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
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4184
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
... Perhaps different embalmers had different customs?

Rather improbably. This procedure was to importent and to much ritualized to left the decision of this the desire and mood of an embalmer.

Much more interesting is however the question, from where actually comes the theory about a special female arm position? Maybe from statues and pictures? Naturaly it can be that Gray not all known finds from the 18th Dynasty considers. I must still check this...

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 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Lutz. I have no problem with a change (to some degree) of the State Religion (if it's accurate to put it that way). But how are we sure this changed arm position is linked to that change? And why?

As to arm position, was it attested to after it ws transpotrted and further examined?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saidL "As to arm position, was it attested to after it ws transpotrted and further examined?"

Which means: Was it attested in position in the tomb as well as after it was transported and further examined?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

to put it fairly, queen tiye is the only 18th dynasty proper, queen to have been identified. (actually apart from members of ahmose's family, i think tiye is the only queen in the entire new kingdom to have survived thus far) we do have members of ahmose's family including ahmose nefertari, but i consider them to be 17th dynasty, as they are members of it. i cannot recall ahmose nefertari's position either. so it's fairly safe to say, by tiye's time, queens had the left arm flexed. whether that only extends to great royal wives, or if minor wives were buried that way is debatable.

as for the kings, well they too do not stick to the same position. tutankhamun's arms were crossed over his abdomen, as was a later king i believe. and during the 18th dynasty, one arm was crossed over the other, but in the suceeding dynasty, they changed the arms over. eg 18th dynasty was left over right, 19th was right over left......but i don't remember the specifics, it was in bickerstaffe's identifying the royal mummies.

so to put it straight, it is not a solid identification practise to rely on the positioning of the arms. i think even commoners had them crossed over the chest at some point, and yuya's hand fold over his throat.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
burlgirl
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 71
Location: Corinth, New York

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hate to get into speculation... but...

I wonder if the arm position could have meant something? Age of king? Type of death? Or nothing whatsoever?

I'm thinking of how in modern statues, the position of the horse's leg conveyed how the rider died.

Just a thought. Not a hill I'm willing to die on.
_________________
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which
he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Thomas Jefferson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

burlgirl wrote:
I hate to get into speculation... but...

I wonder if the arm position could have meant something? Age of king? Type of death? Or nothing whatsoever?

I'm thinking of how in modern statues, the position of the horse's leg conveyed how the rider died.

Just a thought. Not a hill I'm willing to die on.


Originally arm positioning did indicate status. Through the New Kingdom male royals had their arms crossed, right over left. I don't know if it's verified how far back this custom went, given the dearth of royal bodies from early periods.

Eventually many males and even on occasion females had their arms crossed, so we can see how commoners co-opted royal styles (which was nothing new). The more time went on, the more mixed standards became. Yet in other later periods, such as Dynasty 21 and Dynasty 22, a great many males were positioned with their arms straight down the sides or with the hands over the pubes. Styles came and went.

Nothing wrong with speculation, especially if it leads to discovery and generates am interesting discussion. However, arm positioning did not indicate age at death or manner of death. Age at death does not seem to have been of great importance to many ancient Near Easterners, nor for that matter does manner of death.

This is especially true of the Egyptians. Death was a fact of life, of course, but direct references to the act of death were generally avoided. The Egyptians were big on euphemisms, such as calling their deceased the Westerners or the Weary Ones (the latter being an epithet of the god Osiris, and of course the deceased were often called the Osiris So-and-so). What the Egyptians tended to stress was rebirth or spiritual resurrection.
_________________


Visit my blog!
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: Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Crazy thought just occurred to me. (1) Could Sitamun (or another sister) be also Nefertiti and Kija?

Also, are any of them known by other names? (You now, throne names etc).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

it's been heavily discussed before, but sitamun is not nefertiti, and nor is she kiya. neither of akhenaten's known wives held royal titles in their own right. neither was a king's: sister, daughter or mother. if they were, then these titles would have been plastered over every object and monument their names were on. the only queen known to have been born royal who did not use such titles was ankhesenamun.

ankhesenamun was the daughter of akhenaten, but did not use the title after tutankhamun and she moved the capital back, therefore distancing themselves from the amarna regime. likewise she was not a king's sister, as i do not recall her ever using that title, and makes sense considering they would be first cousins at best.

the only other queen who may have been in a similar situation to ankhesenamun, is mutnodjmet. she was thought to have been the same as mutbenret, the sister of nefertiti and duaghters of ay, who would suceed tutankhamun as king. therefore she would be entitled to the king's daughter title if the theory was true. but since horemheb seems to have wrought damnatio memoriae down on ay, mutnodjmet would not be advertising the fcat she was ay's daughter.
_________________
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 Mar 01, 2012 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
it's been heavily discussed before,


Yes? Not 'heavilly' on this thread as far as I can see. Point the direction if you would. Smile

kylejustin wrote:
...but sitamun is not nefertiti, and nor is she kiya. neither of akhenaten's known wives held royal titles in their own right. neither was a king's: sister, daughter or mother. if they were, then these titles would have been plastered over every object and monument their names were on.


