Amarna, Before and After

[Kenemet]

On 1/24/2022 at 5:22 PM, Wepwawet said:

That's right that if you close the temples of the pantheon then their wealth, their estates, transfers to the Aten temples, though I wonder if this was a necessity as all the wealth of all the temples belonged to the king anyway as they were collectively the state treasury.

The New Kingdom was a time when the great temples became increasingly involved in politics, and by the end of the NK, the priestesses of Amun-Re (specifically the women who held the title of "god's wife") were essentially the kingmakers.  So...not under complete control of the king.(spe

Part of the reason that Hatshepsut COULD become king was that she had the support of the priests of Amun.

Quote

I'm not sure he even needed to close a temple, as the transfer of it's estates and workers to an Aten temple would cut off it's income, it's life. The temple can still physically exist, the priests can still carry out their functions, but who pays them, how can their functions have any meaning if their real priest, the king, no longer has any use for the god. Death of the temples by neglect. I think the major issue is how much resistance to this there was, and I don't see any of the HP having any competance to say no as they held their positions due to the king at that time, for instance, Memphis recently being the domain of Thutmose, and of other princes over the ages, likewise with Heliopolis and to an extent the HP of Osiris and Onuris. There's no proof, but apart from when we know a prince was also a HP, I suspect that by the tail end of the 18th Dynasty most HP were from cadet branches of the royal family and Akhenaten had it all sewn up, apart from the lower ranking priests, and "bad things" if the "peasants revolted.

I have been told by Egyptologists that he had his army go around Amarna and punish those who weren't falling in line with him, so I think that all it takes is the army marching in and closing some big temples to effectively put a stop to it.

Still, it's an interesting question. The temples were shut for only a relatively short time (20 years or so.)  You'd have to look for indirect evidence, I think.

 

 

[Wepwawet]

On 1/27/2022 at 12:38 AM, Kenemet said:

The New Kingdom was a time when the great temples became increasingly involved in politics, and by the end of the NK, the priestesses of Amun-Re (specifically the women who held the title of "god's wife") were essentially the kingmakers.  So...not under complete control of the king.(spe

Part of the reason that Hatshepsut COULD become king was that she had the support of the priests of Amun.

I have been told by Egyptologists that he had his army go around Amarna and punish those who weren't falling in line with him, so I think that all it takes is the army marching in and closing some big temples to effectively put a stop to it.

Still, it's an interesting question. The temples were shut for only a relatively short time (20 years or so.)  You'd have to look for indirect evidence, I think.

 

 

There's something about the scenes of soldiers and police running around in Amarna, and the boundary stelae "bad things", that pose some questions, well, yes. The first one is that on the stelae Akhenaten describes an ever increasing incidence of "bad things", in the form "It was worse than the things which I heard in regnal year 4", and repeated for years 3, 2 and 1, and for the reign of Amunhotep III, Thutmose IV, and all previous kings. So it was pretty bad, whatever it was, and I think that as there was even mention of "bad things" at all, let alone on the boundary stelae for a new city, we really are looking at real events. The question I have, and which cannot be answered, is where all these "bad things" re-occurrances of the same underlying problem, or different in each case. There is nothing visible to suggest any issues during the reign of Thutmose IV, but there is with Amunhotep III. The dissapearance of prince Thutmose may be the "bad thing", or part of it, and we cannot get away from the 730 statues of Sekhmet he erected, surely in response to something terrible during this gap in the records of his reign. It is suggested that the "bad things" in all cases could have been blasphemy against Ra, the greatest affront to Ma'at, yet the dissapearance of prince Thutmose and the appearance of the Sekhmet army does not suggest this to me.

With Akhenaten, any blasphemy against Ra could well be seen as something of great seriousness, and it would fit into what we know, or think we know about Amarna. Yet there is an aspect to this that I had not thought about before, even though it is an obvious question. If there is a co-regency, why is Akhenaten being specific about "bad things" in his first four regnal years, and mentioning events during the reign of his father sperately. Now of course this could be because those events occured before Akhenaten's year one, but as he mentions events in his first four years, then these are also "bad things" for Amunhotep III, surely, yet his is spoken of in the past tense. Further, if these events were happening during a time when Amunhotep III was still the king, or at least the senior king, what is he doing about them? It would seem to be nothing. So, while I do think that there was a co-regency, I wonder at not just the content on the boundary stelae, but the phraseology, which suggests, at least to me, that Akhenaten was facing issues alone.

The second question is based on the "bad things" all being blasphemy against Ra. For while I do not see this during the riegn of Amunhotep III, at least until Akhenaten appears, there is a thread running through the 18th Dynasty of the OK solar cult becoming ever more important, and part of this is the obelisks at Karnak, an "intrusion" into the temple of Amun. So could it be that in the vast void of information on so many things, the growing power of Ra, seperate to the syncretic Amun-Ra, was becoming a serious issue to the populace, who may have seen their kings start to move away from them in belief, and we see this in it's ultimate form with the exclusion of everybody except the royal family from any forem of closeness to the Aten, excepting the heat on your back. Do the "bad things" point at a long running antipathy towards the Thutmosids, at least from Thutmose IV, occassionaly showing itself in the form of public discontent, of the populace openly casting scorn on the increasing exclusivity of Ra, if in fact this was happening. I'll mention here asubject that I have often mentioned before, here and elswhere, and that is to question why the outer shrine of Tutankhamun has the non funerary "Book of the Heavemly Cow", The Rebellion of Mankind against Ra, Sure this was not invented for Tutankhamun and the myth was already old, but it is new in most of it's more intricate detail, and, the point I make, just what is it doing on the shrine of the son of Akhenaten, a man who himself was described as a rebel. Is this shrine hinting at the rebellion of Akhenaten against the pantheon, or of the rebellion of the populace against Akhenaten. Another thing that just gets overlooked without any attempt to put flesh on the bones, like the second shrine, or the lunar prenomen, or any number of other things swept aside in the almost mania surrounding KV35YL.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

