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 

Barry Kemp's latest book on Armana
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3649
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
Lutz wrote:
What changes not in the slightest the fact, that texts on coffins report about the dead king. They are intended for the otherworld, not for the world of the living. So, I see no reason not to trust rather to the statement of the Egyptologist, Hellmut Brunner in LÄ III...


You don't see any reason because you don't have the ability, apparently, to make an analysis for yourself. I gave points for my own arguments and all you can come back with is "argument from authority". ...

Yes of course, if I am just very amateurish familiar with something, like in this case with the translation of hieroglypic inscriptions (what I've never denied somewhere here in this forum), I trust on the expert opinion of third. In this case Hellmut Brunner and by personal communication, with a good friend of mine, Michael Tilgner (maybe known to some from his work for the EEF-List).

But for this I must be able to assess their knowledge and ability. This is done either through personal acquaintance or by the sighting of their publications (as is common practice in the professional Egyptology). The latter is the case with Hellmut Brunner. He is also after his death continues to be a recognized authority, all writings that I know of him bear witness to me of his expertise in this case.

SidneyF wrote:
... "There was no kingdom of Osiris" [Kemp, page 29]. ...

As far as we know at the moment, in the theology by Akhenaton from Amarna, thats right. And only about this point Barry Kemp is reffering.

But about this point we do not discuss here. We talk here about if during the Amarna-Period and independent from Akhenaton`s ideas the cult of other gods then the Aton and there temples were still working in the country. And that was the point and for that there is evidence (again and again and again see for one example: Wegner, The Cult of Osiris at Abydos in 18th Dynasty, 2002). And as we can see in the inscription on the coffin from KV 55, also on pieces which are obvious and clearly assignable to the royal house. From the finds by Kemp`s team during there ongoing work at Amarna in private houses not to talk...
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:


[quote/]But about this point we do not discuss here. We talk here about if during the Amarna-Period and independent from Akhenaton`s ideas the cult of other gods then the Aton and there temples were still working in the country. And that was the point and for that there is evidence (again and again and again see for one example: Wegner, The Cult of Osiris at Abydos in 18th Dynasty, 2002). And as we can see in the inscription on the coffin from KV 55, also on pieces which are obvious and clearly assignable to the royal house. From the finds by Kemp`s team during there ongoing work at Amarna in private houses not to talk...


Assignable to the royal house? Such as what? About the KV55 coffin I do not agree at all. The ONLY "mAa xrw" that is Osirian comes directly after a person's name [not the case on the KV55 coffin on Band A] because it is short for "mAa xrw xr wsir" or "justified with Osiris" and you can see the entire phrase in other places. Also, the dead person, in most inscriptions, is also styled "the Osiris"--which Akhenaten never is on that coffin. Only on a couple of those so-called magical bricks, which can have been made for the reburial in KV55--just as the text on the foot of the coffin was changed. Originally, it was meant to be a dialogue between a husband and wife--but it was altered to a father and child.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here one can see the entire "mAa xrw xr wsir" formula in the tomb of Queen Nefertari. Once again, it follows directly after her cartouche, as the entire inscription begins from the right--the direction the glyphs are facing.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAncient_Egypt&h=0&w=0&tbnid=l8BK6X_0M1mQhM&tbnh=213&tbnw=236&zoom=1&docid=g4KLf611DCKoqM&ei=FzAnU6O6FIf7rAH6h4CgAg&ved=0CAUQsCUoAQ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3649
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
Lutz wrote:
[quote/]But about this point we do not discuss here. We talk here about if during the Amarna-Period and independent from Akhenaton`s ideas the cult of other gods then the Aton and there temples were still working in the country. And that was the point and for that there is evidence (again and again and again see for one example: Wegner, The Cult of Osiris at Abydos in 18th Dynasty, 2002). And as we can see in the inscription on the coffin from KV 55, also on pieces which are obvious and clearly assignable to the royal house. ...

Assignable to the royal house? Such as what? ...

Made on behalf of the king (royal house), for the king, and located in his possession ---> assignable.

SidneyF wrote:
... About the KV55 coffin I do not agree at all. The ONLY "mAa xrw" that is Osirian comes directly after a person's name [not the case on the KV55 coffin on Band A] ...

The formula...

