Akhenaten (Box, Carter Archive 001K)

Status
Closed
Nov 2016
1,130
Germany
I, of course, see Kiya and Nefertiti as the same woman. The more I poke around, the more convinced I become.
But how is this in line with the finding that the person in tomb KV35YL, who is genetically the mother of Tutankhamun and is identified according to the current consensus with Kiya (and not with Nefertiti), was killed by physical force, i.e. murdered? (Investigation by radiologist Dr. Ashraf Selim who claims the face was smashed before her death).

1560176265202.jpeg

As far as I know, you assume that Nefertiti reigned as Pharaoh Semenkhkare. So if Nefertiti was this Pharaoh and was identical with Kiya and Kiya with the Younger Lady, it would mean that Nefertiti was murdered as a Pharaoh (which of course would also apply if the mummy in KV35YL is identical to Nefertiti anyway, without the detour via a Nefertiti=Kiya identification). This does not appear to be impossible if it is true that Nefertiti is the author of the letter (found in an archive in Hattusha) to the Hittite king Suppiluliuma, whose author is a certain Dahamunzu (in Egyptian = Ta hemet nisu = the royal wife). Before that the Mitanni king had been overthrown and his son had fled to the Hittites, where he married a daughter of the Hittite king, which may have inspired ´Dahamunzu´ to her marriage plan. The letter says: "My husband died, and I have no son. But it is said that your sons are numerous." Then the author expresses her wish to marry one of the princes. So a Hittite mediator visited the queen in Egypt and negotiated a contract according to which after a marriage "the two great countries will only be one country". A Hittite prince Zanzanna travelled to Egypt to marry Nefertiti, but was murdered by assassins, what led to furious Hittite attacks on Egyptian Syria. It would be conceivable that Nefertiti, who if identical with Dahamunzu had of course committed treason in the eyes of traditionalists, had also been forcibly eliminated, since they had enough of Akhenaten's religious revolution and didn't want a political revolution now, to top it all off. The good diplomatic relations Egypt had with Mitanni since Amenophis III were, by the way, to a high degree based on the fact that Mitanni formed a buffer zone between the aggressive Hittites and Egypt.
 
Last edited:

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,268
Bendigo
But how is this in line with the finding that the person in tomb KV35YL, who is genetically the mother of Tutankhamun and is identified according to the current consensus with Kiya (and not with Nefertiti), was killed by physical force, i.e. murdered? (Investigation by radiologist Dr. Ashraf Selim who claims the face was smashed before her death).

View attachment 20544

As far as I know, you assume that Nefertiti reigned as Pharaoh Semenkhkare. So if Nefertiti was this Pharaoh and was identical with Kiya and Kiya with the Younger Lady, it would mean that Nefertiti was murdered as a Pharaoh (which of course would also apply if the mummy in KV35YL is identical to Nefertiti anyway, without the detour via a Nefertiti=Kiya identification). This does not appear to be impossible if it is true that Nefertiti is the author of the letter (found in an archive in Hattusha) to the Hittite king Suppiluliuma, whose author is a certain Dahamunzu (in Egyptian = Ta hemet nisu = the royal wife). Before that the Mitanni king had been overthrown and his son had fled to the Hittites, where he married a daughter of the Hittite king, which may have inspired ´Dahamunzu´ to her marriage plan. The letter says: "My husband died, and I have no son. But it is said that your sons are numerous." Then the author expresses her wish to marry one of the princes. So a Hittite mediator visited the queen in Egypt and negotiated a contract according to which after a marriage "the two great countries will only be one country". A Hittite prince Zanzanna travelled to Egypt to marry Nefertiti, but was murdered by assassins, what led to furious Hittite attacks on Egyptian Syria. It would be conceivable that Nefertiti, who if identical with Dahamunzu had of course committed treason in the eyes of traditionalists, had also been forcibly eliminated, since they had enough of Akhenaten's religious revolution and didn't want a political revolution now, to top it all off. The good diplomatic relations Egypt had with Mitanni since Amenophis III were, by the way, to a high degree based on the fact that Mitanni formed a buffer zone between the aggressive Hittites and Egypt.
The murder hypothesis is one I was fond of, but then decided that it might not be the only plausibilty. If Kiya is Nefertiti (which is my favoured hypothesis at the moment) and she was also Smenkhkare (which is a favoutite of mine and has been for a long time), then her death in battle or some kind of accident could have been the cause of death; horse kick is one of many suggestions, and why not? Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten’s presence in a frontier fort suggests activity on her part. The fact her corpse she was not thrown in a ditch or burned, and she went through mummification, might argue against murder.

