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 race to bury king tut
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 212
Location: District of Columbia, USA

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IF wv23 was, indeed, originally intended for Tutankhamen then the marsh hunting scenes really wouldn't be so out of place. What do you think a young man who loved chariots, archery and sports would have wanted to have painted in his house of enterity, religion or hunting?

Though I can imagine one of his tutors saying something along the lines of, "The lord of Two Lands mustn't forget to include the Amduat." at which I'm sure there was a deal of sighing...

But in four years I image Ay would have been able to have the place repainted to his own taste, so that's all just fanciful thinking. Still, one can imagine many scenarios.
_________________
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured
~Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ankhetmaatre wrote:
IF wv23 was, indeed, originally intended for Tutankhamen then the marsh hunting scenes really wouldn't be so out of place. What do you think a young man who loved chariots, archery and sports would have wanted to have painted in his house of enterity, religion or hunting?

Though I can imagine one of his tutors saying something along the lines of, "The lord of Two Lands mustn't forget to include the Amduat." at which I'm sure there was a deal of sighing...

But in four years I image Ay would have been able to have the place repainted to his own taste, so that's all just fanciful thinking. Still, one can imagine many scenarios.


Many kings before and after Tut practised and loved outdoor activities such as fowling or hunting -at least if one believes the various depictions and accounts to be true. But none of them chose to have this sort of things depicted in his tomb. Instead they "chose" the standard religious themed decoration that was expected for a king and they probably had not much choice in this too.

Whatever the reason for Aye`s deviation from the norm - and there is probably another one in Horemheb`s tomb, a depiction of a king who is supposed to be Aye without the usual royal outfit - , Tut was an eager follower of tradition and would have the royal standard decoration in his tomb.

Now there is a problem: if Tut was buried in WV23 with full equipment there should also have been a few traditional wall decorations at least in the burial chamber. But all there is is the decoration painted for Aye and nothing indicates that Aye has painted his scenes over previously existing ones or altered them. There is quite a lot of damage to the decoration where the paint has gone but no other decoration is descernible underneath.
I have not come over anyone claiming that Aye`s decoration is not the original one.

In my view this would be a major drawback for the theory that Tut was originally buried there as it is hardly feasable that he would not have had any wall paintings there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 212
Location: District of Columbia, USA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My comments above were just offhand but I'm sure you're right, if Ay had changed the subject of the painting there would certainly be evidence of it.

It's defininately an odd turn of events to have the burial of Tutankhamen crammed into such a small tomb. After all, they had ten years to ready something suitable and other kings had been buried in unfinished tombs in the past. And then there's Ay in the large tomb after only four years of kingship... Which doesn't really add up.

You bring up another issue I've always been curious about; namely, who decides how the royal tomb is painted in the first place? No two are exactly alike, so while there seems to have been themes, such as the greeting of the gods, there are many variations within that framework.
_________________
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured
~Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
... Whatever the reason for Aye`s deviation from the norm - and there is probably another one in Horemheb`s tomb, a depiction of a king who is supposed to be Aye without the usual royal outfit - ...

Which representation in KV 57 - Horemheb do you mean here exactly?

Sothis wrote:
... Now there is a problem: if Tut was buried in WV23 with full equipment there should also have been a few traditional wall decorations at least in the burial chamber. But all there is is the decoration painted for Aye and nothing indicates that Aye has painted his scenes over previously existing ones or altered them. ...

Not really, when we involve Tutankhamuns tomb equipment in the assessment of this question. On the shrines the main texts are present and thus available for the king in his tomb. A similar situation arises in KV 43 Thutmose IV. Again, there is no underworld book on the walls. The coffin chamber is even entirely undecorated. Because they were however undoubtedly necessary, at least the Litany of Ra and the Amduat must have been also here exist, in another form.

