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 

Horemheb
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Segereh wrote:

In fact, the closest thing we've got to royal coffins before Tutanchamon and after the 17th dynasty are those of Yuya, Tuya and the one of KV55, said to be Achnaton's. Not really representative, I'd think, so it wouldn't exclude the pre-Amarna age for a source of both coffins.


And Yuya and Tuya weren't really royals. Their coffins probably represent what the high nobility was buried in.

I looked at my Tombs Treasures and Mummies again.
It gives a coffin used for the reburial of the mummy thought to be Thutmosis I. The coffin is thought to have been made for Thutmosis I.
Looks absolutely nothing like the one found with Ramses II.

The coffin housing Thutmosis III was original to the king., but it has been hacked all over to remove the gold. Still stylistically doesn't seem to look like the RII coffin.

There's a cedarwood coffin of Seti I. This one is totally different. Much bulkier.

In the book the author (D.Forbes) states that on stylistic grounds the coffin with Ramses II can be dated to the end of the 18th dynasty, and that it was likely part of the funerary furnishings of either Aye or Horemheb.
Those of Aye seem to have been more damaged than those of Horemheb.
So I would put my bet on it belonging to Horemheb. Very Happy
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
And Yuya and Tuya weren't really royals. Their coffins probably represent what the high nobility was buried in.

Exactly my point: there are little to no remainders of actual royal coffins.

anneke wrote:
I looked at my Tombs Treasures and Mummies again.
It gives a coffin used for the reburial of the mummy thought to be Thutmosis I. The coffin is thought to have been made for Thutmosis I.
Looks absolutely nothing like the one found with Ramses II.

There's a big difference between early and later 18th dynasty artwork.
From the time of (surely) Thutmose III we can see evidence of pre-Amarna art.
By that I mean "delicate" artwork, closer and closer to "perfection".
This comes to a peak during the reign of Amenhotep III.

To give an example, I'm referring to a royal coffin, though not from a king. This gigantic coffin contained the body of the wife of Amenophis II, queen Meritamen, daughter of Thutmose III. Her tomb was robbed and restored in antiquity: the eyes are not original and the missing inlays of semi-precious stones and glass paste have been painted in.

"It is, however, not the spectacular size, nor the value of the materials, nor the perfection of the cabinet maker's technique that makes this coffin so unusual, but the vitality of the face, in which the surfaces are modulated so as to create a continuous passage from plane to plane. An examination of the mummy proved that this is not a portrait of the Queen. Rather, a search for a tranquil physical beauty coincided here with traditional craftmanship."

That's what I understand as "pre-Amarna art".
The forms are subtle, soft, sofisticated.
Not alike earlier 17th and 18th dynasty (mortuary) art at all.
This goes for the non-royal coffins of Yuya and Tuya as well - be it more robust.



anneke wrote:
The coffin housing Thutmosis III was original to the king., but it has been hacked all over to remove the gold. Still stylistically doesn't seem to look like the RII coffin.

Haven't been able to find a picture of it. Couldn't argue with you. Confused
Still it's before the reign of Amenhotep III, even before Meritamen.

Quote:
There's a cedarwood coffin of Seti I. This one is totally different. Much bulkier.

I agree 19th dynasty artefacts seem a hell of a lot different than 18th dynasty's.
Harder, "back to ancient times" so to say. I'm with you on dating the RII coffin before all of this.

anneke wrote:
In the book the author (D.Forbes) states that on stylistic grounds the coffin with Ramses II can be dated to the end of the 18th dynasty, and that it was likely part of the funerary furnishings of either Aye or Horemheb. Those of Aye seem to have been more damaged than those of Horemheb. So I would put my bet on it belonging to Horemheb. Very Happy

The problem with that is that RII's coffin is clearly unfinished.
You could tell a lot for dating it by the ornaments that were used.
The post-Amarna age seems fit indeed for the origins: Aye, Horemheb or Ramses I.
But still: to be annoying...

The second coffin of Tut, the pic I showed before. It does look similar... And it surely wasn't Tut's coffin to begin with: stylistically very obvious. This would date this particular coffin before post-Amarna age. Regarding not much has actually changed on the coffin - the uraeus is made of gilded wood, pointing out that the coffin was cut in one time, without later royal 'attachments' - this coffin was made for a king, be it not for Tutankhamen (I'm having difficulties not to put too much in italic here). You can't really argue that: the coffin's made for somebody significantly older - the artwork is too naturalistic to disregard the age of the portrayed person - and for a king. Before Tutankhamen. So even when it's possible the coffin of Ramses II was first made in post-Amarna days, it's equally possible to date it to a sooner era, when similar pieces of mortuary art are known to have existed: this second coffin of Tut. Surely when the last retrieved royal coffin dated from the days of Thutmose III. This leaves a gap for Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep III, even Akhenaten and Smenchkare. Except for the KV55 coffin, presumably belonging to one of the last two kings I mentioned, we have absolutely nothing of certainty involving the origins of royal coffins of this era if any would even have been found. Makes u wonder from who Tut consciously borrowed his coffin. His father? His grandfather? To make things short though: I definitely don't consider it a giant leap of faith dating the coffin used for Ramses II to an earlier age.
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That coffin of Meritamen is absolutely gorgeous btw.

You mentioned that the face on Tut's and this coffin look much older. That's actually exactly what went through my mind when I saw them. Also saw an early statue of Akhenaten, and the face is really very, very similar.
(The guy depicted does look haughty doesn't he Laughing )
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
That coffin of Meritamen is absolutely gorgeous btw.

Everytime I see it, it's "in the shade" like this.
Really beautiful. I wonder where it's exposed.

anneke wrote:
You mentioned that the face on Tut's and this coffin look much older. That's actually exactly what went through my mind when I saw them. Also saw an early statue of Akhenaten, and the face is really very, very similar.
(The guy depicted does look haughty doesn't he Laughing )

"Haughty"... thanks for training my English. Wink
I was thinking the same, with the "nasolabial" lines.
It's really realistic and reminds me a bit of the Amenemhat-statues.
It's surely not as dark and from the same time though. Smile

It can't be older than the era between Thutmose III and Tutankhamen himself. Got me to wonder: would he actually have taken the coffin of a close relative? In essence: someone who would've died pretty recently? For instance, if it was originally made for Amenhotep III or Akhenaten: would he have used it? That sounds a bit weird, no? The 18th dynasty itself is not really known for the robbing of tombs. Highly unlikely a used coffin would've been "recycled" so soon. So it would make more sense if it was originally a "draft" for one of those two kings or indeed one of an earlier king.

If that all is correct, there are only two options actually: either it was a used coffin from one of the "heretic kings" - being Akhenaten or Smenchkare (there wouldn't be a lot of resistance against that I guess) - or it was a mainly finished but never before used coffin of one of the royals preceeding Tut. In the last case: at least 5 kings come close to being the original owners.
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He whom you will adress to as "God" from now on wrote:
If that all is correct, there are only two options actually: either it was a used coffin from one of the "heretic kings" - being Akhenaten or Smenchkare (there wouldn't be a lot of resistance against that I guess) - or it was a mainly finished but never before used coffin of one of the royals preceeding Tut. In the last case: at least 5 kings come close to being the original owners.

The coffin originally being Akh's or Smench's would be quite radical but not impossible. There surely can be said as much in favor for it as there can be said against it. I'll focus on the 3 remaining kings of these 5 kings preceding Tut though - will be a nice brainstorm. I'm using "5 kings" by the way because of what annie said about the coffin of Thutmose III.

