Akhenaten (Box, Carter Archive 001K)

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,567
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Wait ...

I'm reconsidering the translation with that "bodly". I have checked Peet's work and there you cannot see this. There is the inscription with Meritaten. There is the possibility that a better direct examination has allowed some scholars to reconstruct the original inscription, the one with Kiya. In this case Kiya would be a Royal Daughter. But how could we check this? Have you got references for the translation with "bodly"?
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,567
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Let's got back to what Peet writes. From his drawing I see [again the column C] an odd way to write "Royal Daughter" and he suggests "Royal Wife" and a third option which is similar to "body".
But these versions would make "Royal Daughter" simply "Daughter" [not Royal, since the sign for "Royal" would remain in the word above. In good substance Peet's drawing generates several problems. And as I said in an other occasion, I cannot see Kiya there. And Peet didn't mention her.

Evidently she has been noted later, by someone elese. Who?

The answer is Hanke, in the 70's [A Delta-man in Yebu], but I don't find a version of his work with free access online.
 
Last edited:

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,829
Bendigo
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].
Paragraph 1: That is a really interesting idea. So, if true, when exactly did she transition to becoming the bed buddy of Amenophis IV?

Paragraph 2: Identifying when Sitamun became GRW, and then when she falls out of the record, would be nice to know.

Your post really requires close thinking over, my friend. Need to mull over this a bit, I think.




Idle musings: The Amenophis-Tiye-Sitamun trio has always struck me as identical to the Akhenaten-Neferti-Meritaten trio. But then, wit a Coregency in mind, we potentially get a Amenophis III-Akhenaten-Sitamun triad. Later, we get a Akhenaten-Ankheperure Neferneferuaten-Meritaten triad. Did we ever have an Ankhkheperure-Tutankhaten-Meritaten triad (or an Ankheperure Smenkhkare-Tutankhaten-Ankhsenpaaten triad)?
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,829
Bendigo
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]
View attachment 16118
https://historum.com/attachments/upload?type=post&context[thread_id]=124711&hash=fdb481de2dee0314e7d0eae1107c02ac

What do you mean by ‘Interpolation’? By the translator or by the scribe who altered the inscription? In other words, was ‘bodily’ every actually there, whether originally or added later?
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,829
Bendigo
Wait ...

I'm reconsidering the translation with that "bodly". I have checked Peet's work and there you cannot see this. There is the inscription with Meritaten. There is the possibility that a better direct examination has allowed some scholars to reconstruct the original inscription, the one with Kiya. In this case Kiya would be a Royal Daughter. But how could we check this? Have you got references for the translation with "bodly"?
I don’t think I do. Only what is in the quotes I posted. Interesting, when so many of the other inscriptions quoted note sources.
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,829
Bendigo
Let's got back to what Peet writes. From his drawing I see [again the column C] an odd way to write "Royal Daughter" and he suggests "Royal Wife" and a third option which is similar to "body".
But these versions would make "Royal Daughter" simply "Daughter" [not Royal, since the sign for "Royal" would remain in the word above. In good substance Peet's drawing generates several problems. And as I said in an other occasion, I cannot see Kiya there. And Peet didn't mention her.

Evidently she has been noted later, by someone elese. Who?

The answer is Hanke, in the 70's [A Delta-man in Yebu], but I don't find a version of his work with free access online.
How frustrating is that!

Oh well, I think we must have an open mind about whether Kiya was ever noted as something like ‘king’s bodily daughter’. Maybe the other quoted inscriptions can hint that maybe she was, because Kiya is noted as having given birth to a Meritaten-Tasherit. Named after her mother? It would seem the first and most plausible guess, you’d think, even if it turned out to be the wrong guess. (I am reminded of that Neferneferuaten-Tasherit. A false memory of mine?)


NB This ‘tasherit’ ‘junior’ business: does it suggest mother and daughter having the same name? It certainly is the first conclusion I jump to.
 
Last edited:

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,567
Italy, Lago Maggiore
What do you mean by ‘Interpolation’? By the translator or by the scribe who altered the inscription? In other words, was ‘bodily’ every actually there, whether originally or added later?
To make the sign for "Royal" be similar to the first sign of the word "body" you have to engrave in a very bad way. But considering that the surface in that area had erased and then inscribed again ... it's not so clear.
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,829
Bendigo
To make the sign for "Royal" be similar to the first sign of the word "body" you have to engrave in a very bad way. But considering that the surface in that area had erased and then inscribed again ... it's not so clear.
Correct me if I am wrong, but if ‘body’ was ever there, it was there originally and only altered later to ‘royal’? Is it possible we see ‘body’ beneath ‘royal’, or is it the other way around?
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,829
Bendigo
Amenophis III/Akhenaten Timeline {hypothetical, of course}

Round brackets: Year of Reign
Square brackets: Age of personages... {hypothetical ages only}

Timeline 1 without Coregency

(-12). Birth of Amenophis III [0]
(1). Amenophis III [12]
(4). Amenophis III [16]. Birth of Prince Thutmose [0]
(6). Amenophis III [18]. Birth of Prince Amenophis [0]
(8). Amenophis III [20]. Birth of Sitamun. [0]
(30). Amenophis III [42]. Thutmose [26] Amenophis [24] Sitamun [22]
(39). Amenophis III [51]. Amenophis [31] Sitamun [29]
(1). Amenophis IV [31]. Sitamun [29]
(2). Amenophis IV [32]. Sitamun [30] Meritaten [0]
(17). Akhenaten [40]. Sitamun [38]. Meritaten [16]

Akhenaten is 40 or younger when he ascends the throne. In this scenario, Nefertiti would certainly not be Sitamun. Not if she went on to have 6 daughters.

Timeline 2 with Coregency

(-12). Birth of Amenophis III [0]
(1). Amenophis III [12]
(4). Amenophis III [16]. Birth of Prince Thutmose
(6). Amenophis III [18]. Birth of Prince Amenophis
(8). Amenophis III [20]. Birth of Sitamun.
(30). Amenophis III [42]. (1) Amenophis IV [24] Sitamun [22]
(31) Amenophis III [43]. (2) Amenophis IV [25] Sitamun [23] Meritaten [0]
(39). Amenophis III [51]. (9)Amenophis IV [31] Sitamun [29] Meritaten [8]

Whether or not Sitamun [22] is Nefertiti, Akhenaten is 24 (or younger) when he ascends throne.


No matter how you look at it, unless Amenophis was 31 when he ascended the throne, a coregency is looking good. This, of course, could mean Nefertiti was much younger when she was made wife of Akhenaten, but he certainly waited a long time before taking a potential number 1 queen into his arms.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,567
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Correct me if I am wrong, but if ‘body’ was ever there, it was there originally and only altered later to ‘royal’? Is it possible we see ‘body’ beneath ‘royal’, or is it the other way around?
To be fair with the ones who saw "body" there, I have to say that the status of the erased and newly engraved areas is not exceptionally clear. Anyway "body" in hieroglyphics is to be written with a short vertical line and honestly I cannot see something like that there.

But ... I'm basing my opinion on Peet's work [a drawing], I have to evaluate the work made by the ones who have physically examined the pieces.
 

Similar History Discussions