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 

Nicholas Reeves : The Burial of Nefertiti? (2015)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 33, 34, 35  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 434

PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, it's mid-September, when will we start to get some news?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vangu Vegro
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 51

PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Nefertum"]
Tut as Akhenaten's son has always seemed problematic to me. If he was his son, why did he not succeed him ... or to put it more concisely, which did he not succeed him directly? Instead, we have this interregnum of possibly up to four years, with one or possibly two others on the throne, one of them a woman. That an older brother might have been given precedence in the succession doesn't seem at all unlikely. That a woman stepped into it, does ... if he was the king's son. If he was, there was no necessity nor any reason for her to be there. Why would she be given the throne when (or if) her husband had a living son?[quote]

One possible explanation is that, if towards the end of his reign Akhenaten had a coregency with a woman (as seems likely from some pieces of art), once the former died the latter was still considered a reigning pharaoh (and therefore her claim to the throne would be stronger than that of the supposed son of her late coregent).

But to me the fact that Tutankhamun didn't directly succeed Akhenaten (combined with the likely age of the KV55 body and the genetics of the royal mummies and the two KV62 fetuses in particular) suggests a slightly different scenario: Nefertiti became the coregent of Akhenaten in his final year, continued ruling as Neferneferuaten after her husband's death, and after her own death, the throne passed to a younger son of Amenhotep III who ruled briefly as Smenchkare before being succeeded by his son with his sister: Tutankhaten, who, as Akhenaten's nephew rather than his son, had no claim to the throne before his father took it.

As an aside, I think I stumbled upon another argument against Reeves' theory that Nefertiti was both Neferneferuaten and Smenchkare: Their regnal years. Now, there may not be a lot of evidence available of what happened to the regnal years of a pharaoh that changed his name, but we can be reasonably sure that Akhenaten himself didn't start a new set of regnal years once he changed his name (or else most of what we think we know about the Amarna period would have to be rewritten!), so it would stand to reason that if his successor changed his name, he wouldn't either.
We have mentions of a year 1 of Smenchkare, and up to a year 3 for Neferneferuaten. Assuming the count of years wouldn't reset with a name change, that means that if Smenchkare and Nerferneferuaten were the same person, (Nefertiti, as Reeves suggests) that she was Smenchkare before she was Neferneferuaten, but Reeves seems to think otherwise. Either way, something doesn't seem to add up in Reeves' version of events.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
arthur
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:02 pm    Post subject: Nefertiti's tomb Reply with quote

I am sure that Howard carter would have gone around the tomb, knocking on the walls, looking for other chambers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vangu Vegro wrote:
Nefertum wrote:

Tut as Akhenaten's son has always seemed problematic to me. If he was his son, why did he not succeed him ... or to put it more concisely, which did he not succeed him directly? Instead, we have this interregnum of possibly up to four years, with one or possibly two others on the throne, one of them a woman. That an older brother might have been given precedence in the succession doesn't seem at all unlikely. That a woman stepped into it, does ... if he was the king's son. If he was, there was no necessity nor any reason for her to be there. Why would she be given the throne when (or if) her husband had a living son?


One possible explanation is that, if towards the end of his reign Akhenaten had a coregency with a woman (as seems likely from some pieces of art), once the former died the latter was still considered a reigning pharaoh (and therefore her claim to the throne would be stronger than that of the supposed son of her late coregent).

But to me the fact that Tutankhamun didn't directly succeed Akhenaten (combined with the likely age of the KV55 body and the genetics of the royal mummies and the two KV62 fetuses in particular) suggests a slightly different scenario: Nefertiti became the coregent of Akhenaten in his final year, continued ruling as Neferneferuaten after her husband's death, and after her own death, the throne passed to a younger son of Amenhotep III who ruled briefly as Smenchkare before being succeeded by his son with his sister: Tutankhaten, who, as Akhenaten's nephew rather than his son, had no claim to the throne before his father took it.

As an aside, I think I stumbled upon another argument against Reeves' theory that Nefertiti was both Neferneferuaten and Smenchkare: Their regnal years. Now, there may not be a lot of evidence available of what happened to the regnal years of a pharaoh that changed his name, but we can be reasonably sure that Akhenaten himself didn't start a new set of regnal years once he changed his name (or else most of what we think we know about the Amarna period would have to be rewritten!), so it would stand to reason that if his successor changed his name, he wouldn't either.
We have mentions of a year 1 of Smenchkare, and up to a year 3 for Neferneferuaten. Assuming the count of years wouldn't reset with a name change, that means that if Smenchkare and Nerferneferuaten were the same person, (Nefertiti, as Reeves suggests) that she was Smenchkare before she was Neferneferuaten, but Reeves seems to think otherwise. Either way, something doesn't seem to add up in Reeves' version of events.


