Marianne Luban
Re: Carter 001k
Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:14
67.2.65.227

Regarding the letter here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010426040650/www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/4482/Ay.html

I think it is not very likely that the queen who wrote to the Hittites can have been anybody but Ankhesenamun because

a. The Hittite version of the name of her dead husband fits to that of Tutankhamun

b. Ay made himself king, illegally, because he was not the rightful successor. Ankhesenamun was--and she had the right to marry any man she liked and, yes, even have him rule at her side.

c. Smenkhkare had the sanction of Akhenaten, even called himself "mry-wa-n-ra" or beloved of Waenre. There would have been no reason for Smenkhkare, if he was Zannanza, to make up any relationship to his wife's father. Zannanza had his own father--the very powerful Hittite king, who presumably could guarantee he stayed on the throne. Or Ankhesenamun would not have written to the Hittites in the first place.

d. If Zannanza had actually become king, surely he would have notified his father! It was no small matter! But Shupliuliuma had no idea what happened to his son. He had heard nothing and was presuming he was dead. Meanwhile--and the letter makes this very clear--Shup. *had* found out that another man had made himself king of Egypt. How? He probably got a diplomatic letter from him, informing him of the fact! After all, there weren't any newspapers in the countries of the ANE announcing a new pharaoh. Nor was there a radio. You wanted to make your kingship known, you sent a letter. Joe, if not Ay--what man could that have been? Surely not little Tutankhamun, the next king we know of after Smenkhkare! It is clear this affair has nothing to do with Meritaten and Smenkhkare and Gabolde should know better. It is one of those theories that had its attractions but does not really hold up under careful scrutiny.

Some time ago, I proposed on the EEF that not only had Ay made himself king, he did it even before Tutankhamun was dead. The main indicator is the unprecedented scene in KV62 where Ay performs the opening of the mouth ceremony on Tut's mummy--but wears the kingly crown. However, once again, Ay's cartouche, in juxtaposition with that of Tut, has him being "nb irt xt"--and that is how every co-king is styled when his cartouche is beside the one of the king who is called "nb tAwi" ["Lord of the Two Lands"]. It happened with Thutmose III vis a vis Hatshepsut and Neferneferuaten vis a vis Akhenaten. Logically, if Ay was only waiting in the wings to become pharaoh after Tut was buried, there was no reason for an artist to have depicted Ay as king in that tomb. A tomb is no good for propaganda at all. The deceased goes in, the tomb is sealed up and, ideally, no one will ever enter it again. HOWEVER, if Ay had already made himself king, co-regent, the artist had no choice but to portray him with a crown and assign him a cartouche.

We know somewhat more about the last days of Tut than we used to. Thanks to a CT-scan, we have learned that the young man had a broken knee cap which had not healed. Infection from it had probably killed him and when that happens, one goes into a coma first because the adult brain cannot remain conscious with the very high body temperatures that are the result of septicemia. Alternatively, tetanus may have set in, which the Egyptians would have recognized as it was common enough and knew their king would not recover. Or, someone like Ay did not even need such a drastic excuse. A king who lies disabled may have been pretext enough for him to make himself the co-ruler. After all, if Tut survived, Ay could always plead he had done it for the good of the state and relinquish the position.

But a king's daughter like Ankhesenamun was not required to be impressed or bound by anything the commoner, Ay, had done. She was not necessarily lying when she wrote to the Hittite king for, in her mind, there was no king who had any right to be one. What she did was a gamble that played with the life of a young man--and both lost, especially Zannanza. Perhaps the queen figured that Zannanza would arrive with an entire army and that he could not be repelled. It seems quite clear to me that, had Ay been a little more diplomatic about the affair and not started beating his sword on his shield, Shup. would have realized that Ankhesenamun was mostly to blame, that she had not told him the whole truth. But the fact remains that the prince could have merely been sent back to his father. So the wrath of the Hittite king was justified against those in power in Egypt.

  • Re: Carter 001kJoe Baker, Thu Dec 22 08:39
    Hi Ian Your theory of Smenkhkare being Zannanza is still being evaluated by me. If he was indeed Zannanza, he must have been killed on his way back home to visit his father after having married... more
    • Ankhkheperure at UgaritGabolde Marc, Sat Apr 28 05:07
      Dear member of ANECF To complement the informations concerning king Ankhkheperure, I just published an article (in french) devoted to an exceptionnal ivory plaque with Ankhkheperure's cartouche found ... more
      • Akhenaten as Nephers˘phris in a Byzantine sourceMarc Gabolde, Tue May 29 03:44
        Dear member of the ANECF Dear colleagues, Please, find a link for an article (author Fabien Hertier, Montpellier) devoted to a surprising mention of Akhenaten in a Byzantine encyclopaedia from the... more
        • Merci Beaucoup Dr. Marc/The Article's English Version!Waael ebn Fekry, Thu May 31 20:38
          Respectable Dr./ Marc Gabolde, Merci beaucoup pour cette "Cadeau Egyptologique" fantastique! It is definitely an important addition to the data-base of my research on the Late 18th Dynasty Period,... more
        • re: Akhenaten as Nephers˘phris in a Byzantine sourceMarianne Luban, Wed May 30 09:40
          Dear Marc, I cannot access the article--can you summarize it? But does Nephers˘phris really amount to Neferkheperure even in the Northern Egyptian dialect--or just Neferkheperre? My research into... more
          • Nephers˘phris AkhenatenMarc Gabolde, Thu May 31 08:53
            Dear Marianne, Thank you very much for posting and advice. If you need a pdf copy of F. Hertierĺs article, I can send it in attachment with the help of a valid e-mail address. If you have some... more
            • re: Nephers˘phris AkhenatenMarianne Luban, Thu May 31 17:09
              Dear Marc, I'll try to access the paper again, but first I'll respond to some of your philological concerns. You wrote: ôConcerning the identity of Nephers˘phris, it seems that Akhenaten fits better... more
              • Nephers˘phris AkhenatenAnonymous, Fri Jun 1 06:02
                Dear Marianne, MG original ôConcerning the identity of Nephers˘phris, it seems that Akhenaten fits better with the text of Suidas due to the ill reputation of that king. The other possible king would ... more
                • re: Nephers˘phris AkhenatenMarianne Luban, Fri Jun 1 20:23
                  MG Original ôThe fact that /p/ disappears in xpr.w from the name of Akhenaten in the Amarna Letters is not as embarassing as you suggest. This is probably the result of the /p/ or /b/ of the first... more
              • re: Nephers˘phris AkhenatenMarianne Luban, Thu May 31 18:18
                I have read the brief paper but am skeptical about the prenomen of Akhenaten being represented here: Headword:... more
          • re: Akhenaten as Nephers˘phris in a Byzantine sourceMarianne Luban, Wed May 30 12:57
            Oh--I left out the most important part of what I was trying to say, which is--where is a king named Neferkheperre? I don't know of one. However, I am also skeptical of the name "Nephers˘phris" on... more
    • Re: Carter 001kIan Onvlee, Sun Dec 25 13:24
      Hi Joe, Thanks for the references. Texts and languages are not my strongest. And thanks for your last post which reconfirms that the confusion you see in Manetho is of your own making. Along with... more
    • Re: Carter 001k — Marianne Luban, Fri Dec 23 12:14
Click here to receive daily updates