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 

Nefertiti Documented in Year 16 of Akhenaton
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kemetian wrote:
Thanks Lutz, it is interesting and the lack of objects bearing smenkhkares name is difficult to explain. I dont feel the tomb as it was found in modern times is the same as the tomb as it was left after Tutankhamen sealed it so who knows what was or wasnt there originally. To be fair I dont think there is enough evidence to safely conclude the mummy found in kV55 is Akehnaten or Smenkhkare. It would seem certain that it must be one or the other but unless further evidence is found which tips the balance either is possible.


people in favour of the mummy being smenkhkare believe so based on forensic examinations of the body, which repeatedly give an age of 18-22 at death. with any science there are flaws, but lutz does not agree with expert opinion on kv 55's mummy. you can find those dscussions on the forum. while it interesting smenkhkare's name does not appear in the tomb, there are plenty of instances where a mummy is buried in a tomb without objects recording their names, eg queen tiye. and many instances of royal names found in tombs without being buried there themselves. so akhenaten's name in the bricks is not proof he was ever buried there, or that his body was never removed.
_________________
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: 3523
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Again, to assess the presence of the magical bricks it is absolutely necessary to become familiar with their meaning. These bricks were no mementos or heirlooms / memories of ancestors. Their presence proves the presence of the on them called owner. Apart from that the age of death is also given with 25 +/- x years... And maybe we have to think about the age of death of Akhenaton also new in the future (new possible proofs for the co-regency in Tomb 28 - Vizier Amenhotep-Huy)?

The total absence of objects with names as Achcheperura / Neferneferuaton or Semenchkara is a strong hint that the mummy of this person never was in KV 55. The royal mummies from the cachettes (KV 35 & 43, DB 320), from secondary tombs, brought there often without any additions from there original burial, are irrelevant here. KV 55 was in the beginning when it was sealed under Tutanchamun a royal tomb, not a cachette.

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


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

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Again, to assess the presence of the magical bricks it is absolutely necessary to become familiar with their meaning. These bricks were no mementos or heirlooms / memories of ancestors. Their presence proves the presence of the on them called owner. Apart from that the age of death is also given with 25 +/- x years... And maybe we have to think about the age of death of Akhenaton also new in the future (new possible proofs for the co-regency in Tomb 28 - Vizier Amenhotep-Huy)?


akhenaten's age won't get any younger if there is conclusive proof of a co regency, of which at the moment there is not. remember his eldest daughter was born by year 1 of his reign, so he would need to be anywhere from 12-20 when he came to the throne. current opinion is he was mid 30's at the earliest when he died.

Lutz wrote:
The total absence of objects with names as Achcheperura / Neferneferuaton or Semenchkara is a strong hint that the mummy of this person never was in KV 55. The royal mummies from the cachettes (KV 35 & 43, DB 320), from secondary tombs, brought there often without any additions from there original burial, are irrelevant here. KV 55 was in the beginning when it was sealed under Tutanchamun a royal tomb, not a cachette.


you are wrong, kv 55 is considered a cache. a cache defined as a hoard, or treasure trove of objects. depends what your definition of treasure is, but looking at the many objects in that tomb, and who they were made for proves it is a cache. tutankhamun's tomb is also a cache, since the objects in it were obviously reused from other royal burial collections.

since it seems queen tiye was buried in kv 55, and removed, leaving a jumble of objects, i think it is quite reasonable to say that there were objects in that tomb inscribed for individuals who were not found there in 1907. you have tiye's shrine, akhenaten's bricks, kiya's canopic jars. on the basis of this you could say all three were buried there. yet only one mummy was found.

the state of the tomb in 1907 in no way reflects who was buried there. we simply don't know who was originally there. and to be frank, the idea of akhenaten's mummy surviving is absurd. look at his excised figure on tiye's shrine. do you think they did that before tutankhamun sealed the tomb? of course not, it was done in a later period. if they honestly thought that mummy belonged to akhenaten, they would have destroyed it.
_________________
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: 3523
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Akhenaten`s Sed-festival at Karnak may have taken place not earlier than in his 2nd or 3rd Year. A group called "Royal Children" play during the rites of this event an important role. In the obtained reports from other kings there biological daughters are shown and named here.

