Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Amarna, Before and After


Wistman

Recommended Posts

Going back to the proposed extension to KV62 and the burial chamber north wall scene, here are some issues which both go against and for Reeves.

The scene is said to be hurriedly done, and as far as letting the paint dry this seems to be the case, but otherwise it is generally well executed, it looks pretty neat I think. An issue with being hurried though is with what Reeves points out as alterations, and this seems to be the case. However, if this scene were in fact made in a hurry from the get go, why even bother making alterations, part of Reeves argument as it would be more likely to need to do alterations for a change in circumstances, hardly a concern if there really was such a rush to finish the tomb. While not seeing the alterations in the cartouches that Reeves can see, I can see two issues, one probably ephemeral, the other more likely to be a sign of hurried work, but perhaps an odd one considering how neat everything else is. I'll draw attention here to the two cartouches for Tutankhamun. The left hand one is missing a "T" from the "TUT". See the Ank sign in the middle left, then the "U" of the quail chick to it's right, then the "T". here should be another "T" over the back of the chick,"U". This is not an alternate spelling, it's wrongly spelt, it says "Tu-ank-Amun. This error looks a bit odd, (See my final comment) Then, more perception than anything else, the "kheper" sign in the next cartouche is out of alignment, it's shifted a bit to the right, likewise the "III" plural sign. In normal circumstances this last point could be ignored, but not when there is a dispute that it could have once read not "Nebkheperure", but "Ankhkheperure", then change only needing the insertion of an ankh sign. When the cartouche is vertical as this one is, the ankh will be by the kheper sign, and as the reading order on Tutankhamun's side of this scene is from right to left, we would see the kheper on the left and the ankh to it's right. I know this is probably uber pedantic, but for some it's a matter of life and death, isn't it :)  So it is reasonable, even if not factual, to say that an original kheper and ankh sign were removed and a single kheper painted in their place, but a little bit out.

KLG6337p206-7.jpg

A further point about Reeves stating that the figure on the left was originally Nefertiti is that apart from him saying that the profile is the same as that of the Berlin bust, not Tutankhamun's, the lines on the face at the corners of the mouth and on the throat also indicate this is Nefertiti. While not having lines by the mouth, this bust of Tutankhamun certainly does have lines on his throat. If nothing else this shows that Reeves is rather selective with the evidence he puts forward and omits evidence that workd against him. This is normal of course, but always damages the case being put forward.

tut_kopf-johnbodsworth2.jpg

So it's all a bit mixed up, but is the issue here not so much with identities we do or do not see in the north wall paintings, or an expectation by us that the Egyptians should have been perfect in all they did at all times, errors or sloppyness being "suspicious" to us in modern times, and that extends beyond this specific topic. "How dare a king not have a decorated sarcophagus or burial chamber, this is suspicious! this is not a tomb!", or "The profile of Tutankhamun's nose is not always replicated exactly, outrageous! something is wrong!" "It's TUT not TU, get it right damned peasant, and no robbing the tomb later, unless I get my cut"

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Going back to the proposed extension to KV62 and the burial chamber north wall scene, here are some issues which both go against and for Reeves.

The scene is said to be hurriedly done, and as far as letting the paint dry this seems to be the case, but otherwise it is generally well executed, it looks pretty neat I think. An issue with being hurried though is with what Reeves points out as alterations, and this seems to be the case. However, if this scene were in fact made in a hurry from the get go, why even bother making alterations, part of Reeves argument as it would be more likely to need to do alterations for a change in circumstances, hardly a concern if there really was such a rush to finish the tomb. While not seeing the alterations in the cartouches that Reeves can see, I can see two issues, one probably ephemeral, the other more likely to be a sign of hurried work, but perhaps an odd one considering how neat everything else is. I'll draw attention here to the two cartouches for Tutankhamun. The left hand one is missing a "T" from the "TUT". See the Ank sign in the middle left, then the "U" of the quail chick to it's right, then the "T". here should be another "T" over the back of the chick,"U". This is not an alternate spelling, it's wrongly spelt, it says "Tu-ank-Amun. This error looks a bit odd, (See my final comment) Then, more perception than anything else, the "kheper" sign in the next cartouche is out of alignment, it's shifted a bit to the right, likewise the "III" plural sign. In normal circumstances this last point could be ignored, but not when there is a dispute that it could have once read not "Nebkheperure", but "Ankhkheperure", then change only needing the insertion of an ankh sign. When the cartouche is vertical as this one is, the ankh will be by the kheper sign, and as the reading order on Tutankhamun's side of this scene is from right to left, we would see the kheper on the left and the ankh to it's right. I know this is probably uber pedantic, but for some it's a matter of life and death, isn't it :)  So it is reasonable, even if not factual, to say that an original kheper and ankh sign were removed and a single kheper painted in their place, but a little bit out.

KLG6337p206-7.jpg

A further point about Reeves stating that the figure on the left was originally Nefertiti is that apart from him saying that the profile is the same as that of the Berlin bust, not Tutankhamun's, the lines on the face at the corners of the mouth and on the throat also indicate this is Nefertiti. While not having lines by the mouth, this bust of Tutankhamun certainly does have lines on his throat. If nothing else this shows that Reeves is rather selective with the evidence he puts forward and omits evidence that workd against him. This is normal of course, but always damages the case being put forward.

tut_kopf-johnbodsworth2.jpg

So it's all a bit mixed up, but is the issue here not so much with identities we do or do not see in the north wall paintings, or an expectation by us that the Egyptians should have been perfect in all they did at all times, errors or sloppyness being "suspicious" to us in modern times, and that extends beyond this specific topic. "How dare a king not have a decorated sarcophagus or burial chamber, this is suspicious! this is not a tomb!", or "The profile of Tutankhamun's nose is not always replicated exactly, outrageous! something is wrong!" "It's TUT not TU, get it right damned peasant, and no robbing the tomb later, unless I get my cut"

Yes indeed.

