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 

Zivie's theory wet nurse maia=meritaten
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
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: 3606
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robson wrote:
Lutz wrote:
I see no good reason to assume that did not exist several concubines. At least this is common practice among his predecessors and successors. And why should be among these women not again a lady from Achmin, which brings not really new dna informations into the royal family?

Indeed, and I agree with you in this point. My issue here is that how a concubine could be honored with a burial in the Valley of the Kings, years or maybe decades after her royal benefactor death? I believe that the two ladies at KV21 (if we consider that they were both related to Tutankhamun) were much more than "concubines", enjoying a royal status themselves.

Well, 25-40 years old ... And there it is preferred here in the forum rather younger bones ...
_________________
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: 3606
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seriously ... You're right. The arm position speaks of course for a higher status, in direction queen / princess.

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: Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
neseret wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Vangu Vegro wrote:
... the one feature pointing towards an age old enough to be Akhenaten being the spine, which can alternatively be explained as a symptom of scoliosis, ...

As you say: it can ... But it don`t have to. Especially if it do not match to the rest of the archaeological findings in KV 55.


Scoliosis is noted for KV 55, so what part of KV 55 says it cannot be Smenkhkare, and MUST be Akhenaten, Lutz? Please be detailed.

The archeological part ... All the other finds from KV 55, beside the bones.


There is nothing in KV 55 that cannot argues that IF Akhenaten's funereal equipment exists in that tomb (and it's rather incomplete at that), that it could NOT have been reutilised for a 20-23 male royal inhabitant, who is a direct son of Amenhotep III and Tiye and still NOT be Akhenaten. Even Ramses II was reburied in a plain wooden coffin, and yet no one doubts the docket tags that say he is who he is, mainly because the anatomical examinations confirm it (Balout and Roubet, 1985).

My point is that there are two separate finds here: A) the remains which are those of a 20-23 year old male at death, who is directly related to Amenhotep III and Tiye, and who may be the ephemeral king Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare Djeser Kheperu. B) There is a find of a coffin and other funereal equipment, including 2 magic bricks, which carry the name of Akhenaten.

There is no sarcophagus that goes with said coffin, there is reused canopic equipment belonging to Kiya, and the body has been rewrapped and placed in an altered coffin, that appears to have been originally made for Akhenaten.

Whatever you wish to make of these items, you cannot argue it is a complete burial for one person. It is reused and reutilised equipment for another person.

So, you can argue what the funereal equipment means, but you MUST note that said equipment has been altered and a body laid within an altered coffin: it does NOT follow that said body within the altered coffin MUST be Akhenaten. Biologically, the age is wrong and to date, no medical evidence has been submitted to alter that fact.

KV 55 References:

Allen, J. P.1994. Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re. Göttinger Miszellen 141: 7-17.

Ayrton, E. R. 1990 (1910). The Excavation of the Tomb of Queen Tiyi: 1907. In T. M. Davis, Ed., The Tomb of Queen Tiyi: 18 - 21. San Francisco: KMT Communications.

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.

Engelbach, R.1931. The So-called Coffin of Akhenaten. ASAE 31: 98-114.

Fairman, H. W.1961. Once Again the So-called Coffin of Akhenaten. JEA 47: 25-40.

Filer, J.2000. The KV 55 body: the facts. Egyptian Archaeology 17/Autumn: 13-4.

Grimm, A. and S. Schoske, Eds. 2001. Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges. Echnaton und das Ende der Amarnazeit. Schriften aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung (SAS) 10. Munich: Staatlichens Museum Ägyptischer Kunst.

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

Helck, W. 2001. Das Grab Nr. 55 im Königsgräbertal. Seine Inhalt und seine historische Bedeutung. Sonderschrift/Deustches Archäologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo 29. Mainz: von Zabern.

Maspero, G. 1908. New Light on Ancient Egypt. E. Lee. London: T. Fisher Unwin.

Perepelkin, G. 1978. The Secret of the Gold Coffin. Moscow: Nauka Publishing House/USSR Academy of Sciences.

Pinch-Brock, L. 2000. An Unpublished Photograph of the KV 55 Chamber. Göttinger Miszellen 175: 65-9.

Smith, G. E. 2000 (1912). Catalogue Général de Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. No. 60151-61100. The Royal Mummies. Service des Antiquités de L'Égypte: Catalogue Général de Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. London: Duckworth.

Strouhal, E. 2010. Biological age of skeletonized mummy from Tomb KV 55 at Thebes. Anthropologie: International Journal of the Science of Man 48/1: 97-112.

Wilson, J. A. 1976. Mrs. Andrews and the 'Tomb of Queen Tiyi.' In, Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes. January 12, 1977: 273-9. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, SAOC 39. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Other Reference:

Balout, L. and C. Roubet, Eds. 1985. La Momie de Ramsès II: Contribution Scientifique a l'Egyptologie. 1976-1977. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations/Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle/Musée de l'Homme.

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
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
neseret wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Vangu Vegro wrote:
... the one feature pointing towards an age old enough to be Akhenaten being the spine, which can alternatively be explained as a symptom of scoliosis, ...

As you say: it can ... But it don`t have to. Especially if it do not match to the rest of the archaeological findings in KV 55.


Scoliosis is noted for KV 55, so what part of KV 55 says it cannot be Smenkhkare, and MUST be Akhenaten, Lutz? Please be detailed.

The archeological part ... All the other finds from KV 55, beside the bones.


There is nothing in KV 55 that cannot argues that IF Akhenaten's funereal equipment exists in that tomb (and it's rather incomplete at that), that it could NOT have been reutilised for a 20-23 male royal inhabitant, who is a direct son of Amenhotep III and Tiye and still NOT be Akhenaten. Even Ramses II was reburied in a plain wooden coffin, and yet no one doubts the docket tags that say he is who he is, mainly because the anatomical examinations confirm it (Balout and Roubet, 1985).

My point is that there are two separate finds here: A) the remains which are those of a 20-23 year old male at death, who is directly related to Amenhotep III and Tiye, and who may be the ephemeral king Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare Djeser Kheperu. B) There is a find of a coffin and other funereal equipment, including 2 magic bricks, which carry the name of Akhenaten.

There is no sarcophagus that goes with said coffin, there is reused canopic equipment belonging to Kiya, and the body has been rewrapped and placed in an altered coffin, that appears to have been originally made for Akhenaten.

Whatever you wish to make of these items, you cannot argue it is a complete burial for one person. It is reused and reutilised equipment for another person.

So, you can argue what the funereal equipment means, but you MUST note that said equipment has been altered and a body laid within an altered coffin: it does NOT follow that said body within the altered coffin MUST be Akhenaten. Biologically, the age is wrong and to date, no medical evidence has been submitted to alter that fact.

KV 55 References:

Allen, J. P.1994. Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re. Göttinger Miszellen 141: 7-17.

Ayrton, E. R. 1990 (1910). The Excavation of the Tomb of Queen Tiyi: 1907. In T. M. Davis, Ed., The Tomb of Queen Tiyi: 18 - 21. San Francisco: KMT Communications.

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.

Engelbach, R.1931. The So-called Coffin of Akhenaten. ASAE 31: 98-114.

Fairman, H. W.1961. Once Again the So-called Coffin of Akhenaten. JEA 47: 25-40.

Filer, J.2000. The KV 55 body: the facts. Egyptian Archaeology 17/Autumn: 13-4.

Grimm, A. and S. Schoske, Eds. 2001. Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges. Echnaton und das Ende der Amarnazeit. Schriften aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung (SAS) 10. Munich: Staatlichens Museum Ägyptischer Kunst.

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

Helck, W. 2001. Das Grab Nr. 55 im Königsgräbertal. Seine Inhalt und seine historische Bedeutung. Sonderschrift/Deustches Archäologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo 29. Mainz: von Zabern.

Maspero, G. 1908. New Light on Ancient Egypt. E. Lee. London: T. Fisher Unwin.

Perepelkin, G. 1978. The Secret of the Gold Coffin. Moscow: Nauka Publishing House/USSR Academy of Sciences.

Pinch-Brock, L. 2000. An Unpublished Photograph of the KV 55 Chamber. Göttinger Miszellen 175: 65-9.

Smith, G. E. 2000 (1912). Catalogue Général de Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. No. 60151-61100. The Royal Mummies. Service des Antiquités de L'Égypte: Catalogue Général de Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. London: Duckworth.

Strouhal, E. 2010. Biological age of skeletonized mummy from Tomb KV 55 at Thebes. Anthropologie: International Journal of the Science of Man 48/1: 97-112.

Wilson, J. A. 1976. Mrs. Andrews and the 'Tomb of Queen Tiyi.' In, Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes. January 12, 1977: 273-9. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, SAOC 39. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Other Reference:

Balout, L. and C. Roubet, Eds. 1985. La Momie de Ramsès II: Contribution Scientifique a l'Egyptologie. 1976-1977. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations/Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle/Musée de l'Homme.

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
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3606
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That we do not agree in determining the age is known. This will not change probably until further notice. You founded your view on several occasions, as I have done with mine. I think we should leave it this way and am frankly tired of repeating me over and over again (research university Dresden on medieval cemeteries, and so on...).

However, I still would like to see a document where magical bricks (arranged around the coffin following the ritual prescriptions from the Book of the Death) made for one person, where used for the burial or re-burial of another one. I could not find one single example in the literature, royal or non-royal...

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: 3606
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even a small note...
neseret wrote:
... Even Ramses II was reburied in a plain wooden coffin, and yet no one doubts the docket tags that say he is who he is, ...

Exactly, there is an inscription that identifies his mummy (Ramses II), even though he obviously lies in a coffin which was prepared not for him.

In KV 55, the name of Akhenaten was only removed. No new name was attached. Funny, with look on the aDNA that says he is the father of the king who has induced the funeral...

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


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 6:59 pm    Post subject: KV21A Reply with quote

The DNA suggests that KV21A is the likeliest candidate to be the mother of Tut's children. She herself is a member of the Royal dynasty but not a daughter of Akhenaten. Than who is she? How could a royal second wife of Tut who almost gave him two children not be mentioned in his tomb while his Great Royal Wife is. Even some items from her sister Meritaten are in his grave.
Im leaning more to two other conclusions:
1 KV55 isn't Akhenaten or
2 Achesenamun is not Anchesenpaaten daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti but someone else (she would still be related to the Royal Family but in a different way).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
evarelap
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 28 Jan 2015
Posts: 98
Location: Barranquilla, Colombia

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:06 pm    Post subject: Re: KV21A Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
The DNA suggests that KV21A is the likeliest candidate to be the mother of Tut's children. She herself is a member of the Royal dynasty but not a daughter of Akhenaten. Than who is she? How could a royal second wife of Tut who almost gave him two children not be mentioned in his tomb while his Great Royal Wife is. Even some items from her sister Meritaten are in his grave.
Im leaning more to two other conclusions:
1 KV55 isn't Akhenaten or
2 Achesenamun is not Anchesenpaaten daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti but someone else (she would still be related to the Royal Family but in a different way).


Or 3. Nefertiti had an affair and Anchesenamun was never Akhenaten's daughter.

The possibilities are endless.

Maia's tomb, if she is indeed Meritaten herself, is key for understanding this period in Egyptian history. She loses her royal titles and the tomb fails to mention Nefertiti her mother or Akhenaten her alleged father? Something fishy and weird happened with that family.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3606
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:13 pm    Post subject: Re: KV21A Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
... How could a royal second wife of Tut who almost gave him two children not be mentioned in his tomb while his Great Royal Wife is. ...

For example in case she died (years) before him. Maybe in childbed?

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: 3606
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the enlarge becomes clear that not the lion's chair is decorated with the "Sema-Taui" icon (as Zivie says), but only the stool on which the feet of the young king rest:



(Alain Zivie : La tombe de Maïa - mère nourricière du roi Toutânkhamon et Grande du Harem. - Toulouse : Caracara Ed., 2009. - Plate 52.)

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: 3606
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And when I'm at it ...

Alain Zivie : La tombe de Maïa - mère nourricière du roi Toutânkhamon et Grande du Harem. - Toulouse : Caracara Ed., 2009. - From pages 32 - 33, 37, 39, 46 - 47, 59 & 75 :



Canope, pages 85 - 86 :



A collection of the titles and readings of the name. Interesting is apparently, only at the strong ruined, hard to read inscriptions the irritation with a 2nd "t" in her name occurs...

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


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 985
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil

PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zivie notices that the different spellings of Maïa's name can points up to a nickname but, before embrace Meritaten's hypothesis, he sugested that it could be a diminutive of Mut. If we consider to include a Mut theophoric name, why not think about Mutbenret or Mutemnebut instead?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
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
Page 3 of 3

 
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