Amarna, Before and After

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Wistman said:

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.

  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.

I think that without positive proof of who Smenkhkare was, then the best we can do is to try to find him by a process of elimination. This comes back to the Hermopolis talatat, something known, but usually used to show the existance of Tutankhaten before he appears as king. So, as I've mentioned a few times, as he is described as King's Son, then he is the son of the man who is the living king at the time the block was inscribed. Then, as while the depictions of a king and co-ruler are not named on other Hermopolis talatat, it is highly likely that they are Akhenaten, and Nefertiti as Neferneferuaten. This I think is as close to positive identification of Tutankhaten as the son of Akhenaten as we have, the identity of KV55 of course being extremely good evidence that this person is the father of Tutankhaten, but it is not a slam dunk as that mummy does not have a name. Personally I do now think that KV55 is Akhenaten, though not on the basis of "magic bricks" and an, to me, entirely unsatisfactory way of trying to fit the texts on the coffin to Akhenaten, but on it's apparent age. Therefore, I think that as Tutankhaten can be very reasonably said to be the son of Akhenaten, then Smenkhkare has to be ruled out as being highly unlikely. There, sorted in one paragraph while Huber wrote a 204 page book to come to the wrong conclusion.

But of course it's not the entire picture because it brings us no closer to knowing who Smenkhkare was, only who he was not.

Let's look at the notion that he was the missing prince Thutmose, and therefore uncle to Tutankhaten. As it can be reasonably safe to say that Tutankhaten was the son of Akhenaten, then there are no grounds, at least in the normal way that the Egyptians went about these things, to have an uncle essentially usurp the son of a living king, Akhenaten. I cannot see, even in the mess that is Amarna, any way for this to happen, therefore, unless by resorting to what would be fantasy, Smenkhkare cannot have been prince Thutmose, or, more importantly, another brother of Akhenaten, a notion that has traction, vide Huber uva.

I hope I'm being concise, and reasonably clear so far. So if Smenkhkare can be ruled out as a brother of Akhenaten, particularly Thutmose, for him to have been co-regent must, and I stress must, mean that he was a son of Akhenaten, and older than Tutankhaten. Trying to judge when he was born, which I have done and placed him in the gap between Meritaten and Meketaten, can only be a guess, but I think a reasonable one given that if very young, only a few years older than Tutankhaten, I'm not sure we would have the "Coronation Hall" and the scene in the tomb of Meryre II where he is depicted as an adult king with a GRW, though when I say adult he may have been no older than 14, an age which fits with being born between Meritaten and Meketaten.

Okay, so the KV35 prince and the injury to the Younger Lady. It's of course entertaining to think they were done away with in a palace coup, or counter coup, or counter-counter coup, and I've made posts suggesting this in the past. But, in the cold light of what I hope is a more reasoned approach, neither mummy has the type of injuries expected in an assasination. Some years back a vet made a comment on ED saying that the Younger Lady's injuries looked very much like a horse kick to the face, which he had seen, and, doing some morbid investigation, I found to my own reasonable satisfaction that when horses kick out with their hind legs, the angle of the strike and the shape and size of the wound, are a good match to the injury on the face of the Younger Lady. What to me mitigates against assasination is that why on earth would the assassin not bonk her over the head, or stab her heart. To make the injury she has would be rather awkward, and not guaranteed to kill her. The blow did of course kill her, but an assassin stiking one blow and then wanting to get away, would not know there and then if he had killed her. So I think assassination is not likely, though not impossible.

The prince has injuries even less like an assassination. He probably died due to blood loss from internal bleeding caused  by severe pelvic injuries, there are deep fractures as well as the more obvious dislocation of his right femur head. How did he get this injury I have no idea. If he had fallen out of a window or from a roof, then I think he would be expected to also have a fractured skull and broken arms and legs, but, apart from robber damage, he only has these pelvic injuries. How do you get these in an age before motor vehicles, being hit a glancing blow by a charriot is the only thing I can think off, so, for both of them, perhaps "assassination" by horse.

This to me is a post as clear of clutter and dubious guessing as I think I can manage, but it's not the end of it by a country mile, is it

[Wepwawet]

29 minutes ago, Wistman said:

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.

Or, thinking a long way ahead at that time, are saving him up for a surprise announcement on this anniversary year. Unlikely I think, but you never know. The thing is, he has no name, so if found to be a son of AIII and Tiye he will be hailed as prince Thutmose, something many already think. And if found to be a brother of Tutankhamun, he will be hailed as, I don't know, Smenkhkare is possible, but he still has no name, and he could just as well be a younger brother who has died before Tutankhamun. Still, not saying a single word about the tests that we can see that they did, and by totally ignoring this issue, does ring alarm bells that something is not right.

[Wepwawet]

Here's a thought about the Younger Lady, a "what if". So what if she is in fact Nefertiti, and has died unexpectedly due to being kicked by a horse. As there is no record of Tutankhaten's first three years, presumably being the same as those of Neferneferuaten, I wonder if we would have been looking at Hatshepsut v2 if she had not died when she did. She may have had another three decades left to her, but I wonder if Tutankhaten would have outlived her with his incest related health issues, perhaps not. With no king Tutankhamun, at least in his own right, then no king Ay, Horemheb and then his mate Ramesses, and on and on. A completely different history, caused by, a horse. There's something about kingdoms and nails in there I think.

[Wistman]

Everybody can skip this if they're tired of the subject, I'm just being a dog with a bone.

Before I put it all in my back pocket there's just a couple points to reiterate.  I'm perhaps annoying, sorry about that, but I'm not convinced it's over with this idea.  However, I'd be foolish not to admit that KV55 is most probably Akhenaten, and KV35YL Nefertiti.  That is likely and probable, of course.  But likelihood is not certainty, especially without epigraphic identification.  Especially with reference to the confused events and succession of late Amarna.  And I might also note, according to the 2016 study by Habicht, Bouwman, and Ruhli, who re-analyzed the Tut family DNA results from 2010, mostly concurring with Hawass' conclusions - but with a caveat: that the genetic test results would not be enough in UK or US courts to claim parentage because in UK courts at least 10 matches are required, and in N. America 13 matches are necessary to claim relationship, whereas our Tutankhamun Family project  only yields 8 matches.  Be that as it may, these are the results we have, and they do apparently signify.