On 1/28/2022 at 5:56 PM, Wepwawet said:

There's something about the scenes of soldiers and police running around in Amarna, and the boundary stelae "bad things", that pose some questions, well, yes. The first one is that on the stelae Akhenaten describes an ever increasing incidence of "bad things", in the form "It was worse than the things which I heard in regnal year 4", and repeated for years 3, 2 and 1, and for the reign of Amunhotep III, Thutmose IV, and all previous kings. So it was pretty bad, whatever it was, and I think that as there was even mention of "bad things" at all, let alone on the boundary stelae for a new city, we really are looking at real events. The question I have, and which cannot be answered, is where all these "bad things" re-occurrances of the same underlying problem, or different in each case. There is nothing visible to suggest any issues during the reign of Thutmose IV, but there is with Amunhotep III. The dissapearance of prince Thutmose may be the "bad thing", or part of it, and we cannot get away from the 730 statues of Sekhmet he erected, surely in response to something terrible during this gap in the records of his reign. It is suggested that the "bad things" in all cases could have been blasphemy against Ra, the greatest affront to Ma'at, yet the dissapearance of prince Thutmose and the appearance of the Sekhmet army does not suggest this to me.

With Akhenaten, any blasphemy against Ra could well be seen as something of great seriousness, and it would fit into what we know, or think we know about Amarna. Yet there is an aspect to this that I had not thought about before, even though it is an obvious question. If there is a co-regency, why is Akhenaten being specific about "bad things" in his first four regnal years, and mentioning events during the reign of his father sperately. Now of course this could be because those events occured before Akhenaten's year one, but as he mentions events in his first four years, then these are also "bad things" for Amunhotep III, surely, yet his is spoken of in the past tense. Further, if these events were happening during a time when Amunhotep III was still the king, or at least the senior king, what is he doing about them? It would seem to be nothing. So, while I do think that there was a co-regency, I wonder at not just the content on the boundary stelae, but the phraseology, which suggests, at least to me, that Akhenaten was facing issues alone.

The second question is based on the "bad things" all being blasphemy against Ra. For while I do not see this during the riegn of Amunhotep III, at least until Akhenaten appears, there is a thread running through the 18th Dynasty of the OK solar cult becoming ever more important, and part of this is the obelisks at Karnak, an "intrusion" into the temple of Amun. So could it be that in the vast void of information on so many things, the growing power of Ra, seperate to the syncretic Amun-Ra, was becoming a serious issue to the populace, who may have seen their kings start to move away from them in belief, and we see this in it's ultimate form with the exclusion of everybody except the royal family from any forem of closeness to the Aten, excepting the heat on your back. Do the "bad things" point at a long running antipathy towards the Thutmosids, at least from Thutmose IV, occassionaly showing itself in the form of public discontent, of the populace openly casting scorn on the increasing exclusivity of Ra, if in fact this was happening. I'll mention here asubject that I have often mentioned before, here and elswhere, and that is to question why the outer shrine of Tutankhamun has the non funerary "Book of the Heavemly Cow", The Rebellion of Mankind against Ra, Sure this was not invented for Tutankhamun and the myth was already old, but it is new in most of it's more intricate detail, and, the point I make, just what is it doing on the shrine of the son of Akhenaten, a man who himself was described as a rebel. Is this shrine hinting at the rebellion of Akhenaten against the pantheon, or of the rebellion of the populace against Akhenaten. Another thing that just gets overlooked without any attempt to put flesh on the bones, like the second shrine, or the lunar prenomen, or any number of other things swept aside in the almost mania surrounding KV35YL.

Seeds of dissatisfaction at the core of things, while AIII and Akhenaten both ruled in increasingly isolated sanctity and splendor.  One cannot but wonder if, though the pharaoh nominally held all power and wealth, did he hold it operationally?  Could he really enforce his authority, especially as AIII's years wound on and on?  In this regard one might wonder: how much did Tiye know and what did her arrival at Akhetaten signify, if anything.

Endless shadows....

Backtracking a bit to the discussion about unique royal names during the Amarna age, what do you infer from Michael Habicht's resurrecting the point in his book Smenkhkare, The enigmatic predecessor to Tutankhamun: "It starts with the name Smenkhkare Djeser Kheperu Ankh-Khepru-Ra which are in fact not one birth and one throne name- but two throne names."   Was his identity being hidden?

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

Seeds of dissatisfaction at the core of things, while AIII and Akhenaten both ruled in increasingly isolated sanctity and splendor.  One cannot but wonder if, though the pharaoh nominally held all power and wealth, did he hold it operationally?  Could he really enforce his authority, especially as AIII's years wound on and on?  In this regard one might wonder: how much did Tiye know and what did her arrival at Akhetaten signify, if anything.

Endless shadows....

Backtracking a bit to the discussion about unique royal names during the Amarna age, what do you infer from Michael Habicht's resurrecting the point in his book Smenkhkare, The enigmatic predecessor to Tutankhamun: "It starts with the name Smenkhkare Djeser Kheperu Ankh-Khepru-Ra which are in fact not one birth and one throne name- but two throne names."   Was his identity being hidden?

If this were early dynastic we would not question the oddity of this name, but here we are at the hight of their civilisation where everything is ordered in it's forms and places. Habicht is right, this is not a "real" name at all, it is a construct that I think would as much baffle an Egyptian of those times as much as it does us. Add to this the fact that allthough both cartouches were always shown, they were known officially and in diplomatic letters by their throne name. We all know this of course, but the point I want to make is that we, thanks to the French, call them by their birth names, and so can be a bit lulled into a sense of normality when we talk about Smenkhare and Neferneferuaten, and can clearly see two different people. If we did what they did and used their throne names, then our conversation will be about Akhkheperure and Ankhetkheperure, a ridiculous situation, and if used in a book would loose the audience. It's easy to understand why there is still doubt about the existance of Smenkhare, see, I have to use that name, even though he has been shown to have his own existance. It's utter madness, and I cannot see anything in the shadows that can give form to a reality, without itself being a madness.

