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 

Two Female Pharaoh`s Before Tutankhamun?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Thieuke
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 113

PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2019 9:02 pm    Post subject: succession rules Reply with quote

Yes Achnaten changed a lot when it came to religion but the succession rules were clear. The Pharaoh was generally a man (a few exceptions of female rulers underline the fact that the throne was inherited by men).
A son from the ruling Pharaoh born from a match with a sister-wife had double royal blood. Yes she was not the Great Royal Wife but she wasn't a play thing from the Harem either.
Pharaohs were succeeded by their son, if possible the oldest surviving son of the Great Royal Wife, if not was available by one of the lesser wives or harem ladies.
We know Nefertiti did not have a son, Kiya also only had a given the pharaoh a daughter. We do not know of any other sons Achnaten may have fathered.

So for that son of a high standing wife not to succeed there must have been a very good reason. Age never had been an issue. It provided either the Great Royal Wife or some faction in the court to rule for as long as the young monarch wasn't able to do so himself.

That means that neither birth, nor age could have disqualified Tut from succeeding his supposed father (im still not certain it was Achnaten), one thing that might have made people hesitate could have been an obvious physical disability. That is the only argument i can think of that stood a chance for Achnaten not to be succeeded by what the archeologist considers to be his son but by no less than two of his halfsisters/sisters-in-law.

Women did not succeed to the throne they married at best the heir or were the power behind the throne. Hatshepsut's reign had been long forgotten by the time Achnaten's reign drew to a close. People from Western societies are too used to female queens. In Egypt having a female monarch is just as odd as a woman becoming Pope today or becoming the monarch of Saudi Arabia. It requires a very peculiar set of exceptional circumstances for people even to think about it, let alone for it to happen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


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

PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2019 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

" Was King Tut a fraud? New evidence points to a female pharaoh who ruled before him " (Harald Sun - Jamie Seidel, News Corp Australia Network, 12.05.2019)
_________________
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: Fri May 17, 2019 1:54 pm    Post subject: Re: succession rules Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
... but the succession rules were clear. ...

Was that so? Or do we just believe that? Personally, I do not know any ancient Egyptian source that reports about "rules" for it.

Thieuke wrote:
... The Pharaoh was generally a man (a few exceptions of female rulers underline the fact that the throne was inherited by men). ...

Manetho reports, that under King Binothris (Ni-netjer, 2nd Dynasty, 3rd Ruler) "it was decided that women could hold the royal office" ...
_________________
Ägyptologie Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Thieuke
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 4:11 pm    Post subject: female pharaoh Reply with quote

Lutz im apparantly not making the point clear that im trying to make.
What i try to bring across is that IF Achnaten was succeeded by two of his daughters and not his son i don't believe the argument given as that Neferneferuaten the younger was too young to be married and produce heirs. She was older than Tut so in the painted scenario it would have been smarter for Achnaten to marry Meritaten and Anchesenpaaton himself giving him double options off producing more offspring while marrying his two youngest remaining children to each other. By the time Tut was old enough to father children Neferneferuaten would have been old enough to conceive.

So why would the pairing have gone otherwise?

That's when the stories about club feet and physical deformaties came in. If both Tut and Anchesenpaaton were to a certain level disabled that might have been the reason pushing Achnaten in another direction and preparing his two healthy daughters (Meritaten and Neferneferuaten Tashjerit) for the throne.

I do stand by my point that women only ascended the throne under very unique circumstances. Amenhotep III himself was a child and not from a Great Royal wife or Royal sister-wife when he succeeded his father. That example was know as were others. So for Achnaten or those left after his death to not go for the son but for one or two daughters must have meant there was compelling reason. My suggestion is that that reason may have had something to do with the young man's health.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 464

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:44 pm    Post subject: Re: succession rules Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
Yes Achnaten changed a lot when it came to religion but the succession rules were clear. The Pharaoh was generally a man (a few exceptions of female rulers underline the fact that the throne was inherited by men).
A son from the ruling Pharaoh born from a match with a sister-wife had double royal blood. Yes she was not the Great Royal Wife but she wasn't a play thing from the Harem either.
...

I think that I have a reference that supports much of your position.
There were rules for succession.
They are found in a constructed reference (if not written hieroglyphically).

Take a look at:
KV35(J-c) succession (pdf)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 464

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My error:
I linked to the wrong pdf in my preceding post.
I used a public access machine, was given ten minutes and rushed the reply.
Despite having checked the correct link before copying, I got it wrong.
I should have check it after I copied.
I will try to post the correct link tomorrow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 464

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: succession rules Reply with quote

Correction:
Thieuke wrote:
Yes Achnaten changed a lot when it came to religion but the succession rules were clear. The Pharaoh was generally a man (a few exceptions of female rulers underline the fact that the throne was inherited by men).
A son from the ruling Pharaoh born from a match with a sister-wife had double royal blood. Yes she was not the Great Royal Wife but she wasn't a play thing from the Harem either.
...

I think that I have a reference that supports much of your position.
There were rules for succession.
They are found in a constructed reference (if not written hieroglyphically).

