Amarna, Before and After

[Aldebaran]

7 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

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.

 

That's why I wrote " When it comes to relationships, the DNA of a person is only as good as what there is to compare it to. "  In other words "identified people", such as Yuya and Thuya.   Gabolde was so wrong when he attempted to argue that three generations of cousins can change the rules of DNA--cause one not to be able to distinguish a cousin from a sibling. Hah! First, how could he know Yuya and Thuya were cousins?  Within 8 markers they only share the allele 12 at CSF1PO.  That could occur between two unrelated persons, especially if that allele number was frequent at that marker in a given population.  However, more info came out in a 2020 paper about the DNA of the royal mummies.  There it was stated that Yuya and Thuya have the same predicted mthaplogroup of K.  That is a somewhat better indication of those two having been cousins--depending upon how frequent K was in the ancient Egyptian population--which is not known,  Actually, one need not share very much DNA with a more distant cousin at all.  I have a second cousin with whom I share only 6 centimorgans--very little.  That's rather unusual, but can happen.  

Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye may have been relatives, but they also do not share that much DNA.  As I wrote--even if they shared more, that would not affect whether the DNA of their children looked like that of siblings or not.  Because, when it comes to cousins, they always have alleles that were not present in the DNA of our parents.  Because siblings, unless identical twins, have 50% different DNA and so the DNA of their individual children must vary.  The only way KV55 and the Younger Lady could be cousins is the unlikely event that they were the offspring of two sets of identical twins.  They have not a single allele that is not present in the DNA of AIII and Queen Tiye.

[Wistman]

There is the possibility that Prince Thuthmose didn’t die, but was rather passed over by AIII because, as HPP, he didn’t subscribe to dominance and exclusivity of the Aten. Second son young Amenhotep did, so AIII chose him for the co-regency. (Precedence exists in AE of pharaoh choosing second son to follow him.) Thuthmose wasn’t replaced as HPP at Memphis because there was no need, the plan for Aten would go forward without his assistance and he made no threats of obstruction. 

He may have been married to his full sister, who died in childbirth or more likely some violent event, Tut being the progeny. After making some accommodation with Akhenaten (through Ay perhaps, or better: TIye), he sets up a residence at Akhetaten, separates himself from HPP posting, and is even married to one of Akhenaten’s daughters. Eventually Akhenaten, needing a male heir and perhaps in fear for his own health, initiates a co-regency with his brother (once the Crown Prince) who takes a new throne name, Smenkhkare. There may have been a plan for this to happen, perhaps also the hand of Tiye. Why not? 

Just exploring possibilities and assumptions. 

KV35YL may be his first wife, his sister; he is KV55; Tut’s their son. 

We don’t know who Nefertiti’s parents are, we don’t know if Tut’s her son, we don’t know if she’s KV35YL, we don’t know if she’s full sibling to Akhenaten, we don’t know if he’s KV55, etc. 

Maybe I’m getting loopy.  

Edited February 2, 2022 by Wistman

[Aldebaran]

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

There is the possibility that Prince Thuthmose didn’t die

Sure he did--and as a child as his known funerary goods attest.  His religious role was an honorary one and why not?  He wears the wig of a sem priest on those items, even though not looking like an adult.  That wig found on the floor of KV35 with the three mummies in their side chamber looks like the same kind of wig to me with a braid hanging down from the top of the wig.  Fletcher tried to assign that to the Younger Lady but it was probably wrapped up with the Prince, who was still a kid because his actual hairstyle was a shaved skull with a princely lock, meaning he hadn't achieved puberty.  So Prince Thutmose was only depicted with the wig of a sem priest due to the role he'd been assigned.  It would be easy to find out the truth if only this king's son would have his DNA tested and compared to that of Queen Tiye and Amenhotep III.

[Aldebaran]

Here's the wig, looking rather a mess but if the long braid went with it, what else but a sem priest wig?  No women at Amarna were depicted with head coverings with braids attached to them.

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Wistman said:

Maybe I’m getting loopy.  

No, it's just the Amarna syndrome.

 There is no consensus over who became HPP after Thutmose until we get to the reign of Tutankhamun. A number of different names are given for who followed Thutmose still within the reign of Amunhotep III, and all of them are probably placed incorrectly. There is an issue that there were three  named Ptahmose over the reign of Tuthmose IV and Amunhotep III, and two named Pahemnetjer. Depending on source, Ptahmose III is placed either before or after prince Thutmose, and one of the Pahemnetjer is placed after Thutmose, or both are placed in the 19th Dynasty. My opinion is that Ptahmose III was HPP immediately before Thutmose, being responsible for the creation of a temple to Ptah-Sokar-Osiris within the Karnak complex for Amunhotep III. I place him before Thutmose because after year 30, when Thutmose vanishes, things are becoming "odd" and I don't think it was a time for temples to Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, but that's just my personal opinion. I believe that both Pahemnetjers served during the 19th Dynasty, therefore it is not known with any degree of certainty who was HPP between the dissapearance of Thutmose and the reign of Tutankhamun, but somebody was I'm sure.