22 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I think that without positive proof of who Smenkhkare was, then the best we can do is to try to find him by a process of elimination. This comes back to the Hermopolis talatat, something known, but usually used to show the existance of Tutankhaten before he appears as king. So, as I've mentioned a few times, as he is described as King's Son, then he is the son of the man who is the living king at the time the block was inscribed. Then, as while the depictions of a king and co-ruler are not named on other Hermopolis talatat, it is highly likely that they are Akhenaten, and Nefertiti as Neferneferuaten. This I think is as close to positive identification of Tutankhaten as the son of Akhenaten as we have, the identity of KV55 of course being extremely good evidence that this person is the father of Tutankhaten, but it is not a slam dunk as that mummy does not have a name. Personally I do now think that KV55 is Akhenaten, though not on the basis of "magic bricks" and an, to me, entirely unsatisfactory way of trying to fit the texts on the coffin to Akhenaten, but on it's apparent age. Therefore, I think that as Tutankhaten can be very reasonably said to be the son of Akhenaten, then Smenkhkare has to be ruled out as being highly unlikely. There, sorted in one paragraph while Huber wrote a 204 page book to come to the wrong conclusion.

Highly likely, based on what precisely?  Why, please, must it not be Akhenaten and Smenkhkare as the co-regents depicted.  What from that building indicates Nefertiti specifically is shown? That's my question.  Do the images look like her?  Is there something semiotic somewhere there that relates to her only?  I'm still not satisfied that the building dates from her co-regency and not the earlier one.  This as you know quite well is important to the basis of the succession.  Help me out.

As to the age of KV55, Thutmose as Smenkhkare would likely have been of similar but slightly older age.  No?

 

But of course it's not the entire picture because it brings us no closer to knowing who Smenkhkare was, only who he was not.

Let's look at the notion that he was the missing prince Thutmose, and therefore uncle to Tutankhaten. As it can be reasonably safe to say that Tutankhaten was the son of Akhenaten, then there are no grounds, at least in the normal way that the Egyptians went about these things, to have an uncle essentially usurp the son of a living king, Akhenaten. I cannot see, even in the mess that is Amarna, any way for this to happen, therefore, unless by resorting to what would be fantasy, Smenkhkare cannot have been prince Thutmose, or, more importantly, another brother of Akhenaten, a notion that has traction, vide Huber uva.

 

I'm not fantasizing.  I'm questioning assumptions we enjoy, and what is possible and what is not.  Tell me, what about the Amarna episode is normal ?  How can we say that, with two kings carrying the same throne name, one of them being the former GRW, now become king, lucky lucky her?  I know Hatshepsut in similar but not the same fashion gained the throne, but that wasn't normal was it?  She had the backing and power and pedigree, so she did it.  She broke the tradition, the normal, and nobody stopped her.

If the unlikely thing happened and Smenkhkare was indeed the former crown prince Thuthmose, but now crowned with a non-Thutmosid name because it was the height of Atenism and Amarna, then yes it was unique for the brother (even an ex-crown prince) to take the throne with his kingly younger brother, but by the same token unique for a GRW to be raised by her king husband to be co-regent while he lived.  Aren't we just picking which unlikely, not-normal scenario we prefer, based on the DNA results and assumptions as to how they track?  If Smenkhkare, or T/S, was chosen by Akhenaten to be co-regent (because he was once crown prince and knew already how to do the job) and Nefertiti had provided no heir, and T/S already had a son and heir, then upon Akhenaten's death, T/R wouldn't be usurping the throne from Tut, because Tut was his own son.  In that hypothetical, it would be Nefertiti who had usurped  the throne from the heir, Tutankhaten, just as Hatshepsut had usurped the throne from Thuthmose III.  My my my, Nefertiti simply used Hatshepsut as her model to gain the throne exclusively.  She would have usurped, but at least there was a precedent for it.  Singularly.

It all comes down to that talatat, and under which co-regency the building was made.  If that becomes settled, really settled and not just a matter of likelihood, then as you say, Tut's identity as the son of Akhenaten is resolved - or not, and this idea of mine may be once and for all shelved, or not.

 

I hope I'm being concise, and reasonably clear so far. So if Smenkhkare can be ruled out as a brother of Akhenaten, particularly Thutmose, for him to have been co-regent must, and I stress must, mean that he was a son of Akhenaten, and older than Tutankhaten. Trying to judge when he was born, which I have done and placed him in the gap between Meritaten and Meketaten, can only be a guess, but I think a reasonable one given that if very young, only a few years older than Tutankhaten, I'm not sure we would have the "Coronation Hall" and the scene in the tomb of Meryre II where he is depicted as an adult king with a GRW, though when I say adult he may have been no older than 14, an age which fits with being born between Meritaten and Meketaten.

Okay, so the KV35 prince and the injury to the Younger Lady. It's of course entertaining to think they were done away with in a palace coup, or counter coup, or counter-counter coup, and I've made posts suggesting this in the past. But, in the cold light of what I hope is a more reasoned approach, neither mummy has the type of injuries expected in an assasination. Some years back a vet made a comment on ED saying that the Younger Lady's injuries looked very much like a horse kick to the face, which he had seen, and, doing some morbid investigation, I found to my own reasonable satisfaction that when horses kick out with their hind legs, the angle of the strike and the shape and size of the wound, are a good match to the injury on the face of the Younger Lady. What to me mitigates against assasination is that why on earth would the assassin not bonk her over the head, or stab her heart. To make the injury she has would be rather awkward, and not guaranteed to kill her. The blow did of course kill her, but an assassin stiking one blow and then wanting to get away, would not know there and then if he had killed her. So I think assassination is not likely, though not impossible.

Of course you may be right, but rows of significant deaths in royal places are not easily brushed aside, but must always be questioned.  A horse kick seems, considering the political situation and the protections for royal personages, less than likely but certainly possible.  We can consider the many deaths in Louis XIV's immediate family, all of his heirs and their wives (save for an infant great-grandson) dead in a short period of time; some officials and cadet family members were accused of poisoning but it turned out to have been due to the measles and outstandingly bad physicians.  Just as Tut's fate now seems, after much questioning and analysis, to be more or less, not malign.  It could be so also with YL.  We may say that Nefertiti was kicked in the face.  Alas, she survived so long and rose to the pinnacle only to be waylaid thus.  Okay.

The prince has injuries even less like an assassination. He probably died due to blood loss from internal bleeding caused  by severe pelvic injuries, there are deep fractures as well as the more obvious dislocation of his right femur head. How did he get this injury I have no idea. If he had fallen out of a window or from a roof, then I think he would be expected to also have a fractured skull and broken arms and legs, but, apart from robber damage, he only has these pelvic injuries. How do you get these in an age before motor vehicles, being hit a glancing blow by a charriot is the only thing I can think off, so, for both of them, perhaps "assassination" by horse.

Okay, given the political situation and timing, both of these - let's admit it - unusual deaths by unruly horses for high royals seem....peculiar.  So many other royals apparently have been lucky in this regard with their horse circumstances.

This to me is a post as clear of clutter and dubious guessing as I think I can manage, but it's not the end of it by a country mile, is it

:   Just thinking outside the box you know.  I'll let go but it's still in the back of my mind.

