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
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Orwell, what part of '15-20' points (unerupted wisdom teeth, unknit sutures, etc) that indicate youth - possibly extreme youth as in under twenty - as opposed to ONE *possible* factor (degenerating vertebrae) that COULD indicate a greater age but is KNOWN to occur in young people including children do you fail to grasp?

NO; there are no inscriptions indicating Smenkhkara's ownership of anything remaining in KV55 - a point that loses some of its force when we concede that it is a cache burial which has been disturbed at least twice.

YES; Akhenaten's name IS found on items in KV55, according to some experts including the coffin and mummy bands.

YES; the forensic evidence has overwhelmingly and REPEATEDLY over a period of nearly a century been accepted as indicating an age in the twenty-twenty five range AT THE OLDEST by SEVERAL different specialists ranging from Elliot Smith to Joan Filer.

Not 'facts' perhaps but evidence (we're pretty short of settled facts here in the tarpits) make of it what you will.


If this 'age' thing is 'proven' - then it would be hard to say it was Akhenaten. So KV35 hubby (a Pharaoh? or Prince?) got thrown into someone else's tomb. Very very careless. This was done by folk who presumably knew these Amarna Rulers when they were alive. Queeer business.

If you are correct about the age... Akhenaten still seems to make most sense. If so, he died when he was 25 years old, or thereabouts? I guess it could be argued from other evidence - especially that of a co-regency... mmm.... I'll test it as best I can from what stuff I've collected... And I might not have to throw an 'ephemeral' King rudely into Akhenaten's coffin that way.
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 10, 2012 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Orwell, what part of '15-20' points (unerupted wisdom teeth, unknit sutures, etc) that indicate youth - possibly extreme youth as in under twenty - as opposed to ONE *possible* factor (degenerating vertebrae) that COULD indicate a greater age but is KNOWN to occur in young people including children do you fail to grasp?

NO; there are no inscriptions indicating Smenkhkara's ownership of anything remaining in KV55 - a point that loses some of its force when we concede that it is a cache burial which has been disturbed at least twice.

YES; Akhenaten's name IS found on items in KV55, according to some experts including the coffin and mummy bands.

YES; the forensic evidence has overwhelmingly and REPEATEDLY over a period of nearly a century been accepted as indicating an age in the twenty-twenty five range AT THE OLDEST by SEVERAL different specialists ranging from Elliot Smith to Joan Filer.

Not 'facts' perhaps but evidence (we're pretty short of settled facts here in the tarpits) make of it what you will.


Cheers Meretseger. Please see my last post! 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: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

orwell, your a cop? i don't know if you've worked homicide, but follow me here. let's say you've been called to a scene. someone had found a skeleton in a drain, and they need to identify it. a forensic anthropologist tells you the remains belong to a young man, aged 20-25, but definently on the younger spectrum. are you going to look in the missing persons reports for someone aged 30-35? no you wouldn't. ignore the objects in the tomb, and focus on the body. you have modern medical experts telling you what previous experts in their fields have said all along.

i'm going to beleive the medical experts over hawass. by the way hawass is extremely biased in his opinions.....he beleived he found cleopatra's tomb in an obscure little oasis, based on.....ta da some coins with her and mark antony's names on them. now his evidence for her tomb based on coins is flimsy.

now you can believe what you want, no one is saying otherwise. but you will not be the person to solve the kv 55 mystery, which is what your really pushing for isn't it? the archaeological evidence does not say who is in the coffin. yes smenkhkare's name does not appear in the tomb. but only one object is proven to have belonged to akhenaten. the other objects were made for indivduals stressing their relationship to akhenaten. i fully believe that akhenaten's body was destroyed. the liklihood of that is more probable when you consider archaeological evidence concerning his monuments.

i fully agree with neseret, meretseger and kmt sesh. but i never believed this body was akhenaten, even as a child they said it was too yong. but i never suspected this body was tut's dad. i used to think smenkhkare and tutankhamun were the children of akhenaten and kiya. the DNA tests blew that theory out of the water.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
kmt_sesh wrote:
What I wanted to say, Orwell, is that you seem overly concerned with what exactly was found in KV55. It's been repeatedly stressed to you that KV55 was not the original burial for any of the people about whom we've been arguing, so in the end, who is and who isn't mentioned in inscriptions in KV55 is pretty much irrelevant.


