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 

Tut's Chariot Theory
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Frater0082
Account Suspended


Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 175

PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
This "poor boy" died (either in an accident or maybe even in a battle) and was buried with one of the largest and most valuable treasures that we know. As far as we know (and can expect after the religious break Amarna), he was buried with all the honors and the degree of care as its predecessors. Where is the problem?

Lutz


His death I these theories don't seem to fit on the boys death the only reason why I speculated that he was done away with because of all the rushing and deaviousness done after his death.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3522
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frater0082 wrote:
His death I these theories don't seem to fit on the boys death the only reason why I speculated that he was done away with because of all the rushing and deaviousness done after his death.

I'm sorry, but I am (once again) see no sense or statement in your sentence. May indeed be me, but Google also does not really help further...

Lutz
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Frater0082
Account Suspended


Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 175

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

U can't understand me can u
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3522
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unlike you, I at least try then in following to make myself understood...
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1028
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frater0082 wrote:
Lutz wrote:
This "poor boy" died (either in an accident or maybe even in a battle) and was buried with one of the largest and most valuable treasures that we know. As far as we know (and can expect after the religious break Amarna), he was buried with all the honors and the degree of care as its predecessors. Where is the problem?

Lutz


His death I these theories don't seem to fit on the boys death the only reason why I speculated that he was done away with because of all the rushing and deaviousness done after his death.


I see no "deviousness" in the actions of Ankhsenamun trying to save her royal line, or even in Ay becoming king instead of Zannanza. Both were attempting to save the royal institution of kingship, and specifically preserve the Thutmosid line of kings (through Ankhsenamun).

Further, if Tutankhamun's death was away from Egypt, this could explain the improper embalming, such that Tutankhamun's burial may not have been "hasty," as has been previously implied. Time would have been needed to convert KV 62 from a noble's tomb (which is what it originally was) to a royal tomb (which ritually has to contain certain chambers and religious texts which noble tombs do not have), prepare/reconfigure funereal equipment for Tutankhamun's afterlife use, and of course, return the corpse of the king for proper embalming and burial.

If Tutankhamun's death was by battle (first suggested by Johnson in 1992 when he uncovered a set of Asiatic battle reliefs showing Tutankhamun leading a successful Asiatic battle campaign), improper embalming techniques - particularly the excessive use of resins and oils in order to preserve the body until return to Egypt (Dodson and Ikram (1998) have surmised that literally buckets of resins and oils were used) - are also understandable. Similar argument also would be feasible if Tutankhamun's death were a hunting accident - away from Egyptian towns or access to proper embalming techniques - such that the resins and oils would have been lavishly used in order to preserve the body until return to proper embalmers. Such a return of the body could have taken weeks, if not months, based upon which situation applies.

Murnane (1990) has suggested that Tutankhamun's burial may have occurred up to one year after his death, based upon certain features of the KV 62 tomb and of the body itself (such as plants in floral arrangements not matching the plant evidence on the body: there is a difference of at least 6-8 months between the plant flowerings between the sets of flora). This may indicate that a long time between the death of the king and his interment may have occurred, and that the mould within KV 62 the EEF study found does not indicate a "hasty" burial, but only that excessive moisture from the resins and oils had a detrimental effect not only on the body but within the newly renovated KV 62 tomb.

Finally, I do not see the actions of Ankhsenamun, or even Ay, as "devious," for if the queen's plan had worked, she would have resolved several political problems at once:

1) she would have ended war between Egypt and Hatti, which was occurring during her husband's reign;

2) she would have ended the power struggle for the Egyptian throne, which apparently involved several players, including Horemheb (which may have been the person to whom Ankhsenamun called a "servant of mine," as he was not of noble birth (Ay was a noble by birth and would have been considered a trusted confidant, as vizier, in her plan));

3) she would have, via political marriage, increased the scope of the Egyptian empire by combining it with the incipient Hittite empire;

4) if she had married Zannanza and eventually produced a son, Ankhsenamun would have saved the Thutmosid line of royalty, as determined via the female side of the line, which was recognised in Egyptian law of the time.

