I would suggest that Kawai is making the same "error" as most others authors on this, in that he assumes Tutankhamun dated his regnal years from Neferneferuaten. In my opinion it is inconceivable that he did not date his regnal years from the death of Akhenaten, even though he tacitly accepts Amunhotep III as his father and predecessor.

The box 001K inscriptions naming a joint monarchy between Akhenaten and Neferneferuaten have Akhenaten as still alive, an obvious point I think but this has been disputed over the years. The year 16 graffito has Nefertiti still as GRW in that year, so the co-regnancy can only fit into year 16 after the graffito and Akhenaten's death at some point in year 17. This could cover under or over a full year, so for convenience sake let's say that it lasted for one year. Neferneferuaten has 3 regnal years, but we do not know how long into her third year she lasted, but again for convenience sake let's say six months. This gives her 18 months as co-ruler acting as regent to the then still Tutankhaten, who cannot not be king no matter his age, just like Thutmose III.

I'll quote this from Kawai:
"Andrea Gnirs recently suggested that under Tutankhamun the court was divided into two circles: those who had been close to Tutankhamun and supported Akhenaten’s religion, and those who favored restoration and wanted a return to orthodoxy."

This, again in my opinion, is in error. The reason I say this is because it is known that it was Neferneferuaten who began the return to orthodoxy, probably, I would contend, in very short order, and from her re-used burial equipment it is clear she had a full Osirian burial. Therefore I wonder what these "two camps" were at court when the true king's mother, or stepmother, still disputed of course, is driving the return to orthodoxy, which is then continued by Tutankhamun, or rather by whoever was the power behind the throne, highly likely to be Ay. This, if there were ever two camps at court, would put Horemheb in the other camp, the Atenist camp, but I don't believe this for one moment, so as far as I'm concerned there were not two camps at court at all, at least not on religious grounds. I would contend that there may have been a power struggle to remove Neferneferuaten, who, no matter her "re-conversion" to orthodoxy, was the major player beside Akhenaten, and, in their succession rules, a usurper with no right to the thorne despite being elevated by Akhenaten, an heretical act against the Osiris v Set myth.

There is of course a lot that we do not know, and will probably never know, which is what Horemheb and the first two Ramesside kings wanted, which leads to many people filling in the gaps, sometimes with an educated best guess, sometimes with fiction, and I'm afraid that most of what we are told of the relationship between Ay and Horemheb is fiction. The fact that Ay died an old man after four years on the throne also mitigates against the hatreds and scheming we are told went on in the background.

Finally, the fact that Tutanhkaten did not straight away change his name should not be taken as indicative of lingering Atenism. The reason is that there was nothing wrong with the Aten per se, and this god still had a cult and Greatest Seer into the reign of Ramesses II. I would say that the name change was just breaking the association with Akhenaten, but this is far too mundane for too many authors so we end up with the "scheming and evil" Ay and "resentful and scheming orthodox" Horemheb, who may or may not have had Ay's son murdered.

And yes, better than discussing flipping Earths with an.., but I better not say, even in a different forum.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2023 10:02AM by Corvidius.