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 

Tutankhamun A Warrior King?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 396

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think weíve got totally different perspectives but I appreciate the post above. I find the walking sticks and seated plus chariot riding depictions interesting because the medical examinations of his mummy show why these were in his tomb. The medical evidence now re-enforces that they are representations of Tut, and although idealised and following artistic tradition have some truth.

I donít buy that the tomb had any special meaning beyond what it is, except for the curious depiction of Ay, which is a piece of propaganda. The only people who will have seen it are close associates in the court - tombs were not on public display once the burial took place. KV63 included a kind of stand it is thought to enact the opening of the mouth ceremony, and we have to think how the tomb KV62 was filled. Presumably it was empty prior to the ceremony, then Tut placed in his coffins, then the shrines and covering fabric installed, then the burial chamber and side chamber filled with items prior to it being sealed. Then the antechamber and annexe were filled before the tomb was sealed. This must have taken days or even weeks?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4187
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maat wrote:
The different headdresses inform about their identities

Why? Supporting documents?

maat wrote:
... their walking sticks that are differently positioned. The sticks inform about their functionality in the tomb.

Why? Supporting documents? Which would be ("their functionality")?
_________________
ńgyptologie Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 385

PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz, thanks for the reference about the headdresses. I posted an explanation about functionality of the statues in a new topic (KV62 Sentinel Statues Functions Considered)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 385

PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:
I think weíve got totally different perspectives but I appreciate the post above. I find the walking sticks and seated plus chariot riding depictions interesting because the medical examinations of his mummy show why these were in his tomb. The medical evidence now re-enforces that they are representations of Tut, and although idealised and following artistic tradition have some truth.

I donít buy that the tomb had any special meaning beyond what it is, except for the curious depiction of Ay, which is a piece of propaganda. The only people who will have seen it are close associates in the court - tombs were not on public display once the burial took place. KV63 included a kind of stand it is thought to enact the opening of the mouth ceremony, and we have to think how the tomb KV62 was filled. Presumably it was empty prior to the ceremony, then Tut placed in his coffins, then the shrines and covering fabric installed, then the burial chamber and side chamber filled with items prior to it being sealed. Then the antechamber and annexe were filled before the tomb was sealed. This must have taken days or even weeks?


I fully respect your position. Please take a look at the topic (KV62 Sentinel Statues Functions Considered) for an initial explanation of what I am trying to help you recognize.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4187
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

W. Raymond Johnson : Tutankhamun's Life, Death, and Afterlife - New Evidence from Thebes (IEAA Lecture, 07.11.2020)
_________________
ńgyptologie Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
irt-akhu
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Nov 2019
Posts: 110

PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for posting that, Lutz. Interesting. I find it amazing these guys can take blocks scattered all over the world and piece them together. There must be a database somewhere with all of these artifacts catalogued and then grad students are given the task of trying out different combinations to see if they fit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 396

PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for posting that link, took time to watch the lecture today. It really does raise questions about how Tutankhamun wanted to be seen as a traditional, warlike king after the Amarna period. There is no ambiguity about his depictions - he is shown in battle. Whether he really was we can question, but it is just as valid as the depictions of Seti I and Ramesses III.

It does seem likely that following the death of Akhenaten powers to the North and South were testing the Egyptians who had to respond.

So whether Tutankhamun actually participated as depicted, he was shown to be. The chariots and walking sticks in his tomb need not be a contradiction.
One conclusion could be that Tut died in battle; this could explain his injuries but we can never know (and the Egyptians would not have reported this on temple walls). It could easily have been an unfortunate accident hunting or just driving around. Imagine the king he could have been if he had lived longer! It still beggars belief with the battle reliefs showing a virile young man that he had no living children - mind you the same could be said of Horemheb.

What is interesting also is the emphasis on the triad of Amun, Mut and Khonsu, as I think Tutankhamun was identified with the latter. The jewellery in his tomb seems to confirm that - his name made out but using a moon instead of the sun on multiple items. This is marking him out as the son of Amun, not the son of Akhenaten. It is a real, unambiguous break with the Amarna traditions and clearly something that was well established by the time he died. Still, the memory of the Aten was still shown in his tomb on a few objects and on his body (skullcap inscription).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:
What is interesting also is the emphasis on the triad of Amun, Mut and Khonsu, as I think Tutankhamun was identified with the latter. The jewellery in his tomb seems to confirm that - his name made out but using a moon instead of the sun on multiple items. This is marking him out as the son of Amun, not the son of Akhenaten.


