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 

KV62 West Wall Niche Question
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pyramids, Tombs, & Monuments
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 375

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:47 am    Post subject: KV62 West Wall Niche Question Reply with quote

Howard Carter found a figure west wall niche of the burial chamber in the tomb of Tutankhamun.

[Burton photo – p0884. The Griffith Institute. http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/258-p0884.html]

Does anyone know what the figure represents or if anyone (other than Carter) has written about it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aset
Priest
Priest


Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 762
Location: Austria

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Card/Transcription No.: 258-1 and 258-2
Arrow http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/258-c258-1.html
Arrow http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/258-c258-2.html

Carter No.: 258, Burton photograph: p0884
Arrow http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/258-p0884.html
Arrow http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/burton/p0884.jpg

Aset
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


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

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Camilla Di Biase-Dyson : Multiple Dimensions of Interpretation - Reassessing the Magic Brick Berlin ÄMP 15559. - In: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur - SAK 43. - 2014. - pp. 93-107.

Maria Rosa Guasch-Jané : On the Orientation of the Magical Bricks Tutankhamun's Burial Chamber. - In: Cult and Belief in Ancient Egypt - Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress for Young Egyptologists. 25-27 September 2012, Sofia. - Sofia : New Bulgarian University, 2014. - pp. 88-96

Maria Rosa Guasch-Jané : About the Orientation of the Magical Bricks in Tutankhamun's Burial Chamber. - In: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt - JARCE 48. - 2012. - pp. 111-118.

Ann Macy Roth / Catharine H. Roehrig : Magical Bricks and the Bricks of Birth. - In: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology - JEA 88. - 2002. - pp. 121-139.

Elizabeth Thomas : The Four Niches and Amuletic Figures in Theban Royal Tombs. - In: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt - JARCE 3. - 1964. - pp. 71-78.

In German ...

Christoffer Theis : Wenn Archäologie und Philologie nicht harmonieren - Magische Ziegel, ihre Nischen und Totenbuchspruch 151d-g. - In: Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde - ZÄS 142. - 2015. - pp. 85-95.

Henning Franzmeier :
Die magischen Ziegel des Neuen Reiches - Material und immaterieller Wert einer Objektgruppe. - In: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo - MDAIK 66. - 2010. - pp. 93-105.
_________________
Ägyptologie Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 375

PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aset and Lutz,
Thanks for the references. I know the Griffith Institute site. It's a godsend but I think Carter mistook this.

The linen-wrapped jackal in the niche is Duamutef. [Wilkinson, Richard H. The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2003. p.88] I want to see if anyone else noted the same.

I've found that the figure relates to the canopic shrine and chest of Tutankhamun.

CCIV 244 (Wesleyan U.) had an open article online (in Sept. 2019) that is now password secured. Excellent article. I fortunately have a print.
It showed a diagram by Maarten J. Raven of the canopic shrine's nested structure with incorrectly positioned deities. The article cited [Maarten J. Raven. "Egyptian Concepts on the Orientation of the Human Body Source" The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 91 (2005) pp. 37-53, 44.]

All covers on the canopic chest depict a human head and not the Four Sons of Horus, three of which as you know have heads of a hawk, baboon and jackal.

I have 400+ handwritten pages to explain (before citations). It’s intricate.
For the short version, consider only the heads of the three gods are needed and you find them at west wall in the burial chamber in hour nine, in the west niche and upper right corner area.

For the gods to protect the viscera of an imposter would have been an offense. Horus says, “he has not sinned against any god or goddess.” [R.O. Faulkner. The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. 1985. Spell 30B. p.27-8]

The misplaced gods and those missing from covers of the chest in the canopic shrine therefore inform that the king protects organs of a subject who as decoy protects the burial from (disturbance?).

The king's heart is with him and it is not missing. The decoy's heart went to Ammit. This of course informs that KV-35 EL YL are in fact family of KV-62’s mummy and none royal which is why they were naked and unnamed. They also inform about the burials in KV-35. It's ugly.

Tutankhamun in reality was very likely the vigorous warrior king shown in the tomb.

The decoy mummy was abusively glued into the gold coffin, with club foot, missing ribs, no heart, severe damage and made to wear mask of another's face (which would be insult to a pharaoh but great honor to a subject of the king).

Thanks again. It'll take me time to look into the references.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2019 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

maat wrote:

The king's heart is with him and it is not missing. The decoy's heart went to Ammit. This of course informs that KV-35 EL YL are in fact family of KV-62’s mummy and none royal which is why they were naked and unnamed. They also inform about the burials in KV-35. It's ugly.


So are you in fact stating that the mummy in KV62 is not Tutankhamun, and that KV35EL and YL do have the relationship to the KV62 mummy that the DNA shows, but as KV62 is not Tutankhamun, those two mummies are not Queen Tiye and her daughter ?

If so, then KV55, Amunhotep III and Yuya and Thuya, all related by blood to KV62 and the KV35 Jc mummies, are not the remains of the people we know them to be. This cannot be so, for while Amunhotep III and the KV35 Jc mummies are not found in their original tombs, Yuya and Thuya are, and there can be no doubt about the identification of them, and their blood relatives.

For KV62 to be a "fake", requires KV46 to be a "fake", and this is not so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 375

PostPosted: Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon,
You recognize the same greater troubling implications as I had.
I am aware there are other identified relationships but only looked closely
at those I noted because my findings about KV62 involved them.
Your doubt is understandable but whether it is all or most, the royal burials
remain to be found.
The mummies so far seem to be envoys or decoys.
The claim is so extreme that I'd have to be insane
to make it up but there are also original diagrams.
I don't know how to begin to present the
material facts that are involved. I was not looking
to find anything like it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't have any doubt about the identification of all the mummies I mentioned being part of the same family. The DNA testing, while not as comprehensive as it should have been, why, for instance, was not Thutmosis IV tested, has swept away previous doubts. Of course there are debates over the precise relationship between some of these mummies due to inbreeding and how this can affect what the DNA tells us. But what is not in doubt is that these mummies are all very closely related to each other.

If these were doppelgangers and not the family of Amunhotep III, it seems not only odd that such a subterfuge would be carried out, but that it involved using closely related members of the same, presumably non royal family, over multiple generations, five in fact from Yuya and Thuya to the two foetuses found in KV62.

They certainly tried to hide tombs and the burial chamber within a tomb, for instance in the case of Horemheb, and that can be understood when we are dealing with the mummy of a king. However, why such complicated subterfuge over multiple generations with the mummies of people who were not a king. Yuya and Thuya, Tiye, the Younger Lady, if not Nefertiti, KV21A and B, again if not Nefertiti, and the two foetuses.

Tutankhamun and KV62 is the focus of this thread, so as there is no doubt as to his relationship to Yuya and Thuya via the Younger Lady, KV55 and Tiye, for this mummy not to be Tutankhamun would involve the substitution of the mummies of Yuya and Thuya in KV46 some thirty or more years even before Tutankhamun was born in order to fool, well, who. Doesn't add up to be any form of subterfuge no matter how this is looked at, no matter how much reality is distorted. The mummy in KV62 has to be that of Tutankhamun, in fact in the murky world of Amarna, the identification of the mummy in KV62 as being that of Tutankhamun is one of the most solid facts we have.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 375

PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon,
Mummies of course have traditionally been identified by labels and their locations within tombs. This is reasonable in absence of more information to validate the identifications but labels on a tomb can be like a café named The Laundry. The soup inside is not soap. KV62 (and I suspect other burials) contained such information to validate identification of the mummy.

I think you are more familiar with the subject and know better than I do that identifications are difficult and suspect in many cases. Mummies found in a tomb designated for a specific person are not necessarily mummies of that deceased person.

The supposed mummy of "Amenhotep III ended up in a coffin inscribed for Ramesses III, with an ill-fitting lid made for Seti II." [https://www.ancient-origins.net/artifacts-other-artifacts/living-god-wooden-box-whose-coffin-was-ramesses-ii-buried-009456]

I don’t doubt the genetic relationships that have so far been found and I’m also puzzled that members of the same family are involved in the extended burials.

