Amarna, Before and After

[Wepwawet]

7 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

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.

Multitude is a figure of speach and not meant to be taken so literally. I have made no argument that daughters of AIII "must be named", only that there are a number of named daughters. Nefertiti and Kiya without doubt appear from nowhere. The identity of KV35YL is not proven. That Nefertiti is nowhere named as a king's daughter is not the major part of the reason I have doubts, and rarely use that in discussion. What I do use is the dispute over the general condition of the mummy, arm position in particular, and presumed age of the mummy, which is not a done deal despite what Hawass and Saleem say. Part of the presumed evidence that chamber gamma is purported to show the new born Tutankhaten with the name of Nefertiti so placed that it indicates that she is the mother. This has not been proven by Martin and Gabolde, and is in fact a rather irrational position to take, not least because they cannot rationalize who the two other babies are in chamber alpha, and either ignore that the two deceased princesses would have only been about two years and three years old respectively, or go into contradictory contortions, in the case of  Martin, to try to make them much older. It's common sense, and it follows a pattern, that the reason for the depiction of a baby in chamber gamma is the same as for alpha. As Meketaten cannot be the mother due to being too young, though again some go into contortions over this and say that it "must" be Tutankhaten and that the mother "must" be Nefertiti because Gabolde sees her name in an area of damaged wall that is mostly blank. You see I'm somewhat further down the line from just using the king's daughter argument. Then there is the possibility that KV35YL is Beketaten, and in a previous post here I've shown, not conclusively of course, that the argument, used by you and others in other fora, that she is too young on account of the size she is depicted in the Huya tomb scene, is also not conclusive, and showing her as taller would unbalance the composition in the RH scene.

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

So we have the Younger Lady's age at death @ 25 years.  The Cairo CT scans suggested an age of 25 - 35 based on the condition of the epiphyseal union and the closure of the cranial sutures.  C. Elliot Smith estimated her age at no more than 25 years based on  the degree of fusion of the illiac crest and her non-erupted wisdom teeth.

Can we fit Nefertiti into this age at death?  She would had to have been exceedingly young at the outset of her husband's co-regency with AIII.  Their dynamic activities at the Aten temple at Thebes and their building initiatives at Amarna would seem remarkably precocious then.  Is it even likely they would have done these things as mere children?  If AIII was behind all this, then why wouldn't he claim these projects as his own, for his posterity and his queen's?  It seems very doubtful to me that he would forsake naming the Aten monuments as his own, considering his heightened self-appraisal.  Besides, the scenes depicted there in Thebes in the Teni-Menu seem to show it was used as a royal residence, for AIV, Nefertiti, and their daughters.

So it's figured that Queen Tiye arrives at Amarna @ year 8 of Akhenaten, terminus of his co-regency.  He would rule for @ another nine years.  Tiye dies, supposedly, @ year 12, the year of the durbar.  Nefertiti would live on after Akhenaten, ruling for some few years as pharaoh (possibly after Smenkhkare's short reign); Tuthankamun becoming pharaoh on her demise.

If we subtract from age 25 (the age of the Younger Lady's mummy) the seventeen years of Nefertiti's reign as Akhenaten's queen and then subtract the 2-3 years of her own kingship, we have Nefertiti becoming Amunhotep's (Akhenaten's) queen at age 5-6.  When was it that she had the first of her daughters, the royal princesses?  They're depicted at the Hut Ben-ben, officiating with Nefertiti, @ year five of Amenhotep IV, before the move to Amarna. 

This is a squeeze I find uncomfortable.  Or do I have it wrong.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

So we have the Younger Lady's age at death @ 25 years.  The Cairo CT scans suggested an age of 25 - 35 based on the condition of the epiphyseal union and the closure of the cranial sutures.  C. Elliot Smith estimated her age at no more than 25 years based on  the degree of fusion of the illiac crest and her non-erupted wisdom teeth.

 

Added to that, the University of York examination gives an age range from 18 to 30, though goes with a middle of the road position of about 25.

It's really easy to make mischief with these ages, so I prefer to look at what is the youngest age feasable at the first appearance and use that as a yardstick. She first appears at the Karnak Aten temple in about year 2, then at the Hwt-bnbn presumed to have been finished in year 3. Here we see Meritaten for the first time. How old is she to officiate ? some say 5, which I think reasonable give or take a year, but no matter the age of Nefertiti, it has her giving birth to Meritaten possibly 2 or even 3 years before he became king. If so, why is there no record of her until about year 2 at the earliest, and why is she not shown with Akhenaten in the tomb of Ramose and Kheruef. In the tomb of Ramose, Akhenaten, still Amunhotep IV has Ma'at standing behind him instead of a GRW, and in the tomb of Kheruef it is Tiye taking the place of his GRW. This is actually bizarre if the Hwt-bnbn dates from about year 3, or later as some suggest, and we have an approximately five year old Meritaten on show. Something is clearly wrong, and either the Hwt-bnbn was constructed later than is thought, or Meritaten, while depicted as an infant, was actually a baby incapable of taking an officiating role, and that she is in that scene in spirit, as it were. But, if the date of the Hwt-bnbn is pushed forward, we come against year five and beginnings of Akhetaten, so maybe the Hwt-bnbn was made at the same time as the Aten temple, and potentially finished, or nearly so, in mid to late year 2. How ridiculously complicated this all is.

I, for the sake of sanity, prefer to see the Hwt-bnbn constructed by the end of year 2, with Meritaten being born sometime during that year, and that her depicition as officiating does not reflect reality. So, if she was born in roughly that time, then she could have been conceived sometime in year 1, after Akhenaten has married Nefertiti, who could be at the youngest twelve, but perhaps more likely 13 or 14. However, it does make me wonder why Ramose and Kheruef were so quick off the mark decorating their tombs so early in his reign and before, presumably, he had even got married. However, let's plump for Nefertiti being at the youngest 13 in year 1. So 30 at the death of Akhenaten and 33 at her presumed death when Tutankhaten becomes king. This, it has to be said, fits well with general consensus of an age range of 25-35 for KV35YL. That, going by the youngest she could have been, is the easy part, because if the depiction of Meritaten at the Hwt-bnbn does reflect reality and she was old enough to officiate, it's going to put the age of Nefertiti up, but by how far, a convenient 2 years to fit with the upper age range, or over it, and let's not forget that it is an age range, not a strict 35 give or take a year or two. So looking at other ages beyond the youngest possible in year 1 is difficult I think.

