Ancient Egyptian Forum • View topic

Ankhesenpa-aten · **Posted:** Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:51 pm

Very interesting...you know...there's a book called Tutankhamun and the Daughter of Ra, by Moyra Caldecott. I've only read the first 4 chapters (in an online sample thingie...) But the way the plot is going it seems as though it's heading toward some of those theories. If anyone manages to get a copy of the book (I've looked in the libraries but can't find it!!), please tell me what happens in the rest of the story!!

Sekhmet · **Posted:** Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:00 am

Anonymous wrote:

You make a lot of interesting points there:-) Unfortunately I don't have time to respond to them all.

Sekhmet writes: anytime Kiya anytime.

Kiya writes: Ramses I was Head of the army at that time. Maybe there were plenty of high ranking military men in the army at that time but Ramses I ranked the highest plus he had the son and gandson.

Sekhmet writes: Wow the only high ranking military man that had a son and grandson. :shock:

Kiya writes: Yes Ay had served Tut faithfully for nine years but he also served Akhenaten before that and possibly Amenhotep III before that in his capacity as brother in law to the king. My point is maybe he was sick of his family members having all the power. His sister becomes Great Royal Wife, as does his possibly daighter Nefertiti, thankfully he didn't live to see Mutnodmet follow her elder sisters lead. Maybe jealousy and resentment were festering away inside of him and he finally decided he wanted some of the glory for himself.

Sekhmet writes: To wait until Tutanhkamen was into his manhood years to murder him makes no sense. If he had been jealoue and driven by resentment why not when Tutankhamun was first come to the throne at age 9. Your point Kiya is holey. There is no proof that Ay was the brother of Queen Tiye it is assumed that he was. He might have been a son of Thutmosis IV, or a grandson of Amenophis and Tiye. The fact is that Egyptians didn't go around killing their Pharaohs. Please name one that was if it is as common as you imply that a faithful servant of years could suddenly become Divine Pharaoh killer. Asscend to the empty Throne when Horemheb was designated heir. :roll:

Kiya writes: How do we know that Ay and Horemheb made no attempt to father an air.
Sekhmet writes: Wow! Ay ruled for 4 years, Horemheb ruled for atleast 13 and possibly 20. How many years does it take to have a child?

Kiya writes: Unless they recorded their sexual exploits we cannot know for sure but it would have been natural and logical for a king to want to perpetuate his line with an hier of his own blood.

Sekhmet writes: but neighter did.

Kiya writes: Akhnesenamun did not have a great track record with healthy children, who knows, maybe she just wasn't capable of carrying a healthy child to term.

[/quote]

Sekhmet writes: We can reason that her ability to carry a healthy child to term was limited in her marriage to Tutankhamun. However to carry that belief over into another marriage isn't valid. The fact is Seti I mother's name was Satre which translates into The Daughter of Re, or King's daughter and the best fit for that person is Ankhesenamun. Certainly a better fit with her than some non royal daughter of some minor minor military man.

Kiya · Joined:Wed Sep 25, 2002 1:08 am Posts:442 Location: Derby

I think both points make perfect sense and each theory is equally valid. I just happen to subscribe to mine. As a child Tut was easy to control, manipulate, lead but as he grew to maturity he began to realise the power he held and wanted to exercise it, possibly contrary to the wishes of Ay. Ay may have realised that his hold over Tut would not last the older Tut became so if he wanted to hold on to power Tut would have to go.

How can you say "Well there was no proof of any kids or that they had intercourse so it didn't happen"?

If indeed they were married then they are likely to have done what most married couples do!!!!!

As regards Ay and Horemheb having plenty of time to father children but there were not any, well having children takes as long as it takes, whether that be a year or twenty years. Look at the examples of other rulers: Napolean in his 13 years of marriage to Josephine could not father and heir. He was so desperate for one he divorced her and married the Arch Duchess of Austria. Another king, Henry VIII, was so desperate for heirs he divorced 2 wives and exected 2 more. The one who finaly gave him his longed for heir died soon after. Only one wife survived him. In over 38 years of marriage to different women he only managed to father one son, who wasn't even healthy and died in his teens.

My point is that a long reign does not necessarily mean a lot, or any, children.

You say that it is not at all valid that Ankhensenamun's problems begetting an heir would not have carried over into any potential mariage with Ay. Well not only is it vaid but it is a very obvious point to speculate on, particularly as the mummified feotuses found in Tut's tomb showed evidence of a genetic disorder. If Ankhesenamun was indeed Ay's granddaughter trying to father a child with him would only compound and add to the problems of fathering an heir.

Kiya · Joined:Wed Sep 25, 2002 1:08 am Posts:442 Location: Derby

Quote:

The fact is that Egyptians didn't go around killing their Pharaohs. Please name one that was if it is as common as you imply that a faithful servant of years could suddenly become Divine Pharaoh killer.

Quote:

I'll do better than that and name two. Remains of Manethos work indicate that Teti I of Dynasty 6 was murdered by his 'faithful' bodyguard. I'm sorry but i'm unable to name a book, chapter, page and verse.

And if you look at the harem conspiracy of Dynasty 20 involving Ramses III, Queen Tiy and Pentewaret. We know Ramses himself initiated the investigation into his wife and son but that he died before the conclusion of the trial. Whether this was from something totally unrelated to the attempted murder of the king or whether it was from the after affects of some injury he sustained in the attempted is unknown: The point is that it was not just Tiy and her son involved. The following; Pekkamen, Chief of the Chamber; Mesedsure (Ra Hates Him); Weren; Peluka; and Yenini were personally attendant on the king; Penuda, Scribe of the hArem; Peynok, Petewnteamen, Kerpes, Khamopet, Khammale, Setimperthorth and Setimperamon, Inspectors of the Harem; Pere, Overseer of the Palace; Binemwese, Captain of the Nubian Archers; plus others.

All of these people were close to the king and could be counted as " faithful servants of years"

Sekhmet · **Posted:** Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:05 am

With Ramesses III, as you stated he started the investigation of murder attempt against himself. That he died during the proceeding in his 33rd year of reign. The plot failed totally even if it did kill him, 17 of the conspirators were executed, 7 were allowed to commit suicide. (see pg. 276, A History of Ancient Egypt, by N. Grimal)

On Manetho's report of the murder of Teti (6th Dynasty) i quote Rosalie David, pg 6, of Handbook to life in Ancient Egypt. Regarding Manetho, "Anecdotal details cannot usualy be confirmed by other sources." While N. Grimal in A History of Ancient Egypt pg 81, while not discounting out of hand Manetho's statment about Teti's death points out that the man who succeeded him and historically considered to be one of the leaders of the opposition of Teti. Let Teti's son Pepy I succeed and should be considered more of a stop gap ruler that oversaw the regency of Teti's widow.

Actually there is another case of murder of Pharaoh, it is the murder of Pharaoh Ammenemes I ( 12th Dynasty founder). In another haram plot. However his son and heir did succeed him. (N. Grimal, pg 160, A History of Ancient Egypt.)

In reality there was just one real and known murder of Pharaoh, and he wasn't even of the Royal line, however he became a royal line.
While Tutankhamun was the last in a very long family line of divine Pharaohs.

What i hope you would have realized Kiya is that in 3000 years of history the murder of Pharaoh wasn't a common or lightly taken thing. While in 1924 when Pharaoh Tutankhamun was being examined. Those who had the job remembered the murder of the entire Royal family of Russia in 1918, and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne in 1914. Not to mention the less recent murders of the French Royal family and Englands history of murdering of Royals, for successional benefit. It isn't really any wonder, why those early 20th century experts would have thought that Pharaoh Tutankhamun had been murdered, it was present in their lives, and history. Where as in Egyptian history it was, very rare. I hope you think of these points.

Guest · **Posted:** Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:39 am

Kiya wrote:

I think both points make perfect sense and each theory is equally valid. I just happen to subscribe to mine.

While in your mind both points make perfect sense both can't be right, and for that matter neither might be. However of the scanty evidence that does exist i prefer my theory.

Kiya wrote:

As a child Tut was easy to control, manipulate, lead but as he grew to maturity he began to realise the power he held and wanted to exercise it, possibly contrary to the wishes of Ay. Ay may have realised that his hold over Tut would not last the older Tut became so if he wanted to hold on to power Tut would have to go.

Again you are holding to 20th and 21st Common Era, understanding of "child rulers". Queen Victoria came to her throne at 18 and was controled first by her mother, an uncle, her government, then by her husband. There is no proof that any Egyptian Pharaoh (except Thutmosis III) was controled by anyone even if he came to the throne at a young age. It is an assumption based upon Western European history mostly.

Kiya wrote:

How can you say "Well there was no proof of any kids or that they had intercourse so it didn't happen"?

If your going to quote me i would appreciate it, if you quoted me instead of implying what you think i said. The fact is neither Ay, nor Horemheb had children that succeeded them.

Kiya wrote:

Look at the examples of other rulers: Napolean in his 13 years of marriage to Josephine could not father and heir. He was so desperate for one he divorced her and married the Arch Duchess of Austria. Another king, Henry VIII, was so desperate for heirs he divorced 2 wives and exected 2 more. The one who finaly gave him his longed for heir died soon after. Only one wife survived him. In over 38 years of marriage to different women he only managed to father one son, who wasn't even healthy and died in his teens.

My point in the above is maintained by yourself Kiya, men who rule are desperate to have an heir. However neither Ay, or Horemheb had a ruling queen while they ruled as Pharaoh. If either of them had a son by a minor wife why didn't that son come to the throne. By the way Joesphine was considered unfertile due to at least one abortion before her marriage to Napolean. Abortions in those days often left a woman unable to have futher children.

Kiya wrote:

You say that it is not at all valid that Ankhensenamun's problems begetting an heir would not have carried over into any potential mariage with Ay. Well not only is it vaid but it is a very obvious point to speculate on, particularly as the mummified feotuses found in Tut's tomb showed evidence of a genetic disorder. If Ankhesenamun was indeed Ay's granddaughter trying to father a child with him would only compound and add to the problems of fathering an heir.

Again, you make a case for my position Kiya, if Tutankhamun was her half brother, uncle, or cousin and not her full brother. One would think the blood relationship would have been such that her children in Tutankhum's tomb might have been free of genetic disorders.

Think Kiya think please.

Sekhmet · **Posted:** Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:42 am

The Guest in the above post was me, i forgot to sign back in when i got back here. Sorry!

Kiya · Joined:Wed Sep 25, 2002 1:08 am Posts:442 Location: Derby

Tut and Ankhesenamun were closely related and it is fact that the closer to parents are genetically, the more chance there is of inhereited diseases. Ankhesenamun's two premature feotuses show this.

[/quote]What i hope you would have realized Kiya is that in 3000 years of history the murder of Pharaoh wasn't a common or lightly taken thing. While in 1924 when Pharaoh Tutankhamun was being examined. Those who had the job remembered the murder of the entire Royal family of Russia in 1918, and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne in 1914. Not to mention the less recent murders of the French Royal family and Englands history of murdering of Royals, for successional benefit. It isn't really any wonder, why those early 20th century experts would have thought that Pharaoh Tutankhamun had been murdered, it was present in their lives, and history. Where as in Egyptian history it was, very rare. I hope you think of these points.

Quote:

I'm and ex corporal in the british army so have studied the history of assinations where the military, paramilitary and terrorists are involved more than most people. I don't believe the murder of a pharaoh was common. You asked me to state one and I did.

Sekhmet · **Posted:** Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:34 am

I'm and ex corporal in the british army so have studied the history of assinations where the military, paramilitary and terrorists are involved more than most people. I don't believe the murder of a pharaoh was common. You asked me to state one and I did.[/quote][/quote]

I don't know what to make of this up above. :shock:

However you didn't.

But whatever, there are good sports and there are bad ones. We learn what we want to learn not always the truth not always the best. I wish you the best in your interest in Egyptianology and i hope you understand that in this field there are always going to be different opinions. I hope you can become clearer in what it is you are trying to say.

Sincerely forgetting further attempts with you on this.
Sekhmet.