 16 graffito is what it seems to be, then it can only be Smenkhkare.


In "Amarna Sunset", page 31-32, Dodson wrote: "Built at least in part with bricks stamped with what seems to be the building's name 'Ankhkheperure (in) the House of Rejoicing of the Aten', this has been dubbed the 'Coronation Hall' but in fact no indication of its purpose survives."

Year 16 graffito. What does it say?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would like to know about the graffito, but why does it have to be Smenkhkare? Nefertiti, apparently, was still alive in Year 16. So now there's no telling when she died and she could have finished that hall as Ankheperure. As Dodson said, it's anybody's guess as to what the purpose of that hall was.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nefer-Ankhe
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is the evidence exactly suggesting Nefertiti survived until at least year 16? Call me blonde, but I've seemed to have missed it, in the midst of all the discussion in the thread about it. Embarassed Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 979
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
What is the evidence exactly suggesting Nefertiti survived until at least year 16? Call me blonde, but I've seemed to have missed it, in the midst of all the discussion in the thread about it. Embarassed Idea


Here: http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=6453&highlight=year
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
What is the evidence exactly suggesting Nefertiti survived until at least year 16? Call me blonde, but I've seemed to have missed it, in the midst of all the discussion in the thread about it.
Quote:
Year 16 graffito. What does it say?

Provided there is nothing like a "true of voice" set of glyphs to be found, naming her as GRW in Year 16 means she is still alive and still queen.

As such, she is not using the name Ankhkheperure yet. If you favor Meritaten as Neferneferuaten, she wont be using the name yet either. Along with the default reading of Akhkheperure (no epithet=Smenkhkare), if the estimate of Year 15 for the hall is accurate, then it can only be Smenkhkare, whatever its purpose.

If you want to slip the Hall date a year or so and assume that she became coregent right after the graffito, it's entirely possible it had something to do with her. The lack of epithet could then may be because it is the debut of the name and she hadnt adopted them yet (there is enough room on the bricks for epithets if she wanted them).

That cherry picks and massages the evidence a little though and if Smenkhkare preceded her (Dodson dates Meryre to year 12/13), it still means the name is likely his. I personally dont see the grieving widow finishing or using a Hall of Rejoicing.
_________________
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
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 237

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It really does seem to me like Smenkhkare came to the throne as the successor of Akhenaten, died after a very short reign and then either Nefertiti or Meritaten became Queen Regnant for a few years because Smenkhkare's son Tutankhaten was a minor. This is with the assumption that KV55 is Smenkhkare of course - if KV55 were Akhenaten then why would Smenhkare usurp Tut's position?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VBadJuJu wrote:
Provided there is nothing like a "true of voice" set of glyphs to be found, naming her as GRW in Year 16 means she is still alive and still queen.

As such, she is not using the name Ankhkheperure yet.


Not to be repetitious, but a lot can happen in a year.

Quote:
If you favor Meritaten as Neferneferuaten, she wont be using the name yet either. Along with the default reading of Akhkheperure (no epithet=Smenkhkare), if the estimate of Year 15 for the hall is accurate, then it can only be Smenkhkare, whatever its purpose.


Except you don't know when Smenkhkare became king, either. Dodson assumes that, because he and Meritaten appear right around the corner from the Year 12 durbar scene, that means the creation of the co-regent, Smenkhkare, was the next big thing on the agenda. But Dodson still doesn't think it happened until Year 13 or 14. Evidently Dodson still wants to believe that Smenkhkare was the first successor to Akhenaten, despite some evidence that this was a female. Dodson already took a little beating on those canopic coffinettes, which he was sure had belonged to Smenkhkare. But no. I, myself, would not want to argue strenuously one way or another.

Quote:
If you want to slip the Hall date a year or so and assume that she became coregent right after the graffito, it's entirely possible it had something to do with her. The lack of epithet could then may be because it is the debut of the name and she hadnt adopted them yet (there is enough room on the bricks for epithets if she wanted them).


I don't know why this hall was begun but Akhenaten was probably the instigator there. Dodson qualified that not all the bricks said "Ankhkheperure", perhaps just some.

Quote:
That cherry picks and massages the evidence a little though and if Smenkhkare preceded her (Dodson dates Meryre to year 12/13), it still means the name is likely his. I personally dont see the grieving widow finishing or using a Hall of Rejoicing.


I wouldn't be so quick to assume a grieving widow. Anyway, the epithet of the female Ankhkheperure was one of efficiency, being "effective for her husband". And that, I suppose, could pertain to whether he was dead or alive. I think I said here before, though, that I don't believe in an early male coregent on account of the young age of Akhenaten. A man may have been ailing, but there was no one in ancient Egypt who would be capable of telling him he only had a year to live--anything like that. It was difficult enough to diagnose an illness in those days much less predict its course. Akhenaten knew that as well as anyone and, if he was ill, probably hoped to improve. And also have more children. People don't give up on themselves so easily and how can one really trust a male co-regent who isn't even ones son? Two young kings on the throne at the same time? I have a hard time buying it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1227
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
how can one really trust a male co-regent who isn't even ones son? Two young kings on the throne at the same time? I have a hard time buying it.


akhenaten wouldn't be young anymore, especially by egyptian standards. and it's not a complete stranger on the throne: either his wife or his brother.

that's if you go with neferneferuaten being nefertiti. and i don't think they have any evidence to suggest which ruled first. egyptologists seem to think smenkhkare first, which if you think about it, makes sense, as women only ever came to the throne as a last option........either the end of their line, or as regent. once a regent gets power hungry......well we know how hatshepsut turned out.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
Not to be repetitious, but a lot can happen in a year.

Except time travel. The hall is started and/or built before the inscription. The date of the hall comes from the debris used to level the foundation. The graffito is dated to somewhat later.