The Zanzanna business I have no firm view on at all. I have even wondered it was not some kid of tall story, propaganda maybe; not unlike the Solomon story involving a nameless Egyptian Princess... Indeed, I still find the tale quite fantastic - both stories, actually. Fantastic does not mean it can’t have happened.I’m not ready to jump either way regards Zanzanna: the Solomon tale I think total bunk.
 

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
3,047
Crows nest
Mummification seems to indicate that the person turned into a sah was now divine to a degree, and by that I mean that the sah of a king is more divine than that of an overseer. Pentawere, the criminal son of Ramesses III, while not having his body destroyed, was not turned into a sah, and what we see with the previously known "Screaming man E" is the product of natural mummification. That the Amarna mummmies are all, or rather were, a sah, shows that when they died, no matter the circumstances, they were seen as worthy of becoming a sah and so divine. The vast majority of ancient Egyptians never became a sah as this process did not extend to the hoi polloi. So, if there is a mummy, then it was of a person not disgraced in life. What happens after mummification at a later date is another matter.

In a way this business of thinking that there was any strong reason to burn a persons sah at some future time, outside of what robbers did, is a red herring. While it is true that in normal circumstances the sah was needed as a "base" for the ba, it is not as crucial as is usually said. For instance, countless numbers of people would have drowned in the Nile or been eaten by crocodiles and their bodies lost. Is this unfortunate accident a reason to be denied a place in the afterlife, no it is not, and, as I may have mentioned before, Horus operated a "rescue service" for a ba without a body. This is described in the "Books of the dead". So, by the time anybody intent of desecrating got to the sah, it was to late to deny them an afterlife. Their body had been turned into a sah and, if not a king, they had been judged by Osiris. The living, no matter how wound up they might be with whatever individual it is they don't like, have no say in what happens in the afterlife. They may do damage, but it is just spite and is not quite the horror we assume, it's not good of course, but a desecration has not whisked the "offender" out of the afterlife into the second death. So while I had at one time thought that at least Akhenaten's body had been destroyed, and so not KV55, his body does not need to be destroyed, and the desecration is a mix of spite and to deny him a name in this world. There is no "bad" heka to be used in a desecration, only a removal of names and faces. If they thought by performing "bad" heka would have an effect in the afterlife, then we would see signs of this in KV55, but while a wreck, there are no "black magic" spells as we see in movies like "The Mummy". Heka is just heka, neither good nor bad.

As a side note, the unmummified remains found at Amarna have been used to state that we have an oppressed workforce who died young and were more or less dumped in the ground in very crude graves. Nobody in the 19th Century of our era, and going back to the year dot, would even bother to make comment on the age of the remains, why should they when eight year olds were still being send down pit in Victorian England, and ten year olds hung. This is an issue in our snowflake world and we should not make presumptions about what was actually happening at Amarna with the peasant workforce, for what we see is normal, though at least they did not set eight or ten year olds to hard work. And none of them were turned into a sah because they were, in their society, just hoi polloi not worthy of such treatment.

Note: It might seem pedantic using the term sah when we usually always say mummy, but while this modern word is handy, it is just a catch all that includes all forms of preservation, from the frozen Otzi to bog bodies and the naturally mummified "Ginger". The sah is far more than just a preserved body and in the context of this post it is the proper term to use. It's that old heka thing...

And, this connects to Kyla's posts on sashes. Everything is connected, just as it is in Dark
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tammuz
Apr 2019
196
UK
The Zanzanna situation fits Ankensenamun far better than Nefertiti / Smenkhkare - there was a royal prince, the son of her husband at least if not her son, Tutankhamun. Compare that to Ankhensenamun's situation - young husband dead, and the only nominated heirs two older (probably in the case of Ay) non-Royal men she calls "servants". We also have Ay as King responding to correspondence after the fact "it wasn't us that did him in mate". Ay is often portrayed as a bad guy but it may have been the option of last resort, as a likely Royal relative. This is getting into complex territory, but others better than me have done the maths and judging by the flowers Tut was garlanded with it took a lot longer than the traditional 70 days to bury the king. This, it is theorised was to allow sufficient time for the Zanzanna correspondence to happen. When that all went wrong Ay took steps to ensure he was the rightful occupant of the throne before Horemheb.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,197
Italy, Lago Maggiore
The Zanzanna situation fits Ankensenamun far better than Nefertiti / Smenkhkare - there was a royal prince, the son of her husband at least if not her son, Tutankhamun. Compare that to Ankhensenamun's situation - young husband dead, and the only nominated heirs two older (probably in the case of Ay) non-Royal men she calls "servants". We also have Ay as King responding to correspondence after the fact "it wasn't us that did him in mate". Ay is often portrayed as a bad guy but it may have been the option of last resort, as a likely Royal relative. This is getting into complex territory, but others better than me have done the maths and judging by the flowers Tut was garlanded with it took a lot longer than the traditional 70 days to bury the king. This, it is theorised was to allow sufficient time for the Zanzanna correspondence to happen. When that all went wrong Ay took steps to ensure he was the rightful occupant of the throne before Horemheb.
I agree with this: Nefertiti would have eaten a Hittite Prince ... overall if she decided to become a male Horo [no need for a husband!].

My personal opinion is that in the Hittite Court there was a not irrelevant "lobby" not wanting a conflict with KmT. They felt the need for a justification ... why not to invent a so nice tale with the assassination of a Hittite Prince?

Where is the Egyptian copy of that letter? It doesn't exist.

I don't buy this Hittite internal propaganda.
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,268
Bendigo
Mummification seems to indicate that the person turned into a sah was now divine to a degree, and by that I mean that the sah of a king is more divine than that of an overseer. Pentawere, the criminal son of Ramesses III, while not having his body destroyed, was not turned into a sah, and what we see with the previously known "Screaming man E" is the product of natural mummification. That the Amarna mummmies are all, or rather were, a sah, shows that when they died, no matter the circumstances, they were seen as worthy of becoming a sah and so divine. The vast majority of ancient Egyptians never became a sah as this process did not extend to the hoi polloi. So, if there is a mummy, then it was of a person not disgraced in life. What happens after mummification at a later date is another matter.

In a way this business of thinking that there was any strong reason to burn a persons sah at some future time, outside of what robbers did, is a red herring. While it is true that in normal circumstances the sah was needed as a "base" for the ba, it is not as crucial as is usually said. For instance, countless numbers of people would have drowned in the Nile or been eaten by crocodiles and their bodies lost. Is this unfortunate accident a reason to be denied a place in the afterlife, no it is not, and, as I may have mentioned before, Horus operated a "rescue service" for a ba without a body. This is described in the "Books of the dead". So, by the time anybody intent of desecrating got to the sah, it was to late to deny them an afterlife. Their body had been turned into a sah and, if not a king, they had been judged by Osiris. The living, no matter how wound up they might be with whatever individual it is they don't like, have no say in what happens in the afterlife. They may do damage, but it is just spite and is not quite the horror we assume, it's not good of course, but a desecration has not whisked the "offender" out of the afterlife into the second death. So while I had at one time thought that at least Akhenaten's body had been destroyed, and so not KV55, his body does not need to be destroyed, and the desecration is a mix of spite and to deny him a name in this world. There is no "bad" heka to be used in a desecration, only a removal of names and faces. If they thought by performing "bad" heka would have an effect in the afterlife, then we would see signs of this in KV55, but while a wreck, there are no "black magic" spells as we see in movies like "The Mummy". Heka is just heka, neither good nor bad.

As a side note, the unmummified remains found at Amarna have been used to state that we have an oppressed workforce who died young and were more or less dumped in the ground in very crude graves. Nobody in the 19th Century of our era, and going back to the year dot, would even bother to make comment on the age of the remains, why should they when eight year olds were still being send down pit in Victorian England, and ten year olds hung. This is an issue in our snowflake world and we should not make presumptions about what was actually happening at Amarna with the peasant workforce, for what we see is normal, though at least they did not set eight or ten year olds to hard work. And none of them were turned into a sah because they were, in their society, just hoi polloi not worthy of such treatment.

Note: It might seem pedantic using the term sah when we usually always say mummy, but while this modern word is handy, it is just a catch all that includes all forms of preservation, from the frozen Otzi to bog bodies and the naturally mummified "Ginger". The sah is far more than just a preserved body and in the context of this post it is the proper term to use. It's that old heka thing...

And, this connects to Kyla's posts on sashes. Everything is connected, just as it is in Dark
Nice piece of work, I must say. ?

Paragraph 1: So were Princesses ‘sah’ too? Actually, was KV35YL a Queen of Akhenaten? And sister, of course.