I'll throw this out just for fun. There was no person named Smenkhare at all, even though a king of that name existed. Nefertiti used the name in order to disguise the fact that another Hatshepsut situation was in the offing, then, for whatever unfathomable reason, it was decided to "retire" Smenkhare, but while "outing" herself as a female king, kept the throne name, but inline with no longer hiding that she was female, added the "et" female determanitive. A load of utter balloney of course, but..

[Aldebaran]

49 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

I'll throw this out just for fun. There was no person named Smenkhare at all, even though a king of that name existed. Nefertiti used the name in order to disguise the fact that another Hatshepsut situation was in the offing, then, for whatever unfathomable reason, it was decided to "retire" Smenkhare, but while "outing" herself as a female king, kept the throne name, but inline with no longer hiding that she was female, added the "et" female determanitive. A load of utter balloney of course, but..

I seldom agree with Habicht about anything and this will be another time.  I don't see why Smenkhkare couldn't have been a personal name and its meaning is no odder than any other.  Every pharaoh had a nomen that was  part of his dual cartouche. There was another Smenkhkare of an earlier 13th Dynasty Memphite Dynasty and, although that is spelled differently with glyphs and therefore has a different meaning than the name of the end-of-18th Dynasty successor, it has been claimed that was his actual first name--and there is a dispute over that with his other name, Imyrameshau. 

https://ancientegypt.fandom.com/wiki/Imyremeshau

The "Djeserkheperu" element was likely tacked on after the later young man's elevation to coregency and, of course, Ankhkheperure was the prenomen.   Two prenomina makes no sense.

Edited January 30, 2022 by Aldebaran

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Aldebaran said:

 Two prenomina makes no sense.

Absolutely, it's bizarre, but it's also Amarna.

Here I can do the trick of agreeing with Habicht and you at the same time. Habicht because Smenkhkare does not look to me like a birth name, and you because having two throne names is ridiculous.

The case of Imyremeshau Semenkhkare is interesting as it shows Semenkhkare as the throne name, and the birth name as Imyremashau, which would in normal circumstances fit, but, it's the 13th Dynasty which is not that much clearer than Amarna, and this birth name is also the title of Army General, and it looks like a construct with the suggestion that his real name was not Egyptian and he was given the name Imyremeshau on becoming king, and maybe he had been a general usurping power. But, at the end of the day, Semenkhkare is the throne name.

I'll quote this from Ridley's Akhenaten, which mentions Imyremeshau, though not by name, I also like Ridley's use of the word "programmatic".

Quote

Smenkhkare, Munro argued, took the expanded form of Nefertiti's name, Neferneferuaten, in Year 13 or 14. It is almost universally understood that Smenkhkare was his original name from birth. It differs, however, from the regular Eighteenth Dynasty names, such as Thutmose or Amenhotep, and is rather a "programmatic" prenomen, assumed on accession (indeed, a Thirteenth Dynasty pharaoh had exactly that prenomen). If that is the case, we do not know his original name.

Reading that could cause a bit of confusion, so I'll interpret it. Ridely states that it is "universally understood that Smenkhkare was his original name from birth", but while saying it is not a regular 18th Dynasty name, neither were the "Aten" names btw, he then goes on about this prenomen, it's not, it's the nomen in the case of Smenkhkare, assuming the name on becoming king, so Ridely has got confused, it seems, on the status of the name Smenkhkare and describes it both as, essentially, birth and throne name. But it's Amarna, it's meant to be confusing. However, we do have, with disputes, Imyremeshau with the throne name Semenkhkare, and Smenkhkare as a birth name at Amarna, but seen by Ridley as being "programmatic", something constructed for a purpose, and that could include I will admit him being named as such at birth, just as the "Aten" names are "programmatic".

It's a mess.

[Kenemet]

On 1/28/2022 at 4:56 PM, Wepwawet said:

 The question I have, and which cannot be answered, is where all these "bad things" re-occurrances of the same underlying problem, or different in each case. There is nothing visible to suggest any issues during the reign of Thutmose IV, but there is with Amunhotep III. The dissapearance of prince Thutmose may be the "bad thing", or part of it, and we cannot get away from the 730 statues of Sekhmet he erected, surely in response to something terrible during this gap in the records of his reign.

It is suggested that the "bad things" in all cases could have been blasphemy against Ra, the greatest affront to Ma'at, yet the dissapearance of prince Thutmose and the appearance of the Sekhmet army does not suggest this to me.

The fact that it's Sekhmet and not another deity has very strongly suggested to others (and to me, too) that it was a series of plagues of some sort, and perhaps one that disproportionately affected the nobles and royals.

It would not have been one massive pandemic, though, since graveyards don't seem to support that narrative.

 

Quote

With Akhenaten, any blasphemy against Ra could well be seen as something of great seriousness, and it would fit into what we know, or think we know about Amarna. Yet there is an aspect to this that I had not thought about before, even though it is an obvious question. If there is a co-regency, why is Akhenaten being specific about "bad things" in his first four regnal years, and mentioning events during the reign of his father sperately.

Possibly establishing his own "legend" as the Great Fixer of All Evils. It might not be technically true, but one of those created factoids.

Quote

The second question is based on the "bad things" all being blasphemy against Ra. For while I do not see this during the riegn of Amunhotep III, at least until Akhenaten appears, there is a thread running through the 18th Dynasty of the OK solar cult becoming ever more important, and part of this is the obelisks at Karnak, an "intrusion" into the temple of Amun. So could it be that in the vast void of information on so many things, the growing power of Ra, seperate to the syncretic Amun-Ra, was becoming a serious issue to the populace, who may have seen their kings start to move away from them in belief, and we see this in it's ultimate form with the exclusion of everybody except the royal family from any forem of closeness to the Aten, excepting the heat on your back.

My personal opinion is that it's based on the shuttering of the temples to Amun-Ra (and therefore Ra.)  The great sin was not elevating one deity... it was in attempting to destroy the others; personal deities worshiped by families and small towns.  The national deities watched over the nations, but little local deities, like Horus of Behedet, were the caretakers of their cities.  Ra had other troubles and things to be concerned with.  Horus of Behedet, like a good governor under a righteous pharaoh, administered to his worshipers.

Quote

Do the "bad things" point at a long running antipathy towards the Thutmosids, at least from Thutmose IV, occassionaly showing itself in the form of public discontent, of the populace openly casting scorn on the increasing exclusivity of Ra, if in fact this was happening. I'll mention here asubject that I have often mentioned before, here and elswhere, and that is to question why the outer shrine of Tutankhamun has the non funerary "Book of the Heavemly Cow", The Rebellion of Mankind against Ra, Sure this was not invented for Tutankhamun and the myth was already old, but it is new in most of it's more intricate detail, and, the point I make, just what is it doing on the shrine of the son of Akhenaten, a man who himself was described as a rebel. Is this shrine hinting at the rebellion of Akhenaten against the pantheon, or of the rebellion of the populace against Akhenaten.

It's "what they had on hand that fit the dimensions of his coffins" and was undoubtedly made long before Akhenaten (and possibly repurposed from an even older grave's goods.)  It's far too elaborate to have been constructed within the 70 day period (with everything else that was going on.)

IMHO, of course.  I haven't interviewed the craftsmen of Tutankamun's time.

[Aldebaran]

16 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Reading that could cause a bit of confusion, so I'll interpret it. Ridely states that it is "universally understood that Smenkhkare was his original name from birth", but while saying it is not a regular 18th Dynasty name, neither were the "Aten" names btw, he then goes on about this prenomen, it's not, it's the nomen in the case of Smenkhkare, assuming the name on becoming king, so Ridely has got confused, it seems, on the status of the name Smenkhkare and describes it both as, essentially, birth and throne name. But it's Amarna, it's meant to be confusing. However, we do have, with disputes, Imyremeshau with the throne name Semenkhkare, and Smenkhkare as a birth name at Amarna, but seen by Ridley as being "programmatic", something constructed for a purpose, and that could include I will admit him being named as such at birth, just as the "Aten" names are "programmatic".

It is probably the knowledge that Smenkhkare [although spelled differently] had been a 13th Dynasty prenomen that has caused anyone to state that Smenkhkare must look like a prenomen,  Why else?  Any name that is a phrase could be used for a person's "good name", meaning his formal name.  Obviously, nomina and prenomina could be interchangeable as people were named after the prenomina of rulers.   Two prominent cases are the children of HP Pinudjem, temp. 21at Dynasty, whose names were Maatkare and Menkheperre after Hatshepsut and Thutmose III.  Other names incorporated the prenomen of some king, expanding on that, as had been the case with another priest called Menkheperreseneb, meaning "Menkheperre is healthy" or perhaps "Menkheperre should be healthy" as a wish.  Other contemporary girls were simply called Hatshepsut after the royal lady, a king of Egypt for twenty years, including the last chief queen of Thutmose III, born during those years.

[Wepwawet]

18 hours ago, Kenemet said:

The fact that it's Sekhmet and not another deity has very strongly suggested to others (and to me, too) that it was a series of plagues of some sort, and perhaps one that disproportionately affected the nobles and royals.

It would not have been one massive pandemic, though, since graveyards don't seem to support that narrative.

 

Possibly establishing his own "legend" as the Great Fixer of All Evils. It might not be technically true, but one of those created factoids.

My personal opinion is that it's based on the shuttering of the temples to Amun-Ra (and therefore Ra.)  The great sin was not elevating one deity... it was in attempting to destroy the others; personal deities worshiped by families and small towns.  The national deities watched over the nations, but little local deities, like Horus of Behedet, were the caretakers of their cities.  Ra had other troubles and things to be concerned with.  Horus of Behedet, like a good governor under a righteous pharaoh, administered to his worshipers.

It's "what they had on hand that fit the dimensions of his coffins" and was undoubtedly made long before Akhenaten (and possibly repurposed from an even older grave's goods.)  It's far too elaborate to have been constructed within the 70 day period (with everything else that was going on.)

IMHO, of course.  I haven't interviewed the craftsmen of Tutankamun's time.

I'd agree that there was probably something intangible that carried off people close to Amunhotep III, hence the Sekhmet army and not the real army for protection.

A legend in his own eyes no doubt. He's been called the "first personality in History", or these days maybe the "first celebrity", or the "great I am, bow down and worship me, ME!"

Destroying the other gods would I think have happened if his reign had continued longer, or his successors carried on with the programme. There was a row of shrines to various gods at the Amarna tomb workers village, and being in public I guess Akhenaten knew about, and ignored, but for how long, nobody knows. He couldn't stop people having images of the gods in their homes, but if the temples are closed that probably didn't matter. It's interesting to idly speculate on what form this "secret" observance may have evolved into if Atenism had held sway, died out, or become a focus for rebellion.

I think Horus the Behedet might feel aggrieved at being seen a "local god". While it was true in the sense that he was god at Edfu and Tell el-Balamun, both named Behdet back then, he was, as the winged sun disk, as much a universal symbol of their religion as a crucifix is to Christians. What temple did not have him over most all the doors and pylons.

Most of his core burial goods look to be too elaborate to have been made within 70 days, particularly the inner solid gold coffin, and the texts on the shrines I and II cannot have been created in that time, which is one of my arguments to say that conventional religous thought must have continued at a high level within the royal court even during the reign of Akhenaten. The second shrine is known not to have been his, though the other shrines show no sign of altered cartouches, so unless something has been missed, I guess they were original to him. But let's presume doubt for the sake of argument. The problem with the texts on shrines I and II is that while elements of the Book of the Heavenly Cow on shrine I had been around since the MK, nowhere does it appear in this long form in the tomb of any king as it is not part of the corpus of texts that make up the Amduat. If for instance a king previous to Tutankhamun had this book on one of his shrines, and we will never know as none survive, it would be a non sequiter to what we can see on the walls of their tombs, so on that count I do think shrine I was specifically made for Tutankhamun. Shrine II also does not have elements of the Amduat, but unlike the Heavenly Cow, it fits in perfectly with the Amduat as a whole, and indeed I would say it fills in the gap of just exactly what is happening in the Sixth Hour. But agian, there is no trace of this "enigmatic work" before Tutankhamun, and as it was not made for him, belonged to one of his Amarna predecessors, one who still believed in Osiris and the Duat.

But, at the end of the day, we just don't what they were doing, or in the case of the royal workshops, just how quickly they could produce large quality items. I could see something like a shrine being made in parts by multiple craftsmen, but the gold coffin, no, and there would only be enough room for one guy to sit inside to inscribe the texts there, surely a long task, and the mask, which looks like a one man job.

[Wepwawet]

7 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

It is probably the knowledge that Smenkhkare [although spelled differently] had been a 13th Dynasty prenomen that has caused anyone to state that Smenkhkare must look like a prenomen,  Why else?  Any name that is a phrase could be used for a person's "good name", meaning his formal name.  Obviously, nomina and prenomina could be interchangeable as people were named after the prenomina of rulers.   Two prominent cases are the children of HP Pinudjem, temp. 21at Dynasty, whose names were Maatkare and Menkheperre after Hatshepsut and Thutmose III.  Other names incorporated the prenomen of some king, expanding on that, as had been the case with another priest called Menkheperreseneb, meaning "Menkheperre is healthy" or perhaps "Menkheperre should be healthy" as a wish.  Other contemporary girls were simply called Hatshepsut after the royal lady, a king of Egypt for twenty years, including the last chief queen of Thutmose III, born during those years.

I see what you mean, though in this case it's not a matter of a commoner being named after a king, but of the naming of a king, which requires some thought, part of the "programme" as Ridley puts it. I don't think for one moment that the Amarna Smenkhkare was named after the 13th Dynasty one, but named as part of the Aten "programme", even though it is not an Aten name. But yes, I do see that Smenkhkare does not have to have been constructed like a throne name, and we don't question the name Tutankhaten/amun, which could also be seen as throne name-ish in it's construction, and is also a non conventional Thutmosid name, part of the "programme" just as much as Smenkhkare I would think. The real issue of course is why two kings back to back with the same actual throne name, and the answer to that is.........

Edited January 31, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Aldebaran]

16 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

The real issue of course is why two kings back to back with the same actual throne name, and the answer to that is.........

The only thing that makes any real sense with regard to that is if a widow just kept her husband's throne name, the one who was "effective for her husband".  That would have been Meritaten but the fly in the ointment there is that this queen had never been called Neferneferuaten--but Nefertiti had.  So there is no clear answer and why some people have told me they dislike the Amarna and post-Amarna period.  One man named the era "the tarpits".  Quite apt that.

Another thing that came to me yesterday after writing my last post about nomina and prenomina being interchangeable was the throne name of Siptah of the late 19th Dynasty,   When it comes right down to it, that king's prenomen was hardly any different from the name assumed by Amenhotep IV--Akhenaten.  Yes, the throne name of Siptah was Akhenre, one form of the sun substituted for another.   

 

[Wepwawet]

To continue on names, and who Smenkhkare may have been and when he was born. Smenkhkare looks an odd birth name in the context of Amarna, and specifically a male name before Tutankhaten. A lot of time has been spent by many people trying to work out who Smenkhkare was, yet a good clue, while well known, gets shunted aside as a footnote. This is the Hermopolis talatat bearing the names of Tutankhaten and probably Ankhesenpaaten. While the exact identity of the princess does have a question mark over it, there is nothing ambiguous about Tutankhaten, for it says "King's son of his body, his beloved, Tutankhaten", and now bells should start to ring, but they don't, or only muffled. Tutankhaten is not also described as "King's first son", therefore he was not the heir. I know I'm stating an obvious thing, but his name on that block gets used to assume he is the heir. Who was his older brother? or even, who were his older brothers?

Tutankhaten is a strong Aten name, it is also, as it is Amarna, a unique name, not just because of the Aten element, but it is also unique in it's later Amun form. The record is silent of if there were ever anybody with the name beginning Tutankh, followed by that of a major god, or any god, though Tut in other combinations is known. So, while clearly being a secondary son, it seems odd to me that he has this strong Aten name, but Smenkhkare does not. In the first part of the reign all known royal children have an Aten name, and those with a Re ending appear in year 10 and then 11.

The first known child is Meritaten, thought to have been born late year 1 or in  year 2. She cannot have been born earlier as at the start of his reign Akhenaten is not shown as married, and has Queen Tiye taking the role of GRW. The next known child is Meketaten, born about year 6, but not before the year 5 boundary stelae where only Meritaten is shown., After that the remaining daughters come along in a procession. Given her obvious fecundity, a four or five year gap between the first and second known child looks suspicious, and I think it obvious, even without proof, that in that gap at least one son was born, Smenkhkare? And again the Re name, right at the time when Aten names are the in thing, odd. When was Smenkhkare king? year 14/15 is the year most often chosen, and in a previous post I posit that he must have gone from the scene before Box 001K was made, either in late year 16 or in year 17 before the death of Akhenaten.

Let's look at possibilities. If Smenkhkare was born in the gap between Meritaten and Meketaten, and died before year 17, then we have an upper age for him at death of fourteen-ish, and a lower at twelve-ish. It's long been thought that Tutankhamun's second coffin was not made for him on account of the facial features, which look somewhat older than him, with an opinion that this coffin was made for Smenkhkare, an opinon helped by Dodson's analysis of the coffin where he perceives cartouche changes. But, if Smenkhkare was a son of Akhenaten, then if the face looks too old for Tutankhamun, then it's certainly too old for Smenkhkare.

And as a final thought, if KV55 is Akhenaten, then as his mummy can survive, then so could anybody elses from that family, and that would include the possibility of the Younger Lady being Nefertiti, and other possibilities.

