Akhenaten (Box, Carter Archive 001K)

Jul 2017
2,551
Crows nest
I don’t write off Immanuel Vellikovski or David Rohl, as I don’t write off Kenneth Kitchen, Cyril Aldred, James Allen, or (to be topical) Ronald Ridley. You look at them, and analyse their every hypothesis and theory with as much objrctivity as you can muster. That’s if you believe in open minded inquiry. Believe in proper investigative method.
As I mentioned, there are two sides to the fringe, alternate, pyramidiots, call then what you will. Some are simply on another track to orthodoxy, and here I would include de Lubicz, Ahmed Osman and Robert Bauval. I can and do disagree with a lot of what they say, but they say what they say on the basis of real knowledge and doing real research. The photographic and epigraphic work by de Lubicz at Karnak is first rate and is the reference for anybody to go to. On the other hand, the purveyors of "seed vaults" and "power plants" et al are so clearly wrong that they can be dismissed out of hand as having not one iota of value. It's the pyramidiots that are the problem, they have no interest in ancient Egypt and it's people, that's why most of them dismiss any idea that they built the pyramids. This is in fact insulting to Egyptians, but hey ho, the pyramidiots don't give a damn for anything except their own egos and bank balances.
 
Likes: Ayrton
Mar 2019
95
Peterborough, Ontario Canada
  • Kyla

    Kyla

As I mentioned, there are two sides to the fringe, alternate, pyramidiots, call then what you will. Some are simply on another track to orthodoxy, and here I would include de Lubicz, Ahmed Osman and Robert Bauval. I can and do disagree with a lot of what they say, but they say what they say on the basis of real knowledge and doing real research. The photographic and epigraphic work by de Lubicz at Karnak is first rate and is the reference for anybody to go to. On the other hand, the purveyors of "seed vaults" and "power plants" et al are so clearly wrong that they can be dismissed out of hand as having not one iota of value. It's the pyramidiots that are the problem, they have no interest in ancient Egypt and it's people, that's why most of them dismiss any idea that they built the pyramids. This is in fact insulting to Egyptians, but hey ho, the pyramidiots don't give a damn for anything except their own egos and bank balances.

Cordivius, we may have to agree to disagree on this and put it to one side in the interest of the task at hand (OM me if you want to discuss further).

While the bricks may have been intended to be magical and may have once held the figures that imbued them with magic and been destroyed/stolen; or, perhaps they did not contain any magic but were put there by a well-meaning loved one, or follower, the fact remains that someone put them there along with the body that they thought was Akhenaten’s (a la Gardiner’s interpretation).

Who might that have been?

Only Nefertiti and Ankhesenapaaten are mentioned on Hermopolis block 826-VIII A, if the inscription by Roeder is accurate (see attached).

If Nefertiti was Pharoah would she not have afforded a better burial for Akhenaten? Or did Ay or someone else alter the burial that she—or Ankhesenpaaten—had created for Akhenaten?

Same questions arise if Tut had done the (re)burial.

We know the same seals on his tomb were on KV55, presumably after Tut had died but before the opening of the mouth and the new Pharoah taking over.

So why would Ay have done this?

Or was he responsible for the original (re)burial and then Horemheb or the priests of the later dynasty excavating above go in there and take over equipment and move bodies?

While we’ve ping-ponged back and forth on this topic, so much rides on who KV55 is and the saga surrounding the Amarna Cache.

Just to put it out there, what are your current musings at this point in the thread about KV55’s occupant and your version of events?
 

Attachments

Jan 2017
3,827
Bendigo
Cordivius, we may have to agree to disagree on this and put it to one side in the interest of the task at hand (OM me if you want to discuss further).

While the bricks may have been intended to be magical and may have once held the figures that imbued them with magic and been destroyed/stolen; or, perhaps they did not contain any magic but were put there by a well-meaning loved one, or follower, the fact remains that someone put them there along with the body that they thought was Akhenaten’s (a la Gardiner’s interpretation).

Who might that have been?

Only Nefertiti and Ankhesenapaaten are mentioned on Hermopolis block 826-VIII A, if the inscription by Roeder is accurate (see attached).

