Amarna, Before and After

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

Some stuff first on Prince Thuthmose.

From the Amarna Research Foundation biennial publication Akhetaten Sun, Spring 2015, an article by Dietrich Wildung titled A Premature Death   :

• cat sarcophagus inscription:  "In the hieroglyphic inscriptions Thutmosis is called “The king’s eldest son, the overseer of all priests of Upper and Lower Egypt, the greatest of the chiefs of craftsmen”. This last title, designating the High Priest of Ptah, makes him the highest authority at the main sanctuary at Memphis, this most prestigious centre of pharaonic traditions. Thutmosis’ name, written on the lid of the cat’s sarcophagus, is followed by m3’ ḫrw, “true of voice” – which means that he had already passed away when the burial of the cat (previously ordered by him?) took place."
• "On a limestone relief fragment (fig. 2) from this Apis burial, prince Thutmosis is represented with globular wig and the side-lock of the High Priest of Ptah, standing behind his father and holding an ointment vessel [3]. His facial features show the typical “sweet” style of Amenhotep III. The remains of the hieroglyphic inscription above his head identify him as 'sem priest Thutmosis'."
• On the bier statuette:  "The key piece concerning this prince is a miniature anthropoid limestone coffin (fig. 3) containing a tiny statuette of a mummy-shaped figure with globular wig and side-lock on a funerary bier [...] A short hieroglyphic text on the two sides of the bier and on the mummiform figure reads: “The enlightened one, the sem Thutmosis, the deceased”. The same text is inscribed in four vertical columns on the outside of the trough of the miniature coffin." [...] The typology of these statuettes and the epithet m3` ḫrw “true of voice” designate prince Thutmosis as deceased. Most probably they belonged to the funerary equipment of the tomb of Thutmosis – situated somewhere in the necropolis of Saqqâra, perhaps not too far from the Apis tomb."
• His age:  "For the date of Thutmosis’ death, there are no explicit documents available. Since he is not mentioned or represented in the reliefs of his father’s first heb-sed, it can be assumed that he passed away in his late twenties before year 30 of Amenhotep III. His premature death may be the reason of the outstanding role of princess Sat-Amun, [...] "

So, according to Wildung, the presentation of a globular wig and sidelock signified the office of HPP, even if the inscriptions only mention sem priest.  The prince was likely an adult when he died (as you suspect as well), which he assuredly did (we already knew this, thank you by the way) somewhere around the time of the yr30 heb-sed festival.

file:///C:/Users/amunr/AppData/Local/Temp/Sun2015%20Spring%20Vol%2021%20No%201.pdf              (pdf of Spring 2015 journal...I cannot direct link. Copy/paste this address into your browser window or google "The President's Papyrus, Amarna Research Foundation, Spring 2015")  The Wildung article is the second one of the publication, scroll down.

https://www.theamarnaresearchfoundation.org/            In case you don't have this site bookmarked already.

 

I'm currently still exploring Sitamun.  Right now focusing on her chair from Yuya/Thuya's tomb.  The image of her on the back of the chair shows her as wearing a gazelle diadem with a lotus headdress.  References to this which I've found refer to it as rare, but give no specifics.  I no longer have a good reference library to help me.  I know that gazelle diadems may signify fecundity, but the composite form shown on the object is not explained or named.  So I haven't been able to verify that it signified a 'royal concubine', previous to her being raised to GRW, as was stated earlier in this thread.  I'm trying to nail down a timeline and age range for Sitamun.

She was eldest daughter of the king, but not necessarily older than Thutmose.  One article suggested she didn't stay in the abandoned Malkata/City of the Dazzling Aten after the court removed to Akhetaten, but may have accompanied Tiye when she moved.  There is the notion that she may have conceived a child by her brother Akhenaten while there.  All speculation of course, but trying to get some idea of her age and if she was really too old to be YL. 

Ah, good, I hadn't come across that site before. The article for Spring 2015 has the elusive photo of the model sarcophagus that the bier was found in, and a photo showing the top of the bier, something I've not seen before. The hieroglyphs just say "Sem - Thutmose", so nothing to add to the story.

I will though take issue with the author saying that on the cat sarcophagus Thutmose is described as "true of voice". His name appears twice, both times with variations of his titles, but his name is not followed by "true of voice", instead it comes after the name of the cat on three separate occassions. There's no ambiguity here as the name of the cat is spelled out and followed by the cat hieroglyph, and immediately after is "true of voice".

That's also an interesting take on the "gone too soon" to translate it as "The enlightened one", I wonder how he arrives at that. Actually this shows up a common problem in that authors will often translate not what a word or phrase actually means, but something more understandable to the reader, and also a form of shorthand in translating "true of voice" as "deceased". Yes, they are dead, but as I pointed out in a previous post, it indicates their state of being in the Duat. So his "The enlightened one" needs translating. Or, he has reversed the reading order and is saying that "true of voice" means "the enlightened one", and "gone to soon" means death. I suspect it's the case that he has reversed the reading order, which does not work as "true of voice" always comes after the persons name, which comes after their titles.

Then he says that the wig and sidelock signify that the person is HPP, but this cannot be the case as Khaemwaset spent most of his life as just Sem priest of Ptah, and all the depictions of him in that rank show him with wig and sidelock. I read some time ago that all priests of Ptah wore a wig and sidelock, though I cannot remember the source. The books I do have that are specifically about the priests make no mention of what rank and file priests of Ptah wore, only of what the Sem wore, and that the HPP also wore a collar, which would be similar to the jackal collar worn by High Priests of Osiris. So, on my understanding, the wig and sidelock signify at base level a priest of Ptah, and here it should be noted that if they just wore a sidelock, you could not distinguish them from priests of Ra, but it's known that only priest of Ra wore just a sidelock. It's the leopardskin that makes you a Sem, and a collar if you are also HPP. I don't claim to be fully correct on all of that though, but full info is hard to come by, and sources contradict each other, even original descriptions as I pointed out with some Sem priests depicted as a lector, or even just a guy in a kilt, excpet for the all important "Sem" written right by them, and it being unambigious that they are a Sem.

I would agree with Wildung that Thutmose was at least approaching his late twenties.

The part on Sitamun is interesting, and I rememebr that the gazelle motive was discussed at some length on 001K as regarding some of the daughters of Akhenaten, but I don't think anything was seen in this that is not already known, the fecundity thing.