Could that be a nine or twelve year old Tut officiating at Nefertiti's burial?  Seems not to me, but that's just me.

There is a certain neatness in the painted figures, but there's a lack of painted uniformity over the entire wall, a lack of uniformity in the finesse and proportions, explained by the Getty conservators as due, possibly, to several teams working adjunct but using different methods...and rushed.  The hieroglyphs too are neat but not uniformly painted over the entire wall, their conception, alignment, and placement a little 'off', like those inside the cartouches, which were painted last on the wall.  Weird about the missing 't', but they possibly ran out of time to fix it.  That line btw seems 'squeezed' to the left, doesn't it. 

Don't forget, the chamber had to be dug, the walls had to be chiselled, then smoothed with eight layers of priming and ground, each of which had to thoroughly dry before the subsequent layer could be applied, then painted in sequential layers.  By the time they got to finishing the N wall, the sarcophagus was certainly already in place.  The chamber was cramped, workers breathing and sweating inside.  Yuck.

"Mistakes were made."

 

Edited by Wistman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Wistman said:

Yes indeed.

Could that be a nine or twelve year old Tut officiating at Nefertiti's burial?  Seems not to me, but that's just me.

There is a certain neatness in the painted figures, but there's a lack of painted uniformity over the entire wall, a lack of uniformity in the finesse and proportions, explained by the Getty conservators as due, possibly, to several teams working adjunct but using different methods...and rushed.  The hieroglyphs too are neat but not uniformly painted over the entire wall, their conception, alignment, and placement a little 'off', like those inside the cartouches, which were painted last on the wall.  Weird about the missing 't', but they possibly ran out of time to fix it.  That line btw seems 'squeezed' to the left, doesn't it. 

Don't forget, the chamber had to be dug, the walls had to be chiselled, then smoothed with eight layers of priming and ground, each of which had to thoroughly dry before the subsequent layer could be applied, then painted in sequential layers.  By the time they got to finishing the N wall, the sarcophagus was certainly already in place.  The chamber was cramped, workers breathing and sweating inside.  Yuck.

"Mistakes were made."

 

Yeah, I don't think this is Tutankhamun officiating at the burial of Nefertiti either, and I pointed out that this scene is making a clear statement that the officiating king is legitimizing his rule by performing the ceremony on the dead king, but if the dead king is a female there can never be any legitimization, so the dead king has to be male. I do though think that there are aspects to the burial chamber that go beyond haste, and I'm not convinced that using both grid patterns is haste as I do not see two teams of painters being used with each team using different techniques, and in such a small space.

Because this is Amarna I thought to perhaps add more complication and propose that, just like Reeves, the dead king is indeed Smenkhkare, but the real male Smenkhkare and not Nefertiti. This would fit with potential cartouche changes, particularly to Tutankhamun's prenomen. The figure of Ay that Reeves says is Tutankhamun would then be Nefertiti claiming legitimacy from a male king, and making a show of it, at least magically if not publicly. But, this raises all sorts of other impossible to answer questions, not least why would Smenkhkare be buried at Thebes when he would have died at Amarna and the city was still the capital into the start of the reign of Tutankhamun. It also gives us three potential candidates to be Smenkhkare, KV55, KV35 boy and a Smenkhkare hidden in an extension to KV62. I'll have the blue pill now... :wacko:

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Yeah, I don't think this is Tutankhamun officiating at the burial of Nefertiti either, and I pointed out that this scene is making a clear statement that the officiating king is legitimizing his rule by performing the ceremony on the dead king, but if the dead king is a female there can never be any legitimization, so the dead king has to be male. I do though think that there are aspects to the burial chamber that go beyond haste, and I'm not convinced that using both grid patterns is haste as I do not see two teams of painters being used with each team using different techniques, and in such a small space.

Because this is Amarna I thought to perhaps add more complication and propose that, just like Reeves, the dead king is indeed Smenkhkare, but the real male Smenkhkare and not Nefertiti. This would fit with potential cartouche changes, particularly to Tutankhamun's prenomen. The figure of Ay that Reeves says is Tutankhamun would then be Nefertiti claiming legitimacy from a male king, and making a show of it, at least magically if not publicly. But, this raises all sorts of other impossible to answer questions, not least why would Smenkhkare be buried at Thebes when he would have died at Amarna and the city was still the capital into the start of the reign of Tutankhamun. It also gives us three potential candidates to be Smenkhkare, KV55, KV35 boy and a Smenkhkare hidden in an extension to KV62. I'll have the blue pill now... :wacko:

I see now the point you were making which is tantalizing I'll admit.  B)  Though, in addition to your caveats, if Smenkhkare predeceased Akhenaten, then Nefertiti wearing the Sem priest's leopard-skin garb is ver-r-ry curious and I can't see that happening; otherwise, I suppose, it would necessitate Smenkhkare ruling between Akhenaten and Nefertiti so that she would have already begun the restoration of the old cults and the return to VotK.  It's pretty squirrely.  Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, neither Ay nor Nefertiti should be there performing the opening of the mouth ritual; neither was son of the deceased nor Sem priest.  I assume Ay did it to usurp Horemheb's designation as heir and certify it ritually.  That, in fact, may be why the paintings came to be in the chamber at all....and also the fact that the tomb is pretty measly for a late D18 pharaoh; it needed to be gussied up at least somewhat to make up for the intention that Tut's own tomb would be usurped by Ay for himself. 