Yes, Nebkheperuia, as discussed elsewhere, and marking him as the son of Amun certainly fits. I'm still puzzled though as to why this seems to stop around his name change, judging by the strap lengths of the various pieces of jewelry. It could be that as he now has "Amun" in his name there is no need to make the point. But then why not change his name earlier, and as "Nebkheperuia" never appears in a cartouche, and so is not proclaimed to the populace, only on jewelry that would likely only ever been seen within the palace, who was this statement for. Maybe his "handlers" wanted an association with Amunhotep III, who had become Khonsu, as shown at Soleb, but an association seemingly only within the palace as no trace of this name exists outside of his personal effects in KV62. Another mystery, but not a huge one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:

So whether Tutankhamun actually participated as depicted, he was shown to be. The chariots and walking sticks in his tomb need not be a contradiction.

I agree, as we don't know just how badly he was effected. There's no indication that he could not stand, and if he can stand on the ground he can stand in a chariot, which in battle may well have been driven by a driver while the king shoots arrows, waves his sword and such like. Perhaps there was a situation similar to FDR, where nobody, at least officially, knew he was confined to a wheelchair for some time, with various ruses used to disguise this. Maybe Tut was strapped into his chariot for better support if he had a dodgly left foot. The end scene of the movie El-Cid comes to mind where Heston is strapped to his horse to make it seem he is still alive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thieuke
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 12:07 pm    Post subject: Clubfoot Reply with quote

It seems that everyone is focussing on Tut's clubfoot but all are forgetting that his grandfather Amenhotep III also seems to have had a clubfoot. So he is not the first king with a disability and as stated before he would not have been a foot soldier but could have been with his army and it's commanders probably in a relatively safe place to oversee the battle.

What intrigues me is the idea that Tut might have reigned for 12 years as his age at death remains somewhere between 18 and 20 meaning he succeeded at an age between 6 and 8. It also would mean he was born later in the reign of Achenaten. If there were solo reigns of Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare that might have taken up to 3 years between the death of Achenaten and the succession of Tutankhamun that means he could have been born as late as year 14 of Achenaten's reign. That would mean a 10 year age difference with Anchesenpaaten and opening up the possibility Achesenamun may have been Anchesenpaaten tashjerit. She would have been a few years younger than Tut so a much more likely marital candidate than her mother or aunt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 396

PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ankhensenpaaten isnít attested at Karnak and also isnít on most of the boundary stelae at Akhenaten so could have been born around year 6 or 7, only making her at most 7 years older than Tut. That isnít too great an age gap, though we canít discount that his bride was the younger Ankhensenpaaten

I donít think he reigned more than 10 years as there are no higher dates attested for the king. I do think he was born after year 12.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thieuke
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 8:33 pm    Post subject: Anchesenamun Reply with quote

If Anchesenamun was not Anchesenpaaten but Anchesenpaaten tashjerit we may have an explanation why KV21A could be the mother of the Tut's daughters but not be the daughter of KV55 as well as his daughter-in-law. If Anchesenamun was KV55's granddaughter either through Meritaten or Anchespaaten with possibly Smenkhkare who could have been a son of Achenaten by another wife that could explain the genetics.
Though i still wonder how a princess with two clubfeet would have been selected to be the Great Royal Wife. There must have been other candidates who were physically more suited for that role.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 396

PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Genetically that still doesn't work unfortunately; the KV62 foetuses and KV21A still have to have maternal DNA from elsewhere.

The paternal line is established and not in doubt. I hope that the second round of tests and the tentative identification of KV21B by Hawass clears that up. It's all gone very quiet on that however, same as his claims to be close to finding the tomb of Ankhensenamun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thieuke
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:12 pm    Post subject: kv21a and b Reply with quote

to me the most likely scenario still is that kv21a and b are female relations of the mother but not that 21A is the mother.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 396

PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Theyíre definitely part of the family but itís impossible to say exactly where they fit definitively. Iíd have to go back to earlier descriptions of the tomb but both apparently had one arm across the chest so I can believe they were queens.
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  Next
Page 3 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