Paragraph 2: This would leave open KV35YL being murdered. I have bored you endlessly with thoughts on Nefertiti (or Meritaten) being KV35YL, so I will refrain just this once, lol. Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare being murdered might well still fit the situation then. Not everyone wanted another Hatshetsup!? I can see what you say regards Akhenaten’s mummy (KV55) only too clearly.

Paragraph 3: Only too true. And then just as at other places and time, the elite lived happy loving well fed family lives..


Paragraph 4: I like clarity and accuracy whenever we can. I have this urge all the time to call Thebes, Waset. That may actually be pedantic, but it was no Greek city back then, nor was it modern Luxor. Maybe using proper accurate translations could help focus the mind. Who knows?

Paragraph 5: Indeed. A wise man once posted here and informed me that nothing was done in depictions and inscriptions without meaning. And those sashes mean something. That wise man was right IMO, lol. [Post noted? ‘Sah’, hey. Learn something every day here]
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,268
Bendigo
The Zanzanna situation fits Ankensenamun far better than Nefertiti / Smenkhkare - there was a royal prince, the son of her husband at least if not her son, Tutankhamun. Compare that to Ankhensenamun's situation - young husband dead, and the only nominated heirs two older (probably in the case of Ay) non-Royal men she calls "servants". We also have Ay as King responding to correspondence after the fact "it wasn't us that did him in mate". Ay is often portrayed as a bad guy but it may have been the option of last resort, as a likely Royal relative. This is getting into complex territory, but others better than me have done the maths and judging by the flowers Tut was garlanded with it took a lot longer than the traditional 70 days to bury the king. This, it is theorised was to allow sufficient time for the Zanzanna correspondence to happen. When that all went wrong Ay took steps to ensure he was the rightful occupant of the throne before Horemheb.
If the event occurred, I tend to agree with your thoughts here. I swing between Princess Ankhsenamun and it being a tall story (propaganda)* with this. I can’t help thinking Ay would have had to be involved in any plot like that. If Ankhsenamun, Ay pushed her aside quite quickly when the plot failed, though. He appears to have married her. To obtain the Throne, I presume, but did not make her GRW. If he was as true to Nefertiti (almost his god child, maybe, or niece) as I imagine he was, then he might have tried this foolhardy plan to save the dynasty...

You know, even as I type, I wonder why there was any need to go outside the country to find a prince. With Amenophis II, Thutmose IV, Amenophis III and Akhenaten having secondary wives, surely a boy of Royal descent could have been found for Ankhsenamun? Mmm.... maybe it was Hittite propaganda after all...?

*I have wondered at times if the Biblical writers had invented their Egyptian Princess story based on a known historical incident.
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,268
Bendigo
I agree with this: Nefertiti would have eaten a Hittite Prince ... overall if she decided to become a male Horo [no need for a husband!].

My personal opinion is that in the Hittite Court there was a not irrelevant "lobby" not wanting a conflict with KmT. They felt the need for a justification ... why not to invent a so nice tale with the assassination of a Hittite Prince?

Where is the Egyptian copy of that letter? It doesn't exist.

I don't buy this Hittite internal propaganda.
Indeed. I remember our discussions on the subject. It certainly has to be an option.
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,268
Bendigo
But how is this in line with the finding that the person in tomb KV35YL, who is genetically the mother of Tutankhamun and is identified according to the current consensus with Kiya (and not with Nefertiti), was killed by physical force, i.e. murdered? (Investigation by radiologist Dr. Ashraf Selim who claims the face was smashed before her death).