For me, zooming in to look closely at the wall paintings, there are some curiosities.  I can agree that the differing grid systems for the figure groupings may have been, for some reason, meant to be part of the overall design, but I do see different hands at work on the figures.  Even with the two you show, the Osiris king is highly refined linearly, contained and precisely drawn, whereas the Sem priest is more painterly, the outlines more gestural, and comparative proportions, seen particularly in the arms and hands, larger and less formal.  I think the 'rushed' aspect is seen in the lack of corrections and revisions to textual elements, most obviously in the cartouches, and in the execution of the figures as well (though they have distinct elegance), which would have imparted to the wall more formal uniformity, which I see as lacking.  There doesn't appear to have been some master designer/painter in a supervisory role, at least on the N wall.  But I may be being overly scrupulous about it, a habit of mine when viewing works of art.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

 Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, neither Ay nor Nefertiti should be there performing the opening of the mouth ritual; neither was son of the deceased nor Sem priest.  I assume Ay did it to usurp Horemheb's designation as heir and certify it ritually.  That, in fact, may be why the paintings came to be in the chamber at all....and also the fact that the tomb is pretty measly for a late D18 pharaoh; it needed to be gussied up at least somewhat to make up for the intention that Tut's own tomb would be usurped by Ay for himself

 

The opening of the mouth scene in KV62 is in fact unique, and as you say, neither Ay or Nefertiti should be performing this ritual. In fact no king should be performing this ritual for his predecessor at all, and I've been infected with what Dodson calls "zombie facts" and as they were the first "facts" I picked up, they sometimes intrude. Some tombs have extensive depictions of this ceremony, though mostly of nobles, as far as kings go then the tomb of Seti I has an entire corridor devoted to depicting this ceremony. There are, as best as I can make out, 25 separate instances of the dead king having the ceremony in it's various stages enacted. In every single instance the officiant, the priest standing directly in front of the dead king and uttering spells or holding various implements up to the mummy, is either a lector or sem. None of them are named, none of them are Ramesses II acting as a priest. The final act, the one depicted in KV62, is carried out by a lector. The "zombie fact" that I have used from time to time is that as all the officiating priests refer to the dead king as their "father", it has in the past been assumed that this is meant literally and that it is a son officiating at the burial of his father.

So Ay, or whoever it is in KV62, has no business at all appearing in that scene, except to try and magically "make it so", which perhaps shows an insight into the mind of Ay, and some insecurity. It could be that if he is in fact a blood relative of Tutankhamun, and can by their complicated "countback" system to find legitimacy, be the "eldest son" of his great nephew, therefore claiming the throne. It all looks very desparate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

The opening of the mouth scene in KV62 is in fact unique, and as you say, neither Ay or Nefertiti should be performing this ritual. In fact no king should be performing this ritual for his predecessor at all, and I've been infected with what Dodson calls "zombie facts" and as they were the first "facts" I picked up, they sometimes intrude. Some tombs have extensive depictions of this ceremony, though mostly of nobles, as far as kings go then the tomb of Seti I has an entire corridor devoted to depicting this ceremony. There are, as best as I can make out, 25 separate instances of the dead king having the ceremony in it's various stages enacted. In every single instance the officiant, the priest standing directly in front of the dead king and uttering spells or holding various implements up to the mummy, is either a lector or sem. None of them are named, none of them are Ramesses II acting as a priest. The final act, the one depicted in KV62, is carried out by a lector. The "zombie fact" that I have used from time to time is that as all the officiating priests refer to the dead king as their "father", it has in the past been assumed that this is meant literally and that it is a son officiating at the burial of his father.

So Ay, or whoever it is in KV62, has no business at all appearing in that scene, except to try and magically "make it so", which perhaps shows an insight into the mind of Ay, and some insecurity. It could be that if he is in fact a blood relative of Tutankhamun, and can by their complicated "countback" system to find legitimacy, be the "eldest son" of his great nephew, therefore claiming the throne. It all looks very desparate.

Thanks for that clarification; good to know.

If that is Ay in KV62, and I think it is, his desperation is evident, as you say.  Horemheb's military, administrative, and political skill was already proven and considerable, but Ay was an old hand at court, a man used to his own authority, and as a high-ranking member of the Akhmim clan must have enjoyed his elite placement in the order of things.  Even though Horemheb had successfully wheedled his designation by Tut as Crown Prince, Ay must have bristled at even the thought of having to bow before this humble-blooded upstart, the man's competence notwithstanding.  From his perch he would have seen Horemheb as little more than a servant of the crown, never an occupier of the throne.  Recall too the letter to the king of Mittani, thought to be written by Ankhesenamun after the death of Tutankhamun, asking him to send her a royal prince, so that she would not be forced to marry a servant.  This is commonly interpreted as meaning Ay, but more likely, to me at least, she referred to Horemheb (if she is in fact the writer.)  So Ay engineered his own seizing of the throne in violation of Pharaoh Tutankhamun's legal designation of Horemheb as heir, while Horemheb was away from court on military campaign.

What a dangerous game Ay played.  Horemheb was not the kind of man to thwart, especially with extrajudicial/religio-magical manipulation.  Ay's rule was short, as was Ankhesenamun's life.  I wonder why.  Maybe Ay just got old and died, and maybe Ankhesenamun got fatally sick.  And she was placed, it seems, in KV21 along with Nefertiti.  I'd think that was Ay's doing.

Edited by Wistman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting find on a piece of decorated ivory in the Munich museum. It has the Aten and it's cartouches, then the cartouches side by side of Akhenaten and Neferneferuaten. Unfortunately the German Egyptologist who discovered this has totally misread the cartouches and says that it shows Smenkhkare. The left cartouche says "Ankhkheperure - beloved of Wa-en-ra" the right hand cartouche is a problem as their reconstruction seems to say "Neferneferuaten - beloved of Akhenaten", but not quite, and if so this would be an epithet previously unknown. I suspect that it should be reconstructed to read as "Neferneferuaten - Akhet-en-hes" ie, "effective for her husband". However, no matter the misreading, I believe this is now only the second instance of the cartouches of Akhenaten and king Neferneferuaten together with their names filled in and not a blank space, the only other instance of Akhenaten and Neferneferuaten, as king, named together being on Box 001K.

