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 

Picture of a bust of Akhenaten
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
maat
Priest
Priest


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 531

PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2021 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:


Not revoked, but definitely in the case of Hatchepsut superceeded.
...

I acknowledge all that you have noted in your response, agree with some, disagree with some, won't quote point by point but will try to summarize my broad position on this to give additional clarity to what I am trying to assert.

I think you are right in that the king's position obviously superseded that of the queen. I loosely used the term revoked simply to mean her queenship never ended.

Hatshepsut's position as queen was never terminated which is the point that I was trying to make.

I recognize that the superior rank of the kingship inherently must eclipse the position of the queen else the king's status (office) would be diminished.

Obviously, a queen that becomes king is elevated while a king would be diminished if referred to or returned to being only queen.

I think that such a demotion was prohibited because it would have damaged the office and honor of the kingship. A king could die but never be demoted.

Still, this consideration would not prevent one person (Hatshepsut for this example) from simultaneously having occupied both positions as king and queen.

It only prevents the incumbent king from ever being addressed as queen while she occupies the kingship.

I see no reason or conflict that prevents a female king from simultaneously having been officially queen even to herself.

The king and queen can be in one body (as I think the cossed-gender statues of Hatshepsut represent).

While a female king cannot father an heir to extend the line of kings, she could hold the throne for a rightful heir of her king to attain age or ability to reign in his own rights.

We can easily see this with Thutmose III and Hatshepsut.

Also with this consideration, I see no prohibition against a queen retaining her name and simultaneously assuming a different name to reign on the king's throne.

There is no reason that Smenkhkare and Meritaten cannot have been the same person.

Attestations by inscriptions of Smenkhkare as king and Meritaten as queen do not mean that Smenkhkare was a man, a real individual, or someone different than Meritaten.

Meritaten did not surrender, quit or lose her position as queen simply because she became king. One person can simultaneously have held the two positions.

King Smenkhkare and Queen Meritaten can simply both have been Meritaten who took on a different name for the kingship while her name remained unobscured in the queenship .

King Neferneferuaten (Nefertiti) and Queen Meritaten can simply be Nefertiti and Meritaten.

There is no inherent conflict that Smenkhkare and Meritaten are referenced together as king and queen.

Quote:
In the case of Nefertiti we do have Meritaten named as Great Royal Wife to both Akhenaten and Neferneferuaten as kings. Neferneferaten does not have queenly titles but her daughter has. As I said above though, she does have the "effective for my husband" and / or "beloved of Waenre" epithets. This clearly indicates the importance of her promotion - to king - and explaining its purpose. Likewise her daughter - as Nefe[r]ure did for Hatchepsut - has taken on the queenly titles and by extension those responsibilities.

I disagree because elevation of the queen to the kingship eclipsed but did not eliminate her role as queen.
But, if you consider that Neferneferuaten was Nefertiti as "effective for my husband", then Akhenaten's GRW Meritaten can be regarded to have been the GRW of Neferneferuaten (who was effectively Akhenaten as she acted in his behalf).

Quote:
I don't think it is surprising at all that Tutankhamun had material relating to earlier kings in his direct male line in his tomb. Smenkhkare is indeed tricky but that ruler is represented by one object in KV62 that has been previously discussed on this forum.

You note that, "As far back as Djoser it was common for kings to have heirloom objects...".

Those objects certainly will have to be revisited because the were significant references, not simply heirlooms.

karnsculpter wrote:
maat wrote:

"Smenkh-Ka-Ra" by this constructed reference is indicated to be a paired-reference and not an individual person. Other references reinforce and affirm this initial reference that was buried at the outer doorway of the tomb.

To keep this brief: Tutankhamun was ultimately in the care of Nefertiti as Thutmose III was in the care of Hatshepsut.


I disagree on the first point, there is no constructed reference, it is not needed as there are actual references to this from other sources.


Without a full explanation and exposition of the constructed reference, we could go back and forth on the "there is no constructed reference" but there are in fact several constructed references that involve that scarab.

I note it here only for it to be known that there is information that was included and is present to be looked for and known.

I don't have the patience at the moment to revisit the matter to write an exposition for others. It is complexly involved. So, we will simply disagree on this point.

I had noted that, "Meritaten, unlike Neferure, was pharaoh."