There is zero record of Thutmose dying, though clearly he did, and it is only assumed that he did die by year 30 because the future Akhenaten becomes crown prince and then king. That is of course a very good assumption, compelling even. However, what is the evidence for his death? nothing, not a single thing, not a single shabti or anything. As I've noted before, the model funeral bier cannot have been an item used for his burial as his title is still sem-priest of Ptah, therefore he has not died when that was made as he then appears on the cat sarcophagus as HPP. Both items were found at the site of the temple of Ptah at Mit Rahina, not in the Saqqara necropolis nearby. One thing I note though is why was a funeral bier made for him at all. He was crown prince and expected to die as king, so why even make a bier with him as only second ranking at Memphis. We know they did pre make funeral items, but I don't see why they would for an individual destined to gain greater rank as time goes by. So, no evidence of a burial does give a lifeline to the thought that he "retired", though compelling evidence would need to be produced to convince me of this.

The assumptions of Thutmose being KV55 having married one of his sisters, and being the parents of Tutankhamun, would fit the DNA, but stretch things too much for me. Let's go back to the Hermopolis talatat. It names Tutankhaten and a sister, probably Ankhesenpaaten, as respectively king's daughter and son. There are two issues here that mitigate against Thutmose being the father of Tutankhaten. One is that, as mentioned, Tutankhaten is only named as King's Son, not King's Eldest Son, still showing that he had one or more elder brothers, by Thutmose and not Akhenaten? The second issue, and the answer to the question I posed, is that the Hermopolis talatat is part of a scene that will include the King, and presumably Nefertiti as GRW, and it would have to be them as there is no doubt that the daughters are all by those two. They would not name two royal children at the same time as King's Daughter/Son unless they had the same father, and he was present, for otherwise there would be confusion over what king they were the children of. It's rather like all these King's Sons suddenly dissapearing as named as such when their father dies, for only sons of a living king are titled as King's Son. What exactly the situation was with a co-regency I don't know, and there may be the presumtion that the junior king did not yet have children, though I think other co-regencys involved two adult kings. But, no matter what conventions they used in a co-regency, for Tutankhaten to have been a son of Thutmose, the Hermopolis talatat needs to have been made during a co-regency between Akhenaten and Smenkhkare, a very small window with very small chance of it being so.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Aldebaran said:

It would be easy to find out the truth if only this king's son would have his DNA tested and compared to that of Queen Tiye and Amenhotep III.

 

Which was tested, as video evidence of Dr Zahar taking a sample, with a technician and Hawass looking on, exists. And this was done in KV35 at the same time as samples were taken from Tiye and the Younger Lady. Why this has not even been mentioned in any of the documention, papers, Scanning the Pharaohs or the TV documentary, is a total mystery. And because we know they did test him, did they also test others but have not said, Thutmose IV for instance.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Aldebaran]

16 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

There is zero record of Thutmose dying, though clearly he did, and it is only assumed that he did die by year 30 because the future Akhenaten becomes crown prince and then king. That is of course a very good assumption, compelling even. However, what is the evidence for his death? nothing, not a single thing, not a single shabti or anything. As I've noted before, the model funeral bier cannot have been an item used for his burial as his title is still sem-priest of Ptah, therefore he has not died when that was made as he then appears on the cat sarcophagus as HPP. Both items were found at the site of the temple of Ptah at Mit Rahina, not in the Saqqara necropolis nearby. One thing I note though is why was a funeral bier made for him at all. He was crown prince and expected to die as king, so why even make a bier with him as only second ranking at Memphis. We know they did pre make funeral items, but I don't see why they would for an individual destined to gain greater rank as time goes by. So, no evidence of a burial does give a lifeline to the thought that he "retired", though compelling evidence would need to be produced to convince me of this.

The item with the king's son Thutmose, mummiform except for the head [like Tutankhamun when undergoing the opening of the mouth in his tomb] and lying on a bier would never have been made for a living individual.  The funerary items of a child being made in advance?  No--unless the child was a king.  Even if made to venerate him in a temple, the boy was still dead as "justified" is written on the item.   The cat sarcophagus is for a separate death--that of a pet cat--and probably did come from the prince's tomb as that is nothing for a temple, which was not in service for how many centuries prior to the items having been found?  So both items most likely originally from a robbed tomb and stored in a different place because they really had no value to a thief.  Anyway, you contradicted yourself by your own question "Why make such things in advance for someone destined to gain greater rank?"  Died is why.

Also, you have posted the wrong mummy in that photo.  It is not the prince from KV35 but the one found leaning against the wall in the tomb of Thutmose IV.

 

Edited February 3, 2022 by Aldebaran

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

The item with the king's son Thutmose, mummiform except for the head [like Tutankhamun when undergoing the opening of the mouth in his tomb] and lying on a bier would never have been made for a living individual.  The funerary items of a child being made in advance?  No--unless the child was a king.  Even if made to venerate him in a temple, the boy was still dead as "justified" is written on the item.   The cat sarcophagus is for a separate death--that of a pet cat--and probably did come from the prince's tomb as that is nothing for a temple, which was not in service for how many centuries prior to the items having been found?  So both items most likely originally from a robbed tomb and stored in a different place because they really had no value to a thief.  Anyway, you contradicted yourself by your own question "Why make such things in advance for someone destined to gain greater rank?"  Died is why.

Also, you have posted the wrong mummy in that photo.  It is not the prince from KV35 but the one found leaning against the wall in the tomb of Thutmose IV.

 

What explanation do you have for him being sem-priest on the bier, but HPP on the cat sarcophagus. If, as you believe, the bier was an item made when he died, and he is still sem-priest, when would the cat sarcophagus have been made showing him at the higher rank of HPP, post mortem promotion?

The mummy in the photo in my pevious post is 100% the prince found in KV35 chamber Jc between Tiye and the YL. The mummy in KV43 propt against a wall is presumed to be prince Amenemhat, son of Thutmose IV, and in the photo below you can see that his left ear is intact, while the mummy of the KV35 prince is badly damaged.

Edited February 3, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Aldebaran]

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

What explanation do you have for him being sem-priest on the bier, but HPP on the cat sarcophagus. If, as you believe, the bier was an item made when he died, and he is still sem-priest, when would the cat sarcophagus have been made showing him at the higher rank of HPP, post mortem promotion?

The mummy in the photo in my pevious post is 100% the prince found in KV35 chamber Jc between Tiye and the YL. The mummy in KV43  against a wall is presumed to be prince Amenemhat, son of Thutmose IV, and in the photo below you can see that his left ear is intact, while the mummy of the KV35 prince is badly damaged.

Only a  priest of Ptah wore such a wig as Prince Thutmose did, although there were other sem priests or lectors.  I don't know if being a sem priest of Ptah excluded one from being a high priest of Ptah as I don't know of another image of a prince wearing that same wig except Khaemwaset, who held that high office.  Probably there are others, but Khaemwaset is the only one that comes to mind for me.  Some don't believe that cat sarcophagus is a genuine artifact.

It may be that the two mummies of the young princes look too much alike with their similar skulls.    Perhaps I am too accustomed to a different photo of the KV35 prince.  Anyway, as far as I am concerned they can test the DNA of both.  Why not?

Edited February 3, 2022 by Aldebaran

[Wepwawet]

Some information about the sem-priest which I did not know about before, and which has direct bearing on the discussion about prince Thutmose. I've a number of books on AE religion, temple ritual and priests, the works by George Sauneron and Katherine Eaton being my main go to books about anything to do specifically with the priesthood. I have had Religion and Ritual in Ancient Egypt by Emily Teeter sitting unread since I bought it last November, apart from a quick flick through, so I thought I'd better see what she says about the sem-priest, and I'll quote this from page 25:

Quote

From the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty to the reign of Ramesses II (Dynasty 19), the sem acted as the First Priest (hem netcher tepy)

However, she does not provide sources for this statement, and as no other author I have read even hints at this, I cannot say whether her statement is correct or not, but it's out there and so must be looked at and taken into consideration. I'm a bit sceptical, not in order to defend what I have written in this thread, but because it stands, to the best of my knowledge, in isolation, and, looking at a very long list of all known High Priests at Memphis, which has their titles in hieroglyphs and transliteration, I see not one mention of any of them also being sem-priest. This will sound a bit churlish, but I'll also point out that she dispenses with some long established titles, such as First Prophet, because of, in her words, it is "A translation that is now avoided because of it's Judeo-Christian undertones". For me, when un-needed politicisation like this raises it's head, then it rings alarm bells. Though to be fair, the statement in question about sem-priests is simply a statement of what she believes is fact, and without political revisionism.

However, what I have always known to be a fact about the sem-priest is that he is the senior of two priests involved at the core of the daily ritual in the temple for it's god. The other priest being the lector. This is true for all temples, not just the major cult temples, so all of the very many temples had a sem-priest, who also had funerary functions. A High Priest, no matter to which god, is essentially the head of the religious order, in our terms, of the priesthood of that god. He is attached to the main cult temple, and is responsible for the running of all the priests and assets of that, and all other temples for that god. When we see depictions on temple walls of temple ritual, we see usually see the king as main officiant, with a  lector behind him, and sometimes a sem, who, as the king cannot officiate in all temples at the same times of day, is in reality the chief officiant, and then he has funerals to attend, a busy man. I wonder that as he is the equivalent of a cathedral dean, roughly, or even perhaps bishop, does he also have the time to perform the function of High Priest, equivalent of at least an archbishop, with far more responsibility.

The following is my take on this.

But of course it's not clear cut, and we have Ay as both king and sem-priest officiating at the funeral of Tutankhamun, though that is unique, and Ay would certainly not have engaged in the daily work of a sem-priest. What is the situation with royal princes put into a major temple, and it was not just Memphis, but also Heliopolis. Was, back to Thutmose, he first sem-priest before becoming HPP, or did he carry out both functions, as stated by Teeter, at the same time. Personally I think that he was first sem-priest, the rank he is shown as at the burial of Apis I, and looking very young, fine perhaps to just chuck on a leopardskin and stand behind your father in a way similar to Meritaten behind Nefertiti at the Hwt-bnbn, but to young really for the role in a serious manner, and by that I mean in the manner that an adult sem-priest would officiate. I would further suggest, as I have before, that he was just too young at first to become HPP, which is a very important job needing an experienced adult to fulfill.

