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 

The Basis For Hawass Earrings Statement?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
maat
Priest
Priest


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 520

PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:17 pm    Post subject: The Basis For Hawass Earrings Statement? Reply with quote

Hagar Hosni quoted Zahi Hawass in her July 28, 2021 article titled, "Egyptologists refute British theory doubting King Tut’s mask", in Al-Monitor.

Quote:
Former Minister of Antiquities and Egyptologist Zahi Hawass told Al-Monitor, “Fletcher’s theory about the ear piercing is unfounded because all the 18th Dynasty’s rulers wore earrings during their period of rule.”


[https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2021/07/egyptologists-refute-british-theory-doubting-king-tuts-mask Accessed: 20 Nov. 2021]

My primary question is on what is based the statement that Hawass made?

I notice that he limited the claim to only 18 Dynasty rulers.

Is his claim based on examination of all or only some 18th dynasty mummies?

Did he include all painted and sculptural representations in his his assessment in part or whole?

Is this information collected and compiled somewhere or does it require to research information for each individual 18th Dynasty ruler?

Also, if true, was the wearing of earrings by rulers (as pierced ears suggest) limited only to the 18th Dynasty?

The article feels like someone is trying to casually blow smoke or pull wool over eyes, like saying there's nothing to see here, it is what we say it is.

It might be fact that the 18 Dynasty rulers are somehow recognized as having all worn earrings during their reigns as Hawass claims but I doubt it is true in reality.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Priest
Priest


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 520

PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2021 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I address (below) some points in an article that I read at (https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2021/07/egyptolo6gists-refute-british-theory-doubting-king-tuts-mask).

Quote:

July 28, 2021

CAIRO — British newspaper Express published July 16 an article quoting a passage from the book of “The Valley of Kings: The Egyptian Golden Age,” by English Egyptologist professor Joann Fletcher.

In a detailed account, Fletcher argues that the famed mask of Tutankhamun was originally made for another famous ruler, and it may have belonged to a woman, which was Queen Nefertiti.

Fletcher based her theory on the examination of photographs and records of the excavation and the discovery of King Tut’s intact tomb by Howard Carter in 1922. According to her, the mask shows a pharaoh with pierced ears. Meanwhile, when he died at the age 20, Tut “would not have been portrayed with pierced ears,” Fletcher said.

“This mask was not made for an adult male pharaoh — when the gold was compared, [they found] the face is made of completely different gold to the rest. Evidence of soldering is clearly visible on the mask. It now seems as if Tutankhamun's own face was effectively grafted onto the mask of the previous ruler,” she explained.

Tutankhamun is considered the most famous king of Ancient Egypt, especially in the 18th Dynasty (1336-1327 B.C.). Despite his short rule, which lasted nine years only, his international fame is due to the sensational discovery of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in Luxor governorate, southern Egypt, in 1922. The cemetery included some 5,000 artifacts, all in good condition.

Until this day, the discovery of the tomb is seen as one of the most significant archaeological breakthroughs.

The famous mask was designed to protect the mummy’s face through a magical formula engraved on its back, according to the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities’ website.

This note that the "mask was designed to protect the mummy’s face through a magical formula" is rooted in misunderstanding.

The formula is not magical.
It is founded on and in psychology such that people who believe magic is reality can be trusted to deceive themselves.

People who think that others are really engaged in attempts to perform magic also can be deceived in their false sense that whatever is produced must be nonsensical, inconsequential, trivial and without importance to reality.

The supposedly 'magical' ancient Egyptian texts were written for the readers who would come along in time to read the texts as each thinks was the original intent.

Was a text written for magical protection, to deceive, or to inform? A well constructed text can satisfy all three possibilities. 

The article continues.
Quote:

Former Minister of Antiquities and Egyptologist Zahi Hawass told Al-Monitor, “Fletcher’s theory about the ear piercing is unfounded because all the 18th Dynasty’s rulers wore earrings during their period of rule.”

He noted, “The mask does not bear the name of Queen Nefertiti, which was confirmed by a German archaeologist when he examined it when the mask’s chin area was being restored after it was damaged back in October 2015."


Here, I defer to the judgement of Dr. Nicholas Reeves who Ahram online quoted in 2015.
Quote:

"There is no image of any ancient Egyptian king wearing earrings,” Reeves told Ahram Online, citing this as evidence that it was made for a female.

Also:
Quote:

During a press conference held at the State Information Authority in Heliopolis, Reeves said that the inscription had been changed:

“Looking at the mask again I can see that the inscription on the cartouch has been changed, meaning that all these treasures found in Tutankhamun’s tomb were originally made for Nefertiti as a co-regent to her husband king Akhenaten, and not for Tutankhamun as previously thought,” Reeves said [via Ahram Online].


[Holloway, April. "Tutankhamun Death Mask was Made for Nefertiti, Archaeologist says".
UPDATED 2 OCTOBER, 2015 - 00:40.  https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/tutankhamun-death-mask-was-made-nefertiti-archaeologist-says-004048. Accessed: 21 Nov 2021.]

Reeves in 2015 stated that the inscription on the mask was changed to the name of Tutankhamun from an earlier original inscription.

In July 2021, Hawass stated, "The mask does not bear the name of Queen Nefertiti".

Hawass does not actually contradict Reeves who had stated that an earlier inscription was altered and replaced with the name of Tutankhamun. Hawass simply states that the mask does not bear the name of Nefertiti without addressing the claim of any altered inscription. The claim by Reeves still stands.
[quote ]
The golden mask is currently housed in the Egyptian Museum in central Cairo. It weighs more than 10 kilograms (22 pounds) and is 54 centimeters (1.8 feet) high. It has two mixtures of gold: 18.4 carats for the face and neck and 23.4 carats for the rest of the mask.

The mask is a face cover for a ruler with a false beard, holds a three-branched necklace and is topped by the royal insignia of a cobra and a vulture for protection. It also has holes in the ears for earrings.
[/quote]

Here again,  I disagree with the cobra and vulture for protection (by magic?).
Do the emblems serve no other purpose?

As for the mask with pierced ears,  I found that it represents Ankhesenamun in the maternal lineage from Queen Tiye.

The three coffins of Tutankhamun represent
1. Tiye  > 2. Nefertiti > 3. [Meritaten (as the gold coffin, mother of the king) with its content (gold mask to represent Ankhesenamun who was queen to Tutankhamun)].

Nefertiti is the daughter of Tiye.
Meritaten and Ankhesenamun are both daughters of Nefertiti.

The coffins are not magical. They are elements in an informative representation about the line of mothers and daughters involved with Tutankhamun.

The mask with pierced ears by this maternal lineage is a female, not Tutankhamun. The mummy is male.

Quote:

Hussein Abdel Baseer, director of the Antiquities Museum of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, told Al-Monitor, “There has always been controversy about King Tut’s mask, which was previously said that it belonged to Queen Meritaten of the 18th Dynasty and daughter of Pharaoh Akhenaten, which is not true.”

I had also misidentified the mask as a representation of Meritaten before recognizing the Ankhesenamun (daughter of Nefertiti) in that representation.
Quote:

“It is true that some of the treasures found in King Tut’s tomb did not belong to him, but to other rulers during the Amarna Period. But the mask did indeed belong to him,” he added.

I think Abdel Baseer observes here a simple technical point that is everything in the kingdom belonged to the king. 
Nonetheless, the mask represents a woman (inside other women).
The king is not there to be found represented as if a helplessly dependent child inside his mother.
But,  the female mask belonged to the king.
Quote:

“When it comes to the ear piercings, it was a natural and common thing among kings. Earrings were not limited to women — or children — in the case of King Tut. It is also worth mentioning that some of the rulers of ancient Egypt took hold of the treasures of kings who preceded them and attributed them to themselves. But this is something that can be verified through examination,” Abdel Baseer said.

I again refer to Reevees.
"There is no image of any ancient Egyptian king wearing earrings,” he said.

Quote:
(Abdel Baseer) added, “It is different in the case of King Tut’s gold mask because it bears little indication that it might have belonged to someone else.” 

Again, refer to Reeves, pierced ears, changed inscription on the mask, and add Fletcher's note about a face of different alloy soldered on the mask (and not one that was formed with the rest of the mask).

