Domain Of Man

General Category => Amarna Period (Akhenaten & Tut) => Topic started by: Chuck-Star on February 25, 2010, 12:09:31 AM

Title: Manasseh and Ephraim, Revisited
Post by: Chuck-Star on February 25, 2010, 12:09:31 AM
In the study of Aye and Aanen (see topic: "The Men of Shem"), I looked backward in time at earlier Ephraim and Manasseh figures, such as Horus the Elder and Thoth/Minh; Chephren and Djedefre; Senusret and Amenemhet; and Amenemhet III and Amenemhet IV.  

This week I decided to look forward in time (from the 18th Dynasty) to see what I could find.  

The next major Joseph figure was pharaoh Piye (a.k.a. Sargon II of Assyria).  And sure enough he typecast his leading sons as "Ephraim and Manasseh".  The typecasting of Taharqa son of Piye is especially strong.  He is in fact called the wicked king Manasseh in the Biblical narrative!

Piye/Sargon created a twist on the traditional typecasting.  He crossed many of the expected traits of Ephraim and Manasseh, and apparently in an attempt to frustrate the fate that so bitterly tore 18th Dynasty Egypt apart.  Taharqa, although the primary Manasseh, was made more prominent in Egypt.  His brother was made a High Priest in Egypt (a traditional Manasseh/Shem role), but was also appointed Great King in Mesopotamia under the name Sennacherib.  Taharqa was nominally superior in Egpyt, while Sennacherib was nominally superior in Mesopotamia.  The results were pretty much the same.  Civil war, misery, and the eclipsing of both of their individual lines to a third line (ala Ramses), that of Mentuemhet/Ahasuerus father of Darius and Cyrus the Great.

Something else that stands out about Taharqa is that he seems to also be assuming the role of Nakhtmin/Pedubastet as well as that of Aye.  Instead of Pedubastet, Taharqa was called by the Libyan name Pediese.  The two names are equivalent.  Taharqa is a Nubian name.  His Egyptian name was Panehesy.  Under this alias, Taharqa was credited with killing Takelot III/Tiglath-pileser III.  Taharqa was not a true killer in this case.  He was only a young boy, but given the task of handing Takelot a poisoned cup.  Likewise, the earlier Ipy/Nakhtmin was commissioned ("by the Lord") to kill the first prince named Takelot and his brother Osorkon.  There was also a promient Panehesy in the Amarna Period, who now appears to be closely related to Nakhtmin, perhaps a second son of Aanen or even an alias of Nakhtmin.  The Greek name of Taharqa was Neco, a variant of Nakht(-min).

The following table shows the names of Taharqa and the associated typecasting:

1) Taharqa/Tirhakah/Har (Horus/Ephraim)
2) Pediese (Horus/Ephraim)
3) Necho (Thoth/Manasseh)
4) Psamtik (Thoth/Manasseh)
5) Astyges/Ishtu-megu (Thoth/Manasseh?)
6) Gyges/Guggu/Gog (Horus/Ephraim)
7) Ia-Mani (Ptah/Ea and Thoth/Manasseh)

The following table shows the names of Taharqa's brother Khaluit and the associated typecasting:

1) Khaluit/Hilkiah (Horus/Ephraim?)
2) Menkheperre (Horus/Ephraim)
3) Sennacherib (Thoth/Manasseh)
4) Nabopolassar (Thoth/Manasseh and Peribsen-Japheth/Peleus)
5) Nimlot (Horus/Ephraim)
6) Smendes (Thoth/Manasseh)

Title: Re: Manasseh and Ephraim, Revisited
Post by: Truth Seeker on February 25, 2010, 01:07:54 AM
I've never quite understood a basic thing here, that is the difference between Horus the Elder, and Horus the Younger? I'm sure you detailed this in your book. Are they different idenitys altogether, or different personifications of the same person/diety? So in your charts on this post, which Horus are you referring to. Feel free to direct me, so you don't have to re-write what you've already written, thank you.

