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: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, I think it was the coffin I was thinking of, kylejustin. My bad. The coffin was apparently first made for a female. So I'm looking through "The Tomb of Queen Tiyi" to see if there is any reference to how the mummy was laid out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:

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]


Your guess is as good as the experts is indeed one of the great charms of Egyptology.

Quote:


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.


Laughing

Quote:
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


The excavator, Theodore Davis, was convinced that he'd found the Tomb of Queen Tiye and the mummy was hers. This delusion was apparently supported by a stray tourist physician who had a look at it in situ who was probably unduly influenced by the very strong 'expert' opinion of Mr. Davis. BTW Davis NEVER accepted that the remains were male in spite of Elliot.

Quote:
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?
Laughing Laughing Laughing

This supposed fact was used to support the colorful theory of a homosexual attachment between Smenkhkara and Akhenaten but it has been pointed out that the mummy was disturbed in antiquity and it is far from impossible for a joint to become lose during handling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The physican counsulted by Davies after the discovery was a dentist who was staying at the same hotel as Davies.

It is impossible to move the arms of a mummy, other than to break them off.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, do we have any idea of the positioning of the mummy? I haven't found it referred to yet in Davis's book or in Aldred.

As to the girl coffin, I don't immediately think that you'd have to be homosexual to be placed in it. Can't discount it, but certainly don't think it the most 'obvious' explanation. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Osiris II wrote:
The physican counsulted by Davies after the discovery was a dentist who was staying at the same hotel as Davies.

It is impossible to move the arms of a mummy, other than to break them off.


I'll look again, but I don't think it was dentist. Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


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

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Again: The assumptions the coffin from KV 55 was originally made for a women and reworked for a king could disproved by his investigation in Munich. See Grimm / Schoske: Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges - Echnaton und das Ende der Amarnazeit (2001).

Briefly to the pr-ehistory: In 1980 were submitted to the director of the collections in Munich, Prof. Wildung, a convolut of gold foils and inserts from a Swiss private property for expertiese. It fast became clear that these are the remains of the coffin tub from KV 55, which disappeared in 1931 from the museum in Cairo.

In arrangement with the Egyptian government the coffin tub was restored in Munich. A tub from plexiglass in original size was made and applied on this were the foils and inserts. The extremely impressing object was presented in the context of an exhibition in Munich 2001 to the public (now Museum Cairo, Amarna room).

One piece of this extraordinary exhibition was also the cover of the coffin, for the first time lend by the Cairo museum. While the piece was in Munich the coffin was for the first time intensively and with the possibilities of most modern technology (among other things CT-scan) examined. Analyses took place of the used materials and work procedures.

For a later re-working no references could be found. Uräus and wig are original, likewise the inscription volumes on cover and tub (A - E). Only the inscription on the base plate (F) was changed at least two times.

A - E are more or less similar. They offer the full titulatur for Akhenaton, known from inscriptions for Kija. But here name is not called. The cartouches with the name for the king (and owner of the coffin) were cut out. For example the translation for columne C:

"Completed ruler, large one of loving, king of upper and lower egypt, which live on the truth, lord of the two countries (cartouche), the completed child of the living Aton, from which is valid: it will live now and always into all eternity. Son of Ra, which lives on the truth, lord of the crowns (cartouche), largely at its lifetime."

As are said, the inscription volumes must addressed as original. They do not show any referring to changes in material or scribt (with exception of the cartouches naturally).

Inscription F probably originally contained the name of Kija. This was removed and the inscription was easily amended. A hieroglyphic, a female determinative, was ignored. It is probably the Amarna variant of a prayer for the salvation of the deceased. On other examples from the NK it is spoken by a goddess (usually Isis or Nephtys).

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


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

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A highly reliable and informative source for informations abot KV 55 on the net : "The Theban Royal Mummy Project" by Max Miller .

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
A highly reliable and informative source for informations abot KV 55 on the net : "The Theban Royal Mummy Project" by Max Miller .

Greetings, Lutz.