Quote:
(Abdel Baseer) explained the difference in the color of gold on the upper part of the mask compared to the rest of it, arguing that the yellow-golden color was associated with the worship of God Aten, in the Amarna period, and who was symbolized by the sun.

I don't know if this means anything. It's like saying that there were two colors of gold because  the colors of gold were different.
There are two different alloys of gold in the mask that suggest the parts were formed separately, at different times, and not by the same smith's who created the mask.
Quote:
Bassam al-Shamaa, a tour guide and Egyptology writer, told Al-Monitor the funerary mask for kings did not necessarily bear the real features of deceased kings, but usually takes the form of God Osiris, the god of death and resurrection.

Al-Shamaa concurred with views regarding ear piercings, explaining, “The antiquities found in King Tut’s tomb included a set of earrings, and therefore we could not assume that the mask belonged to a woman or to Nefertiti in particular.”

He said, “Queen Nefertiti was not King Tut’s mother but his father’s wife and therefore it is far-fetched that he would get her belongings."

I think that al-Shamaa is mistaken in his concurrence with unfortunately mistaken positions.
Quote:

"The antiquities found in King Tut’s tomb included a set of earrings, and therefore we could not assume that the mask belonged to a woman or to Nefertiti in particular."


While al-Shamaa says that the mask could not be assumed to belong to a woman,  it is assumed to belong to a male (Tutankhamun) such as to represent Tutankhamun despite equal doubt about gender of the mask.

A different line of reasoning should be used by Shamaa and others.

First, as I noted,  the maternal lineage from Queen Tiye to Ankhesenamun is represented by the three coffins and the gold mask.

Next, in agreement with Reeves, there are no depictions of Tutankhamun wearing earrings.

Still,  earrings are prominently suggested by evidence of pierced ears in the tomb. Why?

Queen Tiye, Meritaten and Ankhesenamun are mentioned in the tomb but the earrings found in the tomb were worn by Tutankhamun?

Earrings worn in combat as a practical consideration could have been a hazardous liability.

A male king or anyone who trained for battle would not have worn earrings because of  vulnerabilities that earrings involve.

Next, I want to extend to include gods the observation by Reeves that male kings are not depicted to wear earrings.

What male gods in the pantheon of ancient Egypt wears an earring?

How could Tutankhamun be depicted as Nefertem, Osiris or Ra with pierced ears?

Al-Shamaa also said, “Queen Nefertiti was not King Tut’s mother but his father’s wife and therefore it is far-fetched that he would get her belongings."

The three coffins of Tutankhamun demonstrate the maternal lineage that unmistakably positions Nefertiti as the mother of Meritaten and also as the maternal grandmother of Tutankhamun.

Nefertiti fostered Tutankhamun into his kingship after his mother died.

The tomb, contained such information.
There should be no gross misunderstandings about what was actually there to be known.

Nefertiti by consideration of normal human social relationships must have had a closer relationship with Tutankhamun than he had with his mother or father because she raised him after both died.

Further, I reject al-Shamaa's claim that Nefertiti was not king.

After Akhenaten and his mother Meritaten, Nefertiti as primary queen of Akhenaten was in the line of responsibility to care for Tutankhamun (heir to the throne).

She was king after her daughter (Meritaten) died while holding the throne for her son.
(Nefertiti was there in some capacity likely holding the same for her Akhensten).

I think the two women together were the pharaoh "Smenkhare" until Meritaten died and Nefertiti assumed direct responsibility for her grandson.

We can consider how much emotional trauma that the grandmother and grandson likely suffered with the sudden deaths of their closest family members and royal funerals for each (all when the boy was five to seven or eight years old).

Even if he had been old enough to take his reign,  it is difficult to imagine how a child traumstized by the deaths of his parents could have ascended to the throne to take his reign so soon after their deaths.  Such experiences are traumatic even for adults.


His grandmother (Nefertiti) was certainly in a politically stronger position than her daughter because she had served and survived more years in the royal house even since her father (Amenhotep III) had reigned.

Who there could have challenged her bloodline and authority that spanned from Amenhotep III to the boy Tutankhaten who was child of her sister-daughter and also child of her husband-brother (Akhenaten)?