You noted that, "No, she was only a queen. This is clear as she is shown once with Smenkhkare, plus named on objects as queen to Akhenaten and Neferneferuaten."

I disagree and think that I explained my position on this.
The queen is always queen even if she is made a king.

You note that, "Meritaten was in the role of queen in both likely coregencies between Akhenaten and Smenkhkare and Akhenaten and Neferneferuaten."

I think I also covered this aspect.
Smenkhkare is a bit complex because although personified with a name, Smenkhkare was not an individual person although an individual person (Meritaten) might have represented the constructed (co-regency?). She was one face in it. Nefertiti was another face in it. And, I don't know how exactly Akhenaten and Tutankhaten fit into the structure but they were involved.
I don't know if authority for the two queens to reign can from the father alone, the offices of queenship, from the son's position as heir, or from some combination of the official positions.

Quote:
In both potential coregencies Akhenaten is named first, and as Neferneferuaten was "effective for my husband" she gained agency through him, not as sole ruler. So, Akhenaten probably did arrange both coregencies, unless it was a matter of respect for the elder ruler which is not impossible. It is easy to think that Akhenaten may have been incapacitated physically or mentally, but in truth he may have intended to establish another ruler to carry on his work while he was still alive.

All seem to be plausible considerations.
Akhenaten's role in relation to the transitional regnal structure before Tutankhamun is not absolutely clear to me.
He was certainly aware of Meritaten taking the throne after him. It is an unrecognized referenced in the "Home Stela".

You say that, "Evidently, Neferneferuaten later sided with the traditional camp (Pairi inscription mentioning donations to a temple of Amun)."

I think the Amarna period is greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted for similar reasons as evidence in the tomb of Tutankhamun is regarded to indicate robbery where no robbery ever happened. So, I disagree that a 'restoration' took place after Akhenaten.

The "Restoration Stela" of Tutankhamun is a magnificent reference that is seriously misunderstood and in need of study.

Such misunderstanding is due in great part to how the ancient Egyptians structured their references.
They thought conceptually where we generally expect direct information that is not to be found.
So while we today read their noted declarations, those declarations were actually containers of information.

I think it is also important to recognize that they structured references to communicate across centuries and possibly millennia where we today barely plan for fifty years. There is much that can happen in several hundred years. So, their preparations were very different than is generally encountered today.

I posted before that
Ancient Egypt is (a place?) that presents multiple truths that sometimes can appear to be in contradiction.

There are many valid reasons that it is so.

You noted:
Quote:
Not really in the case of Meritaten who is named as the daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti multiple times before she is queen; and as queen with one exception (tomb of Meryre) where she is just named as Smenkhkare's queen.


Jan Assmann in his "Solar Discourse" (1994), quoted Plotinus:
"Afterwards the content is released from the image and put into words and the reason is found out for its being thus and not otherwise." [107]

Ancient Egyptian references are structured to present ambiguity (multiple truths).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 492

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2021 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Smenkhkare and Meritaten can not be the same person as they are shown, living, together and named separately in the tomb of Meryre II.

This, to me, is the main reason why Meritaten did not rule as a king in her own right - she was a great royal wife clearly, to both Smenkhkare and also to her parents while they were co-rulers.

Now, what if she is the lady Merit that went on to marry the Treasurer Maya?

There have also been suggestions she was Tut's wetnurse Maya but I find that theory more ridiculous than her actually ruling.

Going back to the pair of statues, I think both show Akhenaten. I looked at the comparison with the bust of Nefertiti - there are too many differences as one has a large chin and the other has a sqare shaped jaw.

About constructed references, with respect I can't fully buy into them but they are interesting to debate. Sometimes the constructed references are backed-up by material from other sources that are more verifiable. Yes, sometimes the Ancient Egyptians were a bit oblique but usually they were at pains to stress links to others, particularly the ruling king.

With Djoser, he included wine jars and pots named for nearly every prior king in his pyramid complex corridoors. John Romer in "A History of Ancient Egypt: From the First Farmers to the Great Pyramid" (2012) details this - great book by the way - states that as the founder a dynasty, possibly not a direct relation to the prior king, Djoser was associating himself with the royal lineage. We don't fully understand the funerary practices of that time as it is before the pyramid texts or book of the dead, but in those the aim was for the king to join his ancestors in the afterlife, and to be recognised as one of them.

