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 

Egyptologists Discover Tomb of Royal Children
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
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
karnsculpture wrote:
... we never seem to hear of King's brothers (is there even a title for this?) unless they died during the reign of their father.

One mention of the title "sn nsw" (for a real biological brother) is on the funerary chapel of Ramesses I built by Seti I at Abydos. This was made after Ramesses I himself was dead, and it is likely that it showed the brother as well as other male and female relatives who were also dead. See Chapter 4 in Peter J. Brand : The Monuments of Seti I - Epigraphic, Historical and Art Historical Analysis. - Leiden : Brill, 2000 (P.J. Brand on EEF-List in July 2004).


When I translated the texts of this chapel back in 2004, it was clear from the reference this rather than Ramses I's brother, this was Seti I's own brother who had predeceased him. The name, sadly, was lost.
_________________
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
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 981
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:06 am    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
If Tutankhaten was the son of Akhenaten, why did Smenkhkare become king.


Maybe because Tutankhaten wasn't Akhenaten's son, but Smenkhkare's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

there was a thread on this forum about king's brother's. from memory there are examples from the old kingdom, and the late period, but none known from the new kingdom.

i think i also read somewhere that the titles of the royal family only mattered while that king was alive. so when the new king acceded the tiles referred to him, and his wife and children became royal, the previous members stopped. so a king's son would only matter while his father was king. but the women still used the titles of 'king's mother', 'king's sister' and 'king's wife'.
_________________
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: 3538
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:56 am    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

Robson wrote:
SidneyF wrote:
If Tutankhaten was the son of Akhenaten, why did Smenkhkare become king.

Maybe because Tutankhaten wasn't Akhenaten's son, but Smenkhkare's.

Only strange that the name "Semenchkara" in KV 62 not, or if at all, only conscious deleted appears. The claim to the throne was as we know, and following the myth, if ever possible primarily through the father - son - relationship legitimized. The name of Amenhotep IV / Akhenaton is on several objects from KV 62...

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:17 am    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Only strange that the name "Semenchkara" in KV 62 not, or if at all, only conscious deleted appears. The claim to the throne was as we know, and following the myth, if ever possible primarily through the father - son - relationship legitimized. The name of Amenhotep IV / Akhenaton is on several objects from KV 62...


there are many pharoah's names and many other royal names recovered from the tomb. none of it can be used to prove who his parents were.
_________________
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: 3538
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:15 am    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Only strange that the name "Semenchkara" in KV 62 not, or if at all, only conscious deleted appears. The claim to the throne was as we know, and following the myth, if ever possible primarily through the father - son - relationship legitimized. The name of Amenhotep IV / Akhenaton is on several objects from KV 62...

there are many pharoah's names and many other royal names recovered from the tomb. none of it can be used to prove who his parents were.

Only that exact the name of the alleged biological father is the deleted one appears then something strange... As still said, not at least with regard to the legitimation.

Was not actually Akhenaten the "Bad" and Semenchkara the one who started sought a compromise with Amun?
_________________
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: Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:51 am    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Only strange that the name "Semenchkara" in KV 62 not, or if at all, only conscious deleted appears. The claim to the throne was as we know, and following the myth, if ever possible primarily through the father - son - relationship legitimized. The name of Amenhotep IV / Akhenaton is on several objects from KV 62...

there are many pharoah's names and many other royal names recovered from the tomb. none of it can be used to prove who his parents were.

Only that exact the name of the alleged biological father is the deleted one appears then something strange... As still said, not at least with regard to the legitimation.

Was not actually Akhenaten the "Bad" and Semenchkara the one who started sought a compromise with Amun?


Not as far as I know. The text which refers to the temple of Amun belongs to Neferneferuaten not Smenkhkare. I am not aware of any text linking Smenkhkare with Amun.

If, as I believe, Smekhkare fathered Tutankhuaten but pre-deceased Akhenaten then Akhenaten would have been the one who raised him. If, as at least one text suggests, Smenkhkare only co-reigned for less than a year then there would not be much inscribed material to find, either in KV62 or KV55. Certainly Smenkhkare would not have burial equipment prepared.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

[quote="Kemetian"]

Quote:
If, as I believe, Smekhkare fathered Tutankhuaten but pre-deceased Akhenaten then Akhenaten would have been the one who raised him. If, as at least one text suggests, Smenkhkare only co-reigned for less than a year then there would not be much inscribed material to find, either in KV62 or KV55. Certainly Smenkhkare would not have burial equipment prepared.


Just what was the funerary equipment of Smenkhkare? People say one of the coffins of Tutankhamun has a different face, but I think they all vary but still appear basically the same man. Unless I recall wrong, there is no erased inscription on that coffin to make one believe it had initially belonged to someone else. Some of the confusion is left over from the time when it was thought that Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten were one and the same person. But James Allen separated them once and for all some years ago. The canopic coffinettes belonged to Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten [effective for her husband] and not Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare Djeserkheperu. Moreover a calcite jar found in KV62 seems to have had Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare's cartouches next to those of Akhenaten---but both had been erased. No matter who ended up in it, the KV55 coffin was never made for Smenkhkare, either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

From Nicholas Reeves on page 169 of his "The Complete Tutankhamun"......."Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing from the tomb [KV62] inscribed with the nomen of Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare- djeserkheperu."

That can mean only a few things...

1. That Smenkhkare did not have a royal burial

2. That the burial of Smenkhkare has never been found

3. That the people responsible for the burial of Tutankhamun did not want anything bearing the name of Smenkhkare in KV62--which does not point in favor of that king having been Tut's father.


I, personally, think that Tutankhamun had a co-regent or regent in the beginning, Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten, a woman, who then relinquished her titles when the boy-king achieved manhood in oriental terms. She didn't require her kingly equipment any longer, so it reverted to Tut. Not only that, there are "heirlooms" belonging to the lady in his tomb, indicating they had a close relationship. Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten was not anathema, nor her kingship [whatever it entailed] in the eyes of those who buried Tutankhamun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 4:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

This is the unfinished coffin that I believe belonged with the canopic coffinettes found in KV62. It was used for the mummy of Ramesses II at a much later date when it was restored.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 4:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3538
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The replacement coffin for Ramses II from DB 320 (Cairo CG 61020 / JE 26214) I would also put at the end of the 18th Dynasty. But I do not think that we can connect him with the coffinets from KV 62. There is a lack of the vulture goddess on the forehead. One should expect this in case of an ensemble actually.

The coffin from KV 55 had only the uräus on the forehead...

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
The replacement coffin for Ramses II from DB 320 (Cairo CG 61020 / JE 26214) I would also put at the end of the 18th Dynasty. But I do not think that we can connect him with the coffinets from KV 62. There is a lack of the vulture goddess on the forehead. One should expect this in case of an ensemble actually.

The coffin from KV 55 had only the uräus on the forehead...

Greetings, Lutz.


I don't have any certain information, but those emblems on the browbands of the coffinettes may have been re-worked. Anyway, Nekhbet was likely taboo for any Amarna king. The coffinettes had once belonged to Neferneferuaten but nobody can be sure how tolerant she was religion-wise. But your point is well-taken and now I must see if I can find out anything else about the coffinettes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3538
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2014 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aiden Dodson : The Canopic Equipment of the Kings of Egypt. - [Studies in Egyptology]. - London / New York : Kegon Paul Int., 1994. - 215 p., 48 pl., on page 61:


79) [Lists several examples from the 19th Dynasty and later]
80) J.R. Harris : Akhenaten and Nefernefruaten in the Tomb of Tut'ankhamun. - In: After Tut'ankhamun - Research and Excavation in the Royal Necropolis at Thebes. - [Studies in Egyptology]. - London / New York : Kegon Paul Int., 1992. - pp. 55 - 72.

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
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: Fri May 02, 2014 12:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
From Nicholas Reeves on page 169 of his "The Complete Tutankhamun"......."Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing from the tomb [KV62] inscribed with the nomen of Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare- djeserkheperu."

That can mean only a few things...

1. That Smenkhkare did not have a royal burial

2. That the burial of Smenkhkare has never been found

3. That the people responsible for the burial of Tutankhamun did not want anything bearing the name of Smenkhkare in KV62--which does not point in favor of that king having been Tut's father.


I, personally, think that Tutankhamun had a co-regent or regent in the beginning, Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten, a woman, who then relinquished her titles when the boy-king achieved manhood in oriental terms. She didn't require her kingly equipment any longer, so it reverted to Tut. Not only that, there are "heirlooms" belonging to the lady in his tomb, indicating they had a close relationship. Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten was not anathema, nor her kingship [whatever it entailed] in the eyes of those who buried Tutankhamun.


From Memory KV62 contained a calcite jar, which you mentioned previously, believed to have originally been inscribed Smenkhkare and Akhenaten, also some small gold rosettes with Ankhkheperure and meritaten inscribed on them. I believe that the throne name Ankhkheperure without epithet belongs to smenkhkare.
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 2 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