Also in the scenes of Akhenaten (still called "Amenhotep Heka Netjer Waset" here), the group of "Royal Children" appear (see the reconstruction of the Sed-festival scenes in the Luxor Museum). However, these are quite clearly not his biological children and without personal names. None of his biological daughters is mentioned on these, without doubt, oldest reliefs in stile of Amarna in Karnak. Meritaton, Maketaten and possibly Anchesenpaaton appear only in later representations, together with her mother, in the fully developed, almost grotesque looking Amarnastil.
(Gohary, Akhenaten's Sed-festival at Karnak, 1992, pp. 29 - 33.)

In the tombs of the noble in Thebes West Echnaton initially appears without consort, his parents adoring, or worshiping gods or his father when accompanied by his mother. The earliest representation of Nofretete we know here from the tomb of the Vizier Ramose. The couple is seen in a window of appearance, in the style of the Sed-fest scenes at Karnak. But even in this tomb are scenes in the conventional style of the late 18th Dynasty, in which Akhenaten acts without wife or with the help of his mother.

The probability that he was married to Nofretete before his throne ascension is not really high, and in no case to prove. On the contrary, all evidences speak against. In this context, one should not forget that his father was married with Tiye in Year 2 of his reign.

So, I see absolutely no reason or proof to assume a birth of Meritaton even in Year 1. It comes with look on the described above evidences, from my perspective, earliest Year 3 or 4 in question. If he was now in Year 4, say we, around 12 years old (an age that would fit for a brief co-regency and in which a fatherhood is absolutely quite possible, even today), he was in Year 17 logically around 25... With 25 +/- 5 all parties in the dispute about the age of the man from KV 55 can live without abandoning basic positions, I think.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3523
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The word "Cachette" (French: "hiding place") is in Egyptology used for a very specific group of ritual burials for statues (Luxor & Karnak) or tombs with several mummies. These are usually an occupied tomb in which in addition to the original owner, and without his consent during his lifetime, subsequently additionally further mummies were introduced because their own burials were looted or previously appeared too uncertain. Three Royal Cachettes were found in Theban tombs: in KV 35 - Amenhotep II, in KV 43 - Thutmose IV and in DB 320 - Family of a First Prophet of Amun.

Based on the archaeological evidence is considered as safe, that Queen Tiy originally was buried in the royal tomb at Amarna, with Akhenaten on her side (the representations and scenes in the upper lateral chambers refer only to funerals of the daughters). So, if she was also in KV 55 it would be only a reburial / a restoration of the situation from the Royal Tomb of Amarna. There is no evidence that more people than two were placed ever in KV 55. The tomb was sealed with the official seal of the royal necropoleis from the time of Tutankhamun. At this moment it was ritual intact, as the magic bricks originally placed in the required direction show.

Following your ideas of cachette, would every family funeral one. Also the tomb of Hatshepsut in the Valley of the Kings would be according to your definition a Cachette? Sorry, but you can fixed terms not just a day off snout, respectively fit degree, redefine. And KV 62 - Tutankhamun to designate as Chachette is really hogwash and requires no further comment...
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
The word "Cachette" (French: "hiding place") is in Egyptology used for a very specific group of ritual burials for statues (Luxor & Karnak) or tombs with several mummies. These are usually an occupied tomb in which in addition to the original owner, and without his consent during his lifetime, subsequently additionally further mummies were introduced because their own burials were looted or previously appeared too uncertain. Three Royal Cachettes were found in Theban tombs: in KV 35 - Amenhotep II, in KV 43 - Thutmose IV and in DB 320 - Family of a First Prophet of Amun.


the french words cache and cachette come from the same source but have different meanings.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cache

as you say the word cachette in egyptology is used to refer stores of statues buried under temple floors. the word cache is used to refer to tombs- and does not refer to later intrusive burials where the original owner the tomb is no longer in the tomb at time of later burials.

i don't know why you bring up the tomb of thutmose IV. if you are referring to the prince and princess whose burials were found in the tomb, they were included by the time of thutmose IV's funeral, so are not considered a cache or intrusive. if you are referring to burials which may have taken place after the first intermediate period, once again they are classed as intrusive.