"Vollendeter Herrscher, Abbild des Ra, König von Ober- und Unterägypten, der von der Wahrheit lebt. Herr der Beiden Länder (N.N.), das vollendete Kind des lebenden Aton, von dem gilt 'Er wird leben jetzt und immerdar bis in alle Ewigkeit."

appears unchanged in the inscriptions of A - E. It is Akhenatens "Sargformel" (Grimm/Schoske, 2001, p. 107, Text to "Abb. 61"). So it is in my view logic that in this case "mAa xrw" appears after this standardized formulation.
_________________
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 18, 2014 2:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Made on behalf of the king (royal house), for the king, and located in his possession ---> assignable.


apart from the study you cite lutz, there is no evidence this coffin was made for akhenaten. i have read many books on egypt, and the amarna period, but none have mentioned this study. likewise, no archaeologists have commented on it via the media in interviews or print.

i also find it rather hard to believe this is a kingly coffin, especially since the figure is wearing a nubian wig instead of a crown.
_________________
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: 3649
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Made on behalf of the king (royal house), for the king, and located in his possession ---> assignable.

apart from the study you cite lutz, there is no evidence this coffin was made for akhenaten. i have read many books on egypt, and the amarna period, but none have mentioned this study. likewise, no archaeologists have commented on it via the media in interviews or print. ...

Maybe you should read a book first by yourself before you judge? Would you do that you'd find among other things, a list of the 31 most important theories about the coffin. Once there, you could read up on the idea that the coffin was originally made ​​for Akhenaten is not new (first: Weigall, 1910).

What is new is that this conjecture is proved for the first time. And not with / about any contentious Egyptological theories and ideas, but with purely scientific methods and analyzes of the used material and factory procedure, with methods that have never been applied before 2001, such as CT scan of the lid and determine the origin of the gold.

This part is not easy to understand (especially for a non-native speaker) and not really be easy explained away... If, you must make fundamental criticism of the methodology or counter-analyzes to refute. I can only hope, for example for Mr. Aidon Dodson, that the language problem is the reason that he is not mentioning the book in his text in "Amarna Sunset" but giving it, and also in addition seperate individual articles from it, in the bibliography at the end (p. 182-183). And not as "Further Reading"... An, in my view and very friendly expressed, proceed as rogue, could almost be called demagogic.

Other examples from the Egyptology community are to found in the articels in KMT from around that time and on the topic, in the works from the Gabolde-Twins and also in the articles by Eaton-Krauss (as far as I remember, unfortunately I have not done a directory guided about it in the past).

kylejustin wrote:
... i also find it rather hard to believe this is a kingly coffin, especially since the figure is wearing a nubian wig instead of a crown.

Which royal coffin bears a "crown"?

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
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: 1029
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
kylejustin wrote:
... i also find it rather hard to believe this is a kingly coffin, especially since the figure is wearing a nubian wig instead of a crown.

Which royal coffin bears a "crown"?


I suspect he means nemes headdress: it does seem evident that the coffin was modified, with the uraeus, added after the fact. The Nubian wig is noteworthy, as I can't recall another example of the same for a royal burial.
_________________
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: 3649
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
Lutz wrote:
kylejustin wrote:
... i also find it rather hard to believe this is a kingly coffin, especially since the figure is wearing a nubian wig instead of a crown.

Which royal coffin bears a "crown"?

I suspect he means nemes headdress: it does seem evident that the coffin was modified, with the uraeus, added after the fact. The Nubian wig is noteworthy, as I can't recall another example of the same for a royal burial.

I am well aware what he means. Only the Nemes is not strictly a crown... Wink

We are talking about the Amarna period. About the afterlife little is known really. Especially not how the king imagined his existence after death. Even if Akhenaten was mummified the classic way is debatable. His canopic box has no evidence and traces of use...

As part of this redefinition also of the royal regalia, it seems not surprising to me, that experiments are to be expected even in the coffins (for the stone sargophagus we know them: Nefertiti replaced on it the classical goddesses). The Nubian wig and the so-called scarf (both often defined as female) we also know for men, if I remember correctly, even under Amenhotep III.

I can only repeat that the investigations of Munich in 2001 were fundamentally new in nature and scope. The only article in "Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges" not to refute by the typical Egyptological counterarguments, is the one on work methods and material used for making the coffin. And also if it does not fit one or the other, not the lowest degree of evidence of revision / retrospective application of snake or beard / change of the inscription bands was found. Previously, as an indication for the latter interpreted color changes of the gold could be explained with chemical / physical reactions.

Because I know that your German is pretty good, I can scan and send you that part if you like.

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
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: 3649
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Finally a short note about the translation of "ma-cheru" in the inscription band "A" on the coffin lid from KV 55. It does ultimately not matter for our question here (cult of other gods under Akhenaten ???) whether the formula has to be translated with "justified / true of voice" or with "victorious / triumphant". Because both translations refer / have there roots to / in the classical religion / mythology before Amarna.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
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 -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 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