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 

KV55
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 30, 31, 32  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: Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So - after all that Laughing - which one seems to be the 'facts'

(1) Mummy had arms in male position (for XVIII;s Dyn Rulers), or
(2) Mummy had arms in female position (for XVIII's Dyn Rulers), or
(3) There is no established 'set' position ((for XVIII's Dyn Rulers)?

(I'll leave the 'age' of mummy discussion out for moment, if you guys don't mind. I can see a fine discussion in that too, and I'm trying to focus a bit, establishing 'fact by fact' if it's possible. It's easy to get distracted by broad discussions on lots of 'facts', I fear. Especially as any single 'fact' re KV55 seems to need a full discussion! Very Happy )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
So - after all that Laughing - which one seems to be the 'facts'

(1) Mummy had arms in male position (for XVIII;s Dyn Rulers), or
(2) Mummy had arms in female position (for XVIII's Dyn Rulers), or
(3) There is no established 'set' position ((for XVIII's Dyn Rulers)?

(I'll leave the 'age' of mummy discussion out for moment, if you guys don't mind. I can see a fine discussion in that too, and I'm trying to focus a bit, establishing 'fact by fact' if it's possible. It's easy to get distracted by broad discussions on lots of 'facts', I fear. Especially as any single 'fact' re KV55 seems to need a full discussion! Very Happy )


Orwell, I asked this earlier and am sure I've missed your explanation in some other Smenkhkare/KV55 discussion, but what have you yourself seen/read/heard about the position of the arms of the KV55 mummy? I'm trying to get a better idea of where you're coming from and am still a bit confused, myself.

I'd be curious to hear other posters' input on this, too. I myself do not know in what position this mummy's arms were found, or if it was even noted to begin with. Of the accounts I've read, Davis had the tomb cleared out pretty quickly in 1907, and depending on which account one reads, the clearing may have been sloppy. I'm left wondering how much the skeletal remains were disturbed before any details were even recorded.
_________________


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: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
So - after all that Laughing - which one seems to be the 'facts'

(1) Mummy had arms in male position (for XVIII;s Dyn Rulers), ...

Starting with Amenhotep I. with exception of the male king from KV 55 (and of course Aja and Horemhab whose mummies are not identified / found).

Orwell wrote:
... (2) Mummy had arms in female position (for XVIII's Dyn Rulers), ...

As far as we know just one, the king from KV 55. However, as noted elsewhere "female position" is missleading.

Orwell wrote:
... (3) There is no established 'set' position ((for XVIII's Dyn Rulers)?...

We know three different royal positions for 18th Dynasty. The third is arms stretched to the body for king Ahmose.

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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
... the position of the arms of the KV55 mummy ... I myself do not know in what position this mummy's arms were found, or if it was even noted to begin with. ...

See Theodore M. Davis : The tomb of Queen Tîyi - The discovery of the tomb. - 1910, page 9 in article by Ayrton : "The excavatin ..."(1907) ; In the re-edition from KMT with introduction by Reeves from 1990, page 20 :
Quote:
"... The left arm was bent with the hand on the breast, ... the right arm was laid straight down by the side, ..."


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: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Lutz.

So from that I gather, Ayrton found a mummy who was 'prepared' in a 'female' position, as best we can know?

Caveat: 'Female position' in this case, to take your point, Lutz, may also mean 'in a changed position for 'males' due to a new Religious view of mummification/burial/ritual, or for some other unknown reason'?

In other words, definitely not the usual position for royal mummies in the XVIII's Dynasty.

(I need to be pedantic as I think it's important to be pedantic when it comes to establishing actual 'facts').
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Lutz"]See Theodore M. Davis : The tomb of Queen Tîyi - The discovery of the tomb. - 1910, page 9 in article by Ayrton : "The excavatin ..."(1907) ; In the re-edition from KMT with introduction by Reeves from 1990, page 20 :
Quote:
"... The left arm was bent with the hand on the breast, ... the right arm was laid straight down by the side, ..."


Said 'female' position?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
... In other words, definitely not the usual position for royal mummies in the XVIII's Dynasty. ...

Better : for a mummy of a king from the 18th Dynasty. Pedantic enough? Cool

Greetings, Lutz.
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: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
kmt_sesh wrote:
... the position of the arms of the KV55 mummy ... I myself do not know in what position this mummy's arms were found, or if it was even noted to begin with. ...

See Theodore M. Davis : The tomb of Queen Tîyi - The discovery of the tomb. - 1910, page 9 in article by Ayrton : "The excavatin ..."(1907) ; In the re-edition from KMT with introduction by Reeves from 1990, page 20 :
Quote:
"... The left arm was bent with the hand on the breast, ... the right arm was laid straight down by the side, ..."


Greetings, Lutz.


Thank you, Lutz. Most helpful.

I found a downloadable version of Davis's book here, for anyone else who might be interested. Ayrton's article doesn't seem as easy to find, and I certainly don't have issues of KMT going all the way back to 1990. Laughing
_________________


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: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
... I found a downloadable version of Davis's book here, for anyone else who might be interested. ...

I have still posted the link some days ago ...

kmt_sesh wrote:
... Ayrton's article doesn't seem as easy to find, and I certainly don't have issues of KMT going all the way back to 1990. Laughing

A misunderstanding. Not the magazine "KMT" but the publishing house of same name is meant in the reference.

There are two re-editions of the original Davis report :

Theodore M. Davis, Gaston Maspero, G. Elliot Smith, Eward Ayrton, George Daressy : The tomb of Queen Tîyi. - [Theodore M. Davis' excavations: Bibân el Molûk]. - San Francisco : Kmt Communications, Inc., [1910] / 1990. - leicht veränderter Nachdruck der Auflage von 1910. - ISBN : 1-879388-00-6 ; 1-879388-01-4. - XVIII, 89 p.

This edition offers additionally two contributions by Nicholas Reeves ("Introduction to 2nd Edition" / "Selected Bibliography of KV 55 Literature").

and

The tomb of Siphtah with The tomb of Queen Tîyi. - [1908 / 1910, together in one volume]. - London : Duckworth, 2001. - ISBN : 0-7156-3073-3.

Greetings, Lutz.
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: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:

I have still posted the link some days ago ...


I don't doubt it, and it's helpful of you to have done so. But the link isn't in this current discussion and I'd like to have it right here. LOL Although I fully understand pretty much everyone taking part in the discussion is also involved in the overabundance of other KV55/Smenkhkare threads that are still in play.

Quote:

A misunderstanding. Not the magazine "KMT" but the publishing house of same name is meant in the reference.

There are two re-editions of the original Davis report :

Theodore M. Davis, Gaston Maspero, G. Elliot Smith, Eward Ayrton, George Daressy : The tomb of Queen Tîyi. - [Theodore M. Davis' excavations: Bibân el Molûk]. - San Francisco : Kmt Communications, Inc., [1910] / 1990. - leicht veränderter Nachdruck der Auflage von 1910. - ISBN : 1-879388-00-6 ; 1-879388-01-4. - XVIII, 89 p.

This edition offers additionally two contributions by Nicholas Reeves ("Introduction to 2nd Edition" / "Selected Bibliography of KV 55 Literature").

and

The tomb of Siphtah with The tomb of Queen Tîyi. - [1908 / 1910, together in one volume]. - London : Duckworth, 2001. - ISBN : 0-7156-3073-3.

Greetings, Lutz.


Thanks much for pointing that out. The confusion is mine. I'll have to spend some time tracking it down. I'm curious to see what Ayrton himself had to say about KV55.
_________________


Visit my blog!
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: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Orwell wrote:
... In other words, definitely not the usual position for royal mummies in the XVIII's Dynasty. ...

Better : for a mummy of a king from the 18th Dynasty. Pedantic enough? Cool

Greetings, Lutz.


Perfectly pedantic. Very Happy So now - let's speculate on why.

(1) Was it an example of the changed Religious Practice? Is there any specific supporting evidence above the general knowledge that it was the Amarna Period?

(2) Was it a show of the embalmers (and/or powers-that-be) 'disrespect' to his body?

