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 

KV62 West Wall Niche Question
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pyramids, Tombs, & Monuments
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maat wrote:
All I know with certainty (for myself from my findings) is that the KV62 mummy is a decoy.


You are starting from that assumption and building the rest of your house of cards on that (non-)foundation.

What I would like to know is, what led you to that assumption to begin with?

Consider: We know that KV62 survived untouched from the Ramesside period onward until 1922, because workmens' huts of that era were found built over it. So whatever shenanigans you are proposing would have to predate that.

What is your proposed motivation for a "decoy"? And, as Ikon has adeptly pointed out, it would have had to have been a "decoy" already closely related to the known royal family of the time-- otherwise, they would all have to have been "decoys," since they are unquestionably related by modern forensic evidence (and *not* just DNA-- bone structure, etc.). Why would the Theban royal establishment bury someone other than the king in a king's grave-- not just once, but repeatedly, over generations?

I suspect you are merely looking to create a new conspiracy notion or to try to support an old one. "Facts withheld" to be "revealed" later is a classic tactic of that. It's certainly not the way science works.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm beginning to suspect that we are seeing a resurrection of this abomination, "The Tutankhamun Deception", by Gerald O'Farrell, where the author claims that KV62 was discovered by Carter and Canarvon ten years before it's official discovery, and robbed by them, with what we see now being fakes.

It could also be connected to a different abomination on youtube where the producer of a video also claims that Carter faked KV62, but that while not robbing KV62, he created what he said he found because he could not in fact find the tomb of Tutankhamun. The lunacy here is that Carter had in KV62 discovered the unrobbed tomb of Nefertiti, after also finding the unrobbed tomb of crown prince Thutmose, and deliberately created an otherwise non existant tomb for Tutankhamun, just so he could say he had found Tutankhamun, as if Nefertiti was not the bigger find.....

Anyhoo, this video states that the mummy of Nefertiti was turfed out and replaced by that of Thutmose, and that Carter made all the needed name alterations, and painted the tomb, in a rush...

Apparently, the real Tutankhamun is the boy from KV35.

For those who want a good laugh, or even to get red in the face and shout at their monitor, the nonsense is here, but beware it is click-bait because these clowns want your $
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3mR9Gu93-M
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:
Are you saying that all of the DNA related mummies from Yuya and Thuya to the two foetuses are not who we know them to be, either by actual name or blood relationship...


I'm said that the KV62 mummy is not that of Tutankhamun and I acknowledge all implications that follow from that. If they are identified as relatives, they are related to a mummy that was not royally king (but might possibly be in the royal lineage).

As I noted, I did not study KV46 and have no information about what it involves. Who "then are the mummies in KV46"? I don't know. I don't even know "who" is the KV62 mummy. I only found who it is not.

Why "would non royals in a non royal tomb need to be substituted"? I also don't know but can speculate that a queen's mother could have been afforded similar security against potential robbery of the tomb as to install a decoy.

Ikon wrote:
If so, please show your evidence

You are absolutely correct that I must show evidence to support the claim but reserve to do so at this time. It's not as simple as to say here it is. It's five thousand pages of written material with hundreds of digital diagrams to demonstrate aspects of thousands of reference elements each with multiple involvements. As I said, I was curious, not looking to publish so none is formalized.

I will consider how I might begin to introduce some of it to you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:
You are starting from that assumption and building the rest of your house of cards on that (non-)foundation.

What I would like to know is, what led you to that assumption to begin with?


First, I'm not "starting". The find is from study that has taken over five years. It's not pulled out of air.

Next, your question is more than valid to want facts and evidence on which I base my findings. I will not produce that at this time but do offer my findings (observations) to be otherwise considered, tested and even rejected if that's what others find.

As for "not the way science works": Science is a process, not simply the publish material at end of the process. Observations are offered all the time to be tested, proved, disproved or rejected.

Consider that Isaac Newton was brilliant and accepted as factually correct for centuries but Einstein found that Newton's findings were limited because effectively more elements and aspects had to be considered.

My "Facts withheld" are withheld for reason because you will not understand what I do not effectively present and demonstrate to you. So, I need time to consider how to digest over five years of material. It's not as simple as a hieroglyphic sign on the mummy that declares "this is not him".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:
I'm beginning to suspect that we are seeing a resurrection of this abomination, "The Tutankhamun Deception", by Gerald O'Farrell, where the author claims that KV62 was discovered by Carter and Canarvon ten years before it's official discovery, and robbed by them, with what we see now being fakes.


Now, that's special. I won't go anywhere near it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maat wrote:
First, I'm not "starting". The find is from study that has taken over five years. It's not pulled out of air.


But you did start with the assumption that it's not the real Tut, didn't you?

maat wrote:
Consider that Isaac Newton was brilliant and accepted as factually correct for centuries but Einstein found that Newton's findings were limited because effectively more elements and aspects had to be considered.


I reject your analogy as not applying to you, as you are not the Einstein to Egyptology's collective Newton.

maat wrote:
My "Facts withheld" are withheld for reason because you will not understand what I do not effectively present and demonstrate to you.


Again, just avoiding answering directly. And you still haven't addressed the motive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is nothing to answer.
I explained my position and reservation.
There's nothing to avoid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It would be interesting to have you lay out what you think is the sequence of events in the construction of KV62 and the burial of Tutankhamun.

It would also be interesting to know your opinion on the KV35 mummies, for instance, are they all the actual kings or are they these decoys you believe in.

If you think that all or some are decoys, then were do you propose the real mummies are, for instance, do you think that all the royal tombs have a secret burial chamber as yet undiscovered.

The creation of the sah is an intricate procedure centered on the dead individual and who they are. In the case of kings we see multiple layers of spells protecting and guiding the individual by name. If the body at the center of all this is not the person named, then everything is negated, all the spells are meaningless and this alleged decoy has no existence in the afterlife. This, to them, is a terrible fate, so who would these decoys be to warrant such a fate.

If, as you seem to believe, that the royal mummies had a secret burial chamber, would it have had the same spells and equipment that the "fake" chamber had. The tomb of Seti I is one of the most magnificent, particularly the burial chamber. His sarcophagus is no less magnificent, being inscribed with the "Book of Gates". Would this be done for the body of a person not deemed fit to have an existence in the afterlife as they are a decoy. In what conditions would we find the "real" Seti I. Would there be a second burial chamber, no less magnificent than the one we see, containing another sarcophagus, again no less magnificent than the one we have, in which we would find the "real" Seti I ?

I used Seti I as an example, but the same would hold true for all the kings buried in the VoK, so for this idea of there being duplicates would need there to be a lot of "wonderful things" still hidden in the VoK, or at least evidence of these secret and duplicate burial chambers if they had been found and robbed, but there is none.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maat wrote:
There is nothing to answer.
I explained my position and reservation.
There's nothing to avoid.



Final time I'm going to take you seriously enough to ask: What would have been the motive for the body-swap?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2019 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Montuhotep88] Final time I'm going to take you seriously enough to ask: What would have been the motive for the body-swap?[/quote]

I think I see where we might be in misunderstanding.
You say and think "swap" when I said "decoy".

A decoy distracts or detracts attention from something or attracts attention to something false (the mummy in this case).

The mummy in KV62 should be regarded less as a corpse and more as an informative element in the burial.

For a king to have had his body mutilated (as this mummy was so mutilated) to convey information seems like an obscenity for a pharaoh to have considered while he had subjects, servants, soldiers and lesser relations who could answer for him in death (think shawabti).

I did not say swap. I said “decoy”, behind which a primary motive obviously would be to protect the king from (robbery, insults?), then secondly to answer for the king (to the visitor/discoverer in the tomb).

Of course, if a king uses a decoy and still wants to be found by legitimate prospects, there also should be information by which that king is to be found.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2019 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:
It would be interesting to have you lay out ... to know your opinion on the KV35 mummies...


My speculation on fate of a decoy (if considered spiritually) is that a decoy is in service of the king. The gods protect the king who then protects his servant.

The king's image on covers of the KV62 canopic chest to protect viscera of a servant that protects the king's burial makes sense.

A note on the canopic shrine suggests the same, as Isis says, "I protect the Imset of Tutankhamun" , can imply a metaphorical Imset (as one who is vital like a liver in protection of the king as was the king's own liver to him in life).

The inscription in this sense essentially says that Isis protects one (a decoy/Imset) that protects the king. Gods on the covers would more strongly suggest the king's organs were there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2019 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A concern that makes me hesitant to want to disclose any of my findings is the common fascination to find "magnificent" things like gold, treasure, beautiful objects that some will want to plunder and put to degrade on display when the ancient experiment (however it might be regarded today) is far greater than value of materials it involves.

The ancient Egyptians are (present tense) testing a belief that mankind will develop or acquire knowledge and ability to restore biological life to the dead. Science today advances and tests such ability with cloning.

If it now seems ridiculous, one success even a thousand or more years from now would be the greatest achievement ever for humanity. To travel thousands of years between stars could become plausible.

I am hesitant to enable people to find and strip supposed tombs for a few shiny trinkets when a burial can last many millennia.

Would the real value of their preparations be any less wonderful and magnificent if all in it was of non-precious materials and ugly?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2019 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Setting aside my personal rant, I don't know what equipment is involved.

I can speculate a guess from what I've observed in study. I once posted a topic to discuss why Tutankhamun (the KV62 mummy) was buried in a gold coffin. Gold does not decay so I expect kings would want their burials to last as long. I think if Tutankhamun had a gold coffin to last forever, Ramesses II and other pharoahs likely would have wanted the same longevity.

Sarcophagi seem reasonable to expect in such situations (and some references seem to indicate them). Inscriptions of course would be necessary to explicitly inform in detail about identity, history, purpose and expectations. I think protective spells are not necessary in that context.

I think you want to know what there is and where. I'm not comfortable to tell but am willing to give some helpful leads and hints until I determine if and how to do a full disclosure.

There are floorplans. KV62 involves multiple burials and the king seems to share a chamber as is indicated.

I looked briefly at Seti 1 but don't know enough to say more about KV35 or Seti 1 as I still have to confirm my preliminary observations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2019 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Spells" are misunderstood and more complex than simple incantations to protect the deceased.

I think most people believe that preparations in the burial were made for the dead. I recommend from my findings to consider they were done to inform a live person who would discover of the burial.

I have come to recognize that the ancient Egyptians wanted to live again in biological terms and not spiritually as many people believe. This can seem like fantasy to many but think of 'Dolly the Sheep' that also was once fantasy.

I don't know how they came to think that people might someday become intelligent (gods?) to be able to restore life, but that seems apparent in their preparations for live people to discover, not for spirits.

Let me try to show one example of such information within the tomb.

Go to the topic, "KV62 Sentinel Statues Functions Considered" because it leads well into what I want to explain.

[Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens -> KV62 Sentinel Statues Functions Considered]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Sun Dec 22, 2019 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:
The creation of the sah is an intricate procedure...


I don't know "the sah" as a conceptual process but only with glanced familiarity
recognized it as reference to a god named Sah, checked on what I remembered, and
find Sah noted as a god.
I only superficially know about the relation to Orion, the constelation.
Is your reference to a "sah" process a more comprehensive aspect of the myth
about the god?
I know nothing about a sah procedure.
Is there some text that might clarify it for me?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pyramids, Tombs, & Monuments All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 of 7

 
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