Posted by Kate Phizackerley on Wednesday, April 13, 2011



Dr Reeves knows I am interested in the mask of Tutankhamun and kindly emailed me to say that his recent lecture at the Met Museum had been posted on YouTube. My thanks.

The lecture starts with an introduction to Carter's discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb in the Valley of the Kings, followed by a biography of Tutankhamun was we now understand it, illustrated by slides. Interestingly, Dr Reeves believes that Akhenaten was Tutankhamun's father and was buried in KV55.

[The Internet as slowed to a crawl with kids out of school when I was just 10 minutes in.  I will complete the review later when I have manage to watch this, but didn't wish to delay posting a video I know many people will enjoy - Kate]

43 comments:

s stockwell said...

If Dr. Zahi really wants to get the world on his side again and all the tourists back, a great first step is to renew Nick Reeves project in the Valley. http://www.nicholasreeves.com/artp.aspx

Marianne Luban said...

I think, for the most part, that Dr. Reeves' artistic interpretation is correct when he speaks of the alterations to the funerary items. However, I think he has the wrong woman-king. While I do believe that Nefertiti was one of Manetho's three "Akencheres" [Ankh[t]kheperure], this co-regency seems to have lasted only through Akhenaten's lifetime, probably as an expedient. How could Nefertiti legally succeed her husband when he had children? I doubt she did and I point to the coffin from KV55 that a daughter and not a wife buried Akhenaten. Originally, the text on the foot had been words spoken by a queen to Akhenaten, the space in the first line allowing for the term "my lord" or "my husband". But this was covered up by the addition of a golden element that now reads "my father". That cannot have been a change reflecting Nefertiti's kingship but another woman who ultimately took her mother's throne name. In the interim, there was Smenkhkare, a male also called "Ankhkheperure" but not "Neferneferuaten". He didn't last long and probably then his wife or the next eldest Amarna princess became a regent for young Tutankhamun, yet another "Ankhkheperure". A regent who gives way to a male king does not require a kingly burial then. To which husband was "Ankhetkheperure Neferneferuaten II" beneficial? Maybe to Smenkhkare--or perhaps to Tutankhamun. There is nothing preventing Ankhesenamun [if she is the original one and not the "younger"] from being a regent for Tut--since she was probably a decade older than he. Yes, they were married but that is not surprising. Cleopatra VII was older than her husband/brother, Ptolemy, as well. But those two could not live in peace.

Paul Barford said...

I am not clear about why he thinks the Nefertiti burial was not emptied to produce the grave goods. Surely if she ruled as 'king' for a short time, then there would be no time to change her burial equipment either. Or is that just 'spin' for the NY audience? (With a thought for potential sponsors in future?) :>)

It does however raise the question in which tomb those shrines originally stood. Is it possible that KV62 was in fact her hurriedly prepared burial, which was then appropriated for his hurriedly prepared burial?

Neither am I clear why at the beginning the inner coffin is treated as hers (pierced ears) but later his (wings in the lower part)... Or am I missing something?

but a very nice presentation indeed. Thanks.

tim said...

Excellent lecture as expected but I also picked up on the point that Paul makes about the inner coffin and the feathers below identifying that coffin as belonging to a king? Could not the pierced ears on this coffin represent that it was created for Tut as a boy king?

Also if there was time to put a new face on the mask what was so special about the ears, why not replace them too?

Stephanie said...

Though I appreciate Reeves` work I cannot follow his reasoning regarding the pierced ears.
In my opinion there is nothing suspicious about them as virtually all depictions and statues show Tut with the same ear piercing and even more importantly his mummy displayed large holes in the earlobes as well. Besides, other kings of the same era have the same ear piercing. So there is nothing feminine about it.
If you look for feminine ear piercing you would have to look for double piercings such as Tuya`s, the Younger lady`s or Nefertiti`s on her depictions. That really seems tohave been the fashion of the time for females.

Patrick said...

One of Reeves' talks was reported a couple of months ago on the "Egyptian Dreams" website, and was fairly pulled to pieces, I'm afraid. He appears to share a Nefertiti fixation with You Know Who!

Marianne Luban said...

