Akhenaten (Box, Carter Archive 001K)

Mar 2019
323
Ogden, Utah
The reason I stopped believing in a co-regency of any duration, and that was only about 18 months or so ago, was not the result of any specific information from any specific sources to say there was no co-regency, but the gradual realization that the evidence for a co-regency was not real evidence at all, only circumstantial at best, with some areas of "problematica", and I'll put Tiye's hair and teeth into that box to join the supposed dinosaur footprints found in Permian sediments.
Since proof that there was not a co-regency is impossible, it looks like that stance must be on an equal footing. Tiye's dark hair and good, moderately worn teeth have since been augmented by CT-scan. That concluded 40-50 years old at death. Tiye is attested as queen as far back as Year 2 on a scarab of Amenhotep III. Therefore, she is married to him for at least 37 years. Then, let's say the lady lived for 12 more years without a co-regency. That would be 49 years accounted for historically in her life, right there. But, of course, the lady was not married the day she was born, so one has to add x number of years to get an approximate age-at-death. If you wait until puberty for the marriage, that must be a very minimum of 11 years old. That comes to 60 years old, a decade beyond the range found by CT. Everybody who has studied Egyptian mummies, royal or not, knows that the way the bread the people ate was ground played havoc with the tooth enamel over time. That's why, long before tomography, the ages of the mummies when they died was judged by the wear evidenced on their teeth. Young people, obviously, had little to no wear--like the KV55 individual, who had only mild tooth attrition. Queen Tiye had moderate wear, which must mean she was probably younger than 60 when she died. Page 79 of "Scanning the Pharaohs" has the radiological view of her dentition and her teeth are splendid, all there except a couple of the wisdom variety.

In order to lower the age of Queen Tiye by a decade in order to fit to the window of 40-50, a co-regency is mandated. There is real science involved and cannot be dismissed by you with a flippant "dinosaur footprints" analogy. The mummies of two elderly persons of the family exist for comparison--Yuya and Thuya. Their teeth are just plain bad. Even Amenhotep III, who was probably not so old when he died, had bad teeth, but he was genetically disposed to tartar deposits, which is a factor. So, with an eight-year co-regency and an even younger marriage age than eleven [entirely possible as Tiye was the preferred bride due to family connections] we can reach a more reasonable age for this mummy, taking all factors into consideration--which is no more than 50 years of age at death.

That the KV55 individual could evidence so little wear on his teeth and still be over 40 is unlikely, too. But I believe the radiologists in Cairo were swayed by his terribly arthritic hip, which normally does not begin in youth. and decided he can have been 35-45 at death They forgot, perhaps, that the same hip problem can result from an injury in much younger people. Professor Smith, before 1912, told Arthur Weigall that he thought the man had died around the age of 30. So 30-35 is probably nearer to the truth, judging from the teeth alone.
 
Likes: Kyla
Mar 2019
244
Peterborough, Ontario Canada
I'm at work and trying to keep up with the flurry of posts, so please forgive me if these two points have been dealt with already.

1. The age of the Elder Lady in particular, whom historical evidence and DNA points towards being Amenhotep III's Queen Tiye is hard to reconcile with the math sums if there was no co-regency, as pointed out above by Marianne.

2. As for a Karna depiction of AIII alongside AIV there is this intriguing article and addendum to go through, which again can be construed either way, but it is noteworthy for both camps (co-regency vs no co-regency camps); maybe AlpinLuke knows of how to stream it for free to get around the jstor paywall(!)--if not I will research when I get home for you all:

JOURNAL ARTICLE
The Bark of Amun on the Third Pylon at Karnak
William J. Murnane
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt
Vol. 16 (1979), pp. 11-27
Published by: American Research Center in Egypt
DOI: 10.2307/40000315
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40000315
Page Count: 23
 

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,923
Crows nest
Of course if Tiye is no more than 50 a lot of calculations are out of the window, IF she is no more than fifty. Is there not the slightest possibility that she may be, say, 58, not even the most miniscule possibility, really....

On the Bark of Amun, Userhet, I'll quote from Elizabeth Blyth's Karnak, Evolution of a Temple

and Amenhotep himself appears twice standing before the naos and also behind it, accompanied by the smaller figure of a prince, thought to be the future Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), although it has been argued that the figure represents Tutankhamun (Murnane 1993: 33), added that the king restored many of the Karnak monuments after the damage inflicted during the Amarna period.
On my own observation and thinking, certainly the two smaller figures can be clearly seen either side of Amunhotep III. Both figures are damaged or eroded and it's not clear at all if either is dressed as a king. The headgear on the right hand figure is indeterminate, while that of the left seems to be a wig, not a crown, and if it does, or did have an uraeus is unclear. There is no cartouche associated with the left hand figure, nor any area of damage where a cartouche may have been. There is no sign of a cartouche associated with the right hand figure, though there is a small area of damage to it's bottom left, though not cartouche shaped. From this I can see why they have been described as princes and not kings, as there is, and I'm looking at one of the very good photos by Schwaller de Lubicz, no certain evidence of them being kings. Maybe other studies have seen evidence, and I've not read the two articles linked to above. Not mentioned by either Blyth, Murnane or Schwaller de Lubicz is a third small figure standing between the left hand image of Amunhotep III and the naos. This is very small and is of a king wearing a triple atef crown, though this would be a duplicate of Amunhotep III, who appears in very small form on the naos. Not having read or seen everything there is about this scene, and so may get blown out of the water, I'll put forward the speculation that if these two supporting figures standing behind Amunhotep III at either end of the bark are princes and not kings, they may just as well represent crown prince Thutmose as the future Akhenaten.
 
Likes: Kyla
Mar 2019
323
Ogden, Utah
Hi Kyla,

I am able to read Murnane's article for free because I have an account with JSTOR. It doesn't cost me anything to have the account.
Try to sign up with JSTOR and see what happens.
 
Likes: Kyla
Mar 2019
323
Ogden, Utah
Of course if Tiye is no more than 50 a lot of calculations are out of the window, IF she is no more than fifty. Is there not the slightest possibility that she may be, say, 58, not even the most miniscule possibility, really....
This seems to be eluding you. She *must* be closer to 50 than to 60. Every year the teeth get just that much more worn so, yes, it does make a difference.
And, if you know anything about how women age, "close to 60" is nothing like 50. That's why the "no coregency camp" wants to assign little Baketaten, a
tiny girl who looks younger in Huya's tomb than Akhenaten's older daughters, to somebody other than Tiye--who must have adopted her! But, with a coregency,
there is nothing at all preventing Queen Tiye from having a child this small prior to Year 12. Because, until a very few years ago, Amenhotep III was still alive.
 

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,923
Crows nest
But I've always thought, and said in this thread more than once, that I think Beketaten to be the daughter of Tiye. Size in depictions is not a good indication of actual age, for instance all six princesses are shown the same size in the "durbar" scene, yet Setepenre would have been under two years and Neferneferure under three, and there they are as big as Meritaten who would have been 12 or thereabouts.

Edit: On the age of Tiye, is this a statement that we are all identical, that we all age at exactly the same rate and that there no variations for any reason? Of course there are norms, but...
 
Last edited:

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
26,643
Italy, Lago Maggiore
I'm at work and trying to keep up with the flurry of posts, so please forgive me if these two points have been dealt with already.

1. The age of the Elder Lady in particular, whom historical evidence and DNA points towards being Amenhotep III's Queen Tiye is hard to reconcile with the math sums if there was no co-regency, as pointed out above by Marianne.

2. As for a Karna depiction of AIII alongside AIV there is this intriguing article and addendum to go through, which again can be construed either way, but it is noteworthy for both camps (co-regency vs no co-regency camps); maybe AlpinLuke knows of how to stream it for free to get around the jstor paywall(!)--if not I will research when I get home for you all:

JOURNAL ARTICLE
The Bark of Amun on the Third Pylon at Karnak
William J. Murnane
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt
Vol. 16 (1979), pp. 11-27
Published by: American Research Center in Egypt
DOI: 10.2307/40000315
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40000315
Page Count: 23
I've got a Jstor account as well. That work is too recent to be free on line [at least I cannot find it on the most common internet free archives].
 
Mar 2019
244
Peterborough, Ontario Canada
I've got a Jstor account as well. That work is too recent to be free on line [at least I cannot find it on the most common internet free archives].
 

Attachments

Mar 2019
323
Ogden, Utah
But I've always thought, and said in this thread more than once, that I think Beketaten to be the daughter of Tiye. Size in depictions is not a good indication of actual age, for instance all six princesses are shown the same size in the "durbar" scene, yet Setepenre would have been under two years and Neferneferure under three, and there they are as big as Meritaten who would have been 12 or thereabouts.
Which durbar scene? I am talking about the tomb of Huya where the family of Akhenaten and that of Queen Tiye [whose major-domo he was ,after all], are in close proximity. There the daughters of Akhenaten are not all the same size by any means and I doubt it is any accident that Baketaten is shown as smaller than the elder daughters of Akhenaten. Someone wrote the other day that you were "dismissive". I agree this is often the case and that is the difference between you and me. For instance, when the docket on the letter came up, I didn't simply appeal to authority to say, "I agree with him". I showed an example of why the numeric slashes must be shorter and there was room for the sign denoting a decade. I do math, provide images and, of course, write papers. In fact, I have done all the math, To declare that depiction is not a good indication of actual age may be true--up to a point. But we already have a good idea how old the three eldest princesses were in a given year. Meritaten seems always to have been there, must have been born around the time her father was crowned. She can't be any older or he can't be the KV55 individual. Puberty is mandatory for fatherhood. Meritaten and Meketaten are shown as taller than their younger sisters by quite a bit--so daughter #2 was likely born before Year 4. Ankhesenpaaten is not present on Year 6 Boundary Stelae. So that's the reason and that children are depicted as descending steps in relation to one another is just meaningless to you? Mutbeneret.JPG AkhenatenFamily1.jpg
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions