Amarna, Before and After

[Aldebaran]

3 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

As far as Smenkhkare goes, I prefer to go on what we know their rules of succession were unless compelling evidence contra comes to light.

To repeat myself--there is always a reason behind a coregency.  In this case, it had to be to divert the correct order of succession--if it is really true that the eldest [or only] son of the Great Royal Wife [Nefertiti] was first in line.  If one appoints a coregent, one makes the king for the future in the event of ones death.  Franco of Spain wasn't a king but a dictator.  Yet, in his old age he decided to put a king back on the Spanish throne--but not the true successor, for some reason.  He chose the successor's son, a young man, who did eventually become the Spanish monarch--even though the true heir was far from old.  I know the historic details but not Franco's reasoning.  Anyway, the succession was diverted by Franco's choice.

In the case of the Amarna period, I wrote in a paper "Akhenaten as Ra-Horakhty the Father God" that perhaps there was a need for a new Shu and Tefnut.  Well. on the foot of the KV55 coffin there was an address to "my father, Ra-Horakhty", that being the deceased within.  According to the language there, a feminine determinative, the one speaking was a daughter.  Therefore, perhaps the chosen new Shu and Tefnut were Meritaten and another son of Akhenaten closer to her age.  According to the ancient Egyptian way of doing things, the young ages people were married and bore children, Meritaten was old enough to have been Tutankhaten's mother.   I don't think this last prince was born until Akhenaten's Year 12 or 13.  I believe he was the son of Nefertiti and wasn't born earlier.  If Tut was four or five in Akhenaten's Year 17, his presumed last, and Tut didn't become king until he was eight or nine, there should be some time open in between for those rulers named Ankhkheperure, especially Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten, the woman king, who seems to have had an independent reign according to the Pawah graffito.  Until there is some evidence that this lady and Tut reigned concurrently [none yet] I choose to leave a few years for interim rulers before Tutankhaten/amun began.

I also think there is significance in the fact that the name "Smenkhkare" never appeared on anything from KV62.  The one piece, the alabaster jar that supposedly contained the joint cartouches of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare, those cartouches were all but erased.  But, otherwise, the names of Akhenaten, himself, were not anathema among the KV62 funerary items and heirlooms.  The only other erasures were on things that were appropriated for Tut's burial with his names over-written.  Evidently by this time nobody wanted to remember the decision of Akhenaten to put Tut aside in favor of Smenkhkare.

Edited August 15 by Aldebaran

[Aldebaran]

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

Many of these blocks which were stolen from the secured cache were later recovered and some others (previously unrecorded) appeared on the art market in the forties and so it is left to us to imagine if or how many blocks are still missing.

You must be right because a search turned up this talatat at auction in about a second.  That was in 2019 but another could turn up any time--if the heirs knew the significance and how much the piece could be flogged for.

https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-6199529

Edited August 15 by Aldebaran

[Wepwawet]

On 8/15/2024 at 4:42 PM, Wistman said:

only by inference can one say that Tut's father is Akhenaten and not Smenkhkare by way of the epigraphy on the surviving blocks.

This is true, and I'm now going to throw in a complication. This post is the work of W. Raymond Johnson from 2023, which I am going to paraphrase.

Hermopolis talatat 652-VIII shows the foreheads of two people, both very close and facing each other. The person on the left wears a nubian wig and does not have a uraeus, the person on the right has a sidelock and also no uraeus. Between them, and more to the person on the right, and angled to them, is a hand at the end of a ray of the Aten, and the hand holds an ankh which is for the person on the right. As the person on the left does not have a uraeus and the ankh is not for them, then it is not Nefertiti. When the princesses are shown they do not have an ankh offered to them, therefore the person on the right would seem not to be a princess. These two people are so close together that the only pose that fits is of one person sitting on the lap of the other, as Tutankhamun sits on the lap of his wetnurse Maia, or Thutmose IV on the lap of his tutor. However, this type of scene is found specifically in the tomb of the wetnurse or tutor, not on a temple wall, and the Hermopolis talatat are from one of the Aten temples at Amarna, not a tomb.

The figure on the right must, due to the ankh offered to them, be of more importance than a princess, but without a uraeus, not a king or queen. This sitting on a lap scene, if this is in fact what it is, will indicate that we have a mother, on the left, and her child on the right, a mother who is not Nefertiti and a child who it would seem can only be a prince, and a prominent one at that, the heir I would surmise.

So, who could they be.

[Wepwawet]

On 8/15/2024 at 5:23 PM, Aldebaran said:

To repeat myself--there is always a reason behind a coregency.  In this case, it had to be to divert the correct order of succession--if it is really true that the eldest [or only] son of the Great Royal Wife [Nefertiti] was first in line.  If one appoints a coregent, one makes the king for the future in the event of ones death.

The scenario I painted was specifically following their normal practice so we know what should have happened, the eldest son following his father on the throne, and in the case of a co-regency, then it is the eldest son that is the junior monarch. We are of course presented with a period when rules were changed, but apart from the specific religious changes we don't have a proper understanding of what else was going on, or not, as I don't think he changed everything.

I cannot see any reason for Akhenaten to dissposses Tutankhamun, if he were his eldest son. Young age is not a consideration as plenty of kings took the throne while still minors, Pepi II at only six, Amunhotep III possibly at twelve, Thutmose III at only two, and he was the rightful king, not Hatshepsut, and on that I'll point out as I have previously, that Thutmose III dated his regnal years from the death of Thutmose II, not Hatshepsut, and I see no reason why Tutankhamun should not date his years from the death of Akhenaten. That's the norm, is there evidence to state otherwise given that a female king is not a rightful king, and all were removed from the record, including their regnal years.

That Akhenaten seems to have disspossed Tutankamun by virtue of making Nefertiti co-ruler cannot be denied, though why is another question, one that we cannot answer, only make guesses at. What I'll point out here is that while Nefertiti becoming king can be seen as her following Hatshepsut, though why she has become co-ruler with her still living husband is a mystery, unless Akhenaten, as many have suggested over the years, had become incapable of ruling in his final years.

So while, with the precedent of Hatshepsut possibly providing a reason for Nefertiti to usurp the throne, even while here husband still lived, the bottom line on this for me is why would Akhenaten disposses Tutankhamun, if his eldest son, by making Smenkhkare co-ruler, whether in year 14, 15 or 16, and I favour year 16. Let's be clear that had Smenkhkare lived, then he would have become sole king on the death of Akhenaten, and Tutankhamun a nobody. This does not fit with the normal pattern of succession, it makes no sense at all, unless Tutankhamun was not the eldest son, and for me that is the only solution to the mystery of Smenkhkare without engaging in speculation. Indeed, the purpose of a number of my recent posts has been to, as much as possible, present what we know and what we know was the norm for them, so that while we all have our own ideas about this, it would need some hard evidence to overturn what we know was their normal practice

[Aldebaran]

6 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I cannot see any reason for Akhenaten to dissposses Tutankhamun, if he were his eldest son.

I don't think Tutankhamun was the eldest son--just the only son of the Great Royal Wife, Nefertiti.  I can think of a reason--Meritaten.  She may have been Akhenaten's favorite child but she was out of the picture as the future queen of Egypt if Tut remained the heir.  She was simply too old for him.  So Akhenaten may have chosen the future of Meritaten over that of Tut.  Anyway, Meritaten married somebody else, Smenkhkare, who does seem to have been a coregent at some point, evidenced by the juxtaposed cartouches of Akhenaten and his own on a calcite vase--later erased, and this trial piece, below.

But I am interested in the piece you described.  Did you see it once and never could find a photo of it again?  

In addition to the trial piece I will post another talatat that recently came to my attention because I recognized the style of the sculptor.  The subject is probably Kiya at Akhetaten.  As one can tell from the eyes and eyebrows, this same sculptor continued on to Memphis in the reign of Tutankhamun.

 

 

[Wepwawet]

54 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

But I am interested in the piece you described.  Did you see it once and never could find a photo of it again? 

There's more than this, but I think if I post images of the reconstructions there is a potential copyright issue, and a reconstruction is simply that, and is subjective. Johnson postulates the female as being Kiya, but is noncommital on the right hand figure.

