Reconsideration of the Chronology of Egypt

[line]

I cannot tell how reliable is the "reconstruction" (that could be tricky), but let us assume that she got it right for the time being, it all boils down to the phrase of "living for ever and ever" ( that was on your quote) or "for all time" - not much a difference - it is the key issue. Such a phrase could refer to the dead, or to the living persons, but not to both. Since "living for ever and ever" was used in the Hyme to Aten" (see the following sentence), and that was clearly a case of living king and queen, I believe the phrase was not used to refer to the dead at the time. I don't think it is a part of the title but merely a eulogy.

 

"Who came forth from thy body: the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, ... Ak-en-Aton, ... and the Chief Wife of the King ... Nefert-iti, living and youthful forever and ever."

 

Also, the eulogy to Nefertiti found on the boundary stelae of Akhetaten:

"... Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti, May she live for Ever and Always."

 

and then the so-called text E describing Tuthmosis III's visit to Step Pyramid:

"... under Tuthmosis III, may he live for ever and ever!"

 

In all these cases, the person refered to were alive.

 

On the other hand, in the "Hymn To Osiris", we don't see anyphrase like that. If this phrase is applicable to the dead, I believe it would be allied to Osiris.

 

Actually I knew the text you quoted but did not think much of it. I don't know and don't want to pretend to know what that statue was for, but I am afraid there is insufficient evidence to prop up the she-die-in-Year-14 theory, and there are other evidence against it, as already mentioned.

[modest]

I don't think so, Line, but I can't see the inscription well enough to make a conclusive case. Here is the relevant part of the reconstruction enlarged:

It's definitly an ankh on the right. The letter left of that is not determinable. It seems to me that it could be any of the following [317-320]

which all might be translated "...for ever" and would all have an ankh on their right if it were "living for ever..." (not just the first) Here is what Rudiments of a vocabulary of Egyptian hieroglyphics By Samuel Sharpe says about these:

318. The same, or rather ETERNAL, the same as No. 314; “Nectanebo living for ever, immortal god,” H.S, I p.

319. The same; “Anepahoe a man deceased, eternal,” E.I.1,1, a tablet of the reign of Ramses II.; and in E.I. 22, 11 and 18, an inscription of the reign of Amunothph III., this word is used as synonymous with ‘deceased,’ euriously showing that the immortality of the soul was a doctrine received by the Egyptians very soon after the time of Moses.

320. The same; feminine; applied to the Queen of Thothmosis IV., under her statue sitting in a boat, E.I.37,C2

And, it could be any of the following [838-840]:

which, again, could all be translated "living for ever..." with the following commentary:

836. Probably Eternal, meaning deceased; it is applied to the deceased priestess in E.I. 4, 4.

837. The same; in a similar sentence, E. I. 4, 83

838. The same; it is applied to the deceased relations of the deceased person, who are enumerated on his tablet, E.I.15,9 and 14

839. The same, in the feminine; it is applied to a female deceased relation on the same tablet, E.I. 15,15

840 The same; E. I. 3

One thing is clear, it is not uncommon for this type of hieroglyph to be used for the deceased, so your argument does not seem correct.

 

What I think is relevant is that this inscription was found on a shawabti normally indicating that the person was well dead.

 

~modest

[line]

I think we are not arriving at the conclusion yet.

 

From the reconstructed image, it was probably 318 or 320, but the left side was essentially reconstructed. Again, I give her the benefit of doubt. In that case, it might not mean the deceased; only 319 has a clear relation to the deceased. Now, you still have to look at the other side - how to explain the examples I quoted above, none of which are deceased? I check out the Hyme to Aten, which used Ankh + 316 (similar to 317) to refer to the royal couple when they were definitely alive. I don't think the Egyptian do not buther to distinguish the living with the dead. If 316 refers to the living and 319 to the dead, what about 318 and 320? I am not sure. After all, the left side was "reconstructed", you probably would never know the truth. That is why I would like to see the photo instead of the drawing.

 

The second question is whether the presence of a shawabti proves she was dead? if so, what about the presence of a tomb? does it indicate a person is well dead? Well, the hyme to Atem I refered to was from the tomb of Ay in Amarna, but he was alive long after everyone got out of Amarna. Actually, someone has used this argument to dismiss the shawabti fragments you mentioned, although I cannot remember the name - it was a long time ago when I read it. What I didn't realize then was the extent of reconstruction involved here.

