Art (opinions wanted)
Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
ImageOfAten
Location: Horizon of the Aten
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:11 am Post subject: Art (opinions wanted)
What are your opinions as to why Akhenaten was never (supposedly) shown in any artwork from the period when Amenhotep III reigned? I am kind of curious to if this is true, and if so why?
"You made heaven far away just to rise in it, to see all you make, Being unique and risen in your aspects of being as 'living Aten' manifest, shining, far yet near".
VBadJuJu
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:31 am Post subject:
At the risk of being "completely wrong" (again), I'll hazard an opinion:
He was Amenhotep's second son - he had an older brother - Thutmosis - who was supposed to be the next king. As such, Akhenaten was just one of the kids (in some cases they were groomed for the throne as well because childhood mortality was so high) There are some inscriptions and such of Crown Prince Thutmosis, but he died early, leaving Akhenaten for the throne.
Others have guessed that even after that he might have been shoved in the background for some reason, perhaps due to his appearance or behavior.
kmt_sesh
I think VBadJuJu is correct. Amunhotep IV (Akhenaten) was never meant to take the throne. Aside from the occasional exceptions (such as Ramesses II over 70 years down the road), it was not typical in royal artwork to show royal males unless they were the crown prince or the holder of some particular high governmental or priestly office. In other words, unitl the untimely death of his older brother, Amunhotep IV was more or less a cipher. It's altogether possible that if the older Tuthmosis had survived and gone on to ascend to the throne, we might never have heard more than a passing whisper of the person born as Amunhotep IV.
But werent akhenatens six daughters depicted all over the temples in akhetaten? I don't know if they depicted any royal sons but does this mean that the royal family depicted their daughters but not their sons?
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:12 pm Post subject:
Claire wrote:
That seems to be the case in the 18th dynasty. There's not much evidence of royal sons unless they somehow played an important role in some capacity ( and there aren't very many of those like kmt-sesh said).
It's not until the next dynasty under the Ramessides that we see these long lists of royal sons (and daughters) depicted in the temples
VBadJuJu wrote:
I read somewhere that some think that Crown Prince Tuthmosis may have died right before year 30 of Amenhotep III. This is based on the fact that Amenhotep, son of Hapu, apparently stood in the place of the heir of the throne?
I don't know enough about the heb-sed festival to know if a crown-prince would play a role?
It does seem strange that the role would then be played by a courtier, even one as esteemed as Amenhotep - son of Hapu.
I have no idea if that could be due to Prince Amenhotep's young age, feeble health, weird appearance and/or behavior? Any thoughts?
anneke wrote:
It does seem strange - and what must young prince Amenhotep thought of that? It cant have made him feel the old man was proud of him.
Some have speculated that he was a bit of a momma's boy. In part they cite some of the Armana letters in which Tushratta writes to Tiye for advice on how to handle him after he had been named king. Some of this though comes from those who believe that Tiye was a driving force in the reign of A3 and that he was more like Akhenaten than unlike him.
There is also the theory that the royals of the 18th were proud of lineage among the royal women to Ahmose-Nefertari. Since Akhenaten-Nefertiti had no sons, they were thus showing off the lastest descendants from Nefertari who were the means to the throne. It is not so clear how Nefertiti descends from Nefertari, but they would have known.
Ironically, this would put all Akhenatens girls on center stage as the means to the throne. But once one of them married and became queen the rest decline in stature greatly and be relegated to the harem as sister of the king was a lesser status - so we are told - than kings daughter, kings wife etc.
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:12 pm Post subject:
I'll echo what anneke wrote: In most cases royal sons are not given equal status in reliefs and other artwork (with rare exceptions such as Ramesses II, who by all accounts was one proud pappa ). It was the crown prince who was the most glorified of the children, for the simple reason that he was the future ruler of the Two Lands and therefore represented the future of the people and the continuation of maat.
Indeed, the other sons, as long as the crown prince lived, represented a possible kind of challenge to the throne. This is why you do not see titles like "Brother of the King" (though "Sister of the King" is sometimes attested because, in the normal state of things, women did not represent a challenge to the throne). Some have tried to forward the theory that at the time of ascension to the office of pharaoh, the new king even had brothers and half-brothers killed or sent off so that none of them could pose a problem.
I don't know how much (if any) truth there is to it, and to my knowledge evidence supporting it is lacking. I do believe the Greek rulers were given to this sort of harsh action, but that does not at all mean the Egyptians did the same thing. (And if there are any Greek aficionados out there, please do feel free to correct me on this if I'm wrong.)
In the case of a co-regency, then it is likely the crown prince would be a part of the festival. It does seem contradictory, after a fashion. The whole idea of the heb-sed was to demonstrate the continuing vitality and strength of the reigning king--but there's his young and fresh co-regent, ready to ascend to the throne. Go figure. But the argument in favor of this is, it visibly demonstrates to the people that though the current king is still fit and able, he has taken appropriate measures to ensure that when his time comes, the transition of power is already smoothly in place and maat will be served into the future.
In the absence of a co-regency, I am certain the crown prince would be a part of the heb-sed in some fashion nonetheless. This would demonstrate to the people much the same thing as I just said--that a young a healthy future king is on the scene and is being groomed to be a proper ruler of his people.
I don't know much about the crown prince Tuthmosis. In his concise and informative book Monarchs of the Nile, Dodson reminds us that the older son of Amunhotep III was:
...appointed young to priestly office...rising to the offices of High Priest of Ptah at Memphis, and Overseer of the Priests of Upper and Lower Egypt, the latter effectively putting him in overall charge of Egyptian organized religion. (p. 92)
So it's clear the crown prince had amassed considerable experience as a leader and administrator. It must have been a terrible shock to Amuhotep III when his elder son died, leaving his only other son to be heir. Amunhotep IV was probably a less-than-desirable choice, but there you have it. By all accounts Tuthmosis V would have been a possibly great king. Dodson mentions it may have not been till sometime after the 20th year of his reign that Amunhotep III seriously started to consider the matter of succession, so by this account Tuthmosis was no neophyte child.
