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 

Fact or Fiction
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
But the two babes we have here were only referred to as "Osiris", which means they never had names. Besides, it would have been strange if Meritaten or Ankhesenpaaten would have mentioned the name of Osiris on their children`s mummies at a time which would still have belonged to the Amarna Period.


Why? We know that the so-called "magic bricks" found in KV 55 belonged to Akhenaten, with his name, his cartouches and titles, and all show the term "Osiris" and /mAat xrw/ (Davis 1990 (1910)). Why shouldn't Meritaten and/or Ankhsenpaaten have noted their children (assuming the imagery is of their "-tasherit" children, and not usurpations of Kiya's children) as 'Osiris' while at Amarna? Apparently, it was not a 'forbidden' set of terms.

For more about the dichotomy of Osirian terminology in Amarna afterlife rituals, see

Hornung, E. 1999. Akhenaten and the Religion of Light. D. Lorton, transl. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Other Reference:

Davis, T. M. and N. Reeves, Eds. 1990 (1910). The Tomb of Queen Tiyi. San Francisco: KMT Communications.
_________________
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
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are probably right regarding the use of "Osiris" and the related terms. I got the impression that those terms were forbidden or at least not in use during the Amarna Period from the reports from KV 63. When during the last season a coffin belonging to Ipu (if I remember right) was restored, the inscriptions were said to carefully avoid the names of Osiris and all related terms. The coffin was therefore dated to the Amarna Period.
Apart from that, I think the fact that no names appear on the babies` coffins or mummies still makes it impossible for them to be any of the named "ta-sherit" girls.
Besides they were found close to each other in one wooden box, which to me suggests that they were siblings, presumably full siblings. And if one considers the "fuss" which has been made with them (mummifying those tiny corpses, giving each one a gilded mask and two coffins), I think one must come to the conclusion that they were Tut`s kids by Ankhesenamun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The name from KV63 was actually "Iny", not "Ipu". Sorry!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the little baby could NOT be any of them, because it was simply a late miscarriage or very premature delivery.

it's my understanding that one who never draws breath is not named, and that this is why a baby would be referred to simply as the Osiris, much like a king would have Osiris (or true of voice) added to their name, in this case there is only the name of Osiris.

So it all depends on if Ankhesepaaten's first baby was born alive, WHO named it Ta-Sherit after her, and how she felt about it. It's highly possible that after leaving Amarna she returned to old traditions and a stillborn child (or one who died shortly after, crippled by birth defects from too close relation in parents) who someone named after her could simply be called Osiris and re-sent on her journey to the "real" Duat. Of course this is all speculation till next month, right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've also found it somewhat detached that these little girls were not awarded names of their own. Maybe if just one was Junior, but for BOTH to be junior in a row it does suggest a certain lack of creativity that I find odd in a culture that lent SUCH importance to names.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
Apart from that, I think the fact that no names appear on the babies` coffins or mummies still makes it impossible for them to be any of the named "ta-sherit" girls.


Impossible: both female foetuses in Tutankhamun's tomb are either stillborn or miscarried children, and no Egyptian imagery would show such children as "living" (ie., walking) as the "-tasherit" children are shown.

See:

Harrison, R. G., R. C. Connolly, et al. 1979. A mummified foetus from the tomb of Tutankhamun. Antiquity 53: 19-21. (Examination of the elder of the two female foetuses, which showed up to 7 month term before being stillborn)

Leek, F. F. 1972. The Human Remains from the Tomb of Tut'ankhamun. Tut'ankhamun Tomb Series. J. R. Harris. Oxford: Griffith Institute/University Press. (Recounts Derry notes of the examination of the younger female foetus, which indicated a 5 month term before miscarriage)
_________________
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
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yup I agree with neseret. If the bigger baby really didn't breath and was a miscarriage (I thought it was still not 100%) then for me, the case is definitely closed. Very interesting though Wink !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chillie, what makes you think that there might be an end to speculation next month? Any of Hawass`s announcements in sight?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as I understand, the DNA tests on Tut and the children will have results announced in Feb 2010.

A caveat, though: Hawass isn't allowing any foreign observers or scientists in on these tests, nor is he willing to publish his findings and the steps he took. I have a hard time taking anyone's word on something like this. Also, mummy DNA is difficult, and incest in this family was somewhat institutionalized so it might be a very complicated thing to untangle.

But, it would be nice to know for sure....
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
Page 3 of 3

 
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