Shocked

kmt_sesh wrote:
KV55 was a secondary burial,[/i] an embalmer's cache...an afterthought.


Shocked A incomplete burial, perhaps, but a mere cache? Idea

kmt_sesh wrote:
I don't wish to muddy the waters but I might suggest studying KV63. It's an even better example of an embalmer's cache. Although no mummies were found in there, numerous coffins were, as well as a myriad of other artifacts. It would appear that whomever KV63 was originally cut for did not end up in there. It was used for secondary purposes. The same is true for KV55. Wink


Except for "The same is true for KV55" sounds about right. Very Happy


Orwell, I don't know how much about ancient Egypt you've studied, and I really hate to say things that you might already know, which makes me sound preachy and condescending. I assure you, that's not how I want to come across! I'm only trying to be helpful, and in my clumsy attempts I'm probably making matters only worse.

I'll proceed, anyway. Akhenaten abandoned Thebes, including its burial ground, and built his new capital at the site of Amarna: the city he called Akhetaten. In a large and winding wadi to the east he commissioned his royal tomb. That was where he intended to be buried when he died, and in all likelihood he was. His own sarcophagus was found in there, albeit utterly destroyed.

That said, it's extremely unlikely Akhenaten would've allowed his burial to take place in the Valley of the Kings, a place from whose traditions and history he was trying to divorce himself. Moreover, KV55 was hardly suitable for a royal burial. It's the size of one corner of the average Dynasty 18 royal tomb.

Much the same would've been true for Kiya. As a secondary and very favored queen of Akhenaten, she would've been buried at Amarna. Tiye is somewhat less concrete: she still probably represented a lot of the old ways, and her own husband was buried in the Valley of the Kings, but then again I don't think it was customary for queens to be buried in the Valley of the Kings, anyway. This was the period during which the Valley of the Queens was being founded (meaning the wider New Kingdom).

Does all of this make sense? KV55 represents a secondary burial, meaning the artifacts and body found in there by Theodore Davis were moved from their original burials and secreted away in the small chamber. This is why inscribed artifacts represent several different people, and why I stressed the KV55 tomb was irrelevant to those people: none of them would've intended to be buried in there.

The same is seen with DB320, KV35, and KV63: all tombs relevant to secondary burials or caches from the New Kingdom (although DB320 also represented Dynasty 21).
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
orwell, your a cop? i don't know if you've worked homicide, but follow me here. let's say you've been called to a scene. someone had found a skeleton in a drain, and they need to identify it. a forensic anthropologist tells you the remains belong to a young man, aged 20-25, but definently on the younger spectrum. are you going to look in the missing persons reports for someone aged 30-35? no you wouldn't. ignore the objects in the tomb, and focus on the body. you have modern medical experts telling you what previous experts in their fields have said all along.

i'm going to beleive the medical experts over hawass. by the way hawass is extremely biased in his opinions.....he beleived he found cleopatra's tomb in an obscure little oasis, based on.....ta da some coins with her and mark antony's names on them. now his evidence for her tomb based on coins is flimsy.

now you can believe what you want, no one is saying otherwise. but you will not be the person to solve the kv 55 mystery, which is what your really pushing for isn't it? the archaeological evidence does not say who is in the coffin. yes smenkhkare's name does not appear in the tomb. but only one object is proven to have belonged to akhenaten. the other objects were made for indivduals stressing their relationship to akhenaten. i fully believe that akhenaten's body was destroyed. the liklihood of that is more probable when you consider archaeological evidence concerning his monuments.

i fully agree with neseret, meretseger and kmt sesh. but i never believed this body was akhenaten, even as a child they said it was too yong. but i never suspected this body was tut's dad. i used to think smenkhkare and tutankhamun were the children of akhenaten and kiya. the DNA tests blew that theory out of the water.


