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

BTW, in the same year [1996] he wrote the paper, given above, Raymond Johnson clarified what he thought about Shu and Tefnut vis a vis Amenhotep III here:

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/nn151.pdf

There was a Tefnut--otherwise there is no point in Nefertiti being called "goddess" [nTr.t] in the Amarna tomb of Ay and Tey.  The latter, called the "Great Governess" in the same place, proudly asserts that she had nursed this goddess.  Tey wears the hairstyle of a royal nurse or governess, hair or wig always tied back with a ribbon.  The text, below, is where this is stated.

Teytext.JPG

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

Yet the name Tefnut does not appear in the murky photo and it is assumed that the goddess must be Tefnut.

I'll paste in the part from the article by Johnson where he says that Nefertiti is Tefnut.
 

Quote

 

It is  interesting to note that the costumes of Queen Tiye from this
time depict her in the role of the goddess Hathor, divine consort
of Re, while Akhenaten's wife Nefertiti takes on the attributes
of Tefnut, twin sister/wife of Akhenaten/Shu. The evidence sug-
gests that Amenhotep's whole family played specific divine roles
in his deification program, taking on the attributes of the creator
god 's divine "family."


 

Fine, he says that Nefertiti "takes on the attributes of Tefnut", but what is his evidence, he does not say, he assumes either it is so, or that anybody who reads the article will know it to be so. I know it sounds like nit picking, but just like the Byblos god saga, this looks like a paper chase mixed with a Dan Brown mystery. So yes, I know that it's very likely that Nefertiti took the role of Tefnut, but actual evidence is thin on the ground, as opossed to opinion. If there were just one inscription or depiction, as there is for Tiye, stating Nefertiti to be Tefnut, this conversation would have never started, but, there is nothing, not a shred of solid evidence, and that's all I'm looking for, something to back up the opinions, mine included as I do think she probably did take the role of Tefnut, but doubts remain, for instance her appearance at the Hwt-bnbn as just a GRW, and not a single known case of her using an epithet of Tefnut, unlike with Tiye. It almost seems that she may have become a god in her own right, a new god, which is essentially what Amunhotep III seemed to be doing, and what I think Akhenaten actually did, but he failed to come up with a new name and stuck with Aten, a bit of a nothing really, into which he poured himself.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

Fine, he says that Nefertiti "takes on the attributes of Tefnut", but what is his evidence, he does not say, he assumes either it is so, or that anybody who reads the article will know it to be so. I know it sounds like nit picking, but just like the Byblos god saga, this looks like a paper chase mixed with a Dan Brown mystery. So yes, I know that it's very likely that Nefertiti took the role of Tefnut, but actual evidence is thin on the ground, as opossed to opinion. If there were just one inscription or depiction, as there is for Tiye, stating Nefertiti to be Tefnut, this conversation would have never started, but, there is nothing, not a shred of solid evidence, and that's all I'm looking for, something to back up the opinions, mine included as I do think she probably did take the role of Tefnut, but doubts remain, for instance her appearance at the Hwt-bnbn as just a GRW, and not a single known case of her using an epithet of Tefnut, unlike with Tiye. It almost seems that she may have become a god in her own right, a new god, which is essentially what Amunhotep III seemed to be doing, and what I think Akhenaten actually did, but he failed to come up with a new name and stuck with Aten, a bit of a nothing really, into which he poured himself.

Nefertiti had to be become the personification of Tefnut because all the components of the "holy trinity" cannot exist without the others.  But Nefertiti is usually a GRW even at Akhetaten--because that is her role vis a vis Akhenaten's kingship.  All of the three people involved are gods and kings and a queen at the same time.  I don't see it as contradictory.  After all, while being called "the dazzling Aten" Amenhotep III was still "nsw bity".  

Where is Tiye ever called "goddess"?  I know of no other queen referred to in that way way besides Nefertiti.  Tiye was shown wearing "Hathoric plumes" which became a queenly headdress--but she was not the personification of Hathor.  None of them were.  In fact, in the tomb of Kheruef the actual goddess, Hathor, sits there behind Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye stands behind them both.  Nefertiti became a god in her own right--Tefnut.  In fact, she was the only official goddess at Akhetaten until after the death of Amenhotep III--when the trinity became obsolete and the cartouches of the Aten changed.  