Munich_cartouches(1).jpg

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Wistman said:

.... Even though Horemheb had successfully wheedled his designation by Tut as Crown Prince, Ay must have bristled at even the thought of having to bow before this humble-blooded upstart, the man's competence notwithstanding.  From his perch he would have seen Horemheb as little more than a servant of the crown, never an occupier of the throne.  Recall too the letter to the king of Mittani, thought to be written by Ankhesenamun after the death of Tutankhamun, asking him to send her a royal prince, so that she would not be forced to marry a servant.  This is commonly interpreted as meaning Ay, but more likely, to me at least, she referred to Horemheb (if she is in fact the writer.)  So Ay engineered his own seizing of the throne in violation of Pharaoh Tutankhamun's legal designation of Horemheb as heir, while Horemheb was away from court on military campaign.

 

Wistman,

Your point about Ankhesenamun desperately wanting to avoid marrying Horemheb seems right to me (if Horemheb had been named as crown prince).  Perhaps, Ankhesenamun convinced Ay to step in and become king-pharaoh (its a dirty job, but somebody has to do it) - while general Horemheb was away from court to oversee killing the Hittite prince.

The netherworld Book of Gates might have originated as a commentary about that chaotic era, at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th dynasties. 

According to Hornung (The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, 1999), the Book of Gates first appears in the burial chamber of Horemheb (and then is replicated in tombs of Ramesses I, Sethos I and others),  In this book, the blessed dead commoners are discussed in the hours 2-7 of the night, and receive a Judgment of the Dead.  In the 5th hour the blessed dead are allotted their specific spaces.  In the 7th hour, the blessed dead reap grain.  In the 8th hour, time is depicted as an endless spool rope.  In hour 9 Horus complains about how Apophis treats of his father Osiris and the Children of Horus.  In hour 10, the sungod defeats Apophis.  In hours 10-12, only deities are depicted (i.e. no blessed dead, and no Horus) as the sungod Re is preparing to rise, and Osiris remains in the underworld. 

Perhaps I have missed some details, but it seems to me that the deceased pharaoh (Children of Horus) remains in the underworld, like other members of the blessed dead, according to the Book of Gates.  If so, that might resemble the theology of Akhenaten -- i.e. only the Aten is reborn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by atalante
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, atalante said:

Wistman,

Your point about Ankhesenamun desperately wanting to avoid marrying Horemheb seems right to me (if Horemheb had been named as crown prince).  Perhaps, Ankhesenamun convinced Ay to step in and become king-pharaoh (its a dirty job, but somebody has to do it) - while general Horemheb was away from court to oversee killing the Hittite prince.

The netherworld Book of Gates might have originated as a commentary about that chaotic era, at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th dynasties. 

According to Hornung (The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, 1999), the Book of Gates first appears in the burial chamber of Horemheb (and then is replicated in tombs of Ramesses I, Sethos I and others),  In this book, the blessed dead commoners are discussed in the hours 2-7 of the night, and receive a Judgment of the Dead.  In the 5th hour the blessed dead are allotted their specific spaces.  In the 7th hour, the blessed dead reap grain.  In the 8th hour, time is depicted as an endless spool rope.  In hour 9 Horus complains about how Apophis treats of his father Osiris and the Children of Horus.  In hour 10, the sungod defeats Apophis.  In hours 10-12, only deities are depicted (i.e. no blessed dead, and no Horus) as the sungod Re is preparing to rise, and Osiris remains in the underworld. 

Perhaps I have missed some details, but it seems to me that the deceased pharaoh (Children of Horus) remains in the underworld, like other members of the blessed dead, according to the Book of Gates.  If so, that might resemble the theology of Akhenaten -- i.e. only the Aten is reborn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting post, and needs some thought. Does this line of thought, I wonder, have a connection also to the enigmatic texts on the second shirne of Tutankhamun, and the use of the "Book of the Heavenly Cow" in this new form. For instance, while it can be tentatively suggested that the "Rebellion of mankind" against Ra may be an allusion to a "rebellion" by Akhenaten, could it in fact be alluding to what Akhenaten thought was a rebellion against Ra/Aten, in his times by the adherents of Amun and other gods, and this is all a subtext to the "Heavenly Cow" that has slipped through, as it were, into Tutankhamun's burial, and it's use as a royal mortuary text in the 19th Dynasty and later without realizing a potential double meaning.

Overthinking I think...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, atalante said:

Wistman,

Your point about Ankhesenamun desperately wanting to avoid marrying Horemheb seems right to me (if Horemheb had been named as crown prince).  Perhaps, Ankhesenamun convinced Ay to step in and become king-pharaoh (its a dirty job, but somebody has to do it) - while general Horemheb was away from court to oversee killing the Hittite prince.

The netherworld Book of Gates might have originated as a commentary about that chaotic era, at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th dynasties. 

According to Hornung (The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, 1999), the Book of Gates first appears in the burial chamber of Horemheb (and then is replicated in tombs of Ramesses I, Sethos I and others),  In this book, the blessed dead commoners are discussed in the hours 2-7 of the night, and receive a Judgment of the Dead.  In the 5th hour the blessed dead are allotted their specific spaces.  In the 7th hour, the blessed dead reap grain.  In the 8th hour, time is depicted as an endless spool rope.  In hour 9 Horus complains about how Apophis treats of his father Osiris and the Children of Horus.  In hour 10, the sungod defeats Apophis.  In hours 10-12, only deities are depicted (i.e. no blessed dead, and no Horus) as the sungod Re is preparing to rise, and Osiris remains in the underworld. 

Perhaps I have missed some details, but it seems to me that the deceased pharaoh (Children of Horus) remains in the underworld, like other members of the blessed dead, according to the Book of Gates.  If so, that might resemble the theology of Akhenaten -- i.e. only the Aten is reborn.

