Luxor4u

newcastle wrote:I didn't say KV55 skeleton (possibly Smenkhare) was Tut's father. The DNA evidence only indicates he was a close relative.

The Amarna princesses could be anywhere. The tombs of only a tiny fraction of the 18th dynasty royal families are known.

Of course the Amarna letters were found in Amarna.....the clue's in the name. So what?

So was the Hittite lettera correct?

Frater0082 wrote:

newcastle wrote:I didn't say KV55 skeleton (possibly Smenkhare) was Tut's father. The DNA evidence only indicates he was a close relative.

The Amarna princesses could be anywhere. The tombs of only a tiny fraction of the 18th dynasty royal families are known.

Of course the Amarna letters were found in Amarna.....the clue's in the name. So what?

So was the Hittite lettera correct?

Do you mean the letter from the King of Babylon (not Hittite) requesting a royal bride from Amenhotep III? As you know, the request was refused.

" Kadashman Enlil of Babylon to Amenhotep of Egypt [....] How is it possible that, having written to you in order to ask for the hand of your daughter - oh my brother, you should have written me using such language, telling me that you will not give her to me as since earliest times no daughter of the king of Egypt has ever been given in marriage? Why are you telling me such things? You are the king. You may do as you wish. If you wanted to give me your daughter in marriage who could say you nay?

But you, keeping to your principle of not sending anybody, have not sent me a wife. Have you not been looking for a fraternal and amical relationship, when you suggested to me - in writing - a marriage, in order to make us become closer? Why hasn't my brother sent me a wife? [...] It is possible for you not to send me a wife, but how could I refuse you a wife and not send her to you, as you did? I have daughters, I will not refuse you in any way concerning this...."

I assume that Frater is referring to the letter supposedly sent to Suppiluliuma I a Hittite King in an account by his son Mursili II (who also became a Hittite King) in his account of a letter that is usually attributed to being sent by Akhesenamun after Tut’s death. It is a long correspondence and easier to read the full details here than for me to type up all the details:

http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/sup ... etter.html

Horus wrote:I assume that Frater is referring to the letter supposedly sent to Suppiluliuma I a Hittite King in an account by his son Mursili II (who also became a Hittite King) in his account of a letter that is usually attributed to being sent by Akhesenamun after Tut’s death. It is a long correspondence and easier to read the full details here than for me to type up all the details:

http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/sup ... etter.html

I wondered that too.....but can't for the life of me see how it relates to his earlier questions/points.

An Egyptian queen, without sons, (probably Ankhesenamun although Nefertiti or Meritaten has been suggested by some) asking for a Hittite son to marry. So what?

What has it to do with the identifying of the royal mummies, or the fate of Akhenaton's daughters or indeed anything

newcastle wrote:

Horus wrote:I assume that Frater is referring to the letter supposedly sent to Suppiluliuma I a Hittite King in an account by his son Mursili II (who also became a Hittite King) in his account of a letter that is usually attributed to being sent by Akhesenamun after Tut’s death. It is a long correspondence and easier to read the full details here than for me to type up all the details:

http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/sup ... etter.html

I wondered that too.....but can't for the life of me see how it relates to his earlier questions/points.

An Egyptian queen, without sons, (probably Ankhesenamun although Nefertiti or Meritaten has been suggested by some) asking for a Hittite son to marry. So what?

What has it to do with the identifying of the royal mummies, or the fate of Akhenaton's daughters or indeed anything

Murray question was wasn't this letter found in Amarna

Frater0082 wrote:

newcastle wrote:

Horus wrote:I assume that Frater is referring to the letter supposedly sent to Suppiluliuma I a Hittite King in an account by his son Mursili II (who also became a Hittite King) in his account of a letter that is usually attributed to being sent by Akhesenamun after Tut’s death. It is a long correspondence and easier to read the full details here than for me to type up all the details:

http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/sup ... etter.html

I wondered that too.....but can't for the life of me see how it relates to his earlier questions/points.

An Egyptian queen, without sons, (probably Ankhesenamun although Nefertiti or Meritaten has been suggested by some) asking for a Hittite son to marry. So what?

What has it to do with the identifying of the royal mummies, or the fate of Akhenaton's daughters or indeed anything

Murray question was wasn't this letter found in Amarna

Of course not. It's a letter FROM Egypt to the Hittite King.

The Annals of Mursili II, in which the letter is mentioned, were found at he Hittite capital Hattusa, modern day Bogazkale in Turkey.

Horus wrote:I assume that Frater is referring to the letter supposedly sent to Suppiluliuma I a Hittite King in an account by his son Mursili II (who also became a Hittite King) in his account of a letter that is usually attributed to being sent by Akhesenamun after Tut’s death. It is a long correspondence and easier to read the full details here than for me to type up all the details:

http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/sup ... etter.html

I am grateful to you Horus, I was looking for this information last week, when on 24th January I posted a mention of the Hareem. I think it is important for Frater to trully understand the idea of the hareem, that even existed up to the 1920's at the some what rather modern Dolmabahce Palace (Garden Palace), yet the idea of the hareem had little changed since the Middle Ages in the Topkapi Palace, both in Istambul. The true idea behind the hareem is much more different than how the modern Western person thinks of it.

Tutankhamoun's widow, still remained the great wife within the Egyptian Hareem, had she been able to marry the Hititte prince, he would NOT have become Pharoah, but their son most certainly would have, but it is evident that the elderly High Priest of Amoun and the supreme general of the army were not going to allow that, for obvious reasons.

I have never understood why Ay or even Horemheb have been attached to the 18th Dynasty.

The last time I check Amarna was in Egypt.

Someone tell me where these letters found?

Had Ankhesenamum (let's assume it was she) succeeded in marrying the Hittite prince Zannanza, he would not have ruled Egypt - in that I can agree with A-Four. I can't imagine what she was thinking of in suggesting to Suppiluliuma that her foreign spouse would rule Egypt. Post traumatic stress syndrome perhaps?

But I do not agree that any putative male offspring of the marriage would have become pharaoh. Highly improbable.

The idea of matrilineal descent being crucial in the office of kingship was debunked decades ago.

Apart from that, there's no question of an extended "vacancy" in the Horus throne. Someone would have become pharaoh following the death of Tutankhamun and the idea of him stepping aside in the future for some male offspring of Ankhesenamum is preposterous. The royal harem would have contained any number of young males with a better claim or, as happened - and had already happened several times - an outsider could have taken the throne.

With regard to the standard division of the Egyptian pharaohs into 31 dynasties, we're stuck with the system originating with Manetho and it would be pointless to muck about with it now. Manetho based his system on somewhat garbled history, transmitted over centuries by word of mouth, and it's remarkable that it's as close as it is to the latest theories on who-was- who.

At one point the XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties were not divided at all.

Whilst Ay and Horemheb don't fit in to the usual pattern of the throne passing by male descent, there are other"anomalies".

The XVIIIth dynasty commences with Ahmose ....the son of Seqenenre Tao penultimate pharaoh of the XVIIth dynasty. There's no obvious reason for having a new dynasty at this point - at least on paternal descent grounds.

Shortly afterwards, Amenhotep I was succeeded by Thutmosis I....certainly not a direct descendant, and yet regarded as a continuation of the XVIIIth dynasty.

I suspect Ay & Horemheb were lumped in with rhe XVIIIth dynasty for convenience, - rather that have a dynasty of one - neither having a male successor.

When Ramesses I succeeded Horemheb, he already had a son and grandson - the future SetiI and Ramesses II - and thus the makings of a dynasty.

Could the whole Zannanza affair be a contrived excuse by the Hittites for increased belligerence towards Egypt?

An early example of "Fake News"?

Maybe the 'alleged' correspondence. and the demise of their prince, was a product of the Hittite equivalent of the CIA

newcastle wrote:Could the whole Zannanza affair be a contrived excuse by the Hittites for increased belligerence towards Egypt?

An early example of "Fake News"?

Maybe the 'alleged' correspondence. and the demise of their prince, was a product of the Hittite equivalent of the CIA

I always thought so myself.