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

1 hour ago, Aldebaran said:

Nefertiti had to be become the personification of Tefnut because all the components of the "holy trinity" cannot exist without the others.  But Nefertiti is usually a GRW even at Akhetaten--because that is her role vis a vis Akhenaten's kingship.  All of the three people involved are gods and kings and a queen at the same time.  I don't see it as contradictory.  After all, while being called "the dazzling Aten" Amenhotep III was still "nsw bity".  

Where is Tiye ever called "goddess"?  I know of no other queen referred to in that way way besides Nefertiti.  Tiye was shown wearing "Hathoric plumes" which became a queenly headdress--but she was not the personification of Hathor.  None of them were.  In fact, in the tomb of Kheruef the actual goddess, Hathor, sits there behind Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye stands behind them both.  Nefertiti became a god in her own right--Tefnut.  In fact, she was the only official goddess at Akhetaten until after the death of Amenhotep III--when the trinity became obsolete and the cartouches of the Aten changed.  

The point about Nefertiti at the Hwt-bnbn as just GRW, is that she is just that, unlike Tiye who at Sedeinga, as well as being depicted as Tefnut, was also depicted, and worshipped, as Hathor. Tiye as Hathor also takes on the role of wife to Amunhotep III as Ra. Ra and Hathor are not the parents of Shu and Tefnut, who have no parents as they are both manifestations of Atum. The family tree for these gods is a modern construct that an Egyptian may not agree with, or at least a Heliopolitan priest, and gives us a false impression of some sort of human family type order, when it was far from it, for instance Hathor is also Sekhmet, who is the child of Ra, but also the mother of Nefertum, who prexisted Ra, and whose existance I view as akin to that of Heka, the magic principle as opposed to the god, in that it was a force created at the same time as the universe. I know you know all this, but I'm just putting it down to emphasize that we look at these gods as sort of people with familes and family issues, at our peril.

I also see no contradiction in a king being a god and just a king. The issue here I think is to what extent did they believe themselves to be a god, or was it all a facade. All the kings could be depicted as a god by having their face on the statue of a god, Tutankhamun as Khonsu for instance, but they are not the god, just showing themselves of to the populace as a god, as I doubt that Tutankhamun ever thought he was actually Khonsu, Lunar jewelry aside. But Amunhotep III seems to have pushed this beyond the bounds of reason, therefore Tiye may have been seen as the living manifestation of Hathor beyond the bounds of Sedeinga, and doubtless other temples now vanished. I think that Nefertiti has taken her role, not as Tefnut, but as Hathor, though because Hathor, even as a solar goddess, is now persona non grata, Nefertiti is not named in association with any goddess, it being implied by her being the GRW of Ra, if Akhenaten viewed himself as such in some form or other, and the forms are many.

The ring you link to is the one I referenced a few posts back, but could not remember exactly where it came from. Interestingly, it is described only as "probably" depicting Akhenaten and Nefetiti. It probably does, but again, it's elusive.

I know it seems as if I am arguing against Akhenaten and Nefertiti being Shu and Tefnut, but, for the sake of clarity, I am looking for the evidence that shows this to be so, and along the way I see other possibilities that cannot be discarded, ie, Hathor.

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

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

The point about Nefertiti at the Hwt-bnbn as just GRW, is that she is just that, unlike Tiye who at Sedeinga, as well as being depicted as Tefnut, was also depicted, and worshipped, as Hathor.

I dispute this.  Some even say Tiye was worshipped as a "form of Hathor" but there is no more proof of that than Nefertiti personifying Tefnut.  My opinion is that Tiye is simply wearing a Hathoric headdress and this confuses people.  Tiye was a commoner and could not be elevated to a goddess--but as queen of Egypt could be considered the primary worshipper of Hathor--just as Nefertari was in another temple.  Hathor was there and so was Nefertari--wearing that headdress.  Nefertiti did not wear Hathoric symbols, of course.

Tiye was often shown in this headdress and here is one from Sedeinga, the plumes now missing.  

https://collections.mfa.org/objects/46188

As for Ra, Shu and Tefnut, there was every good reason for them to be a trinity as each represented the things without which life could not exist--the sun, light and heat, and water.  That is why, on that ring from Amarna that, if it doesn't portray Akhenaten in his crown and Nefertiti in a headdress from which vegetation is growing--then whom?  Some sites don't like to commit one way or another, fear being in error.  But when you spot an error it takes forever for them to correct.  After all, a royal symbol is above the heads of the pair..  This is not for gods but kingship.  BTW, the goddess/queen there does hold a drooping flower like a royal wife.  Otherwise I don't think Nefertiti ever does when accompanying her husband.