Yip.  She panics, writes the letter and sends it north to Mittanni.   Horemheb on campaign in the north intercepts the letter or learns of its contents.  Very much aware of her treachery towards him, he kills the prince en route.  When the news of the prince's death (maybe Horemheb sends a dispatch) reaches her, she goes to Ay.  Now he also betrays Horemheb and concocts the plan to have himself stand-in as Sem priest and 'son of the deceased', inserting himself magically into the kingship, bypassing Horemheb the heir designee.  As pharaoh Ay thinks he can protect himself and Ankhesenamun from a wrathful Horemheb.

Sounds plausible I suppose.

 

Edited by Wistman
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2022 at 9:05 PM, Wistman said:

Maybe Ay just got old and died, and maybe Ankhesenamun got fatally sick.  And she was placed, it seems, in KV21 along with Nefertiti.  I'd think that was Ay's doing.

I guess burying your wife/grandaughter and daughter together would be a thing. I would think though that he only married Ankhesenamun for continuity from Tutankhamun.

The KV21 mummies do though raise questions about why they are there and where did they come from, and when. This involves the suspected third royal cache in KV57 which may have contained the remains of four kings, the tomb owner Horemheb plus 3 others, Ay, Thutmose I and ?.  If so, I wonder if the two KV21 mummies had at some point either been in KV57, or initially in WV23 with Ay as his close relatives. A problem for them being in KV57 would be that the remains found were all smashed up with no trace of any evidence as to who they were, so I doubt the KV21 mummies had been there.

So at least Ankhesenamun being with Ay in WV23 is certainly a possibility, and by the possible age of more than 21 but not by much, puts her death not far off that of Ay, maybe at the same time? Then if KV21B is Nefertiti and her DNA points to her being descended from Yuya and Thuya but not via Tiye, and so being a candidate to be a daughter of Ay, if he was a first cousin of Tiye, where was her mummy stored for around twelve years putting her death in Tutankhamun's year 2 and her year 3, KV55 ? But then how does she end up with KV21A who if Ankhesenamun has died twelve years after KV21B, and we still have the trio of KV35 mummies moved there before the cache was made due to their condition as found. One thing that looks reasonably certain is that all the Amarna mummies had not been stored centrally in one tomb as I think they would have stayed together, after all, why shunt them around in penny packets.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polemic from a soapbox.

For all these years, without any son for Akhenaten except Tutankhamun, it has usually been put forward that Smenkhkare was a brother of Akhenaten, the arguments totally ignoring the normal rules of succession, why, or occasionally it has been suggested that Smenkhkare may have been a son of Akhenaten, though without any evidence of any son other than Tutankhamun, though with only one mention of him while still a prince, par for the course for this dynasty of course.

We have all these contortions with KV55 and the face of Tutankhamun's second coffin, and yes, I'll put my hand up and admit being part of these contortions of trying to make a fit where one cannot be made, like OJ trying on the infamous glove. But at the end of the day the question of why Smekhkare can be co-ruler when Akhenaten has at least one son is unanswered, not even asked really. So, even though I have in the past, along with very many others, either stated that KV55 is Smenkhkare, or could be, and flip-flopped, I think the argument that Smenkhkare is a brother of Akhenaten should be refuted and consigned to the dustbin of history, not least because no cohesive argument for this massive change to the succession ever having been put forward by anybody. Smenkhkare as a brother of Akhenaten is essentially inventing somebody, so as Smenkhkare did exist, we have to look for him elsewhere.

Of course I'm going to state, again, that as it looks highly likely that Hawass will unveil the KV35 boy as a brother of Tutankhamun, then he can be the only rational candidate to be Smenkhkare. This is of course not a done deal as we do not have, and never will have, evidence for when he was born and when he died. However, we actually have a body, even if nameless, which is better than the convolutions we have all engaged in, and conjuring from thin air a brother of Akhenaten other than Thutmose. Did Akhenaten have other brothers? quite possibly, do we have evidence for them? no, do any of these hypothetical brothers have a right to the throne over sons of Akhenaten? no.

Does Smenkhkare die young? with a reign of less than one year, yes. Has the KV35 boy died young? of course. Taking it as read that he is a brother of Tutankhamun, can he be the eldest son? we cannot know. What though is reasonable to suggest, firstly that as Smenkhkare cannot be a brother of Akhenaten and has to be a son, it cannot of course be Tutankhamun, so it is another brother, and we have one. We also have a gap in births between Meritaten and Meketaten, yet after Meketaten daughters appear regularly without long gaps. It is reasonable to suggest that a son was born in the gap between Meritaten and Meketaten, and a birth during that gap would put this son into the time frame for Smenkhkare and the possible age at death of the KV35 boy. This does not break any succession rules, it does not need a person to be invented, it does not need any arguments about KV55 or any coffins, it is the most rational solution, even if it can never be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I rest my case M'lud, and leave it in the hands of the jury to decide if my client is Smenkhkare or not, and ask that they consider if the opposing parties have met the requirements of habeas corpus, or not....

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/11/2022 at 1:18 PM, Wepwawet said:

I guess burying your wife/grandaughter and daughter together would be a thing. I would think though that he only married Ankhesenamun for continuity from Tutankhamun.

The KV21 mummies do though raise questions about why they are there and where did they come from, and when. This involves the suspected third royal cache in KV57 which may have contained the remains of four kings, the tomb owner Horemheb plus 3 others, Ay, Thutmose I and ?.  If so, I wonder if the two KV21 mummies had at some point either been in KV57, or initially in WV23 with Ay as his close relatives. A problem for them being in KV57 would be that the remains found were all smashed up with no trace of any evidence as to who they were, so I doubt the KV21 mummies had been there.

So at least Ankhesenamun being with Ay in WV23 is certainly a possibility, and by the possible age of more than 21 but not by much, puts her death not far off that of Ay, maybe at the same time? Then if KV21B is Nefertiti and her DNA points to her being descended from Yuya and Thuya but not via Tiye, and so being a candidate to be a daughter of Ay, if he was a first cousin of Tiye, where was her mummy stored for around twelve years putting her death in Tutankhamun's year 2 and her year 3, KV55 ? But then how does she end up with KV21A who if Ankhesenamun has died twelve years after KV21B, and we still have the trio of KV35 mummies moved there before the cache was made due to their condition as found. One thing that looks reasonably certain is that all the Amarna mummies had not been stored centrally in one tomb as I think they would have stayed together, after all, why shunt them around in penny packets.

KV57 as royal cache is highly speculative it seems to me.  The unofficial mini-graffito about moving Horemheb out doesn't justify identifying any of the other intrusive mummies - four women, one man, one gender nonspecific (who was found inside the broken sarcophagus) - as Ay's family, as kingly royals, or even as of D18 origin.

Likewise, it must be noted, that Ankhesenamun (if she died late in Ay's kingship) curiously doesn't figure anywhere in Ay's VotK tomb.  On the other hand, his longtime wife, Tey, is shown both in Ay's Amarna tomb as well as in his KV23 tomb.  In fact, as you know, the only evidence at all of a marriage between Ay and Ankhesenamun is a solitary ring bezel showing both of their cartouches together.  With her royal and queenly status, and their family ties, it seems he would have references to her in his tomb, given that he did so with Tey, twice.  If she was his wife for all four years of his reign, why wouldn't she have been shown there in KV23?  However, if she died well before the tomb's decoration was planned and painted, and couldn't therefore be interred while work was still underway, she may have been slipped into KV21 with her mother.  Then we don't have the mummies being shuffled around from here and there.  Is that not possible?  Why not? 

Of course Ankhesenamun should have been interred with Tuthankhamun, but there was no more room in there for anything.

Let's consider this, that there were two groups of Amarna royal mummies:  the 'older' ones moved from Amarna tombs to VotK, and those "fresher' ones who died post reconstruction in Memphis or Thebes and were traditionally buried, albeit in small tombs, not unlike Yuya/Thuya's.

The Akhetaten/Amarna mummies, as far as we know, were placed in KV55 and 'some other' cachette, possibly.  They were eventually found in KV35, denuded of their wrappings and identifying insignia, except for the KV55 king who was left where he was, but was desecrated.

Nefertiti of course had little time to build a VotK tomb for herself and presumably died unexpectedly; a small tomb in the west valley was found for her (I'm positing).  Tut had begun a large tomb for himself, but it wasn't near complete on his demise and a decision was made to put him into a small, but quickly expanded, tomb already extant.

The KV21 tomb was examined by Burton in 1825, and he reported a 'clean, new tomb', structurally intact, with undecorated but finished walls, as was KV62 before Ay's modifications.

It was Ay, an Amarna survivor but not a Thutmosid, who got the traditional, pharaonic, grandiose, VotK tomb.

Edited by Wistman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

KV57 as royal cache is highly speculative it seems to me.  The unofficial mini-graffito about moving Horemheb out doesn't justify identifying any of the other intrusive mummies - four women, one man, one gender nonspecific (who was found inside the broken sarcophagus) - as Ay's family, as kingly royals, or even as of D18 origin.

Likewise, it must be noted, that Ankhesenamun (if she died late in Ay's kingship) curiously doesn't figure anywhere in Ay's VotK tomb.  On the other hand, his longtime wife, Tey, is shown both in Ay's Amarna tomb as well as in his KV23 tomb.  In fact, as you know, the only evidence at all of a marriage between Ay and Ankhesenamun is a solitary ring bezel showing both of their cartouches together.  With her royal and queenly status, and their family ties, it seems he would have references to her in his tomb, given that he did so with Tey, twice.  If she was his wife for all four years of his reign, why wouldn't she have been shown there in KV23?  However, if she died well before the tomb's decoration was planned and painted, and couldn't therefore be interred while work was still underway, she may have been slipped into KV21 with her mother.  Then we don't have the mummies being shuffled around from here and there.  Is that not possible?  Why not? 

Of course Ankhesenamun should have been interred with Tuthankhamun, but there was no more room in there for anything.

Let's consider this, that there were two groups of Amarna royal mummies:  the 'older' ones moved from Amarna tombs to VotK, and those "fresher' ones who died post reconstruction in Memphis or Thebes and were traditionally buried, albeit in small tombs, not unlike Yuya/Thuya's.

The Akhetaten/Amarna mummies, as far as we know, were placed in KV55 and 'some other' cachette, possibly.  They were eventually found in KV35, denuded of their wrappings and identifying insignia, except for the KV55 king who was left where he was, but was desecrated.

Nefertiti of course had little time to build a VotK tomb for herself and presumably died unexpectedly; a small tomb in the west valley was found for her (I'm positing).  Tut had begun a large tomb for himself, but it wasn't near complete on his demise and a decision was made to put him into a small, but quickly expanded, tomb already extant.

The KV21 tomb was examined by Burton in 1825, and he reported a 'clean, new tomb', structurally intact, with undecorated but finished walls, as was KV62 before Ay's modifications.

It was Ay, an Amarna survivor but not a Thutmosid, who got the traditional, pharaonic, grandiose, VotK tomb.

