Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!-1
Colleagues Of Near-Eastern Studies,
Still about the Akhon-A'tounian_Ĥoureyyan affairs subject, I start this miscellaneous-angles article, with three fresh tidings, that may interest you very much :
A. My Theorized ‘Queening’ Clarification about the ‘‘Post-A'moun-Ĥa'ţep_III-Phase’’, in the Dynasty-Eighteen period, is no more displayed as based, about-exclusively, on in-tons-weight archaeology. The onus probandi matters of this subject are now taking great advantage from the emergence in front of me, of a surprizing number of Historical Texts that speak, in abundant multiplicity, about the assured existence of A Number Of Regnant Queens (!!!), that in effect and practically Had Been Ruling during the 2nd half of the Dynasty-18 period. Three Major Categories of such historical texts can already be subtended here :
1. A Category of a big number of Foreign Official Correspondence Letters, that had been sent from a number of Western-Asia countries to an Egyptian Monarch, of the name-versions “Ĥoureyya”/“Khoureyya”, which is an 'all-feminine' name, that Can Not, be used for masculine persons (!), and means literally: "A Nymph", and "An Astounding Youthful Woman" !!
2. A Category of numerous Ancient Arabian Historic Chronicles, that clearly mention in their Egyptian monarchial lists the name-versions: “Ĥoureyya”/“Ĥorreyya”, as of ‘A Queen’, and ‘A Daughter Of A Previous King’ !! ( And of course there is not even a single mention of 'King/ Nymph', or 'King/ Astounding Youthful Woman' !! ). These sources nearly invariably mention that she had a known close successor who had been a Queen also !
3. A Category of numerous Ancient Eurasian Historic Chronicles, that clearly mention in their Egyptian monarchial lists the name-versions: “Akhen-Kheres”/“Aken-Kheres”/“A'Kherres”/…etc., as of ‘A Queen’, and ‘A Daughter Of A Previous King’ !! These sources nearly invariably mention that she had a known close successor who had been a Queen also !
B. A telephone-performed agreement was reached on the morning of April 5 – Thursday, to hold a first discussion meeting, or mini-conference, during next week, on the Akhon-A'toun_Ĥoureyya subject, right inside the Cairo Egyptian Museum ! After speaking about some of the femininity-featuring archaeology of her and her feminal-regime, inside and outside Mesr, I intend to propose a project to undertake a first phase of segregating the archaeology of her from that of A'moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV !! -- Within my very convincing photographic 'Secret-Arsenal', already there is the 'Bomb-Shell' that is very-widely/completely unheard-of inside Egypt, .. which is the photo of 'THE VERY PREGNANT QUEEN' !!! Temporarily, I describe it as: "A Snapshot Of A Lithic Formal Recording Of A Huge Monarchial Pregnancy, At Possibly The Eighth Month, With The Bright/White Ĥedjet Crown Itself Atop The Akhat-A'tounian Queen's Head, Amidst The Usual Representation Of The Dispersed Rays Of The High Ancestor A'toun Son-Of Ĥorr" !!! If you would like to see it, please be patient until the day of the Egyptian Museum Meeting.
C. On the afternoon of April 2 – Monday, a female Egyptian T.V. director, who's personality is radiating with revolutionistic feminism, commented denouncingly, and showed her readiness to media-interfere, on hearing a brief about the "historizing-suppression" that had persisted to happen for long, to the personality of her possible 'Grandmother' Akhon-A'toun_Ĥoureyya !! She talked 'linkingly' about that negative-side of the subject, as a model of the general oppression of Women. She is obviously interested in 'weaving' a T.V. treatment that is ejecting of this phenomenon, in specific. At the noon of April 5 – Thursday, she announced through a phone-call her intention to attend and T.V. shoot, pertaining to our 'greatly neglected' Queen, at the Cairo Egyptian Museum.
Till these awaited exciting motions start-up, maybe on Monday or Tuesday, I suggest you have a look at my ANECF principle article, number 41.234.51.158 : “The Tall Queen's Regime Artifacts That Consistently Exhibited Features And Manifestations Of Femineity And Were Therefore Subsequently Cracked Later On !!”. And also my ANECF supporting article, number 41.43.236.40 : “The Queens That Were Addressed As Kings.2”.
_________________________________________________________________________
With some conservation, I relay the following conscious-awakening quotation to you :
“Perhaps what is so wrong with the history of man is the absence of woman: it becomes clear that the patriarchy has not, in essence, made the world a better place, and that the perpetual “rape" of femininity – the creative essence, pure emotions, Mother Nature’s precious resources, women’s rights and respect, etc. – is continually degrading the human experience.”.
By the anonymous writer of the article: "Leda and the Swan: The Rape of Femininity
Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!-1
Moderators: DJKeefy, 4u Network
-
Waael ebn Fekry
- Junior Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:51 pm
- Gender:
-
LivinginLuxor
- Top Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:50 am
- Location: Luxor, Egypt
- Been thanked: 249 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
Re: Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!-1
Difficult to understand your post, but are you referring to Nefertiti who may have reigned on her own as Smenkhare after Akhenaten was deposed/died which several Egyptologists have referred to?
I might agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong!
Stan
Stan
-
Waael ebn Fekry
- Junior Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:51 pm
- Gender:
Re: Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!-1
No Colleague, The attested-in-historical-sources Queen/ "ĤOUREYYA", who is herself Queen/ "AKHON-A'TOUN", is an independent female-ruler person that had been wrongly and confusedly treated by the archaeologists, for tens of years, as if just "an extended and a transformed male-ruler person", that initially held the distincting name of A'moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV. The sticking-to-testimonies-and-documents historians, who knew much better than the terribly perplexed field-work archaeologists, said something else that is really defogging and glitterizing for the previously mysterious subject: SHE HAD BEEN A WOMAN, A QUEEN, AND A DAUGHTER OF A KING. Which means that: SHE HAD NOT BEEN A MAN, A KING, NOR A SON OF A KING. In the earlier Egyptomania-enjoying times of the 19th century, the Avant-Guardians of Egyptian Archaeology gave excessive ultra-hypothetical liberties to themselves, and they started to speak about their imagined Amarna 'Male-King', who is only Assumed, and unfortunately widely known internationally now with the minced and far-from-accurate naming: "AKHENATEN". Curiously, Not A Single Ancient Monarchial List asserts that there had been a 'Male-King' that bore such a name !! Instead, they mention a 'Female-Queen', and "AKHON/AKHEN" was a chief character of her multi-names, that were historically-chronicled. -- After years of hesitation and postponing, I posted my first paper about my theorized correction only during February of 2012. Ironically, my discovery and its subsequent relaying of evidences and analytical wordings had started and propagated for a long period on archaeological grounds and foundations, chiefly !! Which means that the lady's bas-reliefs and artifacts were very expressive of her feminal-identity and her impressive feminility, already, even before I was very lately supported by the Historical Texts proovings !! -- For much more data and discriptions kindly see : The Luxor4U copy of "The Sum Of Wall Fears (...)", and on ANECF the principle article, number 41.234.51.158 : “The Tall Queen's Regime Artifacts That Consistently Exhibited Features And Manifestations Of Femineity And Were Therefore Subsequently Cracked Later On !!”. And also on ANECF the supporting article, number 41.43.236.40 : “The Queens That Were Addressed As Kings.2”.
-
LivinginLuxor
- Top Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:50 am
- Location: Luxor, Egypt
- Been thanked: 249 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
Re: Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!-1
I can't find one iota of fact in your piece - several reasons come to mind that you seem to have ignored:-
1 The evidence in the tomb of Kheruef, showing a male Amenhotep IV before his father - possibly celebrating a Sed Festival - see "The long co-regency revisited" by Peter Dorman
2 The undoubtedly male figure of Amenhotep IV before his change of name and later in his reign. In the Louvre there is a statue of Akhenaten and Nefertiti in conventional form dating from after year 9 of his reign as it uses the later form of his name.