Here's another ring from Amarna.  What is it supposed to say?  There is Maat and Ra--but what else?

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/569311?searchField=All&sortBy=Relevance&what=Rings&ft=*&offset=0&rpp=20&pos=8

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

See?  This is a perfect example of how people read too much into images.  Here is Nefertari flanked by Hathor at Abu Simbel.  Look at the queen's headdress.  Does that mean she is Hathor?  No--because she and Hathor duplicated are both in the same room!

 

Nefertariintemple.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have saved so many images of Nefertiti.  I had to look through them before finding the right one.  Here she is prior to Year 9 [older Aten cartouches].  During this time her body is often shown full of writing, including bracelets with cartouches, and she offers something.  This time Nefertiti follows behind Akhenaten and offers an image of herself as Tefnut with vegetation growing from her headdress--just as it is on the gold ring I made a link to previously..

Nefertitioffering.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

Here's another ring from Amarna.  What is it supposed to say?  There is Maat and Ra--but what else?

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/569311?searchField=All&sortBy=Relevance&what=Rings&ft=*&offset=0&rpp=20&pos=8

It's too blurry for me to make anything out clearly. At a pinch the New Kingdom variant of Tefnut could be there, but then the ring will not say one name. On the other hand, and another pinch, it could read as Neb-maat-Ra iua-Ra which is a known variant of the throne name of Amumhotep III. But this would need expert opinion, it's rather like looking at the name Nefertiti in TA26 chamber gamma, which some experts say is there, and others not.

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

7 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

I dispute this.  Some even say Tiye was worshipped as a "form of Hathor" but there is no more proof of that than Nefertiti personifying Tefnut.  My opinion is that Tiye is simply wearing a Hathoric headdress and this confuses people.  Tiye was a commoner and could not be elevated to a goddess--but as queen of Egypt could be considered the primary worshipper of Hathor--just as Nefertari was in another temple.  Hathor was there and so was Nefertari--wearing that headdress.  Nefertiti did not wear Hathoric symbols, of course.

Tiye was often shown in this headdress and here is one from Sedeinga, the plumes now missing.  

https://collections.mfa.org/objects/46188

As for Ra, Shu and Tefnut, there was every good reason for them to be a trinity as each represented the things without which life could not exist--the sun, light and heat, and water.  That is why, on that ring from Amarna that, if it doesn't portray Akhenaten in his crown and Nefertiti in a headdress from which vegetation is growing--then whom?  Some sites don't like to commit one way or another, fear being in error.  But when you spot an error it takes forever for them to correct.  After all, a royal symbol is above the heads of the pair..  This is not for gods but kingship.  BTW, the goddess/queen there does hold a drooping flower like a royal wife.  Otherwise I don't think Nefertiti ever does when accompanying her husband.

 

Good, as it would be boring if we all agreed.

The thing about Sedeinga is that it is a temple for Tiye to be worshipped in, something that Nefertiti does not have, though so much was destroyed we will never know for sure. However, on what does remain, Nefertiti is not shown as an object of worship, only as a worshipper.

Regarding any type of headgear worn by Nefertiti, we see her  wearing the flat topped crown, a wig with uraeus and sometimes that round helmet like affair. She wears the Atef crown and variations of the Hathoric crown, notably at the Hwt-bnbn and Gem-pa-aten. When it comes to depicitions of her as Tefnut, it gets a bit murky beyond one ring, which is an assumption, and while a good assumption, is not as clear as a carved in stone representaion uniquivocally showing her as Tefnut. Is there any reason why that ring could not represent Smenkhare and Meritaten ?

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

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

It's too blurry for me to make anything out clearly. At a pinch the New Kingdom variant of Tefnut could be there, but then the ring will not say one name. On the other hand, and another pinch, it could read as Neb-maat-Ra iua-Ra which is a known variant of the throne name of Amumhotep III. But this would need expert opinion, it's rather like looking at the name Nefertiti in TA26 chamber gamma, which some experts say is there, and others not.

If in the very unlikely event of me getting this right, and I've no doubt lurking around in some dark corner there is a full explanation of this cartouche to shoot me down, the name, which potentially reads The lord of truth is Ra - Heir of Ra, would be a further link between Amunhotep III and Khonsu. The statue of Tutankhamun as Khonsu would continue this, as while at face value it ties Tutankhamun to the Theban triad as the son of Amun and Mut, it also shows him as the Son of Ra. The Lunar jewelry could have the same function, for while the name Nebkheperuiah is never put inside a cartouche, it could mean simply, Son of Ra, in a cryptographic form, and could also be stating that Tutankhamun is the son of Amunhotep III, not that other guy, who, never heard of him..

But, even if wrong about the cartouche, I'm now reasonably sure about why Tutankhamun is shown as Khonsu, and why there is this Lunar version of his throne name, but not sure why it appears to have been discontinued around the time that Tutankhaten was changed to Tutankhamun. Perhaps because now with the amun name ending, a link with Amunhotep III was more explicit.

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

20 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

[...]   Tefnut was a powerful goddess as she was sometimes shown with the head of a lioness. Nefertiti was depicted as a powerful woman occasionally. as well.  She was even a coregent with her husband at some point for a short duration.  .[...] 

Where would the coregency be placed in your view?  Before the ascension to heir of Smenkhkare I'm supposing.. She was coregent and then knocked back down to queen by Akhenaten?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

It's too blurry for me to make anything out clearly. At a pinch the New Kingdom variant of Tefnut could be there, but then the ring will not say one name. On the other hand, and another pinch, it could read as Neb-maat-Ra iua-Ra which is a known variant of the throne name of Amumhotep III. But this would need expert opinion, it's rather like looking at the name Nefertiti in TA26 chamber gamma, which some experts say is there, and others not.

It does not say Tefnut and does not need an expert opinion.  The image only needs to be readable.  I see no "nb" sign [basket] there which "Nebmaatre" requires but what other king could it possibly be?

Edited by Aldebaran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

Where would the coregency be placed in your view?  Before the ascension to heir of Smenkhkare I'm supposing.. She was coregent and then knocked back down to queen by Akhenaten?

It's impossible for me to say when the coregency between Akhenaten and Nefertiti existed but I think it must have come before the one with Smenkhkare, which I believe to have taken place no earlier than Year 17.  In fact, I think Nefertiti was a king twice--but on neither occasion was this kingship expected to be permanent.  Unlike the kingship of Smenkhkare.

Kings who are permanent [unless they die] only have the names of the gods within their cartouches.  They don't have the name of another king like Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten did.  During the coregency with Akhenaten it was always "beloved of Akhenaten" [under one of his names].. On the second occasion it was  "effective for her husband".  Pity it did not name the husband because then we could be 100% sure of who the lady was.  As I said before, there is always a reason for a coregency.  Perhaps Akhenaten had become very ill and needed someone else to do the thing a king usually does.  That is why when there are two simultaneous rulers and their cartouches are shown side by side, one of them is usually styled "nb irt xtlw]" or "Lord of Doing Things" [spme believe that boils down to "Lord of the Ritual"].  This can be seen in this altered inscription where the cartouches of Akhenaten and Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten are shown together.  Anf, BTW, it can be seen in KV62 where those of Tutankhamun and Ay are in juxtaposition.  This is unprecedented.  A dead ruler and a living one being depicted with their cartouches in this manner.  Although Ay is certainly performing a ritual upon the dead king, he is already crowned with the khepresh.  I wonder if Ay had not somehow convinced a dying young man to make him a coregent--therefore bypassing everyone else who had a better claim to the throne--like Tut's own queen who should have been the daughter of a pharaoh.  No commoner had precedence over her, certainly, and females could become the ruler if the dynasty had run out of princes.  

altered inscription.JPG

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

Where the royal couple are both wearing the hmhm  crowns--Nefertiti still has the title of GRW but, as far as my failing sight can make out, it also says there that she is "mistress of all women" and "she says all things and does all doings".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aldebaran said:

It does not say Tefnut and does not need an expert opinion.  The image only needs to be readable.  I see no "nb" sign [basket] there which "Nebmaatre" requires but what other king could it possibly be?

Please just say what name you see.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

It's impossible for me to say when the coregency between Akhenaten and Nefertiti existed but I think it must have come before the one with Smenkhkare, which I believe to have taken place no earlier than Year 17.  In fact, I think Nefertiti was a king twice--but on neither occasion was this kingship expected to be permanent.  Unlike the kingship of Smenkhkare.