Does this correspond to what you know of the Tuthmosis situation?
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 12:27 am Post subject:
Wow, that is all very interesting information. This is the first time I have ever heard of the theory about the pride of the eighteenth dynasty royals concerning the lineage of their women to Ahmose-Nefertari. Ahmose-Nefertari is one of the people I unfortunately do not know too much about at this point in time. I would like to become more informed about her and Hatshepsut in the near future!
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:05 am Post subject:
I think it was gay Robins who gave an argument though that this "heiress theory" doesn't really work.
For some time it was thought that the female descendants of Ahmose-Nefertari may have in some sense "inherited the throne". The king would then legitimize his claim to the throne by marrying the heiress.
The problem seems to be that this female line did not really continue.
It is thought that we have a direct line from:
Ahmose-Nefertari --- Ahmose --- Hatshepsut --- Neferure.
It's not certain that Ahmose was a daughter of Ahmose-Nefertari. Ahmose held the title King's Sister. But it's not clear if she was a sister of Amenhotep I (and this a daughter of A-N) or if she was a full sister of Tuthmosis I and thus possibly belonged to a collateral branch of the family.
After Neferure it really becomes a bit of a jumble.
The next Great Royal Wife, and hence powerful Queen at court seems to be Merytre-Hatshepsut, who was the daughter of a Divine Adoratrix (some type of priestess of Amun).
By the time we get to Nefertiti it gets even more hazy than that. We don't really know who her parents were. Some think Aye was her father, but I don't think anyone really has any clue who her mother was
I have read that some of the depictions of royal women show them with some type of red sash tied around the waist. I have seen the claim that this sash was aomething "the heiress" would wear? Or maybe something linked to the position of God's Wife of Amun (highest ranking female in the Amun priesthood). But I don't really know what this theory is based on.
Nefertiti is depicted with this red sash, but she was clearly NOT a God's Wife of Amun This position seems to have temporarily disappeared. (It reappeared during the Ramesside period).
But Neferure either died young or was pretty much trivialized at court by her step-brotehr Tuthmosis III.
So it's clear the crown prince had amassed considerable experience as a leader and administrator....By all accounts Tuthmosis V would have been a possibly great king. Dodson mentions it may have not been till sometime after the 20th year of his reign that Amunhotep III seriously started to consider the matter of succession, so by this account Tuthmosis was no neophyte child.
That's roughly what I know.
I think he had quite a few titles, some of which quite high level:
Eldest King's Son, High Priest of Ptah at Memphis, Sem-Priest of Ptah at Memphis, Overseer of the Prophets of Upper and Lower Egypt.
This puts him pretty high in the administrative hierarchy.
Some of his funerary equipment has been found and I think some of it is in the Louvre. I have seen one inscription showing Tuthmose behind his father. And some of the items belonging to him are a priest figure (grinding corn??) and a figure resting on a bed with a BA bird on his chest. There's also the sarcophagus of his pet cat
I have always wondered how old he was. If he died close to year 30 of his father's reign he could have been in his twenties.
Always wondered if he had children. If he was in his twenties, I would really think he would have had children.
I think that even though some funery equipment was found in Saqqara, his tomb has never been found. I wonder if he was buried in that necropolis.
Was Nefertiti descended from Ahmose Nefertari???
They don't even know who her parents were. So they aren't even able to trace her genealogy back 1 generation, let alone the 8 or so it would require to get all the way back to Ahmose-Nefertari
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:20 am Post subject:
Robins argues against it particularly convincingly, I think. And from what I've read it has become an antiquated notion that is not supported too well anymore. I believe Dodson has argued against it, too. But that doesn't mean the "heiress theory" entirely lacks proponents because they're still around, including one of my fellow docents at the Field.
That's not so bad, really. What's worse is one my fellow docents who genuinely believes dynastic Egypt was founded by a foreign people who were more "evolved" culturally and socio-politically than the native inhabitants, and this is one theory pretty much all respected Egyptologists tossed into the rubbish bin long ago (where it belongs).
Like you said, were you to stand behind this theory, you come up with some clear gaps and difficult hurdles to cross in order to explain it. I personally don't believe it. The way I see it, the more you have to work and stretch to substantiate a theory, the less solid footing you're on to begin with.
I think he had quite a few titles, some of which quite high level
Tuthmosis was also responsible for the first-known burial of an Apis bull. This was clearly a very accomplished and polished young man (and the sarcophagus he commissioned for his pet cat puts him in good stead with me ). As far as achievements I think a good comparison with him would be Khaemwaset, also a high priest much involved with the religious affairs of the Memphite region. One wonders what kind of pharaoh he would have made had he not died early (well, considering his father was Ramesses II and Khaemwaset died around the 55th year of his father's reign, "died early" is relative).
I sometimes wonder if Khaemwaset knew of the elder son of Amunhotep III and was at all influenced by his achievements around Saqqara. I think it's safe to say Tuthmosis lived around 20 years, so he and Khaemwaset probably lived only around 140 years apart (if I did the math right, which is questionable to begin with ), so it's possible the latter knew at least something of the former.
That's a good question about Tuthmosis' possible family. You would expect him to have married, and then perhaps did or did not have children (the infant-mortality rate appears to have been high even among the royals), but I honestly don't know anything about this. It's possible he was burried in Saqqara, but he may have been interred in or near the Valley of the Kings...another tomb we yet need to find (I don't know that it has ever been found).
Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT