Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Could Kia be Sitamun?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We have fragments of an ushabati belonging to Nefertiti and the canopic jars found in KV55 are attributed to Kiya on complicated epigraphical grounds, like the coffin.

So Nefertiti's presence is attested but Kiya's presence is pretty much guess work?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If by that you mean Kiya's existence is not firmly established you are incorrect. The canopic jars are attributed to her based on the fact that her titulary, known from other sources, exactly fits the space provided.

Maru-Aten is known to have belonged to her before transferred to Meritaten and she also had her own sunshade or chapel where she could worship the Aten. She enjoyed a prominence unlike that of any other secondary wife and for that reason was long assumed to be the mother of Akhenaten's son Tutankhamon. We know know for certain that that was NOT the source of her importance. Akhenaten must have just liked her a lot. I wonder if Nefertiti was 'high maintenance' as they say?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
If by that you mean Kiya's existence is not firmly established you are incorrect.


No,. no, noooo.... "the canopic jars found in KV55 are attributed to Kiya on [i]complicated epigraphical grounds" [/i] Does that mean by 'a big lotta guessing - and it does suit my theory'?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Idea I'm a bit confused about what you are arguing here.
Kiya is definitely well attested (though not necessarily through funerary items)

Calcite Vase; Metropolitan Museum of Art, N.Y, (MMA 20.2.11)
The name of Akhenaten and the Hor-Aten appear on the vase.
Right of the King's Cartouches: The wife and great beloved of King of Upper and Lower Egypt, who lives on Maat, (Neferkheperure - Waenre)|, the beautiful child of the Living Aten who shall live forever continually: Kiya.
link: Metropolitan Vase

Calcite Vase, British Museum, London (BM 65901)
Inscribed for: The wife and great beloved of King of Upper and Lower Egypt, who lives on Maat, (Neferkheperure - Waenre)|, the beautiful child of the Living Aten who shall live forever continually: Kiya.
(dated to ca. Year 9 based on the use of the earlier Aten name)


Both vases record her name and full titles.

There's also an inscription on wood showing her name a bit more clearly:
Strip of wood, possibly from a pencase; University College London (UC 24382)
Remains of inscription: [The wife and great beloved] of [...], (Neferkheperure - Waenre)|, Kiya.
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/amarna/archive/uc24382rec.jpg
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So Kiya is attested to by name in the tom, Anneke. I thought I'd read that somewhere. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"The wife and great beloved of King of Upper and Lower Egypt, who lives on Maat, (Neferkheperure - Waenre)|, the beautiful child of the Living Aten who shall live forever continually: Kiya."

Wouldf this make Kiya Akhenaten's wife and daughter? Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4181
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
"The wife and great beloved of King of Upper and Lower Egypt, who lives on Maat, (Neferkheperure - Waenre)|, the beautiful child of the Living Aten who shall live forever continually: Kiya."

Wouldf this make Kiya Akhenaten's wife and daughter? Idea

"The beautiful child of the Living Aten" is Akhenaton, not Kija. She is "The wife and great beloved".

Lutz

P.S.: I think it gives here a few misunderstandings relative your "is attested to by name". Do you mean in AE history generally or in tomb KV 55 particularly?

It would also be good to make itself familiar with fundamental literature to the topic. At first would be there the excavation report to KV 55 from Theodore M. Davis : The tomb of Queen Tîyi - The discovery of the tomb (1915). Much to recommend is the work of Martha R. Bell : An Armchair Excavation of KV 55. - In: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt - JARCE - 27. - 1990. - pp. 97 - 137.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KV55 particularly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And thanks for the excavation report link. I had only just started looking for that, Lutz.

I think I'll hone my purely amateur interest in on "KV55" for awhile. Theres a lot to theorize about in Egyptology, and I reckon I might focus my amateur intest on this fascinating tomb for awhile. The original excavation report would seem a brilliant place to start. So thanks again, Lutz. I've read Romer's chapter about it in his Valley of the Kings already. And I've downloaed a piece by Reeves. I'm already begining to wonder if it's all such a big mystery after all. Cheers. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4181
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KV 55 is the most talked about and most controversial tomb in Egypt. Precisely for this reason it is imperative to deal with the basics and the beginning of the discussion. These are indeed the basis for the numerous and sometimes contradictory statements from later Egyptologists.

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Initially the tomb seems to reek of "Tiye" and "Akhenaten", Lutz. Wink

From there on in, most pundits seem to push for a barely attested person (Smenkhkare) as being the most likely candidate.

