Akhenaten (Box, Carter Archive 001K)

Jul 2017
2,753
Crows nest
Which durbar scene?
This one, where all the daughters are shown the same size, an example of the size being depicted is clearly not related to actual size in relation to each other. That the daughters of Akhenaten would be different heights while growing to adulthood is hardly in doubt. Where you point out that Beketaten is shown smaller than the two eldest of Akhenaten's daughters cannot be taken at face value that this was the case as the two scenes, while adjoining, are separated by a divider, which may indicate a separation in time and space between the left and right scenes, due to it being in a tomb. Btw, the other day I made a post in reply to you suggesting that Amunhotep III may not have been the rightful heir to Thutmosis IV. I made the point that if this were so, then would not the scene in TT64 be fake, but you seem to have "dismissed" my post, but do we really need all this.......

 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
211
Peterborough, Ontario Canada
Back from work. Gone through all of the posts in more detail.

Clearly, no hard-and-fast rules can be applied to the points made which I've summarized below and added a few to as well (feel welcome to point out anything I've missed or possibly misconstrued).

The most that can be said is that while all of these points could be related to a coregency, they fall short of proving that a coregency took place. But neither can the camp that claims there was no co-regency prove so definitely. We are at a bit of a standstill, IMHO.

I’ve likely missed many important points for both camps. The point is, perhaps we have to agree to disagree until more evidence comes to light—or until we tease out together some of the answers to these points and to others.
  1. The scientific evidence and genetic genealogy of the mummies, particularly that of the Elder Lady (identified by most as Queen Tiye) and whether she gave birth to Baketaten or not—in which case 8 years makes a big difference in terms of fertility around the age of menopause.
  2. The records of a series of business transactions that extended from AIII's twenty-seventh year to the fifth year of AIV/Akhenaten (F. Li. Griffith, Hieratic Papyri from Kahun and Gurob (London, 1898) P1. XXXIX; and A. H. Gardiner, "Four Papyri of the 18th Dynasty from Kahun," ZAS 43 (1906) 27-47; the document from AIV's fifth year is published by Griffith, PSBA 30 (1908) 272-75. As discussed by Gardiner in particular, these same people seem to have been involved in each of these business deals, and one of the papyri groups together three transactions, one dating to year 27 of AIII, the two others to years 2 and 3 of AIV.
  3. The fact that no one holding the title of vizier appears in the material culture that has come to light (so far) after Amenophis III's thirtieth year (Donald Redford, History and Chronology, pp. 138-39).
  4. Connected to point 2, the naming of the vizier Amenhotep and the overseer of the Treasury Meryptah as witnesses to the same decree shows familiarity with contemporary materials (W. Helck, Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reiches (PA III (1958]) pp. 429-32; [To be fair this has been argued by Varille to show till, one cannot be certain that the decree was not concocted much later (albeit on the basis
    of good Eighteenth Dynasty sources), and then dated under Amenophis III to give the appearance of greater authenticity (A. Varille, Inscriptions concernant l'architecte Amenhotep fils de Hapou (IFAO-BdE XLIV [1968]) pp. 67-85, especially 81-85)].
  5. As pointed out by Murnane in his Co-Regencies of Ancient Egypt, the position of the vizier Amenhotep is indeed rather ‘curious’: “If he was vizier for Lower Egypt, it is odd that he, rather than Ramose, his southern colleague, should have been functioning at Thebes. This point has been used as an argument for Ramose's early death, but the problem still remains: Why should the Lower Egyptian vizier be associated with a decree of purely local significance, and why is the Upper Egyptian vizier (whoever he may have been) absent? Even if the northern vizier was the superior of the two (assuming that the royal residence was at Memphis),205 the absence of the southern vizier is odd-unless, of course, it be supposed that he had just died and that the northern vizier was acting in an emergency capacity. But there are other possible explanations: Ramose may have been sick, or Amenhotep's name may have been handiest when the text was composed posthumously. Although