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 

Is this the skull of Smenkhkare or Akhenaten?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BobManske
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 350

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
[
Maybe I should not share my theory that Tut was first thrown down a flight of stairs by Ankhesenamen, then stabbed by Horemheb and finally run over by a chariot driven by Aye, and that all this happened after the poison his deranged butler administered the night before did not seem to work?



Really?

-Anneke,
That makes so much sense! Yes, it must be true! Now, if only we could find out the name of the butler...

Ramses the elder ... perhaps? Operating as a precursor Rasputin?

Oh, my. A whole new area of unresearch has opened up!

Bob
_________________
In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
- Douglas Adams

Good bye, Doug, thanks a lot, and you're welcome for all the fish. Stop by our way again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
surfshadow
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice theory! though i do not think it happened!! Laughing LOL
_________________
[miw sher forever.png]http://hieroglyphs.net/000501/cgi/name.pl[/miw sher forever.png]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
Maybe I should not share my theory that Tut was first thrown down a flight of stairs by Ankhesenamen, then stabbed by Horemheb and finally run over by a chariot driven by Aye, and that all this happened after the poison his deranged butler administered the night before did not seem to work?

You forgot to mention any aliens, but for the rest: sounds credible enough.
Put a copyright on your theory, anneke, before ******** *. steals it! Cool
_________________
"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: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LOL I have thought about opening up a thread under general where we can spin our own wacky theories. Just for the fun of it. There are a lot of creative people here. I bet there would be some hilarious "theories" we could come up with.

Scary part is that someone would probably take it out of context and these fictitious stories could start leading a life of their own. Very Happy
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
surfshadow
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You should! It would be hilarious!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You'd get my support as well, anneke. Twisted Evil
_________________
"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
The Green Man
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 28
Location: Sheffield, United Kingdom

PostPosted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Getting back to the theme of this thread, I seem to recall reading somewhere that some mutilated mummy remains (possibly burnt) were found close to the Armana royal tomb. This is something which never seems to garner much discussion (the remains are apparently now lost anyway).

As far as the mummy from KV55 is concerned, I would lean towards it being Smenkhare although I wonder if we will ever get a definitive answer now?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4084
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Green Man wrote:
... I seem to recall reading somewhere that some mutilated mummy remains (possibly burnt) were found close to the Armana royal tomb. This is something which never seems to garner much discussion (the remains are apparently now lost anyway). ...


Martin, Geoffrey T.: The royal tomb at El Amarna / 1 ; The Objects. - London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1974. - Human remains - p. 36 - 37 :





Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
The Green Man
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 28
Location: Sheffield, United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's really intriuging - thanks for posting! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seshat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 132

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

-I think Reeve's point in his JEA article in 1988 (too lazy to go find citation) is that this HAS to be Akhenaten because of the destruction of the coffin and the canopic jars indicate that the crew who broke into the tomb in the reign of Rameses IX thought it was Akhenaten.
In the second edition of The Tomb of Queen Tiyi, Reeves again puts forward Akhenaten citing that the skull of the mummy was partially smashed (perhaps deliberately), and the defacement of the mummy, the ripping away of the mouth and nose so that the deceased lost the ability to breathe and partake of offerings, as well as the removal of names was a fate that was tantamount to torturing the occupant.
We also need to keep in mind that the third intrusion into the tomb, mentioned above, was a state operation. The workers in the tomb of Rameses IX were working for the state and were not tomb robbers. I'm not sure that people on official business would have destroyed the mummy like common thugs.
The question that needs to be asked, is whether the intruders would have been this vindictive if they had thought that the occupant was Smenkhare, and the answer to that question is no. Reeves quite rightly I think, comes to the conclusion that the intruders in the reign of Rameses IX thought the coffin contained Akhenaten.
That the coffin would be inscribed for Akhenaten, be defaced because excavators under Rameses IX thought it was Akhenaten, and actually contain Smenkhare requires too many leaps of shaky logic to be, for me, a valid conclusion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seshat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 132

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh man. I need to get a copy of that book, btw.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i dont agree. reeves is foremost in amarna, but doesnt make his theory right.

would the egyptians under ramses IX have known who akhenaten was?
especially since ramses II took the time to destroy the city, and all memory of the criminal of aketaten?

it doesnt add to be akhenaten. for starters people cant agree with the age.
the blood type is the same as tutankhamun, which means it is aclose relative, mostly brother or father.

no one has tried dna testing yet. and there are objects from lots of amarna members in the tomb, doesnt mean coz the mummy is male and akhenatens name turns up most that its him.

for all we know, he was buried in a woman's coffin, and the egyptins forgot to erase the name and a new one. workers broke in after the tomb was sealed, recently after, and thought it was someone like nefertiti.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gerard.
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 492
Location: France

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
would the egyptians under ramses IX have known who akhenaten was? especially since ramses II took the time to destroy the city, and all memory of the criminal of aketaten?

Ramses II borrowed stones from Amarna, people who need parts and the weather finished the job. Ramses II did not included Akhenaten and many others in his kingly lists, but AFAIK that's all he did. The sentence with "criminal/Fallen one" on Mes' tomb could be a pun. The bloundary stelea of Amarna still bear pictures and names of Akhenaten.
Who knew what about Akhenaten is open for discussion. Those who were not invited at Amarna could have transmitted their hate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seshat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 132

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that it's reasonable to assume that Akhenaten would have been remembered in some form of cultural memory, at the very least as a folk-legend like Paul Bunyan or even Dracula. Would these people have remembered Smenkhare, probably not. My guess is that like Dracula being a combination of Vlad Teppes, Elizabeth of Bathory, and several other really brutal eastern European leaders, all the kings of that period would have been clumped into one Really Bad Bogeyman.
This is just idle conjecture, btw. But it makes a certain amount of sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seshat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 132

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Part of the fun of this one is that barring future discovery of the tomb of Smenkhare or the reburial of Akhenaten, we may never know. (But then again, it was conjectured at the time of discovery of tomb 55 that the mummy was Tutankhamun!)
DNA testing probably won't work in this case--dessicated tissue yields very little DNA, as do bones. The dessication process leads to breakdown of DNA molecules. Even if they could manage to get a halfway decent sample, what would they test it against?
The identity of the cached mummy of Amenhetep III has been called into question because his skull structure is nothing like that of the other 18th dynasty kings--he's got a pretty Rammeside cranial shape. It was thought that the Elder Lady was Tiye for a long time, but even that has been called into question lately. She's the only person for which a valid comparison could be made with mitochondrial DNA as it comes from the mother. Even then, I people are still going to argue Smenkhare's case because the "younger brother of Akhenaten" theory will come back into play.
In short, what is needed to solve this mystery is the burial of One of Akhenaten's daughters or wives. We could then triangulate the position of the mummy within the family tree via DNA, but until then, the usefulness of DNA in this case at all is questionable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
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