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

Everybody can skip this if they're tired of the subject, I'm just being a dog with a bone.

Before I put it all in my back pocket there's just a couple points to reiterate.  I'm perhaps annoying, sorry about that, but I'm not convinced it's over with this idea.  However, I'd be foolish not to admit that KV55 is most probably Akhenaten, and KV35YL Nefertiti.  That is likely and probable, of course.  But likelihood is not certainty, especially without epigraphic identification.  Especially with reference to the confused events and succession of late Amarna.  And I might also note, according to the 2016 study by Habicht, Bouwman, and Ruhli, who re-analyzed the Tut family DNA results from 2010, mostly concurring with Hawass' conclusions - but with a caveat: that the genetic test results would not be enough in UK or US courts to claim parentage because in UK courts at least 10 matches are required, and in N. America 13 matches are necessary to claim relationship, whereas our Tutankhamun Family project  only yields 8 matches.  Be that as it may, these are the results we have, and they do apparently signify.

:   Just thinking outside the box you know.  I'll let go but it's still in the back of my mind.

 

Right, first the Hermopolis talatat and do we see Akhenaten and Nefertiti. I would need to replicate large chunks of Johnson's work to do this justice, so I'll put forward what I see are the salient points he raises. There are a number of blocks, the prime one in question is 777-VIII, with another block, 406-VII adding vital information. On 777-VIII the junior king, standing behind what can really only be Akhenaten, is wearing two lobed earings only seen worn by Nefertiti. Johnson also points out that the configuration of the brow part of the khepresh crown they are wearing is also specific to that worn by Nefertiti. On that block and on 406-VII the robes worn by the junior king are fastened at the breast in a feminine manner seen with Nefertiti. The style of the figures is from the late Amarna period. Of less direct evidence on 406-VII is that the entirety of the junior king had survived, and apart from the other details mentioned, this king is holding the hand of an un-named princess standing behind her. The presence of the princess is not clear cut evidence that the junior king is Nefertiti, but it helps build a picture that this is highly likely to be Nefertiti. Then, on block 826-VIII A, which is not proven to be from the same structure as the other two blocks, but thought to be, there is a name in a cartouche, and that name, restored by Marc Gabolde, is Neferneferuaten. The cartouche is vertical and has a divider about a third of the way from the bottom, where an epithet would have been, but is entirely missing.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

Quote

I'm not fantasizing.  I'm questioning assumptions we enjoy, and what is possible and what is not.  Tell me, what about the Amarna episode is normal ?  How can we say that, with two kings carrying the same throne name, one of them being the former GRW, now become king, lucky lucky her?  I know Hatshepsut in similar but not the same fashion gained the throne, but that wasn't normal was it?  She had the backing and power and pedigree, so she did it.  She broke the tradition, the normal, and nobody stopped her.

If the unlikely thing happened and Smenkhkare was indeed the former crown prince Thuthmose, but now crowned with a non-Thutmosid name because it was the height of Atenism and Amarna, then yes it was unique for the brother (even an ex-crown prince) to take the throne with his kingly younger brother, but by the same token unique for a GRW to be raised by her king husband to be co-regent while he lived.  Aren't we just picking which unlikely, not-normal scenario we prefer, based on the DNA results and assumptions as to how they track?  If Smenkhkare, or T/S, was chosen by Akhenaten to be co-regent (because he was once crown prince and knew already how to do the job) and Nefertiti had provided no heir, and T/S already had a son and heir, then upon Akhenaten's death, T/R wouldn't be usurping the throne from Tut, because Tut was his own son.  In that hypothetical, it would be Nefertiti who had usurped  the throne from the heir, Tutankhaten, just as Hatshepsut had usurped the throne from Thuthmose III.  My my my, Nefertiti simply used Hatshepsut as her model to gain the throne exclusively.  She would have usurped, but at least there was a precedent for it.  Singularly.

It all comes down to that talatat, and under which co-regency the building was made.  If that becomes settled, really settled and not just a matter of likelihood, then as you say, Tut's identity as the son of Akhenaten is resolved - or not, and this idea of mine may be once and for all shelved, or not.

"Fantasizing" seems a bit harsh and I should have said something like "way out of the box" or "left field", and left "fantasy" for the fringe, it wasn't a comment on your posts

Of course there's nothing normal about Amarna, every thing is fraught with difficulty, every "breakthrough" quickly holed below the waterline. However, my thinking on this is that while the most extraordinary eruption occured, their entire culture was not overturned, rather parts that Akhenaten did not want were "redacted". So while we see this change in religion, the way society ran continued, and I think that includes the royal family. We may I think be swayed into thinking everything had changed due to representations of the royal family, but what they did was just show in public now they, and all families had always been, and still are. So the fuss made over intimate depictions of them as a family are not a change in them, just them letting us see that they are normal people.

While everything about the role of Nefertiti is, to put it mildly, unusual, and making her co-regent is unique, I'm not sure there was any pressing need to go outside of normality in Akhenaten choosing a co-regent before Nefertiti. It's not dependent on his new religion, in fact the "union of Shu and Tefnut" that occurred with later with Nefertiti is fitting, though at base level canon to the "old religion". So I'm not at all sure that Akhenaten would need to go way outside the box in how he choose a co-regent, and, among all the oddness of Amarna, it looks normal, and this is why I have difficulty thinking that the co-regent was anybody other than his eldest son. That to me is the default position that needs some evidence to overturn it, and there is not a shred, only thinking about possibilities, which is fine, but not evidence. That's a hard light of day answer which I hope does not seem abrupt in any way, it's just that I'm having a big rethink on how to approach Amarna and am in the process of dropping, or trying to drop, everything that looks like baggage accumulated over time. Hence a very short answer to the deaths of the YL and KV35 prince, when in the past I would have droned on and on, and on and on

I think my previous post also answers some of the quote above. And I'm quite happy to be "Put to the question" on anything I write, not least because I have no presumptions to being right. The problem with Amarna is that while there was only one reality of what happened, we are looking at that reality each through a different kaleidoscope, some of us see similar patterns, others not, others a chaotic fractured mess.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

Thanks @Wepwawet for the additional information on the Hermopolis talatat and the co-regency as depicted there.  I appreciate it that you provided those details.

