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 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 14, 15, 16  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: 371

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My familiarity with the standard texts and terms is still coarse so forgive me if I loosely use terms (like day, night or solar barque). I welcome the corrections.

Ikon wrote:

Normally at the beginning of the First Hour of the Amduat we see four groupings of baboons and gods. They go in a grid sequence of 9 - 12 - 9 - 12. The first group of nine are the solar baboons, the last group of twelve are the "hour goddesses".


I think an example of the scene you describe appears in the sarcophagus chamber of Amenhotep II. There's an image at
[ http://sofiatopia.org/maat/hiddenchanber03.htm ]


Quote:

As KV62 is so small it was impossible to have a complete Amduat, and we have only a truncated version of the First Hour.


I understand your perspective and disagree with the premise that seems to imply the ancient planners lacked time, resources or respect to build the king a 'proper' tomb.

I think there is misunderstanding about how ancient Egyptian references are constructed and were used. References found in one tomb can compliment or suppliment references in another tomb. The ancient Egyptian planners in my observations use cross-references similarly like an author might use footnotes.

The grid of twelve hours on west wall in the burial chamber of Tutankhamun fully >references< the twelve hours of night in that each square of the grid refers to and represents one of the hours of the Amduat. This is one aspect of the grid.

Anther aspect as you note is that only the first hour is represented.
f it seems incomplete, consider several possibilities to understand where other elements might be represented and why are they missing?

Years ago, I first considered that the expected depictions might be in other chambers. Today, I regard the apparently missing references as negative inclusions (that indicates something remains to be found because that is how many of the constructs work.
A reference might be placed in one tomb and defined in another tomb.

Despite the impressions had from broken objects, the pharaohs were not trying to maliciously or vengefully undo their predecessorss that joined the gods.
Each tomb could reference earlier tombs or designs. So, they did not sin (transgress or offend)the gods (their ancestors and predecessors.

I don't know if there are scenes of the Amduat in other chambers but it seems more likely than to think Tutankhamun, a pharaoh was cheated with extreme disrespect in his burial by shoddy preparation and execution of the tomb.

Another consideration is that the full Amduat reference is presented in a manner that is not yet recognize.

Quote:

It is likely, but not certain, that there is a grid of twelve baboons to represent the twelve hours of the Amduat. They are not at each "gate", and that is because there are no gates in the Amduat, they first appear in the "Book of Gates" which was composed very early in the 19th Dynasty. These baboons only greet the dead Ra at the start of the journey, and apart from two baboons, one mummiform, in the Third Hour, there are no other baboons.


In the tomb of Tutankhamun, each baboon is depicted in a square of the grid and each square represents one of twelve hours. Each baboon is therefore at a gate in the understanding that a gate is a conceptual position of transition between two points of reference.

I am not yet well familiar with the Book of Gates. Its early 19th dynasty text likely has roots in the closing period of the 18th dynasty.

The construct with the baboons as you describe has similarities to the construct with baboons in Tutankhamun's tomb.

Both for example involve a baboon mummy. Hapi (baboon headed mummy, son of Horus) is at the niche in the west wallin the tomb of Tutankhamun.
Ra is also encounters nine baboons before the procession enters the burial chamberof Tutankhamun.

Quote:

Khepri only appears about four times in the Amduat. The only important appearances are with Ra, not as Ra, in the Fifth Hour and the Sixth Hour at his regeneration, and then at the very end of the Twelth Hour where he is pushing the Solar Disk into the dawn at it's re-birth. Ra is depicted as a being known as "Flesh", with a mans body and the head of a ram surmounted by a solar disk.

Khepri appears on a barque, not the solar barque, only once in the entire journey, and that is in the First Hour. Khepri is only once depicted with the solar disk, and that is as mentioned when he pushes it over the horizon at dawn.


I don't understand the point that Khepri is "depicted once with the solar disk".
In concept the barque proceeds as also the solar disc proceeds through the hours of night.

Khepri is also conceptually always with the solar disc because it is always at rise somewhere in a 24 hour cycle.

The grid of twelve hours of night in Tutankhamun's tomb also involves twelve hours of day. More is in reference than the apparent twelve baboons in a grid.

I would like to take a look at the source for your Amduat reference. Any chance you might post a reference? If it is not a composite reference, a quick look at the tomb to which it is related might be interesting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maat wrote:

I understand your perspective and disagree with the premise that seems to imply the ancient planners lacked time, resources or respect to build the king a 'proper' tomb.

I would like to take a look at the source for your Amduat reference. Any chance you might post a reference? If it is not a composite reference, a quick look at the tomb to which it is related might be interesting.

If those who buried Tutankhamun did not lack time, why was the paint still wet when the tomb was sealed. We know this was the case due to the mould on the paint which could only have formed when the paint was wet and the tomb sealed.

The main reference I use for the Amduat is The Egyptian Amduat by Erik Hornung and Theodor Abt, published in 2007. This book reproduces the Amduat as found in KV43, the tomb of Thutmosis III. This is the most complete version, which is why it is used for reference. The book reproduces photos of each section of each hour, and suplements this with line drawings for greater clarity, and also adds a number to each figure to be referenced in the text. The text reproduces all the hieroglyphs with Hornung's translation. The book does not analyze the Amduat, so allowing the reader to come to their own conclusions as to what the scenes actually mean, however, a companion volume, "Knowledge for the Afterlife - The Egyptian Amduat - a Quest for Immortality", also by Abt and Hornung, does offer an explanation of what the scenes mean by way of psychoanalysis. I also use a similar book by Andreas Schweizer, "The Sungod's Journey through the Netherworld". I also use other references by a number of other authors in numerous other works, though Hornung's is the only one that deals specifically and exhaustively with the KV43 Amduat.

Maat, you make comments that show you are not very conversant with any of this, yet are happy to make pronouncements that completely go against all known facts, and interpretations by the leading experts in this field, and believe me Hornung is the best at this. Therefore, I suggest that before continuing making some rather outlandish comments, you do some reading. Hornung's book is expensive so I would not expect anybody to just go out and buy, unless you have the money of course, but, from a site you linked to, Sofiatopia, so I'm surprised you never looked for their pages on KV43, they reproduce the line drawings I was talking about, and uses the translations of Hornung as reference, though this site in no way matches the book. You may also wish to read works by Jan Assmann on AE religion.
http://www.sofiatopia.org/maat/hidden_chamber03.htm#1.1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:

...
If those who buried Tutankhamun did not lack time, why was the paint still wet when the tomb was sealed. We know this was the case due to the mould on the paint which could only have formed when the paint was wet and the tomb sealed.

Determinations that the mold was the result of rushed work and premature closure of the tomb before paint was dry is another instance of misunderstanding and misinterpretation that has been established as fact.

What is known is that there is evidence of mold growth on some surfaces in the the tomb. That work was rushed and the tomb closed prematurely before the paint was dry is a misinterpretation of the evidence.

The interpretation is plausible but not factually accurate because the mold is a reference element that was intentionally constructed. The mold is obvious and known but the context (constructed reference) in which the mold serves as a reference was not recognized. So, the mold was evaluated in a context of incomplete information.

Because the mold is a reference that had to be on specific surfaces , it is unlikely that it was allowed to grow randomly.

This suggests that its where it was placed and how much it grew were controlled.
It was also most likely inactive and dead when the tomb was finally closed because random growth of mold in a closed tomb could have damaged all the murals and the murals contain key references in the tomb.

The mold spots in the tomb represent a controlled application of mold onto some surfaces withoutt allowing the mold to randomly spread. The tomb had to be accessible to regulate and limit growth of the mold.

The Mold Construct

The constructed reference in which the mold is involved requires the observer to recognize that mold is fungus and that mushrooms are also fungi.

With the recognition fungi is the common category victim in reference, the following can be observed.

- Significantly, Howard Carter found mold spots (fungi) on ceiling in the Annex.
- Mold spots (fungi) were found in painted surfaces in the burial chamber.
- Shapes of the three white tazze in the Treasury chamber suggestively represent three mushrooms (fungi).

The ceiling (surfaces) in the Annex, painted walls (murals) in the burial chamber, and the tazze in the Treasury are together related in a constructed reference. Why?

(continued)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Corrections to my preceding post..

I wrote:
Quote:
This suggests that its where it was placed and how much it grew were controlled.

It should read as:
This suggests that where it was placed and how much it grew were controlled.
...

I wrote:
Quote:

With the recognition fungi is the common category victim in reference, the following can be observed.

It should read as:
With the recognition that fungi is the common category in reference, the following can be observed.

(continued)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(continuation)

The constructed reference has a symmetrical balance.

- Mold on painted wall surfaces in the burial chamber relate to mold on ceiling in the Annex.
- Similarly, the tazze (mushroom forms) in the Treasury relate to the ceiling in the
Treasury.

Annex (ceiling) ->> to burial chamber (wall) ->> Treasury (floor, tazze) ->> Treasury (ceiling)

Ceiling in the Treasury

On the ceiling in the Treasury is a composition in plaster of obscure images with anamorphic aspects. Images change with different angles and are very challenging to isolate.

Within the composition is an abstract terrain that is like a wadi with a (field?) of mushroom-like forms that extend into the distance. Three of the forms in near foreground are arranged together like the tazze below on floor of the Treasury.

The mold (grown into surface) on the painted images relates to mushroom forms in the image composed in plaster in the Treasury.

I spent hundreds of hours studying the
Treasury's ceiling in Burton's photographs of the canopic shrine. I resized, used different monitors, screens, phones and desktops in different light conditions. A dark room seems best. I used all angles even upside down. The images are not easy to isolate.

The observer's frame of mind seems to also be important. It is best to relax while viewing the ceiling area above and near the canopic shrine.

There are two crook forms that seem to work like a visual orientation references. They seem easiest to see in the composition. There is more.

In a span of a year or two, I successfully isolated on three different occasions a photographic-quality image of Tutankhamun (the king) standing with a company of three or four men (soldiers?) in background as if they were having a causal moment out in the field (a dry terrain in this case). Two are in background (talking amongst themselves?). One is nearer behind the king as if waiting like the king got distracted for a moment from their talking.

The king has light (sandy or brown? Not dark) hair, wavy or curly. Looks nothing like his mother (who is not in the composition). None of this is easy to isolate but it was a treat.
The image with nearest to best angles was on my failed phone. Lost.

The ancient Egyptians used a mirror at floor level to view the ceiling.

The missing mirror from the mirror case of Tutankhamun that was in the chamber is a negative inclusion that was to attract attention to the mirror. The observer is supposed to try to learn the significance of the missingg mirror. Significantly, a mirror could have been used to view the ceiling from different angles.

They had realistic images that easily would shame DaVinci.

The king was tall, trim, healthy, not muscular or thin. He looks confident but not a commanding presence, seems a reluctant leader is the impression from the image.

There are also symbols that seem too be ordered in columnar layout.
Someone who reads text might be able to isolate and recognize what they are.

Again, I spent hundreds of hours, many months, sleepless nights in a masochistic effort. There were times that it was best to set aside the effort for later.
I emphasize that it is not easy. It initially looks like nothing.

(continued)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:

...
The main reference I use for the Amduat is The Egyptian Amduat by Erik Hornung and Theodor Abt, published in 2007.

Thank you for the references.
Quote:

Maat, you make comments that show you are not very conversant with any of this, yet are happy to make pronouncements that completely go against all known facts, and interpretations by the leading experts in this field, and believe me Hornung is the best at this. Therefore, I suggest that before continuing making some rather outlandish comments, you do some reading.
...

I agree that I do need to study the standard literature even while I confidently assert what I understand from study of aspects of ancient Egypt that the standard literature at this time does not yet include.

I recognize that my statements will seem outlandish to many people because an unfamiliar aspect of Ancient Egypt is put forward that yields new information and understandings about the available archaeological record.

Determinations that were made in contexts without recognition and knowledge that constructed references were involved will likely seem to be contradicted by new information from a constructed reference.

The ancient Egyptians constructed references to record and communicate information.

Classical Egyptology approaches the study of ancient Egypt through language and culture with emphasis on written texts and information derived from such texts.

But, written text was only one method and aspect of how the ancient Egyptians recorded and communicated information. Information is missed when constructed references are missed.

Determinations then made in a context of missing references and information will likely be deficient in accuracy.

Constructed references are not written text although written text can be used to construct a reference.

Constructed references use conceptual representations. The basis of constructed references in some sense is concepts instead of written text.

I approached to study ancient Egypt from the perspective of constructed references because it is something that I somehow recognized.

I made different observations than with a formalized discipline that impresses upon, informs and biases a scholar to think like their predecessors.

This still leaves me in need to study the standard body of knowledge that occurs from the classical respective because the constructs and information from text work together.
To do so should also help me to relate better in discussion with those in the formal field of study.

I take no pleasure in making statements that seem to contradict positions held by well respected scholars because I respect their accomplishments and efforts to advance the field of knowledge.

It would be foolish for me to attempt to contradict those who are certainly better studied and qualified in their field when I am not.

My attempts here are to offer helpful insights from personal study and observations in hope that others might look into the matter. The experts will decide if the information has merit to be studied.

I so far have found that the ancient texts support my observations.
Also, my observations disagree with some interpretations.

A question:

There is a scribal (hieroglyphic) construct in the Treasury of the tomb that reads as
'lord of the throne of the two lands'.

The scribal palette of Meritaten on the Anubis shrine is a reference to it.
You read hieroglyphics.
It is neither written nor inscribed.
Have you seen it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

34. A Scribal Construct in the Treasury

Howard Carter found the Anubis shrine at doorway in the treasury of the tomb.

A sculpted lifesize black jackal figure lay atop its shrine with the shrine box upon a sledge (palanquin) with carrying poles. [Carter no. 261]

A linen shirt that bears an inscription with name of Akhenaten was found wrapped onto the jackal figure. [Carter no. 261A]

{A second linen cloth was also found on the jackal layered underneath the shirt. I had not remembered the underlayer but it supports a construct that I described earlier in this thread in which the jackal represents three gods (two with human form, one mummy). This second layer is ignored for this explanation.}

An ivory (scribal) palette inscribed with name of Merltaten was found placed between forelegs of the jackal at rest upon the shrine. [Carter no. 262]

The two carrying poles of the palanquin were on floor of the treasury.
Their forward (west) ends lay on threshold of the doorway in the Treasury with its east ends inside the chamber.

Three (white) calcite tazze also on floor of the chamber were grouped behind the palanquin.

Next, behind the tazze was the sculpted 'head of a cow'

Indicative Reference

The writing palette is a scribal reference that indicates the presence of scribal constructs.

I use the term 'scribal construct' to mean a constructed reference that uses symbolic elements to represent hieroglyphs. In this case, the scribal construct involves both written text and physical objects that represent hieroglyphs.

A Title

Collier and Manley in How to Read Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics (page 160) show the hieroglyphic representation of the title, 'lord of the throne of the two lands'.

This title as written hieroglyphically in Collier and Manley was constructed in the Treasury of the tomb of Tutankhamun with elementss of the Anubis shrine and the three tazze that represent hieroglyphic elements. .

Hierarchy

The Anubis shrine, tazze and Hathor cow sculpture in the Treasury are involved together in a hierarchy similarly as written hieroglyphics have a positional order for reading and grouping.

First, the Anubis jackal with shirt and the palette atop the shrine are in highest position off floor of the chamber.

Next lower in hierarchy and position was the head of cow (Hathor) sculpture on its low base but not directly on floor of the chamber.

Finally, the tazze and poles of the palanquin were in lowest position directly on floor of the Treasury. These elements on floor of the Treasury effectively were to be regarded as if in a common common group as a set of elements.

This hierarchy informs about grouping of the elements and sequential order in which elements are to be referenced.

(continued)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(continuation)

Extended Hierarchy

The construct of a procession into the tomb that was discussed earlier, unites in this thread references from the different chambers into a greater reference set.

This greater set for reference allows to be recognized that the hierarchy with Anubis shrine, head of Hathor, and tazze should be expanded to include objects as follows.

Anubis shrine [carter no. 261]
Linen shirt [carter no. 261A]
Ivory palette [carter no. 262]
-- king statue (on low base in antechamber [carter no. 22]
-- king statute (on low base in antechamber [carter no. 29]
Head of cow (on low base in Treasury) [carter no. 264]
-- Anubis fetish object (on reed mat in burial chamber) [carter no. 194]
-- Anubis fetish object (on reed mat in burial chamber) [carter no. 202]
Three tazze [carter no. 265]


Relationship in Hierarchy

Observe in this extended hierarchy that the two king statues from the antechamber are mounted on low bases similarly as the head of cow (Hathor) figure is also mounted on a low base. The three statues are in a group by common level of elevation in the hierarchy. They are not on floor of the tomb.

Also observe that the two Anubis fetish objects that were in the burial chamber were placed on reed mats and not on pedestals. The mats are lower in height than the low bases of the three statues (kings and cow) but the mats still raise the fetish forms off floor of the tomb.

The fetish objects are therefore in a superior position in relation to the tazze that were on floor of the Treasury.

The scribal construct works without the king statues and fetish objects but these objects add detail to the scribal composition.

Initial Inscriptions

The first text that is encountered within the scribal construct is written text with names that appears on the linen shirt (Carter no. 261A) and palette of Meritaten (Carter no. 262).

As I do not read hieroglyphics, I rely on the general available publications that inform about the presence of names on the objects. Those who read hieroglyphics will be better able to more precisely read the fuller content of the construct and others if there is more to be read. I suspect there is more.

In my understanding, the names begin the title as

Akhenaten, lord of the throne of the two lands
and
Meritaten, lord the throne of the two lands

I read the names separately because the shirt with his name was on the jackal (in a higher position) and the palette with her name was lower in position in front of the jackal figure.

The hieroglyphic inscriptions say more, but the names suffice here for this explanation.

The 'lord of the throne of the two lands' part of the scribal construct is obtained from the poles of the palanquin and the three (white) calcite tazze that were in common on floor of the Treasury.

The (white) ivory writing palette and (white) calcite tazze are to be recognized and related by their white color in context of the Anubis shrine with the tazze behind it.

The (white) palette suggestively informs about the scribal art and the (white) tazze has the elements to compose the phrase.

Objects Symbolic of Hieroglyphs

The three tazze must be considered as if assembled parts.
Each tazzo has a convex cover on a concave bowl and the bowl is attached to a tapered base.

The covers, bowls and bases are to be viewed onward to their sides in which view, the following representations can be observed..

3 Covers (side view) = (3x) Gardiner (X1) 't'
3 Bowls (side view) = (3x) Gardiner (V30) nb
3 Bases (side view) = (3x) Gardiner (W11)
Then
3 Covers (top view) = 3 dots '...' ("grain"?)
3 Bowls (top view) = "3 dots '...' ("grain"?)

Hieroglyphic Composition

The tazze elements and two poles of the palanquin that symbolize hieroglyphic elements are combined and composed from top downward as follows.

