| Author | Message | ||
     J.D. Degreef (213.177.133.3) |
Sonya, An excellent observation ! The style (figures on yellow background ; "Amarna" hips...) and the choice of subjects (sunset baboons, king meeting the sky goddess Nut, embracing his kA etc.) are the same in both tombs. Tutankhamen would probably have wanted to be buried near his "father" Amenhotep III, in the "Western Valley", so Ay's tomb was probably his, initially. Whether Tutankhamen's actual tomb in the main "Valley of the Kings" was initially Ay's, or whether it was excavated between the king's demise and his funeral, remains an open question, I guess. JD | ||
| James M. Vance (206.133.236.196) |
doug--one glaring error in your theory, which you put forth so well by the way, is your suggestion that the arms or both Akhnaton and Nefertiti could have been changed after death. The arms of a mummy cannot be moved after death, the body is quite rigid. Other than that, though, I thought your ideas were very good. | ||
| Sonya (195.92.67.69) |
JD If what you are saying were true that would make Amenophis III his father not Akhenaten as is now believed, which could imply that he was Akhenatens brother that brings to mind the lock of hair in Tutankhamun's tomb that belonged to Tiye was she his mother not his grandmother. everything seems to led to more questions not answers. Sonya | ||
| J.D. Degreef (213.177.133.41) |
Sonya, What troubles me is that Tutankhamen repeatedly calls Amenhotep III "his father", and on an astronomical instrument Thutmosis IV is called "his grandfather" (but the inscription can be read as "his great-grandfather" too ! "father", jt, is written with a reed feather, a half circle, and a horned viper. The horned viper usually means -f, "his", but in the unique case of "father" it is to be read jt, "father" : I guess because the father of all things, the creator deity, can appear as a serpent. So considering one of the three f in Tutankhamen's inscription as "his" and the two others as jt, one has jt jt.f, "the father of his father", and reading jt jt jt one has "the father of {his} father of {his} father"...). The problem with Tutankhamen being Amenhotep III's son is that, from the objects in his tomb (seats, miniature scepters...), we know that Tutankhamen became king as a child of about 9 years old ; the examination of his mummy showed that he was about 20 when he died, which checks well with the duration of his reign deduced from dates on wine jars : about 9 years. But Akhenaten reigned for 17 years (still from wine dates), to which one must probably add the rule of one or two kings named Ankhkheperure (Semenkhkare and / or Nefertiti). So if Tutankhamen was Amenhotep III's son, one would have to consider that Amenhotep III's reign was parallel to part of that of Akhenaten. I've recently posted the url of a site which lists all the argements ever put forward in favor of such a coregency, and they're astonishingly weak and unconvincing. So the mystery of Tutankhamen's origins remains whole ! JD | ||
| Sonya (195.92.67.70) |
JD Although we know that Akhenaten reigned for 17 years couldnt the co-regency he have had with his father have been included meaning he only reigned as sole pharoah for 12 years meaning he had a co-regency with his father for 5 years. The evidence for a coregency is the fact that the style of the art chenged to that of the Armarna style in the latter years of Amenophis III reign leading me to think that perhaps Akhenaten reigned as Amenopis IV until his father died and then he changed his name to that of Akhenaten in the fifth year following his fathers death. If that is the case that would mean that Amanophis III could have been Tutankhamun's father if he was born in the last year of his reign. A coregency between Akhenaten and Smenkhkare lasted about 2 years and their deaths were within a matter of months of each other so that wouldnt have added any more years on to the length of time between amenophis III death and Tutnkhamun's ascension to the throne. Sonya | ||
| Rick (24.25.208.10) |
I might urge caution in making too many geneological relations out of a few trivial inscriptions, and then using this as the basis on which to create a co-regency. Just because Tut calls Amen. III his "father" or Thuthmosis his "grandfather" (actually I believe the inscription reads "father's father" which doesn't prove anything IMHO. By our geneology that would be "grandfather" but is that what the AE's had in mind?) Proves nothing in itself. We can't overlook the fact that these terms could simply be terms of endearment or respect with no reference to biological relationships at all. For instance in the Amarna letters the Hittite prince opens his letter with "Say to the lord, the king of Egypt, my father..." Does anybody actually think that Akh was Zita's biological father? or when the king of Ugarit who opens his letter with the snivelling "Say to the king my Sun, Message of Ammistamru your servant." Does anybody think that Ammistarmru was sweeping the floor or getting Akh. something to drink at Akhetaten? Of course not. Or how about when the queen of Ugarit writes to one of the queens of Egypt "To my mistress...your maidservant I fall at the feet of my mistress..." Do you think that this woman actually dropped to the feet of Nefertiti, or Kiya, or Teye? Not a chance. IMHO the inscriptions are too few and the messages too trivial to take seriously as any indication of a coregency or biological relationships. I urge everybody to take a deep breath before you step to far into the Amarna tar pits. | ||
| J.D. Degreef (213.177.133.22) |
Rick, "Father" can indeed be used symbolically (frequent : "his father Amon-Re" ; FAULKNER's Concise Dict., p. 32, gives /jt.w/, "forefathers"), but I don't remember ever seeing "grandfather" (jt jt.f) used that way. Still, I was astonished at how feeble the arguments for an Amenhotep III-Akhenaten coreggency are, so I guess you must be right about the symbolic nature of the terms /jt.f/ and /jt jt.f/ here. JD | ||
| Rick (24.25.208.10) |
Thanks J.D. My own opinion on the co-regency question falls more in the realm of psychology than Egyptology. But I can't help but notice how Akhenaten seems to be unique among pharaohs in the number of negative attributes he had. He's variously had Froelichs (sp?)syndrome, marfans syndrome, the characteristic "swollen head" has also been interpreted as a sign of hydrocephaly. He's been accurse of being a homosexual, transvestite, and now Reeves portrays him as a child molester having sex with his daughter. Nobody, after reading what little Atenist literature that remains, would ever accuse him of being a mental or spiritual giant So how could a man with so many "flaws" rule by himself? Obviously he couldn't. First he was co-regent with his father from 5 to 10 years, in other versions he's co-regent with Smenkhare, Smenkhare might be Nefertiti in disguise so he was actually a co-regent with his wife. But the baloney never stops Akhenaten and Nefertiti along with the Aten form a trinity replacing the traditional gods. Nefetiti's bulbous head is symbolic of the cosmic egg. But the nonsense doesnt' end there. No, Akhenaten in his hubris of destroying the gods has to be punished, and lo and behold (As far as I can tell Aldred started this one.) there has to be a Gotterdamerung of somekind (Twilight of the gods for those like me who don't speak german.) and so a plague roars in from somewhere wiping out the heretic, his queen, and daughters, along with most of the population of Akhetaten. The chastened survivors return to Thebes and the forgiving arms of the Amun priesthood. But of course it doesn't stop there. Tut might have been a co-regent with Nefertiti. But who was his father, once again it could be Amen. III, Akhenaten or Smenkhare (assuming that Smenkhare isn't Nefertiti of course.) after that he was probably assasinated (either hit on the back of the head, or the cheek take your pick. Though in her novel Carol Thurston has Tut getting killed by his hawk after the bird slams into the side of Tut's face. Interesting book by the way. I wonder how much of her story will find it's way into Amarna studies.) by Ay. who married Tut's widow and then had her dispatched after she served her purpose and on and on it goes. God only knows what's going to pop up next. Maybe that's why I stick to Amarna, just to see what nonsense going to be proposed as "fact" | ||
| J.D. Degreef (213.177.133.22) |
Hi Rick, I agree with most of your posting, except with the following points : >Smenkhare might be Nefertiti in disguise so he was actually a co-regent with his wife< Well, one of the two Semenkhare’s was. Why would a new king / coregent choose one of Nefertiti’s epithets (nfr-nfr.w-jtn) among his own ? Explains the “kissing kings” scene too, Nefertiti’s “disappearance”, etc. >Akhenaten and Nefertiti along with the Aten form a trinity replacing the traditional gods< Nefertiti’s conical crown seems to derive from that of the Faraway Goddess. The queen is actually represented as a lioness with Nefertiti’s head, as Tiye had been before her (with the same kind of conical crown). One of Akhenaten’s Karnak colossi wears the typical 4-feathered crown of Shu-Anhur, the son of Atum (the solar Creator). Shu is mentioned in the cartouches of the Aten, first version. So Akhenaten = Shu, Nefertiti = Tefnut = Faraway Goddess. As to the Aten, he’s Akhenaten’s “father”. This may be an allusion to the deceased Amenhotep III, or an allusion to the eternal cycle between father- and son-deity / king. The only thing that was missing was the Holy Ghost. >But who was his [Tutankhamen’s] father, once again it could be Amen. III, Akhenaten or Smenkh[k]are (assuming that Smenkh[k]are isn't Nefertiti of course.)< Even the second Semenkhkare would have been too young to father Tutankhamen ? >Ay, who married Tut[ankhamen]'s widow and then had her dispatched after she served her purpose< The old man seems to have been fond of Tutankhamen, having represented him in one of his Karnak buildings (quite unique a fact !), so I doubt whether he would have killed his wife. If he had, I doubt there would have been a damnatio memoriae from Horemheb’s side against the queen : she must have sided with Ay and Hormin against him, who was Tutankhamen’s official heir. Of course all this remains hypothetical, but there are seldom certainties in Egyptology ! JD | ||
| Rick (24.25.208.10) |