I wonder if Nefetiti ever got around to seriously starting a tomb for herself. Until the death of Akhenaten she would have expected to be buried in TA26 with him and other family members and nothing would have been started. She has then died about two years after Akhenaten, and would still have been living in Amarna, presumably as Tutankhamun did not seem to move out for about a further two years, or maybe immediately due to regnal years as he would already be on his year 3 counting from Akhenaten's death. And here the ever present issues start. Neferneferuaten's burial equipment seems to be conventionally Osirian, though I cannot see a reason why much of it would not be suitable for an Atenist burial as, for instance, the mummy bands are just "god neutral" decorative with her name. Anything with a rishi pattern will have been fine as the KV55 coffin shows, and the rishi pattern is connected with the ba bird, and they still existed in Akhenaten's universe. So, could she have been buried initially in TA26 as a king? I have a feeling not. We have three sarcophagi in TA26, Akhenaten's, Tiye's and Meketaten's, all found smashed to pieces. As Tutankhamun's sarcophagus was second hand, probably Nefertiti's, and originally Atenist, why, if she were in TA26, remove just her sarcophagus and leave the others to be smashed, all being expensive items that, as Tutankhamun's shows, can be de-Atenized.

Where then was she with presumably a full set of burial equipment including sarcophagus and at least one shrine, probably not KV55, unless far more was going on there than we can ever know. I think WV23 was started for Tutankhamun early in his reign, and it is more or less finished and of a good size. Therefore I doubt it had even been started by the time of Nefertiti's death. Where else is there room for her burial? when was KV62 started, and for whom? There is nothing else, all other prexisting tombs being occupied or too small, like KV50 with it's dog and baboon in their eternal face off. KV62 seems to be the only choice, even if it is also really too small. So, if she was in there, I don't see her getting turfed out of her coffins and placed in KV55 only to be turfed out of there shortly afterwards. We can take two paths here, one leading to her as the YL, the other to KV21B. Decisions, decisions. I'll have to come back to this.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Wepwawet  Yeah, it seems that KV62 would most likely have been the preferred, first choice for her tomb...but I didn't want to say so out loud.  :no:

And here's a plan of KV21 for readers' reference  :

1995105578_Screenshot2022-10-12at11-35-18Unknown.thumb.png.e3cf0d0a6181e2055e2ac5a3b0eb6549.png

Edited by Wistman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Wistman said:

@Wepwawet  Yeah, it seems that KV62 would most likely have been the preferred, first choice for her tomb...but I didn't want to say so out loud.  :no:

And here's a plan of KV21 for readers' reference  :

1995105578_Screenshot2022-10-12at11-35-18Unknown.thumb.png.e3cf0d0a6181e2055e2ac5a3b0eb6549.png

So, KV62, a bigger problem than KV55 perhaps. I mean, KV55 in a way is simple in that it was probably used as a cache for some Amarna mummies, then emptied except for Akhenaten, the only issues being around the identity, for if just one cartouche on that coffin had remained and read Akhenaten, vast numbers of words would never have needed to be written.

KV62 with it's right angled turn has to be the tomb of a queen, but was it ever finished, ie, is there a corridor beyond the north wall leading to an original burial chamber. That large void still needs explaining, as do all the internal scan results which were not negative, but inconclusive, with only Watanabe's being positive, and he was the expert at this.

If we go with Reeves, then Nefertiti is buried in a KV62 extension, but I don't believe this for one moment. But I do think there is probably an extension, the question being was it ever finished to the extent of being able to hold all of the burial assembly. Maybe not, because otherwise, no matter who may have been in KV62 originally, surely Tutankhamun would have been buried in any putative burial chamber in an extension, not in what is probably an unfinished well shaft, something that they would surely have finished off after all the burial equipment and mummy had been installed. So, perhaps there is an extension, but it was not in a fit state to hold a burial, though maybe the corridor, if such exists, beyond the north wall was used to store burial goods, or even mummies of his relatives, such as his three dead sisters.

That scenario of this putative corridor holding further burial goods, and or mummies of relatives, would I think also hold for Nefertiti, not least because she will have three of her daughters with her, and they were left as Nefertiti's fate was not to be theirs, and they would not be alone in there. As mentioned, there really was no other tomb available for her that we know of. There still remains the issue of the painting of the north wall and where did Nefertiti go, and in what condition, fully unwrapped or just having the mummy bands and mask removed. I think perhaps she was fully unwrapped to remove all the jewelry, then re-wrapped, as I think was the case with KV55, for though there was some bling, around the mummy, it was not packed with the vast amount of bling that Tutankamun was.

All supposition of course, but I think reasonable so far. And here we are at the bifurcation point, does Nefertiti end up in KV35 or KV21. How is she reunited with other family members who died before and after her, ie, Tiye and the boy, presumably before her, in KV35, and, if KV21B, her daugher Ankhesenamun who will have died about twelve years after her. I'm going to hold on this until we get the new DNA results, which should close of one of these two paths and make things easier, or comparitively so as many questions will remain.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's TMP's plan of KV62 for readers' reference, to compare with KV21 above:

1066974687_Screenshot2022-10-13at11-17-10Tutankhamen.thumb.png.0a1df8c8266b90af34c911c7d90b83b8.png

eta:  Theban Mapping Project states flat out that "This tomb originally designed for a non-royal personage nevertheless was used for royal burial, and possessed a nearly intact set of burial equipment." 

 

Edited by Wistman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2022 at 9:14 AM, Thanos5150 said:

This makes more sense. 

Its a special kind of nonsense. 

Moses ladies and gentlemen:

kv55.jpg

ECgyrpKUwAAFBwm.jpg

9bf55ad0-2482-4b92-a32b-64faa3623328_1.e

I forgot to say before, but it gets better. Revisionist writer Ahmed Osman also argues that Tutankhamun was actually Jesus as well. Wrap your head around that one. I give you Jesus H. Christ:

main-qimg-252c0c26a58c1788d7f2d72da9a762

The son Moses never knew he had. A chip off the old block. Quoting myself from elsewhere:

Quote

Tutankhamen was a very unremarkable pharaoh in AE history and the only reason he is known to us today as he is is because of his cache of grave goods made even more sensational in the era and way it was found. Otherwise we would give a ___ about Tutankhamen even less than the AE themselves.