To me, these are all excellent arguments why "King Neferneferuaten" does NOT equal Smenkhkare. As noted, a mere name change, historically, does not mean a re-ordering/renumbering of regnal years (and more kings than Akhenaten changed their names, albeit most of the time it was variations in the throne name).

Personally, I think Vanu Vegro is listing something that many Egyptologists believe IS the case: that Tutankhamun is son of KV 55, a male who died in his early to mid 20's and a direct son of Amenhotep III, who ruled after "King Neferneferuaten." So, there is no direct lineage between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun, except as uncle to nephew.

The kinship between Tutankhamun and KV 55 has been shown twice, in 1969 and 2010 (see citations below). The mistake that has kept the myth alive that Tutankhamun is Akhenaten's son comes from the dogged belief by some - Reeves included - that KV 55 MUST for some reason equal Akhenaten.

The examinations over the years (1912,1931, 1966,and 2000) have shown why this cannot be the case, due to age at death of the remains, but for some reason, the believers simply don't want KV 55 to be anyone OTHER than Akhenaten.

We know that kings had other sons: we know that few princes of the 18th Dynasty were shown publicly in reliefs unless they held public offices or positions that made them known in other than direct circles (for example, Thutmose (V), as son of Amenhotep III, is shown within the realms of his office as High Priest of Ptah; for more examples, see Dodson's 1990 article, listed below). Public acknowledgement, portrayal, and naming of king's sons did not become commonplace until the 19th Dynasty.

So, in this case, the fact that KV 55 is a full son of Amenhotep III and Tiye could easily argue for an otherwise unknown son who later became Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare Djeser Kheperu. Being Amenhotep III's son does not automatically equate with Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten.

References:

Derry, D. E. 1931. Notes on the Skeleton hitherto believed to be that of King Akhenaten. ASAE 31: 115-9.

Dodson, A. 1990. Crown Prince Djhutmose and the Royal Sons of the Eighteenth Dynasty. JEA 76: 87-96.

Filer, J. 2000. The KV 55 body: the facts. Egyptian Archaeology 17/Autumn: 13-4.

Harrison, R. G. 1966. An Anatomical Examination of the Pharaonic Remains Purported to be Akhenaten. JEA 52: 95-119.

Harrison, R. G., et al. 1969. Kinship of Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun Demonstrated Serologically. Nature 224/October 25, 1969: 325-6.

Hawass, Z., et al. 2010. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family. Journal of the American medical Association 303/7: 638-47.

Smith, G. E. 2000 (1912). Catalogue Général de Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. No. 60151-61100. The Royal Mummies. Service des Antiquités de L'Égypte: Catalogue Général de Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire.London: Duckworth.

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
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4202
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
... (and more kings than Akhenaten changed their names, albeit most of the time it was variations in the throne name). ...

I know, except Akhenaten, only one king who has changed his "sa-ra" or "birth name". This is, to my knowledge, also the only one who has changed at the same time his "nj-sut-bjt" or "throne name" (and probably also the rest of the titulary) : Siptah at the end of the 19th Dynasty.

And I do not know one single king who has taken over the "nj-sut-bjt" or "throne name" of his predecessor. This would also be difficult, as this name the rulers clearly identified (Akhenaten also did not changed it, he was "Nefer-Cheperu-Ra Setepen-Ra" from his 1st to his 17th year).

"variations in the throne name" by addition or deletion of short epiteta probably had more or less every king. But this is in no way to be described as a change of the name.

Jürgen von Beckerath : Handbuch der Ägyptischen Königsnamen (2nd. rev. ed., 1999)

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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4202
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nefertum wrote:
... There could be simply the starts of some unfinished, abandoned chambers behind the walls. ... they could have simply slapped up some walls to cover up what was unfinished at that point in time. ...

Extremely unlikely, it would be the first and only tomb in the Valley of the Kings whith such procedures. There are several examples that show the contrary (see "Theban Mapping Project") and also the procedure in the royal tomb at Amarna speaks against such a method.

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


Joined: 28 Jan 2015
Posts: 102
Location: Barranquilla, Colombia

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
So, there is no direct lineage between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun, except as uncle to nephew


Isnt there a relief of restoration somewhere where Tut says his dad sucked as Pharaoh and he had to return to old ways? Smenkhare must have been worse than Akhenaten I guess.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 1009
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the Stela of Restoration Tutankhamun only states that he found the temples in ruins, but he doesn't blame anyone, father or not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4202
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:
OK, it's mid-September, when will we start to get some news?

"Egypt's Antiquities Minister Appreciates PM Decision to Renew Confidence in Him" (ArabToday - Saturday, 19 September 2015)
Quote:
"... Damati said he will continue working on antiquities projects according to the set timetable.

He added that Nicholas Reeves, the British archaeologist who believes he may have discovered the long-sought-for tomb of Nefertiti, will arrive in Cairo on September 27 to head to Luxor on Sept 28-29 accompanied by a number of officials and archaeologists to discuss his theory, adding that a press conference will be held in Cairo on October 1 to announce the visit’s outcome. ..."

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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4202
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Tutankhamun's tomb off the tourist track starting October" (Ahram Online - Nevine El-Aref , Sunday 20 Sep 2015)
Quote:
"The boy king's resting place will undergo restoration work

Visitors to the royal necropolis in the Valley of the Kings will be unable to admire the tomb of boy king Tutankhamun after 1 October as it will be closed for conservation.

Antiquities minister Mamdouh Eldamaty has said the project includes the restoration of the tomb's floor and the relocation of the king's mummy from its current position to side room which will provide a better environment for its preservation.

Eldamaty said the restoration work near Luxor will last between one and three months.

The tomb's walls will be cleaned and restored with paintings also consolidated and strengthened.

The tomb of Tutankhamun was discovered intact by British archaeologist Howard Carter in November 1922 during excavation works carried out in the Valley of the Kings on Luxor's west bank."

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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4202
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Official says Egypt approves radar for Nefertiti tomb quest" (Cairo Post - 22.09.2015)

"Search for Nefertiti inside Tutankhamun's tomb approved" (Ahram Online - Nevine El-Aref, 23.09.2015)
Quote:
"Radar examination is to be used to determine whether Nefertiti is buried inside the tomb of her son-in-law, King Tutankhamun

Egypt's Ministry of Antiquities has approved the use of non-invasive radar to test a theory suggesting that Queen Nefertiti’s burial chamber is hidden within King Tutankhamun’s tomb.

Mouchira Moussa, media consultant to the antiquities minister, said the radar is not going to cause any damage to the tomb’s walls and final security clearance will likely be obtained within a month. She added that British archaeologist Nicholas Reeves is to come to Luxor on Monday to inspect the northern wall of Tutankhamun’s tomb.

Reeves published a theory in August suggesting that the burial chamber of Queen Nefertiti could be located behind the northern wall of Tutankhamun’s tomb. Reeves believes that Tutankhamun may have been rushed into an outer chamber of what was originally Nefertiti's tomb.

This theory was developed after Reeves' examination of high detailed photographs taken by Spanish artistic and preservation specialists Factum Arte, which was commissioned to produce detailed scans of Tutankhamun’s tomb in order to reconstruct a replica."

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


Joined: 13 Oct 2010
Posts: 245
Location: Wisconsin, USA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent news! Can't wait.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4202
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Official Says Egypt Approves Radar for Nefertiti Tomb Quest" (abc news - Maram Mazen, 22.09.2015)
Quote:
"... The Japanese radar, which will be operated by an expert who will accompany the equipment from Japan for the inspection once the final approval is granted, will look beyond the walls that Reeves says may be leading into the suspected tomb and the other chamber, Moussa said.

Reeves, who has been in contact with the minister, arrives in Cairo Saturday, Moussa said, and he and el-Damaty will travel to Luxor to inspect the tomb.

"We're very excited... It may not be a tomb belonging to Nefertiti, but it could be a tomb belonging to one of the nobles," said Moussa. "If it is Nefertiti's, this would be very massive." ..."

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


Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 210
Location: Land of Make-Believe

PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking at the surface of the walls, the evidence of other rooms looks good.

I'm wondering if both Nefertiti AND Ahkenaton aren't located behind the north wall. He was relocated elsewhere. No evidence Neferetiti was ever buried in Ahketaton, so maybe they went back to her original tomb and relocated her husband there as well. Then when Tutankhaton was buried he gave the ultimate hiding place for those two.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
123paul
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 31 Oct 2013
Posts: 5
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow!

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/147582.aspx

Looking more interesting.
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, 5, 6 ... 33, 34, 35  Next
Page 5 of 35

 
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