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 

controversial Considerations
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Miscellaneous
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2020 3:02 am    Post subject: controversial Considerations Reply with quote

I thought I would create a topic in which some controversial considerations might be shared.
I was thinking about some of the constructs that I have encountered and had a consideration that I thought to share for others to consider.
I will number the first consideration for ease to refer to it if others might add more considerations.

1. If subjects (people) belong to the king, can the king legitimately use the organs (lungs, liver, stomach, intestines) of his subject and honestly claim them as his own organs in the context of a canopic organ in a burial? Such a construct could protect the king's own proper organs if an aggressor believes the organs of the king are found before they are truly found. The god figures in protection of the organs "of the king" would validly be protecting organs that belong to the king in the same manner that a subject belongs to the king. The king would not transgress against the gods by claim or depiction that the gods protect organs of the king.
Any thoughts about this?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irt-akhu
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Nov 2019
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2020 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

2. There are objects all over the world that were taken from Egypt. Shouldn't they be returned to their rightful owners (albeit deceased)?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2020 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

irt-akhu wrote:
2. There are objects all over the world that were taken from Egypt. Shouldn't they be returned to their rightful owners (albeit deceased)?

Nice, seriously complexly challenging question to consider.
I sometimes think ancient Egyptian objects should be kept collectively in Egypt because many (at least in the case of royal and official items) are component elements in integral reference systems that will be later recognized. It is like a need to keep all pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together in one location.
Yet, sometimes, many objects can be safer, better preserved, studied and exposed elsewhere during political upheavals. Of course, there is some risk that objects outside of Egypt are at risk to be lost and disconnected over time from the context of Egypt.
Ownership is complicated by how objects left Egypt. If Egypt surrendered an object then it might be improper for the state of Egypt to try to reclaim ownership. Objects that Egypt did not officialy concede I think can be challenged. Many oajects are stolen out of Egypt.
Sometimes, it is simply a matter of being respectful of cultural heritage.
It's very complex and good to consider.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irt-akhu
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Nov 2019
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2020 3:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How about the obelisks and sphinxes - I think they should ask for them back, and they should be placed back where they originally came from (Karnak, etc.) What about the objects removed from, for example, Tutankhamun's tomb - shouldn't all that stuff be placed back in KV62 where they belong? Those things are property of Tutankhamun. What about those mummies on exhibit in the Cairo Museum - shouldn't they be placed back in the tombs? Do you really think Ramses II thought his mummy would wind up being unwrapped and his body on display in a public museum?! Back to KV7!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irt-akhu
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Nov 2019
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2020 3:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

3. Did people really run around half-naked all the time? Just going off the tomb and temple paintings here, but if accurate there was a lot of nakedness (and everyone looked like a model).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

irt-akhu wrote:
How about the obelisks and sphinxes - I think they should ask for them back, and they should be placed back where they originally came from (Karnak, etc.) What about the objects removed from, for example, Tutankhamun's tomb - shouldn't all that stuff be placed back in KV62 where they belong? Those things are property of Tutankhamun. What about those mummies on exhibit in the Cairo Museum - shouldn't they be placed back in the tombs? Do you really think Ramses II thought his mummy would wind up being unwrapped and his body on display in a public museum?! Back to KV7!

Ideally, I could agree that obelisks and sphinxes should be returned but there are conditions like the Aswan Dam that make it unrealistic. Also, would such things be installed as they were found or as they are thought to have been intended? They are informative elements that later scholars will regret were removed when their functions are ultimately learned.
Tombs like Tut's should be restored even if with new objects after the original objectives, designs and constructs are known but I think the world at this time is a little far from being able to replicate what the ancient Egyptians did. The learning curve is steep. But I don't think it's necessary to return the original objects if materials are used that for example can perform like gold (to survive a few ten million years). The installations were meant to be discovered.
Ideally, the objects could be recognized as property of Tutankhamun but that I think requires to consider the possibility of biological recovery of life to involve morals and ethics. I think we would have to consider when is it alright to rob graves of the dead (an hour or a millennia after they die?). This is irrelevant while the deceased remain dead. It would make some interesting legal challenges if it ever changes.
As for Ramesses, I doubt he would mind that a subject answers for him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

irt-akhu wrote:
3. Did people really run around half-naked all the time? Just going off the tomb and temple paintings here, but if accurate there was a lot of nakedness (and everyone looked like a model).

They dressed in the family albums.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

4. If some tombs tvrn to left for kings and others to right for kings then what tomb configuration should be expected for a figure like Hatshepsut who was both a queen then pharaoh?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Correction:
4. If some tombs [turn] to left for kings and others to right for [queens] then what tomb configuration should be expected for a figure like Hatshepsut who was both a queen then pharaoh?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irt-akhu
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Nov 2019
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now for the question we all want to know the answer to:

5) Was it easy to pick up chicks in A.E.?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

irt-akhu wrote:
Now for the question we all want to know the answer to:

5) Was it easy to pick up chicks in A.E.?

Only if you found the right hieroglyph lying about. It was probably easier with fewer layers of sand than today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 3:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

6. The Annex chamber in the tomb of Tutankhamun is differently aligned (diagonally) in relation to the other chambers.
If the different alignment was an error by careless builders, does anybody think the workers would have been allowed to work on other royal projects?
If the alignment is not in error then why is the Annex differently aligned? Is it significant?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

7. If ancient Egyptian objects are elements (informative parts) in larger systems, is it better to scatter them to unknown different global locations beyond Egypt or is it ideally wiser to attempt to keep the elements in or near their original locations for the systems to be recognized, discovered, known and studied with more of their components in place or available than with missing and fewer parts?

Is it ideally better for many different parties to keep in distant places and own (possess) objects they consider trophies and don't know are parts of a greater whole or would it be wiser to try for related things to be kept nearer together such that the greater systems might be more easily recognized?

Is it for example easier to recognize a passenger airplane if its parts are minutely scattered far apart or if parts are closer together?
Does ownership of random parts matter if the greater system is never to be recognized? Would it not be better to recognize that the shiny trophy object is piece of a control system for something greater?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My controversial topic is that I think Tutankhamun may have died in battle. This could account for his apparent unexpected death, leading to the rush to prepare his burial and for Ay to take the throne. It may also account for Horemheb's possible absence from Thebes for the burial arrangements, his apparent demotion under Ay, and the subsequent revenge enacted once king.

Considerations:

Far from being a weak king, Tut is shown in a battle relief (usurped by Horemheb), and various tomb goods show him in action (albeit seated or with support) and there are also his chariots, arrows and other weapons. There are also his injuries to take into account. Yes, he could have had an accident but his death indicates (asserted by Selima Ikram) that his body was prepared in 2 stages, and not under the best conditions initially.

Tutankhamun's body shows he was not an ideal physical specimen, likelya with a clubfoot, but this does not mean he could not have excelled as an archer, charioteer and so on. We do know that he had a strong military at his disposal, and considering the depictions at Karnak and in his tomb we can not assume he was any less warlike than his predecessors. In fact if Akhenaten's foreign policy was lax as that king focused on religious affairs, his armies may have seen a lot of action to keep the empire together.

Horemheb - was he seen as partially responsible for Tut's death on the battlefield through negligence, or just by the fact of being his chief general? This could account for his apparent absence if conflict was ongoing, but also some kind of shame or being ostracised by Ay.

There needed to be a king on the throne at all times - Ay took over before Tut was buried - was there some kind of jockeying for this position? In any case, it appears that Horemheb was sidelined for some reason despite being of equal status to Ay.

The Dakhamunzu letters took a considerable amount of time, in which interval Ay took power. What happened to Ankhensenamun is debatable in all of this - but her memory was treated far more harshly by Horemheb than Tutankhamun - so I feel whatever happened there were probably 3 factions vying for power at the time. The first was Ay, the second Ankhensenamun and the third Horemheb as well as his cohort Paramessu (the army). The Newberry ring is cited as evidence that Ay and Ankhensenamun worked together but I'm not convinced that was the case, at least initially. It may be that they had to combine forces ultimately to stop Horemheb taking the throne. Alternatively it may be the case that Ankhensenamun was in partnership with Horemheb but they were outplayed by Ay.

Geography comes into this - Horemheb was probably based at Avaris with Paramessu; Ankhensenamun likely at Memphis where the main palace complex was located, and Ay must have been (or travelled to) Thebes. I think there was a scramble for power at Tut's death that was not ultimately resolved until Horemheb took the throne. Ay may have been viewed as an usurper of the throne by some parties - certainly the opening of the mouth scene and his titles as king seem to promote the idea that he was trying to justify taking over swiftly.

This paper is worth a read as it reviews all of the available source material relating to the period surrounding Tut's death.
https://www.academia.edu/34161270/Ay_and_the_Dahamunzu_Affair

I do not agree with the premise of the paper but the contents (lengthy) are impressive and shed some light on this murky period.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In response to karnsculpture:
That is much to consider.

I think also could be considered is that a person who needed walking sticks much of his life if on a fast moving battle field was a vulnerable target.
Charioteers had to be physically strong to control horses and carriages. Riders had to withstand violent motions. Even an archer had to run and climb to gain positions from which to shoot. Chariots banged, bounced and jerked with risk to throw driver and rider. Balance on one leg on a pained foot does not seem ideal.
I once argued that Tutankhamun was not a warrior king because the mummy strongly informed it. I later found other references that inform the mummy in the coffin of Tutankhamun is a servant of the king. The king is elsewhere. So, it is the servant who was not physically a warrior.
The information was in the tomb. I found it and so can others. I say to any who choose to pursue it, there are amazing surprizes to be found along the way about ancient Egypt. The study requires patience and effort.
As for Dahamunzu in the Amarna letters, I think should also be considered that the queen noted that she had no son. She did not say that the deceased king had no son. Tutankhamun. It was an entreaty to lure an enemy of the deceased king. Perhaps it was to revenge the obviously disrespectful tones expressed in the letters to the king of Egypt.
Whatever it was, I don't think Ay usurped the throne.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Miscellaneous All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 1 of 15

 
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