[line]

Reconsideration of the Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty

E. Lin

The chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty is not completely satisfactory.

It is currently accepted that Meritaten ruled Egypt for three years after the death of Akhenaten. It seems that the strongest evidence came from Manetho, who gave certain daughter of the king a reign of twelve years and one month. Unfortunately, Manetho’s twelve years was cut down to three, allegedly because the highest attested date was merely three years based on the finding of TT139. I suspect that the real reason is that the chronology, either high or low, was unable to accommodate the twelve-year period without causing major disturbance. Hence, the so-called “spurious decade” might not be any more spurious than the current three-year reign assigned to this Lady of Two Lands, unless it could be demonstrated that adding a decade to the reign had been an established practice of Manetho’s time, or he had a special motivation for doing so in this instance.

In reality, it might not be so difficult to find an answer to all the confusions. Remember the name of the fourth daughter of Akhenaten? It is Neferneferuaten Tasheri, thus her mother must be Neferneferuaten, and that was, of course, Queen Nefertiti. As matter of fact, Akhenaten moved to the new capital Akhetaten (Amarna) in his Year 5. In the same year, Nefertiti adopted the name “Neferneferuaten”. Neferneferuaten Tasheri was born in Year 7. From Akhenaten Year 5 until Akhenaten Year 17, when he died, was exactly twelve years. This period is probably what Manetho referred to when he mentioned the twelve year reign. Of course, it would be coregency starting from the date when they moved to the new capital. As far as the title of king’s daughter, Nefertiti is said to be Princess Tadukhipa from Mitanni, according to some. If that is true, she is certainly entitled to this title. In any event, her facial feature does not resemble that of Ay, if the plaster of Ay is indeed his. Furthermore, Nefertiti and Mutnodjmet do not look like sisters even though they are suppose to be. I suspect that Nefertiti was merely adopted by Ay, if they got anything with each other at all.

At this point, I should mention the Coregency Stela, where Akhenaten, Nefertiti and Meritaten have been identified. The name of Nefertiti was later changed to Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten, while the name of Meritaten was changed to Ankhesenpaaten. This is consistent with the known name change of Nefertiti to Neferneferuaten, although it is more difficult to explain why the name of Meritaten needs to be replaced.

Regarding the widely quated “graffito” from the Theban Tomb of Pere (TT139), which reads "Year 3, 3rd month of the Inundation, day 10. The king of Upper and Lower Egypt, lord of the Two Lands, Ankhkheprure - beloved of Aten, son of Re, Nefereneferuaten beloved of Waenre (Akhenaten) ... ", “Ankhkheprure” most likely refers to the new pharaoh Smenkhare, since his full name is Smenkhkare Djeserkheperu Ankhkheperure, as far as I know, while Nefereneferuaten (Nefertiti) is his step-mother. Apparently, Smenkhare ruled at least for three years after Akhenaten, while Nefertiti was still alive. Nefereneferuaten obviously means Nefertiti. In this case, the two of them seems to appear together.

The rumor of Nefertiti’s death in Year 14 of Akhenaten is pure speculation. Her disappearance accompanied by the rise of Smenkhkare must be the result of Akhenaten’s decision to pass the throne his own son Smenkhkare rather than her. Another factor to be considered is that Nefertiti would have been merely over thirty years of age if she died in Year 14 of Akhenaten while her celebrated bust suggests an lady over forty. If she survived until the Restoration of Tutankhamun, she would be the right age to account for the statue of the “most beautiful woman in human history”.

Finally, it is not likely that Smenkhkare died immediately after Akhenaten. If his health had been as bad as that, he probably would never be chosen as the successor. All these arrangements look very contrived. It is more convincing if Smenkhkare survived the old pharaoh for a few years. Hence, I suggest assigning the three years between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun to this poor fellow. Thus, the revised chronology would be as follows:

Akhenaten 1353-1336
Neferneferuaten 1349-1336
Smenkhkare 1335-1333
Tutankhamun 1333-1324

[line]

History is not all about kings and queens. Nonetheless, it would not be fair if we are not allowed to challenge the establishment in this field after so many Egyptologists spent so much time writing about the alleged murder of Tutankhamun and all those stuff for self-promotion.it seems that very few are interested in the real hard work.