3 Any of the countless depictions of him with his queen Nefertiti with their children.
4 The reason for the absence of his name in the King Lists is well known, as also are the the names of Hatshepsut, Smenkhare, Tutankhamen and Ay. Like Thutmosis III wanting to expunge traces of his mother's reign from history, Horemheb dated his accession to the death of Amenhotep III, in an effort to delete the Amarna rulers from Egyptian history.
5 Any reference to the style of art in the Amarna period. For instance, the colossal statues of Akhenaten showing both masculine and feminine features have often been interpreted as his portrayal of himself as Wa-en-Re - the unique one of Re = and the Aten was both masculine and feminine as it was the god of all mankind. You also seem to have ignored the fact that Nefertiti, the children and the courtiers were depicted in a similar way during the early years of his reign.There are many references for Amarna art and its symbology - a good introduction is http://www.heptune.com/art.html
6 There are many references to him in written form in the Amarna letters to kings Amenhotep III, IV and Tutankhamen - he is referred to as Royal Brother in some.
1 The evidence in the tomb of Kheruef, showing a male Amenhotep IV before his father - possibly celebrating a Sed Festival - see "The long co-regency revisited" by Peter Dorman
2 The undoubtedly male figure of Amenhotep IV before his change of name and later in his reign. In the Louvre there is a statue of Akhenaten and Nefertiti in conventional form dating from after year 9 of his reign as it uses the later form of his name.
3 Any of the countless depictions of him with his queen Nefertiti with their children.
4 The reason for the absence of his name in the King Lists is well known, as also are the the names of Hatshepsut, Smenkhare, Tutankhamen and Ay. Like Thutmosis III wanting to expunge traces of his mother's reign from history, Horemheb dated his accession to the death of Amenhotep III, in an effort to delete the Amarna rulers from Egyptian history.
5 Any reference to the style of art in the Amarna period. For instance, the colossal statues of Akhenaten showing both masculine and feminine features have often been interpreted as his portrayal of himself as Wa-en-Re - the unique one of Re = and the Aten was both masculine and feminine as it was the god of all mankind. You also seem to have ignored the fact that Nefertiti, the children and the courtiers were depicted in a similar way during the early years of his reign.There are many references for Amarna art and its symbology - a good introduction is http://www.heptune.com/art.html
6 There are many references to him in written form in the Amarna letters to kings Amenhotep III, IV and Tutankhamen - he is referred to as Royal Brother in some.
I might agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong!
Stan
Stan
-
Waael ebn Fekry
- Junior Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:51 pm
- Gender:
News Bang! A’moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV & Akhon-A’toun ARE TWO PERSONS!!
O.K., it is obvious that you haven't read much from my many previous articles, and haven't reviewed much from their photoed galleries, since you would have found a LOT of condensed answers and evidences for a great percentage of your 'not-new' type of inquiries. To start writing and attaching again from the very beginning is of course impossible, so I have to reply here very briefly, leaving it to your choice to pass literally hours and hours, to be sufficiently acquainted with my 'critical' multi-sided discovery, which is already gaining some appreciation and even some confession, among members of the Near Eastern Studies arenae, in general. Why this should happen quite quickly, during just the first 50 days of posting, and why from the beginning was there any need for a 'Correction Theory', about this 'varied' phase in the second half of the Dynasty-18 period ?? You have to know that the so-called 'Conventional' or 'Mainstream' versions of views about this most-bewildering phase, in particular, had for long suffered the always re-emerging perennial type of problema, of the 'inter-contradiction of archaeological evidences'. And even when you read exclusively from the hands of the other writers, for a week or so, and without bearing on mind any of my rectifying Egyptological interferences, you will find likely that the so-termed 'Conventionalists' and 'Mainstreamists' have failed to build even a single "troubled-water-proof" historical 'paragon', that fulfills the natural explanations of all archaeological evidences, without the need to discard or neglect or even 'hide', a lot of the internationally scattered bas-reliefs and artifacts of the under-study phase !! And interestingly, this 'inter-contradiction of archaeological evidences' is not happening like that with respect to the adoption of my new "queening" theme and its clarifications. And moreover, incredibly, there is an about absolute homogeneity between my-edited-texts/my-visual-interpretations, and what is readable from pens of the purely historical/historizing poly-sources, that are always posing unsolvable contradictions, and at times even collisions, with the ultra-assumed and truth-twisting conceptions of the writings of the Amaarna-time 'Conventionalists' and 'Mainstreamists' ...
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
News Bang! A’moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV & A’khen-A’toun ARE 2 PERSONS!!-1
Researched & Redacted By: Waael ebn Fekry
Initial article was posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 23:00
Numbered: 41.43.136.228
Along the past few months, Accumulating Convincing Evidences And Evidences-Formers were picked-out and gathered, and examined and analyzed, mostly in Egypt, and they collectively have already turned a previously-minor theory about The Possible Personae-Duality Of A’moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV & A’khon-A’toun, Into A Stunning Reality !! It is not yet announced ‘bureaucratically’ through the Egyptian Council Of Antiquities, but nevertheless, a few enlightening brief flashes could still be ‘turned on’ here for your interested visionary, temporarily …
A very few of very many Linking/Defining Hints And Tidings, on the Research-Stemming Conclusion that A’moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV And A’khon-A’toun_I WERE ACTUALLY TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS, and On What Surrounds That Of Traceable/Detectable Happenings And Circumstances, could be summarized by :
1. The Male Son, Co-Regent And Successor Of A’MOUN-ĤA'TEP_III, Who’s Name Was A’MOUN-ĤA'TEP_IV, DID NOT COMPLETE THE REIGNING-PERIOD That Is Now Wrongly And Frequently Attributed IN-FULL TO HIS NAME AND THE NAME AKHON-A'TOUN, COMBINED !!
2. As Marriages-To-Non-Relatives Were Frequently Instrumental In Securing Grip Of Power And Extended Peaceful Conditions In The Ancient Times, A Marriage Of That Type Seem to have Happened BETWEEN A'MOUN-ĤA'TEP_IV, AND A GIRL FROM A HOUSE OF THE Egyptian-Based “A’TOUNIANS” !!
3. Both Of A'MOUN_ĤA'TEP_IV, And A’KHON-A'TOUN, According to Unsuspected Specialized Medical Sources, DID NOT SUFFER FROM THE “MARFAN SYNDROME”, As What Was Carelessly And Repeatedly Claimed Before !!
4. That “A’tounian” Girl NEITHER DEVISED NOR INVENTED A NEW RELIGION, And Many Lines From The ‘THOUGHT-TO-BE-NOVELIZED’ “HYMNS” ARE VERY SIMILAR TO OTHER COUNTERPARTS From The FERTILE-CRESCENT And ARABIA.
5. The New City Of Akhat-A’toun, That Was Thought To Had Been Built To Be Chiefly A New ‘Ruling-Seat’, APPARENTLY NOW SEEM TO HAVE BEEN PRIMARILY BUILT TO WELCOME THE ARRIVAL AND DWELLING Of SOME OF THE “A’TOUNIANS”, Naturally As A Pact-Strengthening Gift To Them.
6. With The Lack Of Any Old-Enough Male Son, To Ascend To Throne, From A ‘Vanished’ Previous KING/ A’MOUN-ĤA'TEP_IV, The Egyptian Throne Got SEMI-USURPED BY THE DIFFERENT-BLOOD TALL WIFE/WIDOW/ADOPTED_SISTER OF HIS, AKHON-A'TOUN, ‘In-Style’ With The Previous And Very Similar T’HOTMOS_II/And/ĤAT-SHEP-SUT Succession Experience, Which Was Also From THE SAME Eighteenth DYNASTY !!
To be continued ...
