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 

Dr. C. Pusch, German human geneticist to DNA investigations
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 5:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dylan bickerstaffe sates in 'identifying the royal mummies' that x rays were done on 'ramses I' in 1966 by wolfgang pahl, and he discovered rolls of linen in the chest. he assumed they were viscera, but this practise was not done in the new kingdom, coming into vogue during the 21st dynasty. and he supposed this mummy was a ptolemaic or roman one.

the mummification techniques such as the linen (which appears identical to seti I), the incision and smearing the ears with resin are all 19th dynasty techniques. the facial resemblance fit with seti I and ramses II.

the arm position is also called into account, this mummy has right over left, when the rammessides had left over right. it was thought if the trend changed in the 19th dynasty, then ramses I would also show this trend. but i don't put too much stock in that. the 18-19th dynasties had both hands grasping the flail and sceptre, but the 20th dynasty hands were flat. the niagra falls mummy has a clenched left hand, but right hand flat. the only pharoahs that share this are amenhotep I, thutmose II and III, and it was suggested this mummy may have been thutmose I.

in 1994, r. miller took a tissue sample for a study oin ancient public health. he had it radio carbon tested, and the date came back as 1085-790 BC. or ramses XI to shoshenq III. along with the carbon dating, this mummy was supposed to been found with 3rd intermediate period coffins, and lacked any damage. which is unusual, because the only ones that didn't have significant damage were the members of pinudjem I's family and ramses V, who has a hole in his head and lost a few fingers. bickerstaffe states that a recent calibration of the carbon test (and he does not say who or when) has pinpointed the dates to 1010-790, with a 67% probability the mummy dates to 930-820 BC.

the mummy is supposed to have been one of 4 bought by the woods museum pre 1871, and after fire gutted it, the niagra falls musuem acquired it in the 1870's. bickerstaffe does not think the woods museum mummies are from the royal cache, mostly because they were acquired before it is thought the royal cache was discovered by the el rassul brothers.

so bickerstaffe believes, that while the mummification techniques fit with late 18th, early 19th dynasty dates, the carbon dating of 930-820 BC sits in the middle 22nd dynasty, around the reigns of takelot I and II, shoshenq II and osorkon III. this is 430 years after the beginning of the 19th dynasty. he says the later rammessides are still 200 years early to fit this mummy's dates. he also says, that the mummy if from thebes, is unlikely to be a king, as they were buried int he delta and the moisture decomposed the mummies.

so his conclusion is ramses I was probably in the cache, but is unidentified in the cairo museum. and the niagra falls mummy, is not from the royal cache, and is most likely a war lord or minor pharoah from a localised 22nd dynasty ruling class.

he also says , for those wishing that this mummy is still a ramesside, the original name ascribed to this mummy in the museum was 'septhnestp', and this mummy was the wife of akhenaten! he says thename may have been a mangled version of 'setepenptah', which is the throne name of ramses XI.........and the dates can fit him.
_________________
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: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
there are many instances of mummies being found in caches with no burial equipment. and burial equipment found but without a mummy. so while there is godd evidence ramses I may have been in the cache, it does not mean he was.

The so called "Dockets" are no burial equipment. These are notes written by the priests restored and reburied the mummies, often date specified. Based on these dockets can be partially odyssee-like walks of individual kings from hiding place to hiding place reconstructed. It is very unlikely that a docket in DB 320 shows up without the associated mummy was ever there.

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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 5:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
... the mummification techniques such as the linen (which appears identical to seti I), the incision and smearing the ears with resin are all 19th dynasty techniques. the facial resemblance fit with seti I and ramses II. ... in 1994, r. miller took a tissue sample for a study oin ancient public health. he had it radio carbon tested, and the date came back as 1085-790 BC. or ramses XI to shoshenq III. ... the mummy is supposed to have been one of 4 bought by the woods museum pre 1871, and after fire gutted it, the niagra falls musuem acquired it in the 1870's. bickerstaffe does not think the woods museum mummies are from the royal cache, mostly because they were acquired before it is thought the royal cache was discovered by the el rassul brothers.

so bickerstaffe believes, that while the mummification techniques fit with late 18th, early 19th dynasty dates, the carbon dating of 930-820 BC sits in the middle 22nd dynasty, around the reigns of takelot I and II, shoshenq II and osorkon III.

Sounds to me like they radio carbone dated the material the priests used by restoration ... The real date when the Abd el-Rassuls found the cache is not known.

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


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

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tissue from the mummy was carbon dated, so i have doubts about what was tested. whether carbon dating is reliable though, is another issue.

the abd el russells are thought to have to discovered the tomb int he 1870's. so he is quite right about suspicions this mummy came from it if the mummy is known to be in an american museum in the 1860's. taking a mummy from such a cache is a huge and dangerous move. so i agree with historians it is unlikely they would sell a mummy from the cache, when it is more likely to be questioned.

hatshepsut's spleen box is in the cache, and her likely mummy was not. fragments of coffins for ramses I were found in the cache, but no mummy with dockets or bandages had so far been identified as his. there are many coffins for private individuals that appear to not be buried in the cache also.

so i don't know what scholarly opinion is on the subject, but bickerstaffe has very good evidence for saying thta mummy is not ramses I. and if the carbon dating is saying it is not likely, than there must be basis, because as far i know, carbon dating is considered quite reliable.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
tissue from the mummy was carbon dated, so i have doubts about what was tested. whether carbon dating is reliable though, is another issue.


i meant i have no doubts about the tissue being carbon dated.
_________________
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: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do not think the radiocarbon dating here really helps. Even a 10 percent contamination of the samples leads to an incorrect result for 300 years. So if the technique of mummification rather go in direction 19. Dynasty so I would be cautious about so exact dates.

As already mentioned, dockets for Ramses I were found in DB 320. See Reeves, VOK, 1990, p. 214:
Quote:
"... 30 Ramses I CG 61018 Replacement coffin, 21. Dynasty type. ... Type A docket on the lid, type B text on head of box. ..."


Comprehensible is a reuse of an original coffin of Ramses I for one other person. But the reuse of an already spare coffin is for me not really conceivable.

And as also already stated, the exact year of the discovery of the Cachette by the Abd el-Rassuls is not really known. And that at least one mummy from its hiding place was sold by the family is mentioned in Amelia Edwards : A Thousand Miles Up The Nile (1877 & 1891; p. 451), as also still mentioned.

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


Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 515
Location: U.S. NJ

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure if the hand position of the "Ramses I" mummy is so meaningful. He was the first member of the dynasty and a return to the hand position of the early 18th dynasty could be seen as part of the return to orthodoxy after the Armana debacle. Too bad we don't have Horemheb to compare him with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i don't put much stock in hand positioning either. it changes with most pharoahs, and does not seem to be universal. i think it is interesting how well the mummy fits with ramses I though. i guess the only way to know for sure, is to see if hawass had it tested, and what the results were.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
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
Page 4 of 4

 
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