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
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
orwell, i suggest reading some books on the royal mummies. most of the mummies were salvaged in the 21st dynasty, when tomb robbing was rife. the priest kings based in thebes were running out of gold and wealth in general and may even have had a hand in the tomb robbings themselves. after they entered the tombs, thye moved what remained of the mummies, and any wealth they were buried with. the mummies were then rewrapped, their funerary equipment stripped of gold and jewels and reburied in caches for safety. one cache was in the tomb of amnehotep II, kv 35. the other was at deir el bahri db320, where the priest kings buried themselves.

when discovered, most mummies were not in their original coffins. ramses III was found in the coffin of ahmose nefertari. pinudjem I appropiated the coffins of thumose I, but then seems tnot to have used them. those coffins were from his own second burial under thutmose III. it really is common practise to erase someone's name from something and use it for yourself. it happens all the time in inscriptions and statues, so burial equipment is no different.

as for tutankhamun's tomb, it is proved quite a lot of it was not made for his burial. reeves the complete tutankhamun has a list in it somewhere of the other amarna names mentioned in the tomb, and does say what was made for someone else and appropriated. since the egyptian empire langhuished under akhenaten, i would assume that the wealth of amenhotep III was a distant memory by tutankhamun's day. he does have funerary equipment made for smenkhkare, and nefneferuaten. i think even the gold mask is thought to have been made for someone else, with their face removed and his put in place.


Thanks Kyle - and I have read books about mummies. I'm also aware of all the other stuff you mention.

Call me lazy, but I was hoping for a quick bit of 'explication' about Anneke's view of 'musical mummies' idea. I don't immediately see a parallel with hat the prersts did in the 21st Dynasty, and what happened with the mummy in KV55. A pattern may be in existance, but I would like to know exactly what the 'pattern' is.

On the surface, it sounds like such a 'pattern' here is dubious. In my reading about mummies (generally) I can't see immediate parallel's between Priests preserving mummies in Dyn 21, and Priests (?) in Dybn 18 'mummy swapping', at least, not in this (alleged) single attested case (KV55).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:

To play 'musical mummies' when plenty of cash was still around would seem contrary to the religious sensibility of the (Amarna) times, wouldn't it? I'll state it again: don't the tomb goods in KV62 indicate there was still some Pharaonic affluence going around in Tutankhamen's times?

Quite a few items from Tut's tomb were re-used. The coffinettes belonged to Neferneferuaten, the middle sarcophagus is thought to have belonged to someone else. There are pectorals that show they were recarved for Tut. So no I do not agree with that.

Orwell wrote:

anneke wrote:
Amenhotep I may have been reburied in Thutmosis II's coffin, while Thutmosis II was given a new coffin. Thutmosis IV may have been reburied in a coffin of Ramesses V, who was reburied in a coffin of unknown origin, etc.


Can you give a fuller explication of all this?


Pulling some of this from Max Miller's excellent site:

Ramesses III was found in a replacement cartonnage coffin (CG 61021) which still retained some traces of its original gilding. <..> It had been placed within the immense coffin of Queen Ahmose-Nofretari (CG 61021) along with another body that many experts identify as that of the Queen. <..> The trough of Ramesses III's original coffin was discovered in KV 35, containing the mummy of Amenhotep III.

The king <Ramesses IV> was found in a coffin that originally belonged to a wcb-priest named Ahaaa (CG61041). Its original decoration had been concealed with a layer of plaster that had been inscribed in black ink for Ramesses IV.

Ramesses V was found on the base of a large rectangular white coffin (CG 61042.) No lid was found with this coffin, which was obviously not the original coffin of the king. No inscriptions are recorded as being found on this rectangular coffin trough which would provide a clue concerning the identity of its original owner.

The mummy <of Ramesses VI> was found in a coffin (CG61043) of 18'th Dynasty date which had originally belonged to a man named Re, a high priest of the mortuary cult of Menkheperre-Tuthmosis III. The name of the coffin's original owner had been erased and replaced in ink with the prenomen of Ramesses VI.

The mummy <of Ramesses IX> was found in one of the coffins that had originally been made for a certain Isiemkheb and later appropriated by Neskhons. Reeves notes that this same Neskhons, a wife of Pinudjem II, had, according to the testimony of a Linen Docket found on the mummy, also supplied linen for use in its restoration at the temple of Medinet Habu in Year 7 of her husband’s reign (see Linen Docket Translations below.) Perhaps she also donated one of her coffins to Ramesses IX at this same time.

See http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages2/20A.htm for details and sources for this.

There's more from the KV 35 burials in the same vein.

See what I mean though? The mummies were regularly reburied in equipment not belonging to them. The written text was magical from what I understand. So if you changed the text on the coffin from person X to Pharaoh Y, then it now belonged to Pharaoh Y. Simple as that. No disrespect. No violation of any religious beliefs.

So for KV 55 all we can say is that the mummy was likely reburied (the rewrapping indicates that to me) and the coffin had likely belonged to Akhenaten at some point. That does not prove that the person in the coffin is Akhenaten.

I think that all we can say is that a man who died at a fairly you age was found in a tomb with funerary equipment referring to Queen Tiye and Akhenaten. And the canopic jars may have at some point been intended for Kiya. He may have been reburied during the reign of Tutankhamen, given a seal found underneath the coffin.

It is possible (but not in any way proven) that Tiye may have been buried in the same tomb at some point. She eventually ended up in KV 35. Why not move the KV55 mummy there as well? No clue!
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Anneke.

anneke wrote:
Quite a few items from Tut's tomb were re-used. The coffinettes belonged to Neferneferuaten, the middle sarcophagus is thought to have belonged to someone else. There are pectorals that show they were recarved for Tut. So no I do not agree with that.


That middle coffin intrigues me. If KV55 mummy was his brother/father - wouldn't there be a chance the middle mummy represents Tutankhamen, and just showing similar 'familial' characteristics. Maybe a 'younger' or 'older' version of Tutankhamen, or something? Maybe the 'borrowing' is just in our minds and doesn't relate to what happened.

anneke wrote:
Pulling some of this from Max Miller's excellent site:

Ramesses III was found in a replacement cartonnage coffin (CG 61021) which still retained some traces of its original gilding. <..> It had been placed within the immense coffin of Queen Ahmose-Nofretari (CG 61021) along with another body that many experts identify as that of the Queen. <..> The trough of Ramesses III's original coffin was discovered in KV 35, containing the mummy of Amenhotep III.


Does this suggest some mis-matching during the big mummy move?

[quote="anneke"]The king <Ramesses IV> was found in a coffin that originally belonged to a wcb-priest named Ahaaa (CG61041). Its original decoration had been concealed with a layer of plaster that had been inscribed in black ink for Ramesses IV.[/quot]

It was in a coffin originally belongng to a web-priest, so does this suggest Pharaoh IV's priests were short of cash? Or was there some 'rush' to burial in relation to Ramesses IV?

anneke wrote:
Ramesses V was found on the base of a large rectangular white coffin (CG 61042.) No lid was found with this coffin, which was obviously not the original coffin of the king. No inscriptions are recorded as being found on this rectangular coffin trough which would provide a clue concerning the identity of its original owner.


Okay, I'm lost here. Ramesses V was found on the base of a large rectangular white coffin (CG 61042.) That bit makes immediate sense.

And then: No lid was found with this coffin, which was obviously not the original coffin of the king. It had his name on it, but it was obviously not his? Shocked Pardon? You've left out data here that would (presumably) make this obvious.

No inscriptions are recorded as being found on this rectangular coffin trough which would provide a clue concerning the identity of its original owner. I'm no doubt reading (interpreting) this all wrong, Anneke. This seems to be telling me that there is no other inscriptional evidence for anyone else on this coffin or trough other than for Ramesses V. Idea

I'm trying to funny, but I'm really lost here.

anneke wrote:
The mummy <of Ramesses VI> was found in a coffin (CG61043) of 18'th Dynasty date which had originally belonged to a man named Re, a high priest of the mortuary cult of Menkheperre-Tuthmosis III. The name of the coffin's original owner had been erased and replaced in ink with the prenomen of Ramesses VI.


Yep. Definitely sounds like this is a re-used coffin.

[quote="anneke"]The mummy <of Ramesses IX> was found in one of the coffins that had originally been made for a certain Isiemkheb and later appropriated by Neskhons. Reeves notes that this same Neskhons, a wife of Pinudjem II, had, according to the testimony of a Linen Docket found on the mummy, also supplied linen for use in its restoration at the temple of Medinet Habu in Year 7 of her husband’s reign (see Linen Docket Translations below.) Perhaps she also donated one of her coffins to Ramesses IX at this same time.{/quote]

Ditto.

anneke wrote:
See http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages2/20A.htm for details and sources for this.


Placed in my "Citations" file. Thanks Anneke! Very Happy

anneke wrote:
See what I mean though? The mummies were regularly reburied in equipment not belonging to them. The written text was magical from what I understand. So if you changed the text on the coffin from person X to Pharaoh Y, then it now belonged to Pharaoh Y. Simple as that. No disrespect. No violation of any religious beliefs.

So for KV 55 all we can say is that the mummy was likely reburied (the rewrapping indicates that to me) and the coffin had likely belonged to Akhenaten at some point. That does not prove that the person in the coffin is Akhenaten.

I think that all we can say is that a man who died at a fairly you age was found in a tomb with funerary equipment referring to Queen Tiye and Akhenaten. And the canopic jars may have at some point been intended for Kiya. He may have been reburied during the reign of Tutankhamen, given a seal found underneath the coffin.

It is possible (but not in any way proven) that Tiye may have been buried in the same tomb at some point. She eventually ended up in KV 35. Why not move the KV55 mummy there as well? No clue!


Aren't we saying here, though, that Akhenaten's successor (his son or brother according to most people's theories) usurped his coffin in a time where there can surely be no suggestion of 'impoverished' times, and Tutankhamen (under advice of Ay?) was in charge of things. Then there's Ay's reign after that.

Would Tutankhamen or Ay usurp Akhenaten's coffin (or Kiya's) to bury Smenhkhara (???) We're talking about 9 (years) of Tutankhamen and 4 (or more) years of Ay too. No need for haste. Surely they would not have done that. If they respected Akhenaten at all they would not have done it. If they didn't respect his memory, why disrespect Smenhkara (???) by placing him there? A distant Pharaoh might pinch your coffin, but your son or brother? Possible, but not the first thing that comes to mind. We can't know, of course.

There is also that other issue I've asked about. Were Akhenaten's carved out and that's it, or was someone else's name put there afterward? If the former, then it seems - at first sight - to be a case of 'memory' erasing. If the latter - whose name was placed there? Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Did Nefertiti get a Maru Aten of her own? For all we know yes. ...

Here there is probably a misunderstanding. "Maru - Aton" is a garden district in the south of the city. It consisted of two districts with wall. The smaller was 100 x 60 m large. Over this one there was entry into the second, about twice as large, district. The royal dwellings in the larger part of the plant offered approx. 60 square meters of floor space. Additionally there were various smaller pavillions and a lake in the middle on the area. The "Maru - Aton" was obviously a private retreat place for the royal family, which looked for recovery and relaxation here.

Meretseger wrote:
... The original owner of the North palace has not been identified. Formerly assumed to be Nefertiti Kiya has also been suggested. ...

The original owner was the king. He and his family lived there. It was one of several domiciles of the king and its family in Amarna. See for that Christian Tietze (Ed.) [with contributions by Erik Hornung, and others] : Amarna. Lebensräume - Lebensbilder - Weltbilder. - [Echnaton und Amarna, Wohnen im Diesseits. Ausstellung im Römisch-Germanisches Museum der Stadt Köln, 31. Mai - 26. Okt. 2008]. - Potsdam : Arcus, 2008. - ISBN : 978-3-940793-27-0. - 290 p.

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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Aldred ... talatat from Hermopolis depicting Kiya and her daughter worshiping the Aten alongside Akhenaten and his two elder surviving daughters (who are given precedence). Neither princess is wearing a queenly crown - militating against Meritaten being crowned by her father - and there is no trace of Nefertiti, or for that matter Smenkhkara as co-regent. ...