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
News Bang! A’moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV & A’khen-A’toun ARE 2 PERSONS!!-1
Researched & Redacted By: Waael ebn Fekry
Initial article was posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 23:00
Numbered: 41.43.136.228
Along the past few months, Accumulating Convincing Evidences And Evidences-Formers were picked-out and gathered, and examined and analyzed, mostly in Egypt, and they collectively have already turned a previously-minor theory about The Possible Personae-Duality Of A’moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV & A’khon-A’toun, Into A Stunning Reality !! It is not yet announced ‘bureaucratically’ through the Egyptian Council Of Antiquities, but nevertheless, a few enlightening brief flashes could still be ‘turned on’ here for your interested visionary, temporarily …
A very few of very many Linking/Defining Hints And Tidings, on the Research-Stemming Conclusion that A’moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV And A’khon-A’toun_I WERE ACTUALLY TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS, and On What Surrounds That Of Traceable/Detectable Happenings And Circumstances, could be summarized by :
1. The Male Son, Co-Regent And Successor Of A’MOUN-ĤA'TEP_III, Who’s Name Was A’MOUN-ĤA'TEP_IV, DID NOT COMPLETE THE REIGNING-PERIOD That Is Now Wrongly And Frequently Attributed IN-FULL TO HIS NAME AND THE NAME AKHON-A'TOUN, COMBINED !!
2. As Marriages-To-Non-Relatives Were Frequently Instrumental In Securing Grip Of Power And Extended Peaceful Conditions In The Ancient Times, A Marriage Of That Type Seem to have Happened BETWEEN A'MOUN-ĤA'TEP_IV, AND A GIRL FROM A HOUSE OF THE Egyptian-Based “A’TOUNIANS” !!
3. Both Of A'MOUN_ĤA'TEP_IV, And A’KHON-A'TOUN, According to Unsuspected Specialized Medical Sources, DID NOT SUFFER FROM THE “MARFAN SYNDROME”, As What Was Carelessly And Repeatedly Claimed Before !!
4. That “A’tounian” Girl NEITHER DEVISED NOR INVENTED A NEW RELIGION, And Many Lines From The ‘THOUGHT-TO-BE-NOVELIZED’ “HYMNS” ARE VERY SIMILAR TO OTHER COUNTERPARTS From The FERTILE-CRESCENT And ARABIA.
5. The New City Of Akhat-A’toun, That Was Thought To Had Been Built To Be Chiefly A New ‘Ruling-Seat’, APPARENTLY NOW SEEM TO HAVE BEEN PRIMARILY BUILT TO WELCOME THE ARRIVAL AND DWELLING Of SOME OF THE “A’TOUNIANS”, Naturally As A Pact-Strengthening Gift To Them.
6. With The Lack Of Any Old-Enough Male Son, To Ascend To Throne, From A ‘Vanished’ Previous KING/ A’MOUN-ĤA'TEP_IV, The Egyptian Throne Got SEMI-USURPED BY THE DIFFERENT-BLOOD TALL WIFE/WIDOW/ADOPTED_SISTER OF HIS, AKHON-A'TOUN, ‘In-Style’ With The Previous And Very Similar T’HOTMOS_II/And/ĤAT-SHEP-SUT Succession Experience, Which Was Also From THE SAME Eighteenth DYNASTY !!
To be continued ...
-
LivinginLuxor
- Top Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:50 am
- Location: Luxor, Egypt
- Been thanked: 249 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
Re: Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!-1
I would love to see your 'evidences'. Presumably they are on a website somewhere, but you haven't specified a link.
I might agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong!
Stan
Stan
-
Waael ebn Fekry
- Junior Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:51 pm
- Gender:
News Bang! A’moun-Hotep_IV & Akhon-A’toun ARE 2 PERSONS!!
Poco-A-Poco, I am revising, adjusting, refining and redacting previous Akhon-A'tounian posts, for you respectable and other respectable readers/reviewers as well. Considering the URLs: Well, some of the links, when they are copied-and-pasted, exhibit that repeated annoying '20%' thing, maybe 10 times or more inside the same one link !! But you can use the search box, like I do myself to 'jump' to my 'display-articles' and the other researchers’ 'counter-articles' and 'support-articles'. So, it is either you choose to 'calmly' follow my gradual pace and succession in-posting, or you choose to 'energetically' go for condensed reading of the paragraphs and examining of the galleries, as they appear with speed to your internet-searching capability. It is up to you 'Theban-Based' Nice Colleague ! -- Withal, I take the chance to say, It is nice to know, or at least guess, that You are now feeling quite interested in the ‘‘Queening Theme Of The Post-A'moun-Ĥa'ţep_III Phase’’, and maybe also a little impatient to get quickly acquainted with its researchful specialities, differentiations and surprizes. Usually, the ‘‘Queening Theme’’ responders choose to right-away snatch something of their 'sharper-pens' and counter-attack first, like you did yourself, but in just two or three weeks of reading the paragraphs and examining the galleries, these 'sharper-pens' nearly always fall off of their holders’ de-vigoured and fainted fingures, and are left to roll to the edges of their study-desks !!...
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
News Bang! A’moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV & A’khen-A’toun ARE 2 PERSONS!!-2
Researched & Redacted By: Waael ebn Fekry
Initial article was posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 22:41
Numbered: 41.234.89.203
In continuation of: '' News Bang! A’moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV & A'khen-A’toun ARE 2 PERSONS!!-1 ''
7. The Well-Represented and Very Sharp 'Superficial Changedness' – which was actually a 'Differentiation-By-Succession' – between the Earlier and the Later 2-D and 3-D Images of A'moun-Hotep_IV / Akhon-A'toun, In FACIAL FEATURES And BODY SHAPES AND DIMENSIONS, Have Suddenly Become Perceivable As ''Of-Course Very Natural, On Bi-Genderness And On Bi-Characterization''. Specifically, because the Earlier Images were for the 'MALE' PHARAOH/ A'moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV, while the Later Images were for the 'FEMALE' PHARAOH/ Akhon-A'toun_I, Egyptologists Have Found this 'Differentiation' – which happened 'By-Succession' – or this so-called 'Superficial Changedness', that was/is always Well-Represented and Very Sharp, all-through and persistingly.
8. The 2-D and 3-D Images of The Queen/ Akhon-A'toun, In All, Prove That She Had Been Of An Absolutely Feminine 'Curvy' Physique, That Touched An Incredible Attractive Level, To The Extent That It Was 'NOT CREDIBLE' At All For The Egyptologists To Deny Her The Reality Of Her Impressive And Almost Seductive 'WOMANHOOD', And For All That Decades-Long Past Time (!!!). At times, her images show some 'near-ideal' standards of female-body-characteristics (!!!), like: Full Protruding Lips ; Long-Hair Collected In A Back-Shoulder-Draped Sac ; Fair Unbaked-By-Sun Skin ; Fat-Depot Folds In Lower Figure ; Nippled Half-Full Breasts ; Bulbous-Shaped Meaty Belly ; Oval-Shaped 'Blown-Up' Lower-Trunk ; Round 'Conical' Quite-Thick Thighs ; And The Non-Existence Of Any Male Reproductive Organs.
9. The Stark and Easily-Distinguishable 'Bi-Style Variations' – which were actually 'Alterations-By-Gender-Diversity' – In APPEARANCES-OF-COSTUMES in the Earlier and the Later 2-D and 3-D Images of A'moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV / Akhon-A'toun, Un-disputably Signify: Obviously 'Masculine' Wearings of a Noble-Lord/King from the 18th Dynasty Period, and Obviously 'Feminine' Wearings of a Noble-Lady/Queen from also the 18th Dynasty Period, and all that are with Crystal-Clear Distinction. Specifically, because the 'For-Men-Only' Dress Images were for the 'MALE' PHARAOH/ A'moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV, while the 'For-Women-Only' Dress Images were for the 'FEMALE' PHARAOH/ Akhon-A'toun_I, Egyptologists Have Found these 'Alterations' – which exhibited 'By- Gender-Diversity' – or these so-called 'Bi-Style Variations', that were/are always Stark and Easily-Distinguishable, all-through and persistingly.
10. The 2-D and 3-D Images of The Female Pharaoh/ Akhon-A'toun, In All, Prove Solidly That She Had Been Wearing Absolutely Feminine Body-Revealing Garments And Wearable Accessory Items, Almost All-The-Time, And In An Assertive And Persistent Manner That Nearly Gives Nobody Any Chance To Accuse Her Of even 'Men-Imitating' (!!!). Very Frequently, she appeared 'Putting-On' a silky/silky-like body-curved skirt, which Absolutely 'No-Man' [ if we don't say 'No-Statesman' ] in the Whole Near-East Would Dare To Wear (!!!), and that is in addition to her special Long-Hair-Collecting 'Head-Sacque', that was left to hang loosely onto her upper-back. All that could have been accompanied, though less frequently, with the typical shoulder-to-shoulder richly jeweled/ornamented chest-belt piece.
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
News Bang! A’moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV & A’khen-A’toun ARE 2 PERSONS!!-2
Researched & Redacted By: Waael ebn Fekry
Initial article was posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 22:41
Numbered: 41.234.89.203
In continuation of: '' News Bang! A’moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV & A'khen-A’toun ARE 2 PERSONS!!-1 ''
7. The Well-Represented and Very Sharp 'Superficial Changedness' – which was actually a 'Differentiation-By-Succession' – between the Earlier and the Later 2-D and 3-D Images of A'moun-Hotep_IV / Akhon-A'toun, In FACIAL FEATURES And BODY SHAPES AND DIMENSIONS, Have Suddenly Become Perceivable As ''Of-Course Very Natural, On Bi-Genderness And On Bi-Characterization''. Specifically, because the Earlier Images were for the 'MALE' PHARAOH/ A'moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV, while the Later Images were for the 'FEMALE' PHARAOH/ Akhon-A'toun_I, Egyptologists Have Found this 'Differentiation' – which happened 'By-Succession' – or this so-called 'Superficial Changedness', that was/is always Well-Represented and Very Sharp, all-through and persistingly.
8. The 2-D and 3-D Images of The Queen/ Akhon-A'toun, In All, Prove That She Had Been Of An Absolutely Feminine 'Curvy' Physique, That Touched An Incredible Attractive Level, To The Extent That It Was 'NOT CREDIBLE' At All For The Egyptologists To Deny Her The Reality Of Her Impressive And Almost Seductive 'WOMANHOOD', And For All That Decades-Long Past Time (!!!). At times, her images show some 'near-ideal' standards of female-body-characteristics (!!!), like: Full Protruding Lips ; Long-Hair Collected In A Back-Shoulder-Draped Sac ; Fair Unbaked-By-Sun Skin ; Fat-Depot Folds In Lower Figure ; Nippled Half-Full Breasts ; Bulbous-Shaped Meaty Belly ; Oval-Shaped 'Blown-Up' Lower-Trunk ; Round 'Conical' Quite-Thick Thighs ; And The Non-Existence Of Any Male Reproductive Organs.
9. The Stark and Easily-Distinguishable 'Bi-Style Variations' – which were actually 'Alterations-By-Gender-Diversity' – In APPEARANCES-OF-COSTUMES in the Earlier and the Later 2-D and 3-D Images of A'moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV / Akhon-A'toun, Un-disputably Signify: Obviously 'Masculine' Wearings of a Noble-Lord/King from the 18th Dynasty Period, and Obviously 'Feminine' Wearings of a Noble-Lady/Queen from also the 18th Dynasty Period, and all that are with Crystal-Clear Distinction. Specifically, because the 'For-Men-Only' Dress Images were for the 'MALE' PHARAOH/ A'moun-Ĥa'ţep_IV, while the 'For-Women-Only' Dress Images were for the 'FEMALE' PHARAOH/ Akhon-A'toun_I, Egyptologists Have Found these 'Alterations' – which exhibited 'By- Gender-Diversity' – or these so-called 'Bi-Style Variations', that were/are always Stark and Easily-Distinguishable, all-through and persistingly.
10. The 2-D and 3-D Images of The Female Pharaoh/ Akhon-A'toun, In All, Prove Solidly That She Had Been Wearing Absolutely Feminine Body-Revealing Garments And Wearable Accessory Items, Almost All-The-Time, And In An Assertive And Persistent Manner That Nearly Gives Nobody Any Chance To Accuse Her Of even 'Men-Imitating' (!!!). Very Frequently, she appeared 'Putting-On' a silky/silky-like body-curved skirt, which Absolutely 'No-Man' [ if we don't say 'No-Statesman' ] in the Whole Near-East Would Dare To Wear (!!!), and that is in addition to her special Long-Hair-Collecting 'Head-Sacque', that was left to hang loosely onto her upper-back. All that could have been accompanied, though less frequently, with the typical shoulder-to-shoulder richly jeweled/ornamented chest-belt piece.
-
Waael ebn Fekry
- Junior Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:51 pm
- Gender:
Is "Magdalene's" Limitation In Femal 'T's A Must For All Cas
Waael ebn Fekry
Is "Magdalene's" Limitation In Femal 'T's A Must For All Cases?
Initial Article Posted on Mon Apr 16, 2012 01:21
41.239.80.99
According to the totality of many classical and non-classical sources : “Actually, there were Numerous queens regnant in ancient Egypt” !! – In addition to the names of the definitely-regnant famous queens like : Nitocris, Ĥatshepsout, Arsinoe_II and Cleopatra_VII, some sources mention also the names of : Ĥoureyya_I, Māmoum, Ĥoureyya_II, and Daloukah. – To clarify matters up about them all ( find their other names, identify their dynastic-placements, … etc. ) they need a lot of investigation endeavours, of course, .. but until this becomes facilitated and performable, their names and some brief/more-than-brief information 'tips' about them remain recorded and known. – The recorded forms of their names, that are mentioned above, are all soundly and perfectly feminine, despite they don't have a pronounceable ‘Tee’ [ Near-Eastern ‘Tāa'’ ] letter at the ends. The personal name of Akhon-A'toun, Ĥoureyya, in specific, is not only in a sound and perfect feminal pattern, it moreover can Never be used for a Male, .. and this is because it means : ‘Nymph/Astounding Girl’ !! For the “Akhon-A'toun” form, itself, I have been previously clear about it's being in a descriptive-phrasal type of form that needs no feminizing writable 'tool', and this I have done even before "Magdalene's" posting of : “ why wasn't her name "Akhet-n-aten"? And why wasn't her Horus name "mryt-itn" instead of "mry-itn"? What was to prevent that--as a successor whom we know to have been a female even had the prenomen of Ankhetkheperure, feminine form? ”. Before, I have interpreted “Akhon-A'toun” to be: “Brother, He-Is, A'toun”, with a 'politically-advertising' meaning that approaches: “A'toun Is Indeed A Brother”, which is different from the other many interpretations that were formerly given by other Egyptologists. – But inside and outside many phrasograph-form names/namings, there could be a lot of feminine names/namings, that do not in-comprise feminizing 'T's, like what "Magdalene" seemingly suggests. Here below, I am tackling more the title-question : Is "Magdalene's" Limitation In Femal 'T's A Must For All Cases?