J.D. My comment about Smenkhare being coregent with his wife was strictly tongue in cheek. I agree there were definitely two Smenkhare's, and I suspect that one of them was Nefertiti making her appearance as an extremely short-lived pharaoh. Perhaps less than a year, if that. Again this is sheer conjecture, but it strikes me as the simplest and most elegant solution, barring evidence to the contrary. I tend to belong to the Neferiti "disapeared" and "reappeared" as Pharaoh Smenkhare. Ankh being murdered by Ay, was simply recycled Bob Brier, I don't have a clue as to what really happened to her. But I doubt if she was murdered, there were plenty of diseases to die from. The "Kissing Kings" are according to Reeves, and people on EEF actually a king and a queen. They came to this conclusion by noticing one figure was slightly concave and the other figure was slightly convex. However, this creates more problems than it solves. Which king and queen are represented? Akhenaten and Nefertiti, Smenkhare and Meritaten, or Tut. and Ankh.? The stele is uninscribed and undated, and therefore almost historically worthless. As far as Akhenaten and Nefertiti assuming the role of Shu and Tefnut, I have no particular opinion. Mythology is far to much of an inexact science for me. Everybody seems to see whatever they want in it. However, I tend to consider this to be nothing more than Pharonic propaganda. The same way Hatshepsut described her conception by Amun. Interesting but one shouldn't take it too seriously. | ||
| J.D. Degreef (213.177.133.22) |
Rick, I'm glad we agree on almost everything then. On the "kissing kings",, one of the two has indeed what are femine features sometimes (form of the neck), but still wears the attributes of a king. So who could this be ? -Ankhkheperure Semenkhkare (II) and Meritaten : in the only representation we have, the queen is shown as a queen. -Akhenaten and Tutankhamen : they hardly were kings simultaneously, so there wouldn't have been an occasion to sculpt such a scene ! -Akhenaten and his beloved wife Nefertiti become coregent Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten : fits the picture perfectly ! I wonder whether there couldn't be a link with Akhenaten and Nefertiti abandoning the Shu-Tefnut theological base of the early part of the king's reign. The mention of Shu also disappears from the cartouches of the Aten (but this is several years before Nefertiti's "disappearance" and the "emergence" of Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten ?). The great coronation hall in Amarna may have marked the event. JD | ||
| Rick (24.25.208.10) |
Well I think we'll just have to wait on new excavations at Amarna to answer our questions, or barring that a careful reevaluation of the material that is spread around almost evey museum in the world. (Another one of my pipe dreams would be to have nice color pictures of all the Amarna material in a central data base. "Point and click" archeology would become a reality! ). Until then Amarna still remains a mystery generating mysteries. | ||
| Ania (195.204.6.130) |
Can anybody, please answer my question? Ania | ||
| Doug (12.85.6.110) |
Ania, I'm not sure which question you're asking about. I have a tendency to drift off into a fog every so often. :-) I'm not sure that Ankhsenamun would have had much say about what was done with Akhenaten's body. She may have been able to make her opinions known, but how strictly they would have been adhered to is anybody's guess. As to a mummy's arms, they can repositioned if they have become broken at a joint. Look at any of the royal mummies, they're almost "kits". If the mummy were dispoiled, I'm sure it wasn't a gentle operation. What's overlooked by many people is that the mummy in KV55 was wrapped when found. It wasn't a stripped body. Some one some time took some care to restore it. I'm curious as to who did this. KV55 is a pretty rough tomb. KV62 was well made and I'm wondering if KV62 was originally made for Tiyi. It wouldn't have to be modified too much to make it decent for Tut's burial. If KV62 had been built for Ay, it was remarkably well made for a noble of the period. Just look at what a rough affair the tomb of Tiyi's parents were buried in. Ay's couldn't have been much better if Tut had stayed at Amarna just a couple of years before moving to Memphis. It takes a long time to hack out a tomb the size of KV62 and Ay wouldn't have had enough time to get it so finished that it could be appropriated for Tut. Amenhotep could have constructed KV62 for Tiyi at the same time he was building his own tomb. They were married for over thirty years. I'm sure there would have been some sentimental reason for all the royal burials of the Amarna period to be clustered where they are. Yuaa & Thuiu's tomb is close to that of KV55 and KV62 is almost across the street from both. It's possible there was a swing away from the main valley as THE royal buial site. Amenhotep III's tomb was in the West Valley, it's thought that Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) started a tomb in the West Valley and Ay was certainly buried in a tomb started for Tut, but never completed by either. If there had not been an, "Amarna Period", is it possible for the main valley would have become a burial place for royal wives, children and high officials? The first king to return to building his tomb in the main valley was Horemheb and, to me, it seems as if he was trying to take over the main valley as an exclusive for kings. I can't think of any private tombs excavated in the valley after him. | ||