I'm already beginning to get dubious with this confidence about God's Wives, and Beloved Wives, and King's Daughters....business. Is it that certain?

kylejustin wrote:
...the only queen known to have been born royal who did not use such titles was ankhesenamun.


An exception, hey... Just one? Idea

kylejustin wrote:
ankhesenamun was the daughter of akhenaten, but did not use the title after tutankhamun and she moved the capital back, therefore distancing themselves from the amarna regime.


How certain is all this?

kylejustin wrote:
...likewise she was not a king's sister, as i do not recall her ever using that title, and makes sense considering they would be first cousins at best.


Not if they were siblings or half-siblings? (I hope you referred to Tutanhamen as 'first cousin'..?).


kylejustin wrote:
...the only other queen who may have been in a similar situation to ankhesenamun, is mutnodjmet. she was thought to have been the same as mutbenret, the sister of nefertiti and duaghters of ay, who would suceed tutankhamun as king. therefore she would be entitled to the king's daughter title if the theory was true. but since horemheb seems to have wrought damnatio memoriae down on ay, mutnodjmet would not be advertising the fcat she was ay's daughter.


And did she (if she was Ay's daughter) use King's Daughter?

Overall, I'm a little lost in this latest post of yours, kyle. Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

until tutankhamun's reign, ankhesenamun used the title 'king's daughter'. tutankhamun's reghime started to return to orthodoxy, therefore turning their backs on akhenaten and atenism.

as far as i know, mutnodjmet never used the title 'king's daughter'. it was recently discovered that nefertiti's sister's name should read 'mutbenret' not 'mutnodjmet'. i think there is a chance that nefertiti's sister and horemheb's wife are the same person. hawass thought so, because mutnodjmet is believed to have died in childbirth and was buried at saqqara in horemheb's commoner tomb. when they tried to locate her skeleton in the cairo museum they could not find it.

i believe akhenaten and smenkhkare were brothers, and this would make tutankhamun and ankhesenamun cousins. since she never used a king's sister title, it is fair to say tut was only a cousin.

to muddy the waters a little bit haha, a lady called kate phizackerly came up with an alternate reading of some DNA on the amarna project. she hypothesises that inbreeding makes it harder to distinghuish generations, therefore meritaten could be kv35yl, but kv 55 is still smenkhkare. google her name and you will find the article for her blog.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4184
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
... i believe akhenaten and smenkhkare were brothers, and this would make tutankhamun and ankhesenamun cousins. ...

Anchesenpaaton and Tutanchaton were together in a scene on a relief from Memphis represented. Their titles here are : Daughter of the king and Son of the king, from its body. They must have been thus probably at least half brother and sister.

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: Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
... Perhaps different embalmers had different customs?

Rather improbably. This procedure was to importent and to much ritualized to left the decision of this the desire and mood of an embalmer.

Much more interesting is however the question, from where actually comes the theory about a special female arm position? Maybe from statues and pictures? Naturaly it can be that Gray not all known finds from the 18th Dynasty considers. I must still check this...

Lutz


But there seems to have been a great deal of variation in positioning and even practices like incisions an amulets. And we know that Embalmers were not always ethical sometimes robbing mummies in the workshop or damaging them and making crude repairs hidden by the bandaging.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4184
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
But there seems to have been a great deal of variation in positioning ...

Not for royal mummies during 18th Dynasty.

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: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
as far as i know, mutnodjmet never used the title 'king's daughter'. it was recently discovered that nefertiti's sister's name should read 'mutbenret' not 'mutnodjmet'. i think there is a chance that nefertiti's sister and horemheb's wife are the same person. hawass thought so, because mutnodjmet is believed to have died in childbirth and was buried at saqqara in horemheb's commoner tomb. when they tried to locate her skeleton in the cairo museum they could not find it.

i believe akhenaten and smenkhkare were brothers, and this would make tutankhamun and ankhesenamun cousins. since she never used a king's sister title, it is fair to say tut was only a cousin.

to muddy the waters a little bit haha, a lady called kate phizackerly came up with an alternate reading of some DNA on the amarna project. she hypothesises that inbreeding makes it harder to distinghuish generations, therefore meritaten could be kv35yl, but kv 55 is still smenkhkare. google her name and you will find the article for her blog.


Horemheb and Smekhkare both had the name Djeserkheperura. What can that mean?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4184
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Horemheb and Smekhkare both had the name Djeserkheperura. What can that mean?

Nothing, because they had not.

Greetings, Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
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 5 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