To really pin down if she were too old to be the YL, then the latest date for the sealing of KV46 would need to be determined. I based my calculations of the generally accepted view that it was around Year 14 of AIII, but some are of the opinion that it was about ten years later, which would certainly make a candidate by age. But, as always it's never simple, for even if KV46 were sealed somewhere around Year 24, how can we know that the chair was not ten or more years old by then, and perhaps a candidate for putting in a tomb.

Nothing is easy is it

Edited March 2, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

Um.  Er.

What year does Kiya appear at Akhetaten?  She was reputedly a foreign princess meant to marry AIII.  But then sported one of those Akhmim family names.

Everybody changed their names to obliterate the hated Amun didn't they.

She predeceased Akhenaten @  ? yr 11 - 16 I've read, supposedly in childbirth?  Already had other children I think.  Odd.

     Nah.  Preposterous.

Edited March 2, 2022 by Wistman

[Wistman]

23 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Ah, good, I hadn't come across that site before. The article for Spring 2015 has the elusive photo of the model sarcophagus that the bier was found in, and a photo showing the top of the bier, something I've not seen before. The hieroglyphs just say "Sem - Thutmose", so nothing to add to the story.

I will though take issue with the author saying that on the cat sarcophagus Thutmose is described as "true of voice". His name appears twice, both times with variations of his titles, but his name is not followed by "true of voice", instead it comes after the name of the cat on three separate occassions. There's no ambiguity here as the name of the cat is spelled out and followed by the cat hieroglyph, and immediately after is "true of voice".

That's also an interesting take on the "gone too soon" to translate it as "The enlightened one", I wonder how he arrives at that. Actually this shows up a common problem in that authors will often translate not what a word or phrase actually means, but something more understandable to the reader, and also a form of shorthand in translating "true of voice" as "deceased". Yes, they are dead, but as I pointed out in a previous post, it indicates their state of being in the Duat. So his "The enlightened one" needs translating. Or, he has reversed the reading order and is saying that "true of voice" means "the enlightened one", and "gone to soon" means death. I suspect it's the case that he has reversed the reading order, which does not work as "true of voice" always comes after the persons name, which comes after their titles.

Then he says that the wig and sidelock signify that the person is HPP, but this cannot be the case as Khaemwaset spent most of his life as just Sem priest of Ptah, and all the depictions of him in that rank show him with wig and sidelock. I read some time ago that all priests of Ptah wore a wig and sidelock, though I cannot remember the source. The books I do have that are specifically about the priests make no mention of what rank and file priests of Ptah wore, only of what the Sem wore, and that the HPP also wore a collar, which would be similar to the jackal collar worn by High Priests of Osiris. So, on my understanding, the wig and sidelock signify at base level a priest of Ptah, and here it should be noted that if they just wore a sidelock, you could not distinguish them from priests of Ra, but it's known that only priest of Ra wore just a sidelock. It's the leopardskin that makes you a Sem, and a collar if you are also HPP. I don't claim to be fully correct on all of that though, but full info is hard to come by, and sources contradict each other, even original descriptions as I pointed out with some Sem priests depicted as a lector, or even just a guy in a kilt, excpet for the all important "Sem" written right by them, and it being unambigious that they are a Sem.

I would agree with Wildung that Thutmose was at least approaching his late twenties.

The part on Sitamun is interesting, and I rememebr that the gazelle motive was discussed at some length on 001K as regarding some of the daughters of Akhenaten, but I don't think anything was seen in this that is not already known, the fecundity thing.

To really pin down if she were too old to be the YL, then the latest date for the sealing of KV46 would need to be determined. I based my calculations of the generally accepted view that it was around Year 14 of AIII, but some are of the opinion that it was about ten years later, which would certainly make a candidate by age. But, as always it's never simple, for even if KV46 were sealed somewhere around Year 24, how can we know that the chair was not ten or more years old by then, and perhaps a candidate for putting in a tomb.

Nothing is easy is it

Not sure what the reason is to assume the earlier date for the sealing of KV46.  Both Yuya and Thuya's mummies were aged 50 or older...an advanced age for the time.  If Ay and Anen were their sons, the length of those lives suggests a later date for the death of their parents.  And the fact that Y&T were buried in VotK implies an established position of influence at AIII's court greater than any other non-royal of the time, which suggests to me privilege that took more time to accrue not less. 

eta:  As to the diadem/headdress of Sitamun on the chair from Y/T's tomb, the lotus (or blue water lily) on the headdress seems to imply either (or both) Upper Egypt or sexuality, amplifying the fecundity aspect of the gazelle diadem (which is exclusively worn by secondary royal women, never queens).   So that combination does imply an attribute of sexuality overall, but I haven't found any confirmation of it specifically signifying a 'Royal concubine', but I'll keep looking for that.

Edited March 3, 2022 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

Not sure what the reason is to assume the earlier date for the sealing of KV46.  Both Yuya and Thuya's mummies were aged 50 or older...an advanced age for the time.  If Ay and Anen were their sons, the length of those lives suggests a later date for the death of their parents.  And the fact that Y&T were buried in VotK implies an established position of influence at AIII's court greater than any other non-royal of the time, which suggests to me privilege that took more time to accrue not less. 

eta:  As to the diadem/headdress of Sitamun on the chair from Y/T's tomb, the lotus (or blue water lily) on the headdress seems to imply either (or both) Upper Egypt or sexuality, amplifying the fecundity aspect of the gazelle diadem (which is exclusively worn by secondary royal women, never queens).   So that combination does imply an attribute of sexuality overall, but I haven't found any confirmation of it specifically signifying a 'Royal concubine', but I'll keep looking for that.

You're right, I cannot find any reason for an earlier date for the sealing of KV46 other than the sources I've read. One thing I did not previously know was that on the newest, and grandest, of the chairs that depict Sitamun, has on the back, which I had not seen before, her name in a cartouche. This I think mitigates against an early date, and could put the date of the chair into year 30 when she became a GRW to AIII. What a later date does not do though is point to an age for her, and as eldest daughter could still have been in her late twenties by Year 30, and around forty by the birth of Tutankhaten in Akhenaten's Year 13-14. But, if Tutankhaums regnal years start at the death of Akhenaten, which they should, and not after the death of Neferneferuaten 3 years later, which is still the assumption, then his birth gets knocked back to around Year 10, and so destroying all the theories surrounding the deathbed scenes in TA26. Always the problem that if you move one date, even if guessed at, the DOB of Tutankhaten for instance, then other dates need to change, and the fun begins.