Then there are the other considerations, not least that if KV35YL is Nefertiti, then she was, I think, killed, perhaps to nip a second Hatshepsut in the bud. But all this has been predicated on Nefertiti being the YL at the upper age range, and I think it impossible for the YL to be Nefertiti even at 25, let alone younger. But the middle and lower ages should not be discarded, so who could fit a lower than maximum age if not Nefertiti, well obviously Beketaten, and at this point I need a breather, and a drink....

And to edit: Yes, it does look odd that we have essentially kids concocting "Atenism", creating new types of temple, new building techniques and art forms at what age, 15, 16, and moving the capital when both I think may have still been about 18. Even being taken as adults at 14 back then does not make them adult, and while an Alexander can charge about the battlefield at 14, and Nelson was in the navy at 12, they were just not old enough to come up with the deep and complicated things we see in the riegn of Akhenaten. It's Amunhotep III of course, it has to be, and what was Akhetaten, a glorified playpen. No, but I do wonder at times.

Fictional conversation between Amunhotep III and Akhenaten:

AIII - And what's my little Aten going to do today then?

Little Aten - Today I'm going to abolish all the old gods.

AIII - Oh how splendid, and what are you going to do when you've eaten your rusk and had a nap, build a new city and have chariot races ?

Little Aten - Oh can I daddy, can I please please have a new city just for me so I can race chariots all day, and have those filthy peasants stand under the rays of the Sun, that's you daddy, your'e my Sunshine.

AIII - There's a good boy then, did you hear that Tiye dear, Little Atenwaten is going to abolish all the gods and race chariots.

Tiye - Oh no he's not, he's a very naughty boy and not any sort of Messiah.

Noises off - Oh yes he is.

Tiye -  Oh no he isn't, but maybe he'll be Moses

Noises off - He's Brian

Sounds of thunder as Sekhmet appears and smites the lot of them.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

9 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Added to that, the University of York examination gives an age range from 18 to 30, though goes with a middle of the road position of about 25.

It's really easy to make mischief with these ages, so I prefer to look at what is the youngest age feasable at the first appearance and use that as a yardstick. She first appears at the Karnak Aten temple in about year 2, then at the hwt-bnbn presumed to have been finished in year 3. Here we see Meritaten for the first time. How old is she to officiate ? some say 5, which I think reasonable give or take a year, but no matter the age of Nefertiti, it has her giving birth to Meritaten possibly 2 or even 3 years before he became king. If so, why is there no record of her until about year 2 at the earliest, and why is she not shown with Akhenaten in the tomb of Ramose and Kheruef. In the tomb of Ramose Akhenaten, still Amunhotep IV has Ma'at standing behind him instead of a GRW, and in the tomb of Kheruef it is Tiye taking the place of his GRW. This is actually bizarre if the Hwt-bnbn dates from about year 3 and we have an approximately five year old Meritaten on show. Something is clearly wrong, and either the Hwt-bnbn was constructed later than is thought, or Meritaten, while depicted as an infant, was actually a baby incapable of taking an officiating role, and that she is in that scene in spirt, as it were. But, if the date of the Hwt-bnbn is pushed back, we come against year five and the move to Akhetaten, so maybe the Hwt-bnbn was made at the same time as the Aten temple, and potentially finished, or nearly so, in the early part of year 2. How ridiculously complicated this all is.

I, for the sake of sanity, prefer to see the Hwt-bnbn constructed by the end of year 2, with Meritaten being born sometime during that year, and that her depicition as officiating does not reflect reality. So, if she was born in roughly that time, then she could have been conceived sometime in year 1, after Akhenaten has married Nefertiti, who could be at the youngest twelve, but perhaps more likely 13 or 14. However, it does make me wonder why Ramose and Kheruef were so quick off the mark decorating their tombs so early in his reign and before, presumably, he had even got married. However, let's plump for Nefertiti being at the youngest 13 in year 1. So 30 at the death of Akhenaten and 33 at her presumed death when Tutankhaten becomes king. This, it has to be said, fits well with general consensus of an age range of 25-35 for KV35YL. That, going by the youngest she could have been, is the easy part, because if the depiction of Meritaten at the Hwt-bnbn does reflect reality and she was old enough to officiate, it's going to put the age of Nefertiti up, but by how far, a convenient 2 years to fit with the upper age range, or over it, and let's not forget that it is an age range, not a strict 35 give or take a year or two. So looking at other ages beyond the youngest possible in year 1 is difficult I think.

Then there are the other considerations, not least that if KV35YL is Nefertiti, then she was, I think, killed, perhaps to nip a second Hatshepsut in the bud. Then there is Beketaten, and I need a drink.....

As you show, it takes a lot of canoodling to make YL be Nefertiti.  It just doesn't readily sound plausible, if you'll forgive my saying so.  Indicating 35 as the agreed topmost age for the mummy and then choosing it is also deliberately weighing the estimates in my view.  Not all of the analysts signaled that age.  But if we want to make KV35YL be Nefertiti, then it suits to do so.

No, we must look to Beketaten I think.

[Wepwawet]

4 minutes ago, Wistman said:

As you show, it takes a lot of canoodling to make YL be Nefertiti.  It just doesn't readily sound plausible, if you'll forgive my saying so.  Indicating 35 as the agreed topmost age for the mummy and then choosing it is also deliberately weighing the estimates in my view.  Not all of the analysts signaled that age.  But if we want to make KV35YL be Nefertiti, then it suits to do so.

No, we must look to Beketaten I think.

You know, when the DNA results showed the YL to be the mother of Tut, the immediate reaction I found to be from quite a few people was, "Oh, it's Beketaten then", and the battle lines were re-drawn to were we are today. I think I may have had one too many dwinkzzz

[Aldebaran]

Wistman wrote:

[QUOTE}No, we must look to Beketaten I think.[/QUOTE]

That was done quite some time ago in this very thread.

 

https://www.academia.edu/41144936/Was_Baketaten_the_Mother_of_Tutankhamen

Then I added. "The main point made was that Baketaten would fit the age window assigned to the Younger Lady with difficulty even at the lower end, which was 25.  As I am she, I ought to know.  

Yes, I think Amenhotep III was dead by Year 9 of Akhenaten.  In fact, I think his end came in the early part of the fifth month of Year 8, his own Year 38,  It is perfectly possible for A III and Tiye to have had a little daughter who was no older than the daughters of Akhenaten and Nefertiti but one thing does bother me--the shape of Baketaten's skull.  Normally, only the royal children have those elongated heads and none of the previous daughters of A III and Tiye were ever represented like that,  I think Mutnodjmet was their daughter, too, and she has  a rounded head even there at Amarna in the tomb of Ay.

