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 

Nicholas Reeves : The Burial of Nefertiti? (2015)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 29, 30, 31  Next
 
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: 3698
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 4:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robson wrote:
burlgirl wrote:
I hope Reeves is right, but I see why he might not be. If Nefertiti was buried with full pharonic regalia, and the gold mask, canopic stoppers and mini-coffins were hers, how could she be be buried behind the wall undisturbed (the wall having her figures on them and not broken through) if those items had been taken for Tut's burial?

I think if Reeves' hypothesis could be proven, what is to found is maybe just a mummy cache just like that from KV35, and not a full regalia burial.

Almost certainly Nefertiti had also a more or less complete tomb equipment as Great Royal Wife, since she is still occupied by the year 16 of Akhenaten under this title... Maybe she was buried with that, as queen?

With the idea that the entrails of a king were removed from the golden miniature coffins to contain the entrails of another king, I could never really get used. For me it is more likely that they were not made for Tutankhamun, but that he was the "first time user". Also the "Ivory palette of Meritaton" would probably rather fit in the tomb equipment for the mother or the princess itself?


The German press started in the last two days to discover the subject, with several articles. Here's one I found in English, from The Economist : "What lies beneath? - A tantalising clue to the location of a long-sought pharaonic tomb" (Aug 8th 2015, From the print edition).

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


Joined: 13 Oct 2010
Posts: 243
Location: Wisconsin, USA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is very exciting news! Very interesting idea, and I hope they are able to secure permission to explore this possibility.

What I'd like to know is why Nefertiti wasn't buried with/near her husband? Or was it common for royal couples to be buried separately?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3698
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"About the ‘Discovery’ of Nefertiti’s Tomb" (Jacques Kinnaer - 13/08/2015)
Quote:
"Newspapers, whether online or in print, have been buzzing the past few days with news about the ‘discovery’ of Nefertiti’s tomb. As even some fellow Egyptologists seem to be eager to welcome and share this, here is my take on the matter.

First of all, we are not talking about a discovery. A discovery would imply that the tomb has actually been found and identified as such. A discovery implies at least some degree of certainty. What we are talking about here, however, is a hypothesis, or rather, a supposition and as long as there are no actual facts to confirm it, that is all it will remain, a supposition.

Studying the high resolution scans that were made of the walls of Tutankhamun’s burial chamber, Dr. Nicolas Reeves noted that there are traces of what could be outlines of doors hidden behind the paintings in two walls. This has led Reeves to believe that there are at least two more rooms in the tomb where Tutankhamun’s burial was found.
Knowing that Tutankhamun died at a young age and somewhat unexpectedly, an equally plausible explanation for the possible presence of two hidden doors, would be that the construction of the tomb was ongoing when the king died, and rather than hurry to complete the additional rooms, they were walled up and hidden behind the paintings of what was to become the king’s burial chamber. ..."

"Archaeologist says Nefertiti's resting place could be found; Hawass calls study 'speculative'" (Nevine El-Aref - Ahram Online, 12 Aug 2015)
Quote:
"... "Reeves study is a theory for fame and publicity and not based on archaeological or scientific evidences," Hawass asserted.

He told Ahram Online that the ministry of antiquities has to assign a scientific and archaeological committee from Egyptian and foreign archaeologists to inspect Tutankhamun tomb in order to determine whether Reeves study is true or Wrong. ..."

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 Aug 13, 2015 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unas wrote:
This is very exciting news! Very interesting idea, and I hope they are able to secure permission to explore this possibility.

What I'd like to know is why Nefertiti wasn't buried with/near her husband? Or was it common for royal couples to be buried separately?


There are indications that the Royal Tomb at Amarna may have held the royal family at one time, as tombs were set aside for Akhenaten and Nefertiti - along with their daughters - were to be buried in the Royal Tomb at Amarna. It is known that the bodies of Akhenaten, Tiye (Akhenaten's mother), and one of the daughters, Maketaten, were at one time buried there.

It is also possible, from the remaining new tomb incisions into the wadi floor, that there were preparations for other members of the royal family made at Amarna, with a possible interment of the 4th daughter (Nfr-nfrw-ra) made into one of these tombs. These bodies, suggested by Aidan Dodson, were moved to the Kings Valley after Tutankhamun came to the throne and moved the capital back to Memphis from Amarna.

See:

Reeves, N. and Wilkinson, R. 1996. The Complete Valley of the Kings: Tombs and Treasures of Egypt's Greatest Pharaohs. London: Thames and
Hudson.

Martin, G.T. 1991. The Hidden Tombs of Memphis. London: Thames and Hudson.

HTH.
_________________
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
evarelap
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Jan 2015
Posts: 103
Location: Barranquilla, Colombia

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wasn't KV40 a cache of Amarna princesses? Are there any news on the reconstructions of the burned mummies found inside KV40?