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


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 996
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe because Thutmose IV also died quite young (late 20s-early 30s)...? Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I remember right there can be no real pattern shown between length of reign in relation to the degree of completion of the decoration of the tomb in the VoK. It would appear logical of course: the longer the reign the more complete the tomb. But I think there are probably examples that speak against? One should investigate again in more detail ...

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


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Sothis wrote:
... Whatever the reason for Aye`s deviation from the norm - and there is probably another one in Horemheb`s tomb, a depiction of a king who is supposed to be Aye without the usual royal outfit - ...

Which representation in KV 57 - Horemheb do you mean here exactly?


Greetings, Lutz.


Sorry, I forgot to mention that I thought of Horemheb`s pre-royal tomb at Saqqara.
It is part of the decoration which was finished last in the tomb, presumably during Aye`s reign, and which depicts a large figure addressing a much smaller one who has just been rewarded with the gold of honour and who appears to be of rather advanced age.
Jacobus vanDijk says that the most likely interpretation of this scene is the large figure to be Aye as king and the small one Horemheb. Aye`s figure (if van Dijk is right) would then lack much of the royal outfit that royal figures usually display such as the "apron" with uraei.

You might be familiar with all this because it was discussed on a thread on Horemheb.

I just included it because it fits with the decoration of Aye`s tomb with Aye somehow retaining a touch of the commoner he was. He might well have instructed Horemheb on the way he wanted to be depicted in his (Horemheb`s) tomb.

It`s somewhat late now and I hope my talk makes some sense....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 996
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You mean THIS one?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robson wrote:
You mean THIS one?

No. Here the king (quite likely Tutankhamun) wears an apron. It is this small jewel over his left knee, uraei with sun disk.

This scene ...



... is meant. When I visited the tomb in 2004 the work was still in progress and this scene not reconstructed. So I do not have a picture from it.

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


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 996
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, Tut! The cane!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robson wrote:
Yes, Tut! The cane!

Again, no. Following Jacobus van Dijk king Ay without typical royal regalia (apron) on his cloth.

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


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Robson wrote:
Yes, Tut! The cane!

Again, no. Following Jacobus van Dijk king Ay without typical royal regalia (apron) on his cloth.

Greetings, Lutz.


Well done, Lutz, for spotting the depiction I was talking about.

And it shows that we cannot follow the equation " king with a cane=Tut "
Smile
Aye has one, Tut has not.

At least we can be pretty sure that it is Aye because his depiction is in the part of the tomb that was constructed last and Tut is depicted already in a reward scene from an earlier part (the picture posted by Robson).
Apart from the time frame the tomb owner is not usually shown twice being rewarded by the same king (van Dijk`s argumentation).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
... Apart from the time frame the tomb owner is not usually shown twice being rewarded by the same king (van Dijk`s argumentation).

The decisive argument in my opinion is rather the fact that only the king can give the "Gold of honor". Among the countless representations from the whole of Egyptian history there is not one known where this action was carried out by a senior official.

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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forgotten ... But there is to say that there are still other identifications exist. Many Egyptologists see here a very early depiction of the king Horemheb in the awarding of the gold to Paramessu, the later Ramses I.

The work at this tomb was apparently still in operation after his coronation as proved by the subsequently attached uraei. In the 19th Dynasty this tomb seems to have been a kind of focus for the worship of the dead king Horemheb by the royal family of Ramses I / Seti / Ramses II. This is also the explanation for the nearby tomb of Tija & Tija, a possibly sister of Ramses II and her husband.

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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As before, I find that the statement re-burial is the best explanation of the numerous inconsistencies in KV 62. Starting with the disorder in the chests, the oversized equipment, the separation and distribution of related ancient complexes in different rooms, the wrong preparation of ritual objects, the representation of the successor as already crowned king (in an act which as far as we know is a requirement for his coronation) and last but not least the proven grossly in situ pruned outer coffin so that it fits into the quartzite sarcophagus, who was not high enough to take the coffin ensemble.

Greetings, Lutz.
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  Next
Page 2 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