I agree with Stephanie about the ear piercings. Reeves is correct, though, in that some young princes did wear earrings and are depicted with the same ornate ones found in KV62. Their posts, the element that passes through the earlobes, are huge. But when they became men they left off wearing them. Of course, the lobes would still have had the large holes. Perhaps the goldsmiths filled in the holes on the coffins and mask in order to restore the "perfection" of the body for the afterlife. Of course, they could have just omitted any holes, but sometimes the Egyptians' way of doing things is inscrutable. I don't think the coffins were made for any boy kings because the Egyptians made coffins to size, allowing for the thickness of the mummy bandages, of course. In other words, a boy would not get a man-sized coffin. We do have the coffin of a little prince, BTW, but it is made of wood. In the event of nested coffins, the outer one would have to be larger than life, of course.

Dennis said...

I recently posted a question to the EEF regarding when a baby is considered a part of the society. Some cultures, especially those with high infant mortality, do not consider a baby to be 'alive' until it reaches perhaps 3 years old. The objective, of course, is to explore the possibility that Neferneferaten (Smencara) simply stepped aside when Tutankhaten turned 3. Why look for a tomb for a pharaoh if they died as nobles under a different name?
Dennis

Marianne Luban said...

I never heard about not considering a baby a person until it had reached the age of three. But I certainly would not agree that a king with the nomen of Smenkhkare would step down just because Tutankhamun had his third birthday. An individual of that age can in no way fulfill any of the functions of kingship. Besides, we now have to consider that Tut was the son of this Smenkhkare, came to the throne because his father died, and had a female regent up to a certain age. He would certainly have not been the first immature pharaoh to have such a regent. A female regent would be preferable because then no man could be greater than the rightful king. With this scenario, all rulers coming before Tut would have been on the throne legally. If Tut was the son of Akhenaten, then Smenkhkare would have been an illegal king. It is most unlikely that Smenkhkare can have been an older brother of Tut.

Dennis said...

Marianne, I am trying to reconcile several bits and pieces including Manetho's giving a reign of 12 years to Neferneferuaten/Smenkhkare, tomb TT139 inscriptions giving 3 years, wine jar labels indicating 3 years, the re-burial coffin of KV-55 (signed by daughter, no longer queen)... The proposed theory is that Tut is the son of Akhenaten by one of the royal wives or concubine (KV-35?). At Akhenaten's death Tut becomes the real king except that he has no name and effectively does not exist as a 'person' - what is the kingdom to do? Someone must be pharaoh for the next year of 3 until Tut is named. At age 4 Tut IS the pharaoh leaving Smenkhare/Neferneferuaten out of a job. Now someone must be regent until Tut reaches 'manhood' so Neferneferuaten steps into that role effectively giving her a reign of 12 years, or 3 years depending on how you look at things. The EEF reply came back from A. Murphy:”There was probably a period of seclusion for the mother and child shortly after the infant was born. If the child and mother emerged from this period, that most likely marked an important social transition, yet the child still did not attain full personhood. Semantics indicate that around 4, supposedly the age at which an infant could perform useful tasks like carrying a cup, was the beginning of the status change from non-person to person. “ To my mind there is a good chance that Neferneferuaten/Smenkhkare did NOT want the Pharaoh job but took it only for the short transition period back to 'that old time religion'. What started me thinking again about the Tut transition was Dr Reeves' gold mask, etc. tomb goods that were reused for Tut. They were available because they were not and could not be used for the intended person - she was still alive and would never again be a queen. I would love to see Reeves digging again in KV along with a 'Dig Cam' and viewing platform to get the tourists flocking into Egypt.

Marianne Luban said...

@Dennis, where did you get the idea that Tutankhamun/aten was not named until he was three? I know of nothing in the texts to suggest this. I don't know why Manetho assigned twelve years to all of the persons named "Akencheres". His regnal years are not all correct in any event. More interesting to me is that that first was a woman, who was then succeeded by her brother, but Manetho may have been confused by these ephemeral rulers. Smenkhkare may have been king for no more than a year. All we have from that specific name is a Year 1 wine docket. The three years from the tomb inscription may belong to another "Ankhkheperure" and may not even be a terminus. Just because there are no more attestations doesn't mean there are no more regnal years. But, again, who told you a king's infant son could not succeed him? I say he must because, if he does not, there is a good chance someone will usurp his throne. That is why a woman serves as a regent, preferably his mother. Thutmose III had a female regent, Hatshepsut, but she did not step down and evidently had enough support to eclipse the youngster whose throne she was supposed to safe-guard.

