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 

Egyptologists Discover Tomb of Royal Children
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
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3608
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2014 12:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

Kemetian wrote:
From Memory KV62 contained a calcite jar, which you mentioned previously, believed to have originally been inscribed Smenkhkare and Akhenaten, ...

As you say, believed ... And if, intentionally and thoroughly deleted. The name of Akhenaton is still present on other objects in KV 62...

Kemetian wrote:
... I believe that the throne name Ankhkheperure without epithet belongs to smenkhkare.

What would have to prove... This can also simply be because of available space for an inscription, so simply have to do with the size of the object.

Greetings, Lutz.

P.S.: A listing of all names of persons (royal and non-royal) on objects from KV 62 is to found in J.R. Harris : Akhenaten and Nefernefruaten in the Tomb of Tut'ankhamun. - In: After Tut'ankhamun - Research and Excavation in the Royal Necropolis at Thebes. - [Studies in Egyptology]. - London / New York : Kegon Paul Int., 1992. - pp. 55 - 72.
_________________
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: Fri May 02, 2014 1:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

Lutz, I do not know exactly why Dodson wrote, years ago, that the canopic coffinettes were "replicas" of a coffin of Tutankhamun. Did he mean they just looked alike? Because he gave no reason why these coffinettes would have been copies of a coffin made for a later king. Dodson must have known, in 1994, that the coffinettes were reused, although I know, from a paper he wrote for KMT's "Amarna Letters",around that time, that he believed they had belonged to Smenkhkare. Therefore, either the relevant coffin of Tut had once belonged to someone else, too--or that coffin was a replica of the coffinettes, which pre-existed.

I have written to someone in Cairo who is familiar with the wooden coffin used for Ramesses II and asked if that had undergone any obvious changes where the emblems are concerned. As for the coffinettes, I found nothing except the same paper by Dodson. I don't know what happened to my copy of the KMT "Amarna Letters". Anyway, why such a beautiful coffin as the wooden one should have gone unfinished but still survived for many years to be used as a substitute coffin is very mysterious.

About the sequins, I must see if I can find a drawing of one of them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2014 1:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

Here's a drawing of the sequin containing the cartouches of "Meritaten" and "Ankheperure" on a small garment, which has been believed to be that of a child. I don't think one can tell from it whether Meritaten is Ankheperure or his wife.

http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/perl/gi-ca-qmakedeta.pl?sid=67.41.228.220-1399037840&qno=1&dfnam=046gg-c046gg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2014 1:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

I must be tired. I misspelled "Ankhkheperure" twice!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3608
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2014 5:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
Lutz, I do not know exactly why Dodson wrote, years ago, that the canopic coffinettes were "replicas" of a coffin of Tutankhamun. Did he mean they just looked alike? Because he gave no reason why these coffinettes would have been copies of a coffin made for a later king. Dodson must have known, in 1994, that the coffinettes were reused, although I know, from a paper he wrote for KMT's "Amarna Letters",around that time, that he believed they had belonged to Smenkhkare. ...

Aiden Dodson : Kings Valley Tomb 55 and the Fates of the Amarna Kings. - In: Amarna Letters - Essays on ancient Egypt c. 1390 - 1310 BC - 3. - 1994. - pp. 92 - 103, on pp. 94 - 95:



His reading "Semenchkara" on the coffinets was, as is well known, refuted by Gabolde.

SidneyF wrote:
... I have written to someone in Cairo who is familiar with the wooden coffin used for Ramesses II and asked if that had undergone any obvious changes where the emblems are concerned. ...

Following Patrick Farsen : Königliche Särge und Sarkophage des Neuen Reichs - Bestattungszubehör der Könige und Königinnen von der 17. bis zur 21. Dynastie. - München : AVM, 2011. - 232 p., ill., on page 178 makes this coffin clearly no damaged but a work in progress impression. There is no reference to any former gilding.

SidneyF wrote:
... Anyway, why such a beautiful coffin as the wooden one should have gone unfinished but still survived for many years to be used as a substitute coffin is very mysterious. ...

This coffin is not the only one from DB 320 which was with some certainty never completed, and probably came from a kind of depot (?). Another example would be the coffin in which the mummy of Sethy I was found (Cairo CG 61019 / JE 26213 ; Farsen, 2011, p. 176).

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


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 238

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2014 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's also this coffin face piece which was found by Belzoni for the Earl of Belmore (BM EA6885) - this very closely resembles the inner gold coffin of Tutankhamun. It may not have come from the burial of a king - impossible to say - but it is clearly 18th Dynasty. If you look at this piece and the face on the third coffin of Tutankhamun they are very alike.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/system_pages/beta_collection_introduction/beta_collection_object_details/beta_collection_image_gallery.aspx?assetId=408352&objectId=117243&partId=1

http://sunraytours.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/corbis-42-24660165.jpg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3608
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2014 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This we had already here...

Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens -> King Tut's mask

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: 3608
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2014 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For the actual topic of this thread ... A short interview with a member of the excavation team from the University of Basel:

Dr. Elina Paulin-Grothe talking about the new discovery in the Valley of the Kings

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
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: Sat May 03, 2014 2:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
... Anyway, why such a beautiful coffin as the wooden one should have gone unfinished but still survived for many years to be used as a substitute coffin is very mysterious. ...


Quote:
This coffin is not the only one from DB 320 which was with some certainty never completed, and probably came from a kind of depot (?). Another example would be the coffin in which the mummy of Sethy I was found (Cairo CG 61019 / JE 26213 ; Farsen, 2011, p. 176).


Actually, that coffin in which the mummy of Seti I was found has long been supposed to have come from his own burial. Robert Partridge, "Faces of Pharaohs", [page 153]: "The coffin which contained the mummy of Seti I was probably part of the King's original burial equipment."

I do see a hole in the brow-band where the uraeus might have been in a large photo but otherwise have no opinion, never having studied the coffin. Some other coffins from DB 320 were original but with everything valuable scraped off, so it's probably true. The one in which Ramesses II was found was not even finished in the first place--although beautifully carved. That's what makes it mysterious. Never finished--for sure. Never previously used--who knows? Because we have no idea where the men who reburied the royal mummies in the cache got hold of it. For whom was it made--also not clear--except that the person was a pharaoh.

For a number of years the mummy known as "Unknown Man E" was being discussed by way of speculation. Someone said that, even though not much work had gone into his coffin, it was of expensive cedar wood, which had to come all the way from Lebanon. Even though a strange burial and not a good mummification at all, why give this apparent "criminal" such an expensive coffin, then? Now we know why. DNA has shown this person to have been a son of Ramesses III. Even though he was probably Prince Pentawere and thought to be a criminal for sure, nobody dared to give him a cheap coffin. We expect everything from ancient Egypt to make perfect sense but not everything will. I try to keep that in mind. There was not a thing left on this prince when he was found in modern times to identify him and I wonder to this day why those agents of the crown put him in with the royals in the first place. Where was his mummy so that they knew he was a prince?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2014 3:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

[/quote]

Actually, Robert Partridge [on page 158 of the same cited work] states about this coffin: "The cobra on the brow of the King and the Crook and Flail are of inferior workmanship and were undoubtedly added during the 21st Dynasty to replace the missing originals."

Partridge also thought there had once been plaster and gold covering the coffin but it doesn't look to me like it has been hacked about and so I wonder if this wasn't just a guess on his part. He says there were "traces of yellow paint on the wood and details in black lines of bracelets, necklaces and outlining the eyes."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kemetian
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 33
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2014 3:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Kemetian wrote:
From Memory KV62 contained a calcite jar, which you mentioned previously, believed to have originally been inscribed Smenkhkare and Akhenaten, ...

As you say, believed ... And if, intentionally and thoroughly deleted. The name of Akhenaton is still present on other objects in KV 62...

Kemetian wrote:
... I believe that the throne name Ankhkheperure without epithet belongs to smenkhkare.

What would have to prove... This can also simply be because of available space for an inscription, so simply have to do with the size of the object.

Greetings, Lutz.

P.S.: A listing of all names of persons (royal and non-royal) on objects from KV 62 is to found in J.R. Harris : Akhenaten and Nefernefruaten in the Tomb of Tut'ankhamun. - In: After Tut'ankhamun - Research and Excavation in the Royal Necropolis at Thebes. - [Studies in Egyptology]. - London / New York : Kegon Paul Int., 1992. - pp. 55 - 72.


I don't have to prove it because I said "I believe" I never said it was proven.

You Lutz cant prove most of what you post but in my opinion by constantly demanding proof of every statement made by others you are stifling the debate. If we all only post what we can prove it will be a very quiet here.

I dont think I will bother to post any more, there are too many defensive regulars who attack everyone else but have nothing new to say themselves. Very tiring and not worth the effort.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3608
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 5:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

About what someone believes is difficult to discuss (without the opposite also to explain why, and if only rudimentary...). And if you do so in a public discussion forum you have to await questions I think, because this is not a church.
_________________
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: 3608
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Article in German, but with 15 pictures...

Basler Forscher entdecken : Nahe der Pharaonen sind ihre Kinder begraben (bz Basellandschaftliche Zeitung, Pascale Hofmeier, 04.05.2014)

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: 3608
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 3:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
SidneyF wrote:
... Anyway, why such a beautiful coffin as the wooden one should have gone unfinished but still survived for many years to be used as a substitute coffin is very mysterious. ...

Lutz wrote:
This coffin is not the only one from DB 320 which was with some certainty never completed, and probably came from a kind of depot (?). Another example would be the coffin in which the mummy of Sethy I was found (Cairo CG 61019 / JE 26213 ; Farsen, 2011, p. 176).

Actually, that coffin in which the mummy of Seti I was found has long been supposed to have come from his own burial. Robert Partridge, "Faces of Pharaohs", [page 153]: "The coffin which contained the mummy of Seti I was probably part of the King's original burial equipment."

I do see a hole in the brow-band where the uraeus might have been in a large photo but otherwise have no opinion, never having studied the coffin. Some other coffins from DB 320 were original but with everything valuable scraped off, so it's probably true. The one in which Ramesses II was found was not even finished in the first place--although beautifully carved. That's what makes it mysterious. Never finished--for sure. ...

As far as I remember, you can read German? This is from Patrick Farsen : Königliche Särge und Sarkophage des Neuen Reichs - Bestattungszubehör der Könige und Königinnen von der 17. bis zur 21. Dynastie. - München : AVM, 2011. - pp. 175 - 177 :


Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
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 May 05, 2014 1:10 am    Post subject: Re: Prince versus king's brother Reply with quote

Every source I have here, including Nicholas Reeves, says the same thing--coffin original to Seti I, gold scraped off, face modified. But I'm not prejudiced in this case at all because I cannot tell which is true even though I have a large photo of the coffin. It's a case of "better to see for oneself first hand". The photo does not speak to me conclusively one way or another and I can entertain both possibilities--the German opinion being that this is a replacement coffin.
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  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group