Contrary to what is thought by some "Dynasties 1 to 12" Egyptologists, there were numerous 'imported' ways to feminize names in Ancient Egypt. The apparent reason, that I can put forth here, for the previous overwhelming mass usage of ‘Tee’s [ Near Eastern ‘Tāa'āt’ ] to express the feminility of names of Royalty-and-Elite Ladies, in "Pre-Dynasty 13" periods or so, .. is defined by the prevailing customary usage of such ‘Tee’s to express the feminility of Femes' names of the Samitic Ancestors of "Dynasties 1 to 12", who had originated in the Arabian Peninsula. – But, in priority, from where specifically did most of these 12 Dynasties come, and what tribal ancestries do they belong to ?? O.K., let us look quickly at another place in the Ancient Near East, where pronounceable ‘Tee’s were on a wide/widest of scales, being annexed to a lot of names and namings, to feminize them and hence they became names of Women and Girls, and even More. And let us examine the following 'Extra-Egyptian' examples :
Collec./Mascul. Forms . . . T-End Feminine Forms . . . Other Feminine Forms
_______________________________________________________________
1. . . . . . D.TH.N . . . . . . . . . . D.TH.N.T . . . . . . . . . D.TH.NAH/EH
2. . . . . Ộ.W.Y.N . . . . . . . . . Ộ.W.Y.N.T . . . . . . . . Ộ.W.Y.NAH/EH
3. . . . . . R.B.Y.Ậ . . . . . . . . . . R.B.Y.Ậ.T . . . . . . . . . R.B.Y.ẬAH/EH
4. . . . . . TOHĀM . . . . . . . . . . TOHĀM.T . . . . . . . . . TOHĀMAH/EH
5. . . . . . ĤABASH . . . . . . . . . ĤABASH.T . . . . . . . . . ĤABASHAH/EH
6. . . . . . . AKH' . . . . . . .. . . AKH.T/OKHT . . . . . . . . . . AKHAH/EH
7. . . . . . . EBN . . . . . . . . . . . . EBN.T . . . . . . . . . . . . EBNAH/EH
8. . . . . . ẬTHT.R . . . . . . . . . ẬTHT.R.T . . . . . . . . . . ẬTHT.RAH/EH
9. . . . . . AĤMAS . . . . . . . . . AĤMAS.T . . . . . . . ĤAMSAA'//AĤMASAH/EH
10. . . . . ASMAR . . . . . . . . . ASMAR.T . . . . . . . SAMRAA'//ASMARAH/EH
11. . . . . SHĀM . . . . . . . . . . SHĀM.T . . . . . . . . . . . SHĀMAH/EH
12. . . . . YAMAN . . . . . . . . . YAMAN.T . . . . . . . . . . YAMANAH/EH
13. . . . . D.SH.R . . . . . . . . . D.SH.R.T . . . . . . . . . . D.SH.RAH/EH
14. . . .PŪN//ALPŪN . . . . . PŪN.T//ALPŪN.T . . . . BŪNAH/EH//ALBŪNAH/EH
15. . . . . .ĤĀMEL . . . . . . . . . ĤĀMEL.T . . . . . . . . ĤĀMEL//ĤĀMELAH/EH
16. . . . . NĀSHEZ . . . . . . . . NĀSHEZ.T . . . . . . . NĀSHEZ//NĀSHEZAH/EH
17. . . . . .KĀỆEB . . . . . . . . . KĀỆEB.T . . . . . . . . . KĀỆEB//KĀỆEBAH/EH
18. . . . . AKHDAR . . . . . . . . AKHDAR.T . . . . . . .KHADRĀA'//AKHDARAH/EH
19. . . . . .AĤMAR . . . . . . . . AĤMAR.T . . . . . . . ĤAMRĀA'//AĤMARAH/EH
20. . . . . . Ĥ.R.M . . . . . . . . . Ĥ.R.M.T . . . . . . . . .. . Ĥ.R.MAH/EH
21. . . . . . GHĀB . . . . . . . . . GHĀB.T . . . . . . . . . . . GHĀBAH/EH
22. . . . . M.N.Y/.A . . . . . . . .M.N.Y.T . . . . . . . . . . .M.N.YAH/EH
23. . . . . F.R.Â/.Ê . . . . . . .F.R.Â.T/.Ê.T . . . . . . . . .F.R.ÂAH/.ÊEH
24. . . . . . L.B.N . . . . . . . . . L.B.N.T . . . . . . . . . . . L.B.NAH/EH
25. . . . . M.ĎY.Q . . . . . . . .M.ĎY.Q.T . . . . . . . . . .M.ĎY.QAH/EH
26. . . . .Y.F.Â/.Ê . . . . . . Y.F.Â.T/.Ê.T . . . . . . . . . Y.F.ÂAH/.ÊEH
27. . . . Ậ/Ệ/ỘB.R . . . . . . .Ậ/Ệ/ỘB.R.T . . . . . . . . . Ậ/Ệ/ỘB.RAH/EH
28. . . . Ậ/Ệ/ỘS.M . . . . . . Ậ/Ệ/ỘS.M.T . . . . . . . . .Ậ/Ệ/ỘS.MAH/EH
29. . . . . N.Q.B . . . . . . . . . N.Q.B.T . . . . . . . . . . . .N.Q.BAH/EH
30. . . . .BONNY . . . . . . . BONNEYY.T . . . . . . . . . .BONNEYYAH/EH
31. . . . . L.DJY . . . . . . . . L.DJEYY.T . . . . . . . . . . L.DJEYYAH/EH
The table exhibits Five different femininizing forms that were known in the Ancient Western Asian Peninsula, and which have found their ways into Ancient Egypt, despite that the word-examples brought themselves are mostly unpopular, from the Egyptian point of view. The fact that the 'Tee-End' feminization forms were overwhelmingly used in the Samitic bulk-of-components of the Ancient Egyptian Language, that had been developed during the 1st-to-12th Dynasties period, is an important ethnic and geographical marker about the initial origins of most of these 'older', smaller-numbers-bearing dynasties. The type of feminized words that are recorded in the middle column were used widely and concentratingly, during thousands of years, by a prominent group of ‘Sheb'h al-Djazeera al-Ârabeyya’ sub-tribes, that prevailed there, generally, south of the 21° North-latitude-parallel. This informative marker coincides perfectly with what is read in Ancient Arabian Chronicles about the Southern Peninsular Founders of Satellite Regimes in Northern Africa. The types of feminized words that are recorded in the right-side column were used widely and concentratingly, during thousands of years, by a prominent group of ‘Sheb'h al-Djazeera al-Ârabeyya’ sub-tribes, that prevailed there, generally, north of the 20° North-latitude-parallel. These kinds of characteristic 'Northern-to-Middle' peninsular feminization of words are known to have spread in Egypt, during the 13th-to-24th Dynasties period, which is an important ethnic and geographical marker about the initial origins of some of these 'newer', greater-numbers-bearing dynasties. And Egyptian Archaeology attest this fact intensily. Of the more famous 'Intra-Egyptian' examples of namings, of that period, that had come to emergence and use in accordance with these other forms, we can mention :
i] al-Khansāa' ( A King's Wife in the 2nd Intermediate Period ) ;
ii] Nabtah ( From the Time of Tuthmosis_III ) ;
iii] Thuyah ( The High Official/ Yuyā's Wife, and Ţayyeh's Mother ) ;
iv] Ţayyeh ( A'moun-Ĥāţep_III's Wife ) ;
v] Nābetah ( 18th Dynasty, Daughter of A'moun-Ĥāţep_III and Ţayyeh ) ;
vi] Ĥoureyyah ( Personal Name of Queen/ Akhon-A'toun ).
– So "Magdalene's" Limitation In Femal 'T's is Not A Must For All Cases. And there were actually other options for feminizing many cases of feminine names and namings, without 'tee-ends', during the period of "1st to 24th Dynasties".
Is "Magdalene's" Limitation In Femal 'T's A Must For All Cases?