Taking Tentopet as an example. She is often described as the queen of Ramesses IV and a daughter of Ramesses III. Sometimes she is described as the queen of Ramesses X and a daughter of Ramesses IX. But why all the uncertainties? Because all we know is that she held the titles of King’s Daughter, King’s Wife and King’s Mother, and was buried in QV74. Is that a sufficient ground for placing her in the Twentieth Dynasty? I doubt it. She was dragged into that position simply because there was “vacancies available”. If you look at the map, her tomb was literally surrounded by the tombs from the 18th Dynasty and 19th Dynasty; the two tombs next to hers both belonged to the daughters of Ramesses II. Overall speaking, the QV tombs show a clear trend of clustering by dynasties and by kingships. It is hard to believe that the tomb of Ramesses III’s daughter would be left there while all the other daughters of Ramesses III were placed closed together in the west side of the valley. Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that she couldn’t be married to a 20th Dynasty king; I am just saying that she must be the daughter of a 19th Dyansty king. Therefore, she cannot possibly be the daughter of either Ramesses III or Ramesses IX. As matter of fact, we don’t even know whether Ramesses X is related to Ramesses IX at all, nor do we know about his relation to Ramesses XI. We could place them under any branch of the Ramesses III super-family.

I personally do not consider any of these late-20th Dynasty kings are important, but that doesn’t give one an excuse to come up with a spurious family tree to deceive the beginners. Now, is this a sign that the scholarship in Egyptology has fallen into a new low?

[lemit]

You say, "History is not all about kings and queens." They do, however, provide a chronology, a skeleton onto which the meat of history can be draped.

[modest]

line said:

Nefertiti adopted the name “Neferneferuaten”.

Of course, there is no historical record for her after the 14th year of Akhenaten's reign, so who could say one way or another

But, have you considered the shawabti that shows Nefertiti without a pharaoh's attire and essentially calls her a king's wife,

The Heiress, high and mighty in the palace, one trusted [of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt (Neferkheperure, Wa'enre), the son of Re (Akhenaten), Great in] his Lifetime, the Chief Wife of the King (Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti), Living for Ever and Ever.

which would presumably be made after her death, no?

~modest

[line]

Regarding Lemit's comment, my sentence was partly written in response to someone in a nother forum accusing me of paying too much attention to the royal families (I have done something on the Chinese chronology) and do not care about the average folks. Maybe he just does not like me. Ha!

Regarding the "shawabti", it is a good question. here, the key is when was it made? If it was made before year 5, then no issue; if made during the 12-year period, then there is an issue; if made after his/her death, then it is a question of recognition. I believe it was made when she was alive; otherwise it would not say "Living for Ever and Ever. " Most shawabti figures are in coffin shape, while this one is not. As far as the attire is concerned, I never expect her to be another Hatshepsut. With that said, I do realize that none of the proposed solutions are perfect. I hope her grave/mummy could be found, then it could help to resolve some of the issues. But I don't expect that to happen since Horemheb must have distroyed it long time ago.

[line]

Just to consider another possibility of accounting for the missing 12-year period. It was found that the highest attested year of Horemheb based on the wine jars labels in his tomb (KV57) was Year 14, according to Dr Jacobus van Dijk (University of Groningen). Thus, Horemheb might have died in late Year 14 or early Year 15, instead of Year 27/28 as the current low chronology gives him, and that would leave a 12-year period to be assigned to someone else. This could allow the unknown King's Daughter, whoever she might be, to rule by herself for 12 years. If that is the case, she is probably Maritaten. But we do not have a convincing evidence for her adopting the name of her mother Nefertiti. It is impossible if this happened while the latter was still alive! On the other hand, if Nefertiti died in Year 14 of Akhenaten and her age was well over 40, she must be much older than the king. In that case, she might be his step-mother since it has been proposed that Mitanni Princess Tadukhipa married to Amenhotep III, and then to Akhenaten. Unfortunately, this scenario looks unlikely since it would not allow Tutankhamun to die at the age of 18. I don't think it is very likely that Tutankhamun's age of death could be increased again after so much medical studies.

The question of how to assign the 12-year period left by a shorter reign of Horemheb remains – that is the implication of Dr Jacobus van Dijk’s finding if it stands up to the test of time. The solution could come from the Flavius version of Manetho’s kinglist, where we find that Acencheres I & II each ruled for 12 years after Rathotis (Tutankhamun), followed by a 4-year reign of Harmais and a quarter of a year under Ramesses of the 19th Dynasty. In the Africanus version and the Busebius version, there are also three rulers between Rathotis and Ramesses, while the current kinglist only gets two. Could the current list miss a ruler?

[line]

There is a reason why there should be another ruler between Ay and Horemheb. We know that Ay was buried in WV23 and then desecrated in a later date. These two acts are unlikely to be carried out under the same ruler. If Horemheb was responsible for the latter act, there should be another king to allow Ay to be buried with honor. Who would this king be? It was probably Nakhtmin, whose tomb and mummy was never found. When Manetho named Acencheres I, Acencheres II and Harmais as the three kings between Rathotis and Ramesses, he suggests a kinship between the first two kings, which fits well with Ay and Nakhtmin, while Harmais might be the Graecized form of Horemheb. For this reason, the kinglist could be modified as the following:

Akhenaten (17 y)
[Neferneferuaten (12 y)]
Smenkhkare (3 y)
Tutankhamun (9 y)
Ay I (? y)
Ay II (Nakhtmin) (? y)
Horemheb (Harmais) 14-15 y
Ramesses I

[modest]

line said:

Most shawabti figures are in coffin shape, while this one is not.