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

25 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

To continue on names, and who Smenkhkare may have been and when he was born. Smenkhkare looks an odd birth name in the context of Amarna, and specifically a male name before Tutankhaten. A lot of time has been spent by many people trying to work out who Smenkhkare was, yet a good clue, while well known, gets shunted aside as a footnote. This is the Hermopolis talatat bearing the names of Tutankhaten and probably Ankhesenpaaten. While the exact identity of the princess does have a question mark over it, there is nothing ambiguous about Tutankhaten, for it says "King's son of his body, his beloved, Tutankhaten", and now bells should start to ring, but they don't, or only muffled. Tutankhaten is not also described as "King's first son", therefore he was not the heir. I know I'm stating an obvious thing, but his name on that block gets used to assume he is the heir. Who was his older brother? or even, who were his older brothers?

Tutankhaten is a strong Aten name, it is also, as it is Amarna, a unique name, not just because of the Aten element, but it is also unique in it's later Amun form. The record is silent of if there were ever anybody with the name beginning Tutankh, followed by that of a major god, or any god, though Tut in other combinations is known. So, while clearly being a secondary son, it seems odd to me that he has this strong Aten name, but Smenkhkare does not. In the first part of the reign all known royal children have an Aten name, and those with a Re ending appear in year 10 and then 11.

The first known child is Meritaten, thought to have been born late year 1 or in  year 2. She cannot have been born earlier as at the start of his reign Akhenaten is not shown as married, and has Queen Tiye taking the role of GRW. The next known child is Meketaten, born about year 6, but not before the year 5 boundary stelae where only Meritaten is shown., After that the remaining daughters come along in a procession. Given her obvious fecundity, a four or five year gap between the first and second known child looks suspicious, and I think it obvious, even without proof, that in that gap at least one son was born, Smenkhkare? And again the Re name, right at the time when Aten names are the in thing, odd. When was Smenkhkare king? year 14/15 is the year most often chosen, and in a previous post I posit that he must have gone from the scene before Box 001K was made, either in late year 16 or in year 17 before the death of Akhenaten.

Let's look at possibilities. If Smenkhkare was born in the gap between Meritaten and Meketaten, and died before year 17, then we have an upper age for him at death of fourteen, and a lower at twelve. And here we come back to arm positions of royal mummies, monarchs specifically, and it's not consistent, with the commoner Yuya looking like a king with the position of his arms, and Tutankhamun with his arms folded over his belly looking more like a commoner.

 

Must we rule out the possibility that Smenkhkare was Akhenaten's son, but not by Nefertiti?

[Wepwawet]

19 minutes ago, Wistman said:

Must we rule out the possibility that Smenkhkare was Akhenaten's son, but not by Nefertiti?

I was editing as you replied, so my post now looks a bit different, but nothing crucial.

I think the gap between Meritaten and Meketaten is the closest we will ever get to any form of proof, no matter now circumstantial, to Smenkhkare being the first son of Akhenaten by Nefertiti. Given the regularity with which she produced children from Meketaten on, I cannot see any reason, other than prolonged ill health, for her not producing male children in that gap, one is certainly possible, with time enough for a second, and this also fits with the almost total absence of princes depicted in the 18th Dynasty.

Before the DNA testing we could cast doubt on who Tutankhamun's mother was, particulary if she were Kiya or another wife other than Nefertiti, but as his mother is now known to be a daughter of Amunhotep III and Tiye, his mother is not a minor wife, and as Smenkhkare is king before Tutankhamun, I don't see there any possibility of him not being a son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, unless there was a palace coup that was put down, and it had to have been as Akhenaten continues as king and Nefertiti becomes co-ruler and then king in her own right.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Will Due]

 

Tutankhaten was Akhenaten's son-in-law.

 

 

[Wepwawet]

6 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Tutankhaten was Akhenaten's son-in-law.

 

 

How would that work when the DNA shows his mother to be the full sister of KV55, highly likely to be Akhenaten, and with Tutankhaten becoming king aged about 8, and unlikely to have been married until after becoming king, and even then marrying his sister.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

53 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

To continue on names, and who Smenkhkare may have been and when he was born. Smenkhkare looks an odd birth name in the context of Amarna, and specifically a male name before Tutankhaten. A lot of time has been spent by many people trying to work out who Smenkhkare was, yet a good clue, while well known, gets shunted aside as a footnote. This is the Hermopolis talatat bearing the names of Tutankhaten and probably Ankhesenpaaten. While the exact identity of the princess does have a question mark over it, there is nothing ambiguous about Tutankhaten, for it says "King's son of his body, his beloved, Tutankhaten", and now bells should start to ring, but they don't, or only muffled. Tutankhaten is not also described as "King's first son", therefore he was not the heir. I know I'm stating an obvious thing, but his name on that block gets used to assume he is the heir. Who was his older brother? or even, who were his older brothers?

Tutankhaten is a strong Aten name, it is also, as it is Amarna, a unique name, not just because of the Aten element, but it is also unique in it's later Amun form. The record is silent of if there were ever anybody with the name beginning Tutankh, followed by that of a major god, or any god, though Tut in other combinations is known. So, while clearly being a secondary son, it seems odd to me that he has this strong Aten name, but Smenkhkare does not. In the first part of the reign all known royal children have an Aten name, and those with a Re ending appear in year 10 and then 11.

The first known child is Meritaten, thought to have been born late year 1 or in  year 2. She cannot have been born earlier as at the start of his reign Akhenaten is not shown as married, and has Queen Tiye taking the role of GRW. The next known child is Meketaten, born about year 6, but not before the year 5 boundary stelae where only Meritaten is shown., After that the remaining daughters come along in a procession. Given her obvious fecundity, a four or five year gap between the first and second known child looks suspicious, and I think it obvious, even without proof, that in that gap at least one son was born, Smenkhkare? And again the Re name, right at the time when Aten names are the in thing, odd. When was Smenkhkare king? year 14/15 is the year most often chosen, and in a previous post I posit that he must have gone from the scene before Box 001K was made, either in late year 16 or in year 17 before the death of Akhenaten.