Lutz wrote:
There is no evidence that more people than two were placed ever in KV 55. The tomb was sealed with the official seal of the royal necropoleis from the time of Tutankhamun. At this moment it was ritual intact, as the magic bricks originally placed in the required direction show.


akhenaten's name only appears on the magic bricks. kiya's name was on the canopic jars. tiye's name is on the shrine. for you to say there is only evidence for tiye and akhenaten to have been buried there also means that kiya once was. don't agree? then rethink your evidence. because akhenaten's name appears on two magic bricks. his name also appears in tutankhamun's tomb, as do many other members of the 18th dynsaty royal family. for you to say because someone's name appears in a tomb on funeral objects they must be buried there, has to apply to all burials, not just the one you want.

kv 55 was sealed by tuankhamun. the other time of entry is the 20th dynasty. at some point there was a burial/burials removed, objects probably stolen, objects desecrated because they bore akhenaten's name, and the tomb ransacked. who knows if these events happened all at once, and who commited them. it could have happened by tomb robbers or by priests. the point is, because of the state of the tomb when opened in 1907, you cannot say with any degree of certainty who was buried there and how many people were. it could have been queen tiye and a pharoah. or maybe two pharoahs. you don't have much burial equipment left. a coffin which may (if you go by one study by germans, corroborrated by no one else) have been made for akhenaten (and if it was, it's possible it was not made at the end of his reign), a shrine belongig to tiye, canopic jars made for kiya.....many uninscribed objects and 2 bricks for akhenaten. what's not there is more telling than what is. where is the second shrine? assuming they abandoned tiye's because akhenaten was all over it, did they remove the one belonging to the mummy? if not, where it is it? surely it wouldn't have been buried without it. where the canopic jars used for the mummy? or someone else? where there sarchopaguses? there are no remains of smashed ones.

maybe akhenaten was buried there at some point. but if he was, his mummy is not the kv 55 one. your clutching at straws if you think his mummy wasn't destroyed whent he tomb was ransacked. or why bother to remove his name from everything?

and since tutankhamun's tomb contains mostly objects made for someone else's burials (whether those people were ever buried with those objects is another question) you could certainly wonder if that is where the burial equipment of kv 55 went. certainly that middle coffin was not made for him.

discussed by reeves here in the third column:

http://www.nicholasreeves.com/item.aspx?category=Events&id=261

Lutz wrote:
Following your ideas of cachette, would every family funeral one. Also the tomb of Hatshepsut in the Valley of the Kings would be according to your definition a Cachette? Sorry, but you can fixed terms not just a day off snout, respectively fit degree, redefine. And KV 62 - Tutankhamun to designate as Chachette is really hogwash and requires no further comment...


kv55 is called the 'amarna cache' so it is one, whether you agree with that or not. i have no idea what you germans call it. but in english, kv55 and kv62 are caches. deir el bahri is considered a cache, and it includes original burials of the third intermediate king-priest family, and objects they took from older royal burials. tutankhamun's tomb is no different in that respect, the only difference being he was not buried with anyone else but his still born children.
_________________
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: 3523
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
The word "Cachette" (French: "hiding place") is in Egyptology used for a very specific group of ritual burials for statues (Luxor & Karnak) or tombs with several mummies. These are usually an occupied tomb in which in addition to the original owner, and without his consent during his lifetime, subsequently additionally further mummies were introduced because their own burials were looted or previously appeared too uncertain. Three Royal Cachettes were found in Theban tombs: in KV 35 - Amenhotep II, in KV 43 - Thutmose IV and in DB 320 - Family of a First Prophet of Amun.

the french words cache and cachette come from the same source but have different meanings.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cache

as you say the word cachette in egyptology is used to refer stores of statues buried under temple floors. the word cache is used to refer to tombs- and does not refer to later intrusive burials where the original owner the tomb is no longer in the tomb at time of later burials. ...

Error, the in Egyptology originally used word (and only correct name, see ) is Cachette. The Supreme Council of Antiquities was under French rule, the administration of Egypt under English at the 19th century. Accordingly, the early dominant language of Egyptology was French. Even today the official organ for publication of excavation reports from Egypt is called: Annales du Service de l'Egypte of antiquités (ASAE).

kylejustin wrote:
... i don't know why you bring up the tomb of thutmose IV. ...