Dennis said...

Hi Merianne. Concerning: “where did you get the idea that Tutankhamun/aten was not named until he was three? I know of nothing in the texts to suggest this.” . The 'idea' is not mine but simply a part of some cultures as reported - therefore my question to the EEF. Apparently 18th dynasty Egypt was among the many cultures who do not consider an infant to be a person prior to some age - according to the EEF reply I got. As to seeing no documentation of Tut following a cultural norm, I would not expect to see any. It was suggested that I look up Kasia Szpakowska and Lynn Meskell's works concerning childhood customs. I have not done this at this time. Consider the meaning of Tutankhaten from the standpoint of who would give such a name to a kid unless he was the son of Akhenaten.

Kate Phizackerley said...

I don't know the answer but it seems to me that it is important to ask at what age somebody is recognised as having a legal existence. From a modern perspective that happens at birth but it hasn't always been the case. I am aware of no evidence however that the Egyptians didn't recognise infants at birth,indeed the depiction of an infant in the famous scene in the Amarna Royal tomb suggests to me that infants were recognised at birth, but I am willing to stand corrected on that and, as I say, I think it is appropriate to question that assumption.

Marianne Luban said...

@Dennis, I know you cannot and should not repost the EEF post where you got the information about the 18th Dynasty but could you at least paraphrase it? I have been studying the New Kingdom for a very long time and this business about not considering infants people is news to me! As Kate pointed out, that baby depicted in the royal tomb at Amarna is shown a lot of deference and even has fan bearers present to protect this precious individual from heat and light. I would like to get to the bottom of this. Was this, by some chance, about an Egyptian having more than one name?

Dennis said...

Marianne, I will happily give you what I have at this point but, it would probably be best if it were done 'off blog'. I will attempt to pass my EMail address to you via Kate for her kind considerations to pass it on to you. At this point in time I am attempting to contact the recommended sources (see my previous). One is, I believe, teaching at the Junior Farm while the other is somehow related to Swansea. I would like to see someone with better access to publications look into age and acceptance with respect to the Aten/Amon transitions as I suspect there is an impact there.

Dennis said...

Marianne
Please EMail Kate as she has my message including my address waiting to receive your address.

Marianne Luban said...

I'm afraid I don't see the point of private correspondence when others, I'm sure, are curious, too. Thanks, anyway. If you don't wish to paraphrase the information, that's up to you, of course.

tim said...

The thought that a potential king would not be recognized at his birth is unlikely.

Anonymous said...

Isn`t there a problem with Tut`s age when you propose he became king at four?
We know of 9 or 10 regnal years which would then make him 14 at death.
But the evidence from his mummy does not allow for such a young age.
On the other hand, assuming he became king around 10 years old he would have been recognized as a person long before that.

Anyway, I do not think there is room for a female regent during Tut`s reign with Aye and Horemheb fulfilling this role.
IMO any king proceeding Tut was king in his/her own right.

Marianne Luban said...

On the back of the golden throne from KV62, Tut is sitting there wearing the coronation or "atef crown" and this scene may be meant to depict the day of his actual coronation, he being prepared for the event by the act of a royal lady placing the finishing touch of a dab of perfume on his collar. Tut rather "lolls" on his chair in the very relaxed Amarna style and, of course, on the back of the actual throne cartouches with his original named "Tutankhaten" still exist. The headdress of the lady in the scene has been altered from another one and the cartouche above her head as well. Now it is supposed to represent Ankhesenamun but, in the first place, it may have been a different woman. At any rate Tut looks young but is obviously not an infant.

