Akhenaten (Box, Carter Archive 001K)

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,384
Crows nest
Paragraph 1: Yes. They may be right, or they may be persuaded they are right. Do you know what their arguments are? At the moment, and I admit I have not their years of experience, but I doubt their findings.
They are, or were in the case of Aldred, among the foremost experts on this, or at least those known to the general public. I don't doubt them on this matter, not just because they are experts and I am an amateur, but because they have nothing to gain in coming to their conclusions, and no reason to "persuade" themselves or anybody else. They have looked at the evidence and seen what it says, and many others have come to the same conclusion. All I can do is read what they say, look at the evidence they produce and come to my own conclusion, and I agree with them, if you do not, fine, but perhaps some counter evidence, such as an alternate reading of the hieroglyphs which goes beyond just a straight translation, but can provide a counter interpretation. What I mean here is that a passage from the Amduat can be read and translated, but what it actually means needs to be interpreted otherwise we will know what the words say, but not what they mean. The same goes for images where we can see a god with two heads, one facing forward and one backwards, but what does it mean, who really is this god.
 

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,384
Crows nest
Of course, it can’t be at all discounted that it is his own coffin. The apparent ‘maturity’ (for me) and the striking resemblance to Nefertiti merely tantalises. He could very well look like Nefertiti if they were close relations, whether or not the relationship was actually mother and son.

I had another thought about the coffin people generally doubt was his. Could it be one of him when he was still young enough to have the ‘puppy fat’ of youth? It looks less mature than the gold coffin to me. Do we see Tut the Teenager?
As Amunhotep III got older he came to be depicted as younger and chubby cheeked, so it's very difficult to age a king from how they are depicted. A better idea of how Tutankhamun would have actually looked is from the mannequin, though that probably shows him about three or four years before death and you can change a lot between about 14 and 18.
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,560
Bendigo
As Amunhotep III got older he came to be depicted as younger and chubby cheeked, so it's very difficult to age a king from how they are depicted. A better idea of how Tutankhamun would have actually looked is from the mannequin, though that probably shows him about three or four years before death and you can change a lot between about 14 and 18.
Interesting. Funny you should mention Amenophis III, because only last night I was trying to compare depictions and statues of Amenophis III with Tutankhamun. They seemed familiar. Related, of course, so no surprise there. The gold statue’s apparent ‘maturity’ still intrigues me. The suddeness of Tuts fall and subsequent quick death (which I still agree you were likely right about awhile back as a reasonable explanation for his death) begs the question for me, was there time to make a golden coffin? Which might explain to you why I asked the question about gold coffins a few posts back.

These golden coffins were surely created ahead of death? Otherwise, it would seem miraculous to make one in 70 days. I have never made a gold coffin, nor ever seen one being made, so I am purely guessing here. It would just seem a major and time consuming enterprise to me. That’s why I entertain the thought it could have been Nefertiti’s (or even Akhenaten’s) coffin that was requisitioned for KV62. If it belonged to a reviled personage originally, I can only imagine it being melted down. But if the original owner was not reviled, it might be re-used in certain circumstances. For example: If it belonged to Nefertiti (the mother of Tut IMO) and she had been returned to ‘queen’ status after death, then using it for her son may not have seemed such a bad thing in the end. He needed one and who better than his own mother to (postumously) lend it to him for eternity? Seems plausible to me.

This all takes me full circle back to KV35YL, mother of Tut; that is, Nefertiti. I do tend to agree with those Egyptologists who see her as Nefertiti. (Mind remains open). So, just so as to revolve around the little circle in my head one more time, Corvidius, lol, I reiteratemy recurrent thoughts, seeing. Tiye and Akhenaten being removed from Amarna to KV55, quite reasonably, by Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare (Nefertiti). When she gets deposed (violently and quite possibly by disgruntled Atemists or anti-feminine-Pharaohs conspirators, she ends up in the Valley of the Kings as well. Mummified as a queen, her pharaonic status politely ignored, best forgotten. Her grave equipment is stored, save for that suitable for a queen’s burial. Not the only plausible solution. But any solution, I think, must involve Nefertiti as the person who entombed Akhenaten to begin with IMO. She at least played a part in those funeral arrangements of her husband IMO.
 
Last edited:

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,560
Bendigo
They are, or were in the case of Aldred, among the foremost experts on this, or at least those known to the general public. I don't doubt them on this matter, not just because they are experts and I am an amateur, but because they have nothing to gain in coming to their conclusions, and no reason to "persuade" themselves or anybody else. They have looked at the evidence and seen what it says, and many others have come to the same conclusion. All I can do is read what they say, look at the evidence they produce and come to my own conclusion, and I agree with them, if you do not, fine, but perhaps some counter evidence, such as an alternate reading of the hieroglyphs which goes beyond just a straight translation, but can provide a counter interpretation. What I mean here is that a passage from the Amduat can be read and translated, but what it actually means needs to be interpreted otherwise we will know what the words say, but not what they mean. The same goes for images where we can see a god with two heads, one facing forward and one backwards, but what does it mean, who really is this god.
I missed this post earlier.