If Nefertiti was Pharoah would she not have afforded a better burial for Akhenaten? Or did Ay or someone else alter the burial that she—or Ankhesenpaaten—had created for Akhenaten?

Same questions arise if Tut had done the (re)burial.

We know the same seals on his tomb were on KV55, presumably after Tut had died but before the opening of the mouth and the new Pharoah taking over.

So why would Ay have done this?

Or was he responsible for the original (re)burial and then Horemheb or the priests of the later dynasty excavating above go in there and take over equipment and move bodies?

While we’ve ping-ponged back and forth on this topic, so much rides on who KV55 is and the saga surrounding the Amarna Cache.

Just to put it out there, what are your current musings at this point in the thread about KV55’s occupant and your version of events?
I still look at Stephen Cross’ flood and think his arguments are very good for placing the removal of Tiye from KV55 at the beginning (at Tuts entombment) or at least sometime in his reign. I continue to wonder if Ay had lots of time for Tiye but not so much for Akhenaten in the end. Ay seemed a big fan of Atenism to begin with, but if he removed Tiye from KV55 (as I think Cross’ flood puts a good argument for) then Ay may have lost the love for his former master. Charismatic leaders can, in the end, lose the love of their devoted followers IMO. I think immediately of the likes of Hitler here, in a secular sense at the least, but there was something of magic and religion in that early adoration he had, until things went pear shaped.
 
Jan 2017
3,827
Bendigo
The main issue is that at least half of the magic in the complete brick is missing, presumably deliberately. This means they have no function whatsoever, even if originally placed intact in the tomb by his family trying to do the right thing. But then, knowing him, presumably being his children, or even wife, though I doubt that, and being Atenists from birth, what are they doing introducing Osiris and the Duat into his burial.

If KV55 was exactly as it is, but in an alternate universe with no Atenism, we could just ignore these bricks as part of the desecration, and damaging them would in fact have had some meaning to the deceased, but in our universe with Akhenaten, the bricks, damaged or intact, have no meaning.
I always allow for ‘flexibility’ when it comes to humans and their rules and regulations as I have already mentioned. With Atenism being so new and innovative, I guess I can imagine quite a bit of variability and interpration and personal opinion in things like how ‘Osiris’ was to be treated. How Akhenaten may have thought about these things may not have been how others - on an individual or group basis - interpreted things themselves, including what they interpreted as what Akhenaten was getting at. I can imagine a lot of confusion. And if Akhenaten had not left any clear instructions as to what to do with his mortal remains and his immortal soul after death, maybe his entombers to some degree had to make things up as they went along as best they could. Atenism did not seem to be a particularly ‘immutable’ during the Akhetaten Period. Indeed, Akhenaten himself seems to have been making it up as he went along. I wonder if all innovative religions are this all over the place when they start out? How does a new religion come to be ‘organised’ when it’s beginnings were inspirational and revolutionary and other-worldly? Christianity took awhile to settle on its doctrine.

Apologies, Kiya, I thought I had quoted a post from Corvidius. Never mind. My thoughts remain the same, no matter who I am bothering at the time. 😂
 
Jan 2017
3,827
Bendigo
Putting together the other fragments I can read something with a meaning like ...
[btw, according to the analysis made by Peet, who saw physically the fragments, "Royal Daughter" substituted "Royal Wife". So that, this is an evidence that the marriage of Akhenaten with Kiya became at a certain point public. She could have stayed at Palace]

/// Aten //// Royal Daughter beloved of his body ////
daughter /// wife /// giving Life Forever /// Meritaten


Fragment J is even worse
Wife // daughter [*] of the Lord of the Bee and the Sedge
Living in Ma'at Neferkheperure Waenre, Given Life Forever
Royal Daughter beloved of his body Meritaten

* the signs look a mess


Then, I would underline that it wasn't Peet to note Kiya. He doesn't guess who was the wife before of Meritaten.
Sorry to harp on this, my friend, but is your ‘royal daughter beloved of his body’ an added bit on the Stela (along with Meritaten), or was it always there? You know, squashed in somehow, as I suggested, or is it too replacing something else? For me this is potentially an incredibly important detail. 🧐
 