 

Edited August 18 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Aldebaran said:

I don't think Tutankhamun was the eldest son--just the only son of the Great Royal Wife, Nefertiti

And I agree. I don't think Tutankhamun was disspossed by Smenkhkare, but was by Nefertiti as I'm sure Smenkhkare was dead by the time Box 001 K was made, and Meritaten now GRW to Akhenaten with Nefertiti co-ruler. The relationship between Meritaten and her parents being the same as Sitamun's to AIII and Tiye when she was made a GRW to AIII, the fact that Nefertiti is now co-ruler not having a bearing on this relationship. Or another possibility is that as Nefertiti was now co-ruler, Meritaten was needed to carry out the ritual functions of a GRW, rather like Hatshepsut had to co-opt her daughter Neferure to be the "Hand of the God" and peform the ritual functions of a GRW, that title not being possible for her as there was no male monarch.

[Aldebaran]

On 8/18/2024 at 1:13 PM, Wepwawet said:

There's more than this, but I think if I post images of the reconstructions there is a potential copyright issue, and a reconstruction is simply that, and is subjective. Johnson postulates the female as being Kiya, but is noncommital on the right hand figure.

 

Edited Sunday at 01:14 PM by Wepwawet

Do I see a horned disc on the figure at left?  Seems impossible if that is a talatat from Akhetaten as it is a Hathoric symbol.

[Wepwawet]

11 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

Do I see a horned disc on the figure at left?  Seems impossible if that is a talatat from Akhetaten as it is a Hathoric symbol.

It's a hand of the Aten, without an ankh.

[Aldebaran]

 

This block sold for close to 60,000 pounds this year.

https://www.bonhams.com/auction/29082/lot/19/an-egyptian-limestone-relief-from-a-talatat-depicting-kiya-reworked-as-meritaten/

[Wistman]

1 hour ago, Aldebaran said:

 

This block sold for close to 60,000 pounds this year.

https://www.bonhams.com/auction/29082/lot/19/an-egyptian-limestone-relief-from-a-talatat-depicting-kiya-reworked-as-meritaten/

Wowee!  A fine example.  ex coll Joseph Khawam, his until 1940 

The Khawam firm was the best antiquities gallery in Egypt since mid 19th C.  Theirs was no. 7 when Maspero first issued licenses to sell antiquities.  Khawam Bros. sold to Carter, Carnarvon, etc. 

Interesting that it had been recorded by Roeder (but not published till the sixties).  Maybe one of those stolen from the cache...just speculating.  Interesting too that it was sold as from his private collection, and not from the family firm.

I wonder how he got it.

 

Edited August 20 by Wistman

[Antigonos]

15 hours ago, Wistman said:

 

The Khawam firm was the best antiquities gallery in Egypt since mid 19th C.  Theirs was no. 7 when Maspero first issued licenses to sell antiquities.  Khawam Bros. sold to Carter, Carnarvon, etc. 

 

 

Wonderful information! Thank you.

[Aldebaran]

On 8/20/2024 at 2:28 PM, Wistman said:

This block sold for close to 60,000 pounds this year. 

https://www.bonhams.com/auction/29082/lot/19/an-egyptian-limestone-relief-from-a-talatat-depicting-kiya-reworked-as-meritaten/

Interesting that on this block the Aten cartouches are present and they don't seem to have been re-worked.  They are the later ones [after Year 9] and seem to confirm that Kiya was still a favorite at this time and possibly beyond.  It is the glyphs to the right of these cartouches that show signs of over-writing.  Of course, the skull of the lady became elongated like that of an Amarna princess.

So it's possible that Kiya was in her position until the death of Akhenaten.  According to my view of the succession, it should have been the turn of Meritaten and Smenkhkare then but, on a different block, Meritaten is also not styled "queen" when the alteration took place.   So perhaps the nullification of Kiya was left until this young royal couple was already done.  But it still would seem odd, then, to not give Meritaten the title she was due.  The only explanation that is left is that Kiya lost her place in the affections of Akhenaten or died sometime between Years 9 and 17 and her image was changed to the daughters of Akhenaten, Meritaten not yet having achieved her queenship--and another daughter, probably Ankhesenpaaten, still being a child under the age of puberty where she would, then, wear an adult's wig like Meritaten.  Ankhesenpaaten cannot have been born until Year 6 at the very earliest.  By Year 16, Ankhesenpaaten would only have been aged ten years.  

 

Edited August 22 by Aldebaran

[Wepwawet]

On 8/22/2024 at 5:37 PM, Aldebaran said:

So it's possible that Kiya was in her position until the death of Akhenaten

While there are some fixed points, such as the boundary stelae and the year 12 durbar scene, I think there has to be the possibility that we have got the timeline, always a bit speculative anyway, rather wrong, and by that I mean that we may have made some gross errors.

[Wistman]

On 8/22/2024 at 12:37 PM, Aldebaran said:

Interesting that on this block the Aten cartouches are present and they don't seem to have been re-worked.  They are the later ones [after Year 9] and seem to confirm that Kiya was still a favorite at this time and possibly beyond.  It is the glyphs to the right of these cartouches that show signs of over-writing.  Of course, the skull of the lady became elongated like that of an Amarna princess.

So it's possible that Kiya was in her position until the death of Akhenaten. 

Then...is it possible the YL could be Kiya?  Mother of Tut.  As mother of the crown prince, and especially in his approaching minority kingship, she may have potentially wielded some amount of de facto power...had she lived.  tsk-tsk.  And what then of her relationship to Tiye and the Young Prince?

Btw.  Are we sure the word "kiya", meaning "little monkey", is the same as Kiya, a proper Akhmin name?  Does Tiye translate as another word or meaning besides being the queen's proper name; does Yuya, or Thuya, or Maya, or Ay?   Is the only reason it's thought that Kiya is a cute nickname because the word can also mean little monkey, but the other Akhmin names don't share another meaning?  What if that's just a coincidence, and her name's formally legit?

Anyway, just musing.

 

[Wepwawet]

I read "Egypt's Golden Couple" by John and Colleen Darnell nearly two years ago, and I think made a few quotes here. There is enough material in this book for endless discussions, but I've shied away from this for various reasons, not least because some of their suggestions are very radical. However, and not radical, on Kiya they offer no translation of her name. They do though have her surviving into year 16, and provide some evidence.

What is radical is their opinion as to who Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten was, and they conclude it was Meritaten, even though the name Meritaten appears in a cartouche on Box 001K as well as that of the female king Ankhkheperure. As I was reading I kept thinking "what about Box 001K, how do you deal with this", and they did, but are they right, both about the box and Meritaten being Ankhkheperure. They do provide evidence, or rather re-interpret existing evidence, including the sequins found in KV62. I'm not convinced, but what they suggest is not without some merit.

They also point out something about the so called "Coronation Hall" of Smenkhkare, something that has gained traction with others. Firstly, and widely recognizied is the fact that the actual name "Smenkhkare" nowhere appears, only the name Ankhkheperure, without epithets. Secondly, they point out that the remains of the posts are very close together, too close to form a hall for a public event, and on top of that it looks as if vines had been planted on the site, so the remains of the posts may have supported a trellis for growing grapes. I'll add to this that the actual name Smenkhkhare now nowhere exists except in the copy of a copy that Lepsius made from the tomb of Meryre II, the original inscription having disintegrated since Lepsius saw it, and hopefully made a correct transcription, because if he didn't, we've been chasing our tails and barking up the wrong tree, but I'm sure Lepsius got it right.

There's a lot more of course, including a discussion on who Smenkhkare may have been, and a plausible reason for his birth name being a throne name, and their opinion as to the identity of the queen in the Suppiluliuma letter, an opinion that I don't think I have come across before, and not without merit....

Edited August 26 by Wepwawet

[Antigonos]

53 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

I'll add to this that the actual name Smenkhkhare now nowhere exists except in the copy of a copy that Lepsius made from the tomb of Meryre II, the original inscription having disintegrated since Lepsius saw it, and hopefully made a correct transcription, because if he didn't, we've been chasing our tails and barking up the wrong tree, but I'm sure Lepsius got it right.

 

Was the name Meryre a common one during this time and place? I only ask because in the Amarna chapter of Alix Wilkinson’s The Garden in Ancient Egypt there is mention of a priest named Meryre with the title “Great Seer of the Aten”.

[Wepwawet]

33 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

Was the name Meryre a common one during this time and place? I only ask because in the Amarna chapter of Alix Wilkinson’s The Garden in Ancient Egypt there is mention of a priest named Meryre with the title “Great Seer of the Aten”.

Meryre II (Beloved of Ra) was steward to Nefertiti, and the name is not uncommon. The other Meryre, not given a number but would be Meryre I, was also at Amarna and was indeed Greatest of seers of the Aten, a title analagous to Greatest of Seers at Heliopolis, aka High Priest of Ra. The title Greatest of seers of the Aten lasted until into the reign of Ramesess II, which belies the popular notion that "Atenism" was crushed after the death of Akhenaten. The film Sinuhe the Egyptian may be responsible for this myth as it shows a civil war between "Atenist" priests and orthodox, if memory serves me right.

Edited August 26 by Wepwawet

[Antigonos]

Just now, Wepwawet said:

Meryre II (Beloved of Ra) was steward to Nefertiti, and the name is not uncommon. The other Meryre, not given a number but would be Meryre I, was also at Amarna and was indeed Greatest seer of the Aten, a title analagous to Greatest of Seers at Heliopolis, aka High Priest of Ra. The title Greatest of seers of the Aten lasted until into the reign of Ramesess II, which belies the popular notion that "Atenism" was crushed after the death of Akhenaten. The film Sinuhe the Egyptian may be responsible for this myth as it shows a civil war between "Atenist" priests and orthodox, if memory serves me right.

Excellent. Thank you.

[Wistman]

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I read "Egypt's Golden Couple" by John and Colleen Darnell nearly two years ago, and I think made a few quotes here. There is enough material in this book for endless discussions, but I've shied away from this for various reasons, not least because some of their suggestions are very radical. However, and not radical, on Kiya they offer no translation of her name. They do though have her surviving into year 16, and provide some evidence.

What is radical is their opinion as to who Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten was, and they conclude it was Meritaten, even though the name Meritaten appears in a cartouche on Box 001K as well as that of the female king Ankhkheperure. As I was reading I kept thinking "what about Box 001K, how do you deal with this", and they did, but are they right, both about the box and Meritaten being Ankhkheperure. They do provide evidence, or rather re-interpret existing evidence, including the sequins found in KV62. I'm not convinced, but what they suggest is not without some merit.

They also point out something about the so called "Coronation Hall" of Smenkhkare, something that has gained traction with others. Firstly, and widely recognizied is the fact that the actual name "Smenkhkare" nowhere appears, only the name Ankhkheperure, without epithets. Secondly, they point out that the remains of the posts are very close together, too close to form a hall for a public event, and on top of that it looks as if vines had been planted on the site, so the remains of the posts may have supported a trellis for growing grapes. I'll add to this that the actual name Smenkhkhare now nowhere exists except in the copy of a copy that Lepsius made from the tomb of Meryre II, the original inscription having disintegrated since Lepsius saw it, and hopefully made a correct transcription, because if he didn't, we've been chasing our tails and barking up the wrong tree, but I'm sure Lepsius got it right.

There's a lot more of course, including a discussion on who Smenkhkare may have been, and a plausible reason for his birth name being a throne name, and their opinion as to the identity of the queen in the Suppiluliuma letter, an opinion that I don't think I have come across before, and not without merit....

The Darnells do have the chops for insight and knowledge of AE, but I must say the hour long presentation I saw on YouTube about Amarna was full of good info, but their glitzy, over-produced showmanship completely turned me off to them.  It seemed aimed to excite the ignorant, too bad, like a nightclub magician's act.  I think reading their texts must be more satisfying.

I remember having read the bit about the name Kiya being a pet name, meaning little monkey, more than once.  That notion has been repeated a couple times in this thread.  From where does it come; does it have validity?  Has it gained validity through repetitive declamation only?  Since her identity continues to be important, it seems this diminutive slur should be examined more closely.  And to the further point, so far I've not been convinced by anything I've read that she is identical with Suppiluliuma's daughter.  It is through a second-hand inference only, to my mind, that one can do so.  But I'd like to hear more on the subject.

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

The Darnells do have the chops for insight and knowledge of AE, but I must say the hour long presentation I saw on YouTube about Amarna was full of good info, but their glitzy, over-produced showmanship completely turned me off to them.  It seemed aimed to excite the ignorant, too bad, like a nightclub magician's act.  I think reading their texts must be more satisfying.

I agree with that, though their work on the Netherworld books and others is first class, a must read I would say.

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

I remember having read the bit about the name Kiya being a pet name, meaning little monkey, more than once.  That notion has been repeated a couple times in this thread.  From where does it come; does it have validity?  Has it gained validity through repetitive declamation only?  Since her identity continues to be important, it seems this diminutive slur should be examined more closely.  And to the further point, so far I've not been convinced by anything I've read that she is identical with Suppiluliuma's daughter.  It is through a second-hand inference only, to my mind, that one can do so.  But I'd like to hear more on the subject

That's what I've read, but I can't remember where, not Dodson or Reeves, perhaps Aldred. If the suggestion that she was the Mitannian princes Tadukhepa is true, then the name Kiya may be disguising her real foreign name as Tadukhepa is not a name, but the Mitannian title "noble lady", or "princess". It seems that the Mitannians didn't want to use an actual name at times, so we have this "Noble Lady" mentioned in several letters to Amunhotep III, but are they all the same person? Same with prince Zannanza, it's not his name but his title, "prince", at least that's what I read about this. Seems like another case of authors of books for the general reader, or even a level above that, going for simplicity, so most people think we have a princess Tadukhepa and prince Zanannza when we just have a princess and prince. For the record, I do not think that Smenkhkare was a foreign prince.

Going a bit further, the Darnell's suggest that the reason for Smenkhkare having a throne name as his birth name is that it disguises a foreign name if he were a foreign prince. And here we get into difficulties as in normal circumstances we would think it impossible for the Egyptians to accept a foreigner as king, queen yes, but never king. But then we have Suppiluliuma's letter from a woman who is not referenced by name, only by title, "Queen's wife", asking for one of his sons to be king, so clearly, at least during Amarna, it was not anathema to have a foreign king, or at least not to ask as persons unknown had another view and assassinated him. The Darnell's have the queen in the "Zanannza affair" as Meritaten, which I think rather mitigates against Smenkhkare being a foreigner, I mean, she married one foreigner and then wanted another on the death of Akhenaten, if she were king Ankhkheperure, is not Amarna complicated enough...

There are a lot of things that just do not add up, some pieces seem to fit together, then it a little later they have to be discarded. The "Zanannza affair" does not make any sense whatsoever, nothing actually fits, not Nefertiti or Meritaten on the death of Akhenaten, and not Ankhesenamun on the death of Tutankhamun, the commonly accepted solution, which ignores the evidence against.

Edited August 26 by Wepwawet

[Kenemet]

12 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I read "Egypt's Golden Couple" by John and Colleen Darnell nearly two years ago, and I think made a few quotes here. There is enough material in this book for endless discussions, but I've shied away from this for various reasons, not least because some of their suggestions are very radical.

I read the book and wanted to like it, but their suggestions and scenarios grated on me.

[Wepwawet]

6 hours ago, Kenemet said:

I read the book and wanted to like it, but their suggestions and scenarios grated on me.

Could have done without the dramatic reconstructions at the start of each chapter, the sort of thing used in documentaries which acts as time wasting filler. A documentary with a one hour time slot, 20 minutes of "important messages", 20 minutes of watching actors, a total of five minutes spent on recaps after each break for those with limited attention spans, 5 minutes of the presenter going "wow!" and "Isn't that incredible", 5 minutes of long shots with traditional Egyptian music playing, leaving 5 minutes for actual information, which is probably all disputable.

[Kenemet]

8 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Could have done without the dramatic reconstructions at the start of each chapter, the sort of thing used in documentaries which acts as time wasting filler. A documentary with a one hour time slot, 20 minutes of "important messages", 20 minutes of watching actors, a total of five minutes spent on recaps after each break for those with limited attention spans, 5 minutes of the presenter going "wow!" and "Isn't that incredible", 5 minutes of long shots with traditional Egyptian music playing, leaving 5 minutes for actual information, which is probably all disputable.