I find it interesting where individuals do not name their family - Tutankhamun himself being a good example. The only time he names his father it is on the lions from Soleb, and then he states his pa is Amenhotep III - a definite stretch - clearly his actual father was persona non-grata. He never names his mother, but yet had a heirloom (actual hair in this case) of Tiye. So he was selective in the references to his past.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Priest
Priest


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 531

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:

Smenkhkare and Meritaten can not be the same person as they are shown, living, together and named separately in the tomb of Meryre II.

I acknowledge and understand that you perceive a conflict in some apparent portrayal of Smenkhkare and Meritaten as two individuals "living, together and named separately".

But, I think that you are likely confusing or conflating the imagery to represent Real individuals (or real individuality) where the representation is of Conceptual individuals (or conceptual individuality).

I noted that many ancient Egyptian references are (structured?) conceptually and the most people mistakenly regard them as actually realistic representations.

I also noted that the traditional mode of thinking has to (shift?) more towards thinking conceptually like the ancient Egyptians in order to recognize and understand their designs and works.

The traditional mindset for example is perfectly willing to accept the representation in imagery of the ba and ka of one person when the ba and ka are shown as two individuals.

For example, the two life-size black statues in the antechamber of Tutankhamun’s tomb have both always been mistakenly thought to represent (a single individual) Tutankhamun.

Another example involves the two male figures that supposedly greet Osiris in the north wall mural in the burial chamber of Tutankhamun’s tomb. The two figures have also long been thought to represent Tutankhamun.

The applied thinking (interpretation) is certainly conceptual to recognize that the two figures in each instance are considered to represent one person (Tutankhamun).

Yet, there seems to be a mental obstacle when people are presented with a need for similar conceptual thinking and interpretation such as where Meritaten and Smenkhkare could be recognized as one individual who is presented in two official roles or aspects.

I am perplexed that two apparently different figures are accepted to represent Tutankhamun’s ba and ka while there is a challenge to recognize Meritaten (in two separate official roles) is also represented by two apparently different figures.

Still, I understand your position and see the obstacle as one that can be overcome with a shift of perception to consider the conceptual aspects of the (evidence?).

There are many conceptual obstacles in learning to understanding ancient Egypt.

Another example in the mural on north wall of the burial chamber of Tutankhamun involves the male figure that stands opposite from the goddess Nut.

Many people think he is holding a walking staff but look closely and you will see that it is (also?) a sewing needle.

Many people think the male figure is Tutankhamun but the male figure is as short as a sewing needle.

The image is conceptual and informative.

The king is not small and the king does not sew.
He has shabti if work such as sewing needs to be done.

Reading the hieroglyphic inscriptions is certainly necessary and informative.
But, carefully reading constructed references as an additional layer of information is also necessary.

Failing to do so can lead to inaccurate or incomplete determinations.
Quote:
This, to me, is the main reason why Meritaten did not rule as a king in her own right - she was a great royal wife clearly, to both Smenkhkare and also to her parents while they were co-rulers.

Great Royal Wife was a title and official position within the institution of the kingdom that becoming king did not necessarily have to eliminate.

I don't see why she simultaneously could not be king and GRW to herself (in her kingship) and be depicted as two figures in imagery to represent the kingship and queenship.
Quote:
Now, what if she is the lady Merit that went on to marry the Treasurer Maya?

It would have been beneath her to marry a servant of the kingdom.

Consider the Amarna Letters for informative guidance in this consideration.
In a communication, the anonymous queen supposedly asks for a foreign prince to come be her king (of Egypt) because she has no sons and will not marry a servant.

To marry the Treasurer would have been beneath the queen’s position and brought shame on the former king and royal family. This is a reason that I doubt queens ever remarried. Anyone beneath their king was a servant.
Quote:
Going back to the pair of statues, I think both show Akhenaten. I looked at the comparison with the bust of Nefertiti - there are too many differences as one has a large chin and the other has a sq[u]are shaped jaw.

OK.
Quote:
About constructed references, with respect I can't fully buy into them but they are interesting to debate. Sometimes the constructed references are backed-up by material from other sources that are more verifiable. Yes, sometimes the Ancient Egyptians were a bit oblique but usually they were at pains to stress links to others, particularly the ruling king.

