Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

Great Pyramids VS Egyptian Pyramids


  • Please log in to reply
579 replies to this topic

#571    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 15 May 2013 - 05:42 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 14 May 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

Why again are we assuming that Tut had an enlongated head?? The various enlongated statue heads seem to all have been of females, that I can find. None of the statues, or paintings in Tut's tomb show anything different about Tut's head. He has the pot belly and other Amarna features, but a normal enough head.

http://english.turkc...com/Tutankhamun
I was not talkiing of TUT in particular... if you could go back to the starting of this debate, it will be apparent that i was talking about the portrayals of Amarna busts being literal and not stylised. Tut was brought into the picture by Pasheri.


#572    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 15 May 2013 - 06:18 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 15 May 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

I apologize if I misrepresented or misunderstood you, Harsh. So, going forward we all agree that KV62 was prepared for the burial of Nebkheperure Tutankhamun. We can limit this aspect of the discussion, then, to the mummy found in KV62 in 1922.

I want to address all the points you've made, so I'll break your post into two, for the sake of brevity. Let's look at the first list of points.



I see you like this phrase of Scott Creighton's: that is, "consensus Egyptology." Trust me, you should drop it. It's redundant and comes across as somewhat ill informed. Given that Egyptologists and their research form the orthodox framework of our understanding of ancient Egyptian history, of course they represent the consensus. It comes across as saying something like: "That's incorrectly wrong." You're best off avoiding Creighton's misguided word games.

But back to business. Yes, indeed, Egyptology can be wrong about many things. It has been wrong about things in the past. I've shared this anecdote in other posts, but an Egyptologist I know likes to say that everything she learned many years ago as a grad student has changed. While it's an exaggeration, it serves a point: as with any intellectual endeavor, when new evidence surfaces, it must be digested and incorporated into the overall body of knowledge. So it is with Egyptology. In the beginnings of the discipline, some people used to think a single, one-on ramp was used to build the Great Pyramid. This is incorrect, as we now know. In the early days, some scholars believed the pharaonic civilization was founded by a foreign, "superior" race that had moved into the Nile Valley. This notion was discarded many years ago (long before any of us were born). Moreover, it was once thought the Egyptian throne was accessed through the female line only; it was called the "heiress theory." This, too, was discarded many years ago because the overall sum of evidence flatly refutes it.

Those are only three examples. More germane to this topic is that when Tell el Amarna was first being excavated in the nineteenth century, some of the archaeologists were confused by the odd styles of Amarna art and believed Akhenaten must've been a woman. We know, of course, that he was a man.

The identity of mummies is something else. When a mummy is archaeologically found sealed in an ancient sarcophagus, there's little reason to doubt the mummy was the owner of that sarcophagus. The problem is, exceedingly few royal mummies have been found in their own sarcophagi. The identity of mummies such as Amunhotep II and Tutankhamun are not questioned, but others are. Many mummies of kings were found many years ago in secondary burial caches such as TT320 (a.k.a. DB320) and KV35. Though the identity of most of these mummies is not questioned due to ancient labels affixed to their bodies, the identity of some are in question—due to many reasons. Recently, for example, it was confirmed that the mummy thought to be of Tuthmosis I could not be his mummy because the body was that of a man too young, and CT scans revealed an arrowhead in the chest. And despite the flashy TV special on the mummy of Hatshepsut, many scholars are unconvinced that the mummy in question is actually hers.

But Tutankhamun? No, there is no rational reason to doubt the identification of this mummy.



I'll try to keep it briefer because I see I'm already drawing it out. But, no, Egyptologists do not rely heavily on Manetho's list. In fact, Manetho's list is barely coherent as it stands and has never been a primary source for establishing royal chronology. It's the Egyptologists who state in plain language that Manetho, overall, is not reliable. There were and are many better ways to establish royal pharaonic chronology.



I believe I've already addressed this. See my explanation under Point 1.



I went to some length earlier to shoot down the unreliable approach of character assassination. It is a weak and desperate ploy and should be avoided at all costs—unless you have verifiable and vetted material that could show us a particular archaeologist could be guilty of such malfeasance. You cannot do this with Howard Carter, nor with any of the other professional men in his employ.  I guarantee you of this. Carter was meticulous and rigid in his methodology and employed only the most experienced and reliable men, both European or American and Egyptian.

Carter's own notes and excavation journals on KV62 are exhaustive and detailed. He recorded every aspect of the excavation, at every stage of the process. His work was abundantly photographed by Harry Burton, perhaps the single-greatest archaeological photographer of those early days. On his team were numerous other professional archaeologists and historians. Government officials were in attendance at every stage of the excavation.

In other words, you can't logically pin this on one man and expect us to believe that Howard Carter, all by himself, staged the mummy. In essence, you are claiming everyone on Howard Carter's large team was guilty of this scheme. That is not possible.

In the interest of full disclosure, I can present the one act of dishonesty of which Carter was guilty: trying to smuggle some artifacts from the tomb to bring back to Great Britain. The same can be said for the project's financier, Lord Carnarvon. But this is hardly surprising. Prior to the discovery of KV62, European and American archaeologists were permitted to claim 50% of their finds, while the other 50% was to remain in Egypt. Carter found the tomb in 1922. Egypt drafted its first constitution in 1922—almost exactly at the same moment the tomb was found, in fact. The constitution included the (up till then) unprecedented law that Egyptian antiquities must remain in Egypt, unless otherwise permitted by the Egyptian government. You can imagine how crushed Carnarvon and Carter were by this. In any case, following Carter's death, his executors returned the few things he had managed to smuggle out of Egypt.



It is a fatal flaw in practically all cases to view pharaonic art as true portraiture. It certainly is not. In an earlier post I used the example of Ramesses II, who died at around 90 years of age but whose statues continued to make him appear young and muscular till his last day.

Cranial deformation is not evidenced in pharaonic Egypt. The forensic anthropologists and paleopathologists who specialize in ancient Egyptian human remains are clear on this. See the work of Joyce Filer and Margaret Murray, for example. The JAMA report following the genetic and pathological examinations of Amarna mummies from 2007 through 2009 even states that there is nothing remarkable about Tut's skull. The artwork shows one thing, the human remains themselves quite another.

I don't need to bog down the thread with a long discourse on properly analyzing pharaonic art. I can see from the posts of other members that they already appear to have a handle on this issue, so that leaves you, Harsh. I would recommend informing yourself on pharaonic art. A good start would be Gay Robins's excellent book The Art of Ancient Egypt. Amarna stands out in certain artistic respects, to be sure, but it certainly does not represent the actual human form.

All I can to this is, read about it. Study it. The literature on paleopathology of ancient Egypt is abundant. The ancient Egyptians did not practice cranial deformation.

Sesh thanks for taking this debate into a sensible realm.

1. I do not have an issue with speculation but it cannot be asserted as a fact. That is what i was trying to get across.

2. Regarding the resin that caused the mummy to be stuck to the sarcophagus, we have to rely on Carter's report again, which if fine as i hope there would have been others who have also observed the same.

3. There is still a possibility of a reburial in the past which cannot be ruled out completely. Pharoahs being buried in secondary tombs was common place as you mentioned yourself.

4. I have taken your point regarding pharoanic art ,but busts are meant to be realistic usually. I had earlier pointed out to Pasheri that if the Bust had utterly fantastical non-human features then they could have been dismissed as stylization or artistic perception but since the busts display features that can be found in Humans in Africa still, it would be harder to dismiss them as stylizations. Ofcourse cosmetic alterations of decreasing the age and making the pharoah/queen look prettier would be understandable, but why elongate the Head and Neck ? Unless it was a common practice in those times and considered as beautiful.

5. Regarding Smenkhare's : i suggested that Tutankhamun could have been a Title to help smenkhare's tomb escape vandalisation by the cult of Amun, since even of the Sarcophagus was made for him along with quite a few of the artefacts. It is just a suggestion.

6.Regarding Carter's Journal:
Harrison quickly discovered that Carter was not as careful as many of his personal notes had claimed. The mummy was not re-wrapped after 1926, which led to more deterioration due to the extremely hot external elements over the forty-two years. Also many of the limbs had been amputated in the body in order to remove some of the jewelry. Both hands were cut off, both legs were removed from the pelvis, and the head was severed from the body in order to get the mask off.

7.Like you suggested that the motives of these early discoverers were usually treasure and glory, more then an interest in Archaeology.


I had one more question regarding Akhenaten, in few of the sources i read that apparently Akhneaten was shunned as a child and was not treated as royalty and hence he went on the path of Aten when he became pharoah.
Could akhenaten have had a mother from a different race/tribe? Could this be the reason why he and his children were shunned? What is your take on the Mittani-Akhenaten connection?

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 15 May 2013 - 06:26 AM.


#573    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,358 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 16 May 2013 - 03:24 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 May 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

Sesh thanks for taking this debate into a sensible realm.

1. I do not have an issue with speculation but it cannot be asserted as a fact. That is what i was trying to get across.

Hi, Harsh.

The identification of the mummy in KV62 is not speculation. It is based on significant evidence which I frankly see as incontrovertible for the reasons I explained in my earlier posts. In all honesty I do see the identification with Tutankhamun as definitive fact. In the opposite, I see your argument against the facts as based on unsubstantiated speculation. It does not survive scrutiny.

Quote

2. Regarding the resin that caused the mummy to be stuck to the sarcophagus, we have to rely on Carter's report again, which if fine as i hope there would have been others who have also observed the same.

I explained this in my previous post. Carter was not alone when the mummy was unwrapped. In fact, Carter was not in charge of the unwrapping and autopsy. Carter had delegated this to a man better equipped to do so: the anatomist Douglas Derry. The fact that Derry botched the unwrapping is beside the point, but he did. Nevertheless, Carter only assisted in the procedure. Please see the photograph below:

Posted Image


This is the actual unwrapping. The mummy had been kept in situ inside its innermost coffin, and the assemblage was brought to a nearby large tomb to provide more room for everyone to work. Carter is seen bending over at left, with his hand resting on the edge of the coffin. Bending over at right and touching the mummy is Derry. Also in attendance were Pierre Lacau, Alfred Lucas, and Saleh Bey Hamdi. Obviously there was no foul play involved. This was a public event, albeit in a controlled environment.

You cannot discount Carter's excavation records even if he happened to be alone for some reason (he never was, in the course of actual work). Character assassination is a weak and desperate ploy that falls flat on its face unless, as I wrote previously, you have vetted and reliable evidence that Howard Carter was given to falsify his information. But as I also wrote earlier, you will find no such information about Carter, so resorting to character assassination is an unfair, unreasonable, and rather repugnant tactic.

Quote

3. There is still a possibility of a reburial in the past which cannot be ruled out completely. Pharoahs being buried in secondary tombs was common place as you mentioned yourself.

There is that possibility, yes, but one must study and examine the context of the find. Tut's nested burial shrines were undisturbed, with only the seal on the outermost door missing. The sarcophagus was undisturbed. The three nested coffins were undisturbed—and, again, the excess of resins and unguents had caused the body to be fused into the innermost coffin. Given this, and the fact that all of the shrines, the sarcophagus, and all of the coffins are replete with Tut's name, the mummy belongs to Tut. Moreover, the amulets within the wrappings and the golden mask fused to the mummy's head bear further attestation of Tut's name, making the identification unassailable.

Quote

4. I have taken your point regarding pharoanic art ,but busts are meant to be realistic usually. I had earlier pointed out to Pasheri that if the Bust had utterly fantastical non-human features then they could have been dismissed as stylization or artistic perception but since the busts display features that can be found in Humans in Africa still, it would be harder to dismiss them as stylizations. Ofcourse cosmetic alterations of decreasing the age and making the pharoah/queen look prettier would be understandable, but why elongate the Head and Neck ? Unless it was a common practice in those times and considered as beautiful.

No, in ancient Near Eastern art, busts were not portraiture. You're using a modern understanding of modern art history, which does not apply to most situations of ancient art and definitely not to ancient Egyptian art. You have to understand this from the ancient perspective, not the modern. Of all the Amarna mummies known from the royal line, none truly anatomically resemble the busts made to represent them. What we see in Amarna art is to a degree stylization, but at the same time a lot more than that. It was a religious convention expressed in art filtering down from the person who fostered it: Akhenaten. And while the Amarna style of art did to a point influence royal decoration programs for some time after, it did not last. It was nothing more than an artistic convention.