And you do all realize Tut died a sickly teenager, right? That he was wracked with congenital disease and physical ailments from generations of inbreeding and belonged to a line of people with unusually large elongated skulls? His feet were completely _____ up with deformities and would have needed to use a cane for most of his life which explains why there were so many buried with him. That is when he wasn't getting carried around. This is not made up ___-we have his body which has been studied extensively.

 

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only Biblical figure that one could possibly find in Egypt was Moses.  He grew up there!  Flavius Josephus, a scholar who lived around the time when BC turned to AD, thought that Moses warred on behalf of a pharaoh in Kush.  And even a book of the Bible claimed Moses had a Kushite wife, which upset his siblings.  The Book of Jasher goes into quite a bit of detail about the sojourn of Moses in Kush.  This Book of Jasher is modern, claimed by various persons to have been composed in various eras.  But I think it  it contains some good history mixed with fantasy.  One of these days, if and when my state of health improves, I intend to write a paper about it.  The only later work in which the name of Akhenaten appears comes from the Byzantine era and that is the Suda, an encyclopedia of antiquity.  Unfortunately, it is an obscure reference, but it mentions "Nefersophris a king of Egypt".  The prenomen of Akhenaten. Neferkheperure, would have been written like that in Greek.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KV31 may be of interest here.  Quoting TMP  [bold mine]:

Quote

The tomb is accessible through a steep vertical shaft and lies about 20 meters (66 feet) north of KV 32. Upon being cleared in 2010 it was observed to be undecorated, but was filled with ancient debris that included large quantities of pottery shards and some pieces of Canopic jars. Five mummies, unwrapped and without coffins, were also found inside the tomb in a poor condition. The identities of the mummies is unknown, but it is likely that they were family members of the royal family or of a similar high social status.

[...]  A total of five human mummies were found inside the tomb after it was cleared, two female and three male. 

 

323044803_Screenshot2022-10-13at14-12-49Unknown.thumb.png.90dd18b7553c130476fde80d8d239482.png

Quote

KV 31 could have been the original location of a Dynasty 18 quartz-sandstone anthropoid Sarcophagus found by Belzoni in 1817 and donated to the British Museum by the Earl of Belmore.

Dating

This site was used during the following period(s):

New Kingdom
Dynasty 18

I wonder if these small tombs (there are more than I've shown) for Unknown occupants were intended for the Akhmin contingents, like Yuya/Thuya, of the royal court and family.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Wistman said:

KV31 may be of interest here.  Quoting TMP  [bold mine]:

323044803_Screenshot2022-10-13at14-12-49Unknown.thumb.png.90dd18b7553c130476fde80d8d239482.png

I wonder if these small tombs (there are more than I've shown) for Unknown occupants were intended for the Akhmin contingents, like Yuya/Thuya, of the royal court and family.

I had never really given KV31 any attention, just like all the other small tombs either unfinished or still full of rubble, or animals, but, KV40 shows that there can be surprises. Not seen a full report on that tomb yet, and have no idea if they have thought to do any DNA testing. It would be interesting to know if any of the late 18th Dynasty mummies show any signs of plague. And, looking at the details for KV31, we have male mummy C3 with his arms crossed over his chest, which further shows that arm position is a rather shaky indicator of status as there are no missing kings from the mid 18th Dynasty.

Edit: On other matters, Hawass gave an important lecture at Luxor the other day, but as to content ?

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aldebaran said:

I think the only Biblical figure that one could possibly find in Egypt was Moses.  

Abraham. Supposedly he lived coinciding with the MK which there is significant interchange between DE and the Levant during this period. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I had never really given KV31 any attention, just like all the other small tombs either unfinished or still full of rubble, or animals, but, KV40 shows that there can be surprises. Not seen a full report on that tomb yet, and have no idea if they have thought to do any DNA testing. It would be interesting to know if any of the late 18th Dynasty mummies show any signs of plague. And, looking at the details for KV31, we have male mummy C3 with his arms crossed over his chest, which further shows that arm position is a rather shaky indicator of status as there are no missing kings from the mid 18th Dynasty.

Edit: On other matters, Hawass gave an important lecture at Luxor the other day, but as to content ?

KV40  Yeah, all those Sekhmet statues that AIII erected, and so many dead royal children, and harem wives, buried together.  Have they by any chance tested Queen Tiye's mummy for plague?  

Zahi reportedly talked about the 'golden city', and his search for Nefertiti.  No details yet, but no bold headlines either.

Edited by Wistman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Wistman said:

KV40  Yeah, all those Sekhmet statues that AIII erected, and so many dead royal children, and harem wives, buried together.  Have they by any chance tested Queen Tiye's mummy for plague?  

Zahi reportedly talked about the 'golden city', and his search for Nefertiti.  No details yet, but no bold headlines either.

There must have been a problem with their cats, on strike or gone away, then the rats came in and infested the place. Perhaps all the Sekhmet statues were to make sure that there were always plenty of cats, even magical ones, on duty at all times, one for each day and night of the year, to prevent rats infesting Egypt.

All those statues though need more attention paying to them more than the footnote they usually are. After all, 730 of them just at Thebes seems excessive even by Egyptian standards of almost obsessive excessiveness. I may be being excessive in the use of the word excessive, almost obsessively so.

And here she is, because you never know when you might need a statue of Sekhmet, and while one of her epithets was Lady of Plague, the bringer of pestilence, only she could also drive it away. A good example to show that for the Egyptians that which can be bad can also be good, and there is also Set representing forces of Chaos, but he also stands in Ra's boat and defends him against Apopis, the ultimate evil.

4316207636_c4e30c895b_z.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread cleaned

Let's keep things civil (and on-topic) please.

Thank you.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.