Initial Article Posted on Mon Apr 16, 2012 01:21
41.239.80.99
According to the totality of many classical and non-classical sources : “Actually, there were Numerous queens regnant in ancient Egypt” !! – In addition to the names of the definitely-regnant famous queens like : Nitocris, Ĥatshepsout, Arsinoe_II and Cleopatra_VII, some sources mention also the names of : Ĥoureyya_I, Māmoum, Ĥoureyya_II, and Daloukah. – To clarify matters up about them all ( find their other names, identify their dynastic-placements, … etc. ) they need a lot of investigation endeavours, of course, .. but until this becomes facilitated and performable, their names and some brief/more-than-brief information 'tips' about them remain recorded and known. – The recorded forms of their names, that are mentioned above, are all soundly and perfectly feminine, despite they don't have a pronounceable ‘Tee’ [ Near-Eastern ‘Tāa'’ ] letter at the ends. The personal name of Akhon-A'toun, Ĥoureyya, in specific, is not only in a sound and perfect feminal pattern, it moreover can Never be used for a Male, .. and this is because it means : ‘Nymph/Astounding Girl’ !! For the “Akhon-A'toun” form, itself, I have been previously clear about it's being in a descriptive-phrasal type of form that needs no feminizing writable 'tool', and this I have done even before "Magdalene's" posting of : “ why wasn't her name "Akhet-n-aten"? And why wasn't her Horus name "mryt-itn" instead of "mry-itn"? What was to prevent that--as a successor whom we know to have been a female even had the prenomen of Ankhetkheperure, feminine form? ”. Before, I have interpreted “Akhon-A'toun” to be: “Brother, He-Is, A'toun”, with a 'politically-advertising' meaning that approaches: “A'toun Is Indeed A Brother”, which is different from the other many interpretations that were formerly given by other Egyptologists. – But inside and outside many phrasograph-form names/namings, there could be a lot of feminine names/namings, that do not in-comprise feminizing 'T's, like what "Magdalene" seemingly suggests. Here below, I am tackling more the title-question : Is "Magdalene's" Limitation In Femal 'T's A Must For All Cases?
Contrary to what is thought by some "Dynasties 1 to 12" Egyptologists, there were numerous 'imported' ways to feminize names in Ancient Egypt. The apparent reason, that I can put forth here, for the previous overwhelming mass usage of ‘Tee’s [ Near Eastern ‘Tāa'āt’ ] to express the feminility of names of Royalty-and-Elite Ladies, in "Pre-Dynasty 13" periods or so, .. is defined by the prevailing customary usage of such ‘Tee’s to express the feminility of Femes' names of the Samitic Ancestors of "Dynasties 1 to 12", who had originated in the Arabian Peninsula. – But, in priority, from where specifically did most of these 12 Dynasties come, and what tribal ancestries do they belong to ?? O.K., let us look quickly at another place in the Ancient Near East, where pronounceable ‘Tee’s were on a wide/widest of scales, being annexed to a lot of names and namings, to feminize them and hence they became names of Women and Girls, and even More. And let us examine the following 'Extra-Egyptian' examples :
Collec./Mascul. Forms . . . T-End Feminine Forms . . . Other Feminine Forms
_______________________________________________________________
1. . . . . . D.TH.N . . . . . . . . . . D.TH.N.T . . . . . . . . . D.TH.NAH/EH
2. . . . . Ộ.W.Y.N . . . . . . . . . Ộ.W.Y.N.T . . . . . . . . Ộ.W.Y.NAH/EH
3. . . . . . R.B.Y.Ậ . . . . . . . . . . R.B.Y.Ậ.T . . . . . . . . . R.B.Y.ẬAH/EH
4. . . . . . TOHĀM . . . . . . . . . . TOHĀM.T . . . . . . . . . TOHĀMAH/EH
5. . . . . . ĤABASH . . . . . . . . . ĤABASH.T . . . . . . . . . ĤABASHAH/EH
6. . . . . . . AKH' . . . . . . .. . . AKH.T/OKHT . . . . . . . . . . AKHAH/EH
7. . . . . . . EBN . . . . . . . . . . . . EBN.T . . . . . . . . . . . . EBNAH/EH
8. . . . . . ẬTHT.R . . . . . . . . . ẬTHT.R.T . . . . . . . . . . ẬTHT.RAH/EH
9. . . . . . AĤMAS . . . . . . . . . AĤMAS.T . . . . . . . ĤAMSAA'//AĤMASAH/EH
10. . . . . ASMAR . . . . . . . . . ASMAR.T . . . . . . . SAMRAA'//ASMARAH/EH
11. . . . . SHĀM . . . . . . . . . . SHĀM.T . . . . . . . . . . . SHĀMAH/EH
12. . . . . YAMAN . . . . . . . . . YAMAN.T . . . . . . . . . . YAMANAH/EH
13. . . . . D.SH.R . . . . . . . . . D.SH.R.T . . . . . . . . . . D.SH.RAH/EH
14. . . .PŪN//ALPŪN . . . . . PŪN.T//ALPŪN.T . . . . BŪNAH/EH//ALBŪNAH/EH
15. . . . . .ĤĀMEL . . . . . . . . . ĤĀMEL.T . . . . . . . . ĤĀMEL//ĤĀMELAH/EH
16. . . . . NĀSHEZ . . . . . . . . NĀSHEZ.T . . . . . . . NĀSHEZ//NĀSHEZAH/EH
17. . . . . .KĀỆEB . . . . . . . . . KĀỆEB.T . . . . . . . . . KĀỆEB//KĀỆEBAH/EH
18. . . . . AKHDAR . . . . . . . . AKHDAR.T . . . . . . .KHADRĀA'//AKHDARAH/EH
19. . . . . .AĤMAR . . . . . . . . AĤMAR.T . . . . . . . ĤAMRĀA'//AĤMARAH/EH
20. . . . . . Ĥ.R.M . . . . . . . . . Ĥ.R.M.T . . . . . . . . .. . Ĥ.R.MAH/EH
21. . . . . . GHĀB . . . . . . . . . GHĀB.T . . . . . . . . . . . GHĀBAH/EH
22. . . . . M.N.Y/.A . . . . . . . .M.N.Y.T . . . . . . . . . . .M.N.YAH/EH
23. . . . . F.R.Â/.Ê . . . . . . .F.R.Â.T/.Ê.T . . . . . . . . .F.R.ÂAH/.ÊEH
24. . . . . . L.B.N . . . . . . . . . L.B.N.T . . . . . . . . . . . L.B.NAH/EH
25. . . . . M.ĎY.Q . . . . . . . .M.ĎY.Q.T . . . . . . . . . .M.ĎY.QAH/EH
26. . . . .Y.F.Â/.Ê . . . . . . Y.F.Â.T/.Ê.T . . . . . . . . . Y.F.ÂAH/.ÊEH
27. . . . Ậ/Ệ/ỘB.R . . . . . . .Ậ/Ệ/ỘB.R.T . . . . . . . . . Ậ/Ệ/ỘB.RAH/EH
28. . . . Ậ/Ệ/ỘS.M . . . . . . Ậ/Ệ/ỘS.M.T . . . . . . . . .Ậ/Ệ/ỘS.MAH/EH
29. . . . . N.Q.B . . . . . . . . . N.Q.B.T . . . . . . . . . . . .N.Q.BAH/EH
30. . . . .BONNY . . . . . . . BONNEYY.T . . . . . . . . . .BONNEYYAH/EH
31. . . . . L.DJY . . . . . . . . L.DJEYY.T . . . . . . . . . . L.DJEYYAH/EH
The table exhibits Five different femininizing forms that were known in the Ancient Western Asian Peninsula, and which have found their ways into Ancient Egypt, despite that the word-examples brought themselves are mostly unpopular, from the Egyptian point of view. The fact that the 'Tee-End' feminization forms were overwhelmingly used in the Samitic bulk-of-components of the Ancient Egyptian Language, that had been developed during the 1st-to-12th Dynasties period, is an important ethnic and geographical marker about the initial origins of most of these 'older', smaller-numbers-bearing dynasties. The type of feminized words that are recorded in the middle column were used widely and concentratingly, during thousands of years, by a prominent group of ‘Sheb'h al-Djazeera al-Ârabeyya’ sub-tribes, that prevailed there, generally, south of the 21° North-latitude-parallel. This informative marker coincides perfectly with what is read in Ancient Arabian Chronicles about the Southern Peninsular Founders of Satellite Regimes in Northern Africa. The types of feminized words that are recorded in the right-side column were used widely and concentratingly, during thousands of years, by a prominent group of ‘Sheb'h al-Djazeera al-Ârabeyya’ sub-tribes, that prevailed there, generally, north of the 20° North-latitude-parallel. These kinds of characteristic 'Northern-to-Middle' peninsular feminization of words are known to have spread in Egypt, during the 13th-to-24th Dynasties period, which is an important ethnic and geographical marker about the initial origins of some of these 'newer', greater-numbers-bearing dynasties. And Egyptian Archaeology attest this fact intensily. Of the more famous 'Intra-Egyptian' examples of namings, of that period, that had come to emergence and use in accordance with these other forms, we can mention :
i] al-Khansāa' ( A King's Wife in the 2nd Intermediate Period ) ;
ii] Nabtah ( From the Time of Tuthmosis_III ) ;
iii] Thuyah ( The High Official/ Yuyā's Wife, and Ţayyeh's Mother ) ;
iv] Ţayyeh ( A'moun-Ĥāţep_III's Wife ) ;
v] Nābetah ( 18th Dynasty, Daughter of A'moun-Ĥāţep_III and Ţayyeh ) ;
vi] Ĥoureyyah ( Personal Name of Queen/ Akhon-A'toun ).