Of course, in the past, that was why some people suggested Baketaten was the daughter of Akhenaten by some other woman who died and was taken under the wing of Queen Tiye, the dowager..  It's also perfectly possible--except then Baketaten would not fit to the DNA profile of a full sister of KV 55 and a child of A III and Tiye,   There is not one thing about life at Amarna that isn't beset by problems or suspicions--not even Princess Meritaten being the queen of Smenkhkare.  Now I have not had the opportunity to study all the times Meritaten is mentioned at the city to see if her name was spelled consistently every single time as "mry.t-itn".  But I suspect that the feminine ending after "mry" is usually there.  And yet when Smenkhkare and his wife are portrayed in the tomb of Meryre II--the feminine ending was not there according to the copier of the scene.  Nor is on a sequin drawn by Howard Carter among the finds in KV62.  Strange that each time that this woman's name is coupled with that of Smenkhkare it is written without the feminine ending--but it may still mean nothing as there are not enough examples to go by.  I don't address every single problem at my Academia.edu site but quite a few of them in various papers.  I am totally convinced of an eight-year coregency and that every coregency has a reason behind it.  Therefore, the basis of the entire Amarna period is the deification of Amenhotep III while he lived.  As the personification of the sun, he needed a Shu and a Tefnut to be the other components of a "holy trinity" with him.  Ray Johnson pointed this out years ago but I don't think it ever really sunk in.  Even I didn't think much about that until recent years when it finally hit home how vital this element was and how necessary a coregency in this instance."

[Wistman]

On 9/25/2021 at 1:07 PM, Aldebaran said:

Wistman wrote:

[QUOTE}No, we must look to Beketaten I think.[/QUOTE]

That was done quite some time ago in this very thread.

 

https://www.academia.edu/41144936/Was_Baketaten_the_Mother_of_Tutankhamen

Then I added. "The main point made was that Baketaten would fit the age window assigned to the Younger Lady with difficulty even at the lower end, which was 25.  As I am she, I ought to know.  

 

Yes, though that 'lower end' of the age window correlates to the 2010 Cairo scan only.  Smith's original examination has her at 'no more than 25'.  And the more recent University of York examination has the age window at 18 - 30 as Wep has shown above.  That 'lower end' sets it within range of both Baketaten and Meritaten (giving the identity of KV55 to Smenkhkare, possibly.)

We can have, say, Tut born to his mother in Akhenaten's year 13, putting the boy @ 5  on the death of that pharaoh, and similarly within six months on the death of Smenkhkare (giving the crown to Nefertiti, not Tut) at 5-ish, theoretically.  If his mother died at that time, and she was 18, she would have been born in year 1 of Akhenaten's reign, giving birth to Tut at 13.  Possible for either princess, in fact probable.

 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

4 hours ago, Wistman said:

Yes, though that 'lower end' of the age window correlates to the 2010 Cairo scan only.  Smith's original examination has her at 'no more than 25'.  And the more recent University of York examination has the age window at 18 - 30 as Wep has shown above.  That 'lower end' sets it within range of both Baketaten and Meritaten (giving the identity of KV55 to Smenkhkare, possibly.)

We can have, say, Tut born to his mother in Akhenaten's year 13, putting the boy @ 5  on the death of that pharaoh, and similarly within six months on the death of Smenkhkare (giving the crown to Nefertiti, not Tut) at 5-ish, theoretically.  If his mother died at that time, and she was 18, she would have been born in year 1 of Akhenaten's reign, giving birth to Tut at 13.  Possible for either princess, in fact probable.

 

Slightly off Beketaten specifically, it would be worth getting hold of a copy of An X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies by James Harris and Edward Wente. It was published in 1980 so DNA and CT scans have moved some of the story on, and it being more certain that there was an 8 year co-regency between AIII and Akhenaten. However, it is mostly still valid. There is an entire chapter that deals with the ages of death, and it goes into some detail and includes different results for different scenarios. Unfortunately they do not include KV35YL as in 1980 she could not be determined to be royal, even if it was very probable. The reasoning behind the age ranges they give for Thumose IV, Amunhotep III, Akhenaten, Tiye, Smenkhkare and Tutankamun, and an age for Meritaten, though not at death, are convoluted, and they give different sets of age ranges based on different scenarios, length of co-regencies for instance, which back in 1980 were seen as being in the range of 2 - 12 years for AIII and Akhenaten, though these authors do not go above 11. The authors do state that they have arrived at these various ages from the historical record and other methods, not by the ages suggested by the condition of the actual mummies, and they do not tie KV55 to either Ankhenaten or Smenkhkare. I've no intention of replicating all their reasoning, so will just give some age ranges with some explanation:

Thutmose IV -  23-46 based on either a 10 or 33 year reign, 33!

Amunhotep III - 42-46, I had to get to the 46 year number by divination of their workings which give other numbers but not that one, though it is implied. This puts AIII as coming to the throne at age 4-8

Tiye - 43-50, again arrived at by divination for the same reasons, and puts Tiye's age when AIII became king at either just born or about 7, thus putting the first child of her and AIII not occuring until about year 7 at the earliest, and that child being no older than 23 during year 30.

Akhenaten - 41 as a maximum, again by divination

Tutankhamun - Late teens, yay, easy

Smenkhkare - 14-50 arrived at by various complicated scenarios. The authors though seem to think the lower age ranges more realistic, again by a process of divination by me.

Meritaten - No age of death, but they put her as at least 12 in year 4/5, which as mentioned in a previous post is a serious issue.

Edited September 26, 2021 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

47 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Slightly off Beketaten specifically, it would be worth getting hold of a copy of An X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies by James Harris and Edward Wente. It was published in 1980 so DNA and CT scans have moved some of the story on, and it being more certain that there was an 8 year co-regency between AIII and Akhenaten. However, it is mostly still valid. There is an entire chapter that deals with the ages of death, and it goes into some detail and includes different results for different scenarios. Unfortunately they do not include KV35YL as in 1980 she could not be determined to be royal, even if it was very probable. The reasoning behind the age ranges they give for Thumose IV, Amunhotep III, Akhenaten, Tiye, Smenkhkare and Tutankamun, and an age for Meritaten, though not at death, are convoluted, and they give different sets of age ranges based on different scenarios, length of co-regencies for instance, which back in 1980 were seen as being in the range of 2 - 12 years for AIII and Akhenaten, though these authors do not go above 11. The authors do state that they have arrived at these various ages from the historical record and other methods, not by the ages suggested by the condition of the actual mummies, and they do not tie KV55 to either Ankhenaten or Smenkhkare. I've no intention of replicating all their reasoning, so will just give some age ranges with some explanation:

Thutmose IV -  23-46 based on either a 10 or 33 year reign, 33!

