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 

Box 001K Revisited
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
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: 131

PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2022 8:43 am    Post subject: Henuttaneb, Nebetah, Nefertiti and Baketaten? Reply with quote

We know that Amenhotep III and Tiye had at least 4 daughters as well as two sons. Thutmoses and Amenhotep IV/Achenaten.

Sitamun and Iset became Great Royal Wives to their father (something that probably means they got senior roles in court life and could step in for their mother as first lady of the land rather than being a bed partner for their father).

Henuttaneb en Nebetah are never listed as GRW to their father. They also never called that way during the reign of their brother. We do however have two other ladies who are known during his reign: Nefertiti and Baketaten. It is perfectly possible that they changed their name after his succession and the marriage of one of them with Amenhotep IV.

Considering the long marriage of Amenhotep III and Tiye there remains the possibility that both Nefertiti and Baketaten were younger daughters and the couple had 6 daughters.

It is a possibility and the twin gods comparisons might even mean they were twins themselves. As we don't have clear statements of who the parents of Nefertiti were the option remains that she is a full sister. She could also have been related to Tiye in another way. If the KV35YL was up to 35 years old she could have been 14 or 15 when she married Amenhotep IV and that would leave for a reign of 17 to 18 years of Achenaten and even up to two years solo rule for Neferneferuaten herself before the succession of Tut.

The only issue i have with that is why after Tut's death Anchesenamun did not become Pharaoh in her own right? If their mother became co-regent and successor to their father why would the sister-wife and widow of what seems to have been the last male of the family not become Pharaoh in her own right? That is what happened in other dynasties so why not with her?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SaintGermain
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 19 Jul 2021
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 5:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Henuttaneb, Nebetah, Nefertiti and Baketaten? Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
The only issue i have with that is why after Tut's death Anchesenamun did not become Pharaoh in her own right? If their mother became co-regent and successor to their father why would the sister-wife and widow of what seems to have been the last male of the family not become Pharaoh in her own right? That is what happened in other dynasties so why not with her?


My theory is the following: In KV62 Ay is already crowned, something not previously seen, and above his cartouche is the phrase "nb irt xt[w]". This phrase is nearly always present when there are coregents with cartouches in tandem. It doesn't seem to matter which one of the co-kings has it above the cartouche and, in one instance that I know of, both Hatshepsut and Thutmose III have the phrase. It is there in an altered text showing the coregents Akhenaten and Ankheperure Neferneferuaten.

If Ay had somehow been able to convince a dying Tutankhamun to make him a coregent, then Ay cannot have been depicted in KV62 without a crown as he was already a king. You are quite correct in believing that Ankhesenamun had a much better right to succeed than Ay. It doesn't matter if she was the daughter of Akhenaten or Smenkhkare--she was a princess and queen and, as there were no more princes of the dynasty, could assume the throne.

In fact, that was the unspoken part in her letters to the King of the Hittites--"I have the right to rule so send me a son and I will make him king because you are powerful enough to keep as both on the throne". For Ankhesenamun, continuing to be Queen of Egypt was perhaps sufficient. And a young husband better than Ay. Besides, Ay already had a wife. Anyway, the whole point would have been for the Hittites to depose Ay who, as I said, was already king. That would have made Egypt part of the Hittite empire, of course, and one can readily see why the Egyptians would have been opposed and considered the Queen to be a traitor for her actions.

The only way we know about any of this was due to the writings of the Hittite King Mursili and some letters from the Hittite archives. According to Mursili, a war followed with the Egyptians. The Hittite thought that a terrible plague had been brought by Egyptian prisoners of war.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thieuke
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 131

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 10:18 am    Post subject: Plague Reply with quote

It seems that the plague of the Amarna period returned at the end of Tut's reign. There must have been a few prosperous years in his reign otherwise the restoration works carried out would not have been possible.

The end of Tut's reign was strange. With no male relative of the royal line left Anchesenamun was the likeliest candidate to succeed. General Horemheb held titles and positions that could have made him the heir yet somehow Ay squeezed in and took the throne. During his short reign Anchesenamun disappears and his chosen successor dies.

Plague could be one explanation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SaintGermain
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 19 Jul 2021
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 7:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Plague Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
It seems that the plague of the Amarna period returned at the end of Tut's reign. There must have been a few prosperous years in his reign otherwise the restoration works carried out would not have been possible.

The end of Tut's reign was strange. With no male relative of the royal line left Anchesenamun was the likeliest candidate to succeed. General Horemheb held titles and positions that could have made him the heir yet somehow Ay squeezed in and took the throne. During his short reign Anchesenamun disappears and his chosen successor dies.