Further, had Tutankhamun been murdered, or if his death even hinted of murder, surely Ankhsenamun would have alluded to this in her first letter to Suppiluliumas in making her proposal for a political marriage: this would have reinforced the exigency of her situation, and most likely Suppiluliumas would have reacted quicker. But she does not say this: she says only that "my husband has died," and it is Suppiluliumas' distrust of her statement that causes him to send back a letter via Chani, questioning her motives (along with spies to verify the information). This resulted in Suppiluliumas in getting Ankhsenamun's second letter some time later, as well as his spies' report verifying her claims, causing significant delay in sending Zannanza to Egypt, who dies very likely from the bubonic plague which was sweeping through Egypt at the time (Panagiotakopulu 2004).

Today we see political manoeuvring and secrecy possibly as "devious" and even distasteful: however, the fact is, they exist. Without well-placed political marriages, the British Empire would not have lasted as long as it did. Secret negotiations are even today the mainstay of diplomacy, for if what Ankhsenamun did was "devious," you also would have to say the same of the Paris Peace Talks (meant to end the Vietnam War), or the secret negotiations which ended apartheid in South Africa, all of which began as "secret" actions and were only announced to the public when they were successful.

Similarly, Ankhsenamun had no obligation to make her plans known - particularly not to those who desired her family's throne - and her main obligation to the people of Egypt was to maintain a stable society with a valid ruler, as part of the royal house. Murnane (1990) noted that this may explain Ay's retention of the /it nTr/ title: Murnane proposed that it perhaps was the intent of the "Egyptian Queen" plan to have Ay act as a Deputy Regent* in order to guide the acculturation of Zannanza to Egyptian society and to teach the skills of governance to him. Then, once married to Ankhsenamun, Zannanza would have taken the reins of kingship and ruled both the Egyptian and Hittite empires. The benefit to Egypt would have been great (as described above), and the benefits to the Hittites equally impressive.

The failure of the "Egyptian Queen" plan meant that a "plan B" option had to be used: by associating her name (and possibly marrying) Ay, Ankhsenamun was able to at least keep her family line alive - at least for awhile. Whether she succumbed to the plague, was a victim of the power struggle between Ay and Horemheb, died of natural causes, or perhaps even abdicated, her fate after the Newberry Ring must remain unknown, at least until her own tomb is eventually found, which may tell more of this fascinating era of history.

But her aim to retain political power via the "Egyptian Queen" correspondence should be understood as occurring after the death of her king, and should not be proposed as evidence of dire intents toward the king.

* It should be noted there is good reason to think Murnane may be right about the abilities of a "Deputy Regent": Horemehb notes in his Coronation Decree that he possessed such a title, conveyed upon him by "the king," who, interestingly, remain unnamed.

Reference:

Ikram, S. and A. Dodson 1998. The Mummy in Ancient Egypt: Equipping the Dead for Eternity. London: Thames and Hudson.

Johnson, W. R. 1992. An Asiatic Battle Scene of Tutankhamun from Thebes: A Late Amarna Antecedent of the Ramesside Battle-Narrative Tradition. Ph.D. dissertation (Unpublished). Chicago: The University of Chicago.

Murnane, W. J. 1990. The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Sety I at Karnak. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations. SAOC 42. transl. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Panagiotakopulu, E. 2004. Pharaonic Egypt and the origins of plague. Journal of Biogeography 31/2: 269-275.

HTH.
_________________
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
Frater0082
Account Suspended


Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 175

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I meant Ay the way he did Tut by switching the tombs and switching thier tombs and so forth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frater0082
Account Suspended


Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 175

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I meant Ay the way he did Tut by switching the tombs and switching thier tombs and so forth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3522
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A foundation deposit that the original owner of KV / WV 23 uniquely identifies has never been found. That this tomb was originally intended for Tutankhamun (and he was possibly even initially interred therein) is a guess.

Because it offers in my view the most convincing explanation for the state of KV 62 in finding, they are plausible for me. Aja could have made the reburial to legitimize in addition his claim to the throne (if he has, as the not planned successor, not conducted the first funeral).

Lutz

Rosemarie Drenkhahn : Eine Umbettung Tutanchamuns ?. - In: MDAIK 39. - 1983. - pp. 29 - 37.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Frater0082
Account Suspended


Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 175

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never said anything about what Anhk did was devious in fact if it was her it was down rigt brave to do what she did I personally would have ruled on my own if I was her

I'm still debating whether Ankh even wrote the letter or a it came from that time sure its the popular belief that she did and it looks that way, but I see Mery(Meritaten) as a more likely candidate as well. The letter to me can go both ways either or but its really hard to tell

Two of her husbands are dead no on on her side to rule. True, Tutankaten was there but I think Mery knew what was going to happen once Tut was on the throne it was going to be bye bye to the Aten cult and I say again she wasnt going to allow this to happen so she reached elsewhere to the Hittites. She said never would she marry her own servant and I think Ay tried at both sisters but could only get one. Thus as a result of her treachery the desperate Queen was booted off the throne taking the aten cult wih her own this is just my opinion nothing but

I think at the age of 26 Ankh would have knew what could happen if she this.