[Aldebaran]

Why was Khaemwaset, eldest son of Ramesses II, called "Setne Khaemwas" in the posthumous tales written about him?  He died a grown man and a HP of Ptah at Memphis.

Miriam Lichtheim, in her translation of these Demotic stories, says it was because he was a setem priest, which became setne in Demotic.  So, Wepwawet, since you have such an interest in religion, reflected by your library [as opposed to me who has minimal interest in it] is a setem priest the same as a sem or not?  According to my hieroglyphic dictionary, they are one and the same.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Aldebaran

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Aldebaran said:

Why was Khaemwaset, eldest son of Ramesses II, called "Setne Khaemwas" in the posthumous tales written about him?  He died a grown man and a HP of Ptah at Memphis.

Miriam Lichtheim, in her translation of these Demotic stories, says it was because he was a setem priest, which became setne in Demotic.  So, Wepwawet, since you have such an interest in religion, reflected by your library [as opposed to me who has minimal interest in it] is a setem priest the same as a sem or not?  According to my hieroglyphic dictionary, they are one and the same.

Yes, setem is the same as sem. Khaemwaset started his career as a sem-priest with the title Hor-Iun-mutef-sem, with the sem at the end signifying he is sem-priest. At the start of his career he was not also HPP, who was a man named Huy, who Khaemwaset eventually took over from. After becoming HPP he continued using a short version of his title, rendered as Horus-Iunmutef, dropping the sem element.

He is top left with his title over him

Edited February 4, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Aldebaran]

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Yes, setem is the same as sem. Khaemwaset started his career as a sem-priest with the title Hor-Iun-mutef-sem, with the sem at the end signifying he is sem-priest. At the start of his career he was not also HPP, who was a man named Huy, who Khaemwaset eventually took over from. After becoming HPP he continued using a short version of his title, rendered as Horus-Iunmutef, dropping the sem element.

Isn't the Horus-Iunmutef part of his title as eldest king's son, the role he would play in the burial of his father when the time came?  Does it really have anything to do with his other priestly role as the servitor of a god, Ptah?  My guess would be no, as I don't recall those priests resembling a iwn-mwt=f, usually shown in tombs, in their capacity.  The iwn-mwt=f doesn't have the wig of a sem-priest, for one.  The very fact that Khaemwaset's memory was perpetuated into the future as setne [sem] should indicate that one was always a sem no matter if HP--and the two roles were part of a whole.  Beyond the iwn-mwt=f, who had a single job to do, do you know of a sem who was a priest of any of any other god besides Ptah?  

I am curious about that now--but otherwise consider this speculation about Prince Thutmose as father of Tutankhamun completely unwarranted.  In a discipline like Egyptology, when one is confronted with so many uncertainties, one should at least stick with the preponderance of the evidence until more compelling evidence is brought forward.   There is no actual evidence for KV55 being anybody but Akhenaten and to say "There is no evidence Thutmose died" is not only ignoring certain things---but even beside the point.  If there is no evidence he died, then what about his burial in KV55 and his corpse--if you want to propose that is Thutmose?  Someone here did and it seems to me you are abetting that.  And what about Tut being the son of a king on a talatat when Prince Thutmose never became king?  It's all to no purpose.

[Wepwawet]

The original sem-priests were the priests of Osiris, with the HPO also being sem-priest, and there would have been a sem-priest in all the mortuary temples. A sem-priest at Memphis was a later addition from the MK on.

Horus-Iunmutef is indeed part of his title as King's Son, not eldest until five years before his own death, but with Khaemwaset it looks a bit complicated as he is combining two roles in one when he adds sem to the ending as it almost seems like a doubling down of the burial function. The reason why is that as you point out, the Iunmutef priest wears the leopard skin and officiates at burials, but is not sem, however, a sem-priest has no specific wig, and there are scenes showing sem-priests, named as such, wearing a normal wig, for instance in the tomb of Seti I. So the wig and sidelock worn by Thutmose and Khaemwaset are because they are also priests of Ptah. It does however seem odd that after becoming HPP he dispenses with the sem ending, though would, before his own death before Ramesses II have acted as sem at his burial, but, the usual caveat applies that we don't know the full picture due to loss of so much evidence.

There is also a caveat with the two "Setna" tales in that they are, in our terms, novels based on a real person, not a biography or history textbook. It may be that Khaemwaset did much of his "exploring and excavations" while still sem and without the many duties of HPP, but that's just a suggestion.

