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 

The Magic Bricks in KV55
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pyramids, Tombs, & Monuments
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ayrton
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 06 Jan 2017
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

With experts on both sides disputing the age issue, the age is an open question. But everything I know does seem to point clearly to Akhenaten. As with do much in ancient history, we must do some guessing, but the best guess according to available evidence, is that it is Akhenaten. The certitude that it can't be Akhenaten - not that it is possible that it isn't Akhenaten but the certitude that it just can't be Akhenaten - mystifies me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3538
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vangu Vegro wrote:
Lutz wrote:
There is not a single one among them which allows to identify the bones with a king named Semenchkara (or any other).

... if we could (and again, I'm convinced we can) definitively rule out Akhenaten, what option other than Smenchkare is there? ...

No one ... And therefore, this is another reason, besides the ritual use of his bricks etc., why it can only be Akhenaten.

Vangu Vegro wrote:
... if what the editor of KMT magazine was saying about the rediscovery of some gold foil pieces from the KV55 coffin (namely that two American Egyptologists confirmed to him on seperate occasions that they'd identified Smenchkare's cartouche on one of those pieces) is true, then yes, we do have a single one. But that remains to be (de-)confirmed, of course.

What the publisher of a commercial magazine, which he has to sell of course, "was saying" is completely irrelevant, as long as he can not give the names of these "two American Egyptologists", together with there associated scientific publication of this allegedly cartouche. I am not interested in postfactic Egyptology...
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1028
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Vangu Vegro wrote:
Lutz wrote:
There is not a single one among them which allows to identify the bones with a king named Semenchkara (or any other).

... if we could (and again, I'm convinced we can) definitively rule out Akhenaten, what option other than Smenchkare is there? ...

No one ... And therefore, this is another reason, besides the ritual use of his bricks etc., why it can only be Akhenaten.

Vangu Vegro wrote:
... if what the editor of KMT magazine was saying about the rediscovery of some gold foil pieces from the KV55 coffin (namely that two American Egyptologists confirmed to him on seperate occasions that they'd identified Smenchkare's cartouche on one of those pieces) is true, then yes, we do have a single one. But that remains to be (de-)confirmed, of course.

What the publisher of a commercial magazine, which he has to sell of course, "was saying" is completely irrelevant, as long as he can not give the names of these "two American Egyptologists", together with there associated scientific publication of this allegedly cartouche. I am not interested in postfactic Egyptology...


Not quite sure why you question this, Lutz. It has been widely reported that the foil cartouches do show Smenkhkare's name, and there is no reason for a publication like KMT would report it if not true.

There will always be those who do not believe that KV 55 is Smenkhkare: I do.

I've given good reasons why I do. Evidence of reused funereal equipment is not enough, IMO, to identify the remains as Akhenaten, when the bones themselves say they are much younger than the heretic king, who had a 17 year reign and fathered 6 children. Even by most liberal reading of age, Akhenaten would have had to be about 30+ when he died, whereas the KV 55 remains are aged to no more than 25 years of age at death, with 23 the presumed age at death.

We'll have to leave it at that.
_________________
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
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3538
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
Not quite sure why you question this, Lutz. It has been widely reported that the foil cartouches do show Smenkhkare's name, and there is no reason for a publication like KMT would report it if not true. ...

I have my own experiences with the editor from KMT, from a discussion at EEF about the so called "Munich Convolut", the gold foils from the coffin tub from KV 55. Therefore, my skepticism about the statements of this gentleman, especially when formulated in a conspiracy-theoretical manner.

From other sources is a report about a re-discovered cartouche with the name "Semenkhkara", which is from KV 55, not known to me. Can you please give a serious source / publication?

neseret wrote:
There will always be those who do not believe that KV 55 is Smenkhkare

And those were and are more than here in the forum always liked to be claimed. A very nice, compact and objective overview offers, also in this question, the already mentioned article ...

Habicht / Bouwman / Rühli : Identifications of Ancient Egyptian Royal Mummies from the 18th Dynasty Reconsidered. - In: American Journal of Physical Anthropology 159. - 2016. - pp. 216 – 231

neseret wrote:
We'll have to leave it at that.