– So "Magdalene's" Limitation In Femal 'T's is Not A Must For All Cases. And there were actually other options for feminizing many cases of feminine names and namings, without 'tee-ends', during the period of "1st to 24th Dynasties".
-
LivinginLuxor
- Top Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:50 am
- Location: Luxor, Egypt
- Been thanked: 249 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
Re: Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!-1
I can't see how you derive the name Houreyyaah for Akhenaten. Below are the names I recognise for him:-
Horus Name Meryaten (Kanakht Quaishuty)
Nebty Name Wernesytemakhetaten
Golden Horus Name Wetjesrenenaten
Praenomen Neferkheperre-waenre
Nomen Akhenaten
Which one is the one you use?
Horus Name Meryaten (Kanakht Quaishuty)
Nebty Name Wernesytemakhetaten
Golden Horus Name Wetjesrenenaten
Praenomen Neferkheperre-waenre
Nomen Akhenaten
Which one is the one you use?
I might agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong!
Stan
Stan
-
Waael ebn Fekry
- Junior Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:51 pm
- Gender:
Re: Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!-1
Until I wind-out a prolonged and more convincing reply, I temporarily give again the following :
Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!-1
Colleagues Of Near-Eastern Studies,
[ .... ] My Theorized ‘Queening’ Clarification about the ‘‘Post-A'moun-Ĥa'ţep_III-Phase’’, in the Dynasty-Eighteen period, is no more displayed as based, about-exclusively, on in-tons-weight archaeology. The onus probandi matters of this subject are now taking great advantage from the emergence in front of me, of a surprizing number of Historical Texts that speak, in abundant multiplicity, about the assured existence of A Number Of Regnant Queens (!!!), that in effect and practically Had Been Ruling during the 2nd half of the Dynasty-18 period. Three Major Categories of such historical texts can already be subtended here :
1. A Category of a big number of Foreign Official Correspondence Letters, that had been sent from a number of Western-Asia countries to an Egyptian Monarch, of the name-versions “Ĥoureyya”/“Khoureyya”, which is an 'all-feminine' name, that Can Not, be used for masculine persons (!), and means literally: "A Nymph", and "An Astounding Youthful Woman" !!
2. A Category of numerous Ancient Arabian Historic Chronicles, that clearly mention in their Egyptian monarchial lists the name-versions: “Ĥoureyya”/“Ĥorreyya”, as of ‘A Queen’, and ‘A Daughter Of A Previous King’ !! ( And of course there is not even a single mention of 'King/ Nymph', or 'King/ Astounding Youthful Woman' !! ). These sources nearly invariably mention that she had a known close successor who had been a Queen also !
3. A Category of numerous Ancient Eurasian Historic Chronicles, that clearly mention in their Egyptian monarchial lists the name-versions: “Akhen-Kheres”/“Aken-Kheres”/“A'Kherres”/…etc., as of ‘A Queen’, and ‘A Daughter Of A Previous King’ !! These sources nearly invariably mention that she had a known close successor who had been a Queen also !
So the totality of the Ancient Eurasian Historic Chronicles, clearly mention in their Egyptian monarchial lists the name-versions: “Akhen-Kheres”/“Aken-Kheres”/“A'Kherres”/…etc., as of ‘A Queen’, and ‘A Daughter Of A Previous King’. And this means that these Chronicles-Recorders actually had recognized and attested that the the two 'kinds' of names are for a single female person. The pairings or combinations recorded that are like those mentioned above of “Akhen-and-Kheres” and “Aken-and-Kheres”, ... etc., leave no doubt that 'AKHON' And 'KHOUREYYA' had been identified previously as a single person.
Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!-1
Colleagues Of Near-Eastern Studies,
[ .... ] My Theorized ‘Queening’ Clarification about the ‘‘Post-A'moun-Ĥa'ţep_III-Phase’’, in the Dynasty-Eighteen period, is no more displayed as based, about-exclusively, on in-tons-weight archaeology. The onus probandi matters of this subject are now taking great advantage from the emergence in front of me, of a surprizing number of Historical Texts that speak, in abundant multiplicity, about the assured existence of A Number Of Regnant Queens (!!!), that in effect and practically Had Been Ruling during the 2nd half of the Dynasty-18 period. Three Major Categories of such historical texts can already be subtended here :
1. A Category of a big number of Foreign Official Correspondence Letters, that had been sent from a number of Western-Asia countries to an Egyptian Monarch, of the name-versions “Ĥoureyya”/“Khoureyya”, which is an 'all-feminine' name, that Can Not, be used for masculine persons (!), and means literally: "A Nymph", and "An Astounding Youthful Woman" !!
2. A Category of numerous Ancient Arabian Historic Chronicles, that clearly mention in their Egyptian monarchial lists the name-versions: “Ĥoureyya”/“Ĥorreyya”, as of ‘A Queen’, and ‘A Daughter Of A Previous King’ !! ( And of course there is not even a single mention of 'King/ Nymph', or 'King/ Astounding Youthful Woman' !! ). These sources nearly invariably mention that she had a known close successor who had been a Queen also !
3. A Category of numerous Ancient Eurasian Historic Chronicles, that clearly mention in their Egyptian monarchial lists the name-versions: “Akhen-Kheres”/“Aken-Kheres”/“A'Kherres”/…etc., as of ‘A Queen’, and ‘A Daughter Of A Previous King’ !! These sources nearly invariably mention that she had a known close successor who had been a Queen also !
So the totality of the Ancient Eurasian Historic Chronicles, clearly mention in their Egyptian monarchial lists the name-versions: “Akhen-Kheres”/“Aken-Kheres”/“A'Kherres”/…etc., as of ‘A Queen’, and ‘A Daughter Of A Previous King’. And this means that these Chronicles-Recorders actually had recognized and attested that the the two 'kinds' of names are for a single female person. The pairings or combinations recorded that are like those mentioned above of “Akhen-and-Kheres” and “Aken-and-Kheres”, ... etc., leave no doubt that 'AKHON' And 'KHOUREYYA' had been identified previously as a single person.
-
Waael ebn Fekry
- Junior Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:51 pm
- Gender:
Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!-2
Until I edit-out a prolonged and more detailed reply, I temporarily give the following :
Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!-2
Respectable Truth-Demanders/Egyptologists, At Luxor4U & Anywhere,
In our ancient-civilizations career, a single photograph for a single artifact can, in some less-than-frequent cases, be more informative or more assertive to a certain topic, than the whole of a 3-inch-thick album, that is full of dozens of photographs for miscellaneous artifacts. The single photograph for the single artifact shown, that is e-linked herewith, compose together definitely an utterly surprising example on that one-of-a-kind of very superb precious archaeological evidences. Sufficiently with it, you will know surely that I had been honestly striving in a righteous direction for 10 weeks, all right, to exhibit what is in the domain of ''The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth'' to you all, at the dynamic and respectable "Luxor For You" Egyptology Forum, about the femaleness of a numerously-mentioned and well-attested Egyptian Queen.
I have discovered this 'Landsliding Evidence/Proof', on the femininity of "Queen"/ Akhon-Ātoan; Akhen_Kherses; Aken_Kheres; Ĥoureyya; Khoureyya; A'Kherres; Ĥorreyya, nearly a month ago, and It Is the one that is referred-to in my ANECF articles: "Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!.1" of Friday April 6, at 21:43, and "Re: Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!.1" of Monday April 9, at 23:10. As I have described it before: "A snapshot of a lithic formal recording of a Huge Monarchial Pregnancy, at possibly the eighth month, with the bright/white Ĥedjet Crown itself atop the Akhat-A'tounian queen's head, amidst the usual representation of the dispersed rays of the high ancestor A'toun son-of Ĥorr" !!!
It is understandable that a 'conventionalist' or a 'mainstreamist' in Egyptology, who was till this moment still 'faithful' to the belief in an existence of a Male-King-Akhenaten, could judge this 'unbeatable' evidence as an 'unthinkable' one. But in such similar cases I think one should start revising the mis-led personal stances at once or relatively quickly, so as to lessen the from-previous accumulated damages that had happened because of the 'automatic' copying from other un-careful hasty sources.
And right now, 'here you are', Gentlewomen and Gentlemen: It Is within the reach of your careful and knowledgeable hands, and It Is handed over to your enthusiastic and science-motivated examination, through the e-linkage of this article, at the internet-web search title: " Pregnant Akhon-A'toun Lithic Snapshot ".
Very obvious in the bas-relief imaging art of this ultimately special artifact, we find a very unique and a very rare representation of the 'Egyptian Pregnancy Robe', which, with the very same shape that is shown, is still very widely used in the whole of Egypt till today !! Notice how it is cut short near the knees level, for facilitating movement of the temporarily constricted legs and for allowing air flow to the abdomen, hips, thighs, … etc., of the later-months pregnant woman. Without any alterations, what-so-ever, the robe of Akhon-Ātoan shown in this lithic pregnancy snapshot is Exactly the same as "el-Gallabeyyah el-Osayyarah" [ = "the Short Robe" ], which is a name that is commonly used between the Egyptian Women to somewhat 'indirectly' identify their most usual pregnancy-time wearing.
Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!-2
Respectable Truth-Demanders/Egyptologists, At Luxor4U & Anywhere,
In our ancient-civilizations career, a single photograph for a single artifact can, in some less-than-frequent cases, be more informative or more assertive to a certain topic, than the whole of a 3-inch-thick album, that is full of dozens of photographs for miscellaneous artifacts. The single photograph for the single artifact shown, that is e-linked herewith, compose together definitely an utterly surprising example on that one-of-a-kind of very superb precious archaeological evidences. Sufficiently with it, you will know surely that I had been honestly striving in a righteous direction for 10 weeks, all right, to exhibit what is in the domain of ''The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth'' to you all, at the dynamic and respectable "Luxor For You" Egyptology Forum, about the femaleness of a numerously-mentioned and well-attested Egyptian Queen.
I have discovered this 'Landsliding Evidence/Proof', on the femininity of "Queen"/ Akhon-Ātoan; Akhen_Kherses; Aken_Kheres; Ĥoureyya; Khoureyya; A'Kherres; Ĥorreyya, nearly a month ago, and It Is the one that is referred-to in my ANECF articles: "Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!.1" of Friday April 6, at 21:43, and "Re: Ĥoureyya's Many Mentionings/The Pregnancy Snapshot!!.1" of Monday April 9, at 23:10. As I have described it before: "A snapshot of a lithic formal recording of a Huge Monarchial Pregnancy, at possibly the eighth month, with the bright/white Ĥedjet Crown itself atop the Akhat-A'tounian queen's head, amidst the usual representation of the dispersed rays of the high ancestor A'toun son-of Ĥorr" !!!
It is understandable that a 'conventionalist' or a 'mainstreamist' in Egyptology, who was till this moment still 'faithful' to the belief in an existence of a Male-King-Akhenaten, could judge this 'unbeatable' evidence as an 'unthinkable' one. But in such similar cases I think one should start revising the mis-led personal stances at once or relatively quickly, so as to lessen the from-previous accumulated damages that had happened because of the 'automatic' copying from other un-careful hasty sources.
And right now, 'here you are', Gentlewomen and Gentlemen: It Is within the reach of your careful and knowledgeable hands, and It Is handed over to your enthusiastic and science-motivated examination, through the e-linkage of this article, at the internet-web search title: " Pregnant Akhon-A'toun Lithic Snapshot ".
Very obvious in the bas-relief imaging art of this ultimately special artifact, we find a very unique and a very rare representation of the 'Egyptian Pregnancy Robe', which, with the very same shape that is shown, is still very widely used in the whole of Egypt till today !! Notice how it is cut short near the knees level, for facilitating movement of the temporarily constricted legs and for allowing air flow to the abdomen, hips, thighs, … etc., of the later-months pregnant woman. Without any alterations, what-so-ever, the robe of Akhon-Ātoan shown in this lithic pregnancy snapshot is Exactly the same as "el-Gallabeyyah el-Osayyarah" [ = "the Short Robe" ], which is a name that is commonly used between the Egyptian Women to somewhat 'indirectly' identify their most usual pregnancy-time wearing.
-
Waael ebn Fekry
- Junior Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:51 pm
- Gender:
Luxor4U-Added: Ĥoureyya's/Akhen-A'toan's Pregnancy Snapshot!
Added on Luxor4U: Ĥoureyya's/Akhen-A'toan's Pregnancy Snapshot!!
On Sunday, April 08 of 2012, I have posted here on this thread : " Within my very convincing photographic 'Secret-Arsenal', already there is the 'Bomb-Shell' that is very-widely/completely unheard-of inside Egypt, .. which is the photo of 'THE VERY PREGNANT QUEEN ' !!!".
Now, I have managed to post on the gallery of Luxor4U a vivid copy for this surprizingly very powerful evidence on the truthness of my "Queening" judgment and explanation for the late 18th dynasty character Ĥoureyya/Akhen-A'toan. With it's help you also shall probably be able to judge and explain the reality of 'her' gender to yourselves !!
The meant copy of : “ A snapshot of a lithic formal recording of a Huge Monarchial Pregnancy, at possibly the eighth month ”, is posted on the Luxor4U gallery at :--
gallery/image.php?album_id=7&image_id=11046
On Sunday, April 08 of 2012, I have posted here on this thread : " Within my very convincing photographic 'Secret-Arsenal', already there is the 'Bomb-Shell' that is very-widely/completely unheard-of inside Egypt, .. which is the photo of 'THE VERY PREGNANT QUEEN ' !!!".
Now, I have managed to post on the gallery of Luxor4U a vivid copy for this surprizingly very powerful evidence on the truthness of my "Queening" judgment and explanation for the late 18th dynasty character Ĥoureyya/Akhen-A'toan. With it's help you also shall probably be able to judge and explain the reality of 'her' gender to yourselves !!
The meant copy of : “ A snapshot of a lithic formal recording of a Huge Monarchial Pregnancy, at possibly the eighth month ”, is posted on the Luxor4U gallery at :--
gallery/image.php?album_id=7&image_id=11046
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 0 Replies
- 725 Views
-
Last post by LovelyLadyLux