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 

Age of Nefertiti, age of skeletons, etc
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
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scribe2 wrote:
My point here is that lipping AND scoliosis in Tutankhamun cannot be used as determinants of hereditary or even congenital situations. If he injured his leg early in life and from then on used a walking stick for assistance, as seems to have been the case, then scoliosis is almost a surety. In scoliosis the lipping is more unilateral, as Neserat again accurately pointed out.


All well and good, Scribe2, except Anneke and I are talking about the KV 55 mummy - not Tutankhamun.

Scribe2 wrote:
The evidence for that is:
1. the huge collection of walking sticks - 21-year-olds do not collect walking sticks as a hobby !


If you are a king, you will. Recall that only a small number of the 130 sticks can be said to be "walking sticks". Many are ceremonial staffs and as a king, Tutankhamun would normally carry a stick as a sign of prestige, as that is what most 3/4 staffs indicate in Egyptian life and art. Quite a few of the 130 sticks are topped with ceremonial heads, so some were for religious use, political (kingly) use, and so on. Not all sticks can be said to be walking sticks.

Scribe2 wrote:
2. the various images of him shown using a stick
3. the wear pattern on his sandals. Anneke once posted that speculation on an individual from 3000 years ago was risky, but the sandals are 'smoking gun evidence'. He may as well have worn them yesterday. The wear pattern shows that he carried his weight strongly on the ball of his left foot. This belies any so-called evidence of the skeleton that he had congenital bits missing and so forth in his left foot. It simply does not add up, and I therefore have to conclude that the foot damage is posthumous. Not suprising. And I also add that walking on the ball of the foot is very unlikely with a club foot, which forces the sufferer to walk on the heel and skew with each step.


This is not true with talipes equinus, which is also a form of clubfoot, in which there is a permanent plantar flexion of the foot so that only the ball rests on the ground, with the heel uplifted. The pharaoh Siptah is known to have had talipes equinus, for example and it is clear from X-rays of his mummy that he bore his weight on the ball of his foot.

Types of clubfoot:



In talipes equinovarus, you can also have the heel is elevated (like a horse's) and is turned inward. With this type of clubfoot, the foot is turned in sharply and the person seems to be walking on their ankle. In talipes equinovalgus, again you can have the heel elevated and the foot points outward, with weight on the ball of the foot.

So, it's quite possible to have clubfoot and bear weight only on the ball of the foot and never on the heel.

Scribe2 wrote:
So what I see is an early trauma, dated before his teen growth spurts, which caused him to use a cane. I say this because one of the things that the CT DID show clearly was that one leg was slightly shorter than the other. Now this does not happen congenitally unless there is serious hip dysplasia, and there was no evidence of that, or unless there is juvenile polio affecting the leg or a trauma. It needs to happen early to affect the final growth spurts. In adults this does not happen.


Uneven hips and shorter legs is often a sign of scolioisis, which, in the new JAMA article, they do claim for Tutankhamun (they claimed no evidence of scoliosis in 2005, however). The JAMA authors stated the condition is mild.

However, anecdotally, I can say it's quite possible to have uneven legs and hips and not have polio or trauma. My parents, for example, noted my uneven legs and hips when I was 2 years of age, and by the time I was 7, the difference in leg length was over 3 inches. The doctor referred to the condition as congenital, but no specific pathology or disease could be found as the cause.

Orthopaedic surgery when I was 7 led to the longer leg being halted in growth until the shorter leg could "catch up;" then the interfering surgical staples were removed from the longer leg. My leg length now is about 1 inch apart, which is within normal ranges.

This has not saved me from the effects of scoliosis, however, which was determined when I was 18 years age and could be seen clearly in X-rays by the time I was 25. For most of my adult life I have had no limp nor have I had to walk with a cane or built-up shoe due to the surgery. However, my back now gives me a great deal of trouble as I grow older, due to the scoliosis and uneven hips. I can walk evenly and without limp, but when the pain gets to me, I have been known to use a walking cane for support until I can get adequate pain treatment.

Scribe2 wrote:
Now with any decent period of using a stick, people will develop a quite lop-sided gait, a forward bent standing posture, and scoliosis. This is called functional scoliosis, because it arises as the result of imposed circumstances, and usually can be reversed.


My feeling is that with talipes equinus, equinovarus or equinovalgus, you would still walk with a stick because of weight being pitched forward on the ball of the foot. Often you see scoliosis as part of the congenital condition, as some studies report talipes equinovarus and scoliosis in children as young as 2 years of age. So, the scoliosis is probably not due to the use of the cane or stick but is probably related to the overall condition of the individual with both diseases.

Scribe2 wrote:
Of course, if Tutankhamun walked for some years with a stick, then the femoral trauma did not kill him, and the whole trauma/malaria scenario dissolves into so much dust.


I'm not sure I follow this: I am aware of many people who have walked with a cane [or braces] since a child due to poliomyelitis and who are now in their 70's and are perfectly healthy. Simply walking with a stick, having a clubfoot, or even having uneven legs will not normally kill you (unless the angle of the leg unevenness is so severe as to put unnatural pressure on the body's organs: that can kill you).

It is far more likely that you will die of disease or sepsis from an open wound, as is thought to have occured from the femoral fracture of Tutankhamun. Since we do not know if Tutankhamun was suffering from an active case of malaria at the time of his death (and doubt we can ever know this), you might say the cause of death for Tutankhamun was either a) the gas gangrene infection in the femoral fracture (detectable in the 2005 CT scan), or b) that the fracture left the king open to recurrence of malaria due to his immuno-suppressed state caused by the fracture.

Scribe2 wrote:
And the signs of mild degeneration in the knees - well, I would like to see the evidence there. In the pictures I remember the knees were completely dis-articulated and evaluation simply by looking at the joint surfaces is really not enough. I would expect some accelerated but one-sided wear with the scenario I have outlined. Were there osteophytes mentioned? I don't remember any being so.


The degeneration of the knees (and femur) was, again, in reference to the KV 55 remains, not Tutankhamun's.
_________________
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
Scribe2
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 15 Feb 2010
Posts: 41
Location: Auckland, NZ

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neseret wrote:


Quote:
This is not true with talipes equinus, which is also a form of clubfoot, in which there is a permanent plantar flexion of the foot so that only the ball rests on the ground, with the heel uplifted. The pharaoh Siptah is known to have had talipes equinus, for example and it is clear from X-rays of his mummy that he bore his weight on the ball of his foot.


From, (shock,horror - but just because it is most convenient) Wikipedia:

Quote:
A clubfoot, or congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV),[1] is a congenital deformity involving one foot or both.[2] The affected foot appears rotated internally at the ankle. TEV is classified into 2 groups: Postural TEV or Structural TEV. Without treatment, persons afflicted often appear to walk on their ankles, or on the sides of their feet. It is a common birth defect, occurring in about one in every 1,000 live births. Approximately 50% of cases of clubfoot are bilateral. In most cases it is an isolated dysmelia. This occurs in males more often than in females by a ratio of 2:1.


Yes, there is also a equinus form, but that is not what the CT scans purport to show in the case of Tutankhamun. They show the classic case where the foot is "inswept" markedly, with the ankles rotated internally. THIS is the classic form.

So if you postulate that Tutankhamun suffered from the equinus version, then you must reconcile that with the CT scans. I agree it would be consistent with the ball-of-foot wear on his sandals.

Neseret wrote:

Quote:
However, anecdotally, I can say it's quite possible to have uneven legs and hips and not have polio or trauma
.

There is a common confusion between "functional" leg difference, and true leg difference. Scoliosis automatically produces a torsion of the pelvis, nominally fulcrumed around S2 in terms of the biomechanics. This effectively raises one acetabulum slightly and drops the other. If the live individual is placed supine on a bed (classic mummy pose) then there will be an apparent leg difference. But actually the measurement from each trochanter (the knob at the top of the leg which serves as a landmark) to the malleolus of the ankle (another knob which serves as a landmark) will be the same on each leg.

Neseret, I suspect what you had was corrective surgery to cover up that difference, given that the surgeons accepted that your scoliosis was permanent. But in a mummy where the pelvis becomes disarticulated, the legs should not show that difference. The soft tissue which has held the pelvis in the torsion has be removed, and is flaccid if it remains, so the pelvis should settle into a neutral position. On the CT scan of Tutankhamun the difference looks too much to be just pelvic torsion. You can see where the view shows much of the right foot (from memory) and very little of the left foot. Remember that the CT view is from underneath.

So true leg difference is quite rare, and I stand by my comments.

Neseret wrote:

Quote:
If you are a king, you will. Recall that only a small number of the 130 sticks can be said to be "walking sticks". Many are ceremonial staffs and as a king, Tutankhamun would normally carry a stick as a sign of prestige, as that is what most 3/4 staffs indicate in Egyptian life and art. Quite a few of the 130 sticks are topped with ceremonial heads, so some were for religious use, political (kingly) use, and so on. Not all sticks can be said to be walking sticks.