Amunhotep III - 42-46, I had to get to the 46 year number by divination of their workings which give other numbers but not that one, though it is implied. This puts AIII as coming to the throne at age 4-8

Tiye - 43-50, again arrived at by divination for the same reasons, and puts Tiye's age when AIII became king at either just born or about 7, thus putting the first child of her and AIII not occuring until about year 7 at the earliest, and that child being no older than 23 during year 30.

Akhenaten - 41 as a maximum, again by divination

Tutankhamun - Late teens, yay, easy

Smenkhkare - 14-50 arrived at by various complicated scenarios. The authors though seem to think the lower age ranges more realistic, again by a process of divination by me.

Meritaten - No age of death, but they put her as at least 12 in year 4/5, which as mentioned in a previous post is a serious issue.

If AIII came to the throne at age 4-8, what would really have been the problem of Tut succeding at age 5?  Other than someone powerful wanting to prevent it that is.

   

Akhenaten 41, though.   Smenkhkare 50.  Yipes! cold water.

...but yes, that would discount Meritaten as YL, if so.  So who's left? 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Wistman

[Trelane]

18 minutes ago, Wistman said:

If AIII came to the throne at age 4-8, what would really have been the problem of Tut succeding at age 5?  Other than someone powerful wanting to prevent it that is.

   

Akhenaten 41, though.   Smenkhkare 50.  Yipes! cold water.

...but yes, that would discount Meritaten as YL, if so.  So who's left? 

Betty White?

Sorry, I'll pipe back down.

Edited September 26, 2021 by Trelane

[Wepwawet]

8 hours ago, Wistman said:

If AIII came to the throne at age 4-8, what would really have been the problem of Tut succeding at age 5?  Other than someone powerful wanting to prevent it that is.

   

Akhenaten 41, though.   Smenkhkare 50.  Yipes! cold water.

...but yes, that would discount Meritaten as YL, if so.  So who's left? 

There's nothing to prevent anybody becoming king no matter their age, Pepy II at about 6 for instance, and no official regent, but clearly there was in the background, but they did't stop him demanding a dancing dwarf, which gave me the idea for the fictional conversation a few posts up, and Python. So Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten being king for about 3 years after the death of Akhenaten was a Hatshepsut style usurpation, not a regency. If you call yourself king, if you have burial items for you as a king, then you are a king, not a regent, and your name as king on burial equipent has magical properties involving you being a king. The issue here is was there a co-regency and do Tutankhamun's years 1-3 run concurrently with those of Ankhkheperure, or no co-regency and they run consecutively, and there is not a shred of physical evidence to support either. Another factor is if Tutankhamun's regnal years came after Ankhkheperure's, did he then take those three years as his, as Horemheb took everybodies from Amunhotep III to him. If Tut was the son of Akhenaten and natural successor, then his reign should start on the death of Akhenaten, which would then push back his DOB by three years to about year 10, which has been suggested.

Yes, the Smenkhkare ages are bizzare, and those ages were both based on him being a son of AIII, they give him a minimum age of 15 and maximum of 37 if he were a son of Ankhenaten....

Beketaten, or another daughter of AIII whose name has not survived.

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

 

• Akhenaten appoints Smenkhkare his successor (bypassing the heir Tut - unless Tut is Smenk's child)
• Akhenaten suddenly dies.
• Smenkhkare succeeds as pharaoh.
• Smenkhkare suddenly dies.
• YL, mother of Tut, now the heir, suddenly violently dies
• Nefertiti usurps the throne as king, bypassing Tut.
• She doesn't suddenly die, but rules for a couple years before her own death.
• Tut ascends to the throne.

The football Tut survived to rule as did Claudius...by default.

But, again the wonder, why would Akhenaten appoint Smenkhkare the heir if he had a viable crown prince, Tut, by way of his sister Baketaten?   Maybe his GRW frightened him, and she pulled a Livia on him, poisoned the pears.

Of course if Nefertiti is the YL and Tut's mom, the question of Smenk as heir is still mighty curious.

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

It, it, it's a,a all, v, v, very, c,c,curious ind, ind, indeed.

Makes the Julio-Claudians almost seem like a normal family. There's huge scope to dramatize all this, even if it will have to be made up, but apart from the really dreadful and unwatchable "Tut" with Ben Kingsley debasing himself, It's untouched, at least in English. "Sinue the Egyptian" is way off the mark to be included I think.

Nefertiti as king is understandable, it's something that happens and not just Hatshepsut. Catherine the Great usurped the throne from her son as well. And who was really ruling Rome during the reign of Elagabalus, not him I think, but his mother and grandmother, and ultimately with granny as the arbiter of power.

Smenkhkare really is a problem, perhaps the biggest problem of all, and nobody can work it out.

[Wistman]

51 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

It, it, it's a,a all, v, v, very, c,c,curious ind, ind, indeed.

Makes the Julio-Claudians almost seem like a normal family. There's huge scope to dramatize all this, even if it will have to be made up, but apart from the really dreadful and unwatchable "Tut" with Ben Kingsley debasing himself, It's untouched, at least in English. "Sinue the Egyptian" is way off the mark to be included I think.

Nefertiti as king is understandable, it's something that happens and not just Hatshepsut. Catherine the Great usurped the throne from her son as well. And who was really ruling Rome during the reign of Elagabalus, not him I think, but his mother and grandmother, and ultimately with granny as the arbiter of power.

Smenkhkare really is a problem, perhaps the biggest problem of all, and nobody can work it out.

Don't forget the lovely Byzantine Empress, Irene, who after her term of regency seized back power from her son and had his eyes gouged out.  Power can be intoxicating, pitiless.

There are several movie scripts in this; hell the confrontations between Nefertiti and Tiye alone would be dazzling. 

[Wepwawet]

57 minutes ago, Wistman said:

Don't forget the lovely Byzantine Empress, Irene, who after her term of regency seized back power from her son and had his eyes gouged out.  Power can be intoxicating, pitiless.

There are several movie scripts in this; hell the confrontations between Nefertiti and Tiye alone would be dazzling. 

By coincidence earlier this year I read Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era by Brubaker and Haldon. It seems divorced from Egypt and Amarna, but I wonder if we can get a sense of where Akhenaten was heading by looking at later events, and in this case seeing the oponents of Akhenaten as potential precursors of the iconclasts if he had ended up only allowing the image of the Aten to be the focus of devotion. The only statues being of him, but as the religion dies with him we will never know how it would have developed.

But yes, there is a lot of material for plot lines, and they do get used, but never it seems in their original setting, only as a framework for fantasy films, and hacked up like King Harald's Saga in the Kirk Douglas Vikings.

