Akhenaten (Box, Carter Archive 001K)

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,533
Bendigo
Stela Fragment from the Maru-Aten complex I. On the front of the stela;
The King offers a libation jar to the Aten, while a royal lady shakes a sistrum behind him.
Beside solar disk: (Heka-Aten)|, given life forever continually; great living Aten, lord of jubilees(s), lord of everything Aten encircles, lord of heaven, lord of earth in the sunshade of the wife and great beloved Kiya in the Maru of the Aten in Akhet-Aten.
By King: The Lord of the Two Lands (Neferkheperure - Waenre)|, given life, Lord of Crowns , (Akhenaten)| , great in his lifetime.
Above the lady: the wife and great beloved of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, who lives on Maat, Lord of the Two Lands, (Neferkheperure - Waenre)|, given life [...]
[the beautiful child] of the [living] Aten who lives continually forever, Kiya;
the King's bodily daughter, his beloved ..., born to the wife and great beloved of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, who lives on Maat, (Neferkheperure - Waenre)|, [the beautiful child of the living Aten who lives continually forever, Kiya];
<Usurped and re-inscribed for the King's Daughter Meretaten>
On the back of the stela:
II. The King elevates a censer to the disk.
<inscriptions are virtually identical to those on the front.>

Line 10 clearly days ‘kings bodily daughter’. So was this ‘added’ later, replacing something else*, or was it somehow just squeezed in? And if ‘kings bodily daughter’ replaced something else, I wonder what? This is clearly something that needs clarity. Otherwise, it sure looks like the stele identifies Kiya as ‘king’s bodily daughter,’ whether we like it or not.


The back of the stele have inscriptions ‘virtually identical to those on the front’. Nice to do our own comparisons, AlpinLuke. You know,why not get out trusted researcher onto this! ‘Virtually’ implies, ‘close but not exactly the same’, IMO. If not identical, why not have a look at how it differs?
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,957
Lago Maggiore, Italy
I think a move from ‘Sitamun’ or another sister to Nefertiti is not hard to imagine. Also, as I have postulated before, with her marriage to Akhenaten there may have been no thought to mention ‘king’s sister’ or ‘daughter’ anymore, just Akhenatens loving epithets for her and, of course, that very important Great Royal Spouse. Dropping Sitamun from usage is identical to dropping Amenophis from use, and for the same reason.

Also there was that ‘of the king’s body’ for the daughter. No other daughter is mentioned but Kiya. Why is it more logical to postulate other females and not seriously consider Kiya? Her name is there, no other other female name is there, other than Meritaten. Is the ‘of the body’ thing something clearly ‘added’ (along with ‘Meritaten’) or not, I wonder?

NB Do we have instances of ‘Amenophis’ being replaced with ‘Akhenaten’ in inscriptions anywhere? ’
About this it seems that Akhenaten has acted in a different way from Tutankhamen. But the available sets of evidences are different. We've got cases where objects have been "corrected" and Tutankhamen has substituted Tutankhaten. We haven't got this about Amenhotep / Akhenaten, but we haven't got enough samples [objects] to be sure of this. Anyway we can be certain that in depiction no one erased Amenhotep [there are tombs, like the one of the Vizier Ramose, where we can see scenes with Amenhotep and then scenes with Akhenaten ... like in a historical chronicle]. And mentioning Ramose's tomb, we could reason again a bit about the representation where Amenhotep is with a goddess ["Ma'at Daughter of Ra"] instead of being with Nefertiti [Davies, Norman De Garis - The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose (1941) : Davies, Norman de Garis (1865-1941); Peet, Thomas Eric (1882-1934) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive]. No Great Royal Wife with him yet.

That representation is very interesting. Since in such a context the GRW [if existing] should be there with the Monarch, it can mean that Neferkheperure Amenhotep got the Crowns before of the Royal Marriage with Nefertiti.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,957
Lago Maggiore, Italy
Stela Fragment from the Maru-Aten complex I. On the front of the stela;
The King offers a libation jar to the Aten, while a royal lady shakes a sistrum behind him.
Beside solar disk: (Heka-Aten)|, given life forever continually; great living Aten, lord of jubilees(s), lord of everything Aten encircles, lord of heaven, lord of earth in the sunshade of the wife and great beloved Kiya in the Maru of the Aten in Akhet-Aten.
By King: The Lord of the Two Lands (Neferkheperure - Waenre)|, given life, Lord of Crowns , (Akhenaten)| , great in his lifetime.
Above the lady: the wife and great beloved of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, who lives on Maat, Lord of the Two Lands, (Neferkheperure - Waenre)|, given life [...]
[the beautiful child] of the [living] Aten who lives continually forever, Kiya;
the King's bodily daughter, his beloved ..., born to the wife and great beloved of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, who lives on Maat, (Neferkheperure - Waenre)|, [the beautiful child of the living Aten who lives continually forever, Kiya];
<Usurped and re-inscribed for the King's Daughter Meretaten>
On the back of the stela:
II. The King elevates a censer to the disk.
<inscriptions are virtually identical to those on the front.>

Line 10 clearly days ‘kings bodily daughter’. So was this ‘added’ later, replacing something else*, or was it somehow just squeezed in? And if ‘kings bodily daughter’ replaced something else, I wonder what? This is clearly something that needs clarity. Otherwise, it sure looks like the stele identifies Kiya as ‘king’s bodily daughter,’ whether we like it or not.


The back of the stele have inscriptions ‘virtually identical to those on the front’. Nice to do our own comparisons, AlpinLuke. You know,why not get out trusted researcher onto this! ‘Virtually’ implies, ‘close but not exactly the same’, IMO. If not identical, why not have a look at how it differs?
It depends on what it's possible to find on the net [unfortunately here I don't see links to take a look at the stela Queen Kiya]. I need to make a researche to find it and take a look.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,957
Lago Maggiore, Italy
Ok, we had already seen those fragments of stela from the Maru Aten [in Peet's work: MEEF 38 Peet, E; Woolley, CL - The City of Akhenaton 1 (1923) : Peet, Thomas Eric (1882-1934); Woolley, Leonard (1880-1960) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive]. I've orientated myself in the inscription. Later I will try and check the detail you are underlining. Anyway, at first sight, I can tell you that the right expression is "Royal Daughter" [as usual].

And from the legend offered by Peet, I would infer that all the "Royal Daughter" are on "intentionally erased surfaces". This would suggest that "Royal Daughter" wasn't in the original text.
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,533
Bendigo
About this it seems that Akhenaten has acted in a different way from Tutankhamen. But the available sets of evidences are different. We've got cases where objects have been "corrected" and Tutankhamen has substituted Tutankhaten. We haven't got this about Amenhotep / Akhenaten, but we haven't got enough samples [objects] to be sure of this. Anyway we can be certain that in depiction no one erased Amenhotep [there are tombs, like the one of the Vizier Ramose, where we can see scenes with Amenhotep and then scenes with Akhenaten ... like in a historical chronicle]. And mentioning Ramose's tomb, we could reason again a bit about the representation where Amenhotep is with a goddess ["Ma'at Daughter of Ra"] instead of being with Nefertiti [Davies, Norman De Garis - The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose (1941) : Davies, Norman de Garis (1865-1941); Peet, Thomas Eric (1882-1934) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive]. No Great Royal Wife with him yet.

That representation is very interesting. Since in such a context the GRW [if existing] should be there with the Monarch, it can mean that Neferkheperure Amenhotep got the Crowns before of the Royal Marriage with Nefertiti.
I guess this might be an argument for Akhenaten choosing his own Great Royal Spouse with less interference from family in the choice AFTER he was pharaoh. And before, was Nefertiti with him before he was Crown Prince? But then... why not children earlier? I always return to te fact Nefertiti had Tey as wetnurse and/or mentor as a child still says she could not be particularly common, no less common than the Akhmins, and, one suspects, of the royal family. To choose a wife who is not a Heriditary Princess seems a big step, though Amenophis III had Tiye as wife. Did Amenophis III have full sisters himself? ... ... I feel like I keep walking into a brick wall with this...

NB I always return to his quickly Akhenaten started having children with Nefrtiti so close after him becoming pharaoh, I can’t escape the feeling marrying Nefertit8 was your up with his claim tin the throne. Only a marriage to a Heriditary Princess might explain this. And why would this not be ‘the’ Hereditary Princess? = Sitamun?
 
Last edited:

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,533
Bendigo
Ok, we had already seen those fragments of stela from the Maru Aten [in Peet's work: MEEF 38 Peet, E; Woolley, CL - The City of Akhenaton 1 (1923) : Peet, Thomas Eric (1882-1934); Woolley, Leonard (1880-1960) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive]. I've orientated myself in the inscription. Later I will try and check the detail you are underlining. Anyway, at first sight, I can tell you that the right expression is "Royal Daughter" [as usual].