People tend to over look Meritaten alot she is overshadowed by her sister's fame
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frater0082
Account Suspended


Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 175

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
A foundation deposit that the original owner of KV / WV 23 uniquely identifies has never been found. That this tomb was originally intended for Tutankhamun (and he was possibly even initially interred therein) is a guess.

Because it offers in my view the most convincing explanation for the state of KV 62 in finding, they are plausible for me. Aja could have made the reburial to legitimize in addition his claim to the throne (if he has, as the not planned successor, not conducted the first funeral).

Lutz

Rosemarie Drenkhahn : Eine Umbettung Tutanchamuns ?. - In: MDAIK 39. - 1983. - pp. 29 - 37.


That is why I said what I said pretty mean considering the positionI he held in my opinion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3522
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frater0082 wrote:
Lutz wrote:
A foundation deposit that the original owner of KV / WV 23 uniquely identifies has never been found. That this tomb was originally intended for Tutankhamun (and he was possibly even initially interred therein) is a guess.

Because it offers in my view the most convincing explanation for the state of KV 62 in finding, they are plausible for me. Aja could have made the reburial to legitimize in addition his claim to the throne (if he has, as the not planned successor, not conducted the first funeral).

Lutz

Rosemarie Drenkhahn : Eine Umbettung Tutanchamuns ?. - In: MDAIK 39. - 1983. - pp. 29 - 37.

That is why I said what I said pretty mean considering the positionI he held in my opinion

No, you did not. You suspect in Aja hunger for power that has made him Tutankhamun kill / be killed. I do not. If he had really wanted to, it would be easier for him to kill a child than a young man. He also would have had some more time to enjoy his own kingship (with a view of the average life expectancy in ancient Egypt).

I only see reasons for a possible reburial. If Aja wanted to help to secure the power of the family or to protect perhaps even the live of Anchsunamun (possibly a close related of him), he had no choice but to become king himself. His kingship needed, as with all the kings before him, certain formal legitimation. The funeral of the predecessor would be one of such.

Lutz
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Frater0082
Account Suspended


Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 175

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ooops well yeah that too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frater0082
Account Suspended


Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 175

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whatever to me it just sounded that way. Whether he was killed by malaria fell off a horse died in battle who can tell NOT ME and surely not U. Its all speculation Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1028
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frater0082 wrote:
Whatever to me it just sounded that way. Whether he was killed by malaria fell off a horse died in battle who can tell NOT ME and surely not U. Its all speculation Lutz.


It's more than speculation: it's established medical fact that Tutankhamun did not die of malaria, as he was immune to malaria due to antigens in his body. It's established that he was probably killed from a fall or being run over by a chariot: that too, according to the EES study, is established rather convincingly.

The problem you have is making any argument against these studies. It's apparent to me, as well as Lutz and others, that either you do not bother to read the material we cite to you which establishes certain facts, or you just wish to be ignorant and state any random thought you have and see if it will fly.

Most people like support for any contention that is made so they can read up on it and decide what is feasible: that is the nature of civilised discussion - especially on special-interest forums such as ED.

If you do not choose to discuss in such a manner, you will soon find yourself alone in your thoughts, for no one likes a person who randomly spouts off wild and unfounded claims with no proof.
_________________
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
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1028
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frater0082 wrote:
I'm still debating whether Ankh even wrote the letter or a it came from that time sure its the popular belief that she did and it looks that way, but I see Mery(Meritaten) as a more likely candidate as well. The letter to me can go both ways either or but its really hard to tell

Two of her husbands are dead no on on her side to rule. True, Tutankaten was there but I think Mery knew what was going to happen once Tut was on the throne it was going to be bye bye to the Aten cult and I say again she wasnt going to allow this to happen so she reached elsewhere to the Hittites. She said never would she marry her own servant and I think Ay tried at both sisters but could only get one. Thus as a result of her treachery the desperate Queen was booted off the throne taking the aten cult wih her own this is just my opinion nothing...


Let's agree it's your opinion and, as you have pointed out, "nothing."