the anomaly persists, one cannot establish Ramose's early death on the strength of it. As a whole, Aldred's attractive case for a long coregency is not completely disproved, but the facts can just as well be interpreted to accommodate either a short coregency or no coregency at all. Ramose could have served briefly as vizier into the sole reign of Amenophis IV, after the elder king's death; similarly, Simut could have been appointed Second Prophet under Amenophis IV, since the Amun hierarchy was still functioning during his fourth regnal year. The vizier's death and the priest's promotion could have occurred successively before the king changed his name]. (boldface mine pp. 151-152.)
  6. Henry Fischer’s observations on the figures he identifies as AIII alongside AIV on the Karna Bark (I posted this article several posts back and while Murnane takes issue with some of the points in his addendum it does give him pause for thought). In summary, on the east face of the north tower of the third pylon in the temple of Amun-RE at Karnak the royal barge is shown towing the Userhet bark of Amun on one of its yearly journeys. On either side of the central cabin of Amun's bark is a large figure of Amenophis III making an offering to the god within the shrine. Behind each of the king's figures there was originally another figure, now erased, in the same stance. Both of these figures are smaller than those of Amenophis III (barely reaching the shoulder) and insofar as they can be made out in their battered state they have the trappings of royalty--both seem to wear the blue crown (the uraeus of which can still be made out on the figure at the stern), and traces of royal vulture are still preserved above their heads. I need to revisit these scenes, as Corvidius pointed out the presence of a third smaller figure which he thought could be the two crown princes (or perhaps one of the Crown Princes and later Tutankamun was inserted—I have to check it out again).
  7. Breasted's photograph of Soleb Temple of AIII alongside another kingly figure, published by Schafer shows the epithet "Great in his Duration" (c 3 m Chew' f) under the cartouches so this epithet could be part of the original inscription. If so, the celebrant alongside AIII in this scene could by AIV/Akhenaten, who used that epithet (J. H. Breasted, "Second Preliminary Report of the Egyptian Expedi- tion," AJSL 25 (1908) 87-88; for the alternative view see H. Schafer. "Die fruhesten Bildnisse K6nig Amenophis des IV," in Amtliche Berichte aus den Preussischen Kunstsammlungen (Berliner Museen) 40 (1919, No. 12) cols. 221- 22.
  8. The often-discussed Kheruef tomb scenes which have been interpreted by both camps to either portray AIV before his living father; or to show AIV paying homage to his dead father.
  9. The Aswan rock relief where the sculptor Men worships a seated statue of Amenophis III, and the sculptor Bak a figure of Akhenaten.
  10. The lintel of the tomb of Huya which shows the two royal families banqueting (arguments for and against a co-regency can be made—IMHO If it could be shown that Meritaten was born after AIV came to the throne, Baketaten could have been born after this, during a coregency; however, as first pointed out by Murnane, if I recall, It cannot be automatically assumed that Baketaten’s size was determined in reference to Akhenaten's own daughters rather than schematically (as part of the composition).
  11. Cases in which the nomen of Amenophis IV (Jmnhtp ntr hk3 W3s.t) and the praenomen of Amenophis III appear to be juxtaposed—Alan Rowe’s excavation at Athribis (H. W. Fairman, "A Block of Amenophis IV from Athribis," JEA 46 (1960) 80-82; and the column from the tomb of Amenhotep Son of Hapu’s tomb (mentioned some posts previously with links provided to the references).
  12. The other Amarnan tomb scene that AlpinLuke pointed out a few posts earlier that seem to indicate two pair of kings and queens in the same space (the depiction not separated by columns intrigues me.
 
Jan 2017
4,141
Bendigo
Back from work. Gone through all of the posts in more detail.

Clearly, no hard-and-fast rules can be applied to the points made which I've summarized below and added a few to as well (feel welcome to point out anything I've missed or possibly misconstrued).

The most that can be said is that while all of these points could be related to a coregency, they fall short of proving that a coregency took place. But neither can the camp that claims there was no co-regency prove so definitely. We are at a bit of a standstill, IMHO.

