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 

Kv21a
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Nefer-Ankhe
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
SidneyF wrote:
I don't see how I could possibly "play a race card" when I don't believe in the concept of "race".


All right. Then don't play the Ethnicity card. This has nothing to do with nationality.


Amen, Is that more preferable for you SydneyF, Semantics?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4006
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VBadJuJu wrote:
Lutz wrote:
And bring their skills into disrepute by putting the term experts for them in quotation marks says many of the one who is doing so...
I did no such thing. I didn't even use the word expert(s). ...

Sorry, my mistake, cites misleading. This refers to a different user...

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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4006
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
Quote:
It is generally agreed that Smenkhkara married Meritaten - except by those who believe he never existed of course.

Why so? Is there any evidence suggesting that Smenkhkare married Meritaten?

The tomb of Meryre shows Meritaten at the side of a pharoah as his Great Wife. Her identity at least has never been questioned. ...

But there is no inscription on this wall that tells us that she was married to the person Semenkhkara. She could play a role for official or ritual reasons. This still we had, recently...

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
SidneyF wrote:
"Human genetic clustering analysis uses mathematical cluster analysis of the degree of similarity of genetic data between individuals and groups to infer population structures and assign individuals to groups that often correspond with their self-identified geographical ancestry."

Do you see the term "race" in there anywhere?


You don't have to see the term "race" in the quote: the quote is itself a description of a race, or, species or subspecies (depending on application).

The quote defines what a genetic cluster is: race, sub-species, species, genre, are names applied to such clusters.


I think you have a pressing need to bring yourself up to code when it comes to anthropological and biological terminology. The concept of race has failed. "The classification (of humans) into races has proved to be a futile excercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin." (Cavalli-Sforza et al, 1994) There is only one human species. There are no more "sub-species" or anything of that nature. There are only "populations" and haplogroups with their geographical import. I suggest you look up the credentials of Cavalli-Sforza.

As to you, Meretseger, I used the term "national" and that is the only thing that applies. "Egyptian nationals" are people from Egypt, those still living there and those living elsewhere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
But there is no inscription on this wall that tells us that she was married to the person Semenkhkara. She could play a role for official or ritual reasons. This still we had, recently...
How do we 'prove' anyone was married in AE?? The inscription calls her "Great Royal Wife". I understand that in some situations it can be ceremonial, but how does that depiction alone demand and interpretation that they were not married?

I re read Davis description of this depiction and do think there is something a little wrong with the depiction or inscription. I am not willing to take it to the extremes you do, but something might not be right. I dont think it is a big deal except as to when it might have been drawn.
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4006
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

VBadJuJu wrote:
Lutz wrote:
But there is no inscription on this wall that tells us that she was married to the person Semenkhkara. She could play a role for official or ritual reasons. This still we had, recently...

How do we 'prove' anyone was married in AE?? The inscription calls her "Great Royal Wife"...

Exactly, finally just the pure ranking title at court. Such as king's son, whose owner also did not have to be in every case a biological son of the king. Nothing in direction "Misstress of the two lands and of happiness, At hearing whose voice one rejoices, Soothing the heart of the King at home, Pleased at all that is said, ..." (and so on).

VBadJuJu wrote:
... how does that depiction alone demand and interpretation that they were not married? ...

Surely not, but how proves this representation alone that they were married...? Cool

VBadJuJu wrote:
... I re read Davis description of this depiction and do think there is something a little wrong with the depiction or inscription. ...

Well said ... As I understand it, after Norman de Garis Davies it can not rule out that it was planed as depiction of Akhenaten and Nefertiti and that the cartouches were later changed. Richard Lepsius gives the scene just in part:



When Norman de Garis Davies made his drawing around 50 years later the cartouches were destroyed. He used the drawing by Lepsius and added them:



His description is as follows:

Quote:
The unfinished picture on this wall seems to reflect the troubles which gathered round the new capital in the later years of the reign or upon the death of Akhenaten.

Hastily executed, or left in the rough ink-sketch, the figures of the King and Queen, with the familiar cartouches of Akhenaten and Nefertiti replaced by those of Merytaten their daughter and her husband, Ankh-kheperu-ra, the interrupted project speaks of events, actual or menacing, in which leisured art could have no place.

It is somewhat difficult to decide whether the design as well as the cartouches belong to Se-aa-ka-ra's reign, and whether, therefore, these figures represent Akhenaten and his wife or their successors on the throne.

In the absence of sufficient grounds of suspicion, we must assume that the whole belongs to the reign, or at least to a co-regency of the new King. Yet it is not obvious why not even one small design should be completed by him, or why the sun and the royal pair should be left untouched.

The cartouches seem somewhat large and clumsy in comparison with the rest of the inscription, but the execution of the whole also is very different from that of the other walls. (We cannot object to there being two scenes of the rewarding of Meryra; because that occurs in the neighbouring tomb, and there is, therefore, even a presumption in favour of it.)

It might be put forward as a plausible theory that the King's sculptors were called away to work in the tomb of Meketaten, and returned later to complete the scenes.

But the execution of the work coincided with an illness of the King, which threatened to prove fatal, and under the circumstances the royal cartouches and figures were not proceeded with; then, when the apprehension concerning the King was justified, the cartouches of his successor were hastily inserted as a date; though events, or the disinclination of the new King, stopped any further progress with the tomb.

The burial shafts were never made, and Meryra's hopes of a splendid interment here shared the general ruin. The roughly sketched figures of the King and Queen, the ink of which is now almost invisible, stand under the radiating sun in the centre of the picture.

Behind them is the palace and before them their faithful palace official, with his friends and attendants. A part of the group has been removed by the formation of a recess here at a later date. Meryra is standing on a stool, or upborne by his friends with officious care, to receive the guerdon of golden necklaces from the king. His breast is already covered with these marks of royal favour; and it was no doubt a wise proceeding on the part of the new monarch to make sure of the devotion of an official so influential in the royal harem.

(Norman de Garis Davies : THE ROCK TOMBS OF EL AMARNA II, 1905, pp . 43 - 44)


When I was in the tomb (18. November 2004) I could see nothing anymore, also with knowing from Lepsius and de Garis Davies what there once was. Considering that this is the only known representation of this "pair" it seems to me quite some skepticism regarding there significance.

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nefer-Ankhe
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
SidneyF wrote:
"Human genetic clustering analysis uses mathematical cluster analysis of the degree of similarity of genetic data between individuals and groups to infer population structures and assign individuals to groups that often correspond with their self-identified geographical ancestry."

Do you see the term "race" in there anywhere?


You don't have to see the term "race" in the quote: the quote is itself a description of a race, or, species or subspecies (depending on application).

The quote defines what a genetic cluster is: race, sub-species, species, genre, are names applied to such clusters.


I think you have a pressing need to bring yourself up to code when it comes to anthropological and biological terminology. The concept of race has failed. "The classification (of humans) into races has proved to be a futile excercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin." (Cavalli-Sforza et al, 1994) There is only one human species. There are no more "sub-species" or anything of that nature. There are only "populations" and haplogroups with their geographical import. I suggest you look up the credentials of Cavalli-Sforza.

As to you, Meretseger, I used the term "national" and that is the only thing that applies. "Egyptian nationals" are people from Egypt, those still living there and those living elsewhere.


Nonsense. To suggest there is no clustering within the broader human species is ridiculous. To say that the Negrid is not a istinct biologically identifiable group, as separate from the Monglid, as separate from the Europid is unbelievable. such clearly discernible differences within any other species would definitely lead to sub classification. To say that I, a peroson of European ancestory
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nefer-Ankhe
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
SidneyF wrote:
"Human genetic clustering analysis uses mathematical cluster analysis of the degree of similarity of genetic data between individuals and groups to infer population structures and assign individuals to groups that often correspond with their self-identified geographical ancestry."

Do you see the term "race" in there anywhere?


You don't have to see the term "race" in the quote: the quote is itself a description of a race, or, species or subspecies (depending on application).

The quote defines what a genetic cluster is: race, sub-species, species, genre, are names applied to such clusters.


I think you have a pressing need to bring yourself up to code when it comes to anthropological and biological terminology. The concept of race has failed. "The classification (of humans) into races has proved to be a futile excercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin." (Cavalli-Sforza et al, 1994) There is only one human species. There are no more "sub-species" or anything of that nature. There are only "populations" and haplogroups with their geographical import. I suggest you look up the credentials of Cavalli-Sforza.

As to you, Meretseger, I used the term "national" and that is the only thing that applies. "Egyptian nationals" are people from Egypt, those still living there and those living elsewhere.



Nonsense. To suggest there is no clustering within the broader human species is ridiculous. To say that the Negroid is not a distinct biologically identifiable group, as separate from the Mongoloid, as separate from the Europid is unbelievable. such clearly discernible differences within any other species would definitely lead to sub classification. To say that I, a person of European ancestry who lives in Australia is not biologically discernibly different from that of a person of negroid ancestry who lives in Australia is utter rubbish.

However this debate is leaving the original topic of this thread, so I will leave it at that, so, puh-lease do not per-sue your semantics furthermore.

P.S my apologies on the double posted thread, my computer seemed to have automatically sent my, not yet completed post, with out my approval or recognition.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
VBadJuJu wrote:
how does that depiction alone demand an interpretation that they were not married? ...

Surely not, but how proves this representation alone that they were married...? Cool

The meaning behind my question did not translate well apparently. What is special about this depiction compared to others very much like it which should lead someone to suspect they are not married?

It is a very formulaic depiction: An Amarna king, fatty hips and paunch, blue crown, streamers, uraeus for both, the Aten brings life to them but not the little people. Nothing strange in the wording of her title. There is nothing in the image to suspect anything other than man and wife. To use some of Davies' words: In the absence of sufficient grounds of suspicion, we must assume that they are married as the image suggests.

'They are not married' is a conclusion demanded not by anything in the depiction, but by the starting point that Smenkhkare is Nefertiti. Nothing in the image suggests the lead figure is female, at a time when the art was definitely not inclined to conceal such things.

Quote:
As I understand it, after Norman de Garis Davies it can not rule out that it was planed as depiction of Akhenaten and Nefertiti and that the cartouches were later changed.

Yes, but against that is that there is already a depiction of Akhenaten and Nefertiti rewarding Meryre on the "South Wall, East side". There, Nefertiti wears her trademark flat top crown and it looks to me like Akhenaten's paunch is more pronounced.

He suggests that the depiction was done later, maybe when Smenkhkare became sole king. So many Egyptologists today are so sure work on the tombs slowed down and halted after Year 13, that I am not inclined to move it far from that point. I assume that Smenkhkare Hall had some significant purpose (it sounds too grand to ignore), probably relating to his marriage and coronation. If Meryre helped organize/stage that as with the durbar, then the Smenkhkare-Meritaten scene is added as one of Meryre's many accomplishments.

The "somewhat large and clumsy" cartouches could simply be that they were damaged by workers and repaired later.
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Nefer-Ankhe"][quote="SidneyF"][quote="Nefer-Ankhe"]
SidneyF wrote:
"Human genetic clustering analysis uses mathematical cluster analysis of the degree of similarity of genetic data between individuals and groups to infer population structures and assign individuals to groups that often correspond with their self-identified geographical ancestry."

Do you see the term "race" in there anywhere?


Quote:
You don't have to see the term "race" in the quote: the quote is itself a description of a race, or, species or subspecies (depending on application).


No.

Quote:
Nonsense. To suggest there is no clustering within the broader human species is ridiculous.


But I didn't suggest there is no clustering with regard to the human genome. In fact, I supplied the definition, above. However, the key word in that same definition is "geographical". That's what haplogrouping is all about. The haplogroup within your DNA has been calculated to assign your distant ancestors to a certain part of the globe.