Why? It seems to me, at my early stage of amateur research, because the 'consensus' view is that the KV55 mummy can't be more than thirty years old at death - indeed, much younger.

At this early point I am beginning to doubt not only Hawass, but the whole idea of relying on DNA evidence (or at least, methodology) and also relying on the 'evidence' and/or 'methods' for dating the age at death of folk. Seems research standards and opinions as to the veracity of testing regimes are often up for debate.

Early days though, so I better keep reading. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Welcome to the Amarna Tarpits, Orwell! Very Happy As you sink deeper you will learn that you can find at least three contradictory 'expert' opinions on just about any issue you care to name.

In the case of KV55 we are dealing with a cache from which an unknown number of remains and objects were abstracted in antiquity and the remainder defaced. Given the mix and match nature of the remaining equipment the presence of a brick with Akhenaten's name most certainly does NOT prove that the body is Akhenaten's. The fact that the MAJORITY of forensic experts have estimated an age of no older than twenty-five and probably much younger on NUMEROUS grounds easily outweigh the MINORITY opinion of non-specialist scholars who have a strong bias in favor of Akhenaten and are using an undeniably questionable marker (spinal deterioration) to urge and older age that suits their theories.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Welcome to the Amarna Tarpits, Orwell! Very Happy As you sink deeper you will learn that you can find at least three contradictory 'expert' opinions on just about any issue you care to name.


In my years of amateur interest I have found this to be a great truth of all ancient history studies. It may be a case for frustration, but as often (for me) a case for delight. Laughing

[The delight largely comes from thinking that my wild naive ideas (guesses, theories, 'studied speculations', whatever we call them) are as likely to found 'proven' one day as any Expert's or Internet Hermit's. Laughing]

Meretseger wrote:
In the case of KV55 we are dealing with a cache from which an unknown number of remains and objects were abstracted in antiquity and the remainder defaced. Given the mix and match nature of the remaining equipment the presence of a brick with Akhenaten's name most certainly does NOT prove that the body is Akhenaten's. The fact that the MAJORITY of forensic experts have estimated an age of no older than twenty-five and probably much younger on NUMEROUS grounds easily outweigh the MINORITY opinion of non-specialist scholars who have a strong bias in favor of Akhenaten and are using an undeniably questionable marker (spinal deterioration) to urge and older age that suits their theories.


A hundred questions beset me already - and just one tomb! As a cop who deals with 'actual' evidence every day, I'm not encountering too many 'verifiable' facts as yet. My Gawd. I think I'll narrow my focus to the known facts first, then start trying to comprehend the diverse "Expert" opinions later.

All is not lost. I've discovered two (reasonably) verifiable facts already.

Fact (1) There was a tomb.

Fact (2) There is a mummy in it. A 'male' mummy.

Caveat on Fact 2: At first the escavators found an 'old woman'. When it was transported off for proper checking by that Elliott chap, he was surprised to find they'd sent a 'boy' to him. What happened to the 'old' woman? Was there a mix up with the mummy? Did it get misplaced for another mummy? Not impossible - improbable yes - but not impossible. Egyptology is full of talesf incompetence. (The 'study' of KV55 itself is a ase in point!) Who's to say the two Doctors who pronounced the mummy an 'old' woman weren't right? They were Doctors! Experts in their field! And they were there on the spot! Is there any proof that the mummy was not misplaced for another in transit? Need to clear that up. Very Happy

This slightly more foucused 'investigation' of mine is turning out to be Great fun already! Much more fun - and challenging - than investigating common old burglaries. Mind, I'm not suggesting burglary has not been part of what happeneed in KV55. Note to self - Stay alert and keep mind firmly OPEN. Establish the 'actual' Facts... and keep mind OPEN..

Question: Is the KV55 mummy really laid out in a female mummy position? Is this 'positioning' a total anomaly as far as ancient Egyptian burials go? Does anyone here know of other cases where a mummy was laid out in some kind of 'female' position though male?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the doctors were not anthropologists, so they could have made a mistake. we cannot really corroborate the pose of the mummy, as there are no photos of it. davis hastily emptied the tomb of anything valuable, and if he tried, could have preserved the shrines of tiye. he needed a man such as carter to clear that tomb.

i guess the mummy could have been misplaced of swapt at some point, but i think the doctors just made a mistake, perhaps influenced by davis.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought the way the mummy was laid out was a 'known'? This is not starting well. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 3 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group