Let's look at possibilities. If Smenkhkare was born in the gap between Meritaten and Meketaten, and died before year 17, then we have an upper age for him at death of fourteen-ish, and a lower at twelve-ish. It's long been thought that Tutankhamun's second coffin was not made for him on account of the facial features, which look somewhat older than him, with an opinion that this coffin was made for Smenkhkare, an opinon helped by Dodson's analysis of the coffin where he perceives cartouche changes. But, if Smenkhkare was a son of Akhenaten, then if the face looks too old for Tutankhamun, then it's certainly too old for Smenkhkare.

And as a final thought, if KV55 is Akhenaten, then as his mummy can survive, then so could anybody elses from that family, and that would include the possibility of the Younger Lady being Nefertiti, and other possibilities.

 

As already observed, though, Smenkhkare may not have been his birth name.  Therefore, this 're' name could have been conferred upon his ascension to the throne as co-regent.  That would fit the timeline you've noted.  Nefertiti may well have been ill or somehow indisposed; seems there was a lot of that going around at the time, hardly beyond likelihood.  Sekhmet and all that, for instance.

I still don't see why he must be Nefertiti's child.  Yes, there's that gap...so, true, it's circumstance that fits, but hardly proof.  Would Nefertiti be more likely to usurp her own son's throne name, or that of an heir by another queen, maybe...as a way of erasing him, as in: yes there's a king called Ankhkheperure as you have heard and seen written, and it's me.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Wistman

[Will Due]

10 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

How would that work when the DNA shows his mother to be the full sister of KV55, highly likely to be Akhenaten, and with Tutankhaten becoming king aged about 8, and unlikely to have been married until after becoming king, and even then marrying his sister.

 

Probably because royalty was all related. Brother-sister marriages were common. As well as child marriage to a boy king

 

 

[Wepwawet]

28 minutes ago, Wistman said:

As already observed, though, Smenkhkare may not have been his birth name.  Therefore, this 're' name could have been conferred upon his ascension to the throne as co-regent.  That would fit the timeline you've noted.  Nefertiti may well have been ill or somehow indisposed; seems there was a lot of that going around at the time, hardly beyond likelihood.  Sekhmet and all that, for instance.

I still don't see why he must be Nefertiti's child.  Yes, there's that gap...so, true, it's circumstance that fits, but hardly proof.  Would Nefertiti be more likely to usurp her own son's throne name, or that of another queen, maybe...as a way of erasing him, as in: yes there's a king called Ankhkheperure as you have heard and seen written, and it's me.

Yes, I agree it's all circumstantial with no actual evidence to prove anything at all. Tutankhaten named only as King's Son, not King's Oldest Son just shows he was not the heir, not that Smenkhkare was, it's just assuming, though on the basis of probabilities as Smenkhkare is the only other Amarna male, aside from Akhenaten, who became king, so his is the only name in the frame.

I'll suggest that if his birth name was not Smenkhkare, then, if he were an ?????aten, on being made co-ruler, in order to make a clear distinction between him and Akhenaten, he was given the Re ending name. We then have Akhenaten with a Re prenomen and Aten nomen, and vice versa for Smenkhkare, and Wa-en-Re clearly shows that there was nothing wrong with a Re name.

Nefertiti using the prenomen of Smenkhkare is of course a huge issue and mystery. It simply does not make any sense at all, excepting by going into speculation. But, it's Amarna, and it's nothing without speculation, so I'll speculate that if Smenkhkare were her son and has died young in whatever circumstances, and if she were distraught by this, understandable, she may, from a purely motherly and emotional stance, take his prenomen for own in rememberance of him. I'm not saying that could be so, but it's a human thing to do, even if in by the culture of the AE it is extraordinary when naming kings.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Probably because royalty was all related. Brother-sister marriages were common. As well as child marriage to a boy king

 

 

I see what you mean, but this is an issue of what the DNA says, and if his mother and father are full brother and sister, and his father is the king, he is not an in law, but their full son, even if incestuous. The main issue is the question of if his mother was Nefertiti or not, and opinions are divided.

Where we could get complications in the line of succession is if his mother was, for instance, Beketaten, would a brother of his, and it would need to be an younger brother, of which there is zero evidence, claim primacy if his mother were Nefertiti, the GRW.

[atalante]

On 1/28/2022 at 3:56 PM, Wepwawet said:

.... there is a thread running through the 18th Dynasty of the OK solar cult becoming ever more important, and part of this is the obelisks at Karnak, an "intrusion" into the temple of Amun. So could it be that in the vast void of information on so many things, the growing power of Ra, seperate to the syncretic Amun-Ra, was becoming a serious issue to the populace, who may have seen their kings start to move away from them in belief, and we see this in it's ultimate form with the exclusion of everybody except the royal family from any forem of closeness to the Aten, excepting the heat on your back. Do the "bad things" point at a long running antipathy towards the Thutmosids, at least from Thutmose IV, occassionaly showing itself in the form of public discontent, of the populace openly casting scorn on the increasing exclusivity of Ra, if in fact this was happening.

 

Wepwawet,

To help sort out the chronology at the end of Atenism, there is an important matter of ancient solar eclipses -- which can now be dated with considerable precision.

For explaining the end of Atenism at Amarna, based on the 14 May 1338 BC total solar eclipse at Amarna, I can mention the view of Giulio Magli (as discussed in the following 20July2020 preprint by Emil Khalisi).

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200412952K/graphics      14 May 1338 BCE total solar eclipse

But earlier eclipse-omens are also discussed in the preprint.  I suggest the 20July2020 preprint would be improved if its discussions for eclipses in 1399 BCE, 1389 BCE, 1378 BCE (which are depicted on page 4 of the following preprint) were allotted to the reign of Amenhotep III, who actually revived Atenism. 