Maybe Tut moved Akhenaten, his mother and grandmother Tye to KV55? Then moved his sisters to KV40, and his predecessor Nefertiti (AKA Smenkhare AKA Neferfefuruaten) to KV? (the room that lies behind his tomb)? Or did the moving of the royal Amarna mummies happen during a much later reign? Say Seti I?

This is so exciting!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

evarelap wrote:
Wasn't KV40 a cache of Amarna princesses? Are there any news on the reconstructions of the burned mummies found inside KV40?

Maybe Tut moved Akhenaten, his mother and grandmother Tye to KV55? Then moved his sisters to KV40, and his predecessor Nefertiti (AKA Smenkhare AKA Neferfefuruaten) to KV? (the room that lies behind his tomb)? Or did the moving of the royal Amarna mummies happen during a much later reign? Say Seti I?

This is so exciting!


Not sure where you are getting this as KV 40 was excavated in the 19th century by Loret, who found no remains, and was considered a non-royal tomb space. See on Theban Mapping Project.

As far as I am aware, there has never been a discovery of a "cache of Amarna princesses." From where are you getting this?

I am thinking you may be talking about KV 21, which has been suggested that the tomb was a queen's burial. Two female mummies were found, though their identities are unknown and are not strictly known as Amarna princesses, with their left arm crossed on their chest, a pose only used for queens. Vandals entered the tomb after its discovery in 1817, broke up the mummies, hauled them up to the first corridor B. (See description at Theban Mapping project)

In Hawass's 2010 DNA study, these remains were tentatively identified as possible princesses from the Amarna era, though much more research needs to be done to establish this as a certainty.

The move of the KV 55 remains (most likely NOT Akhenaten, due to age of the remains at death (20-23 YOA at death; see Derry 1931; Harrison 1966, Filer 2000)) is dated to the reign of Tutankhamun due to his seal being found as part of the rubble. The tomb had been sealed twice, the last time being during the reign of Ramses VI (Bell 1990), in which has been argue that the desecration of the mummy took place.

See:

Bell, M. R. 1990. An Armchair Excavation of KV 55. JARCE 27: 97-137.

Derry, D. E. 1931. Notes on the Skeleton hitherto believed to be that of King Akhenaten. ASAE 31: 115-9.

Filer, J. 2000. The KV 55 body: the facts. Egyptian Archaeology17/Autumn: 13-4.

Harrison, R. G. 1966. An Anatomical Examination of the Pharaonic Remains Purported to be Akhenaten. JEA 52: 95-119.

Hawass, Z., et al. 2010. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family. Journal of the American medical Association 303/7: 638-47.

______________. 2010. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family. (eSupplement). Journal of the American medical Association 303/7: 1-12.

HTH.
_________________
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
evarelap
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Jan 2015
Posts: 103
Location: Barranquilla, Colombia

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those books are too old.

I was referring to this about KV40:

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/valley_of_the_kings_kv_40_holds_tomb_of_royal_children-135081

And please dont start the whole KV55 mummy is too old debate again. There are DNA arguments against the old x-rays assumptions, but that is not really the topic here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3698
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

evarelap wrote:
... I was referring to this about KV40:

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/valley_of_the_kings_kv_40_holds_tomb_of_royal_children-135081 ...

See for that also ...

"Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens -> Egyptologists Discover Tomb of Royal Children" (Mon Apr 28, 2014)

"KV40 and princess remains" (Thu Jan 29, 2015)

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: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

evarelap wrote:
Those books are too old.

I was referring to this about KV40:

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/valley_of_the_kings_kv_40_holds_tomb_of_royal_children-135081

And please dont start the whole KV55 mummy is too old debate again. There are DNA arguments against the old x-rays assumptions, but that is not really the topic here.


I don't see anywhere in this article (or in the University of Basel report) that "Amarna princesses" are supposed finds. Rather, it is assumed the remains most likely belong to the families of Thutmosis IV and Amenhotep III.

As for "...DNA arguments against the old x-rays assumptions." I await your explanation of this, as I am aware of the DNA testing and know of no DNA result which categorically states that KV 55 is older than 20-23 YOA at death.

The only statement which was given by Hawass, Gad, et al. in 2010 was a statement (but no actual evidence shown) of their own X-ray evidence. The claim was that their X-rays showed some degeneration of the KV 55 spine. From this, they assumed this would occur only in an older person, stating this proved the KV 55 remains were of a male much older, perhaps as much as 55-60 YOA at death.

However, as most anatomists, forensic specialists, and archaeologists have noted, one can find spinal degeneration in persons of any age - due to strains on their back from labour, scoliosis, heavy lifting, etc. One Egyptologist from the professional forum noted, she had uncovered the same degeneration of the spine described in Hawass, Gad, et al. in the ancient remains of 9 year old children in Nubia.

As the previous examinations cited in my previous post all agree on a younger age of death, and the KV 55 remains are cited by Hawass, Gad, et al. to have scoliosis, then I cannot see that the assumption of a later age, only due to spinal degeneration, has much validity. People with scoliosis in their 20's, for example, can exhibit the spinal degeneration of a type seen in much older persons, but who are without scoliosis.

So, to my point of view, there is NO consensus to a claim that the KV 55 remains are those of Akhenaten, who had his first child born before assuming the throne (Smith and Redford 1976), and had a 17 year reign as king. Assuming sexual maturity even of an ancient Egyptian male was about 13-15 years of age, KV 55 is too young to be Akhenaten, as it is established these remains are of a male 20-23 YOA at death.

Reference:

(Previously cited article from last post)

Smith, R. W. and D. B. Redford. 1976. The Akhenaten Temple Project. Vol. I: Initial Discoveries. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.
_________________
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: 3698
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Minister of Antiquities Responds to Reeves Announcement on Nefertiti's Burial" (Luxor Times, 14.08.2015)
Quote:
"First official response to Reeves announcement on Nefertiti's tomb :

It has been nearly two weeks since Dr. Nicholas Reeves made an announcement regarding King Tut Ankh Amon's tomb. Today, the Minister of Antiquities has finally spoken on the matter. Dr. Reeves believes the tomb has hidden rooms that may contain the burial of Queen Nefertiti, something many media outlets are already dubbing a discovery.

Upon returning from a trip to Japan, Dr. Mamdouh El Damaty, Minister of Antiquities,said he plans to approach Dr. Reeves to find out what scientific clues Reeves based his announcement on. The Minister went on to say that the Egyptian government plans to conduct several studies to determine if Dr. Reeves' hypothesis is correct."

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cal_105
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 08 Mar 2012
Posts: 10
Location: Ft Worth, Texas USA

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It would be too much to hope for an intact burial, but maybe just maybe some relics might be found in this space that would fill in some of the holes in the information about the Amara family.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
evarelap
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Jan 2015
Posts: 103
Location: Barranquilla, Colombia

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

I don't see anywhere in this article (or in the University of Basel report) that "Amarna princesses" are supposed finds. Rather, it is assumed the remains most likely belong to the families of Thutmosis IV and Amenhotep III.


Aren't the Amarna princesses family of Amenhotep III too?

Anyway that is not the point of this discussion, but rather the burial of Nefertiti.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

evarelap wrote:
Quote:

I don't see anywhere in this article (or in the University of Basel report) that "Amarna princesses" are supposed finds. Rather, it is assumed the remains most likely belong to the families of Thutmosis IV and Amenhotep III.


Aren't the Amarna princesses family of Amenhotep III too?


One distinguishes between the "Amarna princesses" of King Akhenaten who resided at Akhenaten versus the princesses/daughters of Amenhotep III who resided at Thebes. They are NOT the same.
_________________
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: 3698
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An interview in Ahram Online, the paper in wich Hawass his poison against Reeves splashed last week (see above)...

"Interview with Nicholas Reeves : The Archaeologist on Brink of Solving Mystery of Queen Nefertiti's Burial" (Rana Gohar - Ahram Online, Sunday 16 Aug 2015)
Quote:
"... Before answering any question, I would like to explain that my study is not about personal ego and speculation, but serious scholarship based on a carefully considered study of the evidences. It was first published not in the popular press but among the academic community. However, my finding proved an overwhelming interest that it did not take long for the press to take up the story.

I have visited the tomb of Tutankhamun many times, and have written many books and articles on the tomb, as you can see from my webpage on academia.edu

I have also studied closely the scenes on the walls and every other aspect of the tomb in close detail at first hand.

However, the detail conveyed by the surface scans made by Factum Arte (the Madrid-based company who produced this documentation for the Egyptian government) is unique. It provides information that we cannot see with our eyes when we stand in front of the original tomb walls. ...

... What is your next move after making such a great discovery? Are you planning to come to Egypt anytime soon to complete further field research and excavations in the tomb?

Before publishing my paper, as a professional courtesy, I sent an advance copy to my colleagues in Egypt's Ministry of Antiquities Mamdouh Eldamaty, for the sake of security via the Egyptian Consulate in New York, with whom I also discussed my ideas.

The next move is to test my ideas, which I hope that I will be permitted to apply safely inside the tomb without causing any damage through using radar examination. ..."

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: 251

PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good to read that he has kept the Egyptians in the loop. I hope that security is sufficient to mitigate the risk that enterprising individuals might take it upon themselves to test the theory.

Paul
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, ... 29, 30, 31  Next
Page 2 of 31

 
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