Amarna, Before and After

[Aldebaran]

4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

You are very well aware that calling a person an "Akhmin" is not the same as saying that they were born and bred in the city of Akhmin, but that it refers in broad terms to the family of Yuya and Thuya, who had come from Akhmin. The term is used as shorthand to describe people who are, or who are speculated to be blood relatives of theirs. When the latest results are announced, maybe next week, we will all hopefully get a better picture of whom is related by blood to who. As long as the results are accepted by the scientific community, then with new information we can move forward, even if it means discarding previously held opinions, for everybody, and, IMO, the slate should also be wiped clean so that fresh dialogue can begin using the new results as a base line.

I have studied ancient Egyptian history, culture and language nearly all my life and have never come across any person referred to as an "Akhmin", so couldn't be aware of what you claim.  Even you claiming it makes no sense because Yuya and Thuya, no matter where they happened to reside, had a connection to the royal family via the marriage of their daughter to the king of Egypt. These last two certainly did not reside in Akhmin, nor did the only attested son of  Thuya [and perhaps Yuya], who was a second prophet of Amun, a Theban deity.   That's why any "Akhmin" you are referring to in any subsequent generation makes no sense.

As to the "scientific community" accepting anything--who is that?  There is scarcely anybody in the "Egyptological community" who has any understanding of DNA and how it works and few have evidenced any interest in learning, even though this has obviously become a new frontier in Egyptology.  You are simply assuming that "previously held opinions" must be discarded because that is what you, personally, want.  Don't count on it.

Akhmin akhsheem

 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Aldebaran

[Wepwawet]

3 hours ago, Wistman said:

Pity the KV21B mummy's head and face are now so incomplete, we can only partially make visual comparisons with her family, such as they are revealed to be.  And the Berlin head is now thought to be idealized, though only a little.  I like that the prince looks so like his grandmother (supposing Tiye is his grandmother, of course), somewhat for personal reasons though:  I look like my maternal grandfather, though my mom scarcely did.    It's a fair point you make about the complex incision of the Akhmin bloodlines into the royal line.  Catastrophic for them that, at 19, Tut had no living offspring by any wife - which is another mystery to which we'll surely never know the answer.  Ay's taking of the throne was nothing more than a swan song before the family's doom.

Whatever delivered that blow to YL's face, it must have been a powerful strike.  And it sounds like there was massive swelling: she didn't die immediately.  Poor lady.

I think I caused some confusion with the way I described what Hawass and Saleem said about the face of the YL. What they seem to be saying, because they are not as clear as they ought to be, is that the injury aside, the skin tissue on the left side of her face is thicker than that on the right, and they call this a "defect". They have access to the remains so will have a far better idea than the vast majority of us who can only go by photos. It looks to me that when the blow was struck it forced the upper jaw up and out a bit, though it could be just the skin that has been pushed up. If you look at the lower jaw you can see that the cut looks chamfered, and I am thinking that any blow aimed slightly upward will cause this to the bone, but while the "cutting edge" of a hoof is going to be pretty much the same as an axe or Khepesh, the profile of the hoof behind the front edge is very thick, far thicker than an axe or khepesh, and it is this bulk that has caused such a large wound and pushed material upwards. She probably died rapidly from a combination of shock and drowning in her own blood.

On the KV21B head, Hawass has said that a reconstruction has been made and will be unveiled, but with so much missing I'm not sure if it can be anything other than approximate, and look at the hugely divergent results with the reconstructions of Tutankhamun's head when it is all present. I think the only prominent feature of the KV21B head is the distinctive jaw line which is very reminiscent of the Berlin bust of Nefertiti, but there again, the reconstruction of the head of the YL looks like the Berlin bust as well.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

47 minutes ago, Myles said:

people had a sense of humor back then, right?   I'm picturing a couple grave robbers looting the tomb and one of them rips the arm off in order to tap the other guy on the shoulder with it.   Just to scare him.  Ha ha.

Not impossible as they did have a quirky sense of humour, something all to often lacking. And there was this spare arm found, so somebody was at one point walking about with an arm.

[Wepwawet]

There is this reconstruction of KV21B. I think he made her look more like Tiye than the Nefertiti bust. This was made 9 months ago and so is not a response to the impending announcement.

 

[Wistman]

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

There is this reconstruction of KV21B. I think he made her look more like Tiye than the Nefertiti bust. This was made 9 months ago and so is not a response to the impending announcement.

 

Oy.  That was absolutely....excremental, the painted representations so sophomoric, to be kind; but it does at least give an idea of how closely KV21B's features proportionally align with the Berlin bust. 

Here we can see how similar the two ladies' features are, taking into account the slightly different camera angle (and the poor quality image of KV21B.)  The striking cheekbones and jawlines, the wide set eyes, etc.  One might almost say they could be sisters.  So YL is a daughter of Tiye and AIII....

Here's a sharper pic of KV21B, also more gruesome.  Sorry.

[atalante]

On Documentary Channel, I watched a 2-hour documentary apecial tonight about King Tut 100, featuring Hawass. 

Hawass's experts now claim 99.99% DNA probability that KV35YL was Akhenaten's sister.  YL was Tut's mother, and it is now known that she died when Tut was very young.  According to Hawass, the proof that Tut was raised without his mother has been established by an inscription in a tomb at Saqqara, for a woman who bragged that she was Tut's nurse.  

 

 

 

[Wepwawet]

3 hours ago, atalante said:

On Documentary Channel, I watched a 2-hour documentary apecial tonight about King Tut 100, featuring Hawass. 

Hawass's experts now claim 99.99% DNA probability that KV35YL was Akhenaten's sister.  YL was Tut's mother, and it is now known that she died when Tut was very young.  According to Hawass, the proof that Tut was raised without his mother has been established by an inscription in a tomb at Saqqara, for a woman who bragged that she was Tut's nurse.  

 

 

 

Ah good, not yet seen this in the UK. And the suggestion of the YL dying when Tut was very young does fit for, er, Kiya, dissapearing in around year 11 when Tut would have been about three years old.

[Wepwawet]

7 hours ago, Wistman said:

Oy.  That was absolutely....excremental, the painted representations so sophomoric, to be kind; but it does at least give an idea of how closely KV21B's features proportionally align with the Berlin bust. 

Here we can see how similar the two ladies' features are, taking into account the slightly different camera angle (and the poor quality image of KV21B.)  The striking cheekbones and jawlines, the wide set eyes, etc.  One might almost say they could be sisters.  So YL is a daughter of Tiye and AIII....

Here's a sharper pic of KV21B, also more gruesome.  Sorry.

So it's not just an "Akhmin" nose, it's also a very distinctive "Akhmin" jawline. And yes, the reconstruction was less than perfect, but still 100% better than anything I could manage.

I'm thinking that as we have not yet had these new results, it could be the case that they are sisters and not cousins, and that Akhenaten has in fact married two of his sisters, at least one of them, maybe both it seems, never entering the record as a daughter of Amunhotep III and Tiye if we have here Kiya and Nefertiti.

So, with Akhenaten having two known wives, and the YL being the mother of Tutankhamun, and presumably KV21B about to be said to be the mother of the KV35 boy, it does look on the basis of probability that we do have both wives, with KV21B certainly fitting into the age bracket for Nefertiti, and the YL with her disputed age bracket being a better fit for a person younger than Nefertiti at death.

[Wistman]

9 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

So it's not just an "Akhmin" nose, it's also a very distinctive "Akhmin" jawline. And yes, the reconstruction was less than perfect, but still 100% better than anything I could manage.

I'm thinking that as we have not yet had these new results, it could be the case that they are sisters and not cousins, and that Akhenaten has in fact married two of his sisters, at least one of them, maybe both it seems, never entering the record as a daughter of Amunhotep III and Tiye if we have here Kiya and Nefertiti.

So, with Akhenaten having two known wives, and the YL being the mother of Tutankhamun, and presumably KV21B about to be said to be the mother of the KV35 boy, it does look on the basis of probability that we do have both wives, with KV21B certainly fitting into the age bracket for Nefertiti, and the YL with her disputed age bracket being a better fit for a person younger than Nefertiti at death.

The video was fine, just a personal gripe of mine with forensic facial reconstructions by scientist/artists.  Don't mind me. 

Yes, we may have Kiya and Nefertiti (as sisters and royal princesses), Ankhesenamun, Nefertiti's son (Smenkhkare), and a surety that KV55 is Akhenaten.  And we already have Tiye.  No Meritaten, but otherwise all the principal royals from Akhetaten.  Quite amazing.

