Akhenaten (Box, Carter Archive 001K)

Status
Closed
Apr 2019
209
UK
About Zanzanna, it makes sense to send a second or third son to Egypt. Imagine the other way around - the king of Egypt would never send a crown prince to marry a foreign queen - far too risky to contemplate - better to send a brother who could then be a loyal ally in the future but not threaten the stability of the succession. I suspect Suppiluliuma took into account the likelyhood of something going badly wrong - there may have been parties in Egypt opposed to the idea (in fact I believe that was extremely likely). He probably considered it was worth the risk in case the gambit worked. If not, it would be an excuse to take more from Egypt.
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,268
Bendigo
About Zanzanna, it makes sense to send a second or third son to Egypt. Imagine the other way around - the king of Egypt would never send a crown prince to marry a foreign queen - far too risky to contemplate - better to send a brother who could then be a loyal ally in the future but not threaten the stability of the succession. I suspect Suppiluliuma took into account the likelyhood of something going badly wrong - there may have been parties in Egypt opposed to the idea (in fact I believe that was extremely likely). He probably considered it was worth the risk in case the gambit worked. If not, it would be an excuse to take more from Egypt.
Did Suppiluliuma send a son as envoy in an attempt to broker a marriage? That letter from the Queen seems dubious to me.
 
Apr 2019
209
UK

Found this image in the Community Albums section labelled as Smenkhkare. I haven't seen it before - what is its provenance?
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,369
Italy, Lago Maggiore
We have to rely on the Hittite version. We have to keep in mind this. This means that we can consider a version making the Hittites look like heroes [or something like that!]. There is nothing heroic in sending a third or fourth son to KmT to get married with a Great Royal Wife [honestly it's a bit dishonest! Come on! She's ... The Great Royal Wife! Send her your eldest son, if you've got a bit of honor!].

This is an other hole in the history: why the Egyptian Great Royal Wife asked a son and not the eldest son? This is not an irrelevant point. On the contrary, it's a detail which would support the opinion that the tale had invented.
 
Mar 2019
417
Ogden, Utah
Reading the last few posts, and taking into account the earlier posts about the time of year Tut was buried, it does seem that there could have been a delay.

The possible timeline is that Tut died just before the winter season - so the message could get to Suppiluliuma when he was on a campaign - then the messages went back and forth until the Spring (3 - 4 months) and then after it all went wrong Tut was buried and Ay became king in the early Spring. This stretches the traditional 70 days a fair bit but would fit with the spring flowers in Tut's tomb, and account for Ay being shown as king as part of his justification to rule.

Note that nowhere in the tomb is anything relating to Ankhensenamun damaged / defaced - so when the tomb was closed she was not disgraced (if she ever was).

To me the conclusion is that Ankhensenamun and Ay worked together at this time - the Newberry ring supports this idea - while negotiations were taking place. Ay became king because he was clearly the next best option for the queen. Horemheb is conspicuous in his absence at this time - unless he was the Egyptian messenger of course - gut feeling and the evidence of him defacing Ay's monuments says he was not and likely opposed the idea of a foreign ruler. Everything Horemheb did after taking power seems to indicate he would have been against the idea.
As I said in a previous post, there was a Year 10 wine jar docket in KV62 and the wine ripened in I Akhet during that period. That is late summer, would have to be. Since some of the flora used in the funerary trappings of Tutankhamen aren't seen until the spring, the man couldn't have been buried until then. So he either died in the spring or late winter. There was very often nothing relating to the queen at all in the pharaonic tombs. That of Thutmose III is very unusual in its decoration and the fact it depicts some queens. I can't see how anybody could view Ay and Ankhesenamun working together when she attempted to depose him forcibly. She wanted to work together with the Hittites! That Newberry ring wasn't ordered by Ankhesenamen--but by Ay very likely.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
417
Ogden, Utah
We have to rely on the Hittite version. We have to keep in mind this. This means that we can consider a version making the Hittites look like heroes [or something like that!]. There is nothing heroic in sending a third or fourth son to KmT to get married with a Great Royal Wife [honestly it's a bit dishonest! Come on! She's ... The Great Royal Wife! Send her your eldest son, if you've got a bit of honor!].

This is an other hole in the history: why the Egyptian Great Royal Wife asked a son and not the eldest son? This is not an irrelevant point. On the contrary, it's a detail which would support the opinion that the tale had invented.
Well--not entirely. There are letters between Hatti and Egypt. Not everything is in the annals of Mursili. Suppliuliuma asks "If you had made yourself king, why did you not simply send back my son?" The Pharaoh responds that he had no knowledge of the affair or what had happened to the prince. He then boasts that his chariots are at the ready any time. The eldest son is the heir to the Hittite throne. Why send him?
 
Mar 2019
417
Ogden, Utah
Yes, I went back found it was his son. Still, my question might still stand, while still considering that it might well have occurred. It is an curious thing either way IMO.

If the Dakhamunzu is a name, then those who suggest Ankhsenamun could be right. Especially if the dead king’s throne name is that of Tut.



*A bit of a tangent. David Rohl puts the Amarna Period in about the same time period as King David, who he identifies as Dadua of the Amarna Letters. Curiously, Jedidiah-Solomon is the son of David! According to Rohl this makes Jedidiah son of Daduah? Daduah and his son (Je)didiah? Anyhow, after David-Dadua is gone, we have his son Solomon marrying an Egyptian Princess. If Rohl is getting the main core of his guesswork correct, the Hittite tale and the Solomon tale might just about be contemporary with each other, or maybe the actual events that underpin the tales. (My connection, not Rohl’s). The Hittite one possibly historical, the Solomon tale more open to question, I think. Yet another borrowing by an ancient Jewish writer distorted to add to and fit into the OT narrative? I have brought this up before. I do not dismiss Rohl out of hand. His is one voice among those of many trained Egyptologists. Whether the Hittite tale is historical, or merely pure propaganda, or something part history and part Hittite beat up, might we still be glimpsing a step down the road to the Solomon tale?
I wonder what you consider a "trained Egyptologist". As far as I know, Rohl has no PhD. I once read he had an MA--but that can be obtained in a year in the UK. I know of someone who did. Anyway, here's the Wiki article on his background.

David Rohl - Wikipedia

Not that it really matters. Even a former rock musician could come up with a good theory. The thing is--Rohl's "New Chronology" can't hold up. This is known because certain things that are mentioned in some texts depend on it being the correct season. The Civil Calendar of ancient Egypt wandered through the naturally occurring seasons but it's possible to get a concordance from these texts. Even during the time of Thutmose III, the calendar was nearly in sync with the natural season. By the time of Akhenaten it was even more so because a new Sothic Cycle was about to begin--and this only happened every 1,460 years--when the rising of Sothis occurred on the first day of the first month of Akhet, in what was termed "a perfect year". Rohl can't abide mention of these things because they make a mess of his radical time line. He wants to be free to put anybody wherever he pleases but he is restricted by such things as Thutmose III having to be in Canaan in the early spring--or else--in the month of I Smw because that is when the winter wheat ripened there. That is really what the young pharaoh was after--food. Not forgetting that the Civil Calendar wanders though the seasons, on some dates I Smw could be in the winter.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,369
Italy, Lago Maggiore
I wonder what you consider a "trained Egyptologist". As far as I know, Rohl has no PhD. I once read he had an MA--but that can be obtained in a year in the UK. I know of someone who did. Anyway, here's the Wiki article on his background.

David Rohl - Wikipedia

Not that it really matters. Even a former rock musician could come up with a good theory. The thing is--Rohl's "New Chronology" can't hold up. This is known because certain things that are mentioned in some texts depend on it being the correct season. The Civil Calendar of ancient Egypt wandered through the naturally occurring seasons but it's possible to get a concordance from these texts. Even during the time of Thutmose III, the calendar was nearly in sync with the natural season. By the time of Akhenaten it was even more so because a new Sothic Cycle was about to begin--and this only happened every 1,460 years--when the rising of Sothis occurred on the first day of the first month of Akhet, in what was termed "a perfect year". Rohl can't abide mention of these things because they make a mess of his radical time line. He wants to be free to put anybody wherever he pleases but he is restricted by such things as Thutmose III having to be in Canaan in the early spring--or else--in the month of I Smw because that is when the winter wheat ripened there. That is really what the young pharaoh was after--food. Not forgetting that the Civil Calendar wanders though the seasons, on some dates I Smw could be in the winter.
I consider David Rohl the Graham Hancock of Egyptology. His chronology is like to see a sphinx on Mars [Hancock and Rohl should work together to write the ultimate chronology of Ancient Egypt].

This said, I simply leave Rohl to the destiny he's building for himself.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,369
Italy, Lago Maggiore
As an aside note, Alcandra, I think you're a great person. In comparison with other scholars who have joined Historum, you are showing [like a few others, there are other scholars on Historum] to be not only open to historical investigation, but to be ready to enter in deep in your own arguments.

I've got no troubles to express appreciation in public ... even if may be tomorrow we will damn one each other!
 
Status
Closed