As to the co-regency of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, what do you say to this from the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology website, Amarna Period, 2015, J. Williamson, p. 9, which I'll quote:

Quote

[...]  However a jar docket dated to Akhenaten’s year 17 was emended to say “year 1,” which could indicate direct succession rather than a joint rule (Gabolde 2005a: 89). In other words, according to this jar docket Neferneferuaten was not named coregent after the death of Semenkhkara, but assumed the throne only after Akhenaten’s death. Supporting this last argument, and assuming Neferneferuaten is indeed Nefertiti, an inscription recently found in the Amarna Period quarries near Deir Abu Hinnis indicates that Nefertiti was probably still alive in year 16 and was still using her queenly title and names (Van der Perre 2012:195-197, 2014.). If Nefertiti had not yet adopted a kingly identity by year 16, only one year before the death of her husband, she was not a coregent or a king at that time, lending support to the direct accession theory.

link to open pdf

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiEl8r8yu71AhXwYt8KHSJKAJsQFnoECCIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fescholarship.org%2Fcontent%2Fqt77s6r0zr%2Fqt77s6r0zr.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0I29nylDGUP6nMaKAKHNE2

 

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

Thanks @Wepwawet for the additional information on the Hermopolis talatat and the co-regency as depicted there.  I appreciate it that you provided those details.

As to the co-regency of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, what do you say to this from the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology website, Amarna Period, 2015, J. Williamson, p. 9, which I'll quote:

link to open pdf

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiEl8r8yu71AhXwYt8KHSJKAJsQFnoECCIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fescholarship.org%2Fcontent%2Fqt77s6r0zr%2Fqt77s6r0zr.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0I29nylDGUP6nMaKAKHNE2

 

As Box 001K names Both Akhenaten and Neferneferuaten as co-regents, then her years should start as soon as she became co-regent. However, as he died in year 17, and she was still GRW in year 16, I would suggest that his year 17 and her year 1, are one and the same, therefore I see no anomaly with the year 17 1 winejar, and that it was just seen as the thing to do to change the regnal year when Akhenaten died and Neferneferuaten was still in her first regnal year. Interesting is it not that the article makes no mention of Box 001K, which demolishes a deal of what they are saying, and that box has been known about since Carter found and described it nearly a hundred years ago.

I was going to do a post on what age Thutmose might have been when Smenkhkare appears on the scene, but it's too late and I'll make it tomorrow.

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

Potential ages for Thutmose at various points.

Amunhotep III is presumed to have been aged about twelve on accession, which fits with the presumed age of his mummy of fifty, it also fits into the middle of a bracket as some put him younger, and some older, only by a few years either side. Going on age twelve, then Thutmose cannot be expected to have been born until year 4, that's taking it that AIII was not capable of siring him until he was fourteen, and then a nine month pregnancy. This would make Thutmose aged at most 26 in year 30, and 41 in Akhenaten's year 15. This age, only two years before the death of Akhenaten, puts Thutmose right into the bracket for the presumed age of KV55, which is from 35-45. So Thutmose cannot be ruled out on grounds of age from being KV55, for the sake of argument and just looking at the figures and what they say is possible. Other factors say something else of course.

A problem with those figures is that they are worked out on Thutmose being the first born of AIII and Tiye, which is of course possible, and I'm thinking here of Sitamun potentially being first born, as evidence in the tomb of Yuya and Thuya suggests she was born very early in the reign. So how can a year of birth be narrowed down to avoid having him born much later, and then having figures all over the place based on nothing more than guesswork. The answer is with the Apis bulls. These bulls had a lifespan on 20-25 years, and two were buried during the reign of AIII, though I have yet to pin down any evidence for Apis II. So, let's have Apis II living until 23 years and dying in year 38, not least to make it easy calculating all of this. This puts the death of Apis I in year 15, when Thutmose is about eleven years old. The depiction of him in the Apis I chapel is of someone quite young, so I doubt his age will be greatly out of this estimate. He would also at that age be able to take part in officiating at an important event, though a caveat is the depiction of Meritaten shown officiating with Nefertiti at the Hwt-bnbn, when she may have only still been an infant, not more than about two, and not capable in any way of officiating. So, if Meritaten can be "bigged up", there's no reason why it did not happen to Thutmose. And here is an issue in that all these presumed ages, while not being able to go up, have plenty of scope to come down, but by how much is guessing.

Trying to pin down statements in many publications that Thutmose died in, or shortly before year 30, is impossible. Nobody presents any evidence beyond, going by an eight year co-regency between AIII and Akhenaten, the fact that as Akhenaten would have become joint king in that year, as Amunhotep IV of course, that Thutmose must have died. That's an obvious, but if anybody wants to say that Thutmose died in or shortly before year 30, can they present evidence for him being alive in year 29, 28, 27, 26, and so on. No, they cannot, as none of the four pieces of evidence to show his existance are dated, and I'll list them here.

Depiction on wall scene and named on calcite jars at the chapel of Apis I, and named as sem-priest

Statue of a sem-priest grinding wheat

Model funeral bier naming him as sem-priest

Cat sarcophagus naming him as HPP and sem-priest, something I should have mentioned in earlier posts as it shows he was in fact HPP and sem at the same time.

Not to leave it hanging, let's look at Akhenaten as well. Before he appears as Amunhotep IV he is only known as a prince from the sealing of one winejar found in Malkata. I've mentioned that because some authors say that he was named as crown prince on the death of Thutmose, no, they are making stuff up to create a story. But to be fair I think this is based on a depiction at Karnak showing AIII on the Barque of Amun at the Opet Festival. He is shown in large size, but there are other smaller figures, thought to have shown the future Akhenaten, or even Tutankhamun. These smaller figures are now thought to just be smaller representations of AIII, to the best of my knowledge, as these things are subject to re-appraisal.

When could Akhenaten have been born. The KV55 mummy is aged between 35-45, so, presuming an eight year co-regency starting in AIII's year 30, Akhenaten was born between year 2 and year 12. Oops, not year 2 I think, so throw out the higher 45 year estimate of the KV55 mummy, as it would also make him aged 28 on becoming king, which is not reasonable given the young depictions of him, and the fact that at the start of his reign he was not married and had Tiye and Ma'at shown taking the place where normally we would see a king's GRW. Year 12 looks better, and this would make him aged 18 at the start of his reign, but, still not married?. The lower age range for KV55 needs to come down I think, but that on the basis not of the science, but of what looks more likely, though bringing the age down to about 32 could be feasable perhaps, and aging mummies is not an exact science. The problem is that this all becomes a guessing game based on what we each think looks good to us, and this entire post is just one long guess, but based on probabilities.

 

[Wistman]

Well @Wepwawetthat is most interesting.  I'll have a comment to post later, I've many tasks today that require my attention. 

Thanks for taking the time to work that out.  

[atalante]

On 2/6/2022 at 1:23 PM, Wepwawet said:

I think that without positive proof of who Smenkhkare was, then the best we can do is to try to find him by a process of elimination.....