Mummiform they would call it. Do you have an image of her shawabti? I can't find it.

~modest

[line]

I do mean coffin, not mummy. the picture of the shawabti of the royal couple is here:

What I haven't been able to find is the origin of this item. I have some doubt about its authenticity.

[modest]

line said:

I do mean coffin, not mummy. the picture of the shawabti of the royal couple is here:

No, that is nothing like a shawabti. The arms are always crossed in a shawabti. They are always mummiform.

I found an image of Nefertiti's, or part of it—it's fragmentary. This part is in the Louvre:


Queen Nefertiti

and another part is apparently in Brookyn. It certainly looks like a shawabti to me, and I don't see why it would be made before her death, but I admit it is not a lot of evidence to hang ones hat on. But, given that the historic record ends and this shawabti, I would certainly say she most likely died during his reign.

For a description of what these little statues are and why they made them I'd recommend:

Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ... - Google Books

And, the piece you depicted above, called "Akhenaten and Nefertiti" is talked about here:

Art Through Time: A Global View - Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) and Nefertiti

~modest

[line]

I got the image from [http://heritage-key....ful-king-egypt], where it is treated as a shawabti. In any event, the statue violates every artistic convention in ancient Egypt. They are very religious people, and the post are highly dignified, with their eyes looking straight forward. In case of a statue of a couple, there is only one person, the husband, with his left foot step froward since this is a status symbol. Even Amarna art still observes most of the convention. Here, the king's eyes are rolling sideway, and assume a cynical look. Nefertiti does not looks like her other statues. In addition, both of them have their left feet steping forward. "artistic development" cannot explain it (compare it to other statues from that period). I suspect it is a hoax unless someone can come up with a physical dating of it.

Regarding the Luvre statue, the identity must be from the inscription in the front, which is rather brief. it cannot possibly gives the text you quoted (The Heiress, high and mighty in the palace, one trusted [of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt (Neferkheperure, Wa'enre), the son of Re (Akhenaten), Great in] his Lifetime, the Chief Wife of the King (Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti), Living for Ever and Ever.) So where did the text come from?

As far as the record is concerned, we don't know what it means: (1) she died; or (2) she simply changed her name; (3) she was pushed to the backstage. If she died in Year 14, she must be younger than depicted in the Berlin statue, unless she was initially married to Amenhotep III. I am afraid Nefertiti might not be the step-mother of Akhenaten since it is said that Meritaten was born before year one or in the very beginning of year one, which means Akhenaten had to marry his step-mother before his father died. How funny!

For me, the most important point actually is not so much about the death of Nefertiti as it is about the possible missing king between Tutankhamun and Ramesses I. I think there is a need to add Ay II to the list, so it becomes the following:

Akhenaten 17 y
(Neferneferuaten 12 y)
Smenkhkare 3 y
Tutankhamun 9 y
Ay I ???
Ay II (Nakhtmin) ???
Horemheb (Harmais) 14-15 y
Ramesses I

I know Manetho (or someone before him) might have manipulated the numbers; I actually looked into this issue already but have not yet posted it here. I will do that later. But it is less likely that he created Acencheres I and Acencheres II out of blue.

Any way, I do appreciate your interest and replies.

[Turtle]

line said:

I got the image from [http://heritage-key....ful-king-egypt], where it is treated as a shawabti. In any event, the statue violates every artistic convention in ancient Egypt. They are very religious people, and the post are highly dignified, with their eyes looking straight forward. In case of a statue of a couple, there is only one person, the husband, with his left foot step froward since this is a status symbol. Even Amarna art still observes most of the convention. Here, the king's eyes are rolling sideway, and assume a cynical look. Nefertiti does not looks like her other statues. In addition, both of them have their left feet steping forward. "artistic development" cannot explain it (compare it to other statues from that period). I suspect it is a hoax unless someone can come up with a physical dating of it.
...
Any way, I do appreciate your interest and replies.

hi line. interesting stuff. modest's the man, eh? so, i'm only responding because of your reference to artistic style in relation to tradition, religion, and they-who-hold-the-purse. i suggest the possibility that the artist him/her self may have been taking a dig at the authorities after some dispute.

in support of this, and in fact motivating it, is a recent piece about michelangelo's modifying a statue for the church to include pagan/non-standard symbols. something to consider.