| James M. Vance (206.133.226.35) |
While it's true that a mummy's arms can be re-positioned when broken, the theory that Rick was explaining was considering that the arms where moved after the body was mummified and with no damage, which would be impossible. After Horemheb's burial in the main valley, no further burials have been found there mainly because the entire valley was deserted as a burial place, the royal and noble sites being moved. Soyna, unfortunately throughout history and in many personal family settings, the father-daughter relationship has not always been positive. Is this a partial answer to your question? | ||
| Sonya (195.92.198.73) |
thank you for that but I still cant help thinking that Tutankhamun's original tomb was the one in the western valley. Have any wall decorations been found to be as alike as in the tomb KV62 and WV23. Sonya | ||
| James M. Vance (168.191.234.145) |
Ooops! The reply re father-daughter relationships was meant for Ania, not Sonya--sorry! | ||
| Doug (12.85.6.174) |
Here comes another wild theory on Tut's tomb... The sarcophagus appears to have originally been made for Smenkare and altered for Tut. Just where did this sarcophagus come from? Could it have already been in the tomb and recarved on site? IF Smenkare was Nefertiti - and was reguarded as a junior king who only had limited power, would she/he have rated a full sized king's tomb. A tremendous amount of Smenkare's items reappear in Tut's tomb, including pieces that would have been attached directly to the body. I'm thinking of the gold strapping, canopic coffins, the second coffin and the sarcophagus. This stuff wouldn't have been surplus. Why would they make extras? It had to be removed by experts from a burial. Who did it and why was it removed? Could it have been that such regalia was because the person who had buried with it wasn't a male? The tomb in the West Valley used by Ay has been claimed to have been started for Tut. Could it have been started instead for Smenkare? I know there's a tomb in Amarna also started by him(?) but he was evidently buried somewhere else. With a start in Amarna, why would he/she start another in Thebes? The West Valley tomb wouldn't have progressed very far in three years, but Rameses I made a fairly impressive tomb in the same amount of time. It seems as if there was a great deal of uncertainty where anyone would be buried after the death of Akhenaten. Evidently only Akhenaten and one of his daughters was ever buried there. I don't know of any private tombs that were used. Evidently Amarna was out of contention and that left Thebes. If Tiyi were evicted from her tomb by way of a robbery and relocated to KV55. That would have freed up KV62 for Smenkare's burial. Akhenaten's mummy could have been reburied in KV55 at the same time. If (big if), at a later date, it was found that KV 55 was unsafe for Tiyi, those who would have moved her body to Amenhotep II's side room might have thought that Akhenaten was Smenkare (really Nefertiti) and buried him in a "female" position. He could have already been in a female coffin with a beard. Those responsible for the actual shifting and identifing who was who were not necessarily literate. That's evident from the erasures in Ay's tomb. Varients of Ay's name missed being destroyed even when they were next to others that were erased. I don't know where I'm going with this, I'm just trying to work all this out in my own fevered brain. Feel free to destroy me. :-) | ||
| Doug (12.85.6.174) |
After my last post, I noticed the question again on changing the arms on a mummy being impossible. I don't think it's necessarily impossible or involving breaking bones to do so. Bob Brier made a mummy and the arms were flexible when first wrapped. Some time later, he tried to change them but couldn't. There was audible cracking sounds when he tried. Pulling a flexed arm down may break a joint, but not always a bone. The arm change could have been done on a fairly fresh mummy (not one 3,000 years old) and if the joint's connection had given way, evidence of this would be lacking now. We've only got bones. Evidenly there was enough flesh on the bones when wrapped that they held together in some form otherwise Davis would have found just a literal bag of bones. They were in human form. If "other parts" were missing why shouldn't those in charge of the rewrapping thinking they were dealing with a female buried like a male? A gold collar was pressed into service as a female crown. It would have been just as easy to use it as a collar or have it disappear completely like everything else on the mummy. If the mummy of Amenhotep III is really his, there appears to have been a lot of experimentation going on with mummies of the time and not necessarily for the good. It wouldn't suprise me if those rewrapping the mummy in KV55 were dealing with a body in similar shape. |