And Ay, just think of what could be made of his story, or Horemheb, but not like the Sinue film of course. Or even the story of Ramesses I from the perspective of a man who had lived through the entire thing from the reign of AIII. The posibilites are endless, there could even be an ancient Romeo and Juliet in there somewhere, or at least vaugely similar.

[Aldebaran]

The reason that Baketaten has seldom [contrary to the claim of Wepwawet]  been suggested to be the Younger Lady mummy is that there is no trace of her at Akhetaten or anywhere beyond the tomb of Huya the mahordomo and perhaps a little statue in an Egyptian museum, which looks like one being made of her in Huya's tomb.  From the looks of the representations of Baketaten and the adjacent daughters of Akhenaten and Nefertiti there, that Baketaten was the same age as the eldest princess, Meritaten, is least likely.  Regardless, none of the princesses, including Baketaten, has reached puberty as depicted in that tomb.  They all have shaved heads with the exception of a single lock of hair.  No prince or princess of Egypt who has reached the age of 12 or 13 is ever shown with that hairstyle and that is a big mistake in the old film, "The Ten Commandments" with a fully adult Yul Brynner having this hairstyle, which is a mark of childhood.

Therefore, we do not know if Baketaten lived to grow up or even to the age where she was capable of bearing a child.  If anyone claims this, it is nothing but a supposition backed by no proof whatsoever.  In fact, the time between Year 12-17 of Akhenaten is very nebulous as there are no tomb scenes at his city dated past Year 12.  Only wine jar dockets have dates to testify that Akhenaten ruled past his Year 12.  We know Princess Meketaten died soon after Year 12 but we can't be sure of the fates of some of the other daughters of Nefertiti.  The queen's last mention as a consort is in Year 16 in a graffito in a quarry.  The first non wine jar date since Year 12.  

Some of you here may be in some trouble if you ever become seriously ill and insist on having an x-ray as your diagnostic tool of choice, evidently believing this to be as good, if not better, than a CT-scan.  Few doctors will agree with you.  Nothing beats tomography for a close look at what's going on inside a body--and that includes dead bodies, the mummies.  Only the Egyptians have used that kind of radiology on the royal mummies and, if the age range of 25-35 of the Younger Lady deduced by them  from that bothers you, there is nothing to contradict it.  Unerupted wisdom teeth are not going to be helpful, as these do not erupt in all people.  But all ancient Egyptians had spines and joints that can be closely analyzed by tomography for signs of where one was in life's journey when death arrived.  But, just as some persons read too much into the unerupted wisdom teeth [a family trait] radiologists read too much into the very deteriorated hip of the KV55 individual.  Since this kind of deterioration does not normally set in until middle age, this caused the male to be pronounced as older than he probably was, judging by his own teeth, which are hardly worn.  A degenerated hip can be the result of an accident experienced by a younger person, especially the motorcycle type.  I don't think it has ever been denied that chariots could cause accidents, as well.  Anyway, the KV55 individual walked with a limp and used some sort of cane or crutch.

So there is next to nothing one can use to argue that Akhenaten had Baketaten for a wife.  He is only depicted with two wives, Nefertiti and Kiya--and his mother, Tiye--in undated scenes.  Even that Baketaten was a full sister of Akhenaten is not certain.  Baketaten is never styled "king;s sister" although she is right there at court in one tomb.  But those who are so worried about Nefertiti not having "king's daugjyer" among her queenly titles, don't seem to worry at all about that.  

Edited September 29, 2021 by Aldebaran

[Aldebaran]

The most damaging scene when it comes to Baketaten having been a daughter of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye is one I happened to come across the other day,  Here it is.  Like so much from that era, it could mean everything--and nothing.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Aldebaran

[Wepwawet]

On 9/29/2021 at 7:17 PM, Aldebaran said:

Baketaten is never styled "king;s sister" although she is right there at court in one tomb.  But those who are so worried about Nefertiti not having "king's daugjyer" among her queenly titles, don't seem to worry at all about that.  

I believe that the title "King's sister" is almost as rare as teeth on a hen, and while I believe there are a few attestations, I've not come across them. Using such a title comes close to the verboten "King's brother" in that it would confer a position of equality with the king, which should not happen. The titles of GRW, king's son and king's daughter are all subservient. I'm not concerned that Nefertiti is not named as a king's daughter as she does not appear before becoming GRW, and will use the senior title. It would only be a concern if a bone fide description of her before becoming GRW was found without her named as King's daughter.

Regarding Beketaten in the tomb of Huya, she is named in another scene as "The King's bodily daughter, his beloved, Beketaten". Who would her mother be if not a queen, and as she is only ever shown with Tiye, surely it should be taken that she is her mother, there being no information to suggest that Tiye was just "looking after her".

[Wepwawet]

I think it worth linking to this video about Nefertiti's potential mummy. It's made by an Egyptologist with contributions from other Egyptologists, Dodson among them. I'll just make this comment about KV21B. When Belzoni found her and 21A, he described them as having a full head of long hair. If 21B were Nefertiti, could she have had long hair and still been able to wear a close fitting crown. On the other hand, the jaw line of 21B is remarkably similar to that of the Berlin bust of Nefertiti. The skeptical comments about the entire Nefertiti "industry" from Kara Cooney starting at 33:17 are well worth listening to, and give pause for thought, and reflection, before getting back on the roundabout

 

Edited December 7, 2021 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

I had though of making a thread about this, but Amarna subjects, I have found, can do better as a "stream of consciousness" as a nearly 1,000 page thread elsewhere showed, before closure.

There is an element in the Amarna fallout that I find intruiging, as I believe it may point to a continuation of conventional religious thought at the highest levels during the reign of Akhenaten.

This is about Tutankhamun's second hand burial equipment, and about the second shrine in particular.

First though I would like to address other secondhand core burial items and if they had originally been "Atenist" or not.

The mummy bands are, apart from "Amun" as part of his name, neutral as they just endlessly repeat the king's names and epithets, and only the cartouches have shown to have been replaced.

The canopic chest would, in it's presumed original form, also have been neutral, and the stoppers have the head of the, presumably female king, as originally made, and not the heads of Imsety, Duamutef, Hapy and Qebehsenuef. That the stopper heads are not those four gods is not in itself indicative of a non Osirian burial as those gods do not have to appear, and there are examples from other time periods where the heads are probably those of the deceased. The coffinettes on the other hand are Osirian. By this I do not mean they are Osirian because they have the crossed crook and flail, and Akhenaten has himself depicted like this in some of his large statues anyway, and the KV55 coffin was altered to have a crook and flail. What is Osirian are the texts, and the same goes for the disputed second coffin. So even if it was made for Smenkhare, as Dodson posits after having physically examined it, the texts, not thought to have been altered, show an Osirian burial for this ephemeral king thought to have died during the reign of Akhenaten. Something not discussed in any of the literature I have read, something not addressed by Huber in his book, or by Habicht. Much is made of the physiognomy seen on this coffin, but if it did belong to Smenkhare, why the Osirian texts with Akhenaten still alive? no answer.