John Mulderig said:

In 1999, art historian Antonio Forcellino began restoration work on one of Renaissance man Michelangelo Buonarroti's most famous statues, the figure of Moses on the tomb of the "warrior pope," Julius II (1443-1513), in Rome's Church of St. Peter in Chains. As he labored, Forcellino noticed a number of anomalies in the work, and in some of the tomb's other sculptures.

The startling theory about the artist's secret religious views that Forcellino eventually developed to account for these oddities is detailed in his biography, published in an English translation in Britain earlier this year as "Michelangelo: A Turbulent Life," and forthcoming in the U.S. His hypothesis also provides the basis for the thought-provoking "Secrets of the Dead" program "Michelangelo Revealed," which premieres on PBS stations May 13 (check local listings). ...

Thought-provoking 'Michelangelo' on PBS | The-Tidings.com

Michelangelo Revealed ~ Watch the Full Episode | Secrets of the Dead | PBS

[line]

Welcome on board, Turtle, the Egyptians enjoyed their animal deities, although I don't remember they had any turtle ones.

I know that deviation could occur, but this statue does not give me a feeling of an Egyptian art work. Another alleged Egyptian statue that caused such feeling in my mind is that of Queen Tetisheri of the 17th Dynasty, and it has been accepted as a fake. After a while, you get to know the feeling - what is Egyptian, what is Sumerian, etc. To tell you the truth, this statue reminds me of AH & EB.

Yes, I have formed a habit of scrutinizing archaeological findings since there are so many suspicious stuffs out there. It seems the counterfeit market is booming.

[Turtle]

line said:

Welcome on board, Turtle, the Egyptians enjoyed their animal deities, although I don't remember they had any turtle ones.

mmm...sounds like grounds for a search.

lineo said:

..I know that deviation could occur, but this statue does not give me a feeling of an Egyptian art work. Another alleged Egyptian statue that caused such feeling in my mind is that of Queen Tetisheri of the 17th Dynasty, and it has been accepted as a fake. After a while, you get to know the feeling - what is Egyptian, what is Sumerian, etc. To tell you the truth, this statue reminds me of AH & EB.

Yes, I have formed a habit of scrutinizing archaeological findings since there are so many suspicious stuffs out there. It seems the counterfeit market is booming.

i figure why would a forger not follow tradition as close as possible? wouldn't the variation make a forgery stand out?

was this a funerary statue? i ask because if this is the effort of a single artist to thumb the nose at authority, then it may have gone straight to a tomb and never had a review by the commissioners.

that's a wrap.

post script:

[quote name=']Turtle shtyw - The turtle was associated with Set' date=' and so with the enemies of Ra who tried to stop the solar barque as it traveled through the underworld. This was because the turtle was associated with night, and so came to symbolize darkness and evil. [/quote']
Egypt: Animals and the Gods of Ancient Egypt

so in egypt, the turtle's barque was worse than his bike.

so it goes. . . . . . . . .

[modest]

line said:

I got the image from [http://heritage-key....ful-king-egypt], where it is treated as a shawabti.

The link is broken, but I'm sure you mean: Nefertiti - The Most Beautiful King of Egypt? | Heritage Key. The page is not saying that the image is the (or any) shawabti.

line said:

In any event, the statue violates every artistic convention in ancient Egypt.

Be that as it may (or may not!) be, it's beside the point of when Nefertiti died. It is not the shawabti in question.

line said:

Regarding the Luvre statue, the identity must be from the inscription in the front, which is rather brief. it cannot possibly gives the text you quoted (The Heiress, high and mighty in the palace, one trusted [of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt (Neferkheperure, Wa'enre), the son of Re (Akhenaten), Great in] his Lifetime, the Chief Wife of the King (Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti), Living for Ever and Ever.) So where did the text come from?

Notice that the text of the inscription has brackets in it [ ] Everything in the brackets is assumed and unknown because the statue is fragmentary. The Louvre fragment has "The Heiress, high and mighty in the palace, one trusted" and the Brooklyn fragment has "his Lifetime, the Chief Wife of the King (Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti), Living for Ever and Ever." The rest of the inscription between the belly and the feet is missing. This is not significant to the point being made which is that Nefertiti most likely died (as this Shawabti presumably shows) with the title "King's wife". It is, as I see it, a fair (but by no means conclusive) argument against what you have put forward in this thread... that she died having been a Pharaoh.

The two counter arguments that I think you could make would be 1) that's not a Shawabti or 2) even if it is, it was made as part of Akhenaten's funeral before she died.

The place where I found the image is here: Queen Nefertiti toward the bottom of the page.

~modest