Truth is, I have never seen this ‘evidence for Kiya’ ever produced. I have presented evidence many times in a criminal court and never once did a magistrate accept any statement of mine unless I produced the solid evidence to support it. The same goes for ‘expert’ evidence at court, it must be actually ‘evidence’, not just an experts ‘informed’ statement. Carters ‘Box belonging to Smenkhkare’ is a case in point. It wasn’t. Unless, Smenkhkhare is Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten. Still then, to be accurate it (might be) ‘Box belonging Neferneferuaten’. This is why I see no reason to trust anyones view on anything at face value is something comes to bother me about what I am told. Until I see actual evidence and come to trust the interpretation of said evidence, I see no reason to trust what I am told if and when I come to the point where I am in doubt. An old police habit, I guess, but it generally served me well.
 
Last edited:

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,560
Bendigo
While you guys are no doubt lollygagging - or sleeping - or whatever - I have been stumbling on with our investigation! In my stumbling, I stumbled on a reference to Marianne Eaton-Krauss’s 1990s claim that the name ‘Neferneferuaten’ is on Tuts sarcophagus, which was repurposed for his use. An attempt was made to erase all previous inscriptions relating to its former owner, but ‘Neferneferuaten’ could still be gleaned. Eaton-Krauss btw thought Neferneferuaten was a male predecessor to Tut. Is it true? I’ll go on as if it is true until someone says it’s not!

So, we have a possible ‘Ankhkheperure’ on Tuts mask and a ‘Neferneferuaten’ on Tuts sarcophagus. Reminds me of those Egyptologists who think KV62 was originally made for a female, possibly a queen. The prospect certainly is beginning to tantalise me!

Seeing as I currently suspect that Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten is Nefertiti, then could KV62 be her tomb after all? Did her son Tut get entombed in his mother’s tomb? Does this allow for the possibility that Nefertiti was entombed there originally? Would make sense in certain ways (to me, anyway).

Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten/Smenkhkare moves Akhenaten and Tiye (her brother/husband and mother) to KV55, a tomb of the Akhmin clan which happened to be available. (I only read somewhere in the past day or two - and I should have taken notes! - that Thuya and Yuya may have not been originally buried in KV46. If true, I wonder where they were moved from...anyhow, probably from outside the KV into KV IMO, if it actually happened. I think that was what I read anyhow, and it seems apt). When Tut died, the opportunity to remove Tiye from KV55 and Nefertiti from KV62 was seized?

As KV35YL/Nefertit/Sitamun was murdered, perhaps she never saw the inside of her tomb (KV62)?

To retrace her story (maybe?): she had organised some of her funerary equipment ahead of time, possibly at Amarna when she was still Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten and Akhenaten was still alive. This would include a golden coffin, possibly.... but it was all moved to KV62 after Akhenaten’s tomb at Amarna was entered and vandalised and desecrated. [Nefertiti reinterred Akhenaten’s poor bashed and beaten and stabbed mummy in one of her own old coffins. Which would make her a very early member of the recycling community when you come to think about it!)

Actually, I prefer the idea that Nefertiti was buried properly in KV62 and later removed when KV55 was entered as well. This at Tuts death. It all seems neater that way. Though Ancient Egyptian history did not occur for my convenience, I guess. Still, it’s plausible nonetheless IMO.

Now, could Nefertiti have been murdered quietly, the crime covered up, and Tut put on the throne while Nefertiti was given a proper burial in KV62? Sure, not as a pharaoh exactly , but in her available coffin etcetera. Only when Tut died did Ay finish things off to his full satisfaction. Nefertiti was put in with Tiye in KV22 and some fairly rushed desecration was done on Akbenatens mummy, including having his name erased from the coffin Nefertiti had placed him in, and removing his penis and wrapping a pectoral across like forehead to make it look like it was a girly crown. The fact he was already in a girly coffin was something of a convenient irony.

So Tut gets his mother’s sarcophagus and gold coffin. At the end of the day, would she really mind?
 
Last edited:

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,560
Bendigo
Just did a quick scan of Nicholas Reeves 2015 article on ‘Nefertiti’s Tomb (that’s KV62 btw, according to Reeves).

While his extra chambers seem now to be in some doubt, his basic premise that it was originally Nefertiti’s tomb seems sound. I have said before that perhaps the tomb had been planned to be larger with more chambers but the works were never carried out. So in a sense Reeves is right about those chambers: but they were only planned and not excavated. I still think that is plausible.