Personally I was always in the camp favoring Akhenaten as Tut's father. I was quite certain of it, and believed sooner or later if more evidence surfaced, Akhenaten as the father would be corroborated.

I was wrong. So were many, many other people. So be it. To me the finding was exciting. I have no problem adjusting my knowledge of ancient Egypt. Well, of course, I'm not an Egyptologist and I have no professional stake in any of this, only a crazy and overriding obsession. And as stubborn and hard-headed as I tend to be, I think I pale in comparison to Hawass's basalt skull.

You wrote that Hawass is "is extremely biased in his opinions." I couldn't agree more. I remember the Discovery Channel special about the discovery and excavation of KV63, in which Hawass descended from the heavens and boldly proclaimed: "I announce today my belief that KV63 is indeed the tomb of King Tutankhamun's mother, Queen Kiya."

I remember thinking, What the f...! Many of us were left wondering where on earth he pulled that one from. Otto Schaden, who led the clearing of KV63, has twice presented a lecture at the Oriental Institute, to discuss his work in the tomb. I was fortunate to have attended both lectures. More than one question was about his personal feelings over Hawass's statement, and Schaden very politely sidestepped the entire issue, but he could not mask an expression of obvious annoyance over the whole thing.
_________________


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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4185
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here are a few notes to the determine of age at death for the royal mummies by gay Robins:

Quote:
"... CG 61070 is not the only royal mummy to show a discrepancy between Krogman and Baer's [An X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980] estimated age at death and the age of the owner as deduced from historical sources.

The suggested ages at death of the mummies of Thutmose III and Amenhotpe III are 35-40 and 30-35 respectively, but from inscriptional evidence we know that Thutmose had a reign of almost 55 years and Amenhotpe of 38 years. Ramesses III, who died in his 32nd year, almost certainly must have been more than the estimated 30-35 years at his death. Since Ramesses II reigned 67 years, he must have been at least in his seventies at his death. While such an age is included in the estimate of 50-55+ years at his death, it implies a lack of precision in defining higher ages in mummies.

These discrepancies raise at least two problems. First, how
accurate are the methods used to obtain the suggested ages at death of the mummies? In general, the ages of the royal mummies suggested by Krogman and Baer are lower
than I would have expected, and I wonder whether there could possibly be other factors affecting these estimates which have not been taken into account.

To a layman, there would seem to be a difference between working on a mummy several thousand years old and on a modern skeleton (even if Nubian rather than European). ...

... Thus, although it is tempting to assume that the estimated ages at death of the royal mummies can be used as a starting point for establishing chronology, it appears that we must accept that not only the estimates originally given by Maspero and Smith, but also those based on recent scientific examination are not accurate enough to be used absolutely for this purpose, and that no historical or chronological arguments based solely on evidence of age at death of a mummy can be considered valid. It remains to be resolved as to how far such evidence should be allowed at all. Certainly, if it goes against what can be deduced from other sources, priority should be given to the latter."


From gay Robins : The Value of the Estimated Ages of the Royal Mummies at Death as Historical Evidence. - In: Göttinger Miszellen - GM - 45. - 1981. - pp. 63 - 68.

So there's obviously not just criticism of the methodology of Hawass et all ...

Greetings, 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: Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
orwell, your a cop? i don't know if you've worked homicide, but follow me here. let's say you've been called to a scene. someone had found a skeleton in a drain, and they need to identify it. a forensic anthropologist tells you the remains belong to a young man, aged 20-25, but definently on the younger spectrum. are you going to look in the missing persons reports for someone aged 30-35? no you wouldn't. ignore the objects in the tomb, and focus on the body. you have modern medical experts telling you what previous experts in their fields have said all along.

i'm going to beleive the medical experts over hawass. by the way hawass is extremely biased in his opinions.....he beleived he found cleopatra's tomb in an obscure little oasis, based on.....ta da some coins with her and mark antony's names on them. now his evidence for her tomb based on coins is flimsy.

now you can believe what you want, no one is saying otherwise. but you will not be the person to solve the kv 55 mystery, which is what your really pushing for isn't it? the archaeological evidence does not say who is in the coffin. yes smenkhkare's name does not appear in the tomb. but only one object is proven to have belonged to akhenaten. the other objects were made for indivduals stressing their relationship to akhenaten. i fully believe that akhenaten's body was destroyed. the liklihood of that is more probable when you consider archaeological evidence concerning his monuments.

i fully agree with neseret, meretseger and kmt sesh. but i never believed this body was akhenaten, even as a child they said it was too yong. but i never suspected this body was tut's dad. i used to think smenkhkare and tutankhamun were the children of akhenaten and kiya. the DNA tests blew that theory out of the water.


Cool down, mate. I'm offering ideas and looking at what's available to me. In any investigation you look at ALL the available evidence and consider various possibilities. You don't discount a pundit, say a 'Hawass' (an experienced Egyptologist) just because other experts have differing views. You take the time (as best you can) to weigh up what's available.

You shouldnt take things so personally, mate. First you tell me I ask too many questions. Now I'm having the temerity to question the 'findngs' of certain experts while asking if 'other' experts might not be given more respect. I know interested people have strong viewpoints, but sheez mate, calm yourself. Wink

I am setting out to work out what I think happened, if that's possible. If you, or me, or anyone else stumbles on something that 'cracks the case' shouldn't all of us knowledge seekers be happy? That is definetly NOT an assertion that it'll be me who 'cracks the case' btw, thpugh but it'd be nice, nonetheless, to do it, by jingo! Very Happy


If you don't like my posts, please ignore them. I mean no harm. Very Happy

As to:
"orwell, your a cop? i don't know if you've worked homicide, but follow me here. let's say you've been called to a scene. someone had found a skeleton in a drain, and they need to identify it. a forensic anthropologist tells you the remains belong to a young man, aged 20-25, but definently on the younger spectrum. are you going to look in the missing persons reports for someone aged 30-35? no you wouldn't. ignore the objects in the tomb, and focus on the body. you have modern medical experts telling you what previous experts in their fields have said all along."

I advise you to reassess what you're saying in this paragraph. What you show is a 'preference' for some evidence (?) over other evidence (?). It's actually an emotional response when analyzed, and not particularly logical.

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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4185
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
... Recall that all evidence in KV55 doesn't point to Akhenaten. Despite Lutz's well-supported argument, not all agree that the coffin was originally Akhenaten's. Personally I find Lutz's argument reasonable and compelling, but I must remember that not all who've studied the coffin agree on this. ...

As far as I have known no one previously examined the coffin really, as in Munich. Apart from this, that the base was not available was probably judged only by outside appearances (through the glass of the display case, if at all) and amortized as a rule in which one or other predecessors.

kmt_sesh wrote:
... The mud bricks as Akhenaten's, yes, but then the shrine was Tiye's, and et cetera. KV55 is a mix, plain and simple. It is certainly not representative of an original burial for any single individual, and that's the bottom line. ...

The assumption KV 55 is an Amarna cachette is just one of several. There are quite contrary to this one. Sense makes also the idea of a kind of emergency burial (for example, the placement of the magical bricks following the ritual). And it is still under discussion if the mummy of queen Teje was also re-buried in KV 55. She was originally buried in the king`s tomb at Amarna, that should be clear. Maybe she was even in the main chamber, next to her son, Akhenaten. So it seems logical to me that the two were brought together in a new tomb at Thebes.

Greetings, 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: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
The assumption KV 55 is an Amarna cachette is just one of several. There are quite contrary to this one. Sense makes also the idea of a kind of emergency burial (for example, the placement of the magical bricks following the ritual). And it is still under discussion if the mummy of queen Teje was also re-buried in KV 55. She was originally buried in the king`s tomb at Amarna, that should be clear. Maybe she was even in the main chamber, next to her son, Akhenaten. So it seems logical to me that the two were brought together in a new tomb at Thebes.

Greetings, Lutz.


Your reasoning seems sound to me, Lutz.

Perhaps Tiye and Akhenaten were moved to the 'unfinished' tomb KV55. A little later, it was decided to remove Tiye to, say, Amenophis III's tomb, when a 'not too distant' Pharaonic Successor decided he/she didn't want Tiye to remain in the Heretics tomb, leaving poor Akhenaten to rot in his coffin. Hey! The female Pharaoh may have moved them first from Amarna, but then Tutankhamen later moved Tiye. Why not?

Just a thought, not a theory as such. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lutz,

it is harder to age mummies once the bones have fused and eruption of the teeth occurs. certain joints fuse and become bone in the early 20's, and teeth finish erupting then too. these are the points used in the ageing of kv55. had all these points fused/erupted no one would be calling a young age for this skeleton. i'm sure if someone could find the same facts for tut's mummy it would be a similar story. and no one calls his age into question. it is the simple obsession to stepm outside archaeology and biology to claim the mummy of akhenaten, which most likely did not survive the reign of horemheb, let alone ramses II.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4185
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
lutz,

it is harder to age mummies once the bones have fused and eruption of the teeth occurs. certain joints fuse and become bone in the early 20's, and teeth finish erupting then too. these are the points used in the ageing of kv55. had all these points fused/erupted no one would be calling a young age for this skeleton. i'm sure if someone could find the same facts for tut's mummy it would be a similar story. and no one calls his age into question. it is the simple obsession to stepm outside archaeology and biology to claim the mummy of akhenaten, which most likely did not survive the reign of horemheb, let alone ramses II.


kylejustin,

just once again Robins :

Quote:
"... how accurate are the methods used to obtain the suggested ages at death of the mummies? ... To a layman, there would seem to be a difference between working on a mummy several thousand years old and on a modern skeleton (even if Nubian rather than European). ... it appears that we must accept that not only the estimates originally given by Maspero and Smith, but also those based on recent scientific examination are not accurate enough to be used absolutely for this purpose, and that no historical or chronological arguments based solely on evidence of age at death of a mummy can be considered valid. ..."

BTW, "teeth finish erupting then too" is simply wrong. There are people it never happens, although the wisdom teeth created in the jaw.

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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4185
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
... Perhaps Tiye and Akhenaten were moved to the 'unfinished' tomb KV55. ...

I would not say KV 55 was unfinished. It was rather intended for a non-royal burial and available. What we also have to think about is the time pressure under which the re-burial of a king from religeous side was, definitely.

For example, the priests of the 21st / 22nd Dynasty needed before any of their actions in a sealed royal tomb the approval of a divine oracle. I think this is noticed on the labels known from DB 320 (I think to remember that there is the speaking of an oracle decision by the goddess Mut somewhere ...).

Orwell wrote:
... A little later, it was decided to remove Tiye to, say, Amenophis III's tomb, ...

There is an hieratic inscription in KV 22 - Amenhotep III. :

The Theban Mapping Project - KV 22 wrote:
"... The gate into chamber I ... There is a hieratic graffito on the right (east) of the gate. ... Hieratic text: docket dated to regnal year 3, month 3 of Akhet, day 7 Right (east) thickness."

Unfortunately, the corresponding ruler is not known. Thus it is not really clear what is meant. From KV 43 - Thutmose IV. we know that the attachment / leaving of a short notice with an annual statement by public officials, when they had to enter the tomb for one or the other reason, is not at all unusual.
Besides, a reburial of queen Tiye in KV 22 is also an explanation for her shrine still in KV 55. This one was, also splited, too big for a transport next to the for sure existing shrine(s?) for Amenhotep III's. to the side chamber.

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


Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 515
Location: U.S. NJ

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Here are a few notes to the determine of age at death for the royal mummies by gay Robins:

Quote:
"... CG 61070 is not the only royal mummy to show a discrepancy between Krogman and Baer's [An X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980] estimated age at death and the age of the owner as deduced from historical sources.

The suggested ages at death of the mummies of Thutmose III and Amenhotpe III are 35-40 and 30-35 respectively, but from inscriptional evidence we know that Thutmose had a reign of almost 55 years and Amenhotpe of 38 years. Ramesses III, who died in his 32nd year, almost certainly must have been more than the estimated 30-35 years at his death. Since Ramesses II reigned 67 years, he must have been at least in his seventies at his death. While such an age is included in the estimate of 50-55+ years at his death, it implies a lack of precision in defining higher ages in mummies.

These discrepancies raise at least two problems. First, how
accurate are the methods used to obtain the suggested ages at death of the mummies? In general, the ages of the royal mummies suggested by Krogman and Baer are lower
than I would have expected, and I wonder whether there could possibly be other factors affecting these estimates which have not been taken into account.

To a layman, there would seem to be a difference between working on a mummy several thousand years old and on a modern skeleton (even if Nubian rather than European). ...

... Thus, although it is tempting to assume that the estimated ages at death of the royal mummies can be used as a starting point for establishing chronology, it appears that we must accept that not only the estimates originally given by Maspero and Smith, but also those based on recent scientific examination are not accurate enough to be used absolutely for this purpose, and that no historical or chronological arguments based solely on evidence of age at death of a mummy can be considered valid. It remains to be resolved as to how far such evidence should be allowed at all. Certainly, if it goes against what can be deduced from other sources, priority should be given to the latter."


From gay Robins : The Value of the Estimated Ages of the Royal Mummies at Death as Historical Evidence. - In: Göttinger Miszellen - GM - 45. - 1981. - pp. 63 - 68.

So there's obviously not just criticism of the methodology of Hawass et all ...

Greetings, Lutz.


KV55 wasn't the only mummy whose age was upgraded due to the CT studies. The Hawass team upgraded the ages of several other mummies, for example, as you mentioned, Amonhotep III in the earlier X-Ray study was given an age of around 35-40 and Thutmose III was aged at around 35 years--clearly not possible given the historical evidence. This CT Scan study estimated Amonhotep III's lifespan at around 50 and the same for Thutmose III both of which are more plausible than the younger estimates.

I agree that the preponderance of the evidence points to a younger age at death for Mr. KV 55 but I'm not there yet on absolutely 100% calling him Smehkhare--or Akhenaton for that matter. Wink


http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/303/7/638.full.pdf+html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naunacht
Priest
Priest


Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 515
Location: U.S. NJ

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Here are a few notes to the determine of age at death for the royal mummies by gay Robins:

Quote:
"... CG 61070 is not the only royal mummy to show a discrepancy between Krogman and Baer's [An X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980] estimated age at death and the age of the owner as deduced from historical sources.

The suggested ages at death of the mummies of Thutmose III and Amenhotpe III are 35-40 and 30-35 respectively, but from inscriptional evidence we know that Thutmose had a reign of almost 55 years and Amenhotpe of 38 years. Ramesses III, who died in his 32nd year, almost certainly must have been more than the estimated 30-35 years at his death. Since Ramesses II reigned 67 years, he must have been at least in his seventies at his death. While such an age is included in the estimate of 50-55+ years at his death, it implies a lack of precision in defining higher ages in mummies.

These discrepancies raise at least two problems. First, how
accurate are the methods used to obtain the suggested ages at death of the mummies? In general, the ages of the royal mummies suggested by Krogman and Baer are lower
than I would have expected, and I wonder whether there could possibly be other factors affecting these estimates which have not been taken into account.

To a layman, there would seem to be a difference between working on a mummy several thousand years old and on a modern skeleton (even if Nubian rather than European). ...