Kings who are permanent [unless they die] only have the names of the gods within their cartouches.  They don't have the name of another king like Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten did.  During the coregency with Akhenaten it was always "beloved of Akhenaten" [under one of his names].. On the second occasion it was  "effective for her husband".  Pity it did not name the husband because then we could be 100% sure of who the lady was.  As I said before, there is always a reason for a coregency.  Perhaps Akhenaten had become very ill and needed someone else to do the thing a king usually does.  That is why when there are two simultaneous rulers and their cartouches are shown side by side, one of them is usually styled "nb irt xtlw]" or "Lord of Doing Things" [spme believe that boils down to "Lord of the Ritual"].  This can be seen in this altered inscription where the cartouches of Akhenaten and Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten are shown together.  Anf, BTW, it can be seen in KV62 where those of Tutankhamun and Ay are in juxtaposition.  This is unprecedented.  A dead ruler and a living one being depicted with their cartouches in this manner.  Although Ay is certainly performing a ritual upon the dead king, he is already crowned with the khepresh.  I wonder if Ay had not somehow convinced a dying young man to make him a coregent--therefore bypassing everyone else who had a better claim to the throne--like Tut's own queen who should have been the daughter of a pharaoh.  No commoner had precedence over her, certainly, and females could become the ruler if the dynasty had run out of princes.  

altered inscription.JPG

Then again Allen says, in 2009:

Quote

The graffito dated to Regnal Year 3 of Neferneferuaten was written by a “lay-priest and scribe of god’s offerings of AMUN in the temple of ANKHKHEPERURE in Thebes.” The existence of offerings to Amun in this structure—perhaps her mortuary temple—has long been seen as evidence that her reign extended for a time beyond that of Akhenaten, in whose final years the name of Amun had been proscribed.17 Further indications of her sole reign may exist in a few of her cartouches that bear unique epithets not associated with Akhenaten: mr jtn “desired of the Aten” and pA Hm Axt-jtn “the incarnation of Akhetaten,” in the prenomen; and HqA “ruler,” in the nomen.

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.memphis.edu/dist/4/463/files/2014/03/Allen-z82g3a.pdf

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

23 hours ago, Wistman said:
On 9/5/2021 at 10:31 AM, Aldebaran said:

It's impossible for me to say when the coregency between Akhenaten and Nefertiti existed but I think it must have come before the one with Smenkhkare, which I believe to have taken place no earlier than Year 17.  In fact, I think Nefertiti was a king twice--but on neither occasion was this kingship expected to be permanent.  Unlike the kingship of Smenkhkare.

Kings who are permanent [unless they die] only have the names of the gods within their cartouches.  They don't have the name of another king like Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten did.  During the coregency with Akhenaten it was always "beloved of Akhenaten" [under one of his names].. On the second occasion it was  "effective for her husband".  Pity it did not name the husband because then we could be 100% sure of who the lady was.  As I said before, there is always a reason for a coregency.  Perhaps Akhenaten had become very ill and needed someone else to do the thing a king usually does.  That is why when there are two simultaneous rulers and their cartouches are shown side by side, one of them is usually styled "nb irt xtlw]" or "Lord of Doing Things" [spme believe that boils down to "Lord of the Ritual"].  This can be seen in this altered inscription where the cartouches of Akhenaten and Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten are shown together.  Anf, BTW, it can be seen in KV62 where those of Tutankhamun and Ay are in juxtaposition.  This is unprecedented.  A dead ruler and a living one being depicted with their cartouches in this manner.  Although Ay is certainly performing a ritual upon the dead king, he is already crowned with the khepresh.  I wonder if Ay had not somehow convinced a dying young man to make him a coregent--therefore bypassing everyone else who had a better claim to the throne--like Tut's own queen who should have been the daughter of a pharaoh.  No commoner had precedence over her, certainly, and females could become the ruler if the dynasty had run out of princes.  

altered inscription.JPG

Then again Allen says, in 2009:

Quote

The graffito dated to Regnal Year 3 of Neferneferuaten was written by a “lay-priest and scribe of god’s offerings of AMUN in the temple of ANKHKHEPERURE in Thebes.” The existence of offerings to Amun in this structure—perhaps her mortuary temple—has long been seen as evidence that her reign extended for a time beyond that of Akhenaten, in whose final years the name of Amun had been proscribed.17 Further indications of her sole reign may exist in a few of her cartouches that bear unique epithets not associated with Akhenaten: mr jtn “desired of the Aten” and pA Hm Axt-jtn “the incarnation of Akhetaten,” in the prenomen; and HqA “ruler,” in the nomen.

In that graffito the epithets are, unfortunately, all uncertain and that may be why Allen wrote "may exist".  But I have seen the one with "HqA" and trust Allen on the other.  Anyway, I think the graffito must be from a reign that took place after the deaths of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare and while Tutankhamun was still pretty small.  In order to have reached the age of 18 or 19 when he died and to have reigned 10 years, he wouldn't have begun until the age of eight or nine.

So there were the interim rulers, Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten.  This last was a kind of regent but a king at the same time--probably because she had been a king once before--with Akhenaten.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/28/2021 at 8:16 PM, Wistman said:

@Wepwawet    Ack!  Stupid me, I absent-mindedly confused Meketaten with Beketaten.  Which of course wouldn't work at all.  Sorry. 

The timeline, because of the co-regency, is another knot.  Still, Beketaten is a strong candidate as consort for either of the two KV55 nominees.  Age of the image and of the mummy would have to be resolved.  The banquet scene and the 'sunshade' scene in Huya's tomb are not necessarily related to the foreign tribute scene, which occurred in Year 12.  However, the inscriptions around the door name AIII and Tiye, as well as Akhenaten and Nefertiti...so maybe AIII was still alive, as you suggest.  When did Tiye arrive in Akhetaten with her youngest daughter?  Do we know?

Returning to this, the split scene in the tomb of Huya that shows Akhenaten, Nefertiti and their daughters in the LH panel, and AIII, Tiye and Beketaten in the RH panel, is, on reflection, a clear indicator that AIII is the father of Beketaten. She is named as king's daughter, all agree on that, but argue that the king in question could be Akhenaten. It's actually not possible, IMO, as though while this forms part of a diptych, and the two scenes mirror two sides of one family, Beketaten's title of king's daughter has to refer to AIII in this specific panel, not Akhenaten in the other panel. This panel also gives Tiye's full titles, starting with Hereditary Princess. She can only have this title as she was a commoner and not a king's daughter, and I know it has been thrown around for ages, surely Nefertiti having this title is a strong indicator, if not outright proof, that she was also born a commoner. There is the argument that the highest ranking title of GRW will be used, but this is not the case with Tiye were the order of titles goes, and I'll do the entire thing for clarity.

The hereditary princess, great of favour, lady of charm, sweet of love, who fills the palace with her beauty, mistress of Upper and Lower Egypt, the King's Chief Wife, his beloved, Lady of the Two Lands, Tiye.

Then we have the issue of how old is Beketaten in this scene, and could she be old enough, not necessarily at the time the scene was made, to be the mother of Tutankhaten. The argument to say that she is too young is based on her size in the scene compared to the size of Meritaten in the other scene, and Beketaten is certainly shown as much smaller, about the same size as Ankhesenpaaten, and so far too young to be Tutankhaten's mother, and thus not KV35YL. But, in the scene with Akhenaten, his daughters are standing facing him, and so can be shown at a height more representative of how they would have appeared. Beketaten however is shown standing in front of Tiye at her feet, with both looking at AIII. I would contend that if Beketaten was shown any taller, then she would start to obscure Tiye from AIII, and also unbalance the scene. Of course it's subjective, and Beketaten can actually have been no taller/older than Ankhesenpaaten, but that scene, as in any tomb scene, cannot be taken as an accurate depiction of life that can be used as firm evidence for such a subjective issue. It's a tomb, therefore part of a different world.

So on what we see and read in this scene is at least reasonable evidence that Tiye's title of Hereditary Princess indicates that Nefertiti was also born a commoner, that Beketaten is the daughter of AIII and Tiye, and that she is therefore a full sister of Ankhenaten, and depending on when she was born, potentially the best candidate to be KV35YL and the mother of Tutankhamun. I expect to face both barrels of Aldebaran's shotgun over this one :)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Returning to this, the split scene in the tomb of Huya that shows Akhenaten, Nefertiti and their daughters in the LH panel, and AIII, Tiye and Beketaten in the RH panel, is, on reflection, a clear indicator that AIII is the father of Beketaten. She is named as king's daughter, all agree on that, but argue that the king in question could be Akhenaten. It's actually not possible, IMO, as though while this forms part of a diptych, and the two scenes mirror two sides of one family, Beketaten's title of king's daughter has to refer to AIII in this specific panel, not Akhenaten in the other panel. This panel also gives Tiye's full titles, starting with Hereditary Princess. She can only have this title as she was a commoner and not a king's daughter, and I know it has been thrown around for ages, surely Nefertiti having this title is a strong indicator, if not outright proof, that she was also born a commoner. There is the argument that the highest ranking title of GRW will be used, but this is not the case with Tiye were the order of titles goes, and I'll do the entire thing for clarity.