Oct 2011
25,533
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Sorry to harp on this, my friend, but is your ‘royal daughter beloved of his body’ an added bit on the Stela (along with Meritaten), or was it always there? You know, squashed in somehow, as I suggested, or is it too replacing something else? For me this is potentially an incredibly important detail. 🧐
That what is visible in Peet's work, that is to say what he saw. This means that it's the result of the correction, of the substitution. Peet talks about the corrections he noted and actually, reading well his work, I've noted that he indicates Nefertiti Neferneferuaten as the original personage [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].

Now that I read these pages, I wonder who, when and how detected "Kiya" there ...
 
Last edited:
Oct 2011
25,533
Italy, Lago Maggiore
About Tut's throne, [Griffith Institute: Carter Archives - 091], what's sure is that it was an Atenist throne [from the late period: note the version of the Aten here ... Griffith Institute: Carter Archives - 091-09, regardless the presence of the cartouches of Tutankhamen], with Tutankhaten still visible [Griffith Institute: Carter Archives - 091-08].

Among other things, the titles of Ankhesenamen remind the ones of Nefertiti:

Hereditary Princess, Great in Favours, Mistress of Sedge and Papyrus, Lady of the Two Lands ...
 
Likes: Kyla
Jan 2017
3,827
Bendigo
That what is visible in Peet's work, that is to say what he saw. This means that it's the result of the correction, of the substitution. Peet talks about the corrections he noted and actually, reading well his work, I've noted that he indicates Nefertiti Neferneferuaten as the original personage [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].

Now that I read these pages, I wonder who, when and how detected "Kiya" there ...
Just for clarity: ‘royal daughter beloved of his body’ arrived the same time Meritaten arrived on the Stela, and replaced ‘Nefertiti Neferneferuaten’ (with or without epithets etc.?)? A perfect fit? Squashed in? Stretched out? How is it explained, do you know?

And how ‘Kiya’ Was detected would be nice to know. Kiya and epithets, presumably? Replaced by ‘royal daughter beloved of his body, Meritaten’?
 
Last edited:
Jan 2017
3,827
Bendigo
About Tut's throne, [Griffith Institute: Carter Archives - 091], what's sure is that it was an Atenist throne [from the late period: note the version of the Aten here ... Griffith Institute: Carter Archives - 091-09, regardless the presence of the cartouches of Tutankhamen], with Tutankhaten still visible [Griffith Institute: Carter Archives - 091-08].

Among other things, the titles of Ankhesenamen remind the ones of Nefertiti:

Hereditary Princess, Great in Favours, Mistress of Sedge and Papyrus, Lady of the Two Lands ...
Not Nefertiti’s? Not Ankhsenpaaten where we should be thinking ‘akhet en hyes’ ‘efective’ (or ‘resplendent’) for her husband’?
 
Oct 2011
25,533
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Just for clarity: ‘royal daughter beloved of his body’ arrived the same time Meritaten arrived on the Stela, and replaced ‘Nefertiti Neferneferuaten’ (with or without epithets etc.?)? A perfect fit? Squashed in? Stretched out? How is it explained, do you know?

And how ‘Kiya’ Was detected would be nice to know. Kiya and epithets, presumably? Replaced by ‘royal daughter beloved of his body, Meritaten’?
Peet's drawings show the last aspect [with "royal daughter beloved of his body" and Meritaten]. In his explanation he says that such a sentence substituted "Nefertiti Neferneferuaten Living Forever in the Eternity".

The most interesting point is that in a substituted section he draws the signs for "Wife" [it's incomplete ... but there is the sign of the sitting woman, usually absent in "Great Royal Wife"] ... quite curious reffered to Nefertiti. Left page, detail (a) 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.

About what happened, Peet [according to the legend under the drawings] says that the surface had intentionally erased to allow the substitution. As for I can read, he was able to note traces of the original inscription and to reconstruct it.
 
Likes: Ayrton

Similar History Discussions