....I hope I'm being concise, and reasonably clear so far. So if Smenkhkare can be ruled out as a brother of Akhenaten, particularly Thutmose, for him to have been co-regent must, and I stress must, mean that he was a son of Akhenaten, and older than Tutankhaten. Trying to judge when he was born, which I have done and placed him in the gap between Meritaten and Meketaten, can only be a guess, but I think a reasonable one given that if very young, only a few years older than Tutankhaten, I'm not sure we would have the "Coronation Hall" and the scene in the tomb of Meryre II where he is depicted as an adult king with a GRW, though when I say adult he may have been no older than 14, an age which fits with being born between Meritaten and Meketaten.

Okay, so the KV35 prince and the injury to the Younger Lady. It's of course entertaining to think they were done away with in a palace coup, or counter coup, or counter-counter coup, and I've made posts suggesting this in the past. But, in the cold light of what I hope is a more reasoned approach....

Wepwawet,

I feel you have underestimated the likelihood of a power struggle.  Smenkare seems to be an interloper.  Akhenaten had granted Smenkhkare Ankhkeperure an estate, which stamped bricks called an "ankhkheperure" hall, at the main Amarna palace.   After Smenkhkare died, this estate could have been "reclaimed" by having Nefertiti acquire an additional throne name involving this same "ankhkeperure" estate. 

If I recall correctly, Nefertiti was also involved with something called a "temple of ankhkeperure at Thebes".   That is a lot of coincidences about ankhkeperure.  

Anyway, the recent (and ongoing) excavation of Aten city at Thebes is likely to shed new light on what happened at the end of the Amarna period.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten_(city)

Edited February 9, 2022 by atalante

[Wistman]

15 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Potential ages for Thutmose at various points.

Amunhotep III is presumed to have been aged about twelve on accession, which fits with the presumed age of his mummy of fifty, it also fits into the middle of a bracket as some put him younger, and some older, only by a few years either side. Going on age twelve, then Thutmose cannot be expected to have been born until year 4, that's taking it that AIII was not capable of siring him until he was fourteen, and then a nine month pregnancy. This would make Thutmose aged at most 26 in year 30, and 41 in Akhenaten's year 15. This age, only two years before the death of Akhenaten, puts Thutmose right into the bracket for the presumed age of KV55, which is from 35-45. So Thutmose cannot be ruled out on grounds of age from being KV55, for the sake of argument and just looking at the figures and what they say is possible. Other factors say something else of course.

A problem with those figures is that they are worked out on Thutmose being the first born of AIII and Tiye, which is of course possible, and I'm thinking here of Sitamun potentially being first born, as evidence in the tomb of Yuya and Thuya suggests she was born very early in the reign. So how can a year of birth be narrowed down to avoid having him born much later, and then having figures all over the place based on nothing more than guesswork. The answer is with the Apis bulls. These bulls had a lifespan on 20-25 years, and two were buried during the reign of AIII, though I have yet to pin down any evidence for Apis II. So, let's have Apis II living until 23 years and dying in year 38, not least to make it easy calculating all of this. This puts the death of Apis I in year 15, when Thutmose is about eleven years old. The depiction of him in the Apis I chapel is of someone quite young, so I doubt his age will be greatly out of this estimate. He would also at that age be able to take part in officiating at an important event, though a caveat is the depiction of Meritaten shown officiating with Nefertiti at the Hwt-bnbn, when she may have only still been an infant, not more than about two, and not capable in any way of officiating. So, if Meritaten can be "bigged up", there's no reason why it did not happen to Thutmose. And here is an issue in that all these presumed ages, while not being able to go up, have plenty of scope to come down, but by how much is guessing.

Trying to pin down statements in many publications that Thutmose died in, or shortly before year 30, is impossible. Nobody presents any evidence beyond, going by an eight year co-regency between AIII and Akhenaten, the fact that as Akhenaten would have become joint king in that year, as Amunhotep IV of course, that Thutmose must have died. That's an obvious, but if anybody wants to say that Thutmose died in or shortly before year 30, can they present evidence for him being alive in year 29, 28, 27, 26, and so on. No, they cannot, as none of the four pieces of evidence to show his existance are dated, and I'll list them here.

Depiction on wall scene and named on calcite jars at the chapel of Apis I, and named as sem-priest

Statue of a sem-priest grinding wheat

Model funeral bier naming him as sem-priest

Cat sarcophagus naming him as HPP and sem-priest, something I should have mentioned in earlier posts as it shows he was in fact HPP and sem at the same time.

Not to leave it hanging, let's look at Akhenaten as well. Before he appears as Amunhotep IV he is only known as a prince from the sealing of one winejar found in Malkata. I've mentioned that because some authors say that he was named as crown prince on the death of Thutmose, no, they are making stuff up to create a story. But to be fair I think this is based on a depiction at Karnak showing AIII on the Barque of Amun at the Opet Festival. He is shown in large size, but there are other smaller figures, thought to have shown the future Akhenaten, or even Tutankhamun. These smaller figures are now thought to just be smaller representations of AIII, to the best of my knowledge, as these things are subject to re-appraisal.

When could Akhenaten have been born. The KV55 mummy is aged between 35-45, so, presuming an eight year co-regency starting in AIII's year 30, Akhenaten was born between year 2 and year 12. Oops, not year 2 I think, so throw out the higher 45 year estimate of the KV55 mummy, as it would also make him aged 28 on becoming king, which is not reasonable given the young depictions of him, and the fact that at the start of his reign he was not married and had Tiye and Ma'at shown taking the place where normally we would see a king's GRW. Year 12 looks better, and this would make him aged 18 at the start of his reign, but, still not married?. The lower age range for KV55 needs to come down I think, but that on the basis not of the science, but of what looks more likely, though bringing the age down to about 32 could be feasable perhaps, and aging mummies is not an exact science. The problem is that this all becomes a guessing game based on what we each think looks good to us, and this entire post is just one long guess, but based on probabilities.

 

That's very helpful thank you.   Apis II (tomb B ), as you say, is extremely troublesome, no way to definitively pin down it's historical placement, though it's interesting that Dodson characterized it's four intact canopic jars as stylistically reminiscent of the canopic jars from KV55, "made early in the reign of Akhenaten."  And of course any individual Apis may not necessarily live an average lifespan, so there's a little give on those digits.

Now I see that if Thutmose did not die, which is quite possible I think, then he was old enough, experienced enough as HPP to perhaps have resisted the transformations of Pharaoh post Sed 30, and the meteoric rise of Aten.

 

[Wepwawet]

7 hours ago, atalante said:

Wepwawet,

I feel you have underestimated the likelihood of a power struggle. 