The sarcophagus was not originally made as Osirian, and is similar in original construction to Akhenaten's, which had an image of Nefertiti at each corner.

Of the Four shrines, I, III and IV do not have doubts about not being original to Tutankhamun hanging over them. Not the same for shrine II though as Carter found evidence of palimpsests in the cartouches, though he does not say what the original name may have been. Of importance is that the only sign of alterations to the shrine were with the royal names, not the body of religious texts on the shrine.

While all four shrines are interesting in their own right, III and IV have no bearing on this post. Shrine I contains supplementary evidence for my contention that conventional non Atenist thought was being conducted during the reign of Akhenaten at a high level. The shrine is famous for having the first full-ish account of the rebellion of mankind in the "Book of The Heavenly Cow". Aspects of the story had been in existance for a very long time, but never, on the evidence we have, in this form, and it's use in royal burials continued after Tutankhamun into the 20th Dynasty. So the point here is that while the shrine is originally Tutankhamun's, it was made within 13 years of the death of Akhenaten, if Nefertiti had 3 years as sole ruler. Despite the seemingly swift "revolution" of Akhenaten, it has it's roots much earlier in the Dynasty and, for reasons we will for ever search for, he became the catalyst and implemented  change. The AE were uber conservative, and even in a time of chaos in reigious matters, I do wonder if they had time to create a new "Book", or, was it already under construction during the reign of Akhenaten.

Shrine II is extraordinary in it's religious compositions. It has on it the first of the "Enigmatic Books of the Netherworld" or, going by the Darnell's more descriptive title, "The Books of the Solar Osirian Unity", as that is what they actually show at their core. There is nothing like this before Tutankhamun, where the tombs of previous 18th Dynasty rulers, where decorated, have scenes from the Amduat, itself an evolution of the "Book of Two Ways", part of the Coffin Texts, themselves an evolution of the Pyramid Texts. I would bore the pants off everybody if I discussed the content of the "Enigmatic Books", so will not. However, they are so complicated, deliberately so, that I find it hard to believe that they had been composed in such a short period of time, not up to 13 years in the case of shrine I, but no more than 3 years if it belonged to Ankhetkheperure Neferneferuaten. As there is no sign of these "Enigmatic Books" by the time of the death of Amunhotep III, by the evidence we have, and his and his predecessors tombs is reasonably good evidence, I cannot but come to the conclusion that the enigmatic texts on shrine II were composed between the deaths of Amunhotep III and Ankhetkheperure Neferneferuaten, ie, a period of time almost entirely taken up by the reign of Akhenaten.

I stated at the start that I thought these texts, and those on shrine I, were composed at the highest level, and I state that because we are dealing with the shrines of a king, and who else will be involved with this except those at a high level, even the highest. Some lowly Wab priest at Heliopolis, untouched it seems by Akhenaten when he closed temples, will not be involved in this, and if composed with an input from Heliopolis, it would be from the Greatest of Seers, a not unimportant man in the kingdom. But who actually did compose any of these texts, enigmatic or not, nobody knows, but surely as they are royal texts, people within the royal household.

It could be said that, well, Aten is the Sun and if there were input from Heliopolis that's hardly unusual, except, the texts describe a Solar Osirian Unity, just as the Book of the Heavenly Cow describes the activities of numerous gods other than Ra, gods, such as Thoth, who had been banned. Does not the texts of these two shrines, II in particular, add a different dimension to the Amarna period, a dimension that at least hints of conventional religion continuing at a high level, and it's at this high level that is important as there is plenty of evidence that the populace stil adhered, at least in private, to the "old gods".

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by Wepwawet
typos

[Wistman]

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I had though of making a thread about this, but Amarna subjects, I have found, can do better as a "stream of consciousness" as a nearly 1,000 page thread elsewhere showed, before closure.

There is an element in the Amarna fallout that I find intruiging, as I believe it may point to a continuation of conventional religious thought at the highest levels during the reign of Akhenaten.

This is about Tutankhamun's second hand burial equipment, and about the second shrine in particular.

First though I would like to address other secondhand core burial items and if they had originally been "Atenist" or not.

The mummy bands are, apart from "Amun" as part of his name, neutral as they just endlessly repeat the king's names and epithets, and only the cartouches have shown to have been replaced.

The canopic chest would, in it's presumed original form, also have been neutral, and the stoppers have the head of the, presumably female king, as originally made, and not the heads of Imsety, Duamutef, Hapy and Qebehsenuef. That the stopper heads are not those four gods is not in itself indicative of a non Osirian burial as those gods do not have to appear, and there are examples from other time periods where the heads are probably those of the deceased. The coffinettes on the other hand are Osirian. By this I do not mean they are Osirian because they have the crossed crook and flail, and Akhenaten has himself depicted like this in some of his large statues anyway, and the KV55 coffin was altered to have a crook and flail. What is Osirian are the texts, and the same goes for the disputed second coffin. So even if it was made for Smenkhare, as Dodson posits after having physically examined it, the texts, not thought to have been altered, show an Osirian burial for this ephemeral king thought to have died during the reign of Akhenaten. Something not discussed in any of the literature I have read, something not addressed by Huber in his book, or by Habicht. Much is made of the physiognomy seen on this coffin, but if it did belong to Smenkhare, why the Osirian texts with Akhenaten still alive? no answer.

The sarcophagus was not originally made as Osirian, and is similar in original construction to Akhenaten's, which had an image of Nefertiti at each corner.

Of the Four shrines, I, III and IV do not have doubts about not being original to Tutankhamun hanging over them. Not the same for shrine II though as Carter found evidence of palimpsests in the cartouches, though he does not say what the original name may have been. Of importance is that the only sign of alterations to the shrine were with the royal names, not the body of religious texts on the shrine.

While all four shrines are interesting in their own right, III and IV have no bearing on this post. Shrine I contains supplementary evidence for my contention that conventional non Atenist thought was being conducted during the reign of Akhenaten at a high level. The shrine is famous for having the first full-ish account of the rebellion of mankind in the "Book of The Heavenly Cow". Aspects of the story had been in existance for a very long time, but never, on the evidence we have, in this form, and it's use in royal burials continued after Tutankhamun into the 20th Dynasty. So the point here is that while the shrine is originally Tutankhamun's, it was made within 13 years of the death of Akhenaten, if Nefertiti had 3 years as sole ruler. Despite the seemingly swift "revolution" of Akhenaten, it has it's roots much earlier in the Dynasty and, for reasons we will for ever search for, he became the catalyst and implemented  change. The AE were uber conservative, and even in a time of chaos in reigious matters, I do wonder if they had time to create a new "Book", or, was it already under construction during the reign of Akhenaten.