Take a look at (corrected link):
KV35 (J-c) Constructed Reference with Diagram (pdf)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 464

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:07 pm    Post subject: Re: succession rules Reply with quote

The pdf that I mistakenly labeled and referenced earlier as KV35(J-c) succession (pdf)
shows with a diagram on page 15 of 24 how the constructed reference from KV35(J-c)
was actually employed using three tazze in the tomb of Tutankhamun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SaintGermain
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 19 Jul 2021
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2021 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robson wrote:
Based on Manetho's two Acencheres?


Manetho only have one "Achencheres" as being a female.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SaintGermain
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 19 Jul 2021
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I sometimes wonder how long Tutankhamun actually reigned as opposed to how long he is supposed to have done. Let's say for argument's sake, he was born in Year 13 of his father, Akhenaten. That would make Tut four years old in Year 17. But, if he died at a minimum age of eighteen and reigned until his Year 10 [one wine jar docket in KV62 with that date] or part of Year 10, he had to start his reign at age eight.

Obviously, that requires four years worth of interim rulers [or just one] between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun. There is a supposed Year 1 on the Restoration Stela which is, itself. a restoration from a lacuna. Since this monument was usurped by Horemheb, it's ambiguous. There is the golden throne found in KV62, but that had the original name of Tutankhaten.

The thing is, there is nothing that places the boy-king and his prenomen cartouche beside that of Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten, the female ruler. In other words, nothing indicating a coregency. Year 3 is the only date associated with her reign--but Tut must have succeeded her. Of all the wine jar dockets found in his tomb, none go back beyond his Year 4, by which time he was known as Tutankhamun. Of course, a name change can happen quickly and he might have still been Tutankhaten before the ripening of the wine, when the docket was created. Anyway, the throne indicates he was still Tutankhaten when "crowned with the Atef", which he seems to be wearing on the chair. I am trying to recall if there is any date for this pharaoh earlier than Year 4--but nothing comes to mind.

If nothing exists then there must be a suspicion. If one can have wine as old as Year 4 in the tomb of a man who died in his Year 10, why not some from Year 3? [There was even a jar with a much older date from a year in the reign of Amunhotep III] Unless there was no actual Year 3. Sometimes kings of Egypt appropriated each other's years. I suspect female rulers routinely adopted the time of the males they succeeded--although female rulers were scarce. Did Neferneferuaten really reign for three years previous to Tut or did she start with some other year, as well? Maybe that of Smenkhkare? What I'm saying is--did Tutankhamun start with Year 4 by some reasoning? That doesn't mean he wasn't still eight years old at the time==but he might have been somewhat younger when he died, not having reigned for the actual 10 years. I doubt if forensic pathology can tell an 18-year-old from a 15-year-old. If Tut simply kept counting where Neferneferuaten left off.

On the other hand, if Neferneferuaten, didn't consider herself a place-holder for Tut, why do her intended canopic coffinettes have his childish face--only to end up being used for him, anyway?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SaintGermain
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 19 Jul 2021
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wrote:

Quote:
Did Neferneferuaten really reign for three years previous to Tut or did she start with some other year, as well? Maybe that of Smenkhkare? What I'm saying is--did Tutankhamun start with Year 4 by some reasoning? That doesn't mean he wasn't still eight years old at the time==but he might have been somewhat younger when he died, not having reigned for the actual 10 years. I doubt if forensic pathology can tell an 18-year-old from a 15-year-old. If Tut simply kept counting where Neferneferuaten left off.


I forgot about this docket: "Year 1, wine from the house of Smenkhkare, justified]. As Smenkhkare seems to have been a coregent with or succeeded Akhenatem, one of those above must have had a Year1 for sure--if not both.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 460

PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SaintGermain wrote:
I doubt if forensic pathology can tell an 18-year-old from a 15-year-old

I remember reading a "minority report" that he could have been 16 at death, though I don't remember where I read this. What comes to mind is, as Dodson has pointed out, a tendency to under estimate the age of older people and over estimate the age of the younger, based on large discrepancies in aging remains from a church in London when their actual ages were recorded on their coffins.

And on finding evidence of the early part of his reign, there has always been a presumption that he reigned as Tutankhaten at Amarna for about two years, then changed his name and moved back to Thebes. But, there is no evidence for a king Tutankhaten at Amarna, only Tutankhamun. Hawass has stated that the name Tutankhamun has been found at the not so golden, not so new "Golden City". It would be interesting to know if the name is definately Tutankhamun, as we know Hawass will use that name on public pronouncements, or Tutankhaten, or even a mix, and dating evidence. But I think we will have to wait for the official reports.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 451

PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tutankhaten, Neferneferuaten with epithets pointing to a female and AnkhensenAMUN are all attested at Malkata palace from jar labels and ring bezels. I find it interesting that the queen has had the name change but not the king.
We simply don't know the timeline. I don't think we can exclude the possibility that once crowned Tutankhaten backdated the start of his reign to the death of Akhenaten - or he might not have. Or there was a coregency we don't have evidence of yet.
Fact - if KV55 is Akhenaten then Tutankhaten had to be born at the latest 8/9 months after the king's death. At the earliest he would have to be born around year 10 of Akhenaten. This seems unlikely to me - there must have been a reason for Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten to be crowned. Either at that time Tutankhaten was not born or he was ignored / set aside for some reason until the adults were dead.
Very likely if a male individual Smenkhkare was an older son of Akhenaten, so took precedence over Tutankhaten. If Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten are the same person (Nefertiti most likely) then Tut was as I said, set aside, or a very young child. This would put Neferneferuaten in a similar position to Hatchepsut. Tut's age is a problem, but I do think he was 17/18 when he died and reigned 10 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SaintGermain
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 19 Jul 2021
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Karnsculpture wrote:

Quote:
Fact - if KV55 is Akhenaten then Tutankhaten had to be born at the latest 8/9 months after the king's death. At the earliest he would have to be born around year 10 of Akhenaten. This seems unlikely to me - there must have been a reason for Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten to be crowned.


You're right--but as I can't believe that the baby in the royal tomb is Meketaten redux, somebody had to be born around the time of her death. There is a wine jar docket that reads "Year 13 from the house of Meketaten". As I find it difficult to credit each princess having her own house, what does this mean? Household? Temple? I must go back and find the exact language of this docket but, insofar as I know, that's the last mention of the girl. She is depicted as living at the Year 12 durbar.

As I mentioned somewhere earlier, there is always a reason for a coregent to be created. This time I think it happened in order to divert the natural order of succession, which is the son of the Great Royal Wife takes precedence over any other sons by lesser wives. The underlying problem was that there were too many years between Meritaten, the eldest princess, and Tutankhaten. Meritaten was old enough to be Tut's mother and some claim she was to this day, despite what the DNA dictates.

I think the same thing had been true of Akhenaten and Sitamun, his eldest sister. Amunhotep III had solved this problem by marrying Sitamun, himself, so that she could still be a queen, and someone nearer to his own age was given to the future Akhenaten. But Akhenaten had been older than Tut when he was made king, already a man by oriental standards. One can easily see why Akhenaten considered that a small boy was not an ideal successor in the best of times and likely times were not that good by the end of his reign. So he decided to make sure Tut did not succeed by declaring a coregent and heir apparent. But plans can go awry.

With Akhenaten and Smenkhkare both dead, a woman then took over. If only we could be absolutely certain who this woman was. If it was Nefertiti, then she should have been a regent. In fact, who but Nefertiti is shown in the art as someone who can have been around 30 years old? That striding statue where she wears the later version of the blue crown doesn't have such a young face. And how do we know Meritaten, the widow of Smenkhkare, was even still alive? It's like she disappeared. But, really, how does a female ruler who existed for at least three years have nothing to attest to her reign outside of Akhetaten [ruined] except a graffito in a Theban tomb?

Yet Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten was a real pharaoh and our definition of a regent is someone who is not a king but just handles the affairs of the real king. That's what Hatshepsut did, according to Ineni, when Thutmose III was still a boy. But then she changed her mind. In ancient Egypt, a woman was not supposed to become the pharaoh unless there were no more princes of her dynasty. So why was Neferneferuaten a king? It might have been because she had once been a coregent with Akhenaten and continued with that status--but then who had the Year 1 after the death of Smenkhkare? It would not have been the Year 1 of someone who had been a temporary ruler at a previous time and who still used the same prenomen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SaintGermain
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 19 Jul 2021
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, checked the wine situation. BTW there is a dissertation online, "The Wine Jars Speak", which can be found here:

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:528049/FULLTEXT01.pdf

At the end, there is a catalogue of the dockets found at el Amarna at the time [perhaps others have been discovered since as the work there is ongoing] Looking again at the docket that mentions "Year 1" and the "pr S-mnx kA ra", I noticed that the "mAa xrw" [justified] part was in parenthesis. So is it really there or assumed? Strange. As the the one I mentioned regarding Meketaten, it reads "[...] 13 irp n [pr] sAt nsw Mkt-itn"--so the origin is no more than a lacuna. But, as "pr" is the usual word used on those dockets, that's probably what it was.

As for the nomen Smenkhkare being used instead of his prenomen--that is usual. It's also "pr Akhenaten" over and over. The ones whose prenomina are used are dead kings. For example, there is "[...] tA Hwt aAxprkAra" [Thutmose I] which probably indicates a mortuary temple. Dockets mentioning Nebmaare [Amenhotep III] have both "pr" and "Hwt", this last probably being the most frequently employed term for the mortuary temples. But the dockets for Amenhotep III don't have remaining dates, so hard to know if the king was still alive on the one[s] with "pr". So was Smenkhkare really dead on that Year 1 docket and, if so, why isn't he called Ankhkheperure? In that Year 3 text of Neferneferuaten a "Hwt anxxprwra" is mentioned. Maybe the word "Hwt" is always paired with a king's prenomen.

[/url]
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  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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