The assertion of the letter coming from Ankhsenamun rather than Nefertiti OR Meritaten has to do with the throne name of the "lord" referred to as having died, making the unnamed queen a widow. He is called, in the letter, "Bib-hu-ru-ri-ia."

Frederick Giles (1997: 93; 2001) points out that Babylonian usually rendered Akhenaten's name as "Na-ap-Hu-ru-ri-ia", while it is the Mitanni which rendered the name as "Nap-Hu-ru-ri-ia." The name on the letter to Suppiluliumas is "Bib-hu-ru-ru-ri-ia", which has been equated to "Nib-hu-ru-ri-ia" in other texts, and is always identified in cuneiform as Tutankhamun's name. Goetze identifies "Bibhururiyas" as Tutankhamun (due to his throne name of /Nb xpr.w-ra/), due to a variant in a parallel text of KUB XXXIV, 24, 4 as "Nibhururiyas," ANET: 319. So, there is, linguistically, no doubt that the "Egyptian Queen" was the wife (/tA-Hmt-nsw/ = "Dahamanzu" in cuneiform) of the "Egyptian Queen" correspondence, and that wife was Ankhsenamun.

Your speculation that Meritaten wrote the "Egyptian Queen" correspondence is not new, but there are a number of problems with that theory. Marc Gabolde (1998) has suggested that the "Egyptian Queen" correspondence came from Meritaten, Akhenaten's eldest daughter, who is proposed by Gabolde to have ruled as a separate regent after the death of her father and presumably Smenkhkare. This would identify Meritaten as "King Neferneferuaten," a female regent who ruled directly after Akhenaten, and presumably before Smenkhkare (Allen 1994 and 2006/2009). This identification, however, weakens Gabolde's argument, IMO, since Tutankhamun would have been alive when Meritaten/Neferneferuaten took the throne, and she would not have any reason to say there was no royal who could have taken the throne.

Further, to weaken your argument further, you seem to be unaware that the reversion from Atenism began under "King Neferneferuaten," who started building halls to Amun (a proscribed deity under Atenism) at Karnak during his reign (Aldred 1988; Redford 1984). So, the rationale that Meritaten/Neferneferuaten wished to deny Tutankhamun the throne because of his own reversion from Atenism does not make any sense.

Allen (2006/2009) favours "King Neferneferuaten" as Akhenaten's 4th daughter, who was in fact named 'Neferneferuaten', which has more support in fact than the idea that Meritaten was the regent. However, the same arguments, that Tutankhamun was alive and available to rule, as part of the royal family, would apply to any speculation that she was the "Egyptian Queen" of the correspondence.

You seem bound and determined to paint Ay in as bad a light as possible: I blame your watching too many "documentaries" on this, for there is no implication in any of the Egyptian records that Ay connived his way into the throne. As Lutz has noted, if Ay were the conniving schemer for the throne, why wait until Tutankhamun was an adult (having ruled for a minimum of 8, perhaps 10 years since his coronation) when disposing of a 8-9 year old child could be done with a minimum of fuss? Ankhsenamun would have been about 13-14, and easier to persuade to marry, produce children - perhaps sons to carry on his own family line - rather than waiting 8-10 years, when both had matured and had minds of their own.

So, rather than wildly speculate based on inaccurate "docu-fictions", try reading the serious scholarship which have been produced in order to sort out the period. It is by no means complete, but as each successive year goes by, Egyptologists and other scholars have been able to add more information to this era - far more than we knew even 10 years ago.

Reference:

ANET = Pritchard, J. B., Ed. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Goetze is one of the editors and translators in this volume).

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: 9-20. Leiden: Brill. (2006 version online)

Gabolde, M. 1998. D'Akhenaton ā Tutânkhamon. Collection de l'Institut d'Archaeologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquite 3. Lyon/Paris: Universite Lumiere-Lyon 2, Institut d'Archaeologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquite/Diffusion de Boccard.

Giles, F. J. 2001. The Amarna Age: Egypt. Australian Centre for Egyptology: Studies 6. Warminster: Aris and Philips Ltd.

Giles, F. J., J. B. Hennessey, et al. 1997. The Amarna Age: Western Asia. Australian Centre for Egyptology: Studies 5. Warminster: Aris and Philips Ltd.

Murnane, W. J. 1990. The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Sety I at Karnak. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations. SAOC 42. transl. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

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
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  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
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