Just Ancient Egypt

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,861
Italy, Lago Maggiore
I'm considering this new theory.

First of all, she wasn't born Egyptologist and actually she isn't a proper professional Egyptologist [Répertoire des professeurs | UQAM]. She deals with history of art and ... semiotics ... she's in my field ...

And actually I recognize a semiotic approach to the matter: she makes a typical iconographic identification. Same gesture = same persons [she puts together the depictions of two Princesses with an unfinished representation of two Monarchs].

My first impression is that Reeves has made some damage to Egyptology with his innovative methods ...
 

John B

Ad Honorem
Mar 2016
3,795
Canada
I'm considering this new theory.

First of all, she wasn't born Egyptologist and actually she isn't a proper professional Egyptologist [Répertoire des professeurs | UQAM]. She deals with history of art and ... semiotics ... she's in my field ...

And actually I recognize a semiotic approach to the matter: she makes a typical iconographic identification. Same gesture = same persons [she puts together the depictions of two Princesses with an unfinished representation of two Monarchs].

My first impression is that Reeves has made some damage to Egyptology with his innovative methods ...
To me the methodology would be a comparative analysis using known attributes through a timeline. Then pinning these attributes into a theoretical/plausible narrative. As the AE were sticklers for symbology in relation to status Reeves may have found something new. The problem with Egyptology is that it is built on reputation. If they are academically honest they will chew on this one. There is so little in the historical record of the transition that there are no hard facts. Egyptology has not really stated any finding of fact in the transition period. Mainly suppositions. In fact this work makes things more interesting. Maybe a few more royal tombs to find?
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,861
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Regarding the period of Amarna, the Royal tombs of the first couple have been found. Regarding the successors, we've got Tut's tomb ... the possible tomb of the two Monarchs in the middle, Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare, are not so easy to imagine, sure not the second one. At Akhetaten we've got two Royal Tombs, so that we can imagine that the second one was intended to host Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten. Regarding "Smenkhkare", "his" name would suggest the possibility they looked for an underground "accommodation" in the Valley of the Kings. Or more simply, there was no time to prepare a tomb [about Smenkhkare we've got only a certain record referred to Year 1; Year 2 is not certain at all].
 

John B

Ad Honorem
Mar 2016
3,795
Canada
Regarding the period of Amarna, the Royal tombs of the first couple have been found. Regarding the successors, we've got Tut's tomb ... the possible tomb of the two Monarchs in the middle, Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare, are not so easy to imagine, sure not the second one. At Akhetaten we've got two Royal Tombs, so that we can imagine that the second one was intended to host Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten. Regarding "Smenkhkare", "his" name would suggest the possibility they looked for an underground "accommodation" in the Valley of the Kings. Or more simply, there was no time to prepare a tomb [about Smenkhkare we've got only a certain record referred to Year 1; Year 2 is not certain at all].
Or they were removed from the picture.