Khazar-khum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The YL apparently sustained a serious injury right
> before her death--a kick in the face by a horse,
> plus some other injuries.
>
> Tut was killed by gangrene setting into a wound
> probably sustained in a fall from a chariot.
>
> See the connection?
>
> Is it possible that the YL is Ankhesenamun, and
> that they were both the victims of a bad
> accident?
<snip>
> Falling out in a row of chariots could also be
> serious--they are manueverable, yes, but unless
> both horses try to avoid something, a person on
> the ground could easily be trampled.
> Jumping out of a moving chariot to help an injured
> person could also be bad--stepping wrong could
> mean the kind of fractures seen on Tut. He could
> also have gotten them falling out or being
> dragged.
>
> I know we usually think Ankhesenamun outlived him.
> But do we have any real proof of this?

---

The most arguable proof for the continued existence of Ankhsenamun after the death of Tutankhamun is twofold:

a) the Newberry Ring, now in Berlin, which shows the cnjoined cartouches of Ankhsenamun and Aye, implying a royal union, possibly marriage, between the two. Here is the ring:


Berlin No. 34316, from Freed, et. al., 1999, Pharaohs of the Sun: Akhenaten: Nefertiti: Tutankhamen: 94

b) The "Egyptian Queen" correspondence between an Egyptian queen, referred to as Dahamunzu (= /tA Hm.t-nsw/ Wife of the King) in the Annals of Suppiluliumas, as rendered by his son Mursilis. Some of the most complete collected analyses of this correspondence can be found in

Edel. E. 1978. Ein neugefundenes Brieffragment der Witwe des Tutanchamun aus Boghazköy (Nova najdba dela pisma Tutanchamonove vdove iz Bogazkoja). Orientalistika 2: 33-35.

Giles, F. J., J. B. Hennessey, et al. 1997. The Amarna Age: Western Asia. Australian Centre for Egyptology: Studies 5. Warminster: Aris and Philips Ltd.

Guterbock, H. G. 1960. Mursili's accounts of Suppiluliama's dealings with Egypt. Revue Hittite et Asianique (Paris) 18: 57-63. (= Hommages à Eugène Cavaignac).

Murnane, W. J. 1990. The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Sety I at Karnak. Second Ed., Revised. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations. SAOC 42. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

ANET = Pritchard, J. B., Ed. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (See on this, Goetze's translation at 319, where he identifies "Bibhururiyas" as Tutankhamun (due to his throne name of _Nb xpr.w-ra_), due to a variant in a parallel text of KUB XXXIV, 24, 4 as "Nibhururiyas.")

What appears to be the leading consensus at this point is that the deceased king in this "Egyptian Queen" correspondence is referred to as "Nipkhurururiya" (sometimes rendered as "Nibkhurururiya" or "Pipkhurururiya"), which equates in other Akkadian correspondence (the lingua franca of the day) as a rendering of /nb xprw-Ra/, the throne name of Tutankhamun. Giles' work,The Amarna Age: Western Asia, points out the Hittite use of 'Nib-hu-ru-ri-ia' [ni-ip-hu-ru-ri-ia-as] and its variant 'Piphururia' [pi-ip-hu-ru-ri-ia-as] consistently refer to Tutankhamun (Giles 1997: 93). Giles also notes the specific linguistic difefrences between this and Akhenaten's throne name, as rendered in Akkadian in Giles 2001.

Edel's Orientalistika article refers to an original piece of correspondence still extant in the Boghazkoy correspondence, and is in agreement over the name rendering, and that the correspondence would have been written by the widow of Tutankhamun.

Further, it is known from a follow-up letter [KUB XIX, 20] from the Hittite king, Suppiluliumas, after the death of his son Zannanza (sent in response to the request from the Egyptian queen) he addresses a male king (this is from the grammar used in the letter). Presumably, since the king was requested a son after the death of the queen's "lord,
Nibhurruiya," this has been usually interpreted as being Ay. Theo van den Hout's translation of that letter can be found here.

---

My analysis of this evidence:

It's known that at least two letters were written over the course of what Murnane suspects were at least a 2-3 month+ period, which would likely be during the embalming period of Tutankhamun. The Egyptian queen notes in her first correspondence that she has no son, and in the second that she does not wish to be united with a "servant of mine." In Guterbock's analysis, the second letter also was supplemented by comments from the Egyptian ambassador, Chani, who averred to Suppiluliumas that the "queen was solitary and had no son," which seems to take Meritaten out of the picture as she was ostensibly married to Smenkhkare while at Amarna, per the Meryra II relief (this is de Garies Davies (1905: Plate 41), with the Lepsius Denkmaeler III, 99 supplement at bottom, which are cartouches showing the husband of Meritaten in that relief to be Smenkhkare and not simply "Neferneferuaten.")

So, this is why Egyptolgists are usually prone to saying that Ankhsenamun survived Tutankhamun's death. The ring alone could not have been rendered by Ay unless the queen had survived her husband, as he would have needed a live queen to help justify his position as king (this is the usual interpretation of the ring at any rate).

The linguistic analysis of the "Egyptian Queen" correspondence seems to indicate the dead king being referred to is Tutankhamun, that the queen was without an heir to act as interregnum queen (which seems to take both Nefertiti and Meritaten out of the question since Tutankhamun (as Tutankhaten) is known as a "son of the king's body" from reliefs at Amarna).

That the queen is "solitary" (she has no husband or other consort) particularly seems to put to lie the idea that the correspondent was Meritaten, as proposed by Gabolde (1998),as she was married to Smenkhkare, according to Amarna reliefs (as was Ankhsenamun, according to Aldred (1988), after Meritaten's death), and there again would have already been a king (Smenkhkare) and another heir (Tutankhaten) available to take the throne of Egypt.

Considering the recent analysis of the "King Neferneferuaten" question by Allen (2006), I would also argue that the king's daughter Neferneferuaten, proposed by Allen as "King Neferneferuaten," also is not the correspondent of the "Egyptian Queen" correspondence, for the same reasons that Nefertiti was not the correspondent - there was at least one royal male heir available after Akhenaten's death, and his name was Tutankhamun.

Other Reference:

Aldred, C. 1988. Akhenaten, King of Egypt. London: Thames and Hudson.

Allen, J. P. 2006. The Amarna Succession. In, Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane: 3-17. Memphis: University of Memphis.

de Garies Davies, N. 1905. The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, Part II: The Tombs of Panehesy and Meryra II. Archaeological Survey of Egypt. F. L. Griffith. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

Freed, R. E., Y. J. Markowitz, et al., Eds. 1999. Pharaohs of the Sun: Akhenaten: Nefertiti: Tutankhamen. Boston: Museum Fine Arts/Bulfinch Press/Little, Brown and Company.

Gabolde, M. 1998. D'Akhenaton à Tutânkhamon. Collection de l'Institut d'Archaeologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquite 3. Lyon/Paris: Universite Lumiere-Lyon 2, Institut d'Archaeologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquite/Diffusion de Boccard.

Giles, F. J. 2001. The Amarna Age: Egypt. Australian Centre for Egyptology: Studies 6. Warminster: Aris and Philips Ltd.

HTH.

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Doctoral Programme in Oriental Studies [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom