posted
Peter Clayton recently pointed out that the dynasties meant to separate family groups my not be totally accurate. We know , for example, that there was no actual change in family group from the 4th through the 6th dynasty. Given the huge harems could we say that most of the royal aristoracy was related to some king. Example, Ramses III in the 20th dynasty was supposed to be unrelated to the 19th dynasty kings. Do we really know that? It seems to me that much more work needs to be done with these family trees before we can draw sould conclusions with regard to dynasties.
ausar Member # 1797
posted
Most of the royal line was based through a female heir of the previous pharoanic line. This is the case with the 18th dyansty with Thutmoses I who married into the Ahmoside line. The pharoanic break from the IV to VI is very sharp because one of Pepi's sons married the govenor's daughter of Abydos. Generally you can tell by the pharoanic name where an Egyptian comes from and what dyansty they belong to.
After the Old Kingdom,the administrators tended to be non-royal people. All during the Old Kingdom it was mostly comprised of people related to the royal family.
Kem-Au Member # 1820
posted
This brings up an interesting question. This AE's break up their kings into dynasties, or was that something done later by archaeologists? I've seen them listed, but not grouped.
ausar Member # 1797
posted
Kem-Au,most of our knowleadge of chronology of Kemetian dyansties comes from the following Kings lists: Abydos,Saqara,Karnka,and Turin Kings list. Our only other information lies within the historian Manetho whose history is not very well defined since most of it only survives in fragments.
Kem-Au Member # 1820
posted
But do you know if those lists were separated into Dynasties? I'd guess no because I've read of arguments that Horemheb and Ay should be considered 19th, not 18th Dynasty. This should not debateable be debateable if AE listed them this way. This would lead me to believe that the idea of a Dynasty is a modern one.
neo*geo Member # 3466
posted
quote:Originally posted by Kem-Au: I'd guess no because I've read of arguments that Horemheb and Ay should be considered 19th, not 18th Dynasty..
Ay was related to Tutankamun. He was part of the 18th dynasty royal family. Horemheb was not of royal blood as far as we know. Some scholars believe the 19th dynasty should begin with Horemheb since he chose to make Ramses I a Pharoah.
Kem-Au Member # 1820
posted
quote:Originally posted by neo*geo: Ay was related to Tutankamun. He was part of the 18th dynasty royal family. Horemheb was not of royal blood as far as we know. Some scholars believe the 19th dynasty should begin with Horemheb since he chose to make Ramses I a Pharoah.
Some speculate that Ay was Nefertiti's father, though I've not seen a definitive answer. However that would not necessarily relate him to Tut. We don't know who Tut's parents are.
On the other hand, this is completely unrelated to my question about where dynasties came from.
neo*geo Member # 3466
posted
quote:Originally posted by Kem-Au: Some speculate that Ay was Nefertiti's father, though I've not seen a definitive answer. However that would not necessarily relate him to Tut. We don't know who Tut's parents are.
On the other hand, this is completely unrelated to my question about where dynasties came from.
We know Ay's parents were Thuya and Yuya so he was related to the 18th dynasty clan. Ay and Nefertiti are descendants of Sequenere Tao.
The 18th dynasty is the same family as the 17th dynasty. I have a theory that the 17th dynasty line may be traced back to the 12th dynasty.
ausar Member # 1797
posted
I am not certain that Egyptians viewed history like we do today. Much of what modern Egyptologist interject might be just speciulation. Egyptians went by rulerships of different pharoahs as opposed to just straight dyansties. You must understand this to understand more about Egypt.
The Egyptians did,however, have texts called day books which told of events or reigns.
Kem-Au Member # 1820
posted
quote:Originally posted by ausar: I am not certain that Egyptians viewed history like we do today. Much of what modern Egyptologist interject might be just speciulation. Egyptians went by rulerships of different pharoahs as opposed to just straight dyansties. You must understand this to understand more about Egypt.
The Egyptians did,however, have texts called day books which told of events or reigns.
I guess we will have to learn how to read the glyphs, and get access to them, to answer this question.
posted