Plague could be one explanation.


A coregency always has a motive behind it. I can't stress this enough and can't understand why others haven't acknowledged the expediency at the root of it--one of which was to subvert the true order of succession. In other words, if the reigning king says "I make you my coregent", you will still be king, yourself, when he dies. Now I can't recall which Egyptologist started the conclusion that the title of Horemheb, which was "iri-pat " was supposed to mean "prince regent or crown prince" but it seems to have stuck because it's in my dictionary with that meaning. He was also designated "idnw", which means "deputy". So it looks like, after the death of "Ankhkheperure Neferneferutaten, the female ruler, Horemheb was the main person behind the throne of a still very young Tutankhamun, a true king's son and rightful heir.

By the end of the life of Tut that there was a plague is certainly very possible. However, just because the King of the Hittites believed that it was brought to Hatti by Egyptians doesn't mean it was necessarily so. People have always believed overwhelming sickness was the work of enemies before there was such a thing as science. Even in Egypt's Late Period, [once the Pentateuch had been translated into Greek] commentators there on the exodus and Moses believed the Jews were a diseased populace and that was the real reason the Pharaoh of the era allowed them to leave. They could think of no other practical reason why he would have done so.

I agree that it is rather difficult to understand why Ay became the designated successor instead of Horemheb. Perhaps the latter was off somewhere with the army and not around to prevent Ay from stealing a march on him. In a letter from Hatti, it was surely Ay who was accused of "making himself king". The Hittites knew everything because there was man named Hani who was trusted by Ankhesenamun and sent by her as her envoy. I'm not sure he didn't end up betraying the queen but, prior to that, it is certain he was thoroughly grilled by the Hittites as to what the situation in Egypt really was. Was Ay really appointed by her late husband as his successor--or was that what he said had happened and there was no one around powerful enough to dispute? We won't be able to learn the facts but I feel sure it was important enough to Ay to show there had been a coregency, however brief, by indicating that in the very tomb of his predecessor. Hatshepsut did the same at Deir el Bahri in previous times. She made sure that people of the future who could actually read understood her version of how she became King of Egypt--by claiming that her father had made her his coregent years ago. It was Thutmose II and III who were the usurpers and not she, even though T III had been only a child when he succeeded.

So, as usual, we can see part of the picture but not all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thieuke
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 131

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2022 10:33 am    Post subject: Ay Reply with quote

It does mean that somehow Ay did have the standing and power to take the role as possible co-ruler and successor of Tutankhamun.
That means he must have been acceptable to the court and Egypt at large otherwise he would have been dethroned immediately.

That does make a family link to the previous monarchs likely. I've always assumed that daughters of a Pharaoh would only marry their brothers but could we have seen granddaughters or even lesser daughters of the dynasty marry into the ruling classes of Egypt?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Priest
Priest


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 505

PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think Ay claimed a coregency but he was definitely saying something by being depicted in Tut's tomb, selected by the king or not.

Egypt could not exist without someone as King, I believe it is likely that Horemheb was away for some reason and Ay was chosen or put himself forward. There may have been a very brief period where there was no king, during which time Ankhensenamun attempted to rule herself and to get that Hittite prince - who could NOT have been king at all if Ay was already on the throne. Possible that the whole affair took so long that Ay was forced to step in. Alternatively there may have been 3 factions all vying for power at the time, with Ay or Horemheb being candidates for the "servant" that Ankhensenamun wished to avoid marriage to.

Presumably Horemheb was otherwise occupied away from Thebes, his absence from the tomb goods says something when others in the court are represented. His treatment of Ay's monuments (including those usurped from Tut) and his removal from the king lists indicated he was an unacceptable ruler to later kings.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irt-akhu
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Nov 2019
Posts: 168

PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2022 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:
I believe it is likely that Horemheb was away for some reason and Ay was chosen or put himself forward.

I thought Ay was able to take over because Horemheb was out of town having the Hittite prince whacked.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Priest
Priest


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 505

PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2022 6:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

irt-akhu wrote:
karnsculpture wrote:
I believe it is likely that Horemheb was away for some reason and Ay was chosen or put himself forward.

I thought Ay was able to take over because Horemheb was out of town having the Hittite prince whacked.


Impossible to know where he was exactly or what he was doing, but as general of the armies he may have been dealing with the Hittites. Given his traditional rule he may have been part of a faction that was not happy with the idea of Ankhensenamun doing the deal with the foreign power.
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
Page 4 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