The hereditary princess, great of favour, lady of charm, sweet of love, who fills the palace with her beauty, mistress of Upper and Lower Egypt, the King's Chief Wife, his beloved, Lady of the Two Lands, Tiye.

Then we have the issue of how old is Beketaten in this scene, and could she be old enough, not necessarily at the time the scene was made, to be the mother of Tutankhaten. The argument to say that she is too young is based on her size in the scene compared to the size of Meritaten in the other scene, and Beketaten is certainly shown as much smaller, about the same size as Ankhesenpaaten, and so far too young to be Tutankhaten's mother, and thus not KV35YL. But, in the scene with Akhenaten, his daughters are standing facing him, and so can be shown at a height more representative of how they would have appeared. Beketaten however is shown standing in front of Tiye at her feet, with both looking at AIII. I would contend that if Beketaten was shown any taller, then she would start to obscure Tiye from AIII, and also unbalance the scene. Of course it's subjective, and Beketaten can actually have been no taller/older than Ankhesenpaaten, but that scene, as in any tomb scene, cannot be taken as an accurate depiction of life that can be used as firm evidence for such a subjective issue. It's a tomb, therefore part of a different world.

So on what we see and read in this scene is at least reasonable evidence that Tiye's title of Hereditary Princess indicates that Nefertiti was also born a commoner, that Beketaten is the daughter of AIII and Tiye, and that she is therefore a full sister of Ankhenaten, and depending on when she was born, potentially the best candidate to be KV35YL and the mother of Tutankhamun. I expect to face both barrels of Aldebaran's shotgun over this one :)

She addresses Nefertiti's titulary as follows :

Quote

For the present writer, at least, the coregency debate is over.  A dual kingship of eight years is causing other matters to make better sense, as well.  A box element from KV62 is proof that for a queen to be known as "king's daughter" was not the current fashion.  It may have fallen out of favor due to a long coregency because the wife of the senior pharaoh, Queen Tiye, was not a daughter of a king.  Therefore it would have seemed impolite for her junior counterpart and daughter Queen Nefertiti to have a grander title.  So it could have been that the problem was solved by styling both of them "irt-pat.t wrt" or "great noblewoman", the next highest title a woman could bear after "princess" and which was obviously also appropriate for a queen.  From the reign of Akhenaten until the end of Dynasty 18, no queen is styled "king's daughter" although some of them evidently were.  Even Ankhesenamun, wife of Tutankhamun, continued to be called "irt-pat.t" and nothing else besides "Hmt nsw wrt".  Without this explanation, there is not a single good reason why the cartouche of the erstwhile Princess Merytaten, now a wife of her father, would not be accompanied by "sAt nsw".   [bold mine]

https://www.academia.edu/16702265/The_Significance_of_Eight_Years_for_King_Akhenaten_

Not to presuppose her answer, but what do you say to this explanation?  It's logic does seem to hang upon the acceptance of Nefertiti as Tiye's daughter, which is itself in question.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Wistman said:

She addresses Nefertiti's titulary as follows :

https://www.academia.edu/16702265/The_Significance_of_Eight_Years_for_King_Akhenaten_

Not to presuppose her answer, but what do you say to this explanation?  It's logic does seem to hang upon the acceptance of Nefertiti as Tiye's daughter, which is itself in question.

The truth could only be known if a mummy of one of Nefertiti's daughters was found, with no doubt of who it was. Much of everything else is somewhat subjective with what few facts there are being manipulated to fit into pet theories. Of course she has a valid point that neither Meritaten nor Ankhesenamun are styled king's daughter when they certainly are daughters of a king, but I don't think it has anything to do with deference to Tiye in order not to put her nose out of joint, and she would have been dead by the time either became a GRW.

However, let's say that not wanting to put someones nose out of joint was a thing, then, though Nefertiti's daughters are king's daughter, for her daughters to be styled as such when she herself could not be (hypothetical), may have put her nose out of joint. It's not easy Amarna, is it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

The truth could only be known if a mummy of one of Nefertiti's daughters was found, with no doubt of who it was. Much of everything else is somewhat subjective with what few facts there are being manipulated to fit into pet theories. Of course she has a valid point that neither Meritaten nor Ankhesenamun are styled king's daughter when they certainly are daughters of a king, but I don't think it has anything to do with deference to Tiye in order not to put her nose out of joint, and she would have been dead by the time either became a GRW.

However, let's say that not wanting to put someones nose out of joint was a thing, then, though Nefertiti's daughters are king's daughter, for her daughters to be styled as such when she herself could not be (hypothetical), may have put her nose out of joint. It's not easy Amarna, is it.

I resent your insinuation that I have "manipulated the facts" when I have done nothing but state the obvious truth.  None of the queens after Tiye were styled "king's daughter".  However, I did not say anything about the status of Queen Tiye affecting the granddaughters--but only the queen with whom Tiye was concurrent due to a coregency--Nefertiti.  Pet theory?  I think it's a bit more than that because others have accepted it by now and a man who has made a career of digging at El Amarna, Barry Kemp, also accepts the possibility.  When, in 2012, he  wrote an inter-disciplinary paper with  Albert Zink, a microbiologist, they did not exclude Nefertiti from among the candidates for the identity of the Younger Lady mummy.

In fact, no matter what else is being discussed, it is only you who always returns to your "pet cause", which is to debunk my theory without ever having been able to actually do so with any evidence that would put the matter to rest once and for all.  And this is in every forum under any of your "pet names".   Having viewed my theory from every angle since 1999, including the DNA when it became available, if anyone would have found the factor that made the identification impossible, it would probably have been me, the person who cannot think inside the box.  Not being a man, I would have acknowledged that.  Nothing depends upon Nefertiti being the YL for me, no career, no monetary considerations--nothing.  So I suggest you stop acting like nobody but me believes my "pet theory" has any merit and to start having some original ideas of your own, write some papers that might distract you from your pet obsession.  If I decide my theory cannot possibly remain tenable, you'll be the first to know..  

The only thing that will decide the matter now is a bit of inscription that states "Tutankhaten, born of the Great Royal Wife, Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

 None of the queens after Tiye were styled "king's daughter"

 

Correct, but they were styled as such when still princesses. Tiye does not appear until she becomes the GRW of AIII, and Nefertiti not until she becomes GRW to Akhenaten. Clearly Tiye was never a princess, but while we have a multitude of princesses for AIII and Akhenaten, Nefertiti, like Kiya, appears from nowhere, so surely this must mitigate against her having been a daughter of AIII unless solid evidence can be produced, either epigraphic, as in your example above, or in the form of a mummy known to be one of her daughters, and the DNA showing an incestual parentage as it does with Tut. This would make it beyond doubt that KV35YL was Nefertiti, and I would have no complaints, but so far this evidence is lacking, and what seems to be conclusive evidence of the age of KV35YL is still disputed.

I think you are reading too much into my posts as I'm not attacking you at all, and certainly not just for the sake of it. I just want to see evidence, not conjecture, no matter now convincing it can seem, and nobody, not you, nor I or uncle Tom Cobbley and all can provide solid evidence.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Correct, but they were styled as such when still princesses. Tiye does not appear until she becomes the GRW of AIII, and Nefertiti not until she becomes GRW to Akhenaten. Clearly Tiye was never a princess, but while we have a multitude of princesses for AIII and Akhenaten, Nefertiti, like Kiya, appears from nowhere, so surely this must mitigate against her having been a daughter of AIII unless solid evidence can be produced, either epigraphic, as in your example above, or in the form of a mummy known to be one of her daughters, and the DNA showing an incestual parentage as it does with Tut. This would make it beyond doubt that KV35YL was Nefertiti, and I would have no complaints, but so far this evidence is lacking, and what seems to be conclusive evidence of the age of KV35YL is still disputed.

I think you are reading too much into my posts as I'm not attacking you at all, and certainly not just for the sake of it. I just want to see evidence, not conjecture, no matter now convincing it can seem, and nobody, not you, nor I or uncle Tom Cobbley and all can provide solid evidence.

Multitude?  Hardly.  There are a few named princesses, daughters of Amenhotep III--a very few.  But there are even more unnamed daughters, sixteen, portrayed in the tomb of Kheruef.  Your argument that a princess sired by A III must be named or "appears from nowhere" is not realistic.  What is your point in continuing to tell me that the YL as Nefertiti is unproved?  Do you have any idea how much in Egyptology is assumed on balance of evidence?  I have long since written in fora that the matter of this identification is AT AN IMPASSE and I know very well you were there,  But you continue to harp on the same old "king's daughter" argument.  This is it.  My last reply to you on the subject.  I don't owe you anything and certainly not to argue about this with you forever.  Think what you like.  I couldn't care less.

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.