 

The third question is how are we going to explain her age and the 12-year reign if she indeed died in Year 14? The current theory is that Manetho made up the number. Based on my investigation of kinglist and chronology of Sumer, Babylonia, Egypt, Assyria, Persia, India and China at various historical periods, the ancient kinglist is not to be trusted completely, because they manipulated the numbers in favor of certain numbers, presumably by minor adjustment, not by adding a decade - it makes no sense at all. And the age issue of Nefertiti has to be resolved if she died in Year 14, a theory cannot be established by ignoring this and simply sticking with the two fragments.

 

Also I don't believe that Smenkhare and Akhenaten died in the same year. I guess I don't need to explain it again. The finding on the wine jars of Horemheb means the current chronology of the 18th dynasty is up for a major revision, it cannot be defended any more, regardless when Nefertiti died. The other important development is the on-going DNA test in Egypt, that could bring some surprise, too.

[line]

I need to add a few words here because of an important development. I don’t want to wait for modest’s reply because it would not be fair to all the other viewers.

When I was writing my previous reply, I was already aware of a recent publication by Zahi Hawass et al. regarding their DNA test. According to the paper, “Genetic fingerprinting allowed the construction of a 5-generation pedigree of Tutankhamun's immediate lineage. The KV55 mummy and KV35YL were identified as the parents of Tutankhamun.” (Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family, JAMA. 303:638-47.) If the results are correct, the implication is very profound. This means there is not enough evidence for a male Smenkhare, which was primarily based on the widely accepted assumption that the KV55 mummy belongs to Smenkhare, a brother of Tutankhamun. Now it seems that the KV55 mummy belongs to Akhenaten, his father. In that case, a male Smenkhare would simply vanish into the blue, and we are left with none other than Nefertiti herself to rule Egypt between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun. There is no evidence to suggest that Meritaten ever adopted the name “Neferneferuaten”. Nefertiti might have ruled for 12 years if there was a coregency; otherwise it is hard to explain the number. Her title “king’s daughter” was simply based on the fact that she was the daughter of King Ay. My previous analysis has virtually ruled out the possibility that she was first married to Amenhotep III, which means she must have lived for a while after the death of Akhenaten to account for the mature age reflected by her bust. Although her shawabti – if that is what it is – suggests she might be dead, the contradictory evidences are overwhelming.

In one word, both Neferneferuaten and Smenkhare are just other names of Nefertiti, she simply imitated Hatshepsut by assuming a male title and attire, and we all got confused. The real difficulty is not about this part of the chronology but the last part, after King Tut died. We need some evidence that Nakhtmin has become Ay II and ruled Egypt before he was overthrown by Horemheb.

[modest]

only 319 has a clear relation to the deceased.

You completely misunderstand. Where the book says "The same" it means that the glyph has the same meaning as the one above it. So, for example, 837-840 all have the meaning "Probably Eternal, meaning deceased".

 

Now, you still have to look at the other side - how to explain the examples I quoted above, none of which are deceased?

 

It's non-sequitur. Because a translation describes a living person I have to somehow explain why it is also used to describe a dead person (when ancient Egyptians clearly didn't make such distinctions)? If a living person were described as "weighing 100 kilograms" would you conclude that dead people can't be so described? It's non-sequitur.

 

If my last post shows anything it is that something translated "living for ever..." can apply to the living and the dead. Your assumption that the translation "living for ever and ever" meant that the person must be alive is shown not to be correct.

 

The rest of your posts, please allow me some time to revisit when I can.

 

~modest

[line]

You completely misunderstand. Where the book says "The same" it means that the glyph has the same meaning as the one above it. So, for example, 837-840 all have the meaning "Probably Eternal, meaning deceased".

~modest

No, I did not misundersatnd at all.

 

Interestingly, the first you quoted was 318, the same means it is the same as 317. Why you are not showing 317? It actually says "immortal or living forever; see "Living" No. 833, "King Ptolemy immortal, beloved by Ptah..." It is not clear in this case whether the king was alive or dead. The fact that under 319 it is specified that "this word is used as synonymous with ‘deceased,’ " suggests to me the rest do not means a deceased person; otherwise there is no need to explan it here.