I've never suggested that KV55 is Thutmose, and Wistman is only putting out a suggestion to be looked at, for it's only by discussing seemingly far fetched ideas that can we rule them out, and often in the process elimination shine a light on otherwise murky and infrequently discussed areas, which may seem arcane and esoteric, but may hold clues. The Box 001K thread started out looking at something nobody otherwise gives a thought to, and it ran for nearly 1,000 pages and generated some interest, even from "names", did it not.

What I said about Tutankhaten and the talatat in relation to Thutmose, or Smenkhkare, is that as one of his sisters, probably Ankhesenpaaten, is named with him, and both children of a king, there is, IMO, no possibility that they would both be named as children of a king if they were not the children of THE king, now missing from the scene the talatat was part of. Therefore, as we know all the daughters were the progeny of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, so to must be Tutankhaten as you are only ever refered to as King's Son while your father is THE king and still alive.

The mystery about Thutmose, for me, is that while it's blindingly obvious that he died, no tomb has ever come to light, and the only burial item associated with him is the model bier, found at the site of the temple of Ptah, not actually at the Saqqara necropolis, and of course there is the issue of him being named as sem on the bier, and HPP on the cat sarcophagus, and no matter which way this is looked at, Khaemwaset shows us that sem is subsiduary to HPP, and seems to have no longer carried out that function on becoming HPP, but that is an ongoing area of investigation.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

To show just how confusing and contradictory this can all seem, in the tomb of Seti I, apart from depicting a sem-priest wearing a leopardskin and a normal wig, it also shows an Iunmutef-priest wearing leopardskin and wig with sidelock. He is not named except by his priest rank, just Iunmutef with nothing else. Is it to be presumed that he is also a priest of Ptah due to wig and sidelock, or even a priest of Ra, who wore sidelocks, but to the best of my knowledge did not also wear a wig. They were known unoficially as "the sidelocked ones". Then, just to make it even more confusing, there are unequivocal depictions of sem-priests, the title being directly above them, not even wearing a leopardskin, one just wearing the normal kilt, another wearing the sash of a lector. What to make of all this, ad hoc multi-tasking, and the AE were masters of multi-tasking, at least by the numerous titles the nobles have.

For reference I am using The Tomb of Pharaoh Seti I - Photos by Harry Burton by Erik Hornung

Edited February 5, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Aldebaran]

18 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I've never suggested that KV55 is Thutmose, and Wistman is only putting out a suggestion to be looked at, for it's only by discussing seemingly far fetched ideas that can we rule them out, and often in the process elimination shine a light on otherwise murky and infrequently discussed areas, which may seem arcane and esoteric, but may hold clues. The Box 001K thread started out looking at something nobody otherwise gives a thought to, and it ran for nearly 1,000 pages and generated some interest, even from "names", did it not.

I don't agree at all that every "far fetched idea" deserves a discussion and. really, I am surprised you would advocate such an amateurish and time-wasting notion.  You keep mentioning that Box 001K thread like it was some kind of tour de force when I recall it as being full of the same nonsense and I don't even know how it started out and why.  As for "names", you have a right to be impressed with them but I'll pass on that, too.  Some of the best-known Egyptologists [to amateurs] are the ones who often appear on TV but otherwise are not major players in the field but barely fit to sit on the bleachers.  In other words, never really contribute anything but talk and nothing original at all.  

[Wepwawet]

12 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

 You keep mentioning that Box 001K thread like it was some kind of tour de force when I recall it as being full of the same nonsense and I don't even know how it started out and why.

Yet you joined in, and here you on this thread.

[Aldebaran]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

Yet you joined in, and here you on this thread.

So what?  And I said the same thing about waste-of-time proposals there as I am saying here.  If you remember--I was called all kinds of names by those who considered I was just raining on their parade.   Your point?  

 

[Wepwawet]

6 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

So what?  And I said the same thing about waste-of-time proposals there as I am saying here.  If you remember--I was called all kinds of names by those who considered I was just raining on their parade.   Your point?  

 

I've not called you names, and the only point I'll make is that I'm really not interested in these type of exchanges.

So, do you have any response to my posts on sem-priests.

[Wistman]

Lovely.  Let's waste some time, shall we!

The thing about Prince Thuthmose being Smenkhkare and producing an heir with his sister-wife is that it blows a hole in the roof regarding other people's favorite, pat theory about Nefertiti being KV35YL and Akhenaten being KV55, because only they supposedly could fit the DNA architecture required.  True, there are some problems with Thuthmose/Smenkhkare fitting perfectly, namely the talatat Wepwawet mentions, but then every theory has some problems doesn't it.  Why, for instance, would we say one proposal that fits the DNA profile is a good one, but another one, that also fits, is perfectly ridiculous to even mention or discuss?  That's pretty muddy.

Prince Thutmose's fate is not known, when or how he died, where he's buried.  There's no record of it.  He seemingly disappeared, AIII's crown prince...a gap in the gaping late 18D record.  Nor is Nefertiti's fate known, when or how she died, where she's buried.  Which is a cute comparison, I'll grant.   Was Prince Thuthmose not close enough to Amarna and the royal court of AIII to be included in our thought?  "The bier statuette and the cat sarcophagus must have come from his tomb, though they were found in the Ptah temple precincts, and he was just a child anyway when he died, these things are for a child prince's tomb."   Do some things make it into tombs for which they were intended and other things not?   Perhaps these things were left behind at Mit Rahina because HPP Thuthmose had moved himself and his family off to Amarna, since the Ptah temple works were on life support, a la the Atenist supremacy of his father and brother.

