The use of ‘manifistation’ resonates with me. For Ra could easily be just another ‘manifistation’ of Aten. Not a separate god as such, not an Amun or a Thoth, but just another ‘manifistation’. ‘Form’ does kind of suggest a ‘being’ to me. An idol could be a form, in the sense I’m struggling to describe, but an idol, in the context I seek here, an image, is not a ‘manifistation’. Not sure about my reasoning here to be honest. As you guys kniw only too well by now, I tend to have circular thinking at times, and I have now returned to the idea of the choice of ‘Smenkhkare’ being a nod to tradition, whilst not throwing out Atenism in the least. Tutankhaten only becomes Tutankhamun when his mentors decide that the writing is on the wall for the Atenistic ‘innovation’. The decision to abandon, to turn the back on Atenism, may have come relatively slowly.
I see the difference between "manifestation" and "form" being this. "Form" is a physical presence, for instance a statue, or the form of another god where both gods are in fact one, or many. Sekhmet-Hathor being an example, or maybe Wepwawet being a form of Anubis, or vice versa, but that's another discussion. "Manifestation" I see as the ba of the god becoming manifest in a form, such as a statue or a sacred animal such as the Apis bull or the falcon at Nekhen/Edfu. So, for instance, in the case of Sekhmet-Hathor we have two forms, the woman-lioness and the woman-cow, but both containing a manifestation of what is one god, and which is the "upper tier", Sekhmet or Hathor is debatable. But here we can go into manifestations of Ra and where Aten fits in, and is he a separate god or not. So while we can debate whether Sekhmet or Hathor is the original goddess, both are really manifestations of Ra. Here we can be led astray by the Egyptians need to make their cosmology understandable and so use terms such as Sekhmet being the daughter of Ra, because that makes more sense to the majority than engaging in lofty esoteric discussion that will pass right over the heads of the peasants in the fields. We live in family groups, therefore the gods had to, for simplicity if nothing else.
Leaving out Atum, Amun and Ptah, as it just gets too complicated, Ra, in the context of this discussion about Akhenaten, is God, his real name and form are unknown to us. The Sun is a form of Ra as it is a physical presence and has the ba of Ra manifest within it, but it is not the totality of Ra as at night it has gone, died, and Ra is seen by the Egyptians as being in the form of a man spending the next twelve hours battling demons and Apophis before becoming joined with Osiris and reborn as Khepri/Horus the Younger/Ra-Horakhty. So Ra is all his forms and manifestations all of the time, whereas the Aten is only a part of this totality of Ra, and while it was always known that the light of the Sun gives life, to deny the existence of the Duat, and so Osiris, denies us the possibility of resurrection. For Egyptians these two aspects of Ra cannot be unbound. They could see the Sun "die" at night and be resurrected at dawn, and for them there has to be a mechanism for this resurrection, as explained above. The existence of Ra implies the existence of the Duat and of Osiris, therefore Ra, as Ra-Horakhty, was eventually ditched as he was incompatible with Akhenaten's idea of there being one god, who is only the visible Sun. This, IMO, goes back to the times of Khufu where there was, as far as is known, no Duat, no Osiris and no hope of resurrection for anybody except the king, these things came later, at least in the form we are familiar with. So, at the end of the day, the Aten is a part of a broken Ra, not, for anybody except Akhenaten and his acolytes, a properly functioning god, let alone God.
A discussion of where the other gods, such as Thoth, fit into all this, and are they manifestations/forms of a higher god or autonomous is a discussion of the "One and the Many", and would need a separate thread, with the potential to be far bigger.
Leaving out Atum, Amun and Ptah, as it just gets too complicated, Ra, in the context of this discussion about Akhenaten, is God, his real name and form are unknown to us. The Sun is a form of Ra as it is a physical presence and has the ba of Ra manifest within it, but it is not the totality of Ra as at night it has gone, died, and Ra is seen by the Egyptians as being in the form of a man spending the next twelve hours battling demons and Apophis before becoming joined with Osiris and reborn as Khepri/Horus the Younger/Ra-Horakhty. So Ra is all his forms and manifestations all of the time, whereas the Aten is only a part of this totality of Ra, and while it was always known that the light of the Sun gives life, to deny the existence of the Duat, and so Osiris, denies us the possibility of resurrection. For Egyptians these two aspects of Ra cannot be unbound. They could see the Sun "die" at night and be resurrected at dawn, and for them there has to be a mechanism for this resurrection, as explained above. The existence of Ra implies the existence of the Duat and of Osiris, therefore Ra, as Ra-Horakhty, was eventually ditched as he was incompatible with Akhenaten's idea of there being one god, who is only the visible Sun. This, IMO, goes back to the times of Khufu where there was, as far as is known, no Duat, no Osiris and no hope of resurrection for anybody except the king, these things came later, at least in the form we are familiar with. So, at the end of the day, the Aten is a part of a broken Ra, not, for anybody except Akhenaten and his acolytes, a properly functioning god, let alone God.
A discussion of where the other gods, such as Thoth, fit into all this, and are they manifestations/forms of a higher god or autonomous is a discussion of the "One and the Many", and would need a separate thread, with the potential to be far bigger.
Likes:
Ayrton
In the meanwhile, I've found the work by Petries with his catalogue of scarabs. The one of the XVIII dynasty are really interesting [overall this page, Petrie's transliteration needs to be understood .. Scarabs and cylinders with names : illustrated by the Egyptian collection in University College, London : Petrie, W. M. Flinders (William Matthew Flinders), Sir, 1853-1942 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive].
Among other things, note that Petrie read "Aten" the sign for Ra. Like in the case of the No.6. It's Ankhkheperure. Petrie read Aten-Onkh-Kheperu ["Onkh" was his spelling of "Ankh"].
It's curious to see that he detects a "Smenkh-ka-Kheperu-Aten". Itìs No.9 which is Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare [we have already considered that piece].
Among other things, note that Petrie read "Aten" the sign for Ra. Like in the case of the No.6. It's Ankhkheperure. Petrie read Aten-Onkh-Kheperu ["Onkh" was his spelling of "Ankh"].
It's curious to see that he detects a "Smenkh-ka-Kheperu-Aten". Itìs No.9 which is Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare [we have already considered that piece].
That is fascinating. I can’t recall ever seeing Aten referenced/associated with Smenkhkare. Though, I guess, the fact Meritatendid not have a nomen change when she was ‘wed’ to Smenkhkare is a detail I had not pondered heretonow. If the choice if Smenkhkare signalled a marked about face on Atenism, then one suspects a nomen change may have been in order for Meritaten: just as I strongly suspect Paatenemheb became Horemheb and, of course, Tutankhaten and Ankhsenpaaten lost their Aten as well.
I stil ask myself why Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten became Smenkhkare. Why that change? What does it signify? What religion/political motive underlies it? Still a marker that Ankhkheperure Smenkhare became sole pharaoh? This is the best explanation I can come up with. It is simple but feasible. A nod toward tradition, while not throwing out Atenism, seems sound too. [I beat the dead horse again, but I would like to see some evidence to show there were two Ankhkheperures before I could accept the Throne Name reuse as the most logical explanation for events.The idea it was due to it being strange times just does not cut it for me. My mind remains open, of course!]
I also just notice now too the favour ‘Ankh’ has in names like Ankhkheperure and Ankhsenpaaten. Another Atenist peccadillo?
I stil ask myself why Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten became Smenkhkare. Why that change? What does it signify? What religion/political motive underlies it? Still a marker that Ankhkheperure Smenkhare became sole pharaoh? This is the best explanation I can come up with. It is simple but feasible. A nod toward tradition, while not throwing out Atenism, seems sound too. [I beat the dead horse again, but I would like to see some evidence to show there were two Ankhkheperures before I could accept the Throne Name reuse as the most logical explanation for events.The idea it was due to it being strange times just does not cut it for me. My mind remains open, of course!]
I also just notice now too the favour ‘Ankh’ has in names like Ankhkheperure and Ankhsenpaaten. Another Atenist peccadillo?
If "he" was Nefertiti, we have noted that, already during the coregency with the husband, Neferneferuaten got in touch again with traditional cults. Nefertiti enjoyed the support of Egyptians at Akhetaten. Egyptians were a traditional people, they adored their traditional deities. In private sure more than the Aten.
If Smenkhkare wanted to keep the new capital alive, after the death of Akhenaten, with the traditional clergies at Thebes planning to regain kudos, the choice of a name connected with Ra was obvious. It was a kind of invitation: "he" invited the clergies at Thebes to move to Akhetaten, to recognize the new capital.
If Smenkhkare wanted to keep the new capital alive, after the death of Akhenaten, with the traditional clergies at Thebes planning to regain kudos, the choice of a name connected with Ra was obvious. It was a kind of invitation: "he" invited the clergies at Thebes to move to Akhetaten, to recognize the new capital.
I'd almost guarantee this was intended as the writing of Ankh with the S34, N35, Aa1 representation. This can be found, even on the Wikipedia page for Ankh.
Restoration may have removed the dark horizontal lines, or scribal error.
Restoration may have removed the dark horizontal lines, or scribal error.
Thoughts wandering - as usual! Why is there nothing in KV55 to indicate the presence if Nefertiti? If there is, can anyone remind me of them. I am thinking: no references to Nefertiti, then, maybe we can exclude her ever being in the tomb. Tiye, I think we can reasonably postulate, was in the tomb at some stage and removed, which I think Egyptologists generally would agree on. So if Akhenaten is KV55 - taking into account my view his fingerprints are all over the tomb with Smenkhkare leaving no evidence to substantiate his (her?!) presence -, and also his Mum, where is he evidence for Nefertiti - and Meritaten for that matter? [Did Nefertiti and Meritaten get mislaid as a unit???]
Edit: another wandering thought: if Sitamun had a final resting spot created for her in Amenophis III’s tomb, how come she never was laid there? Or was she? Could she have been moved along with her father (and Tiye!) to KV35? Could a son have been moved too at the same time? I have not yet discarded the idea Crown Prince Thutmose was KV35boy.
2nd Edit: The wet nurse, Maia: Zivie thinks she was Tut’s sister, Meritaten. Do we have the inscriptions available to examine? Well, for you hieroglyph readers to examine... Is she clearly depicted and/or inscribed (in hieroglyphs) as ‘wet nurse’?
Edit: another wandering thought: if Sitamun had a final resting spot created for her in Amenophis III’s tomb, how come she never was laid there? Or was she? Could she have been moved along with her father (and Tiye!) to KV35? Could a son have been moved too at the same time? I have not yet discarded the idea Crown Prince Thutmose was KV35boy.
2nd Edit: The wet nurse, Maia: Zivie thinks she was Tut’s sister, Meritaten. Do we have the inscriptions available to examine? Well, for you hieroglyph readers to examine... Is she clearly depicted and/or inscribed (in hieroglyphs) as ‘wet nurse’?
Last edited:
About KV55 I have to check around if there is something new about the discovery of a box containing gold sheets.
New clues may unmask mystery pharaoh
New clues may unmask mystery pharaoh
| Similiar History Discussions | History Forum | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Was Akhenaten's brother Moses? | Speculative History | |
| Hatshepsut and Akhenaten/Tutankhamen | History Homework Help | |
| Akhenaten's religious reforms | Ancient History | |
| Akhenaten influence on Monotheism/Abrahamic Faiths | Religious History |
