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, 4 ... 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
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


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

PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

... What do you mean by 'middle'? ...

Following Bickerstaffe : Identifying the Royal Mummies - 4 (2009, p. 26) two female mummys from KV 60 are the first known examples for the position left arm across the chest. They seem to come from the reign of Hatschepsut. One of them was identified by Hawass as this female pharao (disputed).

Orwell wrote:
... And was the 'female' (and/or 'male') position different before the 'middle'? ...

See my post in "Could Kia be Sitamun?" (4) from Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:03 pm, the table from the article by Gray.

Orwell wrote:
... (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?

We know the formulations used in the texts of the inscription volumes (A - E) as titulary for Akhenaten so far only from / in connection with the name of Kija.

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 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Following Bickerstaffe : Identifying the Royal Mummies - 4 (2009, p. 26) two female mummys from KV 60 are the first known examples for the position left arm across the chest. They seem to come from the reign of Hatschepsut. One of them was identified by Hawass as this female pharao (disputed).


Thanks again.

Lutz wrote:
See my post in "Could Kia be Sitamun?" (4) from Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:03 pm, the table from the article by Gray.


Back soon! Very Happy

Lutz wrote:
We know the formulations used in the texts of the inscription volumes (A - E) as titulary for Akhenaten so far only from / in connection with the name of Kija.


So pretty well a 'confirmed' appellation? Idea
Greetings, Lutz.[/quote]
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 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Had a look at the list, Lutz (and copied same to my files!) Apears a reasonable conclusion that 'female' mummies of time were generally similar in arm positions.

So:

Fact (1) There is a Tomb KV55

Fact (2) There is a mumy that was found in the tomb.

Fact (3)[Reasonably certain] The mummy that was found was laid out in a typical 'female' position.

I'm getting somewhere.

Now. Can we be certain the mummy in the coffin was NOT a female? Davis thought it was an 'aged' female. Two Doctors thought it was a female. The mummy they saw had arms in the 'female' position.

It may seem a dumb question, but I have a liking for dumb questions. Is there any suggestion anywhere that in the general sloppiness of the
Archeologists, that the mummy might have been accidentally mistaken for another mummy? A mistake that has not been brought 'fully' to light until this very second? Did Elliott Smith examine the wrong mummy - bones actually, wasn't it? Was the coffin - in spite of Grimm's findings - a 'female' coffin? For Tiye, maybe? Could Davis have been right after all? Idea


(Btw Lutz, I have ordered a copy of The Tomb of Tiyi by Davis on Amazon. See: I'm responding to your gentle prods towards actual research, not just letting you guys do all the reading and thinking for me! 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: Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lutz, those inscriptions you mention, are they on the coffin itself, or are they the mummy bands? i'm sure the mummy bands have inscriptions and someone had drawn them before they were stolen. i would have no trouble thinking the mummy bands may have been made for akhenaten originally, but the coffin itself, i have read books published after 2002, and i have never seen anyone say that the coffin was made for akhenaten. they all say it was made for kiya, and appropriated for the king buried in kv 55.
_________________
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: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:48 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 )


(3) Egyptologists are a lot more concerned with consistency then the AEs ever were. Like I suggested above different embalmers may have had different practices. It may have all depended on the workshop you went to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
Lutz, Akhenaten was a father at the time of his accession ...

I would like to see the proofs for that statement.


<Sigh> reliefs in the Luxor Atenist temple dating from the first years of Akhenaten's reign show a small princess following Nefertiti. Meritaten at least was born by the time of her father's succession and probably was older than infancy.

Meretseger wrote:
... The lowest possible age is twenty-nine or thirty. ...

Which would by the way quite fit with Smith (1910 in Davis report, see my quotation). [/quote]

But not later investigation.

Meretseger wrote:
... The canopic jars were certainly adapted for male kingly use. Kiya is the general choice as original owner due to traces of her titulary still visible. ...

The canopic vases were originally manufactured without question for Kija. Thus it is however not said they were also used for a funeral of Kija. Me personal the thought is absurdly that the entrails of Kija were removed and entrails of a king were entered after that. Differently it looks with its covers. The Uräus at the forehead is broken off, however its body is received as relief in original on the wig. No referring to additional treatment. [/quote]

Get real, Lutz. The body of the uraeus was CLEARLY an afterthought at it is carved on top of the ringlets of the wig. And what easier than drilling a hole to insert a uraeus head?

Meretseger wrote:
... The coffin was certainly made for somebody 'Beloved' of Akhenaten not Akhenaten himself.

No, it was without any doubt originally manufactured for Akhenaten. Completely clearly the inscription volumes on cover and lower part (A - G), in the original and invariably, prove this.

Lutz[/quote]

Lutz, honey, NOTHING is 'clear' about Amarna, least of all the fragmentary golden lining or mummy bands!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Had a look at the list, Lutz (and copied same to my files!) Apears a reasonable conclusion that 'female' mummies of time were generally similar in arm positions.

So:

Fact (1) There is a Tomb KV55

Fact (2) There is a mumy that was found in the tomb.

Fact (3)[Reasonably certain] The mummy that was found was laid out in a typical 'female' position.

I'm getting somewhere.

Now. Can we be certain the mummy in the coffin was NOT a female? Davis thought it was an 'aged' female. Two Doctors thought it was a female. The mummy they saw had arms in the 'female' position.

It may seem a dumb question, but I have a liking for dumb questions. Is there any suggestion anywhere that in the general sloppiness of the
Archeologists, that the mummy might have been accidentally mistaken for another mummy? A mistake that has not been brought 'fully' to light until this very second? Did Elliott Smith examine the wrong mummy - bones actually, wasn't it? Was the coffin - in spite of Grimm's findings - a 'female' coffin? For Tiye, maybe? Could Davis have been right after all? Idea


(Btw Lutz, I have ordered a copy of The Tomb of Tiyi by Davis on Amazon. See: I'm responding to your gentle prods towards actual research, not just letting you guys do all the reading and thinking for me! Very Happy )


No Davis cannot have been right, because if he was there should be an unaccounted for aged female mummy floating around and not even Davis seems to have argued the remains examined by Smith were not the ones he found. Parsimony favors an error by the in-situ examiners over an switch of mummies.
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 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
lutz, those inscriptions you mention, are they on the coffin itself, or are they the mummy bands? ...

The inscriptions on the coffin were examined. The legendary mummy volumes were not contained, unfortunately, in the Munich convolut.

kylejustin wrote:
... i have read books published after 2002, and i have never seen anyone say that the coffin was made for akhenaten. they all say it was made for kiya, and appropriated for the king buried in kv 55.

Maybe they all have the similar problem as some readers in the forum here: they can not read German?

For egyptologists remarkable and unusually there is also no contradiction to the Munich investigations. They are apparently simply ignored and older statements done only after eye inspection of the coffins lid are blindly repeated.

In Munich was also the work procedure for the production of the coffin investigated. The used gold originates from different sources (which for pieces of this time is not unusual). But it was however at the same time processed. This is proved by the overlaps of the individual gold foils, visible in the CT-scan / x-ray. These overlappings were interpreted, only after eye inspection, as interfaces from the text change. But real interfaces were only found in inscription F on the base plate. The inscriptions A - E are thus original. And as long as the used formulation of the titulary not also for Semenchkara is provable, remains only Akhenaton as original owner of the coffin.

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 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
... Like I suggested above different embalmers may have had different practices. It may have all depended on the workshop you went to.

And like I marked several times, extremely improbably for mummifying of a king, a highly religes procedure, after the believe conviction of the ancient Egyptians much too importantly for the continuance of the country, in order to leave it to the desire and mood of an embalmer.

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 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
... Is there any suggestion anywhere that in the general sloppiness of the Archeologists, that the mummy might have been accidentally mistaken for another mummy? ...

This assumption exists indeed. Only I can not remember for the moment from who and where it is expressed… Confused

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 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:

...

Maybe they all have the similar problem as some readers in the forum here: they can not read German?

For egyptologists remarkable and unusually there is also no contradiction to the Munich investigations. They are apparently simply ignored and older statements done only after eye inspection of the coffins lid are blindly repeated.

In Munich was also the work procedure for the production of the coffin investigated. The used gold originates from different sources (which for pieces of this time is not unusual). But it was however at the same time processed. This is proved by the overlaps of the individual gold foils, visible in the CT-scan / x-ray. These overlappings were interpreted, only after eye inspection, as interfaces from the text change. But real interfaces were only found in inscription F on the base plate. The inscriptions A - E are thus original. And as long as the used formulation of the titulary not also for Semenchkara is provable, remains only Akhenaton as original owner of the coffin.

Greetings, Lutz.


I'm sure you've already somewhere provided a full reference for the German analysis of the coffin, but would you be so kind to do so again, Lutz? Even better would be a link to a PDF that can be downloaded. I'm not sure where you might have done this in another thread so it would be convenient to have it right here.

I highly doubt my own German is sufficient to the task, considering it's been some 20 years since I studied the language, but I'm sure I can find someone or some source to translate it.

Thank you, Lutz. Wink
_________________


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: Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
Lutz, Akhenaten was a father at the time of his accession ...

I would like to see the proofs for that statement.


<Sigh> reliefs in the Luxor Atenist temple dating from the first years of Akhenaten's reign show a small princess following Nefertiti. Meritaten at least was born by the time of her father's succession and probably was older than infancy. ...

At the beginning of its reign Amenhotep IV. is represented in Karnak in conventional pose as a beautiful strong king, killing the enemies of Egypt (see monumental illustration from a pylon (?), reconstructed in the open air museum in Karnak).

In the tomb of Cheruef he appears in company of his mother queen Teje (not with Nefertiti) to homage his father in conventional representation as a governing king. In the same tomb there is a scene in early Amarna style. As far as I know it is the oldest known depiction of Nefertiti and Amenhotep IV. / Akhenaten as couple.

Thus it seems at least questionably whether he was at the time of its coronation married with Nefertiti already. Conceivable it appears, which his father before has done, he married not forwards, rather after year 1 or 2 of its government.

Meretseger wrote:
Quote:
... The lowest possible age is twenty-nine or thirty. ...

Quote:
Which would by the way quite fit with Smith (1910 in Davis report, see my quotation).


But not later investigation.

To those from other sides one contradicts ...

Meretseger wrote:
... The canopic jars were certainly adapted for male kingly use. Kiya is the general choice as original owner due to traces of her titulary still visible. ...

Lutz wrote:
...The canopic vases were originally manufactured without question for Kija. Thus it is however not said they were also used for a funeral of Kija. Me personal the thought is absurdly that the entrails of Kija were removed and entrails of a king were entered after that. Differently it looks with its covers. The Uräus at the forehead is broken off, however its body is received as relief in original on the wig. No referring to additional treatment.

Meretseger wrote:
... Get real, Lutz. The body of the uraeus was CLEARLY an afterthought at it is carved on top of the ringlets of the wig. ...

Proofs? Something like that does leave traces. At the object in Munich (the one from MMA New York) no reference was found. As far as I know and could see with my own eyes also not on the remaining three in Cairo.

Meretseger wrote:
... The coffin was certainly made for somebody 'Beloved' of Akhenaten not Akhenaten himself.

Lutz wrote:
No, it was without any doubt originally manufactured for Akhenaten. Completely clearly the inscription volumes on cover and lower part (A - G), in the original and invariably, prove this.

Lutz

Meretseger wrote:
Lutz, honey, NOTHING is 'clear' about Amarna, least of all the fragmentary golden lining or mummy bands!

My dear Meretseger, I am with security not your "honey". I trust the Munich investigations and there results, and not someones believes ..., at least because I have read them. And I know some of the egytologists involved (and their technical qualification) in person scince years now.

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 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
...

It may seem a dumb question, but I have a liking for dumb questions. Is there any suggestion anywhere that in the general sloppiness of the
Archeologists, that the mummy might have been accidentally mistaken for another mummy? A mistake that has not been brought 'fully' to light until this very second? Did Elliott Smith examine the wrong mummy - bones actually, wasn't it? Was the coffin - in spite of Grimm's findings - a 'female' coffin? For Tiye, maybe? Could Davis have been right after all? Idea


It's a perfectly reasonable question, in fact. Lutz mentions having come across the assumption, so evidently it's been voiced before. There's a big difference, however, between assumption and fact, and I personally would be skeptical.

Remember that when it came to legitimately analyzing skeletal human remains, Davis wouldn't have known one way or the other. He was only a dabbler in archaeology, which is why he hired real archaeologists to do his excavations. As far as that goes, not all archaeologists would be very good at sexing skeletons unless they possessed the requisite training. This is why we have forensic anthropologists.

The pair of doctors who Davis recruited to look at the skeleton were just a pair of tourists strolling in the Valley that day. They evidently were physicians, yes, but how scientific was their analysis, really? What was their training in analyzing skeletal human remains?

I'm not sure how an entire set of bones would've been accidentally swapped for another set of bones, so that's why I'm skeptical. This would've required a degree of sloppiness to which even Theodore Davis himself probably couldn't have sunk.

I do believe Smith and all subsequent examiners were studying the correct skeleton, and all are in agreement that it is male. More is the question, how much disturbance and shifting and upset did the body experience before its reburial in KV55 over 3,000 years ago? To me, this is a more likely explanation.
_________________


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: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
... I'm sure you've already somewhere provided a full reference for the German analysis of the coffin, but would you be so kind to do so again, Lutz? Even better would be a link to a PDF that can be downloaded. ...

Already in this thread. But here again ... Just for you! Wink

Alfred Grimm / Sylvia Schoske : Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges - Echnaton und das Ende der Amarnazeit. - [veröffentlicht anläßlich der Sonderausstellung Das Geheimnis des Goldenen Sarges - Echnaton und das Ende der Amarnazeit, München,Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, 17. Oktober 2001 bis 6. Januar 2002]. - München : Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, 2001. - Schriften aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung - SAS - 10. - ISBN : 3-87490-722-8. - 162 p.

As far as I know there is no copy online at the net available.

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 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:

Already in this thread. But here again ... Just for you! Wink

Alfred Grimm / Sylvia Schoske : Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges - Echnaton und das Ende der Amarnazeit. - [veröffentlicht anläßlich der Sonderausstellung Das Geheimnis des Goldenen Sarges - Echnaton und das Ende der Amarnazeit, München,Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, 17. Oktober 2001 bis 6. Januar 2002]. - München : Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, 2001. - Schriften aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung - SAS - 10. - ISBN : 3-87490-722-8. - 162 p.

As far as I know there is no copy online at the net available.

Greetings, Lutz.


Thanks, Lutz. I appreciate it. Smile
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
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 ... 30, 31, 32  Next
Page 3 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