Egyptian Dreams

[karnsculpture]

I think we’ve got totally different perspectives but I appreciate the post above. I find the walking sticks and seated plus chariot riding depictions interesting because the medical examinations of his mummy show why these were in his tomb. The medical evidence now re-enforces that they are representations of Tut, and although idealised and following artistic tradition have some truth.

I don’t buy that the tomb had any special meaning beyond what it is, except for the curious depiction of Ay, which is a piece of propaganda. The only people who will have seen it are close associates in the court - tombs were not on public display once the burial took place. KV63 included a kind of stand it is thought to enact the opening of the mouth ceremony, and we have to think how the tomb KV62 was filled. Presumably it was empty prior to the ceremony, then Tut placed in his coffins, then the shrines and covering fabric installed, then the burial chamber and side chamber filled with items prior to it being sealed. Then the antechamber and annexe were filled before the tomb was sealed. This must have taken days or even weeks?

[Lutz]

[maat]

Lutz, thanks for the reference about the headdresses. I posted an explanation about functionality of the statues in a new topic (KV62 Sentinel Statues Functions Considered)

[maat]

[Lutz]

W. Raymond Johnson : Tutankhamun's Life, Death, and Afterlife - New Evidence from Thebes (IEAA Lecture, 07.11.2020)
_________________
Ägyptologie Forum (German)

[irt-akhu]

Thanks for posting that, Lutz. Interesting. I find it amazing these guys can take blocks scattered all over the world and piece them together. There must be a database somewhere with all of these artifacts catalogued and then grad students are given the task of trying out different combinations to see if they fit.

[karnsculpture]

Thank you for posting that link, took time to watch the lecture today. It really does raise questions about how Tutankhamun wanted to be seen as a traditional, warlike king after the Amarna period. There is no ambiguity about his depictions - he is shown in battle. Whether he really was we can question, but it is just as valid as the depictions of Seti I and Ramesses III.

It does seem likely that following the death of Akhenaten powers to the North and South were testing the Egyptians who had to respond.

So whether Tutankhamun actually participated as depicted, he was shown to be. The chariots and walking sticks in his tomb need not be a contradiction.
One conclusion could be that Tut died in battle; this could explain his injuries but we can never know (and the Egyptians would not have reported this on temple walls). It could easily have been an unfortunate accident hunting or just driving around. Imagine the king he could have been if he had lived longer! It still beggars belief with the battle reliefs showing a virile young man that he had no living children - mind you the same could be said of Horemheb.

What is interesting also is the emphasis on the triad of Amun, Mut and Khonsu, as I think Tutankhamun was identified with the latter. The jewellery in his tomb seems to confirm that - his name made out but using a moon instead of the sun on multiple items. This is marking him out as the son of Amun, not the son of Akhenaten. It is a real, unambiguous break with the Amarna traditions and clearly something that was well established by the time he died. Still, the memory of the Aten was still shown in his tomb on a few objects and on his body (skullcap inscription).

[Ikon]

[Ikon]

[Thieuke]

It seems that everyone is focussing on Tut's clubfoot but all are forgetting that his grandfather Amenhotep III also seems to have had a clubfoot. So he is not the first king with a disability and as stated before he would not have been a foot soldier but could have been with his army and it's commanders probably in a relatively safe place to oversee the battle.

What intrigues me is the idea that Tut might have reigned for 12 years as his age at death remains somewhere between 18 and 20 meaning he succeeded at an age between 6 and 8. It also would mean he was born later in the reign of Achenaten. If there were solo reigns of Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare that might have taken up to 3 years between the death of Achenaten and the succession of Tutankhamun that means he could have been born as late as year 14 of Achenaten's reign. That would mean a 10 year age difference with Anchesenpaaten and opening up the possibility Achesenamun may have been Anchesenpaaten tashjerit. She would have been a few years younger than Tut so a much more likely marital candidate than her mother or aunt.

[karnsculpture]

Ankhensenpaaten isn’t attested at Karnak and also isn’t on most of the boundary stelae at Akhenaten so could have been born around year 6 or 7, only making her at most 7 years older than Tut. That isn’t too great an age gap, though we can’t discount that his bride was the younger Ankhensenpaaten

I don’t think he reigned more than 10 years as there are no higher dates attested for the king. I do think he was born after year 12.

[Thieuke]

If Anchesenamun was not Anchesenpaaten but Anchesenpaaten tashjerit we may have an explanation why KV21A could be the mother of the Tut's daughters but not be the daughter of KV55 as well as his daughter-in-law. If Anchesenamun was KV55's granddaughter either through Meritaten or Anchespaaten with possibly Smenkhkare who could have been a son of Achenaten by another wife that could explain the genetics.
Though i still wonder how a princess with two clubfeet would have been selected to be the Great Royal Wife. There must have been other candidates who were physically more suited for that role.

[karnsculpture]

Genetically that still doesn't work unfortunately; the KV62 foetuses and KV21A still have to have maternal DNA from elsewhere.

The paternal line is established and not in doubt. I hope that the second round of tests and the tentative identification of KV21B by Hawass clears that up. It's all gone very quiet on that however, same as his claims to be close to finding the tomb of Ankhensenamun.

[Thieuke]

to me the most likely scenario still is that kv21a and b are female relations of the mother but not that 21A is the mother.

[karnsculpture]

They’re definitely part of the family but it’s impossible to say exactly where they fit definitively. I’d have to go back to earlier descriptions of the tomb but both apparently had one arm across the chest so I can believe they were queens.