Edited March 3, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

You're right, I cannot find any reason for an earlier date for the sealing of KV46 other than the sources I've read. One thing I did not previously know was that on the newest, and grandest, of the chairs that depict Sitamun, has on the back, which I had not seen before, her name in a cartouche. This I think mitigates against an early date, and could put the date of the chair into year 30 when she became a GRW to AIII. What a later date does not do though is point to an age for her, and as eldest daughter could still have been in her late twenties by Year 30, and around forty by the birth of Tutankhaten in Akhenaten's Year 13-14. But, if Tutankhaums regnal years start at the death of Akhenaten, which they should, and not after the death of Neferneferuaten 3 years later, which is still the assumption, then his birth gets knocked back to around Year 10, and so destroying all the theories surrounding the deathbed scenes in TA26. Always the problem that if you move one date, even if guessed at, the DOB of Tutankhaten for instance, then other dates need to change, and the fun begins.

AFAIK, women can still give birth @ age 40, though it is possibly dangerous for them.  Meghan, the Dutchess of Sussex, is currently one such female who has done so.

 

 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

7 minutes ago, Wistman said:

AFAIK, women can still give birth @ age 40, though it is possibly dangerous for them.  Meghan, the Dutchess of Sussex, is currently one such female who has done so.

 

True, though what I am thinking of with Sitamun is that the upper age limit for the YL is 35, and for Sitamun to fall within that limit she would need to have been born no earlier than Year 8 of AIII, and have died either giving birth to Tutankhaten, or within a year, for with each year she lives after giving birth to Tutankhaten puts her a further year above the upper age limit. There is of course wiggle room of a few years either side, but to make her the YL means stretching things too much I think. Biologically it's not impossible of course, but it all looks a bit like OJ trying on that glove.

[Wistman]

10 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

True, though what I am thinking of with Sitamun is that the upper age limit for the YL is 35, and for Sitamun to fall within that limit she would need to have been born no earlier than Year 8 of AIII, and have died either giving birth to Tutankhaten, or within a year, for with each year she lives after giving birth to Tutankhaten puts her a further year above the upper age limit. There is of course wiggle room of a few years either side, but to make her the YL means stretching things too much I think. Biologically it's not impossible of course, but it all looks a bit like OJ trying on that glove.

Why should she not have been born later than yr8 AIII?  There might have been earlier children of AIII/Tiye who didn't survive, and Thutmose of course who did, until later in life.  She's a possible candidate still, I think.  King's Eldest Daughter is a title that, like Eldest Son, may be transferred to the next child upon the death of the elder.

Edited March 3, 2022 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

She's the eldest daughter, so putting her DOB later than Year 8 makes for an ever lengthening gap with no children during the early years of the reign of AIII, or at least daughters, and we can only go on the known children he had. Even if AIII was only twelve on accession, he still ought to have been siring children from sometime in his Year 2 or 3. But, he may have been fourteen or fifteen, with only a 9 month gap from the start of his reign to the first child.

Edit: It's certainly possible that Sitamun was the eldest surving daughter by the time she appears in the record, infant mortality was of course horrendous until modern times. So I see your argument, and she can be a fit biologically, but what I am minded of is the age range for the YL of 25-35, and there is still opinion that the lower age could be 20. However, I'll leave out the 20, and I'll leave it there until tomorrow when I'll have made a chart for all the permutations.

 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

32 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

She's the eldest daughter, so putting her DOB later than Year 8 makes for an ever lengthening gap with no children during the early years of the reign of AIII, or at least daughters, and we can only go on the known children he had. Even if AIII was only twelve on accession, he still ought to have been siring children from sometime in his Year 2 or 3. But, he may have been fourteen or fifteen, with only a 9 month gap from the start of his reign to the first child.

Yes, he'd have had children no doubt.  I'm assuming his senior advisor at the outset was Yuya the highly esteemed.  He'd have encouraged Tiye to procreate asap.  btw - Dennis Forbes thinks the arrangement and style of the features on Yuyu's funerary mask indicate (to him) that it was made during AIII's reign.  FWIW 

I don't have a link for that, it's in a KMT edition, 1996. Vol. 7..(footnoted ref. on Wikipedia, Yuya)

 

[Wepwawet]

15 hours ago, Wistman said:

Yes, he'd have had children no doubt.  I'm assuming his senior advisor at the outset was Yuya the highly esteemed.  He'd have encouraged Tiye to procreate asap.  btw - Dennis Forbes thinks the arrangement and style of the features on Yuyu's funerary mask indicate (to him) that it was made during AIII's reign.  FWIW 

I don't have a link for that, it's in a KMT edition, 1996. Vol. 7..(footnoted ref. on Wikipedia, Yuya)

 

Yes, I've seen that about Yuya's depiction more fitting the last third of the reign of AIII.

So, how old might some of these personalities been. I'll deal with Tiye first.

The age of Tiye at death is estimated in the range of 40-50, and having died in Year 12, or shortly after, of Akhenaten.

So let's do some figures for how old she might have been at the start of the reign of AIII

With an 8 year co-regency and Tiye dying after a further 4 years means that she died approx 42 years after the start of the reign of AIII, though she was not married to him until Year 2, something I keep forgetting. So the youngest age given for her mummy of 40 cannot be possible as she would not even have been born by Year 2. If at the oldest age of 50, then she would have been aged nine, which, until comparatively recent times, 19th Century AD, is quite possible. So, to keep things reasonably simple, let's say she was nine and that no child appeared before Year 5 at the earliest. So that is based on the science, though not exact with mummies, and what is possible in their culture.

Everything that follows with the children of AIII and Tiye is mostly conjecture. We have some names, we know that Sitamun was the eldest daughter and Thutmose the eldest son, though there could have been others before them who did not live long enough to enter the records. We know that Thutmose was dead by Year 30 and that Sitamun became a GRW to AIII during Year 30 and that, if the co-regency of 8 years is correct, and it is not a 100% certainty, the next eldest son, prince Amunhotep, became Amunhotep IV. We know that Sitamun was an adult by the time KV46 was sealed, possibly in the last third of the reign of AIII. Everything else is a guess.