Yeah... and the father scribe "reviewing" which way letters faced with his son who was getting a new table (along with royal daughter running and playing in a temple area where she and Nefertiti are decorating altars).  Just... no.

I also disagree about Nefertiti being Tut's mother.

I did find some interesting things there, but on the whole wasn't impressed with it.

[Wistman]

My bad.  It wasn't Suppiluliuma the Hittite king who'd sent his daughter to wed AIII, but Tushratta the Mittani king.  Somebody spank me.

And yes @Wepwawet, Aldred seems to have originated the 'monkey' appellation for Kiya.

Let me review the (messy) situation for those readers unfamiliar. 

Tushratta's sister, Gilukhipa, had been married to AIII in his 10th regnal year, arranged by her father, Shuttana II (and probably with Yuya's advice for AIII.)  Decades later, in Amarna letter EA19, we find king Tushratta negotiating the marriage of his daughter Tadukhipa to AIII, now in yr 36 of AIII's reign, pretty much at its finish when AIII was quite old and in poor health.  She's estimated to have been @ age 15 at the time.  A little earlier, in Amarna letter EA17, we have king Tushratta mentioning his sister Kelu-heba and sending her gifts; so she was most likely alive when the wedding arrangements were made for AIII and Tadukhipa, and possibly after the marriage as well.  IOW, Tadukhipa likely had a queenly insider, her aunt, at court to help and guide her.

It's usually assumed that Tadukhipa's marriage was 'transferred' to AIV (Akhenaten) upon his soon ascendancy to kingship, or maybe if there was a co-regency (as @Aldebaran advocates) she may have been married to AIV on arrival, for practical and political reasons.  Amarna letters EA27 - 29 indicate she was indeed one of Akhenaten's wives.

The most common theory is that Tadukhipa, as wife of Akhenaten, for various reasons assumed the name Kiya, and was raised high at the court of Amarna, the king favoring her and building beautiful structures for her, to honor and please her, and giving her unique and endearing titulary.  There are various theories how long she survived, and she seems to have had a daughter by Akhenaten, but it's obscure because she either died or fell from favor at some point, and all her monuments and most of her references were altered and rededicated to Nefertiti's daughters.  She's sometimes thought to have died in childbirth.  The king entombed in KV55, thought to be Akhenaten or possibly Smenkhkare, is buried in a beautiful rishi coffin that had been made for her.

But there are various problems with these notions.  It is possible that she is the mother of Tut, or not, depending on the identity of the YL - known mother of Tut.  The name Kiya is clearly (to me) an Akhmin name, the aristocratic family deeply entwined with the ruling Thuthmosid line, and not a pejorative nickname, as is often presented.  The sometimes notion that she was called Kiya as an abbreviation to her name because it sounded similar due to the 'k' sound doesn't have merit; the 'kh' in her name is pronounced 'h', as shown with her aunt's name in EA17.  Some say the name Kiya may be a replacement for her Mittani name for domestic political reasons.  The Darnells suggest, as per @Wepwawet, that Tadukhipa is not her proper name at all, but only a titular designation for 'princess'; we need to see the philological underpinning for this recent addition to the Kiya question, but is certainly an intriguing position that makes her identity even murkier.

Dodson and Hilton wrote (2004):

Quote

Kiya is named and depicted on various blocks originating at Amarna, on vases in London and New York, four fragmentary kohl-tubes in Berlin and London, and a wine-jar docket. She may also be depicted by three uninscribed sculptor's studies. Her coffin and canopic jars were taken over for the burial of a king (probably Smenkhkare), which was ultimately discovered in tomb KV55 in the Valley of the Kings. Almost all of Kiya's monuments were usurped for daughters of Akhenaten, making it fairly certain that she was disgraced some time after Year 11 [of Akhenaten]

I think Dodson has since changed his mind about Smenkhkare being KV55.

Personally I find it hard to believe that Akhenaten would have raised a Mittanni princess so high, considering his family affiliations.  I surmise she is a sister of his, though her name may have been changed due to Atenism.  If she's the YL and mother of Tut, and Akhenaten's KV55, then they're siblings.

Edited August 27 by Wistman