 

It may look like it from the nature of the post, but I've long thought that there was in fact a coup and maybe counter coup at Amarna. What I was dealing with in that post were the injuries to the YL and prince, which look accidental, not assassination. Because the authorities will not even admit to testing the prince we don't even know who he is related to, let alone a name, which we will never know. It's very likely due to his being found between Tiye and the YL that he is a relative, and probably a very close one, but he may have died decades before the YL, if, for instance, he had been another brother of Akhenaten who died by accident at any time in either the reign of AIII or Akhenaten. Dislocated femur head and pelvic fractures are an unlikely means of assassination. Likewise as I mentioned with the YL. If her injury was delivered by a deliberate blow, then it's a really awkward angle to hit her, unless she were laying down. That of course would fit with an assassination while she was asleep. But, why not hit her head, or a thrust into her heart or abdomen, when death is a far more likely result. Of course the injury did kill her, but if by an assassin, they would not have known she had died when the blow was struck, and that is not an instant death injury, but a drowning in your own blood injury, and shock. Yet no second blow to make sure. So this is why I'm rowing back from previous comments I've made regarding the circumstances of their deaths in regards to coups, as in the cold light of day their injuries do not support any scenario other than accident. If, for instance the YL is Neferneferuaten, with a reign of about three years, two on her own, she may well have weathered any immediate troubles after the death of Akhenaten, only to die by accident, but that there were troubles I don't doubt.

I'll agree that Smenkhhkare can, depending on which kaleidoscope you look through, look to be a potential problem who was then dealt with, but if anything untoward did occur, I would have thought that Meritaten would have been involved, being his GRW, yet she subsequently appears as GRW to the joint rule of Akhenaten and Neferneferuaten. But there are all sorts of other issues surrounding any possibility of Smenkhkare "muscling in", not least the extremely odd case of Nefertiti taking his name, not something to do if he had been a problem for them.

[Wepwawet]

4 hours ago, Wistman said:

That's very helpful thank you.   Apis II (tomb B ), as you say, is extremely troublesome, no way to definitively pin down it's historical placement, though it's interesting that Dodson characterized it's four intact canopic jars as stylistically reminiscent of the canopic jars from KV55, "made early in the reign of Akhenaten."  And of course any individual Apis may not necessarily live an average lifespan, so there's a little give on those digits.

Now I see that if Thutmose did not die, which is quite possible I think, then he was old enough, experienced enough as HPP to perhaps have resisted the transformations of Pharaoh post Sed 30, and the meteoric rise of Aten.

 

You can see from Dodson why I took Apis II dying in year 38 as he put's it's death as either late AIII or into the reign of Akhenaten. The problem here is that Dodson does not believe in a co-regency, so the death of Apis II could vary by at least eight years just because of that factor. Another factor is how old was Apis II. I think if we go by the very young depiction of Thutmose at the burial of Apis I, then Apis II has not died prematurely, for if it had then there are issues with Apis III dying sometime during the reign of Tutankhamun, and it would have had to have lived far longer than possible. There's also an issue with now long they normally lived. I picked up on the 20-25 year range years ago based on how long modern cattle can live, and that is up to 26, if they are allowed to live their lives without being overworked by us. Modern bulls tend not to make it to age ten, but can live into their teens. They die young because they are probably exhausted. Dodson makes a point about the varying ages of these bulls, in the few cases were they can be aged, and there is a wide range. He points out that during the time of Ramesses II they seemed to live for an average of seven years, not far below modern ages, but in later periods into their teens, and he says 16/17 was average, but then mentions Apis XXXVII dying during the reign of Psamtik I  aged, by surving inscriptions, to precisely 21 years, 2 months and seven days.

It looks to me that the gap between the death of Apis I and II was not a short one, unless Apis I was buried much later in the reign than supected, and that Thutmose was born later than suspected, and it is not impossible that he himself was not first born. But as I said, it's easy to bring the ages of many of these personalities down, but it's guessing, upper ages can be fixed at their death, when known, and are at least something more solid to work with than ever fluctuating younger dates for birth, so fluctuating that as I mentioned some months back, Geoffrey Martin has suggested that Meritaten was born five years before Akhenaten became king, which is utterly ludicrous from a professional, IMO, as all the evidence we have shows him not to have even been married by the time he was king, vide the tombs of Kheruef, TT 192, and Ramose, TT 55.

Potential issues between Memphis and Akhenaten need some thought, and any issues between Memphis and Heliopolis need to be looked at. This isn't easy, and there's unlikely to be a decent answer beyond conjecture, but the entire issue of what tensions were caused by the rise of the Aten, even during the reign of AIII, need attention.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wistman]

One of Prince Thuthmose's official titles was Overseer of the Priests of Upper and Lower Egypt.

Would his authority in this regard extend to priests of Ptah only, or would it have been more expansive, ie: did it include priests of other cults? 

Also ref. his other official title High Priest of Ptah in Memphis and sm-priest (of Ptah), Dodson says: "It is unclear whether he had always combined the High- and sm- priesthoods or whether, like Khaemwaset, he had begun his priestly career as sm and only assumed the greater office later."  Allowing for differences in the treatment of royal princes between 18D and 19D, we might still infer similarity between Thutmose and Khaemwaset in the manner of their assumption of these dual Memphite offices, though there's not surety of it.

 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

One of Prince Thuthmose's official titles was Overseer of the Priests of Upper and Lower Egypt.

Would his authority in this regard extend to priests of Ptah only, or would it have been more expansive, ie: did it include priests of other cults? 

Also ref. his other official title High Priest of Ptah in Memphis and sm-priest (ofPtah), Dodson says: "It is unclear whether he had always combined the High-and-sm-priesthoods or whether, like Khaemwaset, he had begun his priestly career as sm and only assumed the greater office later."

By the titles these High Priests of Ptah had it can look as if they are second only to the king in their authority, and with a HPP who is also crown prince then that is a fact. However, most were not crown prince, or a member of the royal family, at least as scanty records show, but I would not be surprised, as I've said before, that some of these HP, of any of the major cults, were from cadet branches, but this is not recorded. It's interesting to look at the array of titles they held. and I'll mention a few titles held by a succession of HPP in the Ptolemaic period, where records are far better, particulalry in this case where one family had a grip on Memphis for ten generations, from Ptolemy II to Cleopatra VII, so virtually the entire period. They accrued titles as time went on, the first member of the family though was not HPP, but sem. They were not very imaginative in names, most being either a Pedubast or a Psherenptah, which though is fitting as it means Son of Ptah.

Here are some of the titles of Pedubast III

Sem-priest, God's Father, Prophet of Ptah, Priest of the Gods in the Temple of Memphis, Scribe of the Treasury, Scribe in the Serapeum, the Osireion, Rutiset and of Anubis who is upon his mountain. (He is also Master of the Secrets of those he is also scribe of). Master of Secrets in the domain of Ptah and Rosetau, having authority over the secrets of the sky, the earth, the underworld and Upper and Lower Egypt. Scribe of the offering table of Bastet, and finally, his main title, Greatest of the Directors of Craftsmen, ie High Priest of Ptah. You can see he has a finger in the pie at Abydos, Bubastis and Buto, as well as Memphis, and other titles give him a foothold in Heliopolis. He has no connection to Amun. Generally he is the closest in Egypt to a Pope, though with some areas where he has no authority, or very little. I could have also written down a further 47 titles he held, some of Isis, several versions of Horus, and of essentially government institutions, though to what level of control over the organs of the state a native Egyptian held I don't know, and they may be legacy honorifics from dynastic times.