I could presume that Sitamun was the eldest child and born in Year 5, making her twenty five in Year 30. This though would make her about thirty nine by the time Tutankhaten was born in about Year 14 of Akhenaten, the generally accepted view. However, as it looks more likely that Tutankhaten's first three regnal years were the same as those of Neferneferuaten, and began with the death of Akhenaten, then he would have been born in about Year 11, with Sitamun being no older than 36. As the upper age for the YL is 35, if she were Sitamun, then she needs to have been born later than Year 6 of AIII, but that's just to get into the top of the age range. If she were in the middle at thirty she would have been born around Year 11 of AIII, and I suggest a number of infant mortalities before her, excepting in that time Thutmose was probably born, and potentially another son. Btw, at the oldest estimate for KV55 of 45, it would put his birth around Year 10 of AIII, and around twenty on becoming co-regent, not unreasonable, though the lower estimate of KV55 of 35 makes him ten, which is not possible considering that Meritaten appears in Year 2. Split the difference and he's about 15, which looks reasonable.

So, for Sitamun to be a fit by age for the YL, and taking the middle ground between the YL age estimate, she needs to have been born around Year 11 of AIII, assuming an 8 year co-regency between AIII and Akhenaten, and that she died no more than five years after the birth of Tutankhaten, and that's into his Year 16, presuming, as I get more and more convinced, that he was born around Year 11, otherwise she becomes too old and everything has to be stretched to fit, and I think it would be stretching things to bring her age forward from AIII Year 11, how far? until we get a convenient fit?

Edited March 4, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

3 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Yes, I've seen that about Yuya's depiction more fitting the last third of the reign of AIII.

So, how old might some of these personalities been. I'll deal with Tiye first.

The age of Tiye at death is estimated in the range of 40-50, and having died in Year 12, or shortly after, of Akhenaten.

So let's do some figures for how old she might have been at the start of the reign of AIII

With an 8 year co-regency and Tiye dying after a further 4 years means that she died approx 42 years after the start of the reign of AIII, though she was not married to him until Year 2, something I keep forgetting. So the youngest age given for her mummy of 40 cannot be possible as she would not even have been born by Year 2. If at the oldest age of 50, then she would have been aged nine, which, until comparatively recent times, 19th Century AD, is quite possible. So, to keep things reasonably simple, let's say she was nine and that no child appeared before Year 5 at the earliest. So that is based on the science, though not exact with mummies, and what is possible in their culture.

Everything that follows with the children of AIII and Tiye is mostly conjecture. We have some names, we know that Sitamun was the eldest daughter and Thutmose the eldest son, though there could have been others before them who did not live long enough to enter the records. We know that Thutmose was dead by Year 30 and that Sitamun became a GRW to AIII during Year 30 and that, if the co-regency of 8 years is correct, and it is not a 100% certainty, the next eldest son, prince Amunhotep, became Amunhotep IV. We know that Sitamun was an adult by the time KV46 was sealed, possibly in the last third of the reign of AIII. Everything else is a guess.

I could presume that Sitamun was the eldest child and born in Year 5, making her twenty five in Year 30. This though would make her about thirty nine by the time Tutankhaten was born in about Year 14 of Akhenaten, the generally accepted view. However, as it looks more likely that Tutankhaten's first three regnal years were the same as those of Neferneferuaten, and began with the death of Akhenaten, then he would have been born in about Year 11, with Sitamun being no older than 36. As the upper age for the YL is 35, if she were Sitamun, then she needs to have been born later than Year 6 of AIII, but that's just to get into the top of the age range. If she were in the middle at thirty she would have been born around Year 11 of AIII, and I suggest a number of infant mortalities before her, excepting in that time Thutmose was probably born, and potentially another son. Btw, at the oldest estimate for KV55 of 45, it would put his birth around Year 10 of AIII, and around twenty on becoming co-regent, not unreasonable, though the lower estimate of KV55 of 35 makes him ten, which is not possible considering that Meritaten appears in Year 2. Split the difference and he's about 15, which looks reasonable.

So, for Sitamun to be a fit by age for the YL, and taking the middle ground between the YL age estimate, she needs to have been born around Year 11 of AIII, assuming an 8 year co-regency between AIII and Akhenaten, and that she died no more than five years after the birth of Tutankhaten, and that's into his Year 16, presuming, as I get more and more convinced, that he was born around Year 11, otherwise she becomes too old and everything has to be stretched to fit, and I think it would be stretching things to bring her age forward from AIII Year 11, how far? until we get a convenient fit?

Thanks, that's extremely helpful.  One quibble though, I don't understand the utility of saying there is an acceptable age range of 25 - 35, and then choosing the midpoint of that as the probable age.  It seems to me that any point within that range is acceptable and possible, and that YL could have been, say, 34 or 35.   IOW, I don't see how it is more likely that YL is 30 than 35, other than by choosing it.

[Wepwawet]

Any of these adult mummies could of course be at one of the extremities of the age range, but I just prefer to go with the middle of the range as it avoids having to stretch things, to need to then juggle with the ages of other people, or of events, if they don't fit well at either extremity. There's always a certain amount of wiggle room, for instance the date given for the start and end of reigns, AIII in this case, which varies by two years. That's not a great deal, likewise if Tutankhaten was born 3 years earlier than thought, but if you use either far end of the age bracket you loose flexibility. Sitting in the middle allows you to say someone is + or - an age by a few years, but at the extremities, while you can add or subtract age to bring them further towards the middle, if you subtract from the earliest age or add to the oldest age, then you go outside the range. Of course as aging mummies is not exact, they could actually be outside the given range, but then we are in the realm of pure guesswork.

So the YL could be 36, or a few years older, or 25, or a few years younger, and there is still the opinion of her being around 20, which is not liked because it would preclude her from being Nefertiti, but not from being Beketaten.