 

I don't hink you can conclude that the Egyptian make no distinction between the living and the dead when they says 'living forever and ever". This is a wish, it either means a long life or immortality of the soul or fame. Such distinction is critical especially in the ancient cultures. Your comparison with the body weight is not appropriate.

[line]

All the above debate is an non-issue considering the latest finding on the mummy of KV55. There are also some other evidence used to show she was a king (attached photo).

[modest]

Interestingly, the first you quoted was 318, the same means it is the same as 317. Why you are not showing 317?

 

I'm sure I assumed you'd follow the link and make your own good deductions.

 

It actually says "immortal or living forever; see "Living" No. 833, "King Ptolemy immortal, beloved by Ptah..." It is not clear in this case whether the king was alive or dead.

 

It applies to BOTH being alive and dead. It's in his cartouche:

 

 

 

Ptolemy Cartouche at Kom Ombo on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

"living for ever and ever" is in his cartouche—clearly describing him before and after his death. Both.

 

The fact that under 319 it is specified that "this word is used as synonymous with ‘deceased,’ " suggests to me the rest do not means a deceased person; otherwise there is no need to explan it here.

 

I don't hink you can conclude that the Egyptian make no distinction between the living and the dead when they says 'living forever and ever". This is a wish, it either means a long life or immortality of the soul or fame. Such distinction is critical especially in the ancient cultures. Your comparison with the body weight is not appropriate.

 

All beside the point. Your objection that the translation "living for ever and ever" implied someone could not be dead when it was written was not correct.

 

~modest

[line]

"It's in his cartouche", yes, i see it, but the question when it was made remains an issue. If it was made before his death, you cannot be sure it would remain the same after his death. My guess (without going into the trouble of searching for it) is that it was made before his death. Also I should point out that inclusion of “living forever” in the cartouche is a unique Ptolemaic phenomenon, it is irrelevant to the New Kingdom we are talking about. Using this to prove something a thousand years earlier is misleading.

 

I guess enough have been said. I will make a summary below.

 

My debate with Modest has been occupied by the issue of how to interpret the Egyptian phrase “living forever and ever”. Normally, this is a phrase used for a good wish to the kings and queens in Egypt (e.g., the Hyme to Aten) and other cultures. I have not looked into every culture, but in my culture they made a clear distinction. Apparently, similar phrases have been used for the dead royalties. The presence of multiple phrases already suggests some fine distinctions, so did the reference given despite certain ambiguity caused by the phrasing (“the same”). Only one case (no. 319) could be clearly identified as the deceased since the rest all refers to no. 317, which is similar to no. 316 except the separated ankh, an example associated with the living kings and queens. This is the debate about how to interpret the words. It has minimal implication in establishing the time of Nefertiti’s death, unless you want to argue that Ay also died in Amarna because of his tomb there.

 

The real issue is the finding by Zahi Hawass that the KV55 mummy and KV35YL were identified as the parents of Tutankhamun. KV35YL is Kiya while KV55 must be Akhenaten instead of Smenkhkare. It was also suggested that the parents of Tutankhamun are siblings, indicating the possibility of Kiya as a child of Amenhotep III. Hence, the strongest evidence for a male king Smenkhkare has vanished without a trace. What is left are just a few names: Ankhkheprure-Neferneferuaten, Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti, Nefertiti, etc. All these names would have been considered as one and the same person were it not for the identification of the KV55 mummy as Smenkhkare. James Thompson pointed out that Nefertiti also functioned as a king by making offering to the gods, being depicted in the scene of “smiting the enemies” and occasionally waring the Atef crown. In the last instance he was probably referring to a statue of the couple holding hands with questionable authenticity. So she could be a coregent with Akhenaten. If the coregency started from Year 5 of Akhenaten, it lasted for 12 years until the death of Akhenaten. But this is not the reason why I think she survived Akhenaten; it was because of the following two statues: her Berlin bust indicates a lady over forty years of age while her full length statue (also from Berlin) suggests a lady in her fifties. I only saw the frontal view of the latter in recent days. She probably survived his father king Ay.

