BIG question on ancient history for you

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

So was just watching a video on youtube from the
MET -- "The" MET, the famous museum in NYC --
and it present a partial kings list from the 18th &
19th dynasties of Egypt and... and...

It lists "Neferneferuaten" as the king between
Akhenaten and Smenkhare.

Hmm.

Now I know things do change but before I weigh in
here let me first say how I learned things...

#1. Neferneferuaten is Nefertiti

#1a. Nerfertiti in all probability was Queen Tiye

#2. Smenkhkare may have been a queen, may have
been Akhenaten's name after his religious revolution
failed or they may have been a male heir older than
Tutankhamun, who reigned between the heretic king
and Tut.

#3. There was nobody between Smenkhkare and Tut.
In fact, whether or not Smenkhkare even existed was
in doubt amongst some circles.

Now this MET lecture is not only saying that, yes, there
was a Smenkhkare but ALSO there was a queen who
ruled before him.

Oh. To make matters more confusing, this recorded
lecture at the MET is on the topic of Haremhab.

Which is weird because I learned him as "Horemheb,"
but that's the breaks when dealing with transliterations
(not translations) and evolving conventions...

NOW I weigh in here...

Neferneferuaten, in my thinking, was Nefertiti who was
Queen Tiye. It's not very far fetched, Tiye was the power
behind the throne during Amenhotep III's reign so the
government, the people in power, the people who were the
status quo would have really liked her sticking around.

"Continuity."

THAT is the thing you've got to keep in mind when talking
about governments and kings in particular. When you've got
a new leader, a new king, everyone who is not already on top,
rolling in wealth & power, sees their opportunity to gain high
office, titles, wealth & power. All they have to do is ingratiate
themselves to the new king, or be their friend already, and
ask. And their getting that office/title/etc means someone
else loses it.

Understand?

The death of a monarch was traditionally a time of chaos.

Well. Possibly overstated there. But it was a point in time
when the apple cart got upset, and everyone would go
scrambling to scoop them all up & put them back on the
cart.

This is also why, say, the Romans would wait until a king
died before annexing a territory. They were already at their
most vulnerable, the maximum weakness, incoherence...

So this exact same fact works in favor of a Hatshepsut or,
as I content, a Tiye.

"But the Egyptians didn't marry mothers to sons."

True. Not ordinarily. But there was nothing ordinary about
the Amarna Period.

"But Nefertiti had kids and Tiye would have been too old."

No. Queen Tiye is known to have adopted one or more
children, claiming parentage, so who knows how many she
might've claimed parentage of?

"But Queen Tiye was too old, old enough to be Akhenaten's
mother! Nefertiti was much younger!"

No. There's evidence that Nefertiti was no spring chicken.
Even the famous bust of the beautiful Nefertiti includes
some wrinkles.

"But I saw something that said Tiye was sub saharan African
and Nefertiti clearly had light skin."

No. Queen Tiye was of "Asiatic" heritage. Her parents are
known, their tomb amongst the most famous and certainly
amongst the most intact prior to the discovery of the even
more famous Tut.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/667888698881458176/the-right-wing-isnt-very-warm-cozy-with-gay

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Oh so rich & successful JTEM wrote:

> So was just watching a video on youtube from the
> MET -- "The" MET, the famous museum in NYC --
> and it present a partial kings list from the 18th &
> 19th dynasties of Egypt and... and...
>
> It lists "Neferneferuaten" as the king between
> Akhenaten and Smenkhare.
>
> Hmm.
>
> Now I know things do change but before I weigh in
> here let me first say how I learned things...
>
> #1. Neferneferuaten is Nefertiti
>
> #1a. Nerfertiti in all probability was Queen Tiye
>
> #2. Smenkhkare may have been a queen, may have
> been Akhenaten's name after his religious revolution
> failed or they may have been a male heir older than
> Tutankhamun, who reigned between the heretic king
> and Tut.
>
> #3. There was nobody between Smenkhkare and Tut.
> In fact, whether or not Smenkhkare even existed was
> in doubt amongst some circles.
>
> Now this MET lecture is not only saying that, yes, there
> was a Smenkhkare but ALSO there was a queen who
> ruled before him.

If it matters, I always identified the famous "Younger Lady" in
KV 35...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Younger_Lady

...as Tut's sister and surviving wife:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankhesenamun

It would only make sense that Aye would have her murdered
once he crowned himself king.

Whatever the case, two of the mummies in KV 35 are unquestionably
tied to the Amarna Period, so, stretching things further, why not the
third?

Smenkhkare?









-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/667784930785378304