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 

baketaten
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
... However as I have made clear I am not comfortable with the special pleading necessary to make the KV55 remains of a suitable age for Akhenaten which in turn indicates a more complex story. Possibly a deliberate strategy on the part of Queen Tiye to create an alternate line of succession by marrying her youngest son to her youngest daughter?


Would Akhenaten have stood by and allowed that to happen while he was alive? Wouldn't it have been more in his interests to marry the gal himself and try to beget a son? Didn't sidters and daughters generally get absorbed into the King's harem? Or did they blithely parcel out thir Royal Sisters to their younger brothers? Not impossible - nothing is - but it doesn't wash somehow. Not hile he was alive anyhow.


Well, I'm not Lutz, but am replying anyway...

Akhenaten likely had no power to do anything as to whom his younger brother (assuming this is KV 55) married, or whether his sister was that bride, assuming that Tiye arranged such a marriage. The /mwt nsw/ (mother of the king) could in many ways override a present son-king's desire, for as matriarch of the family line, she has incredible ritual and social power in determining the course of the royal line (on this, see Troy 1986).

King's daughters (or in this case, sisters of the king) are usually more associated with their sire than their brothers, and at least 2 of Akhenaten's sisters (Sitamun and Isis) became Amenhotep III's wives. So, the provision for their well-being would be the responsibility of the elder king, and most likely not that of his successor-son. The younger king would assure that food and provisions got to these women from the father's estate, but in all, these women (Tiye, Isis, Sitamun, and all other daughters) were the father's responsibility.

As to Meretseger's assumption that perhaps Tiye was creating an "alternate royal line" in order to conceive a male, this would not be unlikely.

Recall that Hatshepsut was married to Thutmose II, but only gave him a daughter (Neferure); it was his union with his concubine Isis that gave the king his only son, Thutmose III.

However, upon Thutmose II's death, it was Hatshepsut who became Thutmose III's interregnum regent (in Egypt, a queen who rules for the male heir until the age of majority when he can assume the throne as king). While such a regent, Hatshepsut decided that, of the two of them, she had more right to the throne, and through at least two separate stories (one being that her father had actually named her pharaoh, and the later one (we think) that Amun had actually conceived her - not Thutmose I - in order to put his own blood on the throne), Hatshepsut took the throne of Egypt. This "divine birth cycle story" effectively trumped Thutmose III's claim to the throne.

We now think (in the Egyptology field) that as Thutmose III became older, he co-ruled with Hatshepsut, and eventually she either a) died, or b) stepped down from the throne in his favour, leaving him as sole ruler. The latter seems a more likely possibility, due to Thutmose III's claim on a monument that he was "chosen" to become king by Amun's statue bowing before him during a very public religious festival in Thebes (perhaps the Opet festival? I can't recall at the moment). With such a claim shown publicly, Hatshepsut would have almost had no choice but to step down.

During her reign as pharaoh, Hatshepsut herself tried to create an "alternate" royal line of succession, mainly by making her daughter (Neferure) her chief royal wife, which effectively shut Thutmose III out of the inheritance line.

As we have no evidence that Neferure was ever married to Thutmose III (as was once thought), one has to think that perhaps, as pharaoh, Hatshepsut, through some China, was either to a) have children somehow while king with his queen, and claim these children were the product of their royal marriage, creating a new dynastic heir line, or b) she was setting up her daughter Neferure in a position to succeed her as pharaoh to the throne, again effectively shutting Thutmose III out of the line of succession.

As this did not occur, one has to wonder if the "bowing Amun story" of Thutmose III was his way of disrupting his stepmother's plans, or whether Neferure somehow left the picture (through death), which disrupted Hatshepsut's plans, and Thutmose III took advantage of the opportunity this created by creating the "bowign Amun story," effecting a coup d'etat on Hatshepsut.

My point in relaying this story is that as the male heir to the throne (Thutmose III) was effectively powerless to halt his (step)-mother's plans - in elevating herself to pharaoh, to marrying her own daughter, which essentially shifted him outside the family line. This was because - as "mother of the king" (in her position as interregnum regent), her power to rule and make decisions was absolute, and as such, she could effectively make decisions about the destiny of the dynastic line, even if they didn't include Thutmose III.

So, if Tiye was seeing that Akhenaten - her ruler son - was not conceiving sons with his favoured wives (Nefertiti, Kiya, and perhaps Ipy(?)), then she may have, in order to preserve the Thutmosid line, arranged the marriage of one of her daughters with a younger son (of whom we know very little, but for purpose of this argument, we will say is KV 55, and perhaps held the name of Smenkhare).

This arranged marriage would not have created a "rival" kingship to Akhenaten's rule - Akhenaten was an accessioned king before the people - but the marriage would have done two things: a) create a male heir presumpt position, should anything happen to Akhenaten before conceiving a son, and b) assure there would be future Thutmosid generations, by having this son and daughter produce male children outside the immediate royal family, so that these sons could step in and rule after the death of Akhenaten (and their father, in theory), should Akhenaten never conceive a son.

If we look at the actual pace of events, this does appear to be what actually occurred.

The only thing which occurred outside of this plan was the brief (perhaps 2-3 year) rule of "King Neferneferuaten", which is now accepted to be a female associated with Akhenaten (most likely a daughter (Allen 1994 and 2009)). As to the order - whether "King Neferneferuaten" ruled first or after Smenkhare, there is some debate.

But the end result - a son of KV 55 as Pharaoh - in other words, Tutankh(u)aten/Tutanhkamun - is what happened, assuring for one more generation that the Thutmosid line existed. Sadly, no male children were born to Tutankhamun and his queen (Ankhsenpaaten/Ankhsenamun), so with this king's death, the Thutmosid line effectively ended.

References:

Allen, J. P. 1994. Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re. Göttinger Miszellen 141: 7-17.

Allen, J. P. 2009. The Amarna Succession. In P. Brand and L. Cooper, Eds., Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Volume 37. Leiden: Brill. (Online PDF)

Troy, L. 1986. Patterns of Queenship: in ancient Egyptian myth and history. BOREAS 14. Uppsala: ACTA Universitatis Upsaliensis.
_________________
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
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lots to mull over, neseret (and thanks!)

neseret said: So, if Tiye was seeing that Akhenaten - her ruler son - was not conceiving sons with his favoured wives (Nefertiti, Kiya, and perhaps Ipy(?)), then she may have, in order to preserve the Thutmosid line, arranged the marriage of one of her daughters with a younger son (of whom we know very little, but for purpose of this argument, we will say is KV 55, and perhaps held the name of Smenkhare).

This arranged marriage would not have created a "rival" kingship to Akhenaten's rule - Akhenaten was an accessioned king before the people - but the marriage would have done two things: a) create a male heir presumpt position, should anything happen to Akhenaten before conceiving a son, and b) assure there would be future Thutmosid generations, by having this son and daughter produce male children outside the immediate royal family, so that these sons could step in and rule after the death of Akhenaten (and their father, in theory), should Akhenaten never conceive a son.


So you're saying Akhenaten and Nefertiti (who may be this female King you allude to, who knows?) were happy to sit idly by while Tiye organized a New Line of her own choosing?

Wouldn't Akhenaten (an adult by now, having had several female children) be so compliant to his Mum, what with Nefertiti whispering in his ear as well?

It might have been the case, but it seems your speculation, on the surface at least, is more speculative than my speculation.

I think mine marries up better with what knowledge we have about All Powerful Ancient Kings.

And Nefertiti would have have had as much (or more?) say as a Former Queen, surely?

Also, it's easier to believe in "Akhenaten" and "Baketaten" than it is to believe in an 'invisible' 'heir-progenating' King, isn't it? Idea

I'm not sure 'progenating' is a word, but you know what I mean. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

smenkhkare most defienntly existed. he was married to akhenaten's daughter meritaten. now what neseret had posted, is considered to be the foremost theory on the amarna period right now. it may not make sense just yet, but the DNA results did clear up some of the mystery of the amarna period. for once, a general outline of the end of the dynasty is clear.

it appears that akhenaten had no sons. his wives, mother and a few daughters predeaceasing him. he is succeeded by his brother smenkhkare, who is married to his niece, meritaten. he has had a son tutankhamun by a sister. smenkhkare dies after a brief reign, and meritaten assumes the throne- as co regent of pharaoh is unclear- as neferneferuaten. she rules for around 3 years, and is succeeded by tutankhamun, who dies childless. certainly by tutankhamun's reign, ankhesenamun is the only daughter of akhenaten alive. the other sisters vanish from history, presumed dead.

of course there are a few who does not like this scenario. they prefer neferneferuaten to be nefertiti, or possibly her 4th daughter neferneferuaten tasherit. they also like this theory best if they can claim akhenaten as kv 55.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
smenkhkare most defienntly existed. he was married to akhenaten's daughter meritaten. now what neseret had posted, is considered to be the foremost theory on the amarna period right now. it may not make sense just yet, but the DNA results did clear up some of the mystery of the amarna period. for once, a general outline of the end of the dynasty is clear.

it appears that akhenaten had no sons. his wives, mother and a few daughters predeaceasing him. he is succeeded by his brother smenkhkare, who is married to his niece, meritaten. he has had a son tutankhamun by a sister. smenkhkare dies after a brief reign, and meritaten assumes the throne- as co regent of pharaoh is unclear- as neferneferuaten. she rules for around 3 years, and is succeeded by tutankhamun, who dies childless. certainly by tutankhamun's reign, ankhesenamun is the only daughter of akhenaten alive. the other sisters vanish from history, presumed dead.

of course there are a few who does not like this scenario. they prefer neferneferuaten to be nefertiti, or possibly her 4th daughter neferneferuaten tasherit. they also like this theory best if they can claim akhenaten as kv 55.



A wild thought:

What if, when Nefertiti died, Akhenaten promoted Meritaten to Chief Wife and co-regent; and changed his name to Smenkhkare, for the one to three years before he died?

***

I found something else interesting. A box found in the tomb of Tutankhamen:

"King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Ankhkheperure Beloved of Neferkheperure ; Son of Re, Lord of Crowns, Neferneferuaten Beloved of Waenre." Alongside this name are written the names and titles of Akhenaten, and the text "King's Chief Wife Meritaten, may she live forever." (Murnane, 1995).

Ankhkheperure/Neferkheperure; Neferneferuaten/Waenra; and Meritaten/Akhenaten. Could we just have two people here?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Btw kyle - this would mean BOTH Ankhenaten and Smenhkhare are the mummy in KV55. Very Happy

That has to please everyone, surely, as it would make both sides of the discussion Perfectly Correct. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

a good point of evidence for nefertiti dying before akhenaten would be the fact he promoted first meritaten and then ankhesenamun as great royal wives. i'm not so sure on ankhesenamun, she did take over mounments that were originally made for kiya, as did meritaten.

amenhotep III did this in tiye's lifetime, but she is known to have been alive after he did this. nefertiti dissappears after year 12's durbar, and it's after this point that meritaten assumes the great royal wife title. there was a plague in the near east at this time, attested by the amarna letters and bodies of inhabitants at amarna.
_________________
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: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Also, it's easier to believe in "Akhenaten" and "Baketaten" than it is to believe in an 'invisible' 'heir-progenating' King, isn't it?


I agree with you wholeheartedly Orwell. Akhenaten begetting Tut on a sister (Baketaten?) is MUCH more Occam compliant BUT we are left with the fact that KV55 is the father of Tutankhamun and that the remains are according to expert opinion too young to be have been Akhenaten's.

Familiarity with other dynastic histories makes clear that such situations are frequently complicated and somewhat inexplicable to later generations. Imagine archaeologists centuries hence trying to make sense of the fragmentary records of the Houses of York and Lancaster!

It is possible that Akhenaten, confident in his god's favor, didn't regard his brother and sister's marriage as at all threatening. We have no way of knowing how politically cognisant he was or how connected with reality.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Btw kyle - this would mean BOTH Ankhenaten and Smenhkhare are the mummy in KV55. Very Happy

That has to please everyone, surely, as it would make both sides of the discussion Perfectly Correct. Wink


But it still leaves the age problem unresolved. Frankly with Akhenaten just about ANYTHING is possible but however we cut it we are left with the remains of a young man no older than twenty-five and probably much younger in KV55.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
But it still leaves the age problem unresolved. Frankly with Akhenaten just about ANYTHING is possible but however we cut it we are left with the remains of a young man no older than twenty-five and probably much younger in KV55.


There are still dissenting voices about the age of that mummy though, Meretseger. The 'younger' age seems so out of kilter with other evdence from the tomb.


Ineed, I think I've got another Fact (sic) for the KV55 Thread.

Fact: CF The age of death of the mummy in KV55 was around 20-25 years. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are *several* indications of youth; unerupted wisdom teeth; unjoined fissures, etc. Against spinal deterioration that has been found in children as well as the aged. It is highly significant that ONLY scholars favoring KV55 as Akhenaten argue for an age at least in the thirties. Even Elliot Smith nearly a hundred years ago opted for the early twenties until pressured to advance it by Egyptologists convinced they had Akhenaten. And has been pointed out by Neseret the most recent examination by a forensic expert who is also an Egyptologist ALSO points to the early twenties AT MOST.

It would be much simpler for KV55 to be Akhenaten I agree, but the forensic evidence is STRONGLY against it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
There are *several* indications of youth; unerupted wisdom teeth; unjoined fissures, etc. Against spinal deterioration that has been found in children as well as the aged. It is highly significant that ONLY scholars favoring KV55 as Akhenaten argue for an age at least in the thirties. Even Elliot Smith nearly a hundred years ago opted for the early twenties until pressured to advance it by Egyptologists convinced they had Akhenaten. And has been pointed out by Neseret the most recent examination by a forensic expert who is also an Egyptologist ALSO points to the early twenties AT MOST.

It would be much simpler for KV55 to be Akhenaten I agree, but the forensic evidence is STRONGLY against it.


There are views pro an older age too - perhaps STRONGLY for it.

My STRONGLY is bigger than yours now. I win! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Views pro-over thirty are in a distinct minority to the younger age and CLEARLY motivated by bias STRONGLY indicating the younger age is correct. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
There are *several* indications of youth; unerupted wisdom teeth; unjoined fissures, etc. Against spinal deterioration that has been found in children as well as the aged. It is highly significant that ONLY scholars favoring KV55 as Akhenaten argue for an age at least in the thirties. Even Elliot Smith nearly a hundred years ago opted for the early twenties until pressured to advance it by Egyptologists convinced they had Akhenaten. And has been pointed out by Neseret the most recent examination by a forensic expert who is also an Egyptologist ALSO points to the early twenties AT MOST.

It would be much simpler for KV55 to be Akhenaten I agree, but the forensic evidence is STRONGLY against it.


There are views pro an older age too - perhaps STRONGLY for it.

My STRONGLY is bigger than yours now. I win! Very Happy


Pardon me, but the evidence for an "older" KV 55 does not wash, and there's never been any significant and published examination that has ever stated this is the case. As I noted to you, most of your "older" KV 55 information is either a) recent and unsupported, or b) published greater than 10 years ago, and with little substantial evidence as well.

I personally find it impossible to understand why you choose to ignore the rather substantial and, in some cases, quite recent, publications which show review of the entire skeleton which indicate that the KV55 died at an age no greater than 25 years.

The only allegations of an older age have depend on a single attribute of the skeleton (sinus and spine) which - when viewed by itself - shows up also in older persons. However, the full examinations of the remains - from skull to toe - indicate an individual no more than 25 years of age.

Further, the so-called "evidence" of older age can also be found in younger persons - scoliosis, for example, can cause such degeneration that the spine appears to be that of an older person. Another fact: as an anthropologist on EEF indicated, you can see the same spinal degeneration on ancient children as young as 9 years of age, where the spine is affected by carrying heavy loads.

I have heard some naysayers say that since royalty are who they are, they would never be subject to carrying loads. This is how we view royalty today: royalty in ancient times were far more hands-on in their reigns: they took part in arduous tasks, fought directly in wars, underwent ritual acts that would require physical strength and (over)exertion - such as the Heb Sed.

So, when we view the facts as they are uniformly published, one finds that the age of KV 55 is basically that of a young man, and not one who could have 6 children and enjoyed a 17-year reign as an adult (even by the 18th Dynasty, the art standard was to show young men as youthful, and not as adults when they weren't).

So, unless you can show significant and supportable proof that the KV 55 remains are older than 25 years of age, then I would have to say that your contention that KV 55 is that of an older person is more a matter of faith than actual fact.
_________________
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
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
Pardon me, but the evidence for an "older" KV 55 does not wash, and there's never been any significant and published examination that has ever stated this is the case. As I noted to you, most of your "older" KV 55 information is either a) recent and unsupported, or b) published greater than 10 years ago, and with little substantial evidence as well.


The fact there is any agument by people who have examined the mummy at least gives us a litle room for doubt. Especially if other evidence in the tomb sugests it. We still have only one male personage suggested in the tomb - Akhenaten. We're still having to 'create' so to speak another male occupant. I am not saying you're theory is wromg neseret, I'm only seeking to look at what's 'known', and sadly much of the 'known' is in dispute - including the age of the mummy. I have no final proof and just go with what I see as the evidence of the tomb. The age thing is a matter under dispute - whether you respect the contrary arguments or not.

[quote="neseret"] I personally find it impossible to understand why you choose to ignore the rather substantial and, in some cases, quite recent, publications which show review of the entire skeleton which indicate that the KV55 died at an age no greater than 25 years.[/quot]

I don't 'dispute' them, I just question them when I know there are contrary views. That's a scientific approach, I thought, to always question and and reassess; accept no final answer until a contention is proved beyond reasonable doubt to a point where becomes agreed established fact.

neseret wrote:
The only allegations of an older age have depend on a single attribute of the skeleton (sinus and spine) which - when viewed by itself - shows up also in older persons. However, the full examinations of the remains - from skull to toe - indicate an individual no more than 25 years of age.


'Indicate' is a different word ro 'prove', neseret. Are you quite as certain as the bulk of your post 'indicates'.

neseret wrote:
Further, the so-called "evidence" of older age can also be found in younger persons - scoliosis, for example, can cause such degeneration that the spine appears to be that of an older person. Another fact: as an anthropologist on EEF indicated, you can see the same spinal degeneration on ancient children as young as 9 years of age, where the spine is affected by carrying heavy loads.


So, it can be a sign of 'illness', not just as a sign of an 'older' skelton?

neseret wrote:
I have heard some naysayers say that since royalty are who they are, they would never be subject to carrying loads. This is how we view royalty today: royalty in ancient times were far more hands-on in their reigns: they took part in arduous tasks, fought directly in wars, underwent ritual acts that would require physical strength and (over)exertion - such as the Heb Sed.


Amenophis III in the later stages of his reign, and Akhenaten throughout, would have appeared to have had it pretty easy. It was a golden age of opuence and ease (if you were Egyptian Royalty) as far as I can tell. Do some argue that an 'easy' unburdened life could explain to some degree why the bones may 'seem' young?

neseret wrote:
So, when we view the facts as they are uniformly published, one finds that the age of KV 55 is basically that of a young man, and not one who could have 6 children and enjoyed a 17-year reign as an adult (even by the 18th Dynasty, the art standard was to show young men as youthful, and not as adults when they weren't).


Progeniting children is not hard - if you're a guy. Not wearing on the body at all. To go with the 'young' male idea, a twelve year old is quite capable of begetting children - some younger. There's a fact for you!

neseret wrote:
So, unless you can show significant and supportable proof that the KV 55 remains are older than 25 years of age, then I would have to say that your contention that KV 55 is that of an older person is more a matter of faith than actual fact.


You're faith (loyalty?) in certain experts over others, neseret, is ndearing! And I certainly don't deny you could well be right. All I'm doing is keeping my mind open.

I am still looking for your 'ephemeral' King btw. Just because I've not found him in KV55 yet doesn't mean it isn't Smenhkhare's mummy. You know, it may even be another 'young' Pharaoh - maybe one no one's heard of because any hard evidence has been lost or destroyed through the ages.

You and kyle can profess your views with all the strength of your research and reason to back them, but I still reserve the right to keep my mind open. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As you sink deeper into the tarpits, Orwell, you will learn there are ALWAYS 'contrary views'. Some are well founded, others not so much. The older KV55 definitely belongs to the latter class. You will also learn that professionals like Neseret NEVER express one hundred percent certainty about anything. Sort of like medical doctors.
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, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 2 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