Sorry, a mistake. KV 43 is of course a royal tomb with additional funerals of family members of the king.

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
There is no evidence that more people than two were placed ever in KV 55. The tomb was sealed with the official seal of the royal necropoleis from the time of Tutankhamun. At this moment it was ritual intact, as the magic bricks originally placed in the required direction show.

... kiya's name was on the canopic jars. ...

No, Kija`s name was not on the jars. He once was, but was arased when the objects where used for someone else and entered in the following at some point KV 55. The proof is to see on the stoppers, the heads had once an Uräus. Kija never wore the royal forehead snake.

kylejustin wrote:
... because akhenaten's name appears on two magic bricks. his name also appears in tutankhamun's tomb, ...

But not on the magic bricks from KV 62 ... Again, these are not family heirlooms. These are very important ritual objects that were specially made for the funeral of a single person. They served for the magical protection of this person, and only that. Such objects were never reused by third.

kylejustin wrote:
... the point is, because of the state of the tomb when opened in 1907, you cannot say with any degree of certainty who was buried there and how many people were. ...

Exactly the state of the tomb in 1907 makes with regard to the findings at this point of time (and also the original joint funeral of the two at Amarna) only Akhenaten and Teje possible. All other assumptions, as to a third or more people, are not verified and are thus the pure speculation. To say nothing of the spatially delimited situation in KV 55...

kylejustin wrote:
... akhenaten ... his mummy was[n't] destroyed when the tomb was ransacked. ...

An assertion which can be prove with nothing, and as an argument thus fails...

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Following your ideas of cachette, would every family funeral one. Also the tomb of Hatshepsut in the Valley of the Kings would be according to your definition a Cachette? Sorry, but you can fixed terms not just a day off snout, respectively fit degree, redefine. And KV 62 - Tutankhamun to designate as Chachette is really hogwash and requires no further comment...

kv55 is called the 'amarna cache' so it is one, whether you agree with that or not. i have no idea what you germans call it. but in english, kv55 and kv62 are caches. deir el bahri is considered a cache,...

Then, the use of "Cachette" for KV 55 & 62 is wrong and misleading in this cases, with view of a "real" Cachette. KV 55 & 62 are royal tombs, ritual intact at some point, and at no point in history hiding places.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
No, Kija`s name was not on the jars. He once was, but was arased when the objects where used for someone else and entered in the following at some point KV 55. The proof is to see on the stoppers, the heads had once an Uräus. Kija never wore the royal forehead snake.


they still were made for her, and were never inscribed for anyone else. so by your logic that the bricks confirm akhenaten's presence in the tomb, the jars confirm kiya's.

Lutz wrote:
Again, these are not family heirlooms. These are very important ritual objects that were specially made for the funeral of a single person. They served for the magical protection of this person, and only that. Such objects were never reused by third.


the middle coffin was not an heirloom. neither are the statues with a feminine king astride animals. or the canopic coffins. yet all these are reused in tutankhamun's burial.

so if the bricks are so sacred to one person's burial, and are never reused, why do only 2 have akhenaten's name on them? surely all 4 would.

Lutz wrote:
Exactly the state of the tomb in 1907 makes with regard to the findings at this point of time (and also the original joint funeral of the two at Amarna) only Akhenaten and Teje possible. All other assumptions, as to a third or more people, are not verified and are thus the pure speculation. To say nothing of the spatially delimited situation in KV 55...


akhenaten is not conclusively verified as being buried there. neither has tiye, just that her shrine is there. it is an assumption who was buried in kv 55, based on the objects discovered there in 1907. so anybody can claim anyone was buried there. there isn't evidence from the tomb to prove the body is smenkhkare, or akhenaten. the forensics are what matter in this instance. it is assumed based off the shrine, that tiye was buried there, and then removed, possibly to rest with amenhotep III, or straight to amenhotep II's tomb. her presence with her daughter and a possible prince thutmose, implies they too could have been buried in kv 55 at some stage.

Lutz wrote:
kylejustin wrote:
... akhenaten ... his mummy was[n't] destroyed when the tomb was ransacked. ...

An assertion which can be prove with nothing, and as an argument thus fails...


there is more logic in believing akhenaten's mummy was destroyed in antiquity than surviving it. damnatio memoriae does not allow for the mummy to survive, and damnatio memoriae is definently what was practised towards the amarna age.

Lutz wrote:
Then, the use of "Cachette" for KV 55 & 62 is wrong and misleading in this cases, with view of a "real" Cachette. KV 55 & 62 are royal tombs, ritual intact at some point, and at no point in history hiding places.


kv 55 is in english called an amarna cache. google it if you don't believe it. even reeves calls it so. and in light of the later royal caches in the third intermediate period, i would say kv 55 fits that description, as the burials are believed to have been removed from amarna for safety reasons. tut's tomb is a cache because of the amount of objects not intended for his burial. the french word may be 'cachette' but 'cache' is an accepted word in english. like i said, i don't know which word is used by germans.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kemetian
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 33
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Again, to assess the presence of the magical bricks it is absolutely necessary to become familiar with their meaning. These bricks were no mementos or heirlooms / memories of ancestors. Their presence proves the presence of the on them called owner. Apart from that the age of death is also given with 25 +/- x years... And maybe we have to think about the age of death of Akhenaton also new in the future (new possible proofs for the co-regency in Tomb 28 - Vizier Amenhotep-Huy)?

The total absence of objects with names as Achcheperura / Neferneferuaton or Semenchkara is a strong hint that the mummy of this person never was in KV 55. The royal mummies from the cachettes (KV 35 & 43, DB 320), from secondary tombs, brought there often without any additions from there original burial, are irrelevant here. KV 55 was in the beginning when it was sealed under Tutanchamun a royal tomb, not a cachette.

Greetings, Lutz.


Hi Lutz,

I can see the merit in the theory that the presence of the magic bricks would indicate a burial for Akhenaten, Reeves would argue the same. I just think it is still a leap to say that because the magic bricks indicate that Akhenaten was buried there then KV55 male must be Akhenaten. If the tomb had remained sealed from Tutankhamen until the 1900's then yes but it didnt so we dont know, for example, how many mummies were there originally. For sure it looks certain that Tiye was removed from KV55 at some time, who knows what else was changed. I dont argue against the theory being logical and entirely possible I am just not happy to accept it as concrete evidence.

Personally I have believed for many years that Meritaten and Smenkhkare were Tutankhamens parents and that Smenkhkare reigned alongside Akhenaten and before Neferneferuaten. However I am not in a position to prove it. The small rosettes found in Tuts tomb that were inscribed Ankhkheperure and Meritaten are interesting in respect of my theory. The identification of Tutankhamens father as Akhenaten would mean the end of my theory. I would be disappointed but my goal is the search for knowledge so I would be happy to discover the answers whatever they were Smile

The year 16 date for Nefertiti changed some of my original theory but only to place Neferneferuaten a bit later than I expected. It did however help to firm my belief that Smenkhkare came first. I believe Nefertiti was Neferneferuaten, after all Neferneferuaten had always been her Aten name, one of her children was named after her confirming this, for me anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3523
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
No, Kija`s name was not on the jars. He once was, but was arased when the objects where used for someone else and entered in the following at some point KV 55. The proof is to see on the stoppers, the heads had once an Uräus. Kija never wore the royal forehead snake.
they still were made for her, and were never inscribed for anyone else. so by your logic that the bricks confirm akhenaten's presence in the tomb, the jars confirm kiya's. … if the bricks are so sacred to one person's burial, and are never reused, why do only 2 have akhenaten's name on them? surely all 4 would.

On the jars could be demonstrated the deletion of the inscriptions in two stages, at different times. Initially, only the part of the inscription containing the name Kija, was erased. The part of Kija`s titulatur which refers to Aten and Akhenaten initially remained untouched. This part was removed at a later point in time (Grimm/Schoske, 2001, p. 117 ff.). From these results it can be concluded that the jars were made for Kiya, were not for her but for an Aton - believer used, and have been revised again with the onset of the persecution of the Aton cult of Akhenaten.
The magic bricks were made ​​for Akhenaten. On the two objects in Hieratic (which are of poorer quality than the two in Hieroglyphics) his missing name is clear justified in the condition. He was not intentionally removed (Bell, An Armchair Excavation of KV 55, JARCE 27, 1990, p.103 in note 46: Monnet, RdE 8, 1951, p. 154-55: "The area where the name should stand seems be missing from the East, and so Perhaps the W, brick.").

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Again, these are not family heirlooms. These are very important ritual objects that were specially made for the funeral of a single person. They served for the magical protection of this person, and only that. Such objects were never reused by third.
the middle coffin was not an heirloom. neither are the statues with a feminine king astride animals. or the canopic coffins. yet all these are reused in tutankhamun's burial.

"Reused" implies a previous use. This can not be proven himself. Especially when I think of the function of the small intestines coffins, seems to me the thought that the viscera of a king was removed, the inscriptions were changed, and then the viscera of another king was placed in the coffins, as absurd. Much more likely is probably that they were indeed made ​​for Anchet-cheperu-ra, but never used for her, maybe because she was not buried as a king of Egypt...

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Exactly the state of the tomb in 1907 makes with regard to the findings at this point of time (and also the original joint funeral of the two at Amarna) only Akhenaten and Teje possible. All other assumptions, as to a third or more people, are not verified and are thus the pure speculation. To say nothing of the spatially delimited situation in KV 55...
akhenaten is not conclusively verified as being buried there. neither has tiye, just that her shrine is there. it is an assumption who was buried in kv 55, based on the objects discovered there in 1907. so anybody can claim anyone was buried there. ...

We found in KV 55 only objects with the name of Amenhotep III, Tiye and Akhenaten. Thus, these three come after the known existing objects in question. For others there is no evidence. Amenhotep III is ruled out, as logical. Akhenaten and Tiye were buried together in the Amarna royal tomb (as well as there also the known archaeological evidence suggest). More people will remain speculative with look at the evidences, as not the slightest clue, not even in the form of at least one pearl from a necklace, from them is available. A common reburial under Tutankhamun (as Akhenaten still not was “the traitor of Amarna” as the appearance of his name on private properties in KV 62 - Tutankhamun occupied), thus only appears logical. Especially if you have also a potential father - son relationship between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun into consideration.

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
kylejustin wrote:
... akhenaten ... his mummy was[n't] destroyed when the tomb was ransacked. ...

An assertion which can be prove with nothing, and as an argument thus fails...
there is more logic in believing akhenaten's mummy was destroyed in antiquity than surviving it. damnatio memoriae does not allow for the mummy to survive, and damnatio memoriae is definently what was practised towards the amarna age.

The „damnatio memoriae“ startet under Haremhab, not under Tutankhamun.

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Then, the use of "Cachette" for KV 55 & 62 is wrong and misleading in this cases, with view of a "real" Cachette. KV 55 & 62 are royal tombs, ritual intact at some point, and at no point in history hiding places.
kv 55 is in english called an amarna cache. ...

As far as I know by one Egyptologist only, Reeves. And he used this word clearly not to say it was the same like DB 320 or KV 35, real "Cachette`s“ in the meaning of international Egyptology.

kylejustin wrote:
... and in light of the later royal caches in the third intermediate period, i would say kv 55 fits that description, as the burials are believed to have been removed from amarna for safety reasons. ...

In KV 55 was the royal buriul from Amarna repeated, as far as we can say from all kown evidences. It was at one point under Tutankhamun an ritual intact royal tomb.

kylejustin wrote:
... tut's tomb is a cache because of the amount of objects not intended for his burial. ...

Every single object in KV 62 was intended for his burial. That is the reason because they are there. That some of them not originally were made for him, change the fact not the slightest. They were fashioned for his funeral and inscribed with his name.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3523
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Kemetian,
Kemetian wrote:
I can see the merit in the theory that the presence of the magic bricks would indicate a burial for Akhenaten, Reeves would argue the same. I just think it is still a leap to say that because the magic bricks indicate that Akhenaten was buried there then KV55 male must be Akhenaten. ...

they are just one note in a series. What evidence in KV 55 are there and speak for one other male member of the royal house from the Amarna period?

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


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
The magic bricks were made ​​for Akhenaten. On the two objects in Hieratic (which are of poorer quality than the two in Hieroglyphics) his missing name is clear justified in the condition.


if only two have his name on them, how can you be sure all 4 were made for him?