All I can say is, if you are able to, go to a museum sometime where there is a large exhibit on ancient Egypt. Look at all the faces on the coffins, and the style and nature of all the busts. While some degree of individualization is noticeable (based principally on the styles of different periods), all of the faces look rather the same, one to the other. This is not true portraiture, which probably did not begin until the early classical period of Greek history.

Quote

5. Regarding Smenkhare's : i suggested that Tutankhamun could have been a Title to help smenkhare's tomb escape vandalisation by the cult of Amun, since even of the Sarcophagus was made for him along with quite a few of the artefacts. It is just a suggestion.

Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun simply cannot be the same person. Tutankhamun was born Tutankhaten, and there is abundant evidence for his life beginning in his childhood. Smenkhkare, on the other hand, is significantly more enigmatic. There is little surviving evidence for him, compared to Tutankhamun. Smenkhkare was probably a minor son of Amunhotep III (or, less likely, a son of Akhenaten) who was never meant to be a king in the first place, which is why so little evidence for him exists. He would've been in his late teens when he became king, so that's more or less when the historical record for him begins—and he was dead a year or two later. Before then he married a niece or sister named Meritaten, and each bore their own names and titles which are not seen repeated in any way in the names and titles for Tutankhmaun, whose queen was his half-sister Ankhesenamun. There can be no confusing the two.

The sarcophagus did not belong to Smnekhkare, although perhaps its lid did. None of the coffins belonged to Smenkhkare, nor did the burial mask. These are common misconceptions and are often repeated—incorrectly—in the popular literature. Other things did originally belong to Smenkhkare and were recut or reinscribed for Tut, such as the golden coffinettes used to store visceral packages and probably other parts of the canopic equipment.

Quote

6.Regarding Carter's Journal:
Harrison quickly discovered that Carter was not as careful as many of his personal notes had claimed. The mummy was not re-wrapped after 1926, which led to more deterioration due to the extremely hot external elements over the forty-two years. Also many of the limbs had been amputated in the body in order to remove some of the jewelry. Both hands were cut off, both legs were removed from the pelvis, and the head was severed from the body in order to get the mask off.

The body of Tut was badly treated, yes. No one denies this. But like I wrote in my previous post, mummies were not yet considered as important as the treasures and artifacts with which they were buried. It has taken modern science to enable us to appreciate fully how vital the proper study of mummies is. It was Douglas Derry who cut the mummy apart in order to pry it out of the innermost coffin, although Carter would've had to allow it—so he can be blamed, too. But no one was that concerned because, in their minds, it was just a body.

The best they could do was prepare a long tray of sand in which to place the disassembled body, and it was quite well constructed because the body remains in this tray to this day. The body in its tray was then placed inside one of the coffins and laid back inside the sarcophagus. It was not seen again until 1968, when Tut was X-rayed for the first time, and the body was still in reasonably good shape—except for extensive damage done to the chest at some point during World War II, when modern raiders broke in to remove some amuletic devices left around the mummy's neck. But this had nothing to do with Carter or his team. Carter was dead by then.


Quote

7.Like you suggested that the motives of these early discoverers were usually treasure and glory, more then an interest in Archaeology.

Carter was plenty interested in archaeology. Few were as good as he was, which is why Carter was the right man to clear KV62. Few archaeologists were as meticulous and careful as Carter was. The body itself suffered abuse for reasons I've already explained. Given the scientific limits of the time, it's possible no one else could've done any better to get the mummy out of the innermost coffin.

Quote

I had one more question regarding Akhenaten, in few of the sources i read that apparently Akhneaten was shunned as a child and was not treated as royalty and hence he went on the path of Aten when he became pharoah.
Could akhenaten have had a mother from a different race/tribe? Could this be the reason why he and his children were shunned? What is your take on the Mittani-Akhenaten connection?

We can't say Akhenaten was shunned. He was simply never meant to be king and reached the throne only because his older brother, Tuthmose, died young. It's unlikely Akhenaten (born Amunhotep) would've been treated in any other way than royal, considering he was a prince. But it is telling that there is almost nothing in the historical record about him until he ascended to the throne, so it's possible that his father, Amunhotep III, was in no hurry to see his younger son claim the throne. We simply can't know what was going on.