I don’t know who the mummies are but suspect the information is somewhere and someone will find it in time. My findings from study of the KV62 burial is who the mummy is not. If other information is correct, then I’ve also learned where exactly is to be found “the justified one” (inscription from the canopic shrine).

As to who the subterfuge was designed to fool seems obvious. It was to fool anyone who was not authorized to access the tomb or who might look to loot or vandalize it. To find the truth of the burial requires study of it. Robbers and vandals are not likely to study for (years?).

Your point (and doubt) about substitutions having occurred “some thirty or more years even before Tutankhamun was born” is solidly rational but ancient Egypt is full of seemingly irrational constructs for which I’ve found there are valid reasons (for the constructs).

(I’ll ask you to excuse that I am being vague with details at this time.)

I’ve found in study of KV62 that the pyramid of Khufu at Giza is directly invoked in the burial. The (objectives?) and cooperation involved spanned dynasties. So, a few decades of distance are not unreasonably distant in time. But, your point is reasonable.

You note: “The mummy in KV62 has to be that of Tutankhamun” because “…the identification of the mummy in KV62 as being that of Tutankhamun is one of the most solid facts we have.”

Finding the mummy is a decoy could be unsettling in light of your note. But, a more positive perspective on this is that the information I've found indicates that what there is to be found is going to be far more amazing than the tomb of Tutankhamun and will probably keep archaeologists, Egyptologists and others in discovery and study for many decades or centuries.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The DNA is not lying and there is a clear chain of close blood relationships from the two foetuses in KV62 to Tutankhamun to the Younger Lady to Queen Tiye to Yuya and Thuya.

As I have previously mentioned, for the mummy in KV62 not to be Tutankhamun, then all the blood related mummies would need to be part of an entire "substitute" family. It would need a substitution so complicated that it was worked out some 30 years before the birth of Tutankhaten by "substituting" the mummies of Yuya and Thuya, and then ensuring that a maternal great grandson of these substitutes was of the same age as the "real" Tutankhamun and available to be placed in KV62 nearly fifty years later. Then there is the issue that if this fantasy took place, then all of the blood relatives of the KV62 mummy are also "substitutes". This is simply not possible, and to try to make it possible needs some very convincing and serious evidence put forward, starting with a credible explanation of KV46, and how it would seem, in this fantasy, that the ancient Egyptians knew about DNA and carefully chose an entire duplicate family over five generations in order to fool, not Egyptians of the time, but us some 3,400 years into their future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even more than that... the Egyptians had no intention of rediscovery 3,400 years later. The only ones they could have been attempting to "fool' would have been the gods of the afterworld... and good luck with that!

There's no motivation for a switcheroo. It's fantasy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 375

PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i agree that the DNA is not lying although I did not delve deeply
Iinto the aspect of established relationships.
I generally know the relationships are dxnastic, extensive and
I recognize the implications as you note.
I agree with your points except that I focused on study of the
KV62 burial, it directly invoked and involved KV35 and the
GPK. I'm not familiar with KV46 as I am still digesting KV62.
I don't know that the Egyptians knew about DNA although I am
tempted to consgder the possibility for the facts.
The family relationships are puzzling.
The royal families did not lack servants. It might be captives.
Maybe its their version of shawabti. These are purely speculation.
Still the mummy is a decoy with all the implications as you observe.
I honestly don't know what to do with the information.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 375

PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry for the typed errors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2019 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maat wrote:
i agree that the DNA is not lying although I did not delve deeply
Iinto the aspect of established relationships.

I'll link to the original source of all the DNA information. Don't bother reading the article itself, which is an abstract, but download the PDF. The link is easy to see at top center of the page. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/185393

Given that you do not dispute the DNA results, what you could do is ponder as to how the mummy found in KV62 could possibly be that of anybody except Tutankhamun due to the DNA showing this mummy to be the maternal great grandson of Yuya and Thuya. I understand why you could imagine substitute mummies being used for kings, though they would not do this, only create false burial chambers. However, as the tomb of Yuya and Thuya, KV46, is not royal and neither of them a king, then there is no reason to create false chambers in their tomb, let alone substitute their mummies. The Egyptians simply did not do this.