If you are a king, you carry a sceptre for prestige. Sorry, this just doesn't wash with me, and doesn't tie in with the images of him leaning over the stick which I remember. A twenty-something doesn't need ANY walking sticks. Nor do they walk on the ball of their foot. The evidence analysis has to be complete, coherent and consistent.

Neseret, It is starting to sound as if you just enjoy arguing. I realise you have a real life experience of some of this, but take a step backwards.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for you analysis Scribe2. It's really interesting to hear your take on the situation. As a doctor of osteopathy you have a rather unique ability to sort through some of this stuff.

I have always found this part of the discussion particularly difficult to sort through. I don't have a medical background myself, so figuring out what's plausible and what is not is particularly challenging.

I had several questions, but one pertains to the scoliosis. You said that "neither scoliosis nor osteophytic lipping are genetic nor congenital in origin".
I had thought that it did run in families? So that's just not true, or is there more to that? Several of the mummies are said to have some sign of scoliosis. If it's not genetic, would that indicate environmental stressors?

You also mentioned that "I would say though, IMO, that the chances are that KV55 is an older skeleton".
How much older? Are you seeing a couple of years, a decade? And which of the markers (cranial sutures, etc) are you using to come up with that assessment? Or something else? I'm just curious.

Very Happy I have more questions and comments, but I I won't really have time until later this week to really delve into it again.

Don't you hate it when work interferes with playtime? (kidding of course)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If you are a king, you carry a sceptre for prestige. Sorry, this just doesn't wash with me, and doesn't tie in with the images of him leaning over the stick which I remember. A twenty-something doesn't need ANY walking sticks.


One quick comment: a man leaning on a stick is a sign of prestige in ancient egypt. So it could just be depicting him as a man of high rank.

This image dates all the way back to the old kingdom. There is a famous statue of Ka-aper for instance - also referred to as the sheikh of el-Beled - who is shown with a staff or stick.

link to a page with photograph

There is even a special hieroglyph of a man with a walking stick: A21 is the determinant for a dignitary or official. A23 shows a man with a stick and a sceptre and that one stands for king.

So depictions of people with walking sticks may have nothing to do with infirmity.

I personally find it very unlikely they would have depicted their king as infirm. That would have condemned the king to a life of infirmity for eternity given their belief in the magical powers of images.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Exactly my point, anneke. The longer I think about it the more I become convinced that neither kings nor queens were ever depicted with physical abnormalities or in a way alluding to their infirmity.
This is true for depictions of seated kings as well as kings holding or leaning on a staff. It only shows their superiority.

Besides many if not most of Tut`s sticks and staffs are in my view simply too long and unsuitable to have served as walking sticks.
The meanwhile famous reed stick cut by the king himself for example is more than 1,80 m long and thus taller than Tut himself. Could he have put his weight on to this stick to effectively support a lame foot when walking?
I don`t think so, especially since there is no support for the hand to cling to at an appropriate height either.
So what did he do with those long sticks some of which are apparently not elaborate enough to have been used in ceremonies?
Well, basically anything from carrying them on a walk with him to fend off more or less dangerous animals (in case his bodyguards were not alert enough), poking them into the backs of some disliked courtiers or maybe really just for fun.
Because when you are on a walk it just feels good to have something in your hand. Young boys have at all times been fond of sticks when strolling around. And Tut maybe even more so as he was used to holding staffs during long ceremonies.

I have said more on sticks than I actually wanted.
I regret that I like anneke lack specific medical knowledge so I follow the discussion with interest but am hesitant to make up my mind.

My very unprofessional instinct tells me that the clubfoot whatever form it had cannot have been that bad as it went unnoticed for so long (were the others examiners incapable of recognizing a club foot?) and to me the foot does not look much distorted if at all.
If there were walking problems I think they were more likely related to the osteomyelitis which I tend to acknowledge as I do not have the capability to decide wether it is post mortem damage or not.

As to the different lenghts of the legs I think it is generally difficult to assess the length of limbs that have been torn off the body and broken into pieces properly. I see no official comment on this so I would not dare draw conclusions from it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Granite
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 24 Feb 2010
Posts: 156
Location: C'ordoba, Spain

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The picture of Tutankhamun leaning on a stick and engaged in 'business' with a queen which has been cited here has been thought by several scholars to represent Smenkhkare (or some other young Amarnan king/prince). It certainly doesn't look like other portraits of Tutankhamun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The image Granite is referring to is this one I think. This oone is thought by some to depict Smenkhare and Meritaten.



And here is one showing Tutankhamen with Ankhesenamun as found in his tomb:

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Granite wrote:
The picture of Tutankhamun leaning on a stick and engaged in 'business' with a queen which has been cited here has been thought by several scholars to represent Smenkhkare (or some other young Amarnan king/prince). It certainly doesn't look like other portraits of Tutankhamun.


I don`t think either that the ostracon could depict Tut and Ankhi because as you see in the reperesentation in the chest lid their style is simply much more elegant and pleasing to the eye than the style of the ostracon.
This couple looks somewhat awkward and I think it could even represent Akhenaten and Nefertiti at the beginning of their reign when a new style of art was introduced and practised. Could be as well Semenkhkare and Meritaten.

There are certainly much more depictions of a sitting Tut than ofhim leaning on staffs but both types are still referred to as showing his infirmity - as I have pointed out this is not the case.

One should bear in mind that we do not have such a wealth of depictions of other kings. What we see of other kings are heroic representations of battle where the king is almost exclusively shown standing in his chariot or depictions in temples or tombs where the king stands to worship or to be received by gods.

We simply lack the type of more "relaxed" or "intimate" representations like Tut`s throne or the golden shrine which make it all possible to show the seated king hunting or doing nothing when it comes to other kings.
I`m sure there were similar representations on the grave goods of every king, but unfortunately they haven`t survived . So we must be careful not to draw the wrong conclusions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are some images of Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep II seated. Some with a wife before them and others with thier mother sitting next to them.


Merytre Hasphepsut behind her husband Tuthmosis III



Queen Merytre with her son Amenhotep II


Queen Merytre before her husband in the top register.

Different medium of course, so not as "lively" as Tut's chair, but a very similar idea of a Queen before ehr seated husband?

And there is this one:



I could only find my own painted version, but this is based on a scene in Meryre's tomb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scribe2 wrote:

Yes, there is also a equinus form, but that is not what the CT scans purport to show in the case of Tutankhamun. They show the classic case where the foot is "inswept" markedly, with the ankles rotated internally. THIS is the classic form.

So if you postulate that Tutankhamun suffered from the equinus version, then you must reconcile that with the CT scans. I agree it would be consistent with the ball-of-foot wear on his sandals.


Deferring to your medical expertise and what you have said below on the relaxation of muscle tension in a mummy, is it not possible that Tutankhamun's feet could in fact have been in an equinus position as well, which was relaxed after death?

Scribe2 wrote:
Neseret wrote:

Quote:
However, anecdotally, I can say it's quite possible to have uneven legs and hips and not have polio or trauma
.

There is a common confusion between "functional" leg difference, and true leg difference. Scoliosis automatically produces a torsion of the pelvis, nominally fulcrumed around S2 in terms of the biomechanics. This effectively raises one acetabulum slightly and drops the other. If the live individual is placed supine on a bed (classic mummy pose) then there will be an apparent leg difference. But actually the measurement from each trochanter (the knob at the top of the leg which serves as a landmark) to the malleolus of the ankle (another knob which serves as a landmark) will be the same on each leg.

Neseret, I suspect what you had was corrective surgery to cover up that difference, given that the surgeons accepted that your scoliosis was permanent.


As I understood it from the orthopaedist at the time, there was no scoliosis when I was young - that appeared after I entered my late teens and after all corrective surgery had been done. The difference in the legs was shown both from the supine position and from the trochanter-ankle measurements.

Scribe2 wrote:
But in a mummy where the pelvis becomes disarticulated, the legs should not show that difference. The soft tissue which has held the pelvis in the torsion has be removed, and is flaccid if it remains, so the pelvis should settle into a neutral position. On the CT scan of Tutankhamun the difference looks too much to be just pelvic torsion. You can see where the view shows much of the right foot (from memory) and very little of the left foot. Remember that the CT view is from underneath.


I hesitate to note this, as you will again call me argumentative for no reason, but we have to understand that one is looking at a mummy that has been sawn in half at the pelvis area and is generally "rearranged" into a normal position. In short, I would not lay much significance to this pelvic tilt you may see, as the mummy is actually in at least 3 pieces, according to Derry (in Carter 1963(1932)) and Harrison (1972).