Two "mischevious" thoughts. IF Sitamun were the YL, then she may have died in Year 16, the year that Kiya seems to dissapear. IF the YL were twenty, this would fit with the un-evidenced notion that Beketaten was born in Year 30 of AIII, and then die right at the start of the reign of Tutankhaten, if his years follow those of Neferneferuaten. See how easy it is to play with all of this

[Wistman]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

Any of these adult mummies could of course be at one of the extremities of the age range, but I just prefer to go with the middle of the range as it avoids having to stretch things, to need to then juggle with the ages of other people, or of events, if they don't fit well at either extremity. There's always a certain amount of wiggle room, for instance the date given for the start and end of reigns, AIII in this case, which varies by two years. That's not a great deal, likewise if Tutankhaten was born 3 years earlier than thought, but if you use either far end of the age bracket you loose flexibility. Sitting in the middle allows you to say someone is + or - an age by a few years, but at the extremities, while you can add or subtract age to bring them further towards the middle, if you subtract from the earliest age or add to the oldest age, then you go outside the range. Of course as aging mummies is not exact, they could actually be outside the given range, but then we are in the realm of pure guesswork.

So the YL could be 36, or a few years older, or 25, or a few years younger, and there is still the opinion of her being around 20, which is not liked because it would preclude her from being Nefertiti, but not from being Beketaten.

Two "mischevious" thoughts. IF Sitamun were the YL, then she may have died in Year 16, the year that Kiya seems to dissapear. IF the YL were twenty, this would fit with the un-evidenced notion that Beketaten was born in Year 30 of AIII, and then die right at the start of the reign of Tutankhaten, if his years follow those of Neferneferuaten. See how easy it is to play with all of this

True enough.  But, we are closer now to seeing Sitamun as not being too old for YL, which is different from what is generally thought.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

Biologically possible, but on other factors I don't see it. For instance, let's say that Nefertiti only had the six daughters, I'm not sure why Akhenaten would then turn to a sister, who was in all probability older than him, for a son, particularly when there is no guarantee that she would have a son, and that with her age and it being incestuous, any child could be born a wreck, oh wait...

But yes, possible, but IMO not likely.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

21 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Biologically possible, but on other factors I don't see it. For instance, let's say that Nefertiti only had the six daughters, I'm not sure why Akhenaten would then turn to a sister, who was in all probability older than him, for a son, particularly when there is no guarantee that she would have a son, and that with her age and it being incestuous, any child could be born a wreck, oh wait...

But yes, possible, but IMO not likely.

I'm not married to Sitamun as Tut's mom.  Just trying to gauge what is impossible and what is not.  Akhenaten may not have turned to Sitamun for a son, but had a loving brotherly relationship with her that was rekindled when she arrived at Akhetaten, had sex with her and she became pregnant.  That is possible, especially with this family in this era.

Let's face it, Sitamun had had a great position at AIII's court, and within the Royal family.  After AIII's death, and knowing the trajectories of Royal women's power careers at that point, why would she stay behind in withering obscurity within the yawning empty Malkata?

Anyway, moving on.

AIII began building the palace at Malkata @ his year 11, I think it's conjectured.  At some point the "Dazzling City of Aten" grew up around it, likely from the start.  The Royal family moved in permanently just before the yr 30 heb sed festival.  Prior to this, Memphis had been the permanent residence of the kings of Egypt, with assorted royal palaces elsewhere where the sovereigns 'temporarily' resided, at least officially.  Approaching yr 30, it was officially Malkata, at DCoA (for short).

This was, in most every way, the prototype for Akhenaten's move to Akhetaten, except that, for Akhenaten, it came at the beginning of his kingship rather than at the end as with AIII, and Akhetaten was geographically more removed from Thebes and the cult of Amun.

It becomes clear that Akhenaten didn't initiate this formula of action, he copied it from his father.

I wonder at how Memphis fared, as a city, after AIII's moving the official Royal presence out of town.  It was, after all, the center of the Ptah cult.  I know it kept it's administrative functions, so probably better than DCoA did after Akhenaten removed to Amarna.  How I wish we'd get a field report on DCoA from Hawass et al, I'm hungry for some specifics about its rise and fall.  It seems, so far, that at least some normal functions of trade and society were halted almost immediately, with food dressing and craft making abandoned on the spot, and items left in situ.

 

Edited March 5, 2022 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

This is a bit of a diversion, but has overall bearing I think.

There's some issues about how the country was run, and who was actually doing the day to day running of the country during the reign of Akhenaten. In normal circumstances, while it seems that the vizier and treasurer actually ran the country, and this comes from it being found that they did not respond directly to the king, but to each other, it may be that Akhenaten had either taken direct control, which he was unable to do properly along with his religious programme, or that he let the country run itself, as each nomarch could control their own nome, and each major temple act as a regional commercial center, which is what they were anyway. So Akhenaten is sitting in Akhetaten and using it as a "playground" for his experiment, an experiment started by Amunhotep III in moving to Malkata as potentially part of a religious plan, going by some of the statements by O'Connor and Kline regarding geographical locations of temples built by him at the extremities of Upper and Lower Egypt.

I suspect that Egypt as a whole carried on as usual as far as the internal workings of the country went as the state did not actually need a king to run it, which seems an odd thing to say, but there is no great evidence that kings actually had a hand in running the country other than foreign policy and personal vanity projects, such as Abu Simbel, or their own mortuary temples and tombs. They had ultimate power of course, but maybe as their presence was not crucial except as the upholder of Ma'at and representative of Ra on Earth, this was taken advantage of by Akhenaten. So while it seems that Malkata was abandoned very quickly, it had no great effect other than royal correspondance needing to be diverted to Akhetaten, and it's interesting that the Amarna letters do not deal with the day to day running of the country, which is a pity, but deal with foreign affairs. I imagine though that these letters survive because they are not crucial to the running of the country, and those that were had been removed to Memphis when Akhetaten was abandoned and the royal circus was moved again.