The talatat in question does not name Tutankhaten's sister, does it.  Nor does it name the king or the queen.  We can surmise about that, but that's the point of discussion isn't it...?  The only truly limiting factoids that I can see are the (supposed, calculated) short time frame that Smenkhkare had as a king or co-regent and the likelihood that Tut would have been already married to Ankhesenpaaten at that point and should be depicted with her.

Wepwawet has shown that sem priests were not bound to a standardization that we understand, therefore the notion that Thutmose was sem priest and HPP simultaneously is debatable.  He may have lived long enough to actually attain the higher post, one which had significant responsibilities and authority, even though his depiction is very young looking at the isolated Apis tomb he initiated, a considerable achievement really in the face of the king's deep focus on the Aten....not Ptah.

[Wepwawet]

12 hours ago, Wistman said:

The talatat in question does not name Tutankhaten's sister, does it.  Nor does it name the king or the queen.

 

On the name of the sister, I have said that it was probably Ankhesenpaaten, therefore, as this princess and Tutankhaten are both named as king's daughter/son in the same scene, both have the same father, and as it is known that Akhenaten is the father of Ankhesenpaaten, he is also the father of Tutankhaten. However, while Ankhesenpaaten's mother is Nefertiti, nothing on the block says who Tutankhaten's mother is, it's just assumed that it is Nefertiti, and some suggest Kiya, and it also leads onto the chamber gamma dispute.

I think it worthwhile showing why the name of the princess is likely to be Ankhesenpaaten and not any of the other "aten" daughters. Marianne Eaton-Kraus in The Unknown Tutankhamun points out that the names of the daughters are usually written with the aten element at the start, normal practice as the god comes first, and this can be seen in the cartouches of kings. She says though that with Meketaten in roughly one third of cases, the aten element comes last, and with Ankhesenpaaten it always comes last. She further points out that by the time the block was made, Meketaten would have been dead, therefore, as the surviving part of the name has the aten element at the end, and that can be seen as after "aten" there is no continuation of a name, this in all probability belongs to Ankhesenpaaten.This book by Eaton-Krauss was only published in 2016 and I think that what she says has yet to gain a foothold in peoples minds in the way that older books have, which is to be expected.

This leaves another question, how can it be stated that the name cannot be Meketaten. Here' I'll leave Eaton-Kraus and move onto W. Raymond Johnson. In the huge three volume tome, Guardian of Ancient Egypt, Studies in Honor of Zahi Hawass published in late 2020, so again not fully "out there", he writes an article titled The Amarna "Coregents" Talatat Block from Hermopolis and a New Join. While these blocks are separate from the two joined together that names the son and daughter, they have the same origins in that they have come from a structure that was demolished and the blocks used as a rubble core for a pylon before being removed by modern excavation. These blocks show two kings, both unamed, their cartouches are blank, one being the senior king. Without lengthy quotes, Johnson shows that the senior king is Akhenaten, and the junior is Nefertiti, part of his working being a discussion of the way Akhenaten's navel is rendered on depictions of him. To me this puts the structure that the blocks come from as dating to year 16/17 as Nefertiti is named still as Nefertiti on a year 16 graffito, then appears on Box 001K, that damned box again   as Queen Neferneferuaten with Meritaten now no longer married to Smenkhkare as she is GRW to a joint monarchy. So, we have Nefertiti still as GRW at the death scene of Meketaten, but as co-regent on the Hermpolis blocks, which must belong to a structure built after the death of Meketaten, leaving only Akhesenpaaten as the daughter named with Tutankhaten. Nobody, btw, suggests that they see any sign of a tasherit, it's complicated enough as it is

I think it worth making this one quote from Johnson, which will divide opinions.

Quote

Thereafter Nefertiti was junior coregent/king and the Great Royal Wife simultaneously. Not coincidentally, at the same time Akhenaten's second, non-royal wife, Kiya appeared at Amarna and took on some of the wifely roles that earlier were the exclusive domain of the Great Royal Wife Nefertiti. Yet it is clear that both women resided resided at Amarna simultaneously. It is most likely that Nefertiti later suceeded her husband at his death in year 17, and ruled for a year a King Smenkhkare.

I'll point out that I do not agree that Nefertiti was Smenkhkare, but this is not something that can be dismissed out of hand. A point rarely brought out in these discussion, is when may the scene of Smenkhkare and Meritaten in the tomb of Meryre II have been made. The tomb was never finished and used, the scene was never finished, and, as a lifeline to those who do think Nefertiti and Smenkhkare are the same, Meryre II is attested as High Priest of Aten in year 16, and may have still been alive after Akhenaten's death. So the scenario I'm putting out is that on the death of Akhenaten, Nefertiti became Smenkhkare, Meryre II, perhaps sycophantically, has a scene of them in his tomb, but then Nefertiti, for whatever reason, has a name change, and the tomb scene and tomb abandoned, for whatever reason. I don't see this, but it needs looking at, if only to see why and how it could be false.

Edited February 6, 2022 by Wepwawet

[atalante]

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I'll point out that I do not agree that Nefertiti was Smenkhkare, but this is not something that can be dismissed out of hand. A point rarely brought out in these discussion, is when may the scene of Smenkhkare and Meritaten in the tomb of Meryre II have been made. The tomb was never finished and used, the scene was never finished, and, as a lifeline to those who do think Nefertiti and Smenkhkare are the same, Meryre II is attested as High Priest of Aten in year 16, and may have still been alive after Akhenaten's death. So the scenario I'm putting out is that on the death of Akhenaten, Nefertiti became Smenkhkare, Meryre II, perhaps sycophantically, has a scene of them in his tomb, but then Nefertiti, for whatever reason, has a name change, and the tomb scene and tomb abandoned, for whatever reason. I don't see this, but it needs looking at, if only to see why and how it could be false.

Amarna's central palace was expanded in (or about) year 15.  This was also about the time when Re suffix names became common at Amarna.  Modern writers sometimes call this expansion hall a Coronation Hall (which suggests a possibility that Re-names for Amarna's elite people were officially granted by ceremonies in this hall).  The hall can be named from stamped-bricks that have been recovered.

What is your opinion of this year 15 Ankhkheperure hall ?  

[It] was a vast hall more than 125 metres square and including over 500 pillars. This late addition to the central palace has been known as the Hall of Rejoicing, Coronation Hall, or simply Smenkhkare Hall because a number of bricks stamped Ankhkheperure in the House of Rejoicing in the Aten were found at the site.[47]

[Wepwawet]

2 minutes ago, atalante said:

Amarna's central palace was expanded in (or about) year 15.  This was also about the time when Re suffix names became common at Amarna.  Modern writers sometimes call this expansion hall a Coronation Hall (which suggests a possibility that Re-names for Amarna's elite people were officially granted by ceremonies in this hall).  The hall can be named from stamped-bricks that have been recovered.

What is your opinion of this year 15 Ankhkheperure hall ?  

[It] was a vast hall more than 125 metres square and including over 500 pillars. This late addition to the central palace has been known as the Hall of Rejoicing, Coronation Hall, or simply Smenkhkare Hall because a number of bricks stamped Ankhkheperure in the House of Rejoicing in the Aten were found at the site.[47]

I don't go with the term "Coronation hall" as it is simply something made up by us for the sake of giving it a name. The "re" names though predate this hall as the princesses Neferneferure and Setepenre were born before the year 12 "durbar", another name we impose on them as we don't know what else to call it. Year fifteen for it's construction would fit though for Smenkhkare becoming co-regent, so I think that it is a building that would celebrate this event. The year range for him being co-regent, the dispute over whether Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten are the same person aside, is usually given as years 14/15, with the understanding that he rules for about a one year period covering those two years, but he might well have been co-regent during year 15/16, when at least for the beginning of year 16 Nefertiti is still known as Nefertiti and still GRW, before Neferneferuaten appears at some point before Akhenaten's death in year 17.

So yes, I do think it was for Smenkhkare, and that it fits with him being co-ruler before Nefertiti, and is part of the evidence to show Smenkhkare as a single male individual.

[Wistman]

I'm not wedded to the Prince Thuthmose as Smenkhkare theory, not by a long shot, but I find it intriguing to pick at.  Actually, I've never before thought for a moment that Thuthmose survived, but the discussion about Smenkhkare's double throne name and that his birth name isn't known set me to thinking who he might be, and the implications of his origin.  That person (and his wife/consort) would have to fit the DNA architecture as Aldebaran has noted and the relative age of the KV55 mummy as presented (though still disputed I might add).  The mystery surrounding his unknown fate, and the illustriousness of his placement in AIII's family, is what illuminates him as a guess for Smenk's birth identity, if the negative factors for this can be overcome.  I understand what a waste of time this is, how ridiculous, but I like to explore dark caverns, even if to discount them in the end.  And, it's Amarna, where mystery abounds.  Indulge me.

7 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

On the name of the sister, I have said that it was probably Ankhesenpaaten, therefore, as this princess and Tutankhaten are both named as king's daughter/son in the same scene, both have the same father, and as it is known that Akhenaten is the father of Ankhesenpaaten, he is also the father of Tutankhaten. However, while Ankhesenpaaten's mother is Nefertiti, nothing on the block says who Tutankhaten's mother is, it's just assumed that it is Nefertiti, and some suggest Kiya, and it also leads onto the chamber gamma dispute.

If Tut's father was Thuthmosis/Smenkhkare (I'll for brevity call him T/S), his union with his own sister/wife could have produced first a boy, then a girl, then a boy (say) and Tut would have had an older sister.  The talatat might have then depicted those younger siblings since the sister is not named, they both would be named as king's daughter/son (of T/S), both would have the same father.