I’ve likely missed many important points for both camps. The point is, perhaps we have to agree to disagree until more evidence comes to light—or until we tease out together some of the answers to these points and to others.
  1. The scientific evidence and genetic genealogy of the mummies, particularly that of the Elder Lady (identified by most as Queen Tiye) and whether she gave birth to Baketaten or not—in which case 8 years makes a big difference in terms of fertility around the age of menopause.
  2. The records of a series of business transactions that extended from AIII's twenty-seventh year to the fifth year of AIV/Akhenaten (F. Li. Griffith, Hieratic Papyri from Kahun and Gurob (London, 1898) P1. XXXIX; and A. H. Gardiner, "Four Papyri of the 18th Dynasty from Kahun," ZAS 43 (1906) 27-47; the document from AIV's fifth year is published by Griffith, PSBA 30 (1908) 272-75. As discussed by Gardiner in particular, these same people seem to have been involved in each of these business deals, and one of the papyri groups together three transactions, one dating to year 27 of AIII, the two others to years 2 and 3 of AIV.
  3. The fact that no one holding the title of vizier appears in the material culture that has come to light (so far) after Amenophis III's thirtieth year (Donald Redford, History and Chronology, pp. 138-39).
  4. Connected to point 2, the naming of the vizier Amenhotep and the overseer of the Treasury Meryptah as witnesses to the same decree shows familiarity with contemporary materials (W. Helck, Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reiches (PA III (1958]) pp. 429-32; [To be fair this has been argued by Varille to show till, one cannot be certain that the decree was not concocted much later (albeit on the basis
    of good Eighteenth Dynasty sources), and then dated under Amenophis III to give the appearance of greater authenticity (A. Varille, Inscriptions concernant l'architecte Amenhotep fils de Hapou (IFAO-BdE XLIV [1968]) pp. 67-85, especially 81-85)].
  5. As pointed out by Murnane in his Co-Regencies of Ancient Egypt, the position of the vizier Amenhotep is indeed rather ‘curious’: “If he was vizier for Lower Egypt, it is odd that he, rather than Ramose, his southern colleague, should have been functioning at Thebes. This point has been used as an argument for Ramose's early death, but the problem still remains: Why should the Lower Egyptian vizier be associated with a decree of purely local significance, and why is the Upper Egyptian vizier (whoever he may have been) absent? Even if the northern vizier was the superior of the two (assuming that the royal residence was at Memphis),205 the absence of the southern vizier is odd-unless, of course, it be supposed that he had just died and that the northern vizier was acting in an emergency capacity. But there are other possible explanations: Ramose may have been sick, or Amenhotep's name may have been handiest when the text was composed posthumously. Although the anomaly persists, one cannot establish Ramose's early death on the strength of it. As a whole, Aldred's attractive case for a long coregency is not completely disproved, but the facts can just as well be interpreted to accommodate either a short coregency or no coregency at all. Ramose could have served briefly as vizier into the sole reign of Amenophis IV, after the elder king's death; similarly, Simut could have been appointed Second Prophet under Amenophis IV, since the Amun hierarchy was still functioning during his fourth regnal year. The vizier's death and the priest's promotion could have occurred successively before the king changed his name]. (boldface mine pp. 151-152.)
  6. Henry Fischer’s observations on the figures he identifies as AIII alongside AIV on the Karna Bark (I posted this article several posts back and while Murnane takes issue with some of the points in his addendum it does give him pause for thought). In summary, on the east face of the north tower of the third pylon in the temple of Amun-RE at Karnak the royal barge is shown towing the Userhet bark of Amun on one of its yearly journeys. On either side of the central cabin of Amun's bark is a large figure of Amenophis III making an offering to the god within the shrine. Behind each of the king's figures there was originally another figure, now erased, in the same stance. Both of these figures are smaller than those of Amenophis III (barely reaching the shoulder) and insofar as they can be made out in their battered state they have the trappings of royalty--both seem to wear the blue crown (the uraeus of which can still be made out on the figure at the stern), and traces of royal vulture are still preserved above their heads. I need to revisit these scenes, as Corvidius pointed out the presence of a third smaller figure which he thought could be the two crown princes (or perhaps one of the Crown Princes and later Tutankamun was inserted—I have to check it out again).
  7. Breasted's photograph of Soleb Temple of AIII alongside another kingly figure, published by Schafer shows the epithet "Great in his Duration" (c 3 m Chew' f) under the cartouches so this epithet could be part of the original inscription. If so, the celebrant alongside AIII in this scene could by AIV/Akhenaten, who used that epithet (J. H. Breasted, "Second Preliminary Report of the Egyptian Expedi- tion," AJSL 25 (1908) 87-88; for the alternative view see H. Schafer. "Die fruhesten Bildnisse K6nig Amenophis des IV," in Amtliche Berichte aus den Preussischen Kunstsammlungen (Berliner Museen) 40 (1919, No. 12) cols. 221- 22.
  8. The often-discussed Kheruef tomb scenes which have been interpreted by both camps to either portray AIV before his living father; or to show AIV paying homage to his dead father.
  9. The Aswan rock relief where the sculptor Men worships a seated statue of Amenophis III, and the sculptor Bak a figure of Akhenaten.
  10. The lintel of the tomb of Huya which shows the two royal families banqueting (arguments for and against a co-regency can be made—IMHO If it could be shown that Meritaten was born after AIV came to the throne, Baketaten could have been born after this, during a coregency; however, as first pointed out by Murnane, if I recall, It cannot be automatically assumed that Baketaten’s size was determined in reference to Akhenaten's own daughters rather than schematically (as part of the composition).
  11. Cases in which the nomen of Amenophis IV (Jmnhtp ntr hk3 W3s.t) and the praenomen of Amenophis III appear to be juxtaposed—Alan Rowe’s excavation at Athribis (H. W. Fairman, "A Block of Amenophis IV from Athribis," JEA 46 (1960) 80-82; and the column from the tomb of Amenhotep Son of Hapu’s tomb (mentioned some posts previously with links provided to the references).
  12. The other Amarnan tomb scene that AlpinLuke pointed out a few posts earlier that seem to indicate two pair of kings and queens in the same space (the depiction not separated by columns intrigues me.
The scenes that include both Amenophis III and IV (or might depict the pairing, as on that bark), are particularly interesting to me. In general, are dead Pharaohs depicted in a fashion that is easily recognised as ones made post mortem? Scenes showing both Pharaohs in family settings don’t seem particularly to have, loosely speaking, a ‘Pharoah is divine but dead’ element. I have no idea of these things, of course.
 
Mar 2019
211
Peterborough, Ontario Canada
One post because I realised the question I was asking, after re-reading posts, I could answer myself. The other, because I typed ‘post removed’ in the wrong box! I blame it on not having properly woken up. I am an idiot: that might be as good an explanation. 😎
You’re not an idiot—this forum is harder to navigate than most and I didn’t even realize we could remove posts, good to know!
 
Oct 2011
26,175
Italy, Lago Maggiore
You’re not an idiot—this forum is harder to navigate than most and I didn’t even realize we could remove posts, good to know!
You can edit your own post deleting the content. Obviously an empty post will remain there. There is a temporal limit to do this [if I'm not wrong it's a couple of hours].

The scenes that include both Amenophis III and IV (or might depict the pairing, as on that bark), are particularly interesting to me. In general, are dead Pharaohs depicted in a fashion that is easily recognised as ones made post mortem? Scenes showing both Pharaohs in family settings don’t seem particularly to have, loosely speaking, a ‘Pharoah is divine but dead’ element. I have no idea of these things, of course.
Yes, there were expressions which indicated that the personage was probably dead [not rarely that "justified", just to say ... in Amarna tombs Nefertiti is never indicated as "justified" ...].
 
Likes: Ayrton

Similar History Discussions