I suppose this is why Zahi went on about all the many sisters of Akhenaten, because neither of these two are ever shown to be AIII and Tiye's daughters.  But, Kiya may have had a different earlier name, and we are presuming right now that this is Kiya, but it's a logical guess.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

I suppose in a way that we should not be too surprised that we have as many Amarna royals as we do. Those originally buried at Amarna would have nominally been no better or worse protected than the members of any other royal family, but when they were moved it gives them an added layer of security as they are being deliberately hidden beyond what is normal. What I mean is that no matter if their original burials had taken place at Amarna or the VoK, they were all together in a known location. Move them in batches to pre-existing tombs and it becomes less clear to those who wish to rob or desecrate them where they have gone, assuming that security within the royal houshold is not breached. Judging by what Belzoni said about the KV21 mummies, while unwrapped and uncoffined, they may not have suffered at the hands of robbers, and been part of a cache. KV55 was not affected by robbers, and Tutankhamun had a close shave. That leaves only the three KV35 mummies certain victims of robbers. And there is still a possibility of some of the missing being found in a potential extension of KV62, at least the three daughters who died at Amarna if Nefertiti had been buried in KV62 before Tutankhamun.

[Wepwawet]

There's some confusion about when Hawass will make this announcement, with some sources saying it will be next week, and Hawass did say it would be in October. However, I found this Hawass announcement So, it will be on the evening of Friday 4th November, the day of the 100th anniversary of the finding of the tomb by Howard Carter Hussein Abdel Rasoul. Not mentioned in the link, but there is supposed to be another spectacular like the previous two, but there are no details.

For those who do not like clicking on links:
 

Quote

 

"Transcending Eternity: The Centennial Tutankhamun Conference" is a three-day conference organized in partnership with the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities and will take place on 4-6 November, 2022. The conference is in-person and will take place in Sonesta St.George hotel, Luxor.

The speakers are all invited experts in different aspects of the life and the death of Tutankhamun, as well as in the history of the excavation of his tomb and the preservation and display of his collection. The conference is divided into five sessions: 1. The Discovery of the Tomb; 2. Archaeometry; 3. Art; 4. Genealogy, Administration, and Reuse and 5. Complete/Incomplete Collection. The keynote speech will be delivered on the evening of November 4 by renowned Egyptologist and former Minister of Antiquities, Dr. Zahi Hawass. The first session will include presentations by Lord George Carnarvon and Lady Fiona Carnarvon, the descendants of Lord George Herbert the 5th Earl of Carnarvon, who sponsored Howard Carter’s excavation of the tomb of Tutankhamun. The aim of this conference is to celebrate the centennial of this iconic discovery by contextualizing it and presenting the latest research on Tutankhamun, his tomb and its contents.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

It would be nice if the conference was made available to us via YT; it looks quite interesting.  But somehow I doubt that will happen.

You were right about Hawass's delaying the announcement until Nov  4. 

[Wepwawet]

With this over three days and Hawass on day one, I'm presuming he will give the lecture for session 2, Archaeometry, which can cover DNA results. But then what do we have for session 4, Genealogy, presumably on day two or three, which most certainly includes DNA. Unless, and guessing, Hawass will cover a number of topics including announcing the blood relationships as determined by the new results, and Gad will deal with the science behind these results on session 4.

Only this business about new DNA results has been flagged, but I wonder if they've kept anything else back for this, surely. Well, we'll see soon enough.

[Aldebaran]

On 10/19/2022 at 5:52 PM, Wistman said:

Oy.  That was absolutely....excremental, the painted representations so sophomoric, to be kind; but it does at least give an idea of how closely KV21B's features proportionally align with the Berlin bust. 

Here we can see how similar the two ladies' features are, taking into account the slightly different camera angle (and the poor quality image of KV21B.)  The striking cheekbones and jawlines, the wide set eyes, etc.  One might almost say they could be sisters.  So YL is a daughter of Tiye and AIII....

Here's a sharper pic of KV21B, also more gruesome.  Sorry.

Where's Nefertiti's distinctive chin?  A few days ago you were sure this was Nefertiti.

 

[Aldebaran]

As for the Younger Lady--she does have a remnant of a cleft chin.

Wistman wrote:

"Tik Tok....
 

Hey, Petey, where's your ticking clock?  Broke?

 

 

[Wistman]

  Nah.  It's possible you're grasping at straws, yes?  Scans show the limestone portrait maquette beneath the stucco surface of the bust exhibits slightly different features than that of the finished sculpture; I'm sure you know this quite well.  So beautiful as she was, still this is a state portrait and an icon of royalty, so Thutmose tweaked and refined the features to heighten the effect of her image.  But maybe your reject that notion and may insist on the cleft chin which you describe as distinctive being dispositive of "Nefertiti's face", and that KV21B is absent this 'vital' feature, yet the mummy's extremely dilapidated condition - including the target chin area - makes that verdict less than certain.  And YL having a chin perhaps similar to that on the Berlin bust could easily be attributed to familial resemblance, which is what we're exploring in the discussion lately. 

So, a few days later I still think KV21B is Nefertiti.  But it won't bother me if that's not so.

But now! the DNA will reveal the truth in just a few more days.  Then this question will be moot.  Yay!

 

Edited October 23, 2022 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Wistman said:

 And YL having a chin perhaps similar to that on the Berlin bust could easily be attributed to familial resemblance, which is what we're exploring in the discussion lately. 

 

 

Exactly, these are all related to each other, and even when we get the new results some things will remain exactly the same. Tutankhamun will still be the son of the YL and KV55, who will still be full siblings and the children of Amunhotep III and Tiye, and she will still be the daughter of Yuya and Thuya. It's just a matter of seeing where the two KV21 mummies and the KV35 boy fit in by blood relationship and trying to work out who they might be. This should be treated as bringing new blood into the discussion, not as a "threat", because the identity of the YL is not a matter of life and death, just interest.

[Wistman]

Here's a short paper on Tutankhamun's missing pieces, which were present when Burton photographed the mummy with Carter in 1926; Dodson referenced this circumstance in his lecture at SoA.  Photos.

Tutankhamun's MIssing Ribs - Forbes, Ikram, Kamrin

https://www.academia.edu/27388394/Tutankhamuns_Missing_Ribs_KMT_18_1_pdf

Edited October 24, 2022 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

I would imagine this mystery could have been solved back in 1968, if they had wanted to. They only needed to look at who had access to the key to KV62 during the war, presuming the robbery took place then, and investigate them, but I doubt they gave this a moment's thought as they were there to do X-rays, not a crimminal investigation.

The missing beaded skull cap is a curiosity. I don't recall ever coming across the use of skull caps by them either in writing or image. None of the other kings in the two caches had one, and those with a head of hair, Thutmose IV or Ramesess II could not have worn a skull hugging cap as was the case with Tutankhamun's. It just shows how much we still don't know, like the wearing of the dalmatic, Tutankhamun had one, but as for any depiction of a king wearing one, nothing that I've seen.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

Salima Ikram, in her essay on Tutankhamun's mummifaction, here, says (describing unusual and unique factors about the mummy)

Quote

The penis was mummied erect, as opposed to lying flaccid. To this author’s knowledge, this is almost a unique example of a penis being mummified at an angle of approximately 90º to the body.

I've read about it before, but can this ithyphallic Osiris that Ikram describes possibly indicate a syncretic link between Osiris and Min?  Perhaps it's how Osiris gains the generating principal which it dsplalys?  Is that even possible?  Ay probably oversaw the burial details after all.  Maybe it's a custom or an insignia of the Akhmin clan?

Quote

Thus, taking all the evidence into consideration, perhaps Carter’s emphasis in his notes during the unwrapping and examination of the mummy is more correct than even he thought: the king was indeed being shown as Osiris, more than was usual in royal burials. One can speculate that at this delicate historical/religious time, it was thought that the usual modes for the transformation of the king were not sufficient, and so the priest-embalmers  prepared the body in such a way so as to literally emphasize the divinity of the king and his identification with Osiris. Hence the brutal evisceration, restored by the mass of oleo-resin that also transformed the colour of his skin to Osirid black, the arm position that echoed the image of the king as Osiris on the walls, and the erect penis.

 

Edited October 25, 2022 by Wistman

[Wistman]

Should have added this quote at the start of the above (my bad)

Quote

King Tut's mummy has many strange features that have often been explained as the results of his hurried burial after his untimely death around the age of 19. But Ikram now wonders if these oddities were deliberate attempts at making Tut look like Osiris, the god of the afterlife.

So those in charge decided to alter the mummification protocols to emphasize Tut as Osiris, (maybe something like AIII had done with the Aten), and that Osiris mummy was regenerative in action.

[Wepwawet]

3 hours ago, Wistman said:

Should have added this quote at the start of the above (my bad)

So those in charge decided to alter the mummification protocols to emphasize Tut as Osiris, (maybe something like AIII had done with the Aten), and that Osiris mummy was regenerative in action.

I think Ikram has it spot on, and she is one of the foremost experts on this. I'll add an element that she has not fully explored, and that is this treatment of Tutamkhamun as Osiris, not just an Osiris, ie any dead person, fits, IMO, with the first use of the Enigmatic Book of the Netherworld, or Book of Solar-Osirian Unity as another title, seen on shrine two. Here the center piece is the image of a large Osirian mummiform figure, though not ithyphalic. The figure has an uroboros encircling it's head and feet, with what seems to be the ba of Ra in a disk in the belly of the Osirian figure. This figure is not named, but is Osiris, with Ra within him, and as they make these things complicated, the uroborae are also Ra. It's clear that here we see the dead Tutankhamun as Osiris, and probably also Atum, in the process of ressurection, something that is not explicit in the Amduat, and I mean that the dead king is not shown or named at the point of "unity", only assumed to be there as part of Ra, or with Ra. Similar scenes appear in later versions of the Enigmatic texts, often ithyphalic, and, very tellingly, the Osirian figure, while clearly Osiris himself, is also named as the dead king. An example is found in this version of the book in the tomb of Ramesses IX where the text reads, "Osiris, Lord of the Two Lands, Neferkare". So here it is very explicit that while the dead king is not Osiris for ever, at this point he is one with Osiris, and is also Atum, because the moment of self creation is being recreated along with resurrection.

So it would seem that Tutankhamun has the first burial of a king where it is made explicit that he becomes one with Osiris, and is not just one of many annonymous dead kings forming part of the crew of the Night Boat. This, as Ikram points out, explains why in KV62 Tutankhamun is shown on the walls as Osiris and not an Osiris, and the position of his arms to make the mummy more like how Osirian mummiform figures look. The rest of the treatment of the mummy is still odd of course, maybe the result of him becoming partially decomposed before full mummification could stop the rot. His lips drawn back over his teeth are a sign of this. It's not an open and shut case, but the other mummies we have of his family and ancestors have closed lips, while his face, apart from there being no wounds, looks more like Seqenenre-Tao, who had probably gone off a bit on the battlefield before being recovered.

Edited October 25, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

Part one of a two part post.

This image of a king and queen in a garden is a problem almost as much as the Nefertiti bust, and it does have a connection.

This piece of painted limestone was bought by German Egyptologist Heinrich Schäfer from "Ali in Giza" who said he found it at Akhetaten, and that is the name the German sources say he used, not Amarna. I cannot track down in what year Schäfer bought this object, but it will have been before 1920 as by then it has been aquired by James Simon and donated to the Egyptian Museum of Berlin, where it remains. It is James Simon who provides the link to the Nefertiti Bust as he financed Ludwig Borchardt who found the bust at Amarna in 1912, and it was Simon who donated the bust to the museum along with the "Stroll in the Garden" as the piece in question is refered to in Germany. So, the main issue is that there is no provenance for this piece other than what "Ali in Giza" told Schäfer, I wonder if he sold him a bridge at the same time.

However, despite this coming from "Ali in Giza", it is not seen as a modern fake, an issue still surrounding the Nefertiti bust, though I don't believe for one moment that it is a fake. Using Anke Weber as a source, she points out that this is not a peice of limestone broken off something larger, but is a study piece and we have it completely. Weber points out that the bottom right side of the dress of the queen actually continues onto the broken side of the slab, as do the ribbons coming of the back of the king's crown, and the tassels from his kilt. A forger might not think to do this, but they can of course be very clever. Also of note is that the ribbons from the king's crown are carved into the stone, while those from the queen's crown are crudely painted on. Also of note is the problem with the king's left foot in that it does not match up with his left leg. It's far too small, and for some reason the toes are shown in front of the heel of the right foot. This is very clumsy and does not fit their artistic conventions, but then, the very fact of showing his left leg in this pose does not fit, the entire thing is just wrong. While the pose of the queen is standard, that of the king is certainly not, and I would take a guess that if this is a trail piece, then the finished article was never meant for public display.

Other than provenance and artistic issues with this piece, it is the question of who is depicted that exercises us. On the "Tutankhamun - warrior" thread I made a list of a number of "names" and who they thought it might be, or even if they have ignored this, notably Dodson, in print in his popular books at least, and of course he will have an opinion. I pointed out Reeves as giving no opinion either, but I forgot to check one of his books, "Akhenaten, Egypt's False Prophet" publshed in 2001. In this book the scene is reproduced with a caption by Reeves stating that this is Akhenaten and Nefertiti.

[Wistman]

7 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Part one of a two part post.

This image of a king and queen in a garden is a problem almost as much as the Nefertiti bust, and it does have a connection.

This piece of painted limestone was bought by German Egyptologist Heinrich Schäfer from "Ali in Giza" who said he found it at Akhetaten, and that is the name the German sources say he used, not Amarna. I cannot track down in what year Schäfer bought this object, but it will have been before 1920 as by then it has been aquired by James Simon and donated to the Egyptian Museum of Berlin, where it remains. It is James Simon who provides the link to the Nefertiti Bust as he financed Ludwig Borchardt who found the bust at Amarna in 1912, and it was Simon who donated the bust to the museum along with the "Stroll in the Garden" as the piece in question is refered to in Germany. So, the main issue is that there is no provenance for this piece other than what "Ali in Giza" told Schäfer, I wonder if he sold him a bridge at the same time.

However, despite this coming from "Ali in Giza", it is not seen as a modern fake, an issue still surrounding the Nefertiti bust, though I don't believe for one moment that it is a fake. Using Anke Weber as a source, she points out that this is not a peice of limestone broken off something larger, but is a study piece and we have it completely. Weber points out that the bottom right side of the dress of the queen actually continues onto the broken side of the slab, as do the ribbons coming of the back of the king's crown, and the tassels from his kilt. A forger might not think to do this, but they can of course be very clever. Also of note is that the ribbons from the king's crown are carved into the stone, while those from the queen's crown are crudely painted on. Also of note is the problem with the king's left foot in that it does not match up with his left leg. It's far too small, and for some reason the toes are shown in front of the heel of the right foot. This is very clumsy and does not fit their artistic conventions, but then, the very fact of showing his left leg in this pose does not fit, the entire thing is just wrong. While the pose of the queen is standard, that of the king is certainly not, and I would take a guess that if this is a trail piece, then the finished article was never meant for public display.

Other than provenance and artistic issues with this piece, it is the question of who is depicted that exercises us. On the "Tutankhamun - warrior" thread I made a list of a number of "names" and who they thought it might be, or even if they have ignored this, notably Dodson, in print in his popular books at least, and of course he will have an opinion. I pointed out Reeves as giving no opinion either, but I forgot to check one of his books, "Akhenaten, Egypt's False Prophet" publshed in 2001. In this book the scene is reproduced with a caption by Reeves stating that this is Akhenaten and Nefertiti.

Both these pieces, the above block and the Berlin bust of Nefertiti, suffer from the provenance issue as you describe.  The fortuitousness of the Berlin bust find seems incredible, just lying there in perfect condition in a shallow sand pile near the corner wall of Thutmose's workshop; some simply can't believe that and are suspicious that it's all a fake, supplemented by the notion that Borchardt was in need of just such a find to justify his season's work.  My opinion is like yours I think: the quality of the workmanship, including the fineness of the handling on the carved limestone maquette underlying its stucco surface, besides its closeness in style and skill with the other found portrait heads from Amarna as well as from Tut's mask, is convincing of its authenticity.  And the Amarna mummies, as they now present to us, uphold the carved bust's features and bone structure, as already mentioned...something that wouldn't have been known when Borchardt's team 'found' the sculpture (or made it if indeed it were a fake.)

However, about the block carved with the pair of figures, the problem of provenance is more crucial.  If it comes from Akhetaten, as Shafer says, then Tutankhuaten would have been too young to be depicted so.  However it is similar in style to the representation of the royal pair on the back of his throne, found in his tomb.