(3) Did it suggest the person who beame the mummy wanted to think of of himself as a New Age Woman (or 'female' generally), and/or the 'male' wife of Akhenaten (or some other Ruler type person)?

(4) Was it evidence that there was no set routine?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh Lutz! "Better : for a mummy of a king from the 18th Dynasty. Pedantic enough? "

Confirming (pedanting?) So this male was mummified in the positionining usually reserved for an XVIII's Dynasty Ruler-class-type 'female'?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
... But the link isn't in this current discussion and I'd like to have it right here. ...

I understand and agree. Bundling of all available informations to a topic in one place is in my opinion always better, as I already marked in other place here in the forum ... Already for reasons of clarity.

Since the book from Grimm/Schoske, already quite often mentioned by me, belongs in my opinion to the key works of the KV 55 literature, I will copy my short introduction also in this thread :

The assumptions the coffin from KV 55 was originally made for a women and reworked for a king could disproved by his investigation in Munich. See Alfred Grimm / Sylvia Schoske: Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges - Echnaton und das Ende der Amarnazeit. - [Catalouge of an exhibition in 2001 / 2002 in Munich]. - München : Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, 2001. - 162 p.

Briefly to pre-history and conclusions :

In 1980 were submitted to the director of the collections in Munich, Prof. Wildung, a convolut of gold foils and inserts for expertiese from a Swiss private property. It fast became clear that these are the remains of the coffin tub from KV 55, which disappeared around 1931 from the museum in Cairo.

In arrangement with the Egyptian government the coffin tub was restored in Munich. A tub from plexiglass in original size was made and applied on this were the foils and inserts. The extremely impressing object was presented together with other objects from KV 55 and the Valley of the Kings in the context of an exhibition in 2001 to the public. After this exhibition in Munich it was given for free back to Egypt and is now at Cairo Museum, Amarna room.

One piece of this extraordinary exhibition was also the cover of the coffin, for the first time lend by the Cairo museum. While the piece was in Munich the coffin was for the first time intensively and with the possibilities of most modern technology (among other things CT-scan) examined. Analyses took place of the used materials and work procedures.

For a later re-working no references could be found. Uräus, wig and beard seem to be original, likewise the inscription volumes on cover and tub (A - E, the inscriptions with the deleted cartouches). Only the inscription F on the base plate at the foot end was changed, apparently least two times.

A - E are more or less similar. They offer the full titulary for Akhenaton, known in this words from inscriptions for Kija. But here name is not given. The cartouches with the name for the king (and owner of the coffin) were cut out. For example the translation for columne C:

"Completed ruler, large one of loving, king of upper and lower egypt, which live on the truth, lord of the two countries (cartouche), the completed child of the living Aton, from which is valid: it will live now and always into all eternity. Son of Ra, which lives on the truth, lord of the crowns (cartouche), largely at its lifetime."

As are said, the inscription volumes must addressed as original. They do not show any referring to changes in material or scribt (with exception of the cartouches naturally).

Inscription F probably originally contained the name of Kija. The name was removed and the inscription was easily amended. One hieroglyph, a female determinative, was ignored. The inscription F is probably the Amarna variant of a prayer for the salvation of the deceased. On other examples from the NK it is spoken by a goddess (usually Isis or Nephtys).

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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
... So this male was mummified in the positionining usually reserved for an XVIII's Dynasty Ruler-class-type 'female'?

Better : A position used for female members of the royal family, starting from the middle / at the end of 18th Dynasty.

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: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(1)

Lutz said:
"Better : A position used for female members of the royal family, starting from the middle / at the end of 18th Dynasty."

Ooh my pedantry arises again! What do you mean by 'middle'? And was the 'female' (and/or 'male') position different before the 'middle'?



(2)
Lutz said: "Inscription F probably originally contained the name of Kija. "

How 'probable' is 'probable'? What is the reasoning for the assumption? Why not Tiye? Or Nefertiti? Or Merit-aten? Or some other (not necessarily female) personage?
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, ... 30, 31, 32  Next
Page 2 of 32

 
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