I have all more extensive publications about the Talatat-find-complexes in my library:

John D. Cooney : Amarna Reliefs from Hermopolis in American collections - The Brooklyn Museum (Mainz a.Rh. : von Zabern, 1963)

Günther Roeder : Amarna Reliefs aus Hermopolis - Ausgrabungen d. Dt. Hermopolis-Expedition in Hermopolis 1929 - 1939, Band II (Hildesheim : Gerstenberg, 1969)

Rainer Hanke : Amarna Reliefs aus Hermopolis - Neue Veröffentlichungen und Studien (Hildesheim : Gerstenberg, 1978)

Jocelyn Gohary : Akhenaten's Sed-festival at Karnak (London : Kegan Paul, 1992)

Robert Vergnieux / Michel Gondran : Aménophis IV et les pierres du soleil - Akhénaton retrouvé (Paris : Arthaud, 1997).

In none of these publications emerge Talatat as described by Aldred. Next to the description comes a reconstructed stela from Heliopolis, described by Labib Habachi : Akhenaten in Heliopolis. - In: Beiträge z. ägypt. Bauforschung - FS Ricke. - Wiesbaden, 1971. However I do not see a cause identifying Kija here somewhere on this stela. Probably, as so often, a pure "Aldred - Interpretation"?

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: Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
Did Nefertiti get a Maru Aten of her own? For all we know yes. ...

Here there is probably a misunderstanding. "Maru - Aton" is a garden district in the south of the city. It consisted of two districts with wall. The smaller was 100 x 60 m large. Over this one there was entry into the second, about twice as large, district. The royal dwellings in the larger part of the plant offered approx. 60 square meters of floor space. Additionally there were various smaller pavillions and a lake in the middle on the area. The "Maru - Aton" was obviously a private retreat place for the royal family, which looked for recovery and relaxation here.


The kind of private lace where a more intimate name might be inscribed? Hypthetically, the 'intimate' Kita could be inscribed on a sunshade instyead of the more formal "Nefertiti" perhaps? Idea


Lutz wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
... The original owner of the North palace has not been identified. Formerly assumed to be Nefertiti Kiya has also been suggested. ...


The original owner was the king. He and his family lived there. It was one of several domiciles of the king and its family in Amarna. See for that Christian Tietze (Ed.) [with contributions by Erik Hornung, and others] : Amarna. Lebensräume - Lebensbilder - Weltbilder. - [Echnaton und Amarna, Wohnen im Diesseits. Ausstellung im Römisch-Germanisches Museum der Stadt Köln, 31. Mai - 26. Okt. 2008]. - Potsdam : Arcus, 2008. - ISBN : 978-3-940793-27-0. - 290 p.

Lutz


Makes perfect sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
Or as Lutz holds the coffin may have been made for Akhenaten and Smen placed in it after the king's body was destroyed and his own coffin taken for Tut.


Did Lutz really suggest that somewhere? Shocked

No, he did not. He mentioned only several times that the coffin from KV 55 originally was made for Akhenaton, how the Munich investigation shows.

Meretseger wrote:
On the other hand the inscriptions on the second coffin seem to indicate it was intended for Pharaoh Neferneferuaten ...

Proofs, please.

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: Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
Aldred ... talatat from Hermopolis depicting Kiya and her daughter worshiping the Aten alongside Akhenaten and his two elder surviving daughters (who are given precedence). Neither princess is wearing a queenly crown - militating against Meritaten being crowned by her father - and there is no trace of Nefertiti, or for that matter Smenkhkara as co-regent. ...


I have all more extensive publications about the Talatat-find-complexes in my library:

John D. Cooney : Amarna Reliefs from Hermopolis in American collections - The Brooklyn Museum (Mainz a.Rh. : von Zabern, 1963)

Günther Roeder : Amarna Reliefs aus Hermopolis - Ausgrabungen d. Dt. Hermopolis-Expedition in Hermopolis 1929 - 1939, Band II (Hildesheim : Gerstenberg, 1969)

Rainer Hanke : Amarna Reliefs aus Hermopolis - Neue Veröffentlichungen und Studien (Hildesheim : Gerstenberg, 1978)

Jocelyn Gohary : Akhenaten's Sed-festival at Karnak (London : Kegan Paul, 1992)

Robert Vergnieux / Michel Gondran : Aménophis IV et les pierres du soleil - Akhénaton retrouvé (Paris : Arthaud, 1997).

In none of these publications emerge Talatat as described by Aldred. Next to the description comes a reconstructed stela from Heliopolis, described by Labib Habachi : Akhenaten in Heliopolis. - In: Beiträge z. ägypt. Bauforschung - FS Ricke. - Wiesbaden, 1971. However I do not see a cause identifying Kija here somewhere on this stela. Probably, as so often, a pure "Aldred - Interpretation"?

Lutz


Thanks again Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
Or as Lutz holds the coffin may have been made for Akhenaten and Smen placed in it after the king's body was destroyed and his own coffin taken for Tut.


Did Lutz really suggest that somewhere? Shocked

No, he did not. He mentioned only several times that the coffin from KV 55 originally was made for Akhenaton, how the Munich investigation shows.


Lutz wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
On the other hand the inscriptions on the second coffin seem to indicate it was intended for Pharaoh Neferneferuaten ...

Proofs, please.

Lutz


Gotta admit, Meretseger, I would like some proofs too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
Orwell wrote:

Meretseger wrote:
The buriers and reburiers of the dead of KV55 seem to have played a regular game of musical coffins with the bodies.


That proposition seems very dubious to me. Didn't the ancient tomb worker people 'honour' the dead?


I would not be surprised at all if they played a bit of "musical coffins".
They definitely did in the later period when the caches were established in KV 35 and DB 320. ...

I do not think that these procedures are really compareable. At the transferring of the Amarna funerals to another bed people were busily those the persons them transported still knew as living persons. Also the number of royal bodies transferred does not correspond probably at all with the number which the priests of the 21. Dynasty had to master. Thus the danger of a confounding is nevertheless very many smaller than in the case of the cachette in Der el-Bahari (DB 320), probably in several steps developed. The labels on the coffins and mummies occupy a true odyssey from hiding place to hiding place of the individual bodies.

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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
... So for KV 55 all we can say is that the mummy was likely reburied (the rewrapping indicates that to me) ...

There is no advice for "rewrapping" of the body from KV 55. The Maspero citation you gave somewhere here is not enough. None further of the eye-witness mentions something similar, the strong water ingress might the impression logically have falsified.

Greatings, 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: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
I do not think that these procedures are really compareable. At the transferring of the Amarna funerals to another bed people were busily those the persons them transported still knew as living persons. Also the number of royal bodies transferred does not correspond probably at all with the number which the priests of the 21. Dynasty had to master. Thus the danger of a confounding is nevertheless very many smaller than in the case of the cachette in Der el-Bahari (DB 320), probably in several steps developed. The labels on the coffins and mummies occupy a true odyssey from hiding place to hiding place of the individual bodies.


I can't but agree. I can't think why Akhenaten would be removed and replaced with another mummy.

And why move an empty coffin from Amarna to the Valley of the Kings?

And if it was already empty, it's still a stretch to think another mummy would be put in the coffin. If so, why an 'ephemeral' Pharaoh?

The simplest answer as I see it, and which seems to perfectly fit with other evidence from the tomb, is that Akhenaten was the mummy found. The aging thing is still the only potential spammer in the works, but this assertion is by no means beyond question, irrespective of what Smehkhare advocates suggest.

Also, I feel the only certain thing that can be confidently attested about 'Smenhkhare' is that we have a name, possibly associated with both Akhenaten and Meritaten, but anything 'known' (?) beyond that in regard to his 'life and times' appears to be purely a construct of people's imaginations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
anneke wrote:
... So for KV 55 all we can say is that the mummy was likely reburied (the rewrapping indicates that to me) ...

There is no advice for "rewrapping" of the body from KV 55. The Maspero citation you gave somewhere here is not enough. None further of the eye-witness mentions something similar, the strong water ingress might the impression logically have falsified.

Greatings, Lutz.


I think I read somewhere that there were some 'bands' or something similar, inscribed with Akhenaten's name, found in the wrappings, but have since been lost. Am I imagining this? I might need to grab my books out, I think. Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
"... KV 62 ... Tutanchamun ... he does have funerary equipment made for smenkhkare, and nefneferuaten. ...

Again, the name "Semenkh-ka-Ra" does not emerge in KV 62.

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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
I think I read somewhere that there were some 'bands' or something similar, inscribed with Akhenaten's name, found in the wrappings, but have since been lost. Am I imagining this? I might need to grab my books out, I think. Idea

See for the so called mummy-bands also the web page by Max Miller. He gives a good overview about the story. It is not clear if they ever existed ...

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 9 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