Quote:
To say that the Negroid is not a distinct biologically identifiable group, as separate from the Mongoloid, as separate from the Europid is unbelievable. such clearly discernible differences within any other species would definitely lead to sub classification. To say that I, a person of European ancestry who lives in Australia is not biologically discernibly different from that of a person of negroid ancestry who lives in Australia is utter rubbish.


"Discernibly different" to the naked eye cuts no ice in the world of DNA. In fact, that discipline has shown that people are not as different as was once thought. And have you never watched one of those shows on the telly where a famous person's DNA shows that he has a much more mixed ancestry than he ever suspected? So I suppose one is really as different from other people as one wants to be until the DNA tells its own story. If you believe you are a person of European ancestry and you live in Australia, then your haplotype would probably tell you that your ancestors were not indigenous to Australia. Someone else's haplotype would place their ancestors elsewhere. But, to get back on topic, how would those classifications you insist upon apply to the Egyptians? A tough one, isn't it?

Quote:
However this debate is leaving the original topic of this thread, so I will leave it at that, so, puh-lease do not per-sue your semantics furthermore.


Just joined in November and pretty bossy already. Mad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Surely not, but how proves this representation alone that they were married...? Cool

I figured out the problem. "Proof" and "evidence" both translate to the same German word ("Beweis") via Google. In English, "proof" makes something a (near) certainty or fact; "evidence" (maybe "Anzeige" or "Aussage") means more like a clue or indicator that something MIGHT be true. So, it sounded like you were demanding an impossibly high standard from anyone who thinks Meryre shows Smenkhkare; while presenting fairly weak clues or indicators for Smenkhkare = Nefertiti as proof.

I was looking at a German AE message board and letting Chrome translate and I have to say it was hard to make out many of the points being made. No wonder that subtle things and euphemisms dont make it thru.
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

About that hall--I wonder how much input Smenkhkare really had there if he had as short a reign as people think. Supposedly it was" a vast hall more than 125 meters square and including over 500 pillars. This late addition to the central palace has been known as the Hall of Rejoicing, Coronation Hall or simply Smenkhkare Hall because a number of bricks stamped Ankhkheperure in the House of Rejoicing in the Aten."

But which Ankhkheperure?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I checked on the structure and, according to Dodson, it seems to have been made of just bricks, even the pillars, and he had reason to think it was put up in a hurry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The notion of a hurried job comes from CoA III: "A good deal of levelling had evidently been necessary, for many of the walls are built on debris. This levelling had been very badly done, and clearly the whole affair was a "rush-job" for a special occasion. ..."

The name on the bricks includes no epithets, so the assumption is Smenkhkare. If the estimate of Year 15 for the hall is accurate, and the Year 16 graffito is what it seems to be, then it can only be Smenkhkare.
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nefer-Ankhe
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
You don't have to see the term "race" in the quote: the quote is itself a description of a race, or, species or subspecies (depending on application).


No.


YES. Race is a name applied to a cluster, grouping, taxon or population. The "race doesn't exist" argument is a matter of semantics. We often see the term "Human Race". It is a cluster or statistical population. Cavalli-Sforza et al, 1994, in acknowledging the existence of populations, are in fact acknowledging the existence of race but are merely calling it something else.

Quote:
"Discernibly different" to the naked eye cuts no ice in the world of DNA.


This has proved to be one of the main deficiencies of the discipline. The eyes are an extremely important aspect of science -- pottery tells us much about a people, from where they came and to what influences they were subject to, as does linguistic. In fact, it has been shown that DNA evidence must be closely related to these other aspects of science so as to ensure accuracy and prevent misinterpretation.

Our DNA takes on a signature of our geography which is part of the characteristic of the cluster to which we belong. It assists in mapping our origins -- hence, it assists in mapping our race.

Moving on Rolling Eyes

Quote:
I checked on the structure and, according to Dodson, it seems to have been made of just bricks, even the pillars, and he had reason to think it was put up in a hurry.


What were his reasons to think that it was put up in a hurry, other than it being fully made from bricks, just out of curiosity Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 4 of 7

 
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