View attachment 20544

As far as I know, you assume that Nefertiti reigned as Pharaoh Semenkhkare. So if Nefertiti was this Pharaoh and was identical with Kiya and Kiya with the Younger Lady, it would mean that Nefertiti was murdered as a Pharaoh (which of course would also apply if the mummy in KV35YL is identical to Nefertiti anyway, without the detour via a Nefertiti=Kiya identification). This does not appear to be impossible if it is true that Nefertiti is the author of the letter (found in an archive in Hattusha) to the Hittite king Suppiluliuma, whose author is a certain Dahamunzu (in Egyptian = Ta hemet nisu = the royal wife). Before that the Mitanni king had been overthrown and his son had fled to the Hittites, where he married a daughter of the Hittite king, which may have inspired ´Dahamunzu´ to her marriage plan. The letter says: "My husband died, and I have no son. But it is said that your sons are numerous." Then the author expresses her wish to marry one of the princes. So a Hittite mediator visited the queen in Egypt and negotiated a contract according to which after a marriage "the two great countries will only be one country". A Hittite prince Zanzanna travelled to Egypt to marry Nefertiti, but was murdered by assassins, what led to furious Hittite attacks on Egyptian Syria. It would be conceivable that Nefertiti, who if identical with Dahamunzu had of course committed treason in the eyes of traditionalists, had also been forcibly eliminated, since they had enough of Akhenaten's religious revolution and didn't want a political revolution now, to top it all off. The good diplomatic relations Egypt had with Mitanni since Amenophis III were, by the way, to a high degree based on the fact that Mitanni formed a buffer zone between the aggressive Hittites and Egypt.
I am with AlpinLuke on this, while as a ruler, and powerful personality, I can see Nefertiti having the testicles to try something like this, just the same, I can’t see her need to do so. She might have wanted to eat a Hittite Prince, before marrying one. (Good one, Luca!) I believe she had a son, Tut, and daughters, to carry on the dynasty. I suspect she had Ay in definite support (even if he might already have gone cold on Akhenaten, a man he once adored, judging from his Amarna tomb). Nefertiti was doing the right things by ‘normalising’ Atenism, reintegrating it back in with the traditional cults; I think the choice of ‘Smenkhkare’ might well be a hint of this. Even as Neferneferuaten she was leaving her seals at that border fort and probably provisioning the army. Who against? Raiders? Hittites? She just doesn’t seem the kind of gal to order in a Prince. How would that aid in ‘normalising’ affairs in Egypt?

You know, the more I think about this again, the more I wonder if it isn’t just Hittite propaganda. AlpinLuke and I had a good discussion about that ages ago. I swing between Ankhsenamun and Tall Story, as I have posted elsewhere today, but maybe Tall Story, after all, is the better option...
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,268
Bendigo
Been giving the Hittite Prince thing some further thought. Regards negotiating the arrival of a Prince, I can’thelp Thinking that would be a quite long process, and 70 days for all to-ing and fro-ing where the basic mail service generally might take a month, or two even, between distant countries. And Suppiluliuma was surely not fickle or anything but careful, especially with such an odd plot going on. It would take time.

But to countenance that something of the sort may have occurred, stranger things are known to happen, then maybe me might allow more time for the negotiations. Thinking of Ankhsenamun here, btw. She ticks more boxes IMO.

So, if Ay takes the throne, and takes Ankhsenamun as wife, while making Tey his GRW, then we may have a disgruntled former GRW, with perhaps backing from certain courtiers opposed to Ay. She must have had this kind of support to even think about writing to the Hittite King with such an outlandish request for a mail order Prince. I just find it unlikely that Ay would let anything of the sort get by him... And I would want to think of a motive fir his support when he had made Tey GRW over Ankhsenamun.

But, another thought: what if Ay was ailing? The end of his reign is closing in. Then maybe Ankhsenamun saw an opportunity - as she languished in Ay’s harem like a living ghost - to take back the throne? Now, maybe there was actually a dearth of potential royal princes by then. So Ankhsenamun might be seen as a natural heir - funnily enough - to Ay. Indeed, maybe even more important an heir with no suitable Thuthmosside-Akhmim family lad about.

We then think of Horemheb. He does not appear to be family? And he does seem - IMO - to have been a commoner and steady climber throughout the end of Amenophis III’s reign on through to Ay’s reign. I place him as Paatenemheb before he was Horemheb. And - though I fear Corvidius think me a believer, too, in Aliens building the pyramids, when we both know only too well it was just mortal old Atlanteans! - that Minemheb may also have been our man. Anyhow, none of that would make him a Royal. Really, all said and done, still just a ‘servant’, if you know what I mean, friends, and I think you do. ?

So, jokes aside - Corvidius knows only too well the Israelites built the pyramids, and it was such a well known fact at the time, the Biblical writers don’t even feel the need to mention it! — where was I? Oh yes, jokes aside, I can imagine supporters of the Thuthmosside dynasty trying a desperate move to bar Horemheb from the throne. Still, we might also have to think that Ay was still alive. Perhaps in serious decline, while courtiers, enemies of Horemheb, some Ay supporters, some Ankhsenamun supporters, some two faced (as courtiers always seem to be) negotiated with the Hittites. This all over a period of time when Ay was technically still pharaoh, but perhaps ailing and incapacitated. Ankhsenamun, after all, was Tuts Queen, not Ay’s, if what we mean by Queen is GRW???

Just some thoughts. ?
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed