A ROOM WITH A VIEW PT I.

[A-Four]

Picture this,............

It's mid January 1907, at an approximate 30 feet from the entrance of the tomb of Ramesses IX to the northeast, (therefore just before the present day rest house.) stands a young man, smartly dressed collar and tie and a bouter hat, the type worn at a regatta. He has just made one of the most remarkable discoveries in the Valley of the Kings, his name is Edward Ayrton, a fully qualified archaeologist, who's patron is an American millionaire, called Theodore Davis.

A message has been sent to Davis to inform him of 'his' remarkable discovery, and was now marching up along the valley floor, aged approx 60, 5 foot 8 ins high, wearing breachers, knee high ridding boots. The person had no real ground knowledge of archaeology or antiquities, though he did have an awful lot of money.

Ayrton lost no time in showing his patron the first few steps, that would eventually lead to a door deep underground. I think most would agree, this sounds similar to a find by Howard Carter years later. This place would soon become known as K.V.55. A team of workmen cleared the area until the full staircase revealed. At this point, the chief inspector of antiquities for Upper Egypt was sent for, a certain Mr Arthur Weigall. Now the workmen started to remove the wall, which would give access to a tomb that had not seen light of day for over 3,000 years.

To their amazement there was two separate walls, 'Both blocking walls were taken down and the filling that lay around them. It was clear that the outer wall had been built to re-seal the tomb, after the older inner one had been anciently penetrated'. The passageway was full of debrie. They suddenly came across panels and doors of a shrine made of wood, covered in sheet gold. 'Parts of the wood work were as soft yet as firmly shaped as cigar ash'. Weigall checked for hieroglyphs and found that the shrines had been made for Queen Tiy, wife of Amenhotep III, mother of Akenaten, daughter of Yuya and Tuya.

Further along the tomb they discovered four canonic jars, each of the bases were of very poor quality stone, even so, the cartouches on each had been very carefully removed. However, the four lids, which were ill fitting, were capped with four most exquisite portrait heads, which arguably are the finest examples of Amarna art. Each one about four inches high, with a texture feel similar to human skin.

Weigall further discovered that the ancient workmen had left some of their tools behind, some chisels and a mallet head, perhaps used during the dismantling or for the intended re-erection of the panels of the golden shrines, that would have been placed around the sacophagus.

The inspector general, Gustan Maspero, arrived on the scene urgently from Cairo, fearful that the precious items would be stolen by gangs of villains, ordered the immediate clearance of the tomb, thus all archaeological information was lost. The only photographs and drawings we have today is as a result of two un-sung heroes 1) Mr Lindon-Smith. 2) a certain Mr R Paul, who gave their services free at short notice to Mr Weigall.

What we have learnt since then is that although Davis announced and published to the world that K.V 55 as the Tomb of Queen Tiy in 1910, and believed this to his dying day back in the U.S., the truth was very different. Weigall had the bone of 'Queen Tiy' sent to Cairo to be examined by an expert,...........

'Are you sure that the bones you sent me, are those which were found in the tomb. Instead of the bones of an old woman, you have sent me those of a young man. Surely there is some mistake'. (Grafton Elliot Smith, letter sent to Arthur Weigall.


The most recent evidence is that the blood group A2-MN is the same as the body in K.V. 62.

A-Four.

The second part of this essay will deal with K.V.23,54,and62., with a conclusion of evidence.

[carrie]

Got my piece of paper and am making notes, all clear so far.

[Frater0082]

What happened to the bones perhaps i need to read further

[carrie]

Frater I don't know if you understood A four's post but there is more to come can we please let him just continue until the end, so that I don't get confused, you can then argue and ask questions later.

[A-Four]

What happened to the bones perhaps i need to read further

As Carrie points out this is only part of this essay, though i am pleased to comment on any question.

Quite honestly Frater I do not know where these bones are now, and although the whereabouts would be quite interesting to know, fortunately they are not that important to this essay, which I hope to post here by the end of the week.

[Frater0082]

Okay I'll pay more attention

[newcastle]

What happened to the bones perhaps i need to read further

As Carrie points out this is only part of this essay, though i am pleased to comment on any question.

Quite honestly Frater I do not know where these bones are now, and although the whereabouts would be quite interesting to know, fortunately they are not that important to this essay, which I hope to post here by the end of the week.

Well....they're in Cairo Museum.The bones you're talking about belong to arguably the most famous mummy in the world bar Tut. The mummy...more of a skeleton actually....has been identified as the father of Tutankhamun by DNA analysis. Hawass thinks it is therefore Akhenaton...but there are some problems with this. I incline to the view it's Smenkhare.

[carrie]

So are you saying then Newcastle that you believe that Ahkenhaten was not the father of Tut.

[newcastle]

So are you saying then Newcastle that you believe that Ahkenhaten was not the father of Tut.

There must be doubt. Remember the attribution of Tut's fatherhood to Akhenaton rests on circumstantial evidence and only one attestation of Tutankhaton (as he then was) as "King's son of his body..." without any reference to which King. There are at least 3 contemporaneous candidates. Akhenaton, Smenkhare or Neferneferuaten.

The KV55 mummy seems definitely to be Tut's father (DNA evidence)

However, that person cannot (according to the DNA results) be the grandfather of one of the foetuses found in Tut's tomb if they are the offspring of Ankhesenamun & Tutankhamun.

It seems evident that Akhenaton was Ankhesenamum's father.

So we have a problem. If the mummy is Akhenaton....how do you explain that foetus?

Maybe question the DNA evidence?....some do. Possible "extramarital" hanky panky?. Maybe the foetus wasn't a child of Tut & Ankhesenamun.

Murky or what

[newcastle]

Apologies for interrupting your story A-Four....do continue.

[Frater0082]

So are you saying then Newcastle that you believe that Ahkenhaten was not the father of Tut.

There must be doubt. Remember the attribution of Tut's fatherhood to Akhenaton rests on circumstantial evidence and only one attestation of Tutankhaton (as he then was) as "King's son of his body..." without any reference to which King. There are at least 3 contemporaneous candidates. Akhenaton, Smenkhare or Neferneferuaten.

The KV55 mummy seems definitely to be Tut's father (DNA evidence)

However, that person cannot (according to the DNA results) be the grandfather of one of the foetuses found in Tut's tomb if they are the offspring of Ankhesenamun & Tutankhamun.

It seems evident that Akhenaton was Ankhesenamum's father.

So we have a problem. If the mummy is Akhenaton....how do you explain that foetus?

Maybe question the DNA evidence?....some do. Possible "extramarital" hanky panky?. Maybe the foetus wasn't a child of Tut & Ankhesenamun.

Murky or what

Ugh I hate to interupt your story as well A-four but I have to comment on this one. I do know for a fact that Akhenaten looked to be about 25 or 27 when I last saw him and I know for a fact that the Younger Lady Mummy is Nebetah slash Nefertiti.

As of Ankhesenamun I still skeptical to say that she was the daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti the real Ankhesenpa'aten. I kind think Ankhesenamun was Ankhesenpa'aten Tasherit born of an unknown male and a King's daughter slash queen. Therefore what we are we are looking a a whole new branch of the family.

[Zooropa]

I just wish they were called Ted, Maggie, Bert & Fred, this thread would be a lot easier to follow then.

[Frater0082]

After talking to you guys and annotating the situation before Tutankhamun I now got an Idea who was Neferneferuaten Ankhkheperure, It was Ankhesenpaaten. Senior. It all makes since now

Like I said before I think she co-ruled alongside Tut in the first 2 years of his reign and was cast aside just like her sisters Meritaten, Tenta'aten, and Setepenre. So I was right

The years of Neferneferuaten should be annexed with those of Tutankhamun(just like Smenkhkare year with Akhenaten) because she really co-ruled with the young prince and was throned aside when the boy become of age perhaps the age most kings become kings(I'm not for certain if this is true.)