Lutz wrote:
We found in KV 55 only objects with the name of Amenhotep III, Tiye and Akhenaten. Akhenaten and Tiye were buried together in the Amarna royal tomb (as well as there also the known archaeological evidence suggest). Especially if you have also a potential father - son relationship between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun into consideration.


kiya's name appears. even if it is erased, her name was found on objects. and i agree amenhotep III was not buried there, but you are saying on the basis of objects bering names of royal members that akhenaten must have been buried there. you've only 2 bricks as your evidence. and even if he was buried there, there is no evidence that the mummy found there in 1907 is his.

Lutz wrote:
he „damnatio memoriae“ startet under Haremhab, not under Tutankhamun.


i never said tutankhamun performed damnatio memoriae. and i never said kv 55 was ransacked during his reign. it is obvious at a later time period that the tomb was opened, and tiye's burial was removed. whoever did that desecrated the tomb, removing the name of akhenaten from the shrine. so it follows his mummy was destroyed if it ever was buried there. damnatio memoriae does not allow for the body to survive.

Lutz wrote:
As far as I know by one Egyptologist only, Reeves. And he used this word clearly not to say it was the same like DB 320 or KV 35, real "Cachette`s“ in the meaning of international Egyptology.


like i keep saying, it doesn't matter if you agree or not. it is mentioned in numerous times in literature, in english mind you, as 'the amarna cache'. it's just something you need to get over.

Lutz wrote:
Every single object in KV 62 was intended for his burial. That is the reason because they are there. That some of them not originally were made for him, change the fact not the slightest. They were fashioned for his funeral and inscribed with his name.


well we both know that's wrong. most of the objects were intended for other burials. whether they ever served that purpose is another question. who knows which equipment was buried with someone else or just never used. point is, most of the objects with tutankhamun were not made for him or intended for his burial. it is commonly accepted they where taken from other burials, perhaps when they were moved to thebes from amarna or that they were never used for their intended occupants, and were recycled 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: 3523
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What we really both know is that we have not for the first time a different opinion on this matter. And that will also not change fundamentally in this discussion, I think. Now that we probably only repeat ourselves and turn in a circle, let's leave it this way. The reader can decide for themselve what arguments it deems more credible to him...

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


Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 33
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:


people in favour of the mummy being smenkhkare believe so based on forensic examinations of the body, which repeatedly give an age of 18-22 at death. with any science there are flaws, but lutz does not agree with expert opinion on kv 55's mummy. you can find those dscussions on the forum. while it interesting smenkhkare's name does not appear in the tomb, there are plenty of instances where a mummy is buried in a tomb without objects recording their names, eg queen tiye. and many instances of royal names found in tombs without being buried there themselves. so akhenaten's name in the bricks is not proof he was ever buried there, or that his body was never removed.


Yes it always amazes me that there are numerous archaeology based TV shows which feature human remains and they are always dated fairly easily for the programme by an expert. Meanwhile KV55 male has been examined and re-examined many times with every assessment followed by a counter argument. This constant revision only serves to confuse the matter. The fact is there isnt enough good unambiguous evidence to identify KV55 male with any certainty so It could be either or, less likely, could be someone else entirely. Its only value to me is the revelation that it is Tutankhamens father. I believe Smenkhkare was Tutankhamens father but my theory was born years before the DNA tests on KV55 male so is in no way influenced by it. However if it was proven to be Akhenaten I would have to revise my theory, no problem. People should perhaps not be so defensive about their theories, they are after all just theories, none of us know for sure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vangu Vegro
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Its only value to me is the revelation that it is Tutankhamens father.


There's also another, often overlooked, valuable revelation about the Amarna genetics: The fact that it's impossible for the mother of the fetuses from KV62 to have been a daughter of the man buried in KV55.
Even if it doesn't provide a definite solution to the Amarna family tree, it lets us narrow down the options, since all reconstructions that have 'KV55' as Akhenaten ánd Ankhesenamun as the mother of the fetuses can now be disregarded: 'KV55' can only be Akhenaten if the mother of the fetuses was not Ankhesenamun and Ankhesenamun can only be the mother of the fetuses if 'KV55' was not Akhenaten.
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 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 11 of 13

 
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