Note he is not also Overseer of Priests of Upper and Lower Egypt, though he is close to having that level of authority. As the king is theologically the only priest, it could be said then that all the people carrying out the role of priest are under his control, so if a crown prince is also "Pope", he probably does have, at least nominally, control over all priests, including those of Amun, but in the Ptolemaic period the son of a Macedonian king is not going to be a High Priest.

The long list of HPP I have is from the dynastic period, and the list of titles is very short, but, with the exception of Thutmose, does not include them also being sem. This does not exclude the possibility though as so much information is lost. Of the 10 Ptolemaic HPP. six are also sem, which is surprising when the titles are handed down over the generations.

I don't see any essential difference between Thutmose and Khaemwaset holding the position, except in visibility, which is an issue for us, not them. But as for titles, then we have a conundrum as Thutmose is both HPP and sem, according to the cat sarcophagus, and Khaemwaset looks to have dropped the sem title on becoming HPP. As the Ptolemaic HPP are also patchy on this, maybe there was never any rule, and a HPP could either keep his sem title or dispose of it to another priest. Perhaps it was like Popes making their nephews/sons cardinals, you become Pope and so can make gifts to your relatives as there is nothing new in nepotism, even if the word came from the practise of making your nephew a cardinal.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

There is one aspect to the titles held by HPP that I cannot fully resolve, and that is where they are termed as "registered" with the phyles of priests at temples to a number of gods. For instance in their titles will come a line of text saying that they are registered with all the first phyles and all the fourth phyles of a temple, and registered with all five phyles of another. I cannot find out, yet, just what is meant by "registered", and does it confer some form of authority, such as Overseer, though not using that term.

To us the word "registered" is another way of saying that you are a member of something, such as a forum, but the priest phyles were a form of "watch", the rotational system used on ships, or by the police or firefighters. It cannot be realistic to expect that a HPP was a member of any phyle at all, at least certainly not in an active way as he would never be able to do his own job. So he is either an honory member of "Blue Watch" or whatever, and/or has control over it, and many many others. They may also be a connection here to revenues, and perhaps he is taking a cut, I don't know, but sounds like it could be a thing, and if he is taking a cut from temple revenues other than from temples for Ptah, then that implies some degree of control over priesthoods other than of Ptah, but not Amun as I don't see him gettting his finger in that particularly large slice of pie.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

There is a variant of the title Overseer of the Priests of Upper and Lower Egypt, which is perhaps more explicit. This is, Overseer of priests of all deities of Upper and Lower Egypt, and was held by Nefer-renep, HPP during the final years of Ramesses II.

There was also a HPP, named Sennefer I, who was both HPP and HP at Heliopolis during the reign of Thutmose III. His wife was Purifying Priest of Sekhmet, and as Sekhmet was daughter of Ra and wife of Ptah, it does show that Heliopolis and Memphis can be linked in this way, though so far he seems to be the only holder of both offices at the same time. One factoid is that it is not so unusual to find that on the multiple stela and other objects that preserve their names, the image of a monkey is present. Here I'm thinking about the animal mummies found in KV50, 51 and 52. KV50 is the more famous as it contained the mummy of a monkey and a dog posed facing each other, probably by persons unknown long after they were originally placed in the tomb. KV52 contained just the one monkey.

Of all three tombs only KV52 contained evidence that it was made for a human burial as an un-named canopic chest was discovered. It is usually thought that all three tombs are associated with Amunhotep II as they are by KV35. The possibility has been raised that KV52 may have been used as a temporary tomb for Amarna royals, speculation of course. As for a monkey, well being very very speculative, let's associate a monkey with a HPP, possibly temporarily entombed in KV52, with others? with his pet monkey, not cat. Then there is Kiya, which is a name for monkey, not a normal birth name, but that's way way out there, but I'm mentioning it to sort of get it out of the way, and of course it is the sort of information that can be used by some to concocted fantasies.

[Aldebaran]

On 2/7/2022 at 11:19 AM, Wistman said:

Just thinking outside the box you know.  I'll let go but it's still in the back of my mind.

Ignoring evidence and throwing in conspiracy theories [that dangerous DNA!] is not "thinking outside the box".  The entire exercise here is, as usual, to try to ignore and, at the same time outdo, a perfectly sound paper of mine that is probably the best one on Smenkhkare so far, introduced much earlier in this thread.  [That's about all they did in the "box thread" on a different site and that time old Wepwawet and pals twisted themselves into knots attempting to  discredit my "Younger Lady as Nefertiti" theory, written down in 1999 and accepted by some in mainstream Egyptology with the rest not having found the means to discount it yet, especially since I wrote subsequent papers demonstrating why it was important for Akhenaten and Nefertiti to be  brother and

sister.  Wepwawet would doubtless love to have another go there but I have no intention of obliging.]

https://www.academia.edu/37004840/Bringing_Smenkhkare_Into_Focus

As to that cat sarcophagus, an important part of the text on it has been glossed over.  It says "sA nsw smsw", meaning that Prince Thutmose was the crown prince and, had he lived, he would have been the one to succeed Amenhotep III. In the Egyptian language "smsw" literally means "follower" and was how the Egyptians indicated which king's son was "next in line".  Of course, death often interfered with the succession but those here who have insisted Prince Thutmose didn't die but was pushed aside for Akhenaten failed to submit a good reason why that would have occurred.   Wistman threw in something about Thutmose not being able to be an Atenist because he was a priest of Ptah--but that doesn't wash because his father, Amenhotep III, never tried to subvert or outlaw the old pantheon.  If he had, he would have been left out of the subsequent king lists the same as Akhenaten and his successors.   All Amenhotep III did was to present himself as the living incarnation of the sun with the sun's two inseparable cohorts, Shu and Tefnut [Akhenaten and Nefertiti] reigning alongside.  In fact, the old gods were not outlawed until after Akhenaten's Year 8, the beginning of his sole reign independent of his father.  He would not have dared to do it previous to that time.

Had Prince Thutmose not died young, he could just as easily been elevated from priest to god, which is what Shu was.  No problem there at all.  We can trust King Tushratta of Mitanni, father-in-law of Akhenaten, to know whether the Egyptian king had sons or not.  In a letter to Akhenaten, he wished good health to the pharaoh's male children.  It is not the likeliest scenario that any king would make his elder [!] brother a successor [and co-regent]  if he had sons to choose from.   Nobody here espousing the "Thutmose as Smenkhkare" theory has given a compelling reason why Akhenaten would do that.  No one in the past has been able to come up with a reason, either, which is why Prince Thutmose has not been considered as a candidate for Smenkhkare in serious papers.