Shrine II is extraordinary in it's religious compositions. It has on it the first of the "Enigmatic Books of the Netherworld" or, going by the Darnell's more descriptive title, "The Books of the Solar Osirian Unity", as that is what they actually show at their core. There is nothing like this before Tutankhamun, where the tombs of previous 18th Dynasty rulers, where decorated, have scenes from the Amduat, itself an evolution of the "Book of Two Ways", part of the Coffin Texts, themselves an evolution of the Pyramid Texts. I would bore the pants off everybody if I discussed the content of the "Enigmatic Books", so will not. However, they are so complicated, deliberately so, that I find it hard to believe that they had been composed in such a short period of time, not up to 13 years in the case of shrine I, but no more than 3 years if it belonged to Ankhetkheperure Neferneferuaten. As there is no sign of these "Enigmatic Books" by the time of the death of Amunhotep III, by the evidence we have, and his and his predecessors tombs is reasonably good evidence, I cannot but come to the conclusion that the enigmatic texts on shrine II were composed between the deaths of Amunhotep III and Ankhetkheperure Neferneferuaten, ie, a period of time almost entirely taken up by the reign of Akhenaten.

I stated at the start that I thought these texts, and those on shrine I, were composed at the highest level, and I state that because we are dealing with the shrines of a king, and who else will be involved with this except those at a high level, even the highest. Some lowly Wab priest at Heliopolis, untouched it seems by Akhenaten when he closed temples, will not be involved in this, and if composed with an input from Heliopolis, it would be from the Greatest of Seers, a not unimportant man in the kingdom. But who actually did compose any of these texts, enigmatic or not, nobody knows, but surely as they are royal texts, people within the royal household.

It could be said that, well, Aten is the Sun and if there were input from Heliopolis that's hardly unusual, except, the texts describe a Solar Osirian Unity, just as the Book of the Heavenly Cow describes the activities of numerous gods other than Ra, gods, such as Thoth, who had been banned. Does not the texts of these two shrines, II in particular, add a different dimension to the Amarna period, a dimension that at least hints of conventional religion continuing at a high level, and it's at this high level that is important as there is plenty of evidence that the populace stil adhered, at least in private, to the "old gods".

 

What about the elusive Smenkhkare (providing he is not Nefertiti)?  If we think of the succession scenario in terms of him surviving Akhenaten and ruling for a year before dying, perhaps he represented - within the court for a short while at the end of Akhenaten's reign - a secretive faction that would have the old gods' return to prominence.  He may have had his funerary furniture constructed as reflecting it, and maybe that was some part of the reason why he died (was killed).  For the Atenists, still preeminent at Akhetaten and not ready for a return from their revolution, this may have been intolerable.

I seem to recall in your thousand page thread that, during Amarna, the Ptah temple at Memphis stayed open and functioning (though maybe there was no HPP successor to Thuthmose...forgive my poor memory about this detail, I think Luke was looking into it) and that there was a small Ptah shrine in northern Akhetaten.  So some gods and rituals were officially proscribed but others not.  Even Smenkhkare's name implies a separation from the Atenist purity.   

Tut's burial goods are marvelously perplexing aren't they.

[Wepwawet]

33 minutes ago, Wistman said:

What about the elusive Smenkhkare (providing he is not Nefertiti)?  If we think of the succession scenario in terms of him surviving Akhenaten and ruling for a year before dying, perhaps he represented - within the court for a short while at the end of Akhenaten's reign - a secretive faction that would have the old gods' return to prominence.  He may have had his funerary furniture constructed as reflecting it, and maybe that was some part of the reason why he died (was killed).  For the Atenists, still preeminent at Akhetaten and not ready for a return from their revolution, this may have been intolerable.

I seem to recall in your thousand page thread that, during Amarna, the Ptah temple at Memphis stayed open and functioning (though maybe there was no HPP successor to Thuthmose...forgive my poor memory about this detail, I think Luke was looking into it) and that there was a small Ptah shrine in northern Akhetaten.  So some gods and rituals were officially proscribed but others not.  Even Smenkhkare's name implies a separation from the Atenist purity.   

Tut's burial goods are marvelously perplexing aren't they.

I did some lengthy posts on all the known HP overlapping the Amarna period, and without trying to search for the posts, which I would need to because I lost the original info on a HD crash, from memory there were only two major HP serving during the reign of Akhenaten. One was Pawah at Heliopolis and the other was Maya as HP of Amun, who dissapears without trace after year 4, I wonder why....  The record is silent on HP of Osiris until we get to the "new men" under Horemheb who embeded their family into the position for a long time. There is a gap at Memphis  between crown prince Thutmose and Tutankhamun, and I'll point out that there is no record at all of the death of Thutmose, the model funeral bier has him only as sem-priest, therefore it was made before the cat sarcophagus which names him as High Priest, therefore the funeral bier is not proof of his death, only that it was made for his death while not yet at the highest rank at Memphis. A blindingly obvious fact that does not get mentioned in the literature, why? god knows. So, here's a wild conjecture, and similar to others surrounding his fate, what if he renounced the throne and never left Memphis, crazy of course.

There's also the issues of Nefertiti mentioned at Karnak after the move to Akhetaten, with, on that thread, some speculation as to whether Akhenaten was looking soley after Akhetaten, and with Nefertiti looking after the affairs of the rest of the country, a good springboard to later become ruler in her own right.

The "re" ending of names is not in itself an issue I think as Akhenaten was always still Wa-en-re, but given that having an "aten" name became a thing, why then Neferneferure, Setepenre, back to Tutankhaten, and then Smenkhare. Perhaps we are overthinking these names and it doesn't have any bearing as they are all "Sun" names, I don't know.

That's all a bit of a ramble and I'll have to come back to it in a more cohesive manner later.

 

[Wepwawet]

Still thinking about making a decent post tying together aspects of the burial goods.

But, today I went through every single recorded name of all the kings looking for any that had the same epithet as Tutankhamun added to their nomen, ie (Tutankhamun - heqa iunu shemau), (Tutankhamun - ruler of southern Heliopolis). There are numerous Hequ Iunu "Ruler of Heliopolis", Heqa Waset "Ruler of Thebes" and Heqa Ma'at "Ruler of Ma'at", and Tutankhamun had heqa Ma'at added to his nomen (Nebkheperure - heqa ma'at). Ruler, or Lord of the Two Lands is common to all of them, so if you have an epithet naming you as ruler of anything else, it is only of Heliopolis, Thebes or Ma'at. Okay, so Southern Heliopolis is also Thebes, but in a particular religious sense, a sort of, IMO, way of the Thebans bigging themselves up by giving themselves the authority of the more ancient Heliopolis. But as we know they put some thought into these names, never, except in two known cases in all their history, having kings with the same prenomen, Tutankhamun taking the epithet heqa iunu shemau would not be a whim. So he has apart from a unique prenomen, normal, a unique nomen, not usual,  and a unique epithet with his nomen. It's something not remarked on, just noted that that is part of his name without any thought as to why he alone has this epithet. I have no idea, it's just yet another one of the many unanswered oddities, like the lunar version of his prenomen, Nebkheperuiah, barely noted in the literature, in fact mostly totally ignored, and never gone into in detail. In fact, I browsed through T.G.H. James's "picture book" today, and while he does point out the lunar items, not all of them, and describes an obvious lunar disc on a ring as a solar disc. This refers to Carter item 44G, Ring with the Sun Bark. There is a bark flanked by two baboons, without solar or lunar discs over their heads, acclaiming a disc supported by a large crescent. James does go as far with some lunar items as using the word "strangely" when they form the lunar prenomen, yes, indeed, why...

[Wistman]

On 12/28/2021 at 4:37 PM, Wepwawet said:

Still thinking about making a decent post tying together aspects of the burial goods.

But, today I went through every single recorded name of all the kings looking for any that had the same epithet as Tutankhamun added to their nomen, ie (Tutankhamun - heqa iunu shemau), (Tutankhamun - ruler of southern Heliopolis). There are numerous Hequ Iunu "Ruler of Heliopolis", Heqa Waset "Ruler of Thebes" and Heqa Ma'at "Ruler of Ma'at", and Tutankhamun had heqa Ma'at added to his nomen (Nebkheperure - heqa ma'at). Ruler, or Lord of the Two Lands is common to all of them, so if you have an epithet naming you as ruler of anything else, it is only of Heliopolis, Thebes or Ma'at. Okay, so Southern Heliopolis is also Thebes, but in a particular religious sense, a sort of, IMO, way of the Thebans bigging themselves up by giving themselves the authority of the more ancient Heliopolis. But as we know they put some thought into these names, never, except in two known cases in all their history, having kings with the same prenomen, Tutankhamun taking the epithet heqa iunu shemau would not be a whim. So he has apart from a unique prenomen, normal, a unique nomen, not usual,  and a unique epithet with his nomen. It's something not remarked on, just noted that that is part of his name without any thought as to why he alone has this epithet. I have no idea, it's just yet another one of the many unanswered oddities, like the lunar version of his prenomen, Nebkheperuiah, barely noted in the literature, in fact mostly totally ignored, and never gone into in detail. In fact, I browsed through T.G.H. James's "picture book" today, and while he does point out the lunar items, not all of them, and describes an obvious lunar disc on a ring as a solar disc. This refers to Carter item 44G, Ring with the Sun Bark. There is a bark flanked by two baboons, without solar or lunar discs over their heads, acclaiming a disc supported by a large crescent. James does go as far with some lunar items as using the word "strangely" when they form the lunar prenomen, yes, indeed, why...

I find the unique 'Southern Heliopolis' term curious...does that term appear anywhere else?   Who was the HPH at the time, ie: might this have been part of a tug of war between the two temple cults?  Was the Amun cult restored, immediately after Amarna, to its former preeminence?

Edited January 15, 2022 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

13 hours ago, Wistman said:

I find the unique 'Southern Heliopolis' term curious...does that term appear anywhere else?   Who was the HPH at the time, ie: might this have been part of a tug of war between the two temple cults?  Was the Amun cult restored, immediately after Amarna, to its former preeminence?

Difficult questions.

To the best of my knowledge Thebes was also known as Southern Heliopolis from the Middle Kingdom on, because in my view the founders of the MK were Theban, and it is with, I think, Senwosret I that the syncretic god Amun-Ra first appears. As to the name being used as an epithet for a king, I have checked again in three different sources, The Great Name - Ancient Egyptian Royal Titulary by Ronald J. Leprohon. The Enclopedia of the Pharoahs by Darrell D. Baker, and  Chronicle of the Pharaohs by Peter A. Clayton. The result is the same in that only Tutankhamun has the epithet "Ruler of Southern Heliopolis" as opposed to "Ruler of Thebes" or "Ruler of Heliopolis". So why would he draw attention to the fact that he was ruler of Thebes specifically as the "Southern Pillar", perhaps because as far as Solar religion went, Thebes was more important than Heliopolis itself. That's conjecture of course, but the reasoning for the conjecture is that at this time the solar hymns were being composed in Thebes, not Heliopolis, and the focus had during the reign of Akhenaten been removed from Heliopolis anyway with a "rival" Greatest of Seers in the form of Meryre II, usually titled as High Priest of the Aten at Amarna in the literature, but his actual title was that of Greatest of Seers.

I cannot find any information on who was Greatest of Seers at Heliopolis during the reign of Tutankhamun, only during the reign of Akhenaten, and two names appear, Pawah and Anen, the presumed brother of Ay. It seems that Anen may have preceeded Pawah, but I cannot pin this down. In amongst the talatat of the destroyed Aten temples at Karnak a scene was put together showing Akhenaten with a Chief Lector and a Greatest of Seers, but by their convention the names of the priests are not given, and would it not be interesting to known if a brother of Ay was here right at the visible start of "Atenism", and the fact that the only copy of the Great Hymn just happens to be found in the tomb of Ay.

In a previous post I posited that conventional non Atenist religious thought must have continued during the reign of Akhenaten at a very high level, not just in the complexity of what was produced, but at a high level within the royal court, otherwise how does the first complete Book of the Heavenly Cow and the enigmatic texts on the second shrine suddenly appear, a shrine made it seems within three years of the death of Akhenaten. Coupled with the conventional solar hymns seemingly originating in Thebes, not Heliopolis, it may be possible that during the reign of Tutankhamun, Thebes was the more productive place for solar theology, so in using the epithet "Ruler of Southern Heliopolis" he is making a statement that Thebes is, at least at that time, pre-emminent in solar theology, and as the chief god was Amun-Ra, also makes the Amun part even more important as it brings Ra more into/under Thebes, if you see what I mean. And all wild conjecture of course.

The gold throne, from very early in his reign, and maybe originally for Akhenaten, has the "Ruler of Southern Heliopolis" epithet in the altered cartouches, indicating this was seen to be a statement needing to be made right from the start.