And yet the throne itself is problematic too, having palimpsests of the pair's Atenist nomens beneath their superscribed traditional ones.  If the scene was made at Thebes or Memphis, those Atenist nomens were already, or at some point, verboten; if it was made at Akhetaten, then Tut would have been substantially younger than depicted, little more than a boy.  And we see Tut on the throne as slightly larger and scaled differently than his queen - not so with the pair on the block.  Tut's face appears to be genuinely youthful on his throne - not so with the king's figure on the block; yet if the block was from Akhetaten, Tut would have appeared younger not older.  Was the throne scene begun at Amarna during Neferneferure's kingship and then altered later?  Does that make sense?  She was already moving away from Atenism and toward reconciliation with traditional religious tenets during her short reign.  Perhaps at the end of Amarna an effort was made to reconcile Amun and tradition with a 'reduced' Atenism that ultimately, during Tut's early reign, proved fruitless and Atenism was finally banned, resulting in the altered nomens on the throne, however certain pervasive Amarna stylistic affinities were sustained through his reign, such as on the painted wall of his tomb.

If the block was found, say, at Thutmose's workshop at Akhetaten, as the Berlin bust reportedly was, then we might consider it to have been a student piece, or an experimental sketch working out an idea, or such, as suggested by the hastily added ribbons from the queen's crown.  So, this would suggest a representation either of Smenkhkare/Meritaten or Akhenaten/Nefertiti.  But we're looking now at the KV35 prince as likely/probably/maybe being Smenkhkare himself, deceased @10 y.o.   But the figure on the block doesn't suggest a prepubescent king.

Here is an Amarna figure at the Brooklyn Museum, excavated at Akhetaten, and listed as 'An Amarna King, probably Akhenaten.'

But he looks so youthful, and may more likely be a depiction of Smenkhkare (though it must be noted that graphic images are treated differently than sculpted figures in Egyptian art.)

If the KV35 mummy turns out to be Smenkhkare (via, at best, logical attribution) then the block would seem to show Akhenaten and Nefertiti.  But my gut tells me this is not them; the crowns seem wrong for one thing.  Perhaps.

I await your part two.

 

 

Edited October 30, 2022 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Wistman said:

I await your part two.

 

 

You've done it for me

I think the biggest obstacle to judging who may be depicted on the slab and the throne is their apparent ages. On both pieces, as you point out, the people depicted are too old to be Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun if we take it that both pieces were made at Amarna, and Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun both would have probably been less than twelve by the move to Memphis, and in the case of the throne, probably only about nine when it was made, that is if it were made for them, and there is still some doubt.

However, if the throne is original to Tutankhamun, then as it was made before the name change in year 2, then two nine year olds-ish, have in fact been depicted as being at least into their teens. This may in fact be a matter of decorum in not wanting to show your monarch as a little kid, and after all, were are the statues of a potentially twelve year old Amunhotep III, nowhere. Also there are two good examples of "bigging up" from this period. The Hut-benben dates from year 2 of Akhenaten, and there we see Nefertiti officiating with the help of Meritaten standing behind her and holding a sistrum, yet as Akhenaten was not even married to Nefertiti at the start of his reign, I doubt that Meriaten was even able to stand when the temple was built, let alone officiate. Then we have all six daughters shown at the year 12 durbar. All are wearing the same type of clothes and are the same hight, which is impossible as the youngest, Setepenre, was born in year 11, and would also hardly have been able to stand by the durbar let alone have matched her about eleven year old sister Meritaten in height. It's all for the optics and reality takes a back seat. Unfortunately their practice of doing this does not help us at all.

I'm also wondering that as we know that Tutankhamun had a bad left foot, or at least that's what the latest forensic information states, what are the chances that someone else in his family, a male and a king, had the same problem with the same foot. KV55, presumably Akhenaten, has most of the foot bones missing so a diagnosis cannot be made, though as he was not the result of an incestuous marriage there is no reason to expect that he had a club foot. This would also hold true if Smenkhkare were the brother of Akhenaten, and so mitigate against him being the subject of the "Strolling in the Garden". As regards the KV35 boy, neither Smith in 1912 or the University of York examination in 2003 mention any pathologies with his feet, except for one missing toe since recovered from another part of KV35. But, as it took about 80 years to diagnose problems with Tutankhamun's left foot, maybe the CT scans showed something that has yet to be released to the public.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Wepwawet