We both know that we have different views in this regard......... #Bad Talk .......... pharaohwave

Best, Lutz.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ayrton
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 06 Jan 2017
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isn't there a theory going around that Smemkhkare (and Neferneferuaten) is Nefertiti as a Pharoah? So if it can be confirmed that Smenkhkare's name on the gold foil, then Nefertiti's presence in relation to a mummy of Akhenaten might be feasible? Idea

Not a theory, just a thought.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3538
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Vangu Vegro wrote:
... if what the editor of KMT magazine was saying about the rediscovery of some gold foil pieces from the KV55 coffin (namely that two American Egyptologists confirmed to him on seperate occasions that they'd identified Smenchkare's cartouche on one of those pieces) is true, then yes, we do have a single one. But that remains to be (de-)confirmed, of course.

What the publisher of a commercial magazine, which he has to sell of course, "was saying" is completely irrelevant, as long as he can not give the names of these "two American Egyptologists", together with there associated scientific publication of this allegedly cartouche. I am not interested in postfactic Egyptology...

Not quite sure why you question this, Lutz. It has been widely reported that the foil cartouches do show Smenkhkare's name, and there is no reason for a publication like KMT would report it if not true. ...

D.C. Forbes : So, What's Become of the Golden Cartouche?. - In: KMT 21-2. - 2010. - pp. 36 - 37 :



The statement "... Waenre ("Sole one of Re") would not have stood alone in any inscription and would have been closed in a cartouche ..." is simply wrong. See, among other inscriptions: "Holzkasten - ÄMP Berlin - 17555". Ty, wife of Aja, is called on this object several times "Greatly Praised of Waenre, Lady of the House, Ty" and "Waenre" is not surrounded by a cartouche.

And if you have no cartouche, then you simply make one ...



... Photoshop makes it possible. Rolling Eyes This is, from my point of view, neither scientific Egyptology nor serious journalism, sorry.

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
evarelap
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 28 Jan 2015
Posts: 96
Location: Barranquilla, Colombia

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RIP the Smenkhkare gold foil theory Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ayrton
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 06 Jan 2017
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I feel sometimes that the only evidence for Smenkhkare being in KV55 is the mummy that HAS to be Smenkhkare (and not possibly anyone else) because some experts say he is too young while other experts who say he is old enough are just plain wrong.

For want of a better candidate, or new evidence to the contrary turning up, I'm happy to accept it's Akhenaten.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1227
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:


neseret wrote:
There will always be those who do not believe that KV 55 is Smenkhkare

And those were and are more than here in the forum always liked to be claimed. A very nice, compact and objective overview offers, also in this question, the already mentioned article ...

Habicht / Bouwman / Rühli : Identifications of Ancient Egyptian Royal Mummies from the 18th Dynasty Reconsidered. - In: American Journal of Physical Anthropology 159. - 2016. - pp. 216 – 231


I have several issues with this article. Very interesting but clearly had their own agendas, as does anyone who ignores documentary evidence to push for akhenaten and nefertiti as parents of tutankhamun. They ignored the evidence of two separate successors of akhenaten: smenkhkare and neferneferuaten. They ignored the fact nefertiti has no royal titles such as king's sister or king's daughter, which other royals clearly have, excluding her as akhenaten's sister. Refuse to think it it possible smenkhkare was a younger son of amenhotep III and tiye. Openly state the blocks at ashmunein state akhenaten and nefertiti are tutankhamun's parents, which is blatantly untrue. There are more mistakes but really it is poorly put together with the archaeology side of their conclusions.
_________________
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: 3538
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Habicht / Bouwman / Rühli : Identifications of Ancient Egyptian Royal Mummies from the 18th Dynasty Reconsidered. - In: American Journal of Physical Anthropology 159. - 2016. - pp. 216 – 231

... clearly had their own agendas, ...

Of course! Isn`t that the meaning and purpose of such publications? I thought at least so far... Or have the "20-year-old-and-Semenkhkara" authors no "own agenda"?

However, the alternative opinions and interpretations are also mentioned (with sources), in contrast to most of the latter... And that's what I mean when I speak of "nice, compact and objective overview".
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
evarelap
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 28 Jan 2015
Posts: 96
Location: Barranquilla, Colombia

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
They ignored the fact nefertiti has no royal titles such as king's sister or king's daughter, which other royals clearly have, excluding her as akhenaten's sister


Is there evidence for any "king's sister" in Akhenaten's reign? The KV35YL mummy certainly was a king's sister, and a king's mother. But there is no archeological evidence for a woman with such titles. Is there?

I may be wrong but I think there is also no evidence about Thuya having the title of "Royal mother of the chief wife of the king". And shouldn't she?

Quote:
Refuse to think it it possible smenkhkare was a younger son of amenhotep III and tiye


I can also think possible many things without actual evidence.

Quote:
Openly state the blocks at ashmunein state akhenaten and nefertiti are tutankhamun's parents, which is blatantly untrue.


Where does the article say this? It says the relief "indicates" that Akhenaten (doesn't say Nefertiti) is the father of Tutankhamun.

It "indicates" because the block says Tutankhamun is "king's son of his body", followed by (please corrrect if I'm wrong) another piece that says "the daughter of the king, of his body, his great desire of the king of Two Lands, Ankhesenpaaten". So the daughter of Akhenaten and his son of his body?

If this is not what the relief says someone please correct this below.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1227
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

evarelap wrote:
Quote:
They ignored the fact nefertiti has no royal titles such as king's sister or king's daughter, which other royals clearly have, excluding her as akhenaten's sister


Is there evidence for any "king's sister" in Akhenaten's reign? The KV35YL mummy certainly was a king's sister, and a king's mother. But there is no archeological evidence for a woman with such titles. Is there?


Since all of his daughters hold the title king's daughter, and tiye still holds all of her titles, why wouldn't nefertiti use any and all titles she was entitled to?


evarelap wrote:
Where does the article say this? It says the relief "indicates" that Akhenaten (doesn't say Nefertiti) is the father of Tutankhamun.

It "indicates" because the block says Tutankhamun is "king's son of his body", followed by (please corrrect if I'm wrong) another piece that says "the daughter of the king, of his body, his great desire of the king of Two Lands, Ankhesenpaaten". So the daughter of Akhenaten and his son of his body?

If this is not what the relief says someone please correct this below.



Quote:
this concurs with inscriptions from tell el amarna describing tutankaton (later tutankhamun) as bodily son of the king (akhenaten) and as son born by the great royal wife nefertiti


The blocks do not state which king is tutankhamun's father. Akhenaten is not known to have had any sons. Smenkhkare, like it or not was a male co ruler of akhenaten. There is no reason to believe smenkhkare could not be a younger brother of akhenaten. Also, why promote an unknown and ephemeral man as your sucessor when you have a son? Surely promoting nefertiti as regent for tutankhamun would be best?

Simplest explanation is thus: akenaten has no sons. He promotes his brother as co regent, smenkhkare. He is married to meritaten. Both brothers die, and nefertiti is promoted, ruling (as regent? A hatshepsut scenario? For tutankhamun?) for three years, succeeded by tutankhamun.

There is zero evidence for either king fathering tutankhamun. It all rests on who you think the body in kv 55 is.

And before you state "akhenaten" let me remind you the experts agree kv 55 and tutankhamun are both under 23 years old. Dispute kv 55's age as much older, you must do the same for tutankhamun.
_________________
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: 3538
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
... And before you state "akhenaten" let me remind you the experts agree kv 55 and tutankhamun are both under 23 years old. Dispute kv 55's age as much older, you must do the same for tutankhamun.

No, the "experts" do not agree. As precisely the article discussed here clearly shows...
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
evarelap
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 28 Jan 2015
Posts: 96
Location: Barranquilla, Colombia

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
Since all of his daughters hold the title king's daughter, and tiye still holds all of her titles, why wouldn't nefertiti use any and all titles she was entitled to?


For the same reason KV35YL and Thiya did not use theirs...

kylejustin wrote:
The blocks do not state which king is tutankhamun's father. Akhenaten is not known to have had any sons.


Do the blocks not depict both Ankhesenpaaten and Tutankhamun at the same time as daughter and son of "the king" at the time the inscriptions were made? I'm just asking I am no expert...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
evarelap
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 28 Jan 2015
Posts: 96
Location: Barranquilla, Colombia

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
Since all of his daughters hold the title king's daughter, and tiye still holds all of her titles, why wouldn't nefertiti use any and all titles she was entitled to?


For the same reason KV35YL and Thiya did not use theirs...

kylejustin wrote:
The blocks do not state which king is tutankhamun's father. Akhenaten is not known to have had any sons.


Do the blocks not depict both Ankhesenpaaten and Tutankhamun at the same time as daughter and son of "the king" at the time the inscriptions were made? I'm just asking I am no expert...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pyramids, Tombs, & Monuments All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
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