Also, I think that it being Nefertiti’s tomb is also plausible. It’s proximity to the tomb of her husband, Akhenaten (KV55) hints of this (to me). References to Ankhkheperure and Neferneferuaten inside KV62 hint of this (to me). The ‘Ankhkheperure’ on Tuts mask (if true) hints of this. The ‘Neferneferuaten’ on the sarcophagus (if true) hints of this. To me, shall these hints add up to Nefertiti being Tuts mother. This all adds to up to KV35YL being Nefertiti (or, just maybe, Meritaten). KV55 is likely to be Akhenaten. Almost certainly, IMO...just saying...
 
Last edited:

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,994
Lago Maggiore, Italy
Just did a quick scan of Nicholas Reeves 2015 article on ‘Nefertiti’s Tomb (that’s KV62 btw, according to Reeves).

While his extra chambers seem now to be in some doubt, his basic premise that it was originally Nefertiti’s tomb seems sound. I have said before that perhaps the tomb had been planned to be larger with more chambers but the works were never carried out. So in a sense Reeves is right about those chambers: but they were only planned and not excavated. I still think that is plausible.

Also, I think that it being Nefertiti’s tomb is also plausible. It’s proximity to the tomb of her husband, Akhenaten (KV55) hints of this (to me). References to Ankhkheperure and Neferneferuaten inside KV62 hint of this (to me). The ‘Ankhkheperure’ on Tuts mask (if true) hints of this. The ‘Neferneferuaten’ on the sarcophagus (if true) hints of this. To me, shall these hints add up to Nefertiti being Tuts mother. This all adds to up to KV35YL being Nefertiti (or, just maybe, Meritaten). KV55 is likely to be Akhenaten. Almost certainly, IMO...just saying...
Marianne Eaton-Krauss supposed, in 1990, that Neferneferuaten was a male Monarch [I guess on the base of the reasoning I have already considered: Smenkhkare was the first Ankhkheperure to be found and he was male, an other Ankhkheperure had to be male ...].

In Tut's tomb we've got also a shawl with a clear Ankhkheperure Griffith Institute: Carter Archives - 101s
Obviously Carter attributed it to Smenhkhare [without reason, actually, but it was the habit of his time, sopredictable].
Picture: Griffith Institute: Carter Archives - p0399
Carter's note: Griffith Institute: Carter Archives - 101s

Btw, this item [found in Tut's tomb as well Griffith Institute: Carter Archives - 046gg] suggests that Ankhkheperure got married with Meritaten. The two Royal Cartouches are in the usual composition.
Now, this is valid for both the Ankhkheperure [from the box we could infer that Meritaten was the Great Royal Wife of Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten and from the tomb of Meryre II we learn that she was the Great Royal Wife of Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare]. About this Meritate could have made what her mother did: she was the Great Royal Wife of the same Horo before and after the change of the Son of Ra Name [from Amenhotep to Akhenaten].
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,994
Lago Maggiore, Italy
Today I will go back to the internet archive of the Griffith Institute to check the sarcophagus. Actually I have never payed attention to what Eaten-Krauss noted.
 

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,384
Crows nest
I missed this post earlier.

Truth is, I have never seen this ‘evidence for Kiya’ ever produced.
The evidence is on the coffin and canopic jars, and this evidence has been presented by a number of experts in their publications. I think you have said before that you have Dodson's books on Amarna?. As I mentioned, the evidence is clearly presented in Aldred's book, and I do not doubt that there are papers out there on this, but I'm not spending time searching for them as I am quite happy with the evidence as presented in numerous publications in my possession. I suggest you find a copy of Aldred's book, which is still in print, and read at least the chapter on KV55.

This is what wiki says as regards the canopic jars and coffin.

It is now widely accepted that the coffin was originally intended for Akhenaten's secondary wife Kiya. It is also recognized that the four canopic jars discovered near the coffin belonged to Kiya, and that the female heads on the jars' stoppers portray her. Like the coffin, the canopic jars were altered for the burial of a king through the erasure of Kiya's titulary and the addition of a royal uraeus to each portrait head
KV55 - Wikipedia
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,994
Lago Maggiore, Italy
I'm reading what Eaton-Krauss said about some reviews of her work and she disputed some of what Reeves suggested. Anyway she makes reference to him about these little coffins Griffith Institute: Carter Archives - 266g. She reports that Reeves sustained that the cartouche of Tutankhkamen substituted the cartouches of Neferneferuaten which substituted the one of Smenkhkare. Now, there no way to be sure about the temporal sequence of the corrections ... so here we are considering an opinion [the known opinion that Smenkhkare came before of Neferneferuaten, which has lost kudos in the last decade].
 

Similar History Discussions