... Thus, although it is tempting to assume that the estimated ages at death of the royal mummies can be used as a starting point for establishing chronology, it appears that we must accept that not only the estimates originally given by Maspero and Smith, but also those based on recent scientific examination are not accurate enough to be used absolutely for this purpose, and that no historical or chronological arguments based solely on evidence of age at death of a mummy can be considered valid. It remains to be resolved as to how far such evidence should be allowed at all. Certainly, if it goes against what can be deduced from other sources, priority should be given to the latter."


From gay Robins : The Value of the Estimated Ages of the Royal Mummies at Death as Historical Evidence. - In: Göttinger Miszellen - GM - 45. - 1981. - pp. 63 - 68.

So there's obviously not just criticism of the methodology of Hawass et all ...

Greetings, Lutz.


KV55 wasn't the only mummy whose age was upgraded due to the CT studies. The Hawass team upgraded the ages of several other mummies, for example, as you mentioned, Amonhotep III in the earlier X-Ray study was given an age of around 35-40 and Thutmose III was aged at around 35 years--clearly not possible given the historical evidence. This CT Scan study estimated Amonhotep III's lifespan at around 50 and the same for Thutmose III both of which are more plausible than the younger estimates.

I agree that the preponderance of the evidence points to a younger age at death for Mr. KV 55 but I'm not there yet on absolutely 100% calling him Smehkhare--or Akhenaton for that matter. Wink


http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/303/7/638.full.pdf+html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naunacht
Priest
Priest


Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 515
Location: U.S. NJ

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Here are a few notes to the determine of age at death for the royal mummies by gay Robins:

Quote:
"... CG 61070 is not the only royal mummy to show a discrepancy between Krogman and Baer's [An X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980] estimated age at death and the age of the owner as deduced from historical sources.

The suggested ages at death of the mummies of Thutmose III and Amenhotpe III are 35-40 and 30-35 respectively, but from inscriptional evidence we know that Thutmose had a reign of almost 55 years and Amenhotpe of 38 years. Ramesses III, who died in his 32nd year, almost certainly must have been more than the estimated 30-35 years at his death. Since Ramesses II reigned 67 years, he must have been at least in his seventies at his death. While such an age is included in the estimate of 50-55+ years at his death, it implies a lack of precision in defining higher ages in mummies.

These discrepancies raise at least two problems. First, how
accurate are the methods used to obtain the suggested ages at death of the mummies? In general, the ages of the royal mummies suggested by Krogman and Baer are lower
than I would have expected, and I wonder whether there could possibly be other factors affecting these estimates which have not been taken into account.

To a layman, there would seem to be a difference between working on a mummy several thousand years old and on a modern skeleton (even if Nubian rather than European). ...

... Thus, although it is tempting to assume that the estimated ages at death of the royal mummies can be used as a starting point for establishing chronology, it appears that we must accept that not only the estimates originally given by Maspero and Smith, but also those based on recent scientific examination are not accurate enough to be used absolutely for this purpose, and that no historical or chronological arguments based solely on evidence of age at death of a mummy can be considered valid. It remains to be resolved as to how far such evidence should be allowed at all. Certainly, if it goes against what can be deduced from other sources, priority should be given to the latter."


From gay Robins : The Value of the Estimated Ages of the Royal Mummies at Death as Historical Evidence. - In: Göttinger Miszellen - GM - 45. - 1981. - pp. 63 - 68.

So there's obviously not just criticism of the methodology of Hawass et all ...

Greetings, Lutz.


KV55 wasn't the only mummy whose age was upgraded due to the CT studies. The Hawass team upgraded the ages of several other mummies, for example, as you mentioned, Amonhotep III in the earlier X-Ray study was given an age of around 35-40 and Thutmose III was aged at around 35 years--clearly not possible given the historical evidence. This CT Scan study estimated Amonhotep III's lifespan at around 50 and the same for Thutmose III both of which are more plausible than the younger estimates.

I agree that the preponderance of the evidence points to a younger age at death for Mr. KV 55 but I'm not there yet on absolutely 100% calling him Smehkhare--or Akhenaton for that matter. Wink


http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/303/7/638.full.pdf+html
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 5 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