As it is, Akhenaten didn't "invent" Atenism. His own father was an ardent worshipper of the Aten, but he appears to have kept it at the limits of a personal family religion. That's where Akhenaten fell into Atenism, although Akhenaten went to extremes and forced it into the level of a new state religion.

There is near universal agreement that Akhenaten's mother was Tiye, Amunhotep III's first great wife. Tiye was one of the most powerful and revered queens in pharaonic history, so there of course would've been no stigma there. If anything, having Tiye for a mother would've elevated Akhenaten's status and eased his accession to the throne.

Ancient Egypt definitely did take a dim view on foreigners. Nearly all foreigners. At the time of the Amarna Period, the Mitanni were one of Egypt's greatest enemies and rivals. Just the same, these ancient kingdoms were politically sophisticated and regularly exercised numerous avenues of diplomacy. One of the best ways to avoid war was to marry a princess of an enemy state, and Egyptian kings regularly did this. Tiye was certainly not MItanni, but many other Egyptian princesses and minor queens were. It's altogether possible, in fact, that one of Akhenaten's primary wives, Kiya, was a Mitanni princess named Tadukhipa (although there is debate about this). All this is to say, if a prince was born to a foreign queen who was married to a pharaoh, there was no stigma. It was just unlikely that the prince would ever have claim to the throne, unless no one else was left in the royal line.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#574    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,358 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 16 May 2013 - 04:05 PM

It looks like things have calmed down a bit, but a reminder to the group: this is not a forum for bickering. Going forward, set aside the personal arguments and stick to the topic.

Thanks.

kmt_sesh

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#575    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 6,959 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

    God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Posted 16 May 2013 - 04:50 PM

Ooooh Yeah .. you got that thunderous boomin' voice of authority down to a pat boss ... nice one

Shall I put away the big stick now boss ?

:yes:

Quote

' ... life and death carry on as they always have ~ and always will, only the dreamer is gone ~ behind the flow of imagination, beyond any effort to be still
dancing in the ebb and flow of attention, more present than the breath, I find the origins of my illusions, only the dreamer is gone ~ the dream never ends
'

GIFTS WITH NO GIVER - a love affair with truth ~ Poems by Nirmala

third_eye ' s cavern ~ bring own beer


#576    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,818 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 16 May 2013 - 06:26 PM

So, Tut's body is missing.

Tut tut.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#577    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 6,959 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

    God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Posted 17 May 2013 - 06:41 AM

some how some where there is such a world waiting for me .....


Posted Image



Quote

' ... life and death carry on as they always have ~ and always will, only the dreamer is gone ~ behind the flow of imagination, beyond any effort to be still
dancing in the ebb and flow of attention, more present than the breath, I find the origins of my illusions, only the dreamer is gone ~ the dream never ends
'

GIFTS WITH NO GIVER - a love affair with truth ~ Poems by Nirmala

third_eye ' s cavern ~ bring own beer


#578    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 16,773 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 17 May 2013 - 07:26 AM

Listen... I'm not an Mod or Admin, so I can only say that my advice would be the same as I just posted. If you see something offensive, use the Report fuction, and do not respond in kind.

Edited by DieChecker, 17 May 2013 - 07:26 AM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#579    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 6,959 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

    God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Posted 17 May 2013 - 09:24 AM

Posted Image

thank you .... DieChecker



Quote

' ... life and death carry on as they always have ~ and always will, only the dreamer is gone ~ behind the flow of imagination, beyond any effort to be still
dancing in the ebb and flow of attention, more present than the breath, I find the origins of my illusions, only the dreamer is gone ~ the dream never ends
'

GIFTS WITH NO GIVER - a love affair with truth ~ Poems by Nirmala

third_eye ' s cavern ~ bring own beer


#580    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 15,548 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 17 May 2013 - 09:35 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 17 May 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

Listen... I'm not an Mod or Admin, so I can only say that my advice would be the same as I just posted. If you see something offensive, use the Report fuction, and do not respond in kind.

Guess what...I am a moderator and this is correct. Use the report function.

Also, UM forums host members as young as 13 and as old and...well, old enough to be your Grandmother. Disgusting displays of crude language will not be tolerated...period.


"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

"All that live must die, passing through nature into eternity" ~Shakespeare~ Posted Image




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users