Quote:
Evidently Dodson still wants to believe that Smenkhkare was the first successor to Akhenaten...
You haven't read the book.

Quote:
Dodson qualified that not all the bricks said "Ankhkheperure", perhaps just some.
All the extant bricks (not many) are so stamped. He is just allowing that since we don't have ALL the bricks, many could be blank. Is there something probative whether there were 1 or 100,000 such bricks?

[snip portion that inevitable leads back to KV55 and the like]
_________________
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: Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:
This is with the assumption that KV55 is Smenkhkare of course - if KV55 were Akhenaten then why would Smenhkare usurp Tut's position?
Likewise Neferneferuaten reigning ahead of Tut if he is either Smenkhkare or Akhenaten.
_________________
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
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="VBadJuJu"]
SidneyF wrote:
Not to be repetitious, but a lot can happen in a year.


Quote:
Except time travel. The hall is started and/or built before the inscription. The date of the hall comes from the debris used to level the foundation. The graffito is dated to somewhat later.


What you're saying, of course, is that you don't know when the hall was started.

Quote:
Evidently Dodson still wants to believe that Smenkhkare was the first successor to Akhenaten...


Quote:
You haven't read the book.


What book? "Amarna Sunset"? Page 38. "Thus the most credible reconstruction would seem to be that Queen Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti and King Neferneferuaten were one and the same, and followed Smenkhkare as Akhenaten's coregent."

Do you think Dodson was joking?


Quote:
[snip portion that inevitable leads back to KV55 and the like]


That may be your opinion, but I didn't have KV55 in mind at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
What you're saying, of course, is that you don't know when the hall was started.
Year 15 is the only date I've ever seen attributed to it. Debris bearing dates (cant recall if that is from the 1930's or 1951 excavations or from Kemp's work) and the rushed job lead to that date and is cited by gobs of Egyptologists. Most of the fill is stranger, leading to the conclusion it was meant to be temporary and thus could be slapped together really, really quickly.

Dodson places Meryre to 'early year 13 at the latest' (he's far from alone in picking that approx date). Therefore Smenkhkare is Ankhkeperure before the hall was built, whatever it was for, and before there were a Neferneferuaten.

Not at all sure why this bugs you.

How does this:
Quote:
"Thus the most credible reconstruction would seem to be that Queen Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti and King Neferneferuaten were one and the same, and followed Smenkhkare as Akhenaten's coregent."
lead you to conclude this:
Quote:
Evidently Dodson still wants to believe that Smenkhkare was the first successor to Akhenaten...
hint: successor does not mean coregent

Quote:
That may be your opinion, but I didn't have KV55 in mind at all.
It goes there once someone challenges your "youthful Akhenaten" premise. It always does.
_________________
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
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VBadJuJu wrote:
SidneyF wrote:
What you're saying, of course, is that you don't know when the hall was started.
Year 15 is the only date I've ever seen attributed to it. Debris bearing dates (cant recall if that is from the 1930's or 1951 excavations or from Kemp's work) and the rushed job lead to that date and is cited by gobs of Egyptologists. Most of the fill is stranger, leading to the conclusion it was meant to be temporary and thus could be slapped together really, really quickly.

Dodson places Meryre to 'early year 13 at the latest' (he's far from alone in picking that approx date). Therefore Smenkhkare is Ankhkeperure before the hall was built, whatever it was for, and before there were a Neferneferuaten.

Not at all sure why this bugs you.


What bugs me about it is that gobs of Egyptologists believe that Smenkhkare, coregent or sole king, didn't last more than a year.


Quote:
That may be your opinion, but I didn't have KV55 in mind at all.


Quote:
It goes there once someone challenges your "youthful Akhenaten" premise. It always does.


Very well, since you seem to want to revisit the question, define "youthful".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've never quite seen why either Smenkhkara or Neferneferuaten had to be a co-regent.

Given that Akhenaten died without a son (if KV55 is Smenkhara) there was probably something of a succession crisis. Nefertiti may have set herself up as a rival to her young brother in law but his depiction with Merytaten at his side would indicate he eventually won the struggle. OR Smenkhkara could have been married to Merytaten immediately and set up as successor only to die after a year or two leaving a young son by an earlier wife who may have been either a rival for Neferneferuaten or a puppet. In which case the female Pharaoh may have been either Merytaten or Nefertiti, or just possibly the two of them joined forces to take power (which would explain the box with Neferneferuaten's cartouch and Merytaten's side by side with Akhenaten's). Whether as regents or rivals for Tut she or they doesn't seem to have lasted long either and Tut emerges about age nine as sole king with Aye and Horemhab behind him and Ankhesenpaaten as his Great Wife.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
I've never quite seen why either Smenkhkara or Neferneferuaten had to be a co-regent.


There is some evidence. Do you have "Amarna Sunset"? It seems to have all the relevant images, which is good. On page 41 there is the sela of Pay. It clearly shows two kings together, but one of them seems to be a female, has breasts. On page 44 there is a much damaged scene but with two kingly cartouches still visible. One set belongs to Akhenaten and the other to king Neferneferuaten. Usually, when there are two different kingly cartouches together, one of the parties is usually styled "nb irt xt" and that is the case here. It could be an indicator of "simultaneous". However, on page 30 there is the globular jar from Tut's tomb. According to the reconstruction of the erased inscription, the cartouches of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare were there together. Unusually, they both are styled just "nsw bity, s3 ra" above, but, below, Akhenaten has his unique epithet of "a3 m aHa=f". Does this pairing indicate a coregency or one man wanting to be associated with another, the association later receiving the disapprobation of another party? Hard to say, but there doesn't seem to be an actual scene depicting Akhenaten and a male coregent.[/b]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
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