And from the legend offered by Peet, I would infer that all the "Royal Daughter" are on "intentionally erased surfaces". This would suggest that "Royal Daughter" wasn't in the original text.
No ‘the king’s bodily daughter’? Though if it replaces an erasure, it probably goes with Meritaten usurping Kiya’s place as a name. Still, I would like to know what would go in its place on the stele, what wording was original.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,957
Lago Maggiore, Italy
I guess this might be an argument for Akhenaten choosing his own Great Royal Spouse with less interference from family in the choice AFTER he was pharaoh. And before, was Nefertiti with him before he was Crown Prince? But then... why not children earlier? I always return to te fact Nefertiti had Tey as wetnurse and/or mentor as a child still says she could not be particularly common, no less common than the Akhmins, and, one suspects, of the royal family. To choose a wife who is not a Heriditary Princess seems a big step, though Amenophis III had Tiye as wife. Did Amenophis III have full sisters himself? ... ... I feel like I keep walking into a brick wall with this...

NB I always return to his quickly Akhenaten started having children with Nefrtiti so close after him becoming pharaoh, I can’t escape the feeling marrying Nefertit8 was your up with his claim tin the throne. Only a marriage to a Heriditary Princess might explain this. And why would this not be ‘the’ Hereditary Princess? = Sitamun?
Here we can make a couple of considerations.

* As already noted, a Royal Marriage was public [we can say "institutional"], but nothing impeded to the two persons to get married before. Let's keep in mind that the common marriage in Ancient Egypt was simply the decision to sleep together under the same roof. There was no official legal steps to take [no priest, no mayor ...]. A simple ceremony where the husband carried the wife into their new home.

* The second consideration is that, being Akhenaten a natural heir [even if second heir, but after ther disappearance of his eldest brother he became the first heir] he didn't need to have a Great Royal Wife to legitimate his condition as Sovereign.
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,533
Bendigo
Here we can make a couple of considerations.

* As already noted, a Royal Marriage was public [we can say "institutional"], but nothing impeded to the two persons to get married before. Let's keep in mind that the common marriage in Ancient Egypt was simply the decision to sleep together under the same roof. There was no official legal steps to take [no priest, no mayor ...]. A simple ceremony where the husband carried the wife into their new home.

* The second consideration is that, being Akhenaten a natural heir [even if second heir, but after ther disappearance of his eldest brother he became the first heir] he didn't need to have a Great Royal Wife to legitimate his condition as Sovereign.
I use the word ‘marriage’ broadly. They were either together or not together in a conjugal sense before Akhenaten was pharaoh.

Regards your second consideration, are you saying that Crown Princes did not marry the Heriditary Princess, their full sister? Making his favourite bed buddy (?) his Main Bed Buddy, or Great Royal Wife if you like, was a separate matter, I thought.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,957
Lago Maggiore, Italy
No ‘the king’s bodily daughter’? Though if it replaces an erasure, it probably goes with Meritaten usurping Kiya’s place as a name. Still, I would like to know what would go in its place on the stele, what wording was original.
No, "bodily" is an interpolation and that "King's" is the usual "Royal". Even on the reverse, where the condition of the fragment could make you see the word "body", but actually it's "Royal" [REVERSE, Peet's note about column C]
peet.JPG
https://historum.com/attachments/upload?type=post&context[thread_id]=124711&hash=fdb481de2dee0314e7d0eae1107c02ac
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,957
Lago Maggiore, Italy
I use the word ‘marriage’ broadly. They were either together or not together in a conjugal sense before Akhenaten was pharaoh.

Regards your second consideration, are you saying that Crown Princes did not marry the Heriditary Princess, their full sister? Making his favourite bed buddy (?) his Main Bed Buddy, or Great Royal Wife if you like, was a separate matter, I thought.
Here we should evaluate what the Royal Parents planned for their two sons. Akhenaten was the second heir and we suspect that the father wanted a coregency with the son. If we follow your idea that Sitamun became Nefertiti ... may be when the coregency begun Sitamun was still Great Royal Wife of the father.

If Nefertiti wasn't Sitamun, anyway Sitamun was playing the ritual role of GRW. When Nefertiti appears, no other GRW is around, even if in the early phase of Neferkheperure's reign [when theoretically Amenhotep and Sitamun were still there].
 

Similar History Discussions