[Wistman]

It seems that is so, and telling.  I think the treasurer was Maya and the vizier was Ay in our target area.  It appears that, along with Horemheb, they were the triumvirate of power that ruled during Tut's kingship.  The only apparent major change to things then, after the fall of Amarna, would be (other than the de-sanctioning of the Amun cult) in the reparation of international affairs.  It seems that AIII was competent in this all-important area and Akhenaten was not.  And, as Redford noted in 2013, 18D Egypt had become glutted with wealth not from a sea-change in internal economic factors, but rather derived  from booty and taxation from tribute countries:

Quote

Between the expulsion of the Hyksos and the accession of Akhenaten, Egypt experienced two major jolts in its socioeconomic system., never felt before nor predicted at the time.  Neither has to do with ideological or theological friction fomenting crises - temples required administrators rather than theologians (Janssen 1979, 508) - but both derive from the new role thrust upon the country by the vagaries of the historical process.  These are, first, the growth of an economy of scale, and second, a demographic shift, resulting from Empire.  In Egypt, it is almost axiomatic that absence of construction or endowment in a king's reign signals either lack of manpower, inability to organize, or sheer penury.  But with the extension of the frontiers (Galan 1995, 104-28), penury became unknown and the workforce multiplied.  For the first time in Egyptian history, booty (Liverani 1990, 255-57) and taxes (Warburgton 1997) and later substantial gift exchange (Bleiberg 1996; Cochavi-Raini 1999) began to flow into Egyptian coffers.  The conceptualizing of the relationship of the newly conquered to the victors as that of mrt, "lower class labor", (Urk. IV: 102:15, 742:13-743:8; Warburton 1997, 272-74), or ndt, "tenants, dependents" (Urk. IV: 138-9; 140:16-17), meant that the same tax structure imposed on Egyptian peasantry could be applied also to Canaanites and Nubians (Urk. IV: 55:8-9; 70).

Side by side with the increase of revenues, the Eighteenth Dynasty witnessed the revival of an old, though sporadic practice - viz., the forcible uprooting of foreign populations engulfed by the expanding borders and their resettlement in Egypt (Helck 1971: 342-70; D.B. Redford 1990: 37-39; 1977: 13-27; Hohlbein 2009).  Most of these foreigners were assigned to temple communities as farmhands, garment workers, producers of food and drink, construction workers, or professionals.  The result was the emergence of temple communities of enormous size, the like of which had never been seen, the temples "being surrounded by the towns of Kharu, settled with the children of the chiefs (Urk. IV: 1649:12-13).

 Neither Maya nor Ay, for all their skill and competence (which I'd imagine was substantial) could happily manage the Egyptian state around these critical factors dependent upon direction from a distracted Pharaoh.

So DCoA and Aketaten were vanity projects for the Royal bubble, whilst the real management of the Egyptian state happened in Memphis and the big cult temples.  Meanwhile the  elite in the bubble fantasy city, increasingly removed from any contact with actual functioning Egyptian society and its larger economy, neglected to maintain its basics.  Sounds familiar.

Still, moving the official Royal court to more and more remote places had to impact the respective economies of the now-former host cities and temple complexes, besides the increasingly reductive outlook of the elite.

And, it seems to me, there was zilch reason for a still-young widowed Queen to stay in a shut-down former bubble city and palace.

 

 

Edited March 7, 2022 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

From the little that has been released about the Malkata "extension", and it's too early for much anyway, it does look like a very abrupt end in Year 38 of AIII, and then nothing until Tutankhamun gets a mention. I would imagine that the entire family still at Thebes in Year 38 would have moved to Amarna, with quite a few dying there, perhaps including Sitamun, because if it's a fact that she was never buried with AIII, then I cannot think of where else she would have been buried other than at Amarna, but there's no trace of her there, or rather no trace left or yet discovered.

I think that as there is no great evidence of any disturbances at the end of the reign of Akhenaten, though I think there are some traces of something possibly happening at Amarna, it shows that their sytem worked well, for even if there were some problems, there is nothing wrong by the time of Tutankhamun. I think this does show that no matter if there is a "head in the clouds" king, or a juvenile king, the mechanisms under the vizier and treasurer kept the wheels turning. I think that a sign of a very mature and stable state, that while there was a blip, it was contained and managed. I wonder if Ay was, as he is often accused off, sceming and manipulating behind the scenes, or actually just doing his duty and maintainng a hand on the tiller when the seas got a bit rough. Bob Brier out and out accused him of murdering Tutankhamun, and he's not alone, so "justice for Ay!" ?

Edited March 8, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

Looking for something and came across this which I hadn't seen before, would appreciate comments. (understanding some of my graphic characters (such as 'h = palace) don't show the precise determinative phonetic accents and underslashes)

Re: Nefertiti's ancestral Royal connections:

*      The relief with titles of Queen Nefertiti from the Temple of Sesebi in Nubia (B.I.22):

I.1-2)  iry-p't wrt hswt [..ndm] mrwt hnwt Sm'w T3-mhw [...m] 'h km3 mtr 3ht [...] wrt mrwt.f [Nfr-nfrw-'Itn-nfr-tyty] 'nh dt [nhh]

Hereditary princess, greatly favored, sweet of love, Lady of Upper and Lower Egypt, (...in the) 'h, who bears witness to the horizon and ascends (?) to [...], the great King's Chief wife, his beloved [Nfr-nfrw-'Itn-nfr-tyty] may she live [continually].

tr: Giulia Pagliari

 

Is she elsewhere styled as Hereditary Princess?

Edited March 9, 2022 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Wistman said:

Looking for something and came across this which I hadn't seen before, would appreciate comments. (understanding some of my graphic characters (such as 'h = palace) don't show the precise determinative phonetic accents and underslashes)

Re: Nefertiti's ancestral Royal connections:

*      The relief with titles of Queen Nefertiti from the Temple of Sesebi in Nubia (B.I.22):

I.1-2)  iry-p't wrt hswt [..ndm] mrwt hnwt Sm'w T3-mhw [...m] 'h km3 mtr 3ht [...] wrt mrwt.f [Nfr-nfrw-'Itn-nfr-tyty] 'nh dt [nhh]

Hereditary princess, greatly favored, sweet of love, Lady of Upper and Lower Egypt, (...in the) 'h, who bears witness to the horizon and ascends (?) to [...], the great King's Chief wife, his beloved [Nfr-nfrw-'Itn-nfr-tyty] may she live [continually].

tr: Giulia Pagliari

 

Is she elsewhere styled as Hereditary Princess?

 I cannot think of any other examples from the top of my head right now. I'll need to check in Murnane's book on Amarna texts.

But iry-pat is not very clear cut as apart from the meaning you show here, it can also be used to signify that a king's son is the heir as they don't always express it as "eldest".