It also explains the confusion over the mummy's sex: 'Davis invited both a European physician from Luxor and a prominent American obstetrician who was visiting Thebes to examine the body while it was still in the tomb and decide apon its sex. Apparently both surgeons, after examining the pelvis of the mummy (which was quite visible due to the wrappings having decayed), instantly agreed that it was the pelvis of a woman.

Davis then published his account of the excavations of 1907 - "The Tomb of Queen Tiye". It is now thought that the two surgeons could of been misled by post-mortem damage inflicted on the skeleton which had resulted in the seperation of the hip bones from the sacrum which was disguised by the poor state of the wrappings. Many experts have re-examined the mummy over the years and all have come to the same conclussion: the pelvis is from a male.'

Given the poor lighting conditions and the damaged condition of the mummy combined with the influence of Davis' firm opinion the error is more than explicable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Appropo of the position of the arms it is perhaps worth mentioning that the statue of Smenkhkara noted on the discussion of that name his holding both the crook and the flail in one hand. Perhaps this was characteristic of him? Are there examples of other Pharaohs so posed?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


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

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
... statue of Smenkhkara noted on the discussion of that name his holding both the crook and the flail in one hand. Perhaps this was characteristic of him? Are there examples of other Pharaohs so posed?

Yes. Without searching ... (still at work Confused ) ... Ramses II. in the museum in Turin, Italy comes to my mind. And somewhere there is also a Thutmosis III. ... I think.

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


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

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have found only one reasonably comprehensible explanation for the position of the arms of the body from KV 55 in the literature (Reeves ??) : The rejection of osirian dominated believe in the afterlife during the Amarna period.

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: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm probably going cross-eyed, but I can't find the actual reference to the position of the mummy's arms. Were they in the normal position for a female? If so, do we speculate a rejection of Osiran beliefs based on one mummy's arm position? Is there other actual evidence to support the idea?

(Questions only, not theories. 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: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
I'm probably going cross-eyed, but I can't find the actual reference to the position of the mummy's arms. ...

Theodore M. Davis : The tomb of Queen Tîyi - The discovery of the tomb. - 1910, page 9 in article by Ayrton : "The excavatin ..."(1907) ; In the re-edition from KMT with introduction by Reeves from 1990, page 20 :
Quote:
"... The left arm was bent with the hand on the breast, ... the right arm was laid straight down by the side, ..."


Orwell wrote:
... Were they in the normal position for a female? ...

For a queen of the 18th Dynasty, as far as we know.

Orwell wrote:
... If so, do we speculate a rejection of Osiran beliefs based on one mummy's arm position? Is there other actual evidence to support the idea? ...

We do not have to speculate about rejection of Osiran beliefs in the Amarna period. This is a fact as we can see for example in the decoration of the tombs of the nobles and also the royal tomb at Amarna. The problem is we do not know exactly which the nocturnal journey by the sun god (and the death pharaoh) and his union with the body of Osiris was replaced during the time of Amarna.

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


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

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Orwell wrote:
... Were they in the normal position for a female? ...

For a queen of the 18th Dynasty, as far as we know.

There is an article on the topic, P. H. G. Gray : Notes concerning the Position of Arms and Hands of Mummies with a View to Possible Dating. - In: JEA - 58. - 1972. - pp. 200 - 204. For simplicity, here is a summary from page 202 - 203:



Explanation of letters used with the figures

Arms:

I. Ext. means Extended.
2. C.P. means crossed pectoral (folded upon breast). In every case of C.P. (unless indicated) the X-rays show that the right arm is folded over the left.
3. C.L.A. means arms crossed over lower abdomen.' (Cf. basalt coffin lid in B.M. B.M. no. o9.)

Hands:

1. P. Palms cover genital area.
2. A.T. Palms rest on anterior (front) surface of thighs.
3. I.T. Palms rest on inner surface of thighs.
4. 0. T. Palms rest on outer surface of thighs.

As always, take a look at the sources is often surprisingly... Wink

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So what I'm seeing is a lot of variation suggesting that arm position was less conventionalized then thought. Perhaps different embalmers had different customs?
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 4 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