But based on Analysis of the situation of before Tutankhamun I conclude that the mysterious Queen Neferneferuaten.

[Frater0082]

Sorry A-four but i couldn't help it please please continue

[newcastle]

I just wish they were called Ted, Maggie, Bert & Fred, this thread would be a lot easier to follow then.

What? And render egyptology decipherable? perish the thought

[newcastle]

After talking to you guys and annotating the situation before Tutankhamun I now got an Idea who was Neferneferuaten Ankhkheperure, It was Ankhesenpaaten. Senior. It all makes since now

Like I said before I think she co-ruled alongside Tut in the first 2 years of his reign and was cast aside just like her sisters Meritaten, Tenta'aten, and Setepenre. So I was right

The years of Neferneferuaten should be annexed with those of Tutankhamun(just like Smenkhkare year with Akhenaten) because she really co-ruled with the young prince and was throned aside when the boy become of age perhaps the age most kings become kings(I'm not for certain if this is true.)

But based on Analysis of the situation of before Tutankhamun I conclude that the mysterious Queen Neferneferuaten.

I was about to write something then I thought...nah....forget it....

[Frater0082]

oops i meant that Queen Neferneferuaten was Ankhesenpaaten. Yeah I know newcastle I was trying to bite my tongue but I couldn't help it.


You were definitely right about one thing(everyone was) Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten were co-regents one served as a regent for the later Pharaoh and the other for Tutankhamun at least that's what i believe and the more i think about it, it makes sense to me.

after all Manetho did stated that Neferneferuaten was a 'King's daughter" so that's also clear evidence that Neferneferuaten was the daughter of Akhenaten

another point of evidence is the fact that by Y3 of Tutankhamun, is the year when Tut decided to change the state religion from Aten back to Amun? It begs the question as why then and not sooner? and I think because in the beginning of his reign Tut was under the protection and guidance of an Amarna princess which i conclude was Ankhesenpaaten Senior... Case closed.

[Frater0082]

Another thing that could be considered evidence is the fact that Ankhkheperure was used after the Throne Name Neferneferuaten if this was Nefertiti it would have read as Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti, but its not so that is clear that Nefertiti did not rule as sole Pharaoh after the death of Akhenaten she died in Y16 of her husband's reign. Ankhsenpaaten's name is very close if not Identical in some way to the name Ankhkheperure

I also once thought Neferneferuaten was Meritaten but she was disgraced right before the move from Amarna and just before the time of Tutankhamen's reign so thus about 3 years before the change of religion from Aten to Amun. Thus giving Neferneferuaten 2 years and some time to co-rule with a then 9 year old boy. Just think about it die to the fact that Tut changed the countries religion in Y3 gives us a straight answer that Aten worshipping was going on in the first 2 years of his reign the same 2 years and one month atested to Neferneferuaten.

Its even very evident that Neferneferuaten may have been a co-ruler because their is little detail of any political or monumental activity during her two year reign. Whereas Ramses I, had ,even though he reigned for a very short period of time.

I think I just solved one mystery that occurred during the late Amarna Period the identity of Neferneferuaten it was indeed Ankhesenpaaten the third daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. it may have been she who might have placed the two cousins Tutankhamun and Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit together

Its my assumption that her downfall came when the priests had enough of the Aten and forced the newlyweds to throw out Ankhesenpaaten just like she did to her own sisters.

wow that was a pretty big move for someone who was about 16 years old at the time.

[carrie]

Frater do you think we could stick to what Egyptologist know about this period rather than what you saw, because I am finding it all rather difficult to follow, try as I might.

[Frater0082]

Frater do you think we could stick to what Egyptologist know about this period rather than what you saw, because I am finding it all rather difficult to follow, try as I might.

okay i will, but that's not what I saw well alittle but I will i'm having a hard time following the above to but I just got off tracked when someone was talking about Tut and Ankhesenamun. Sorry