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 

King Neferuneferuaten & the changing of names
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe Aye was just scrambling around trying to assemble a full kit and didn't bother reading the fine hieroglyphs? Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Maybe Aye was just scrambling around trying to assemble a full kit and didn't bother reading the fine hieroglyphs? Very Happy


Seems the small print has been a nuisance even back in ancient times Very Happy

Regarding Lutz`s post I think the "guidelines for placing bracelets correctly on a king`s body" contained in the cited book may have been more or less outdated by the end of the 18th dynasty if they refer to the time of Amosis.

Even if not outdated it is not sure if those rules were observed by everyone.
So we have no proof for the arrangement of the bracelets pointing to a female body after all.

I think this is Lutz`s point as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4001
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
... they refer to the time of Amosis.

Even if not outdated it is not sure if those rules were observed by everyone.
So we have no proof for the arrangement of the bracelets pointing to a female body after all.

I think this is Lutz`s point as well.

You're right. But above all, I would be interested in knowing of which observation complexes (Cachette DB 320 ? The Priest Cachettes of Deir el-Bahari ?) Vandersleyen his theory is developing ...

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


Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 97
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stephaniep wrote:
I was thinking that as well (about the bungling) when I read that the skeleton actually had a face when they first opened the grave. If only they found it a mere 50 years later . . .


Are there any drawings of it in that state?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neteria
Account Suspended


Joined: 27 Feb 2010
Posts: 93

PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't believe I've heard of any contemporary drawings, but it is worth remembering that the face of that KV55 mummy looked youthful enough to be considered as a female, and a crown was removed from the "Queen's haughty brow", or words to that effect. Considering the appallingly bad registers of the event, it is surprinsing that we have anything left to on. So many questions remain, that it is worth an effort to try answering a few of them.
The supposedly feminized arms positioning has been attributed to a mocking intention of those who re-buried the mummy. Are Ay's thoughts known about this?
Were the water filtrations alone responsible for the mummy's deterioration? Why had it held together only up to the excavation time? What was that crown like, and what happened to it? Was this the Nekhbet displaced pectoral?
If KV55 is Smenkhkare, as best fits the data, shouldn't a police reconstruction fromskeletal facial features look like the middle coffin of Tutankhamen, presumably "borrowed" by Ay for burying his predecessor in a grander scale? And how do those two faces fit the bone structureof the other Smenkhkare younger portraits?
_________________
Truthfulness may be relative, but can be kept very high when faithfully recording past events just how they would be seen from a visiting time machine, or as close as possible
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4001
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stephaniep wrote:
... when I read that the skeleton actually had a face when they first opened the grave. ...

I doubt this. Where have you read it?

Aromagician wrote:
Are there any drawings of it in that state?

As far as I know, the facial bones were smashed by a stone, probably fallen from the ceiling. But maybe you find a drawing in the different reports of the guys who were present at first enter of the tomb. Best start should be :

Theodore M. Davis : The tomb of Queen Tîyi - The discovery of the tomb (London, 1910)

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Although this remark from Davies' book does not state that the mummy's face was intact, to me, at least, the wording implies that it was more visible than the skull now observed.
Evidently the coffin had either been dropped
or had fallen from some height, for the side had burst, exposing the head
and neck of the mummy. On the head plainly appeared a gold crown,
encircling the head, as doubtless it was worn in life by a probable queen.
Presently we cleared the mummy from the coffin, and found that it was a
smallish person, with a delicate head and hands. The mouth was partly
open, showing a perfect set of upper and lower teeth. The body was enclosed
in nnnnmy-cloth of fine texture, but all of the cloth covering the body was of
a ver}^ dark colour. Naturally it ought to be a much brighter colour. Rather
suspecting injury from the evident dampness, I gently touched one of the
front teeth (3,000 years old), and alas ! it fell into dust, thereby showing
that the mummy could not be preserved.

(This is taken from Davies' book, "The Tomb of Queen Tiye"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4001
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Osiris II wrote:
... (This is taken from Davies' book, "The Tomb of Queen Tiye"

A progress, even if the form does not give satisfaction yet really... Razz


From the same source comes this citation :
Quote:
[The mummy] "... was very badly preserved, having been soaked in water and partly crushed by a block which had fallen from the roof, so that what remained of it was little more than disconnected bones, with a few shreds of dried skin and flesh adhering to or hanging from them. Dr. Elliot Smith, who studied the skull minutely, pronounced it to be the skull of a man aged about twenty-five or twenty-six years. Whether or not he be light about the age is a matter for anatomists only to decide ; there is evidence, however, that the body discovered in Davis's vault is that of a man, and that man Khuniatonu, if we must accept the testimony of the inscriptions. ..."

(Gaston Maspero in Davis : The tomb of Queen Tîyi - London, 1910. - Preface : A sketch of Queen Tiyi`s life. - p. XIV.)


And here is another one from Renate Germer : Die Mumie aus dem Sarg in KV 55 in : " Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges - Echnaton und das Ende der Amarnazeit " (München : Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, 2001) on page 58 :
Quote:
"... Der Schädel war in viele Teile zerbrochen und so stark beschädigt, daß sich keine für die Gehirnentnahme im Verlauf der Balsamierung typischen Knochenverletzungen nachweisen ließen. ..."

Google - Translator :

Quote:
"... The skull was damaged and broken in many parts, so strong that no one could discern the typical bone injury for brain removal during embalming. ..."


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


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Quote:
stephaniep wrote:
... when I read that the skeleton actually had a face when they first opened the grave. ...

I doubt this. Where have you read it?

Right here:
The Condition of the Mummy
Davis described the mummy after it was unwrapped as that of a "smallish person, with a delicate head and hands...The mouth was partly open, showing a perfect set of upper and lower teeth." ToQT, 2.) J. L. Smith also described the unwrapped mummy as "small sized" and commented that although the skull "was badly damaged," the upper and lower teeth were in good condition. (TTAA, 63-64.) Smith remarked that the skull of the mummy was visible prior to the unwrapping, and that it was "entirely free from the body." He later stated that "the head had been found separated at least a foot from the body." (TTAA, 61, 64.) Weigall noted that both the head and feet of the mummy were exposed when the excavators first entered KV 55, and stated that the bandages which had once covered them had "decayed and fallen off." He continued, saying "the bare skull...could be seen protruding from the remains of the linen bandages and from the sheets of flexible gold foil in which...the whole body was wrapped." (GP, 137.) Some accounts describe more than a "bare skull," and report that facial features were still visible on the mummy. A visitor to the tomb, Walter Tyndale, in his Below the Cataracts (London, 1907), comments that the mummy's "dried-up face, sunken cheeks, and thin leathery-looking lips, exposing a few teeth were in ghastly contrast to the golden diadem which encircled [the] head and the gold necklace that partially hid [the] shrunken throat." (Quoted in TVK, 216. cf. Maspero, NL, 294, and Ayrton, PSBA 29 [1907], 279.) Ayrton's comment that "the bones would only just bear handling" (ToQT, 9) and Davis's observation that a tooth crumbled when he touched it (ToQT, 4) attest to the delicate condition of the body. G. E. Smith, who later examined the mummy in Cairo (see below) reported that the bones of the face had been crushed when the coffin lid collapsed onto them. (RM, 55.) J. L. Smith recorded that Maspero formulated his own theory to account for the decapitation of the body. He had found a stone inside the coffin and believed this had separated the head of the mummy from the body when it had fallen from the ceiling. (TTAA, 58.) Martha Bell points out that the mummy's head had very probably been originally covered with the traditional mummy mask, and that the head could have been pulled from the body and damaged when an attempt was made to forcibly remove this. (JARCE 27 [1990], 133.)

http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages1/Mummycondition.htm

Aromagician wrote:
Quote:
Are there any drawings of it in that state?

It disintegrated immediately.

Neteria wrote:
Quote:
Were the water filtrations alone responsible for the mummy's deterioration? Why had it held together only up to the excavation time? What was that crown like, and what happened to it? Was this the Nekhbet displaced pectoral?

It's all right here. Click on the links.

http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages1/18C.htm
Quote:
If KV55 is Smenkhkare, as best fits the data, shouldn't a police reconstruction fromskeletal facial features look like the middle coffin of Tutankhamen, presumably "borrowed" by Ay for burying his predecessor in a grander scale? And how do those two faces fit the bone structureof the other Smenkhkare younger portraits?

Except the middle coffin could well have been Ahkenaten's original equipment (as was a lot of Tut's burial equipment, I suspect) before being briefly used by Smenky. In any case the coffin portrait is an artist rendering of a supine rather than upright subject.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4001
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One can be sure of two minds ... For my part, I would not want to talk from a preserved face when eyes and nose area are shattered ... Even when teeth and lips are survived and still visible.

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


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It made a marvelous picture in my mind. There they were looking a face, for an instant, that a lot of people would have liked to have seen and then, poof, it disintegrated in a cloud of dust, all in a second.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neteria wrote:
I don't believe I've heard of any contemporary drawings, but it is worth remembering that the face of that KV55 mummy looked youthful enough to be considered as a female, and a crown was removed from the "Queen's haughty brow", or words to that effect.


The thing that made Davis think it was Tiye had to do with the burial shrine of Tiye, which was inside the tomb KV55. From that, he was sure he had Queen Tiye in the KV 55 coffin. Most of his Egyptological colleagues on the dig disagreed.

When Davis was able to get a doctor from the hotel in Luxor where he was staying to take a took at the body (not the face), the doctor opined the pelvis (hips) were gynaecoid (like a woman's hips). With this, Davis declared the KV 55 remains as those of Queen Tiye, which has been the bane of Egyptologists since.

Davis would not allow any excavator on his team to contradict him in this conclusion, which is why the articles included in The Tomb of Queen Tiyi are as poor as they are. Maspero's 1908 version of the find, while not the best, was independent of Davis' team's publications, and he clearly stated his doubts as to the identification of the KV 55 remains as those of Queen Tiye from the outset (his claim is supported by Joseph Lindon Smith's account, written in the 1950's, from Smith's own notes).

It took Grafton Elliott Smith's careful examination of the KV 55 remains in 1908 to determine they were in fact those of male (2001 (1912)), and by which he informed Davis of this result. Davis was crushed, but accepted the gender determination.

Reference:

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

Maspero, G. 1908. New Light on Ancient Egypt. E. Lee. London: T. Fisher Unwin.

Smith, G. E. 2000 (1912). Catalogue Général de Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. No. 60151-61100. The Royal Mummies. Service des Antiquités de L'Égypte: Catalogue Général de Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. London: Duckworth.

Smith, J. L. and C. Smith. 1956. Tombs, Temples and Ancient Art. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
_________________
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
Aromagician
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 97
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
arthur
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, if only Aryton had with him a Box Brownie and an ounce of flash powder, an image of the mummy's face might have been captured. Ah, well!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aromagician
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 97
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tried to post an interesting link on Nicholas reeves website.
It talks about how Tutankhamens Gold mask was originally made for Neferneruaten ( who he says is Nefertiti) He points to how there used to be holes in the ear part of the mask, which has been plugged up ( would have been for earrings) as well as other stuff.I also posted a link on an article about the KV55 mummy on the topic here.
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, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
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