I think it worthwhile showing why the name of the princess is likely to be Ankhesenpaaten and not any of the other "aten" daughters. Marianne Eaton-Kraus in The Unknown Tutankhamun points out that the names of the daughters are usually written with the aten element at the start, normal practice as the god comes first, and this can be seen in the cartouches of kings. She says though that with Meketaten in roughly one third of cases, the aten element comes last, and with Ankhesenpaaten it always comes last. She further points out that by the time the block was made, Meketaten would have been dead, therefore, as the surviving part of the name has the aten element at the end, and that can be seen as after "aten" there is no continuation of a name, this in all probability belongs to Ankhesenpaaten.This book by Eaton-Krauss was only published in 2016 and I think that what she says has yet to gain a foothold in peoples minds in the way that older books have, which is to be expected.

In my hypothetical, T/S's daughter may have had a name with an -aten ending.  I'm supposing T/S maybe had an older son who died or was being passed over, so that Tut was not the king's 'eldest son'.  Tut would have married Ankhesenpaaten after the building was decorated.  Also, how did Eaton-Kraus determine when the block was made?  I suspect it would have been built relatively coincident with the 'Smenkhkare Hall' at Akhetaten, year 14/15, or so it is understood.  There is, also, the possibility that Meritaten and Smenkhkare were married immediately before the Durbar scene depicted in Meryre's tomb.  Things may well have been being hurried along.

This leaves another question, how can it be stated that the name cannot be Meketaten. Here' I'll leave Eaton-Kraus and move onto W. Raymond Johnson. In the huge three volume tome, Guardian of Ancient Egypt, Studies in Honor of Zahi Hawass published in late 2020, so again not fully "out there", he writes an article titled The Amarna "Coregents" Talatat Block from Hermopolis and a New Join. While these blocks are separate from the two joined together that names the son and daughter, they have the same origins in that they have come from a structure that was demolished and the blocks used as a rubble core for a pylon before being removed by modern excavation. These blocks show two kings, both unamed, their cartouches are blank, one being the senior king. Without lengthy quotes, Johnson shows that the senior king is Akhenaten, and the junior is Nefertiti, part of his working being a discussion of the way Akhenaten's navel is rendered on depictions of him. To me this puts the structure that the blocks come from as dating to year 16/17 as Nefertiti is named still as Nefertiti on a year 16 graffito, then appears on Box 001K, that damned box again   as Queen Neferneferuaten with Meritaten now no longer married to Smenkhkare as she is GRW to a joint monarchy. So, we have Nefertiti still as GRW at the death scene of Meketaten, but as co-regent on the Hermpolis blocks, which must belong to a structure built after the death of Meketaten, leaving only Akhesenpaaten as the daughter named with Tutankhaten. Nobody, btw, suggests that they see any sign of a tasherit, it's complicated enough as it is

Johnson's identifying Akhenaten by his navel and, more importantly, Nefertiti by her...what?....is very curious.  Can we bet money on that factoid?

Smenkhkare and Meritaten appearing in the Durbar Scene (year 14/15?) together as spouses, probably at his accession or nearly so, would mean - in the theory I'm positing - that his first wife, daughter of AIII/Tiye, was gone or demoted, perhaps she had her face smashed in.   Other than the Hermopolis talatat with the images of Tut and his sister, what year do we first know for certain that Tut is married to Ankhesenpaaten?  Was it as early as year 14/15?

I think it worth making this one quote from Johnson, which will divide opinions.

I'll point out that I do not agree that Nefertiti was Smenkhkare, but this is not something that can be dismissed out of hand. A point rarely brought out in these discussion, is when may the scene of Smenkhkare and Meritaten in the tomb of Meryre II have been made. The tomb was never finished and used, the scene was never finished, and, as a lifeline to those who do think Nefertiti and Smenkhkare are the same, Meryre II is attested as High Priest of Aten in year 16, and may have still been alive after Akhenaten's death. So the scenario I'm putting out is that on the death of Akhenaten, Nefertiti became Smenkhkare, Meryre II, perhaps sycophantically, has a scene of them in his tomb, but then Nefertiti, for whatever reason, has a name change, and the tomb scene and tomb abandoned, for whatever reason. I don't see this, but it needs looking at, if only to see why and how it could be false.

  Perhaps T/S is not so convincing, but to me intriguing.  I look forward to you demolishing my points. 

eta:  In this proposed scenario, the unnamed prince in KV35 might have been T/S's elder son, his mummy assembled in KV35 with those of his mother and grandmother.  He might have been 'gotten rid of' along with his mother, before the co-regency, maybe immediately before, a stop-gap move useful until T/S himself could be eliminated.  Dark thoughts, I know.  But the wealth and power of 18D Egypt was certainly enough incentive for such skullduggery.

Edited February 6, 2022 by Wistman

[Wistman]

I should add, the case I make above may give plausibility to the repression by Hawass et al of the KV35 young prince's genetic profile,  ie: It matched Tutankhamun's, and they couldn't deal with the fact of it.