Nefertiti had more royal legitimacy and political influence than any other known figure who might have potentially risen to challenge her royal position.

When Tutankhamun was old enough,  Nefertiti stepped down as pharaoh and saw that he was elevated to his proper throne.

Her daughter Ankhesenamun was made his queen.

Nefertiti also accommodated his later burial.
Her signature in varied ways permeated the tomb of Tutankhamun.

So, in response to al-Shamaa, Nefertiti was not the king's mother. She was more than his mother.

Nefertiti was the mother of his mother.
She fostered and nurtured him through the loss of his mother and father and into his kingship.
She was the mother of his queen.
And, as al-Shamaa said, she was the wife and queen of his father.

Given these things, it is absurd statement to say, "Queen Nefertiti was not King Tut’s mother but his father’s wife". As if that official position distanced and separated her from the boy's life and removed her authority over him.

Nefertiti had the royal position, authority, personal, family and greater interests to help and have Tutankhamun succeed to preserve the dynastic line of kings.

Even without a political interes, she was his grandmother. They were bonded at least by  shared tragedy.

Is it really "far-fetched that he [Tutankhamun, her grandson, the king] would get her belonging"?

I cannot think of any other person who could have been closer to Nedertiti and more dear to her than her daughters (both queens) and grandson (the king she raised after the deaths of his father and mother).

She protected him as a child.
Her eldest daughter was his mother. 
Another of her daughters became his queen. He already had been giving him from her most most personal belongings.

These are among the reasons Tutankhamun "would get her belonging" and that such things would be found in his tomb.
Quote:

Al-Shamaa concluded, “The golden mask bears a hieroglyphic text engraved on its back, which is a magical writing like a spell, the purpose of which is to help the deceased in the pass over to the other world. The writings mentioned several names usually used to refer to King Tut like, ‘Ra and Nebra’ among other names, which completely refutes Fletcher’s theory.”

No.
Bassam al-Shamaa is apparently mistaken because Fletcher's theory is not refuted by the inscription in the mask.

The text (as copied from Wikipedia > Mask of Tutankhamun) reads:

"Thy right eye is the night bark (of the sun-god),
thy left eye is the day-bark,
thy eyebrows are (those of) the Ennead of the Gods,
thy forehead is (that of) Anubis,
the nape of thy neck is (that of) Horus,
thy locks of hair are (those of) Ptah-Sokar.
(Thou art) in front of the Osiris (Tutankhamun).
He sees thanks to thee,
thou guidest him to the goodly ways,
thou smitest for him the confederates of Seth so that he may overthrow thine enemies before the Ennead of the Gods in the great Castle of the Prince, which is in Heliopolis … the Osiris, the King of Upper Egypt Nebkheperure [Tutankhamun's throne-name], deceased, given life by Re."

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mask_of_Tutankhamun. Accessed 21 November 2021]

The text does not declare who is speaking as the narrator of the text.

If the mask is speaking as the narrator (in the voice of a third party who is not Tutsnkhamun), the statement by al-Shamaa is meaningless to demonstrate the mask is a male figure.

Al-Sharmaa said, "The writings mentioned several names usually used to refer to King Tut like, ‘Ra and Nebra’ among other names, which completely refutes Fletcher’s theory.”

Fletcher’s theory is not refuted by al-Shamaa who seems to think that saying Tutankhamun is a male (by associating him to make gods) somehow refutes the claim that the gold mask was made for and represents a woman.

Al-Shamaa does not demonstrate that the mask is not speaker of the text inscribed in it.
He also does not demonstrate that the mask does not represent a woman (as the pierced earlobes indicate).

Egyptology should not be taken down a path blatantly empty assertions.

Fletcher was addressing the mask and al-Shamaa responded with they called Tutankhamun  Neb-Ra. Fletcher never asserted Tutankhamun was a woman.

Nicholas Reeves in 2015 said the inscription on the mask was altered in antiquity. Hawass said in July 2021 that the mask does not bear the name of Nefertiti.

Such blatantly dismissive responses (gas-lighting?) are nonsense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Priest
Priest


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 520

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A report, "The ear in the visual arts of ancient Egypt", written in 2005 by Doctors Albert Mudry and Wolfgang Pirsig gives strong support to the assertions by Zahi Hawass that earrings were worn in ancient Egypt by women, children and men.