Edited February 11, 2022 by Aldebaran

[Wepwawet]

7 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

Ignoring evidence and throwing in conspiracy theories [that dangerous DNA!] is not "thinking outside the box".  The entire exercise here is, as usual, to try to ignore and, at the same time outdo, a perfectly sound paper of mine that is probably the best one on Smenkhkare so far, introduced much earlier in this thread.  [That's about all they did in the "box thread" on a different site and that time old Wepwawet and pals twisted themselves into knots attempting to  discredit my "Younger Lady as Nefertiti" theory, written down in 1999 and accepted by some in mainstream Egyptology with the rest not having found the means to discount it yet, especially since I wrote subsequent papers demonstrating why it was important for Akhenaten and Nefertiti to be  brother and

sister.  Wepwawet would doubtless love to have another go there but I have no intention of obliging.]

 

No, you are totally wrong in saying that the entire exercise here and on Historum is to trash your contention that the YL is Nefertiti.

As you, or anybody else, Fletcher for example, have not proven that the YL is Nefertiti, and there are other possibilities as to her identity, not least because the DNA results are not up to the standards required in a paternity suit, then it is perfectly reasonable to discuss those other options, Beketaten for instance.

If you could prove your contention about the YL, then there would be no discussion, but you cannot, and so there will be discussion, and it is by discussion of all aspects of this that we move towards an answer, though an answer that will probably always elude us unless a tomb is found that unequivocally contains the mummy of Nefertiti.

What interests me is the journey, and the sideroads we sometimes travel down, such as discussion about the High Priests of Ptah, what I am not interested in is deliberately trying to demolish anybodies theories about Amarna. Discussing the possibility that the YL is Beketaten is not an attack on you, it really is just discussing another possibility.

In recent posts I have uniquivocally stated, on the basis of the Hermopolis talatat, that Nefertiti must be the mother of Tutankhamun, a position I have not always held, but by discussion over a period of time, and looking more closely at evidence that is often relegated to footnote status, I cannot come to any other conclusion. That's at least halfway to your position, and all that needs doing, in the context of this exchange, is for proof of the YL's identity to be shown, but until that time it's not a done deal, and it's not reasonable of you to try to say that it is. You have a book to defend, I get it, but I have nothing to defend as I just want the truth of this. I don't mind if it does get proven that the YL is Nefertiti, I really don't, and your theory is a very good one, but missing that final piece, a name, and the name is not "circumstantial", it needs to be an actual name or this will never end.

[Aldebaran]

51 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

not least because the DNA results are not up to the standards required in a paternity suit

And yet Amenhotep III was able to be eliminated in 8 microsatellite markers when it came to the paternity of Tutankhamun.  Those 8 markers are the most important ones in the human genome for several reasons.  Most of the DNA of human beings is the same.   Actually, had AIII not been the father of both of Tut's parents, he would not have shared the amount of alleles that he did in the 8 loci. 

https://www.academia.edu/40999817/Why_Amunhotep_III_Is_Not_Tuts_Daddy

 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Aldebaran

[Aldebaran]

45 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

In recent posts I have uniquivocally stated, on the basis of the Hermopolis talatat, that Nefertiti must be the mother of Tutankhamun, a position I have not always held, but by discussion over a period of time, and looking more closely at evidence that is often relegated to footnote status, I cannot come to any other conclusion. That's at least halfway to your position, and all that needs doing, in the context of this exchange, is for proof of the YL's identity to be shown,

Nooooo.  That's not "halfway there" because the DNA has identified the mother of the Tutankhamun, the Younger Lady.  If you now believe Nefertiti to have been the mother of Tut, then it  is a done deal [or should be in your mind] because the boy king's mother is already known.  Ergo, the Younger Lady must be Nefertiti.  That's logic.

[Wepwawet]

4 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

Nooooo.  That's not "halfway there" because the DNA has identified the mother of the Tutankhamun, the Younger Lady.  If you now believe Nefertiti to have been the mother of Tut, then it  is a done deal [or should be in your mind] because the boy king's mother is already known.  Ergo, the Younger Lady must be Nefertiti.  That's logic.

Okay, so I've made an error because I became sort of trapped in a Nefertiti thing. In previous posts you can see that I was putting forward the contention, based on the Hermopolis talatat, that only Akhenaten could have been the father of Tutankhamun, not that Nefertiti was his mother. Reading my posts on this should make it clear that the comments of mine you quote are a  non sequitur  and do not represent my true position. Therefore, despite what you say, the DNA evidence, while good, is not perfect, and there is no compelling reason to state unequivocally that the YL must be Nefertiti as she could be, for instance, Beketaten.

[Wepwawet]

20 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

Nooooo.  That's not "halfway there" because the DNA has identified the mother of the Tutankhamun, the Younger Lady.  If you now believe Nefertiti to have been the mother of Tut, then it  is a done deal [or should be in your mind] because the boy king's mother is already known.  Ergo, the Younger Lady must be Nefertiti.  That's logic.

In the light of this interjection, I'll make my position as clear as I can.

I'll quote from Dodson's book on Nefertiti, page 50, where he discusses the Hermopolis talatat.

Quote

Accordingly, and supported by the interpretation of the genetic data discussed in chapter 1, it seems most likely that Tutankh(u)aten was the son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti

That is a perfectly reasonable statement which I could easily accept as the truth, however, "seems most likely" is not 100%, and it may seem that I, and many others in the wider world, are splitting hairs, or even arguing for the sake of arguing. But I am doing neither as other interpretations of the evidence are possible. What I am doing is to look at those other possibilities, for if none of us do this, then we could end up in the situation were we take at face value the first book by an professional we read on the subject as the be all and end all, and that all is known and that no further discussion is needed. But if that were so, what have so many of us being doing all these years discussing this, or writing books and papers, wasting our time?

I accept that your belief that the YL is Nefertiti is an honestly held belief, and is more lilely than not to be the truth, but you know that the DNA evidence would fit just as well for any full sister of Akhenaten, and that any relationship between Nefertiti and Tutankhamun rests also with the Hermopolis talatat, which is not conclusive. Neither is the evidence in chamber gamma of TA26, though it has been used as almost cast iron evidence to show Nefertiti as mother to Tutankhamun, when this is highly debatable, and that is what I am doing, debating these areas that are not as clear cut as folks think.

[Wistman]

I'll just quote Kenneth Kitchen:  "Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.  No theory can be sacrosanct, and widespread acceptance of a theory does not guarantee its truth."  I am merely applying Dr. Kitchen's admonition to the supposed premature death of Prince Thutmose.