Title: Horus Scope
Post by: Chuck-Star on February 25, 2010, 02:30:45 AM
Horus the Elder/Sr. was the natural father of Horus the Younger/Jr.   In Biblical typecasting the Elder Horus is the Judah type.  The Younger Horus is the Benjamin type.  The two types are sometimes melded into one, for example Biblical David is a composite of two actual kings (Thutmose I & III) who were also father and son.

For the mapping of Egyptian gods to Biblical types (Jacob and his 12 sons), see the tutorials.  They can be accessed from the "Book Online" tab.

There is a fifth tutorial that gives the Biblical rationale for compressing the chronology (to start the dynastic period at 1159 BC).

Title: King Manasseh
Post by: Chuck-Star on February 26, 2010, 03:31:05 AM
Schematically, the end of the 19th Dynasty looks very similar to the end of the 18th Dynasty.

We have a strong Joseph figure, Piye instead of Yuya.  We have a clear Manasseh figure, called King Manasseh/Tirhakah, but better known from archaeology as Taharqa.  We have involvement by Taharqa in the deaths of a Takelot and an Osorkon (as Ipy/Jehu was in the 18th Dynasty).  As mentioned above, Taharqa was the cupbearer to Takelot III and delivered (unwittingly) the poison that killed him.  Osorkon IV (a.k.a. Esarhaddon of Assyria) died enroute to attack a "rebellious" Taharqa in Egypt.

The main difference in the 19th Dynasty appears to be that the three "sons of Joseph" are all played by distinct individuals, but perhaps because there were more princes available to fill the roles.  Also, these three 19th Dynasty princes appear to all be true sons of the Joseph (rather than adopted) but by different mothers.  The Solomon figure (pharaoh Pi-Nedjem) was known as Shalmaneser in Assyria.  That is a clue for the earlier period, but variations are of course possible.

Title: Akhenaten son of Aanen?
Post by: Chuck-Star on February 26, 2010, 10:10:38 PM
Let's see if we can come to some new conclusions about the Amarna royals.

We are being told that the mitochondrial DNA study will be published eventually, but the preliminary finding is that Tut and the fetuses have the same mtDNA as Tuya, the Elder Lady (Tiye), and the Younger Lady (Nefertiti?).  That excludes the possibility of Ankhesenamun's mother being an "outsider".  Therefore, the two "outsider" alleles found in the fetuses (one in each) must have come from Ankhesenamun's father Akhenaten.  It further indicates that Akhenaten's father was neither Amenhotep III nor Yuya.  By process of elimination, the father of Akhenaten was Aanen and Aanen was not the true son of Yuya!

Archetypal Ephraim (Horus the Elder) and Manasseh (Thoth) were not biological sons of archetypal Joseph (Ptah).  The original Ephraim was a brother of the original Joseph.  The original Manasseh was a constant companion and helper of the original Joseph.  This is made especially clear by the Mesopotamian myths involving Ea/Enki and Imdugud.  So, the more traditional scenario was for both Ephraim and Manasseh types to be adopted or political sons of Joseph.

Aye was likely the son of Thutmose IV.  But who would have been the father of Aanen?  The logical choice is Si-Amun, the "second son" of Amenhotep II.  Aanen was conceived as a continuation of the Thoth/Simeon line, even as Shem/Semerkhet was the heir of Lamech/Thoth.  In the Biblical narrative, Simeon was covetous of Dinah (Mutemwia).  It seems he also sired the firstborn son of Tuya (who we can now say was not one and the same as Mutemwia, but another desirable princess).  However, Reuben (Neby/Webensenu) is also a leading candidate as father of Aanen.  As we saw in the on-line book, Aanen/"Amenhotep son of Hapu"/Vizier Amenhotep/Huy was considered a son of Webensenu.  Neby/Webensenu likely sired other sons through Tuya, especially Horemheb, but it still seems more likely that he did not sire Tuya's firstborn (due to the typecasting of that child as "Shem/Aaron" if nothing else).

In the Middle Kingdom, the Ham/Noah (wise Solomon) figure was Amenemhet III.  The Shem figure was Amenemhet IV.  Amenhotep III of the 18th Dynasty was apparently another Ham figure that also assumed the Noah/Solomon role, that being Aye.  Logically, the pharaoh called Amenhotep IV would have been patterned after Amenemhet IV of the 12th Dynasty.  We would expect Amenhotep IV (cum Akhenaten) to have been one and the same as Aanen, but that doesn't seem to be the case.  Instead, it looks like the role was reserved for the son of Aanen by Queen Tiye.  (As noted above, pharaoh Taharqa was typecast as "King Manasseh".  He was also pressured into the role of "Moses".  As Greek pharah Necho, his throne name was Wah-ibre.  This was a role he vigorously resisted, and there is evidence that he also tried to pawn that role off to one of his "sons", Necho II Wah-em-ibre.)

Akhenaten and Ipy/Nakhtmin emerge as half-brothers (or at least of the same paternal line from prince Si-Amun).  This makes Akhenaten's election of Nakhtmin (i.e., "the Lord promising Jehu a "dynasty like David's") even more reasonable.  However, the literal killing of two major princes (Takelot and Osorkon) by Ipy must have been extremely unpopular.

This new proposal requires us to revisit a couple of key Biblical narratives.  First of all, what impact does this relationship between Yuya and the son of Si-Amun have on the Biblical story of Joseph being persecuted by his brothers, and especially by Simeon.  Was Simeon's role just that, a role.  Was Yuya in fact closer to Si-Amun than he was Thutmose IV, the family Judah?  Secondly, if Yuya had no royal sons, then how do we now interpret the interlocking blessings of Joseph and Judah in the Book of Genesis?


Title: Re: Manasseh and Ephraim, Revisited
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 27, 2010, 12:48:29 AM
Charles!  What a wonderful presentation!

But, may I ask, just where in your presentation do you place either the invasion of the "Sea Peoples", during the times of Rameses  the ?.
or as Velikovsky considered as during the times of Nectanebo the ?

Just what people, who are condidered to have invaded Egypt with forces from both the Sea and the "laager" , from the land?

I am sorry, but there seems to be some convulusion, with the above invasions?

So, are they to be considered in your revision, as  members of the 12th or 13th centuries,

Or are these "invasions" misrepresented by about 800years into the 4th centrury BCE, as proposed by Velikovsky?

But, as I mentioned in another place on this site, could they all refer to a  time in the "Christian period of the reconquest of the Holy Land?

Please remember mny views regartding "Chevrons?"{

Title: Troy, Revisited
Post by: Chuck-Star on February 27, 2010, 01:18:50 AM
Rondonio, um, thanks, but the Sea Peoples are probably better discussed under another board, particularly the one titled "Conquest of Egypt/Fall of Thebes".  The Greek assault on Ilius ("City of the Gods") involved the use of Greek warriors by "Egyptian warlords", i.e., the royal family (you know 'em, you luv 'em).  Taharqa/Psammetichus was one of the leaders of the Greek "bronze men".  This is all explained in the on-line book that has been posted for many years now.  Taharqa's father Piye was basis for Homer's Menelaus, the "victor" in the war.

Title: Jeho-Addan Mother of King Amaziah
Post by: Chuck-Star on February 27, 2010, 02:33:37 AM
Looking at the names of the daughters of Amenhotep III, princess Henuttaneb looks like the inspiration for the Biblical name Jeho-addan mother of King Amaziah.  Henuttaneb, as mentioned previously, corresponds to the Libyan God's Wife of Amun, Nesitanebteshru.  Both names relate to the name Sitamun, another daughter of Amenhotep III.  We can also deduce that this same princess went by a further nickname, Iuy (attested as the mother of Nakhtmin), with Iuy being a short form of Jeho-(Addan/Sheba).  

The daughter of Amenhotep III named Nebtah corresponds well with the name Nefertiti.

Yet another daughter of Amenhotep III was Iset (Isis).  This is a very standard/stock name, so it is difficult to tell whether she is a unique princess (e.g., Mutnodjment), or is one and the same as Nefertiti.

Title: Re: Manasseh and Ephraim, Revisited
Post by: Chuck-Star on February 27, 2010, 03:18:07 AM
Take a look at the symbolism of the number 41 in the context of Akhenaten.

Forty-one can be construed as a continuation of the forty-year reign of the sun-king Solomon/Amenhotep III. 

However, the Hebrew for 41, echad arbayim (pronounced ekh-awd arba-eem), could be interpreted as "setting/twilight of the Akhet".

Akhenaten (as Rehoboam) did reign for 17 years.  12 of those were alongside Amenhotep III.

Title: Hermes Trismegistus
Post by: Chuck-Star on February 27, 2010, 03:20:25 AM
Akhenaten was referred to as "Hermes Trismegistus".  I always wondered why there was so much emphasis on Thoth/Hermes.  However, if Akhenaten was the son of Aanen and grandson of Si-Amun, then he literally was the last/third of three Thoth successive figures.

The name Aanen also relates to Onan ("strong" but "wicked"), the Biblical epithet of the Manasseh figure and "second son" (Simeon/Thoth) of Old Kingdom pharaoh Khufu.

Title: Re: Manasseh and Ephraim, Revisited
Post by: Chuck-Star on February 27, 2010, 03:45:57 AM
I was also thinking about the Greek memory of Oedipus killing his father and sleeping with his mother.  What was the precedent for that?  Apparently it derived originally from the god Re who took his mother Hathor as consort and orchestrated the killing of his political superior ("father") Osiris.  There does not seem to be any precedent for Ptah being killed by Re or anyone else.  (Osiris was of the line of Shu.  Re was from the junior line of Ptah.)

After the Amarna Period, two important evolutions in royal typecasting began to take place.  The first was the distribution of divine roles between successive generations and across them.  For example, Ramses II was both a Joshua figure and a Jacob figure.  He shared the Joshua role with his father Seti and the Jacob figure with his son Hori. 

See Chart 28,

Hori, in turn, shared the Joseph role with his son Piye. 

Piye had his leading sons Menkeperre/Khaliut and Panehesy/Taharqa share the roles of Manasseh and Ephraim.  Taharqa started out as primarily a Manasseh figure.  However, by the end of his reign he was thought of more as an Ephraim, and seems even to have been called "Ahab" (after the earlier Aye).  Conversely, the line of Khaluit eventually took on the characteristics of Manasseh.  The line of Taharqa died out (or was wiped out) like that of Aye.  The line of Khaliut was more enduring.

The second trend was the concentration of divine types.  Piye essentailly assumed the identities of all the major gods.  However, his holier-than-thou mentality became an irritant and opportunity for his royal rivals.  He was eventually abushed and killed (probably by conspiracy of a son or sons and in "fulfillment" of what had happened to the 18th Dynasty Joseph).

Title: The Cool Runnings of Elijah
Post by: Chuck-Star on March 02, 2010, 12:12:22 AM
If you look at the charts in the Hawass paper, the only royal that did not have any malformations was Yuya.  Ironically, it seems he was not able to produce a royal son.  But, I suppose this made him a more ideal ruler ("king maker") of the family.  He was of course committed to the children of his daughter Tiye, but would have been less inclined to play favorites among those children (who were sired by various royal partners).

The KV55 mummy (Smenkhkare, in my opinion) was also an exception in not having any leg or foot malformations.  This may be the basis for the Bible's emphasis on Elijah's passion for running.  Why not flaunt your healthy legs in a family full of gimps!  It lends a new meaning to David's curse of Joab - that there would always be one of his descendants that was lame.  (2 Sam. 3:29)  That was certainly true of David's own family!

Title: What Does mtDNA Reveal Within the Royal Family?
Post by: Chuck-Star on March 03, 2010, 11:21:16 PM
This page includes an article that concludes KV55 is most probably NOT Akhenaten.  There is also a good explanation as to why the re-appearance of Thuya's (very rare) alleles in the fetuses is significant and requires DNA from a mummy that was not part of the test group (such as those of Akhenaten and Aanen) :
(This is the personal web site of one of the contributors at the Egyptian Dreams forum.)

One of the interesting insights of the recent DNA study is that although royal pairs were generally not made from a full brother/sister combination, if the more conventional half-brother/sister relationship did not produce the required male heir, a full sibling would be called upon to fulfill the duty. Case in point, Akhenaten and Nefertiti had only daughters. Hence, the full brother of Nefertiti, namely Smenkhkare, produced the heir Tutankhamun for Akhenaten.  

Some will likely hold out hope that Nefertiti was not the full sister of Smenkhkare (and therefore Kiya or some other woman was the mother of Tut). Further mitochondrial DNA studies could resolve that issue.  What isn't clear to me is how much differentiation there is in the mtDNA.  Wouldn't all of the women (within the extended royal family) have the same mtDNA whether they descended from Tuya or not?  Could mtDNA really be used to differentiate between collateral maternal lines with the royal family?

There is another excellent post by Katherine Griffis-Greenberg regarding the identity of KV55 remains.

I should add that bone spurs (osteophytes) are also apparently not uncommon in young persons and those reportedly found on the KV55 mummy would not prove he was middle aged or elderly at death.  

Title: DNA of Elijah, Taken up in a Whirlwind
Post by: Chuck-Star on March 14, 2010, 11:34:28 PM
The current issue of KMT Journal has a feature article called "The Burial of Tut".  The author declines to take Zahi Hawass' side in the KV55 mummy debate, and simply states that the age of the mummy remains controversial. 

The "Tut Unwrapped" documentary and JAMA article did not mention (as far as I can remember) whether or not DNA had been extracted from a tooth of the KV55 mummy.  The samples were shown being taken from the legs.  So, I'm still wondering whether it is possible that the body of Akhenaten could have been placed with the head of Smenkhkare.

There is also a review in the same KMT issue of Aidon Dodson's new book "Amarna Sunset".  Dodson concludes in his book that Akhenaten and Nefertiti are the parents of Tutankhamun after all.  He bases that conclusion in part on an inscription that names Tut as Aye's grandson.  I wasn't aware of that inscription.  Aye probably was the father of Nefertiti and Nefertiti probably was the mother of Tut (by Smenkhare rather than Akhenaten).  However, if Aye was one and the same as Amenhotep III, then Tut only had one grandfather, namely Aye/Amenhotep III father of Smenkhare and Nefertiti.

An article in the current issue of Archaeology Magazine is titled "Warrior Tut".  This article basically ignores the latest findings about Tut's disability and argues that he had an impressive military career during his nine year reign that was punctuated with campaigns in Nubia and Syria.  The article also discusses the extension Tut made to the Luxor Temple using recycled stones (turned backward and upside down to hide and negate their inscriptions) from a dismantled temple of Akhenaten.  It seems unlikely that Tut would have done this if Akhenaten was is actual/biological father.

Title: Will the Real Mummy of Aye Please Rise!
Post by: Chuck-Star on October 30, 2010, 06:41:43 PM
Happy Holloween everyone!

Another observation that perhaps should be made regarding Aye is that his mummy has not been found and that the state of Amenhotep IIIís mummy (extremely decrepit) is actually more consistent with that expected for Aye.  Aye lived to the age about 70 and was in seriously bad health (as opposed to Amenhotep III who is thought to have died in his early 50's).  Of course, if Amenhotep III and Aye were the same person, then there is only one mummy to be identified, and that mummy would reflect the age at actual death, not apparent death as it may be in the case of Amenhotep III.

There were some additional articles on the DNA testing over the summer:

Haplotype of Tut:

Commentary on Tut DNA study:

DNA Shows that KV55 Mummy Probably Not Akhenaten

Related Links:

Nat Geo Recapitulation:
See also, National Geographic Magazine, September 2010 Issue

Something to look for in future/planned DNA work is whether or not mtDNA shows that mummy KV21A (Ankhensenamun) was the daughter of KV35YL (Nefertiti).  This would strengthen the position (made here) that Nefertiti was in fact a royal person.