It seems the king “Acencheres” in Manetho’s list (Flavius version) refers to her, while “Acencheres I” and “Acencheres II” refers to her father Ay and her brother Nakhtmin. All these make sense. it makes no sense if Acencheres refers to Meritaten - which would become a necessity in the case of the assumed death of Nefertiti in Year 14 - since Meritaten is not a member of the Ay family. It seems that all the 12 years space created by the “early death” of Horemheb could be nicely filled in by Acencheres II (Ay II), possibly with an iron lady Nefertiti behind the scene. If she died at the end of this 12-year reign of Acencheres II, she would be in her fifties (Akhenaten would have been 58 if he had been alive). My interpretation is that her death caused the eruption of the hatred between Ay II and Horemheb since the later probably considered himself as the legitimate ruler after Tutankhamun. The situation spun out of control, a coup took place even before the burial of Nefertiti, Ay II was probably killed in the coup, thus neither Ay II or Nefertiti got their mummification completed. But the cause of the Ay family was not all lost since the celebrated Queen Nefertari of Ramesses II was a member of the Ay family as Ay’s cartouche was found in her tomb. I guess she was Nefertiti’s granddaughter; even her name resembled that of Nefertiti. This would explain why the statues of Horemheb were beheaded, and his tomb desecrated.

The kinglist created before the benefit of the paper of Hawass just needs a minor modification by deleting Smenkhkare:

 

Akhenaten (Orus) 17 y

Neferneferuaten (Acencheres/Nefertiti) (12 y)

Tutankhamun (Rathodis) 9 y

Ay I (Acencheres I) 7 y

Ay II (Acencheres II/Nakhtmin) 12 y

Horemheb (Harmais) 14-15 y

This list matches up completely with the Manetho’s list in term of the kings. Manetho is probably not so much off the mark, after all. I believe that the theory above provides a reasonably coherent explanation of all the critical events. To prove this theory, we need to find some evidence of Nakhtmin becoming the pharaoh. On the other hand, we cannot expect to find the mummies of Nakhtmin and Nefertiti.

-----> posts merged ----->

 

The proposed chronology:

Akhen-aten (Nefer-kheperu-re/Amenhotep IV/Amenophis IV/Orus) 1353-1335 BC [KV55]

Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten (Nefertiti/ Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti/Smenkh-ka-re/Acencheres) 1348-1335 BC

Tut-ankh-amun (Heqa-iunu-shema/Neb-kheperu-re/Rathotis) 1335-1326 BC [KV62]

Ay I (Ay/It-Nejer/Kheper-kheperu-re/Acencheres I) 1326-1319 BC [WV23]

Ay II (Nakhtmin/Acencheres II) 1319-1307 BC*

Hor-em-heb (Mery-amun/Djeser-kheperu-re Setep-en-re/Harmais) 1307-1292 BC [KV57]

* Ay II remains hypothetical.

[line]

The alleged king Smekhkare has disappeared of due to the DNA work. I know some still insists that the mummy in KV55 is Smekhkare, not Akhenaten. Someone has offered a genetic analysis to demonstrate that this is virtually impossible. The comments in [] are mine.

For the moment we must assume that the DNA is correct. This shows that Amenhotep III could not have been Tutankhamun’s father. In two of the 8 markers the former has neither of marker alleles found in Tutankhamun. [correct]

So what if we assume that Tutankhamun’s (abbrev. to T) father was Akhenaten?

The DNA data gives a full match for T’s father/mother being KV55/KV35L. True this “only” shows a relationship, but it shows that KV55 was as closely related to T as T’s own father. So the simplest solution is that KV55=Akhenaten. [correct]

I have done some “back-of-the-envelope” Mendelian calculations on the possibility that another son of Amenhotep III and Tiye could have actually been T’s father, which would allow the attribution of KV55 to Smekhkare and Akhenaten to the other brother (B2) who was actually T’s father.

I examined two possibilities:

1. That B2 (not KV55) was married to KV35YL and that they were T’s parents – but there was only a probability of 1.3% of another brother fulfilling this condition. [should be 2.3%]

2. That we make no assumption about B2’s wife, only that B2 was the father of T. This had a probability of 8.7%, but each candidate B2 would impose restrictions on the genotype of his possible wives. This would doubtless reduce the probability. The relationships in the known tree are so tight that I would be surprised if we didn’t again need a sister to fulfill the restrictions on the wife’s genotype in these cases as well. So we would have 2 brothers and 2 sisters who could pair off with each other so either pair could have been the parents of Tutankhamun.

Sorry this is confusing, but my impression is that unless the data is wrong, KV55=Akhenaten looks a pretty good bet (although anything is possible).