So you have Amenhotep II - Thutmose IV - Amenhotep III before Akh & Smench.
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Amenhotep II: his mummy was found inside his own sarcophagus in his own tomb in the Valley of Kings. That tomb was made to be a deposit room of different royal mummies, as said in some previous threads. I won't go into that. If we consider the mummy to be that of Amenhotep II, the king was 1m67 tall (at least mummified - I don't know if they euhm... shrunk). Taller than his father (Thutmose III, 1m61) and his son (Thutmose IV, 1m64). I'm actually just saying this to state how every average Egyptian would've fit inside Tut's second coffin: 2m04. Wink

More about his mummy on http://enlil.lib.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/eos/eos_page.pl?DPI=100&callnum=DT57.C2_vol59&object=43

Amenhotep II was found in a replacement cartonnage coffin which had been inscribed for him. I can't else but feel like this coffin is from a later date though, like 21th dynasty. It's just too "amateuristic" for the high-days of the Egyptian New Kingdom (the nemes-crown isn't even symmetric). Could this have been the rightful owner of Tut's second coffin? The mummy is said to have been one of an aged man, which accords to his length of rule (he's often given a 25-26 years of reign). The way in which he gets depicted is a big minus for ascribing the coffin to him though. Never have I seen this strict, rather condescending look on the face of one of his statues and images. On the contrary, with little exceptions Amenhotep II is shown with a round, full face, almost a babyface. He still leans closer to the early age of the 18th dynasty than to the later high-days of pre-Amarna art. I don't consider it very probable the coffin was (ever) made for him.


_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Segereh wrote:

....... Got me to wonder: would he actually have taken the coffin of a close relative? In essence: someone who would've died pretty recently? For instance, if it was originally made for Amenhotep III or Akhenaten: would he have used it? That sounds a bit weird, no? The 18th dynasty itself is not really known for the robbing of tombs. Highly unlikely a used coffin would've been "recycled" so soon. So it would make more sense if it was originally a "draft" for one of those two kings or indeed one of an earlier king.


This goes back to something I have wondered about ever since I read about the "re-assigned" items from Tut's tomb and KV55.
How did they go about making funerary equipment?

There must have been some royal workshop, no? Would they make generic type coffins, sarcophagi, and other items? Only to be individualized when a burial took place?
It just seems unlikely that they would only make the equipment in the 70 days of embalming. That seems a bit short for all the work they had to do.

If this is true, then you would get some storeroom with coffins, canopic jars, ushabtis, etc.
But then again I'm not aware of unfinished items ever being found. Unless you count the coffin of Ramses II that is.....
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
There must have been some royal workshop, no? Would they make generic type coffins, sarcophagi, and other items? Only to be individualized when a burial took place? It just seems unlikely that they would only make the equipment in the 70 days of embalming. That seems a bit short for all the work they had to do.

Same thoughts here, but I'd never think of it as "mass-production".
Every king has his own specific characteristics, making it possible to ID em.
I'm pretty convinced that this was applied to the (long gone) mortuary art as well.
Surely from the Thutmosid period on.

anneke wrote:
If this is true, then you would get some storeroom with coffins, canopic jars, ushabtis, etc. But then again I'm not aware of unfinished items ever being found. Unless you count the coffin of Ramses II that is.....

Same here, unfinished stuff doesn't seem to be abundant.
I'll look into it, but I'm still busy on "checking kings". Wink
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thutmose IV: his mummy was also found in KV35 along with eight other royal mummies. The king died young and the wasted condition of his body has led to speculation that he may have suffered from an (unknown) illness which eventually took his life. Tuthmose IV had been rewrapped in his original bandages and given a new shroud with a docket on the chest area (inscribed with a hieratic form of his throne-name Men-Cheperu-Re). Nicholas Reeves states that Tuthmose IV was found on a white painted plank, placed in his coffin. This coffin (again) was a replacement coffin, covered with a layer of plaster concealing any original decoration (for its previous owner). It had then been re-inscribed for Tuthmose IV with hieroglyphs in a column down the front.



I've added a comparison between (the lesser known side view of) the mummy of Thutmose IV and a limestone relief sketch found at Karnak with a gaunt Thutmose IV. Even though this mummy has recently been proposed to be the possible remains of his son Amenhotep III, I don't think of that to be very likely. Surely not regarding the growing naturalism in Egyptian art during the reign of Amenhotep III, clearly depicting the latter as being obese in his later years.



I'll try to find an undisputed 3D image of the king, to see if these thin, "TBCed" characteristics come forth in other pieces of art. It does make him a little more likely to be a previous owner of the (then still draft?) coffin, later on used by Tut (who could well have been his great-grandson). Although there's a definite difference between "young and wasted" and "aged and chagrined"...
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Segereh wrote:
I'll try to find an undisputed 3D image of the king, to see if these thin, "TBCed" characteristics come forth in other pieces of art. It does make him a little more likely to be a previous owner of the (then still draft?) coffin, later on used by Tut (who could well have been his great-grandson). Although there's a definite difference between "young and wasted" and "aged and chagrined"...

The tomb's drawings aren't a help here: typical arche-typical.
Except from the picture I showed, I can't find much of any depictions.
Leave alone a decent statue...

On TMP I've read that "the tomb of Thutmose IV, KV43, was unfinished at the time of his death". This could give rise to thinking that the entire content of the tomb wasn't finished as well. Hence, an unfinished coffin, later on used by Tutankhamen, becomes possible. But then Logic steps in. I'm actually thinking here about what you have said earlier, annie. It wouldn't be fit to see a king die unexpectedly and then coming to the conclusion of "woops, we've got nothing to bury him with". Not to be disrespectful. Having a certain "stock" at hand would've been quite normal. So the tomb being unfinished and Thutmose IV being "tarred out" are surely not enough arguments for the coffin originally being his. I doubt u could actually retrieve the reason why a specific work of art would not have been finished, but that's not really what I'm trying to dig in to. In trying to find out whose coffin this really was, I think I can leave out Amenhotep II for sure now. And Thutmose IV sounds very nice, but there's just too much uncertainty.
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So that would leave Amenhotep III, Akhenaten and Smenchkare...
Pretty much the guys with the most controversial mummies ever...
Crap.
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Segereh wrote:
It wouldn't be fit to see a king die unexpectedly and then coming to the conclusion of "woops, we've got nothing to bury him with". Not to be disrespectful. Having a certain "stock" at hand would've been quite normal.

I was referring to the possibility of Tut's second coffin being a finished piece of art, designed but not used for another king. Why I didn't write it there, I surely don't know. Smile

Segereh wrote:
So the tomb being unfinished and Thutmose IV being "tarred out" are surely not enough arguments for the coffin originally being his.

Because, obviously, being only indirect reasons. Smile
Brainstorming is nice, but you tend to get stuck in your own thoughts.
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nejemib
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Posts: 17
Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 10:09 pm    Post subject: coffin Reply with quote

Quote:
The problem with that is that RII's coffin is clearly unfinished.

I actually don't think that the coffin used for RII is unfinished...it was actually stripped of the gold and gesso that covered it...as were many of the other royal items during the restoration and reburial of the royal mummies. It seems that, while the reburial of previous kings was considered sacred, the gold and other costly material that compromised their original burials were recycled into the current royal treasuries. I guess it is possible that the wooden coffin that contained R II might have looked much closer to the middle coffin of Tutankhamun when it was in its original state.

~Russell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I looked it up, and you're right.

It says:
"At one time gessoed and gilded & possibly inlaid, all of the original surface was neatly scraped from both lid & through in antiquity.
Traces of yellow paint are visible & details of bracelets etc are picked out in black pigment. Because of their inferior workmanship, it is probable that the uraeus& crook & flail elements are 21st dynasty replacements of the originals"

So, you think the gold was scraped off by the officials and reused for later royal burials?
The gold has been removed very carefully. It shows none of the signs of destruction of some of the other coffins that were clearly looted by robbers.

Like your stern (some would say scary) looking avatar btw Cool
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Following that, you could conclude (be it a little premature, but still brainstorming here) that there was no such thing as "pre-emptive manifacturing" of royal mortuary art? Would that be close? I'm just saying that in that case the coffins that were alien to Ramses II and Tut for instance would've come from previous kings - then actually using them. Would this not be very semi-sacriligeous in Tut's case? If the coffins were finished, they would have been used by their first owners. By re-using one of those in the case of Tut, there can't really have been a timespan larger than that of his immediate three predecessors. That sounds very much against our common belief of the Egyptian taking care of a person's eternal rest, no? To actually get a coffin out of a tomb, not long ago installed...
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail 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  Next
Page 4 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