Because she would not be styled as King's Daughter anyway, perhaps the iry-pat is another way of indicating this. And for any readers of this thread, if she were actually the daughter of a king, who would need to be Amunhotep III, she cannot be named as such when she is now the wife of a king. If she were, then the way the titles go, it would seem that she were the daughter of Akhenaten. It's for the same reason that as soon as their father dies, all his sons are no longer styled as "King's Son" as it would be seen as them having their older brother, now king, as their father. And I hope that all makes sense. What is needed with Nefertiti is a reference for her before she is married to Akhenaten, and that may be at the end of a rainbow.

Edited March 9, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

Here's one from Karnak before his name change.

Heiress of great favor, possessor of charm, sweet of love, mistress of Upper and Lower Egypt. King's Chief Wife, his beloved, Lady of the Two Lands, Nefertiti, may she live forever continually.

Unfortunately Murnane only gives a translation with no transliteration, let alone hieroglyphs, so it's not possible to see exactly what he has translated, presumably iry-pat, but it would be nice to know exactly.

[Wepwawet]

I found a further four examples, though there will be more. They are found on a shabti for her found in TA26, and inscriptions in the tombs of the stewards Apy and Huy, where she has this title twice. The epithets are all pretty much the same as those in the posts above.

Looking for anything in the contexts to the inscriptions I notice that, on an admittedly small sample, she is never given that title when she is mentioned with one or more of her daughters in the same inscription, only when the inscription is just about her or her and Akhenaten. An example of her mentioned with a daughter will be, The King's bodily daughter, his beloved, Meritaten, born to the King's Chief Wife, Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti, may she live forever. Why she does not seem to be titled as "hereditary" when mentioned with her daughters, only without them, remains to be answered. And for some added context, the fanbearer May is titled as hereditary prince in his own tomb, so showing, as we already know, that the title is also used as an honorific.

I'll also note that Meritaten, with Smenkhare or on Box 001K, is only given the title King's Chief Wife, so there is nothing, as a GRW, to tie her to either of her parents, even when mentioned with them on the box. If it were not for many other inscriptions showing her as a princess, we would never know who she was just going by the evidence for her as a GRW. I bring that up because it shows a very sharp contrast between Meritaten who is well attested as a princess for most of the reign before becoming a GRW, and Nefertiti who suddenly appears from nowhere as a GRW, The lack, in the early years, of an Aten name for her, for me mitigates against her changing her name on marrying the then Amunhotep IV. Nefertiti is a nice name, but it's neutral as far as any god is concerned, and the only reason for a change that I can see is if she had a name unacceptable at the start of the reign, but then that does not make sense when Akhenaten is still Amunhotep, so why have her change her name even before he changes his own.

Edited March 10, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

Well these examples and your notations do strengthen the case for Nefertiti as YL.  She is pretty much named as having Royal blood, seems unlikely for her that 'hereditary princess' would be an honorific.  And your point suggests that her lack of title as 'King's Daughter' could well be because she became GRW so early and no inscriptions of her pre-GRW have survived, so the lack of inscriptions over her lifetime naming her as 'King's Daughter' is very likely a matter of titulary protocol, not because she wasn't a royal princess.

Following on your above points, I note that Amarna tomb 12 in the Southern range, that of Nachtpaaten, designates him as 'hereditary prince, count, seal-bearer, overseer of the city, vizier, etc.'  An important man, would he have possibly been an actual royal prince, or given the title as an honorific?  Ever discuss him in your box thread?  Just curious.

I've found some material related to royal palaces of the era, but it's in pdf form and I have to transcribe it manually (no cut/paste) so it'll take a little time to put that together.  Nothing earth-shattering, but maybe helpful.  I'm working on a project for a client that has a deadline, so I'm not able to put much time into this right now.  Soon.

Edited March 12, 2022 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

59 minutes ago, Wistman said:

Well these examples and your notations do strengthen the case for Nefertiti as YL.  She is pretty much named as having Royal blood, seems unlikely for her that 'hereditary princess' would be an honorific.  And your point suggests that her lack of title as 'King's Daughter' could well be because she became GRW so early and no inscriptions of her pre-GRW have survived, so the lack of inscriptions over her lifetime naming her as 'King's Daughter' is very likely a matter of titulary protocol, not because she wasn't a royal princess.

Following on your above points, I note that Amarna tomb 12 in the Southern range, that of Nachtpaaten, designates him as 'hereditary prince, count, seal-bearer, overseer of the city, vizier, etc.'  An important man, would he have possibly been an actual royal prince, or given the title as an honorific?  Ever discuss him in your box thread?  Just curious.

I've found some material related to royal palaces of the era, but it's in pdf form and I have to transcribe it manually (no cut/paste) so it'll take a little time to put that together.  Nothing earth-shattering, but maybe helpful.  I'm working on a project for a client that has a deadline, so I'm not able to put much time into this right now.  Soon.

I honestly don't know with Nefertiti. Working back from the YL I can see why she can be said to be Nefertiti, but working forward from the first appearance of Nefertiti it is not so clear, at least to me. What I mean is that due to the YL's blood relationships she would fit, but  if Nefertiti why not a single mention before her sudden appearance. Of course it could just be a mundane case of the evidence not having survived, but, a little odd for the reign of Amunhotep III which was not exactly a dark age.

These numerous, and often very overblown titles, held by officials can make it seem that they may well have been from a cadet branch of the royal family, and probably would be in a medieval European royalty, or even that they may be a brother of the king, who all magically disappear when their father dies. But, here's an good example of how these titles, some of which look like they are as close to the king as a brother, mislead us. May has fifteen very grand titles. Apart from Hereditary Noble and Prince, he is also Only Friend and Companion. If that was all the imformation we had, then we would have some grounds to assume he was part of the family, but, in his tomb we also find this inscription. "I was a poor man on both on my father's and mother's side".

Nakhtpaaten was discussed as, if I rememember rightly, there is some indication with inscriptions found at his house of some issues seemingly pointing to tensions at the end of Akhenaten's reign. Again, if I remeber rightly, it's not what the inscriptions say, but the nature of a damnatio memoriae which could predate the end of Akhenaten. I'm not sure on this though, and Murnane is silent on this so I might have the wrong person, or wrong house. Anyway, his tomb gives nothing away with only an inscription on a doorjamb giving his titles, and no family background. A degree of discussion on the Box 001K thread was generated by the unforunate fact that far too  many inscriptions have been destroyed since the 19th Century, Nakhtpaaten's being one of them, so all we have, for the most part, are drawings made by Lepsius and others, or copies of copies, so we just don't really know with 100% certainty what was written, and have to hope that those who made the first copies got it right.

