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 

KV55
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 30, 31, 32  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
khazarkhum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ankhetmaatre wrote:

If Baketaten was born at the time of Akhenaten's marriage to Nefertiti, or was too young to marry, it might make sense that she could become a secondary wife. It also makes sense that she may have become a wife to Smenkhkare around year 12 Akhenaten, bore Tutankhamen and then died, perhaps in childbirth, leaving Smenkhkare free to take Maritaten as GRW when he was elevated to the throne.


KV35YL did not die in childbirth. Her death was violent. She may have been kicked by a horse, or suffered a vicious fall. Having seen first hand what happens when a horse kicks you in the face, I would say that survival depends on the ability of the medical staff to know enough to dig your teeth out of your throat. After that, having the gash stitched closed promptly and treated to avoid infection. Since her gashed face was never sewn up, it's clear she didn't survive the initial blow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 212
Location: District of Columbia, USA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Her death was violent. She may have been kicked by a horse, or suffered a vicious fall. Having seen first hand what happens when a horse kicks you in the face, I would say that survival depends on the ability of the medical staff to know enough to dig your teeth out of your throat. After that, having the gash stitched closed promptly and treated to avoid infection. Since her gashed face was never sewn up, it's clear she didn't survive the initial blow.


While I'm not disputing your claim, I would like to see a source for that. I've never heard that before. The last I read the jury was still out as to whether or not the broken face was a product of tomb robbery. Though I've read she does bear a gash on her side that doesn't seem to be connected with embalming.
_________________
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured
~Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ankhetmaatre wrote:
Quote:
Her death was violent. She may have been kicked by a horse, or suffered a vicious fall. Having seen first hand what happens when a horse kicks you in the face, I would say that survival depends on the ability of the medical staff to know enough to dig your teeth out of your throat. After that, having the gash stitched closed promptly and treated to avoid infection. Since her gashed face was never sewn up, it's clear she didn't survive the initial blow.


While I'm not disputing your claim, I would like to see a source for that. I've never heard that before. The last I read the jury was still out as to whether or not the broken face was a product of tomb robbery. Though I've read she does bear a gash on her side that doesn't seem to be connected with embalming.


From no less than Dr. Hawass's site discussing the review of KV 35 from some years ago:

Another point raised by the Nefertiti enthusiasts is that the lower portion of the Younger Ladyís face is badly damaged, taken as evidence of an extreme form of damnatio memoriae appropriate for someone as controversial as Akhenatenís great wife. However, the teamís radiologist, Dr. Ashraf Selim, argues that if the mummyís face had indeed been smashed after embalming, one would expect to see bits of dried bone and flesh within the wound; the CT-scan performed by the EMP revealed very few pieces of the relevant broken bones within the sinus cavity, suggesting that the damage to the mummyís face occurred before embalming, most likely even before death. (Emphasis, mine.)

The facial damage is asserted as the proximate cause of death in Table 3, note B, at page 645 of

Hawass, Z., Y. Z. Gad, et al. 2010. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamunís Family. Journal of the American medical Association 303/7: 638-647.

HTH.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 212
Location: District of Columbia, USA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
the CT-scan performed by the EMP revealed very few pieces of the relevant broken bones within the sinus cavity, suggesting that the damage to the mummyís face occurred before embalming, most likely even before death. (Emphasis, mine.)

The facial damage is asserted as the proximate cause of death in Table 3, note B, at page 645 of

Hawass, Z., Y. Z. Gad, et al. 2010. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamunís Family. Journal of the American medical Association 303/7: 638-647.


That is VERY interesting.

If you don't mind my asking, is there anything in the document that mentions a slash in her left side? Or is there a place outside of JAMA to purchase it legally? In 2010 when it first came out it could only be had by joining at $150 yearly in the States.

Or has this already been discussed in another thread?
_________________
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured
~Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tut may not have been a deliberate event. it's quite possible smenkhkare was not married to his sister. maybe they had an affair. maybe he forced himself on her. one of george III's sons was rumoured to have raped one of is sisters. it may not be true, but they certainly never left any women royal or otherwise alone in his company after that allegation. and this is a society that did not condone incest......
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khazarkhum wrote:
Ankhetmaatre wrote:

If Baketaten was born at the time of Akhenaten's marriage to Nefertiti, or was too young to marry, it might make sense that she could become a secondary wife. It also makes sense that she may have become a wife to Smenkhkare around year 12 Akhenaten, bore Tutankhamen and then died, perhaps in childbirth, leaving Smenkhkare free to take Maritaten as GRW when he was elevated to the throne.


KV35YL did not die in childbirth. Her death was violent. She may have been kicked by a horse, or suffered a vicious fall. Having seen first hand what happens when a horse kicks you in the face, I would say that survival depends on the ability of the medical staff to know enough to dig your teeth out of your throat. After that, having the gash stitched closed promptly and treated to avoid infection. Since her gashed face was never sewn up, it's clear she didn't survive the initial blow.


Which was probably merciful considering the state of AE medical knowledge - though they were fairly sophisticated in the treatment of wounds.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 1009
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still believe that the scenes in Huya's tomb don't depict real life facts, but the afterlife, with Akhenaten, Nefertiti and their daughters playing the role of "supreme deities", providing happyness in both sides of the existence, in order to enhance Huya's role in the divinization of Baketaten, who was then DEAD and introduced with her mother in the royal cult of Neb-Maat-Re (a.k.a. Amenhotep III). The images of the banquet shared between the parties of the royal family reminds too much the funerary meals conventionally depicted in non-Atenist tombs. The imagem of the sculptor Iuty finishing Baketaten's statue and the expression "she lives" close to it, in my opinion, endorses a possible wishful thinking in which the princess was biologically dead while her ka[ survived through her statue to be placed in a shrine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
khazarkhum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
khazarkhum wrote:


KV35YL did not die in childbirth. Her death was violent. She may have been kicked by a horse, or suffered a vicious fall. Having seen first hand what happens when a horse kicks you in the face, I would say that survival depends on the ability of the medical staff to know enough to dig your teeth out of your throat. After that, having the gash stitched closed promptly and treated to avoid infection. Since her gashed face was never sewn up, it's clear she didn't survive the initial blow.


Which was probably merciful considering the state of AE medical knowledge - though they were fairly sophisticated in the treatment of wounds.


She would have choked on blood, teeth & tissue. You must react quickly and know to clear the airway.

Why they did not stitch the wound shut after the fact is interesting; but they never stitched the embalming wound, either. Neseret might know if they had a proscription about sewing the dead closed?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ayrton
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 06 Jan 2017
Posts: 166

PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wanted to seek the ideas of others regards the pectoral on the head of the mummy of the KV55coffin but did not really want to start up a thread for what may be a very short conversation. So I went back through threads here to see if I could find one where my questions might suitably. And darn-nabbit, I found this thread! Anyhow, seems a good a place as any.

The KV55mummy when discovered in its coffin by Ayrtonís team, had a vulture pectoral bent around its head (I rely on memory here). I seem to recall it was placed in a reversed position on the head of the mummy. (Theodore Davis thought it Tiyeís Crown, I seem to recall. An unlikely mistake to make if the pectoral was placed right way around, I donít know really...)

My searches have suggested to me that pectorals were usually made to hand from the neck down on the chest, or just placed over the chest region. The vulture representing the goddess Nekhbet (sometimes Mut?). Nekhbet performing a protective role.

As the pectoral is immediately above the heart (which I just re-learned is not removed from the body during mummification), I am guessing Nekhbet is protecting the centre of wisdom and immortality (very, very loosely speaking).

If I am beating around the correct bush here, do we read into the removal of the pectoral, and placement on the head (in a reversed position??) as a form of mockery? The vulture consuming carrion? Or something like that? I canít find Nekhbet performing any role in consuming the flesh of, say, criminals, or anything like that. Though I found one reference to vultures depicted eating the body of criminals or defeated warriors in battle.

Anyway, is the removal of the pectoral from KVmummyís chest (Akhenaten IMO) and placed in a reversed position (?) on his head an act of mockery and/or part of the effort (like removing his cartouches) to make his damnation eternal?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure that there's much to be determined from the placing of the pectoral. I'm not sure why it was even there considering that the body had been re-wrapped without the vast amount of bling that was found within Tutankhamun's wrappings. The vulture and cobra had been removed from his uraeus and placed, I think, between his legs. This could be construed as an "insult", though it clearly was not as leaving them in place would cause issues with wrapping the head, they would stick out too far and probably interfere with the placement of a gold mask, which this mummy would have had for it's original burial. Breaking an object, either in it's depiction or physically will negate it's purpose, in the case of the pectoral protection. Maybe incorrect use of the object, as was the case here, could also negate it's purpose, but then why not leave him with no protection at all. If you break their leg it prevents use of the leg in the afterlife, but I cannot see misuse of a pectoral as having the opposite effect it was intended for. It's just another mystery that will probably remain a closed book to us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

However, and who knows, maybe we see the Egyptian equivalent of a crown of thorns.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 322

PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/01/queen-nefertiti-may-one-two-mummies-already-found-says-leading/


Zahi now thinks that KV21B may be Nefertiti and KV21A Ankhensenamun. This would put his earlier identification of KV55 as Akhenaten in doubt. That is beacuse if you consider all of the other mummies in the 2010 DNA study KV55 can not be the father of KV21A.

I need to go through this stage by stage to make my point clear.

Yuya and Thuya are the parents of the KV35 elder lady = Tiye - and this is backed up by the lock of hair in a piece named for Tiye found in Tut's tomb. There is also clear lineage between Yuya, Thuya, Tiye and Tutankhamun. There is nothing to suggest they aren't his great grandparents and grandmother. So far so good. Equally, the mummy identified as Amenhotep III and the foetuses found in Tut's tomb fit with Tut's DNA - so you have those generations confirmed.

The parents of Tut are KV55 and the KV35 younger lady, who were brother and sister and children of AIII and Tiye. It is also just about possible that the KV35 younger lady was the result of a father-daughter union (AIII and a daughter with Tiye). However that is not the problem here. The problem is the relationship to all of the above with the KV21 mummies.

KV21A is identified with Ankhensenamun because she seems to be the mother of the foetuses from KV62. She is clearly a member of the royal family but due to her DNA profile can't be a daughter of KV55 or KV35YL. KV21B it was stated in 2010 may be the mother of KV21A. The odd couple out here if KV21A and B are Ankhensenamun and Nefertiti are KV55 and KV35YL. In this case you have some scenarios that may work -

1) KV55 is not Akhenaten but another son of AIII and Tiye. KV35YL is his sister-wife (many candidates are known). So you go back to the possibility that Smenkhkare was a younger brother of Akhenaten and the father of Tut. This in theory does not contradict the Hermopolis block naming Tut as a king's son - as the block does not say who is the king. If KV55 is not Akhenaten the issue of KV21A goes away. The arguments over the age at death of KV55 also go away if he is Smenkhkare or another younger son of AIII and Tiye.

2) KV21A was an illegitimate child, born of KV21B (Nefertiti) but not the biological daughter of KV55. This is not impossible of course but seems unlikely.

3) KV21A is not Ankhensenamun but a secondary wife of Tut's. This is entirely possible considering that KV40 included around 50 individuals who were siblings, children or previously unknown minor wives of Amenhotep III. So these people existed but were not with the exception of their funerary goods known from other sources. Not a surprise that AIII had a large harem, so it would seem likely that Tut also had more wives, related or not. KV40 also has one example of a woman named as "the one of the royal son", so from that you can extrapolate that children of princes existed and were part of the household. This idea I think should be considered seriously given that the wives from KV40 were never named in AIII's tomb, so it is arguable that Tut would also not name other wives in his tomb save his GRW.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irt-akhu
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 28 Nov 2019
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KMT magazine has been running some good articles on the 18th Dynasty the past few issues. Current thinking seems to be Tut's (KV62) parents are Smenkhkare (KV55) and Meritaten (KV35YL) (the latter angered some folks and got the side of her head smashed in). The man in the hat did come out awhile back and admit KV21A was Ankhesenamun, Tut's GW and KV21B was Nefertiti.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ayrton
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 06 Jan 2017
Posts: 166

PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:
However, and who knows, maybe we see the Egyptian equivalent of a crown of thorns.


It certainly in line with the Ďmockeryí line of reasoning I entertain. There is a motive behind it...(there are always motives for actions).... but Martha Bell suggested a partial ceiling collapse which may have damaged the coffin and mummy and sending the pectoral to end up in the head of the mummy... But I have seen other references to the roof except a partially plastered rack. So, I am still thinking the pectoral might have been put where it was for a negative reason.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ayrton
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 06 Jan 2017
Posts: 166

PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ď1) KV55 is not Akhenaten but another son of AIII and Tiye. KV35YL is his sister-wife (many candidates are known). So you go back to the possibility that Smenkhkare was a younger brother of Akhenaten and the father of Tut. This in theory does not contradict the Hermopolis block naming Tut as a king's son - as the block does not say who is the king. If KV55 is not Akhenaten the issue of KV21A goes away. The arguments over the age at death of KV55 also go away if he is Smenkhkare or another younger son of AIII and Tiye. Ē

I am prepared to put my head on the block here.

1. Smenkhkare is Nefertiti. I think it is inescapable. Obviously, I am open to being wrong, but I donít (at this stage) think I am.
2. The mummy in KV55 is Akhenaten. Same thoughts as above.

The age of the mummy can be discussed until the cows come home, but the sheer fact that there is debate and doubt, tells me until all serious investigators decide absolutely on an age, it must stay outside the discussion. Other evidence points directly at Akhenaten. Any other candidate requires much more assuming and imagination, IMO.

As to Amenophis III and a daughter producing Tut. I canít dispute that. But if the idea is entertained, then why not Akhenaten (KV55mummy) and Meritaten? That might even clear up that Nebkherenre son of Merytre business that I can find evidence of being dismissed out of hand, but canít find any detailed background or any expositions or reasoning on why it should be dismissed out of hand. If I can be pointed to the reasoning on excluding the possibility, I would be absolutely appreciative.

Now, I,on, an argument that Nebkhkeperenre and Nebkheperure canít be variations,without other evidence, does not itself cut it for me. I want more evidence to support that view.in fact. I want to know where the whole discussion of Nebkhkherenre son of Merytre can be found. Wi ask,of course, without much hope. All I get as answers where I ask is: well, theyíre not the same person. With a hint of: leave it alone, itís a waste of time even trying to see why it is dismissed. Well, I would very much like to waste my time on this curious little inscription. 😏
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 ... , 30, 31, 32  Next
Page 31 of 32

 
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