Scribe2 wrote:
Neseret wrote:

Quote:
If you are a king, you will. Recall that only a small number of the 130 sticks can be said to be "walking sticks". Many are ceremonial staffs and as a king, Tutankhamun would normally carry a stick as a sign of prestige, as that is what most 3/4 staffs indicate in Egyptian life and art. Quite a few of the 130 sticks are topped with ceremonial heads, so some were for religious use, political (kingly) use, and so on. Not all sticks can be said to be walking sticks.


If you are a king, you carry a sceptre for prestige. Sorry, this just doesn't wash with me, and doesn't tie in with the images of him leaning over the stick which I remember.


Then I would say you know little about the staves of royalty and prestige, for they most certainly exists. As far as I know, and I have studies Egyptian art for some time, kings do not carry the crook and flar as scepters in everyday life (none are so shown in Egyptian art in such a position). Rather, the crook and flail is shown only when the king is in formal audience and seated upon his throne.

When walking, a king carried a staff, usually of 3/4 length, called the /mks/ , which has an attentuated lotus bud, either in the middle of the staff or at its end. This is the type of staff shown in the guardian statues' hands in KV 62, for example. The /mks/ staff was part of royal regalia since the Old Kindom, which signified the sacral role of the king as intermeidary between his people and the gods (Fischer 1978: 24-25). It is this type of staff which accidentally touched Re'wer during a sacred ceremony, and to which the king immediately proclaimed his desire that Rē'wer be very sound, and not be punished for touching an onject of the king's and disrupting the ceremony (Allen 1992).

This list shows no less than 10 such /mks/ staves (Carter No. 48m, 204, 221, 468a, 468b, 468k, 468l, 468m, 468n, 468o), 1 /ti-sw/ (curved) stick, which is a military staff (Carter No. 213), 2 /wAs/ staffs, wehich were also sacral staves indicating the king's divine power (Carter No. 219 and 232), 1 elongated crook staff, which indicated the king's duty as leader of his people (Carter No. 236). These are all ceremonial in nature and would have been used by the king on both formal and informal bases.

There are only two staves in the staff group presented which might indicate a need for the king to use them for personal use: Carter No. 370j and 582 b, both of similar design and which is described in the Carter notes as a "crutch."

But many of these staves are for formal and ritual use of the king as indicating his status - the /mks/, for example, is always used by the king and is associated with his divine and royal nature.

Reference:

Allen, J. P. 1992. Rē'wer's Accident. In A. B. Lloyd, ed., Studies in Pharaonic Religion and Society in honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths: 14-20. Occasional Publications 8. London: EES.

Carter, H. and A. C. Mace. 1963 (1932). The Tomb of Tut-Ankh-Amen, Discovered by the Late Earl of Carnarvon and Howard Carter. (3 Vols.) New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc.

Fischer, H. G. 1978. Notes on Sticks and Staves in Ancient Egypt. Metropolitan Museum Journal (New York) 13: 5-32.

Harrison, R. G. and A. B. Abdalla. 1972. The remains of Tutankhamun. Antiquity 46/181: 8-14.

Hassan, A. 1976. Stöcke und Stäbe im Pharaonischen Ägypten bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 33. München-Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag.

Satzinger, H. 1981. Der heilige Stab als Kraftquelle des Königs. Versuch einer Funktionsbestimmung der ägyptischen Stabträger-Statuen. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien (Wien) 77: 9-43.
_________________
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
Sobek
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Posts: 113
Location: Maine, USA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the painted scene of a king, a queen, and three other people, how many of them are named in the included text? What are the names?

Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nefertiti is shown standing before a seated Akhenaten, pooring a drink through a sieve for the king. Meritaten stands between Akhenaten and Nefertiti, facing her father and offering him something. Behind Nefertiti we see Meketaten offering a perfume cone, while Ankhesenpaaten offers a bouquet of flowers.

Here's the line drawing from Lepsius Denkmahler:
http://edoc3.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/lepsius/page/abt3/band6/image/03060980.jpg

The cartouches of the King and Queen are damaged. The name of Meritaten and the name of Ankhesenpaaten are legible.

Between Akhenaten and Nefertiti we see: the king's daughter of his body, his beloved, Meritaten (rest is illegible)

Above Ankhesenpaaten (top left - girl with flowers) the text says:
king's daughter of his body, his beloved, Ankhesenpaaten, born of the great royal wife [...]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still have to hang on to the discussion on sticks and clubfeet.

First: scribe2 refers to the wear pattern on Tut`s sandals and due to the wear on the ball of the foot argues first against this being consistent with club foot but then says it could be consistent with a high heel club foot position (please correct me if I got something wrong).

I wonder though if it was at all possible for someone with clubfoot/feet to walk around with AE-type sandals regardless of using a walking aid or not?
As I have said earlier I lack the specific knowledge, but I remember a youg woman I used to see several times who had club feet. Recalling the way she walked using only the outer sides of the feet to touch the ground and wearing special footwear I have a hard time to believe that anyone with similar feet would chose to wear sloppy sandals that are only at the toes attached to the foot.
Such sandals, if they were fitting at all, would in my view make walking even harder than walking bare footed.


My second point regards once more Tut`s sticks: neseret mentioned that only two in the group of staffs could be regarded as personal walking sticks. Are these the two short sticks with a forked top in the picture?

I remember that in one of the other related threads neseret mentioned that there were several walking sticks of different heights in the tomb which indicate that Tut used them as walking aids at different ages and even from childhood on.
I have been browsing several threads to find this post but I just managed to get myself dizzy. The recent threads are so similar to each other (once they get off the original topic what they always do Very Happy ) that I cannot recall which thread it was in.
I am just trying to figure out the number of alleged "personally needed walking sticks", only 2 or rather a lot more in different sizes"?
I think this could be a good indicator to the lenght of time they were used and maybe even to the nature of Tut`s impairment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
IMy second point regards once more Tut`s sticks: neseret mentioned that only two in the group of staffs could be regarded as personal walking sticks. Are these the two short sticks with a forked top in the picture?


Yes. In Carter's notes, these types of staves are referred to as "a crutch."

Sothis wrote:
I remember that in one of the other related threads neseret mentioned that there were several walking sticks of different heights in the tomb which indicate that Tut used them as walking aids at different ages and even from childhood on.
I have been browsing several threads to find this post but I just managed to get myself dizzy. The recent threads are so similar to each other (once they get off the original topic what they always do Very Happy ) that I cannot recall which thread it was in.
I am just trying to figure out the number of alleged "personally needed walking sticks", only 2 or rather a lot more in different sizes"?
I think this could be a good indicator to the lenght of time they were used and maybe even to the nature of Tut`s impairment.


In the case of the post above, I am referring to 3/4 staffs, not walking sticking/canes. There are quite a number of said sticks in KV 62, and a goodly number of them show wear of daily use.

What I was trying to say with the 3/4 staffs is that some of these are "staffs of authority" - be they concerned with ritual or political power. The /mks/ staff is always used by a king - no one else is shown with it (Fischer 1978: 25). It is part of his regalia.

The two items which appear, of the staves, to be possibly of personal use are the two forked staves, which as Carter notes, appear to be crutches. This brings back the imagery of the Berlin Promenade in the Garden, below, in which the king's arm appear to be looped into a possible crutch:



However, in my other post, we were mainly talking about sticks of various heights, but mainly of the walking cane to almost 3/4 staff variety in height. Carter identified a number of these type of walking aids as having significant wear, perhaps even daily wear.

Sadly no one, as far as I am aware, has done a study of these walking canes/sticks as to which are ceremonial and which are of personal use. I know that one well-worn cane is quite short (under 17 inches long), which argues that it was used by a small child.

This cane, to me, argues that Tutankhamun's ability to walk was probably hindered in some fashion since he was a child, as he likely would not have been carrying out ceremonial aspects of his role before he became king.
_________________
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
Diorite
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 210
Location: Land of Make-Believe

PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the recent issue of kmt the article "The King is Dead. How Long Lived the King?" has some interesting implications for the discussion of the age of KV 55. Bickerstaffe analyzes a variety of studies that tried to establish age at death for remains and how accurate the estimates are.

The conclusions are interesting. First, that the attempts to estimate ages of bodies are not very accurate. No big surprise there. Most estimates tend to underestimate the age of the deceased, although one group overestimated the ages of bodies under 40.

But I think the most important conclusion is that the younger the individual, the lower the underestimate of age. He doesn't give any values for younger than 30-40, with the underestimate 5-10 years. This would imply, to me, that for KV 55 where the estimated ages of others than Hawas' crew tend to be 20-25, that the age of the individual is probably not any more than 5 years older than the estimate. I suspect that is still too young for Akhenaton.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
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