Edited March 12, 2022 by Wepwawet

[atalante]

On 2/16/2022 at 2:13 PM, Wepwawet said:

I think the the use of talatat occurred not consecutively, but concurrently. I don't see why he would use a new method first in Nubia and then in Egypt, and besides, the Gem-pa-Aten and Hwt-bnbn were probably began in Year 1 in order to be ready by Year 2/3. it all has the look of something pre-planned in a way we would see as modern, in that as soon as he became king he "hit the ground running" with a new religion, new way of constructiing buildings and a new style of art. While he did not change his name until Year 5 and there was an evolution of the art, essentially everything was ready to go, so I don't see why all his building projects did not all use talatat straight away.

However, the question of who invented the talatat is very interesting, and I don't have an answer. If it were not Akhenaten himself, then we would have to hope to find the tomb of whoever did invent them as they may have left a clue, something along the lines of part of his biography saying, "I assisted his majesty in raising temples". I doubt it would be a straight forward "I invented a way of making small uniform building blocks". ...........

Of course the big problem is that the king did everything, everybody else just carrying out his orders, and unless we find a helpful biography, we will remain in the dark as to who was responsible for all the aspects of Amarna other than AIII and Akhenaten. Akhenaten could have been one of those rare exceptional people, an ancient Leonardo for instance, even if he were in his early-mid teens on becoming king, as genius has a habit of starting young, but, we don't know.

Wepwawet,

The shared-tomb of two viziers to Amenhotep III and IV has been systematically excavated  and conserved since 1980 by Alain Zivie (who wrote the following article).  We now have information about who supervised the education for children of both Amenhotep III and IV.  It was a man named 'Apar-El, together with his son Huy.  They are likely to be (either directly of indirectly) the people who educated Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten about how to build structures with talatat blocks.  

 

from:  https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/44/4/2

Two other important titles must be mentioned. They are found in the chapel of the tomb, but are not well preserved, and their complete reading is not absolutely certain. The first one is “director of the foster fathers and mothers of the children of the king” (mr mn‘w/wt msw nsw). It indicates that ‘Abdiel was responsible for the officials or wives of officials, the royal foster fathers and mothers who were in charge of feeding and educating the princes and princesses. This could be connected to the title of “father of the god [the king],” which ‘Abdiel bears in many inscriptions.

The second title was found close to the previous one in the chapel and reads “first servant of Aten in …” (b3k tpy n Itn m …); the end is not readable. That title would prove that ‘Abdiel had an early—potentially already under Amenhotep III—and high connection with the cult of Aten, perhaps first in Memphis and later in Akhetaten, the new “sacred” capital founded by Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten). All these titles and functions attest to a personal link between ‘Abdiel (and perhaps his elder son as well) and one or, more likely, two pharaohs, the father and son Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV.

One of the main characteristics of the tomb is its direct connection with the Amarna period, which is the center of much interest and many heated debates. But it is difficult to situate precisely the full career of the tomb’s main owner, ‘Abdiel (‘Aper-El), within the reigns of Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten). The man could have lived most of his adult life under and served both kings. As for his elder son Huy, he would have served mainly or solely the pharaoh Amenhotep IV. There would not have been a strict symmetry between the fathers, ‘Abdiel and Amenhotep III, and the sons, Huy and Amenhotep IV. Things cannot be so simple, especially as the history of the Amarna period in its broader definition (from the last years of Amenhotep III until the reign of Tutankhamun) is not so firmly established. In that context, the tomb Bubasteion I.1 of Saqqara certainly constitutes a new and welcome source of information on the Amarna period, but as it is, this information is still unclear. We do not yet have a complete idea of the role that ‘Abdiel played during that period, even if it was evidently a very important one.

 

The few precisely dated elements discovered in the tomb include a royal cartouche partly defaced on a wall of the chapel. It could have been Nebmaâtrâ, the praenomen of Amenhotep III, but the question remains open. Among the many objects of the funerary material, clear cartouches of Amenhotep III have nevertheless been discovered (with, in one case, the cartouche of his wife, Queen Tiy). Clay sealings referring to Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) were also found in the disorder of the plundered funerary room. Moreover, we discovered wine jars with hieratic dockets mentioning the general Huy associated with year 10 of the reign of Akhenaten,¹² giving a terminus ante quem for the life of Huy. Finally, we must stress that the funerary apparatus of the three persons buried in the tomb forms a very coherent ensemble. There is no real difference of style, and further it refers to the Osirian funerary tradition as it appears from the coffins, etc.—as if the Amarna crisis were not so pregnant in that Memphite tomb, except for changes like the name of Amenhotep transformed to Huy on the son’s inner coffin. All that is surprising, more so as we face burials which perhaps did not occur at the same time.

In any case, one fact seems clear: ‘Abdiel (‘Aper-El) had been particularly close to the two kings, Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten). He had played an important role at the side of the first sovereign, but he also must have continued to work for and with the second one, in spite of the changing political and religious circumstances—perhaps because he had supervised the foster fathers and mothers of Amenhotep III’s children. So, with ‘Abdiel, the Amarna crisis does not prevent us from discerning a kind of continuity in Egyptian politics, even if some paradigms changed. It is also clear that the role of ‘Abdiel during this period is not acknowledged as it deserves. After all, he is the only attested high official of this period who had been vizier, “father of the god,” and “child of the palace.”

 

Taking all that data into account, we can qualify ‘Abdiel with the title of “Pharaoh’s man”—or even, perhaps more precisely, “the Pharaohs’ man,” referring to Amenhotep III and IV. But perhaps he died too early in the reign of Akhenaten, possibly like his elder son, to play a role at the end of the Amarna period, unlike his contemporaries (and possible rivals), the two future kings Ay and Horemheb. It is difficult to admit, but we have apparently no other mention of this man in spite of his importance.¹³

 

But we must take also into account that he may have been known under another name, a shortened name, or a nickname. Elsewhere he may be mentioned by this other name, as often happens in Egypt for New Kingdom officials, particularly during the Amarna period in its broader definition.