As far as I am concerned, there is no proof that either Horemheb or Aye ever acted as regent for Tut. I don't believe there was ever a male regent for an immature Egyptian pharaoh on account of the Osiris/Horus concept. There can only be one Osiris [the dead king] and one Horus to take his place. A regent is not the same thing as a co-regent, where there is more than one ruler simultaneously. However, a female regent does not interfere with the Osiris/Horus pattern. She is just supposed to be a place-holder who abdicates when the Horus comes of age to be able to at least fulfill the ritual requirements of kingship--that is, act like a king if not actually rule. His male advisors and other important servants who run the nation are another matter.
My nine-year-old grandson could sit on a throne in a dignified manner if he had to and he could certainly open a shrine for the daily worship of a god. But I wouldn't want him making any important decisions. Nobody of nine can really rule and my grandson is not a man yet in our oriental culture, anyway. Now my sixteen-year-old grandson just took his PSAT and got the highest score in his entire class. He is super intelligent and a man in our culture. In ancient Egypt nobody would have questioned his ability to be king but....

sokar said...

I read the various comments with some interest. It seems to me that there is a major omission in them: politics. Behind the return to orthodoxy after Akhenaten, I would have suspected a 3-way power fight between the Aten priesthood, the old amun priesthood, and the Army with the Royal family in the middle.

tim said...

I would myself suspect that in a society with a shorter lifespan that the age of maturity may be lower. Also I know a little girl who with some guidance may well be capable of ruling with dignity at a tender age.

Wisdom and maturity are not exclusive to each other!

Marianne Luban said...

Do you think there was really a substantial standing army in ancient Egypt and where was it quartered? And where were those higher priests of Amun? Are you sure they weren't in the quarries by the time Akhenaten's reign was finished? As for the priests of the Aten, they were mainly in two places--Akhetaten and Heliopolis. There is a tomb of one at Thebes. I doubt the immediate successors of Akhenaten repudiated his religion immediately. If they were wise, they would have made it clear they were tolerant of the worship of any and all gods. Otherwise, they would have had to make the same mistake Akhenaten did by excising the name of Amun out of his own father's cartouches and you can imagine what a sacrilege the Egyptians thought that! Nobody appears to have repudiated Akhenaten and his religion until Horemheb, who probably destroyed Akhetaten. After that, Akhenaten was referred to only as "pA xrw" or "the enemy"--and the "Bocchoris" of mnemohistory via Manetho.

Ken said...

Back to the original comments about children (even royal) not being people until age 3 or 4. I think solid evidence against this is the presence of the two still-born fetuses in KV62. Surely if a two-year old wasn't a person, two pre-term females wouldn't have been carefully mummified and buried with their father.

Regarding Sokar's comment, I think that the changing of Tutankhaten and Ankhesenpaten's names as a display of returning to the old ways was probably met with jubilation rather than unrest, but that is just my opinion. It is likely that Tutankhaten was raised by Horemheb, Ay, and Maia (especially if Ankhenaten was not his father), so the army and treasury and such were clearly on the young Pharaoh's side. Horemheb probably resorted to even more destruction of the old ways to help firm up his shaky linkage to the 18th dynasty line.

tim said...

Horemheb in my opinion was more than likely a best friend to the ideals of the early 18th dynasty and a preserver of those traditions which preceded Akenaten including possibly being the backbone of Tutankhaten's rule.

Horemheb was a restorer of Maat and may well have been revered as such in Tutankhaten reign and after in the 19th dynasty.

Marianne Luban said...

Here's the Great Edict of Horemheb for anyone who hasn't read it:

http://www.touregypt.net/edictofhoremheb.htm

Pretty strict measures.

s stockwell said...

There was some evidence that Nefertiti and Tut were living in the North Palace and that there was a period of co-rule? Following Reeves suggestion, It is so fascinating to think that many of the sculptures of Tut that have breasts would have originally been Nefertiti? Looking carefully again it is so possible that the person depicted was female.

Also, regarding Reeves idea that there should be a tomb for Nefertiti as Pharaoh. There appears to be so much in Tut's tomb that would have gone to her tomb? Could there possibly be more? It has always been considered that since there has not been much discovered that belonged to her, there is a strong possibly that her tomb was yet to be discovered. Many questions but It would be great to see Reeves back on the case where he belongs.

Ken said...

@stockwell

She definitely had an area of the royal tomb at Akhetaten, which implies, but doesn't mean that she was buried there. She could have been buried there and still her items later reused for Tut.

Myself, I think Meritaten's tomb is the one left undiscovered.

Dennis said...

Marianne my request to go 'off blog' was simply to point out that you missed the fact that I had already 'paraphrased' the EEF member reply that was received on this subject (see my previous posting). I was not trying to invade your privacy at netzero.
All: I have not yet received replies back from the 2 people recommended as sources for acceptance of a child into society. I agree, the concept of becoming a person at a time other than birth is foreign to us. Acceptance as a member of society is not the same as being loved by the parents as the 2 unburied apparently unnamed fetuses found with Tut indicate. They were loved even though they died before they were born. Can anyone remember a documented burial of a named infant? Proving social customs is difficult because such things were common knowledge and need not written down.
My original questions had to do with discrepancies in reported reign for Neferneferuaten / Smenkhkare ranging from a few months to 12 years. Tut is thought to have died at age about 20 in 1324 BCE. This makes him about 9 or 10 when Akhenaten dies in 1334 - Just at puberty (Manhood) when when he becomes king. Is this a coincidence? Was he just under puberty when his father dies so there is a short term caretaker in charge? The name Tutankhaten, meaning “"Living Image of Aten”, was given to him while Akhenaten was alive based on the accepted chronology. To my feeble mind this is not a name to be given to anyone except the next Aten focused king - by the current king = Akhenaten.

Marianne Luban said...

@Dennis, this is all you said: "Apparently 18th dynasty Egypt was among the many cultures who do not consider an infant to be a person prior to some age - according to the EEF reply I got. As to seeing no documentation of Tut following a cultural norm, I would not expect to see any. It was suggested that I look up Kasia Szpakowska and Lynn Meskell's works concerning childhood customs."

All right, you haven't looked up the papers but if I failed to understand "Apparently 18th dynasty Egypt was among the many cultures who do not consider an infant to be a person prior to some age" as paraphrasing someone's answer than that answer would have struck me as pretty unsatisfactory! People on the EEF usually cite an example [which you did not give] or refer to some literature [which you did not read]. If an actual example was given of something from ancient Egypt that might lead to the conclusion of "apparently", what would prevent you from mentioning that here in your own words? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

Stephanie said...

In my view Tut became king by "coincidence", meaning the time was not chosen by his reaching puberty (for which the age of 9 or 10 is too early anyway). A vacant throne and the apparent fact that no other older royal male was around left no other choice than having him crowned king.

Names having the Aten-element were at that time common among royalty and beyond. Although the translation as "living image of the Aten" may seem to be an unusually strong association with the Aten to us, it might not have been unusual to them and IMO does not indicate he was Akhenaten`s son and chosen heir.

Although both Nefertiti`s and Tut`s names have been recovered from the North Palace it is not certain if they lived there at the same time and if they did what their relationship was.
AFAIK Meritaten`s name also appears frequently and probably evn more names so it is still difficult to draw conclusions from the jumble of names.

Dennis said...

Hi Marianne, Read 16 April: "The EEF reply came back from A. Murphy:”There was probably a period of seclusion for the mother and child shortly after the infant was born. If the child and mother emerged from this period, that most likely marked an important social transition, yet the child still did not attain full personhood. Semantics indicate that around 4, supposedly the age at which an infant could perform useful tasks like carrying a cup, was the beginning of the status change from non-person to person. “

Stephanie said...

Just an afterthought to my comment on names: I have often wondered why the two babies from Tut`s tomb were carefully embalmed and equipped with beautiful coffins but were not given names. We know how important and even essential for the afterlife a name was, so it is all the more striking that they were not provided with one.
Which makes one think that there might have been certain conditions for the naming of a child, such as a certain time (although I cannot imagine it to have been as long as three or four years after the birth) or a ceremony.
Has anyone another explanation for this?

Marianne Luban said...

Marie Parsons feels that parents "wasted no time" in naming their babies:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/mothers.htm

I have no idea how "semantics" would have anything to do with this question, as semantics belong to linquistics, not cultural phenomena. I would tend to agree with Marie Parsons since quite often a theophoric name was supposed to put the individual under the protection of a deity. I feel sure that the embalmed babies from KV62 were not named because they were still-born.

sokar said...

When it comes to the two fetuses in Tut's tomb the key factor may be when the Egyptians thought the child acquired a ka and a ba. If they thought the fetuses lacked these, the a lack of names appears approprieate.

sokar said...

One thing I think I heard Reeves say that surprised me was that Nefertiti was the woman of the Hittite letter. I had thought general opinion said it was more likely to be Ankhsenamun. Particularly with Tut around

Marianne Luban said...

Yes, Sokar and with good reason. It is hard to credit that "their lord, Bibhurrias, had just died" could refer to Akhenaten because the Amarna letters have already referred to him as "Naphurria". The same correspondence gives quite a few hints at the pronunciation of Egyptian words at the time. It is clear that "nb" or "lord" was vocalized "nib" due to the mention of "Nimmuaria", "Nebmaare" Amenhotep III. It has been proven also that the labials, m/n/p/b/, are sometimes interchangeable in Egyptian pronunciation and that also one tended to elide into the next--and that's why the /b/ wasn't heard by foreigners in "Nimmuaria". Also, one evidently did not pronounced the /p/ in "xprw". The /p/ just elided into the /r/. "Nib" and "Bib" are the same but have nothing to do with the "Nafe" that was "nfr" and which became "Nap" in Akkadian cuneiform. Akhenaten is out of the picture when it comes to the king who had just died but some people can just not accept the philological truth, I suppose. It could be that Mursili had indicated the wrong pharaoh, but I think we have to accept what is in an ancient text rather than go by "maybes".

Ken said...

@Marianne

Sorry this is slightly off topic, but is there a book or publication detailing the possible pronunciation derived from foreign translations of king's names, etc., as you explain in your last post?

I would be very interested in reading about this.

Marianne Luban said...

Here is one. It's in English:

http://diglit.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/peust1999

Marianne Luban said...

Another more modern example that what I said about the labials is true is the fact that Bombay and Mumbai are the same city in India. See?

In addition to the kingly prenomina, the Amarna Letters and the Hittite correspondence with Ramesses II also indicate a few transliterated common words in the Egyptian language. Those are contemporary but, of course, the various Coptic dialects also indicate the vowels that were used in those words written only with consonants in older forms of Egyptian. The Amarna letters inform about commoner names, too, and their nicknames. "Haya" is a nickname for a formal name including the element "Htp" such as "imnHtp", which we commonly write "Amenhotep". We write a name as "Seti" but Akkadian indicates it was vocalized "Suta". The name of Queen Tiye is written "Taya". The Egyptological writing conventions are necessary but rather misleading. Some people, wanting to be purists, write the name of the Upper Egyptian capital, Thebes, as "Waset" because they don't like the Greek appellation. But, actually, there was no "Waset", either, because the final /t/ was no more vocalized in Egyptian than it is in French. Nor was the final /r/ than in posh British English. That's why the word "nfr" was just "nafe".

Ron Lankshear said...

Were is everyone?

Anyhow here is a detailed article discussing the DNA research problems

Ancient DNA: Curse of the Pharaoh's DNA : Nature News

Marianne Luban said...

I thought maybe all went on the honeymoon with William and Kate.

I had that DNA link on my blog, too. When something new is done the naysayers all come out in force. They haven't done it themselves, so it's not possible. Negativism is a bandwagon people like to hop a ride on so as to make themselves seem the greater expert. That's what I believe. Years ago, someone wrote a paper stating that the microscopic analysis of the hair in a small box labelled with the name and titles of Queen Tiye, concluding that it was a perfect match to the hair of the Elder Lady must be flawed. At least this party gave some reasons that cold hold water but, after that, a couple of other well-known Egyptologists flatly stated "The Elder Lady cannot possibly be Queen Tiye". End of story. Except the story is never over until the emaciated mummy sings. It is Egyptology that is not the exact science and "cannot possibly" has no place there without interdisciplinary checks. In retrospect, we can safely say what was claimed by science at the time--that microscopic hair analysis is like matching finger prints--but few wanted to fully credit it was so at the time. It seemed too good to be true.

Kate, I hope you're doing okay out there.

Ron Lankshear said...

Kate did say something about a magazine launch so perhaps busy elsewhere.

I found your blog Marianne and I have taken up RSS feed.

Yes I read here etc for the peer reviews - I just would have no idea on such things as that hair analysis

Search

Admin Control Panel