Albert Mudry is a noted ENT and HNS Specialist in private practice, (Lausanne, Switzerland).

Wolfgang Pirsig is a noted ENT&HNS Emeritus
Professor, (Ulm, Germany).

[Mudry, Albert MD; Pirsig, Wolfgang MD. "The ear in the visual arts of ancient Egypt". Submitted: 02 July 2006. The Mediterranean Journal of Otology. Mediterr J Otol 2007; 3: 81-89. Copyright 2005 © The Mediterranean
Society of Otology and Audiology.]

I downloaded the paper as a pdf file on 22 Nov. 2021 from the following link:
https://www.advancedotology.org/content/files/sayilar/61/buyuk/Mudry1.pdf

The objective statement is noted in the introduction on the cover page:

"The aim of this report is to present the different functions attributed to the ear as found in the visual
art of ancient Egypt. Three main ear functions are recognized in the visual art of ancient Egypt: hearing, mediation while in prayer, and decoration." (83)

The paper does not support the assertion by Hawass that all of the 18th Dynasty rulers wore earrings during their reigns.

But, it does give strong support to contradict my assertion that earrings in ancient Egypt were a feminine element, an aspect with which royal males (especially adult male rulers) would not have been associated even in depictions.

The paper notes some mummies that are identified as royal have pierced earlobes (Ramesses II and Tutankhamun for example).

The examples of pierced ears on the royal mummies are accepted to be evidence that royal figures (male rulers) wore earrings.

The factual evidence that ears of the mummies are pierced where they are found to be pierced cannot be refuted.

Yet and still, I hold my original position which is that adult royal male figures (especially the rulers) would neither be represented nor suggested to have worn earrings.

In the specific case of the mummy in the tomb of Tutankhamun, I explained my position in other topics in this Egyotian Dreams forum that the mummy identified as Tutankhamun is the corpse of a servant (not the king).

My initial position that the mummy is a servant figure seems to be extended or reinforced by the mummy's pierced ears because pierced ears (and more in the wearing of earrings) as a feminine feature would weaken the male character and persona of the King and offend (conflict with) the male aspects of the gods to which the king is equated.

Pierced earlobes and wearing of earrings would invalidate the associations that are made in relating the king to be a male god.

The male and female aspects in Egyptian mythology are separated such that there are gods and goddesses to be related or equated with male and female people.

In the Contendings of Horus and Seth, Seth claims to the judges that he performed his male duty upon Horus and the gods moaned our groaned in .

This expresses to the observer that the male and female aspects were to be kept separated in the presence of references to our about the gods.

A god (male) would not be associated or related to be represented as female.

Where there appears to be a blatant violation like depicting a pharaoh with pierced ears, I suggest the observer should consider that the depiction is for some significant reference.

I within the past year or two did identify technical significances of the pierced earlobes in the tomb of Tutankhamun that make them a reference and not simply a physical feature to receive earrings.

The pierced ears inform about two things among several others.

First, the pierced ears of the gold mask indicate that the mask represents a female figure. The maternal lineage reference in which the mask is found supports this understanding. (The pierced ears of the mask also have other informative aspects.)

Second, the pierced ears of the mummy indicate (to me) that the mummy is not the king. Other references had already affirmed this to me. (The mummy's pierced ears also have other informative aspects.)

tFor several reasons among which is the length and complexity that a sufficient explanation properly requires, I will not delve to explain more aspects of significance of the pierced ears in this post.

The paper by Mudry and Pirsig recognizes and notes information that is certainly supportive to the assertion by Hawass that earrings and piercings were common even to be worn by male rulers and not exclusive to women in ancient Egypt.

Still, I hold my positions that earrings and pierced lobes were a feminine characteristic in ancient Egypt and note further that pierced ears found on a royal adult male are for reference to inform an observer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Priest
Priest


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 520

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Correction:
Where the blue emoticon appears in the preceding post,
I had written "".

I don't write with emoticons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Priest
Priest


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 520

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The blue emoticon was inserted by the system.
I wrote the word d-i-s-g-u-s-t.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
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