That's understandable and I think nobody should buy into what does not make sense to them.
Quote:
With Djoser, he included wine jars and pots named for nearly every prior king in his pyramid complex [corridors]. John Romer in "A History of Ancient Egypt: From the First Farmers to the Great Pyramid" (2012) details this - great book by the way - states that as the founder a dynasty, possibly not a direct relation to the prior king, Djoser was associating himself with the royal lineage. We don't fully understand the funerary practices of that time as it is before the pyramid texts or book of the dead, but in those the aim was for the king to join his ancestors in the afterlife, and to be recognised as one of them.

I very briefly in study touched on Sneferu to check a hypothesis about how references are extended between past and later reigns and found that a lineage of references does exist. But, I have not gone as far back as Dzoser.

I think it is a misunderstanding that the kings were attempting to (promotional?) associate themselves with former kingships but more so that they were extending an informative trail from prior references to later references.

Dzoser looks interesting but the inter-dynastic references that I have been following seem to change technically and systematically from Dzoser's references to those of Sneferu.

It's as if someone revised an earlier system of references and while I recognize some similarities between two systems, I also recognize that the earlier system at Dzoser is somehow different.

I'm curious and think there might be some really interesting things to be found but don't have the time or inclination to start examining references in the Dzoser period because such exploration in my experience is like going down a rabbit hole.

There of course are also changes between Sneferu and Khufu but less severe in systematic and technical differences.

Further, there are systematic and technical changes in referencing from Khufu to Amarna but Amarna (Akhenaten) provided strong references back to Khufu to extend Khufu's reference system forward and apparently to link Akhenaten's back to Khufu.

Although some constructed references in the Amarna period had directed me back Khufu, I only recently learned in this forum that Akhenaten is recognized to somehow relate or refer to the early dynastic period. I still have to look farther into that.
Quote:
I find it interesting where individuals do not name their family - Tutankhamun himself being a good example. The only time he names his father it is on the lions from Soleb, and then he states his pa is Amenhotep III - a definite stretch - clearly his actual father was persona non-grata. He never names his mother, but yet had a heirloom (actual hair in this case) of Tiye. So he was selective in the references to his past.

I'm not familiar with the Soleb reference but a reference to Amenhotep III as you mention it makes sense to me in context with some references in Tutankhamun’s tomb.

I don't think or know that "he was selective in the references to his past".

I do think that here again your reference is to be understood within a conceptual frame (as a conceptual reference).

Amenhotep III was certainly not the father of Tutankhamun but the reference you note makes sense to me as Tutankhamun represents the Horus (of his grandfather and his father) as follows.

The Aten family is a representation of an instance of the ancient Egyptian Ennead expressed in (human form?) as a royal family manifested in time.

I think that I explained their relationship to the Ennead in the topic titled "Why Names of Akhenaten's Children ?".

As a representation of the Ennead, Amenhotep III is conceptually associated to be in the position of Nun (the primordial waters or void).

Akhenaten is conceptually associated to be in the position of Ra (the sungod, self-created, arisen out of Nun).

Nun was not created but is the origin of Ra.
Is Nun the father of Ra?
Yes. No. Maybe.

Nun is certainly the origin of Ra.

But, Ra is a creation while Nun is foundational to all.
Nun can be regarded as the primordial father.

Tutankhamun is conceptually associated to be in the position of Horus who is the renewal, return or rebirth of Ra.

The rebirth of Ra is also the return or re-exposure of Nun.
There is no rebirth of Ra without the presence of Nun.

Tutankhamun (as Horus) is the rebirth or renewal of Akhenaten (the conceptual Ra).

None else can be his father except Amenhotep III (the conceptual Nun).

If the inscription claims that Amenhotep III is his father then it is a truth (but not in the traditional sense of understanding because it is the truth about a conceptual reference).

It is one truth and not the only or exclusive truth.

The constructed reference that exposes the Aten-related family allows the potentially confusing inscription to be understood in a more informative context.

The Soleb inscription and the constructed reference of Aten names mutually validate and affirm the recognition of both references.

As affirmative references, they validate the understanding of the observer who recognizes the constructed references and their relationships.

By this constructed reference or references, the observation that Tutankhamun is the son of Akhenaten and grandson of Amenhotep III are also affirmed without being declared in inscriptions.

His family lineage is built up from other references and affirmed by still other references.

Such information exists but not all is to be found as written inscriptions.
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
Page 5 of 5

 
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