As the evidence in KV46 clearly shows that this was the burial of Yuya and Thuya, and that they were the parents of Queen Tiye and grandparents of princess Sitamun, while not being mentioned in the tomb, it is clear that they are also the grandparents of Ankhenaten by dint of him being known without doubt to be the son of Amunhotep III and Tiye. The DNA evidence shows KV55 and KV35YL to be the children of Amunhotep III and Tiye and grandchildren of Yuya and Thuya, so even while we cannot positively identify these two mummies by name, their blood relationships are certain.

So, we have the mummy in KV62 identified by name multiple times as Tutankhamun, and we have it identified by DNA as the son of KV35YL and KV55, who are identified by DNA as the children of Amunhotep III and Tiye, who is identified as the daughter of Yuya and Thuya. This is an unbreakable chain in that they are all related by blood to each other and descend from Yuya and Thuya.

Therefore, to say that the mummy in KV62 is not Tutankhamun, but a non royal substitute, would need evidence that the mummies in KV46 are not Yuya and Thuya, and remember that as non royals there is no reason whatsoever to substitute their mummies, nor engage in substituting the bodies of an entire family over a period of nearly 50 years and covering five generations. It is fantastical and unbelievable in the extreme.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 375

PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon, thanks for the link. I will download and dig into it.

You note that I could due to the DNA showing this mummy to be the maternal great grandson of Yuya and Thuya" and that I "imagine substitute mummies being used for kings".

I could "ponder as to how the mummy found in KV62 could possibly be that of anybody except Tutankhamun" but that would not change my factual findings. I wouldn't claim it without demonstrable evidence that can stand on its on merits. I certainly don't imagine such things because my imagination is not that good and I think it's petty to make false claims.

To say, the "Egyptians simply did not do this", supposes that the motives behind their design are known as opposed to speculations about the substitute corpses that are related. All I know with certainty (for myself from my findings) is that the KV62 mummy is a decoy.

This implies more because I can't doubt relationships that have been identified by medical examinations (most especially using DNA) even if family lines are inbred as to make definite relationships uncertain.

You note that "we have the mummy in KV62 identified by name multiple times as Tutankhamun".

The tomb had the name and items had the name. A mummy was found within the tomb. The supposed mummy of Amenhotep III was found in a coffin without his name. Yet, it is still thought to be Amenhotep III?

You, me or anyone can be labeled by others as someone we are not. That would not make us other than who we are. There are labels (dockets and cartouches) by which identities are made today. There is more information that clarifies the identities.

You say, "to say that the mummy in KV62 is not Tutankhamun, but a non royal substitute, would need evidence that the mummies in KV46 are not Yuya and Thuya".

I disagree. They all need verification with more evidence that they are the individuals they are thought to be at the moment.

Also, fifty years is not long in a span of at least 1300. I did mention that KV62 had a direct reference to the GPK.

All you have is my stated claim for the moment with none of my findings put forward. So, on that basis, I don't expect my claim to be taken on face-value but I state my position to be known and considered by others.

I understand you can't evaluate facts that I have not presented. So, I accept any doubts and only hope the position will be considered and maybe others will find the facts if I don't get a chance to publish or present them.

(I honestly don't have a desire to publish anything. Yet, I know the information needs to be put forward to be properly reviewed and known.)


[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you saying that all of the DNA related mummies from Yuya and Thuya to the two foetuses are not who we know them to be, either by actual name or blood relationship, but are all members of a family of people who were not royal by blood or connection by marriage to the Thutmosids, and were used for five generations as substitutes in the burials of the real people.

If so, please show your evidence, and a good place to start would be an explanation of KV46 and the evidence it contains. If, as you say, you believe the DNA evidence, then without any doubt the mummy in KV62 is the great grandson of the mummies in KV46. On your notion of substitutes, who then are the mummies in KV46 and where are the real Yuya and Thuya, and why would non royals in a non royal tomb need to be substituted, and for that matter, why on earth would two foetuses need to be substituted in this multi-generational fifty year subterfuge, as you propose.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pyramids, Tombs, & Monuments All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 1 of 7

 
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