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.12952.pdf

quoting from Khalisi's page 3, about Magli's views: 

Even if a few things may stretch some things too far, as the author admits, there are boundary stelae arranging symmetrical spaces in which the tomb itself is the focus of attention. Amarna would have been constructed before that total eclipse of 1338 BCE, and the unexpected incident would have taken place at the end of Akhenaten’s reign. It was interpreted as a negative sign: a spell was cast by the old gods on the sun, and the priests would have “welcomed” that as the call to return to the former status quo. Akhenaten was replaced, after his mysterious death, by Smenkhkare first and then by the child-king Tutankhamun.

So, in contrast to McMurray who proposed an active impetus received by that eclipse (construction of Amarna), Magli prefers a passive interpretation: the site was evacuated because of it. Additional evidence for this hypothesis would come from the celestial circumstances at the instant of totality: it occurred in that part of the sky which lies between the star constellations of Gemini and Taurus. The sun is closest to the celestial region pertaining the Osiris-Orion, as defined by the old Amun religion. According to Magli, the eclipse “communicated” the divine sign for the reversal of policy.

endquote

 

note:  The conventional dating for Akhenaten's reign continued for about three years beyond this 1338 BCE eclipse.  I can speculate that Akhenaten and his royal elites attempted to reintegrate themselves with some Egyptian Re cults during 1338-1335 BCE (i.e. after the 1338 BCE solar eclipse), in parallel with their now-somewhat-tarnished royal cult of Atenism.

Edited February 1, 2022 by atalante

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, atalante said:

Wepwawet,

To help sort out the chronology at the end of Atenism, there is an important matter of ancient solar eclipses -- which can now be dated with considerable precision.

 

Yes, thanks for bringing this up as it may be a thing. This was one of the topics discussed on the Box 001K thread by the poster Luke, who has made a speciality of this topic, and brought to the table all the relevant dates of eclipses, which as you point out are interesting. Magli I'm familiar with as I've read his book on this.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Wepwawet
typo

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

 

I still don't see why he must be Nefertiti's child.

I should have noted this earlier, but part of my reasoning is that it has been suggested many times over the years that Smenkhkare might be a brother of Akhenaten, and so possibly also a son of Tiye. What, to me, says no, is the fact of Tutankhaten not being the first son, for if Smenkhare was his uncle, then he still has at least one older brother, with a far better claim than an uncle, and if Smenkhkare was an uncle, what happened to Tutankhaten's at least one elder brother.

I can see why there are doubts about who Smenkhkare's mother could be as there is zero hard evidence, but what I'm doing is looking at what we have, and what is possible. For instance, while Nefertiti may have not been able to produce children for about four years after Meritaten, and I don't know what could cause this, is it more or less likely that she was fine and that in the gap one or more sons were born, sons who mostly never get shown in the record unless they are the crown prince, or get shown in a tutors tomb. So while I'm speculating on one or more sons being born in the gap, to me, her continued ability to produce children is the default position when there is no evidence to show illness, and the fact that she produced at least five more children after Meritaten I think shows that there could not have been anything seriously wrong with her for a four year period, quite some time to be ill as a young woman.

Of course I don't rule out the possibility that Smenkhkare's mother was not Nefertiti, and we have Kiya, and part of her reason to be a wife of the king was to produce offspring, and if his mother was Kiya, or even a minor wife unknown to us, it will not prevent Smenkhkare still being King's Eldest Son and heir, as Amunhotep III was eldest son, but the GRW was not his mother.

I do think though that no matter who was mother to whom, Smenkhkare was probably born within the first five years of Akhenaten's reign, and probably still a minor, not yet having reached his 14th birthday at his death, another reason for him being so ephemeral.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Aldebaran]

Once again, people being somehow related has no bearing on who is who's child.  At every microsatellite DNA marker, a child gets one allele from each parent.   Even if the parents are cousins, that will have no bearing on each parent sharing 50% of the child's DNA.  That is what people don't understand, even Egyptologists.  We share 50% of our DNA with a very limited group of people.  They are our parents, our children, and our full siblings.  No others.   When it comes to relationships, the DNA of a person is only as good as what there is to compare it to.  Comparing two anonymous people's DNA is not going to come up with a name for either.  Only a relationship.  But that doesn't mean there aren't other means of identifying people, too.  All that is needed to iD the mother of Tutankhamun is a piece of text that names her as his mother.  Then we will know the name of the mummy, The Younger Lady, because DNA has already provided the relationship.  Excavation at Tell el Armarna is ongoing.  One never knows what will be uncovered.  The boy was born there, after all.  The talatat block that says Tut is a king's son didn't exist in a vacuum.  All the information was on adjacent blocks.  Too bad those were taken to Hermopolis.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Aldebaran

[Wepwawet]

Well I agree that we cannot give a name to a mummy based only on their DNA, only infer from the results who they are likely to be, though in the case of the Elder Lady it's very difficult to come to any conclusion other than that she is Queen Tiye, bracketed between her parents named mummies and that of her grandson Tutankhamun.

And of course the gordian knot could be cut with the discovery of a few missing talatat blocks, for surely the surviving Hermopolis fragments are part of a scene that included the entire family. The discovery of the tombs of tutors during the reigns of Amunhotep III and Akhenaten, if they showed their charges, would also be a break through.

Going back to the Hermopolis block, while more discoveries could reveal who Tutankhaten's mother was, it's still a very odd thing that there is zero mention in any way shape or form of her in KV62, or anywhere at all, as if he never had a mother. A damnato memoriae is understandable after Tutankhamun's death, but it looks as if he has proscribed his own mother, or a handler of him has, Ay? I could draw two speculative conclusions from this, one that says his mother must have been Nefertiti, the other, if her proscription was ordered by Ay, mitigating against him being her father, unfounded speculation in itself.

And on discoveries, I wonder why it went so quiet about the large void discovered right by KV62. I'm hoping that as this is the 100th anniversary year they have been doing something, and want to keep it as a surprise for late in the year. Yes, wishful thinking as it doesn't work like that, but I think they would like to be able to present something new.