One horizontal pole from the palanquin over three dots represents the hieroglyphic sign for "land with grain". [Gardiner (N16)]

V30 - 1x nb, "lord"
W11 - 3x "throne"
N16 - 1x "land with grain"
N16 - 1x "land with grain"

This grouping of hieroglyphic elements forms the phrase, 'lord of the throne of the two lands' as I recognize the symbols from Collier and Manley, relate them to Gardiner signs and to the scribal construct that I recognize in the Treasury.

Remainder Symbols

Having composed the phrase leaves a remainder of five symbolic elements that were not used in the composition. These are also significant as they indicate the following.

3x Gardiner (X1) = t t t indicates three females
2x Gardiner (V30) = nb nb indicates two male "lords" (kings, rulers?).

The remainder elements should also be considered together in combination.

nb(t) nb(t) and t indicate two female lords (rulers?) and a female who was not a lord.
This is symbolic of Meritaten and Nefertiti as rulers (kings) and
Ankhesenamun who was only queen of Tutankhamun.

But, also observe that one nb symbol was removed to form the title phrase.
That absent symbol is a negative inclusion reference that represents Tutankhamun.
He is in reference but not in his coffin in the burial chamber.

Like Hapy (son of Horus), Tutankhamun was called to join with the father of his father. This is one significance of the 'X' mummy scene on north wall of the burial chamber where the two male figures greet Tutankhamun (not Osiris the mummy). He is in or behind the mummy. It is his hands that reach towards the two men.
Horus says to his son Hapy, 'Come that you may join up with my father..'

The absent nb symbol is still in reference although moved to produce the phrase.

The head of cow and two king statues all three on bases in reference identify that two males and one female were on equally similar bases.

These are Amenhotep III, Akhenaten and Nefertiti.
All three were king. Nefertiti bore a daughter each man then raised her Tutankhamun (son of her sister/daughter) to his reign.

In Summary

Other references support these identifications in the tomb.
They are not simple but they were there.

My explanation here is coarse and not exhaustively complete but I think it demonstrates how the scribal construct works.

I do not read hieroglyphics and think those who do will likely recognize more in the construct or more constructs than I can. It is effectively reading of hieroglyphics except that hieroglyphic symbolism is composed with physical objects and not written only as text.

The palette of Meritaten was only one of several palettes found in the tomb.
The others might also reference scribal constructs.
The colors in the palette seem to be coded to relate to objects like black statues, bases, white tazze and palette. This seems silly but I am not fleshing out the colors here at this time.

This explanation is simply to show the presence of scribal constructs in the tomb. They also occur elsewhere in the archaeological record of ancient Egypt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

35. A note about the procession in KV62 as relates to elements in KV63

I noted in this thread that the constructed procession in KV62 conceptually goes through and involves KV63.

I was reading in the topic "KV-63: A new tomb discovered next to king Tut's" and came across links to the websites below with images about KV63.

Two photo images caught my attention because while I expected and know the two tombs contain shared references, I had only read about KV63 and its seven coffins.

1. The Bust and Coffin

The wooden "head of the king" bust (Carter no. 008) in KV62 apparently relates in reference to one of the wooden coffins in KV63. The anthropoid coffin bears a face. I don't at this time know the designation of the coffin.

Both the bust and face on the coffin have a vertical split in left side of the face that runs through each left eye.

The Bust - head of the king
http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/php/am-makepage1.php?&db=burton&view=gall&burt=p1881&card=&desc=&strt=1&what=Search&cpos=1&s1=imagename&s2=cardnumber&s3=&dno=25

The Coffin Face - (first image at top left on page)
Website: KV-63.com, "Otto's Dig Diary"
http://www.kv-63.com/photos2009.html

In sequence of the conceptual procession, the bust "head of the king" in the corridor is first then the coffin in KV63 follows such that the split in the face progressively closes. The split is wider in the bust and narrower in face on the coffin.

Remember as explained earlier in this thread that this progression leads to the mannequin in the antechamber in KV62. The mannequin has no damage to its face. A progressive evolution is demonstrated.

2. The Lion Bed and Lion Couch

Jane Akshar posted a link in this forum to an article on her blog page,
"KV63 Mummification Bed in its New Home, Luxor Mummification Museum".

She shows images of a reassembled and preserved (embalming) bed that was found with the coffins in KV63.

The small bed (essentially a frame) is low and has two carved lion heads (one on each post on one end of the bed).

Howard Carter found a "Lion Couch" (one of three couches) in the antechamber of KV62.
[ http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/perl/gi-ca-qmakesumm.pl?sid=38.98.224.98-1603219232&qno=1&curr=035 ]

The small bed in KV63 relates to the larger "Lion Couch" that Howard Carter found in the antechamber of KV62.


Observe that the larger couch represents the conceptually evolved form of the smaller bed.

Lion Bed (KV63)
[ http://luxor-news.blogspot.com/2009/04/kv63-mummification-bed-in-its-new-home.html ]

Progression of the Forms

The bust (head) that was in the passage corridor of KV62 is precursor to the coffin in KV63.

The coffin and the lion bed in KV63 then have their related evolved forms in the antechamber of KV62.

The human and lion forms evolve in the constructed procession.

Some researchers naturally will mistake the splits in faces of the bust and coffin as defects that naturally occurred but the damage was actually constructed to serve as reference.

There are other references that relate KV62 and KV63.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

36. Coffins in KV63 relate to KV62 burial shrines and coffins in the burial chamber of Tutankhamun.

Dr. Otto Schaden found seven anthropoid coffins in KV63.
[ https://archive.archaeology.org/online/interviews/wilson/ ]
[ https://archive.archaeology.org/online/reviews/kv63/ ]

Four of the coffins were coated black (except depicted faces) with resin and three had faces colored yellow.

The four coffins coated with resin and three coffins with yellow faces are manifested (expressed and represented) in KV62 as the nested set of four large burial shrines and three nested coffins all in the burial chamber of Tutankhamun.

The four coffins coated with resin in KV63 are precursory forms of the large burial shrines in KV62. Carter numbered the burial shrines as items 207, 237, 238 and 239.

The three coffins with yellow faces in KV63 relate to the three nested coffins in KV62 that Carter referenced by number as items 253, 254 and 255.

Procession Passed Through KV63

The constructed reference of a virtual procession in KV62 was explained earlier in this thread. That procession has a reference in the antechamber of KV62 to the existence of KV63 because the procession in reference passed from KV62 through KV63 before it entered the antechamber of KV62 to proceed onward into the burial chamber of Tutankhamun.

The objects referenced in the space of KV63 therefore occur later in their evolved forms in KV62. The large burial shrines had the forms of coffins coated in black resin in KV63.

Three Coffins, Three Women

Egyptologists in the review that is referenced above pondered if the three coffins with yellow faces in KV63 represent females in fact.

The three nested coffins of Tutankhamun were explained earlier in this thread as being elements in a constructed reference about the maternal lineage that produced Tutankhamun. The nested coffins represent the three women whose direct maternity produced Tutankhamun. They are his mother, her mother and her mother.

Relation of the yellow faced coffins in KV63 to the nested coffins in KV62 in the burial chamber of Tutankhamun identifies the coffins with yellow faces as to represent three females in KV63.

This should not be mistaken to mean that the four coffins coated black with resin all represent only males.

References in KV62 indicate only three principal males with two females that held the kingship and two who apparently did not hold it.

The four black coffins might then represent kingship and not simply male or female gender.

Since I have only taken brief look at KV63, I note here only what to me is initially obvious. I don't note other references that I think need more consideration before I might express any observations.

KV63 certainly contained keys to KV62 much in the way as a person might today leave an extra key for the house under a mat, plant, in a pot or elsewhere.

I note this because I recognized that someone in fact found a 'key' but did not recognize its significance.

I withhold explicit information that directly exposes burials.
I still think the nature of what is at hand should be known.
What is being found is not all or only disposed materials or burials.
There are complexly prepared references even across centuries and dynasties.

I think there is much that should be learned or recognized before a royal burial is found. These constructed references seem so far as I understand them to be for instructive guidance.

I also think there is no reason to construct such extensive and elaborate guidance unless the instructions have some further application.

The distribution of related references in different 'tombs' seems elaborate to me. I think that I know why even if I don't know exactly what is being guarded. I think it is something more important than royalty. The question in back of my mind is, what was more important than the king? I might be mistaken but that is the sensation I have.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

37. Gold Coffins Referenced in KV63 and KV62

A two foot long gold coffin was found under two pillows in KV63.
[ https://archive.archaeology.org/online/interviews/wilson/ ]

As already explained, items in KV63 are expressed in evolved forms inside KV62.
The gold coffin in KV63 is observed to relate to KV62 as follows.

1) The two pillows in KV63 become the two large wooden coffins in KV62 that were in the sarcophagus in the burial chamber of Tutankhamun.

The two coffins are referenced as:
- Carter no. 253 -First outer coffin
- Carter no. 254 - Second coffin

The two pillows can be conceptually regarded to represent comfort as a mother comforts a child. The three nested coffins in the burial chamber of Tutankhamun were already explained in this thread to represent maternal figures.

The constructed reference contains and communicates much information that would certainly require volumes of writing to express.

Consider the aspects that can be (unpacked?) from the single reference (construct) of pillows and gold coffins.

The constructed reference efficiently communicates information across time, language cultural obstacles. The concept of maternal comfort can be universally recognized and understood.

2) The smaller coffin of gold under the two pillows in KV63 conceptually evolves and becomes the large gold coffin of Tutankhamun in KV62.

The gold coffin of Tutankhamun was nested inside the two coffins of wood.
- Carter no. 255 - Coffin of Gold

Here Unresolved

I at this time do not know what was found in the smaller gold coffin in KV63.

At opposite end of the range in the constructed reference in KV63 is the large coffin in which was found the pillows and smaller gold coffin.

Who (if anyone) is that coffin meant to represent?

Consider that the three coffins in the burial chamber of Tutankhamun represent women in the maternal lineage that produced Tutankhamun. Also, those coffins by reference of the pillows in KV63 occur inside another (fourth?) coffin.

The unresolved question here at this time is who or what is that (fourth) coffin meant to represent(?

--> KV63 Coffin (?)
KV63 Pillow --> KV62 first outer coffin (mother)
KV63 Pillow --> KV62 second coffin (mother)
KV63 Small Gold --> KV62 large gold coffin (mother)
--> KV62 (gold mask and hands) (two in joint kingship with or for Tutankhamun)

Does the container coffin in KV63 represent a king (Amenhotep III / IV), something else , or nothing?

A Consideration

The container coffin can represent Amenhotep III and pillows represent marital relations.

This constructed reference then would indicate that he with his wife (Tiye as pillow) fathered a daughter (Nefertiti as pillow) then with his daughter he fathered (Meritaten as small gold coffin).

He in this consideration did not father a child with Meritaten. She and Akhenaten produced Tutankhamun.

This consideration affirms several other constructed references in KV62 that inform about these relationships.

The maternal lineage is presented in the burial chamber of Tutankhamun.
The paternal aspect (father of Nefertiti and Meritaten) is apparently established in KV63.

The coffin in KV63 that contained the two pillows represents Amenhotep III.

A Final Questions

Are there any markings on or in the coffin that might indicate this identification?

Also, were any hieroglyphics found on or in the gold coffin in KV63?
Will someone point me to a reference if there is such?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Sat Nov 07, 2020 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

38. The Royal Crook

I thought this might be a good point to try to introduce basic functionality of the royal crook because I referenced the burnished gold hands in the gold coffin of Tutankhamun.

The gold hands held the crook and a flail that I noted informs about a coregency.

The crook and flail in the gold hands also relate to a set that was found in a cartouche shaped chest in the Treasury.

The virtual procession carried the reference into the burial chamber.

I think the relationship of the crook in the gold hands in the burial chamber to a crook in the Treasury should be explained. The royal crook is also a device with practical functionality that also should be explained.

I think it is best to create a separate topic to explain some aspects of the royal crook and to avoid having it unnecessarily buried too deeply in this thread.

I separated an introduction to the crook into a new topic.

Forum Index > Miscellaneous >
Topic: "Functionality of the Royal Crook Introduced"

The royal crook as a topic can stand alone while this thread can continue..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2020 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:
Why is it not the mummy of the king?

How does that fit with the identity of the mummy in KV62 being the son of KV55 and KV35YL, grandson of KV35EL and great grandson of Thuya from KV46? Your argument sounds better regarding the coffins if you drop the idea that the mummy is a servant. Not that I agree with what you say about the coffins but the servant aspect is really problematic.


I had meant to reply to this when I first read it but wanted to complete a train of explanation.

Why the mummy is not the king is not simple to explain because it involves several informative constructs of which some use very abstract elements to indicate and represent the king.

You can see in my attempt to explain the construct of a procession in the tomb that representative elements change and vary in form as the procession is followed.

Well, there are even more complexly constructed references than the procession that work in unison to expose that the mummy is a servant.

The involved references get really (exotic?) and conceptual until they come together to produce firm recognition that there is a real and not real king. Then, other constructs provide more information.

Consider the mural on south wall of the burial chamber for how extremely abstract references can get. The three deity figures are giving ankh to each other. The ankh represent children to be given.

Anubis presents the man (Wepwawep/Akhenaten) to the goddess (Hathor/Nefertiti).

The goddess gives (Ankh)esenamun to the man who is Akhenaten (the father of Ankhesenamun).

But, Anubis (Amenhotep III) holds an ankh and Hathor (Nefertiti) holds an ankh.
Each ankh is a child to be given.

To whom will they give those children? To each other.

They are in the realm of death and giving to each other what is rightly theirs.

Anubis (Amenhotep III) sends forward (returns) his son (Akhenaten) to the goddess.

Anubis holds an ankh (his daughter Meritaten) that he will give (also return) to the goddess.

He (Anubis/Amenhotep III) had received his son into his care in death.
He had also received Meritaten (his daughter) at her death into his care.
So, he returns Meritaten (his daughter) to her mother (also his daughter).

Hathor (Nefertiti) holds a second ankh (Tutankhamun) to give (return?) to
Amenhotep III.

Tutankhamun and Amenhotep III will meet in death.

The second ankh held by the goddess represents Tutankhamun.
Nefertiti cared for and raised him in life after death of his mother.

Tutankhamun was the son of Meritaten and Akhenaten.
Nefertiti was his grandmother/aunt who in life cared for and raised Tutankhamun.

Nefertiti held (in her care) Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun in life.

She brings him in death to meet (to be with) her father who was also the father of his mother and of his father.

This information occurs in the constructed procession.
Tutankhamun is with his grandfather as also several other references also inform.

There were physical objects to point to for me to explain the procession.
More purely conceptual references need more precise explanation that could be like trying explain the ability of sight to a person who has never had it.

Tutankhamun is not in the gold coffin.

Finally, I have no explanation for why the servant has genetic relatives matched by DNA.

Conceptually, bound captives are represented in the procession in the tomb.
One is manifested in the gold coffin to answer for the king.
Another appears before the goddess Nut in the north wall mural.
Tutankhamun looms behind him.
I hope the restoration did not erase him.

The references acan be subtle and complex.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2020 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The references can be subtle and complex.

I think the traditionally accepted interpretation of the mural painted on south wall off the burial chamber is mistakenly simplistic.

The mural image is not a representation of Tutankhamun being offered life by the goddess.

Tutankhamun is not the male figure in the image. He is the ankh in her left hand.

A Second Duplicate King Reference

The south wall mural had a second reference (representation) about Tutankhamun.

Inside the burial chamber, the east (left) section of the south wall was demolished by Howard Carter to open the burial chamber to the antechamber.

On that section of the wall was painted a duplicate scene of the goddess Nut with the male figure standing before her. She holds as if to offer waveform symbols in her hands.

The same scene appears to be similarly equal as the middle scene on the north wall.

The male figure on the north wall is misidentified as Tutankhamun who stands before the goddess Nut.

I have noted that the figure is a servant and that the king appears obscurely depicted in that scene on the north wall.

So, the scene includes a representation of a tall Tutankhamun who stands behind the smaller servant figure..

Most people mistake the servant figure that is easily seen for the king that obscurely appears there.

The Demolition

The apparently same scene was painted on the south wall of the chamber on a section of wall that had to be demolished to open the chamber. But, the two painted scenes were not the same.

The scene on the south wall had shown only the servant figure without the king.

Although the wall is destroyed, it is known that the king was not shown there because elements of the opening of the mouth scene (on the north wall) actually define the faintly painted image of Tutankhamun (the king).

The south wall did not include the opening of the mouth scene and therefore did not include an image of Tutankhamun (the king) as occurred on the north wall.

The servant figure on the south wall was alone with the goddess Nut (without the king) and that section of wall by necessity had to be demolished.

It seems irrational to have painted a scene on a wall that was to be demolished. Yet, there was good reason to have placed the image there.

Two Images, One King

The two scenes (one on south wall and the other on north) superficially looked to be equal but were not.

One included the king and the other only had the servant that in both scenes is mistaken for the king.

The section of the south wall with the lone servant was broken, demolished and the servant's body conceptually was also broken by that action.

The procession continued onward after the wall was demolished and the broken body of the servant from that mural is found physically manifested in the gold coffin of Tutankhamun.

The ancient designers planned that the wall and image would be broken to fulfill the constructed narrative of the procession.

The construct informs that the body of a servant was physically damaged.
The body of the king is intact.

There were two scenes, two figures mistaken to be the king but only one real king.

South Wall Informs

A portion of the south wall informs that the king is given to be with his grandfather and the other part informs that a servant mistaken for the king has a broken body.

The broken and damaged mummy was constructed to be an informative reference in the tomb.

The king is safely intact in image on the north wall and the broken body of the servant is found in the gold coffin.

These references are the simpler ones because others are complexly far more abstract.

They altogether build a body of evidence that informs with no uncertainty that the mummy in the gold coffin is not that of the king.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2020 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The breaking of the south wall virtually broke the image of the male servant that was on that section of wall. The broken body of the servant then appears physically manifested in the gold coffin of Tutankhamun.

The discoverer of the tomb (Howard Carter in this case) by having demolished the wall became a direct and active participant in the constructed narrative of a procession.

His act of breaking the wall with the image of the young male figure did in virtual interaction break the body that was found in the gold coffin.

By entering the tomb, Carter merged with the constructed procession..
The tomb as greaterconstructed reference is by relation of the demolished wall to the broken body of the mummy made to represent a realm where painted images and (real experience?) are seamlessly merged.

Effectively, the mummy can be regarded to have been damaged when Carter demolished the partition wall between the antechamber and burial chamber.

That partition wall can be regarded to have symbolized a partition between the real realm and 'other' realm. Carter was able to interact with that barrier.

Recognition of the relationship of the broken wall to the broken (damaged) mummy should inform the observer that the tomb elements (spaces, physical objects, paintings) have virtually seamless interactive qualities.

Such recognition should help to form and inform how the observer regards and thinks about the tomb and references encountered in it.

The tomb was a very sophisticated conception that seems unlikely to have been haphazardly rushed..
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 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 15 of 16

 
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